Baseline Evaluation Report
on
the FY 2017 Food for Progress “Feed 
Enhancement for Development of
Ethiopia [FEED-III]”
A Project Funded by
USDA
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-663-2017/030-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2017
Submitted to: ACDI-VOCA
e-mail:
Submitted by: DAB-Development Research & Training plc.
August 3, 2018
0 
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
Table of Contents
LIST  OF  TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................... II 
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................IV 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... VI 
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE BASELINE SURVEY ........................................................................... 1
1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE BASELINE SURVEY ......................................................................................... 3
2. BASELINE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1. BASELINE EVALUATION APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 4
2.2. BASELINE EVALUATION DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. SOURCES AND TYPE OF DATA FOR THE BASELINE SURVEY.......................................................................... 5
2.4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES, SAMPLE SIZE, AND STUDY SITE SELECTION........................................................... 5
2.4. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION.................................................................................................................. 8
2.4.1. HOUSEHOLD SURVEY.................................................................................................................................................8 
2.4.2. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) .......................................................................................................... 9
2.4.3. IN-DEPTH PERSONAL INTERVIEWS (IDIS)...................................................................................................................9 
2.4.4. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGDS) ...................................................................................................................10 
2.4.5. DIRECT/FIELD OBSERVATION ................................................................................................................................10
2.5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS (SURVEY ETHICS, CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ETHICAL APPROVAL)....................................................10 
2.6. DATA PROCESSING ...............................................................................................................................................11 
2.7. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION AND REPORT WRITE-UP ..........................................................................11
2.8 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................12 
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF RESPONDENTS ...................................................... 12
3.3. HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES AND INCOME SOURCES .................................................................. 18
3.4. DAIRY PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN ................................................................................................... 19
3.5. ANIMAL FATTENING AND VALUE CHAIN.................................................................................................... 36
3.6. FEED PRODUCTION AND FEED VALUE CHAIN............................................................................................. 43
3.7. FEED VALUE CHAIN ...................................................................................................................................... 49
3.10. POULTRY PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN............................................................................................. 53
3.10 POULTRY VALUE CHAIN.............................................................................................................................. 56
3.12. GENDER PERSPECTIVES IN THE FEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY
............................................................................................................................................................................ 59
3.12.1. GENDER ROLES IN DAIRY PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT TASKS............................................................................59 
3.12.2. GENDER ROLES IN FORAGE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................61 
i 
ii
3.12.3. GENDER ROLES IN POULTRY PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT TASKS........................................................................62 
3.12.4. GENDER PERSPECTIVES IN DECISION MAKING ........................................................................................................63 
3.12.5. GENDER PERSPECTIVES IN PARTICIPATION TO TRAININGS AND CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES .......................................65
3.13. DIETARY DIVERSITY AND NUTRITION IN SMALL-HOLDER HOUSEHOLDS.................................................. 66
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 67
4.1. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 67
4.2. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................... 68
ANNEX 1: BASELINE SURVEY SELECTED WOREDAS BY MODE OF PRODUCTION AND AGRO-ECOLOGY ..............................................70 
ANNEX 2: CAPI-BASED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................................................73 
ANNEX 2A: CAPI-BASED HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................................................73 
ANNEX 2B: CAPI-BASED PRIMARY COOPERATIVES QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................108
ANNEX 3: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) ....................................................................................................................114 
ANNEX 3A: INTERVIEW GUIDE TO MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK AND FISHERY (MOLF) (AT MINISTRY, REGIONAL AND ZONAL LEVELS).....114 
ANNEX 3B: INTERVIEW GUIDE TO MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK AND FISHERY (MOLF) (AT WOREDA LEVEL).........................................116 
ANNEX 3C: INTERVIEW GUIDE TO FEDERAL COOPERATIVE AGENCY (FCA) ..............................................................................118
ANNEX 3D: INTERVIEW GUIDE TO ANIMAL FEED INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (AFIA) AND ETHIOPIA MEAT AND DAIRY INDUSTRY 
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (EMDIDI) ...................................................................................................................................120 
ANNEX 4: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): .................................................................................................................121 
ANNEX 4A: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): UNION FEED MANUFACTURING UNIT MANAGER .............................................121
ANNEX 4B: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): PRIVATE ACTORS (AGRI -INPUT DEALERS) .......................................................123 
ANNEX 4C: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): FORAGE NURSERY ENTERPRISES ....................................................................125 
ANNEX 4D: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): DEVELOPMENT AGENTS ..............................................................................127
ANNEX 4E: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): WOREDA COOPERATIVE PROMOTION AGENCY ..............................................128 
ANNEX 4F: IN-DEPTH PERSONS’ INTERVIEW (IDS): FEED INGREDIENTS SUPPLIERS........................................................................128 
ANNEX 5: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDES ..................................................................................................................131 
ANNEX 6: FIELD OBSERVATION CHECKLIST..........................................................................................................................133
List of tables 
Table 1 Sample proportion by region........................................................................................................... 8 
Table 2 List of key informants for the baseline survey .................................................................................. 9 
Table 3 List of IDIs for the baseline survey .................................................................................................... 9 
Table 4 Respondent composition by region and sex (N=1648) .................................................................. 12 
Table 5 Demographic profiles of respondents (N=1648) ........................................................................... 14 
Table 6 Age, family size, household members role, land owned, and cultivated by region (N=1648) ...... 16 
Table 7 Smallholders participation in production and estimated annual income earned by region ............ 18 
Table 8 HH Average livestock ownership by breed .................................................................................... 19 
Table 9 Average quantity of milk produced from indigenous and crossbred cows in FEED III project regions, 
2018............................................................................................................................................................ 21 
Table 10 Lactation length of dairy cows in various agro-ecologies FEED III project regions, 2018 ............ 21 
Table 11 Feed sources of dairy cows in various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018 ......................... 22 
Table 12 Feed sources of dairy cows in the FEED III project regions, 2018 ................................................ 22 
Table 13 Type of animal feed preservation and storage practices in various agro-ecologies of the FEED III 
project sites, 2018 ....................................................................................................................................... 23 
Table 14 Type of animal feed preservation and storage practices in the FEED III project regions, 2018 .. 23 
Table 15 Equipment used for drinking and feeding activities in various agro-ecologies, 2018.................. 24 
3
Table 16 Type of physical and chemical treatment of feed used for dairy cows in FEED III project agro￾ecologies, 2018 ........................................................................................................................................... 24 
Table 17 Type of physical and chemical treatment of feed used for dairy cows in the FEED III project 
regions, 2018 .............................................................................................................................................. 24 
Table 18 Type of feeding practices in various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018 ........................... 25 
Table 19 Type of feeding practices across FEED III project regions, 2018 ................................................. 25 
Table 20 Access of men and women to trainings on dairy management, 2018......................................... 26 
Table 21 Household members who received trainings on improved dairy management in the regions, 2018 
.................................................................................................................................................................... 26 
Table 22 Organizations who provided trainings to farmers on improved dairy management, 2018 ........ 26 
Table 23 Selling practices of milk and milk products in the FEED III project regions, 2018 ......................... 27 
Table 24 Selling practices of milk and milk products in the FEED III project agro-ecologies, 2018............. 27 
Table 25 Place of sale of dairy products in the FEED III project regions, 2018 .......................................... 28 
Table 26 Quantity of dairy products sold in the FEED III project regions in the month of March 2018 ....... 29 
Table 27 Quantity of dairy products sold across agro-ecologies of FEED III project in a month, 2018 ...... 29 
Table 28 Income generated from sales of dairy products in the regions, 2018 ......................................... 30 
Table 29 Income earnings from dairy products across agro-ecologies of FEED III project in a month, 2018 
.................................................................................................................................................................... 30 
Table 30 Challenges of small-holder farmers across various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018...... 31 
Table 31 Challenges of small-holder farmers in the FEED III project regions, 2018.................................... 31 
Table 32 Actors involved across dairy production value chain in FEED III project regions, 2018 ................ 32 
Table 33 Experiences of purchasing concentrate feed for dairy cows, 2018 ............................................. 33 
Table 34 Quantity of concentrate (kg) purchased by dairy farmers in FEED III project regions, 2018 ....... 33 
Table 35 Sources from where farmers purchased concentrate feeds in FEED III project regions, 2018 ...... 33 
Table 36 Reasons why distribution channels are inadequate for concentrate feeds, 2018 ........................ 34 
Table 37 Sources of feed market information in the FEED III project regions, 2018 ................................... 34 
Table 38 Reasons why dairy farmers are unable to supply adequate quantity of concentrate feeds to their 
cows, 2018 .................................................................................................................................................. 35 
Table 39 Strategies adopted by farmers at times of inadequate supply of concentrate feeds, 2018 ...... 36 
Table 40 Consequences of limited access to feed for dairy production, 2018 ........................................... 36 
Table 41 HH participation in fattening by region ....................................................................................... 36 
Table 42 Animal fattening practice by region by animal type ................................................................... 37 
Table 43 Animal fattened and sales income by region by animal type...................................................... 38 
Table 44 Value chain actors involved in animal fattening in FEED III project regions .................................. 38 
Table 45 Feed marke access and information (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 farmers 
involved in faffening)................................................................................................................................... 42 
Table 46 Concentrate feed inadequacy and its effects (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 
farmers involved in faffening) ..................................................................................................................... 42 
Table 48 Purchased concentrate feed price and quality (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 
farmers involved in faffening) ..................................................................................................................... 43 
Table 49 Households participation in forage production by region........................................................... 44 
Table 50 Percentage of household provided training and use and source of planting material in past 12 
months .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 
4
Table 51 Area cultivated by improved forage, feeding system and actors involved forage development 
Training in 2017/18 by region ................................................................................................................... 45 
Table 52 Forage inadequacy and its effects ............................................................................................. 46 
Table 53 Forage varieties grown and used by survey households in 2017/18 by region ......................... 47 
Table 54 Household Poultry production participation ................................................................................. 53 
Table 55 Average poultry ownership and productivity by Region.............................................................. 54 
Table 56 Average annual sales of poultry products ................................................................................... 55 
Table 57 Concenrtae feed price afordability, price stability and quality assurance ................................ 57 
Table 58 Types of poultry feed used and source of feed........................................................................... 58 
Table 59 Poultry feed market channel, source of market information and means of information access .... 58 
Table 60 Poultry feed adequacy rate, reasons and strategies for coping. ................................................ 59 
Table 61 Gender roles in dairy management practices (% of households) in FEED III project regions, 2018 
.................................................................................................................................................................... 60 
Table 62 Gender roles in the management of forage crops in FEED III project regions, 2018 ................... 61 
Table 63 Gender roles in poultry management practices in FEED III project regions, 2018........................ 62 
Table 64 Participation of household members on decision making to sale dairy products in the regions, 
2018............................................................................................................................................................ 63 
Table 65 Gender perspectives on decision making practices of production and sales of poultry products, 
2018............................................................................................................................................................ 63 
Table 66 Gender perspectives on decision making practices of production and sales of forages, 2018... 64 
Table 67 Gender roles in decision making practices on concentrate feed purchase in FEED III project 
regions, 2018 .............................................................................................................................................. 64 
Table 68 Gender perspectives in decision making practices about the production and sales of poultry 
products in FEED III project regions, 2018 ................................................................................................... 64 
Table 69 Participation of household members on trainings related to dairy animal nutrition and 
management, 2018 ..................................................................................................................................... 65 
Table 70 Gender perspectives in participation of women and men on improved poultry management 
trainings, 2018 ............................................................................................................................................ 66 
Table 71 Accessibility of required nutrition to small-holder households in FEED III project regions, 2018 ... 66 
List of figures
Figure 1: (A) Selected Woredas from Oromia region (B) Selected Woredas from SNNPR...................... 7 
Figure 2 Households membership into unions/cooperatives by AEZ ............................................................ 13
Figure 3 Household survey response rate in % ............................................................................................ 15 
Figure 4 Household head age distribution by region .................................................................................. 16 
Figure 5 Proportion of smallholder by region.............................................................................................. 17 
Figure 6 Household engaged in dairy production in the FEED-III project regions, 2018 ............................. 20 
Figure 7 Access of dairy farmers to feed market information, 2018 .......................................................... 34 
Figure 8 Major problems in animal fattening activities................................................................................ 41 
Figure 9 Actors involved in improved forage training and the focus of the training by region ................... 46 
Figure 10 Major forage production problems by region and number of respondents ................................ 47 
5
Figure 11 Expected support areas for cooperatives/unions by FEED-III project.......................................... 51 
Figure 12 Household Poultry production market outlet ................................................................................ 53 
Figure 13 Average poultry egg productivity egg/hen/year by Region ..................................................... 54 
Figure 14 Improved poultry management training providers (left panel) and major challenges to poultry 
production (right panel) by regions ............................................................................................................. 55 
Figure 15 Market places for smallholders’ poultry products ...................................................................... 56 
Figure 16 Main value chain actors for poultry production ........................................................................... 57 
6
Executive summary
FEED-III is a three-year project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This project 
will address USDA’s food for progress strategic objectives of increased agricultural productivity (SO1) and 
the expansion of trade in agricultural products (SO2), as well as the Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE) 
Agricultural Growth Plan (AGP), Livestock Master Plans (LMP), USAID’s country development and 
coordination, and Feed the Future strategies. Specifically, the project endeavors to deepen the capacity of 
agricultural enterprises to participate effectively at scale in the livestock value chain and strengthen their 
sustainability through greater integration with the commercial private sector. 
The baseline study was initiated to set benchmarks for project performance indicators as one of the key 
steps towards establishing a robust monitoring, evaluation and learning system for the project. The 
baseline provides quantitative and qualitative data on the performance measures. Specifically, the 
baseline study intends to: 
1. Collect household socioeconomic data pertaining to livestock farmers in the project zone of influence; 
2. Determine the baseline values for contextual, outcome, and impact level performance indicators as 
outlined in the project performance monitoring plan; 
3. Identify gaps and weaknesses in feed manufacturing supply chains in each of the 4 project areas 
including, feed regulatory framework; 
4. Identify and document innovative feed and forage production systems that promote smallholder and 
market resilience; 
5. Identify feed and forage production capacity gaps, sector policy constraints and organizational 
weaknesses related to feed manufacturing and feed distribution supply chains; 
6. Identify activities that can act as catalysts in developing sustainable forage production systems that 
can facilitate on-farm feeding practices; 
7. Identify opportunities for collaborative learning and action along the feed value chain that can foster 
livestock production systems change; 
8. Identify constraints in maximizing beneficial use of available feed resources among livestock and 
poultry smallholder farmers. 
The study was conducted in four regions of the country including Oromia, Tigray, Amhara and SNNP and a 
sample of 16 representative districts where FEED III project is makes its focus. The study has adopted 
blends of approaches and techniques including desk reviews, qualitative approaches and quantitative 
survey techniques. At qualitative stage, the required data was collected by interviewing 40 key-informant 
interviews (KIIs), 62 in-depth interviews and 20 focus group discussions (FGDs). Quantitative data was 
collected using a structured questionnaire by interviewing 1648 randomly selected households. Data 
collection was made electronically, and enumerators and supervisors were trained intensively on data 
collection approaches along with field level pre-testing. 
Major findings
Dairy production and value chain
In the FEED III project regions, households mainly depend on mixed crop-livestock farming systems both as 
source of food and on-farm incomes. Out of the major household income sources, 55% of the income was 
generated from dairy, fattening and poultry production, while the other 45% was generated from crop 
production. In the livestock sector, engagement in dairy production is becoming a common business in rural 
areas accounting for 6% of the total household income. Among the rural households in FEED III project 
regions, 45% of them were engaged in dairy production despite only 10% of the households owned 
crossbred lactating cows. Not only is the supply of crossbred cows very scarce but also their purchase price 
is consequently very high (in the range of 30,000 – 45,000 ETB1 per pregnant heifer/cow), the value 
which is often reported to be unaffordable for smallholder farmers. 
Even though the average milk productivity potential of crossbred cows is more than 10 liters per day per 
cow under good management conditions, it was lower (5.25 liters per day per cow) in FEED III project 
regions. Apart from poor management conditions, poor quality and inadequate quantity feed provided to 
crossbred cows were other reasons why crossbred cows performed below potential in rural areas of FEED 
III project regions. On the other hand, the average milk productivity of indigenous milking cows was 1.95 
liters per day per cow (ranging from 1.37 – 2.53 liters per day per cow), which is expected in light of 
their low yielding potential. 
Feed is one of the major inputs in dairy production which accounts for 70% of the cost. Even though 
households depend on various types of feed sources, 81% of the them (96% in Tigray region, 85% in 
Amhara, 67% in Oromia and 79% in SNNP region) have indicated crop residue as the most common feed 
source for dairy cows in rural areas of FEED III project regions. Consequent to human population pressure 
over time, farmlands have started to expand encroaching up on grazing and pasture lands. This has 
contributed to expansion of crop production and, as a result, availability of more crop residues. Moreover, 
crop residue is relatively the cheapest feed source compared to hay, forages and concentrates. Because of 
this, farmers conserve residues of various types of crops in all agro-ecologies and regions of FEED III 
project. 
In an attempt to add values to feeds, households have adopted various types of feed management 
practices. The most common method practiced by 67% of the overall sample households was crop residue 
treatment (53% in Tigray, 66% in Amhara, 70% in Oromia and 75% in SNNP regions). One of the 
techniques adopted for value addition in crop residue is urea treatment through application of ammonia to 
increase feed intake of dairy cows. It also minimizes wastage of crop residues by enhancing consumption 
by animals. The second essential source of feed was green feed in all the FEED III project regions. It was 
indicated that a large proportion of rural households (71%) adopted cut and carry system of supplying 
green feed to their dairy cows. Since dairy cows are mostly kept around homesteads, cut and carry 
practice of feed supply is most preferable mechanism for farmers. 
Since small-holder farming households are not strongly business oriented in their feature, the practice of 
selling milk and milk products is still limited. For instance, only 17% of the households have had 
experiences of selling milk (26% for Oromia, 27% for SNNP, 5% each for Amhara and Tigray regions). 
The major reason was reported to be distant location of households from towns where there is demand for 
1 One USD=27.24 ETB as of May 2018. 
vii 
8
milk. Because of this, households depend on processing milk and selling milk products, mainly butter. For 
instance, the study shows that 27% of rural households were engaged in selling butter (36% for Tigray, 
33% for SNNP, 32% for Oromia and 9% for Amhara regions). The practice of selling cheese was, 
however, recognized to be limited in FEED III project regions (only 4% on average). 
In FEED III project regions, there are challenges that need to be addressed to make the dairy sub-sector 
more efficient and productive. One of the challenges identified by 59% of the households was feed 
shortage followed by land shortage (56%) for grazing, hay making and growing forage crops. This 
problem was exacerbated by human population pressure which forced farmers to plow grazing lands and 
provide priority for the growth of food crops. Scarcity of feed supply has also contributed to the rise of 
feed costs, such as concentrates and industrially processed feeds. Inadequate knowledge and skills of 
improved dairy management practices was also identified to be the other major problem by 40% of the 
households. 
Feed production and value chain
Out of the essential sources of feed for dairy cows, forage production was a newly introduced technology 
in the feed sector. Various improved forage crops have been introduced to FEED III project regions by 
various institutions. These include Sesbaniasesban, Vetivargrass, Setariaverticellata, Elephantgrass 
(Pennisetumperpureum), Rhodes, Dashograss, Oats, Lablab, Cowpea, Alfalfa, Vetch, and Pigeon pea 
through the government extension system and through NGO interventions. However, the extent of adoption 
of these forage crops was still very limited. For instance, improved forages were grown by very few 
households (only 0.2% in Tigray, 7.5% in Amhara, 1.7% in Oromia and 25.7% in SNNP regions). Not only 
that, but the area allocated to improved forage production was also meager (only 0.02 ha per 
household). Because of this, the fodder produced remained to be inadequate to meet nutritional demands 
of dairy cows. 
Apart from forage crops, dairy farmers are dependent on commercial feeds which are traded in FEED III 
project regions. These include hay, green fodder, cereal crop residues, pulse crop residues, mill residues, 
vegetable and fruit residues, cereal bran, pulse bran, oil seed cakes, and formulated rations. In spite of all 
these efforts made and options of interventions to develop the feed sector, feed scarcity has still 
perpetuated to be the major problem in the dairy sector. 
Animal fattening and value chain
Fattening is also another option of income source for 27% of rural households in FEED III project regions 
accounting for 45% of their on-farm income (ETB 37,377), by far higher than income generated from 
dairy and poultry production. Cattle (mainly ox and bull) are commonly used animals for fattening 
purposes followed by goats and sheep. Industrially processed concentrate feed, oilseed cake and wheat 
bran are commercial feeds dominantly used for fattening of animals while dry feed and greens are mainly 
sourced from own farms. These feeds are supplied by feed processors and wholesalers which are major 
actors across the feed value chain. Other actors include wholesalers who purchase fattened animals. Since 
farming households do not have well developed marketing networks, they sale their fattened animals at 
local markets for lower prices, a condition which is discouraging engagement of farmers in fattening 
business. 
Even though fattening rewards substantial income benefits to the farming households, it was not without 
challenges. The priority challenge in all the FEED III project regions was associated with feed shortage 
similar to the dairy sector. Feed shortage is often exacerbated by frequent drought occurrence and land 
9
shortage. Involvement of intermediary brokers makes marketing systems inefficient creating price 
distortions and keeping farmers and traders at a disadvantage. Cases are common where farmers 
received the lowest price while traders bear the highest costs. This process disproportionately benefits 
brokers who add little or no values to the transaction. 
Poultry production and value chain
Apart from fattening and dairy production, farming households are also engaged in poultry production. 
Poultry production is becoming popular among smallholders because it does not compete for limited 
household resources such as land, labor or capital. In FEED III project regions, 60% of the households in 
Amhara region, 43% in Tigray, 42% in Oromia and 40% in SNNP regions were engaged in poultry 
production at the time of the baseline study. However, the traditional poultry production system was 
largely characterized by small flock sizes, low levels of inputs and outputs, and periodic devastation of 
flocks by disease. 
Even though poultry production is mainly of a small-holder business, there are also commercial poultry 
farms and feed operators across the value chain operating in bigger towns. Some of the major ones 
included ELFORA, Genesis Farms Ethiopia, Ethiochickens and Alema Farms. These actors along the poultry 
value chain dominate the market and make it difficult for smaller millers to obtain feed ingredients. Apart 
from high prices, the supply of inadequate quantity and poor quality of poultry feed is a worrisome issue 
that merits due consideration in the poultry sector imposing negative consequences on productivity and 
household income. 
Gender perspectives in the feed management practices and household dietary diversity
In the context of Ethiopia, household members including men, women and youth have roles to play in 
livestock sector depending on their sex, age and physical conditions. The survey findings show that 70% of 
dairy management activities (such as feeding cows, milking and milk processing, calf feeding and 
management) were mainly carried out by women while men contributed to 30% of the task (such as feed 
collection, purchasing high value feeds and selling cows). The implication is that targeting interventions 
should be aligned either to women or men depending on the nature of roles they play. Assessment of 
gender perspectives also helps to identify whom to work with and to make the right targeting (either 
women or men) in research, extension and development interventions. 
Forage production and management was also another activity in the dairy sector where gender disparity 
was tracked. According to the findings, 70% of the forage production and management activities were 
implemented by men (such as land preparation and planting of forage crops, harvesting and fertilizer 
application). On the other hand, watering of forage crops was the major task of women in 75% of the 
households. The implication is that any of the interventions related to enhancement of forage production 
should target more men than women. 
The findings of this study have also confirmed that all the poultry management related activities are mainly 
managed by women. For instance, vaccination and treatment of chicken was the major task of women in 
84% of the households. Chicken feeding is also their major task in 86% of the households. This implies that 
any of the technology and development related interventions on poultry production and management 
should provide priority focus for women. Agricultural extension systems and any of interventions intending 
to empower women would be more successful if the focus is made on poultry, in which women have better 
management experiences. 
10
In the context of Ethiopia, gender disparity in decision making and other perspectives is still an issue in 
male headed households with a husband and a wife. However, it is not an issue in female headed 
households where the woman is the dominant decision maker except in some cases where adult sons or 
daughters are involved in decision making. Even though the gender roles vary among the family members 
(husband, wife and youths), decision making now days is becoming a joint role of both the husband and 
wife. This was largely the consequence of massive awareness and promotion activities that have been in 
place for the last two decades. For instance, in FEED III project regions, decision making in 53% of the 
households for selling dairy products was jointly made by the husband and wife. Joint decision making is 
dominant not only in dairy sector but also in poultry and forage production and marketing. 
Even though all household members participate in the management of dairy, a gender gap was noticed in 
access to training opportunities for women and men. Even though women are making substantial 
contributions in dairy management, 83% of the households reported that men received better opportunities 
to participate in improved dairy management trainings while women had such access in only 16% of the 
households. Moreover, gender disparity was still evident in the poultry sector as well where men received 
better opportunities of participation in trainings than women. In both cases, the reason is mainly associated 
with attitudinal problems, i.e. the perception that the man is heading the household and that he shall get 
priority for such public services. There was also an assumption that the man will share the knowledge and 
skills he gained from the training with his spouse and other family members, which in most cases doesn’t 
hold true. 
Another focal issue for the baseline survey was assessing access of households to nutrition. Farming 
households usually feature economic scarcity directly association with access to dietary diversity. Not only 
are diversified food items not easily accessible at all times, there is also an attitudinal problem which fails 
to recognize the importance of keeping nutritional balance on the food menu. It was reported that protein 
source food stuff, such as beef, lamb, goat and egg were not commonly accessible to 52% of the 
households. On the other hand, food items processed from beans, peas and lentils are almost staple foods 
of rural households in FEED III project regions. 
Conclusion and recommendations
Engagement in livestock production has appeared to be the dominant source of on-farm incomes (55%) for 
the farming households in FEED III project regions. Fattening, especially, was figured out to be relatively 
lucrative business accounting for the largest proportion of income (45%) despite the proportion of 
households engaged in fattening is still low, only 27%. Dairying is also the next essential business to 
stallholders which contributed to 6% of on-farm incomes. Even though the proportion of households 
engaged in dairy business in FEED III project regions was considerable (45%), milk selling has not yet 
become a good option mainly due to distant location of rural villages from towns and inadequate 
technologies to preserve fresh milk. Because of this, households depend on processing milk and selling 
butter. They did not have access to improved and efficient milk churner machines either. Because of this, 
they could not maximize the substantial benefits to be had from dairying. The other option from which rural 
households generated 4% of on-farm incomes is poultry production. Households in the range of 40 to 60% 
depend on this business. The study also reveals the substantial contribution of women in dairy and poultry 
production. Men are dominantly involved in fattening and forage production. For instance, 70% of the 
tasks in dairy management are played by women. 
Despite the substantial contribution of livestock sector to on-farm incomes and household food nutrition, it 
was not without challenges. Dairy production, fattening and poultry production has been critically 
challenged by feed related problems. Because of this, feed related issue has appeared to be a priority 
11
agenda for rural households especially in target areas of FEED III project regions, zones and districts. It is 
not only limited availability and supply but also poor quality that are critical issues which deserve due 
consideration in the upcoming interventions. The intention of FEED III project to address issues related to 
feed is of high priority, timely and invaluable. Limited knowledge and skills is also another challenge which 
restricted the growth of dairy and poultry production, and fattening businesses in FEED III project regions. 
Interventions which attempted to empower farmers so far have also suffered from wrong targeting (for 
instance targeting men even though major roles of dairy management are played by women). 
The study also confirms that FEED III project has made the right targeting by intending to address the feed 
issue which is critical not only in the targeted regions but also in the whole country. As a way forward, the 
study recommends that FEED III project shall focus on interventions that enhance feed supply through 
various options such as establishing, empowering and strengthening market linkages between feed 
processing enterprises and beneficiaries (such as dairy producers, fattening enterprises and poultry farms). 
Institutional strengthening of feed processing enterprises either financially or technically shall also be given 
due attention during FEED III project phase. Improved forage production and expansion should also receive 
emphasis to help enhance sustainable feed supply. Increasing feed availability should also be 
accompanied by introducing and promoting knowledge and skills on improved feed management practices 
for rural households through making appropriate targeting as per the gender roles. Maintaining feed 
quality should also be the other issue which FEED III project should pay due consideration. Feed processing 
enterprises should be compliant to feed quality standards as provided by Ethiopian Quality Standards 
Authority. Apart from this, FEED III project has to facilitate revision of policy and regulations of feed 
quality standards established by Ethiopian Quality Standards Authority and Veterinary Drugs and Feeds 
Administration and Control Authority (VDFACA). These feed quality standards shall be made compulsory 
ad failure to comply should entail legal consequences. This is because, ‘today’s feed is tomorrow’s food’ 
impacting human health. Introduction and promotion of these compulsory feed quality standards shall also 
be launched intensively for feed processing enterprises and wholesalers through various mediums such as 
mass-media, fliers and posters, conferences and workshops, consultative meetings, and other platforms. 
FEED III project shall also strengthen monitoring and evaluation of progresses and take timely corrective 
measures for pragmatic impacts and enhance resilience of rural households. 
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and context of the baseline survey
This report presents the findings of the FEED-III baseline evaluation study. The report is organized into five 
sections. Section 1 provides background information about the project and the baseline evaluation. Section 
2 describes the baseline evaluation methodology while a brief household structure and socio-demographic 
profile of the sampled households is presented in section 3. Section 4 presents the major findings for the 
specific objectives of the baseline survey. The last section, section 5, offers conclusions and 
recommendations for future program development or monitoring and evaluation of the project over its 
period of implementation in the project sites, in general, and the studied Woredas, in particular. 
Ethiopia’s livestock population (with an estimated 80 million cattle, sheep, goats, and camels, and 32 
million poultry) is the largest in the African continent. Its contribution for the total GDP is between 12 and 
16 percent while the agricultural GDP accounts for 30 to 35 percent2. Moreover, it serves as a draft 
power for about 90 percent of crop prdouction purpose while contributing to the livelihoods of 60–70 
percent of Ethiopia’s population, most being smallholder farmers and almost 100 percent to pastoral 
peoples living in the arid and semi-arid areas of the county. Even in the highlands, where crop-livestock 
systems dominate and the majority of Ethiopians live, production of staple food crops is dependent upon 
draught oxen. On the other hand, the dairy products are important both for subsistence and as saleable 
commodities, in which the income earned from the saels of small ruminant buffer shocks to household 
economies3. 
Livestock and poultry feed is fundamental to growth and sustainability of the meat, milk and egg value 
chains and the well-being of those whose livelihoods depend on them. Feed plays a fundamental role in 
livestock rearing and makes up 60 percent or more of production costs. Traditionally, animal and poultry 
diets consist of crop residues, such as straw, stover, and native-forage from communal pastures and 
rangelands. Such diets are, however, low in energy and protein that results in negative effects on animal 
productivity and health. Even worse, traditional grazing resources continue to decline from lack of proper 
management and conversion to crop production. Droughts are also growing more frequent and severe 
negatively affecting the supply of feeds. Hence, even though Ethiopia boasts the largest livestock 
population and livestock being the major livelihood activity for the majority of the population, per capita 
production in the livestock sector has been declining for many years. Inadequate and poor quality feed 
resources exacerbated by poor marketing systems are major challenges facing the livestock and poultry 
sector (MoLF Report, 2017)4. 
Understanding that the quantity and quality of feeds are major constraints to the development of the 
livestock sector; the Ethiopian Government and its development partners are investing heavily to address 
these challenges as part of the holistic, comprehensive, and integrated policy and strategy efforts to 
improve the feed value chain node. The project aims to increase the income of Ethiopian smallholder 
livestock producers by improving access to and use of consistent, affordable and high quality animal feed. 
This is expected to contribute to enhanced livestock productivity and efficiency. In view of this, a project 
called “Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development (FEED III, as an extension to FEED II targeting new 
Woredas and beneficiaries in 10 miles’ radius of FEED II targeted unions)” is going to be implemented in 
2
USDA, Global Agricultural Information Network, 2016. 3
USDA, Global Agricultural Information Network, 2016. 4 (MoLF Report, 2017). 
2
four regional states‒Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray. The project will be implemented by an NGO 
called “ACDI/VOCA”, based in Washington D.C. ACDI/VOCA is an INGO that delivers technical and 
management assistance in agribusiness, financial services, enterprise development, community 
development, and food security in order to promote broad-based economic growth and vibrant civil 
society. ACDI/VOCA initiated the FEED project activities across the country as United States Department of 
Agriculture’s implementing partner in October, 2009 (FEED I). The project activities continued in a second 
phase (FEED II) which began in late 2013 and ended in September, 2016. The FEED-III project is to be 
implemented based on the successes documented and lessons learned from FEED-I and FEED-II. FEED is one 
of the few development project in Ethiopia that focus on the development of livestock feed resources 
aimed at contributing to the feed sector development. 
Areas of interventions under FEED-I and FEED-II included developing sustainable forage production systems 
on smallholder farms and communal pastures, setting up cooperative based commercial feed 
manufacturing enterprises and strengthening the feed supply chain. The project also supported the 
establishment of new fattening, dairy, and poultry enterprises, and expanding existing ones to create 
economic opportunities and provide models of improved food animal management for others to replicate. 
The project implemented these interventions through a combination of training (feed manufacturing as a 
business), technical (e.g. formulation, quality control, equipment operation, and maintenance) and in-kind 
support5 (leveraged contributions to equipment and facility procurement and construction). Through the 
establishment of cooperative union based feed manufacturing enterprises, the FEED project expanded 
opportunities for growth of livestock and poultry production in the intervention Woredas, in particular, and 
created new business opportunities and returns for union members and their communities in general. 
As stipulated in the ToR, FEED-III is a three-year project funded by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). The project will address USDA’s food for progress strategic objectives of increased 
agricultural productivity (SO1) and the expansion of trade in agricultural products (SO2) as well as the 
Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE) Agricultural Growth Plan (AGP), Livestock Master Plans (LMP), USAID’s 
country development and coordination and Feed the Future strategies. With the two specific objectives 
(SOs), FEED-III’s intended outcome areas include, a) improved feed management practices adopted; b) 
increased supply of feed and forage inputs; c) improved business and financial management of feed 
enterprises; and d) improved feed policies, regulations and ancillary service providers. In doing so, the 
focus will be on productivity, efficiency, and economic outcomes, and their contribution to resilience and 
food security. With greater access to affordable and consistent supplies of feed, farmers and pastoralists 
can maintain their breeding animals when challenged by drought and avoid selling them off at depressed 
market prices. Specifically, the project endeavors to: 
1) deepen the capacity of agricultural enterprises to participate effectively at scale in the livestock 
value chain and strengthen their sustainability through greater integration with the commercial 
private sector; 
2) expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sector by enabling growth of 
feed, forage, fattening, poultry and dairy enterprises, and expanding market opportunities for 
their products, building on investments in human and physical infrastructure; and 
3) contribute to increased resilience of livestock owning households. 
5
www.acdivoca.org. 
3
1.2. Purpose and scope of the baseline survey
The purpose of this baseline survey is to set benchmarks for project performance indicators as one of the 
key steps towards establishing a robust monitoring, evaluation and learning system for the project. The 
baseline will seek to verify assumptions and pre-conditions made during project design as well as provide 
quantitative and qualitative data on performance measures. In compliance with ACDI/VOCA gender 
framework, the study will apply a gender and youth lens in the design, data collection, analysis, and 
reporting ensuring that attention is paid to gender and age differences in roles and responsibilities in the 
feed manufacturing value chain. 
Specifically, the study intends to: 
1. Collect household socioeconomic data pertaining to livestock farmers in the project zone of 
influence; 
2. Determine the baseline values for contextual, outcome and impact level performance indicators as 
outlined in the project performance monitoring plan; 
3. Identify gaps and weaknesses in feed manufacturing supply chains in each of the 4 project areas 
including feed regulatory framework; 
4. Identify and document innovative feed and forage production systems that promote smallholder 
and market resilience; 
5. Identify feed and forage production capacity gaps, sector policy constraints and organizational 
weaknesses related to feed manufacturing and feed distribution supply chains; 
6. Identify activities that can act as catalysts in developing sustainable forage production systems 
that can facilitate on-farm feeding practices; 
7. Identify opportunities for collaborative learning and action along the feed value chain that can 
foster livestock production systems change; and 
8. Identify constraints in maximizing beneficial use of available feed resources among livestock and 
poultry smallholder farmers. 
In terms of scope, the FEED-III baseline evaluation was conducted in four regions of Ethiopia including, 
Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR. The baseline study only covered the eight baseline specific 
objectives stipulated in the ToR. It also generated both qualitative and quantitative data along the specific 
objectives from selected Woredas of the FEED-III implementation regions. 
4
2. Baseline evaluation methodology
2.1. Baseline evaluation approach
As suggetsed in the ToR, the baseline survey was conducted using diverse range of methodologies with a 
triangulation between in-depth relevant document review and field visits to project regions thereby 
generating detailed qualitative and quantitative data. On this account, DAB-DRT employed a utilization￾focused approach that enabled it to generate adequate data from direct and indirect beneficiaries in the 
project zone of influence and focal persons from project implementing partners. This is because a 
utilization-focused approach was expected to generate actionable insights and incorporates the contextual 
knowledge (including indigenous knowledge on the objectives of the study) and insightful perspectives 
among the key stakeholders and/or target groups of FEED-III baseline survey. In other words, the FEED-III 
baseline survey employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (e.g., mixed approach). The 
survey was conducted in a consultative and collaborative manner with key target groups of FEED-III project 
at all levels of data collection. Accordingly, the use of mixed survey approach ensured the generation of 
quantitative data (from poultry, dairy, livestock and forage producing smallholder farmers, and the 
extraction of secondary data from relevant project documents including FEED-I and II evaluation reports). 
Qualitative data was also collected with the help of key informant interviews, focus group discussions, 
indepth persons interview, and field observation. To guide the baseline survey and help to understand the 
gender aspect of the FEED-III project, DAB-DRT applied the ACDI-VOCA’s Gender First framework as per 
the suggestion in the ToR. 
2.2. Baseline evaluation design
As per the ToR, the baseline evaluation followed a cross-sectional survey with the objective of collecting 
both quantitative and qualitative data on the various outcomes and impact level measures in strict 
compliance with USDA and ACDI/VOCA Monitoring and Evaluation Policy as well as the FEED-III-Project 
evaluation plan. The survey also employed the ACDI/VOCA’s Gender First Framework to ensure that the 
collected data will be able to generate knowledge and inform the learning approach and operations in 
order to achieve the best results for men, women, boys and girls. Since this is a baseline survey, most of the 
project outcome indicators are addressed through the survey questions, i.e. quantitative dominant 
qualitative approach was applied for the baseline survey. The survey was designed in a manner that 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. Furthermore, the 
baseline results will inform management to take the necessary modifications to project activities and 
implementation approaches to ensure the greatest project success. Up on the completion of the baseline 
survey, the methodology can be replicated during the final evaluation of the project to assess changes in 
performance measures. 
5
2.3. Sources and type of data for the baseline survey
Data for the baseline survey was generated both from primary and secondary sources with the purpose of 
triangulation to arrive at valid conclusions. This will serve as the basis for the effective implementation of 
the FEED-III project’s specific objectives. The primary data for this baseline evaluation was generated using 
household survey (HH), key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussion (FGDs), in-depth personal 
interview (IDPI) and field observation (FO) from feed service providers, livestock producers, government 
personnel, agricultural extension workers, feed processors and enterprises in selected Woredas and 
Kebeles of the baseline survey. The use of multiple sources of data was one way of ensuring triangulation, 
i.e. to look at the problem [generating benchmark project performance indicators] from diverse 
perspectives as a way to cross-check accuracy of information. 
On the other hand, for a better understanding of the FEED-III project, relevant secondary data was 
collected in relation to the project including FEED-I and FEED-II baseline reports, mid-term and final 
evaluation reports, FEED-III work plan, FEED-III result framework and all other relevant sources. Besides 
secondary data on overall feed management practices at national, regional and local levels, demand and 
supply of feed and forage, business and financial management of feed enterprises including relevant 
policies, strategies and reports related to the project activities and outcome areas have been reviewed. In 
the reviewing process, due attention was given to checking the validity, completeness and accuracy of the 
data generated from various sources. 
2.4. Sampling techniques, sample size, and study site selection
As indicated in FEED-III project documents, the project’s target populations (“the will be” beneficiaries) are 
estimated to 48,000 smallholder farmers in four regions6– Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR. In 
compliance with the ToR, the sample size for the survey was required to be large enough to permit 
statistical analyses and comparisons beyond the indicator numbers. Hence, DAB-DRT designed a sample 
size that confirmed to this requirement. In drawing the required sample size, factors such as target 
population size, required disaggregates (targeting groups dairy, poultry, forage, and fattening), 
confidence level, margin of error and sample selection approach were considered. The sampling design 
for the household survey followed a multi-stage sampling strategy that cascaded down from targeted 
regions to individual households (the ultimate unit of analysis) using stratified random sampling techniques. 
Stage 1: Region Selection: Four Regions-Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR-were selected purposively 
as project implementation regions stipulated in the project document. 
Stage 2: Woreda selection: In order to select the sample woredas from each region, DAB-DRT in 
consultation with the FEED-III project team stratified the targeted project Woredas based on the agro￾ecological settings7. Accordingly, the woredas were stratified into dairy, poultry, and fattening dominant 
mode of production. 
A sample Woreda from each stratum in each region was then selected using simple random sampling 
technique (lottery method). As a result, four woredas namely, Toke Kutaye (Moist highland/fattening 
stratum), Shirka (Wet highland/dairy stratum), Mulo (Wet highland/dairy stratum), and Bosset (Dry mid 
highland/fattening stratum) were selected from Oromia region (Figure 1A); Aleta Wendo (Moist 
highland/dairy stratum), Misrak Badawacho (Moist highland/dairy stratum), Boloso Sore (Moist mid 
6 At the time when the baseline survey was conducted, “the will be” project beneficiaries (direct or indirect) were not 
identified. Target respondents of the baseline survey are representative samples of the direct and indirect 
beneficiaries. 
7 Hurni, H. (1998). Agro-ecological Belts of Ethiopia: Explanatory notes on three maps at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Soil 
Conservation Research Programme Ethiopia. 



