Crop residue management practices and farm productivity in

smallholder crop-livestock mixed farming system: a case study

in Kobo, Ethiopia.

Internship Report

Diressie, Hailu Terefe

Plant Production System

Wageningen University

Table of contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

2. Objectives....................................................................................................................... 4

3. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4

4. Results and discussions ................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Farming system characteristic ................................................................................ 5

4.1.1 Livestock structure ............................................................................................. 5

4.1.2 Land holding ....................................................................................................... 6

4.1.3 Crop diversity ..................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Crop residue and manure management strategies ............................................... 8

4.2.1 Crop residue allocation and management ....................................................... 8

4.2.1.1 Allocation ...................................................................................................... 8

4.2.1.2 Management .................................................................................................. 9

4.2.2 Manure allocation and management .............................................................. 10

4.3 Limiting factors ...................................................................................................... 10

4.3.1 Production factors ............................................................................................ 10

4.3.2 Decision making factors ................................................................................... 11

4.3.3 Both production and decision making factors ............................................... 13

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 13

Lessons learnt and skills gained..................................................................................... 14

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................... 15

Annex: Questionnaire used for socio-economic data collection ................................. 16

3

1. Introduction

I have joined ILRI, Ethiopia starting from September 2010 until January 2011 to do my

internship and thesis. I was assigned in SLP (system-wide livestock program) under CR

(crop residue) management project. The project title is “Optimizing livelihood and

environmental benefits from crop residues in smallholder crop-livestock systems in sub-

Saharan Africa and South Asia: regional case studies”. The project is operational in

south Asia and Africa. In Africa the project is under implementation at South Africa,

West Africa and East Africa. Kenya and Ethiopia are the east Africa countries for the

project. In Ethiopia there are two sites: Nekemte (western Ethiopia) and Kobo (north-

eastern Ethiopia); at each site 8 villages are selected by the project for the study.

Parameters to select villages were access to market and access to road. Accordingly: two

near-near, two near-far, two far-near and two far-far villages were selected.

My research focussed at one village from the 8 selected villages by the project at

Kobo site. The name of the village is Chorie. It is among the near-near (near to market-

near to road access) villages.

In the village, farmers settled on higher slopes following the contour of the

mountain. Their main arable plots are far from home. The major crops of the area are

Teff, Sorghum and Maize with higher area covered by Teff followed by Sorghum. About

5 varieties of Teff and 4 varieties of Sorghum were planted in this production season

(2010). Farmers plant Maize around homesteads and start to consume before the crop

reaches harvest maturity (while the grain is wet). They give the stover for their livestock

as green fodder. Due to this practice, data collection for maize yield quantification was

not possible for my research.

I collected yield data for Teff and Sorghum crops from 16 pre-selected farmers

during harvesting times (October and November depending on crop type) using quadrants

as practiced by research institutes for each crop. Soil sampling and collection of socio-

economic data were done after the end of harvesting activity. This is scheduled to get

convenient ways to pass along the plots to take soil samples and get farmers back from

their peak harvesting and threshing operations to have better time for interviewing them.

My study focussed on characterizing the farming system (both crop and livestock

production), quantifying the amount of CR produced from Teff and Sorghum,

understanding farmers’ CR management strategies and limiting factors that affect their

decision making processes.

4

2. Objectives

• To characterize farming system (crops & livestock) and quantify the quantity and

quality of CR production in the village

• To understand farmers’ decisions and limiting factors for making decisions on CR

and manure management strategies

• To Assess long-term impact of CR and manure management strategies on land

productivity and soil characteristics

3. Methods

I have started my internship by understanding the project theme and formulating research

questions for my thesis. I also participated in village level and household level surveys,

workshops and trainings that were carried out at ILRI Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Farmer selection: Before commencing data collection farmers were selected based on

wealth stratification; each cluster has 4 farmers. Herd size and land size (according to a

census list done by collaborating researchers from Sirinka agricultural research centre)

were used for classifying farmers in to these clusters. Farmers that have small herd and

small land (SS1-SS4) were grouped in cluster1, those who have small herd and large land

(SL1-SL4) were grouped in cluster 2, those who have large herd and small land (LS1-

LS4) were grouped in cluster 3 and those who have large herd and large land (LL1-LL4)

were grouped in cluster 4. Fortunately I have got gender diversity from the selected 16

farmers; there were 11 male and 5 female family heads.

Field work: before each field trip for data collection, I was preparing protocols and

organizing field trips, creating links with DAs (development agents), target farmers and

other stakeholders like research centres and district bureau of agriculture for necessary

support I might seek. Data collection followed after creating these links.

• Crop sampling: Yield samples were collected using quadrant: 0.5m x 0.5m

quadrant was used for Teff and 1m x 1m quadrant was used for Sorghum. For

sorghum sampling one side open special quadrant was made to insert it from the

side as throwing over the crop is impossible due to plant height. 5 representative

samples per plot were collected for each crop. Teff samples were taken by

throwing the quadrant over the crop randomly whereas sorghum samples were

taken by inserting one-side open quadrant from the side after walking a certain

distance diagonally within the crop. Total biomasses for both crops were

5

measured at field whereas grain yields were measured at Kobo agricultural

research sub-centre laboratory.

