Ethiopia Food for Progress Project –
Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian 
Development III (FEED III)
Final Evaluation
2/25/2021
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 authors’ views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of 
Agriculture or the United States Government.
Final Evaluation of Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian 
Development – Phase III (FEED III)
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-663-2017/030-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2017
Project Duration: September 2017 – April 2021
Implemented By: ACDI/VOCA
Evaluation Authored By: 
DAB Development Research and Training (DAB DRT) Evaluation Firm
Agajie Tesfaye, Team Leader
Dr. Befikadu Esayas, PhD
Bedaso Taye
Nigatu Alemayehu, PhD
Fikadu Chala
3
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................................8
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................10
Project Background and Purpose............................................................................................................10
Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods, and Limitations......................................................................10
Findings and Conclusions........................................................................................................................11
Recommendations..................................................................................................................................12
1. Introduction and Purpose ...................................................................................................................14
1.1. Project Context ...........................................................................................................................14
1.2. Project Description......................................................................................................................14
1.3. Results Framework......................................................................................................................15
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation...........................................................................................................15
2. Evaluation Design and Methodology ..................................................................................................17
2.1. Evaluation Questions..................................................................................................................17
2.2. Evaluation Design........................................................................................................................17
2.3. Sampling Methods......................................................................................................................18
2.4. Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................18
2.5. Data Analysis Methods ...............................................................................................................18
2.6. Evaluation Limitations.................................................................................................................19
3. Findings...............................................................................................................................................20
3.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Profiles of Respondents .......................................................20
3.2. Household Livelihood Activities and Income Sources ................................................................22
3.2.1. Livestock Ownership ...........................................................................................................23
3.3. Dairy Production and Value Chain ..............................................................................................24
3.3.1. Milk Production and Productivity .......................................................................................24
3.3.2. Dairy Animal Feeding Practices...........................................................................................27
3.3.3. Livestock Product Marketing ..............................................................................................28
3.3.4. Gender Role in Dairy Production ........................................................................................31
3.3.5. Challenges in Dairy Production ...........................................................................................32
3.3.6. Adoption of Improved Dairy Feed.......................................................................................34
3.3.7. Access to Concentrate Feed................................................................................................35
3.4. Animal Fattening and Value Chain..............................................................................................36
4
3.4.1. Animal Fattening.................................................................................................................36
3.4.2. Access to Training for Animal Fattening .............................................................................37
3.4.3. Purchase of Animal Concentrate Feed................................................................................37
3.4.4. Major Challenges Faced in Animal Fattening......................................................................39
3.4.5. Coping Strategies for Feed Problems of Fattening Animals ...............................................39
3.4.6. Price Fluctuation of Concentrate Feed for Fattening Animals............................................40
3.4.7. Feed Quality Check Methods..............................................................................................40
3.5. Poultry Production and Value Chain...........................................................................................41
3.5.1. Poultry Production ..............................................................................................................41
3.5.2. Poultry Concentrate Feed and Value Chain Actors.............................................................47
3.5.3. Feed Millers and Concentrate Feed Producers...................................................................48
3.5.4. Gender Perspectives in Poultry Production and Management ..........................................49
3.5.5. Sheltering Practices in Poultry Production .........................................................................51
3.6. Forage Production and Feed Value Chain...................................................................................51
3.6.1. Forage Production and Nursery Establishment ..................................................................56
3.7. Technology Transfer by Model Farmers.....................................................................................58
3.8. Project Evaluation Results Against the OECD-DAC Criteria ........................................................59
3.8.1. Project Relevance................................................................................................................59
3.8.2. Project Efficiency.................................................................................................................59
3.8.3. Project Effectiveness...........................................................................................................60
3.8.4. Project Outcomes and Impacts...........................................................................................61
3.8.5. Project Sustainability ..........................................................................................................63
3.9. Best Practices and Lessons Learned From FEED III Project.........................................................63
4. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................64
5. Recommendations..............................................................................................................................66
Annexes.......................................................................................................................................................69
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................69
Annex A: Detailed Tables and Figures.....................................................................................................70
Annex B: Project Evaluation Against the OECD-DAC Criteria..................................................................79
Annex C: Detailed Evaluation Methodology ...........................................................................................90
Annex D: Data Collection Tools...............................................................................................................94
D1 Household Survey Questionnaire..................................................................................................94
D2 Primary Cooperatives Questionnaire ..........................................................................................117
5
D3 Key Informant Interview Tool......................................................................................................123
D3a: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guide for ACDI/VOCA................................................................123
D3b: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides for Stakeholders............................................................129
D3c: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides for Smallholder Farmers................................................131
D4: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Interview Guides for Smallholder Farmers ...............................137
D5: Case Studies Guides....................................................................................................................140
D6: Field Observation Checklist ........................................................................................................141
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gender roles in decision-making of dairy products sale..............................................................32
Figure 2. Dairy products and installed molasses tanker at Merkeb Union in Bahardar.............................38
Figure 3. Upgraded conveyer in Amhara Region ........................................................................................39
Figure 4. Affordability of concentrate feed for poultry production ...........................................................49
Figure 5. Decision-making practices in poultry production and marketing, 2020......................................50
Figure 6. Decision-making practices to purchase concentrate chicken feeds, 2020..................................51
Figure 7. Housing practices for chicken among beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2020 ..............51
Figure 8. The practice of growing forage crops by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2020..........53
Figure 9. Farmers’ land allocation practices for forage crops, 2020 ..........................................................53
Figure 10. Percentage of follower farmers and their use of different improved practices........................58
Figure 11. Income generated from sales of poultry products....................................................................61
Figure 12. Adoption rates of forage crops..................................................................................................62
Figure 13. Top five challenges in poultry production during baseline........................................................76
Figure 14. Top five challenges in poultry production during end line ........................................................76
Figure 15. Household experiences of purchasing forage inputs in the last 12 months, 2020....................78
Figure 16. Sources of forage inputs for beneficiary farmers, 2020 ............................................................78
Figure 17. Problems of forage supply for beneficiary farmers, 2020 .........................................................78
Figure 18. Budget utilization status by region (left) and by activity (right) ................................................81
List of Tables
Table 1. Household head sex composition by beneficiary and non-beneficiary status .............................20
Table 2. Demographic profiles of respondents in %...................................................................................21
Table 3. The age and family size of respondents by region and survey period..........................................21
Table 4. Total annual income per household (net benefit, contribution, and attribution)........................23
Table 5. Proportion of households engaged in dairy farming before and after the project ......................24
Table 6. Lactating cow ownership (no. of cows per household) over time and by type of breed .............25
Table 7. Milk productivity (liter/day/cow) before and after project intervention .....................................25
Table 8: Average lactation period (months) over single lactation period by breed and time....................26
Table 9. Feed sources of dairy cows before and after the project (% of households) ...............................27
6
Table 10. Feeding practices (% of households using different type of feeding practice for dairy cows) ...27
Table 11. Physical and chemical treatment of dairy feed practiced by farmers (%) ..................................28
Table 12. Proportion of households selling dairy products before and after project interventions..........29
Table 13. Quantity of livestock products sold per annum by the households (kg or liter) ........................29
Table 14. Annual average income (Birr/annum) earned from dairy products during baseline and end line
....................................................................................................................................................................30
Table 15. Dairy products selling places (%).................................................................................................31
Table 16. Trends of dairy production problems in the project periods......................................................33
Table 17. Experience of purchasing dairy concentrate feed before and after the project ........................34
Table 18. Average distance to concentrate feed sales point in walking minutes ......................................35
Table 19. Perception of dairy farmers on the availability of concentrate feeds and feed market 
information (%)...........................................................................................................................................36
Table 20. Percentage of households reporting participation in animal fattening......................................36
Table 21. Poultry production market outlet for baseline and beneficiary households (% of respondents)
....................................................................................................................................................................41
Table 22. Average number of household poultry ownership by region, 2020 ...........................................43
Table 23. Types of concentrate feeds fed to chickens in the last 12 months at the time of baseline (2018) 
and end line (2020) studies (% of households)...........................................................................................44
Table 24. Types of management practices applied to poultry production (% of respondents) .................44
Table 25. Annual average poultry egg productivity per hen (egg/clutch and egg/year) by breed.............44
Table 26. Market outlets where farmers sell poultry products (% of respondents) ..................................45
Table 27. Average annual sales (No.) and revenues (Birr) of poultry products per household in 2018 and 
2020 ............................................................................................................................................................46
Table 28. Training providers on improved poultry production ..................................................................47
Table 29. Main value actors for poultry production (%).............................................................................47
Table 30. Households’ engagement in forage production before and after the project (% of households)
....................................................................................................................................................................52
Table 31. Actors involved in providing improved forage trainings.............................................................54
Table 32. Forage adequacy status and its effects (% of households), baseline (2018) ..............................54
Table 33. Forage adequacy status and its effects (% of households), end line (2020)...............................55
Table 34. Percentage of follower farmers that received transfer of knowledge from model farmers over 
the past four years......................................................................................................................................58
Table 35. Percentage of households reporting participation in crop production ......................................70
Table 36. Percentage of households reporting participation in dairy production .....................................70
Table 37. Percentage of households reporting participation in animal fattening......................................70
Table 38. Percentage of households reporting participation in poultry production..................................70
Table 39. Average livestock ownership by breed (baseline and end line surveys).....................................70
Table 40. Percentage of households reporting purchase of animals for fattening ....................................71
Table 41. Percentage of households reporting receiving training on animal fattening .............................71
Table 42. Percentage of households reporting the purchase of concentrate feed for fattening animals.71
Table 43. Percentage of households reporting the adequacy of feed distribution channels ....................72
Table 44. Percentage of farmers reporting feed problems for fattening animals (multiple response items)
....................................................................................................................................................................72
7
Table 45. Percentage of households reporting coping strategies used for feed problems for fattening 
animals (multiple response items)..............................................................................................................72
Table 46. Percentage of households reporting on the affordability of concentrate feed for fattening 
animals (multiple response times)..............................................................................................................73
Table 47. Percentage of households reporting price fluctuation of concentrate feed for fattening animals
....................................................................................................................................................................73
Table 48. Percentage of households reporting checking the quality of feed purchased for fattening 
animals........................................................................................................................................................73
Table 49. Percentage of households reporting quality checking methods (multiple response items) ......73
Table 50. Gender role in dairy production activities ..................................................................................74
Table 51. Who transferred the knowledge to the follower farmers? ........................................................75
Table 52. How did you receive the knowledge transfer? ...........................................................................75
Table 53. Quantity of poultry feed used and total cost of feed during baseline study, 2018 ....................76
Table 54. Quantity of poultry feed used and total cost of feed during end line study, 2020 ....................76
Table 55. Percentage of training recipient households and adopters of planting material in past 12 
months........................................................................................................................................................77
Table 56. Major forage production problems by region and number of respondents, 2018 ....................77
Table 57. Forage varieties grown and used by survey households (%) during baseline and end line........77
Table 58. FEED III project budget utilization status of regions in the project period (Ethiopian Birr) .......80
Table 59. FEED III project budget utilization status by activity (Ethiopian Birr) .........................................80
Table 60. Plan versus achievement of FEED-III project outputs and indicators .........................................83
Table 61. FEED III outcome indicators, baseline and end line values.........................................................85
Table 62. Performance of FEED III intermediate results.............................................................................86
Table 63. FEED III project staff qualification by education ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
8
List of Acronyms
Acronym Full Term
AGP Agricultural Growth Program
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency
B2B Business-to-Business
Be Beneficiaries
BL Baseline 
CBO Community-Based Organization 
CoP Chief of Party 
CSA Central Statistical Authority
DA Development Agent
DID Difference in Difference 
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
EL end line
ESA Ethiopian Standards Authority
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
Ha Hectare 
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
KII Key Informant Interview 
MoA Ministry of Agriculture 
MT Metric Ton
OECD/DAC Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development/Development 
Assistance Committee
QDS Quality Declared Seed
Qty Quantity
SLM Sustainable Land Management
SNNP Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
ToR Terms of Reference
9
TOT Training of Trainers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas 
Cooperative Assistance
10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Background and Purpose
FEED III was a 44-month project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for 
Progress Program, implemented by ACDI/VOCA from September 2017 to April 2021. The project targeted 
feed growers, feed service providers, livestock producers, government personnel, extension agents, feed 
processors, and related enterprises located in the Amhara, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and 
Peoples' (SNNP), and Tigray regions of Ethiopia. 
The project addressed the following efforts:
• USDA’s Food for Progress strategic objectives of:
1. Increased agricultural productivity 
2. Expansion of trade in agricultural products 
• Government of Ethiopia’s Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) and Livestock Master Plan 
• US Government’s Feed the Future strategies 
The project specifically aimed 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 
• Expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sectors by enabling the growth 
of feed, forage, fattening, poultry, and dairy enterprises, and expanding market opportunities for 
their products, building on investments in human and physical infrastructure made during Phases 
I and II 
• Contribute to the increased resilience of livestock-owning households
The final evaluation aimed to assess whether the project has achieved the expected results, as outlined 
in the Results Framework. The evaluation assessed project design, implementation, management, lessons 
learned, and replication. The evaluation was carried out in three regions of Ethiopia (Amhara, Oromia, 
and SNNP), and in a sample of 12 representative woredas (districts), three per region, where the FEED III 
project was implemented. It was not carried out in Tigray due to security reasons.
Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods, and Limitations
The evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. 
It was conducted in a consultative and collaborative manner with project beneficiary and non-beneficiary 
groups at all levels of data collection. 
Qualitative data was collected through 40 key informant interviews (KIIs), 72 in-depth interviews, 20 focus 
group discussions (FGDs), and 8 case studies. 
11
Quantitative data was collected using a structured questionnaire administered to 1,630 randomly selected 
households (1,084 beneficiary and 546 non-beneficiary). Data was collected electronically using the CSPro
application. Enumerators and supervisors were trained intensively on data collection approaches, along 
with field-level pre-testing. Data was analyzed using SPSS 24, Stata 14, and MS-Excel. 
