Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Livestock Production Challenges and Improved Forage Production Efforts in the Damot Gale District of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia

Livestock Production Challenges and Improved Forage Production Efforts in the Damot Gale District... Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 5553659, 10 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5553659 Research Article Livestock Production Challenges and Improved Forage Production Efforts in the Damot Gale District of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia 1,2 2 2 3, 3, ShimelisMengistu , AjebuNurfeta, AdugnaTolera, MelkamuBezabih, AberaAdie, 4 5 Endalkachew Wolde-meskel, and Mesfin Zenebe College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Department of Animal Production and Technology, Wolkite University, Wolkite, Ethiopia School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Awasa, Ethiopia International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Send a Cow, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Correspondence should be addressed to Shimelis Mengistu; shimelis.mengistu@wku.edu.et Received 21 January 2021; Accepted 15 June 2021; Published 28 June 2021 Academic Editor: Mudassar Iqbal Copyright © 2021 Shimelis Mengistu et al. (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (is study was conducted to identify major livestock production constraints and improved forage production efforts in the Damot Gale district. Four representative kebeles, two associated with our NGO project and two from nonproject outreach activities, were selected. Forty farmers from each kebele were randomly chosen for the purpose of individual interviews using a semistructured questionnaire. Data collected were analyzed using SPSS (version 20) and Excel. (e topmost livestock production constraint was feed shortage where a larger proportion of farmers (75.6%) suffered from the problem with higher (p≤ 0.01) severity in nonproject intervention areas. Of these, 38.6% were challenged for a period of three months while another 61.4% suffered for about four months. Purchasing grass (31.4%) and concentrate (33.5%) and feeding enset (Ensete ventricosum) leaf (21.49%) were the most commonly adopted coping mechanisms to alleviate feed shortages during the dry season, while using purchased grass and enset leaf was the main coping strategy in nonproject intervention (p≤ 0.01) areas. (e majority of households (90.75%) participate in improved forage production regardless of farm size. Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) (71.38%) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) (42.63%) are the most common improved forages in both study areas. (ese forages are produced for the purpose of two or more functions (feed, cash, and preventing erosion) that vary (p≤ 0.01) among intervention status. Major niche locations adopted for improved forage production include farm land, soil and water conservation structures, and perimeter fencing. Greatest constraints on improved forage production were seed/material shortage followed by land shortage and lack of awareness. Project intervention (p≤ 0.01), tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding (p≤ 0.01), and forage seed/planting material access (p< 0.05) were identified as factors (among others) having significant relationship with improved forage development. Strong extension services and efficient input delivery for farmers are vital to support profitable livestock production and resource utilization. draught power and source of manure for about 85% of rural 1.Introduction populations who depend largely on livestock and crop pro- Livestock production is a crucial component of agriculture that duction systems in Ethiopia. About 15 to 17% of the gross can support livelihoods and food security of large numbers of domestic product (GDP) and 37 to 87% of household incomes people in developing world. Likewise, this sector plays a sig- are contributed from the overall livestock sector, including nificant role in income generation, food and nutrition security, ruminant and nonruminant production [1, 2]. 2 Advances in Agriculture Ethiopia has a large livestock population, with an esti- data were also reviewed from previous district reports, mated 60.39 million cattle, 31.3 million sheep, 32.74 million journals, and proceedings. Data collected included socio- goats, 11.32 million equines, and 1.42 million camels [3]. economic characteristics, major livestock production con- Despite the large number and importance of these animals, straints, improved forage types produced, forage seed their productivity is low due to a number of factors such as sources, and forage production niches. inefficient management, poor infrastructure, poor market- ing and credit facilities, feed shortages both in quality and 2.3. Data Analysis. Following the completion of field data quantity, and health constraints [4–6]. Among these, collection, data were coded, organized, summarized, and shortage of feed was identified as one of the primary con- analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences straints in livestock production [7]. One of the recom- (SPSS version 20). Descriptive statistical analysis was con- mended profitable options to address this challenge is ducted through custom table. Binary logistics regression improved forage production using strategies suitable for a analysis was carried out to determine the effect of project given farming system [8]. intervention, household characteristics, resource holding, (e objective of this study was therefore to identify and input provision (independent variables) on efforts of major livestock production challenges and improved forage improved forage production (dependent variable). Index production strategies for feed-related constraints in the was calculated using the following formula with MS-excel study areas. (e output will be utilized by different research package. and development stakeholders to design production and [(N∗ F1) + (N − 1∗ F2) + . . . + (1∗ Fn)] resource utilization strategies to overcome existing Index � , (1) constraints. 􏽐[(N∗ F1) + (N − 1∗ F2) + . . . + (1∗ Fn)] st where N � maximum level of rank, F1 � frequency of the 1 2.Materials and Methods nd rank, F2 � frequency of the 2 rank, and Fn � frequency of last rank. 2.1. Description of the Study Area. Damot Gale is one of the Model equation for logistic regression analysis is as districts of the Wolaita zone in the Southern Nations, follows: Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region of Ethiopia within the ° ° ° coordinates of 6 53′0″ and 7 6′30″N and 37 46′0″ and Y � a + β1PI + β2G + β4E + β5AFM + β6LH + β7TLU 37 58′ 40″E [9] with an altitude range of 1612–2964 m.a.s.l. + β8FSA + €, It is located in the east Rift valley at a distance of 370 km to (2) the south of Addis Ababa and at about 140 km to the west of Hawassa, which is the capital city of Southern Nations where Y � dependent variable (existence of forage produc- Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR). (e tion), a � constant, β � coefficient of the predictor variable, district has an area of 410.1 km with a human population PI � project intervention, G � gender variable, E � education of 151,079 [10]. (e district has two major agroecology level, AFM � active family member, LH � land holding, regions, Highland (26%) and Midland (74%), with annual TLU � tropical livestock unit, FSA � forage seed access, and rainfall in the area ranging from 900 mm to 1400 mm with € � error term. ° ° minimum and maximum temperatures of 12 C and 25 C [11]. (e administrative center of Damot Gale is Boditi 3. Results shown in Figure 1. 3.1.LivestockandLandHolding. Livestock and land holdings in the project intervention and nonintervention areas are 2.2. Research Design, Sampling, and Data Collection presented in Table 1. Almost all farmers possess livestock Procedures. Descriptive research design was used for this regardless of number and species. Among the class of ru- study. After consultation and discussion with concerned minant animals, sheep (2.56) holding was the highest fol- officials about the objective of the study, four representative lowed by cow (1.68) and calf (1.65). Chicken were common kebeles (two from our NGO project intervention and two in both study areas. Sheep account for the major small nonintervention areas) were selected based on road acces- ruminant holding. Possession of equine was almost negli- sibility. Eighty farmers (40 from each kebele) were randomly gible. Average land holding is below one hectare with no selected from each study area (project intervention and significant variation among farmers in project intervention nonproject intervention), out of the model farmers (who and nonproject intervention areas. actively engage on different community-based activities) for the purpose of individual interviews (by considering the two representative kebeles as one unit). A total of 160 households 3.2. Livestock Production Challenges. Table 2 shows the were selected using the sample size formula, n � (N/(1 + different livestock production challenges identified in the N(e ))) [12]. Simple random sampling technique, using study area. (e major constraints in both project inter- random number generator, was used to select individual vention and nonintervention areas include feed shortage, farmers. Margin of error (maximum variability) of 5% was water shortage, disease, market problems, and poor breed considered. Key informant interviews were conducted with performance. Feed shortage was the primary constraint in rd experts from the district and the study kebeles. Secondary both areas. Water, which ranked 3 among constraints in Advances in Agriculture 3 37°48′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E Ethiopia regions Damot Gale district with study areas Wolaita zone districts km 02 4 8 12 37°48′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E Project intervention sample study area Nonproject intervention sample study area Damot Gale woreda Figure 1: Map of study area. Table 1: Livestock holding per individual household in the study areas (N � 160). Project intervention Nonintervention Description F p value Livestock species Mean± SD Range Mean± SD Range Ox 0.51± 0.57 0.00–3.00 0.60± 0.61 0.00–2.00 0.88 0.351 Cow 1.68± 1.38 0.00–6.00 1.86± 1.33 0.00–5.00 0.78 0.379 Bull 0.30± 0.46 0.00–2.00 0.25± 0.49 0.00–2.00 0.44 0.507 Heifer 0.44± 0.57 0.00–2.00 0.49± 0.57 0.00–2.00 0.31 0.581 Calf 1.65± 1.90 0.00–7.00 1.96± 2.12 0.00–5.00 0.96 0.328 Sheep 2.56± 3.21 0.00–16.00 2.43± 3.37 0.00–11.00 0.70 0.792 Goat 0.00± 0.00 0.00–0.00 0.16± 0.92 0.00–7.00 2.50 0.116 Donkey 0.10± 0.3 0.00–1.00 0.08± 0.27 0.00–1.00 0.31 0.579 Mule 0.01± 0.11 0.00–1.00 0.00± 0.00 0.00–0.00 1.00 0.319 Chickens 1.78± 3.20 0.00–17.00 1.63± 2.17 0.00–10.00 0.12 0.729 Land holding (hectare) 0.64± 0.39 0.05–2.00 0.62± 0.50 0.05–3.13 0.12 0.725 SD � standard deviation; N � number. Table 2: Major livestock production challenges. the nonproject intervention area, is the second most im- portant constraint in the project intervention. Disease Intervention Nonintervention rd nd Constraints problems scored 3 and 2 in project intervention and ∗ ∗ N (index) Rank N (index) Rank nonintervention areas, respectively. Constraints related to Feed shortage 396 (0.33) 1 380 (0.32) 1 market and production performance are ranked fourth and Water shortage 288 (0.24) 2 280 (0.23) 3 fifth in respective order. Disease 276 (0.23) 3 294 (0.25) 2 Market problem 147 (0.12) 4 145 (0.12) 4 Poor breed performance 93 (0.08) 5 101 (0.08) 5 3.3. Livestock Feed Shortage and Coping Mechanisms. N is the sum of the products of frequency and score and is obtained by Percentages of farm households with feed shortage, time of adding the multiplication of the frequency and score given for each rank st shortage, and coping mechanisms are presented in Table 3. level. (e 1 rank level is given the highest score (5). 