• Soil sampling: Representative soil samples were taken from 3-5 points per plot

from top 0-30 cm depth for pH, SOC, N, P and K analysis.

• Socio-economic data: Data on land and crops, CR management, Livestock and

manure management, production and decision making limiting factors etc. were

gathered by interviewing target farmers using the questionnaire developed for

SLP house hold survey (See annex). Some additional points for my specific

enquiry were included in the questionnaire.

• Secondary data collection: Secondary data about climate, crop and soil were

collected from Kobo agricultural research sub-centre using a checklist.

• Laboratory Analysis:

– Crop: Nutrient analysis for CR and grains are done at ILRI laboratory

using NIRS (Near-infrared spectroscopy).

– Soil: Soil samples are submitted to NSTC (National soil testing centre),

Addis Ababa for pH, C, N, P, K analysis.

4. Results and discussions

Relevant data on farming system, CR and grain yields, CR and manure management

practices, production and decision limiting factors were successfully collected from 16

selected farmers at Chorie, north Wollo, Ethiopia.

4.1 Farming system characteristic

4.1.1 Livestock structure

Farmers that are selected for the study from

Chorie village have more number of cattle

than other livestock types (Fig.1). The

average cattle holding of LL (large herd,

large land) cluster is higher than LS (large

herd, small land) cluster (Fig.2). This

indicates that number of cattle increases

when there is an increase in land size.

However there is high variability in livestock

holding among individual farmers in all clusters (Fig. 3).

6

4.1.2 Land holding

The land holding of each farmer assumed to be equal at least in size during land

distribution. However, youths who were not given land during the time of land

distribution currently possess land in different ways; such as: given from relatives,

renting and sharing from other farmers. On the other hand female farmers give their

land to tillers on agreements to share the grain on the basis of pre-set ration (there are

different sharing rations: ½: ½, 1/3:2/3, 1/4:3/4 to tiller and owner respectively). There

is also land splitting to children of the pass when a husband or wife dies. These and

similar socio-cultural circumstances create high variability in land holding at the

village. The land holding of the 16 selected farmers ranges from 0.875 in SL3 to 5.75

hectares in LL1 (Fig.4). SL3 from cluster 3 and LL2 –LL4 from cluster 4 are expected

to have large land according to the census data but they have small land size. This

indicates that one should not solely depend on census data to do research. Thit time it

could be worthy to check the census data for the SLP project at all villages.

7

Fig. 6. Teff varieties and their area coverage at Chorie,

Ethiopia, in the 2010 main cropping season. A.M= Abiy

magna, S.M= Sikuar magna

Fig.7. Sorghum varieties and their area coverage at

Chorie, Ethiopia in the 2010 main cropping season.

W.Hak= Wodhakir.

Fig. 5. Total area covered by three major crop types at

Chorie, Ethiopia, in 2010 main cropping season.

4.1.3 Crop diversity

Major crops grown in the area are Teff,

Sorghum and Maize. From the 16

selected farmers only 2 farmers planted

chickpea in 0.5ha land each. The area

coverage for Teff is higher than

Sorghum and area covered by Sorghum

is higher than Maize (Fig. 5).

Five varieties of Teff and four

varieties of Sorghum are planted in 2010

cropping season. Area coverage by each

variety is illustrated by figures 6 and 7

respectively. Limiting factors for

selecting a variety depends on crop type. Some factors are given below.

Teff:- to select Teff variety the factors are: grain yield, market demand, earliness and

seed availability. Bunign is an early maturing variety; it takes about 2 months to

mature. Farmers plant Bunign if they face food scarcity in September and October

otherwise they go for market demanded variety. The variety Sikuar magna is

relatively yielding (Fig. 8) and has higher market demand. That could be the reason

for the higher area coverage in the production season. Teff is the main cash crop in

the area. Data collected through interview indicates that higher percentage of Teff is

used for sale.

Sorghum:- The main factor that affects sorghum variety selection is rainfall at

planting time. When farmers get sufficient rain in March and April, they plant the late

maturing varieties Abola and Jigurtie. If rain is late (July) they plant the early

maturing variety Wedhakir. There are two Wedhakir species: the high yielder White-

Wodhakir and the low yielder Wedhakir.

8

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

percent (%)

Fig. 10. Teff straw allocation.

The late maturing varieties, Abola and Jigurtie, do have higher demand for their grain

(quantity and quality for home use and market) and stover production (Fig.9); however

water availability limits variety choice at planting.

4.2 Crop residue and manure management strategies

Crop residues are considered as by-products in crop production activity but are vital

source of livestock feed in crop-livestock mixed farming system. However, nutrient

export from the field through stubble grazing and removal of residue for stall feeding

coupled by manure application limited to only homestead plots could create nutrient

concentration around homesteads. Nevertheless large proportion of manure and

substantial amount of stover is used for house use fuel. In this way the continuous

nutrient removal from the main crop plots may result in soil degradation.