9
 constraints in maximizing beneficial use of available feed resources among livestock and poultry 
smallholder farmers (see Annex 2). 
2.4.2. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
DAB-DRT employed key informant interviews to generate relevant qualitative information regarding the 
baseline evaluation with selected key individuals with information and knowledge about the topic of the 
survey. The interviewed key informants or experts were from MoAL, FCA, EMDIDI, AFIA (Table 2). In view 
of this, the choice of key informants was based on their position, experience or responsibilities to provide 
information about facts, attitudes, beliefs and experiences regarding FEED-III project objectives. A total of 
40 KIIs (Table 2) were interviewed in selected Woredas (See Annex 3A to Annex 3D). 
Table 2 List of key informants for the baseline survey 
Type of KIIs Level of KIIs Number of KIIs
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MoAL) National 1 
Regional 4 
Zonal 16 
Woreda 16 
Federal Cooperative Agency (FCA) National 1 
Animal Feed Industry Association (AFIA) National 1 
Ethiopia Meat and Dairy Industry Development Institute
(EMDIDI) 
National 1 
Total 40
2.4.3. In-depth Personal Interviews (IDIs)
In-depth personal interviews were employed to add details to the qualitative project benchmark indicators 
which were not perceived or revealed by the participants in the FGD and household surveys. In close 
collaboration with the FEED-III project team representatives and local officials, our supervisors and 
qualitative data collectors selected informants for IDIs which included Feed manufacturing 
unions/cooperatives, Feed Ingredient Suppliers, Agro-dealers, Forage Nursery Enterprises and Livestock 
Development Agents (see Table 3). However, it was difficult to reach forage nursery enterprises and feed 
ingredients suppliers mainly due to the absence of these actors in the Woreads. As a result, a total of 62 
IDIs were interviewed for the baseline survey (see Annex 4a to annex 4F). 
Table 3 List of IDIs for the baseline survey 
Type of IDIs Level of IDIs Number of IDIs
Union Feed Manufacturing Unit Manager Zone/Wereda 16 
Private actors (Agri-Input Dealers) Zone/Wereda 16 
Forage Nursery Enterprises Wereda 3 
Feed Ingredients Suppliers Wereda 3 
Woreda Cooperative Promotion Agency Woreda 8 
Development Agents Wereda/Kebele 16 
Total 62
10
2.4.4. Focus Group Discussion (FGDs)
With the help of this method, DAB-DRT obtained households insights, attitude, perceptions, beliefs, feelings 
and experiences of participants (different group clusters) about livestock and poultry feeding systems, 
practices and their ramifications (availability, marketing and business development, technology adopted, 
indigenous innovative feeding practices, marketing system etc.). The FGDs were conducted in groups of 8 
to15 FEED-III project potential [direct and indirect] beneficiaries focusing on the baseline objectives 
including feed management practices, supply and demand side of feed and forage inputs, business and 
financial management of feed enterprises, opportunities and challenge of feed management, access to 
and use of feed and forage inputs, and alternative sources of feed for livestock. In consultation with local 
level government offices, the FGD participants were selected purposively to represent adult men, women, 
and youth feed growers and dairy and poultry producers thereby ensuring representation of all modes of 
production. In undertaking the FGDs, each FGD session was guided by experienced facilitators and 
research assistants in selected Woredas and Kebeles assisted by note takers who were able to 
simultaneously speak the local languages and comprehend the socio-culture contexts of the selected 
regions/Zones/Woredas (see Annex 5). A total of 20 FGDs (five in each Woreda/Kebele) was conducted 
with the listed groups of FGD participants (Annex A1). 
2.4.5. Direct/field observation
In order to triangulate data from other sources, direct/field observation was carried out in the selected 
Woredas/Kebeles to document observable facts before the implementation of FEED-III project in the 
project sites. In collaboration with project staff, government offices, development agents and other 
relevant individuals, each Kebele was observed using a checklist (see Annex 6). The observation results 
focused on the documentation of feed production, marketing, transportation, management, availability and 
accessibility of infrastructural facilities that can be opportunities or constraints for the implementation of the 
FEED-III project over the coming three years. In other words, the field observation focused on [forage 
production, communal grazing areas, animal fattening, dairy processors, feed market places, feed 
processors, poultry sites, on-farm innovative feeding practices, multi-purpose unions/cooperative based￾enterprises, indigenous and adoptive forage management practices…etc.], which offered valuable insights 
for the collection of additional facts for benchmark performance indicators. Therefore, the observed cases 
were documented in the form of photographs and used to underpin data from other sources of the 
baseline survey. 
2.5. Ethical considerations (survey ethics, confidentiality, and ethical approval)
In order to undertake the baseline survey, FEED-III-project-technical team facilitated DAB-DRT survey 
permit from Regional Bureaus and Woredas for collaboration letter to conduct the data collection in 
selected 16 FEED-III project Woredas. The country being under state of emergency, it was vital that before 
conducting the field data collection, all field supervisors, research assistants and enumerators undertook 
discussions with the concerned bodies to ensure that the later were made aware of the project and data 
collection can proceed with minimal interference. In conducting the baseline survey, DAB-DRT has 
established clear intentions and procedures to assure the privacy of respondents and the confidentiality of 
the information they provide. As a result, verbal informed consent was obtained from each respondent. The 
respondents were given the right to refuse or to take part in the survey as well as to withdraw at any time 
during the interview. Moreover, culturally sensitive and unacceptable questions were avoided. The 
questions were verified during the pre-testing of tools and privacy and confidentiality was maintained 
throughout the study. In general, the baseline survey in all sample Kebeles/offices was conducted with due 
11
consideration of the basic ethical principles of respect for humans, beneficence and justice. DAB-DRT also 
ensured that the enumerators selected to work in each specific project Kebele were fluent in the local 
language of the target area or district and had experience in household data collection. Interviewers, 
supervisors and the entire survey team were responsible for assuring that the survey reports, questionnaires 
and guiding questions/checklists were kept confidential. 
2.6. Data processing
Prior to the data analysis, all the collected data from primary and secondary sources were checked for 
quality and consistency. The team supervisors were in charge of checking the quality of the data collected 
from the field. Finally, at the office level, all the collected data was cross-checked with different sources 
and only refined and reliable information were used for the baseline evaluation analysis. Once the data 
quality was assured, the data was made ready for analysis by the team leader and experts using 
different methods. The collected data was edited both on the field and at the head office which was 
further cleaned using CSPro and SPSS/STATA to verify the validity of assigned values as well as logical 
consistency. Cross-tabulations and frequencies were generated to check for inaccurate (outliers or other 
errors), and incomplete data (missing values) and to see if the data was consistent and logical. The data 
cleaning process enabled DAB-DRT to determine inaccurate, incomplete or unreasonable data which 
improved the quality of the data through correction of detected errors and omissions. Two types of data 
cleaning techniques were used: basic and advanced. Basic data cleaning involved running simple 
frequency counts for each variable to check for mislabeled, out-of-range or system-missing data with 
correctinions bing made when necessary. Advanced data cleaning involved using cross-tabulations to check 
for internal consistency on the linked questions. Finally, the cleaned data set was saved as a “READ ONLY” 
format for documentation. This READ ONLY version was shared with the client and the analysis was carried 
out on a copy the document (i.e., another copy was used to prepare the report). The qualitative data was 
also coded and organized and saved as a “READ ONLY” format for further analysis. 
2.7. Methods of data analysis interpretation and report write-up
Once the data management, transcription and verification processes were completed and the data was 
saved as a “READ ONLY” format, DAB-DRT study team commenced the data analysis assisted by data 
analysis software packages such as SPSS® Version 23, Stata® 14, and XLSTAT ®16 interchangeably. DAB￾DRT also used Arc-GIS ®10.2 for mapping the study sites. Results from the baseline survey were analyzed, 
summarized and presented in multiple statistical forms including descriptive statistics, (mean, mode, median, 
standard deviation, minimum, maximum, range) and detailed tabulation of results along the eight baseline 
objectives in the form of percent, number, ratio, indices value, and amount. The statistical outputs were 
presented in the form of figures, frequency tables and radar diagrams. On the other hand, the qualitative 
information was thematically analysed with a focus on description of information, classification and making 
connections, i.e. three key qualitative analysis strategies. The qualitative information was meant to support 
findings from the household survey which cannot be explained quantitatively. In this case, key points were 
coded and organized into categories and subcategories that represented further analysis based on 
observed information which was used to strengthen the interpretation of the quantitative findings. 
12
2.8 Limitations and challenges
Even though the FEED-III project’s baseline evaluation was strong enough in terms of methodology 
used, sources of data generation, field data coordination and data management, data analysis 
and reporting the results, it was not without challenges. One of the critical challenges that 
hampered the evaluation study relates to the unwillingness of sector offices (unions and 
cooperatives) and lack of cooperation at field level. The other challenge was the physical 
distance between the study Woredas and the unions as well as cooperatives, mainly in Tigray 
and Oromia, which needed additional time to visit both the Unions and cooperatives. The country 
being under state of emergency, the need for internet connections and communication was partly 
a challenge. The volume of data and the time allocated to submit the draft report was quite 
unbalanced. In spite of all these challenges, however, the baseline evaluation team exerted 
maximum efforts, with unreserved support from FEED-III project team, the staff of DAB-DRT have 
helped to address the problems and to offset the potential limitations by employing alternatives 
mechanisms with a clear purpose of achieving the study objectives. 
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Chapter overview
This section of the report describes the key findings from the FEED-III baseline evaluation study. In doing so, 
the first part focuses on the description of the socio-economic and demographic profiles of respondents by 
region. It also highlights the surveyed households’ major livelihood activities and income sources. The second 
section will discuss the key findings regarding dairy production and the dairy value chain. The third section 
will present the results from animal fattening and the animal fattening value chain. The fourth section will 
discuss results from the poultry production and the poultry value chain. The last section will present the 
results of forage production and the forage value chain. Cross-cutting issues including gender, household 
nutrition and environment will be part of this section. In the course of the discussion, emphasis is placed on 
presenting the key findings from the household survey as seen from the mode of production and value 
chain perspectives and complementing these findings with qualitative information generated from the 
selected actors and institutions for the FEED-III baseline evaluation study. 
3.2. Socio-economic and demographic profiles of respondents
The baseline survey planned to interview1650 households in four regions of Ethiopia. Thus, a total of 1648 
households were surveyed with a non-response rate of 2 (0.12 %). In this case, both Amhara and SNNPR 
had 100 % response rate whereas only two respondents (one in Tigray and one in Oromia) did not 
respond to the survey questionnaire. Except in Oromia, representation of male-head households was over 
90 %. Female-headed households for Oromia was 46 (11.2%) (Table 4). Even though the sample was 
taken randomly in48 Kebeles, female-headed households were reported to be low. This could be partly 
due to the nature of the livelihood activities which require access to and control over the productive 
resources which in the survey areas were mostly owned by male head of households. 
Table 4 Respondent composition by region and sex (N=1648) 

