USDA I ACDIQH•lill 
Expanding Opportunities Worldwide 
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-663-2013/039-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2013
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States
Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation
firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States
Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by
contacting fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
FY 2013 Food For Progress
a 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 FEED II Results Framework ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Implementation Modality and Project Sites .................................................................................................... 3
II. Baseline Study Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Baseline Study Objectives and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Study Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Sample Size Determination................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.5 Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.6 Data Enumerator Training and Piloting of the Questionnaire .................................................................... 8
2.6.1 Training of project staff .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.6.2 Data Enumerators Training............................................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Data Collection and Supervision ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Data Entry, Analysis, and Write up ................................................................................................10
2.9 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................................11
III. Survey Findings ........................................................................................................................................12
3.1 Households Characteristics and Composition ..............................................................................12
3.1.1 Determination of Heads of Household ......................................................................................12
3.1.2 Age Distribution of Household Heads .......................................................................................12
3.1.3 Educational Status of Household Heads .................................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Mature Cow Holding and Population in the Study Households ............................................15
3.2.2 Mature Bull/Ox Population and Holding in the Study Households......................................15
3.2.4 Sheep and Goat Holding ..............................................................................................................18
3.2.5 Chicken Population and Holding ................................................................................................19
3.2.6 Donkey Population and Holding ................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Dairy Cows and Productivity ..........................................................................................................22
3.3.1 Dairy Cow Holding ........................................................................................................................22
3.3.2 Dairy Productivity ..........................................................................................................................24
3.3.4 Dairy Cow Feed and Training on Dairy Animal Nutrition .....................................................26
3.3.5 Persons Responsible for Dairy Activities ...................................................................................27
3.4 Fattening ......................................................................................................................................28
b 
3.4.1 Cattle Fattening ..............................................................................................................................29
3.4.2 Sheep Fattening ..............................................................................................................................30
3.4.3 Feed for Fattened Animals and Training on Fattening Management ....................................31
3.5 Poultry..........................................................................................................................................32
3.5.1 Chicken by Type.......................................................................................................................32
3.5.2 Egg Production ........................................................................................................................34
3.5.3 Poultry Management and Training ..............................................................................................35
3.5.4 Gender Involvement in Poultry Related Activities ...................................................................36
3.6 Forage...........................................................................................................................................37
3.6.1 Forage Cultivation and Sources of Livestock Feed...............................................................37
3.6.2 Training on Improved Forage Production .................................................................................40
3.6.3 Distances to the nearest factory formulated and mixed feed distribution center .................41
3.7 Income from livestock and livestock products.........................................................................42
3.7.1 Number of fattened animals sold and value of sales.............................................................42
3.7.2 Quantity of Dairy Products Sold and their Value .....................................................................45
3.7.3 Sales of Poultry and Poultry Products ........................................................................................47
3.7.4 Sales from Forage ...........................................................................................................................49
IV. Indicators: Benchmarks, Refinements and Clarifications ...................................................................52
Annex I ..............................................................................................................................................................58
Annex II - Household Questionnaire ...........................................................................................................61
c 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. List of selected unions and woredas by region. .......................................................................... 4
Table 1.2. Number of project woredas and kebeles by region. ................................................................... 5
Table 2.1. Summary of baseline field coverage ............................................................................................10
Table 3.1: Heads of Household (HH) by Gender and Region ................................................................. 12
Table 3.2: Mean Family Size by Region ........................................................................................................14
Table 3.3: Household membership by types of cooperative .....................................................................14
Table 3.4: Percentage of Interviewed Households by Size of Mature Cow Holdings, Region and 
Breeds ................................................................................................................................................................15
Table 3.5: Percentage of interviewed households by size of Bulls/Oxen holding ................................. 16
Table 3.6: Percentage of Households by Size of Indigenous Cattle Holdings and Gender of Head ..17
Table 3.7: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Local Sheep Holding ....................................................18
Table 3.8: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Size of Local Goat Holding ........................................19
Table 3.9: Percentage of Local Chicken Holding Households ................................................................. 19
Table 3.10: Percentage of Households (HHs) by the Size of Local Chicken Holding and Gender of 
Household Head ..............................................................................................................................................20
Table 3.11: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Improved Chicken Holding ......................................21
Table 3.12: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Donkey Holding .........................................................21
Table 3.13: Percentage of Interviewed Households that Own Dairy Cows ...........................................22
Table 3.14: Percentage of Interviewed Households by Types of Dairy Cow Ownership and Region
............................................................................................................................................................................23
Table 3.15: Percentage of interviewed Households by number of local dairy cows and region ..........23
Table 3.16: Percentage of interviewed Households by number of crossbred dairy cows and region . 23
Table 3.17: Local Dairy Cow Holding by Gender of Household Head ..................................................24
Table 3.18: Maximum and Minimum Amount of Milk Collected in a Typical Day by Number of 
Lactating Cows .................................................................................................................................................24
Table 3.19: Maximum and Minimum Amount of Milk Collected in a Typical Day by Number of 
Lactating Cows and Region ............................................................................................................................25
Table 3.20 Percentage of Dairy Cow Owners by Types of Feed they provided to their Dairy Cows 26
Table 3.21: Percentage of Persons Responsible for Dairy Cow Management .......................................27
Table 3.22: Percentage of Households by Number of Cattle Fattened ...................................................29
Table 3.23: Percentage of Households by number of sheep fattened .....................................................30
Table 3.24 Percentage of Households Involved in Fattening by Types of Feed They Provided to 
Fattened Animals and Region ........................................................................................................................31
Table 3.25: Total and Average Number of Local Chickens by Types and Region ................................33
Table 3.26: Total and average number of improved chickens by type and region................................. 34
Table 3.27 Total and Average Egg production by Breeds and Region ....................................................35
Table 3.28 Percentage of Chicken Holders by the Type of Housing System .........................................35
Table 3.29 Percentage of Chicken Holders using Different Types of Feeding Systems .......................36
Table 3.30 Percentage of Respondents who Attended Training on Poultry Nutrition and Feeding ..36
Table 3.31 Percentage of persons mainly responsible for poultry related activities ..............................37
Table 3.32: Percentage of households practiced forage cultivation, strategy used and size of land 
covered ..............................................................................................................................................................38
d 
Table 3.33: Percentage of households by Use of improved forage planting materials and Sources of 
Planting Materials .............................................................................................................................................38
Table 3.34: Percentage of households by training on Improved Forage Production ............................................41
Table 3.35: Percentage of Households by Distance to Factory Formulated Feeds ...............................................42
Table 3.36: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Oxen/Bulls Sold and the Value of those 
Sales .....................................................................................................................................................................................42
Table 3.37: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened and Sold Cows and the Corresponding Sales
..............................................................................................................................................................................................43
Table 3.38: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Sheep Sold and the Corresponding Value of 
Sales .....................................................................................................................................................................................44
Table 3.39: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Goats Sold and Corresponding Sales ..........45
Table 3.40: Distribution of Households by Quantity of Milk Sold and the Corresponding Value of Sales from 
Milk .....................................................................................................................................................................................46
Table 3.41: Distribution of Households by Quantity of Butter Sold and the Value of sales ...............................46
Table 3.42: Distribution of Households by Number of Pullets Sold and the Value of Sales ..............................47
Table 3.43: Distribution of Households by Number of Broilers Sold and Value of Sales ...................................47
Table 3.44: Distribution of Households by Number of Spent Hens Sold and Value of Sales ............................48
Table 3.45: Number of Eggs Sold and Value of Sales from Eggs in the Last Year ...............................................48
Table 3.46: Response on comparing noug cake and cottonseed for milk production ..........................................50
Table 3.47: Percent response on comparing grass cut 30 days after and 60 days after the last cutting for milk 
production ..........................................................................................................................................................................50
Table 3.48: Response on comparing noug cake and cottonseed for milk production ..........................................50
Table 3.49: Response on information needed to know a profit or loss ...................................................................51
Table 3.50: Response on choice of investing on broiler chicken or fattening sheep .............................................51
Table 3.51: Response on use of improved technology and management practices ...............................................52
Table 4.1: FEED II Outcome Indicators and Baseline Benchmark Values ...........................................................54
Table 4.2: FEED II Intermediate Results .....................................................................................................................55
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: FEED II Project Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Percentage by household type .......................................................................................................12
Figure 3: Percentage Age Distribution of Heads by Region .....................................................................13
Figure 4: Percentage of Heads by Educational Status ................................................................................13
5: Figure 5: Percentage of households by size of Indigenous cattle holding and region ......................16
6: Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of households by Crossbred Cattle Holding and Region. ..........17
7: Figure 7: Training on Dairy Animal Nutrition and Management ........................................................27
8: Figure 8: Fattening during the past 12 months .......................................................................................28
9: Figure 9: Percentage of households by frequency of cattle fattening ..................................................29
10: Figure 10:Percentage Distribution of training on fattening management .........................................31
11: Figure 11: Knowledge on feed that can reduce the occurrence of milk fever or soft egg shells ...49
e 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The FEED II baseline survey was managed by FEED II project staff. We would like to thank and 
acknowledge the great contribution made by project staff in production of the baseline survey. We 
also would like to appreciate the contribution made by woreda agriculture office staff as data 
enumerators. Without their devotion and participation, the field work could not be completed in a 
timely manner. , ACDI/VOCA deserves special 
thanks for his contribution to project staff training and additional insights. Finally, special thanks 
goes to communities for their willingness and time to participate in the survey without which this
baseline study could not have been completed. 
f 
ACRONYMS 
CSA Central Statistical Agency 
DAs Development Agents 
GDP gross domestic product 
ESAP Ethiopian Society of Animal Production 
FEED II Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development, Phase II 
FGDs Focus Group Discussions 
FTC Farmers Training Center 
HH Household 
HRW Hard red winter 
M4 membership, marketing, money and management 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MOA Ministry of Agriculture 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan 
SNNPR Southern Nation and Nationalities People Region 
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The goal of the Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development, Phase II (FEED II) Project is to
increase the incomes of of Ethiopian smallholder livestock producers by improving access to and 
use of consistent, affordable, high quality animal feed that can support greater livestock productivity 
and efficiency. This goal will be achieved by focusing on two strategic objectives: (1) increasing the 
productivity of livestock and poultry in Ethiopia by developing the animal feed sector, and (2) 
expanding trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sector by introducing and 
expanding feedlot (fattening), poultry and dairy enterprises. The project is funded by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and implemented by ACDI/VOCA in four regional states of 
Ethiopia ‒ Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray. Following the signature of the cooperative 
agreement between USDA and ACDI/VOCA in September, 2013, FEED II designed and 
conducted baseline study covering all project areas in the four regions. The main objective of the 
study was to collect information and baseline values on outcome indicators that will enable the 
project to measure its progress towards project expected results and the impacts of project 
interventions as the project progresses. These baseline values also will be used to finalize the 
performance monitoring plan (PMP) developed for the project. In addition, the information 
obtained from this study will be used to inform the design and planning of FEED II interventions. 
Baseline information was collected from livestock holding households, cooperatives and 
government officials in targeted areas of the project regions. The study employed both quantitative 
and qualitative information collection tools. A structured household questionnaire and checklist that 
guides the discussion with communities was developed for the quantitative survey. The sample size 
was a total of 462 households per region or 1,848 overall. Data enumerators were recruited from the 
surveyed woredas’ agricultural offices, trained on the questionnaire and interviewing techniques and 
supervised by project staff in the field. Qualitative information was collected through focus group 
discussions. The field work took about two weeks per region. 
Key examples of the findings are that overall 79.4 percent of interviewed households owned dairy 
cows in the 12 months preceding the survey. Fifty-nine percent owned only local dairy cows, about 
13 percent owned only crossbred dairy cows while about 8 percent owned both types. The average 
local dairy cows’ productivity is less than 1 liter/cow/day while the average crossbred cow produces 
almost 4/liters/day. Dairy cow feed is mainly crop residues and some green forage. Only 4 percent 
of respondents reported that they have fed factory formulated and mixed feed to their dairy cows. 
Almost 13 percent of respondents received training on improved dairy cow management. 
Animal fattening has been practiced by 43 percent of respondents in the last year, but they only 
fattened an average of 2.1, 3.8 and 5.5 cattle, goats and sheep, respectively. Only 6 percent of 
respondents used concentrated feeds for fattening animals, and only about 2 percent received 
training on fattening management. 
Sixty-five percent of respondents own chickens, with average holdings of 5.75 and 3.1 for local and 
improved chickens, respectively. Sixty-three percent of households owned local and 22 percent 
owned improved egg laying hens. The average egg production for local and improved hens per year 
ii
was 64.4 and 187.3, respectively. The types of shelter for hens is mainly unconfined and the feeding 
system is almost exclusively scavenging supplemented by home grains. 
The study also shows that 30 percent of respondents cultivated forage in the last 12 months. Most 
of them used improved forage planting materials sourced from government, farmers’ exchanges, 
purchases from private venders and NGOs. Eighteen percent of respondents said that they have 
access to factory formulated and mixed feed distribution center within an 18-kilometer radius of 
their farms. The current income from livestock through fattening, dairy products, and poultry is an 
average of just over 9,744 birr ($500)/year/household. 
These and many other data figures in the report suggest that most FEED II baseline values are quite 
low. However, the study found no evidence to suggest that 15 percent increases in key indicators are 
unachievable, but proposes refinements of the following four outcome indicators: 
1. Respondents apparently considered any “feeding” of animals that would ultimately be sold 
for meat qualified as “fattening.” Fattening for the commercial market, whether by 
smallholders or larger feedlots, typically involves the provision of high energy feeds for a 
period of 60 – 120 days, with 90 days being a common target. As a result, the definition of 
“fattened cattle” that should be used for the purpose of benchmarking this indicator is 
“cattle provided feeds high in energy for a period of 60 – 120 days.” The benchmark value 
would be expressed as “number of cattle fattened/year/household. 
2. With respect to poultry, the survey confirmed expectations that holdings in the project’s 
target population consist largely of local birds. Improved breeds, while growing, are still only 
about one quarter of the total. As a result, growth in smallholder poultry production is likely 
to depend on local birds, too; not just improved birds. In light of this fact and upon 
reconsideration, it seems illogical to focus Outcome 1/Indicator 2 only on improved poultry. 