4.2.1 Crop residue allocation and management

4.2.1.1 Allocation

For the major crops (Teff, Sorghum and Maize) higher allocation of crop residue is to

stall feeding followed by stubble grazing.

(Figs 10, 11 &12). Allocation for fuel, for

construction and for other purposes vary

depending on crop type. However, there is

higher use of Sorghum stover for fuel next

to stall feeding and stubble grazing (Fig. 11).

0

20

40

60

Tikurie S.Magna A.magna Bunign

Qu

inta

l/h

ecta

re

Grain

Straw

Fig.8. Grain yield and straw yield of Teff varieties

at Chorie, north Wollo, Ethiopia in 2010 cropping

season.

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Wedhakir White WH Jigurtie Abola

Qu

inta

l/h

ecta

re

Grain

Residue

Fig. 9. Grain and stover yield of sorghum varieties

at Chorie, north Wollo, Ethiopia in 2010 cropping

season.

9

Fig. 11. Sorghum stover allocation.

Fig. 12. Maize stover allocation

Fig. 13. Teff residue (middle) and Sorghum

stover heaps. Chorie, north Wollow. Ethiopia

There is no allocation of Teff straw for fuel and Maize stover for construction. The

amount of CR left in the field is subject for entire grazing during the long dry season;

because, after the period of harvesting arable plots are left for open access until the

next cropping season.

4.2.1.2 Management

Crop residue for stall feeding is kept by heaping firmly to avoid the entrance of rain

and heap falling. The techniques to heap Teff residue is different from sorghum and

maize stover.

Teff straw is packed randomly in a

circular manner and very fine parts such as

husk are toped to seal the end of the

heap(Fig. 13). Sometimes farmers heap

residues of different species separately to

feed their ox or cow at a special attention;

like for a ploughing ox or milking cow.

According to the response of the interview,

farmers keep the straw of Bunign variety separately for such purpose.

Sorghum and Maize stovers are heaped by standing them upright. Sorghum

Stover of shorter varieties like Wedhakir is heaped separately for the ease of

management. If mixed, it creates an empty space in the middle which obscures firm

contact of all stalks allowing moisture entrance. Furthermore, stover from Wedhakir

is used only for feed but stover form Abola and Jigurtie is used for feed, construction

and fuel. Heaping separately helps them to easily allocate the residue to targeted

purposes.

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fuel Fertilizer Un used

Percent(%)

Fig. 14. Manure allocation.

Water

Labor

Land size

L.feed

Soil Fert.

Fertzer

Infotech

Fig. 15. Production limiting factors;Centre rank 1.

4.2.2 Manure allocation and management

In the village, higher percentage of manure is allocated for fuel (Fig. 14). Due to

reduction of fire wood to supply energy demand of the society, using dung for fuel is

increasing from time to time. The part of CR refused by the cattle is used for fuel

directly. In addition, from the consumed part, the dung is used for fuel; this means

that high amount of crop residue ends up burning through dung in the process.

Farmers apply manure as

organic fertilizer only at the

homestead plots which they usually

plant Maize. No one in the village

applies manure to main crop plots

because they are far from homestead

and are not convenient to transport

manure. Transporting requires money

for camel rent and labour.

4.3 Limiting factors

There are many limiting factors affecting the farming system. Majority are climate,

physical and social factors. Some factors affect production, some affect decision making

and some affect both.

4.3.1 Production factors

• Water: The core factor that limits production is water. Water scarcity limits

variety selection especially for Sorghum crop, amount of biomass production as

well as livestock productivity. 15 out of 16

respondents interviewed ranked water as

the1st limiting factor (Fig. 15).

• Land size: the land size each farmer has is

very small. Majority of them hold not more

than 2 hectares including the shared and

rented plots. For this reason majority of the

respondents ranked land size as the 2nd

limiting factor. Of course for some farmers

labour is the 2nd factor.

11

Fig.17. Livestock grazing at field

Fig.18. CR collection for fuel.

Fig.l9. Children carrying dry dung collected

from field; Insitu-dung removal.

Fig.16. Plot devastated by weed

after given to tiller for share.

• Labour: - Labour scarcity is seasonal (at peak planting, weeding and harvesting

seasons) for some farmers but permanent factor for others especially for aged and

female house heads. For seasonal

activities they hire labour that

comes from uplands; labour is

available but price goes up at peak

periods. Aged and female heads

rent or share their land as a result

of labour scarcity. This highly

affects production; because, the

renter or shareholder gives higher

priority to his own plots so that the rented/shared plots become low productive

due to in-adequate tillage and weed infestation. Figure 16 above shows a plot

owned by female house-head but given to share from the 16 farmers. The plot was

highly devastated by many different weed species including Xantheium

strumarium and parthenium hestrophorus. Plant population and yield was found

very low. The reason for less attention to shared or rented plots is that extra costs

for managing the plot to increase productivity are not included in the agreement.

They agree only to share the output of the plot (grain); if the tiller expends more

to the land he could be the looser.