6°53′30″N 6°59′0″N 7°4′30″N 6°53′30″N 6°59′0″N 7°4′30″N 4 Advances in Agriculture purposes (as a source of feed and cash and for preventing (e majority of farmers (75.6%) at the district level suffered from feed shortages. Significantly higher number of farmers erosion). In contrast, a larger proportion of farm households (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention areas produced im- (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention areas faced this chal- lenge as compared to nonintervention areas. Among those proved forages mainly targeted only for two purposes (feed farmers with a feed shortage problem, about 98.68% faced and preventing erosion). Elephant grass production is mainly this challenge during the dry season of the year (February- targeted for feed and prevention of erosion. May). Out of these, 38.6% were challenged for a length of three months (from March to May) while others 61.4% 3.7. Forage Seed/Planting Material Availability. Farmers suffered for about four months (February to May) with with forage seed/planting material access, forage seed pro- significant variation (p≤ 0.01) between intervention status. viders and available forage seed/planting materials are in- Farmers practiced different coping mechanisms, like feed dicated in Table 7. (e majority of farm households have purchasing feed and feeding enset (Ensete ventricosum) to access to improved forage seed/planting material in project alleviate the feed shortage problem. Purchasing grass is the intervention compared to nonintervention areas (p≤ 0.001). most-adopted coping mechanism in the nonproject inter- Desho grass planting material was more accessible (99%) vention area (p≤ 0.01) while purchasing concentrate is used than elephant grass (15%) in project intervention areas and most in project intervention areas. the reverse is true in nonproject intervention areas. (e forage seed/planting material transfer system is free except in a few cases when farmers purchase from other individuals. 3.4. Seasonal Feed Availability. (e seasonal availability and Inter Aid and “Send a Cow” (nongovernmental organiza- utilization of existing feed resources are presented in Table 4. tions) were the main providers of Desho and elephant grass Crop residues, enset, hay, and concentrate are the major feed seed/planting material in the project intervention area, resources available and utilized during the dry season in whereas the District Office of Agriculture was the main both project intervention and nonintervention areas. In wet provider in the nonproject intervention area. seasons, harvested local grass (fresh grass for cut and carry feeding), grazing, and collected fodders (weeds and leaves from different herbs and shrubs) are the major available 3.8. NichesAdoptionandLand AllocationforImprovedForage feeds and are frequently utilized. Dependency on grazing is Production. (e percent of farmers who allocate cultivated significantly higher (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention land to forage production and the niches used for improved than intervention areas while harvested local grass was more forage production are given in Table 8. Major niche types available (p≤ 0.01) in project intervention than noninter- adopted for improved forage production include farm land vention areas during wet periods. Improved forages were and soil and water conservation structures and around available and utilized in both the dry and wet seasons of the fences. More farmers (p≤ 0.01) in the project intervention year with significant variation (p≤ 0.01) among intervention area allocate land (of different niches) for forage production and nonintervention areas. (e majority of the respondents more than farmers in the nonproject intervention area. indicated that there is no problem with concentrate feed Likewise, relatively more (p< 0.05) farm land area is allo- availability in both the dry and wet seasons of the year cated for forage production in project intervention areas. regardless of the cost (Figure 2). 3.9. Constraints for Improved Forage Production. Major 3.5. Improved Forage Production Status. Use of improved constraints that hampered improved forage production are forage and the major forage types produced in the study presented in Table 9. Shortage of improved forage seed/ areas is presented in Table 5. A large proportion of farmers planting material was the primary constraint followed by (90.75%) in both the project intervention and noninter- land shortage and lack of awareness. A significantly higher vention areas have experience on producing improved proportion of farmers (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention forages, particularly Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) areas faced a planting material shortage than those in project (71.38%) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) intervention areas, whereas the number of farmers con- (42.63%) which are most common in the study area. In the strained by land shortage was higher (p≤ 0.01) in project project intervention area, Desho grass (99%) is most com- intervention than in nonproject areas. mon, and in the nonproject intervention area, elephant grass (66.25%) is produced by most farmers. In project inter- 3.10. Logistic Regression Analysis for Selected Determinant vention areas, oat-vetch mixed forage and Guatemala grass Variable on Forage Production. Significant determinant (Tripsacum andersonii) are newly introduced forage species. factors for effective forage development in the study district are presented in Table 10. Based on the result of binary logistic regression analysis, project intervention (p≤ 0.01), 3.6. Purpose of Improved Forage Production. Farmers pro- duce improved forages as a source of cash, for use as feed, for tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding (p≤ 0.001), and forage seed/planting material access (p≤ 0.05) were identified as preventing erosion, or for two or more of these functions (Table 6). (e majority of the farm households produce forage factors (among others) having significant relationship with for more than one function. Most farmers (p≤ 0.01) in project improved forage development. (e likelihood of improved intervention areas produce Desho grass for more than two forage production practice in project intervention areas was Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 3: Feed shortage problems, season of occurrence, and coping strategy (N � 160). % of respondents Description X p value Intervention Nonintervention Overall Feed shortage 21.19 0.001 Yes 60.00 91.20 75.60 No 40.00 8.80 24.40 Seasons of feed shortage 22.474 0.001 Dec–Feb (3 months) 0.00 2.74 1.37 Mar–May (3 months) 37.50 37.06 37.23 Jun–Aug (3 months) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb–May (4 months) 62.50 60.31 61.40 Coping mechanisms 27.844 0.001 Purchase grass 23.33 39.47 31.40 Purchase crop residue 16.67 5.26 10.96 Purchase concentrate 43.33 23.68 33.51 Feed enset leaf 16.67 26.32 21.49 Reduce stock 0.00 5.26 2.63 Table 4: Seasonal availability and utilization of feed resources (N � 160). % of respondents Feed resources Dry season Wet season Both seasons Intervention Nonintervention Intervention Nonintervention Intervention Nonintervention Collected fodder 0.00 0.00 12.50 16.30 0.00 0.00 Concentrate 10.00 12.50 1.30 0.00 22.50 22.50 Crop residue 88.80 81.30 0.00 1.30 2.50 6.30 Cultivated forage 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 3.80 0.00 Desho grass 2.50 0.00 2.50 7.50 95.00 35.00 Elephant grass 1.30 0.00 0.00 2.50 12.50 55.00 Enset 16.00 26.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 Food waste 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 Grazing 1.30 1.30 7.50 17.50 51.30 53.80 Hay 17.50 21.30 0.00 0.00 1.30 5.00 Local grass 1.30 6.30 28.80 6.30 10.00 26.30 X 6.44 21.597 57.522 p-value 0.598 0.003 0.001 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. 92.265 times higher than nonproject intervention sites. Farmers with higher TLU holding were 26.993 times more likely to produce improved forage compared with those households with lower TLU holding. On the other hand, better seed/planting material access increased the likelihood of improved forage development by 11.983 times. 4. Discussion 4.1. Livestock and Land Holding. (ere were no significant Low Medium High Low Medium High differences in livestock holdings between project interven- Dry season Wet season tion and nonintervention areas. Ruminant animal holdings in the current study were similar to reports for the Anelemo Concentrate feeds availability district of Hadiya zone, SNNPR [13]. Average total livestock Intervention kept by individual households in the current study is lower Nonintervention than reports in another area [14]. (is could be due to the Figure 2: Availability of concentrate feeds in the study area. limited availability of feed resources [15]. % of respondents 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 5: Improved forage producers and forage type produced (N � 160). % of respondents Description X p value Intervention Nonintervention Overall Do you use improved forage? 12.43 0.001 Yes 99.00 82.50 90.75 No 1.00 17.50 9.25 Forage type 102.42 0.001 Desho grass 99.00 43.75 71.38 Elephant grass 19.00 66.25 42.63 Guatemala grass 38.00 0.00 19.00 Oat-vetch fodder mix 36.00 0.00 18.00 Sesbania (S. sesban) 1.00 0.00 0.50 Vetiver (C. zizanioides) 1.00 0.00 0.50 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 6: Purpose of improved forage production by farmers as per the response (N � 160). % of respondents Forage type Purpose of production X p value Intervention Nonintervention Feed 22.00 20.00 21.51 0.001 Feed and cash source 20.00 0.00 Desho grass Feed and conservation 20.00 60.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 37.00 20.00 Feed 33.00 15.00 6.90 0.075 Feed and cash source 13.00 2.00 Elephant grass Feed and conservation 47.00 70.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 7.00 13.00 Feed 57.00 0.00 Feed and cash source 17.00 0.00 Guatemala grass Feed and conservation 3.00 0.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 23.00 0.00 Feed 86.00 0.00 Oat-vetch fodder Feed and cash source 7.00 0.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 7.00 0.00 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 7: Improved forage seed/planting material accessibility (N � 160). % of respondents Descriptions X p value Intervention Nonintervention Response for availability 30.86 0.001 Yes 76.00 32.50 No 24.00 67.50 Forage seed provider 127.89 0.001 Agriculture office 7.50 78.80 NGO 75.00 0.00 Purchased from others 3.80 0.00 Relatives 3.80 21.30 DoA and NGO 10.00 0.00 Available forage seed 77.863 0.001 Desho grass 99.00 37.50 Elephant grass 15.00 43.80 Guatemala grass 5.00 0.00 Oat-vetch forage 40.00 0.00 NGO � nongovernmental organization; DoA � District Office of Agriculture; chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 8: Niche type and land allocation (ha) for improved forage production (N � 160). % of respondents Descriptions X p value Intervention Nonintervention Land allocation in hectare 25.354 0.001 0.00–0.05 ha 26.30 65.00 0.05–0.10 ha 28.70 17.50 0.10–0.25 ha 43.80 17.50 More than 0.25 ha 1.30 0.00 Production niches (ha) Mean area Mean area Farm land 0.08 0.03 8.671 0.034 Terrace 0.02 0.02 Around fence 0.01 0.02 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 9: Major constraints for improved forage production in the area (N � 160). % of respondents List of constraints X p value Intervention Nonintervention Material shortage 36.30 58.80 13.51 0.004 Land shortage 33.80 20.00 Lack of awareness 18.80 20.00 Financial problem 11.30 1.30 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 10: Logistic regression analysis for determinant factors on improved forage production. 