| Livestock Research for Rural Development 28 (5) 2016 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
This study was conducted in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia with the objectives of assessing status of improved forage production practices, utilization and constraints to integrate improved forages to smallholder farmers. A total of 225 respondents were randomly selected and interviewed using pre-tested structured questionnaire to collect primary data.
The study revealed that natural pastures, crop residues, hay, improved forages and industrial by-products were the main livestock feed resources. About 76% of the respondents were cultivated improved forages. Among the respondents who did not cultivate improved forages, about 75% were aware of the importance of improved forages. Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) followed by Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) were the dominant forages cultivated by respondents. About 85% of the respondents did not use fertilizers to grow forages. Cut and carry system was the dominant forages utilization method, but forage conservation was not common due to less amount of forage produced. Ranked by the respondents land shortage (1st), lack and high cost of planting materials (2nd), poor extension service (3rd), drought (4th) and lack of awareness (5th) were the major constraints for improved forage cultivation in the study area.
Key words: agro-ecology, conservation, feed resource
In Ethiopia, forage development strategies have been introduced and popularized for about five decades (i.e., starting in 1970s) in the mixed crop-livestock production system (EARO 2002; Alemayehu 2006; Alemayehu 2012). This integration of improved forage species into farming system is a promising option and /or strategy in solving the chronic feed shortages in the country (Alemayehu and Getnet 2012). However, the adoption of improved forages at farmers’ level has remained very low due to inter alia shortage of forage seed, the reluctance of most smallholder farmers (Alemayehu and Getnet 2012), and the lack of well organized extension services. Improved production and utilization practices of improved forages are also very important besides the introduction and popularization of improved forages by small-scale farmers.
Identification of constraints to improved forage technologies in a given agricultural system helps to design appropriate interventions. Beshir (2014) observed that since the adoption of improved technologies is dynamic having information with regards to the current technologies being adopted by farmers is very important. However, there is no readily available information with regard to status of improved forage production and utilization practices, as well as, constraints to integrate improved forages by smallholder farmers in Wolaita zone. Therefore, the present study was carried out to assess improved forage production and utilization practices and constraints to adopt improved forages by smallholder farmers in Wolaita zone.
The study was conducted in Wolaita zone located in Southern Ethiopia. The study area has an altitude that ranges from 1200 to 2950 m above sea level (m.a.s.l); annual rainfall varies from 800 mm to 1400 mm with two distinct rainy seasons, the main (‘kremt’) occurring in summer (roughly June - August) and the small rainy season (‘belg’) occurring in spring (roughly from mid - February to mid-May). Minimum and maximum temperatures are 15 °C and 20 °C, respectively. The study area has 12 districts distributed in three agro-ecological zones: highland (9%; > 2400 m.a.s.l); midland (56%, 1500-2400 m.a.s.l) and lowland (35%, <1500 m.a.s.l) (WZFEDD 2005).
From the 12 districts of Wolaita zone, three districts viz. Damot-Galle, Boloso-Sore and Humbo were purposively selected to represent higher, medium and lower altitudes of the zone, respectively. From each selected district, three peasant associations (PAS) were randomly selected making a total of 9 PAS. From each of the randomly selected PAS, 25 households were randomly selected for the study. Thus, a total of 225 households, 75 from each district, were included in the study.
Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for the study. Primary data were collected from the respondents using pre-tested structured questionnaires. Secondary data sources were also reviewed.
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 for descriptive statistics and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the three agro-ecological zones (the highland, midland and lowland) of the study area were used as fixed factors. Duncan’s new multiple range tests was used to determine the differences (statistical significance) between agro-ecological zones’ mean values for the quantitative parameters at 5% level of significance. The statistical model used to analyze the quantitative data was: Yij = μ+Ai+eij; where, Yij = response variable, µ = overall mean, Ai = effect of agro-ecology (i.e. highland, midland and lowland) and eij = random error.
Table 1 presents the mean land and livestock holdings per household. Landholding size was significantly (P<0.05) higher in the lowland than in the highland and midland. This is related to the fact that the highland and midland agro-ecologies are relatively suitable for crop cultivation and as a result they are densely populated than the lowland. The land holding size of the highland agro-ecology in this study was comparable to the 0.80 ha reported by Ayza et al. (2013) in the same district -Damot-Gale.