Findings and Conclusions
Dairy Production: FEED III interventions contributed to a 13 percent increase in households engaged in 
dairy production, from 45 percent at baseline to 51 percent at end line. This increase coincides with a 22
percent increase in milk productivity per cow. There is evidence that the project increased per cow
productivity, the number of cows, and household engagement in dairy production. The project has almost 
doubled the percentage of dairy farmers selling milk, from 17 percent at baseline to 28 percent at end 
line. These increases were not observed in the non-beneficiary group. This implies a net increase in 
farmers selling milk by 65 percent, which can be directly attributed to FEED III interventions. Project 
interventions led to a more than 50 percent increase in quantity of milk sold per household, from 611 
liters per year at the beginning of the project to 931 liters at the end of the project, while those in non￾beneficiary areas show a 10 percent reduction. 
Additionally, the data indicate a 35 percent increase in total milk produced by project beneficiaries 
involved in dairy. Thisis a staggering 125 percent more than non-beneficiaries, as the total milk production 
for non-beneficiary farmers went down substantially relative to baseline. This indicates that the dairy 
cows became more productive, and farmers chose to keep fewer of them because greater production 
from fewer cows is better than keeping a bigger herd. This indicates that the project contributed to 
increasing the efficiency of the dairy farmers, in addition to increasing production and productivity.
Dairy farmers in intervention woredas in all the study regions significantly increased incomes from dairy 
products. Income generated from milk sales increased from Birr 5,679 at baseline to Birr 15,591 at end 
line. The incomes of non-beneficiary farmers increased to only Birr 9,595. This implies that a net 36
percent increase in income from milk can be directly attributed to FEED III interventions. Project 
interventions on gender issues brought substantial improvements in empowering women, but increased 
women’s responsibilities because of the increased dairy activities. For instance, the percentage of women 
engaged in feeding of cows was 23 percent at baseline and 85 percent at end line. At the same time, the 
proportion of women selling cows and dairy products also increased.
Animal Fattening: The involvement of households in animal fattening was 29.2 percent for beneficiary
households and 20.1 percent for non-beneficiary households in all areas. The participation rate of 
beneficiariesis between 49 percent in Amhara and 17 percent in the SNNP, suggesting regional variations. 
The percentage of farmers engaged in livestock fattening, who had received animal fattening training in 
the last 12 months, increased consistently and substantially across regions from 24.2 percent at baseline
to 94 percent at end line for the beneficiary households. This is compared to 14.6 percent for non￾beneficiaries.
About 33.4 percent of the beneficiary households purchased feed concentrate in the end line sample
versus 40.6 percent at baseline. While 40.6 percent of beneficiary farmers at end line, versus 14 percent
12
at baseline, reported feed distribution channels as adequate (thanks to FEED cooperative unions 
expanding their feed outlet networks), the reduction in households purchasing feed concentrate may be 
attributed to a rise in purchasing factory byproducts and growing forage. It may also be attributed to 
fewer households fattening animals. 
Regarding the concentrate feed for fattening animals, only 11.5 percent of households deemed it 
affordable at baseline, and 23.6 percent of beneficiary and 14.4 percent of non-beneficiary households at 
end line. 
Poultry production: The farmers’ ownership of different chicken breeds has substantially improved during 
FEED III. At baseline, households owned 1.6 improved chickens on average, and at end line, 8.2 improved 
chickens. At end line, ownership for non-beneficiary farmers reached an average of 5.6 chickens. In terms 
of scale, FEED III increased ownership for beneficiary farmers by 3 improved chickens, or an average of 54
percent.
The main poultry product in a rural household is eggs, which are an important source of cash, especially 
for women and youth. At baseline, productivity of local chickens was 37 eggs per clutch. Following project 
interventions on improved chicken feeding practices, productivity increased to 44 eggs per clutch, 
indicating that the project contributed to a 19 percent increase in egg productivity. One of the project’s 
contributions was enhancing participant farmers’ incomes. Before the project, farmers generated Birr 
3,168 from the sale of poultry products. At the end of FEED III, this increased to Birr 4,848 for beneficiaries 
and Birr 3,203 for non-beneficiaries. This implies that FEED III enhanced the incomes of poultry farmers 
by Birr 1,645 per household, a net increase of 51 percent.
Forage production: Before commencement of FEED III, only 9 percent of the farmers were engaged in 
forage production. After project interventions, forage grower households reached 30 percent, which is
more than a three-fold increase. Towards the end of the project, the proportion of non-beneficiary 
farmers engaged in growing forage crops was 11 percent. This implies that FEED III exclusively contributed 
to the 19 percent increment of forage growers. Forage nurseries established in the project regions are 
largely contributing to the production and distribution of seedlings to the farmers. However, due attention 
is required to the nursery sites post project so they operate at full capacity.
Model and follower farmers: Over the life of the project, about 85 percent of the follower farmers 
received knowledge on dairy animal nutrition and management, 82 percent on improved fattening 
management, 77 percent on improved poultry nutrition and feeding, and 73 percent on improved forage 
production. About three-fourths of the follower farmers received technology transfer from model 
farmers, and the remaining 22 and 4 percent, from development agents (DAs) and other sources, 
respectively. This indicates that the model farmers play a significant role in technology transfer (i.e., from 
farmer to farmer). 
Recommendations
• Considering the project’s success, it would be important for the feed market system actors to 
continue building and maintaining the market information system, expanding feed channels, 
diversifying revenue, and resolving feed-related issues to sustain the project’s good practices. Offices 
13
of Agriculture and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) can also play roles in scaling up 
successful FEED III initiatives.
• Based on the findings, it would be important to continue advancing the feed market information 
system, expanding feed distribution channels, and providing periodic awareness training on the 
benefits of animal fattening as one of the livelihood strategies. The Woreda Agriculture and Livestock 
Offices should work in partnership with locally deployed NGOs, higher education institutions, farmer 
unions and cooperatives, and others on upgrading animal fattening practices as part of the livelihood 
diversification strategies, fitting them to different agroecological settings.
• The positive outcomes and best practices of FEED III in animal fattening, and poultry, forage, and 
dairy production need to be scaled up and handed over to government. The findings should be 
disseminated to the feed market system stakeholders. 
• To make the project achievements sustainable, strengthen inter- and intra-institutional collaboration 
with defined roles and responsibilities. 
• Agricultural extension workers in respective woredas should keep helping FEED III beneficiary 
farmers. The livestock departments of the woreda offices of agriculture should keep providing 
technical support to the farmers. 
• Feed processing enterprises need to be supported technically and financially to help them supply 
feed inputs on a sustainable basis. 
• Provide support for feed ingredient importers. Feed ingredient importers are facing acute hard 
currency shortages. As a result, feed processors are having problems with producing quality feed. 
The price of concentrate feed also sky-rocketed, which may affect the productivity of the dairy, 
animal fattening, and poultry sectors. 
• Enhance the technical and financial capacities of the feed manufacturing cooperatives. Cooperatives 
are still in need of technical support on improved management and accounting practices. Training 
and experience sharing is required for cooperatives to strengthen their management capacity. 
Offices of Agriculture, the Cooperative Promotion Agency, NGOs, and other development partners 
engaged in the agriculture sector can support this.
• Feed processing, dairy, fattening, and poultry enterprises need access to finance. These enterprises 
often start their businesses with limited capital, which does not allow them to scale and keep up with 
the growing demand.
• Strengthen and scale up video-based extension services to the farmers engaged in the livestock 
sector and beyond. Farmers highly preferred video-based extension services because they provided
opportunities for learning best practices and success stories of other progressive farmers. Videos
should feature success stories of the farmers in their locality or other places and should be narrated 
in local languages. 
• Support and strengthen day-old chick hatching enterprises. As the farmer awareness of smallholder 
poultry production practices is increasing, their demand for chicks and pullets will also grow. Poultry 
farmers require a sustainable supply of chicks and pullets. Therefore, hatching enterprises need 
financial and technical supports through training and experience sharing. 
• The respective woreda agriculture offices should strengthen forage nurseries technically and 
logistically to help them supply forage seedlings and cuttings to the farmers on a sustainable basis. 
14
Nursery management can be a good income-generating activity for rural youth. It is advisable to 
establish new nurseries across different parts of the country. This should be preceded by awareness 
creation and experience sharing among farmers and other stakeholders. 
1.Introduction and Purpose
1.1. Project Context
Ethiopia's livestock population, with an estimated 65 million cattle (7.2 million dairy cows), 40 million 
sheep, 51 million goats, 7.7 million camels, 2.1 million horses, and nearly 49 million poultry, generates 
more than 1,128 metric tons (MT) of meat, 317 million eggs, and 5.7 billion liters of milk per year. It is the 
largest on the African continent (CSA, 2020). The sector engages more than 14 million households (70
percent of the population), of which, a large number are poor. The average herd is small, consisting of less 
than one dairy cow, four goats, three sheep, and four chickens. Livestock value accounts for 45 percent 
of the country’s gross domestic agriculture products. While Ethiopia has the largest livestock and poultry 
population in Africa, the per capita consumption for livestock products, particularly meat, is extremely 
low, even by African standards. Per capita intake of livestock products is 9 kg of meat, 16.7 liters of milk,
and approximately 4 eggs per year.
Livestock and poultry feed are crucial for growth and sustainability of meat, milk, and egg value chains
and for the well-being of those whose livelihoods depend on them. Feed plays a vital role in livestock 
rearing and accounts for 60 percent or more of the cost of production. Traditionally, animal and poultry 
feeds consist of crop residues, such as straw, stover, and native forage from communal pastures and 
rangelands. 
However, such diets are low in energy and protein, which reduce animal productivity and health. Worse 
still, traditional grazing resources continue to decline due to the lack of proper management and 
conversion to crop production. Droughts are more frequent and more severe, adversely impacting the 
availability of feed. Thus, although Ethiopia has the largest livestock population and livestock is the main 
livelihood for most of the population, production in the sector has been declining for many years. 
Inadequate quantity and quality of feed resources, along with poor marketing processes are the major 
challenges facing the livestock and poultry sectors (MoLF Report 2017).
Understanding that feed quantity and quality are the main constraints for the growth of the livestock 
sector, the Government of Ethiopia and its funding agencies are investing heavily in the sector to resolve 
the challenges. FEED III was implemented in four regional states of Ethiopia (Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and 
Tigray) as part of holistic, comprehensive, and integrated policy and strategic efforts to improve the feed 
value chain and increase the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder livestock producers.
1.2. Project Description
FEED III was a 44-month project funded by USDA and implemented by ACDI/VOCA from October 2017 
through April 2021 with an operating budget of about $9 million. FEED III built on FEED I and II, which 
piloted the approach to feed sector development that combined capacity building of extension services 
and smallholder farmers with the establishment of cooperative union-based commercial feed 
manufacturing enterprises, forage seed nurseries, and market-oriented livestock enterprises. The project 
15
targeted feed growers, feed sector service providers, livestock producers, government personnel, 
extension agents, and feed processors and related enterprises. 
FEED III is a third and final phase of a series of projects that aimed to increase the incomes of Ethiopian 
smallholder livestock producers by improving access to, and use of, consistent affordable high-quality 
animal feed that can support greater livestock productivity and efficiency. FEED III faced a few 
implementation challenges, including an overlap with FEED II and a delayed start due to a delay in the 
approval of the baseline report. The baseline survey report was approved in late 2018. As a result, the 
first round of livestock training for farmers did not take place until the fall of 2018. Another challenge was 
travel and gathering restrictions in 2020 due to COVID-19. These disruptions shortened the project’s 
implementation period.
1.3. Results Framework
FEED III scaled out to new communities by expanding its extensive union and primary cooperative-based 
sales and distribution network, supported by the extension service delivery of training videos produced 
by the project. This aimed to grow the number of livestock dependent households with access to improved 
feed and the skills to use it effectively. In doing so, the project addressed USDA’s Food for Progress 
strategic objectives (SOs) of increased agricultural productivity (SO1) and expanded trade in agricultural 
products (SO2), as well as Feed the Future objectives and the Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE) Agricultural 
Growth Plan (AGP) and Livestock Master Plan. 
The project specifically aimed to:
I. 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
II. Expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sectors by enabling the growth 
of feed, forage, fattening, poultry, and dairy enterprises, and expanding market opportunities for 
their products, building on investments in human and physical infrastructure made during Phases 
I and II
III. Contribute to the increased resilience of livestock-owning households
The main FEED III outcomes include adopting improved feed management practices, increasing supply of 
feed and forage inputs, improving business and financial management of feed enterprises, and improving
feed policies, regulations, and ancillary service providers. 
The project carried out the following five key activities:
1. Developing the feed ingredient supply chain
2. Building capacity and growing feed sector enterprises
3. Developing sustainable forage production systems
4. Expanding fattening, dairy, and poultry enterprises
5. Promoting improved on‐farm feeding practices
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation
The purpose of the final evaluation was to assess whether the project has achieved the expected results 
as outlined in the Results Framework. The specific objectives of the evaluation were to:
16
I. Determine the final values for contextual, outcome, and impact level performance indicators, as 
outlined in the project performance monitoring plan
II. Collect household socioeconomic data pertaining to livestock farmers in the project target 
woredas 
III. Identify and document how, and to what extent, feed, forage, and livestock production activities 
promoted smallholder productivity, economic well-being, and resilience 
IV. Identify strengths and weaknesses of project activities in relation to supporting the growth and 
sustainability of targeted feed manufacturers 
V. Assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on activity implementation, outcomes, and 
sustainability of results 
VI. Identify key lessons to be learned from activities that can be applied to future projects with similar 
objectives
The final evaluation will allow ACDI/VOCA and USDA to reflect on the project’s achievements, strengths, 
and sustainability, as well as to understand any weaknesses, lessons learned, and best practices for 
implementing future interventions.
17
2.Evaluation Design and Methodology
2.1. Evaluation Questions
The following is an illustrative list of learning questions:
• To what extent have farmers adopted the practices and technologies encouraged by FEED III? 