4.3.2 Decision making factors

• Open access:- arable plots are converted to

communal grazing lands for long dry season

after crop harvest. They will be accessed by

everyone subjecting CR in the field for free

grazing and free collection for fuel; as a result

nutrients are removed from arable plots

through livestock and fuel collectors (Figs 17

&18). To privatize this resource, farmers

transport CR from field to homestead for later

use. According to the information obtained

12

Fig. 20. Backing “Injera” by

burning sorghum stover.

through informal discussion, even people from the nearby town (Kobo) come with

cart during tillage to collect CR together with its root for fuel. This indicates the

severity of crop residue removal from the arable plots.

Similar to CR collection, insitu-dung is also removed freely for fuel after it dries

(Fig. 19). To compete for the resources everybody in the village tries to collect

them as much as possible.

• Feed shortage:- due to erratic rainfall and crop failure, farmers face feed

shortage to the extent that they had lost many of their cattle. As a result, now

days, they try to gather CR from field as many as possible and transport to their

homestead; afterwards they decide either to sale or use as per the emerging

demand.

• Transport from field to home: - Camel is the main pack animal for transporting

CR from field to homestead. Having camel or ability to pay for camel rent (they

pay 35-60 birr ~$2.1-3.6/camel/trip) determines the transport of CR from field to

homestead. Farmers who can not do this are forced to leave CR at field.

• Plot distance (from home):- Farmers collect CR from nearby to home plots. If

their plots are far, they leave CR at field. Many farmers of Chorie have plots at

Denbi which is about 1 and ½ hour walk from their village. None of them bring

CR from Denbi to home. In addition to plot distances, farmers who have

relatively large plots satisfy their demand from nearby plots and leave CR of plots

that are relatively far from their home.

• Energy demand: - there are very limited

woodlots in the vicinity of the village.

Residences of the village can’t fulfil their

energy demand from firewood in the area. For

this reason, people in the village, even some

people in the nearby town, kobo, are using CR

and dung as a main energy supply (Fig. 20).

They gather CR from field to homestead and

heap separately for fuel. Furthermore, dung

dropped overnight at homestead is picked,

spread by female over stone fences to facilitate drying and use for fuel. Only the

part that is not possible to use for fuel is applied as fertilizer at homesteads plots.

Farmers can’t take manure to their main arable fields because of limitations in

transporting. This results in a continuous removal of nutrients from field and

concentration around homestead.

• Increased market demand: - At the time of rain failure, the demand for CR to

livestock feed increases. In that case the price for CR will be higher. Some

farmers in the village gather CR to their maximum capacity and store for two

13

reasons: 1) to satisfy their demand and 2) for later sale to benefit from a possible

market demand.

4.3.3 Both production and decision making factors

• Gender:- In the village, among others, males are responsible for tillage,

harvesting and transporting CRs. Timely tillage, weeding, harvesting and

threshing activities positively affect productivity of plots and hence total

production. Male house heads till their plots and also plots owned by others such

as aged farmers, female farmers, farmers who don’t have oxen to till, or whose

plots are far from their home on the basis of share or rent agreements. When they

take plots for share or rent, the agreement is only for the grain. Decision on crop

residue is solely of the tiller mandate. Moreover, females do not practice the

laborious Sorghum stover harvesting, transporting and heaping activities.

Therefore, gender negatively affects both production and decision making

processes.

• Herd size: - Livestock serve people as energy source for ploughing the land,

threshing crops and transport products in crop livestock mixed farming system.

On the other hand they provide protein foods such as milk, meat and egg for the

people which have indirect contribution to better labour input on the agricultural

activity. In this way livestock play an important role to increase agricultural

productivity. On the other hand, farmers who have larger livestock collect as

many crop residues as possible and transport it to their homesteads for stall

feeding. Whereas those who have lower livestock number go for latter sale after

they fulfil other requirements. Furthermore, degradation of the soil increases as

herd size increases and vice –versa. Hence, herd size limits both production and

decision making processes.

5. Conclusion

• Farmers at Chorie, north Wollo, Ethiopia, have more number of cattle than other

livestock types. There is high variability in the number of livestock per individual

farmer. Cattle provide labour, food and use as saving strategy.

• The amount of biomass production varies with crop variety. Selection of sorghum

variety depends on moisture availability in March and April where as selecting

Teff varieties depend on food scarcity, seed availability and market demand.

• Generally CR allocation for stall feeding is higher; however, returning nutrient

back to the field through manure is not in practice. This results in continuous

removal of nutrients from arable plots to homesteads.

14

• Direct burning of CR for house use fuel coupled by higher percentage of dung

allocation for fuel increased the amount of CR use for fuel.

• Decision makings on CR are complex due to complication in limiting factors for

different farmers. Gender and herd size limit both production and decision

making processes that due attention should be given to them.

• The amount of CR left in the field is subject to entire grazing by livestock and or

collection for fuel during the long dry season. Efforts are required to minimize

open access; because it plays significant role in nutrient export from arable plots.

Lessons learnt and skills gained

During my stay at ILRI, Addis Ababa, I have learnt many technical and social matters.

Technically I was doing my research and had discussions with relevant scholars working

there; on the other hand, I was organizing my field trips, make necessary arrangements,

and participate in fare-well program. Among many things learnt through the process, the

following are major ones.