The indicator has, thus, been revised to reflect all poultry, regardless of breed type 
(indigenous vs. improved) or class (layer vs. broiler, etc.). The premise is that any increase in 
poultry production per household is exactly that, an increase in poultry production. This 
revision captures better the intent of this indicator. 
3. During the survey it was found that a significant number of households with milk cows sell 
milk products such as butter and cheese instead of milk. As a result, to better capture the 
revenue generated by these products Outcome 2/Indicator 1 has been revised to include 
“milk products” in the list of marketed outputs.
4. As for Outcome 2/Indicator 2, for clarification purposes it should be noted that the focus is 
on commercial enterprises, whether cooperative/union or other group based, which the 
FEED II project helped establish. Livestock, poultry and forage activities engaged in for 
profit by participating smallholder farmers will also be monitored but the indicator refers to 
the commercial enterprises. Moreover, return on investment is not a change from some 
previous value. Rather, it is a value determined for a given period during the project. 
 
I. Introduction 
The Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development II (FEED II) Project is a three-year program 
funded by the United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) and implemented by 
ACDI/VOCA. The cooperative agreement between USDA and ACDI/VOCA under USDA’s 
Food for Progress Program provides for monetization of 40,000 MT of USDA-provided HRW 
(hard red winter) wheat to provide most of the funding for FEED II. 
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa with an estimated 54 million cattle, 25.4 
million sheep, 24.1 million goats, and 50.4 million poultry (CSA, 2012). Livestock are sources of 
food, draught power, fertilizer and fuel, income, and wealth accumulation. Moreover, the livestock 
subsector contributes 12-16 percent of the country’s GDP and 16 percent of foreign earnings 
(Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), January 2013). Livestock play an important role in the 
livelihoods of 60-70 percent of the population, particularly in the highlands of Ethiopia where 
numbers and types of livestock are strong indicators of family wealth. Furthermore, they are the 
main form of investment, cash on hand and provide owners with purchasing power (ESAP, 2001). 
Even though Ethiopia has the largest livestock population and livestock is the major livelihood 
activity for a majority of the population, per capita production in the livestock sector has been 
declining for many years. Inadequate and poor quality feed resources are one of the major challenges 
facing the livestock sector (MOA, January 2013). FEED II’s goal is to address this challenge and 
support Ethiopian smallholders in developing the animal feed subsector. 
The project will be implemented in four regional states of Ethiopia: Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, and 
Tigray, and will partner with livestock departments, agricultural cooperative unions, and their 
member cooperatives as well as government administrative authorities. The FEED II cooperative 
agreement was signed in September 2013, but field implementation began in late March 2014, after 
normal startup activities (e.g. staffing and monetization) and a longer than anticipated approval 
process by the regional governments of required regional agreements. Before the start of project 
implementation, a baseline study was launched in order to establish reference point values that 
project achievements will be measured against to evaluate progress and impact of FEED II 
supported activities. The baseline also will be used to enhance understanding of the context in 
relation to FEED II activities in the project areas. 
1.1 FEED II Results Framework 
The overall goal of FEED II is to increase the incomes of of Ethiopian smallholder livestock 
producers by improving access to and use of consistent, affordable, high quality animal feed that can 
support greater livestock productivity and efficiency. This long-term goal will be achieved by 
focusing on two strategic objectives: (1) increasing the productivity of livestock and poultry in 
Ethiopia by developing the animal feed sector, and (2) expanding trade of agricultural products in

3 
 1.2 Implementation Modality and Project Sites 
The FEED II Project will be implemented mainly through cooperative unions, their respective 
primary level cooperatives and cooperative members. Prior to the baseline survey, a thorough 
assessment of potential cooperative unions was carried out to identify unions that could implement 
project activities with the help of technical support and grants. The assessment employed field visits 
and site observations using a pre-determined checklist and a membership, marketing, money and 
management (M4) assessment tool developed by ACDI/VOCA with the aim of identifying relevant 
unions. Some of the selection criteria in the checklist were: 
 Feed market potential ‒ population of crossbred cattle with the accepted threshold at 
greater than 400 per union operational area; 
 Infrastructure ‒ having adequate working space, access to good roads for ingredients 
and finished products as well as access to three-phase electrical power; 
 Existence of feed ingredient retailers ‒ at least three prospective retailers in the area;
 Concept note/proposal ‒ alignment with FEED II's program objectives, acceptable 
level of detail as well as proposed leverage of resources; and 
 Government recommendation ‒ extent to which local government supported the 
candidacy of the union under discussion to participate in project activities. 
A total of 36 unions were identified for assessment ‒ 8 from Amhara, 11 from Oromia, 8 from 
SNNPR and 9 from Tigray. Ultimately, 3 unions from each region were selected to participate in all 
5 FEED II project activities while a fourth was selected to participate in 4 of the 5 activities 
(excluding Activity 2, feed manufacturing). 
Following the selection of unions, 29 new and 10 FEED I union affiliated woredas (districts) were 
selected as FEED II implementation sites (10 from SNNPR, 10 from Oromia, 9 from Amhara and 
10 from Tigray). Table 1 below presents the list of unions and corresponding targeted woredas by 
region. 
4 
1: Table 1.1. List of selected unions and woredas by region. 
The intensity of FEED II implementation in woredas where FEED I was active and in new FEED II 
project woredas will not be the same. FEED II unions will be fully involved in the project in 29 woredas 
while unions supported during FEED I will receive technical and follow-up support in 10 woredas. 
Regions FEED II Unions FEED I Unions Zones Woredas
SNNP Ambericho Kenbata Tenbaro Damboya & Kedida Gamela
Melik Silte Selti & Dalocha
Gamo Gofa Farmers' 
Veg. & Fruit Market. 
Gamo Gofa Chencha & Arbaminch Zuria 
Walta Guraghe Sodo Bue
Sidama Elto Sidama Wondo Genet
Licha Hadiya Hadiya Misha
Domota Wolayita Wolayita Damota Gale
Oromia Liben Southwest Shewa Becho & Woliso
Galema Arsi Tiyo & Huruta
Gibe Didesa East Wellega Guto Gida & Jima Arjo
Biftu Salale North Shewa Jida & Kuyu
Wonji East Shewa Dera
Ambo West Shewa Dendi
Selale Finfine No woreda targeted; activities union 
based
Amhara Admas Awi Guagussa & Dangela
Gozamin East Gojjam Machekel & Gozamin
Megenagna South Gonder Libo Kemekem & Farta
Damot West Gojjam Dembecha & Jabi
Merkeb West Gojjam Fogera
Wodera North Shewa No woreda targeted; activities union 
based
Erikum South Wollo No woreda targeted; activities union 
based
Tigray Setit Humera MCU Western Kafta-humera
Geter Adwa MCU Central Adwa & Laelay Mychew
Debre Asa MCU Central Kola-Temben
Southeast Dega-Temben
Shewit North East Tahtay koraro
Bokra Southern Raya Zebo & Ofla
Wolwalo Eastern Sasie-tseda Amba
Enderta Eastern Keleta Awlalo
5 
However, both were included in the baseline survey to gather comprehensive information related to 
planned project activities. The total number of individual members of FEED II unions is 617,505, of 
which 15 percent are women. 
In these woredas, 4 to 5 kebeles (sub-districts) have been identified as project sites. Similarly, project 
kebeles have been identified based on access to market, infrastructure (road and electricity) and 
cross-bred livestock population. Most of the project sites have relatively high crossbred livestock 
populations, and are close to main towns and on roads. Table-1.2, below shows the numbers of 
project woredas and kebeles by region. 
2: Table 1.2. Number of project woredas and kebeles by region. 
Regions No. Project Woredas No. of Project Kebeles
Amhara 9 36 (4 kebeles/woreda)
Oromia 10 50 (5 kebeles/woreda)
SNNPR 10 50 (5 kebeles/woreda)
Tigray 10 50 (5 kebeles/woreda)
Total 39 186
Both globally and in Ethiopia specifically, ACDI/VOCA has a great deal of experience building and 
working with cooperatives; FEED II will mainly work through the coops and their unions. In the 
project woredas, almost all kebeles have some type of cooperatives, either for livestock (dairy 
and/or fattening) or multi-purpose, and the majority of livestock producers in the kebeles are 
members of one and/or the other. During selection of kebeles for project implementation, it was 
anticipated that about 200 cooperatives would be covered by the project (one or two cooperatives 
per kebele). Thus cooperatives are primary beneficiaries of the project through either technical 
and/or grant support. 
II. Baseline Study Methodology 
2.1 Baseline Study Objectives and Rationale 
The evaluation plan developed during the design of FEED II highlighted the fact that the baseline 
survey is the first critical step in establishing benchmarks for project performance measures followed 
by regular monitoring, mid-term and final evaluations to enable measurement of the progress and 
impact of project interventions. Moreover, the baseline survey helps the project team and 
stakeholders understand conditions as they are at the beginning of the project, so that the project 
can monitor, measure, document, and share changes as the project progresses, while management is 
undertaking the necessary modifications to project activities and implementation approaches to 
ensure the greatest project success. It also will be used to finalize the performance-monitoring plan 
(PMP) developed for the project. Therefore, the baseline survey was conducted for the following 
main purposes: 
6 
Collect both quantitative and qualitative data for outcome indicators identified in the results 
framework and establish baseline values for these outcome indicators; 
Assess and understand the prevailing conditions in the project target areas and among beneficiaries; 
and Finalize the performance monitoring plan (PMP) by establishing baseline values for project 
indicators before the start of activities. 
The baseline survey provides key basic information related to project activity areas that will inform 
management, so that project activities can be properly planned, managed and implemented. 
2.2 Study Design 
The survey was a cross-sectional survey in nature and designed to provide livestock, household and 
cooperative level information related to project indicators. Households with livestock and 
cooperatives in the project regions are the target groups from which baseline information was 
collected. Regions are the geographic domains of the survey and treated independently. 
2.3 Sample Size Determination 
The sample size was determined based on Cochran’s general formula (J.E. Bartlett, et al, 2001), using 
a 70 percent adoption rate. Including a projected 10 percent non-response rate and 1.3 design effect, 
a total of 462 households were determined to be the needed sample size for each region (Annex I). 
The technical team decided that the survey would cover eight woredas in each region due to the 
nature of those woredas. Woredas varied greatly in terms of the crossbred livestock populations 
contained therein, availability of feed, and access to infrastructure and markets. Therefore, a larger 
proportion of the total project woredas were included in the sample than were originally thought 
necessary. The 462 sample households were allocated equally between the eight woredas in each 
region. 
Furthermore, in each selected woreda, four kebeles already selected for project intervention were 
considered in the baseline. This number was decided due to the small number of project kebeles in 
each woreda where there are a minimum of four and maximum of five kebeles in each woreda. 
Therefore, it was decided to cover four kebeles in each woreda. An equal allocation of sample 
kebeles was also considered. 
2.4 Sampling Procedure 
Once the number of woredas, kebeles and households were estimated, the next step was 
determining the sampling procedure. In general, the survey employed a three-step sampling 
procedure. During the first step, eight woredas were selected from each region from a total of 9-10
project woredas. The woreda selection was more purposive depending on the woredas’ geographical 
disparity and comparative advantage to provide diversified information. During the second step, 
7 
kebeles within the selected woredas were identified. As presented in Table 1.2, five kebeles in each 
woreda were selected for project interventions in three regions (Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray), but 
only four project kebeles were selected from each woreda in Amhara. This difference took into 
account the higher number of crossbred livestock in Amhara Region 
During the third stage of the sampling procedure, livestock households within the selected kebeles 
were selected using a systematic, random sampling technique. Since the project is livestock focused, 
the ultimate target group of the survey were households which had at least one animal. In general, 
the kebele administration list was used as a sampling frame, but in the absence of this list, the 
cooperative members’ list was used to select households with at least one animal (Refer to Annex I 
for detailed sampling procedure description). 
2.5 Data Collection Instruments 
The study employed both quantitative and qualitative information collection techniques. 
Quantitative data was collected through a structured household questionnaire while qualitative 
information was obtained through focus group discussions, observation and taking pictures to 
document those observations. The structured questionnaire has eight sections. The introductory 
section deals with the socio-demographic characteristics of household heads, section one 
inventories livestock, and section two collects key data on dairy cows and productivity while sections 
three and four are on fattening and poultry, respectively. Information on forage was collected in 
section five and sales from livestock products was collected in section six. Section seven and eight 
cover knowledge of livestock nutrition and new technology practices. 
The questionnaire was developed and administered in English to avoid misinterpretation of 
technical terms during translation into different regional languages. Therefore, translation was 
managed through the recruitment of data enumerators who are livestock experts and understood 
English and local languages very well. The focus group discussion checklist was used to guide the 
discussion at the community level, and mainly to obtain general information on 
community/household practices in relation to livestock keeping, livestock productivity and sources 
of feed for their livestock. 
The study also employed a cooperative data collection instrument to collect information from 
cooperatives and a discussion guideline with woreda natural resource offices in relation to 
rehabilitation of pasture land. 
8 
2.6 Data Enumerator Training and Piloting of the Questionnaire 
2.6.1 Training of project staff 
Training was organized in two phases. Phase I training was in the Addis Ababa office for all FEED 
II technical staff, both from Addis and regional levels. The baseline survey training was part of the 
general monitoring and evaluation (M&E) training which covered a range of topics, including 
interviewing, supervision, and focus group discussion techniques. The training took four days and 
was facilitated by the ACDI/VOCA Regional M&E Advisor and the FEED II Sr. M&E Specialist. 
During the training, detailed discussions were conducted on and needed changes made to the 
household questionnaire, and it was then field tested in one of the project sites in Oromia Region, 
Woliso. Following the pre-testing of the questionnaire, subsequent discussions were conducted to 
incorporate comments from the field test. 
 2.6.2 Data Enumerators Training 
Upon finalization of the data collection instruments, the training was extended to the data 
enumerators in each region. Data enumerators were recruited from each woreda livestock office 
(except for five data enumerators recruited from D.V.M. (Doctors of Vet Medicine) in SNNPR, 
partly to enhance partnership and involve them in the baseline process and partly to use their local 
knowledge and livestock and forage expertise. The data enumerators’ training was organized with 
the following objectives: 
 Help enumerators become familiar with the survey method and the data collection 
procedure & instrument; 
 Standardize the understanding of questions, recording rules and completion of the 
questionnaire; and 
 Ensure that all enumerators perform in a manner that produces reliable data. 