What are the differences in adoption rate among these practices and technologies, and the 
reasons why some are more readily adopted than others?
• Are farmers finding that manufactured feed and forage planting materials (seeds/seedlings) are 
closer and/or more easily accessible and affordable than before? To what extent have project 
activities contributed to this?
• Are targeted cooperatives and union feed enterprises operating as businesses? To what extent 
did FEED III activities contribute to their capacity to do so? Do they have business plans that are 
followed and revisited on a regular basis? To what extent have they used credit to grow their 
businesses? Are they profitable?
• What impact has increased availability of manufactured feed had on downstream economic 
activity (e.g., by poultry raisers, dairy farmers, milk processors and retailers)?
• How have livestock, poultry, and forage production training videos been received by famers? 
What about development agents? What strengths and weaknesses do each of them see in this 
training method as opposed to the traditional approach?
• Has the role of women in livestock, poultry, and/or forage production on the farm been impacted 
by project activities? If so, how?
• In what ways have union-based feed manufacturing activities been impacted by the arrival of 
COVID‐19 in Ethiopia? Have they been able to adapt to these impacts? If so, how?
2.2. Evaluation Design
FEED III final evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative 
methodologies. The evaluation also followed a participatory approach in which project staff and relevant 
stakeholders and targets of the project, including farmers, cooperative unions, and woreda extension 
experts, are consulted. 
The end line evaluation used OECD-DAC evaluation criteria that included:
a. Relevance
b. Effectiveness
c. Efficiency
d. Impact
e. Sustainability
Based on the objectives of the project, the final evaluation team first identified key baseline indicators in 
the results framework and investigated the extent to which the expected results were achieved, which 
interventions worked best, and the factors that explain the findings. To assess the impact of the COVID￾19 pandemic on the project, the evaluation team also included questions on its impact on the progress 
of the plan and the results.
18
2.3. Sampling Methods
Study target groups were livestock owners that had been targeted by the project since 2018 and whose 
baseline information was collected. The non-beneficiary groups were selected from the same woredas as 
the beneficiary groups, but in different kebeles where beneficiary groups were not found (i.e., kebeles 
where FEED III was not implemented).
The sampling technique for the household survey was multi-stage, using a stratified random sampling 
method that cascaded down from woreda to an individual household, which was the ultimate unit of 
analysis. Since all intervention regions are covered (except Tigray, which was excluded because of security 
concerns), the sampling first identified an equal number of woredas1
from all regions, just like the baseline 
survey. Next, the sample size from each woreda was determined based on Proportion to Population Size 
(PPS). A project beneficiary list was obtained from FEED III. The proportion of sample that falls in each 
woreda is based on the number of project participants in the woreda. Then, the project randomly selected
three kebeles from the list of intervention kebeles. Since the total sample size of the woreda is known,
the same PPS procedure is used to determine sample size from the three kebeles based on the ratio 
between beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups (67:33). Random selection is done using random 
numbers generated in Excel.
Using a household list from FEED III, the beneficiary groups were selected from the project intervention 
kebeles, and non-beneficiary groups were selected from the kebeles where the baseline survey was 
conducted but not targeted for project intervention. Sample households for beneficiary groups were 
selected from the list of smallholder farmers trained by the project from the project database. Non￾beneficiary households were selected from the list of non-intervention kebeles using random sampling 
techniques. Both households were interviewed in a face-to-face manner by trained data collectors. See 
sample size calculation in Annex B.
2.4. Data Collection Methods
The evaluation used qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data was collected using a structured 
questionnaire administered to 1,630 randomly selected households (1,084 beneficiary and 546 non￾beneficiary). Data was collected using Android tablets with the CSPro application. Trained enumerators 
and a supervisor collected the data after field pre-testing. Qualitative data was collected through 40 key
informant interviews (KIIs), 72 in-depth interviews, 20 focus group discussions (FGDs), and 8 case studies. 
See Annex B for details on quality control and data collection procedures.
2.5. Data Analysis Methods
Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 24 and Stata 14. Results from the household survey were 
analyzed, summarized, and presented using descriptive statistics, such as means and proportions. The 
statistical outputs were presented in the form of figures, frequency tables, and bar graphs. The findings 
were also presented using the difference in difference (DID) approach (i.e., comparison of baseline against 
1 Ethiopia has four administrative tiers: Federal, Region, Zone, Woreda and Kebeles. Kebele is the lowest 
administrative level.
19
end line and beneficiary against non-beneficiary households). The qualitative information was 
thematically analyzed with a focus on description of information, classification, and making connections.
The DID evaluation method was used to estimate the impact of the project. DID is a preferred quasi￾experimental impact evaluation method when assignment of the beneficiary is not random. The DID 
estimator is an impact identification strategy that compares the outcomes of project participants and non￾participants before and after the implementation of a program and takes the difference as the estimate 
of beneficiary (Bryson et al. 2002)2
. Additionally, this method is widely used since it is effective in 
controlling unobserved variables and trends that may affect outcomes if data are available before and 
after an intervention.
3
To avoid problems in comparing results over the two periods, we adopted the 
baseline data collection design to enable comparability of results between the two periods. See Annex B 
for more details on methods.
2.6. Evaluation Limitations
This evaluation was conducted carefully to generate objective evidence on the performance of FEED III. 
However, it is not free from certain limitations. Particularly, the baseline survey was not separated for 
control and beneficiary areas. This could affect the validity of the counterfactual. For beneficiary and non￾beneficiary, the same baseline value was used, which makes accurate estimation of the project impact 
difficult. Due to closeness of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, there could also be spillover 
effects and contamination. The evaluation team used qualitative data to identify the true impact of the 
project and spillovers on top of the qualitative data. 
2 Bryson, A., Dorsett, R., & Purdon, S. (2002). The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active 
labour market policies [Monograph]. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/
3Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (2005). Hidden impact? Household saving in response to a poor-area development 
project. Journal of Public Economics, 89(11), 2183–2204.
20
3. Findings
3.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Profiles of Respondents
The data indicates that female-headed households (FHH) constitute 14 percent of the sample, with 20
percent in Oromia, 10 percent in Amhara, and 12 percent in SNNP. This implies that a significant number 
of respondents are male-headed households (MHH). This value is lower than that from other sources. For 
example, the recent CSA’s mini-demographic survey estimates that more than one household in every 
four is female-headed (CSA 2014). In this regard, some studies used similar indicators and reported
notable differences in the proportion of FHH and MHH across some sites in Ethiopia (McPeak et al. 2011). 
On the other hand, the level of participation of FHHs between the baseline and end line surveys, and 
between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, indicates a slight difference across regions (Table 
1), which could be attributable to their increased knowledge and targeting of the FEED III intervention 
regions. This finding also coincides with the qualitative information given across regions on the targeting 
of female-headed households by the project. 
Table 1. Household head sex composition by beneficiary and non-beneficiary status
Region Sex 
Baseline 
(N=1,648)
Beneficiary
(N= 1,084)
Non-Beneficiary 
(N= 546)
Overall 
(N=1,630)
Amhara Male 94.7 90.0 90.65 90.2
Female 5.3 10.0 9.34 9.8
Oromia Male 88.8 75.9 89.6 80.5
Female 11.2 24.1 10.4 19.5
SNNP Male 92.7 85.2 92.9 87.7
Female 7.3 14.8 7.1 12.3
Total Male 91.7 83.7 91.0 86.1
Female 8.3 16.3 9.0 13.9
The distribution of the household head’s marital status and educational level by survey time and sample 
groups (beneficiary and non-beneficiary) is provided in Table 2. In terms of marital status, the largest 
portion of the households (91.3 percent) were married and only 1.2 percent were single in the baseline 
sample. About the same proportion are married (91.4 percent) and unmarried (0.9 percent) in the end 
line study, implying that most FEED III beneficiary households are those that have a family.
Only 33.9 percent of participants completed primary education (grades 1–8) and an even smaller number 
(6.6 percent) completed secondary education in the baseline sample. In the end line study, 40.9 percent
and 13.0 percent completed primary and secondary schools, respectively (Table 2). The number of those 
educated above the secondary level is 2.1 percent in the baseline and 3.0 percent in the end line report. 
Beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups have a similar level of education, indicating that there has been a 
small disparity between baseline and end line studies.
21
Table 2. Demographic profiles of respondents in %
Variables Category
Baseline 
(n=1,648)
Beneficiary 
(n= 1,084)
Non￾beneficiary
(n= 546)
Overall 
(n=1,630)
Marital status Single 1.21 0.74 1.10 0.86
Married 91.32 91.05 92.12 91.41
Widowed 4.13 5.90 4.21 5.34
Divorced 1.88 2.12 1.83 2.02
Separated 1.46 0.18 0.73 0.37 
Level of 
Education
Cannot read and write/illiterate 44.84 28.60 26.56 27.91
Informal (religious & adult 
education)
12.56 14.48 13.92 14.29
Primary 33.86 41.05 40.48 40.86
Secondary 6.61 12.82 13.37 13.01
Above secondary 2.12 3.04 5.68 3.93
From the descriptive statistics, the mean average age of the surveyed respondents is 45 years (n=1,648). 
The average age of the respondents was approximately the same across regions in the baseline (Table 3)
and was 44.22 years in the end line survey, which is statistically significant (p<0.01). A non-significant 
difference was observed between the beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. The field survey data 
indicated that the average family size was six in all regions during the baseline analysis (n=1,648) and was 
significantly higher in SNNP than in other regions (Table 3). The regional difference in family size may be 
due to samples taken from the most densely populated areas of SNNPR, including Wolaita, Hadiya, Gamo
and Gofa Zones, and Sidama Region (CSA 2007). In general, there is a non-statistically significant gap 
between baseline and end line studies, and between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households (Table 
3).
Table 3. The age and family size of respondents by region and survey period
Indicator 
variables Dataset Respondent group
Region
Oromia Amhara SNNP All regions
Average age 
(years)
Baseline 46 45 44 45
End line 45.90 43.47 43.30 44.22
Beneficiary 43.22 46.20 44.65 44.69
Non-beneficiary 43.97 45.30 40.59 43.29
Diff-I* -0.75 0.9 4.06 1.40 (2.14) ns
Diff-II** 0.1 1.53 0.7 0.77 (-2.58) **
Average HH 
size (number)
Baseline 6 5 7 6
End line 5.86 5.59 7.17 6.21
Beneficiary 5.92 5.77 7.35 6.35
Non-beneficiary 5.74 5.25 6.81 5.94
Diff-I* 0.18 0.52 0.54 0.415 (3.50) ns
Diff-II** 0.14 -0.59 -0.17 0.21 (3.91) ns
Diff-I: Two-sample t-test with unequal variances (compare the means of two group)
Diff-II: T-test for paired means (measurements at points in time t1 and t2)
Note: Diff (t-test result): * (p<0.05), ** (p<0.01), *** (p<0.001) 
22
BE, Baseline and EL, end line
3.2. Household Livelihood Activities and Income Sources
Most of the sample households engaged in crop production to diversify their livelihoods, along with dairy, 
animal fattening, and poultry production in all areas. The participation of surveyed households in crop, 
dairy, animal fattening, and poultry production is presented in Tables 35–38 in Annex A. 
Regarding dairy production, 50, 46, and 45.7 percent of farmers were engaged in dairy production in the 
SNNP, Amhara, and Oromia regions, respectively (Table 35 in Annex A). Except crop production, the 
participation in other livelihood activities slightly declined compared to the baseline. This can be due to 
the household’s involvement in additional income-generating activities, such as animal fattening, poultry,
and forage production. The percent of households that participate in dairy production does not show a 
significant difference between baseline and end line surveys, but there is a statistically significant 
difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households (p<0.001) (Table 36 in Annex A). This 
reflects the role of FEED III in diversifying income sources of beneficiary households.
Concerning animal fattening, 52.1, 23.5, and 21.2 percent of farmers participated in animal fattening in 
the Amhara, SNNP, and Oromia regions at end line, respectively (Table 37 in Annex A). There had been a 
statistically significant difference regarding beneficiary and non-beneficiary households’ participation in
animal fattening (p<0.001), while there was no significant difference between baseline and end line
surveys (Table 37 in Annex A). This finding highlights the contribution of FEED III in expanding sources of 
income of beneficiary households in the form of animal fattening relative to non-beneficiary households.
Concerning poultry production, 61, 45, and 21 percent of farmers participated in poultry production in
the Amhara, SNNP, and Oromia regions at end line, respectively (Table 38 in Annex A). Because we only
collected data for the last 12 months, which mostly fell during the COVID-19 crisis period, the decline in 
the share of farmers that participate in dairy, fattening, and poultry production could be due to the 
pandemic. We recommend caution in interpreting the results regarding participation in animal fattening, 
dairy, and poultry production. There is also a statistically significant difference between the baseline and 
end line surveys of household involvement in poultry production (p<0.001) (Table 38 in Annex A).
Rural households generate income from a wide range of non-agricultural activities on top of their farm 
and off-farm income sources (Saha and Bahal 2014). On FEED III, dairy, poultry, and forage production,
along with animal fattening, made significant contributions to farmers’ livelihoods. Table 4 presents a 
summary of total annual income per household and net benefit, contribution, and attribution of FEED III. 
The average annual income from all sources (on-farm, non-farm, and off-farm) was Birr 23,004.5 per 
household at baseline, and Birr 40,087.7 for the beneficiary group at end line. However, to determine the 
attribution of the difference to FEED III, we applied a DID approach, whereby the first difference (D1) is 
between the end line and the baseline for the beneficiary farmers and the second difference (D2) is 
between the non-beneficiary group and the baseline for scale variables, such as income. A net FEED III 
benefit is the difference between D1 and D2.
23
Consequently, the average annual income of the beneficiary farmers at end line was Birr 4,0087.7 per 
household (Table 4). This means that the project beneficiary farmers, as a result of FEED III, increased
their overall average annual income by Birr 10,261.