• Developing protocol for field trip

• Back field report

• Consulting scholars for advice

• Data collection and organizing

• Personnel handling (farmers, DAs (developing agents) and relevant officers)

• Using Google earth

• Using GPS

• Scientific presentation skill

• etc.

15

Acknowledgement

SLP project at ILRI Addis provided me the internship covering my research costs and

arranging office facilities. I would like to thank the project for the supports it made to me

during my stay. Dr. Diego Valbuena has invested a lot of time to organize meetings,

facilitate field trips, giving necessary guidance for the work and editing my scripts. More

than the technical support he made, understanding my economic and physical exhaustion,

he invited me to use his private room when I need to reduce my every day travel from

Addis to Chancho. I really appreciate his generosity. My acknowledgement extends to Dr.

Kindu Mekonen, Dr. Alan Duncan and Dr. Bruno Gerard for their invaluable inputs to

my work through our consecutive meetings held at the department to back up the

progress of my work. Dr. Jean Hansen (currently retired from ILRI) was very helpful

regarding the laboratory analysis of my samples. Her dedication to carefully scan

individual samples using the NIRS (near infrared spectroscopy) and provision of full

package information for any question I asked is really appreciable.

During my field work Ato Gerba Leta helped me in collecting soil samples. The

two drivers, Ato Fekadu Teklemariam and Ato Micle Abebe were so helpful. Their polite

behaviour and dedicated support when there was a need to work very early in the

morning and late in the afternoon at the challenging climatic condition was appreciable.

I have used the facility of Kobo agricultural research sub-centre to thresh and take

weight measurements to my Teff and Sorghum samples. In addition the centre provided

me secondary data as per my request. I would like to thank the cooperation of the centre.

Further, I would like to thank Ato Degusew, Ato Alemshet and Ato Yonas for

their help in grinding, preparing and scanning samples and W/ro Tiruwork for her

contribution in facilitating financial settlements and vehicle request.

Last but not least is the contribution of Shek Oumer Setiye, my guide farmer. He

informs farmers and facilitates discussion, encourage farmers to be cooperative, travelled

to all plots of the 16 farmers during all my sampling times, harvested all my samples as

carefully as possible and so on. His energetic work, genuine support at the field work and

easiness to work with him made my field work so successful. Thanks a lot Oumer!

16

Annex: Questionnaire used for socio-economic data collection

Crop residue use in smallholder crop-livestock systems

- Household level survey -

The objective of this survey is to obtain a better understanding on farmers’ decisions related to crop residue management and feeding strategies. This survey is part of the SLP project, which investigates and assesses alternative crop residue management strategies that do not compromise long term system sustainability. This survey is carried out by name of the institutions. Data collected here will be confidentially kept and reports will not make reference to individual cases explicitly.

Enumerator name: ___________________________ Date: _____________

1. HOUSEHOLD GENERAL DATA

1.1. Identification: if possible, please add the coordinates of the homestead.

1.2. Household head: main information of the household head

a. hh head name ___________________

b. hh head father’s name _________________

c. hh head gender _____ (1) De jure female; (2) De facto female; (3) Male

d. hh head age ____ years old. e. hh head years in the village __ years f. Phone no. _____________

Number of years of education* of the: g. Head household _____ h. Leading female/wife _____

* It includes both formal/informal.

1.3. Household members: number and age of member including household head.

1. Female 2. Male 1. Female 2. Male

a. < 6 years old b. 6 – 9 years old

c. 10 – 15 years old d. 15 - 60 years old

e. > 60 years old

1.4. Decisions: who take the decisions in the household (1) female, (2) male; (3) joint; (4) other

Decision on: Responsible

a. Main crops selection and management

b. Cash crops selection and management

c. Use of crop residues

d. Selection and management of small ruminants

e. Selection and management of large ruminants

Village______________

a. Place of interview ____________________ (1) Homestead; (2) other, name: ______________________________

Coordinates homestead b. N/S ___________ c. E __________ d. Altitude __________masl

17

1.5 Labour availability: is here a problem? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2. ASSETS, ACCESSIBILITY & FOOD 2.1. Assets and services - (0) No; (1) Yes

a. Mobile phone _______ b. Radio ________ c. Region specific (transport) _____

2.2. Housing materials – (by enumerator’s estimation)

a. Mostly used roofing material _____ (1) thatch grass; (2) iron/asbestos;(3) Tiles; (4) concrete (5) other________

b. Mostly used wall material _____ (1) pole/mud; (2) burned brick/mud; (3) unburned brick/mud; (4) stone

(5) brick plastered & cement; (6) bamboo; (6) other ___________ c. Total number of units/rooms _____

2.3. Market access: main input and output markets, including traders

2.4. Credit access: does the household have access to credit? __ (0) No; (1) Yes. If yes:

a. 1st source: _____ b. hh member ___ c. 2nd source: _____ d. hh member ___ (1) formal; (2) informal; (3) other___

(1) hh head; (2) leading female (3) other____

(1) formal; (2) informal; (3) other___

(1) hh head; (2) leading female (3) other____

2.5. Saving strategies: Is the household engaged in savings? ___ (0) No; (1) Yes. If yes, how? ____ (1) banks; (2) livestock; (3) property, Land (4) other way_______