A training manual was prepared at the FEED II country office to support data enumerator training 
and ensure the provision of uniform training across the regions. The training was facilitated by 
FEED II country office technical and field staff who participated in the previous training. 
A total of 68 (12 women) data enumerators were recruited (20 in Amhara, 16 in Tigray, 16 in 
Oromia and 16 in SNNPR) and trained for a day on the questionnaire and interviewing techniques. 
The training approach was presentation followed by discussion, a pairwise interviewing exercise in 
the classroom, and practical exercise in the nearby villages. Data enumerators were provided with a 
data collection manual to read and refer to at times of difficulty during data collection in the field. 
Moreover, data enumerators were provided with the lists of kebeles selected for the survey. 

10
offices. In conjunction with the data enumerators’ supervision, they were able to perform these 
other assigned tasks. The field work was completed and the parameters are shown in Table 2.1.
3: Table 2.1. Summary of baseline field coverage 
Field Performance Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Woredas covered 8 8 8 8 32
Kebeles visited 32 32 32 32 168
Households interviewed 478 480 477 479 1,914
FGDs1
conducted 16 16 16 16 64
Cooperatives interviewed 14 16 18 16 56
Woredas contacted for 
closure area information
8 8 8 8 32
1 Focus group discussions
2.8 Data Entry, Analysis, and Write up 
Immediately after the completion of the field work in each region, the questionnaires were 
forwarded to the project country office, and sorted by region, woreda and kebele and provided with 
an alphanumeric code, including the first two letters of the region. A half-day field experience 
sharing meeting was conducted for country office staff who were involved in the data collection as 
supervisors. Discussions were held on similarities and differences in experience as well as limitations 
of the data collection process. Following the discussions, a final review of the completed 
questionnaires was performed before data entry. The review included matching of kebeles with 
woredas, matching questionnaires with each kebele and resolution of a few measurement and survey 
questions such as egg production and milk data collection procedures. 
SPSS was used for capturing raw data. Four experienced data entry clerks conversant in SPSS and 
data entry processes handled the entry and cleaning of the entered data (making sure that the entries 
fell within the accepted range and correcting them with accurate data from the questionnaires if not). 
A half-day orientation was provided for the data entry clerks, including practical demonstrations. 
Moreover, their work was monitored daily for effectiveness and quality. Data entry took a total of 
seven days. 
Data results for all key indicators are provided for each region and describe the findings from the 
survey. Moreover, qualitative information from the focus group discussions was used to validate the 
findings and clarify responses from the quantitative survey. A separate report already has been
produced to cover information and findings from the cooperative survey. 
11
2.9 Limitations of the Study 
During the implementation of this baseline study, the following limitations were discovered: 
 Reporting can be influenced by the expectations of respondents. If they expect future 
support from donor funded projects, they tend to under report. This may have been the 
case, for example where a very high percentage of respondents reported having received ‘no 
training’; 
 In four woredas of Tigray, enumerators mistakenly asked for milk sales per year instead of 
per month. Therefore, the data had to be divided by the total amount of milk and the 
average lactating months to get milk production per month to make it compatible with that 
from the other survey sites; 
 In SNNPR and four woredas of Tigray, enumerators asked for egg production per clutch 
only, but in other survey areas, it was asked for per clutch but also estimated for the year by 
respondents. Moreover, in a few areas, aggregate egg production for all egg laying hens was 
collected instead of an average per egg laying hen. To correct this error, egg production per 
year was estimated by multiplying the average number of clutches for SNNPR and four 
woredas of Tigray. Egg production from all hens was also converted to production per hen 
by dividing total eggs by number of egg laying hens; 
 Since either the kebele administration or cooperative members list was used as the sampling 
frame, this use of two different lists could compromise the uniformity of the sampling 
frame, but given the great majority of households are members of cooperatives, the effect is 
expected to be minimal; 
 Some technical knowledge questions were very difficult to explain to respondents. However, 
this was mitigated by efforts of the enumerators to explain using examples; and 
 There is still some missing information in a few of the questionnaires, particularly on age of 
heads of households, number of persons in the household, etc., despite the efforts made in 
the field to review and fully complete the questionnaires. 
Despite these apparent limitations, overall the data collected is of high quality and accuracy and 
provides useful, key information on study areas and FEED II project indicators. 


14
5: Table 3.2: Mean Family Size by Region 
Region Mean N Minimum Maximum S.D.
Amhara 5.6 475 1 12 1.9
Oromia 6.4 476 1 14 2.1
SNNPR 7.1 472 2 14 2.4
Tigray 5.7 473 1 11 2.0
Total 6.2 1,896 1 14 2.2
Note: A few households in each region did not respond to the question on the number of persons 
in the household 
3.1.5 Cooperative Membership 
Field information indicated that there are different types of cooperatives in the kebeles in which 
households are members, including multi-purpose, livestock, bee keeping, and credit and savings 
cooperatives. Some households are also members of more than one cooperative. Figure 5, below 
shows membership status by region. Overall, 82 percent of interviewed households are members of 
one to two cooperatives. Membership ranges from 91 percent in Amhara to 77 percent in Oromia. 
As shown in Table 3.3 below, over 70 percent of the surveyed households are members of multi￾purpose cooperatives while only six percent are livestock cooperative members. Four percent of 
surveyed households are members of both types of cooperatives. 
6: Table 3.3: Household membership by types of cooperative 
Cooperative types Amhara 
(%)
Oromia (%) SNNPR 
(%)
Tigray (%) Total (%)
Livestock 1.3 7.7 10.7 2.7 5.6
Multipurpose 85.4 65.4 64.6 67.4 70.7
Livestock & 
Multipurpose
4.0 3.3 3.1 4.8 3.8
Credit & savings only - - - 6.5 1.6
Non-members 9.4 23.5 21.3 18.3 18.1
3.2 Livestock Population and Composition 
Households were requested to report on the maximum number of livestock they possessed at any 
point in time during the 12 months preceding the survey. Information on livestock was collected by 
the following categories: mature cow, mature bull/ox (> 2 years), heifer, male cattle (6 months to 2 
years) and calf (any sex < 6 months) for both indigenous/local and improved breed types. This 
section presents the survey findings in relation to the livestock populations and holding by breed 
types. 
15
3.2.1 Mature Cow Holding and Population in the Study Households 
For the purposes of this baseline study, mature cow refers to female cattle that have at least one calf. 
Table 3.4 below presents the percentages of livestock farming households by holding size, region 
and breed types. Across the survey areas, 21 percent of livestock farming households had no 
indigenous and 78 percent had no crossbred mature cows during the 12 months preceding the study. 
Overall 62 percent of surveyed households reported holding 1 to 2 mature local cows. Very few own 
crossbred cows, the mean being less than one for every two farmers. Only 751 mature crossbred 
cows were registered in the surveyed households as compared to 2,871 local mature cows. However, 
the proportion of crossbred cows in this sample set is considerably more than the national figure of 
1.88%. This 10-fold difference is a logical result of the criteria used in the selection of project unions 
and districts within which FEED II activities will be implemented. 
Regionally, the livestock holding distribution pattern is similar. Average local mature cow holdings 
range from 1.6 in Amhara and Oromia to 1.3 in SNNPR, whereas average crossbred cow holding is 
less than one in the other two regions. 
7: Table 3.4: Percentage of Interviewed Households by Size of Mature Cow Holdings, Region and Breeds 
Heads of 
Mature 
cows
Amhara
(n=478)
Oromia
(n=480)
SNNPR
(n=477)
Tigray
(n=479)
Total
(n=1,914)
Indige
nous
Cros
sbre
d
Indig
enous
Cros
sbred
Indige
nous
Cros
sbre
d
Indige
nous
Cros
sbre
d
Indige
nous
Cros
sbre
d
No mature 
cow
22.8 84.1 19.0 67.9 23.3 74.6 20.0 83.3 21.3 77.5
1-2 head 57.1 14.9 62.1 24.2 65.2 23.5 65.3 15.2 62.4 19.4
3-4 head 16.5 1.0 16.3 6.9 9.4 1.7 9.8 .8 13.0 2.6
5-9 head 3.6 2.5 .8 1.7 .2 3.5 .6 2.8 .4
10-19 head - - .2 .2 .4 1.3 .5 .1
Cow count 754 110 752 340 636 174 729 127 2871 751
Manure 
cow 
holding 
1.57 0.2 1.56 0.7 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.4
3.2.2 Mature Bull/Ox Population and Holding 
Mature bull/ox is defined as male cattle over two years of age. Table 3.5 below presents the 
percentage distribution of interviewed households by holding size and type. Overall, 26 percent of 
farming households have had no local bulls/oxen in the last one year while 90 percent were had no 
crossbred bulls/oxen. Regionally, there is little variation in the mean holding for local bulls/oxen. 
These livestock holding households are primarily crop farmers and mainly use bulls/oxen power for 
farming, so bull/ox holding is in low numbers. 
16
8: Table 3.5: Percentage of interviewed households by size of Bulls/Oxen holding 
Heads of 
Mature 
Bull/Ox
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
(n=1,914)
Indigen￾ous
Cross￾bred
Indigen￾ous
Cross￾bred
Indigen￾ous
Cross￾bred
Indigen￾ous
Cross￾bred
Indigen￾ous
Cross￾bred
No bull/ox 24.9 91.4 17.1 80.4 35.8 93.9 27.8 95.4 26.4 90.3
1-2 52.1 7.9 51.7 17.1 54.5 5.9 57.6 3.8 54.0 8.7
3-4 19.5 .4 24.4 2.5 6.9 .2 11.3 .4 15.5 .9
5-9 3.1 .2 6.5 2.5 2.1 .4 3.6 .2
10-19 .4 .4 .2 .8 .5 -
20-49 - - - - - - .4 - .1 -
Count 803 56 1020 157 555 37 778 42 3156 292
Mean 1.7 0.1 2.1 0.3 1.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 .2
3.2.3 Cattle Population and Holding 
The cattle population is the sum of mature cows, mature bulls/oxen (> 2 years), heifers, male cattle 
(6 months to 2 years), and calves (any sex < 6 months). Overall, a total of 9,778 local cattle have 
been registered from the surveyed households, and households have a mean cattle holding of 5.1. 
Figure 6 and Figure 7 below present holding of indigenous and crossbred cattle by region. The 
highest indigenous cattle population is in Oromia while the smallest is in SNNPR. 
5: Figure 5: Percentage of households by size of Indigenous cattle holding and region 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
6.9 6.3 8 5.6 6.7
23
13.3
29.8
22.1 22
20.7
20.4
29.1
30.7 25.2
31.4
45.2
24.1
32.4
33.3
18 14.8 9 9.2 12.7
with no cattle 1-2 heads 3-4 heads 5-9 heads over 10 heads
17
As presented in Figure 5 above, across regions less than 8 percent of households had no cattle. A 
considerable percentage of the households owned 1 to 2 cattle ranging from 13 percent in Oromia 
to 30 percent in SNNPR. Tigray and SNNPR had the most households with 3 to 4 cattle, at 31 and 
29 percent, respectively. In Oromia 45 percent of households possessed 5 to 9 cattle followed by 
SNNPR and Amhara at 32 and 31 percent, respectively. Eighteen percent of households in Amhara 
reported holding 10 cattle and above during the reference period followed by Oromia at 15 percent 
Furthermore, the analysis of cattle holding by gender of head of household shows that male headed 
households owned on average 5.4 cattle while female headed households owned an average 3.9 
cattle. As expected, a higher percentage of female headed households have no cattle, 9.2 percent 
compared to 5.9 percent of male headed households. At the highest holding category, 10 and above, 
the percentage of male headed households is three-fold that of for female headed households. Table 
3.6 below presents indigenous cattle holding by size and gender of household head. 
9: Table 3.6: Percentage of Households by Size of Indigenous Cattle Holdings and Gender of Head 
Size of cattle holding Male headed Female headed Total
No cattle 5.9 9.2 6.7
1-2 head 21.1 25.2 22.0
3-4 head 23.5 31.2 25.2
5-9 head 34.3 29.8 33.3
10+ head 15.1 4.6 12.7
Total (n) 1,481 433 1,914
Mean cattle holding 5.4 3.9 5.1
Cattle count 8,066 1,712 9,778
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
79.1
60.8
70.6
81.8
73.1
12.3
12.9
17
9
12.8
4.4
12.3
8
5.6 7.6
3.6
11.5
4.2 3.1 5.6
with no cattle 1-2 heads 3-4 heads 5-9 heads over 10 heads
6: Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of households by Crossbred Cattle Holding and Region.
18
In contrast to indigenous cattle holdings, crossbred cattle ownership is lower with only 27 percent of 
households overall reported to own crossbred cattle. Eighty-two percent of households in Tigray 
and 79 percent in Amhara have no crossbred cattle. However, despite being lower than indigenous 
holdings these results indicated much higher crossbred cattle ownership that the national average, a 
likely result of the project participant selection criteria. 
During focus group discussions, participants indicated that indeed the cattle population is 
predominantly local (indigenous types), but recently there has been a shift to crossbreeds because of 
increased access to artificial insemination and pure-bred bull services. Access to artificial 
insemination is available from Woreda Agriculture offices and there are also exotic bull services, so 
in the future there is high potential for the crossbred cattle population to increase. Other 
participants pointed out that though awareness and knowledge on the advantages of crossbred stock 
is high, the shortage of feed has discouraged community members from keeping them. The 
management system for livestock is also changing from extensive, free grazing to more intensive, cut 
and carry, but the absence of an adequate and inexpensive feed supply is posing a difficult challenge. 
3.2.4 Sheep and Goat Holding 
Sheep ownership among the surveyed households is 54 percent during the 12 months preceding the 
survey. Regionally, in Tigray, and SNNPR 53 percent and 49 percent, respectively, did not own 
sheep while the figures in Oromia and Amhara are less at 40 and 43 percent, respectively. The 
number of sheep held varies widely at the regional level, and is less in SNNPR where mean sheep 
holding is 1.6, but higher in Oromia and Tigray as the mean sheep holding is 4.6 and 4.3, 
respectively. 