In terms of proportion, FEED III enhanced total average annual income from all sources by 34.4 percent,
while the overall project’s contribution stands at 74.3 percent (Table 4). Survey results and statistical 
analysis (p<0.001) (Table 4) indicate that FEED III was successful in achieving its income objectives.
This finding was supported by qualitative studies in the intervention kebeles. For example, FGD 
participants from the Guangua Angoye kebele, Awabel woreda, and Yekeyit kebele acknowledged the 
positive contribution of FEED III training not only to improvement of earnings, but also overall well-being.
"Though it depends on the success of the person, the training is life-changing. Those 
who properly apply the principle of FEED III training accumulated wealth. We didn't 
have much to save, if we could see our life, so this time we have at least a bank account 
and savings.”
Moreover, we discovered that there are improved homes, clothing, and other aspects of their lives. As far 
as resilience, almost all participants acknowledged that while they do not have resources, they have 
alternatives to escape the crisis, signifying the positive role of FEED III.
Table 4. Total annual income per household (net benefit, contribution, and attribution)
Dataset Comparison groups
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
Baseline 22,789.3 32,501.9 13,722.9 23,004.5
End line
Beneficiary 43,616.3 41,581.3 35,126.4 40,087.7
Non-beneficiary 34,561.2 30,743.6 24,175.3 29,826.7
DIDa 9,055.1 10,837.6 10,951.0 10,261.0
FEED III contribution b 91.4% 27.9% 155.9% 74.3%
FEED III attribution c 26.2% 35.0% 45.3% 34.4%
t-test c 32.173 (.000)
t-test d 42.781 (.000)
a The difference between D1 (beneficiary baseline) and D2 (non-beneficiary group baseline) 
b
The difference between project beneficiary and baseline study as expressed in % 
c DID is divided by the non-beneficiary group as expressed in % 
c
t-test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation
d
t-test between baseline and end line data
3.2.1. Livestock Ownership 
With regards to livestock ownership, the average indigenous bull ownership per household in all regions 
is 2.4. The ownership of indigenous bulls was the same in all regions except SNNP. There, the number fell 
slightly to two indigenous bulls (Table 39, Annex A). Nearly the same pattern was observed in all regions
for crossbreed bull ownership. Indigenous cow ownership is an average of 2.13 for all regions and ranges,
from 2.6 in Amhara to 1.8 in SNNPR. Indigenous bull ownership was a 2.01 average in all regions at end 
line, which is a small decrease from the baseline due to destocking because of COVID-19. Ownership of 
24
indigenous bulls differs across regions, as compared to the baseline study (Table 39, Annex A). In relation 
to crossbreed bull ownership, almost the same trend was observed in all regions except Amhara, where 
average ownership was marginally higher than in the other two regions (0.36). An average value for 
indigenous cow possession reached 1.79 in all regions. Indigenous cow ownership varies from 2.09 in 
Amhara to 1.64 in SNNPR. 
3.3. Dairy Production and Value Chain 
3.3.1. Milk Production and Productivity 
Dairy is one of the main livestock production activities in Ethiopia. CSA data in 2018 indicates that out of 
60 million cattle, 12.4 million (21 percent) are milking cows and another 6.7 million (11 percent) are dairy 
cows. In 2020 the number increased to 65 million cattle, including 12.6 million milking cows and 7.2 million 
dairy cows. Livestock is one of the main sources of nutrition and income for smallholder farmers in 
Ethiopia. During the baseline in FEED III project regions, 45 percent of the households were engaged in 
dairy production (Table 5). After two and half years, the proportion of project beneficiaries engaged in 
dairy production increased to 51 percent. This indicates that FEED III contributed to the increase of dairy 
farmers by 13%. Considering non-beneficiaries, the project’s attribution is even higher. This is because, 
the proportion of non-beneficiary farmers engaged in dairy production declined to 33 percent at end line.
The implication is that the training, business linkages, experience sharing, and technical support extended 
during FEED III largely contributed to the increase in the proportion of farmers engaged in dairy 
production. According to information from FGDs and KIIs, feed supplies through unions and private feed 
processors and supplies of forage crops encouraged more farmers to engage in dairy farming. The major 
problem of dairy farmers is related to the supply of quality feed. If this problem is addressed in a 
sustainable way, it is likely that the number of dairy farmers will grow over time. The contribution and 
support of FEED III in this regard was recognized to be substantial. 
Table 5. Proportion of households engaged in dairy farming before and after the project
Regions Baseline (2018)
End line p-values
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara 47 50 36 0.001**
Oromia 48 46 37 0.048**
SNNP 51 57 27 0.000***
Total 45 51 33 -
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant at 5 percent significance level between beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary groups.
At baseline, households on average owned 1.4 lactating cows each for indigenous and crossbreds (Table 
6). At end line, there were fewer lactating cows, which may imply that at end line the cows were either 
pregnant or dry or their lactation period was short. FGD and KII participants noted the limited availability 
and inefficiency of the artificial insemination services, which could be one of the reasons why cows do not 
get pregnant and do not lactate on time. The alternative explanation is that the farmers have minimized 
25
their dairy herds because of the increased milk productivity from a smaller number of dairy cows. This is 
further explained below.
Table 6. Lactating cow ownership (no. of cows per household) over time and by type of breed
Region Type of breed Baseline 
End line 
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara Indigenous cows 1.5 1.4 1.8**
Crossbred cows 1.2 0.4** 0.1
Oromia Indigenous cows 1.5 1.3 1.5
Crossbred cows 1.5 0.5** 0.2
SNNP Indigenous cows 1.3 1.2 1.4
Crossbred cows 1.2 0.6** 0.3
Total Indigenous cows 1.4 1.3 1.6
Crossbred cows 1.4 0.5 0.2
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant at 5 percent significance level between beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary groups.
In this evaluation we estimated the average milk yield by dividing total milk production per day by the 
number of cows milked (milk per day per cow). Before the project intervention, the productivity of 
crossbred cows was 2.20 liters per day per cow. After the project intervention, the productivity of 
crossbred cows for beneficiary households was raised to 4.11 liters per day per cow (Table 7). This 
indicates that FEED III contributed to enhancing the productivity of crossbred cows by 87 percent
compared to baseline. A similar trend was observed in all the study regions. During the life of the project, 
the productivity of crossbred cows for non-beneficiary farmers was 3.38 liters per day per cow. This 
implies that the net contribution or attribution of FEED III in enhancing milk productivity of crossbred cows 
was 22 percent.
According to the FGDs and KIIs, FEED III interventions on increasing the knowledge and skills of dairy 
farmers in managing crossbred cows has largely contributed to the enhanced milk productivity. Apart 
from this, the supplies of concentrate feeds from unions and private enterprises and access to forage 
crops have contributed to the increased milk productivity of crossbred cows for beneficiaries compared 
to the baseline and their non-beneficiary counterparts. Still, the average milk productivity of crossbred 
cows can be enhanced further by intensifying dairy management practices and supplying the required 
inputs on a sustainable basis. Dairy farmers also require close technical support of agriculture experts to 
address emerging problems on time. 
Table 7. Milk productivity (liter/day/cow) before and after project intervention
Region Breed type Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara Indigenous 1.32 1.36** 0.98
Crossbred 2.39 3.51 1.58
Oromia Indigenous 1.43 2.30 1.62
Crossbred 1.67 3.49** 1.96
26
Region Breed type Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
SNNP Indigenous 1.80 2.34 1.76
Crossbred 2.53 4.85 5.05
Total Indigenous 1.51 1.99** 1.42
Crossbred 2.20 4.11 3.38
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant at 5 percent significance level between beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary groups.
Average lactation period is another important indicator of dairy productivity. At the start of the FEED III 
project, the average lactation period of crossbred cows was 6.5 months. After project interventions, the 
period increased to 8.7 months for beneficiary farmers (Table 8). This indicates that FEED III contributed 
to the increase of lactation period of crossbred cows in beneficiary households by 34 percent. A similar 
trend was observed for beneficiary households, especially in the Amhara and Oromia regions. Knowledge 
and skills enhanced by the project largely contributed to the increased lactation period of crossbred cows
in beneficiary households. Supply of concentrate feed made by the feed processing enterprises and the 
distribution of forage seeds and seedlings also contributed to the increased lactation period of crossbred 
cows. 
Table 8: Average lactation period (months) over single lactation period by breed and time
Region Breed type Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara Indigenous cow 8.2 7.7 8.3
Crossbred cow 5.2 8.4 6.7
Oromia Indigenous cow 5.7 7.8 7.8
Crossbred cow 4.9 8.9 8.0
SNNP Indigenous cow 7.6 8.2 8.4
Crossbred cow 9.2 8.9 9.5
Total Indigenous cow 7.2 7.9 8.1
Crossbred cow 6.5 8.7 8.6
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant at 5 percent significance level between beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary groups.
In general, from the above analysis, we can see that for the treated households, the proportion of dairy 
households increased, cows per household decreased, and milk per cow and lactation period increased. 
In addition, the data indicate a 35 percent increase in total milk produced by project beneficiaries involved 
in dairy. It is a staggering 125 percent more than non-beneficiaries, as the numbers indicate total milk 
production for non-beneficiary farmers went down substantially relative to baseline. This indicates the 
dairy cows became more productive, and farmers chose to keep fewer dairy cows per head because higher 
production from a lesser number of cows is better than keeping a greater number of dairy cows. This 
indicates the project has contributed to increasing the efficiency of the dairy farmers in addition to 
increasing production and productivity.
27
3.3.2. Dairy Animal Feeding Practices
Quality dairy animal feed is one of the primary determinants of animal productivity and health. However, 
shortage of quality dairy animal feed is one of the primary constraints of the sector in the country. 
Cognizant of this, FEED III promoted improved dairy animal feed over the life of project. As presented in 
Table 9, the proportion of farmers who sourced concentrated feed at baseline was 11 percent. At end 
line, this proportion increased to 19 percent. This indicates that FEED III contributed to the increment of 
farmers who use concentrate feeds by 73 percent, compared to baseline. Similarly, the project 
contributed to the increment of dairy farmers who use agro-industrial by-products by 16 percent and 
green forages by 39 percent. FEED III interventions contributed to the increased use of quality feed in the 
intervention areas. Beneficiary farmers clearly demonstrated the application of knowledge and skills 
gained from project training, experience sharing visits, B2B linkages, and trade fairs. 
Table 9. Feed sources of dairy cows before and after the project (% of households)
Feed sources Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Dairy concentrate feed 11 19 6
Agro-industrial by-products (wheat bran, noug 
cake, etc.)
25 29 14
Other high-quality feed (Atela, grains) 27 46 45
Green forage, grass, hay, silage 62 86 86
Crop residue (teff, wheat, maize, and others) 81 73 79
Other 5 2 0
In terms of feeding practices, the data show that 65 percent of the dairy farmers were using a feeding 
trough before the project (Table 10). At end line, feeding practices were about the same among the 
beneficiary farmers. In the case of water troughs, FEED III contributed to increasing the proportion of 
beneficiary dairy farmers using water troughsfrom 48 percent at baseline to 62 percent at end line, which 
is a 29 percent contribution. 
The proportion of non-beneficiary farmers using water troughs at end line was also higher (54 percent) 
compared to baseline. This implies that FEED III raised the numbers of dairy farmers using water troughs
by 15 percent, which is attributed to the project. The project’s trainings and experience sharing visits have 
contributed to improved dairy management practices, including feeding practices, by dairy farmers.
Table 10. Feeding practices (% of households using different type of feeding practice for dairy cows)
Dairy feeding practice Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Feeding trough 65 61 52
Water trough 48 62 54
Other (none) 29 31 42
Regarding feed treatment methods, the proportion of farmers using cut and carry practice was 65 percent
at baseline (Table 11) and 80 percent at end line for beneficiary farmers. This indicates that FEED III 
28
contributed to the increase in beneficiary dairy farmers using cut and carry feeding practices by 23
percent. Since the proportion of non-beneficiary farmers at end line is the same as at baseline, the 
project’s attribution to the increase in dairy farmers adopting a cut and carry practice is also 23 percent. 
At baseline, the proportion of farmers using crop residue treatment was 67 percent. However, this 
proportion declined to 42 percent at end line. This indicates that the proportion of dairy farmers treating 
straw with urea declined by 37 percent after project interventions. This might be because they shifted to 
concentrate feed and forage, the practices promoted by FEED III. Some of the beneficiary dairy farmers 
also shifted to use cut and carry feeding practices. 
Table 11. Physical and chemical treatment of dairy feed practiced by farmers (%)
Treatment methods used Baseline
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Cut and carry 65 80 65
Crop residue treatment 67 42 36
Chopping 0 37 26
Do not know or did not use 16 8 18
3.3.3. Livestock Product Marketing
Selling livestock products is a common practice in rural areas. As illustrated in Table 12, the proportion of 
dairy farmers selling milk in three of the study regions was 17 percent at baseline and 28 percent at end 
line, for the beneficiary farmers (Table 12). The proportion of non-beneficiary farmers selling milk was 
about the same at baseline and end line. This implies that the proportion of the beneficiary dairy farmers 
selling milk increased by 65 percent, which is attributed to FEED III interventions. Similar trends are true 
for butter and cheese. 
The proportion of dairy farmers selling butter was 27 percent at baseline and 60 percent at end line, which 
is a 122 percent project contribution. The proportion of non-beneficiary dairy farmers selling butter at 
end line was 51 percent, also significantly higher than at baseline. This implies that an 18 percent increase 
in beneficiary dairy farmers selling butter can be attributed to the project. The project contributed to an 
increase in cheese sellers from 4 percent at baseline to 21 percent at end line. Since 14 percent of the 
non-beneficiary dairy farmers also sold cheese at end line, FEED III attribution is 50 percent. Apart from 
the project contribution, the proportion of farmers selling livestock products is also increasing because of 
the growing demand for dairy products in urban areas, the rising prices of dairy products, and the 
increasing market orientation of smallholder farmers, among other factors.