14
Demographic profiles of respondents
The distribution of household heads by gender is presented in Table 5 below. A total of 1511 (91.7%) are 
male-headed households and only137 (8.3%) are female headed-households. This is because in many 
parts of the country, households are led by males signifying the patriarchal (male-dominated) nature of 
Ethiopian society. In terms of the marital status, the largest portion-1505 (91.32%)-are married and only 
20 (1.2%) are unmarried households (Table 5). Education is one of the crucial factors for skills 
development and enhancing decision-making capacities enabling individuals to take part in viable 
livelihood activities. However, the data suggest that most of the respondents did not attend formal 
education. A total of 739 (44.84%) participants are illiterate (Table 5). Only 558 (33.86%) participants 
completed primary level education (grade 1-8) and even a smaller number-109 (6.61%) - have 
completed secondary school (Table 5). The number for those who have been educated above the 
secondary level is a meager 35 (2.12%) (Table 5). 
The literacy level for surveyed households by region is presented in Figure 3. As evidenced there, 54 %, 
52.5 %, 40.8 %, and 32 % of the sample household in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR respectively 
are illiterate. The proportion of informal education accounts for 22.5% in Amhara, 16.1% in Tigray, 10% 
in Oromia and an insignificant number in SNNPR. The disparity in the figures may be due to the prevalent 
role of church education in both Amhara and Tigray regions. On the other hand, 45%, 42%, 28.2%, and 
20.6% of households have completed primary schooling in Oromia, SNNPR, Tigray, and Amhara, 
respectively (Figure 3). 
Table 5 Demographic profiles of respondents (N=1648) 
House head demographic characteristics Category Frequency Percent
Sex Male 1,511 91.69
Female 137 8.31
Marital status Single 20 1.21
Married 1,505 91.32
Widowed 68 4.13
Divorced 31 1.88
Separated 24 1.46
Level of Education Illiterate 739 44.84
Informal education 207 12.56
Primary 558 33.86
Secondary 109 6.61
Above secondary 35 2.12
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
15
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Figure 3 Household survey response rate in % 
Descriptive statistics of demographic profile of the respondents
From the descriptive statistics, the mean average age of the surveyed respondents is 45 years (n=1648). 
In terms of region, both Amhara and Tigray regions have the same average age as the mean average 
age for the whole sample (45 years). The case in Oromia is nearly the same as those in other regions 
(Table 6). The household head age distribution is summarized in Figure 4. About 33.3%, 31.4 %, 28.3 %, 
and 7 % fall between 30 to 40 years, 41 to 50 years, over 50 years and less than 30 years, respectively. 
Those household heads in the age category of 30 to 40 years’ range from 37.1 % in Oromia to 30.7 % in 
Tigray (Figure 4). The average family size was 6 in all regions (n=1648), which was slightly greater in 
SNNPR than those in other regions (Table 6). The regional disparity in family size may be due to samples 
drawn from the most densely populated Zones of SNNPR including Wolaita, Hadiya, Sidama and Gamo 
Gofa (see CSA, 2007)9. 
Following the CSA (2007) classification of household members as under age (0-17 age), economically 
active (18-64 age) and old age (above 65 age), DAB-DRT generated data from all regions. As a result, 
53.8 %, 43.7 %, and 2.5% of the sample population are economically active and the rest are inactive or 
dependent (Table 6). Among regions, a similar pattern can be observed for the economically active age 
groups except in Tigray region for which the figure stands at 49.4 %. In general, the figures suggest that 
over half of house hold members of sampled households fall within the working/economically active age 
group (16-64) (CSA, 201310) which can reasonably be expected to contribute towards the active 
involvement of the beneficiary households in project activities. 
9 CSA. (2007). Summary and statistical report of population and housing census: Population size by age 
and sex. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
10 Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2013). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Population 
projection of Ethiopia for all regions: At Wereda level from 2014 – 2017. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
16
Table 6 Age, family size, household members role, land owned, and cultivated by region (N=1648) 
Variable
Region
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Average age (years) 46 46 45 44 45 
Average HH size 6 5 6 7 6
Proportion of members by productive ability
Under Age 47.9 42.8 43.5 41.0 43.7 
Econ. Active 49.4 54.4 54.6 56.5 53.8 
Old age 2.7 2.8 1.9 2.4 2.5 
Land owned (ha) 1.2 1.6 1.8 1 1.4 
Land cultivated (ha) 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.8 1.3 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Figure 4 Household head age distribution by region 
With regards to landownership, the average reported owned land was 1.4 hectares for all regions 
(n=1648). The average owned land ranges from 1.8 hectares in Oromia to 1 hectare in SNNPR (Table 6). 
On aggregate, 962 (58.73 %) of households are smallholder (less than 1 ha of land) while 686 (41. 62%) 
are not smallholders (above 1 ha of land) (Figure 5). The cultivated land size is1.3 hectares across all 
regions. The average cultivated land ranges from 1.6 hectares both in Amhara and Oromia to 0.8 hectare 
in SNNPR (Table 6). 
17
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Figure 5 Proportion of smallholder by region 
18
3.3. Household livelihood activities and income sources
Participation in livestock production
Surveyed households’ participation in crop, dairy, animal fattening and poultry production is presented in 
Table 7. Most of the surveyed households participated in crop production with an estimated 37,643.50 
annual incomes across all regions. With regard to dairy production, 253 (61.4%), 219 (535), 215 
(52.1%), 139 (33.7%) farmers are involved in dairy production in SNNP, Oromia, Amhara, and Tigray, 
respectively. On average farmers reported to have earned 4,878.60 birr from dairy production. On 
animal fattening, 34.1% of households are engaged in fattening. The smallest number for participation in 
animal fattening was in Tigray region (14.35%). On average, farmers earned 37,377.50 birr from animal 
fattening. Over 60 % of sampled households engaged in poultry production in Amhara region and only 
43.8 % in Oromia. The annual estimated income from the poultry production is birr 3,292.60 (Table 7). 
Table 7 Smallholders participation in production and estimated annual income earned by region 
Occupation Participation Region Income (Birr)
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP
Crop production Frequency 405 399 407 402 37,643.50 
Percent 98.3 96.6 98.5 97.6 
Dairy production Frequency 139 215 219 253 4,878.60 
Percent 33.7 52.1 53.0 61.4 
Animal fattening Frequency 59 141 119 126 37,377.50 
Percent 14.3 34.1 28.8 30.6 
Poultry production Frequency 196 253 181 194 3,292.60 
Percent 47.6 61.3 43.8 47.1 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Livestock ownership
With regards to livestock ownership, 2.4 was the average male indigenous cattle in all regions. The 
ownership of male indigenous cattle was the same in all regions except in SNNPR. There, the number fell 
slightly to 2 male indigenous cattle (Table 8). In relation to male crossbreed cattle ownership, nearly the 
same pattern was observed in all regions. On female indigenous cattle ownership, 2.13 was the average 
value for all regions. Female indigenous cattle ownership ranges from 2.6 in Amhara to 1.8 in SNNPR. 
4.74 was the average sheep and goat owned across all regions with the maximum of 7 in Tigray region 
and a minimum of 2.4 in SNNPR. An average of 4.17 indigenous chickens is owned in all regions. 
Indigenous chicken ownership ranges from 7.2 in Amhara to 1.2 in Tigray (Table 8). Farmers in all regions 
owned on average 1.63 equines (n=1648). Equines ownership ranges from 1.9 in Oromia to 1.2 in SNNPR 
(Table8 ). Regarding the average number of total livestock owned, 10.79 was the mean ownership with 
estimated sales value of 32,798.52 for all regions. The highest number for livestock ownership was 13.04 
livestock in Tigray with estimated sales value of 36,667.12 and the lowest was 6.7 livestock in SNNPR with 
the sales value of 18,435.29.
19
Table 8 HH Average livestock ownership by breed 
Livestock Type Breed Region Total
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP
Cattle Male Indigenous 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 2.46
Crossbreed 0.15 0.26 0.4 0.1 0.23
Cattle Female Indigenous 2.44 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.13
Crossbreed 0.14 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.40
Sheep & Goats Indigenous 7.0 3.7 5.2 2.4 4.74
Crossbreed 0.03 0.01 0.2 0.09 0.08
Chicken Indigenous 2.12 5.5 7.2 2.74 4.17
Crossbreed 4.96 2.2 1.4 1.8 2.73
Equines 1.53 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.63
Total 
No 13.04 12.2 11.7 6.7 10.79
Value 36,667.12 34,122.952 41,974.883 18,435.29 32,798.52 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.4. Dairy production and value chain
Dairy production
Dairy production is becoming a common enterprise in rural areas. Milk is sold in peri-urban centers and 
other milk products are sold in urban centers. In FEED-III project regions, 45% of the households practiced 
dairy production (Figure 6). Among the project regions, the highest proportion of households engaged in 
dairy production were found in SNNPR (51%) and the lowest proportion was in Tigray (33%). In SNNPR, 
higher proportion of rural households engaged in dairy production were located in Sidama (78%) and 
Hadya Zones (71%). This is mainly because of high consumer demand for milk in bigger towns such as 
Hawasa in Sidama Zone and Hosana in Hadya zone. In Oromia region, higher proportion of households 
engaged in dairy production were located in Finfine Zuria Zone (64%) followed by Arsi Zone (50%). 
Finfine Zuria Zone is a rural area located in close proximity to the capital city, Addis Ababa (a maximum 
of 40km radius) and supplies large quantities of milk to the city. There are more than 10 intermediaries 
who collect more than 10,000 liters of milk every day from these rural areas found within a radius of 
100km from Addis Ababa city including Finfine Zuria Zone. East Gojam (66%) and South Gonder (49%) 
were the two Zones with the highest proportion of households engaged in dairy production in Amhara 
region. Southern Tigray (62%) and Western Tigray (36%) Zones are also known for their dairy production 
practices. This is because irrigation based farming is common in these zones and feed availability better 
supports dairy production. 
20
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Figure 6 Household engaged in dairy production in the FEED-III project regions, 2018 
Surveyed households keep both indigenous and crossbred dairy cows. In the FEED III project regions, 36% 
of the households owned indigenous lactating cows in the last 12 months. Out of these, 24% owned only 
one lactating cow while 9% owned two and 3% owned more than two. On the other hand, the proportion 
of households which owned crossbred lactating cows was only 10%, out of which 8% owned only one 
lactating crossbred cow while 1.5% owned two and 0.5% owned more than two. These low figures can be 
explained by the scarcity in the supply of crossbred cows and their high purchasing price. It was estimated 
that the price of a pregnant heifer/cow costs anywhere between 30,000 and 45,000 Birr making it 
unaffordable for smallholder farmers. 
Milk productivity and lactation length
As provided in Table 9, the average milk productivity of indigenous milking cows is 1.95 liters per day per 
cow (ranging from 1.37 – 2.53 liters per day per cow) while it is 5.25 liters per day for crossbred cows 
(ranging from 3.99 – 6.52 liters per day). There is variability among the regions in terms of milk 
productivity for both indigenous and crossbred cows. The average productivity of crossbred cows was 
highest in SNNP region (7.46 liters per day) and lowest in Tigray region (3.67 liters per day). In urban 
centers where there is controlled breeding, better feed and overall better management practices, 
crossbred cows often provide more than 10 liters of milk per day. However, in rural areas, the productivity 
of crossbred cows is lower due to inadequate management practices and less attention provided for 
maintaining exotic breed quality. In addition to high costs, farmers in rural areas are not able to obtain the 
required quality and quantity of concentrate feeds. Moreover, less efficient AI services and inadequate 
availability of purebred bulls have long been constraints to improving genetic potentials of local cows in 
rural areas. 
21
Table 9 Average quantity of milk produced from indigenous and crossbred cows in FEED III project regions, 
2018 
Region Indigenous cows Crossbred cows
n Average milk
(liters/day/cow)
n Average
(liters/day/cow)
Tigray 125 1.80 15 3.67
Amhara 177 1.76 32 4.36
Oromia 147 2.00 64 4.24
SNNP 152 2.25 53 7.46
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Lactation length, which is the number of months on which dairy cows are in milk, varies from one agro￾ecology to another. As revealed in Table 10, indigenous cows seem to have longer lactation length in mid￾altitudes (7.5 months) and lowlands (7.2 months) than highlands (6.0 months). On the contrary, crossbred 
cows seem to be comfortable in the highlands (7.3 months) than in other agro-ecologies. This might be 
associated with feed availability. Relatively, there is better feed availability in the highlands which can 
support high feed requirements of crossbred cows. On the other hand, indigenous cows can still keep on 
performing under stressed feed and management conditions in the later lactation months. 
Table 10 Lactation length of dairy cows in various agro-ecologies FEED III project regions, 2018 
Agro-ecology Indigenous cows Crossbred cows
n Average lactation
period (number of 
months)
n Average lactation
period (number of 
months)
Highland 196 6.0 196 7.3
Midland 455 7.5 446 6.2
Lowland 92 7.2 92 5.9
Overall 743 7.1 734 6.4
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Dairy cows feeding and management practices
Feed type and availability depends on the nature of the agro-ecology which dictates vegetation cover 
and the nature of resources. In all agro-ecologies, crop residue has become the most common source of 
feed for dairy cows followed by green feeds which include forages, grasses, hay and silage. For instance, 
as revealed in Table 11, 80% of the households in the highlands have prioritized crop residue as the most 
common source of feed followed by green feeds (64%). The same trend holds true in the midlands where 
78% of the households rated crop residue as a major source followed by green feeds (68%). Even in the 
lowlands, crop residue is the most important source of feed for 96% of the households followed by green 
feeds (24%). When overall sample is considered, 81% of the households have indicated crop residue as 
the most common feed source for dairy cows followed by green feeds (62%). 
As a consequence of human population pressure over long periods, farmlands have started to expand 
encroaching upon grazing lands and rising to steep hilltops. This has contributed to the expansion of crop 
production and consequently availability of more crop residues. Moreover, crop residue is relatively the 
cheapest feed source compared to hay, forages and concentrates. Decline in grazing and hay lands has 
exacerbated feed scarcity in the country, in general, and in FEED III project regions in particular. Because 
of this, farmers conserve residues of various types of crops in all agro-ecologies to use as major source of 
22
livestock feed, including dairy cows. The second essential source of dairy cow feed was reported to be 
green feeds, which is commonly available during wet seasons. Cut-and-carry is the common practice of 
supply practiced by harvesting greens from boarders of farmlands, weeds, tinning of maize/sorghum, 
forage plants and leaves from pruning. Apart from this, moisture availability in the highlands and mid￾altitudes has contributed to easy accessibility of green feed and hay resources. Industrial by-products are 
often raw materials for blending concentrate feeds which include oilseeds cake, molasses, wheat middling, 
maize and soya bean flour and others. 
Similar to the trend across all agro-ecologies, crop residue has been identified as major feed source in all 
the FEED III project regions. The findings show that 96% of the households in Tigray region, 85% in 
Amhara, 67% in Oromia and 79% in SNNP have prioritized crop residues as a major feed source for 
dairy cows (Table 12). However, green feed was reported to be the major source of feed for almost all 
(98%) of the households in SNNP region. SNNP region is endowed with ample perennial plant resources 
which are also a source of green feed for dairy cows often stall-fed around homesteads. Greens from 
pruning and thinning of perennials and annual plants are major sources of feed in a cut-and-carry system 
of supply. 
Table 11 Feed sources of dairy cows in various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018 
Feed sources Highland Midland Lowland Total
n % n % n % N %
Concentrate feed 15 8 62 14 4 4 81 11
Agro-industrial by-products (Wheat 
bran, Nug Cake etc.) 
58 30 125 28 4 4 187 25
Other high quality feed (Atela, 
grains) 
59 30 123 27 19 21 201 27
Green forage, grass, hay, silage 126 64 311 68 22 24 459 62
Crop Residue (Teff straw, wheat 
straw, maize Stover, and others) 
157 80 354 78 88 96 599 81
Other 2 1 26 6 9 10 37 5
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 12 Feed sources of dairy cows in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Feed sources Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % N %
Concentrate feed 11 8 19 10 9 5 42 20 81 11
Agro-industrial by-products 
(Wheat bran, Nug Cake etc.) 
6 4 38 19 69 35 74 35 187 25
Other high quality feed 
(Atela, grains) 
28 20 59 30 55 28 59 28 201 27
Green forage, grass, hay, 
silage 
19 14 150 77 86 43 204 98 459 62
Crop Residue (Teff straw, 
wheat straw, maize Stover, 
and others) 
133 96 166 85 134 67 166 79 599 81
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
23
Feed preservation and storage practices
Farmers preserve feed resources in various ways. According to 85% of the overall sample households, the 
most common feed preservation technique was reported to be hay making (Table 13). Households in all 
agro-ecologies practice hay making. For instance, 83% of households practice hay making in the highlands 
and mid-altitudes. On the other hand, hay making has become the common practice of almost all the 
farming households (99%) in the lowlands. Green grass which is grown during the wet season is harvested 
and dried for hay making, to be fed in the dry season when there is feed scarcity. Hay can be stored 
either as heaps or in the form of bale. It has also become a source of income for some of the farmers who 
are located near vehicle roads. As perceived by farmers, hay income generated from a hectare of land 
could even be higher than the one obtained from sales of most of the cereals. Hay making is also the most 
common practice across FEED III project regions with a large proportion of farmers in Tigray (91%), 
Amhara (90%), Oromia (75%) and SNNP (85%) regions practicing hay making (Table 14). 
Table 13 Type of animal feed preservation and storage practices in various agro-ecologies of the FEED III 
project sites, 2018 
Preservation 
techniques
Highland Midland Lowland Total
n % n % n % n %
Hay making 162 83 377 83 91 99 630 85
Baling 29 15 58 13 4 4 91 12
Silage 15 8 75 17 0 0 90 12
Other 31 16 44 10 4 4 79 11
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 14 Type of animal feed preservation and storage practices in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Preservation 
techniques
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % N % n % N %
Hay making 126 91 176 90 151 75 177 85 630 85
Baling 1 1 39 20 19 10 32 15 91 12
Silage 7 5 17 9 11 5 55 26 90 12
Other 13 9 13 7 48 24 5 2 79 11
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Equipment used for drinking and feeding
Dairy farmers use various types of equipment for drinking and feeding of cows. In all agro-ecologies of 
FEED III project, feeding trough is commonly used by 65% of the overall sample households followed by 
water trough (48%). Households in the highlands (75%) and midlands (66%) also use feeding trough for 
feeding their dairy cows. Apart from feeding and water troughs, 57% of the households in Tigray region 
have adopted the practice of using other apparatus such as plastic sheets and plates for feeding cows 
(Table 15). Apart from using water troughs, taking cows to rivers and water sources is also reported to be 
a common practice of farming households. In Amhara region, 55% of the households commonly used water 
troughs to provide water for dairy cows. In Oromia and SNNP regions, use of feeding trough is common 
for 83% of households. Using of troughs helps to minimize quality deterioration of feed and water at the 
time of service provision. What matters is the quality, design and hygiene of troughs to maintain supply of 
hygienic feed and water for dairy cows. 
24
Table 15 Equipment used for drinking and feeding activities in various agro-ecologies, 2018 
Equipment Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Feeding trough 46 33 94 48 166 83 173 83 479 65
Water trough 35 25 108 55 106 53 107 51 356 48
Others specify 78 57 58 30 41 21 38 18 215 29
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Physical and chemical treatment practices of feed
Various types of feed management practices are in operation in FEED III project sites. The most common 
method practiced by 67% of the overall sample households is crop residue treatment followed by cut and 
carry systems (65%) (Table16). In the highlands, 66% of the households practiced crop residue treatment 
while 55% of the households adopted the same practice in the lowlands. In the midlands, cut and carry 
system is the most common practice for 70% of the households. In the regions, 53% of households in Tigray 
and 70% in Oromia practiced crop residue treatment (Table 17). On the other hand, cut and carry 
practice of feed supply is common in Amhara (71%) and SNNP (94%) regions. 
One technique for adding value in crop residue is urea treatment which increases feed intake of dairy 
cows due to application of ammonia. It also minimizes wastage of crop residues by enhancing consumption 
by animals. Cut and carry system is common for collecting green feed from farm lands and carrying it 
home, a practice which is often practiced during the wet season. Because of limited availability, cut and 
carry method of feed supply is mostly provided to selected animals such as milking cows and oxen. 
Table 16 Type of physical and chemical treatment of feed used for dairy cows in FEED III project agro￾ecologies, 2018 
Type of treatment Highland Midland Lowland Total
n % N % n % n %
Cut and carry 110 56 331 73 45 49 486 65
Crop residue treatment 129 66 318 70 51 55 498 67
Nothing 7 4 5 1 9 10 21 3
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 17 Type of physical and chemical treatment of feed used for dairy cows in the FEED III project 
regions, 2018 
Type of treatment Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Cut and carry 56 41 140 71 94 47 196 94 486 65
Crop residue treatment 73 53 130 66 139 70 156 75 498 67
Nothing 16 12 0 0 3 2 2 1 21 3
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Feeding practices of dairy cows
Households adopted various feeding practices for dairy cows. As illustrated in Table 18, 71% of the 
households practiced cut and carry system of supplying feed for dairy cows followed by rotational 
grazing (44%), a practice which is common in all types of agro-ecologies. Highlander households (61%), 
25
mid landers (77%) and low landers (62%) practiced cut-and-carry system of feed supply to dairy cows. 
This system is also found across all regions where households in the FEED III project regions dominantly 
practiced cut and carry system. For instance, 61% of the households in Tigray, 83% in Amhara, 42% in 
Oromia and 94% in SNNP regions practiced cut and carry system of feed supply (Table 19). Since dairy 
cows are mostly managed around homesteads, cut and carry practice of feed supply is most preferable 
for farmers. Given the intensive management required for crossbred dairy cows, herding on grazing lands 
together with local cows is not advisable as it compromises milk productivity. 
Table 18 Type of feeding practices in various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018 
Feeding practice Highland Midland Lowland Total
n % n % n % n %
Cut and carry 119 61 351 77 57 62 527 71
Rotational grazing 86 44 208 46 30 33 324 44
Feeding of factory 
produced formulated 
feed 
25 13 98 21 3 3 126 17
Mixed or balanced ration 
feeding 
36 18 66 14 1 1 103 14
Other 1 0.5 34 7 16 17 51 7
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 19 Type of feeding practices across FEED III project regions, 2018 
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Cut and carry 84 61 162 83 84 42 197 94 527 71
Rotational grazing 24 17 122 62 57 29 121 58 324 44
Feeding of factory 
produced formulated feed 
1 1 9 5 43 22 73 35 126 17
Mixed or balanced ration 
feeding 
7 5 22 11 38 19 36 17 103 14
Other 32 23 1 0.5 18 9 0 0 51 7
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Access to trainings in dairy animal nutrition and management
To enhance production and productivity of dairy sector, farmers received trainings on improved dairy 
management practices. The trainings were, however, not accessible to most of the farmers. As provided in 
Table 20, only 14% from the overall sample households have had access to trainings. It was also 
recognized that men (15%) had better access to trainings than women (8%). In 83% of male headed 
households, the husband had more access to trainings on dairy management than wives (17%) (Table 21). 
Among the regions, the proportion of households who had access to trainings on dairy management was 
highest for SNNP (18%) and lowest for Tigray region (8%). In male headed households, 30% of wives in 
SNNP region had better access to trainings on improved dairy management than wives in other regions. 
Dairy cows in rural areas are mainly managed around homesteads where the involvement of women in 
management practices such as watering, feeding, cleaning and milking is considerable. Despite this salient 
fact, trainings and other capacity building opportunities are skewed towards providing more access to men 
than women. This may be due the fact that majority of women in the study area who dominate dairy 
production decisions including dairy training are found illiterate (44%) with cultural barriers to participate 
in off home activities like getting training. Women are busier with in-house activities than men. Women are 
26
traditionally entitled to prepare daily family food, taking care of children and elders, shopping of family 
needs, manage livestock and milking cows, fetch fire wood and water. Moreover, traditionally there is a 
saying "women are for kitchen and men are for public appearance" and such a taboo could discourage 
them for attendance to training and public gatherings. 
Table 20 Access of men and women to trainings on dairy management, 2018 
Region Men Women Total
n % n % n %
Tigray 8 7 3 10 11 8
Amhara 26 15 3 12 29 14
Oromia 24 15 2 4 26 13
SNNP 32 21 5 9 37 18
Overall 90 15 13 8 103 14
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 21 Household members who received trainings on improved dairy management in the regions, 2018 
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Husband 10 91 26 90 23 89 26 70 85 83
Wife 1 9 2 7 3 12 11 30 17 17
Another household 
member 
0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Even though different development organizations are involved in facilitating and providing trainings to 
farmers on improved dairy management practices, Office of Agriculture and Natural Resources at various 
levels plays the leading role in all regions. According to the findings of this study, 81% of the households 
attested that they received trainings through Office of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Table 22). 
NGOs and private enterprises are also involved in facilitating and providing trainings to the farmers in the 
dairy sector. Regarding regional variability, the involvement of Coops/unions in providing trainings to 
farmers on improved dairy management practices was higher in Tigray (27%) than in the other regions. 
Table 22 Organizations who provided trainings to farmers on improved dairy management, 2018 
Organizations Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Coop/Union 3 27 0 0 2 8 0 0 5 5
Private Enterprise 0 0 1 3 0 0 11 30 12 12
Office of Agriculture and 
Natural Resources 
9 82 24 83 23 88 27 73 83 81
NGO 3 27 3 10 1 4 4 11 11 11
Other 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 3 3
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Milk selling practices in FEED III project regions
Since small-holder farming households are not strongly business oriented, they have limited experience in 
selling milk and milk products. Introduction of crossbred dairy cows is aimed at increasing the sale of milk 
especially by farmers located in close proximity to towns where there is high milk demand. The findings of 
the study, however, indicate that milk selling experience is still limited among smallholder farming 
households. As illustrated in Table 23, only 17% of the households had experiences of selling milk. 
27
Assessment of regional variability indicates that the proportion of households which sale milk was highest 
for Oromia (26%) and SNNP (27%) regions and lowest for Amhara and Tigray regions (5% each). 
The perishable nature of milk is one major reason why households’ experience of milk selling is limited 
especially for those located outside a radius of five kilometers from towns. Instead, small-holder 
households prefer to process milk and sale butter which has relatively longer shelf life. Because of this, 
27% of the overall sample households have experienced selling butter. Except for Amhara region with 
only 9% of households which sold butter, the experience of other regions was better with more than 30% 
of households selling butter. Since cheese is an easily perishable product, the proportion of households 
engaged in selling this product was very limited (4%). While Oromia seems to have relatively better 
experience of selling cheese (9%), it is not yet a common practice in Tigray region. 
On the other hand, assessment of experiences across agro-ecologies (Table 24) indicates that 24% of 
highlander households had better practices of selling milk followed by midland households (17%). Shelf 
life of milk is very short in the lowlands because of high temperature making milk selling an uncommon 
practice (only 3% of the households claimed to have sold milk in the lowlands). Instead, butter selling is a 
common practice in all agro-ecologies where more than 25% of the households in all regions experienced 
butter selling. Cheese making is also a limited practice in the highlands and midlands where only 4% of the 
households were engaged in the practice. 
Table 23 Selling practices of milk and milk products in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Region
Milk Butter Cheese
n % n % n %
Tigray 7 5 49 36 0 0
Amhara 10 5 18 9 4 2
Oromia 52 26 64 32 17 9
SNNP 57 27 69 33 8 4
Total 126 17 200 27 29 4
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 24 Selling practices of milk and milk products in the FEED III project agro-ecologies, 2018 
Agro-ecology 
Milk Butter Cheese
n % n % N %
Highland 46 24 51 26 7 4
Midland 77 17 126 28 22 5
Lowland 3 3 23 25 0 0
Total 126 17 200 27 29 4
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Due to the infancy of the dairy sector, there is no well-organized market for dairy products. Local markets 
serve as the common place to sale milk, butter and cheese (Table 25). For instance, among those 
households which sale milk, all in Tigray region and more than 90% in Oromia and SNNP regions have 
sold milk through local markets. This could be through farmers delivering milk along road-sides where milk 
collectors make aggregation and supply to bigger towns or Addis Ababa city. The same is true for butter 
where more than 80% of the households in all regions sale in local markets. The second essential market is 
farm gate sale where traders or village collectors go to farmer villages and collect dairy products, 
aggregate them and sale to wholesalers in the towns. 
28
Table 25 Place of sale of dairy products in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Dairy
product
Place of sale Frequency (%)
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Milk
Farm gate 6 (86) 0 2 (4) 7 (12) 15 (12)
Local market 7 (100) 7 (70) 47 (90) 52 (91) 113 (90)
Local market 
Coop/Union 
0 2 (20) 0 0 2 (2)
Coop/Union 
Milk collection business 
0 0 1 (2) 5 (9) 6 (5)
Milk collection business 
Milk processors 
0 0 1(2) 1 (2) 2 (2)
Milk collection business 
Milk processors 
2 (27) 1 (10) 4 (8) 1(2) 8 (6)
Milk processors 
Other 
10 (20) 4 (22) 0 5 (7) 19 (10)
Other 
Farm gate 
49 (100) 15 (83) 63 (98) 68 (99) 195 (98)
Butter 
Farm gate 
Local market 
0 1(5.6) 0 0 1(0.5)
Local market 
Coop/Union 
0 2 (11) 0 1 (1.4) 3 (1.5)
Coop/Union 
Milk collection business 
0 0 1(2) 1 (1.4) 2 (1)
Milk collection business 
Milk processors 
0 1(6) 1(2) 0 2 (1)
Other 
Farm gate 
0 3 (71) 16 (94) 8 (100) 27 (93)
Cheese 
Farm gate 
Local market 
0 1 (25) 0 0 1(3)
Local market 
Coop/Union 
0 1(25) 0 0 1(3)
Coop/Union 
Milk collection business 
0 0 1(5.9) 0 1 (3)
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Quantity of dairy products sold by small-holder farmers
Not only is small-holder farmers’ experience of selling dairy products not well developed, the quantity 
sold is also limited. For instance, the average quantity of milk sold by the overall sample of households 
within one-month time (March 2018) was 90.7 liters which amounts to 3 liters per day (Table 26). 
Assessment of regional variability indicates that households of SNNP region have sold relatively large 
quantities of milk (114.5 liters) in a month-about 4 liters of milk per day. By contrast, households in Oromia 
region have sold smaller quantities of milk (67.8 liters) on average in a month-nearly 2 liters per day. 
On the other hand, households in Oromia region have sold a relatively large quantity of butter (6.1 kg) 
and cheese (25.8 kg) in a month than other regions. Instead of milk, they depend on selling processed 
dairy products and sold on average 860 grams of cheese and 200 grams of butter per day. Households 
located far away from towns (about 5 kms in radius) depend on selling processed milk products because 
of high perishability of milk. Assessment across agro-ecologies indicates that the quantity of milk produced 
29
in the midlands (109.5 liters) was higher than in other agro-ecologies while it was the least in the lowlands 
(35 liters) (Table 27). The quantity of butter and cheese produced was observed to be similar across all 
agro-ecologies. 
Table 26 Quantity of dairy products sold in the FEED III project regions in the month of March 2018 
Dairy product Region n Mean Minimum Maximum
Milk Tigray 7 70.7 20 360
Amhara 10 88.0 10 180
Oromia 52 67.8 3 300
SNNP 57 114.5 5 720
Butter Tigray 49 2.3 0.5 8
Amhara 18 4.0 1 20
Oromia 64 6.1 1 50
SNNP 69 2.9 1 24
Cheese Tigray - - - -
Amhara 4 3.7 2 7
Oromia 17 25.8 2 200
SNNP 8 3.1 1 8
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 27 Quantity of dairy products sold across agro-ecologies of FEED III project in a month, 2018 
Agro-ecology Dairy product n Mean Min Max
Milk Highland 46 63.1 5 300
Midland 77 109.5 3 720
Lowland 3 35.0 5 90 
Butter Highland 51 4.8 1 50 
Midland 126 3.9 0.5 24 
Lowland 23 2.0 0.5 5 
Cheese Highland 7 32.0 2 200
Midland 22 11.6 1 90 
Lowland - - - - 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Income earnings from sales of dairy products
Small-holder farmers generate on-farm incomes from diversified sources such as sales of crops, forest 
products, live animals and livestock products even though the amount varies from one source to another. As 
presented in Table 28, households on average generated Ethiopian Birr (ETB) 951.8711 from sale of milk 
while they obtained ETB 692.13 from butter and ETB 900.79 from cheese. Regions have also generated 
closely similar amount of income from sale of milk and cheese. On the other hand, the income generated 
from households in Oromia region (ETB 1186.28) was higher than other regions while income generated 
from Tigray region was the least (ETB 297.04). Even though the proportion of households which generated 
income is limited, the annual income that could be generated from dairy products alone is considered to be 
high. For instance, if we assume that farmers would get a stable income of ETB 692 per month from sale of 
butter alone, annual income would approximately be ETB 8,304 which is adequate to purchase one ton of 
wheat. As presented in Table 29, the monthly income generated across agro-ecologies is similar for milk 
11 One USD = 27.24 ETB. 
30
and cheese. On the other hand, the highest income was generated in the highlands (ETB 919) followed by 
the midlands (ETB 670) and it was lowest in the lowlands (ETB 305). 
Since most of the farming households depend on family labor for feeding, barn cleaning, milking and other 
operations, and supplement feed resources from their own farms (such as green feed and hay, grain and 
grain by-products and local beverage by-products), there is room to minimize costs. Therefore, many of 
the dairy farmers perceived that engagement in dairying would be a worthy enterprise if they receive 
some support in getting access to crossbred dairy cows and industrially processed high value concentrate 
feeds. 
Table 28 Income generated from sales of dairy products in the regions, 2018 
Dairy product Region n Mean Minimum Maximum
Milk Tigray 7 1118 200 6480
Amhara 10 845 80 1800
Oromia 52 1075 45 6000
SNNP 57 837 30 4000
Butter Tigray 49 297.04 60 900
Amhara 18 738.88 100 4000
Oromia 64 1186.28 5 4500
SNNP 69 502.17 50 6300
Cheese Tigray - - - -
Amhara 4 86 20 175
Oromia 17 1439 50 5400
SNNP 8 163 40 400
Overall sample 
Milk 126 951.87 30 6480
Butter 200 692.13 5 6300
Cheese 29 900.79 20 5400
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 29 Income earnings from dairy products across agro-ecologies of FEED III project in a month, 2018 
Dairy product Agro-ecology n Mean Min Max
Milk Highland 46 891 30 6000
Midland 77 1006 120 6480
Lowland 3 492 45 1350
Butter Highland 51 919 5 4200
Midland 126 671 50 6300
Lowland 23 305 60 800
Cheese Highland 7 1568 20 5400
Midland 22 688 40 4500
Lowland - - - -
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Challenges of small-holder farmers in dairy production
Even though the dairy sub-sector is a worthy business to engage in both as a source of income and nutrition 
for households, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to make the sub-sector more efficient 
and productive. As illustrated in Table 30, the major challenge reported by 59% of the households was 
feed shortage followed by limitations of farm size (56%) for grazing, hay making and growing forage 
crops. Land shortage was exacerbated by human population pressure which forced farmers to plow 
31
grazing lands and provide priority for the growth of food crops. Scarcity of feed supply has also 
contributed to the rise of costs for concentrates and industrially processed feeds. Inadequate knowledge 
and skills of improved dairy management practices was also identified to be the other major problem by 
40% of the households. 
Even though dairy products have appeared to be essential sources of on-farm incomes, dairy farmers 
could not maximize the benefits due to inability to obtain crossbred and productive cows (33%). 
Especially, there is demand for crossbred Holstein Friesian cows in the outskirts of towns and Jersey cows in 
locations far away from towns. Even if they are available, their purchasing price is unaffordable to small￾holder farmers who also lack information regarding the productivity traits of crossbred cows such as exotic 
blood levels, parity, age, milk productivity and others. This lack of knowledge was the result of limited 
experience of record keeping for dairy cows. In light of limited availability of veterinary clinics in rural 
areas, disease prevalence has also been identified as one of the critical challenges facing the dairy sector 
(30%). 
According to analysis of challenges across agro-ecologies, 71% of the highlander households reported 
shortage of concentrate feed as their major challenge while land shortage is prominent a challenge in the 
midlands as mentioned by 61% of the households. The lowlands are evidently more challenged due to 
prevalence of disease exacerbated by limited veterinary clinic facilities and moisture stress. The 
challenges are also the same across FEED III project regions except for variations from one region to 
another. For instance, while households in Tigray region (51%) and Oromia (61%) complain about limited 
supply of concentrate feeds, the major challenge in Amhara region (62%) and SNNPR (83%) was land 
shortage to manage the dairy sector (Table 31). 
Table 30 Challenges of small-holder farmers across various agro-ecologies of FEED III project, 2018 
Challenges Highland
(%)
Midland
(%)
Lowland
(%) Total (%)
Shortage of concentrate feed 71 56 47 59
Land problem/limited land size 55 61 37 56
Disease prevalence 22 28 57 30
Lack of crossbred cows 35 34 25 33
Lack of cooling and storage facilities at milk 22 18 3 17
Water availability problem 15 30 39 27
Low milk price 24 25 10 23
High feed price 43 60 27 51
Lack of knowledge for modern dairy cow 47 39 34 40
Limited access to credit 18 34 12 27
Others (specify) 1 5 5 4
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 31 Challenges of small-holder farmers in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Challenges across regions Tigray
(%)
Amhara
(%)
Oromia
(%)
SNNP 
(%)
Total
(%)
Shortage of concentrate feed 51 56 61 65 59
Land problem/limited land size 39 62 34 83 56
Disease prevalence 37 24 26 35 30
32
Lack of crossbred cows 17 42 27 42 33
Lack of cooling and storage facilities at milk vending
sites 
4 16 14 30 17
Water availability problem 40 32 6 34 27
Low milk price 13 21 10 43 23
High feed price 30 39 39 88 51
Lack of knowledge for modern dairy cow management 35 42 47 35 40
Limited access to credit 7 24 23 48 27
Others (specify) 5 1 3 6 4
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Dairy value chain
Various actors playing different roles ranging from input supply to final consumption and disposal are 
involved across the dairy value chain. Identification of key actors in the value chain helps to make joint 
planning, implementation and evaluation of various development activities in the diary sector. Unless all 
these actors accomplish their roles across the value chain, it would not be possible to run dairy businesses 
effectively and efficiently. Farmers have identified the most common actors which are presented in Table 
32. For instance, 27% of the overall sample households have identified actors in the marketing segment of 
the value chain such as wholesalers and retailers of concentrate feeds, feed ingredients and veterinary 
drugs. According to 25% of the households, dairy farmers (milk producers), forage growers and feed 
producers, and service providers (extensionists, researchers, etc) ae also key actors in the value chain. 
Table 32 Actors involved across dairy production value chain in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Actor
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Suppliers of inputs, such as forage seed, vet drugs,
AI services, vaccines, crossbred cows, etc 
3 13 3 8 7 21 20 22 33 18
Feed processors and milk collectors 3 13 9 24 14 42 5 6 31 17
Forage and feed producers and service providers
(extension agents, researchers, etc) 
2 9 14 38 5 15 25 28 46 25
Wholesalers, retailers and consumers 9 39 10 27 9 27 22 25 50 27
Other actors 3 13 3 8 1 3 0 .0 7 4
I don’t know 5 22 4 11 0 .0 36 40 45 25
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
One of the major inputs for small-holder farmers in the dairy value chain is feed resource which can either 
be produced from own farms or purchased. While green and dry grasses, crop residues and grain can be 
sourced from own farms, industrially processed concentrate feeds must be purchased. According to the 
findings, 25% of the overall sample households had experiences of purchasing concentrate feeds for their 
dairy cows (Table 33). Assessment across the regions indicates that the proportion of households who had 
experiences of purchasing concentrate feeds was higher in SNNP (42%) than in the other regions. 
Consideration across agro-ecologies also indicates that 31% of the households in the midlands had 
experiences of purchasing concentrate feeds followed by the highlands (16%). 
Inability to purchase concentrate feeds in 75% of the households means milk productivity is compromising 
due to inadequate quantity and poor quality of concentrate feeds as feed type is key in determining 
productivity of dairy cows. Limited supply and associated high purchase cost are the two major factors 
responsible for restricting farmers’ purchasing power. These farmers make all possible efforts to replace 
industrially processed concentrate feeds with by-products of grain and local beverages. Out of those 
households which have experiences of purchasing concentrate feeds, 56% of them did so in the last 12 
33
months (a large proportion of them were from Oromia region (85%) followed by Tigray (78%), SNNP 
(50%) and Amhara (30%)). Households purchased 333 kg of concentrate in a year which amounts to 
nearly one kg per day (Table 34). However, households in Tigray region seem to have purchased the 
largest quantity of concentrate feed (500 kg) those in SNNP purchased the lowest quantity (192 kg). 
Households on average spent ETB 2791 for purchase of concentrate feeds spending about ETB 8.38 per 
kg of concentrate. Oromia seems to have spent the highest cost (ETB 4050) followed by SNNP (ETB 2507), 
Amhara (ETB 2062) and Tigray (ETB 1984). 
Table 33 Experiences of purchasing concentrate feed for dairy cows, 2018 
Region Highlands Midlands Low lands Total
n % n % n % n %
Tigray 6 27 13 27 4 6 23 17
Amhara 13 19 22 20 2 12 37 19
Oromia 5 6 26 24 2 29 33 17
SNNP 8 40 81 43 0 0 89 42
Overall 32 16 142 31 8 9 182 25
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 34 Quantity of concentrate (kg) purchased by dairy farmers in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Regions n Mean Min Max
Tigray 18 500 2 3000
Amhara 11 480 1 2000
Oromia 28 392 2 1500
SNNP 45 192 2 1000
Overall 102 333 1 3000
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Farmers sourced concentrate feeds from the available option of dealers. As reported by 50% of 
households, the most common source was identified to be private enterprises, which include wholesalers, 
processors and retailers (Table 35). Processors often act as wholesalers when a well-developed feed 
market is absent. Farmers’ cooperatives/unions have also appeared to be essential sources of concentrate 
feeds for 19% of the farmers. Apart from engagements in various income generating activities, 
cooperatives are also involved in processing and distribution of concentrate feeds to meet the demands of 
their members and neighbors. 
Even though there are options for sourcing, 85% of the dairy farmers (90% in SNNP, 79% in Oromia, 
81% in Amhara and 83% in Tigray) believed that the number of distribution channels for concentrate 
feeds is inadequate to fulfill their demands. One of the major reasons reported by 69% of the dairy 
farmers was the inaccessibility of available distribution channels due to their location (Table 36). 
Unbalanced supply and demand for concentrate feeds is another reason as indicated by 68% of dairy 
farmers. 
Table 35 Sources from where farmers purchased concentrate feeds in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Sources Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
n % n % n % n % n %
Coops/unions 0 0 2 18 1 4 16 35 19 19
Private enterprises 6 33 3 27 20 71 22 49 51 50
Government 4 22 1 9 0 0 0 0 5 5
Other farmers 1 6 4 36 3 11 4 9 12 12
NGOs 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Other sources 6 33 1 9 4 14 3 7 14 14
Total 18 100 11 100 28 100 45 100 102 100
34
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 36 Reasons why distribution channels are inadequate for concentrate feeds, 2018 
Reasons
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
It serves too many farmers 6 32 9 30 12 46 44 55 71 46
The service is too far/not accessible 14 74 18 60 19 73 56 70 107 69
Unbalanced supply and demand 9 47 22 73 10 38 64 80 105 68
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Access of households to feed market information
Market information is instrumental to enhance efficiency of feed transaction and strengthen bargaining 
power. According to the findings, 32% of the households claimed that they had access to feed market 
information especially concerning prices and supply conditions. Among the regions, 42% of dairy farmers 
in SNNP region claimed to have better access to feed market information while the least proportion of 
farmers with access to feed market information was in Tigray region (13%) (Figure 7). Even though there 
are options (Table 37), development agents have appeared to be key sources of information for 41% of 
dairy farmers followed by fellow farmers (38%) and local feed traders (33%). Information exchange 
during community meetings was also identified to be the most important source of information in Tigray, 
Oromia and Amhara regions while communication with fellow farmers is an essential information source in 
SNNP region. 
The findings also show that a large proportion of dairy farmers (58%) still did not have access to market 
information such as where to get quality feed and location of traders, quantity of supply and prices, types 
of feeds available and others. Lack of information may expose dairy farmers to high prices, poor quality 
products and inability to purchase concentrate feeds. Dairy farmers communicate with a range of 
information sources through mobile phones, physical visits and person-to-person communication. However, 
the quality and timeliness of information is still in question. 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Figure 7 Access of dairy farmers to feed market information, 2018 
Table 37 Sources of feed market information in the FEED III project regions, 2018 
Information Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
35
sources n % n % n % n % n %
Local feed traders 1 33 2 20 3 37 13 35 19 33
Feed suppliers 1 33 0 0 3 37 9 24 13 22
Development Agents 2 67 4 40 2 25 16 43 24 41
Fellow farmers 1 33 4 40 0 0 17 46 22 38
Community meeting 2 67 5 50 4 50 6 16 17 29
Radio 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 2
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Even though dairy farmers make all the necessary efforts to purchase and feed their cows, 20% of the 
overall sample households on average emphasized that they are not able to obtain adequate quantity of 
concentrate feeds to feed their dairy cows. Especially the proportion of dairy farmers who are not able to 
supply adequate quantity of concentrate feeds to their dairy cows was higher for Tigray region (48%) 
followed by Oromia (21%), SNNP (16%) and Amhara (11%). 
As illustrated in Table 38, the two major reasons for the limited supply of concentrate feeds were high 
prices, as identified by 77% of dairy farmers, and limited supply (71%). High price of raw materials and 
ingredients for processing concentrates was one of the factors that have led to high prices for concentrate 
feed. Not is the supply of raw materials limited in the local markets, but also their quality is often 
perceived to be below acceptable standards. In addition, there are only limited incentives to motivate 
enterprises to engage in feed processing such as allocation of adequate land to establish a processing 
plant, credit and others. In the face of the limited number of feed processors and inadequate supply, the 
demand for concentrate feeds is very high resulting in high selling prices unaffordable to many of small￾holder farmers. Out of the total sample households, 85% of dairy farmers reported that the price of 
concentrate feeds was unaffordable. The proportion of dairy farmers who indicated that the price of 
concentrate feeds was not affordable to them was higher for SNNP dairy farmers (92%) followed by 
dairy farmers from Amhara (89%), Oromia (76%) and Tigray (65%) regions. 
Price of concentrated feed is also unstable and fluctuates from time to time. It was reported by 81% of the 
dairy farmers that price fluctuation is another problem they are facing in the concentrate feed market. 
Price fluctuation was especially acute in Oromia region (as reported by 88% of dairy farmers) followed 
by SNNP (81%), Amhara (78%) and Tigray (74%) regions. 
Quality of concentrate feed is another issue that was raised by the dairy farmers. Among the sample 
households, only 43% of the dairy farmers (39% for Oromia, 45% for SNNP, 46% for Amhara and 35% 
for Tigray) made physical quality inspection of quality before purchase while others (57%) purchased 
concentrate feed without such inspection. 
Table 38 Reasons why dairy farmers are unable to supply adequate quantity of concentrate feeds to their 
cows, 2018 
Reasons Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
High price 11 92 19 58 21 81 61 81 112 77
Low quality 0 0 4 12 5 19 17 23 26 18
Limited supply 8 67 21 64 11 42 64 85 104 71
Other 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 1
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
In times of limited access to industrially processed concentrate feeds due to high price and other reasons, 
dairy farmers have adopted their own strategies to fill the gap. For instance, 64% of the dairy farmers 
36
have replaced concentrate feed with locally available feeds such as by-products of local beverages, 
grain and others (Table 39). Moreover, 57% of the dairy farmers have made efforts to purchase the raw 
materials from local markets and blend them with approximate formulations. Even though they use various 
options to meet their concentrate demands, dairy farmers still recognized that they are not feeding 
adequate quantity and quality of concentrate feed to their cows compromising milk productivity. For 
instance, 90% of dairy farmers reported that milk productivity has been reduced as a result of limited 
supply of feed (Table 40). Decreases in milk production mean declining incomes from the sector (75%). 
Most of the dairy farmers complained that engagement in dairy production is becoming almost non￾feasible in the face of an underdeveloped feed market. Unless measures are taken to motivate the private 
sector including coops and unions to engage in the feed processing sector extensively shortage of milk will 
be exacerbated especially during times of high feed prices. 
Table 39 Strategies adopted by farmers at times of inadequate supply of concentrate feeds, 2018 
Strategies
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Reduce the quantity of feed given to 
cattle 
2 17 9 27 12 46 21 28 44 30
Shift to own production 4 33 19 58 15 58 45 60 83 57
Use some other feed materials 6 50 13 39 13 50 62 83 94 64
Other (Specify) 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 40 Consequences of limited access to feed for dairy production, 2018 
Consequences
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Reduced in the quality of production 6 50 11 33 10 39 40 53 67 46
Reduced in the quantity of production 9 75 28 85 22 85 72 96 131 90
Decreased income from dairy products 6 50 21 64 14 54 68 91 109 75
Dairy health effects 1 8 6 18 2 8 49 65 58 40
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.5. Animal fattening and value chain
Animal fattening
The household survey data shows that 1211 (73.48 %) of the farm households across all regions did not 
participate in the animal fattening livelihood activities. Only 437 (26.52 %) of the farm households were 
involved in animal fattening. In terms of regions, the numbers are 142 (34.38%), 125 (30.34%), 121 
(29.37%), and 49 (11.92%) in Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray respectively (Table 41). 
Table 41 HH participation in fattening by region 
Region Participation in fattening Frequency Percentage
Tigray Yes 49 11.92 
No 362 88.08 
Amhara Yes 142 34.38 
No 271 65.62 
Oromia Yes 125 30.34 
No 287 69.66 
37
SNNP Yes 121 29.37 
No 291 70.63 
Total Yes 437 26.52 
No 1211 73.48 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Animal fattening practice in FEED III project regions
On average, farmers owned 2.07 cattle in Oromia, 1.81 in Amhara, 1.76 cattle in Tigray, and 1.41 in 
SNNPR. For sheep, the head count was 1.12 in Tigray, 2.47 in Amhara, 0.72 in Oromia, and 0.88 in 
SNNPR. The largest average number of goats was owned in Tigray (2.10) and the smallest was 0.02 in 
SNNPR. The maximum fattening period for cattle was 173.36 days in Tigray and the minimum was 83.28 
days in Oromia. For sheep, it takes a maximum of 150.28 days in Amhara and a minimum of 73.93 days 
in Oromia. With regard to goat fattening, 209.83 days are required in Amhara and 50.40 days in 
Oromia regions (Table 42). The maximum cattle purchase cost was birr 13,180.87 in Tigray and the 
minimum was birr 6,537.50 in SNNPR. The figure was birr 912.78 in Amhara region and the average 
purchase cost for a goat was 233.33 birr (Table 42). 
Table 42 Animal fattening practice by region by animal type 
Region Animal Type
Average
Head Count Fattening Period (Days) Animal Purchase Cost (Birr)
Tigray 
Cattle  1.76 110.54 13,180.87
Sheep  1.12 135.38 539.13
Goat  2.10 101.33 417.39
Amhara 
Cattle  1.81 173.36 9,926.11
Sheep  2.47 150.28 912.78
Goat  0.29 209.83 233.33
Oromia 
Cattle  2.07 83.28 10,424.45 
Sheep  0.72 73.93 630.28
Goat  0.95 50.40 174.66
SNNP
Cattle  1.41 94.79 6,537.50
Sheep  0.88 87.27 57.03
Goat  0.02 52.50 22.00
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Animal fattened and sales income in FEED III project regions
In Tigray region, on average 9.33 fattened animals were owned with the average sales value of birr 24,
406.5 (Table 43). In terms of share of sales income, the highest was fattened ox/bull and the least was 
sheep. In Amhara region, 15.13 was the mean fattened animals’ ownership with the average sales value 
of birr 15, 363.9 (Table 43). On the other hand, in Oromia region 4 was the mean fattened animals’ 
ownership with the sales value of birr 20814.3 (Table 43). The case in SNNPR was 4.40 fattened animals 
and the mean sale value was birr 11,922.10. The largest number of fattened ox/bull was owned by 
farmers in Amhara region while the least-2.84-was in Oromia. 
38
Table 43 Animal fattened and sales income by region by animal type 
Region Animal Type Average Fattened
No Sales
Tigray 
Fattened ox/bull 5.4 34,955.56 
Fattened cow 1.5 7,500.00 
Sheep 1.2 4,783.30 
Goats 1.25 8,192.31 
Sub Total 9.33 24,406.50
Amhara 
Fattened ox/bull 10.6 15,912.97 
Fattened cow 0.77 8,535.00 
Sheep 3.4 4,351.50 
Goats 0.35 4,750.00 
Sub Total 15.13 15,363.90
Oromia 
Fattened ox/bull 2.84 19,842.08
Fattened cow 0.14 13,000.00 
Sheep 0 .432 5,036.73 
Goats 0.472 14,560.40 
Sub Total 3.90 20,814.30
SNNP 
Fattened ox/bull 4 11,580.56 
Fattened cow 0.11 7,450.00
Sheep 0.23 2,143.80 
Goats 0.1 1,500.00 
Sub Total 4.40 11,922.10
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Value chain actors in FEED III project regions
Relatively the largest proportion of actors involved in the animal fattening were producers-40 (65%) in 
SNNPR, 17 (31.48%) in Oromia, 4 (9.52%) in Amhara, and 7 (41.18%) in Tigray. For small private and 
cooperative fatteners, the figures are 14 (25.93%) in Oromia and 2 (11.76 %) in Tigray (Table 45). 15 
(27.78%) individual traders and exporters in Oromia and the lowest registered numbers for individual 
traders and exporters were in Tigray and SNNPR. Livestock trading cooperatives were almost 
nonfunctional in all regions (Table 44). 
Table 44 Value chain actors involved in animal fattening in FEED III project regions 
Actor type Response Region
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP
Producers Frequency 7 4 17 40 
Percent 41.18 9.52 31.48 65.57 
39
Collectors Frequency 1 10 7 5 
Percent 5.88 23.81 12.96 8.2 
Small private and cooperative fatteners Frequency 2 8 14 5 
Percent 11.76 19.05 25.93 8.2 
Livestock trading cooperatives Frequency 0 1 0 0 
Percent 0 2.38 0 0 
Individual traders and exporters Frequency 3 8 15 3 
Percent 17.65 19.05 27.78 4.92 
Other actors not listed Frequency 4 11 1 8 
Percent 23.53 26.19 1.85 13.11 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Access to trainings in animal fattening
Regarding whether farmers have received any training in relation to animal fattening over the last 12 
months, the results show that the government had provided training for farmers in all regions except in 
SNNPR where most of the respondents indicated that the training was given by private enterprises (Annex 
A2a). Although few in number, unions or cooperatives have also provided trainings for animal fatteners 
mainly in SNNPR and Tigray region while locally deployed NGOs offered training in all regions 
complementing the capacity gaps on animals fattening livelihood activities across all regions. Concerning 
the market outlet for the sale of the fattened animals, it was revealed that across all regions farmers sold 
their fattened animals in the local market and an insignificant number was reported for other market 
outlets (Annex A2b). Limited access to markets along with other factors may discourage farmers from 
involvement in animal fattening. 
Animal feed usage, feed preservation and storage practices and feed equipment
In Tigray region, most of the farmers depend primarily on crop residuals supplemented by other high 
quality feeds (Atela, grains) and other feed typologies as sources of feed for the fattened animals, with 
the last of these resorted to the least (Annex A3a). By the same token, farmers in Amhara region chiefly 
depend on crop residual supplemented by green forage, grass, hay, and silage as alternative feed 
sources for their fattened animals. From the survey, it was evident that farmers did not frequently use the 
concentrate animal feed for their fattened animals in Amhara region which could be attributed to lack of 
supply on one hand and lack of awareness on the importance and use of concentrate animal feed on the 
other. Similarly, in Oromia region farmers use crop residual as primary source of feed followed by green 
forage, grass, hay, and silage, agro-industrial by-products (wheat bran, nug cake etc.) and lastly other 
feed typologies (Annex A3a). Farmers in the SNNPR mostly use green forage, grass, hay, and silage and 
complement the feed through crop residuals and the least used feed option was concentrate animal feed 
The limited role of concentrate feed in animal fattening in the region is probably down to the same 
reasons mentioned above. 
When it comes to animal feed preservation and storage practices, it is hay making that was largely used 
across all regions. The highest number for this activity was from Amhara region and the lowest figure came 
from Tigray region (Annex A3b) revealing both commonalities and discrepancies with regard to animal 
feed preservation and storage practices among regions. This indicated the need for region specific 
intervention to address challenges to animal feed preservation and storage practices. An insignificant 
number of farmers also practice bailing and silage as complementary animal feed preservation and 
storage practices. Concerning animal feeding equipment (drinking and feeding activities), the data shows 
40
that feed trough has been consistently used across all regions followed by water trough. The data suggests 
the existence of similar patterns and practices of animal feeding equipment which demand similar support 
across all regions through context focused packages to enable farmers improve on the use of animal 
feeding equipment which can be constructed from locally available materials. In all regions, farmers used 
rotational grazing as part of feeding practices for fattened animals, the numbers being nearly the same 
for farmers in SNNP and Amhara regions. This was followed by the use of factory produced feed and the 
mixed ration which was practiced the least (Annex A3d). 
Households’ members’ participation in animal fattening
Concerning household members’ involvement in the animal fattening activities, the survey data revealed 
that cleaning the animal house was consistently undertaken by the adult male across all regions while the 
adult female complementing the cleaning activities in all regions the largest of which was in Amhara region 
(Annex A4a). From the same data, feeding the animal was mostly carried out by the adult male-the 
largest figure was reported from Amhara region and the lowest was from Tigray region (Annex A4b). The 
labor intensive nature of fattening activities ensures that children play a marginal role. As the data shows, 
the role of children under 18 years was reported to be very minimal suggesting that most of the animal 
feeding activities are carried out by adult males. As for forage collection for fattened animals, the adult 
female plays a dominant role across all regions with the largest figure coming from Amhara region and 
the smallest was from Tigray region (Annex A4c). Similar to feeding and cleaning of animal house, the role 
of children under 18 years in the forage collection was minimal. By the same token, the participation of the 
adult female in the purchase of concentrate feed for fattened animals was reported to be large. The most 
adult females were reported for participating in the purchase of animal concentrate feed in SNNPR and 
the lowest adult female participation figures were reported from Tigray region (Annex A4d). 
On the purchase of factory ingredients, the survey data suggested that the largest share was occupied by 
the adult females from Oromia region. This could be partly because of the larger number of factory 
ingredient suppliers in the region in comparison to the other regions. On the other hand, insignificant 
number of both adult males and females was reported in Tigray region and purchased by both adult 
female and male on the purchase of the factory ingredients (Annex A4e). The adult male also supported 
the adult female in the purchase of factory ingredients for the fattened animals signifying shared tasks 
between male and female household members. On watering the fattened animals, nearly the same 
patterns have been observed across all regions and between adult household members of both genders 
(Annex A4f). On cattle cleaning, large participation of male adults was reported in all regions and nearly 
comparable figures were reported in Oromia and Amhara regions (Annex A4g). The adult female 
complemented the cattle cleaning activities in all regions with children under 18 years having limited roles 
due to the nature of the activity. In general, it was reported that most of the activities vis-à-vis animal 
fattening have been undertaken by adult male accompanied by the adult female with small disparities 
between and among regions. 
Major challenges of smallholder farmers in animal fattening
As shown in Figure 8, shortage of animal feed resulting from droughts and land use changes was reported 
as the major problem that animal fatteners have been facing across the studied regions. The largest 
reported figure was in Amhara (142) followed by Oromia (125), SNNPR (121), and Tigray region (49). 
The second most reported problem with regard to animal fattening was the issue of limited animal health 
services. Limited animal health services were reported by 131 households in Amhara, 109 in SNNPR, 99 in 
Oromia, and 47 in Tigray region. The third largest reported problem was competition between formal and 
informal animal traders. In terms of region, problem was most prevalent among fatteners in SNNPR while 