10: Table 3.7: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Local Sheep Holding 
Indigenous Sheep 
holding
Amhara
(%)
Oromia (%) SNNPR (%) Tigray (%) Total (%)
HHs with no 
sheep
42.7 40.2 48.8 53.2 46.2
1-4 sheep 34.3 30.2 40.0 15.2 29.9
5-9 sheep 18.4 15.0 10.1 14.8 14.6
10-49 sheep 4.4 13.8 1.0 15.9 8.8
50-99 sheep 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5
No. of HHs 478 (100) 480 (100) 477 (100) 479 (100) 1,914 (100)
Sheep count 1,350 2,231 780 2,077 6,438
Mean 2.8 4.6 1.6 4.3 3.3
Note: Information on crossbred sheep is not presented here as overall ownership stands at only 1.7 percent 
The regional distribution of sheep holding in Table 3.7 above, shows that holding is concentrated at 
lower levels between 1 and 10 sheep, except in Tigray where 16 percent of holders owned over 10 
19
sheep. Higher sheep populations were found in Oromia with 2,231 heads of sheep and then Tigray 
with 2,077. 
Table 3.8 below presents overall goat populations and goat ownership by household by region. 
Overall, 83 percent of surveyed households did not own goats during the year preceding the survey. 
Mean goat ownership ranges from 0.7 in Amhara to 1.7 in Tigray. 
11: Table 3.8: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Size of Local Goat Holding 
Sheep Size Amhara (%) Oromia (%) SNNPR
(%)
Tigray (%) Total (%)
HHs with no goat 87.0 78.5 87.6 80.4 83.4
1-4 goats 7.9 15.2 8.0 6.9 9.5
5-9 goats 2.7 4.8 2.5 6.3 4.1
10-49 2.3 1.5 1.9 6.3 3.0
50-99 - - - 0.2 0.1
No of HHs 478(100) 480(100) 477(100) 479(100) 1914(100)
Goat count 345 439 339 811 1934
Mean goat holding 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.7 1.01
3.2.5 Chicken Population and Holding
For the purposes of this survey, chickens include cocks, cockerels, pullets, laying hens, non-laying 
hens and chicks both of indigenous and improved types. Table 3.9 below presents the percentage of 
households by the size of chicken holding, chicken population, and region for indigenous chicken. 
Overall, 35 percent of households had no local chickens during the reference period. The livestock 
and livestock characteristics study conducted by the Central Statistics Authority (CSA) for 
2012/2013 found that at the national level 43.2 percent of households had no poultry. The finding 
for this survey is lower at 35 percent, perhaps due to the fact that the survey was conducted in high 
livestock potential areas. 
From Table 3.9 below, it is apparent that chicken holding among respondents concentrates at 1 to 9 
and then at 10 to 49 heads per household. Overall, the mean chicken holding is 5.7 heads with a 
total registered local chicken population of 11,077 for the four regions. Regionally, mean local 
chicken holding looks similar, ranging from 6.4 in Amhara to 5.3 in Tigray. 
12: Table 3.9: Percentage of Local Chicken Holding Households 
Local chicken 
holding
Amhara (%) Oromia (%) SNNPR 
(%)
Tigray (%) Total 
(%)
HHs with no 
chicken 
31.8 33.3 37.9 34.9 34.5
1-9 head 43.5 43.5 40.0 45.5 43.2
10-49 head 24.1 22.9 21.4 19.4 21.9
50-99 head 0.6 0.2 0.6 - 0.4
20
100+ - - - 0.3 0.1
No of HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Chicken count 3,065 2,655 2,759 2,528 11,077
Mean chicken 
holding per HH
6.4 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.75
Data disaggregation by gender of heads of household shows that similar to cattle, chicken holding is 
higher in male headed households. While 33 percent of male headed households had no local 
chickens during the reference period, 40 percent of female headed households had no chickens. 
Local chicken holding for women headed households decreased from 41 to 19 percent for 1-9 and 
10-49 chickens, respectively. Table 3.10 below presents chicken holding by gender of household 
head. 
13: Table 3.10: Percentage of Households (HHs) by the Size of Local Chicken Holding and Gender of 
Household Head 
Size of local chicken 
holding
Male headed Female headed Total 
No poultry 32.8 40.2 34.5
1-9 heads 43.9 40.6 43.2
10-49 heads 22.8 18.9 21.9
50-99 heads 0.4 0.2 0.4
100 & + heads 0.1 - 0.1
Total HHs (n) 1,481 433 1914
Mean local chicken 
holding
5.9 5.0 5.7
Chicken count 8,831 2,176 11,007
With regards to improved chickens, only 15 percent of the households surveyed said they owned 
some. In Amhara region, only 9 percent owned improved chickens while in Tigray it was 
considerably higher at 24 percent. 
The mean number of improved chickens owned is highest at 7 in Oromia and lowest at 0.6 in 
Amhara. A total of 5,888 improved chickens were registered during the survey and the majority of 
them (57.3 percent) were from Oromia and only 5 percent from Amhara. This shows a big 
divergence between regions in terms of improved chicken populations. 
21
14: Table 3.11: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Improved Chicken Holding 
Improved chicken 
holding
Amhara 
(%) Oromia (%) SNNPR 
(%) Tigray (%) Total (%)
HHs with no 
improved chickens
90.6 84.8 87.0 76.4 84.7
1-9 head 7.1 12.9 10.1 18.2 12.1
10-49 head 2.3 2.1 2.9 5.0 3.1
50-99 head - - - 0.2 0.1
100+ - - - 0.2 0.1
No of HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Improved chicken 
count
300 3,376 473 1,739 5,888
Mean improved 
chicken holding
0.6 7.0 0.99 3.6 3.1
In the discussions conducted with community members, chicken populations by type were one of 
the topics covered. Participants pointed out that in general the chicken population is dominated by 
local types. In a few woredas of Tigray, for the last eight years, eggs from improved chickens were 
hatched by local hens to obtain improved chickens. In addition, agricultural offices distributed 
improved chickens in some woredas. Hence the number of improved chickens is on the increase at a 
higher rate in Tigray. 
In a few woredas of SNNPR, respondents indicated that chickens are mainly local types because 
improved chickens are at risk of dying, particularly in the months of February to April. For example, 
in one kebele of Oromia, respondents said that farmers do not yet practice improved poultry just to 
avoid the risk of having them all die. 
In Libokemekem woreda of Amhara, it was reported that two years ago improved chicken types 
were introduced by the agriculture office, but the number distributed was inadequate. Respondents 
indicated that “we have already registered and are waiting to receive improved chickens”. 
3.2.6 Donkey Population and Holding 
Donkeys are pack animals, mainly used for transportation of animal feed, fire wood, harvest and 
household goods. Across the survey areas, 54 percent of livestock farmers do not have donkeys, 
while 41 percent owned one to two donkeys and 5.4 percent owned 3 and over. Donkey ownership 
is more prevalent in Oromia where 53 percent of the households hold one or two donkeys. Donkey 
holding is lower in SNNPR as only 198 donkeys have been registered from the surveyed households 
and mean holding is less than one donkey for every two households. 
15: Table 3.12: Percentage of Households (HHs) by Donkey Holding 
Donkey holding Amhara 
(%)
Oromia (%) SNNPR 
(%)
Tigray (%) Total (%)
HHs with no donkey 62.3 34.0 66.0 52.2 53.6
1-2 head 35.6 53.1 33.3 42.0 41.0
22
3 + head 2.1 12.9 0.6 5.8 5.4
No of HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Donkey count 269 600 198 357 1,424
Mean donkey holding
per HHs
0.56 1.25 0.4 0.7 0.7
3.3 Dairy Cows and Productivity 
3.3.1 Dairy Cow Holding 
 
Information on dairy cows and productivity was collected in section two of the household 
questionnaire. In the previous section, information on mature cows is presented and discussed, but 
this section presents findings on dairy cows and their productivity as well as feeding and 
management of dairy cows. 
Table 3.13 below presents the percentages of interviewed households having or not having dairy 
cows during the last year, irrespective of breed types. Dairy cow refers to a cow giving milk during 
the last 12 months. As shown in the table, the vast majority (79.4 percent) of interviewed 
households reported having dairy cows during the last year. Regionally, SNNPR took the lead at 88
percent followed by Oromia at 84 percent. This finding is an indication that milk production is a 
common activity in the study areas. 
16: Table 3.13: Percentage of Interviewed Households that Own Dairy Cows 
Do you have 
dairy cows?
Amhara (%) Oromia (%) SNNPR (%) Tigray (%) Total (%)
Yes
No
72.4
27.6
84.0
16.0
88.1
11.9
73.3
26.7
79.4
20.6
Total HHs
(N)
478 480 477 479 1,914
Very few respondents possessed other than indigenous dairy cows. As shown in Table 3.14 below, 
close to 60 percent of the interviewed households across the study areas reported that they had only 
local dairy cows. Regionally, SNNPR has the highest percentage of households with local dairy cows 
(64 percent) while Oromia has the least at only 55 percent. 
With regards to crossbred dairy cows, overall holding of crossbred dairy cows stands at only 13 
percent among the interviewed households across the study areas. Eighteen percent of the 
interviewed households in SNNPR have owned crossbred dairy cows only. About 8 percent of the 
respondents owned both local and crossbred types. 
23
17: Table 3.14: Percentage of Interviewed Households by Types of Dairy Cow Ownership and Region 
Types of Dairy Cows Amhara
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNPR
(%)
Tigray
(%) Total (%)
Local (indigenous)
only
Crossbred only
Both types
Have no dairy cows
59.0
8.6
4.8
27.6
55.0
13.5
15.4
16.0
63.9
17.6
6.5
11.9
58.0
10.9
4.4
26.7
59.0
12.6
7.8
20.6
Total (N) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Table 3.15 below presents the holdings of local dairy cows by number and region. Similar to cattle 
holding, local dairy cow holding concentrates around 1 to 2 per household as 60 percent of 
interviewed households reported having one or two local dairy cows. 
18: Table 3.15: Percentage of interviewed Households by number of local dairy cows and region 
Number of local 
Dairy Cows 
Amhara 
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNPR
(%)
Tigray
(%)
Total (%)
No. local dairy cow 36.2 29.6 29.6 37.6 33.2
1-2 head 55.9 64.4 62.7 56.6 59.9
3-4 head 7.5 5.4 7.1 4.0 6.0
5-9 head 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.9 0.9
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Mean Local Dairy 
Cow
0.99 1.04 1.02 0.93 1.00
Count 475 501 487 445 1,908
Overall, 19 percent of the interviewed households have one or two crossbred dairy cows while 1.4 
percent owned 3 to 4 crossbred dairy cows. 
19: Table 3.16: Percentage of interviewed Households by number of crossbred dairy cows and region 
Number of 
crossbred dairy 
cows 
Amhara 
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNPR
(%)
Tigray
(%) Total (%)
No crossbred 
dairy cow
86.6 71.0 75.9 84.8 79.6
1-2 heads 12.8 25.2 23.1 14.4 18.9
3-4 heads 0.6 3.3 1.0 0.6 1.4
5-9 heads - 0.4 - 0.2 0.2
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Mean Crossbred 
Dairy cow
0.18 0.48 0.32 0.2 0.29
Count 85 229 153 96 563
24
Local dairy cow holding by gender of the head of the household is presented in Table 3.17 below. 
Average holding for female headed households is a bit less than one while for male headed 
households it is a bit greater than one. At lower holding size (1 to 2), percentage of female headed 
households is higher than male headed and conversely, at higher holding size (3 to 4) the percentage 
of female headed is lower than male headed. This is an indicator that holding for female headed is 
centered on lower sizes. 
20: Table 3.17: Local Dairy Cow Holding by Gender of Household Head 
Size of local Dairy cows 
holding
Male headed Female headed Total 
No local dairy cow 33.0 34.2 33.2
1-2 heads 58.9 63.3 59.9
3-4 heads 7.2 2.1 6.0
5-9 heads 1.0 0.5 0.9
Total HHs (n) 1,481 433 1,941
Mean local dairy cow holding 1.04 0.86 1.0
Dairy cow count 373 1,535 1,908
3.3.2 Dairy Productivity 
Information on dairy productivity was collected by asking for the maximum and minimum amount 
of milk the household collected in a typical day during the last year from all of the lactating cows the 
household owned, including both local and crossbred lactating cows. As presented in Table 3.14 
above, 59 percent of households owned only local/indigenous lactating cows and the total number 
of lactating cows was 1,701. About 13 percent of households owned only crossbred cows and the
number of crossbred lactating cows was 371. Seven point eight percent of households reported 
having both indigenous and crossbred lactating cows and had a total of 399 lactating cows. The 
maximum and minimum quantities of milk reported from these lactating cows is summarized in 
Table 3.17, including the number of cows by type. 
21: Table 3.18: Maximum and Minimum Amount of Milk Collected in a Typical Day by Number of Lactating Cows 
Types of 
Lactating cows
Number 
of 
Lactating 
cows
Maximum 
total 
amount of 
milk 
collected 
from all 
lactating 
cows
(liters/day)
Minimum 
total 
amount of 
milk 
collected
from all 
lactating 
cows
(liters/day)
Average 
maximum 
amount of 
milk
collected 
(liters/cow/ 
day
Average 
Minimum 
Amount of 
milk 
collected 
(liters/cow/ 
day)
Max/min 
average 
(liters/cow/ 
day)
Indigenous/local 1,701 3,256.35 1,569.03 1.91 0.92 0.99
Crossbred 371 2,744.75 1,410.5 7.4 3.8 3.60
25
Both types 399 1,278 524.0 3.2 1.31 1.89
Total 2,471 7,279.7 3,503.53 2.95 1.42 1.53
As summarized in Table 3.18 above, the maximum amount of milk produced from 1,701 indigenous 
lactating cows in a typical day during the last year was 3,256.35 liters while the minimum was 
1,569.03 liters. This provides an average maximum milk production of 1.91 liter/day/cow and 
average minimum of 0.92 liter/day/cow with a range of 0.99 liter/day/cow. Similarly, 371 crossbred 
lactating cows produced a maximum of 2,744.75 liters of milk and a minimum of 1,410.5 liters milk 
during the last year. On the average, each crossbred cow produced a maximum and minimum of 7.4 
and 3.8 liters of milk, respectively. Average of maximum and minimum milk values are 0.99 
liters/day for local and 3.6 liters/day for crossbred cows. 