There was a large variability among the study regions in selling dairy products. While selling dairy products 
is becoming common in the Oromia and SNNP regions, it is not yet common in Amhara. For instance, the 
proportion of dairy farmers selling milk at baseline was 16 percent for Oromia, 27 percent for SNNP, and
5 percent for Amhara (Table 12). Even after the project interventions, the proportion of farmers selling 
milk in Amhara showed only a minor improvement from 5 to 6 percent. This might be because of the 
29
bigger distance in Amhara between dairy farms and urban centers and towns with large demand for dairy 
products. Inadequate marketable surplus is another reason for many farmers not yet selling milk. 
Table 12. Proportion of households selling dairy products before and after project interventions
Region Milk product Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara Milk 5 6 3
Butter 9 46 44
Cheese 2 3 0
Oromia Milk 26 14 3
Butter 32 69 54
Cheese 9 35 33
SNNP Milk 27 56 49
Butter 33 66 69
Cheese 4 35 50
Total Milk 17 28 16
Butter 27 60 51
Cheese 4 21 14
The quantities of dairy products sold substantially increased from the baseline in all regions. As revealed 
in Table 13, dairy farmers from all regions sold 611 liters of milk per annum at baseline, and 931 liters per 
annum for the beneficiary households and 550 liters for non-beneficiary households at end line. This 
indicates that the project increased the quantity of milk sold by beneficiary farmers by 52 percent from 
the baseline, and by 92 percent from the non-beneficiary groups. This difference between the baseline 
and end line values for milk sales is statistically significant. The same trend holds true for butter and 
cheese. 
In the Oromia region, households sold 339 liters of milk per annum at baseline and 1,090 liters for the 
beneficiary farmers and 110 liters for non-beneficiary farmers at end line (Table 13). Overall, FEED III 
contributed to an increase in the quantity of milk sold by beneficiary farmers compared to the baseline 
and non-beneficiary groups. FEED III’s trainings and experience sharing visits enhanced not only the 
quantities of dairy products sold, but also improved farmers’ attitudes toward marketing and benefiting
from dairy products. The business orientation of the beneficiary farmers improved over the life of the 
project, which is witnessed by increased participation in dairy markets.
Table 13. Quantity of livestock products sold per annum by the households (kg or liter)
Region 
Livestock product 
name Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Amhara Milk (liters) 639.0 731.4 550.0 
Butter (kg) 4.1 10.3 6.2 
Cheese (kg) 3.8 48.7 -
Oromia Milk (liters) 339.0 1,090.2*** 110.0 
Butter (kg) 5.8 31.2** 28.9 
Cheese (kg) 22.6 180.9** 125.2 
SNNP Milk (liters) 853.7 916.3 511.7 
Butter (kg) 2.9 46.2** 29.8 
30
Region 
Livestock product 
name Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Cheese (kg) 3.1 76.8 57.5 
Total Milk (liters) 610.8 931.3 484.8 
Butter (kg) 4.3 26.5 18.5 
Cheese (kg) 14.6 148.0 112.9 
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant between the baseline and end line values at 1, 5, and 
10 percent significance levels, respectively.
Apart from selling crops and live animals, rural households supplement their on-farm incomes by selling
dairy products. Dairy farmers in all study regions dramatically increased their incomes from the sale of 
dairy products during the project. In the case of milk, the overall sample households generated Birr 5,679 
from the sale of milk at baseline, and Birr 15,591 for the intervention group and Birr 9,595 for the non￾beneficiary group at end line (Table 14). This implies that FEED III helped the beneficiary farmers enhance 
their incomes from milk sales by about Birr 6,000 compared to the non-beneficiary group (Table 14). In 
the same way, FEED III contributed to the increased farmer income from butter and cheese by increasing 
the proportion of beneficiary farmers selling butter by 11 percent and cheese by 14 percent, which is 
directly attributed to the project interventions. Similar trends hold true for all study regions. 
The project interventions largely contributed to enhancing on-farm incomes of the beneficiary farmers. 
Training, experience sharing visits, and business linkages created during the project have largely 
contributed to enhancing the business orientation of the farmers and participation in markets. This was 
witnessed by the increased incomes of the beneficiary dairy farmers.
Table 14. Annual average income (Birr/annum) earned from dairy products during baseline and end line
Regions Livestock products Baseline End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara Milk 6,182 16,984*** 8,250 
Butter 739 2,055 2,407 
Cheese 86 1,353 -
Oromia Milk 5,028 21,678 *** 3,210 
Butter 973 2,991 2,937 
Cheese 1,439 2,773** 2,252 
SNNP Milk 6,184 14,191** 10,267 
Butter 502 4,094*** 2,722 
Cheese 164 3,933 4,225 
Total Milk 5,679 15,591*** 9,595 
Butter 730 2,979* 2,693 
Cheese 901 2,966* 2,611 
***, **, and * indicate the difference is statistically significant between the baseline and end line values at 1, 5, and 
10 percent significance levels, respectively.
The choice of market outlets for dairy products is as diversified as crops. As presented in Table 15, 56
percent of the farmers sold dairy products in local markets at baseline. At end line, the proportion of dairy 
31
farmers selling dairy products in local markets increased to 89 percent. This indicates that FEED III 
contributed to the increase in farmers selling dairy products in local markets by 59 percent. Even though 
less dramatically, the numbers of the beneficiary farmers selling dairy products at farm gate and through 
milk collection centers have also increased over the life of the project. This is evidence that market 
linkages created through trade fairs and B2B events contributed to the increased participation of the 
beneficiary farmers in markets. 
Table 15. Dairy products selling places (%)
Market places for dairy 
products Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Farm gate 6 13 12
Local market 56 89 90
Co-op/Union 0.3 2 0
Milk collection business 1.2 5 3
Milk processors 0.8 0.3 0
Other 0.5 2 0
3.3.4. Gender Role in Dairy Production 
In Ethiopia, there is a gendered division of labor in most agricultural production systems, in which the 
livestock sector is not an exception. The end line data shows improvements in the engagement of women 
in some dairy production activities, while there are no significant changes in other activities (Table 50, 
Annex A). Before project interventions, the involvement of women in many dairy activities was limited 
because they did not have opportunities to get improved management practices. 
During FEED III project interventions, focus was provided to women to enhance their knowledge and skills 
in improved dairy management practices. Women received trainings on various activities of dairy 
production. Because of this, the participation of women substantially increased in many dairy 
management activities during the project period. For instance, the proportion of women engaged in 
feeding cows was only 23 percent at baseline and 85 percent at end line. At baseline, 56 percent of women 
participated in cleaning of cows. At end line, this proportion increased to 93 percent, indicating the 
project’s contributions to increasing the role of women in dairy production.
Note that increased involvement of women in livestock activities does not necessarily mean that women 
have benefited from them. In fact, increased involvement implies more work for women. However, some 
activities, like participation in selling of livestock products and decision-making over them, can positively 
contribute to women’s welfare.
The engagement of women in dairy management activities was also enormous for women farmers drawn 
from non-beneficiary households. In most of the activities, the engagement of women from beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary households was observed to be similar at the end of the project. This might be 
attributed to a spillover effect of the project within the project implementation woredas. Information 
32
exchange among women is believed to be high, because they meet frequently during social events and 
discuss training received and experience sharing visits.
In the context of Ethiopia, there are several informal community organizations established for various 
purposes, such as for get-together celebrations, to set labor arrangement mechanisms, to establish social 
supports, and to commence group savings. These platforms bring the members together at least once a 
week, allow them to discuss and share information about new events, technologies, and practices, and 
support the members who face problems. During those meetings, these organizations are essential 
avenues for resolving community disputes and spilling over new information from the source to other 
participants, whether project beneficiaries or not. It is also common for the participants (relatives and 
friends) who came from far away locations to participate in those events and learn new information and 
practices. It is likely that most participants apply the new information and practices when they return 
home. 
Figure 1. Gender roles in decision-making of dairy products sale
Decision-making is an important role played by household members in the project areas. As illustrated in 
Figure 1, involvement of women in decision-making was 25 percent before FEED III interventions. After 
creating awareness on the importance of engaging women in decision-making, the proportion of women 
engaged in decision-making of dairy product sales increased to 40 percent. This indicates that FEED III 
contributed to the increased proportion of women engaged in decision-making by 60 percent. Even 
though joint decision-making is still dominant, the engagement of women in decision-making is increasing 
over time. 
3.3.5. Challenges in Dairy Production 
The baseline evaluation identified several problems which limit dairy production and productivity, as 
presented in Table 16. The same problems were assessed at end line. The prevalence of the problems 
declined over the life of the project in intervention and non-intervention areas. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Beneficiary Control
Baseline Endline
25
40 37
3
10
14
59
50 49
% of households
Mainly women Mainly men
Both men & women jointly
33
For instance, shortage of concentrate feed was a problem for 59 percent of the farmers at baseline, and 
for 50 percent of the farmers at end line in intervention and non-beneficiary areas. For other problems 
listed in the table except access to credit and lack of technical knowledge on dairy management, there is 
no notable difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary areas even though there is a decrease 
from the baseline. 
This could be because of the spillover effect of the project as the non-beneficiary kebeles (villages) are 
within the same woredas4
(districts) and most of the problems mentioned are faced at the community or 
woreda level. Beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers are from the same districts (woredas) but different 
villages (kebeles). There is high likelihood that non-beneficiary farmers in the same woreda but in different 
villages access or benefit from woreda-level interventions, such as availing feed supplies and introducing 
new feed. For some problems, the reduction can be because of other factors than the project 
interventions. 
However, it is important to mention the tremendous contribution of the project to enhancing the 
knowledge and skills of dairy farmers. At baseline, the proportion of farmers having limited knowledge 
and skills of improved dairy management practices was 40 percent, which reduced to 10 percent for the 
beneficiary areas and to 16 percent for the non-beneficiary areas at end line. The difference from the 
baseline and from the non-beneficiary groups is statistically significant at a 5 percent significance level.
This implies that FEED III managed to reduce the knowledge gap of the beneficiary dairy farmers by 38
percent, which can be attributed to project interventions.
These findings provide clear evidence that FEED III contributed to the reduction of many problems 
reported in the dairy sector. The project’s engagement with feed manufacturing enterprises largely 
contributed not only to the increased availability of the concentrate feed, but also to the reduction of 
prices. Training and experience sharing visits related to improved dairy management practices also 
contributed to the reduction of other problems, such as animal diseases. Increased business orientation 
of dairy farmers also contributed to increased access to credit for productive investments.
Table 16. Trends of dairy production problems in the project periods
Problems reported Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Shortage of concentrate feed 59 50 49
Land problem/limited land size 56 48 48
Disease prevalence 30 22 27
Lack of crossbred cows 33 31 34
Lack of cooling and storage facilities at 
milk vending sites
17 12 11
Water availability problem 27 13 16
Low milk price 23 20 18
High concentrate feed price 51 40 33
Lack of knowledge for modern dairy cow 
management
40 10 16**
4 Ethiopia has a four-tier administrative structure that runs from Federal, Regions, Zones (nominal in some 
regions), Woreda (district), and Kebele.
34
Problems reported Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Limited access to credit 27 15** 9
Other 4 1.3 2.2
** indicates the difference is significant between beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. NB: The difference 
between baseline and end line is statistically significant for all variables. 
3.3.6. Adoption of Improved Dairy Feed 
Improved dairy feed is very important for animal productivity. However, in Ethiopia the use of improved 
feed in dairy production is constrained by lack of supply, high prices, and awareness about it. FEED III 
trained stakeholders on quality dairy feed and facilitated its supply in the beneficiary areas. Table 17 
indicates that the purchase of concentrate feed slightly increased over time. However, a higher proportion 
of farmers in beneficiary areas adopted dairy concentrate feed than in non-beneficiary areas. The table 
below shows there was a decrease in concentrate feed use in non-beneficiary areas, but the project 
prevented that decrease in beneficiary areas. 
Table 17. Experience of purchasing dairy concentrate feed before and after the project
Regions Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara 19 18** 6
Oromia 17 7 5
SNNP 42 48** 16
Total 25 26** 8
** indicates the difference is significant between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group
Qualitative data indicates that FEED III introduced new technologies in dairy production, training on
animal feeding, improving livestock production via improved feed management, animal feed preparation, 
concentrated feed, forage production, and maximizing animal productivity. The different types of forage 
provided to the beneficiaries were: Suspania, Rodes grass, elephant grass, and Dismodium in all 
intervention regions. As the FGD participant said, “After we were trained by the FEED III project, we started 
to feed concentrate feed to our cattle.” Consequently, there is a visible change in livestock production 
because of the training by FEED III. Most participants in FGDs agreed that there has been a dramatic 
change in animal feeding and forage production and preservation. This sentiment from the FGD 
participants was reinforced by key informants from the regional office as provided below: 
“Before the training, the community knew nothing about improved forage types. There was only crop by￾product to feed animals. After the training, they are demanding us to supply concentrate feed. The 
training also makes our task to introduce new technologies in livestock very easy. Now what is expected 
from us is supplying improved forage species and concentrate feed based on their interest.”
—Key informant from Region Livestock Development Agency
Concentrate feed is also available at the local level. For example, an agro-dealer in Chagni town, Guangua 
woreda distributes concentrate feed from Admas union. Gozamin union in Debre Markos town, east 
Gojjam, distributes concentrate feed to adjacent woredas, including Awabel. 
35
In addition to access, the farmers also reported that while deemed essential, the price of the concentrate 
feed is high. The FGD participants reported that when they feed cows the concentrate feed, they produce 
more milk. As the FGD participants noted, because of the new technologies provided by FEED III, the 
farmers in the area secured animal feeding and received adequate income from livestock products like 
milk and butter.
According to the data, women are also involved in animal feed preparation, fattening, and dairy practices 
and are getting adequate income from livestock production. According to a male FGD participant’s
response, “Women are gifted in taking care of animals.” Therefore, women feed animals on time and 
every activity in animal feeding is left for women. The only task of men is to harvest grass and bring it 
home. 