95% C.I. for Exp(B) Determinants B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Project intervention status 4.525 1.517 8.899 1 0.003 92.265 4.721 1803.345 Household head sex −1.535 1.009 2.317 1 0.128 0.215 0.030 1.555 Education level −0.456 0.412 1.225 1 0.268 0.634 0.283 1.421 Active family members 0.219 0.628 0.122 1 0.727 1.245 0.364 4.258 Total land holding 1.115 0.788 2.003 1 0.157 3.050 0.651 14.291 TLU holding 3.296 0.858 14.766 1 0.00 26.993 5.026 144.970 Forage seed access 2.483 1.176 4.460 1 0.035 11.983 1.196 120.104 Constant −2.301 1.155 3.968 1 0.046 0.100 (e total average land holding per household in both of could be associated with lack of progress in breed im- the target study areas was similar to reports for average land provement programs. (ese problems were in line with reports on the Horro and Guduru districts [18]. Consid- holdings for the Doyogena district (0.5–1 ha) [16]. However, the land holding size in the current study was lower than a eration of breed performance is the least important problem report for other areas [14, 17]. (is indicates that improved according to the majority of the farmers. Livestock breed land use planning and forage development strategies need to performance problems with lower priority indicate un- be intensified to improve forage production within the tapped productive potential of local breeds in the presence of existing land resource and production system. good management practices, such as proper feeding, se- lection for best traits, health care, and all other necessary husbandry practices. Moreover, local breeds are resistant to 4.2. Livestock Production Challenges. Feed shortage, which disease and can perform better under limited feed avail- was identified as a primary constraint, was attributed to ability and less intensive management conditions [6, 19, 20]. unwise feed resource utilization, low forage production, and limited forage species diversification. Water shortage problems could be related to existing infrastructure and 4.3. Livestock Feed Shortage and Coping Mechanisms. As per technical gaps in the wise use of available water resources as the result of the current study, a large proportion of farm well as poor water harvesting techniques. Disease constraints households in both areas suffered from livestock feed could be attributed to poor veterinary services and poorly shortages with significantly higher severity in nonproject developed technical skills. Market problem could be related intervention than intervention areas. (e main period with to the seasonal inconsistencies of market demand for animal livestock feed deficiency in the study area started at the end and animal products. Animal breed performance problems of January and continued to the beginning of May which is 8 Advances in Agriculture area is consistent with the results reported for the Shashego in line with reports for the highland of Ethiopia [21]. (e feed shortage problem during the dry season in the study district of the Hadiya zone [26]. Improved forage production can help boost feed availability and improve crop produc- area is related to moisture stress that resulted in low herbage growth on existing grazing land [22]. Moreover, crop res- tivity by conserving soil and water [29, 30]. (e limited roles idues which are serving as the main source of roughage feed (feeding and erosion only) of forage production in non- during the dry season [13, 23] are low in nutrient content project intervention areas could be related to the lower [24]. Many farmers rely on purchased roughage and con- availability and less intensive production of improved for- centrate, and enset feeding in response to the existing feed ages. As a result, the forage produced was not abundant shortage. enough to provide an excess for sale. Improved forage production can serve as a source of cash in addition to other roles provided that there is sufficient production. 4.4. Seasonal Feed Availability. Regardless of the biomass, most farmers in both project intervention and noninter- vention areas use improved forages in both the dry and the 4.7. Forage Seed/Planting Material Availability. (ough wet season. During the dry period, there is a feed shortage of nongovernmental organizations and government extension system are responsible for the distribution of suitable im- green feeds, also a common problem in other areas of the country [21]. Crop residues that are poor in nutritive value proved forage technologies for farming communities, there is still limitation in the available varieties of forages, espe- [25] and hay, to some extent, are the major feed resource used during the dry season in the study area, with a similar cially varieties of legume species. (is situation needs special pattern in other areas [13]. Nevertheless, there were farmers attention by research and development organizations in who use improved forages during the dry season of the year. order to intensify varieties of improved forages to improve (is trend was in agreement with reports from other areas in the existing agricultural system. (e relatively better dis- which farmers used improved forage during dry periods tribution and availability of forage planting material in the [13, 26]. (is indicated that improved forages are playing a project intervention area could be attributed to sufficient resources and effective utilization of those resources while big role in covering the gap of green feed supply during dry periods. Availability of high-protein feeds like legume for- addressing the technology used by the farmers with an ef- fective monitoring system. ages is negligible. (is situation requires intensification and expanded availability of improved forages using innovative production strategies and niches. 4.8. Niches Adopted and Land Allocation for Forage Production. Forage production niches adopted in the area 4.5. Improved Forage Production Status. Desho grass was the were similar to reports for the Doyogena district of the Kembata-Tembaro zone, where terrace plantations were the most dominant improved forage species adopted in the study area. It was also reported as a common improved most common type [31]. Larger areas of farm land allocation forage in other areas in the region [13, 16, 26, 27]. (is for forage production by a majority of the farmers in project situation calls for additional effective training and related intervention areas may be related to better provision of seed/ extension services to inform and encourage farmers about planting material and better adoption of improved forages efficient production and utilization systems for this grass. for their multiple roles including as a source of cash. (is (ere were few attempts to introduce legume forages and indicated that choice of niches in the study area depends on the availability of planting material and the level of pro- develop management strategies, a subject that needs at- tention by development and research practitioners in order duction [32, 33] rather than farm land size which was not consistent according to a report by Njarui et al. [34]. to increase high-protein feeds in the district. Improved forage production could be used to overcome Moreover, larger farm land allocations of a greater number feed shortages but is constrained by many challenges in- of farmers in the project intervention area indicated a strong cluding small land holdings, priority given to food crop interest of farmers for improved forage production if they production, lack of forage seeds, and limited knowledge on are provided planting material with necessary training on forage species and their production systems. (is situation production and utilization systems. was exacerbated by the absence of an improved forage seed provision and transfer system in the area. (is requires the 4.9. Constraints of Improved Forage Production. (e higher attention of concerned stakeholders to design sustainable number of farmers experiencing a forage planting material forage seed transfer systems. In contrast to a report for the shortage in the nonproject intervention area could be at- Anelemo [13] and Robi districts [28], in which land was the tributed to the limited forage seed supply [31]. In contrast, primary constraint, in the current study area, a forage seed/ the higher number of farmers with a land shortage problem planting material shortage was the primary constraint fol- in the project intervention area could be attributed to more lowed by land shortage and a lack of training and production of improved forage grass that took additional information. land. (is indicated that improved forage production might result in land competition for food crop production. Lack of 4.6. Purpose of Forage Production. (e objective of improved awareness of alternative improved forages and their pro- forage production that can serve a multiple role in the study duction strategies hampered the scaling up of improved Advances in Agriculture 9 forage technologies more than the shortage of land and systems, especially legumes, need to be distributed to improved forage seeds. Hence, this situation needs attention farmers. A sustainable improved forage seed/planting material to improve the application of different forage development strategies and the introduction of legume forages that can be transfer system needs to be developed, and strong awareness integrated with other cropping systems. of improved forage varieties needs to be created. Optimal production and utilization systems as well as efficient animal husbandry practices and proper resource utilization need to 4.10. Logistic Regression Analysis for Selected Determinant be given attention by research and development stake- Variable on Forage Production. Among household, farming, holders to ensure sustainable forage technology adoption and project characteristics, only project intervention, and profitable livestock production. Better efforts observed tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding, and access to forage in the NGO project intervention areas are indicated as an seed/planting technology were the significant factors af- opportunity for government organizations to share best fecting the likelihood of improved forage production in the management practices. district. (e significantly higher rate of forage production in project intervention is attributed with proper input (forage Data Availability technology) provision, efficient training, and continuous follow-up as compared to nonproject intervention. (is All data used to support the findings of this study are in- indicates that, though land shortage is mentioned as a cluded within the article. common constraint, farmers are interested to develop forage on different strategies if they are provided with the required Conflicts of Interest forage technology and effective