Table 3.19 below presents milk production by region. If one compares indigenous cow milk 
production by region ranges from 0.66 liter/day/cow in Amhara and 1.21 liters/day/cow in Tigray. 
In terms of crossbred milk production, it ranges from 1.84 liters/day/cow in Amhara to 4.85 
liters/day/cow in Tigray. The low milk production by crossbred cows in Amhara may be due to the 
small number of crossbred cows and lack of proper nutrition. 
22: Table 3.19: Maximum and Minimum Amount of Milk Collected in a Typical Day by Number of Lactating Cows and Region 
Region 
Types of 
Lactating 
cows
Number 
of 
Lactat￾ing 
Cows
Maximum total 
amount of milk 
collected from 
all lactating 
cows 
(liters/day)
Minimum 
total amount 
of milk 
collected from 
all lactating 
cows 
(liters/day)
Average 
maximum 
amount of 
milk 
collected 
(liters/cow
/ day
Average 
Minimum 
Amount 
of milk 
collected 
(liters/cow
/ day
Max/min 
average 
(liters/cow
/ day)
Amhara Indigenous/ 
local
439 576.84 285.87 1.31 0.65 0.66
Crossbred 55 246.25 145.0 4.48 2.64 1.84
Both types 66 158.5 61.0 2.4 0.92 1.48
Total 560 981.59 491.87 1.75 0.88 0.87
Oromia Indigenous/ 
local
387 720.4 257.69 1.86 0.67 1.2
Crossbred 128 1,050.5 502.5 8.21 3.93 4.28
Both types 215 735.0 319.0 3.42 1.48 1.93
Total 730 2,505.9 1,079.19 3.43 1.48 1.95
SNNPR Indigenous/ 
local
452 972.56 548.71 2.15 1.21 0.94
Crossbred 116 781.0 445.0 6.73 3.84 2.9
Both types 72 238.5 86.5 3.31 1.2 2.11
Total 640 1992.06 1138.72 3.11 1.78 1.33
Tigray Indigenous/ 
local
423 986.55 476.75 2.33 1.13 1.21
Crossbreed 72 667.00 318.0 9.26 4.42 4.85
Both types 46 146.6 57.5 3.19 1.25 1.94
Total 541 1800.15 852.25 3.33 1.58 1.75
26
The findings in Table 3.18 and Table 3.19 above are similar to what was reported during focus 
group discussions. Participants explained that milk production depends on the types of cows and 
availability of feed as well as access to irrigation for forage production. In each region, they do have 
their own local breeds known for high milk production. For example, in Amhara, they call them 
‘Fogera type’ and in Tigray they call them ‘Begait or Borena types’. These types are locals but higher
milk producing cows. They further explained that milk production is 2 liters/day for home fed cows 
and less than a liter for grazing cows. They also compared milk production in relation to access to 
irrigation. In Tigray, Raya Zebo woreda, respondents pointed out that due to access to irrigation, 
green feed is available for lactating cows, so crossbred cows provide 6 liters/day and locals 2 
liters/day. However, this qualitative data needs further and detailed assessment. Indigenous and 
crossbred cows lactate an average of 8.4 and 9.4 months, respectively. 
3.3.4 Dairy Cow Feed and Training on Dairy Animal Nutrition 
Dairy cow owners were asked if they have fed any of the items listed in Table 3.20 below to their 
dairy cows during the last year preceding the survey. Their responses showed that crop residue was 
the main feed type they provided to their dairy cows across the study areas. Green forage also was 
provided to dairy cows by over 92 percent of respondents in Amhara and Tigray. Concentrates or 
factory formulated feed was used by only 4 percent of owners across the study areas while agro￾industrial products were used by 31 percent. 
23: Table 3.20 Percentage of Dairy Cow Owners by Types of Feed they provided to their Dairy Cows 
Types of feed Amhara (%) Oromia (%) SNNPR (%) Tigray (%) Total (%)
Concentrates (factory 
formulated & mixed) 2.3 3.7 6.0 4.3 4.1
Agro-industrial by￾products (wheat bran, 
oilseed cake, molasses, 
brewers grain, etc.)
18.8 36.0 41.4 22.5 30.5
Other high quality feed 
(atela, grains) 93.4 67 47.6 65.0 67.2
Green forage, grass, hay, 
silage 95.1 75.2 75.2 92.0 89.1
Crop residue (teff straw, 
wheat straw, maize 
stover
96.8 96.0 96.0 94.8 96.4



30
In terms of frequency of fattening during a year, it ranges from one to four times per year. Figure 9 
above presents the percentage distribution of respondents by frequency of cattle fattening and 
region. As shown in the chart, the great majority of farmers fatten only once per year, particularly in 
Oromia (over 82 percent). This indicates, the low intensity of fattening across the study areas. Based 
on questionnaire responses, the length of each fattening period ranges from 30 days to 365 days, but 
these extremes are too short and too long, respectively, to be considered true fattening. On average, 
the length of fattening was 116.56 days. Regionally, the average fattening periods were 131.16, 
118.47, 107 and 106 days for SNNPR, Oromia, Amhara and Tigray, respectively. 
3.4.2 Sheep Fattening 
About 80 percent of respondents reported that they were not involved in fattening of sheep. 
Involvement in sheep fattening was extremely low in Tigray and SNNPR, as only 11 and 14 percent, 
respectively, practiced sheep fattening in the last year. In Tigray, although the number of households 
involved in sheep fattening was small (n=54), the average number of sheep these households 
fattened was one of the highest at 8.37. In SNNPR, the number of households that fattened sheep 
as well as their average number of sheep fattened was small. 
26: Table 3.23: Percentage of Households by number of sheep fattened
Number of sheep Fattened Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No sheep fattened 71.3 73.5 85.5 88.7 79.8
1-4 sheep fattened 22.8 13.5 13.4 4.4 13.5
5-9 sheep fattened 3.1 5.0 0.8 3.8 3.2
10-49 cattle fattened 2.7 7.9 0.2 2.9 3.4
50 and + cattle fattened - - - 0.2 0.1
No HHs fattened sheep 137 127 69 54 452
Total sheep fattened 534 966 174 452 2,126
Mean number of sheep 
fattened 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
Similar to the length of cattle fattening, the length of sheep fattening days ranges from 30 to 365 
days and on average sheep fattening took 138.4 days. Regionally, in Amhara it was 159.38, in 
Oromia it was 115.78, in SNNPR it was 116.9 and in Tigray it was 140.37 days. The frequency of 
sheep fattening also ranges from one to four with the majority (65 percent) only fattening once per
year. Goat fattening appeared not to be a common practice in the study areas as only 3.8 percent of 
respondents reported to have fattened goats. Due to the small number of cases, the details of goat 
fattening are not presented here. 

32
Information obtained through focus group discussions indicated that fattening is an activity mainly 
carried out by rich people and only a few respondents are involved in specialized fattening of cattle 
and/or sheep. They indicated fattening demands capital due to the high cost of feed and the cattle to 
be fattened. They further explained that local animal fattening and selling during holidays is a 
traditional practice by almost all livestock farmers in all regions. Farmers keep old oxen or cows and 
small sheep for 5-6 months and sell them even before the animals are really fattened. The length of 
fattening (number of days/months) is usually the determining factor to sell rather than weight of 
fattened animals. 
3.5 Poultry 
In section 3.2.3 we presented information on the chicken population and holdings in the study area. 
This section presents chicken by type, productivity and management type. 
3.5.1 Chicken by Type 
Section 4 of the household questionnaire collected information on egg laying hens, pullets, male 
chickens over 3 months and chicks up to 3 months of age by breed types. Table 3.25 and Table 3.26 
present the summary of the findings. As shown in Table 3.25 below, overall local hen egg layer 
holdings are 63 percent while local pullet holding is 29.4 percent. Average local egg laying hen 
holding among respondents across the study area is 2.2 hens. Regionally among respondents it 
ranges from 1.6 hens in SNNPR to 2.9 in Oromia. Average local pullet holding among respondents 
is highest in Amhara and lowest in Tigray. 
Local male chicken holding stands at 36 percent across the study areas with average holding among 
respondents of 1.1 male chickens. Regionally, holding among respondents is highest in Oromia and 
lowest in SNNPR. 
33
28: Table 3.25: Total and Average Number of Local Chickens by Types and Region 
Chicken Types Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Total egg laying local 
hens
Mean egg laying local 
hens/HH 
Total no. of HHs with 
egg laying local hens
Total HHs (n)
Number of local egg 
laying hens/year/HH
1,018
3.32
307
478
2.1
1,392
4.24
328
480
2.9
781
2.84
275
477
1.6
1,049
3.59
292
479
2.2
4,240
3.53
1,202 (63%)
1,914
2.2
Total number of local 
pullets
Number of local 
pullets/year/HH
HHs with local pullets 
730
1.5
128
544
1.1
151
647
1.4
167
420
0.9
116
2,341
1.2
562 (29.4%)
Total number of local 
male chickens over 3 
months of age
Number of local male 
chickens over 3 
months of 
age/year/HH
HHs holding local 
male chickens over 3 
months of age
590
1.2
147
631
1.3
202
565
1.2
186
362
0.8
150
2,148
1.1
685 (36%)
Table 3.26 below presents the numbers of egg laying, improved hens, improved pullets and 
improved male chickens over 3 years of age. Overall, out of the total interviewed households, only 
22 percent reported holding improved egg laying hens. Regionally, holding of improved laying hens 
ranged from 31 percent in Tigray to 18 percent in SNNPR. The average holding size of improved 
egg laying hens was very limited among respondents, ranging from only 0.6 in Amhara to 1 in 
Tigray. 
34
29: Table 3.26: Total and average number of improved chickens by type and region 
Chicken Type Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Total egg laying improved hens
Number of egg laying improved 
hens/year/HH
Total No. of households with egg 
laying improved hens
284
0.6
92 (19.2%)
331
0.7
92 (19%)
364
0.8
85 (17.8%)
502
1.0
149 (31.1%)
1481
0.8
418 (22%)
Total number of improved pullets
Number of improved 
pullets/year/HH
HHs with improved pullets
218
0.5
56
90
0.2
25
182
0.4
57
240
0.5
62
730
0.4
200
Total number of improved male 
chicken over 3 months of age
Number of improved male 
chickens over 3 months of 
age/year/HH
HHs with improved male chickens 
over 3 months of age
279
0.6
57
79
0.2
24
223
0.5
50
195
0.4
64
776
0.4
195
As to improved pullet holding, the overall number per year per household is only 0.4. The number 
of improved male chickens (over three years of age) holding among respondents across the study 
area is a tiny 0.4 chickens, ranging from 0.6 in Amhara to 0.2 in Oromia. 
3.5.2 Egg Production 
Information on egg production was collected by asking respondents to report on the average egg 
production per clutch, estimating the average number of clutches and then determining the total 
annual egg production per local hen. For improved hens, direct total annual egg production was 
asked. Though efforts were made to help respondents understand that the number of eggs produced 
per clutch and the number of clutches per year were what was needed for the survey, information 
collection on egg production was challenging. In some study areas, just total egg production was 
asked both for local hen and improved hens, and in some areas, number of clutches and number of 
eggs per clutch were asked to estimate the total annual egg production. This difference required 
auditing egg production data, however, it is hoped that the summary presented in Table 3.25 gives 
important information for the project. 
35
As presented in Table 3.27 below, overall average annual egg production for local hens was 64 eggs 
while for improved it was 187.5 eggs. 
30: Table 3.27 Total and Average Egg production by Breeds and Region 
Egg producing hens Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Total egg laying local hens
Mean egg production per year/local hen
1,018
66.2
1,392
66.1
781
62.5
1,049
62.5
4,240
64.4
Total egg laying improved hens
Mean egg production per year/improved 
hen
284
183.02
331
182.6
364
193.9
502
189.7
1,481
187.3
During focus group discussions with communities, respondents indicated that egg production is 
mainly dependent on feed, particularly for improved hens. As long as they are fed, improved hens 
continuously lay eggs. Wheat grain is best and community members are waiting for the woreda 
agricultural office to receive more improved chickens to distribute. 
3.5.3 Poultry Management and Training 
Poultry management was assessed based on shelter types and feeding arrangements that respondents 
used for their poultry. Table 3.28 and Table 3.29 below present summary information related to 
sheltering and feeding of poultry. 
Overall, over 48 percent of poultry holders used unconfined shelter whereas only 23 percent used 
confined shelter at night for their chickens. Chickens that were confined and sheltered full-time were 
only about 2 percent of the total, while 26 percent of chickens are not sheltered or confined at all. 
Regionally, poultry sheltering followed a similar pattern where a majority of respondents used 
unconfined shelter. 
31: Table 3.28 Percentage of Chicken Holders by the Type of Housing System 
Types of poultry housing 
system
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No housing 31.6 35.3 26.9 11.7 26.4
Shelter but unconfined 58.4 47.9 40.6 46.6 48.5
Shelter and confined at night 10.1 15.1 32.2 36.9 23.4
Confinement and shelter year 
round
- 1.6 0.3 4.7 1.7
No. of HHs (n) 358 365 335 358 1,416
36
With regards to the feeding system, as clearly shown in Table 3.29 below, scavenging home grain 
supplements is the dominant feeding system (85 percent). Full feeding with home grown grains as 
well as full feeding with manufactured feed are almost negligible among respondents. 
32: Table 3.29 Percentage of Chicken Holders using Different Types of Feeding Systems 
Poultry Feeding system Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Scavenging 7.3 8.0 6.0 5.8 6.8
Scavenging with home grain 
supplements 
91.9 88.5 82.7 76.7 85.0
Scavenging with 
concentrated feed 
supplements
0.8 3.0 9.9 7.8 5.3
Full feeding with home 
grown grains 
- - 1.5 9.4 2.8
Full feeding with 
manufactured feed 
- 0.5 - 0.3 0.2
No. HHs (n) 358 364 335 360 1,417
Similar to training on dairy animal nutrition and fattening management, training on poultry nutrition 
and feeding is minimal, with 90 percent of respondents having received no training. In the presence 
of kebele level development agents who are supposed to train and educate farmers in the agricultural 
activities and establish farmer training centers in almost every kebele, the reported training level is 
unexpectedly low. This low level may be due to expectations for training from the FEED II Project. 