The overall land holding size per household in the present study was comparable with the 1.29 ha reported by Netsanet et al. (2010) in Badawacho district of Hadiya zone, southern Ethiopia but lower than the 3.23 ha reported by Assefa et al (2013) in Adami Tullu, Oromia region and the 3.6 ha reported by Guyo and Tamir (2014) in Burji District, Segen Zuria Zone of southern Ethiopia. Generally, landholding size in the study zone is very small resulting in farmers keeping a small number of livestock and not to allocate land for forage production.
There was significant difference (P<0.05) in cattle, goat and chicken holding among the agro-ecologies (Table 1). The overall mean livestock holding per household was 5.1 heads of cattle, 2.2 heads of sheep, 4.4 heads of goats, 6.2 heads of chicken and 1.2 heads of donkeys. Higher values (15.6, 4.4, 7.6 and 11.8 heads of cattle, sheep, goats and chicken, respectively) were reported by Guyo and Tamir (2014) in Burji District, Segen Zuria Zone of southern Ethiopia. Altaye et al. (2014) also reported higher livestock holdings (13.99, 6.14, 11.37, 1.50 and 8.45 heads of cattle, sheep, goats and chicken, respectively) per household in Metekel zone of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State of Ethiopia.
|
Table 1: Livestock and landholdings per household in the study area (Mean +SE) |
|||||
|
Variables |
Agro-ecology |
Overall (N=225) |
p |
||
|
Highland (n=75) |
Midland (n=75) |
Lowland (n=75) |
|||
|
Land holding |
0.86+0.07b |
0.65+0.05b |
2.46+0.17a |
1.31+0.08 |
<0.001 |
|
Livestock holding |
|||||
|
Cattle |
4.1+0.19b |
4.4+0.27b |
6.7+0.39a |
5.1+0.19 |
<0.001 |
|
Sheep |
2.1+0.14 |
2.2+0.18 |
2.2+0.22 |
2.2+0.10 |
0.745 |
|
Goat |
- |
1.6+0.24b |
5.0+0.54a |
4.4+0.48 |
0.008 |
|
Chicken |
3.9+0.24b |
7.7+1.20a |
6.7+0.92a |
6.2+0.54 |
0.016 |
|
Donkey |
1.0+0.00 |
1.2+0.11 |
1.2+0.07 |
1.2+0.05 |
0.157 |
|
Means in the same row with different superscript letters (a-b) differ at p<0.05 |
|||||
Natural pasture, crop residues, hay (mainly made from natural pasture), improved forages and industrial by-products (mainly wheat bran and noug seed cake) were the main livestock feed resources in the study area (Table 2). The percentage of respondents who use improved forages as livestock feeds was relatively lower (54.7%) in the lowland than the highland (88%) and midland (84%) agro-ecologies. On the other hand, 90.7% of the respondents in the lowland used hay compared to 52% and 57.3% for the highland and midland agro-ecologies, respectively.
|
Table 2: Common livestock feed resources and their sources in the study area |
||||
|
Type of feed resource |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Percentages (%) |
||||
|
Natural pasture? |
||||
|
Yes |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
No |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Crop residue? |
||||
|
Yes |
100 |
93.3 |
97.3 |
96.9 |
|
No |
- |
6.7 |
2.7 |
3.1 |
|
Improved forages? |
||||
|
Yes |
88 |
84 |
54.7 |
75.6 |
|
No |
12 |
16 |
45.3 |
24.4 |
|
Natural pasture hay? |
||||
|
Yes |
52 |
57.3 |
90.7 |
66.7 |
|
No |
48 |
42.7 |
9.3 |
33.3 |
|
Industrial by-products? |
||||
|
Yes |
54.7 |
85.3 |
33.3 |
57.8 |
|
No |
45.3 |
14.7 |
66.7 |
42.2 |
All the respondents reported that they used natural pastures as their livestock feed resource, while 96.9%, 75.6%, 66.7% and 57.8% used crop residues, improved forages, hay and industrial by-products, respectively. Natural pastures (in the pastoral areas), crop residues and aftermath grazing (in the mixed crop-livestock production system) are the main livestock feed resources in Ethiopia (Adugna 2008; Getnet 2012).
