Dynamics and driving forces of change in Ethiopian smallholder livestock production system

Asaminew Tassew, Johann Sölkner¹ and Maria Wurzinger¹

Department of Animal Production and Technology, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, P O Box: 276, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
asaminew2@gmail.com
¹ Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, BOKU
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

The study was conducted in Northwest Ethiopia to investigate the dynamics and driving forces of change in the smallholder livestock production system. The research approaches include use of secondary and primary data. The primary data was collected; including key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops and field observation. The data were collected for a time frame of 10 years (from 2002-2012). Qualitative data analysis was done by using the ATLAS-ti version 7 software.

The most important changes in all three watersheds during 2002-2012 were: reduction in livestock herd or flock size; shift in livestock species composition and purpose, such as focusing on sheep, using horses and mules for different purposes; abandoning goats; decrease in livestock productivity; however, some farmers have attempted to improve the livestock husbandry. These changes are driven by the interaction of various driving forces that can be categorized into political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological and ecological. Therefore, interventions to be made by concerned stakeholders (farmers, development practitioners, researchers, policy makers, etc.) to improve the production system in the study areas need to focus on addressing the various and complex driving forces through a system wide and context-specific approach.

Key words: interventions, livestock herd or flock size, livestock species, watersheds

Introduction

Mixed crop-livestock production is one of the dominant farming systems in Ethiopia and characterized by high dependency on rainfall, traditional technology, high population pressure, and severe land degradation combined with low level of productivity (Bogale et al 2008; Ali and Neka 2012; Dessie et al 2013). In this farming system, farmers combine crop and livestock production in order to exploit the potential benefits from the interdependence of the two systems. Smallholder livestock production is one of the most complex systems that interconnecting natural, technical, political and social components. Empirical studies show that the livestock production systems are highly complex, delivering multiple products and services and various driving forces have the potential to influence these systems, for instance population growth, economic, technological, environmental and political ones (Steinfeld et al 2006; Hazell and Wood 2008; Seré et al 2008; Herrero et al 2009).

In Northwest Ethiopia, agriculture takes place mostly on small-scale farms with less than one hectare. The farms are extremely diverse, and one farm usually incorporates a variety of agricultural practices. Farmers combine crop production and livestock production as main livelihood activities. Yet, progress in improving the productivity of this system has been much more limited and is a significant research challenge (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished). As Benin et al (2006) note, failures to understand the complex systems and so as to deliver appropriate supports and interventions that address the challenges confronted and expand opportunities of rural household has greatly contributed to the poor performance of livestock production in Ethiopia. Thus, the nature of the problems confronted by farmers requires a holistic and context-specific approaches and integration of stakeholders working together for the livestock sector development. In this regard, scholars highlight that research efforts should focus on integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines and various stakeholders to solve real-world problems (Mcdonald et al 2009; Bammer 2013).

However, an underlying premise of the study is that there is no local-scale understanding of the changes observed in the smallholder livestock production system and the reasons for these changes, and how farmers adapt to the changing situations. In this study, the smallholder livestock production system refers to the livestock species, feed resources, the management approach and the wider environment in which farmers manage, diseases and parasites, and support services. We also define a driving force as “any influencing factor that directly or indirectly brings about change in the smallholder livestock production system”. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the dynamics and driving forces of change in the smallholder livestock production system in Northwest Ethiopia. The associated research questions are: (a) What have been the changes in the smallholder livestock production system? (b) What have been the driving forces for changes in the smallholder livestock production system?

Methodology

Study sites

This study is part of the Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia (TRANSACT) project. In this study, the research approach is a case study comprising three watersheds in Northwest Ethiopia (Figure 1). The watershed approach is selected because nowadays the government of Ethiopia and NGOs has been supportive of community watershed programs to enhance rural livelihoods through managing natural resources (Desta et al 2005). Hence, three watersheds were selected based on the following criteria: size of the watersheds (area coverage), accessibility, agro-ecological representation, and years of experience in extension support by the government and Sustainable Natural Resource Management Program in North Gondar Zone (SRMP-NG) project. The watersheds are named Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega which are found in Chilga, Dabat, and Debark district, respectively. The total area of the watershed is 560 ha, 330 ha and 316 ha for Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished). The watersheds are agro-ecologically distinct. It ranges from tepid moist (Weynadega) in Wujraba, cool moist (Dega) in Godinge and cold to very cold moist (Dega to Wurch) in Mezega. The watersheds are also distinct in rainfall, potential evapotranspiration, and temperature. Maximum annual average temperature is 23.9^oC, 18.8^oC, and 19.9^oC for Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively. The annual rainfall is 1,300 mm, 1,200 mm, and 1,450 mm at Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively. The topography of the watersheds is generally rugged mountains and undulating hills on the upper part of the watershed. Mixed crop-livestock farming is the mainstay of the livelihoods of households in all watersheds. Farmers keep different livestock species including cattle, sheep, goats, chicken, donkeys, mules and horses. The principal crops grown include teff (Eragrostis tef), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and maize (Zea mays) in Wujraba, wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and triticale (x-Ttriticosecale) in Godinge and Mezega (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished).