42
Table 45 Feed marke access and information (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 farmers 
involved in faffening) 
Regio
n
Average
distance 
to 
distributi 
on 
channel 
(Minutes)
Channel adequacy Feed market information
Adequat
e
Reasons for inadequacy Accessed
informatio 
n
Information source (Top 3) Ways of accessing
information (Top 2)
Ye
s
No Serves
too 
many 
farme 
rs
Inaccessibil
ity
Supply
- 
deman 
d gap
Yes No Local
feed 
trader 
s
Feed
supplie 
rs
Fello
w 
farme 
rs
Farmer to
farmer 
communicati 
on
Communi
ty 
meeting
Tigray 41.35 6 11 1 9 5 2 15 1    1 2
Amhar 
a 
54.71 12 30 8 19 13 17 25 5 2 4 16 11
Oromi 
a 
78.10 10 44 8 36 14 18 36 10 3 1 14 7
SNNP 73.60 0 61 30 52 57 51 10 35 25 38 48 10
Total 67.27 28 14
6
47 116 89 88 86 51 30 43 79 30
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Concentrate feed inadequacy and its effects
In terms of concentrate feed supply adequacy, 138 (79.31%) farmers reported that the supply of animal 
concentrate feed was not adequate. This is due to the limited supply (69), high feed price (62) and low 
feed quality (6). Owing to the feed supply problem, farmers reported applying various strategies to 
offset the gap including using other feed materials (78), shifting basis on own production (43) and 
reducing feed quantity (16). Consequences of inadequate concentrate feed supply were reported to be, in 
order of severity, decreased income from fattening (118), reduced number of fattened animals (81) and 
reduced meat quality (71) (Table 46). 
Table 46 Concentrate feed inadequacy and its effects (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 
farmers involved in faffening) 
Regio 
n
Concentrate feed adequacy Strategy way out in case of 
inadequacy
Consequences of feed inadequacy
Adequate (Top 3) Reasons for inadequacy
Ye 
s No
Hig
h 
pric 
e
Low 
quality
Limite
d 
suppl 
y
Reduce 
feed 
quantity
Shift to 
own 
production
Use some 
other feed 
materials
Reduces 
meat 
quality
Reduces no. 
of cattle 
fattening
Decreases 
income 
fattening
Tigray 9 8 4 1 3 1 2 4 4 8 5
Amhar 
a 
12 30 10 1 19 4 15 11 9 19 28
Oromi 
a 
13 41 27 3 10 8 15 18 16 26 27
SNNP 2 59 21 1 37 3 11 45 42 28 58
Total 36 13
8
62 6 69 16 43 78 71 81 118
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
43
Purchased concentrate feed price and quality
On purchased feed price and corresponding quality, the survey data shows that 150 (86.20%) reported 
prices as unaffordable and 23 (13.21%) as unstable. On the other hand, only 24 (13.795) farmers 
indicated that the concentrate feed price was affordable and stable overtime. The data also suggested 
that the purchased concentrate feed was checked for quality as evidenced by 107 (61.49%) (Table 48). 
Nearly all of the quality check was carried out by employing indigenous knowledge of physical detection. 
On account of this, it would be good for the FEED-III project to critically take into account the major gaps 
identified in relation to access to market, distance to distribution channels, major feed information sources, 
feed price affordability, price stability, farmers’ strategies in time of crisis and modalities of accessing the 
feed information which will contribute to improvement of conditions for fatteners over the project period. 
Table 47 Purchased concentrate feed price and quality (174 farmers who purchase feed out of 437 
farmers involved in faffening) 
Region Concentrate feed price
affordability and stability Concentrate feed quality
Affordable Stable Purchased feed
quality checked
Ways of quality checks
Yes No Yes No Yes No Laboratory Physical detection -
indigenous knowledge
Physical detection -
livestock experts
Tigray 6 11 10 7 6 11 0 6 0
Amhar 
a 4 38 35 7 23 19 0 23 0
Oromia 14 40 48 6 25 29 0 22 2
SNNP 0 61 58 3 53 8 0 53 0
Total 24 150 151 23 107 67 0 104 2
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.6. Feed production and feed value chain
This section of the report covers the roughage and concentrate feed components. The fodder production 
subsection includes grazing pasture, improved forage, crop residue and non-conventional feeds. The 
concentrate feeds components reported under the feed value chain subsection deals with feed ingredients 
production and supply, private feed dealers, millers and concentrated feed manufacturing enterprises. 
Fodder production
a) Grazing pasture
Due to a rapid increase in human population and increasing demand for food, grazing lands are 
steadily shrinking due to the conversion of prime grazing lands in to crop lands. As a result, grazing is 
restricted to marginal areas with low farming potential such as hill tops, swampy areas and roadsides. 
However, there are reports (ILRI 2017) which stress the importance of grazing lands as the major basal 
feed for livestock in the highlands of Ethiopia. For instance, in Yilmana Densa district of West Gojjam of 
44
Amhara region and North Shoa, West Shoa and Arsi Zones of Oromia region, the main source of animal 
feeds is natural pasture on communal grazing lands. According to the key informant interview, in 
Maychew district of Tigray cut and carry system are applied and serve as feed source About 178 
hectare of land has been preserved in the Woreda for the cut and carry system. In Sidama Zone of 
SNNPR, planted Dasho grass and elephant grass are used as grazing pastures. 
b) Cultivated Fodder
Various improved forage crops have been introduced by various institutes including the Ministry of 
Agriculture, regional Livestock Development Agencies, research centers, universities and non￾governmental development partners since 1970s. Out of the total respondents only 145 (8.79%) have 
participated in forage production. Among the project regions, one-fourth of the farmers in SNNPR 
engaged in forage production followed by 31 (7.5%1) in Amhara region, 7 (1.7%) in Oromia and only 
one farmer (0.24%) in Tigray region (Table 49). In Tigray, Oromia and Amhara, improved forages were 
grown by very few households on very small plots of land, on soil conservation structures and on farm 
boundaries. Thus, it would be imperative for FEED-III project to draw lessons from the existing practices, 
mainly from farmers in SNNPR, which could be materialized in the form of experience sharing between 
and among the farmers and promote the need for forage development and management in other 
regions. 
Table 48 Households participation in forage production by region 
Region Participation
Frequency Percent
Tigray 1 0.24
Amhara 31 7.51
Oromia 7 1.7
SNNP 106 25.73
Total 145 8.79
Source: FEED III baseline Survey (2018) 
SNNP and Oromia regions reported higher percentage of households involved in improved forage 
production training (40 percent and 29 percent respectively) than in Amhara and Tigray regions. Only 3 
percent of the total interviewed households use improved forage planting materials. The highest figure 
for use of improved forage planting materials was 10 percent in SNNP and the lowest was in Tigray 
where no beneficiary was reported. SNNP region is followed by Amhara (5%) and Oromia (3%). The 
government is the main source of improved forage planting materials (86.4%) followed by NGOs (7.6%) 
and the private sector (4.5%) (Table 50). Forage planting materials source from the private sector and 
farmer to farmer exchanges are the sort of practices that need to be encouraged for sustainable forage 
development. On the other hand, access to forage market is nil. These findings are summarized in Table 
50 below. 
Table 49 Percentage of household provided training and use and source of planting material in past 12 
months 
Variable Beneficiary households (%)
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Training on improved forage 0 23.0 29.0 40.0 36.0 
45
Use of improved forage planting material 0 5.0 3.0 10.0 3.0
Source of planting material
Government 0 50.0 0 91.4 86.4 
NGO 0 12.5 0 6.9 7.6 
Private 0 37.5 0 0 4.5 
Farmer to Farmer 0 0 0 1.7 1.5 
Access to forage market 0 0 0 0.1 0 
Source: FEED III baseline Survey (2018) 
The total area covered by improved forage among interviewed households in the past 12 months was 
very low- in Tigray 0.25 ha, in Amhara 16.00 ha, in Oromia 4.30 ha and in SNNP 15.56 ha (Table 51). 
Accordingly, the average area of land that produced improved forage was limited to 0.02 ha per 
household. Most improved forage producers (96 percent of the respondents) applied cut and carry 
feeding practice and 39 percent applied rotational grazing (Table 51). Training was mainly provided by 
the government extension system (100 percent of the respondents), NGOs (23 percent) and the private 
sector (31 percent) focusing on training topics such as pasture management, improved technologies for 
forage production and forage nursery establishment. The contribution of private sector on forage training 
is highest in SNNP (37 percent) while the contribution of NGOs is highest in Amhara (57.1 percent). In 
Tigray no training was reported by NGOS and private sector in the past 12 months. Table 51 and figure 
9 reveal the insignificant role of other actors in building farmers’ capacity on forage production and 
development across all regions. The survey data indicates that on average farmers travel 44 minutes to 
reach a forage seed distribution shop. Farmers in Oromia walk the longest distance (58 minutes) and those 
in SNNP walk the shortest distance (34 minutes). 
Table 50 Area cultivated by improved forage, feeding system and actors involved forage development Training in 
2017/18 by region 
Variable Beneficiary households
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Area cultivated by Forage (ha) 0.25 16.00 4.27 15.56 36.08
Distance travel to feed shop (hours) 0 58.00 0 34.00 44.00
Cut and Carry (%) 100 93.5 71.4 98.1 95.9 
Rotational grazing (%) 100 25.8 42.9 42.5 39.3
Government training (% ) 0 100 100 100 100
NGO Training (%) 0 57.1 0 18.6 23.1
Private sector Training (%) 0 0 0 37.2 30.8 
46
Figure 9 Actors involved in improved forage training and the focus of the training by region 
Source: FEED III baseline Survey (2018) 
As per Table 52, all surveyed households confirmed that the fodder they had produced (local and 
improved) were not adequate enough to meet the nutritional demand of their livestock. In response to 
feed shortages, farmers restrict animal feed intake in 25 percent of the households. 75 percent of the 
households find other alternatives such as feeding fruit and vegetable leftovers, migrate to locations 
where feed is available, sugar cane top (Bosete of Oromia) or purchase grass hay and straw. Limited 
access to forage has a negative impact on quantity of produce particularly of milk (58 percent of the 
households) and quality of produce such as fat content of milk (17 percent), hence, affects the expected 
income of the household (25 percent). 
Table 51 Forage inadequacy and its effects 
Region
Forage adequacy Strategy way out in case of Inadequacy Consequences of feed inadequacy
Adequate Reduce quantity 
given
Start own 
production
Reduce
product 
quality
Reduce
product 
quantity
Reduce 
income
Tigray 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amhara 5 (1.2%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%)
Oromia 0 0 0 0 0 0
SNNP 7 (1.6%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%)
Total 12 (0.73%) 3 (25%) 9 (75%) 2 (17%) 7 (58%) 3 (25%)
Source: FEED III baseline Survey (2018) 
The major reasons for low adoption of forage development as cited by farmers include shortage of land, 
unavailability of quality seed, knowledge and skill gap and damage caused by free roaming animals 
(see Figure 10). 