3.3.7. Access to Concentrate Feed 
Access to the feed is important for the adoption of improved animal feed. One of the measures of access 
is how the project improved the availability of the concentrate feed nearby. The data indicated a reduction 
in walking time to the closest dairy concentrate feed outlet in the beneficiary areas. For example, at 
baseline, an average dairy farmer walked more than one hour (70 minutes) to a concentrate feed supplier 
(Table 18). This time reduced to 47 minutes at end line, which is a 31% reduction. The reduction is the 
highest in Oromia at 56%.
Table 18. Average distance to concentrate feed sales point in walking minutes
Region Baseline 
End line 
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Amhara 55 51 108
Oromia 78 34 43
SNNP 74 47 65
Total 70 47 72
To further explore farmers’ perceptions on the adequacy of the feed distribution channels, 14 percent of 
the farmers reported that feed distribution channels were adequate at baseline and 28 percent at end 
line (Table 19). This is clear evidence of the project’s contribution to enhancing the availability of feed and 
feed distribution channels. This trend was true in all study regions. 
In addition to physical availability, farmers were also asked whether they have access to dairy feed market 
information. The result indicates that the proportion of farmers, especially in the Oromia region, who
accessed dairy feed market information tripled from 33 percent at baseline to 92 percent at end line. In 
other regions, the trend was declining. This may be because once the farmers received information from 
training and experience sharing visits, they may not tend to look for other sources.
Towards the end of the project, the main sources of dairy feed market information for beneficiary farmers 
were fellow farmers (41 percent), development agents (34 percent), and feed suppliers (41 percent), 
which have improved their delivery of information to dairy farmers compared to baseline.
36
Table 19. Perception of dairy farmers on the availability of concentrate feeds and feed market information 
(%)
Regions Baseline 
End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary 
Proportion of farmers who reported feed distribution channels are adequate (%)
Amhara 28 38 25
Oromia 18 50 100
SNNP 0 22 25
Total 14 28 40
Proportion of farmers who access dairy feed market information (%)
Amhara 40 31 0
Oromia 33 92 67
SNNP 83 40 38
Total 55 43 33
Source of information (%)
Local feed traders 58 18 40
Feed suppliers 15 41 40
Development Agents 10 34 60
Fellow farmers 6 41 60
Community meeting 7 18 0
3.4. Animal Fattening and Value Chain 
3.4.1. Animal Fattening
Participation by beneficiary households in animal fattening was one of the main contributors to the 
diversification of livelihoods across regions. The data showed that 31.4 percent of households were 
engaged in animal fattening at baseline and 29.2 percent of the sample (N=1,084) for the beneficiary 
households and 20.1 percent for non-beneficiary households in all regions at end line (Table 20). Hence, 
the participation in animal fattening was seriously affected by the pandemic, as inferred from the FGDs. 
On this account, the percentage difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households was 
statistically significant (p<0.01), implying the role of FEED III in engaging households in animal fattening 
as one of the livelihood diversifications activities through the provision of feed management training 
(Table 20).
Table 20. Percentage of households reporting participation in animal fattening
Time Comparison groups
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All regions 
Baseline 34.4 30.3 29.4 31.4
End line Beneficiary 49.0 21.9 17.0 29.2
Non-beneficiary 33.5 18.1 8.8 20.1
Chi-Square a 6.950 (.008)
Chi-Square b
.043 (.835)
a
chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation
37
b
chi-square test between baseline and end line data
Table 40, Annex A,shows that 58 percent of households reported buying animals for fattening at baseline. 
At end line, the number of households purchasing animals for fattening was 179 (56.5 percent) for 
beneficiary and 63 (20.1 percent) for non-beneficiary households in all regions. This percentage varied
from 82 percent in SNNP to 17 percent in Oromia, reflecting regional variations. To this end, there is no 
significant difference between baseline and end line studies, in general, and beneficiary and non￾beneficiary households. 
3.4.2. Access to Training for Animal Fattening 
On the question of whether farmers have received training on animal fattening over the last 12 months, 
only 24.2 percent said yes at baseline. The government provided training for farmers in all regions except 
SNNPR, where some training was provided by private entities. The figure significantly increased across 
regions by end line. While the proportion of the project participants who received training in animal 
fattening increased to 93.7 percent, it reduced to 14.55 percent for non-project participants (Table 41, 
Annex A). 
Poor access to markets, along with other factors which deterred farmers from engaging in animal 
fattening at baseline, was largely addressed by FEED III across regions. This is demonstrated by a 
statistically significant difference between the baseline and end line studies (p<0.001), in general, and 
between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, in particular (p<0.001) (Table 41 Annex A).
Qualitative research also supported this finding. For example, a behavior change among the farmers is 
essential to the success of an initiative. Very few households were aware of forage and animal feed prior 
to training. After training, not only trained people, but also their neighbors and community are adopting 
new practices in forage and livestock production. Moreover, as conveyed by KII participants from the zonal 
and regional livestock offices, in addition to forage, the training included fattening, dairy, and poultry 
activities. Thus, “The training had a dimension that made the community and our expertise informed of 
techniques to improve fattening, dairy, and poultry productivity. The trainees are most successful in 
fattening, especially fattening of oxen.”
3.4.3. Purchase of Animal Concentrate Feed
About 40.6 percent of the households that participate in fattening across three target regions purchased 
animal concentrate feed at baseline and 33.4 percent of the project beneficiaries at end line (p<0.05)
(Table 42, Annex A). The shift may indicate an increase in purchasing factory by-products to fatten animals, 
which is attributed to training and support of the communities by FEED III, including video-assisted 
training, promotion of the concentrate feed, forage seed distribution, and improved forage technology. 
On the other hand, the overall reduction in the purchase of the concentrate feed for fattening is simply 
because fewer HHs are fattening animals. 
At baseline, 14 percent of households across all target regions reported that feed distribution channels 
were adequate. At end line, 43 households (40.6 percent) reported them as adequate. The percentage 
38
difference between the two datasets is statistically significant (p<0.001) (Table 43, Annex A). Likewise, the 
percentage difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households is statistically significant 
(p<0.001), suggesting that FEED III contributed to the expansion of feed outlets via participating farmer 
cooperatives and unions within the project intervention areas (Figure 2 and 3). 
Figure 2. Dairy products and installed molasses tanker at Merkeb Union in Bahardar
A) Merkeb Union Bahir Dar; B) Installed Molasses Tanker
39
Figure 3. Upgraded conveyer in Amhara Region
3.4.4. Major Challenges Faced in Animal Fattening 
Inadequacies in animal feed supply resulting from droughts and land use changes were identified as a 
major problem faced by animal fatteners across the regions at baseline via a multiple response survey. 
The second most frequently recorded problem with respect to animal fattening was inadequate animal 
health facilities. Limited animal health services were registered by 131 households in Amhara, 109 in 
SNNPR, and 99 in Oromia. The third biggest problem was competition between formal and informal 
traders (Table 44, Annex A). 
The end line study reported an improvement in the concentrate feed quality and supply, and high 
concentrate feed prices remaining a problem. The latter may be due to inflation and severe currency 
shortages for some imported equipment. In support of this finding, one of the key informants in Awabel 
woreda noted that, “The main problem in the livestock sector is the problem of feed. Animal fattening is 
still traditional, and the relevant stakeholders have not given due consideration.”
Despite this, the percentage difference between the two datasets and groups of households (beneficiary 
vs. non-beneficiary) in major challenges for concentrated feed to animal fattening, suggest that FEED III 
had impactful interventions. The project was successful at promoting participation by farm households in
fattening as a viable livelihood option. 
3.4.5. Coping Strategies for Feed Problems of Fattening Animals
Farmers reported using different strategies to compensate for inadequate supply of concentrated feed, 
including the use of other feed materials (78), shifting to own production (43), and reducing feed quantity 
(16). In a multiple response survey at baseline, the consequences of inadequate supply of concentrated 
40
feed were stated as a decrease of fattening income (118), a decrease of fattened animals (81), and a 
decrease in meat quality (71).
At end line, the percentage of households who cope by reducing the amount of feed provided to fattening
animals decreased to 7.7 percent, while those who cope by changing to their own production increased 
to 67.7 percent and those who use other feed materials decreased to 23.1 percent. On this account, the 
percentage differences between the two datasets and groups of households (beneficiary vs. non￾beneficiary) in response to feed shortages for animal fattening was positive (Table 45, Annex A), indicating 
that FEED III was successful in achieving its intended objective. This is because, following FEED III training, 
beneficiary households gained expertise in producing their own feed. This implies the overall impact of 
the project in its intervention regions.
With regards to affordability of the concentrate feed for fattening animals, 11.5 percent reported it as 
affordable at baseline, and 23.6 percent of beneficiaries and 14.3 percent of non-beneficiaries at end line
(Table 46, Annex A). In view of this, the interview participants noted that, “The price of the products is a 
result of the rise in prices of raw materials.” 
In addition, according to Gozamin Union, the price of processed feed increased from Birr 550 (2016) to 
Birr 1,200 (2020) per quintal. Moreover, the average selling price in all unions became Birr 1,200, which 
is in line with the general price trend in the country. For example, immediately after the devaluation of 
Birr on October 10, 2017, the prices of almost all commodities and services sharply increased and resulted 
in a rise in the general price level (Korsa & Rajan 2018). Specifically, inflation measured in terms of the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 3.4 percentage points from 12.2 percent in October 2017 to 15.6 
percent in February 2018 (Central Statistical Agency (CSA) 2018). However, compared to the benefit of 
feed and the high customer demand, perhaps it was argued that the products are affordable since the 
demand was rising despite the rising prices over the last three years. 
3.4.6. Price Fluctuation of Concentrate Feed for Fattening Animals
Price fluctuations of the concentrate feed for fattening animals are summarized in Table 47, Annex A. At 
baseline, 89 percent of households reported price fluctuations, versus 71.7 percent at end line for 
beneficiaries and 71.4 percent for non-beneficiaries. Because the percentage difference between the two 
datasets is statistically significant (p<0.01), it signifies the effect of FEED III on price stability through 
various interventions, including establishing and supporting feed manufacturers and expanding feed 
distribution networks over the course of the project. 
3.4.7. Feed Quality Check Methods 
The proportion of farmers that check feed quality was 64.3 percent at baseline and 61.3 percent at end 
line (Table 48, Annex A). The reduction is not statistically significant at 5 percent significance level,
indicating no change in the proportion of farmers that practiced feed quality checking between the two 
periods. 
41
Table 49, Annex A shows that about 97 percent of those who checked feed quality at baseline did so 
through physical detection using indigenous knowledge, which is about the same as the proportion of 
non-beneficiary households at end line. For the beneficiaries, however, the percentage difference 
between the baseline and end line study was positive, indicating that the project beneficiary households 
used different approaches than those before FEED III interventions.
3.5. Poultry Production and Value Chain
3.5.1. Poultry Production
Poultry is one of the value chains that FEED III focused on over the last three years. The project supported 
poultry farmers in enhancing the practice of purchasing and utilizing commercial feeds. In Ethiopia, 
poultry products are mainly produced for sale to supplement farmers’ on-farm income. At baseline, most 
farmers sold poultry products directly to customers. However, at end line, most farmers sold directly to 
retail traders. For instance, in Amhara, the proportion of households who sold to retail outlets was 10
percent at baseline and 63 percent at end line (Table 21). The same trend holds true for Oromia and SNNP. 
However, the differences between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households were not statistically 
significant in all the study regions. This implies that the spillover effect benefited non-beneficiary 
households who established linkages with different markets with which they can negotiate better prices. 
This also indicates the increased market orientation of poultry farmers because of direct and indirect 
project support. 
Table 21. Poultry production market outlet for baseline and beneficiary households (% of respondents)
Market outlets Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baselin
e
Ben* Non￾ben
Baselin
e
Ben Non￾ben
Baselin
e
Ben Non￾ben
Consumers 83 31 26 57 38 35 44 33 33
Small retail outlets 10 63 65 40 60 65 44 67 67
Others 7 6 9 3 3 0 13 0 0
Chi-square (X2
)-test P=0.114 P=0.430 P=0.968
 *Ben = Beneficiaries; Non-ben = non-beneficiaries
The farmers owned different types of chicken, including layers and broilers. Improvements are also 
observed over time in the project areas in the ownership status of different types of chicken. As revealed 
in Table 22, at baseline, poultry farmers owned a total of 4.6 chicken on average. After FEED III 
interventions, the average ownership of chicken for beneficiary farmers increased to 11.4, which indicates 
the contribution of the FEED III project by 148 percent compared to baseline. However, to figure out the 
attribution of FEED III, we need to apply the DID approach by considering the ownership status of non￾beneficiary farmers. Accordingly, an average ownership of non-beneficiary farmers at end line was 9.2 
chickens. This means the non-beneficiary farmers were able to increase chicken ownership by 4.6 on 
average without participation in the project. In terms of scale, FEED III exclusively enhanced ownership of 
beneficiary farmers by 2.2 chicken on average. In terms of proportion, FEED III enhanced chicken 
ownership status of all breeds by 24 percent.
42
From the perspective of improved chicken ownership, the findings revealed that total households on 
average owned 1.6 improved chickens at baseline. At end line, average ownership of improved chickens
by beneficiary households was increased to 8.2, which indicates the contribution of the project by more 
than five-fold. On the other hand, ownership status of non-beneficiary farmers who did not receive any 
project support, reached 5.6 improved chickens. This implies that FEED III impacted beneficiary farmers 
to increase improved chicken ownership by three on average. This also means that FEED III increased 
improved chicken ownership of participant farmers by 54 percent. 
Moreover, at baseline, households owned 2.0 improved layers and at end line, beneficiary households 
owned 5.9 and non-beneficiary households owned 4.1 improved layers. In terms of scale, FEED III 
impacted participant farmers to increase the number of improved layers owned by 1.8 on average. In 
terms of proportion, the project enhanced improved layers ownership of participant farmers by 44
percent. Other project effects can be interpreted in similar ways. 