Figure 1. Location map of the study sites (Source: Authors based on 1994 Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency data)

Data collection

Both secondary and primary data sources were used. Secondary data was collected from office of agriculture, statistical office, research institutes and non-governmental organizations. The primary data was collected using qualitative research methods (Silverman 2005), including key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), workshops and field observation. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the farmers for key informant interviews, FGDs and workshops (Patton 1990). Farmers were selected considering sex, age, wealth status, years of settlement (> 10 years), and experience in livestock farming. The selection was done by the involvement of the first author, livestock development agents, and district SRMP-NG focal persons. Thematic and institutional relevance are considered to select development agents, experts, researchers and officials. In this study, the time frame considered is 10 years (from 2002 to 2012). Data was collected from September 2012 – April 2013.

Prior to the actual data collection, the researcher visited the specific research sites and several issues related to smallholder livestock production system were learnt by observation and informal discussion with people. Transect walks created opportunities for observation and informal discussion with people. Issues that emerged from observation and informal discussion with people were used to guide key informant interviews, focus group discussions and workshops. In this study, a total of 24 (8 per watershed) key informant interviews and 9 FGDs (3 per watershed) with farmers were carried out. The FGDs participants comprise of both men and women, ranging in size from 8-12 participants. Similarly, interviews were held with livestock development agents, livestock development and research officials. FGDs were also held with livestock experts and researchers. Open-ended questions used for both the key informant interviews and FGDs and the discussion done using the local language (Amharic) and their responses were recorded using a voice recorder. The researcher and his assistant moderated and recorded the discussion.

Workshops were held at each watershed with 16 participants (farmers’ representatives (7 male, 3 female), chairman of the kebele, one livestock development agent, two district livestock experts, head of district office of agriculture, and head of district administration) to identify the driving forces for changes in the smallholder livestock production system. In the workshops, first participants discussed and presented a list of driving forces that they considered important for changes in smallholder livestock production system in the past, present and future. Following, the researcher added driving forces identified from preliminary assessment (key informant interviews and FGDs), and literature search. Finally, the driving forces from different stakeholders were discussed together and agreed and the aggregated driving forces presented in a systemic picture. The discussions were done using the local language (Amharic) and minutes were taken by the researcher and his assistant.

Data analysis

All interviews and FGDs were transcribed using express scribe software and translated into English. Following, the transcribed interviews and FGDs, workshops minutes and field notes were imported into the program ATLAS-ti version 7 software for qualitative analysis (Muhr and Friese 2004). Then, 47 primary documents were used for content analysis (Berg 2001). Ex-situ coding was done based on the research questions. For each category, a list of codes and sub-codes were defined and grouped into code families. Finally, the interpretation was done by filtering the codes families. The driving forces identified for changes in the smallholder livestock production system categorized using PESTE (Erdogan et al 2009) framework: political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological, and ecological driving forces.

Results

Changes in livestock types and holdings

Cattle, sheep, goats, chicken, donkeys, and horses are kept in all watersheds and additionally, mules in Godinge and Mezega. In all watersheds, local cattle are the major breeds kept, but there is an increasing trend in adopting crossbred cows. Furthermore, livestock development agents, livestock experts and livestock development officials reported that the government intervention aims to replace the local cows by crossbred ones. In the past ten years, cattle herd size per household (HH) and population decreased in all watersheds. The perceived reasons for the changes are the decline in communal and private grazing lands in all watersheds; stopped transhumance in Wujraba, and Simen Mountain National Park restriction in Mezega. Farmers, livestock development agents and experts highlighted that seasonal movement of cattle from Wujraba into the lowland areas of Metema, Quara and Armachiho districts was practiced for a long time. However, nowadays, cattle mobility to lowland areas is stopped due to problems (theft, conflict) and expansion of commercial farming in the lowland areas. Farmers in Mezega revealed that the Simen Mountain National Park has been affecting cattle and others livestock through restriction of grazing inside the park. Farmers can’t also harvest grass within the park. A farmer inferred the change in cattle herd size as:

‘‘Before ten years I had 5 cattle (2 oxen and 3 cows) but now I have one cow, the main reason was feed shortage due to diminishing land size, through time I sold my cattle.’’ (Key informant farmer in Mezega, December 2012)

Other farmer explained the cattle mobility to lowland areas:

‘‘‘Bereha mewused dero kere’ meaning, cattle mobility to lowland areas are stopped in the last three years because many farmers lost their cattle due to theft, there is conflict with the settlers in the lowland areas and the free land is now occupied by farming.’’ (Farmer in FGD in Wujraba, November 2012)

With regard to small ruminants, in the past ten years, sheep flock size per HH increased in Wujraba, but decreased in Godinge and Mezega. The perceived reasons for decreased sheep holdings per HH at both Godinge and Mezega are due to the decline in communal and private grazing lands, and frequent sale of sheep to pay credit for fertilizer during crop failure and to buy household goods. Moreover, farmers complained that leopard (Panthera pardus) is killing sheep in Mezega. On the contrary, sheep flock size per HH increased in Wujraba. Because rearing sheep has started 15 years ago as management is easier for sheep than goats, and increased market demand. However, the overall population of sheep increased in all watersheds. The perceived reasons are human population growth and the majorities of farmers also kept sheep. In terms of sheep genetic improvement program, government and SRMP-NG have been distributing Washera rams (local sheep breed from western highlands of Amhara region) to cross the local sheep. Farmers are interested to have Washera rams due the larger body size and better growth performance than the local sheep. Farmers and livestock development agents realized that goat flock size per HH and population at the watershed level showed a decreasing trend in all watersheds, as the majority of farmers had abandon goat husbandry in the past ten years. Major reasons for this change have been the better suitability of sheep than goat to graze together with cattle on communal grazing lands; the hillside where browse species are found is protected from animal entrance, and lack of herders (competing with the schooling of children). Farmer described the small ruminant production as:

‘‘Nowadays sheep rearing easy for me, I can keep around home steady and also stay together with my cattle, the market demand for sheep also increased….but I had stopped keeping goats, because there are no browse species for goats, goats need herding and all my children are not with me at the moment (educated and started their living in town).’’ (Farmer in FGD in Godinge, November 2012)

With regard to chicken, in the past ten years, farmers commented that chicken holdings per household fluctuate a lot. During an outbreak of New Castle disease the population decreases substantially, but also quickly recovers afterwards. However, there is a general increasing trend in the chicken population. Reasons for this increase are lower financial requirements for acquisition, low space requirements, short generation interval and increased market demand for both eggs and meat. With regards to improved chicken (such as Rhode Island Red, White Leg Horn), farmers revealed that the distribution of improved chicken was better in earlier times than at the present. They are still interested to have the improved chicken. Farmer explained the importance of chicken as:

‘‘Before ten years I had 2 chicken, but now I have 6 chicken, because the management for chicken improved, household consumption increased, the market demand both for eggs and chicken are good.’’ (Key informant farmer in Godinge, November 2012)

In terms of equines, in the past ten years, horse herd size per HH and population increased in all watersheds. In Wujraba horses are kept for pulling carts, while in both Godinge and Mezega horses have multiple functions, such as use for plowing, threshing, and transportation services. Additional advantages of horses are the different feeding behavior and lower purchasing price compared to oxen. One farmer highlighted the role of horses as:

‘‘I have been using horses for different purposes, including plowing, threshing, transportation of grains and crop residues from farm to home, transportation to market and from market to home. Horses are also fed different sources of feed that can’t be used by cattle; I can also buy 2 or 3 horses after selling 1 ox.’’ (Key informant farmer in Mezega, December 2012)

In Wujraba the majority of farmers had given up mule husbandry. Whereas in Godinge the number of mules per household and total population declined due to frequent selling of mules and low conception rate of horse when mated with donkey. Farmers in Godinge highlighted that mules are frequently sold to lowland areas with a higher price compared to horse and donkey. The higher price for a mule is related to strength and endurance compared to other working animals. On the contrary, farmers, livestock development agents and district livestock experts stated that mule herd size and population increased in Mezega. This is due to use of mules for transporting equipment and luggage of tourists and availability of male donkeys (a donkey breed brought by ILDP from Sudan) to have mules from horses. With regard to donkey, the herd size per HH and population decreased in Wujraba, while the majority of households had stopped donkey husbandry in both Godinge and Mezega as they are either replaced by cars, horses or mules.