2.6. Food items: How often do you eat/purchase:(0)never; (1)daily; (2)weekly; (3)monthly; (4)seasonally (5)annually.

2.7. Net food: How many months can you consume the main staple food (cereals) you produce in:

2.8. Food source: if yours is finished, how do you normally obtain extra staple food (cereals)? ___ 0) no need; (1) purchase food; (2) subsidised/food aid; (3) given by others; (4) other __________

2.9. Food-aid: In how many years did you need food-aid during the last 10 years? ____ years

Main markets 1. Name place 2. Channel 2. Distance 3. Main transport 4. Travelling time 5. Frequency

a. Crop inputs km hours

b. Crop outputs km hours

c. Livestock inputs

km hours

d. Livestock outputs

km hours

e. Livestock traders

f. Crop traders

(1) auction

(2) village market

(3) shop

(4) other_____

(1) walking

(2) public trnsp.

(3) owned trnsp.

(4) other________

(0) never; (1) daily; (2) weekly; (3) monthly; (4) seasonally (5) annually

Milk Sugar Meat Region specific Region specific

eat a. b. c. d. e.

purchase f. g. h. i. j.

a. A year of average rainfall? ____ months b. A year of low rainfall? ____ months

18

3. LAND & CROPS

Agricultural seasons: don’t ask this to the farmer, please

use the ones identified in the village survey

3.1. Plots/management units managed by hh: general information (use with the resources flow map)

Code 1. Size 2. Ownership 3. If owned, who

owned it? 4. Current use 5. Productivity

6. Distance from home

7. Level slope

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Unit: ___

(a) acre (h) hectare (o) other _______

(1) Owned; (2) Shared; (3) Rented; (4) Other _________

(0) No owned (1) Female (2) Male (3) Joint (4) Other relative (5) Other

(1) Idle/fallow; (2) Crops; (3) Fodder; (4) Pasture; (5) Other _____

(1) Good; (2) Average; (3) Low.

Unit: (1) Flat; (2) Mild; (3) Steep.

Unit in km:

3.2. Plots/management units managed by hh: use/inputs per season (use with resources flow map)

Characteristics Crops (use codes above)

Type/variety

Plot IDs

Season

Irrigated

Tillage passes

Residue visible at sowing?

Seed rate [kg/LU]

Date of sowing [dd/mm]

FYM use [qtl/LU]

other manures [qtl/LU]

Fertilizers (specify)

(a) urea [qtl/LU]

(b) DAP

(c) ............................ [qtl/LU]

(d) ............................ [qtl/LU]

Herbicides

Fungicides & insect.

Date of harvest [dd/mm]

Type of harvest

Output main product [qtl/LU]

Crop residue [qlt/LU]

CROP LIST 1. Maize 2. Sorghum

3. Beans 4. Teff 5. Mixed

6. Tomato 7. Onion 8. Cabbage

9. Chickpea 10. Fodder grass 11. Others: ___

Duration of season 1st Season 2nd Season 3rd Season

First – last month July – Sept. Oct. – Dec. Janu.- June

19

3.3. Use of main crop products: data to be collected in % or absolutes ___ (1) %; (2) absolutes

Crop (list)

Season Product name Use product

Eaten Sold/ bartered Seed Livestock Others Total*

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

* If % percentages are used

3.4. Variety preference: Which varieties of a crop under which condition do you prefer?

3.5. Access to information (0) No; (1) Yes

3.6. Extension: how many times do you meet crop extensionist?

4. CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT

4.1. Height of CR remaining in the field at harvest (cm): at what height do you harvest the CR?

Varieties of a crop Reason for preference

Sorghum

a.

b.

c.

d.

Tef

a.

b.

c.

d. Consider moisture stress, low soil fertility, water logging, CR, grain yield, etc

Type of information 1. Family, friends or farmers

2.Government/ extensionist

3. Private sector/NGOs

4. Other ________

a. For information on new crop varieties

b. For information on crop inputs/outputs price

c. For information on other crop technologies

1st Season 2nd season 3rd season

Crop type Owned land Rented land Reason

a. Sorghum

b. Tef

20

4.2. CR allocation: for the year 2010

Crop 1 Crop 2 Crop 3 Trend last 5 years

Where CR is allocated:

Name: Season: Technology: Manual Manual Manul

In field Reason a. Left in the field (mulch) %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

b. Stubble grazing own animals %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

c. Stubble grazing by others %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

d. Burnt %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

From field taken for:

e. Sold village members %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

f. Sold other people %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

g. Given as payment in kind %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

h. Collected by others for free %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

Taken home for:

i. Stall feeding %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

j. Household fuel %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

k. Roofing/construction %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

l. Selling later %

%

%

%

%

% ↑ = ↓

m. Other: %

%

%

%

%

100% 100% 100%

4.3. CR exchange: unit ______; unit in kg _______ Name to/ from whom? 1st Season 2nd season 3rd season Trend 5 yrs

a. Amount sold CR1 ↑ = ↓

b. Amount bought CR1 ↑ = ↓

c. Amount sold CR2 ↑ = ↓

d. Amount bought CR2 ↑ = ↓

(1 )farmer,(2)market

(3)trader(4)other___

4.4. Do you think leaving ample CR in the field can benefit the soil? 1) yes 2) no _______________________________________________________________

4.5. Access to information: Have you heard about: (0) No; (1) Yes

Type of information Knowledge and use If yes, from whom? a. Chemical treatment of CR?

b. Use of CR for mulching? c. Composting of CR? d. Improved storage methods of CR? e. Chopping/cutting CR? f. Varieties with improved straw quality?