33: Table 3.30 Percentage of Respondents who Attended Training on Poultry Nutrition and Feeding 
Training on Poultry 
Nutrition and Feeding Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Yes 4.4 4.5 12.6 9.3 7.7
No 94.5 93.5 83.0 88.9 90.0
No, but someone else 
trained in the HH
1.1 2.0 4.4 1.9 2.3
No. of HHs (n) 455 356 405 431 1,647
3.5.4 Gender Involvement in Poultry Related Activities 
From Table 3.31 below, it appears that poultry related activities are the main responsibilities of adult 
women with little support from men or children. They are highly involved not only in cleaning, 
feeding and watering of chickens, they are also involved in selling of chickens and eggs. The 
distribution pattern is the same across the study areas and regions. 
37
In one of the focus group discussions in Amhara, a man said that traditionally, poultry is the activity 
of women, as it is near home and the money is to cover small household expenses and cosmetics, 
but he also indicated that this time “if poultry will be big money, men also want to become 
involved”. 
34: Table 3.31 Percentage of persons mainly responsible for poultry related activities 
Poultry Activities Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Chicken house cleaning
Adult women 
Adult men
Adult women & men 
equally
Children < 18 years
Total
66.6
3.7
1.4
28.3
100
80.9
1.7
4.2
13.3
100
63.2
9.9
11.4
15.6
100
90.9
5.8
0.3
3.0
100
75.7
5.2
4.2
15.0
100
Chicken feeding & 
watering 
Adult women 
Adult men
Adult women & men 
equally
Children < 18 years
Total
73.0
5.3
4.7
17.0
100
76.6
2.5
9.9
11.0
100
56.9
13.8
18.6
10.8
100
96.1
3.0
0.3
0.6
100
76.0
6.0
8.2
9.8
100
Chicken & egg selling
Adult women 
Adult men
Adult women & men 
equally
Children < 18 years
Total
77.7
5.4
4.9
12.0
100
90.8
1.1
3.9
4.2
100
75.1
11.7
6.8
6.5
100
95.5
1.4
0.8
2.2
100
85.2
4.7
4.0
6.2
100
3.6 Forage 
3.6.1 Forage Cultivation and Sources of Livestock Feed 
Forage development is one of the focuses of the FEED II Project. To understand the current 
cultivation practices and forage strategy used, information on forage was collected through section 
five of the household questionnaire. Table 3.32 below presents forage cultivation status in the last 
year. 
38
35: Table 3.32: Percentage of households practiced forage cultivation, strategy used and size of land covered 
Forage 
Cultivated
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Yes 37.2 26.2 38.6 17.5 29.9
No 62.8 73.8 61.4 82.5 70.1
Total (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Cultivation Strategy
Oversowing 5.9 6.9 7.1 2.9 5.7
Undersowing 7.3 10.6 8.0 5.8 7.9
Along terrace 19.5 10.6 29.1 9.4 17.1
Average land size 142.1 m
2
124.1 m
2
79.7m
2
58.8 m
2
101.2m
2
Overall only 30 percent of the interviewed households reported that they have cultivated forage in 
the year preceding the survey. SNNPR and Amhara reported higher percentage of households 
involved in the cultivation forage at 38.6 and 37.2 percent, respectively, than Oromia and Tigray. 
Average land size covered by forage is wider in Amhara and Oromia at 142 and 124 m
2, respectively, 
than Tigray and SNNPR. Forage producers cultivated different sized parcels of land for forage 
production, ranging from a fraction of m2
 to 5,000m2
, with the overall average being 101.2m
2
. 
Forage strip along the terrace borders and under sowing were the two widely used strategies in all 
regions. A few households used the two strategies together. 
Those who cultivated forage in the last year were asked if they used improved forage planting 
materials, including improved seeds, seedlings, cuttings, splits, and others. The findings are 
summarized in Table 3.33 below. Overall 24 percent of respondents reported that they used one or 
two of the listed improved forage planting materials. The sources for these improved forage planting 
materials were government (17.6 percent), other farmers (8.4 percent), purchases from private 
venders (2.9 percent), and NGOs (2.2 percent). 
36: Table 3.33: Percentage of households by Use of improved forage planting materials and Sources of Planting Materials 
Improved Forage 
Planting Materials 
use 
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Yes 32.8 20.0 31.7 12.3 24.2
No 4.4 6.2 6.9 5.2 5.7
No forage 
cultivation done
62.8 73.8 61.4 82.5 70.1
Total (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Sources of Improved Materials
Government 17.8 14.6 26.0 12.1 17.6
NGO 1.3 0.6 5.0 1.9 2.2
Purchased from 
private vender
0.6 7.9 2.9 0.2 2.9
Farmer exchange 16.3 5.8 10.9 0.4 8.4
Use of improved forage planting materials in relation to forage cultivation is very high in all regions 
as 32.8, 20.0, 31.7 and 12.3 percent of surveyed households in Amhara, SNNPR, Oromia, and 


41
training on improved forage production is very low at about 10 percent. Eighty-eight percent of the 
interviewed households reported that they did not receive any training while about three percent 
responded that someone in the household received training on improved forage production. 
37: Table 3.34: Percentage of households by training on Improved Forage Production 
Received 
training
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Yes 4.5 4.5 18.1 10.7 9.6
No 94.6 92.0 76.8 88.2 87.8
Someone from 
the household 
trained
0.9 3.5 5.1 1.1 2.7
Total (n) 443 423 452 449 1,767
Regionally, SNNPR is better off than any of the other regions as 18 percent of respondents have 
received training on forage production. Forage production (Table 3.32) was also better in SNNPR 
than in other regions and this could be due to better training coverage. In Tigray, 10.7 percent of 
respondents received forage training, while 4.5 percent of respondents in both Amhara and Oromia 
regions received it. 
3.6.3 Distances to the nearest factory formulated and mixed feed distribution center 
The distances to formulated and mixed feed factories and distribution centers is a limiting factor for 
use or non-use of manufactured feed. As discussed in the above sections, the use of concentrated 
feed for dairy cows, fattening of livestock and poultry production is very minimal among those 
surveyed. According to respondents, their limited use was due to the high cost and lack of 
availability and access to such feed. A key project indicator sets a radius of no more than 16 kms as 
the cut-off point for the distance from distribution centers to households to ensure households have 
access to quality manufactured feed. 
Information on the current distances to the nearest formulated and mixed feed factories and 
distribution centers is summarized in Table 3.35 below. In relation to the threshold in the indicator, 
only 18 percent of respondents currently have the required access to manufactured feed. Over half 
of the interviewed households do not know where the factory or formulated and mixed feed 
distribution center is while about 17 percent said there is no distribution center nearby. 
42
38: Table 3.35: Percentage of Households by Distance to Factory Formulated Feeds 
Distance to the nearest 
factory formulated and 
mixed distribution center 
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
<16 km 15.7 20.9 27.2 9.6 18.2
17-30 km 6.7 1.4 7.8 7.1 5.8
31km & more 6.7 1.9 3.9 6.7 4.9
No distribution centers
available
6.5 43.0 9.7 9.6 16.8
I don’t know 64.4 32.7 51.4 67.1 54.3
Total (n) 447 416 434 450 1,747
3.7 Income from livestock and livestock products 
3.7.1 Number of fattened animals sold and value of sales 
Information on the number of fattened oxen/bulls sold and the corresponding value of those sales 
is presented in Table 3.36 below. This data was collected by asking for the number of fattened 
animals sold by type and the average unit prices of the sold animals. 
As presented in the table, only 28 percent of the interviewed households were engaged in selling 
fattened oxen/bulls. Respondents sold a total of 1,076 fattened oxen/bulls that had a sales value of 
over 8 million birr. On average, households were able to earn 4,366 birr from fattened oxen/bull. 
At regional level, the percentage of households involved in selling of fattened oxen/bulls ranges 
from 16 percent in Tigray to 35 percent in Oromia. In terms of the total number of oxen/bulls sold, 
it ranges from 198 in SNNPR to 362 in Tigray. In Tigray, though, the number of households 
involved in selling fattened bulls/oxen is small at 77, the value of sales was over 3 million birr with 
an average proceeds of over 6472.2 per year/household. 
39: Table 3.36: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Oxen/Bulls Sold and the Value of those Sales 
Number of fattened 
bulls/oxen Sold Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
None 66.3 65.4 72.3 83.9 72.0
1-2 head 29.5 29.8 24.7 8.6 23.1
3-4 head 2.7 4.6 2.5 3.5 3.3
5-9 head 1.3 0.2 - 1.5 1.1
10+ head 0.2 - - 1.5 0.4
43
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Number of fattened 
bull/ox sold 255 261 198 362 1,076
Total birr collected 
from sale of fattened 
bulls/oxen
1,538,320 2, 373,756 1,344,459 3,100,200 8,356,726
Avg proceeds per 
household from sale 
of fattened 
oxen/bulls (birr)
3,218.2 4,945.3 2,818.6 6,472.2 4,366.1
Table 3.37 below presents information on the value of sales from fattened and sold cows and the 
number of fattened cows sold. Overall about seven percent of the interviewed households reported 
selling fattened cows in the last year. In terms of number of cows fattened and sold, overall 6 
percent sold 1 to 2 cows and only 0.5 percent sold 3 to 4 cows. In total, respondents sold 1,914 
fattened cows and the value of these sales was 940,868 birr. This indicates that on average 
households obtained 7,588 birr per sale of fattened cow. 
Regionally, the percentages of households that sold fattened cows ranged from 9.8 percent in 
Amhara to 2.7 percent in Tigray. With regards to the number of cows sold by households, 1 to 2 
fattened cows were sold by 9.2 percent in Amhara, 6 percent in Oromia, 6.3 percent in SNNPR and 
2.1 percent in Tigray. The total value of sales from fattened, sold cows ranges from 182,200 birr in 
Tigray to 281,198 birr in Amhara, and the average proceeds per household ranges from 380 birr in 
Tigray to 517 birr in SNNPR. 
40: Table 3.37: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened and Sold Cows and the Corresponding Sales 
Number of cows sold Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No fattened cow sold 90.2 93.1 93.5 97.3 93.5
1-2 9.2 6.0 6.3 2.1 5.9
3+ fattened cows sold 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Number of fattened 
cows sold 63 46 43 26 124
Total sales collected 
(birr) 281,198 230,970 246,500 182,200 940,868
Average earnings per 
HH from selling 
fattened cows (birr)
588.3 481.2 516.8 380.4 491.6
Table 3.38 below illustrates the percentages of households that sold fattened sheep and the 
corresponding value of those sales. Percentages in the table show that about 18 percent of the 
44
interviewed households reported that they had fattened and sold sheep in the last year. In terms of 
number of sheep fattened and sold, overall, 11.6 percent sold 1 to 4 sheep, 2.9 percent 5 to 9 sheep, 
and 3.4 percent sold 10 or more sheep. A total of 1,882 fattened sheep were sold for over two 
million birr. This indicates that on average households received proceeds of 1,101 birr from sales of 
fattened sheep. 
The number of households that sold fattened sheep is much higher than the same figures for cows 
and bulls/oxen, which may be due to lower costs for fattening sheep. 
41: Table 3.38: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Sheep Sold and the Corresponding Value of Sales 
Number of sheep sold Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No sheep sold 76.2 74.8 87.2 90.2 82.1
1-4 fattened sheep 
sold 18.4 12.5 11.9 3.5 11.6
5-9 fattened sheep 
sold 2.7 5.0 0.8 2.9 2.9
10+ fattened sheep 
sold 2.7 7.7 - 3.3 3.4
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Number of sheep sold 468 868 128 418 1,882
Total sales collected 
(birr) 504,271 1,006,961 148,580 448,500 2,108,312
Number of 
households sold 
fattened sheep
114 121 61 47 343
Average proceeds per 
household from 
selling fattened 
sheep(birr)
1055.0 2097.8 311.5 936.3 1101.5
Regionally, the percentages of households that sold fattened sheep ranges from 9.8 in Tigray to 25 
percent in Oromia. In terms of the number of sheep fattened and sold, 1 to 4 sheep were sold by 18 
percent of households in Amhara and only 3.5 percent in Tigray. Five to 9 and 10 and more fattened 
sheep were sold by smaller percentages of households in each region. This is an illustration that 
fattening and selling of sheep was done for significantly higher numbers of animals than for cattle. 
The sales value from fattened sheep ranges from a bit less than half a million birr in Tigray to over a 
million birr in Oromia. The average proceeds per household ranges from 311 birr in SNNPR to 
over one thousand birr in Amhara. 
45
As shown in Table 3.39 below, overall only 4 percent of the interviewed households were involved 
in selling of fattened goats. A total of 288 fattened goats have been sold with a total value of 271,801 
birr, and the average household earned was 142 birr. 
42: Table 3.39: Distribution of Households by Number of Fattened Goats Sold and Corresponding Sales 
Number of goats sold Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No goat sold 98.1 97.5 93.3 95.2 96.0
Households sold 
fattened goats 1.9 2.5 6.7 4.8 4.0
1-4 fattened goats sold 1.3 2.3 6.3 2.7 3.1
5-9 fattened goats sold 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.6
10+ fattened goats 
sold - - 0.2 0.6 0.2
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Number of goats sold 33 27 87 141 288
Total sales collected 
(birr) 43,600 26,040 84,434 117,730 271,804
Average proceeds per 
household from sales 
of fattened goats
91.2 54.3 177.0 245.8 142.0
Average proceeds per 
household that sold 
fattened goats 
4,844.4 2,170.0 2,638.56 5,118.69 3,576.37
3.7.2 Quantity of Dairy Products Sold and their Value 
Dairy products include milk, butter and cheese. Information on the sales of milk and butter is 
presented in Tables 3.40 and 3.41 below, respectively. However, information from cheese sales is 
not presented, as very few households were engaged in the selling of cheese. 