Changes in feed resources and feeding strategy

The major feed resources of livestock include natural pasture, crop residues and crop aftermath. In all watersheds, the majority of farmers produced hay from private grazing lands and crop field boundaries. In Godinge a new development can be observed where farmers have recently started harvesting hay by fencing some part of the communal grazing lands during the main rainy season (August-October). Farmers reported that crop residues form almost equal share as natural pasture for livestock feed at present than before. The crop residues include teff and finger millet straw, maize and sorghum stover in Wujraba, and wheat, barley and triticale straw in Godinge and Mezega. However, farmers in Godinge and Mezega stated that they see nutritional difference between triticale and malt barley residues. They described that the quality of the malt barley residue is better than triticale. This highlighted the importance of integrating crop improvement program with feed development where crop residues are becoming the basal feed for livestock, especially where land is in short supply.

Nevertheless, in a very limited scale some of the farmers in Wujraba and Godinge have experience of feeding some industrial by-product such as; oil seed cake, and different kinds of flour mill by-products to crossbred cows and fattening animals. Furthermore, some farmers reported the use of improved forages such as Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), vetch (Vicia spp.), oats (Avena sativa), and sesbania (Sesbania sesban) in Wujraba, and tree lucerne (Chamaecytisis palmensis), vetch and oats in the high altitude watersheds, especially in Godinge. However, the majority of farmers didn’t grow improved forages due to shortage of arable lands. Further, efforts have been made by the government to adopt an indigenous fodder tree which is called Chibiha (Ficus thonningii), but up-take rates are low. In the study areas the non-conventional feed stuff is attela (residue from local brewery) which is used by farmers for feeding cattle. Overall, all participants in the study recognized that feed availability showed a decreasing trend due to the decline in grazing lands. Especially during the dry season, there is severe feed shortage. Religious leader (farmer) and livestock development agent described the feed resources situation:

‘‘The availability of feed has declined through time in our area. Nowadays I am trying to collect hay from my private grazing land, crop boundary and communal grazing land and straw from wheat and barley. But I didn’t grow improved forages due to a shortage of land.’’ (Religious leader in Godinge, November 2012)

Similarly, a livestock development agent described why most farmers didn’t grow improved forages:

‘‘Some farmers are trying to grow improved forages such as oat, vetch, and tree lucern. The reasons why most farmers didn’t grow improved forages are: land shortage, seed and planting materials supply problem and using the small land that they have for crop production. Farmers also didn’t use the backyard for improved forage production; rather prefer to use the land for planting Eucalyptus tree.’’ (Livestock development agent in Mezega, January 2013)

Regarding feeding strategy, farmers, livestock development agents and livestock experts working in the district office of agriculture noted that improvement in livestock’s feeding strategy can be observed between 2002 and 2012. They highlighted that, ten years ago cattle in Godinge and Mezega freely grazed on communal grazing lands all year around, used crop aftermath during the dry season and were tethered at night. A different strategy was followed in Wujraba where, cattle spent 4-5 months (from May-September) in lowland areas, but are conscientiously guided by herders in search for pasture. The traditional feeding strategy for other livestock species was free grazing. However, nowadays farmers tend to keep all animals in a combination of grazing and tethering. The perceived reasons for these changes are decline of grazing lands, hillside protection, and lack of herders in all watersheds and stopped transhumance in Wujraba and park restriction in Mezega.