Non-beneficiary farmers demonstrated similar improvements as beneficiaries, mainly due to spillover
effects, as described during FGD and KII discussion with men and women groups. This was noticed by 
statistically non-significant variations between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in many 
parameters in the regions. The interventions made in the earlier phases of FEED projects (i.e., FEED I and 
FEED II), also contributed to FEED III achievements.
43
Table 22. Average number of household poultry ownership by region, 2020
Poultry type Breed
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
BL
End line
BL
End line
BL
End line
BL
End line
Ben
N￾ben
t-test (P￾value)
Ben
N￾ben
t-test (P￾value)
Ben
N￾ben
t-test 
(P￾value) Ben
N￾ben
t-test (P￾value)
Layers
Local 3.4 4.4 4.1 0.68ns 3.4 4.2 3.9 0.65ns 1.6 3.7 4.5 0.49ns 2.4 4.3 4.1 0.69
Improved 1.9 5.4 3.6 0.15ns 0.7 6.5 4.2 0.47ns 1.3 5.6 5.1 0.78ns 2 5.9 4.1 0.02*
Broilers
Local 1.2 3.4 2.8 0.46ns 0.7 4.8 2.1 0.41 1.1 4.5 1.7 0.19 0.9 4 2.4 0.01*
Improved 0.1 4.4 1.2 0.19 0 3.9 2 0.25 0.4 4.2 4.5 0.90 0.6 4.2 2.4 0.03*
Female chickens 
(over 3 months of 
age not laying -
Pullet)
Local 1.1 3.5 3.7 0.79 1.9 5 3.5 0.51 0.4 2.1 2.4 0.68 1 3.5 3.3 0.78
Improved 
0.1 4.3 4 0.82 0.4 10.4 5 0.28 0.4 3.2 6.3 0.36 0.4 5.7 5.2 0.81
Male chickens 
(over 3 months of 
age)
Local 0.5 5.9 3.5 0.25 1 2.6 1.5 0.22 0.4 1 1.5 0.18 0.6 5.5 3.2 0.23
Improved 0 3.7 1.2 0.04* 0.1 5.1 1 - 0.3 3.2 3.6 0.84 0.2 3.9 2.1 0.08
Chicks (up to 3 
months of age)
Local 2.3 8.2 8.1 0.99 2.4 5.2 2 - 0.4 6.6 2 0.07 1.5 7.7 7.6 0.90
Improved 0.2 9.5 9 0.84 0.2 4.6 0 - 0.1 4.8 8 0.69 0.3 7.1 8.5 0.63
Total
Local 5.2 10 10.6 0.58 3.9 6.5 4.4 0.02** 1.5 8.2 8.2 0.99 3 8.9 8.6 0.76
Improved 1.4 7.5 4.6 0.002** 0.6 8.5 4.5 0.01** 1 9.2 11.3 0.51 1.6 8.2 5.6 0.005**
Total 6.6 12.1 10.7 0.19 4.5 10 5.6 0.006** 2.5 12 12.7 0.80 4.6 11.4 9.2 0.008**
BL=Baseline EL=end line Ben=Beneficiaries N-ben=non-beneficiaries 
P=Probability, ns=Non-significant (P>0.05), *=P<=0.05, **=P<0.01 
44
Farmers feed different types of feed to their chickens, out of which grain is most common. However, the 
practice of using layers feed was minimal. At baseline, the proportion of farmers using layers feed was 14
percent (Table 23). After FEED III training on the importance of feeding improved layers feed, the 
proportion of beneficiary farmers who used this feed increased to 27 percent. However, it was reported 
that non-beneficiary farmers did not provide layers feed to their chickens. This implies that FEED III 
contributed to the increment of the layers feed beneficiaries by 93 percent. Beneficiary farmers received
training through FEED III on different types of chicken concentrate feed.
Table 23. Types of concentrate feeds fed to chickens in the last 12 months at the time of baseline (2018) 
and end line (2020) studies (% of households)
Concentr
ate feed 
types
Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
BL* Ben Non￾ben
X2-
test 
BL Ben Non￾ben
X2-
test 
BL Be
n
Non￾ben
X2-
test 
BL Ben Non￾ben
Grain 88 75 91 0.008
**
69 71 86 0.65
ns
82 51 75 0.54
ns
81 70 89
Layers
feed 
7 24 9 21 27 0 18 39 0 14 27 0
Broilers
feed 
5 1 0 1 1.3 14 0 8 0 2 2 5
 *BL=Baseline, Ben=Beneficiaries, Non-ben=Non-beneficiaries 
Farmers adopted different types of management practices for poultry production. As illustrated in Table 
24, scavenging supplemented with home grains appeared to be the most common poultry management 
practice for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. After project interventions, the practice of using 
scavenging supplemented with commercial feed became common for 17 percent of beneficiary farmers 
and for 11 percent of non-beneficiary farmers, compared to 7 percent at baseline. This serves as evidence 
that FEED III was effective at raising awareness of farmers on improved management practices of poultry 
farms. 
Table 24. Types of management practices applied to poultry production (% of respondents)
Management practices Baseline 
(2018)
End line
Beneficiary 
(2020)
Non-beneficiary 
(2020)
X
2
-test
Scavenging 30 18 27 P=0.02*
Scavenging supplemented with home grains 50 47 47
Scavenging supplemented with commercial feed 7 17 11
Full feeding with home grown grains 13 16 13
Full feeding with commercial feed 0.2 0.7 2.6
The major poultry product for rural households are eggs, which are an important source of cash, especially 
for women and youth. During the life of the project, egg productivity varied from year to year. As exhibited 
in Table 25, the productivity of local chickens was 37 eggs per clutch at baseline and 44 eggs per clutch 
for the beneficiary farmers at end line, including the project’s contribution of 19 percent. A spillover effect 
of the project also contributed to the increase in egg productivity for non-beneficiary households, which 
was demonstrated by statistically non-significant differences between beneficiary and non-beneficiary 
households. This implies similar performances between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. 
Table 25. Annual average poultry egg productivity per hen (egg/clutch and egg/year) by breed
45
Region 
Local per clutch Local per year Improved per year
BL Ben* Non￾ben
t-test 
(P)
BL Ben* Non￾ben
t-test 
(P)
BL Ben* Non￾ben
t-test 
(P)
Amhara 46 23 22 0.94 102 105 117 0.26 107 88 106 0.44
Oromia 34 87 28 0.01* 132 143 106 0.12 63 65 53 0.51
SNNP 28 48 99 0.47 85 121 146 0.67 84 80 133 0.44
Total 37 44 30 0.15 106 116 117 0.99 88 78 88 0.52
*BL=Baseline, Ben=Beneficiaries, Non-ben=Non-beneficiaries 
Poultry farmers have options for market outlets to sell their products. As provided in Table 26, a local 
market is the most common outlet for poultry products for all farmers before and after the project. FEED 
III provided training and advice to poultry farmers on how to link with market outlets to sell their products. 
Since there is no statistically significant difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, 
the project had a positive spillover effect not only on the beneficiaries but also on non-beneficiary 
households. 
Poultry farmers supplement on-farm income by selling poultry products, such as eggs, hens, and other 
chickens. Household-level income from poultry products revealed various trends over the years in the 
project areas. As presented in Table 27, farmers generated a total annual income of Birr 3,168 from the 
sale of poultry products before the project. Towards the end of FEED III, this income increased to Birr 
4,848. On the other hand, non-beneficiary farmers generated Birr 3,203.3 annually from the sale of 
poultry products. This implies that FEED III enhanced the incomes of poultry farmers by 51 percent. This 
is evidence of the project’s impact on the household economy. Egg market price increases during the 
project period also contributed to income growth for poultry farmers. The income generated from the 
sale of poultry products helps to improve livelihoods of beneficiary households and strengthen the
resilience of households to withstand unexpected shocks. 
It was not only the revenue which increased in the last three years, but also the quantities of the poultry 
products sold. For instance, poultry farmers at the beginning of the project sold 307 eggs annually on 
average. At end line, the beneficiary farmers increased the number of eggs sold annually to 567. On the 
other hand, non-beneficiary farmers sold 394 eggs at end line. Still, there is a statistically significant 
difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in annual egg sales. This implies that FEED III 
increased the number of eggs sold by beneficiary farmers by 44 percent. 
Table 26. Market outlets where farmers sell poultry products (% of respondents)
Market outlets Baseline End line
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary X
2
-test
No sale 0 7 9 P=0.84
Farm gate 6 10 11
Local market 84 83 81
Co-op/union 0 0.2 0
Private enterprises 0.2 0.2 0
46
Table 27. Average annual sales (No.) and revenues (Birr) of poultry products per household in 2018 and 2020
Poultry 
type
Particula
rs 
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
BL Ben
Non￾ben
t-test 
(P) BL Ben
Non￾ben
t-test 
(P) BL Ben
Non￾ben
t-test 
(P) BL Ben
Non￾ben
t-test 
(P)
Hen
Quantity 3.5 9.8 5.2 0.30 4.8 61.5 15.1 0.06 3.1 39.0 3.0 0.15 5.4 33.1 8.1 0.01**
Revenue 415.4 843.2 640.6 0.20 789.8 1,115.9 536.7 0.01** 370.9
1,130.
4
530.0 0.19
1,002
.
988.8 602.9 0.003**
Male 
chickens
Quantity 2.5 9.2 3.8 0.25 4.1 5.0 2.6 0.17 2.4 4.5 4.3 0.91 4.9 7.3 3.5 0.17
Revenue 391.2
1,005.
5
681.3 0.02* 740.6 1036.4 775.7 0.10 459.5
1,650.
8
1,566.
7
0.91 885.5
1,097.
1
749.9 0.005**
Female 
chickens
Quantity 3.4 3.3 2.9 0.58 5.6 7.5 2.5 0.20 2.5 2.7 0 - 4.4 4.5 2.9 0.20
Revenue 299.9 489.1 433.3 0.63 621.9 1781.8 325.0 0.13 335.0 631.2 0 - 483.9 927.8 420.6 0.09
Eggs 
Quantity 349.2 487.8 349.7 0.02* 168.3 690.1 466.1 0.12 363.8 500.8 405.5 0.72 307.4 567.5 394.8 0.009**
Revenue 760.5
1,723.
9
1,332.
1
0.05* 537.3 2063.9
1,534.
8
0.13 945.0
1,557.
7
1,651.
6
0.92 796.1
1,834.
3
1,429.
9
0.03*
Average revenue 1,867
4,061.
7
3,087 2,690 5,998 3,172 2,111 4,930 3,748 3,168 4,848 3,203
 *BL=Baseline, 2018 Ben=Beneficiaries Non-ben=Non-beneficiaries P=Probabilities 
To strengthen the poultry sector, various organizations trained rural households in improved poultry production practices. At end line, 83 percent
of all beneficiary poultry farmers reported having received training from FEED III on improved poultry management practices (74 percent in 
Amhara, 96 percent in Oromia, and 85 percent in SNNP). In fact, almost all beneficiaries are believed to have received training from the project,
and the farmers reported what they recalled. During the same period, the proportion of non-beneficiary farmers who received trainings from 
other organizations was only 8 percent (8 percent each for Oromia and Amhara, and 18 percent for SNNP). 
Governmental and non-governmental organizations provided training to farmers. Three years ago, at baseline, the government was the main 
provider of training through its agricultural extension services. At end line, ACDI/VOCA became a prominent provider of farmer training. Out of all 
training providers, 41 percent were government, followed by ACDI/VOCA at 39 percent. The contribution of ACDI/VOCA was high in the Oromia 
region, accounting for 68 percent, while the government accounted for 17 percent (Table 28). 
47
The poultry sector is facing several challenges. Three years ago, in 2018, the main challenge facing farmers 
in poultry production was chicken disease followed by predators (Figure 10, Annex A). Three years later, 
in 2020, the main problem appeared to be predators, while the effect of chicken diseases was reduced. 
This indicates that the farmers have largely managed to control chicken diseases after the project. 
Trainings provided by ACDI/VOCA and other development partners have raised farmers’ knowledge and 
skills on how to take care of chickens and minimize disease occurrences. This can be taken as evidence of 
positive contributions made by NGOs and other development partners in the poultry sector. 
Table 28. Training providers on improved poultry production
Training providers Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line
Co-op/union 0 0.6 0 7 0 7
Private enterprises 1 4 1 11 7 13
Government 22 35 16 17 15 41
ACDI/VOCA 2 61 1 68 1 39
 
3.5.2. Poultry Concentrate Feed and Value Chain Actors
The poultry production value chain involves a range of actors who play various roles. At baseline, the main 
actors to poultry farmers were traders and village-level consumers, especially in Amhara (7 percent) and 
SNNP (17 percent) (Table 29). In Oromia, however, village-level consumers (4 percent) and local 
middlemen (3 percent) were the main actors for poultry farmers. 
After the project intervention, traders were key actors for 61 percent of the poultry farmers. Linkages of 
poultry farmers with traders were strong in all the study regions. At end line, the highest proportion of 
poultry farmers who had strong linkages with traders was 73 percent in SNNP, compared to 17 percent at 
baseline. In Oromia, 50 percent of the farmers have established business linkages with traders compared 
to 1 percent at baseline, which means this was a new experience for them. In Amhara, 40 percent of the 
farmers have business linkages with traders, which is high compared to only 7 percent at baseline. Training 
and other support provided by FEED III is believed to have largely contributed to the increase in the 
business orientation of the poultry farmers. 
Table 29. Main value actors for poultry production (%)
Actors Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line
Consumers at village level 6 30 4 13 7 13
Traders 7 40 1 50 17 73
Rearing centers 1 0 0 6 0 0
Local middlemen 1 0 3 19 1 0
Commercial farmers 3 20 0 6 4 10
48
3.5.3. Feed Millers and Concentrate Feed Producers
Poultry farmers purchase and use feed of different types for different chicken breeds. However, the 
quantities and costs incurred vary over time. In 2018, the farmers of the Amhara region purchased 88kg 
of layers feed and only 22kg in 2020. In 2018, they purchased 150kg of broiler feed, and no broiler feed in 
2020. They purchased 12kg of grain in 2018 and 157.5kg in 2020. Their feed preferences seem to have 
changed. They switched to grain, which is more available from their own stock. During FGD, farmers stated 
that using grain from their own stocks helps to minimize feed costs and maximize benefits from poultry 
production.