As shown in Table 3.40, 19 percent of the interviewed households were involved in selling milk. 
These households sold 145,773 liters of milk that had a sales value of over one million birr. On 
average, a household earned 613 birr. If we compare the percentage of households having dairy 
cows (Table 3.13) with the percentage of households that sold milk, while 79 percent of respondents 
reported they had dairy cows, only 19 percent were engaged in selling milk. This was discussed 
during the focus group discussions and participants in Tigray and Amhara indicated that selling milk 
is not a well-accepted norm in their communities/traditions, but selling butter is more accepted and 
common. 
At regional level, the percentage of households involved in milk selling ranges from 12 percent in 
Tigray to 36 percent in SNNPR. However, in terms of quantities of milk sold, the smallest was from 
SNNPR and the highest was from Oromia. 
46
43: Table 3.40: Distribution of Households by Quantity of Milk Sold and the Corresponding Value of Sales from Milk 
Amount of milk sold in 
liter Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No milk sold 88.0 84.6 63.6 87.5 81.0
<=1000liter/year 10.7 12.5 36.2 9.0 17.0
> 1000liter/year 1.3 2.9 0.2 3.5 2.0
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1,914
Liters of milk sold last 
year
16,950 63101 8477.9 57243 145,773
Total sales collected 
from milk sale (birr) 91,732 498336 73970.4 504,002 1,168,042
Average proceeds per 
HH from milk sale 191.9 1038.2 155.1 1052.2 610.3
As illustrated in Table 3.41 below, 33 percent of households sold butter in the last year, which is 
much higher than the percentage of households that sold milk (19 percent). A total of 11,263 
kilograms of butter were sold with a sales value of about 1.3 million birr and an average earning of 
667 birr per household. 
Regionally, the greatest percentage of respondents that sold butter were in Amhara (39.4 percent) 
and Tigray (32.2 percent). However, respondents in Oromia and Amhara sold the highest quantity 
of butter. 
44: Table 3.41: Distribution of Households by Quantity of Butter Sold and the Value of sales 
Item Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No butter sold (% of 
HHs) 60.6 70.9 68.2 67.8 66.8
<100 kg/year (% of 
HHs) 37.5 28.0 31.5 32.0 32.3
>100 kg/year (% of 
HHs) 1.9 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.9
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Amount of butter sold 
(kg) last year 3,819.89 3,867.25 1,298.75 2,277.25 11,263.14
Total sales collected 
from butter sale, birr 419,705.96 437,256.5 153,769.5 266,584 1,277,315.96
Average proceeds per 
HH from butter sales 878.0 911.0 322.4 556.5 667.4
47
3.7.3 Sales of Poultry and Poultry Products 
Tables 3.42-3.44 below present information on the percentages of households that sold chickens by 
type (pullets, broilers and spent hens), while Table 3.45 below presents information on numbers of 
eggs sold and the corresponding sales values. 
Overall, 17 percent of households sold pullets, the total number of pullets sold was 4,741 with a 
sales value of 413,207 birr. On average, households earned 216 birr from selling of pullets. Oromia 
had the highest number of pullets sold, as one person sold 2,850 pullets. If this individual’s pullet 
sales are excluded, the number of pullets sold by region would be almost equal. 
45: Table 3.42: Distribution of Households by Number of Pullets Sold and the Value of Sales 
Item Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No pullets sold (% of HHs) 85.1 81.5 86.0 79.1 82.9
1-4 pullets sold (% of HHs) 9.0 13.5 10.9 14.4 12.0
5-9 pullets sold (% of HHs) 4.0 4.0 1.9 4.4 3.6
10+ pullets sold (% of HHs) 1.9 1.0 1.3 2.1 1.6
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Total number of pullets sold 
last year 387 3181 291 882 4741
Total sales collected from 
sale of pullets (birr)
24,629.4 270,348 20,089 98,141 413,207
Average proceeds per HH 
from pullet sales (birr) 51.5 563.2 42.1 204.9 215.9
Note: One individual in Oromia sold 2,850 pullets in the last year. 
The percentage of households that sold broilers (23 percent) is higher than the percentage of 
households that sold pullets (17 percent), but the total number of pullets sold (4,741) was much 
higher than the total number of broilers sold (1,941). Pullets for egg production are apparently in 
greater demand than broilers for meat as indicated in Table 3.42 above and Table 3.43 below. 
46: Table 3.43: Distribution of Households by Number of Broilers Sold and Value of Sales 
Item Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No broilers sold (% of HHs) 77.0 79.6 80.3 70.6 76.9
1-4 broilers sold (% of HHs) 16.5 14.6 16.8 22.5 17.6
5-9 broilers sold (% of HHs) 5.2 4.2 1.7 4.2 3.8
10+ broilers sold (% of HHs) 1.3 1.7 1.3 2.7 1.7
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Total number of broilers sold 
last year 439 439 292 771 1941
Total sales collected from sale 37,854.3 44,715 27,825 79,699 190,093
48
of broilers (birr)
Number of HHs sold broilers 110 98 94 141 443
Average proceeds per HHs 
from sales of broilers (birr) 79.2 93.2 58.3 166.4 99.3
The percentage of households engaged in selling spent hens is much lower (12.7 percent) than those 
engaged in selling pullets (173 percent) and broilers (23 percent). Respondents sold a total of 670 
spent hens with a sales value of 55,091 birr, showing average proceeds of 29 birr per household. 
47: Table 3.44: Distribution of Households by Number of Spent Hens Sold and Value of Sales 
Item Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
No spent hens sold 93.3 84.4 82.0 89.6 87.3
1-4 spent hens sold 5.9 14.0 15.3 7.5 10.7
5-9 spent hens sold 0.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 1.7
10+ spent hens sold 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4
Total HHs (n) 478 480 477 479 1914
Total number of spent 
hens sold last year 82 187 231 170 670
Total sales collected 
from sale of spent hens 
(birr)
6,491.0 16,655.7 18,847.0 13,100.75 55,093.8
Average proceeds per 
HH from spent hen 
sales (birr)
13.6 34.7 39.5 27.4 28.8
Table 3.45 below illustrates the percentage of households that sold eggs and the corresponding value 
of those sales. Overall about 51 percent of households were involved in selling eggs last year. The 
total number of eggs sold was 153,351 with a sales value of 281,802 birr and average proceeds of 
147 birr per household. 
Regionally, respondents in Tigray are supplying the most eggs to the market while respondents in 
Oromia are supplying the least. This may be due to higher number of egg laying improved chickens 
in Tigray (See Table 3.24). 
48: Table 3.45: Number of Eggs Sold and Value of Sales from Eggs in the Last Year 
Item Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
HHs that sold eggs last 
year (%) 56.7 55.4 40.3 49.7 50.5
Number of eggs sold 36,254 24,065 38,375 54,666 153,351
Sale value of eggs 60,405 47,045 74333.5 100,017 281,801.5
Average proceeds per 
HH that sold eggs 126.4 98.0 155.8 208.8 147.2

50
49: Table 3.46: Response on comparing noug cake and cottonseed for milk production 
Feed 1 kg of noug cake per day to a crossbred dairy cow grazing pasture will support the same daily 
milk production as:
Amhara
%
Oromia
%
SNNPR
%
Tigray
&
Total
%
0.5 kg cottonseed cake 2.0 0.6 11.6 3.0 4.3
1.0 kg cottonseed cake 1.8 0.6 7.5 3.4 3.3
1.2 kg cottonseed cake 0.2 0.4 10.7 3.6 3.7
1.0kg wheat bran 2.0 5.9 24.2 5.3 9.3
Don’t know 94.1 92.5 45.9 84.7 79.3
Total (n) 457 478 466 471 1872
50: Table 3.47: Percent response on comparing grass cut 30 days after and 60 days after the last cutting for milk production 
In a cut-and–carry system, grass cut 30 days after the last cutting of the same plot can support daily milk 
production when fed to a crossbred dairy cows as grass cut 60 days after the last cutting
Amhara
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNPR
(%)
Tigray
(%)
Total
(%)
Same 0.8 - 2.1 1.9 1.2
More 33.7 16.3 36.1 34.3 30.1
Less 19.7 14.0 55.8 19.2 27.2
Don’t know 45.8 69.7 6.1 44.6 41.6
Total (n) 472 479 477 475 1903
51: Table 3.48: Response on comparing noug cake and cottonseed for milk production 
A dairy cow fed something in combination with elephant grass will produce more milk per day 
than when fed Elephant grass alone
Amhara
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNPR
(%)
Tigray
(%)
Total
(%)
Rhodes grass 1.9 1.0 34.3 2.5 10.0
Vetch 4.5 16.3 24.4 14.9 15.1
Teff straw 10.8 12.8 14.1 12.4 12.5
Don’t know 82.8 69.9 27.2 70.1 62.5
Total (n) 471 478 475 475 1,899
3.8.2 Business Knowledge 
The business knowledge of respondents was assessed using two questions. The first was related to 
information needed to decide whether the business is making a profit or a loss. This was assessed 
using the simple example presented in Table 3.49 below. Over 50 percent of respondents said they 
do not know what information is needed to determine a profit or loss. Fourteen percent said that 
information on the ‘amount of money spent on input and labor to raise the forage and marketing 
expenses’ is required to assess a profit or loss and 10 percent replied that ‘price received per bale of 
forage sold’ is enough. Very few said information on ‘bale size’ and ‘number of bales sold’ was 
needed. In general, only 10 percent of respondents knew what information is required to determine 
if a business made a profit or loss. 
51
52: Table 3.49: Response on information needed to know a profit or loss 
If you plant a piece of your farm land to forage which you will later sell as baled hay, what information do 
you need to collect so that after sale you can know if you made a profit or loss?
Amhara 
(%)
Oromia 
(%)
SNNPR 
(%)
Tigray (%) Total (%)
1. Amount of money spent on input 
and labor to raise the forage and 
marketing expense 
3.2 9.4 32.3 11.8 14.2
2. Price received per bale of forage 
sold
6.3 7.3 21.3 6.5 10.4
3. Bale size (big or small) 4.7 1.5 2.5 0.8 2.4
4. Number of bales sold 3.8 1.0 1.9 1.7 2.1
5. 1 & 2 1.7 5.0 14.8 17.7 9.8
6. 1, 2 & 4 18.2 7.7 9.7 3.8 9.8
7. Don’t know 62.2 68.1 17.5 57.7 51.4
Total (n) 473 479 474 475 1,901
The second question asked to assess business knowledge among respondents was how to make 
decision in selecting the best business for investment. The comparison provided was ‘investing on 
raising broiler chickens’ or ‘fattening sheep’. The responses are summarized in Table 3.49. Thirty￾three percent of respondents indicated that they do not know on what basis the decision should be 
made while 17.5 percent answered correctly that you need to ‘compare market price minus input 
cost for each and choose the larger of the two’. Regionally, in Oromia, 34 percent responded 
correctly while the corresponding figure in Tigray is only 9 percent. 
53: Table 3.50: Response on choice of investing in broiler chicken or fattening sheep 
If you have the choice of investing your money in raising broiler chickens or fattening sheep for 
income, how would you decide which to do?
Amhara (%) Oromia (%) SNNPR 
(%)
Tigray (%) Total (%)
Compare the cost of 
inputs for each and 
choose the smaller of the 
two
9.5 8.6 49.3 23.0 22.6
Compare market prices 
for each and choose the 
larger of the two
26.6 18.4 32.1 30.9 27.0
Compare market price 
minus input cost for each 
and choose the larger of 
the two
12.7 34.2 14.6 8.6 17.5
Don’t know 29.7 58.5 10.1 33.4 32.9
Total (n) 474 479 477 473 1,903
52
3.8.2 Technology and Management Practices 
Information on improved technology and management practices is displayed in Table 3.51 below. 
As shown in the table, some technologies are consistently practiced by the respondents such as cut 
and carry, feeding troughs to feed animals, hay making, providing free access to clean water. On the 
other hand, improved practices such as ‘recordkeeping’, ‘baling’, ‘urea treatment of crop residues’, 
‘supplementation with urea molasses lick blocks’, ‘silage making’, and ‘feeding factory formulated 
feed’ are at early stages of practice. 
54: Table 3.51: Response on use of improved technology and management practices 
Do you use any of the following improved practices? Percent “Yes”
Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total
Cut and carry 84.2 70. 81.6 66.3 75.6
Feeding troughs to feed animals 52.9 58.2 38.1 74.1 55.9
Drinking troughs to provide clean water for 
animals
42.9 43.7 51.2 60.2 49.3
Rotational grazing 28.2 37.4 48.4 9.9 31.0
Record keeping of any kind 5.7 3.1 6.1 5.5 5.1
Feed a total mixed ration 6.7 20.7 18.3 19.3 16.3
Forage chopping 36.0 44.8 66.1 41.1 47.0
Baling 4.0 0.6 39.5 9.1 13.3
Supplementation of crop residues with 
green fodder
22.9 18.8 53.3 42.7 34.4
Urea treatment of crop residues 2.7 1.5 12.8 5.9 5.7
Supplementation with urea molasses lick 
blocks
2.1 2.1 4.0 4.0 3.0
Hay making 78.5 69.7 66.9 73.0 72.0
Silage making 1.1 1.7 7.6 1.7 3.0
Do you feed factory formulated feed? 3.6 4.4 10.8 4.6 5.8
Provide free choice access to clean water 61.9 44.3 66.5 80.5 63.3
IV. Indicators: Benchmarks, Refinements and Clarifications 
Baseline benchmark values for outcome indicators and intermediate results are presented in Tables 
4.1 and 4.2 below. The survey results do not provide evidence that would suggest that the target 15 
percent increase is unreasonable or unachievable for any of the outcome indicators. As a result, no 
changes are proposed. However, the definitions of four outcome indicators, i.e. Outcome 
1/Indicators 1 and 2 and Outcome 2/Indicators 1 and 2, need refinements and clarification. 
It was noted from the survey results that respondents apparently considered any “feeding” of 
animals that would ultimately be sold for meat qualified as “fattening.” Answers to the question 
regarding number of days required to fatten an animal ranged from a minimum of 30 days to as 
much as 365 days. An animal cannot be fattened in 30 days even when fed a very high energy, high 
quality fattening diet. Likewise, any animal that is kept for as much as a year before sale is not being 
53
fattened. Such a management practice is, in fact, more akin to scavenging poultry production where 
the main objective is for the animal to utilize low value resources that would otherwise go to waste. 