Table 3 indicates that 88%, 84% and 56% of the respondent in the highland, midland and lowland, respectively cultivated improved forages. Overall, 75.6% of the respondents were involved in improved forage production. Previous study by Mesfin et al. (2012) reported that 72.4% of the respondents cultivated improved forages in the central highlands of Ethiopia. In disagreement with this result, Altaye et al. (2014) from Metekel zone of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State of Ethiopia indicated that 95% of the interviewed households did not practice cultivation of improved forage species. In general, most research reports indicated that the use of improved forages as livestock feeds is very low in most parts of Ethiopia (Othill, 1986; CSA 2003; Alemayehu and Getnet 2012).
The majority of the respondents (51.5% in the highland, 49.2% in the midland and 48.8% in the lowland) mentioned that they were given planting materials for free by district’s Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Areka Research Center, NGOs and from neighbors, whereas very few respondents (1.5% in the highland, 12.7% in the midland and 7.3% in the lowland) said they purchased forage planting materials (Table 3).
Awareness on the importance of cultivating improved forages by livestock producers is a determining factor for adopting improved forage technologies. Among the respondents who did not cultivate improved forages (non-adopting households) in the study area, 74.5% were aware of the importance of improved forages while the rest did not aware (Table 4). In agreement with this result, Mesfin et al. (2012) reported that 66.7% of respondents in the central highlands of Ethiopia were aware of improved forages though they were not involved in their cultivation.
|
Table 3: Percent (%) of respondents that cultivate improved forages and source of planting material in the study area |
||||
|
Variables |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Do you cultivate improved forages? |
n=75 |
n=75 |
n=75 |
N=225 |
|
Yes |
88 |
84 |
54.7 |
75.6 |
|
No |
12 |
16 |
45.3 |
24.4 |
|
Source of planting material? |
n=66 |
n=63 |
n=41 |
N=170 |
|
Own produced |
47.0 |
30.1 |
43.9 |
42.9 |
|
Purchase |
1.5 |
12.7 |
7.3 |
7.1 |
|
Gift |
51.5 |
49.2 |
48.8 |
50.0 |
The non-adopting households listed different factors for not cultivating improved forages (Table 4). Land shortage was the major obstacle in the highland and midland agro-ecologies while drought, lack of and high cost of planting material were the main challenges in the lowland. Nine percent of the respondents in the lowland said that they had no interest in cultivating improved forages (Table 4).
|
Table 4: Awareness of on improved forages and reasons for not cultivating of non-adopting households in the study are |
||||
|
Variables |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Percentages (%) |
||||
|
Awareness on the importance of improved forages? |
||||
|
Yes |
77.8 |
84.6 |
69.7 |
74.5 |
|
No |
22.2 |
15.4 |
30.3 |
25.5 |
|
Reason for not cultivating improved forages? |
||||
|
No interest |
- |
- |
9.1 |
7.3 |
|
Land shortage |
88.9 |
84.6 |
3.0 |
36.4 |
|
Lack of planting material |
11.1 |
15.4 |
18.2 |
12.7 |
|
High cost of planting material |
- |
- |
21.2 |
12.7 |
|
Drought |
- |
- |
39.4 |
23.6 |
Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum), Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and vetch (Vicia spp) were commonly cultivated forage species in the study area. Desho grass followed by Elephant grass was the dominant forages in all the three agro-ecologies (Table 5). Besides, Leucaena leucocephala, Sasbania sesban and Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea) and Lablab purpureus (Lablab) were observed by the researchers to be cultivated in the study area. The different forage species found in the present study were in the list of forages species evaluated and recommended for different agro-ecologies of the southern region of Ethiopia by Hawassa Research Center (Gizachew and Mergia 2012).