training (linked with proper monitoring) on improved forages development and utili- (e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. zation techniques, which is inconsistent with other reports [26, 35]. Farmers with higher livestock holding, especially Acknowledgments dairy cow and draught oxen, were more promoted to produce improved forage which is in line with another (is research was financially supported by the SIMLESA II report [27]. (is could be associated with the intention of Forage Development Project. (e support and facilitation farmers to produce more milk and butter, and oxen draught offered by Send a Cow Ethiopia field staff in Wolaita zone are power through better supplementation. also acknowledged. (e International Livestock Research (e household characteristics (gender, education level, Institute is gratefully acknowledged for uploading and family size) in the current study did not show significant S. Mengistu’s unpublished thesis to the following link: relationship with improved forage production. (is could be https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/100361/ attributed to allocation of more labor force for activities thesis_Shimelis_2018.pdf?isAllowed�y&sequence�1. other than forage production. Level of education in the current study did not have significant effect on the devel- References opment of improved forage technology. (is could be be- cause some people with more education level seek other [1] ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Production nonfarm income source activities in nearby towns. and Distribution Networks Now Avail Forage Planting Ma- terials to Smallholder Dairy Producers in East Africa: ILRI Outcome Story 2009, International Livestock Research Insti- 5.Conclusion tute, Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [2] R. Behnke and F. Menagerie, “(e contribution of livestock to (e top most livestock production challenge in the study the Ethiopian economy-part II, IGAD livestock policy ini- area was feed shortage, which commonly occurred from tiative (LPI) working paper no. 0211,” 2011, http://www. February to May, with higher severity in nonproject in- igadlpi.org/publication/docs/IGADLPI-WP-02-11-PartII. tervention areas. Feeding of enset leaf, purchased grasses, [3] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural Sample Survey: and concentrates (mainly wheat bran) were the main coping Volume II Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics strategies against feed shortage. Improved forage produc- (Private Peasant Holdings), Central Statistical Agency (CSA), tion, although it would compete for land with food crop Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2018. [4] T. Markos, “Productivity and health of indigenous sheep production, can make a significant contribution to nar- breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopian highlands,” rowing the seasonal livestock feed gap, facilitating soil and Ph.D dissertation, Department of Animal Breeding and Ge- water conservation, and generating cash income. netics, Faculty for Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Desho grass and elephant grass are the major improved Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU), Uppsala, forages introduced in the area which have been serving as the Sweden, 2006. major components of livestock diets and as a cash source [5] K. Tsedeke, “Production and marketing of sheep and goats in (especially Desho grass) in both the dry and wet seasons of Alaba, SNNPR,” An MSC thesis Presented to the School of the year. Distribution of forages with a significant protein Graduate Studies of Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia, concentration is poor as a result of limited improved forage technology distribution and transfer systems. Forage vari- [6] L. Getahun, “Productive and economic performance of small eties suitable for the existing agroecology and production ruminants in two production systems of the highlands of 10 Advances in Agriculture Ethiopia,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hohenheim, [22] M. Ashenafi, J. Addisu, M. Shimelis, H. Hassen, and G. Legese, Stuttgart, Germany, 2008. Analysis of Sheep Value Chains in Doyogena, Southern Ethiopia, ICARDA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013. [7] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), “Agricultural sample sur- [23] A. Mekasha, B. Gerard, K. Tesfaye, L. Nigatu, and vey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private A. J. Duncan, “Inter-connection between land use/land cover peasant holdings),” Statistical Bulletin 583: Central Statistical change and herders’/farmers’ livestock feed resource man- Agency Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis agement strategies: a case study from three Ethiopian eco- Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. environments,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, [8] T. Adugna, “Potential for development of alternative feed vol. 188, pp. 150–162, 2014. resources in Ethiopia,” Report prepared for ACDI/VOCA, [24] G. Deribe, “Evaluation of major feed resources in crop- Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012. livestock mixed farming systems, southern Ethiopia: indige- [9] J. Biruk, “Value chain analysis of bee honey and credit market nous knowledge versus laboratory analysis results,” Journal of participation of bee keepers: the case of Damot Gale District, Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Sub- Southern Ethiopia,” M.Sc. thesis, Haramaya University, Dire tropics, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 157–166, 2015. Dawa, Ethiopia, 2015. [25] L. Gizachew and G. N. Smit, “Crude protein and mineral [10] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Socio-economic Character- composition of major crop residues and supplemental feeds istics of the Population in Agricultural Households (Statistical produced on Vertisols of the Ethiopian highland,” Animal Bulletin), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Feed Science and Technology, vol. 119, no. 1-2, pp. 143–153, Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007. [11] Damot Gale District Office, “General district level report, [26] F. Assefa, T. Ano, T. Aba, and Z. Ebrahim, “Assessment of Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia,” 2014. improved forage types and their utilization in Shashogo [12] T. Yamane, Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, Harper and Woreda, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia,” Global Journal of Row, Manhattan, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1967. Animal Science, Livestock Production and Animal Breeding, [13] S. Salo, G. Tadesse, and D. Haylemeskel, “Survey on con- vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 227–230, 2015. straints of improved forage adoption in Anelemo Woreda, [27] B. Zekarias, “Determinants of improved forages adoption in Hadiya zone, 002 Ethiopia,” Agricultural Research & Tech- Doyogena district of Kembata tembaro zone, in southern nology Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 555–839, 2017. Nations, Nationalities regional state, Ethiopia,” Global Journal [14] S. Muluken, A. Bimrew, T. Firew, and M. Dessalegn, “Farmers of Science Frontier Research: Agriculture and Veterinary, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016. perception and utilization status of improved forages grown [28] E. Yadessa, “Assessment of feed resources and determination in the natural resource areas of northwestern Ethiopia,” of mineral status of livestock feed in Meta Robi District, West Biodiversitas, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1568–1578, 2018. ¨ Shewa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethopia,” 2015. [15] N. Osterle, A. Angassa, A. Tadesse, A. Ebro, and J. Sauerborn, [29] I. C. Chakoma, “Sustainable forage production strategies for “Crop-livestock farming systems varying with different alti- small scale livestock production in Zimbabwe,” International tudes in southern Ethiopia,” Science. Technology and Arts Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, vol. 1, no. 3, Research Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2012. pp. 2319–1473, 2012. [16] A. Mekonnen, S. Mengistu, S. Woldi, T. Abiso, and [30] E. Addisu, T. Firew, and A. Getnet, “Constraints and op- J. Wamatu, “Using FEAST to characterize the farming and portunities on production and utilization of improved forages livestock production systems and the potential to enhance in east Gojjam zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia: in the case of livestock productivity through improved feeding in Bekafa: Enebsie Sar Midr district,” Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Doyogena District, Southern Ethiopia,” 2014. Healthcare, vol. 6, no. 9, 2016. [17] Y. Abebe, S. Melaku, A. Tegegne, and F. Tegegne, “Assessment [31] Z. Bassa, S. Mengistu, F. Tessema, T. Abiso, and A. Tera, of sheep production system in Burie district, north western “Rapid assessment on status of forage seed production and Ethiopia,” Global Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 1, no. 2, marketing in Doyogena district of Kembata-Tembaro zone, pp. 29–47, 2013. SNNPR, Ethiopia,” Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Pro- [18] G. Kassahun, T. Taye, T. Adugna, B. Fekadu, and D. Solomon, duction, vol. 4, p. 171, 2016. “Feed resources and livestock production situation in the [32] B. Asmare, S. Demeke, T. Tolemariam, F. Tegegne, J. Wamatu, highland and mid altitude areas of Horro and Guduru dis- and B. Rischkowsky, “Evaluation of desho grass (Pennisetum tricts of Oromia regional state, western Ethiopia,” Science, pedicellatum) hay as a basal diet for growing local sheep in Technology and Arts Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 111– Ethiopia,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 48, 116, 2015. no. 4, pp. 801–806, 2016. [19] ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement [33] B. K. Paul, F. L. Muhimuzic, S. B. Bacigale et al., “Towards an assessment of on-farm niches for improved forages in Sud- Program), Sheep and Goat Production Hand Book for Kivu, DR Congo,” Journal of Agriculture and Rural Devel- Ethiopia, ESGPIP, Ethiopia, 2008. opment in the Tropics and Subtropics, vol. 117, no. 2, [20] E. Marufa, M. Taye, G. Abebe, A. Tera, and A. Jimma, “Effect pp. 243–254, 2016. of non-genetic factors on reproductive and growth perfor- [34] M. G. Njarui, M. Gatheru, M. Gichangi, M. Nyambati, mance of Abera sheep under community based breeding N. Ondiko, and W. Kziah, “Determinants of forage adoption program in SNNPRS Ethiopia,” Journal of Advances in Dairy and production niches among smallholder farmers in Kenya,” Research, vol. 5, p. 196, 2017. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, vol. 34, no. 3, 2017. [21] A. Yami, B. Begna, and T. Teklewold, “Enhancing the pro- [35] M. Tesfaye and T. Melaku, “Determinants of adoption of ductivity of livestock production in highland of Ethiopia: improved highland forage type: evidence from Dendi district, implication for improved on-farm feeding strategies and west Shoa zone, Ethiopia,” Journal of Experimental Agricul- utilization,” International Journal of Livestock Production, ture International, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017. vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 113–127, 2015. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Agriculture Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Livestock Production Challenges and Improved Forage Production Efforts in the Damot Gale District of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/livestock-production-challenges-and-improved-forage-production-efforts-OoAXsZ9z3n