(0) I haven’t heard about it (1) I’ve heard but I never practiced it (2) I’m practicing it; (3) I practiced it before, but I stop it

(1) Family/friends/farmers (2) Government/extensionist; (3) Private sector/NGO (4) Other _________

c. other

21

4.6. Perceptions on crop residues

Statements Strongl

y disagre

e

Disagree Neither agree or disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Not

applicable

a. Tillage considers CR incorporation in to the soil -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

b. The incorporation of CR improves soil quality -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

c. The use of CR as mulch is a waste of feed -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

d. CR are a vital feed source for my livestock -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

e. Feeding CR to livestock improves the profit of my farm -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

f. No CR should be left on field before next tillage -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

g. If I leave CR in the soil, I don’t need to use fertilisers -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

h. Quantity of produced stover is essential to select my crop varieties

-2 -1 0 1 2 -8

i. CR must be a property of each household -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

j. Better to feed my livestock with crop residues than to leave them in the soil

-2 -1 0 1 2 -8

k. With the current storage technique, quality of CR doesn’t change in time

-2 -1 0 1 2 -8

4.7. CR storage: how do you store the CR of your 2 main crops? Crop ID (use list) Part plant How is it stored?

a. Main crop 1 2

b. Main crop 2 4

(1) heap in the field (2) heap next to home (3)

room (4) Other _________

5. LIVESTOCK 5.1. Information access (0) No; (1) Yes

1. Family, friends

or farmers

2.Government/ extensionist

3. Private sector/NGOs

4. Other _______

a. On new breeds

b. On feed requirements of

c. On animal health

d. On other livestock technologies

e. On marketing livestock

5.2. Extension: how many times do meet livestock extensionist?

5.3. Perceptions on livestock

1st Season 2nd season 3rd season

Statements Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither agree or disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Not

applicable

a. Manure is essential to grow my crops -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

b. To keep livestock is not economically profitable -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

c. I don’t have enough land to grow green fodder -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

d. The more livestock, the higher status in my village -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

e. Livestock is vital as cash income -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

f. Livestock is a vital saving strategy -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

g. Feed shortage is a major constraint for my farm -2 -1 0 1 2 -8

22

Is keeping more livestock culture of the society? ___________________________

5.4. Livestock structure and dynamics: species fed and taken care of the household. Initially, just list all livestock/breeds kept by household to help with filling the table

Species/breeds (use codes listed below)

Structure

a. Adult males – castrated

b. Adult males – intact

c. Adult females – in milk

d. Adult females – dry

e. Young males

f. Young females

g. Calve/lamb/kid

h. Total kept in household

i. Total owned by female

j. Total owned by male

k. Total owned household

l. Trend 10 years ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓

m. Trend 1st reason-code

n. Born last year

o. Bought last year

p. Sold/bartered last year

q. Eaten last year

r. Given away last year

s. Death last year

t. Manure animal/day

u. Milk female/day (average)

Species and breeds

1 = Indigenous cattle (Zebu, N’dama etc)

2 = Cross-bred cattle (Ind. x Exotic )

3 = Indigenous goat breed

4 = Cross-bred goat breed

5 = Indigenous sheep breed

6 = Cross-bred sheep

7= Camel

8 = Donkeys

9 = Horse

10 = Poultry

11 = Other

Trend main reason

1=More/less grassland

2=More/less feed

3=More/less labour available

4=More/less disease

5=More/less market

6=More/less drought

7=Other

5.5. Feeding strategies: select the main livestock species/breeds (max 3). Please try first with absolute, if it fails switch to %. 1st season 2nd season 3rd season

1st livestock specie/breed (use codes of the previous page) ____

a. Grazing grass

b. Grazing stubbles of _______

c. Dry fodder 1 ____________

d. Dry fodder 2 ____________

e. Green fodder

f. Supplements 1 __________

g. Supplements 2 __________

h. The higher livestock, the better competition to communal resources for private benefit

-2 -1 0 1 2 -8

23

Total feed intake 100 % 100 % 100 %

Overnight keeping (code below)

2nd livestock specie/breed: (use codes of the previous page) ____

h. Grazing grass

i. Grazing stubbles of _______

j. Dry fodder 1 __________

k. Dry fodder 2 __________

l. Green fodder

m. Supplements 1 __________

n. Supplements 2 __________

Total feed intake 100 % 100 % 100 %

Overnight keeping (code below)