48
In Tigray region, based on qualitative information, the cultivated forage crops grown in the survey 
districts were Sesbania, Leucaena, Napier grass, Alfalfa, Tree lucerne, Vetch, Cowpea, Lablab and 
Pigeon pea. Sesbania, Leucaena and Napier grass are among the most frequently used forage crops for 
feeding livestock. From grass species, Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) and Rarely Rhodes (Chloris 
gayana) are commonly distributed to forage growers mainly through the government extension system. 
Nevertheless, from the present household survey in Tigray, Sesbania is reported as the only cultivated 
forage crop grown in the last 12 months (Table 53). 
c) Crop residues
The major crop residues produced in the surveyed districts could be broadly grouped into cereal, pulse, 
fruit, root crops, vegetables and sugar cane residues. In SNNPR, barley and wheat straw are important 
cereal straws in Bonke while maize stover is important crop residue in Wolaita Zone districts. The dominant 
crop residues in the Sidama highlands are enset leaf and stem. Similarly, feed resources derived from fruits 
such as banana and mango have the largest contribution in Arba Minch Zuria districts. In Central and 
Eastern Zones of Tigray region, wheat straw is by far the most dominant crop residue in all districts 
except Adwa and Laelay Maichew where teff straw contributed the largest residue. A less common crop 
in other parts of Ethiopia but widely farmed in the central and eastern zones of Tigray region is hanfets, 
a crop which possesses the characteristics of both wheat and barley. Faban bean is the most dominant 
crop contributing as protein source. In Amhara region, crop residues include maize, barley, teff and 
finger millet. The highest protein source residue providers were faba bean and grass pea in order of 
importance. In Oromia, cereals and pulse crops residues were maize, teff and faba bean in West Shoa 
Zone, maize, teff, wheat, haricot bean and chickpea in Arsi, East and North shoa. 
Crop residue quality can be improved through mechanical and chemical treatment. These practices have 
been demonstrated through the government extension system and by NGOs. Mechanical treatment is 
carried out by chopping to improve palatability and reducing wastage of coarse feeds. Chemical and 
biological treatment introduced by the government extension system and NGOs were Effective Micro￾organism Treatment of Crop Residues (EM), Urea Molasses Treatment of Crop Residues (UM), Urea 
Molasses Block and Bag Silage. Chemical treated feed can improve palatability and nutritional 
availability, increase water intake by dairy cows which helps to raise milk yield and improve body 
condition of cows, increase egg yield and shorten cattle finishing period. The FEED I and II projects 
already introducing these crop residue improvement technologies in their intervention districts and FEED III 
should follow similar promotional activities. 
d) Non-conventional feeds
The major non-conventional feeds identified in the surveyed districts in SNNP region were traditional 
liquor residue (katikala and borde atella), spoiled grains, crop thinning, vegetable and fruit waste and 
bamboo leaf and kocho residues. The major non-conventional feed resources in Amhara and Oromia 
regions were by-products of local beverages and liquors, chat geraba (Khat edulis), cabbage and 
mango fruit rejects, backyard grown cabbage and some shrubs such as Grewia (Verona) and Acacia in 
West Shoa. In Tigray region, atella (home-made brewery by-product) is more common in the Central 
Zone districts while cactus cladodes feeding is a traditional feed in the Eastern Zone districts. 
Cladodes/pods of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus indica) are traditionally used as livestock feed during the 
dry season and drought periods in South Tigray. 
49
3.7. Feed value chain
Concentrate Feed agribusinesses
Feed marketers/suppliers identified and surveyed were feed traders, cereal processors, feed mills and oil 
extraction plants. In Oromia, feed market is relatively more accessible in East Shoa and Arsi than in West 
Shoa and North Shoa Zones. For instance, in Shirka Woreda of Arsi Zone, a private agro-dealer give 
services for over 1000 farmers and another trader in Boset of East Shoa has over 2000 customers. 
Livestock feed trading is a new and emerging business in West Shoa Zone with only two feed traders. One 
of the traders in West Shoa is an agent for Ethio-Chicken poultry feed manufacturing company and also 
sells effective micro-organism, molasses and homemade poultry feed. 
In Tigray, oil processors and cereal mills operators are the major livestock feed traders. In SNNPR, there 
were very few specialized feed traders, but flour mills and concentrate feed processors sell concentrate 
mixes in Sidama Zone. In Bonke Woreda, there is one trader who sells concentrate feed manufactured by 
Gamo Gofa Fruit and Vegetable Cooperative Union. Many feed traders in Gamo Gofa supply 
concentrate feeds coming from Alema Koudjis, Debre Zeit in Oromia. In West Gojjam Zone, the majority of 
feed businesses are privately owned (83.3%) but few are owned by cooperatives (8.3%) and unions 
(8.3%). For example, ADMAS cooperative union in Guangua district retails the feed manufactured by 
Guanga farmers’ cooperative union feed enterprise. NGOs like SNV have contributed for the 
establishment of private agro-input dealers in Amhara, Oromia, Tigray and SNNPR. Most of the agro￾input dealers contacted in this survey were those once supported by SNV. The major challenge agro-input 
dealers face is unfair increase in feed price from suppliers’ side, unavailability of feed, lack of credit and 
high income tax. 
Generally, privately owned medium and small millers who mix ingredients and label them as a concentrate 
feed are characterized by three basic problems: first, majority of them are neither formally licensed nor 
registered for value-added taxes (VAT) that makes their product cheaper. Their lower cost structure 
(important given rising feed prices in Ethiopia) means they might be able to lower the selling price of their 
products making them more attractive to cost-sensitive buyers such as those in the informal sector. Second, 
they may not have the competence to mix quality feed or formulate the appropriate ration from a given 
set of raw materials. Third, and most importantly, from the standpoint of disease, the largely ad hoc 
nature of their production and sourcing practices makes them more susceptible to the spread of poultry 
diseases through contaminated re-used bags and containers. The major concerns here are the potential 
rapid spread of aflatoxin, avian flu and other poultry diseases through these feed producers and their 
distribution channels. Such feed producers are not knowledgeable on how to manage such risks and are 
difficult to monitor and track. The government regulatory system is inadequate in terms of facilities, man 
power and structural organization to follow up on them. Like the previous FEED projects, FEED III could 
contribute much in capacity building of regulatory institutes and upgrading the technical skill of privately 
owned millers. 
Benefit of Locally formulated concentrate feeds
One of the major challenges facing farmers is the increasing price of concentrate feed. Therefore, 
establishing local feed enterprises that use local raw materials to reduce surging feed price is important. 
Such enterprises can also contribute in reducing transportation costs. The use of local raw materials can 
also benefit farmers who supply crops like maize to feed enterprises and support local industries like flour 
mills and oil extracting plants. From the qualitative information, it is reported that FEED I and II projects 
provided feed processing equipment and finance to establish farmers’ cooperative unions feed enterprises. 
50
The projects also supported technical trainings on synthesis of balanced feed ration. On the input side, 
FEED I and II projects created linkages between local farmers and enterprises in order to supply local 
ingredients to feed plants. On the output side, FEED I and II projects created market linkages between 
feed enterprises and primary cooperatives, individual smallholder farmers and commercial farmers. Based 
on the focus group discussion in Tigray region, participants of the discussion believed that “the main 
hindrance for livestock production is shortage of concentrate feed caused by high costs and lack of availability 
in local markets”. For example, participants mentioned that since there is no animal feed supplier nearbys 
farmers are obliged to go to Mekele, a town 30 km away from their residential village. The price is 
expensive-a quintal of wheat bran and oilseed cake costs about 760 and 620 birr in Mekelle town 
respectively. This does not include the transportation cost which is about 50 birr for each. Most of livestock 
keepers are not aware of the difference between concentrate feed and fed ingredients used for 
concentrate manufacturing. The problem of feed availability, quality and upward surging prices are the 
obvious setbacks for livestock development in the country. FEED I & II projects have already started the 
establishment of feed enterprises in order to alleviate this challenge. In view of this, ACDI/VOCA FEED I 
and II projects supported about 16 Cooperative unions in the survey districts by providing feed processing 
machinery and stand by generators, technical support and trainings, financial donations, ration formulation 
manuals and software and continuous monitoring and coaching including business planning and financial 
management. The findings of the key informants interview on Cooperative unions feed enterprise is 
summarized as follows. 
The daily production capacity of most farmers’ cooperative union feed enterprises that were 
established by FEED I and II are about 80-480 quintals per day. But most are not operating at full 
capacity and actually produce only 55-100 quintals per day due to shortage of feed ingredients and 
output market (e.g., Ambo and Biftu Selale). The annual revenue of some of the enterprises is 
estimated at about Eth. Birr 2.4 million (e.g. Galema union of Arsi, Oromia). The highest estimate was 
Birr 7.0 million for Biftu Selale union of North Shoa in Oromia region. On average, each enterprise 
employed 3 to15 permanent staff and 4 to10 casual labors. Feed ingredients are obtained from 
different sources and in some cases from union own flour factory, wheat short and wheat bran (e.g., 
Ambo Farmers’ Cooperative union) and in others from local farmers. Gozamin farmers’ cooperative 
unionin Amhara region, for example, buys maize from local farmers who are members of the union. 
Other enterprises such as Bokra Union in Alamata buy wheat short and bran from Addis Ababa and 
maize from Gojam. For mineral supplements, there is a limestone factory in different towns like Ambo 
and Adwa towns. 
The main users of the enterprises’ products are the union’s primary cooperatives which distribute the 
produce to individual farmers. There are also commercial dairy farms, poultry farms and feedlots who 
buy directly from the feed enterprises. The project linked the enterprises with end users and provided 
training on concentrate feeding and livestock management to cooperative members and other 
customers. Most of the cooperative unions still expect support from the FEED-III as summarized in Figure 
11. 
51
Source: FEED III baseline Survey (2018) 
Figure 11 Expected support areas for cooperatives/unions by FEED-III project 
From the key informant interviews, most of the feed enterprises are confident about their organizational 
capacity to run the business and ability to expand their services beyond the current distribution domain. 
They anticipate a big demand for their product but face major challenges with regard to availability and 
quality of feed ingredients used for concentrate making (e.g., Ambo and Biftu Selale). On the other hand, 
unions like Enderta face both input and output market challenges as the number of their end product 
customers were very limited. Through the customers’ evaluation survey that was conducted by some of the 
unions, the feedback on level of customer is very good (e.g., Bokra of Tigray, Ambo in Oromia and 
Gozamin in Amhara). The highly in demand concentrate feeds are dairy, poultry and fattening feeds 
depending on the location of farmers’ cooperative union enterprise and customers demand. 
The feed ingredients supply only a limited volume of production of each enterprise. Premix importers are 
also unreliable as they do not have enough stock in their stores. Most enterprise management staff believe 
that their feed prices are affordable to farmers when compared to commercial concentrate producers but 
price still rises when the cost ingredients increases. The majority of the enterprises have plans to expand 
their machinery capacity and provide enough quantity of feed to the market. Some enterprises reported 
shortage of store space to store their inputs and products. Power supply and electricity interruption were 
bottlenecks for full operation of some of the feed enterprises. Taxation and vat charges at different 
market segments were raised as contributing factors to the rise feed price. Some of the enterprises 
purchase ingredients from distant places incurring additional transport costs. This particularly affected 
those enterprises located in the northern part of Ethiopia which may influence their competitiveness in the 
market. For example, Megenagna, Enderta and Bokra unions buy major ingredients from Addis Ababa, 
Nazerte and Gojam. Setithumera union located in Western Tigray purchaze maize and wheat brans from 
Gojam and Gonder. 
Feed enterprises are also involved in forage nursery operation (e.g., Guangawa in Amhara, Mirana in 
Tigray, Ambo and Biftu Selale in Oromia). However, shortage of land, inconsistent demand and high prices 
made the business unsuccessful. On the other hand, demand for forage seed has been created and is 
steadily growing due to government and NGOs intervention. In this regard emphasis should be given to 
capacity building and market linkage of forage seed actors. Promotion of farmers to farmers seed 
exchange system should also be strengthened. 
52
Commercial feed supply
The feed types traded in the surveyed districts are hay, green fodder, cereal crop residues, pulse crop 
residues, mill residues, vegetable and fruit residues, cereal bran, pulse bran, oil seed cakes, and 
formulated rations. Cereal and pulse bran are better available in Oromia and Amhara regions. 
Limestone is available in Addis Ababa, Adwa, Ambo and other towns. The types of feed ingredients 
traded varied between regions and districts depending on the type of crops grown and the presence or 
accessibility of cereal processing mills, oil extracting plants and feed processors. 
In Yilmana Densa district of Amhara region, Sigede multipurpose farmers’ cooperative supply maize and 
noug seed cake to feed enterprise by collecting maize from members’ farmers and noug seed cake from 
oil plants. In Setituhumera of Tigray region, a private individual, supplies sesame oil 
seed cake to Setituhumera Farmers’ cooperative union. In the remaining 14 feed enterprises, feed 
ingredients are purchased by each respective union. In Amhara and Tigray regions, the major feed types 
traded are oil seed cakes owing to the fact that the two regions are major growing areas for sesame, 
noug and other oil crops and the presence of relatively larger number of small-scale oil extraction 
plants. 
In North Shoa, standing grass hay from enclosed private area is sold to hay bailers. In East Shoa, teff 
and wheat crop residues are sold to bailers and stored in a pyramid shape on the way to Hawassa. 
Sugar cane top is used as livestock feed in Bosete district of Oromia region. The major marketed feeds in 
SNNPR are wheat bran and oil cakes. A unique feed marketing is observed in Gamo Gofa zone where 
standing grass hay collected mainly from bush lands/forest in enclosed area is marketed in Arba Minch 
town. In addition, green fodders like maize stover, green grass, banana stem and leaf, sugar cane top, 
and limited volumes of improved forages such as elephant grass are also marketed. 