While this practice does add productivity and efficiency to a farm household, improvements are 
marginal, it does not produce a fat animal as desired by consumers and does not constitute a 
fattening enterprise. Such resources are best reserved for e.g. oxen when not plowing or breeding 
cows when not lactating. In contrast, fattening for the commercial market, whether by smallholders 
or larger feedlots, typically involves the provision of high energy feeds for a period of 60 – 120 days, 
with 90 days being a common target. As a result, the definition of “fattened cattle” that should be 
used for the purpose of benchmarking this indicator is “cattle provided feeds high in energy for a 
period of 60 – 120 days.” The benchmark value would be expressed as “number of cattle fattened / 
year/ household. Note, however, that this does not necessarily mean that it is only cattle fattened on 
smallholder farms. That will undoubtedly be the case for some but for others participation may be 
through their cooperative, union or other group in which they have membership. The benchmark 
value included in Table 4.1 is based on this definition. 
With respect to poultry, the survey confirmed expectations as well as previous reports by others that 
holdings in the project’s target population consist largely of local birds. Improved breeds, while 
growing, are still only about one quarter of the total. Moreover, as was cited in the focus group 
discussions, local birds may continue to play an important role in some areas for the foreseeable 
future because of their greater survivability. As a result, growth in smallholder poultry production is 
likely to depend on local birds, too; not just improved birds. In light of this fact and upon 
reconsideration, it seems illogical to focus Outcome 1/Indicator 2 only on improved poultry. The 
indicator has, thus, been revised to reflect all poultry, regardless of breed type (indigenous vs 
improved) or class (layer vs. broiler, etc.). The premise is that any increase in poultry production per 
household is exactly that, an increase in poultry production. This revision captures better the intent 
of this indicator. 
During the survey it was found that a significant number of households which milk cows sell milk 
products such as butter and cheese instead of milk. As a result, to better capture the revenue 
generated by these products Outcome 2/Indicator 1 has been revised to include “milk products” in 
the list of marketed outputs. 
As for Outcome 2/Indicator 2, for clarification purposes it should be noted that the focus is on 
commercial enterprises, whether cooperative/union or other group based, which the FEED II 
project helped establish. Livestock, poultry and forage activities engaged in for profit by 
participating smallholder farmers will also be monitored but the indicator refers to the commercial 
enterprises. Moreover, return on investment is not a change from some previous value. Rather, it is 
a value determined for a given period during the project. 
54
55: Table 4.1: FEED II Outcome Indicators and Baseline Benchmark Values 
Outcome-1: Increased Agricultural 
Productivity Definition Baseline Benchmark Values
Indicator-1 15 percent increase in 
unit productivity of 
fattened cattle
Percentage increase in 
productivity of fattened cattle 
per head over the measured 
baseline. 
Unit: Percent
Number of cattle fattened/ year/ 
100 HHs:
Total = 17.2
Indicator-2 15 percent increase in 
unit productivity of 
poultry
Percentage increase in 
productivity of local and 
exotic/ improved poultry, by
counting the total number of 
poultry (all types) raised over 
baseline. 
Unit: percent
Number of poultry (all types) 
raised/year/ HH:
Total = 7.7
Indicator-3 15 percent increase in 
unit productivity of 
milk
This indicator will measure the 
percentage increase in 
productivity of milk, by 
counting kilograms of milk 
produced and calculating the 
percentage increase over the 
measured baseline. 
Unit: Percent
Average quantity (liters) of milk 
produced/ milking cow/ day:
Indigenous = 1.0 
Crossbred = 3.6 
Outcome-2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
Indicator-1 15 percent increase in 
sales of agricultural 
products (fattened 
cattle, poultry, feed, 
milk/milk products 
and eggs) by project 
beneficiaries
This indicator will calculate the 
gross sales of these five 
products by beneficiaries at 
various points over the life of 
project to compare. 
Unit: Percent
Sales of indicated products/ 
year/ HH (birr):
Total = ETB 9,744.14
Indicator-2 15% return on 
investment from 
livestock feed related 
activities
This indicator will calculate the 
change in gross revenues as a 
percent of expenditures 
associated with a commercial 
activity. 
Unit: Percent
Gross revenue that is 15% greater 
than expenditures associated with 
a commercial enterprise.
55
56: Table 4.2: FEED II Intermediate Results 
Intermediate 
Results Project Target Indicator Definition
Baseline Benchmark 
Value
FFPr 1.1 IR-1.1 Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources 
FFPr-1.1 Indicator-1.1 6,000 hectares of eroded 
land in target areas made 
productive by 
conversion to 
sustainable forage 
production
Count the number of hectares 
of sustainable forage plots that 
are established as a result of 
the project. Unit: Hectares
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures the results of 
activities to be 
implemented during 
the project).
FFPr 1.2 IR-1.2 Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies 
FFPr-1.2 Indicator-1 18,524 (70% of 26,463 
trained) farmers have 
applied new techniques 
or technologies 
introduced by the 
project
Count those farmers who have 
applied the following 
techniques and technologies 
defined as: 1) Improved forage 
growing systems, 2) Increased 
use of manufactured feed, 3) 
Improved feedlot, dairy, 
poultry production practices. 
"Application" will be assessed 
through a survey.
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed in 
trainings yet to be 
conducted).
FFPr 1.2 Indicator-2 62 cooperative and 
union based enterprises 
who have applied new 
techniques or 
technologies introduced 
by the project.
Count those cooperatives & 
unions who have applied the 
following techniques and 
technologies defined as: 1) 
Improved forage growing 
systems, 2) Increased use of 
manufactured feed, 3) 
Improved feedlot, dairy, 
poultry production practices. 
"Application" will be assessed 
through a survey. 
Unit: Number
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed in 
trainings yet to be 
conducted).
FFPr 1.3 IR-1.3 Improved Farm Management (Operational, Financial) 
FFPr 1.3 Indicator-1 15,878 farmers have 
applied improved farm 
management practices
This indicator will estimate 
through a representative 
sample the number of project 
farmers who have applied 
improved farm management 
practices. 
Unit: Number
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed in 
trainings yet to be 
conducted).
FFPr 1.3 Indicator-2 62 cooperative and 
union based enterprises 
applied improved farm 
This indicator will count the 
number of cooperatives and 
unions who have applied 
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed in 
56
management practices improved farm management 
practices. 
Unit: Number
trainings yet to be 
conducted).
FFPr 2.3.2 IR-2.1 Improved Management of Buyer/Seller Groups within Trade Sector (Intermediate 
Result)
FFPr 2.3.2 Indicator 62 union and 
cooperative based 
enterprises applied 
improved management 
practices promoted by 
the project
This indicator will count the 
number of unions and 
cooperatives that have applied 
improved management 
practices such as record 
keeping, business planning 
among others. 
Unit: Number
Baseline is 0 (i.e. this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed in 
trainings yet to be 
conducted).
57
REFERENCES 
CSA, Agricultural sample Survey, Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, 2012/13. 
Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), “Proceedings of the 9th annual conference”, 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 30-31, 2001. 
Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development, Phase II (FEED II) Project, Year I Work Plan, 
December 2013. 
J.E. Bartlett, J.W. Kotrlik and C.C Higgins, “Organizational Research: Determining appropriate 
Sample Size”, Journal of Information Technology, Learning and Performance, Vol. 19, No.1, Spring, 
2001.
Ministry of Agriculture, “Major Challenges and Achievements in Ethiopian Livestock Production”, 
PowerPoint presentation, January 2013. 
58
Annex I 
Baseline Study Design and Methodology 
As proposed in the FEED II evaluation plan, FEED II baseline utilized a non-experimental 
pre/post-test evaluation design with follow-up. We have four regional reporting domains and hence, 
the baseline survey was done independently in each region. The survey employed both quantitative 
and qualitative data collection methodologies. For quantitative data collection, a household survey 
was employed. The sample size was be determined in such a way that it enables generalize the 
findings to the targeted population. For qualitative information, focus group discussions and 
observation was used. But, qualitative studies was carried out in a subset of kebeles sampled for 
quantitative survey. 
The Study Population: 
As the overall goal of the project is to increase the incomes of smallholder livestock producers by 
improving access to, and use of, consistent, affordable, high quality animal feed that can support 
greater livestock productivity and efficiency, the study population for this particular baseline study 
was smallholder livestock producers. The majority of farmers in the targeted project woredas are 
smallholders. 
In addition to smallholder livestock households, cooperatives will also be targeted by the survey to 
establish a baseline value. Some of the indicators in FEED II performance monitoring plan are 
targeting cooperatives, so in relation to the indicators, separate assessment will be made for 
cooperatives. 
Sample Size Determination: 
During sample size determination, we need to examine the nature of our main measurement variable 
(continuous or categorical). FEED II assumed that Livestock productivity as measured by income 
from livestock products is a function of use of improved technologies. Indirectly FEED II 
hypothesizes that, income from livestock depends on use and non-use of improved new 
technologies introduced by the project. This shows that the dependent continuous variable (income) 
is dependent on a categorical variable (use or non-use of improved technologies). 
FEED II, also assumes that 70% (Source: Feed II Proposal) of targeted direct beneficiaries will 
adopt improved agricultural technologies such as improved forage-growing systems, increased use of 
manufactured feed, improved feedlot, dairy and poultry production practices. The project aims to 
reach 26, 463 direct and over 160,280 in direct beneficiaries. 
In sample size determination, we need also to consider the margin of error that we will accept 
usually not more that 5%. At 95% confidence level, the sample size for the baseline is estimated 
using Cochrane’s general formula as:
 n = [Z2 X PQ/e2
] X design effect 
59
Where n is the estimated sample size 
 Z= 1.96 from a standard distribution table at 95% confidence level 
 P= proportion of beneficiaries expected to adopt the new agricultural technologies (0.7) 
 Q= 1-P (those who will not adopt the new agricultural technologies) (0.3) 
 e = the level of error term which we are going to accept/tolerable (0.05 or 5%) 
Design effect: the baseline survey will not use simple random sampling; rather it will apply a 
multi stage sampling technique. It is a ratio of variance using a given sample design to the 
ratio of variance assuming simple random sampling and applied as an adjustment factor, 1.3 
Substituting for the above values in the formula: 
n = [1.962 X (0.7) (0.3)/0.052
]X 1.3 = 420 
Assuming that all small-holder farmers will not be available during the survey, sampling with 
replacement will be done for 10%. So, this will increase the sample size to 462 SHFs per region. The 
survey will interview a total of 4X462= 1848 smallholder farmers in the four regions. Since one 
person will be interviewed from each household, this indicates a total of 1848 persons will be 
participated in the HH survey, which is greater than 5% of the direct beneficiaries. 
The allocation of sample size into woredas will be as follows: 
 Table 1: Sample size by Woreda and Kebele: 
Region No of 
Woredas to 
be covered 
No of Kebeles 
per woreda
Total 
Kebeles to
be covered
No of HHs to be 
interviewed in 
each Kebele
Total 
Number of 
HHs for 
interview 
Amhara
Oromia 
SNNPR
Tigray
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
32
32
32
32
15HHs
15HHs
15HHs
15HHs
462
462
462
462
Total 32 128 1848
This shows that out of the total 39 Feed II Woredas, 32 of them will be covered in the survey. 
Sampling Procedure: 
Considering the objective of the project, the ultimate target population from which the survey 
collects information is Smallholder livestock Farmers (SHFs). To reach to these ultimate targets, a 
three stage sampling methodology is proposed. Including FEED I union affiliated woredas, FEED 
II operational woredas are 39. Of these woredas, 32 were selected (8 per region). Such high coverage 
60
of woredas (82%) was due to varied characteristics of woredas in relation to the types of 
cooperatives and their potential for livestock production. Hence, the selection of woredas 
considered the geographical disparity as well as the types of cooperatives in each woreda. 
As second stage of sampling, kebeles within the selected woredas were selected. The selection of 
kebeles has given major emphasis to high livestock potential kebeles. 
As a third stage sampling procedure, within the selected kebeles, smallholder farmers/households 
were selected using systematic random sampling techniue. It was assumed that cooperatives 
(livestock or multipurpose) operational in each kebele have a list of their members and this list was 
to serve as a sampling frame to identify households for the interview. However, in some kebeles, the 
list of cooperative members was absent or incomplete, hence, kebele administration list was used as 
an alternative sampling frame and a systematic random sampling method was applied to identify 
households for the interview. 
Kebele and HH selection within Woreda 
Side by side with the HH interview, two cooperatives were assessed from each woreda using 
cooperative questionnaire. The selection of cooperatives for the study gave major emphasis again to 
livestock cooperatives, but livestock cooperatives were very small in number. In the absence of 
livestock cooperatives, multipurpose cooperatives were considered. 
61
Annex II - Household Questionnaire 
FEED II Project Baseline Study 
Household Survey Questionnaire 
Interview cover sheet and respondent’s informed consent control 
Questionnaire Number___________ (To be filled in the Office) 
Inclusion Criteria: 
Interview only Households with Livestock 
INFORMED CONSENT (READ THE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE RESPONDENT)
My Name is: _____________ ___________________I have been commissioned by 
ACDI/VOCA FEED II project to carry out a HOUSEHOLD SURVEY. The objective of FEED II 
project is increasing productivity of livestock farmers through creating access to commercial 
feed manufacturing, improve forage and feeding practice. The purpose of this survey is to give 
FEED II Project with pertinent information related to livestock/poultry production and productivity 
including technology and management practices as well as forage production. This information 
will help the project plan how to support livestock farmers in this kebele and other kebeles of the 
woreda. 
You have been randomly selected among many other households of the kebele as a 
respondent to this survey. The information you will provide will remain confidential and will only 
be used for the purpose of the survey only. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and 
your identity will also remain anonymous. I hope this will be okay with you. However, if you do 
not feel comfortable participating in the survey, please feel free to say no. This interview will 
take about 1 hour of your time. Are you willing to participate in this survey? (Circle yes or no) 
1. Yes 2. No