It is well known that land preparation and fertilizer application during forage establishment are important to have good stand and to produce quality forage. Overall, 76.5% of the respondents reported that they practiced land preparation when planting improved forages while the rest did not practice (Table 5). Only 14.7% of the respondents reported that they used fertilizer while the majority (85.3%) did not use (Table 5) because of the high cost of fertilizer (55.1%) and the belief that the soil is fertile enough for forages growth (29.0%) (Table 6).
|
Table 5: Improved forage species cultivated in the study area |
||||
|
Variables |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Percentages (%) |
||||
|
Forage specie cultivated |
||||
|
Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) |
40.9 |
23.8 |
41.5 |
34.7 |
|
Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) |
92.4 |
87.3 |
58.5 |
82.4 |
|
Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) |
7.6 |
7.9 |
12.2 |
2.4 |
|
Vetch (Vicia spp) |
1.5 |
1.6 |
0 |
1.2 |
|
Land preparation during planting? |
||||
|
Yes |
72.7 |
85.7 |
68.3 |
76.5 |
|
No |
27.7 |
14.3 |
31.7 |
23.5 |
|
Fertilizer application? |
||||
|
Yes |
9.1 |
20.6 |
14.6 |
14.7 |
|
No |
90.9 |
79.4 |
85.4 |
85.3 |
|
Table 6: Reasons for not using fertilizer during forage establishment in the study area |
||||
|
Reasons for not using fertilizer |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Percentages (%) |
||||
|
High cost of fertilizer |
56.7 |
64 |
40 |
55.1 |
|
No access of fertilizer |
- |
2 |
2.9 |
1.4 |
|
The soil is fertile enough for forages growth |
33.3 |
18 |
37.1 |
29.0 |
|
No understanding on the importance of fertilizer application |
- |
6 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
|
No knowhow if the soil needs fertilizer application or not |
10 |
10 |
17.1 |
11.7 |
Not only the quantity of forages produced, but the way of utilizing the produced forages is important. All the respondents in the highland, 98.4% in the midland and 75.6% in the lowland used cut and carry system to utilize their improved forages (Table 7). In agreement with this result, Adugna (2008) stated that cultivated forages are mainly important as cut-and-carry sources of feed and as a supplement to crop residues and natural pastures.
Feed conservation could be one possible solution for feed shortage during the dry seasons. About 96%, 68% and 56% of the respondents in the highland, midland and lowland, respectively did not conserve forages while the remainder conserved forages in the form of hay (Table 7). This finding is in agreement with Adugna (2008) who stated that feed conservation is not common in most parts of Ethiopia. The majority of the respondents said that low yield was the main reason for not conserving forages in the study area (Table 7).
|
Table 7: Improved forages utilization and conservation practices (%) |
||||
|
Variables |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
||
|
Improved forages way of utilization |
n=66 |
n=63 |
n=41 |
N=170 |
|
Cut and carry |
100 |
98.4 |
75.6 |
93.5 |
|
Grazing |
- |
1.6 |
9.8 |
2.9 |
|
Both grazing and cut and carry |
- |
- |
14.6 |
3.5 |
|
Conservation of improved forages? |
n=66 |
n=63 |
n=41 |
N=170 |
|
Yes |
4.5 |
31.7 |
43.9 |
24.1 |
|
No |
95.5 |
68.3 |
56.1 |
75.9 |
|
Form of improved forage conservation? |
n=3 |
n=20 |
n=18 |
N=40 |
|
Hay |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
Silage |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Reasons for not conserving improved forages? |
n=63 |
n=43 |
n=23 |
N=129 |
|
Less amount of forage produced |
100 |
97.7 |
82.6 |
96.1 |
|
No feed shortage |
- |
2.3 |
4.3 |
1.6 |
|
No awareness on the importance forage conservation |
- |
- |
13.0 |
2.3 |
In Ethiopia, forage development strategy have been practiced for about five decades, but its adoption by the farming community has been very low because of factors such as lack and unadoptable forage technologies, poor extension services, shortage of land, lack and high cost of planting materials, reluctance of most smallholder farmers and size of livestock ownership and farm size (Othill, 1986; Alemayehu and Getnet 2012; Beshir 2014).