Changes in diseases and parasites prevalence and management

All participants of the study agreed that livestock diseases and parasites prevalence increased in all watersheds (Table 1). Farmer explained the prevalence of livestock diseases:

‘‘The trends of disease prevalence are increasing for all livestock, but severe in chicken and sheep. Before two years (2010) my crossbred cow died due to disease.’’ (Key informant farmer in Wujraba, November 2012)

Farmers in all watersheds have been getting the veterinary service from government and/ or private sector, but were not satisfied with the quality of the services and complained about high costs for the private service. Livestock expert described the animal health services:

‘‘The veterinary services are weak now and lack of capacity to implement the preventive health program is one of the major challenges for livestock production.’’ (FGD with livestock experts, Chiliga District, January 2013)

Other livestock expert stated that:

‘‘The veterinary services deteriorated from time to time. Currently the services are poor and that is why high mortality of animals reported every year, but farmer’s awareness for animal health care has improved.’’ (FGD with livestock experts, North Gondar Zone, January 2013)

Changes in livestock housing and performance

All participants highlighted that the livestock housing changed from open barns to closed stables as farmers want to protect their animals from theft. A farmer explained the livestock housing and others husbandry changes:

‘‘In earlier times animals were grazed the whole day and no supplementation at night. We (farmers) didn’t collect the crop residues from the field, didn’t harvest hay, the housing system was ‘beret’ (open barn), and didn’t care for animal health. But nowadays the management of our livestock is like our children.’’ (Farmer in FGD in Godinge, November 2012)

All participants highlighted that the livestock performance decreased in the past ten years. They believed that reduction of feed resources and lack of proper animal health care resulted in deteriorating livestock performance. Indicators for the low performance include later age of first calving, longer calving intervals, and low milk yield per cow; later age at first kidding or lambing and slow growth rate for small ruminants; low egg production and low conception rate in horses. Livestock development agent described the livestock performance:

‘‘The performance of livestock decreased from year to year. For instance, age at first calving increased from 3-4 to 5-6 years, calving interval increased from 1 to 2 years, milk yield decreased to less than 1 liter per day per cow. Similarly, the growth and reproductive characteristics of sheep and horses are low.’’ (Livestock development agent in Mezega, January 2013)

Changes in consumption of livestock products and marketing of live animals and livestock products

Farmers reported that consumption of cow milk at household level decreased in the past ten years, but there is no custom of consuming milk from sheep and goat. They explained, because of the low productivity of cows, the milk is not enough for family consumption and hence, nowadays milk is only left for children. They also revealed that consumption of meat from large and small ruminants is mainly during holidays and festivities (particularly during Ethiopian New Year in September, Christmas and Easter for Christian, Eid al Adha and Ramadan for Muslim). They also stated that regular family meat consumption from large animals is not common. However, farmers explained that consumption of chicken meat and eggs increased in the past ten years. Similarly, livestock development agents realized that meat and milk consumption from large animals decreased in the past ten years.

The buying and selling points in all watersheds for live animals and livestock products are located at rural market places and district towns. The distance of the watersheds from urban market is 5 km, 15 km, and 26 km far for Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively. In addition, Wujraba has better access to legal and illegal cross border livestock markets in Sudan. Regarding to cooperative organization there was no change in the past ten years; currently there is one established cooperative for dairy in Godinge; however, the dairy cooperative is not functional at the moment due to breakage of equipment. But there is no established cooperative both in Wujraba and Mezega. The importance of selling of live animals and livestock products increased. Especially, the selling of sheep, goats and chicken has increased in the past ten years. The money from the selling of the smaller animals is used for purchase of clothes, medical expense, purchase of grain, and fertilizer. However, selling of cattle, donkeys, mules and horses have decreased in the past ten years. Due to reduction in herd size, farmers mostly sale lager animals for the activities which need higher capital investment such as house construction using corrugated iron sheets, and when food shortage happened due to crop failure.

With regards to market price, the market price of live animals and livestock products increased significantly in the past ten years (Table 2). Livestock experts and researchers described that the market price of live animals and livestock products increased in the past ten years in both town and rural markets. They realized that the driving factors for increased market price of live animals and livestock products are due to urbanization and population growth.