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Shimelis Mengistu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2356-654X
eISSN
2314-7539
DOI
10.1155/2021/5553659
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 5553659, 10 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5553659 Research Article Livestock Production Challenges and Improved Forage Production Efforts in the Damot Gale District of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia 1,2 2 2 3, 3, ShimelisMengistu , AjebuNurfeta, AdugnaTolera, MelkamuBezabih, AberaAdie, 4 5 Endalkachew Wolde-meskel, and Mesfin Zenebe College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Department of Animal Production and Technology, Wolkite University, Wolkite, Ethiopia School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Awasa, Ethiopia International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Send a Cow, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Correspondence should be addressed to Shimelis Mengistu; shimelis.mengistu@wku.edu.et Received 21 January 2021; Accepted 15 June 2021; Published 28 June 2021 Academic Editor: Mudassar Iqbal Copyright © 2021 Shimelis Mengistu et al. (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (is study was conducted to identify major livestock production constraints and improved forage production efforts in the Damot Gale district. Four representative kebeles, two associated with our NGO project and two from nonproject outreach activities, were selected. Forty farmers from each kebele were randomly chosen for the purpose of individual interviews using a semistructured questionnaire. Data collected were analyzed using SPSS (version 20) and Excel. (e topmost livestock production constraint was feed shortage where a larger proportion of farmers (75.6%) suffered from the problem with higher (p≤ 0.01) severity in nonproject intervention areas. Of these, 38.6% were challenged for a period of three months while another 61.4% suffered for about four months. Purchasing grass (31.4%) and concentrate (33.5%) and feeding enset (Ensete ventricosum) leaf (21.49%) were the most commonly adopted coping mechanisms to alleviate feed shortages during the dry season, while using purchased grass and enset leaf was the main coping strategy in nonproject intervention (p≤ 0.01) areas. (e majority of households (90.75%) participate in improved forage production regardless of farm size. Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) (71.38%) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) (42.63%) are the most common improved forages in both study areas. (ese forages are produced for the purpose of two or more functions (feed, cash, and preventing erosion) that vary (p≤ 0.01) among intervention status. Major niche locations adopted for improved forage production include farm land, soil and water conservation structures, and perimeter fencing. Greatest constraints on improved forage production were seed/material shortage followed by land shortage and lack of awareness. Project intervention (p≤ 0.01), tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding (p≤ 0.01), and forage seed/planting material access (p< 0.05) were identified as factors (among others) having significant relationship with improved forage development. Strong extension services and efficient input delivery for farmers are vital to support profitable livestock production and resource utilization. draught power and source of manure for about 85% of rural 1.Introduction populations who depend largely on livestock and crop pro- Livestock production is a crucial component of agriculture that duction systems in Ethiopia. About 15 to 17% of the gross can support livelihoods and food security of large numbers of domestic product (GDP) and 37 to 87% of household incomes people in developing world. Likewise, this sector plays a sig- are contributed from the overall livestock sector, including nificant role in income generation, food and nutrition security, ruminant and nonruminant production [1, 2]. 2 Advances in Agriculture Ethiopia has a large livestock population, with an esti- data were also reviewed from previous district reports, mated 60.39 million cattle, 31.3 million sheep, 32.74 million journals, and proceedings. Data collected included socio- goats, 11.32 million equines, and 1.42 million camels [3]. economic characteristics, major livestock production con- Despite the large number and importance of these animals, straints, improved forage types produced, forage seed their productivity is low due to a number of factors such as sources, and forage production niches. inefficient management, poor infrastructure, poor market- ing and credit facilities, feed shortages both in quality and 2.3. Data Analysis. Following the completion of field data quantity, and health constraints [4–6]. Among these, collection, data were coded, organized, summarized, and shortage of feed was identified as one of the primary con- analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences straints in livestock production [7]. One of the recom- (SPSS version 20). Descriptive statistical analysis was con- mended profitable options to address this challenge is ducted through custom table. Binary logistics regression improved forage production using strategies suitable for a analysis was carried out to determine the effect of project given farming system [8]. intervention, household characteristics, resource holding, (e objective of this study was therefore to identify and input provision (independent variables) on efforts of major livestock production challenges and improved forage improved forage production (dependent variable). Index production strategies for feed-related constraints in the was calculated using the following formula with MS-excel study areas. (e output will be utilized by different research package. and development stakeholders to design production and [(N∗ F1) + (N − 1∗ F2) + . . . + (1∗ Fn)] resource utilization strategies to overcome existing Index � , (1) constraints. 􏽐[(N∗ F1) + (N − 1∗ F2) + . . . + (1∗ Fn)] st where N � maximum level of rank, F1 � frequency of the 1 2.Materials and Methods nd rank, F2 � frequency of the 2 rank, and Fn � frequency of last rank. 2.1. Description of the Study Area. Damot Gale is one of the Model equation for logistic regression analysis is as districts of the Wolaita zone in the Southern Nations, follows: Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region of Ethiopia within the ° ° ° coordinates of 6 53′0″ and 7 6′30″N and 37 46′0″ and Y � a + β1PI + β2G + β4E + β5AFM + β6LH + β7TLU 37 58′ 40″E [9] with an altitude range of 1612–2964 m.a.s.l. + β8FSA + €, It is located in the east Rift valley at a distance of 370 km to (2) the south of Addis Ababa and at about 140 km to the west of Hawassa, which is the capital city of Southern Nations where Y � dependent variable (existence of forage produc- Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR). (e tion), a � constant, β � coefficient of the predictor variable, district has an area of 410.1 km with a human population PI � project intervention, G � gender variable, E � education of 151,079 [10]. (e district has two major agroecology level, AFM � active family member, LH � land holding, regions, Highland (26%) and Midland (74%), with annual TLU � tropical livestock unit, FSA � forage seed access, and rainfall in the area ranging from 900 mm to 1400 mm with € � error term. ° ° minimum and maximum temperatures of 12 C and 25 C [11]. (e administrative center of Damot Gale is Boditi 3. Results shown in Figure 1. 3.1.LivestockandLandHolding. Livestock and land holdings in the project intervention and nonintervention areas are 2.2. Research Design, Sampling, and Data Collection presented in Table 1. Almost all farmers possess livestock Procedures. Descriptive research design was used for this regardless of number and species. Among the class of ru- study. After consultation and discussion with concerned minant animals, sheep (2.56) holding was the highest fol- officials about the objective of the study, four representative lowed by cow (1.68) and calf (1.65). Chicken were common kebeles (two from our NGO project intervention and two in both study areas. Sheep account for the major small nonintervention areas) were selected based on road acces- ruminant holding. Possession of equine was almost negli- sibility. Eighty farmers (40 from each kebele) were randomly gible. Average land holding is below one hectare with no selected from each study area (project intervention and significant variation among farmers in project intervention nonproject intervention), out of the model farmers (who and nonproject intervention areas. actively engage on different community-based activities) for the purpose of individual interviews (by considering the two representative kebeles as one unit). A total of 160 households 3.2. Livestock Production Challenges. Table 2 shows the were selected using the sample size formula, n � (N/(1 + different livestock production challenges identified in the N(e ))) [12]. Simple random sampling technique, using study area. (e major constraints in both project inter- random number generator, was used to select individual vention and nonintervention areas include feed shortage, farmers. Margin of error (maximum variability) of 5% was water shortage, disease, market problems, and poor breed considered. Key informant interviews were conducted with performance. Feed shortage was the primary constraint in rd experts from the district and the study kebeles. Secondary both areas. Water, which ranked 3 among constraints in Advances in Agriculture 3 37°48′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E Ethiopia regions Damot Gale district with study areas Wolaita zone districts km 02 4 8 12 37°48′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E Project intervention sample study area Nonproject intervention sample study area Damot Gale woreda Figure 1: Map of study area. Table 1: Livestock holding per individual household in the study areas (N � 160). Project intervention Nonintervention Description F p value Livestock species Mean± SD Range Mean± SD Range Ox 0.51± 0.57 0.00–3.00 0.60± 0.61 0.00–2.00 0.88 0.351 Cow 1.68± 1.38 0.00–6.00 1.86± 1.33 0.00–5.00 0.78 0.379 Bull 0.30± 0.46 0.00–2.00 0.25± 0.49 0.00–2.00 0.44 0.507 Heifer 0.44± 0.57 0.00–2.00 0.49± 0.57 0.00–2.00 0.31 0.581 Calf 1.65± 1.90 0.00–7.00 1.96± 2.12 0.00–5.00 0.96 0.328 Sheep 2.56± 3.21 0.00–16.00 2.43± 3.37 0.00–11.00 0.70 0.792 Goat 0.00± 0.00 0.00–0.00 0.16± 0.92 0.00–7.00 2.50 0.116 Donkey 0.10± 0.3 0.00–1.00 0.08± 0.27 0.00–1.00 0.31 0.579 Mule 0.01± 0.11 0.00–1.00 0.00± 0.00 0.00–0.00 1.00 0.319 Chickens 1.78± 3.20 0.00–17.00 1.63± 2.17 0.00–10.00 0.12 0.729 Land holding (hectare) 0.64± 0.39 0.05–2.00 0.62± 0.50 0.05–3.13 0.12 0.725 SD � standard deviation; N � number. Table 2: Major livestock production challenges. the nonproject intervention area, is the second most im- portant constraint in the project intervention. Disease Intervention Nonintervention rd nd Constraints problems scored 3 and 2 in project intervention and ∗ ∗ N (index) Rank N (index) Rank nonintervention areas, respectively. Constraints related to Feed shortage 396 (0.33) 1 380 (0.32) 1 market and production performance are ranked fourth and Water shortage 288 (0.24) 2 280 (0.23) 3 fifth in respective order. Disease 276 (0.23) 3 294 (0.25) 2 Market problem 147 (0.12) 4 145 (0.12) 4 Poor breed performance 93 (0.08) 5 101 (0.08) 5 3.3. Livestock Feed Shortage and Coping Mechanisms. N is the sum of the products of frequency and score and is obtained by Percentages of farm households with feed shortage, time of adding the multiplication of the frequency and score given for each rank st shortage, and coping mechanisms are presented in Table 3. level. (e 1 rank level is given the highest score (5). 