The major constraints for improved forage cultivation in the present study are shown in Table 8. The majority of the respondents in the highland (93.3%) and midland (94.7%) ranked land shortage as a first major constraint. Even though, land shortage was ranked first (46.7%) in the lowland this proportion is low compared with the highland and midland. Lack and high cost of planting material (forage seeds and/or cuttings) ranked as the second main constraint in all the agro-ecologies (Table 8), whereas lack of awareness was ranked 4th (53.3%) in the highland and 5th in midland (52.0%) and lowland (57.3%) agro-ecologies. Drought was ranked second as the major constraint in the lowland (33.3%) while it was ranked 5th and 4th in the highland and midland agro-ecologies, respectively. On the other hand, poor extension service was ranked 3rd in both the highland and midland agro-ecologies while it was ranked 4th in the lowland. In overall, land shortage, lack and high cost of planting materials, poor extension service, drought and lack of awareness were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively by the respondents as the constraints for improved forages cultivation. In agreement with this result, Assefa et al. (2015) reported shortage of land (1st), high expense of forage planting materials (2nd), lack of awareness (3rd) and poor extension services (4th) in rank to be the main constraints hindering adoption of improved forages in Shashogo district of Hadiya zone, southern Ethiopia.
|
Table 8: Major constraints for improved forage production in the study area |
|||||
|
Constraint |
Rank |
Agro-ecology |
Overall |
||
|
Highland |
Midland |
Lowland |
|||
|
Percentages (%) |
|||||
|
Land shortage |
1st |
93.3 |
94.7 |
46.7 |
78.2 |
|
2nd |
6.7 |
5.3 |
14.7 |
8.9 |
|
|
3rd |
- |
- |
1.3 |
0.4 |
|
|
4th |
- |
- |
4.0 |
1.3 |
|
|
5th |
- |
33.3 |
11.1 |
||
|
Lack and high cost of planting material |
1st |
1.3 |
2.7 |
1.3 |
4.9 |
|
2nd |
78.7 |
86.7 |
58.7 |
74.7 |
|
|
3rd |
9.3 |
4.0 |
12.0 |
8.4 |
|
|
4th |
6.7 |
6.7 |
1.3 |
4.9 |
|
|
5th |
4.0 |
- |
26.7 |
10.2 |
|
|
Lack of awareness |
1st |
5.3 |
2.7 |
13.3 |
7.1 |
|
2nd |
17.3 |
10.7 |
4.0 |
10.7 |
|
|
3rd |
0.7 |
22.7 |
22.7 |
18.7 |
|
|
4th |
53.3 |
12.0 |
2.7 |
22.7 |
|
|
5th |
13.3 |
52.0 |
57.3 |
40.9 |
|
|
Drought |
1st |
- |
- |
13.3 |
4.4 |
|
2nd |
- |
- |
33.3 |
11.1 |
|
|
3rd |
9.3 |
17.3 |
26.7 |
17.8 |
|
|
4th |
14.7 |
52.0 |
26.7 |
31.1 |
|
|
5th |
76.0 |
30.7 |
- |
35.6 |
|
|
Poor extension service |
1st |
- |
- |
14.7 |
4.9 |
|
2nd |
12.0 |
- |
18.7 |
10.2 |
|
|
3rd |
62.7 |
53.3 |
26.7 |
47.6 |
|
|
4th |
24.0 |
36.0 |
32.0 |
30.7 |
|
|
5th |
1.3 |
10.7 |
8.0 |
16.7 |
|
The result of this study indicated that the common livestock feeds were natural pastures, crop residues, hay, improved forages and industrial by-products. The percentage of individuals involved in improved forages cultivation was encouraging and majority of the non-adopting respondent were aware of the importance of improved forages. Improved forage conservation was not common due to small amount of forages produced by the respondents. In the highland and midland agro-ecologies land shortage was the major constraint to improved forages cultivation.
All the financial and material support in this study was provided by Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) and we express our deepest appreciation for the support. Our special thanks go to the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development of Wolaita Zone, Boleso-Sore, Damot-Gale and Humbo Districts for their help in giving us the information we asked. Our heartfelt thanks also go to all Development Agents (Das) for their support in data collection.
Adugna T 2008 Feed resources and feeding management: A manual for feed operators and development workers. Ethiopia Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards and Livestock and Meat marketing Program (SPS-LMM) Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 38pp.