58
Major commercial feed operators are large poultry farms such as ELFORA, Genesis Farms Ethiopia, 
Ethiochickens and Alema Farms. These actors dominate the market and make it difficult for smaller millers 
to obtain feed ingredients. Smaller millers and toll millers operate parallel to the modern farms and are 
predominantly concentrated in Debre Zeit, Addis Ababa, Hawasa, Mekelle and Bahir Dar. Medium private 
feed enterprises or toll millers prepare small quantities of poultry feed at home level, but the quality of 
feed can vary given lack of materials and technical competence. Private feed enterprises contribute only a 
small share, around 10 percent, for layers feed and 75 percent for broilers feed. Cooperatives, on the 
other hand, have a 10 percent share in layers feed. Layers feed produced at home accounts for 48 
percent (Table 58). 
Table 57 Types of poultry feed used and source of feed 
Feed
Type
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Source of feed
Qty
(KG)
Cos
t
(Bir 
r)
Qty
(KG)
Cos
t
(Bir 
r)
Qty
(KG)
Cos
t
(Bir 
r)
Qty
(KG)
Cos
t
(Bir 
r)
Coop Own
producti
on
Private
Enterpri
se
Other
farmers
NGO
Layers 
Feed 102 231 88 611 56 552 43 299 10
(24%) 
20
(48%) 4 (10%) 8 (18%) 0 
Broilers 
Feed 105 310 150 750 46 292 99 697 0 0 39 
(75%) 1 (25%) 0 
Grain 139 713 12 73 50 175 260 346 2
(13.3%) 0 2 
(13.3%) 
7 
(46.7%)
4
(26.7%)
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
In terms of concentrate feed supply adequacy, 55 (81 percent) of farmers reported that the supply of 
poultry concentrate feed was not adequate. This is mainly due to inaccessible supply, high supply-demand 
gap and higher numbers of customers compared to service provision capacity of distribution channels (with 
almost equally reported reasons). Feed market information is accessed only by 28 percent of the 
respondents and the top three information sources are local feed dealers, feed suppliers and fellow 
farmers. Most farmers access information through farmer-to-farmer communication and community meetings 
(Table 59). 
Table 58 Poultry feed market channel, source of market information and means of information access 
Region
Average distance to 
distribution channel 
(Minutes)
Channel adequacy
Adequate Reasons for inadequacy
Yes No Serves too
many farmers Inaccessibility Supply -demand
gap
Tigray 69.22 3 6 4 3
Amhara 51.33 2 16 7 11 5
Oromia 96 2 8 3 5 3
SNNP 55.32 6 25 19 12 21
Total 62.09 13 (19%) 55 (81%) 29 32 32
Region
Feed market information
Accessed Information Information source (Top 3) Ways of accessing information (Top
2)
Yes No Local feed
traders Feed suppliers Fellow
farmers
Farmer to
farmer Community meeting
Tigray 1 8 1 1 0 1 1
Amara 6 12 0 2 5 6 2
Oromia 1 9 1 0 0 1 0
SNNP 11 20 9 4 2 10 4
Total 19 (28) 49 (72) 11 7 7 18 7
59
Poultry feed is found to be inadequate mainly due to high feed price, limited supply and low quality. 
Hence, poultry producers take different options to cope with inadequacy such as using other feed 
materials, producing their own ingredients and reducing quantity offered to chicken. This has a negative 
impact on productivity and household income. The size and weight of improved chicken and egg sold by 
undernourished chicken is lower and fetch lower price (Table 60). 
Table 59 Poultry feed adequacy rate, reasons and strategies for coping. 
Region
Poultry concentrate Feed Adequacy
Adequate Reasons for Inadequacy Strategy way out in case of Inadequacy Consequences of Feed Inadequacy (T0p 3)
Yes No High 
price Low quality Limited 
supply
Reduce 
feed 
quantity
Shift to 
own 
production
Use some 
other feed 
materials
Decreased 
income from 
poultry 
production
Reduced
in the 
quantity of 
poultry 
production
Reduced in 
the quality 
of poultry 
production
Tigray 5 4 0 0 3 0 1 3 3 2 3 
Amhara 3 15 4 2 7 2 9 4 14 11 6 
Oromia 2 8 6 2 0 5 2 1 3 7 5 
SNNP 3 28 14 1 13 2 7 18 24 25 16 
Total 13 55 24 5 23 9 19 26 44 45 30 
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
On the account of the above information, it would be good for the FEED-III project to critically take into 
account the major gaps identified in relation to access to market, distance to distribution channel, major 
feed information sources, feed price affordability, price stability, farmers’ strategies in time of crisis and 
modalities of accessing the feed information among others, which will contribute improve conditions for 
poultry owners over the project period. 
3.12. Gender perspectives in the feed management practices and household dietary diversity
3.12.1. Gender roles in dairy production and management tasks
In the Ethiopian context, household members have different roles in the agriculture sector depending on 
their sex, age and state of physical condition. Even though the major duty of rural children from age 7 is 
schooling, they also start playing their own small roles in agricultural activities including herding, bird 
scaring and other activities that can be implemented by children. While they attend schools during one half 
of the day, they are involved in farming activities in the other half. As they grow up, children start 
engaging in weeding, feed collection, feeding dairy cows, clearing and plowing farmlands, milking and 
milk selling, and other activities. At about the age of 15, the child (both boys and girls) is perceived to be 
capable of implementing all types of farming activities along with their parents and elder siblings. This 
being the common scenario in most parts of rural Ethiopia including FEED III project areas; the following 
table illustrates specific details on gender perspectives and extent of participation of household members 
at various dairy management activities. 
As shown in Table 59, 70% of dairy management activities were mainly carried out by women while men 
contributed to 30% of the task. The youth support all activities even though they did not play a major role. 
As attested by 91% of the households, women played the major role in cleaning the barn and washing 
cows (81%). Other activities mainly implemented by women include feeding cows (84%), milking (87%), 
milk processing (98%), selling dairy products (88%), calf feeding and management (91%), watering dairy 
60
cows (87%), and udder washing (83%). On the other hand, as pointed out by 85% of the households, 
feeds and forage collection is the major responsibility of men. Other roles for men were related to market 
participation such as purchasing concentrate feeds (85%) and feed ingredients (87%), and selling cows 
(85%). The involvement of women and men in various dairy management activities was similar across all 
regions except for milking which is the major role of men in Amhara region while it is the role women in 
other regions. The major roles being played by women and men are also similar across all agro-ecologies. 
Without making such assessments through a gender lens, it used to be assumed that men carried out all 
farming activities including dairy management. However, most of the dairy management activities are 
mainly implemented by women. The implication is that targeting interventions should be aligned to the 
roles and responsibilities played by men and women. For instance, if there is a technology or training on 
how to collect feeds of dairy cows, more priority should be provided to men while trainings for women 
should focus on interventions related to techniques of feeding dairy cows. On trainings, demonstrations and 
experience sharing visits related to improving milking and hygiene practices, milk processing and calf 
management technologies, women’s participation should be prioritized. Following identification of gender 
roles, subsequent projects should be designed in a gender responsive approach. Assessment of gender 
perspectives also helps to identify who to work with and make the right targeting in research, extension 
and development interventions. 
Table 60 Gender roles in dairy management practices (% of households) in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Task mostly carried 
out
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Participation in 
Cleaning the barn 
Women 86 85 94 96 91
Men 58 41 55 30 45
Youths (under 18) 43 28 15 35 29
Participation in 
Feeding the cows 
Women 80 80 87 88 84
Men 85 80 69 79 78
Youths (under 18) 46 35 25 29 32
Participation in 
Forage collection 
Women 61 60 55 78 65
Men 89 90 76 85 85
Youths (under 18) 34 32 17 32 29
Participation in 
concentrate feed 
purchasing 
Women 63 38 57 60 55
Men 83 87 79 92 86
Youths (under 18) 15 10 10 12 11
Participation in 
factory ingredients 
purchasing 
Women 74 31 50 54 49
Men 85 88 83 92 87
Youths (under 18) 11 9 11 8 10
Participation in milking Women 84 64 98 99 87
Men 78 75 20 14 44
Youths (under 18) 8 10 8 18 11
Participation in milk 
processing (butter, 
chees) 
Women 98 97 97 99 98
Men 18 5 18 5 11
Youths (under 18) 9 13 12 21 14
Participation in selling 
cows and calves 
Women 30 23 36 60 39
Men 86 91 83 79 85
Youths (under 18) 4 5 10 10 8
61
Task mostly carried
out
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Participation in selling 
dairy products 
Women 92 77 86 95 88
Men 24 36 39 23 31
Youths (under 18) 56 10 11 22 13
Participation in calf 
feeding and 
management 
Women 92 86 92 95 91
Men 56 80 55 60 63
Youths (under 18) 41 34 30 43 37
Participation in 
watering 
Women 83 76 91 95 87
Men 62 82 54 54 63
Youths (under 18) 67 45 36 47 47
Participation in cow 
cleaning Women 66 72 88 87 81
Men 71 72 47 59 60
Youths (under 18) 49 31 32 36 36
Participation in under 
washing 
Women 76 67 88 97 83
Men 65 56 35 27 43
Youths (under 18) 40 15 19 25 22
Participation in others 
dairy production task 
Women 94 35 79 97 80
Men 69 87 35 58 57
Youths (under 18) 17 10 34 46 30
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.12.2. Gender roles in forage production and management
Forage production and management is also another activity in the dairy sector which requires involvement 
of family members. As provided in Table 62, about 70% of the forage production and management 
activities were implemented by men. For instance, land preparation and planting of forage crops was 
evidently the men’s task as affirmed by 82% of the households. Apart from weeding, which was the major 
task of men (89%), other activities including cultivation (88%), fertilizer application (80%) and harvesting 
(89%) were major responsibilities of men. On the other hand, watering of forage crops was the major task 
of women in 75% of the households. Any of the interventions related to enhancement of forage production 
should be targeted towards men without losing sight of the need for women and youth should participation 
in accordance with the extent of their contributions. 
Table 61 Gender roles in the management of forage crops in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Forage production 
activities
Household 
members
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Participation in 
Land 
preparation/ 
planting 
Women 1 100 20 69 5 71 60 57 86 61
Men 1 100 18 62 4 57 94 90 117 82
Youths (under 18) 
0 0 6 21 2 29 10 10 18 13
Participation in 
Weeding 
Women 1 100 19 66 4 80 55 55 79 59
Men 1 100 25 86 4 80 90 90 120 89
Youths (under 18) 0 0 6 21 2 40 15 15 23 17
Participation in 
Cultivation 
Women 1 100 19 66 4 57 60 61 84 62
Men 1 100 24 83 5 71 90 91 120 88
Youths (under 18) 0 0 6 21 2 29 20 20 28 21
Participation in 
Fertilization 
Women 1 100 19 79 4 67 27 49 51 59
Men 1 100 17 71 3 50 48 87 69 80
62
Forage production 
activities
Household 
members
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Youths (under 18) 0 0 7 29 3 50 10 18 20 23
Participation in 
Watering 
Women 1 100 14 58 4 80 55 80 74 75
Men 1 100 19 79 4 80 44 64 68 69
Youths (under 18) 0 0 8 33 2 40 27 39 37 37
Participation in 
Cutting or harvest 
Women 1 100 21 75 5 71 62 60 89 64
Men 1 100 24 86 5 71 94 90 124 89
Youths (under 18) 1 100 9 32 2 29 22 21 34 24
Participation in 
Other tasks 
Women 1 100 17 85 2 50 32 84 52 83
Men 1 100 11 55 4 100 30 79 46 73
Youths (under 18) 1 100 3 15 2 50 18 47 24 38
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.12.3. Gender roles in poultry production and management tasks
In rural Ethiopia, poultry activities are perceived to be tasks for women and youth. The reason why men 
are not involved in such activities is that poultry sales do not bring in substantial incomes. Instead, men get 
involved in marketing of products that fetch higher incomes such as sale of cows and other large ruminant 
livestock. The findings of this study have also confirmed that all the poultry management related activities 
are mainly managed by women. For instance, chicken house cleaning was the major task of women in 87% 
of the households and the trend is similar across all regions (Table 63). The implication is that any 
technology and development related interventions on poultry production and management should prioritize 
women. Agricultural extension systems and any interventions intending to empower women would be 
successful if they focused on poultry, an activity in which women have better experiences of management. 
Table 62 Gender roles in poultry management practices in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Poultry production tasks
Household 
members
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Household members 
participation in chicken 
house cleaning 
Women 170 97 173 77 121 82 146 94 610 87
Men 41 23 85 38 63 43 45 29 234 33
Youths (under 18) 75 43 75 34 35 24 60 39 245 35
Household members 
participation in 
Vaccination and 
treatment 
Women 103 90 129 74 134 84 112 91 478 84
Men 50 44 78 45 68 43 58 47 254 45
Youths (under 18)
31 27 51 29 29 18 50 41 161 28
Household members 
participation in egg 
collection 
Women 160 97 183 75 129 79 139 93 611 85
Men 20 12 85 35 59 36 36 24 200 28
Youths (under 18) 76 46 105 43 50 31 73 49 304 42
Household members 
participation in House 
construction 
Women 126 82 158 71 75 46 95 81 454 69
Men 77 50 112 50 111 68 53 45 353 54
Youths (under 18) 48 31 61 27 25 15 51 44 185 28
Household members 
participation in chicken 
feeding and watering 
Women 170 97 193 78 117 82 149 92 629 86
Men 33 19 115 46 67 47 42 26 257 35
Youths (under 18) 101 58 123 49 54 38 83 51 361 50
Household members 
participation in chicken 
and egg selling 
Women 150 96 164 73 102 72 134 98 550 84
Men 40 26 93 41 63 45 27 20 223 34
Youths (under 18) 33 21 65 29 21 15 43 31 162 25
Household members 
participation in Other 
poultry production 
Women 101 93 81 67 64 67 63 97 309 79
Men 54 50 71 59 57 59 28 43 210 54
Youths (under 18) 34 31 36 30 27 28 35 54 132 34
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
63
3.12.4. Gender perspectives in decision making
In rural Ethiopia, in general, and in FEED III project regions, in particular, all household members 
participate not only on operational activities, but also in decision making despite variation between men, 
women and youths depending on the nature of issue under consideration. Since dairy cows are kept and 
managed around homesteads, the participation of women and youth in feeding, watering, barn cleaning 
and milking activities is often substantial. When it comes to decision making, there are cases where both 
the husband and wife make joint decisions or the man would take the lead position in making the decision. 
For instance, this study has shown that decision making in 53% of the households concerning sale of dairy 
products is made jointly by the husband and wife while wives take the lead in 32% of the households 
(Table 64). There is also regional variability in participation of women and men in decision making. For 
instance, women are decision makers on how and where to sale dairy products in Tigray region while joint 
decision making on the same issue dominates in other regions. Decision making practice was also similar in 
poultry production and sale, an issue on which both the husband and wife made joint decisions in 58% of 
the households while it was the responsibility of wives in 33% of the households (Table 65). In Tigray 
region, it was inspiring to see that women are taking the lead in making decisions in the poultry sub-sector 
as in dairy sub-sector. 
Table 63 Participation of household members on decision making to sale dairy products in the regions, 
2018 
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Wife only 84 61 41 21 47 23 65 31 237 32
Husband only 11 8 12 6 4 2 2 1 29 4
Jointly (Both husband 
and wife) 
37 27 98 50 132 66 129 68 396 53
Children under 18 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 0.5 3 0.4
Other 5 4 44 22 17 8 12 6 78 10
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 64 Gender perspectives on decision making practices of production and sales of poultry products, 
2018 
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Wife only 87 49 70 28 45 27 50 31 252 33
Husband only 10 6 9 4 7 4 5 3 31 4
Jointly (Both husband 
and wife) 
70 40 152 61 116 69 99 61 437 58
Children under 18 1 0.6 11 4 0 0 2 1 14 2
Other 3 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 1
No sale 5 3 4 2 1 1 7 4 17 2
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Gender perspectives in decision making over production and sale of forages was also illustrated in Table 
66, where joint decision is still dominant in 64% of the households while the man takes the lead in making 
same decision in 21% of the households. In Oromia region, however, decision making related to production 
and sale of forages was the responsibility of women in 43% of the households while joint decision is 
dominant in other regions except in Tigray region where forage production and sale is not yet a strong 
practice. Both the husband and wife brainstorm the issue of purchasing concentrate feeds and make a 
64
common decision in 53% of the households (Table 67). However, men take the lead in decision making 
over concentrate feed purchase in 31% of the households. The trend of joint decision making is also similar 
across all regions and agro-ecologies. 
Table 65 Gender perspectives on decision making practices of production and sales of forages, 2018 
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % N %
Wife only 0 0 1 3 3 43 6 6 10 7
Husband only 0 0 8 26 1 14 22 21 31 21
Jointly (Both husband 
and wife) 
1 100 21 68 3 43 68 64 93 64
Children under 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 1 3 0 0 10 9 11 8
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
Table 66 Gender roles in decision making practices on concentrate feed purchase in FEED III project 
regions, 2018 
Household members 
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Wife only 7 30 2 5 6 18 11 12 26 14
Husband only 13 56 11 30 5 15 27 30 56 31
Jointly (Both husband and wife) 3 13 21 57 22 67 51 57 97 53
Children under 18 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0.5
Other 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 1
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
As presented in Table 68, joint decision is still dominant on the production and sales of poultry products in 
58% of the households. On the other hand, the role of women is substantial in making decisions related to 
poultry sale and production in 33% of the households. When regional variability is viewed, it appears that 
women in Tigray region took the lead role in decision making of poultry related issues. 
Table 67 Gender perspectives in decision making practices about the production and sales of poultry products in 
FEED III project regions, 2018 
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Wife only 87 49 70 28 45 27 50 31 252 33
Husband only 10 6 9 4 7 4 5 3 31 4
Jointly (Both husband and wife) 70 40 152 61 116 67 99 61 437 58
Children under 18 1 0.6 11 4 0 0 2 1 14 2
Other 3 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 1
No sale 5 3 4 2 1 0.6 7 4 17 2
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
In general, decision making trend is similar across FEED III project agro-ecologies where joint decision of 
the husband and wife is dominant in the highlands, midlands and lowlands. In the context of Ethiopia, 
gender disparity in decision making and other perspectives is an issue in male headed households where 
65
there are husbands and wives, but not an issue in female headed households where the woman is the sole 
decision maker. In earlier days, decision making on almost all of the farming and even non-farming issues 
used to be the sole responsibility of the man who was perceived as the bread-winner and head of the 
household. Over time, however, the role played by women in all aspects of the economy was recognized 
to be a missed opportunity. Because of this, massive awareness creation was launched all over the country 
promoting the advantages and significance of considering gender equality not only in economic but also in 
political and social spheres. This has brought improvements in gender equity providing opportunities for 
women to participate in trainings, decision making and other economic initiatives. 
3.12.5. Gender perspectives in participation to trainings and capacity building initiatives
In the FEED III project regions, Office of Agriculture, NGOs and other development partners are involved in 
providing capacity building initiatives to enrich the knowledge and skills of dairy farmers. Even though all 
household members participate in the management of dairy, access to trainings is not equally accessible to 
all of them. It is evident that the participation of women in the management of dairy cows and calves is 
substantial in rural Ethiopia including FEED III project areas. As revealed in Table 69, however, they were 
men who got better opportunities of participation in the capacity building initiatives. In this regard, 83 % 
had training on improved dairy management while only 16 % of women had access to the training. The 
trend is the same in all the regions except that participation of women in trainings is higher in SNNP region 
(30%) than in others. Even though the man receives trainings, it is rare for him share the newly gained 
knowledge or skill with his spouse and, as a result, women continue to manage through traditional ways 
making impact of training on women almost non-existent. 
Even though engagement of women is high in poultry production and management, it was the men who had 
better access to participate in trainings on improved poultry management as reported by 43% of the 
households (Table 70). This is still because of the perception that the man is heading the household and that 
he will share the knowledge and skills he gained from the training with his spouse and other family 
members, which in most of the cases doesn’t hold true. Instead, women should receive capacity enhancing 
programs directly if the poultry sub-sector is to improve and trainings are required to bring concrete 
impacts. 
Table 68 Participation of household members on trainings related to dairy animal nutrition and 
management, 2018 
Household members 
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
n % n % n % n % n %
Men 10 91 26 90 23 89 26 70 85 83
Women 1 9 2 7 3 11 11 30 17 16
Other household member 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 11 100 29 100 26 100 37 100 103 100
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
66
Table 69 Gender perspectives in participation of women and men on improved poultry management 
trainings, 2018 
Household members Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Wife only 3 37 10 42 2 11 7 47 22 34
Husband only 4 50 8 33 13 72 3 20 28 43
Jointly (Both husband and 
wife) 
0 0 6 25 2 11 5 33 13 20
Other 1 12 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 3
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
3.13. Dietary diversity and nutrition in small-holder households
Farming households in FEED III project regions feature economic scarcity which has direct association with 
the status of dietary diversity that household members get. Not only that diversified food items are not 
easily accessible at all times, but there is also attitudinal problem fail to recognize the importance of 
nutritional balance for growth, health and disease prevention. An assessment was made on access of 
households to various types of food items in a period of 24 hours at the time of the study the findings of 
which have been presented in Table 71. 
Protein source food items, such as beef, lamb, goat and egg were not commonly accessible to 52% of the 
households. These types of food items are considered occasional in small-holder households while most of 
the medium to high income level households have better access. On the other hand, food items processed 
from beans, peas and lentils are almost staple foods in Ethiopia. Food sources of such type are mainly 
used for consumption along with various dishes including “injera”, which is the most popular food in 
Ethiopia. Households tend to convert various flours into injera. 
The major problem related to nutrition is attitudinal caused by inadequate awareness among rural 
households on the effects of consuming nutritionally unbalanced food. Cases of households preferring to 
sale all of their produced eggs and live lamb to generate cash to consumption at home are common. They 
describe “eating egg is to mean eating money”. Therefore, most of household sales are composed of 
diverse products which can provide the required nutrition for health, growth and maintenance. 
Table 70 Accessibility of required nutrition to small-holder households in FEED III project regions, 2018 
Nutrition types consumed Accessibility Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Consumed any beef, pork, lamb, 
goat, rabbit wild game, chicken,
duck, or other birds, liver, kidney,
heart, or other organ meats? 
Yes 225 55 216 52 243 59 103 25 787 48
No 186 45 197 48 167 41 309 75 859 52
Consumed any eggs? Yes 222 54 192 47 240 59 136 33 790 48
No 189 46 221 54 170 42 276 67 856 52
Consumed any foods made from 
beans, peas, lentils, or nuts? 
Yes 355 86 338 82 319 78 232 56 124
4 76
No 56 14 75 18 91 22 180 44 402 24
Consumed any cheese, yogurt, milk 
or other milk products? 
Yes 238 58 179 43 275 67 253 61 945 57
No 173 42 234 57 135 33 159 39 701 43
Consumed any foods made with oil, 
fat, or butter? 
Yes 374 91 376 91 307 75 322 78 137
9 84
No 37 9 37 9 103 25 90 22 267 16
67
Nutrition types consumed Accessibility Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
n % n % n % n % n %
When you are not fasting, how often 
do you consume at least one of the
following foods (meat, fish, egg,
dairy (milk, fish, yoghurt, butter,
etc)? 
Daily 8 2 40 10 67 16 41 10 156 10
More than
once per
week 
154
38 96 23 180 44 110 27 540 33
Once per
week 
129 31 156 38 160 39 113 27 558 34
other 120 29 121 29 3 1 148 36 392 24
Source: FEED III baseline survey (2018) 
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1. Conclusion
In terms of unions or cooperative membership, 449 (27.24%) of households are members of unions or 
cooperatives, which are multipurpose in nature, suggesting limited involvement in unions or cooperatives 
among the studied regions. The socio-economic data reveales that 1511 (91.69%) are male-hedaed 
households while only 137 (8.31%) are female-hedaed households. On the other hand, 1505 (91.32%) 
have formed families which can help to mobilize household resources to take part in any of the livelihood 
options. 739 (44.84%) reported to being illiterate while 558 (33.86%) households only have primary 
education with the mean age of the surveyed respondent being 45 years. The average household size 
stands at 6. The average land owned was 1.4 hectares. Concerning livelihoods, the majority of the 
surveyed sample are involved in crop production. Dairy production is becoming a common enterprise in 
rural areas to produce and sale milk and milk products, and generate supplementary on-farm incomes 
(about ETB 950 per month from sale of milk). 
Even though milk selling practice is improving over time, it is not yet a well developed practice (only 17% 
of households engaged in milk selling in FEED III project areas). Due to inadequate management practices, 
milk productivity from crossbred cows is still very low (only 5 liters per day per cow) eventough it would 
have been possible to produce more than 10 liters per day per cow. One of the major factors responsible 
for low milk productivity is inadequate feed provided to cows by dairy farmers. While concentrate feed is 
the most essential feed component, only 11% of the dairy farmers claimed to have purchased and used 
industrially processed concentrate feed. The high and unaffordable price of concentrate feeds is one of 
the reasons behind inadequate use of concentrate feeds. Limited availability and supply are other factors 
contributing to high concentrate feeds prices. The major challenges in the dairy sub-sector were associated 
with feed problems such as limited supply and consequent high prices of concentrate feeds. 
In terms of animal fattening, 49 (11.92%), 142 (34.38%), 125 (30.34%), and 121 (29.37%) smallholders 
were involved in animal fattening in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR respectively. On cattle 
ownership, farmers in Oromia owned on average 2.07, 1.81 in Amhara, 1.7 in Tigray and 1.41 in SNNPR. 
A large number of farm households have purchased feed for their fattened animals from private 
enterprises and the smallest amount being supplied by the government. On the purchase of animal 
concentrate feed, the largest purchased amount was 604.5 kg with the average cost of birr 2775.2 in 
Oromia and the lowest purchased amount was 113.54 kg with the average cost of birr 2310 in Tigary. 
68
In all regions, farmers used rotational grazing as part of feeding practices for fattened. Shortage of 
animal feed resulting from drought and land use change, limited animal health service, competition 
between formal and informal animal traders, livestock disease and lack access to concentrate feed for 
fattened animals are major reported challenges for animal fatteners in order of severity, which may 
discourage smallholders’ engagement in fattening as one viable livelihood option. 
On feed production, the major livestock feed are crop residues in Oromia, Amhara, and Tigray while 
grazing lands and crop residues in SNNPR. The contribution of cultivated forage, hay and AIBPs is small 
in all regions. Although crop residues are abundant, their utilization is low due to wastage, late harvest 
and lack of feed improvement technologies. Grazing land size is shrinking. Grazing land management is 
largely poor. Forage genetic material multiplication sites are not supported by proper research and are 
operating with insufficient budget and manpower. Thus, the overall management does not guarantee 
production of quality planting materials. Although there is shortage of feed in general, there are feed 
resources that are available but underutilized due to improper collection, conservation, storage and low 
adoption of feed quality improvement technologies. 
Assessment of gender perspectives has revealed disaggregated roles and participation of women, men 
and youth in various operations of dairy management. Against the perception which states that men are 
the ones who make substantial contribution in farming, in general, the study shows that the participation, 
roles and contributions of women and youth is considerable in various farming activities. It was even 
recognized that most of the dairy and poultry production and management activities were dominantly 
implemented by women. The implication of gender assessment is that any of the research, development 
and policy interventions to be designed shall be gender responsive. Development initiatives shall identify 
the right target to on focus as per the roles and responsibilities mainly implemented by women, men and 
youths. On initiatives to improve efficiency of activities that are mainly implemented by women, 
development targets shall, therefore, be women. 
4.2. Recommendations
Alleviate feed marketing constraints: Balanced concentrate feed are not widely used by all livestock 
farmers, especially those located in the rural production systems. A delivery mechanism needs to be 
created to facilitate access of smallholders to improved livestock feed. FEED I and II approaches targeting, 
smallholders, feed traders, primary cooperatives and unions in capacity development and knowledge 
management is effective; and it should be followed by FEED III but more effort is needed to link 
enterprises to input supply chains and to market outlet networks. 
Improvement of natural grazing land: Although grazing lands are the major basal feed for livestock in 
the highlands of Ethiopia, most development projects neglect improvement of natural grazing land. So far 
the major interventions in the improvement of grazing lands were through fertilization and area enclosure. 
However, varying approaches can be followed based on community consultations and problem analysis. 
FEED III project together with national and international partners can intervene through community 
participation to improve natural pasture lands and communal grazing areas such as support in few pilot 
areas for drafting bylaws for grazing land closure and use, fertilization and over sowing of natural and 
communal grazing land etc. Even though high grass biomass yield is reported in north-western Ethiopia 
during wet season, but over mature and not of use in dry season; attention has not been given to 
conservation and use of this feed resource. FEED III in partnership with local, national and international 
institution can contribute on ways of conserving and utilizing this grass resource during dry season and 
69
drought period. 
Organizing learning platforms: The major government institutions working on feed resources are livestock 
and fishery departments and co-operative promotion offices. The government structures of the two 
institutions are available from region to kebele (lowest administrative unit) in all regions, which is a 
conducive environment for project implementation. However, there is a limitation in the vertical and 
horizontal integration of institutional actors. For instance, the link between farmers’ union feed enterprises 
and livestock office is weak and most of the development agents (DAs) interviewed are not aware of the 
existence of farmers’ cooperative union feed enterprise in their Zone (e.g., Alamata). A forum for a 
collaborative learning is absent in most of the survey districts, zones and regions. Therefore, FEED III can 
contribute to link actors for collaborative learning through vertical and horizontal integration of feed value 
chain actors by organizing platforms and forums. 
Capacity building of regulators and millers: Most privately owned medium and small millers’ mix 
ingredients and label as a concentrate feed with sources from unhygienic market, making their products 
more attractive to cost-sensitive buyers. They may not even have the competence to mix quality feed or 
formulate the appropriate ration from a given set of raw materials. The other point is food safety 
production of these enterprises. Most importantly from the standpoint of disease, the largely ad hoc nature 
of the millers’ production and sourcing practices make them more susceptible to the spread of poultry 
diseases through contaminated re-sued bags and containers, their storage as well as their feed source. The 
major concern are the potential quick spread of aflatoxin, avian flu, and other poultry diseases through 
these feed producers and their distribution channels. Such feed producers are not knowledgeable on how 
to manage such risks and are difficult to monitor and track. The government regulatory system is 
inadequate in terms of facilities, man power and structural organization to follow up such irregulars. Like 
the previous FEED projects, FEED III could contribute much in capacity building of regulatory institutes and 
upgrading of the technical skill of privately owned millers. 
Research and development: FEED III in collaboration with IRS like ILRI and NRS (EIAR) can explore ways 
for efficient and effective use of non-conventional feeds and crop-residues as well as agro-ecology based 
cost effective ration formulation. 
Gender participation: FEED I and II projects have been addressing gender through proportional 
involvement of male headed and female headed households. This approach has a positive implication in 
empowering women ownership and decision making capacity. However, the current survey result reveals 
that most of the livestock management activities particularly feeding and sanitation are mainly carried out 
by women in men headed households. It is therefore, necessary to find means of enhancing women’s 
participation under men headed household through couple’s involvement (husband and wife) and/or by 
organizing interventions that target women only. FEED III, following further gender assessment in livestock 
and feed activities could address women participation based on their contribution in livestock and feed 
management practices. 
Human nutrition: The Ethiopian rural households’ sources of staple foods in the north and central parts are 
low productive crops. In order to meet the demand for nutritious food, productivity of high quality 
agricultural commodities has to surpass population growth rates. FEED III project through livestock and feed 
enterprises promotion will contribute in increasing livestock productivity and there by improve nutritional 
status of project beneficiaries. 
70
Annex 1: Baseline survey selected Woredas by mode of production and agro-ecology 
S.N
O
Regio
n
Zone FEED
II/III 
target 
Unions
FEED III
Target
Woredas
Types of
livestoc 
k 
producti 
on
Agro￾ecology
Stratum
(1=Fatte 
ning
2=Poultr 
y
3=Dairy)
Selecte
d
Woreda
1 Orom
ia
West Shewa Ambo Toke Kutaye Fattenin
g and 
Dairy 
Moist
highland 
Toke 
Kutaye: 
Fattening 
Toke
Kutaye 
(R1) 
North Shewa Biftu 
Selale 
Wora Jarso Dairy
and 
Fattenin 
g 
Wet
highland 
Wora 
Jarso: 
Dairy 
Arsi Galema Shirka Dairy
and 
Forage 
Wet
highland 
Shirka: 
Dairy 
Shirka
(R2) 
East 
Wollega 
Gibe 
Didessa 
Leka Dulecha Fattenin
g 
Wet Mid￾highland 
Leka 
Dulecha: 
Fattening 
South-West 
Shewa 
Liben 
Wolisso 
Ilu Fattenin 
g 
Moist 
highland 
Ilu: 
Fattening 
Surrounding 
Finfinee 
Selale Mulo Dairy
and 
Forage 
Wet
highland 
Mulo: 
Dairy 
Mulo
(R3) 
East Shewa Wonji Bosset Fattenin
g 
Dry Mid
highland 
Bosset: 
Fattening 
Bosset
(R4) 
2 SNN
PR
Sidama Sidama 
Elto 
Aleta Wondo Dairy,
fattening 
and 
poultry 
Moist
highland 
Aleta 
Wondo: 
Dairy 
Aleta
Wondo 
(R3) 
Kanbata 
Tambaro 
Amberich 
o 
Kacha Bira Dairy,
poultry 
Moist
highland 
Kacha 
Bira: 
Dairy/po 
ultry 
Wolaiyta Damota 
Wolayita
Boloso Sore Fattenin
g, dairy 
Moist Mid
highland 
Boloso 
Sore: 
Fattening 
Boloso
Sore 
(R4)
Hadiya Licha 
Hadiya 
Misrak
Badawacho 
Dairy,
fattening 
and 
poultry 
Moist
highland 
Misrak 
Badawac 
ho: Dairy 
Misrak
Badaw 
acho 
(R2) 
Siltie Melik Mirab
Azernet 
Fattenin
g, dairy, 
poultry 
Moist
highland 
Mirab 
Azernet: 
Fattening 
Gamogofa Gamo 
gofa 
Bonke Fattenin
g, dairy 
Moist Mid
highland 
Bonke: 
Fattening 
Bonke
(R1) 
Guragie Walta Meskan Dairy Moist Mid
highland 
Meskan: 
Dairy 
3 Amh
ara
West Gojam Merkeb Dera Dairy
and 
poultry 
Wet mid
highland 
Dera: 
Dairy 
71
       Adiet Fattenin
g 
Wet Mid
highland 
Adiet: 
Fattening 
Adiet
(R4) 
South 
Gonder 
Megena 
gna 
Lay Gayent Sheep
and 
goat 
Wet
highland 
Lay 
Gayent: 
Sheep 
and goat 
Lay
Gayent 
(R3) 
Awi Zone Admas Guangua Dairy Wet Mid
highland 
Guangua 
: Dairy 
Guangu
a (R1) 
West Gojam Damot Burie dairy,
fattening 
and 
poultry 
Wet mid
highland 
Burie 
Dairy: 
East Gojam Gozame 
n 
Awabel Fattenin 
g and 
poultry 
Wet Mid 
highland 
Awabel: 
Fattening 
Awabel
(R2) 
Anedid Moist Mid
highland 
Anedid: 
Not listed 
North Shewa Wodera    Moist Mid
highland 
Not listed 
South Wollo Erikum    Wet Mid
highland
Not listed 
4 Tigra 
y
Western Setit 
Humera 
Tsegede Fattenin 
g, dairy, 
Concentr 
ate feed 
utilizatio 
n and 
marketin 
g 
potential
Moist 
lowland 
Tsegede: 
Fattening 
Tseged 
e (R1) 
Southern Bokra Alamata Fattenin
g, dairy, 
Concentr 
ate feed 
utilizatio 
n and 
marketin 
g 
potential 
, Forage 
producti 
on 
Dry Mid
highland 
Alamata: 
Fattening 
Alamat
a (R4) 
North 
Western 
Shewit Tahitay￾adyabo 
Fattenin
g, dairy, 
Concentr 
ate feed 
utilizatio 
n and 
marketin 
g 
potential 
, Forage 
producti 
Dry
highland 
Tahitay￾adyabo: 
Fattening 
72
         on     
Central Geter 
Aduwa 
Tahitay –
maychew 
Dairy 
producti 
on and 
forage 
producti 
on and 
use. 
Dry 
highland 
Tahitay– 
maychew 
: Dairy 
Tahitay
– 
mayche 
w (R3) 
Debre￾assa 
Mereb-leke Dairy
producti 
on and 
forage 
develop 
ment 
Dry
highland 
Mereb￾leke: 
Dairy 
Eastern Wolwalo Gulomekeda Dairy
producti 
on and 
forage 
develop 
ment 
Dry
highland 
Gulomek 
eda: 
Dairy 
South East Enderat Hintalo
Wajirat 
Fattenin 
g, dairy, 
Concentr 
ate feed 
utilizatio 
n and 
marketin 
g 
potential 
, Forage 
producti 
on 
Dry 
highland 
Hintalo 
Wajirat: 
Fattening 
Hintalo 
Wajirat 
(R2) 
Total
Target
27 28 28      16
73
Annex 2: CAPI-based survey questionnaire
Annex 2A: CAPI-based household survey questionnaire
A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
BASE LINE EVALUATION FOR FEED ENHANCEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ETHIOPIA 
[FEED-III]
A STUDY OF ACDI/VOCA
Informed consent 
Dear respondent! 
Good morning/afternoon! My name is (YOUR NAME) and I am working as part of the data 
collection team assigned by A44CDI/VOCA. We are conducting a survey to understand the 
current situation of livestock fattening, dairy, poultry, and feed production and its marketing. You 
are being asked to participate in this survey because of your important role as a target farmer. I 
will ask you a series of questions that would take about 45-60 minutes. It is your choice whether 
or not to take part in this interview and if you choose to participate, you have the right not to 
answer any question or to stop the interview at any time. If you don’t choose to participate, it will 
in no way impact your relationship with ACDI/VOCA. Before we begin, do you want to ask me 
any questions about the survey? Shall I continue in asking you each question? If “Yes” Continue... 
MODULE 1: HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION 
MODULE 2: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS 
MODULE 3: HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES AND INCOME SOURCES 
MODULE 4: DAIRY PRODUCTION 
MODULE 5: DAIRY VALUE CHAIN 
MODULE 6: ANIMAL FATTENING 
MODULE 7: ANIMAL FATTENING VALUE CHAIN 
MODULE 8: POULTRY PRODUCTION 
MODULE 9: POULTRY VALUE CHAIN 
MODULE 10: FORAGE PRODUCTION 
MODULE 11: FORAGE PRODUCTION VALUE CHAIN 
MODULE 12: HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY 
74
MODULE 1: HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION
S.No. Questions Code Description
M1.1 Household identification 
No. 
M1.2 Region 1 = Tigray
2 =Amhara 
3 =Oromia 
4 = SNNP 
M1.3 Zone 1= Western 2= Southern 3= Central 4= South East 5= 
West Gojam 6= South Gonder 7= Awi Zone 8= East 
Gojam 9= West Shewa 10= Arsi 11= Surrounding 
Finfinee 12= East Shewa 13=Sidama 14= Hadiya 
15=Wolaita 16=Gamofofa 
M1.4 Woreda 1=Tsegede 2= Alamata 3= Tahitay-maychew 4= Hintalo
Wajirat 5= Lay Gayent 6= Guangua 7= Awabel 8= 
Yilmana Desnsa 9= Toke Kutaye 10= Shirka 11= Mulo 
12= Bosset 13=Aleta Wondo 14=Misrak Badawacho 
15= Boloso Sore 16=Bonke 
M1.5 Kebele 
M1.6 Village/Gotte 
M1.7 Agro-ecology type 1=Highland
2=Midland 
3=Lowland 
M1.8 Respondent sex 1= Male
2= Female 
M1.9 Coop/union membership 
status 
1= Member
2= Non-member 
M1.10 Coop/union type 1= Livestock
2= Multi-purpose 
M1.11 Date of interview 
M1.12 Enumerator Name
75
MODULE 2: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M2.1 
Sex of the household head 
1=Male
2=Female 
M2.2 Age of the household head (write in years)
M2.3 Level of education of the household head 1=Illiterate 
2=Informal education (religious, 
adult education) 
3= Primary 
4= Secondary 
5= Above secondary 
M2.4 Marital status of the household head 1=Single
2=Married 
3=Widowed 
4=Divorced 
5=Separated 
6=Other (Specify) 
M2.5 Household size (write number) 1=Male
2=Female 
3=Total 
M2.6 Number of underage household members (0 to 17
years) (write number) 
M2.7 Number of economically active household members
(18 to 64 years) (write number) 
M2.8 Number of old age members (above 65 years) (write
number) 
M2.9 Total land size in hectare (2010)
M2.10 Total cultivated land size in hectare (2010)
76
MODULE 3: HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES AND INCOME SOURCES [PLEASE INDICATE 
THE TYPE OF LIVELIHOOD INVOLVED IN AND ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME EARNINGS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD 
MEMBERS DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS] [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]
S.No. Question(s) Code Description Estimated annual income in
birr
M3.1 Crop production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.2 Fruit production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.3 Vegetable production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.4 Root crop production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.5 Dairy production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.6 Animal fattening 1= Yes 2=No
M3.7 Poultry production 1= Yes 2=No
M3.8 Off-farm activities 1= Yes 2=No
M3.9 Non-farm activities 1= Yes 2=No
M3.10 PSNP transfer 1= Yes 2=No
M3.11 Remittance/gift 1= Yes 2=No
M3.12 Others specify 1= Yes 2=No
SN Type of 
livestock
Have you 
owned any of 
the animals 
listed?
1=Yes
2=No [Skip to 
next]
Number of animals in the last 12 
months
Total value 
of animals 
in the last
12 months
(Birr) Indigenous Crossbreed Total
M3.13 Mature cow 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.14 Mature bull/Ox 
(> 2 years) 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.15 Heifers (6 
months to first 
calf) 
1= Yes 2=No       
M3.16 Male cattle (6 
months to 2 
1= Yes 2=No       
77
years)       
M3.17 Calf (male < 6 
months) 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.18 Calf (female < 
6 months) 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.19 Sheep 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.20 Goats 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.21 Chicken 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.22 Horses 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.23 Mules 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.24 Donkeys 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.25 Camel 1= Yes 2=No       
M3.26 Others(specify) 1= Yes 2=No       
MODULE 4: DAIRY PRODUCTION
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M4.1 Does your household participate in
dairy production? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 6/animal fattening, if No to qn
# M4.1]
M4.2 Who decides on the production and
sales of dairy products? 
1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
M4.3 How many lactating indigenous cows
have owned in the last 12 months? 
M4.4 How many lactating crossbreed cows
have owned in the last 12 months? 
M4.5 Total amount of milk collected per Maximum


80
6=Other (Specify)
Household members’ participation [Mostly] in dairy production tasks [Circle all that
apply]/Tick on []
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M4.22 Cleaning the cows’ house   
M4.23 Feeding the cows   
M4.24 Forage collection   
M4.25 Concentrate feeds
purchasing 
  
M4.26 Factory ingredients
purchasing 
  
M4.27 Milking   
M4.28 Milk processing (butter,
Chees) 
  
M4.29 Selling cows and calves   
M4.30 Selling dairy products   
M4.31 Calf feeding and 
management 
  
M4.32 Watering   
M4.33 Cow cleaning   
M4.34 Uder washing   
M4.35 Others specify   
Challenges in dairy production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on [] – Do not Probe
Challenges Responses
M4.36 Shortage of consternate feed 
M4.37 Land problem/limited land size 
M4.38 Disease prevalence 
M4.39 Lack of crossbred cows 
81
M4.40 Lack of cooling and storage facilities at milk vending sites 
M4.41 Water availability problem 
M4.42 Low milk price 
M4.43 High feed price 
M4.44 Lack of knowledge for modern dairy cow management 
M4.45 Limited access to credit 
M4.46 Others (specify) 
MODULE 5: DAIRY VALUE CHAIN
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M5.1 Did your household purchase dairy concentrate
feed for your milk cow? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 6/animal fattening, 
if No to qn # M5.1]
M5.2 Who decides on concentrate feed purchase? 1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4=Children under 18 
5=Others 
M5.3 Who are the actors in your dairy production in
your locality? [Circle all that apply]
1=Input suppliers like forage seed, 
vet drugs, AI service, vaccine 
2=Market and processing 
(processors, market agents, shops, 
milk collection center) 
3=production service providers like 
extension, forage production, hay 
producers, research support etc 
4=wholesalers, retailers and 
consumers 
5=Others 
specify 
82
Type of feed
purchased
[Specify feed 
purchased 
during the 
last 12 
months]
Quantity Unit
1=KG
2=Litter
3=No.
4=Kimir
5=Chinet
6=Esir
7=Shekim
8=Other 
specify
Unit
Price
Total
Price
(Birr)
Main Source
of feed
From whom do
you buy feed?
1=Coop/Union 
enterprise 
2= Own 
production 
3= Private 
Enterprise 
4=Government 
5= Other 
farmers 
6= NGO 
7=Other 
(Specify) 
1=Agro￾processors (flour 
factory, oil 
factory, etc) 
2=Traders (for
factory products)
shops 
3=Farmers’ 
cooperative 
unions, 
4=Primary 
cooperatives 
5= Feed 
manufacturers 
6=Agro-dealers 
(private) 
7= Others
(specify) 
M5.4 Dairy 
concentrate 
feed 
          