6°53′30″N 6°59′0″N 7°4′30″N 6°53′30″N 6°59′0″N 7°4′30″N 4 Advances in Agriculture purposes (as a source of feed and cash and for preventing (e majority of farmers (75.6%) at the district level suffered from feed shortages. Significantly higher number of farmers erosion). In contrast, a larger proportion of farm households (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention areas produced im- (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention areas faced this chal- lenge as compared to nonintervention areas. Among those proved forages mainly targeted only for two purposes (feed farmers with a feed shortage problem, about 98.68% faced and preventing erosion). Elephant grass production is mainly this challenge during the dry season of the year (February- targeted for feed and prevention of erosion. May). Out of these, 38.6% were challenged for a length of three months (from March to May) while others 61.4% 3.7. Forage Seed/Planting Material Availability. Farmers suffered for about four months (February to May) with with forage seed/planting material access, forage seed pro- significant variation (p≤ 0.01) between intervention status. viders and available forage seed/planting materials are in- Farmers practiced different coping mechanisms, like feed dicated in Table 7. (e majority of farm households have purchasing feed and feeding enset (Ensete ventricosum) to access to improved forage seed/planting material in project alleviate the feed shortage problem. Purchasing grass is the intervention compared to nonintervention areas (p≤ 0.001). most-adopted coping mechanism in the nonproject inter- Desho grass planting material was more accessible (99%) vention area (p≤ 0.01) while purchasing concentrate is used than elephant grass (15%) in project intervention areas and most in project intervention areas. the reverse is true in nonproject intervention areas. (e forage seed/planting material transfer system is free except in a few cases when farmers purchase from other individuals. 3.4. Seasonal Feed Availability. (e seasonal availability and Inter Aid and “Send a Cow” (nongovernmental organiza- utilization of existing feed resources are presented in Table 4. tions) were the main providers of Desho and elephant grass Crop residues, enset, hay, and concentrate are the major feed seed/planting material in the project intervention area, resources available and utilized during the dry season in whereas the District Office of Agriculture was the main both project intervention and nonintervention areas. In wet provider in the nonproject intervention area. seasons, harvested local grass (fresh grass for cut and carry feeding), grazing, and collected fodders (weeds and leaves from different herbs and shrubs) are the major available 3.8. NichesAdoptionandLand AllocationforImprovedForage feeds and are frequently utilized. Dependency on grazing is Production. (e percent of farmers who allocate cultivated significantly higher (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention land to forage production and the niches used for improved than intervention areas while harvested local grass was more forage production are given in Table 8. Major niche types available (p≤ 0.01) in project intervention than noninter- adopted for improved forage production include farm land vention areas during wet periods. Improved forages were and soil and water conservation structures and around available and utilized in both the dry and wet seasons of the fences. More farmers (p≤ 0.01) in the project intervention year with significant variation (p≤ 0.01) among intervention area allocate land (of different niches) for forage production and nonintervention areas. (e majority of the respondents more than farmers in the nonproject intervention area. indicated that there is no problem with concentrate feed Likewise, relatively more (p< 0.05) farm land area is allo- availability in both the dry and wet seasons of the year cated for forage production in project intervention areas. regardless of the cost (Figure 2). 3.9. Constraints for Improved Forage Production. Major 3.5. Improved Forage Production Status. Use of improved constraints that hampered improved forage production are forage and the major forage types produced in the study presented in Table 9. Shortage of improved forage seed/ areas is presented in Table 5. A large proportion of farmers planting material was the primary constraint followed by (90.75%) in both the project intervention and noninter- land shortage and lack of awareness. A significantly higher vention areas have experience on producing improved proportion of farmers (p≤ 0.01) in nonproject intervention forages, particularly Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) areas faced a planting material shortage than those in project (71.38%) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) intervention areas, whereas the number of farmers con- (42.63%) which are most common in the study area. In the strained by land shortage was higher (p≤ 0.01) in project project intervention area, Desho grass (99%) is most com- intervention than in nonproject areas. mon, and in the nonproject intervention area, elephant grass (66.25%) is produced by most farmers. In project inter- 3.10. Logistic Regression Analysis for Selected Determinant vention areas, oat-vetch mixed forage and Guatemala grass Variable on Forage Production. Significant determinant (Tripsacum andersonii) are newly introduced forage species. factors for effective forage development in the study district are presented in Table 10. Based on the result of binary logistic regression analysis, project intervention (p≤ 0.01), 3.6. Purpose of Improved Forage Production. Farmers pro- duce improved forages as a source of cash, for use as feed, for tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding (p≤ 0.001), and forage seed/planting material access (p≤ 0.05) were identified as preventing erosion, or for two or more of these functions (Table 6). (e majority of the farm households produce forage factors (among others) having significant relationship with for more than one function. Most farmers (p≤ 0.01) in project improved forage development. (e likelihood of improved intervention areas produce Desho grass for more than two forage production practice in project intervention areas was Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 3: Feed shortage problems, season of occurrence, and coping strategy (N � 160). % of respondents Description X p value Intervention Nonintervention Overall Feed shortage 21.19 0.001 Yes 60.00 91.20 75.60 No 40.00 8.80 24.40 Seasons of feed shortage 22.474 0.001 Dec–Feb (3 months) 0.00 2.74 1.37 Mar–May (3 months) 37.50 37.06 37.23 Jun–Aug (3 months) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb–May (4 months) 62.50 60.31 61.40 Coping mechanisms 27.844 0.001 Purchase grass 23.33 39.47 31.40 Purchase crop residue 16.67 5.26 10.96 Purchase concentrate 43.33 23.68 33.51 Feed enset leaf 16.67 26.32 21.49 Reduce stock 0.00 5.26 2.63 Table 4: Seasonal availability and utilization of feed resources (N � 160). % of respondents Feed resources Dry season Wet season Both seasons Intervention Nonintervention Intervention Nonintervention Intervention Nonintervention Collected fodder 0.00 0.00 12.50 16.30 0.00 0.00 Concentrate 10.00 12.50 1.30 0.00 22.50 22.50 Crop residue 88.80 81.30 0.00 1.30 2.50 6.30 Cultivated forage 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 3.80 0.00 Desho grass 2.50 0.00 2.50 7.50 95.00 35.00 Elephant grass 1.30 0.00 0.00 2.50 12.50 55.00 Enset 16.00 26.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 Food waste 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 Grazing 1.30 1.30 7.50 17.50 51.30 53.80 Hay 17.50 21.30 0.00 0.00 1.30 5.00 Local grass 1.30 6.30 28.80 6.30 10.00 26.30 X 6.44 21.597 57.522 p-value 0.598 0.003 0.001 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. 92.265 times higher than nonproject intervention sites. Farmers with higher TLU holding were 26.993 times more likely to produce improved forage compared with those households with lower TLU holding. On the other hand, better seed/planting material access increased the likelihood of improved forage development by 11.983 times. 4. Discussion 4.1. Livestock and Land Holding. (ere were no significant Low Medium High Low Medium High differences in livestock holdings between project interven- Dry season Wet season tion and nonintervention areas. Ruminant animal holdings in the current study were similar to reports for the Anelemo Concentrate feeds availability district of Hadiya zone, SNNPR [13]. Average total livestock Intervention kept by individual households in the current study is lower Nonintervention than reports in another area [14]. (is could be due to the Figure 2: Availability of concentrate feeds in the study area. limited availability of feed resources [15]. % of respondents 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 5: Improved forage producers and forage type produced (N � 160). % of respondents Description X p value Intervention Nonintervention Overall Do you use improved forage? 12.43 0.001 Yes 99.00 82.50 90.75 No 1.00 17.50 9.25 Forage type 102.42 0.001 Desho grass 99.00 43.75 71.38 Elephant grass 19.00 66.25 42.63 Guatemala grass 38.00 0.00 19.00 Oat-vetch fodder mix 36.00 0.00 18.00 Sesbania (S. sesban) 1.00 0.00 0.50 Vetiver (C. zizanioides) 1.00 0.00 0.50 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 6: Purpose of improved forage production by farmers as per the response (N � 160). % of respondents Forage type Purpose of production X p value Intervention Nonintervention Feed 22.00 20.00 21.51 0.001 Feed and cash source 20.00 0.00 Desho grass Feed and conservation 20.00 60.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 37.00 20.00 Feed 33.00 15.00 6.90 0.075 Feed and cash source 13.00 2.00 Elephant grass Feed and conservation 47.00 70.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 7.00 13.00 Feed 57.00 0.00 Feed and cash source 17.00 0.00 Guatemala grass Feed and conservation 3.00 0.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 23.00 0.00 Feed 86.00 0.00 Oat-vetch fodder Feed and cash source 7.00 0.00 Feed, cash, and conservation 7.00 0.00 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 7: Improved forage seed/planting material accessibility (N � 160). % of respondents Descriptions X p value Intervention Nonintervention Response for availability 30.86 0.001 Yes 76.00 32.50 No 24.00 67.50 Forage seed provider 127.89 0.001 Agriculture office 7.50 78.80 NGO 75.00 0.00 Purchased from others 3.80 0.00 Relatives 3.80 21.30 DoA and NGO 10.00 0.00 Available forage seed 77.863 0.001 Desho grass 99.00 37.50 Elephant grass 15.00 43.80 Guatemala grass 5.00 0.00 Oat-vetch forage 40.00 0.00 NGO � nongovernmental organization; DoA � District Office of Agriculture; chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 8: Niche type and land allocation (ha) for improved forage production (N � 160). % of respondents Descriptions X p value Intervention Nonintervention Land allocation in hectare 25.354 0.001 0.00–0.05 ha 26.30 65.00 0.05–0.10 ha 28.70 17.50 0.10–0.25 ha 43.80 17.50 More than 0.25 ha 1.30 0.00 Production niches (ha) Mean area Mean area Farm land 0.08 0.03 8.671 0.034 Terrace 0.02 0.02 Around fence 0.01 0.02 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 9: Major constraints for improved forage production in the area (N � 160). % of respondents List of constraints X p value Intervention Nonintervention Material shortage 36.30 58.80 13.51 0.004 Land shortage 33.80 20.00 Lack of awareness 18.80 20.00 Financial problem 11.30 1.30 Chi square was tested at 5% significant level. Table 10: Logistic regression analysis for determinant factors on improved forage production. 