Alemayehu M 2006 Country pasture/forage resource profiles, Ethiopia. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/ethiopia/ethiopia.htm (Accessed 14 September, 2015).
Alemayehu M 2012 Keynote address. In: Getnet Assefa, Mesfin Dejene, Jean Hanson, Getachew Anemut, Solomon Mengistu And Alemayehu Mengistu (eds), Forage seed research and development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia institute of agricultural research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 3-5.
Alemayehu M and Getnet A 2012 The evaluation of forage seed production in Ethiopia. In: Getnet Assefa, Mesfin Dejene, Jean Hanson, Getachew Anemut, Solomon Mengistu And Alemayehu Mengistu (eds), Forage seed research and development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia institute of agricultural research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 15-32.
Altaye SZ, Kassa B, Agza B, Alemu F and Muleta G 2014 Smallholder cattle production systems in Metekel zone, northwest Ethiopia. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, 3(2):151-157.
Assefa D, Nurfeta A and Banerjee S 2013 Assessment of feed resource availability and livestock production constraints in selected Kebeles of Adami Tullu Jiddo Kombolcha District, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(29): 4067-4073.
Assefa F, Ano T, Aba T and Ebrahim Z 2015 Assessment of improved forage types and their utilization in Shashogo Woreda, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia. Global Journal of Animal Science, Livestock Production and Animal Breeding, 3 (6):227-230.
Ayza A, Yilma Z, Nurfeta N 2013 Characterization of milk production systems in and around Boditti, South Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development.Volume 25, Article #183. Assessed July 13, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/10/ayza25183.htm
Beshir H 2014 Factors Affecting the Adoption and Intensity of Use of Improved Forages in North East Highlands of Ethiopia. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 4(1):12-27.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2003 Agricultural sample survey; report on: livestock and livestock characteristics. CSA, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization) 2002 Livestock technology options for economic growth and to enhance the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Report presented to workshop on poverty reduction through transforming smallholder systems from subsistence to market orientation, June 3-7, 2002, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Getnet A 2012 Retrospects and prospects of forage and pasture crop research in Ethiopia. In: Getnet Assefa, Mesfin Dejene, Jean Hanson, Getachew Anemut, Solomon Mengistu And Alemayehu Mengistu (eds), Forage seed research and development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia institute of agricultural research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 7-14.
Gizachew A and Mergia A 2012 Potentials and constraints of forage seed production and dissemination through extension in Southern region. In: Getnet Assefa, Mesfin Dejene, Jean Hanson, Getachew Anemut, Solomon Mengistu And Alemayehu Mengistu (eds), Forage seed research and development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia institute of agricultural research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 211-218.
Guyo S and Tamir B 2014 Assessment of Cattle Husbandry Practices in Burji Woreda, Segen Zuria Zone Of SNNPRS, Ethiopia. International Journal of Technology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research, 2 (4): 11-26.
Mesfine D, Getnet A, Gezahegn K and Karta K 2012 Forage seed production and supply systems in the Central highlands of Ethiopia. In: Getnet Assefa, Mesfin Dejene, Jean Hanson, Getachew Anemut, Solomon Mengistu And Alemayehu Mengistu (eds), Forage seed research and development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia institute of agricultural research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 59-70.
Mulualem T and Molla M 2013 Production Constraints, Farmers Preferences and Participatory on Farm Evaluation of Improved Forage Technologies in Selected Districts of Southern Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3 (9):628-635.
Netsanet B, Adugna T and Girma A 2010 Livestock Production and utilization of sweet potato vines as sources of feed in two districts of southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production, 10(1): 43-54.
Othill JC 1986 Fodder and Forage Management for Small holder Mixed farms in the Ethiopian Highland. Paper presented at the ICIMOD conference on Mountain pasture and Fodder Management in the Hindu Kusha Region, Kathmandu, May, 25-31.
SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 20.0 2011 IBM Corporation, SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.
WZFEDD (Wolaita Zone Finance and Economic Development Department) 2005 Wolaita Zone basic socio–economic and demographic information.
Received 8 February 2016; Accepted 21 March 2016; Published 1 May 2016