M5.5 Oil seed 
cake 
          
M5.6 Wheat bran           
M5.7 Pea bran 
M5.8 Maize 
M5.9 Pulse bran 
M5.10 Molasses 
M5.11 Green 
forage 
M5.12 Grass           
83
M5.13 Hay           
M5.14 Silage 
M5.15 Crop residue 
M5.16 Atela (Tela, 
Areke, Teji) 
M5.17 Others 
(specify) 
          
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M5.18 How long does it take to reach concentrate 
feed sales/distribution point from your farm? 
(Average walking distance in minutes’ single 
trip) 
M5.19 Do you think that there are adequate number
of concentrate feed sales/ distribution channels 
that fulfill the feed demand of the farmers in 
your area? 
1= Yes 2=No
M5.20 If no for qn # M5.19, what are the reasons?
[Circle all that apply]
1= It serves too many farmers
2=The service is too far/not 
accessible 
3=Unbalanced supply and demand 
4=Other (Specify) 
M5.21 Have you ever accessed feed market
information in the last 12 months? 
1=Yes
2=No (Skip to qn # M5.24 if No to 
qn # M5.21)
M5.22 If yes for qn # M5.21, what was your source of
information? [Circle all that apply]
1=Local feed traders 
2=Feed suppliers 
3=Development Agents 
4=Fellow farmers 
5= Community meeting 
6=Radio 
7=Other (Specify) _ 
84
M5.23 How did you get this information?
[Circle all that apply]
1=Text message 
2=Mobile call 
3=Farmer to farmer communication 
4= Community meeting 
5=Other (Specify) 
M5.24 Was the concentrate feed adequate to
properly feed your milk cow? 
1= Yes 2=No
[Skip to qn # M5.28, if yes to qn # 
M5.24]
M5.25 If no for qn # M5.24, what was the problem?
[Circle all that apply]
1=High price
2=Low quality 
3=Limited supply 
4=Other (Specify) 
M5.26 What strategies did you follow if you think that
you do not access enough feed for your dairy 
cows? 
[Circle all that apply]
1= Reduce the quantity of feed given
to cattle 
2=Shift to own production 
3=Use some other feed materials 
4=Other (Specify) 
M5.27 What do you think are the possible
consequences of the limited access to feed for 
dairy production? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Reduced in the quality of
production 
2= Reduced in the quantity of 
production 
3=Decreased income from dairy 
products 
4=Dairy health effects 
5= Other (Specify) 
M5.28 Was the price of concentrate feed for dairy
production affordable to you? 
1= Yes 2=No
M5.29 Did the price of dairy concentrate feed
fluctuate across time in the last 12 months? 
1= Yes 2=No
M5.30 Did you check the quality of concentrate feed
purchased for dairy production? 
1= Yes 2=No
M5.31 If your answer is yes for qn # M5.30, how did 1= Through quality check services in
85
you check the quality? the laboratory 
2= Through physical detection using 
indigenous knowledge 
3= Through physical detection by 
livestock experts’ 
4= Other (Specify) 
MODULE 6: FATTENINING
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M6.1 Does your household participate in animal
fattening? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 8/poultry production, if
No to qn # M6.1]
M6.2 Who makes the decisions about the
production and sales of animal products? 
1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
M6.3 Did you buy any animal for fattening? 1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to qn # M6.7, if No to qn # M6.3]
M6.4 If yes for qn # M6.3, how much did it cost to 
buy cattle? (write in birr) 
M6.5 If yes for qn # M6.3, how much did it cost to 
buy Sheep? (write in birr) 
M6.6 If yes for qn # M6.3, how much did it cost to 
buy goat? (write in birr) 
Description
Type of animal fatten
Cattle Sheep Goat
    

87
   [Skip to qn # M6.19, if no to qn #
M4.16]
M6.17 If yes for qn # M6.16, who has provided
the training to you? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Coop/Union
2=Private Enterprise 
3=Government 
4= NGO 
5=Other (Specify) 
M6.18 If yes for qn # 6.16, who received the
training? 
1=Husband
2=Wife 
3= Children less than 18 
4= Other household member Specify 
Annual sales of live animal
Product type sold Quantity
(No.) Unit price (birr)
Total
value
(Birr)
M6.19 Fattened ox/bull     
M6.20 Fattened cow     
M6.21 Sheep     
M6.22 Goats     
M6.23 Where do you sell your fattened animals? [Circle all that
apply]
1=Farm gate 
2=Local market
3=Coop/Union 
4=Private Enterprise
5=Abattoir 
6=Other (Specify) 
Household members’ participation [Mostly] in animal fattening tasks [Circle all that
88
apply]/Tick on []
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M6.24 Cleaning the animal house   
M6.25 Feeding the fattening animal   
M6.26 Forage collection   
M6.27 Concentrate feed purchasing   
M6.28 Factory ingredients purchasing   
M6.29 Watering   
M6.30 Cattle cleaning   
M6.31 Selling fattened animal   
M6.32 Others specify   
Challenges in animal fattening [Circle all that apply]/Tick on []
Challenges Responses
M6.33 Shortage of animal feed resulting from drought and land use 
change 

M6.34 Limited animal health services 
M6.35 Formal trade competes with substantial informal trade 
M6.36 Livestock disease 
M6.37 Lack of access to concentrate feed 
M6.38 Unpredictable cattle market 
M6.39 Lack of knowledge on improved cattle fattening 
M6.40 Lack of improved fodder for livestock fattening 
M6.41 Limited access to credit 
M6.42 Lack of market linkages 
M6.43 Others (Specify) 
89
MODULE 7: FATTENING VALUE CHAIN
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M7.1 Did your household purchase animal concentrate
feed for your fattening animal? 
1= Yes
2= No 
[Skip to Module 8/poultry 
production, if No to qn # M7.1]
M7.2 Who decides on the concentrate feed purchase? 1=Wife only 
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
M7.3 Who are the actors in your animal fattening in your 
locality? [Circle all that apply]
1=Producers 
2=Collectors 
3=Small private and 
cooperative 
fatteners/feedlots 
4=Middlemen/brokers 
5=Livestock trading 
cooperatives 
6=Individual traders and 
exporters 
7=Others specify 
90
Type of
feed 
purchased
[Specify 
feed 
purchased 
during the 
last 12 
months] 
Quantity Unit
1=KG
2=Litter
3=No
4=Kimir
5=Chinet
6=Esir
7=Shekim
8=Other 
specify 
Unit
Price
Total
Price
(Birr)
Main Source
of feed
From whom do
you buy feed?
1=Coop/Union 
enterprise 
2= Own 
production 
3= Private 
Enterprise 
4=Government 
5= Other 
farmers 
6= NGO 
7=Other 
(Specify) 
1=Agro￾processors (flour 
factory, oil 
factory, etc) 
2=Traders (for 
factory 
products) shops 
3=Farmers’ 
cooperative 
unions, 
4=Primary 
cooperatives 
5= Feed 
manufacturers 
6=Agro￾dealers 
(private) 
7= Others
(specify) 
M7.4 Animal 
concentrate 
feed 
         
M7.5 Oil seed 
cake 
         
M7.6 Wheat 
bran 
         
M7.7 Pea bran          
M7.8 Maize 
M7.9 Pulse bran 
M7.10 Molasses 
M7.11 Green 
forage 
M7.12 Grass          
91
M7.13 Hay          
M7.14 Silage 
M7.15 Crop 
residue 
M7.16 Atela 
(Tela, 
Areke, Teji) 
         
M7.17 Others 
(specify) 
         
M7.18            
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M7.19 How long does it take to reach concentrate
feed sales/distribution point from your farm? 
(Average walking distance in minutes’ single 
trip) 
M7.20 Do you think that these distribution channels are
enough? 1= Yes 2=No 
M7.21 If no for qn # M7.20, what are the reasons? 
[Circle all that apply] 
1= It serves too many farmers
2=The service is too far/not 
accessible 
3=Unbalanced supply and demand 
4=Other (Specify) 
M7.22 Have you ever accessed feed market
information in the last 12 months? 
1=Yes
2=No 
(Skip to qn # M7.25 if No)
M7.23 If yes for qn # M7.22, what was your source of
information? [Circle all that apply]
1=Local feed traders 
2=Feed suppliers 
3=Development Agents 
4=Fellow farmers 
5=Community meeting 
6=Local cattle market 
92
   7=Radio
8=Other (Specify) 
M7.24 How did you get this information?
[Circle all that apply]
1=Text message 
2=Mobile call 
3=Farmer to farmer communication 
4= Community meeting 
5=Other (Specify) 
M7.25 
Was the concentrate feed adequate to 
properly feed your cattle? 
1= Yes 2=No
[Skip to qn # M7.29, if yes to qn # 
M7.25]
M7.26 If no for qn # M7.25, what was the problem? 1=High price
2=Low quality 
3=Limited supply 
4=Other (Specify) 
M7.27 What strategies did you follow if you cannot 
access enough feed for fattening? 
1= Reduce the quantity of feed given 
to cattle 
2=Shift to own production 
3=Use some other feed materials 
4=Other (Specify) 
M7.28 What do you think are the possible
consequences of the limited access to feed for 
fattening animals? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Reduced in the meat quality
2= Reduced in the number of cattle 
fattened 
3=Decreased income from animal 
fattening 
4= Meat health effects 
5= Other (Specify) 
M7.29 Was the price of concentrate feed for fattening
anima affordable to you? 
1= Yes 2=No
M7.30 Did the price of concentrate feed for fattening
animal fluctuate across time in the last 12 
months? 
1= Yes 2=No
93
M7.31 Did you check the quality of feed purchased
for fattening animals? 
1= Yes 2=No
M7.32 If your answer is yes for qn # M7.31, how did
you check the quality? 
1= Through quality check services in
the laboratory 
2= Through physical detection using 
indigenous knowledge 
3= Through physical detection by 
livestock experts’ 
4= Other (Specify) 
MODULE 8: POULTRY PRODUCTION
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M8.1 Does your household participate in poultry
production? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 10/forage production, if
No to qn # M8.1]
M8.2 Who makes the decisions about the
production and sales of poultry products? 
1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
M8.3 How do you sell your poultry products? 1=Directly sell to consumers 
2=Directly sell to small retail traders 
3=Others specify 
Type of chicken
Number chicken kept in the last 12 months
Local Improved Total
M8.4 Layers     
M8.5 Broilers     
M8.6 Female chickens (Over 3 
months of age not laying 
- Pullet) 
    
94
M8.7 Male chickens (Over 3 
months of age) 
    
M8.8 Chicks (up to 3 months of 
age) 
    
M8.9 Total (M8.4 to M8.8)     
Poultry feeding and management practice [Circle all that apply]
M8.10 What types of concentrate feed did you 
feed your chicken during the last 12 months? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Layers feed
2=Broilers feed 
3=Grain 
4=Others specify 
M8.11 What types of management practices do
you apply for your poultry production? 
1= Scavenging
2=Scavenging with supplements (home 
grains) 
3=Scavenging with supplements
(Commercial feed) 
4=Full feeding with home grown grains 
5=Full feeding with manufactured feed 
6=Others specify 
M8.12 What type of poultry housing system do you 
use for your chickens? 
1= No housing
2= Shelter, but unconfined 
3= Shelter and confined at night 
4= Confinement and sheltered year-round
M8.13 What was the typical total egg production
(number of eggs) layed per local hen during 
the past 12 months (one year)? per clutch 
and then annual 
Per clutch
Per year 
M8.14 What was the typical egg production
(number of eggs) layed per improved hen 
during the past 12 months (one year)? 
M8.15 What was the total egg production (number
of eggs) layed per improved hen and local 
hen during the past 12 months (one year)? 
M8.16 Have you ever received any training on 1=Yes 2=No
95
poultry production during the last 12
months? 
[Skip to qn # M8.19, if no to qn #
M8.16]
M8.17 If yes for qn # M8.16, who has provided
the training to you? 
[Circle all that apply] 
1=Coop/Union
2=Private Enterprise 
3=Government 
4=NGOs 
5=Other (Specify) 
M8.18 If yes for qn # 8.16, who received the
training? 
1=Husband
2=Wife 
3=Children less than 18 
4=Other household member Specify 
Annual sales of from poultry production
Product Type Quantity
(No.)
Unit price
(Birr)
Total price
(Birr)
M8.19 Hen     
M8.20 Male chicken     
M8.21 Female chicken     
M8.22 Eggs     
M8.23 Where do you sell your poultry products? [Circle all that
apply]
1=Farm gate 
2=Local market
3=Coop/Union 
4=Private Enterprise 
6=Other (Specify)
96
Household members’ participation [Mostly] in poultry production tasks [Circle all that
apply]/Tick on []
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under
18
M8.24 Chicken house cleaning   
M8.25 Vaccination and treatment   
M8.26 Egg collection   
M8.27 House construction   
M8.28 Chicken feeding and watering   
M8.29 Chicken and egg selling   
M8.30 Others specify   
Challenges in the poultry production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on []
Challenges Responses
M8.31 Predators 
M8.32 Theft 
M8.33 Lack of improved breed 
M8.34 High feed price 
M8.35 Limited vaccination and health service 
M8.36 Chicken disease 
M8.37 Chicken concentrate feed supply problem 
M8.38 Lack of knowledge on poultry production 
M8.39 Others (Specify) 
97
MODULE 9: POULTRY PRODUCTION VALUE CHAIN
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M9.1 Did your household purchase poultry concentrate
feed for your chicken? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 10/forage 
production, if No to qn # M9.1]
M9.2 Who decides on the concentrate feed purchase? 1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
M9.3 Who are the actors in your poultry production in 
your locality? [Circle all that apply]
1=Consumers at village level
2=Local middle men/brokers 
3=Traders 
4=Commercial farmers 
5=Rearing centers 
6=Others specify 
98
Type of feed
purchased 
[Specify feed 
purchased 
during the last
12 months]
Quantity Unit
1= KG
2=Others 
specify
Unit
price
Total
Price
(Birr)
Source of feed From whom
do you buy 
feed?
1=Coop/Union 
enterprise 
2= Own 
production 
3= Private 
Enterprise 
4=Government 
5= Other 
farmers 
6= NGO 
7=Other 
(Specify) 
1=Individual 
sales agent 
2= Enterprise 
retail shops 
3= Enterprise
Warehouse 
4=Others 
specify 
M9.4 Layers Feed           
M9.5 Broilers Feed 
M9.6 Grain 
M9.7 Others specify 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M9.8 How long does it take to reach concentrate
feed sales/distribution point from your farm? 
(Average walking distance in minutes’ single 
trip) 
M9.9 Do you think that these distribution channels are
enough? 1= Yes 2=No 
M9.10 If no for qn # M9.9, what are the reasons?
[Circle all that apply] 
1= It serves too many farmers
2=The service is too far/not 
accessible 
3=Unbalanced supply and demand 
4=Other (Specify) 
M9.11 Have you ever accessed feed market
information in the last 12 months? 
1=Yes
99
   2=No (Skip to qn # M9.14 if No)
M9.12 If yes for qn # M9.11, what was your source of 
information? [Circle all that apply]
1=Local feed traders 
2=Feed suppliers 
3=Development Agents 
4=Fellow farmers 
5= Community meeting 
6=Radio 
7=Other (Specify) 
M9.13 How did you get this information?
[Circle all that apply]
1=Text message 
2=Mobile call 
3=Farmer to farmer communication 
4=Community meeting 
5=Other (Specify) 
M9.14 Was the concentrate feed adequate to
properly feed your chicken? 
1= Yes 2=No
[Skip to qn # M9.18, if yes to qn # 
M9.14]
M9.15 If no for qn # M9.14, what was the problem? 1=High price
2=Low quality 
3=Limited supply 
4=Other (Specify) 
M9.16 What strategies did you follow if you cannot
access enough feed for your poultry 
production? 
1= Reduce the quantity of feed given
to chicken 
2=Shift to own production 
3=Use some other feed materials 
4=Other (Specify) 
M9.17 What do you think are the possible
consequences of the limited access to feed your 
chicken? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Reduced in the quality of poultry
production 
2= Reduced in the quantity of poultry 
production 
3=Decreased income from poultry
100
   production
4= Poultry health effects 
5= Other (Specify) 
M9.18 Was the price of concentrate feed for poultry
production affordable to you? 
1= Yes 2=No
M9.19 Did the price of concentrate feed poultry
production fluctuate across time in the last 12 
months? 
1= Yes 2=No
M9.20 Did you check the quality of feed purchased
for poultry production? 
1= Yes 2=No
M9.21 If your answer is yes for qn # M9.20, how did
you check the quality? 
1= Through quality check services in
the laboratory 
2= Through physical detection using 
indigenous knowledge 
3= Through physical detection by 
poultry experts’ 
4= Other (Specify) 
MODULE 10: FORAGE PRODUCTION
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M10.1 Does your household participate in
forage production? 
1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 12, if No to qn # M10.
M10.2 Who makes the decisions about the
production and sales of forage 
production? 
1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
Type of
forage
Amount of forage produced/consumed in the last 12 months
Unit Produced Consumed Mode of plantation
101
   1=Kimir
2=Chinet
3=Esir
4=Shekim
5=Other
(unit
specified)
(unit
specified) 1 = Over sowing 
2=Under sowing 
3= Along the terrace/boarder 
4=Other (Specify) 
M10.3 Grass annuals      
M10.4 Legumes 
annuals 
M10.5 Grass 
perennials 
     
M10.6 Legumes 
perennials 
     
M10.7 Others specify      
M10.8 Total Land under forage last year (local unit) and then
in (hectare) 
M10.9 What type of improved forage planting materials did
you use during the last 12 months? 
[Circle all that apply]
0=Not applicable 
1=Seeds 
2=Seedlings 
3=Cuttings 
4=Splits 
5= Fertilizer 
6=Other (Specify) 
M10.10 What types of forage management practices did you 
use in your farm? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Cut and carry 
2=Rotational grazing 
3=Other (Specify 
M10.11 Did you/your household members receive any training
on improved forage production during the last 12 
months? 
1= Yes 2=No 
[Skip to qn # M10.15, if no to 
qn # M10.11]
M10.12 If yes for qn # M 10.11, what was the focus on the
training? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Improved technology and 
techno of forage production 
2=Pasture/rangeland 
102
   management 
3= Nursery establishment 
4=Others specify 
M10.13 If yes for qn # M 10.11, who has provided the training
to you? [Circle all that apply]
1=Coop/Union 
2=Private Enterprise 
3=Government 
4=NGO 
5=Other (Specify) 
M10.14 If yes for qn # M10.11, who received the training? 1=Husband 
2=Wife 
3= Children less than 18 
4= Other household member 
specify 
M10.15 Did you use improved forage planting materials last
year? 1= Yes 2=No 
M10.16 If yes for qn # M10.15, please specify the source? 1= Government 
2= NGO 
3= Purchased (Private seller) 
4= Exchange (Farmer to 
farmer) 
Annual sales from forage products
Product Type Quantity
Unit
1= KG
2= Other
(Specify)
Unit price
(birr)
Total price
(Birr)
M10.17 Sinar       
M10.18 Vetch 
M10.19 Pigeon pea 
M10.20 Others specify
M10.21 Do you have seed/seedling nursery? 1=Yes 2=No 
103
M10.22 What types of improved forages do you grow in your 
seed/seedling nursery? 
[Circle all that apply]
0=Not applicable 
1=Elephant grass 
2= Sesbania 
3= Rhodes grass 
4= Alfalfa 
5= Vetch 
6= Sinar 
7= Pigeon pea 
8=Lablab 
9=Cowpea 
10=Desho 
11=Buffle grass 
12=Guatemala grass 
13= Others specify 
Household members’ participation [Mostly] in forage production tasks [Circle all that
apply]/Tick on []
Tasks Adult
male
Adult female Children under 18
M10.23 Land preparation/planting   
M10.24 Weeding   
M10.25 Cultivation   
M10.26 Fertilization   
M10.27 Watering   
M10.28 Cutting or harvest   
M10.29 Others specify   
104
Challenges in forage production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on []
Challenges Responses
M10.30 Improved forage seed/cutting 
M10.31 Shortage of land 
M10.32 Not digestibility of the forage 
M10.33 Pest/disease 
M10.34 Lack of water for irrigation 
M10.35 Lack of awareness on the usage 
M10.36 High seed price 
M10.37 Lack of knowledge on forage production 
M10.38 Others (Specify) 
MODULE 11: FORAGE PRODUCTION VALUE CHAIN
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M11.1 Did your household purchase forage inputs? 1= Yes
2=No 
[Skip to Module 12, if No to qn # 
M11.1
M11.2 Who decides on the forage purchase? 1=Wife only
2=Husband only 
3=Jointly (Both) 
4= Children under 18 
5= Others 
105
Type of
Seed/seedling 
Purchased 
during the last
12 months
Quantity Unit
1= KG
2= No.
3= Other
specify 
Unit
price
Total
price
(Birr)
Source of feed From whom
do you buy 
feed?
1=Coop/Union 
enterprise 
2= Own 
production 
3= Private 
Enterprise 
4=Government 
5= Other 
farmers 
6= NGO 
7=Other 
(Specify) 
1=Individual 
sales agent 
2= Enterprise 
retail shops 
3= Enterprise
Warehouse 
4=Others 
specify 
M11.3 Seed           
M11.4 Seedling 
M11.5 Cuttings 
M11.6 Splits 
M11.7 Others specify 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M11.8 How long does it take to reach concentrate
feed sales/distribution point from your farm? 
(Average walking distance in Minutes single 
trip) 
M11.9 Do you think that these distribution channels are
enough? 1= Yes 2=No 
M11.10 If no for qn # M11.9, what are the reasons?
[Circle all that apply]
1= It serves too many farmers
2=The service is too far/not 
accessible 
3=Unbalanced supply and demand 
4=Other (Specify) 
106
M11.11 Have you ever accessed forage market
information in the last 12 months? 
1=Yes
2=No (Skip to qn # M11.14 if No)
M11.12 If yes for qn # M11.11, what was your source
of information? [Circle all that apply] 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Local traders 
2=Forage suppliers 
3=Development Agents 
4=Fellow farmers 
5=Community meeting 
6=Others specify 
M11.13 How did you receive the forage production
information in your locality? 
[Circle all that apply]
1=Text message 
2=Mobile call 
3=Farmer to farmer communication 
4= Community meeting 
5=Other (Specify) 
M11.14 Was the forage adequate to properly keep
your cattle? 
1= Yes 2=No
[Skip to qn # M12.1/ household
dietary diversity, if yes to qn #
M11.14]
M11.15 If no for qn # M11.14, what was the problem?
[Circle all that apply]
1=High input price 
2=Low input quality 
3=Limited input supply 
4=Skill and knowledge gap 
5=others specify 
M11.16 What were the alternatives that you applied to
overcome the challenges? 
1= Reduce the quantity given to
cattle 
2= Started own production 
3=Borrowed from neighbors 
4=Brought inputs from other areas 
4=Other (Specify) 
M11.17 What do you think are the possible
consequences of the limited access forage 
production? 
1=Reduced in the quality of cattle
production 
2= Reduced in the quantity of cattle
107
production 
3=Reduced income from livestock 
3=Associated health effects 
4= Other (Specify 
MODULE 12: HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY
Now I would like to ask you about the types of foods that you or anyone else in your household 
ate since this time yesterday. 
Since this time yesterday have you or anyone else in your household eaten / taken any of the 
following things to eat or drink? However, if the previous day was a fasting day ask them about 
the day before (or the last non-fasting day) 
READ THE LIST OF FOODS. PLACE/CIRCLE ONE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED IF ANYONE IN THE
HOUSEHOLD ATE THE FOOD IN QUESTION, PLACE/CIRCLE ONE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED IF
NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD ATE THE FOOD.
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M12.1 Any beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit wild game, 
chicken, duck, or other birds, liver, kidney, heart, 
or other organ meats? 
1= Yes 2=No 
M12.2 Any eggs? 1= Yes 2=No
M12.3 Any foods made from beans, peas, lentils, or 
nuts? 
1= Yes 2=No
M12.4 Any cheese, yogurt, milk or other milk products? 1= Yes 2=No
M12.5 Any foods made with oil, fat, or butter? 1= Yes 2=No
M12.6 When you are not fasting, how often do you
eat at least one of the following foods (meat, 
fish, egg, dairy (milk, fish, yoghurt, butter, etc), 
etc) 
1=Daily
2=More than once per week 
3=Once per week 
4=Others (specify) -
108
Annex 2b: CAPI-Based Primary Cooperatives Questionnaire
SECTION A: AREA IDENTIFICATION 
Region Zone Woreda Kebele Cooperative
name
Type of
Coop.
1=Multi￾purpose 
2= Livestock 
If it is livestock
cooperative
1= Dairy 
2= Fattening 
3= Both 
           