95% C.I. for Exp(B) Determinants B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Project intervention status 4.525 1.517 8.899 1 0.003 92.265 4.721 1803.345 Household head sex −1.535 1.009 2.317 1 0.128 0.215 0.030 1.555 Education level −0.456 0.412 1.225 1 0.268 0.634 0.283 1.421 Active family members 0.219 0.628 0.122 1 0.727 1.245 0.364 4.258 Total land holding 1.115 0.788 2.003 1 0.157 3.050 0.651 14.291 TLU holding 3.296 0.858 14.766 1 0.00 26.993 5.026 144.970 Forage seed access 2.483 1.176 4.460 1 0.035 11.983 1.196 120.104 Constant −2.301 1.155 3.968 1 0.046 0.100 (e total average land holding per household in both of could be associated with lack of progress in breed im- the target study areas was similar to reports for average land provement programs. (ese problems were in line with reports on the Horro and Guduru districts [18]. Consid- holdings for the Doyogena district (0.5–1 ha) [16]. However, the land holding size in the current study was lower than a eration of breed performance is the least important problem report for other areas [14, 17]. (is indicates that improved according to the majority of the farmers. Livestock breed land use planning and forage development strategies need to performance problems with lower priority indicate un- be intensified to improve forage production within the tapped productive potential of local breeds in the presence of existing land resource and production system. good management practices, such as proper feeding, se- lection for best traits, health care, and all other necessary husbandry practices. Moreover, local breeds are resistant to 4.2. Livestock Production Challenges. Feed shortage, which disease and can perform better under limited feed avail- was identified as a primary constraint, was attributed to ability and less intensive management conditions [6, 19, 20]. unwise feed resource utilization, low forage production, and limited forage species diversification. Water shortage problems could be related to existing infrastructure and 4.3. Livestock Feed Shortage and Coping Mechanisms. As per technical gaps in the wise use of available water resources as the result of the current study, a large proportion of farm well as poor water harvesting techniques. Disease constraints households in both areas suffered from livestock feed could be attributed to poor veterinary services and poorly shortages with significantly higher severity in nonproject developed technical skills. Market problem could be related intervention than intervention areas. (e main period with to the seasonal inconsistencies of market demand for animal livestock feed deficiency in the study area started at the end and animal products. Animal breed performance problems of January and continued to the beginning of May which is 8 Advances in Agriculture area is consistent with the results reported for the Shashego in line with reports for the highland of Ethiopia [21]. (e feed shortage problem during the dry season in the study district of the Hadiya zone [26]. Improved forage production can help boost feed availability and improve crop produc- area is related to moisture stress that resulted in low herbage growth on existing grazing land [22]. Moreover, crop res- tivity by conserving soil and water [29, 30]. (e limited roles idues which are serving as the main source of roughage feed (feeding and erosion only) of forage production in non- during the dry season [13, 23] are low in nutrient content project intervention areas could be related to the lower [24]. Many farmers rely on purchased roughage and con- availability and less intensive production of improved for- centrate, and enset feeding in response to the existing feed ages. As a result, the forage produced was not abundant shortage. enough to provide an excess for sale. Improved forage production can serve as a source of cash in addition to other roles provided that there is sufficient production. 4.4. Seasonal Feed Availability. Regardless of the biomass, most farmers in both project intervention and noninter- vention areas use improved forages in both the dry and the 4.7. Forage Seed/Planting Material Availability. (ough wet season. During the dry period, there is a feed shortage of nongovernmental organizations and government extension system are responsible for the distribution of suitable im- green feeds, also a common problem in other areas of the country [21]. Crop residues that are poor in nutritive value proved forage technologies for farming communities, there is still limitation in the available varieties of forages, espe- [25] and hay, to some extent, are the major feed resource used during the dry season in the study area, with a similar cially varieties of legume species. (is situation needs special pattern in other areas [13]. Nevertheless, there were farmers attention by research and development organizations in who use improved forages during the dry season of the year. order to intensify varieties of improved forages to improve (is trend was in agreement with reports from other areas in the existing agricultural system. (e relatively better dis- which farmers used improved forage during dry periods tribution and availability of forage planting material in the [13, 26]. (is indicated that improved forages are playing a project intervention area could be attributed to sufficient resources and effective utilization of those resources while big role in covering the gap of green feed supply during dry periods. Availability of high-protein feeds like legume for- addressing the technology used by the farmers with an ef- fective monitoring system. ages is negligible. (is situation requires intensification and expanded availability of improved forages using innovative production strategies and niches. 4.8. Niches Adopted and Land Allocation for Forage Production. Forage production niches adopted in the area 4.5. Improved Forage Production Status. Desho grass was the were similar to reports for the Doyogena district of the Kembata-Tembaro zone, where terrace plantations were the most dominant improved forage species adopted in the study area. It was also reported as a common improved most common type [31]. Larger areas of farm land allocation forage in other areas in the region [13, 16, 26, 27]. (is for forage production by a majority of the farmers in project situation calls for additional effective training and related intervention areas may be related to better provision of seed/ extension services to inform and encourage farmers about planting material and better adoption of improved forages efficient production and utilization systems for this grass. for their multiple roles including as a source of cash. (is (ere were few attempts to introduce legume forages and indicated that choice of niches in the study area depends on the availability of planting material and the level of pro- develop management strategies, a subject that needs at- tention by development and research practitioners in order duction [32, 33] rather than farm land size which was not consistent according to a report by Njarui et al. [34]. to increase high-protein feeds in the district. Improved forage production could be used to overcome Moreover, larger farm land allocations of a greater number feed shortages but is constrained by many challenges in- of farmers in the project intervention area indicated a strong cluding small land holdings, priority given to food crop interest of farmers for improved forage production if they production, lack of forage seeds, and limited knowledge on are provided planting material with necessary training on forage species and their production systems. (is situation production and utilization systems. was exacerbated by the absence of an improved forage seed provision and transfer system in the area. (is requires the 4.9. Constraints of Improved Forage Production. (e higher attention of concerned stakeholders to design sustainable number of farmers experiencing a forage planting material forage seed transfer systems. In contrast to a report for the shortage in the nonproject intervention area could be at- Anelemo [13] and Robi districts [28], in which land was the tributed to the limited forage seed supply [31]. In contrast, primary constraint, in the current study area, a forage seed/ the higher number of farmers with a land shortage problem planting material shortage was the primary constraint fol- in the project intervention area could be attributed to more lowed by land shortage and a lack of training and production of improved forage grass that took additional information. land. (is indicated that improved forage production might result in land competition for food crop production. Lack of 4.6. Purpose of Forage Production. (e objective of improved awareness of alternative improved forages and their pro- forage production that can serve a multiple role in the study duction strategies hampered the scaling up of improved Advances in Agriculture 9 forage technologies more than the shortage of land and systems, especially legumes, need to be distributed to improved forage seeds. Hence, this situation needs attention farmers. A sustainable improved forage seed/planting material to improve the application of different forage development strategies and the introduction of legume forages that can be transfer system needs to be developed, and strong awareness integrated with other cropping systems. of improved forage varieties needs to be created. Optimal production and utilization systems as well as efficient animal husbandry practices and proper resource utilization need to 4.10. Logistic Regression Analysis for Selected Determinant be given attention by research and development stake- Variable on Forage Production. Among household, farming, holders to ensure sustainable forage technology adoption and project characteristics, only project intervention, and profitable livestock production. Better efforts observed tropical livestock unit (TLU) holding, and access to forage in the NGO project intervention areas are indicated as an seed/planting technology were the significant factors af- opportunity for government organizations to share best fecting the likelihood of improved forage production in the management practices. district. (e significantly higher rate of forage production in project intervention is attributed with proper input (forage Data Availability technology) provision, efficient training, and continuous follow-up as compared to nonproject intervention. (is All data used to support the findings of this study are in- indicates that, though land shortage is mentioned as a cluded within the article. common constraint, farmers are interested to develop forage on different strategies if they are provided with the required Conflicts of Interest forage technology