Changes in support services

In all watersheds, the livestock extension services and financial support have been mainly funded and provided by the government through the district office of agriculture. Besides, in the past, NGOs such as Integrated Livestock Development Program (ILDP) had supported, currently SRMP-NG is supporting farmers. The district office of agriculture has been supported by the zonal office of agriculture, and regional bureau of agriculture. The livestock extension services includes training and knowledge and technology transfer such as artificial insemination, distribution of improved forage seeds and planting materials, and animal health services. In the past ten years, training and deployment of livestock manpower in the public sector expanded considerably. However, livestock development agents, experts and officials emphasized that the livestock extension services are unsatisfactory due to their strong involvement in crop extension and soil conservation activities. A livestock development official explained the livestock extension services:

‘‘Before 10 years the livestock extension services were good and the support of NGOs such as ILDP was good and nowadays, the livestock extension services deteriorate because the government focuses is on crop productivity improvement and soil and water conservation. But, in terms of human power; one livestock development agent assigned for one kebele, 1 animal health and 1 artificial technician for three kebeles and livestock experts also assigned at zone and district levels.’’ (North Gondar Zone livestock resources development and promotion agency head, January 2013)

With regard to financial support, livestock development agents and experts realized that there was no change in the financial support in the past ten years. For livestock production investment, government owned Amhara Credit and Saving Institution (ACSI) has been providing short term loan for farmers. Most of the loan has been used for sheep production and fattening, and cattle fattening. Besides, in the past, NGOs such as ILDP had provided financial services through revolving funds. At the moment, SRMP-NG is also supporting financial services to farmers. Furthermore, nowadays, livestock experts and officials stated that landless youth and graduates of higher institutions are being organized to start a livestock business such as cattle and sheep fattening. To start the business they are provided with training and financial services through revolving funds.

Description of driving forces

The driving forces (DFs) identified for changes in the smallholder livestock production system are diverse. Except transhumance in Wujraba and Simen Mountain National Park influence in Mezega, the majorities of the DFs are similar across watersheds (Table 3). Thus, each driving force working alone and/ or in synergy with other driving forces has influence the changes in the smallholder livestock production system.

Discussion

All participants of the study agreed that farmers in all watersheds have a mix of livestock species. However, farmers have preferences for particular livestock species, on the other hand abandon husbandry of other species. For instance, abandon goat husbandry and focusing on sheep. Similarly, abandon donkey husbandry and focusing on horses and mules for transportation, plowing and threshing, especially in Godinge and Mezega. Studies also show the increasing role of horses and mules for land ploughing, threshing and transport services (Admassu and Shiferaw 2011; Effa et al 2012). But, in contrast to cattle, horse and mule have received very limited attention from both extension and research sides. The trends showed that the herd or flock size per HH and population are decreasing for the majority of livestock species, because of shrinking grazing lands, and poor animal health services. Like the present study, other authors came to the conclusion that livestock holding per household is expected to decline in the highlands of Ethiopia (Benin et al 2006; Ali and Neka 2012).

The majority of farmers still keep the local cattle breeds, although the priority of the government is the introduction of crossbred animals as they are considered to have a higher performance. But feed shortage, diseases and parasites prevalence, poor animal health services and limited access to markets have been reported as critical challenges in the study areas. A successful introduction of crossbred animals can only be achieved by providing adequate inputs and support services (Roschinsky et al 2015).

In Mezega, the interaction between the Simen Mountain National Park and livestock production is complex. Due to the park administration regulation, the livestock is not permitted to graze inside the park and farmers can’t also harvest grass within the park. Furthermore, farmers complained that leopard is killing their sheep and goats. This has been also reported by Grünenfelder (2005).Thus, in Mezega further discussion between stakeholders (such as the park authority, district and zone livestock resources development and promotion offices, and farmers in Mezega) are required to improve the current situation.

The major feed resources for livestock include natural pasture, hay, and crop residues. However, the study shows that the availability of feed decreased in the past ten years. The availability of feed for livestock has also decreased from year to year at country level (Assefa et al 2011). Studies also show that the land which the farmers have been using for livestock feed is converted into crop and settlement lands due to human population growth (Fisseha et al 2011; Mekasha et al 2014). The findings also show that the importance of crop residues as livestock feed is increasing. Moreover, despite the reduction in communal grazing lands, the production of hay from the communal grazing lands during the rainy season in Godinge is encouraging and also a good lesson for the other watersheds. The growing utilization of crop residues has already been reported in other parts of Ethiopia (Benin et al 2006; Funte et al 2010). According to these authors, shortage of grazing lands, deterioration of the quality of communal grazing lands and the absence of alternative feed resources accentuate the increased reliance on crop residues in the mixed crop-livestock production system.

With regard to industrial by-product feeds, few farmers reported the use of industrial by-products, such as, oil seed cake, and different kinds of flour mill by-products. Furthermore, few farmers reported the use of improved forages. But, the majority of farmers haven’t been growing improved forages due to shortage of arable land. Similar study in the mixed farming system also shows that land shortage is one of the major constraints for the adoption of improved forages (Mekoya et al 2008).