3rd livestock specie/breed: (use codes of the previous page) ____

o. Grazing grass

p. Grazing stubbles of _______

q. Dry fodder 1 __________

r. Dry fodder 2 __________

s. Green fodder

t. Supplements 1 __________

u. Supplements 2 __________

Total feed intake 100 % 100 % 100 %

Overnight keeping (code below)

Overnight keeping codes (1) stall; (2) homestead; (3) other on-farm; (4) off-farm; (5) other

5.6. Grassland access: percentage of grass and browse intake

1st season 2nd season 3rd season Trend 5 yrs If change, main reason

a. Open communal land % % % ↑ = ↓ b. Communal grass. reserves % % % ↑ = ↓ c. Private land % % % ↑ = ↓ d. Along road/rivers % % % ↑ = ↓ e. Other ________ % % % ↑ = ↓ Total access 100 % 100 % 100 % ↑ = ↓

5.7. Shortage periods Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

a. Dry fodder

b. Green fodder

c. Grazing

(0) no shortage,(1) low shortage, (2) shortage, (3) considerable shortage, (4) extreme shortage

5.8. When do you start feeding CR?

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

a. Amount per day (a)

b. Total (a*30)

24

5.9. Livestock product allocation of the two main livestock species/breeds

1. Species code 2. Production 3. Self-consumption 4. Sold 5. Other ________

a. Milk l/day % % %

b. Meat % % %

c. Milk l/day % % %

d. Meat % % %

5.10. Dung allocation

1st season 2nd season

3rd season

Trend 5 yrs If change, main reason a. Fuel % % % ↑ = ↓

b. Manure/organic fertiliser

% % % ↑ = ↓

c. Sold % % % ↑ = ↓

d. Other ________ % % % ↑ = ↓

e. Not used % % % ↑ = ↓

Total dung 100 % 100 % 100 % ↑ = ↓

5.11. If you apply manure, do you apply it to the main crop fields or just around the homestead? Why?

______________________________________________________________________

6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1. Labour use per agricultural activity (unit: days a year)

Household employed hired

Is this activity also shared

with other farmers? female male

Cro

pp

ing

Preparing land (0) No; (1) Yes

Planting (0) No; (1) Yes

Weeding (0) No; (1) Yes

Harvesting (0) No; (1) Yes

Collecting crop residues (0) No; (1) Yes

Other (0) No; (1) Yes

Liv

esto

ck Milking (0) No; (1) Yes

Grazing (0) No; (1) Yes

Watering (0) No; (1) Yes

Collecting dung (0) No; (1) Yes

Other (0) No; (1) Yes

6.2. Production associations (include both informal and formal ones)

a. Are you a member of a crop producer association? 1. ___ (0) No; (1) Yes 2. Since? _____ 3. No. members ___

b. Are you a member of a livestock producer association? 1. ___ (0) No; (1) Yes 2. Since? _____ 3. No. members ___

c. Are you a member of a dairy cooperative? 1. ___ (0) No; (1) Yes 2. Since? _____ 3. No. members ___

6.3. Limitations: please order from 1 to 5 the most restricting resource (1) to less restricting resource(5) for your crop & livestock production

1. Order 2. Main reason 3. Coping strategy*

a. Water quantity (incl. droughts & spells)

b. Land access (amount of land)

c. Soil quality (related to fertility)

d. Access to fertilizers/herbicides/improved seeds

25

e. Options to sell crop/livestock products

f. Information on how to improve crop/livestock production

g. Livestock feed availability

h. Labour availability (family/market)

i. Other main limitation _____________________

* Only when is a limitation ‘high’

6.4. Planned changes: please order from 1 to 6 the highest priority to change your farming systems: (1)

lowest priority (6) highest priority (based on the real situation)

Statements 1. Order 2. Main reason 3. How

a. To start or intensify dairy production

b. To increase my herd

c. To test new feed technologies

d. To irrigate (more) my farm

e. To test new crop varieties

f. To obtain more land to farm

6.5. Household income for the year 2010.

Activity 1. Revenue 2. Trend 5 yrs 3. If change, main reason

On-farm

a. Crops % ↑ = ↓

b. Crop residue % ↑ = ↓

c. Other feed or forage % ↑ = ↓

d. Livestock % ↑ = ↓

e. Milk % ↑ = ↓

f. Others % ↑ = ↓

Off-farm

g. Agricultural labour % ↑ = ↓

h. Other non-agric. labour % ↑ = ↓

i. Regular employment % ↑ = ↓

j. Business/self-employed % ↑ = ↓

k. Remittances % ↑ = ↓

l. Others % ↑ = ↓

Total revenue 2010 100 % ↑ = ↓

6.6. Expenditure household 2010, data to be collected in % or absolutes ___ (1) %; (2) absolutes

Item 2. Trend 5 yrs 3. If change, main reason

a. Food ↑ = ↓

b. Education ↑ = ↓

c. Health ↑ = ↓

d. Social events/leisure ↑ = ↓

e. Personal transport ↑ = ↓

f. Housing ↑ = ↓

g. Hired labour ↑ = ↓

h. Crop inputs ↑ = ↓

i. Livestock inputs ↑ = ↓

j. Others ↑ = ↓

Total expenditure 2010

26