and effective training (linked with proper monitoring) on improved forages development and utili- (e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. zation techniques, which is inconsistent with other reports [26, 35]. Farmers with higher livestock holding, especially Acknowledgments dairy cow and draught oxen, were more promoted to produce improved forage which is in line with another (is research was financially supported by the SIMLESA II report [27]. (is could be associated with the intention of Forage Development Project. (e support and facilitation farmers to produce more milk and butter, and oxen draught offered by Send a Cow Ethiopia field staff in Wolaita zone are power through better supplementation. also acknowledged. (e International Livestock Research (e household characteristics (gender, education level, Institute is gratefully acknowledged for uploading and family size) in the current study did not show significant S. Mengistu’s unpublished thesis to the following link: relationship with improved forage production. (is could be https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/100361/ attributed to allocation of more labor force for activities thesis_Shimelis_2018.pdf?isAllowed�y&sequence�1. other than forage production. Level of education in the current study did not have significant effect on the devel- References opment of improved forage technology. (is could be be- cause some people with more education level seek other [1] ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Production nonfarm income source activities in nearby towns. and Distribution Networks Now Avail Forage Planting Ma- terials to Smallholder Dairy Producers in East Africa: ILRI Outcome Story 2009, International Livestock Research Insti- 5.Conclusion tute, Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [2] R. Behnke and F. Menagerie, “(e contribution of livestock to (e top most livestock production challenge in the study the Ethiopian economy-part II, IGAD livestock policy ini- area was feed shortage, which commonly occurred from tiative (LPI) working paper no. 0211,” 2011, http://www. February to May, with higher severity in nonproject in- igadlpi.org/publication/docs/IGADLPI-WP-02-11-PartII. tervention areas. Feeding of enset leaf, purchased grasses, [3] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural Sample Survey: and concentrates (mainly wheat bran) were the main coping Volume II Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics strategies against feed shortage. Improved forage produc- (Private Peasant Holdings), Central Statistical Agency (CSA), tion, although it would compete for land with food crop Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2018. [4] T. Markos, “Productivity and health of indigenous sheep production, can make a significant contribution to nar- breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopian highlands,” rowing the seasonal livestock feed gap, facilitating soil and Ph.D dissertation, Department of Animal Breeding and Ge- water conservation, and generating cash income. netics, Faculty for Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Desho grass and elephant grass are the major improved Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU), Uppsala, forages introduced in the area which have been serving as the Sweden, 2006. major components of livestock diets and as a cash source [5] K. Tsedeke, “Production and marketing of sheep and goats in (especially Desho grass) in both the dry and wet seasons of Alaba, SNNPR,” An MSC thesis Presented to the School of the year. Distribution of forages with a significant protein Graduate Studies of Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia, concentration is poor as a result of limited improved forage technology distribution and transfer systems. Forage vari- [6] L. Getahun, “Productive and economic performance of small eties suitable for the existing agroecology and production ruminants in two production systems of the highlands of 10 Advances in Agriculture Ethiopia,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hohenheim, [22] M. Ashenafi, J. Addisu, M. Shimelis, H. Hassen, and G. Legese, Stuttgart, Germany, 2008. Analysis of Sheep Value Chains in Doyogena, Southern Ethiopia, ICARDA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013. [7] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), “Agricultural sample sur- [23] A. Mekasha, B. Gerard, K. Tesfaye, L. Nigatu, and vey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private A. J. Duncan, “Inter-connection between land use/land cover peasant holdings),” Statistical Bulletin 583: Central Statistical change and herders’/farmers’ livestock feed resource man- Agency Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis agement strategies: a case study from three Ethiopian eco- Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. environments,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, [8] T. Adugna, “Potential for development of alternative feed vol. 188, pp. 150–162, 2014. resources in Ethiopia,” Report prepared for ACDI/VOCA, [24] G. Deribe, “Evaluation of major feed resources in crop- Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012. livestock mixed farming systems, southern Ethiopia: indige- [9] J. Biruk, “Value chain analysis of bee honey and credit market nous knowledge versus laboratory analysis results,” Journal of participation of bee keepers: the case of Damot Gale District, Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Sub- Southern Ethiopia,” M.Sc. thesis, Haramaya University, Dire tropics, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 157–166, 2015. Dawa, Ethiopia, 2015. [25] L. Gizachew and G. N. Smit, “Crude protein and mineral [10] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Socio-economic Character- composition of major crop residues and supplemental feeds istics of the Population in Agricultural Households (Statistical produced on Vertisols of the Ethiopian highland,” Animal Bulletin), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Feed Science and Technology, vol. 119, no. 1-2, pp. 143–153, Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007. [11] Damot Gale District Office, “General district level report, [26] F. Assefa, T. Ano, T. Aba, and Z. Ebrahim, “Assessment of Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia,” 2014. improved forage types and their utilization in Shashogo [12] T. Yamane, Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, Harper and Woreda, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia,” Global Journal of Row, Manhattan, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1967. Animal Science, Livestock Production and Animal Breeding, [13] S. Salo, G. Tadesse, and D. Haylemeskel, “Survey on con- vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 227–230, 2015. straints of improved forage adoption in Anelemo Woreda, [27] B. Zekarias, “Determinants of improved forages adoption in Hadiya zone, 002 Ethiopia,” Agricultural Research & Tech- Doyogena district of Kembata tembaro zone, in southern nology Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 555–839, 2017. Nations, Nationalities regional state, Ethiopia,” Global Journal [14] S. Muluken, A. Bimrew, T. Firew, and M. Dessalegn, “Farmers of Science Frontier Research: Agriculture and Veterinary, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016. perception and utilization status of improved forages grown [28] E. Yadessa, “Assessment of feed resources and determination in the natural resource areas of northwestern Ethiopia,” of mineral status of livestock feed in Meta Robi District, West Biodiversitas, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1568–1578, 2018. ¨ Shewa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethopia,” 2015. [15] N. Osterle, A. Angassa, A. Tadesse, A. Ebro, and J. Sauerborn, [29] I. C. Chakoma, “Sustainable forage production strategies for “Crop-livestock farming systems varying with different alti- small scale livestock production in Zimbabwe,” International tudes in southern Ethiopia,” Science. Technology and Arts Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, vol. 1, no. 3, Research Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2012. pp. 2319–1473, 2012. [16] A. Mekonnen, S. Mengistu, S. Woldi, T. Abiso, and [30] E. Addisu, T. Firew, and A. Getnet, “Constraints and op- J. Wamatu, “Using FEAST to characterize the farming and portunities on production and utilization of improved forages livestock production systems and the potential to enhance in east Gojjam zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia: in the case of livestock productivity through improved feeding in Bekafa: Enebsie Sar Midr district,” Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Doyogena District, Southern Ethiopia,” 2014. Healthcare, vol. 6, no. 9, 2016. [17] Y. Abebe, S. Melaku, A. Tegegne, and F. Tegegne, “Assessment [31] Z. Bassa, S. Mengistu, F. Tessema, T. Abiso, and A. Tera, of sheep production system in Burie district, north western “Rapid assessment on status of forage seed production and Ethiopia,” Global Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 1, no. 2, marketing in Doyogena district of Kembata-Tembaro zone, pp. 29–47, 2013. SNNPR, Ethiopia,” Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Pro- [18] G. Kassahun, T. Taye, T. Adugna, B. Fekadu, and D. Solomon, duction, vol. 4, p. 171, 2016. “Feed resources and livestock production situation in the [32] B. Asmare, S. Demeke, T. Tolemariam, F. Tegegne, J. Wamatu, highland and mid altitude areas of Horro and Guduru dis- and B. Rischkowsky, “Evaluation of desho grass (Pennisetum tricts of Oromia regional state, western Ethiopia,” Science, pedicellatum) hay as a basal diet for growing local sheep in Technology and Arts Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 111– Ethiopia,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 48, 116, 2015. no. 4, pp. 801–806, 2016. [19] ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement [33] B. K. Paul, F. L. Muhimuzic, S. B. Bacigale et al., “Towards an assessment of on-farm niches for improved forages in Sud- Program), Sheep and Goat Production Hand Book for Kivu, DR Congo,” Journal of Agriculture and Rural Devel- Ethiopia, ESGPIP, Ethiopia, 2008. opment in the Tropics and Subtropics, vol. 117, no. 2, [20] E. Marufa, M. Taye, G. Abebe, A. Tera, and A. Jimma, “Effect pp. 243–254, 2016. of non-genetic factors on reproductive and growth perfor- [34] M. G. Njarui, M. Gatheru, M. Gichangi, M. Nyambati, mance of Abera sheep under community based breeding N. Ondiko, and W. Kziah, “Determinants of forage adoption program in SNNPRS Ethiopia,” Journal of Advances in Dairy and production niches among smallholder farmers in Kenya,” Research, vol. 5, p. 196, 2017. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, vol. 34, no. 3, 2017. [21] A. Yami, B. Begna, and T. Teklewold, “Enhancing the pro- [35] M. Tesfaye and T. Melaku, “Determinants of adoption of ductivity of livestock production in highland of Ethiopia: improved highland forage type: evidence from Dendi district, implication for improved on-farm feeding strategies and west Shoa zone, Ethiopia,” Journal of Experimental Agricul- utilization,” International Journal of Livestock Production, ture International, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017. vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 113–127, 2015.

Journal

Advances in AgricultureHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jun 28, 2021

References