In terms of livestock management practices, tethering and the practices of collecting the available feeds, including cut and carry, hay production, collection and storage of crop residues, housing and care for livestock health have been practiced by farmers. Similar livestock management changes reported in other parts of Ethiopia (Benin et al 2006; Funte et al 2010; Kristjanson et al 2012). However, the livestock management practices by the majority farmers are not sufficient to improve livestock productivity. With regard to performance, the productive and reproductive potential of livestock is low. Thus, the continued declined in livestock performance implies an urgent need for further improvement.

The findings show that the extension and financial support services for smallholder livestock production system development hasn’t improved. However, there are achievements in terms of deployment and training of livestock development agents and experts. The livestock extension services for farmers includes training and knowledge and technology transfer such as artificial insemination, distribution of improved forage seeds and planting materials, and animal health services. Most of these have been supplied mainly by the government and NGOs such as ILDP in the past and SRMP-NG project at present. The findings also show that diseases and parasites prevalence increased for all livestock species. With regards to animal health services, little progress has been made to keep diseases and parasites under control. Similar trends have been reported at country, Amhara region, and North Gondar zone despite the public spending on veterinary services, expansion of veterinary infrastructure and manpower (CSA 2011).

The changes in the smallholder livestock production system have been driven by various driving forces that can be categorized into political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological, and ecological. Each driving force working alone and/ or in synergy with other driving forces has influence the changes in the smallholder livestock production system (Figure 2). Studies also reveal that various driving forces have the potential to drive livestock production system at global, national and local levels, for instance population growth, economic, technological, environmental and political (Steinfeld et al 2006; Hazell and Wood 2008; Seré et al 2008; Herrero et al 2009).

Figure 2. Interactions of driving forces in the smallholder livestock production system The circle box represents the changes in smallholder livestock production system while the orange boxes represent the five categories of driving forces for changes in smallholder livestock production system (Table 3); black arrows represent direct impact on smallholder livestock production system from driving forces; blue arrows represent interaction between driving forces; and green arrows represent interactions within driving forces. (Source: Authors)

Conclusions

• Livestock production has been contributing to livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the study areas, mainly through provision of draught power, nutritional products for home consumption, income source from selling of live animals and livestock products, and manure for fertilizer and fuelwood. The trends in the past ten years, however, show that farmers still keep different livestock species and try to adapt to continuously changing social, economic, technology, policy and ecological situations. However, the emphasis of the government has been to intensify the smallholder livestock production system by mainly supporting the adoption of crossbred cattle. But, the supports of the government has been lacking other support schemes such as improved feed development, animal health services, access to credit and market. Thus, the major challenges for farmers to change their livestock production system have been availability of resources and support schemes. The changes in the smallholder livestock production system have been driven by the interaction of various driving forces that can be categorized into political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological, and ecological.
  
  
• The findings demonstrate that the participation of stakeholders provides knowledge relevant for understanding the dynamics and driving forces in the smallholder livestock production system. Such participation might help, especially the local authorities to better understand the opportunities and challenges of the smallholder livestock production system and to inform from bottom-up to policy-makers and analysts the new ways that the national and regional governments could support for the smallholder livestock development. Therefore, interventions to be made by concerned stakeholders (farmers, development practitioners, researchers, policy makers, etc.) to improve the production system in the study areas need to focus on addressing the various and complex driving forces through a system wide and context-specific approach.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the farmers, livestock development agents, experts, researchers, and public administrators participated in this study. We also gratefully acknowledge Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia (TRANSACT) project and Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development (APPEAR) for the financial support.

References

Admassu B and Shiferaw Y 2011 Donkeys, horses and mules - their contribution to people’s livelihoods in Ethiopia. The Brooke, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 70pp.

Ali M and Neka M 2012 Livestock husbandry and economic-sustainability of small farmers in peri-urban areas: A case study from West Gojjam region, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management (EJESM) Vol. 5 No. 2, 2012.

Assefa G, Kehaliew A and Alemayehu M 2011 Overview of major feed resources availability and utilization in the highlands of Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of a national stakeholder workshop on innovations, actors and linkages in the dairy value chain in Ethiopia held at Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 28 May 2010.