SECTION B: BASIC INFORMATION OF COOPERATIVE
S. 
No
Questions (Put the 
answer code 
in front of
the 
question)
1. How many individual members does this cooperative has?
1A. Male 1B. Female 1C. Total 
2. How many years has it been since this cooperative was established?
3. What is the maximum share paid per member? (in birr)
4. What is the minimum share owned per member? (in birr)
5. What is the net capital of the coop (Birr)?
109
Service Types 1=Yes 2=No
(put the answer code in 
front of the question)
6A= Commodities marketing
6B= Agricultural input supply
6C= Processing /milk/ 
6D= Credit Supply 
6E= Livestock feed supply 
6F = Other/Specify 
6. Which services does the cooperative provide for its members?
7. Has the cooperative been provided with any support (technical or material 
or financial)? 
1. Yes 
2. No 
8. If yes for qn # 7, please specify the type of support provided?
1=Technical support 
2=Material support 
3=Financial support 
4=Others specify 
9. If yes for qn # 7, please specify the organizations which provided the 
support? 
1=Government 
2=Locally deployed NGOs 
3=Private Banks 
4=Micro Finance Institutions 
5=Others specify 
110
The last 12 months’ milk and
milk products
Amount in unit
Raw milk collected (liter) 
Processed milk (liter) 
Butter (kg) 
Cheese(kg) 
Feed type Quintal/month
11A= Manufactured feed 
11B= Hay/straw 
11C= Improved forage seed
11D = Feed ingredients 
11E = Other/Specify 
10. If the cooperative is engaged in milk processing indicate the past 12 
month’s performance. 
11. If the cooperative provides livestock feed for members for qn # (6E=1),
how many in average (quintal/month) does it supply? 
12. If the cooperative provides improved forage seed to its members for qn #
(11C), which of the following is the main source? 
1= Government 2= NGOs 3= Unions feed manufacturing units 4= 
Commercial feed manufacturers 5=Private vendors (retailers) 6= Whole 
sellers 
13. Name of the union feed manufacturing units selling animal feed to the 
unions 
14. Name of the commercial feed manufacturers selling animal feed to the 
unions 
111
15. Name of the whole sellers selling animal feed to the unions
16. Name of the private vendors (retailers) selling animal feed to the unions 
17. What are the reasons the cooperative is purchasing the commercial feed 
from the specified sources? 
1=Proximity to the cooperatives 
2=Low price 
3=Product quality 
4=Others (specify) 
18. What is the average distance of the unions feed manufacturing units from 
the cooperatives in km or in hours? 
19. What is the average distance of the commercial feed manufacturers from 
the cooperatives in km or in hours? 
20. What is the average distance of the commercial feed manufacturers from 
the cooperatives in km or in hours? 
21. What is the average distance of the private vendors (retailers) from the 
cooperatives in km or in hours? 
22. If the cooperative is purchasing commercial feed from the private vendors, 
where did the private vendor it purchases the commercial feed from? 
1=Unions feed manufacturing units 
2=Commercial feed manufacturers 
3=Whole sellers 
4=Others (specify) 
23. What are the usual customers of commercial feed?
1= Small-holder 
2=Farmers 
3=Retailers 
4=Others specify 
24. What is the total volume of sale during the past 12 months (classify by 
customer types like small holder farmers, retailers, etc) 
1=Small-holder: 
2=Farmers: 
3=Retailers: 
4=Others: 
25. What is the total value of sale during the past 12 months (classify by 
customer types like small holder farmers, retailers, etc)? 
1=Small-holder: 
2=Farmers: 
112
3=Retailers: 
4=Others: 
26. If the cooperative provides livestock feed for its members (6E=), what was 
its annual gross revenue in the last one year from livestock feed? 
27. If the cooperative does not supply feed what are the main reason (s) ? 
Reasons for not supplying feed 1=Yes 2= No
27A= Shortage of suppliers 
27B= No /less member demand
27C=Lack of knowledge regarding
the importance of commercial feed 
27D= Shortage of capital/resource
27E= Others (Specify) 
28. Does the cooperative prepare an annual business plan?
1= Yes 2= No 
29. Does the cooperative keep financial documents?
1=Practice Peachtree accounting 
2=Record keeping like ledger, register books 
3=Others (specify) 
30. Does the cooperative run a dairy operation? 1= Yes 2=No
31. If yes for qn # 30, what was the annual gross revenue (birr) from dairy 
production during the past 12 months? 
32. Does the cooperative fatten livestock? 1= Yes 2= No
33. If yes for qn # 32, what was the annual gross revenue (Birr) from the 
fattening operation during the last 12 months? 
113
Resources/Infrastructure type 1=Yes 2 = No
34A=Land 
34B= Warehouse 
34C= Working capital 
34D= Vehicle 
34E = Other/Specify 
Financial status of the cooperative Birr
Total annual gross revenue of the 
cooperative of the last year (birr) 
Total annual sales from all operations in the
last year (birr) 
Total annual sales from milk and milk
products in the last year (birr) 
34. What resources/infrastructure does the cooperative own for running its 
feed/livestock related enterprise? 
35. 
36. What was the maximum annual dividend paid per member (birr) in the last 
payment? 
37. What was the minimum annual dividend paid per member (birr) in the last 
payment? 
38. What was the annual net profit of the cooperative (birr) after dividend 
payment? 
39. Are you an agent for big concentrate feed companies or you retail their 
products? who are the companies? What is their market share from total 
feed sales? 
40. If yes for qn # 39, what type of products? What are the buying and 
selling prices for each product? 
114
Annex 3: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Annex 3A: Interview Guide to Ministry of Livestock and Fishery (MOLF) (at Ministry, Regional 
and Zonal levels)
Dear respondent! 
Good morning/afternoon! My name is (YOUR NAME) and I am working as part of a data collection team 
assigned by ACDI/VOCA. The purpose of this interview guide is to collect data that will be to understand 
the current situation of livestock and poultry production and feed production and its marketing. You are 
being asked to participate in this interview because of your important role and key person for the data to 
be generated. I will ask you a series of questions that would take about 45-60 minutes. It is your choice 
whether or not to take part in this interview and if you choose to participate, you have the right not to 
answer any question or to stop the interview at any time. If you don’t choose to participate, it will in no 
way impact your relationship with ACDI/VOCA. Before we begin, do you want to ask me any questions 
about the survey? Shall I continue in asking you each question? If “Yes” Continue... 
Name of respondent: 
Position of respondent: 
Mobile phone: 
Guiding questions:
1. What are the animal feed sources in various agro-ecologies of the country/region/zone? 
2. How do you perceive animal feed problems in the country/region/zone? 
3. What do you think are the effects of the feed problem on the economy? 
4. What measures did the government take to address feed problems? 
5. What are the initiatives in progress to address feed problems in the country/region/zone? 
6. How does Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries intend to address feed problem differently since its 
establishment? 
7. How do you perceive the emergence and growth of feed manufacturing enterprises in the 
country/region/zone? 
8. What do you think are the weaknesses and strengths of these enterprises in processing and distribution 
of feed? 
9. How is organizational strength of these processing enterprises? Is there any policy issue that constrains 
operations of feed processing enterprises? 
10. Is there a policy (strategy) framework for feed production, processing and marketing in the country? 
11. How do you consider feed standards and quality control issue in the country? 
12. What experiences do you have in identifying and documenting farmer or enterprise innovations on are 
feed and forage production? 
13. Have you ever identified and documented such innovations? 
14. What approaches do you use to scale up such innovations? How helpful were these innovations? 
15. How do you perceive the introduction and use status of forage production technologies in 
Ethiopia/region/zone? [prove, availability of forage technologies, promotion and dissemination of forage 
technologies to the farmers; appropriateness of these forage technologies to smallholder farmers and 
commercial farmers; farmers’ use (adoption) status of these technologies] 
16. Which regions do you think have adopted these technologies best? Weaknesses and strength of these 
forage technologies? 
17. What activities do you think need to be done to catalyze sustainable forage production systems? 
115
18. How is on-farm testing of forage technologies to help facilitate on-farm feeding? 
19. What should be done to ensure sustainability of improved forage production technologies? 
20. What do you think are the opportunities and challenges of collaborative learning in feed sector? How 
do you think collaborative learning in the feed sub-sector helps to foster and bring changes in the 
livestock production? 
21. What do you think is the status of livestock production in response to the growth of feed sector, such 
as: (Growth of feed processing and supply enterprises; enhancement of dissemination and use of feed 
technologies; and collaboration of actors along the feed value chain)? I.e., is it constraining growth? 
22. Have you ever heard of FEED I & II programs of ACDI/VOCA? 
23. Do you think the interventions have brought changes in the feed sector in particular, and in the livestock 
sector, in general? What do you think are the weaknesses and strengths of these FEED projects? 
24. How do you think is the growth status of market oriented feed and forage production practices in the 
country/region/zone? [prove, engagement status of cooperatives/unions/ private enterprises 
(companies)/individual households/in feed processing and distribution] 
25. How is the demand status for purchased feed products? What do you think are the constraints in feed 
marketing? Possible solutions to these constraints? 
26. How is the growth of livestock production in the country/region/zone, such as: (Improved crossbred 
dairy cows; distribution and adaptation of local best breeds/improved poultry) What are barriers to 
livestock production? 
27. How is the practice of engagement in market oriented fattening in response to growth of feed market? 
28. How is the status of providing market oriented feed and forage production practices for livestock 
owners in the country/region/zone? 
29. How is feed ingredient supply and marketing system in the country/region/zone? Who are the 
suppliers? Types of ingredients they supply? Problems associated with suppliers? 
30. What do you think are the constraints /barriers in the use of available feed resources in the 
country/region/zone? Constraints to: livestock owners and poultry farmers? 
31. What do you think are the solutions to these feed related constraints? What potentials are available 
to address these constraints? 
116
Annex 3B: Interview Guide to Ministry of Livestock and Fishery (MOLF) (at woreda level)
Name of respondent: 
Position of respondent: 
Mobile phone: 
Guiding questions:
1. What are animal feed sources in the woreda? 
2. How do you perceive animal feed problem in the woreda? 
3. What do you think are the effects of feed problem on the household economy? 
4. What measures did the Woreda government take to address feed problems? 
5. What are the initiatives in progress to address feed problems in the woreda? 
6. How does the woreda intend to address feed problem differently since establishment of the new 
sector office working on livestock and fishers? Are there any new strategies? 
7. How do you perceive the emergence and growth of feed manufacturing enterprises in the woreda? 
What type of enterprises and what do they do? 
8. How do you think are these companies addressing feed problems in the woreda? How is the quality 
control and regulatory issues to processed feed products? 
9. How is the woreda supporting these enterprises? 
10. What do you think are the weaknesses and strengths of these enterprises in processing and 
distribution of feed? 
11. Do you have the experiences of identifying and documenting farmer or enterprise innovations on is 
feed and forage production? 
12. Have you ever identified and documented such innovations? What are these innovations? 
13. What approaches do you use to scale up such innovations? How helpful were these innovations? 
14. How do you perceive the introduction and use status of forage production technologies in the 
woreda? [prove, availability of forage technologies, promotion and dissemination of forage 
technologies to the farmers; appropriateness of these forage technologies to smallholder 
farmers and commercial farmers] 
15. How do you explain farmers’ use (adoption) status of these technologies? Weaknesses and strength 
of these forage technologies? 
16. What activities do you think need to be done to catalyze sustainable forage production systems in 
the woreda? 
17. How is on-farm testing of forage technologies to help facilitate on-farm feeding? 
18. What should be done to ensure sustainability of improved forage production technologies? 
19. What are the challenges and opportunities for collaborative learning in feed sector? 
20. How do you think collaborative learning in the feed sub-sector helps to foster and bring changes in 
the livestock production? 
21. How do you see the status of livestock production in response to the growth of feed sector, such as 
(Growth of feed processing and supply enterprises, enhancement of dissemination and use of feed 
technologies, collaboration of actors along the feed value chain)? 
22. How do you think is the growth status of market oriented feed and forage production practices in 
the woreda? How is the demand for purchased feed products? What do you think are the constraints 
in feed marketing? Possible solutions to these constraints? 
117
23. How is the growth of livestock production in the woreda in terms of (Improved crossbred dairy cows; 
distribution and adaptation of local best breeds/improved poultry) What are barriers to livestock 
production? 
24. How is the practice of engagement in market oriented fattening in response to growth of feed 
market? 
25. How the status of providing market is oriented feed and forage production practices for livestock 
owners in the woreda? 
26. What do you think are the constraints /barriers in the use of available feed resources in the 
woreda? What do you think are the solutions to these feed related constraints? What potentials are 
available to address these constraints 
27. Are there NGOs making interventions on addressing feed problems in the woreda? Which NGOs 
are these? How helpful and relevant is their intervention? Was their intervention participatory (has 
the woreda been involved on planning of project initiatives) What were the achievements What are 
the weaknesses and strengths of NGO interventions? 
28. How do you suggest that NGOs should focus to address feed problems on sustainable basis? 
118
Annex 3C: Interview Guide to Federal Cooperative Agency (FCA)
Name of respondent: 
Position of respondent: 
Mobile phone: 
1. How many cooperatives, unions and federations are there in the country? 
2. In what duties are these cooperatives and unions engaged? 
3. How is the practice of engagement of coops and unions in market oriented feed processing and 
distribution (both livestock and poultry feeds)? 
4. What proportion of coops and unions are engaged in feed processing? What do you think is the 
financial capacity of these coops and unions? What is the processing capacity of these coops/unions 
(quintal per day)? 
5. In which region, can we find many of the coops and unions engaged in feed processing? What are 
the reasons for focusing in this region? What types of processed feed products are produced? 
6. Who are beneficiaries of processed feed products? How is the demand for proceed feed products? 
How is the supply of processed feed products over time? 
7. Is the coop/union engaged in both processing and distribution (wholesale)?Are there wholesalers and 
retailers of processed feed products? 
8. What are the marketing channels of processed feed products until it reaches to end consumers? How 
is the price trend of processed feed products over seasons and years? What determines the price of 
processed feed products? Who determines prices of processed feed products? 
9. How is policy framework for feed production, processing and marketing in the country? 
10. How favorable are policy provisions for engagement of coops/unions in feed processing and 
marketing? 
11. How do coops/unions maintain quality of processed feed products? Is there feed standard which they 
are using? 
12. Is there any government support for coops/unions to encourage feed processing and marketing? 
13. How do you maintain the quality of processed feed products? Is there feed standard which you are 
depending on? Who prepared these standards? How helpful are these standards? 
14. Are coops/unions engaged in market-oriented forage production? Where do they get forage seeds? 
What types of forages do unions/coops produce? What area of land is occupied to forage 
production? Who purchases forage seeds? 
15. How is the price of forages and who determines prices? How is the demand for forages compared to 
processed feed products? 
16. What are the barriers to coops/unions in their engagement to (Feed processing and marketing and 
forage production and marketing)? 
17. What do you think are the opportunities available for feed processing and forage production? 
18. What do you think can be done to engage forage production and feed processing in the country to 
address feed demands? 
19. How do you think is the growth status of market oriented livestock/poultry sector? 
20. What do you think are the gaps and weaknesses, and strengths of feed manufacturing and supply 
chains? 
21. How do you perceive introduction and use status of forage production technologies in the country? 
Weaknesses and strength of these forage technologies? 
119
22. What activities do you think need to be done to catalyze sustainable forage production systems in 
the country? What should be done to ensure sustainability of improved forage production 
technologies? 
23. How do you think is collaborative learning practices in the feed sector? Challenges and opportunities 
of collaborative learning? 
24. How do you think collaborative learning in the feed sub-sector helps to foster and bring changes 
livestock production? 
120
Annex 3D: Interview Guide to Animal Feed Industry Association (AFIA) and Ethiopia Meat 
and Dairy Industry Development Institute (EMDIDI)
Name of respondent: 
Position of respondent: 
Mobile phone: 
1. What is the mandate of AFIA? 
2. What do you think are the problems related animal feed? (Livestock/poultry feed problems) 
3. What are the strategies engaged by AFIA to address these problems? Strategies to address 
livestock/poultry feed problems? 
4. What do you think is the growth of market oriented livestock and poultry sector in the country? 
5. What do you think are barriers to market oriented livestock and poultry sectors? 
6. Are there enterprises engaged in feed processing? Types of enterprises engaged in feed processing 
(government based, private based, household based), if any? 
7. What do you think is the contribution of these enterprises in addressing feed shortage problem? 
What do you think is the contribution of these enterprises for growth of livestock and poultry sectors? 
8. How is the quality control status of processed feed products? What are the strengths and 
weaknesses of processing enterprises? 
9. Do you think that market oriented feed processing practice is growing in the country for livestock 
and poultry sub-sectors? What do you think are the barriers to livestock feed processing? What can 
be done to improve livestock feed processing? 
10. What do you think is forage production and marketing practice in the country? How is policy 
framework for feed production, processing and marketing in the country? 
11. What do you think is the growth of feed ingredient supply chain in the country? Who are the 
suppliers? What types of feed ingredient do they supply? Where do they get these feed 
ingredients? 
12. How do you perceive introduction and use status of forage production technologies in the country? 
Weaknesses and strength of these forage technologies? 
13. What activities do you think need to be done to catalyze sustainable forage production systems in 
the country? What should be done to ensure sustainability of improved forage production 
technologies? 
14. How do you think is collaborative learning practices in the feed sector? Challenges of collaborative 
and opportunities of collaborative learning? 
15. How do you think collaborative learning in the feed sub-sector helps to foster and bring changes 
livestock production? 
121
Annex 4: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS):
Annex 4A: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Union Feed Manufacturing Unit Manager
Name of the union 
Name of the respondent 
Interviewee position in the organization 
Sex 
Level of education 
Work experience within the current 
organization 
Telephone number 
Region 
Zone 
Woreda/Kebele 
Date 
Time 
1. Could you please give us a brief description about your union’s feed manufacturing unit in terms of 
daily production capacity, actual production, staff, sources of inputs, users of manufactured feeds, 
annual revenue obtained from the unit and so on? 
2. What kinds of the services and supports have you received from the FEED I and II projects? And 
what type of support would you like from FEED-III? 
3. How would you evaluate your Union’s current organizational capacity to run the enterprise? In terms 
of adopting new technologies and improved managements practices (namely manufacturing of 
livestock and poultry feed, improved operational and financial managements, improved business 
plan development, record keeping and marketing? 
4. How do you evaluate your union’s feed enterprise capacity to expand the service beyond the 
current distribution target Woredas? What challenges do you expect in the expansion of your feed 
business service beyond the current sphere of distribution? 
5. How do you evaluate the demand for your concentrate feed? Which by-product has a high demand 
(Dairy feed, fattening feed, poultry feed)? Give some evidence for your suggestion. What needs to 
be done in this regard? Who are your direct and indirect buyers? 
6. Who are the current suppliers of your inputs and users of your outputs? How linked are you with 
suppliers of inputs and buyers of your outputs? What challenges do you have in this regard? What 
suggestions do you have to improve the value chain? 
7. How do you assess the affordability of your feed products to the target buyers? What challenges 
do you have in this regard? 
8. To what extent are your buyers utilizing or putting your products into use? 
9. What distribution channels do you use to sell your products? 
10. What lessons did you learn so far in the production and distribution of the feed products? 
11. Are you an agent for big concentrate feed companies or you retail their products? Who are the 
companies? What is their market share from total feed sales? 
12. If yes for qn # 11, what type of products? What are the buying and selling prices for each product? 
13. Do you use the products of other feed companies as your concentrate-mix? If yes explain the process 
and the quality, price & implications? 
14. Are you involved in forage nursery development? Yes or No------------------------------- 
122
15. If yes, how do you evaluate the demand for your forage seed/cuttings? Is it growing or declining? 
What needs to be done in this regard? 
16. Who are suppliers of forage seed/ cuttings? What suggestions do you have to improve the forage 
seed/fodder value chain? 
17. How do you assess the affordability of forage seed/cuttings by smallholders? What challenges do 
you have in this regard? To what extent are farmers utilizing forage seed/cuttings to grow fodder 
and feed their animals? 
18. What lessons did you learn so far in the production and distribution of forage seeds/cuttings? 
19. What recommendations do you have for improvement? 
123
Annex 4B: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Private actors (Agri -Input Dealers)
Woreda----------------------------------------
Kebele---------------------------------------------------------------
Name-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex-------------------------------------Position---------------------------Phone Number-------------------
1. When and how did you start Agri-input dealing? 
2. What were you doing before you started Agri-input business? 
3. Please provide a brief description of your business and the services or goods you provide 
Type of goods 
or services 
provided e.g., 
dairy, poultry, 
fattening feed, 
crop input, 
animal health, 
forage seed etc 
Description of 
what is provided 
(include cost of 
products/services 
sold) 
Quantity/volume 
sold in the last 12 
months 
Number of 
farmers/livestock 
owners it is sold to 
in the last 12 
months 
Remark 
       
4. Are you an agent for big concentrate feed companies or do you retail their products? Who are 
the companies? What is their market share from total feed sales? 
If yes, what type of products? What are the buying and selling prices for each product? 
5. Do you use the products of other feed companies as your concentrate-mix for home preparation? 
If yes explain the process and the quality, price and implications? 
6. Did you get any support from Go and NGOs to increase the profitability of your business? 
What support, training and 
inputs have you received? 
(The support could be: 
capacity development 
support (training & 
coaching/advice), 
material/equipment 
support in the form of grant 
B2B linkage, etc. 
When did
you receive
this support? 
How has this support helped you? 
  
  
124
  
  
7. Please describe how you are supplying your inputs to farmers. Be sure to mention any other actors 
that you rely on for this, including the Union, Kebele officials, DA, woreda Livestock and Fishery 
office, Cooperative Agency, NGOs, etc. 
8. Describe the main challenges that you are facing in relation to the success of your business? 
Type of challenge (availability inputs to be
distributed, quality, capital, land, B2B linkage,
etc.) 
How is it affecting you? How can it be 
addressed? 
  
9. Overall, how do you see your business developing in the coming 3 years? Please give reasons. 
125
Annex 4C: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Forage Nursery Enterprises
Woreda-----------------------------------------Kebele-----------------------------------------------------------------
Name---------------------------------------------------------------------------Sex------------------------------------- 
Position---------------------------Phone Number-------------------
1. When and how did you start forage nursery operations? 
2. What were you doing before you started forage nursery operation? 
3. Please provide a brief description of your operation? 
Forage types or 
planting 
materials 
produced 
Quantity 
produced in last 
12 months 
Quantity/volume 
sold or provided in 
the last 12 months 
(if relevant) 
Number of
farmers it is
provided to in the
last 12 months 
Number of Kebeles 
you provided planting 
material or your 
geographic 
coverage? 
       
4. Did you get any support from Go and NGOs to increase the efficiency of your business? 
What support, training and 
inputs have you received? 
(The support could be: 
capacity development 
support (training & 
coaching/advice), 
material/equipment 
support in the form of grant 
B2B linkage 
When did
you receive
this support 
How has this support helped you? 
  
  
  
5. Please describe how you are supplying your inputs to farmers. Be sure to mention any other actors 
that you rely on for this, including the union, Cooperative Agency, MOLF, DAs, NGOs etc. 
126
6. Describe the main challenges that you are facing in relation to the success of your business? 
Type of challenge (availability inputs to be
distributed, quality, capital, land, B2B linkage,
etc.) 
How is it affecting you? How can it be 
addressed? 
  
7. Overall, how do you see your business developing in the coming 3 years? Please give reasons. 
127
Annex 4D: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Development Agents
1. What kinds of supports did you get from government and NGOs with regard to feed and 
forage development extension? 
2. To what extent have you addressed the priority needs of the farmers in promotion of 
concentrate feed and forage development in your kebele? 
3. What type of approach do you use to promote concentrate feed and forage development in 
the Kebele? 
4. How do you assess the current approach in improving the forage development and concentrate 
feeding? What are the strengths and weaknesses? 
5. What are the type of training and demonstration you have so far provided to farmers in the Kebele in 
relation livestock and poultry feed and forage development? 
6. How do you evaluate the participation of women in your training and other extension service in your 
Kebele? What constraints and challenges did women face that limited their knowledge and access to 
the various livestock production and marketing service? 
7. What are the existing opportunities to enhance livestock and poultry development and its 
effectiveness? 
8. Is there forage activity that has been implemented to reclaim or rehabilitate land in your 
kebele? How many hectares? If yes, how successful was it both in producing the forage production and 
in improving the quality of the reclaimed land? 
9. To what extent are farmers ready to take up the technologies, techniques and farm 
management practices demonstrated to them? How do you characterize the farmers’ perception to 
adopt and not adopt (or less adopt) improved practices (socio-economic, location, etc) (from 
desirability, affordability, and scalability point of view)? 
10. Do farmers willing to participate in the followings? Forage seed multiplication, fodder 
production and animal feeding, concentrate feed purchase and feeding? Which of the following are 
most likely accepted and relevant to institutions, communities, cooperatives, and businesses societies? 
Activities/initiatives To whom can it be accepted and relevant and
how? 
improved forage growing systems 
manufacturing of feed 
improved fattening, dairy and poultry production
Production of forage seeds 
Production of planting materials 
livestock nutrition management 
Improved feeding system 
business plan development, recordkeeping
11. What would be the challenges expected in the implementation of the above activities? What 
steps should be taken to overcome these challenges? 
12. What lessons did you learn from the current forage and feed development activities in your 
Kebele? 
13. What recommendations do you have for improvement? 
128
Annex 4E: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Woreda Cooperative Promotion Agency
Region 
Woreda 
Name of Organization 
Interviewee Name 
Interviewee Position in the Organization 
Telephone 
1. What is your mandates or responsibilities? 
2. How do you work with primary cooperatives? 
3. What type of primary cooperatives are available in your locality? 
4. How many cooperatives are functional in your locality? 
5. What are the major focuses or functions of the primary cooperatives? 
6. How do you work with the local people or beneficiaries? 
7. What are the major challenges and opportunities of these cooperatives engaged in multipurpose or 
livestock? 
8. What do you think can be done to make your cooperative promotion offices effectives in the 
implementation of FEED-III project in the future? 
9. How does unions imitations and government regulations imped the progress of the union feed business? 
10. What changes in government and union policies need to be changed to make greater progress 
possible? 
11. How do you evaluate the engagement and performance of Unions in forage manufacturing and 
nursery activities? 
12. What opportunities should the project take advantage of enhancing its effectiveness and broaden 
impact? 
13. What are the external factors or conditions that could hinder the achievement of the project’s results? 
14. What can /could the FEED III project do to address these challenges? 
15. How do you evaluate the project’s strategy for sustainability of its activities and outcomes at unions? 
16. What recommendations do you have for improvement? 
Annex 4F: In-depth persons’ interview (IDS): Feed Ingredients Suppliers
(Please conduct the interview with the owner or a senior manager of the ingredient supplier)
129
Woreda-----------------------------------------Kebele---------------------------------------------
Name----------------------------------Sex---------Position---------------------------Phone Number-------------------
1. When and how did you start feed ingredient supply to the union feed enterprise? 
2. What were you doing before you started supplying to the union feed enterprise? 
3. Is this a primary or secondary business for you? 
4. If secondary, what proportion of your revenue comes from the sale of feed ingredients? 
5. Please provide a brief description of your operation? 
Types of 
ingredients 
Quantity 
produced in last 
12 months 
Quantity/volume 
sold or provided in 
the last 12 months 
to feed enterprise 
Any constraints in supply of the ingredients 
to the union 
     
6. Did you get any support from Go and NGOs to increase the profitability of your business? 
What support, training and 
inputs have you received? 
(The support could be: 
capacity development 
support (training & 
coaching/advice), 
material/equipment 
support in the form of 
grant, B2B linkage, etc). 
When did 
you receive 
this support 
How has this support helped you? 
  
  
7. Please describe how you are supplying your inputs to union feed enterprises? (e.g., forward 
contract, spot cash, and sale, etc) 
8. Describe the main challenges that you are facing in relation to the success of your business? 
130
Type of challenge (availability raw materials, 
price, capital, B2B linkage, etc.) 
How is it affecting you? How can it be 
addressed? 
  
9. Overall, how do you see your business developing in the coming 3 years? Please give reasons. 
131
Annex 5: Focus Group Discussion Guides
Group Discussion Facilitation Protocol to Facilitators
Part I: Introduction /Warm-up:
1. Acknowledge participants for their willingness to take part in the FGD. 
2. Explain the purpose of the group discussion. 
3. Introduce yourself. 
4. Explain the role of the facilitator and note takers. 
5. Let participants introduce themselves (list their name, sex, and other, if apt). 
Part II: Instruction:
1. Assure all participants personal data will be kept confidential and will not be used for 
unintended purpose. I.e., all the data provided will be used only for the study purpose. 
2. Make clear what is expected of participants. 
3. Make clear the time length of the discussion (between 45-60 minutes). 
4. Keep eye contact with the participants and make sure that the discussion is participatory for 
everyone. 
5. Set ground rules for the group with the participants: Consider the following rules: 
 Respect for different views, no wrong answers, one person speak at a time, everyone has 
the right to speak without being interrupted, raise your hands and get a signal from the 
facilitator before your talk, keep your answers short and precise to allow others 
participate, switch off/silence your cellphones. 
6. Do NOT promise what you cannot deliver. 
7. Use a translator, whenever necessary. 
Part III: Closing and post discussion activities:
1. Summarize the ideas which emerged from the focus group, noting where there was consensus 
and where there was no consensus) on the themes of discussion. 
2. Let participants add anything before you close. 
3. Thank everyone for their time and input in the discussion. 
4. Make sure to write the group discussion report immediately after the discussion. 
List of FGD participants
No Name Remark
1.   
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9 
10 
Places Name Code Time Time/date
Region       
Zone 
Woreda    Date of discussion 
Kebele    Start time (HH:MM) 
Facilitator name End time (HH:MM) 
Note taker name   
132
FGD guiding questions (Applicable to all FGD groups):
1. How do you describe the livestock production in your locality from breed and technology 
perspectives, including, dairy, poultry, and fattening? 
2. How do you feed your livestock? Where do you get the feed or forage for your livestock? Is the 
livestock feed/forage available in this locality? How accessible is it? How do you get it? (do you 
produce yourself or buy the feed or forage? If yes, where do buy it or who sells it? 
3. What are the major animal feed or forage development strategies practiced by farmers in this 
locality? What do should be done to address the problems and enhance farmers’ strategies? 
4. How do you evaluate the accessibility and affordability of animal feed in your locality? What are 
the major problems that you face in terms of manufactured animal feed or forage? What causes 
this/sources of the problems? 
5. Have you ever used /have access to use of manufactured feed, improved forage growing systems, 
improved fattening, and livestock nutrition and feeding system, dairy and poultry production? If yes, 
how do you get it? Who provided these services? Were they adequate or what were the challenges? 
6. Is there market oriented livestock/poultry feed and forage production in this locality? How is the 
market, who is buying? Do you think this can be taken as a business venture? 
7. Is there market oriented fatting, dairy, and/or poultry production in this locality? If yes, who is doing 
it? Are they profitable? What are the challenges and opportunities in doing these activities? What 
actions are needed to improve the performances of these activities in the future? 
8. Do you get any training, inputs or financial assistances provided to farmers and other stakeholders 
from any organization? If yes, who provided it? Focusing on what? How frequently? How adequate 
and relevant are they for your livestock/poultry production and fattening? 
9. Who benefited most (male/female) from the trainings or supports provided to address problems? 
10. What constraints and challenges did women face in terms of the use of manufactured feed, improved 
forage growing systems, improved fattening, livestock nutrition, dairy and poultry production? Why is 
this? What can be done to resolve these challenges? 
11. How do you perceive the marketing practices on the use of manufactured feed, improved forage 
growing systems, improved fattening, livestock nutrition, dairy and poultry production by private 
enterprises and coops/unions and others in your locality? How relevant and adequate are they in 
your locality? What are the major gaps and weaknesses in this regard? 
12. What are the good practices that can be taken as lessons on the use of manufactured feed, improved 
forage growing systems, improved fattening, livestock nutrition, dairy and poultry production in your 
locality? 
13. What do you think are the major capacity gaps (input, management, knowledge, skill etc) to engage 
in feed and forage production in your locality? What about for feed manufacturing and the supply 
of feed ingredients? 
14. What do you think are the main constraints that framers face on the use of the exiting animal feed or 
forage in your locality? What can be done to resolve these challenges? Who should do what? 
133
Annex 6: Field Observation Checklist
Part 1. Background information of the observation area
1. Region 
2. Zone 
3. Woreda 
4. Kebele_ 
5. Agro-ecological zone 
6. Data and time of observation 
Part 2. Guidelines for observation: the following issues will be observed during FEED-III
baseline survey:
Observation point
Response
Observed (Yes=1)
put (√)
Not observed(No=2) Put
(X)
Farming type 
Topography 
Major crops grown (list them as per the agro￾ecology)   
Type of livestock owned 
Forage or feed production system 
Communal grazing areas 
Feed processors/ dairy processors 
Feed market places/ poultry sites 
On-farm innovative feeding practices 
Indigenous and adoptive forage management
practices   
Smallholder farmers feed management practice
Source of feed and forage for livestock/poultry
Type of feed used for livestock/poultry 
Availability of feed and forage input for livestock
Accessibility of feed and forage input for livestock
Infrastructural availability (Electricity (power source), 
water source, feed mill, feed mixer, warehouse, 
packing/trading) 
  
Feed market networks 
Feed processors and enterprises 
Feed service providers 
Challenges for feed production; 
Opportunities for feed management practice
134
Annex A 1 List of FGDs for the baseline survey
No. Region # of
Woreda Type of FGDs Number
1 Tigray 4 Sample 
Woredas 


Adult Men
Adult Women
5 FGDs Covering 3 Sample Woredas [1
FGD with Adult Men, 1 FGD with Adult 
     

Joint Adult Men and 
Women 
Youth Feed Growers
Women, 1 FGD With Joint Adult Men and
Women, and 1 FGD with Youth [[Working 
in Groups] Feed Growers and 1 FGD with 
      Youth in fattening, dairy, 
and poultry production 
Youth in fattening, dairy, and poultry
production was conducted among 
purposively selected groups in Tigray. 
2 Amhara 4 Sample  Adult Men 5 FGDs Covering 4 Sample Woredas [1
   Woredas 



Adult Women
Joint Adult Men and 
Women 
Youth Feed Growers 
Youth in fattening, dairy, 
and poultry production 
FGD with Adult Men, 1 FGD with Adult
Women, 1 FGD With Joint Adult Men and 
Women, and 1 FGD with Youth [Working 
in Groups] Feed Growers and 1 FGD with 
Youth in fattening, dairy, and poultry 
production was conducted among 
purposively selected groups in Amhara. 
3 SNNPR 4  Adult Men 5 FGDs Covering 4 Sample Woredas [1
   Sample
Woredas 




Adult Women
Joint Adult Men and 
Women 
Youth Feed Growers 
Youth in fattening, dairy, 
and poultry production 
FGD with Adult Men, 1 FGD with Adult
Women, 1 FGD With Joint Adult Men and 
Women, and 1 FGD with Youth [Working 
in Groups] Feed Growers and 1 FGD with 
Youth in fattening, dairy, and poultry 
production was conducted among 
purposively selected groups in SNNPR. 
4 Oromia 5 Sample  Adult Men 5 FGDs Covering 4 Sample Woredas [1
   Woredas 



Adult Women
Joint Adult Men and 
Women 
Youth Feed Growers 
Youth in fattening, dairy, 
and poultry production 
FGD with Adult Men, 1 FGD with Adult
Women, 1 FGD With Joint Adult Men and 
Women, and 1 FGD with Youth [Working 
in Groups] Feed Growers and 1 FGD with 
Youth in fattening, dairy, and poultry 
production was conducted among 
purposively selected groups in Oromia. 
Total 4 16 5 Different Sets of FGDs 20 FGDs