Bammer G 2013 Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Published by ANU E Press, the Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. 472pp.

Benin S, Ehui S and Pender J 2006 Policies for livestock development in the Ethiopian highlands. In: Pender, J., Place, F., Ehui, S. (eds.), Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African highlands. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. pp. 141–164.

Berg B L 2001 Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th edition, by Allyn and Bacon.

Bogale S, Melaku S and Yami A 2008 Matching livestock systems with available feed resources in the Bale Highlands of Ethiopia. Outlook on Agriculture Vol 37, No 2, 2008, pp. 105–110.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia) 2011 Agricultural Sample Survey 2010/11. Volume II; Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dessie T, Effa K and Mirkena T 2013 The resource base, strategies for improvement and use of the Ethiopian livestock. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Ethiopian society of animal production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 03 to 05, 2012. pp. 41-63.

Desta L, Carucci V, Wendem-Ageliehu A and Abebe Y (eds) 2005 Community based participatory watershed development: A guideline. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Effa K, Dessie T, Han J L, Kurtu M Y, Rosenbom S and Beja-Pereira A 2012 Morphological diversities and ecozones of Ethiopian horse populations. Animal Genetic Resources, 2012, 50, 1–12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012.

Erdogan B, Abbott C, Aouad G and Samad A 2009 Construction in IT 2030: A scenario planning approach. Journal of Information Technology in Construction Vol. 14 (2009) 539-555. http://www.itcon.org/2009/35

Fisseha G, Gebrekidan H, Kibret K, Yitaferu B and Bedadi B 2011 Analysis of land use/land cover changes in the Debre-Mewi watershed at the upper catchment of the Blue Nile Basin, Northwest Ethiopia. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES) Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 184-198.

Funte S, Negesse T and Legesse G 2010 Feed resources and their management systems in Ethiopian highlands: The case of Umbulo Wacho watershed in southern Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 12 (2010): 47 – 56.

Grünenfelder J 2005 Livestock in the Simen Mountains, Ethiopia: Its role for the livelihoods and land use of local smallholders. Master Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Natural Sciences of the University of Berne.

Hazell P and Wood S 2008 Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences (2008) 363, 495–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.2007.2166

Herrero M, Thornton P K, Notenbaert A, Msangi S, Wood S, Kruska R L, Dixon J, Bossio D, van de Steeg J A, Freeman H A, Li X and Rao P P 2009 Drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro-ecosystems services and human well-being to 2030. Study commissioned by the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP). ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kristjanson P, Neufeldt H, Gassner A, Mango J, Kyazze F B, Desta S, Sayula G, Thiede B, Förch W, Thornton P K and Coe R 2012 Are food insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa. Food Security. (2012) 4:381–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12571-012-0194-z

McDonald D, Bammer G and Deane P 2009 Research integration using dialogue methods. Australia: ANU E Press, The Australian National University Australia.

Mekasha A, Gerard B, Tesfaye K, Nigatu L and Duncan A L 2014 Inter-connection between land use/land cover change and herders’/farmers’ livestock feed resource management strategies: a case study from three Ethiopian eco-environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 188 (2014) 150–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.022

Mekoya A, Oosting SJ, Fernandez-Rivera S and van der Zijpp A J 2008 Farmers’ perceptions about exotic multipurpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption. Agroforestry Systems (2008) 73:141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9102-5

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) 2002 Ethiopia: Macroeconomic and social indicators. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) 2013 Ethiopia: Macroeconomic and social indicators. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Muhr T and Friese S 2004 ATLAS.ti, The knowledge workbench: User’s guide and reference (Second Ed.). Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Patton M Q 1990 Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Roschinsky R, Kluszczynska M, Sölkner J, Puskur R and Wurzinger M 2015 Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact. Animal (2015), 9:1, pp 150–157. The Animal Consortium 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002079

Seré C, van der Zijpp A J, Persley G and Rege E 2008 Dynamics of livestock production systems, drivers of change and prospects for animal genetic resources. Animal Genetic Resources Information (42): 3–24.

Silverman D 2005 Doing qualitative research (Second Ed.). London: Sage Publishers.

Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T and Jutzi S 2006 Livestock production systems in developing countries: Status, drivers, trends. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties (Paris), 2006, 25 (2), 505-516.

Received 30 June 2016; Accepted 10 July 2016; Published 1 August 2016

Go to top