On the other hand, poultry farmers of Oromia and SNNP have increased the purchase of layers and 
broilers feed. For instance, the farmers of Oromia purchased 56kg of layers feed in 2018 and 486kg in 
2020, an eight-fold increase. The same trend holds true for SNNP. Training and support provided by FEED 
III is believed to have helped the farmers select the best type of chicken feed available at their locations.
During FGDs with beneficiary farmers in the Amhara region, they described the cost issues as follows: 
“To solve feed problems, VOCA5 has supported us in creating access to concentrate 
feeds. VOCA helped us establish linkages with concentrate feed processing enterprises 
which are available in our nearby towns. For instance, there is an animal feed 
manufacturing factory owned by Jemal*6
in Adet town. We noticed that the 
concentrated feed is very helpful, but the price is high. When we feed concentrated 
feed to cows, they give much milk than the usual, when we feed hens, they lay eggs 
consecutively and if we feed oxen, they are getting fat within a short period of time. 
However, we felt that the price is high because of the high cost of inputs and taxation, 
but if we see the benefit it gives, the price is reasonable.” 
The end line assessment of the poultry production and value chain interventions reveals that FEED III 
made substantial contributions to establishing and enhancing the capacities of poultry feed processors. 
This was manifested in the increased proportion of farmers accessing concentrate feeds. The proportion 
of farmers who reported the availability of concentrate feed as adequate, increased during FEED III. 
Business orientation of the poultry farmers has also increased in the last three years. The farmers’ revenue 
has also increased from the sale of poultry products during FEED III. 
5
Local community and other actors call ACDI/VOCA as VOCA. 
6 *Alias used for privacy.
49
Figure 4. Affordability of concentrate feed for poultry production
Poultry farmers fed purchased commercial and home-grown feeds to their chickens. In most cases, there 
is a concern that the prices of concentrate poultry feeds are unaffordable. This is because feed ingredients 
represent close to 90 percent of the cost of the manufactured concentrate feeds. Those ingredients are 
purchased by manufacturers like FEED cooperative unions from other suppliers like flour factories. As a 
result, much of the price escalation in concentrate feed price is beyond the non-beneficiary of feed 
manufacturers. As illustrated in Figure 4, concentrate feed is affordable to 41 percent of the beneficiary 
farmers and 33 percent of non-beneficiary farmers. This might be attributed to the increased economic 
capacity of the beneficiary farmers because of FEED III support. 
Poultry feed prices are not stable and tend to fluctuate in response to various externalities. According to 
68 percent of the beneficiary and 50 percent of non-beneficiary farmers, the prices of commercial 
concentrate feeds fluctuated over time. When purchasing concentrate feed, 57 percent of beneficiary 
farmers checked its quality. It was noted that 97 percent of the beneficiary farmers checked feed quality 
through physical inspection using indigenous knowledge. Only 3 percent of beneficiary farmers used 
poultry experts to check the quality of commercial concentrate feeds through physical detection. 
3.5.4. Gender Perspectives in Poultry Production and Management 
During the life of the project, the engagement of women in decision-making became substantial, which 
could be attributed to the project’s efforts in raising awareness on the importance of engaging women in 
development activities. At the beginning of the project, the proportion of women who were engaged in 
decision-making on matters related to poultry production and marketing was 33 percent. At the end, the 
proportion of women decision-makers increased to 43 percent, which is a 30 percent difference (Figure 
5). The proportion of women engaged in decision-making was also substantial for non-beneficiary 
farmers, which could be attributed to spillover effects of FEED III. During FGDs with groups of women, it 
was revealed that information exchange among women is considerable in the community. The women 
participants described this as follows: 
“There are many social occasions where we meet and discuss various matters related to 
market, prices, disputes among individuals, new things learned from trainings or exposures, 
0
20
40
60
80
Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
20
37
50
41
66
33
17
33
% of households
Beneficiary farmers Non-beneficiary
50
new things learned from observations and communications, and many household matters. 
If there are women who got access to training or visits, they share with us what was said, 
what they observed and what they heard. Then, we brainstorm the issue and seek each 
other’s advice if we can also apply this at home. When we meet next time at social events 
or on any occasions, then we share feedback on what we experienced.”
From the above transcription, we realize how informal social setups help the community, in general, and 
women, in particular, for fast information exchange on new technologies, practices, and events. Informal 
community setups can also be organized by gender (i.e., men-only or women-only organizations). In the 
context of Ethiopia, women-only organizations established for various purposes, are greater in number 
than men-only organizations. This gives women an opportunity to meet frequently, at least once a week. 
Apart from the main purpose of the meeting, women discuss various matters happening around them, 
things that they observed, heard, and experienced, as well as the outcomes. This provides an opportunity 
for other women (whether project beneficiaries or not) to learn and experience new things. 
Figure 5. Decision-making practices in poultry production and marketing, 2020
FEED III has been focusing on gender perspectives in various components. Improvements were also 
manifested in participation and decision-making practices. As illustrated in Figure 6, 51 percent of the 
overall households experienced joint decision-making with consultation of men and women. The Oromia 
(63 percent) and SNNP (56 percent) regions depend on joint decision-making of both men and women. 
However, the experience of the Amhara region is quite different in that 69 percent of the households 
reported men to be the dominant decision-makers in the purchase of concentrate feeds.
0
20
40
60
Baseline Beneficiary Control
4 7 9
33
43 45
57 50 46
% of households
Decision-making about poultry production and marketing (%)
Men only Women only Both men & women jointly
51
Figure 6. Decision-making practices to purchase concentrate chicken feeds, 2020
3.5.5. Sheltering Practices in Poultry Production 
The proportion of farmers who sheltered their chickens in a confined place at night was 25 percent at 
baseline and 40 percent for beneficiary and 26 percent for non-beneficiary farmers at end line (Figure 7). 
This indicates that FEED III contributed to the increased proportion of farmers who adopted sheltering 
chicken in confined places at night by 60 percent. Training provided by FEED III inspired beneficiary 
farmers to improve poultry management practices, including improved housing and feeding. The type of 
shelter used in poultry farming is an indication of the business orientation of the farmers. The percentage 
of farmers that did not use any shelter for chicken reduced from 45 percent at baseline to 19 percent at 
end line (Figure 7). 
Figure 7. Housing practices for chicken among beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2020
3.6. Forage Production and Feed Value Chain
Development interventions by FEED III contributed to the increased business orientation of the farmers 
0
20
40
60
80
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
69
21 17
28
8
16
28 23 21
63
56 51
% of households
Decision-making on concentrate feed purchase, end line 
(%)
Mainly men Mainly women Both men and women
0
10
20
30
40
No housing Shelter, but
unconfined
Shelter and
confined at
night
Confinment &
sheltered year￾round
19 16
40
10
24 21
26
5
% of households
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
52
engaged in livestock production. This, in turn, motivated the farmers to adopt livestock technology 
packages, one of which is improved forage. As the findings indicate, only 9 percent of farmers 
participated in forage production at baseline (Table 30). After three years of project interventions, the 
proportion of farmers participating in the production of forages increased to 30 percent. This means 
that the project contributed to the increase of forage growers by more than threefold. At end line, 11
percent of non-beneficiary farmers were also engaged in forage production. The difference between 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary households is statistically significant, which implies that the proportion 
of farmers engaged in forage production truly increased over the life of the project. Using the DID 
approach, FEED III increased the number of forage growers by 173 percent. 
Table 30. Households’ engagement in forage production before and after the project (% of households)
Region
Baseline 
(2018)
End line (2020)
Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries X
2
-test
Amhara 8 34 8 P<0.001***
Oromia 3 7 4 P=0.122
SNNP 26 48 21 P<0.001***
Total 9 30 11 P<0.001***
Beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers experienced growing different types of forage crops. As 
presented in Figure 8, the proportion of famers who grow grass annuals was higher for the beneficiary
(62 percent) than non-beneficiary (44 percent) farmers. For other feed types, non-beneficiary farmers 
have better experiences of growing forages than beneficiaries. Growing forage crops was not a common 
practice of farmers before the project. FEED III provided training to beneficiary farmers on different 
types of forage crops, including grass annuals, and this may have contributed to more farmers adopting 
such forages. It was also recognized that spillover effect has motivated neighboring farmers to adopt 
some of the forage crops. 
During FGDs with beneficiary farmers of the Amhara region, they were inspired by the supports of the 
FEED III project in addressing critical feed shortage problems. They expressed their impressions in the 
following ways: 
“The project introduced us to new and specialized forage types. Moreover, we got ample 
knowledge about livestock production and its improved management practices. The training 
was so attractive because it was video-aided, and we may not forget it easily. The training totally 
changed our thoughts we had on animal feeding. How could we think that a grass can be sown 
and grown on our farmland as food crops? Now, we have realized its importance and started 
growing different types and allocated about a quarter to half a hectare of land for forage crops. 
We have also received trainings on how to use crop by-products properly. We used to be selective 
in collecting our crop by-products. For example, Niger by-product, wheat by-product, maize by￾product, and so on, were not collected and they have been strewed on the field. However, these 
days, any crop by-product is collected and treated with Urea treatment. We also built shelter to 
keep crop by-products safely and we avoided dissipation during feeding. Because of these new 
practices, our feed problem is getting solved now. Thanks to VOCA that this time, not only us 
who took the training, but also our neighbors, are aware of the benefit of planting specialized 
53
forage crops and they have even started growing some of the forage crops.”
Figure 8. The practice of growing forage crops by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2020
At the time of the baseline study, overall sample households allocated 0.25ha of land on average for the 
growth of forage crops (0.52ha for the Amhara region, 0.61ha for Oromia, 0.15ha for SNNP). As provided 
in Figure 9, non-beneficiary farmers seem to allocate more land for forage production compared to 
beneficiaries. For instance, while beneficiary farmers allocated 0.23ha of land for forage growth, non￾beneficiary farmers allocated 0.28ha. This might be because beneficiary farmers focus on enhancing 
productivity from small plots through the application of improved forage technologies, such as high 
yielding forage varieties and improved agronomic management practices. The FEED III project has been 
providing trainings to beneficiary farmers on how to enhance productivity of forage crops using 
improved packages of technologies. Because of this, beneficiary farmers allocated small plots for the 
growth of forage crops as the focus is on enhancing productivity per unit of land. 
Figure 9. Farmers’ land allocation practices for forage crops, 2020
Apart from engagements in forage production, FEED III project and other development partners have 
also been supporting farmers through capacity development initiatives. 
At the time of baseline study, the proportion of farmers who had received training on improved forages 
was 36 percent (Table 55 in Annex A). After three years, the proportion of training recipients increased 
0
20
40
60
80
Grass
annuals
Legumes Grass
perennials
Legume
perennials
62
15
43
6
44
17
53
17
% of households
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
0.17
0.26 0.26 0.23 0.26
0.61
0.22 0.28
% of households
Land Under Forage 
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
54
to 94 percent, or by more than two folds. In all the study regions, the FEED III project and its partners 
have contributed to 58 to 66 percent of the farmers having access to trainings on improved forage 
management practices.
The source of improved forage planting material was government (Office of Agriculture) for 62 percent
of the farmers and NGOs, such as ACDI/VOCA, for 27 percent of forage growers. Before the project’s
three years, the contribution of NGOs as a source of planting materials was only 8 percent. This implies 
that the FEED III project has allowed for 19 percent of the farmers to get planting materials.
Farmers have been receiving trainings on improved forage production and management from various 
organizations. At the time of baseline, the government (Office of Agriculture) was observed to be the 
major provider of trainings (Table 31) and the contribution of NGOs was minimal. After three years, the 
major provider of trainings on improved forage is NGOs, mainly ACDI/VOCA through its FEED III project. 
It was reported that 98 percent of the overall farmers have received trainings, mainly through the 
project, which is evidence for the substantial contribution of ACDI/VOCA in enhancing the knowledge 
and skills of forage production and management. Even though women are also involved in the 
production of forages, the proportion of training recipients was higher for men in all the study regions. 
The proportion of men who received the training on improved forage production and management was 
higher for Amhara (94 percent) compared to the Oromia (87 percent) and SNNP (63 percent) regions. 
Providing training opportunities for women was higher in the SNNP region (37 percent) compared to 
Oromia (13 percent) and Amhara (5 percent).
Table 31. Actors involved in providing improved forage trainings
Actors Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line
Government 7 3 2 0 73 2
NGO 4 0 0 0 8 0
ACDI/VOCA 0 96 0 100 0 99
Feed is the major limiting factor in livestock production. Despite the efforts made to address the 
problem, feed scarcity still appears as the major constraint. Before commencement of the FEED III 
project (2018), almost no one had produced adequate quantity of forage feed types (Table 32). After 
the FEED III project intervention, the proportion of farmers who reported having adequate quantity of 
forage feed types has increased to 50 percent, which is clear evidence of the FEED III project’s 
contributions (Table 33).
Table 32. Forage adequacy status and its effects (% of households), baseline (2018)
Region
Forage 
adequacy
Strategy for 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 
Amhara 1.2 20 80 20 60 20
Oromia 0 0 0 0 0 0
SNNP 1.6 29 71 14 57 29
Total 0.73 25 75 17 58 25
55
Table 33. Forage adequacy status and its effects (% of households), end line (2020)
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 
Amhara 58 28 44 28 19 42
Oromia 10 22 78 0 11 89
SNNP 25 11 55 11 11 67
Total 50 24 52 20 17 54
The status of forage production is improving since interventions made by the FEED III project. However, 
there are still problems in addressing forage scarcity adequately. At the time of the baseline study 
(2018), the major problems were shortage of land, lack of improved forage seeds, and lack of water for 
irrigation (Table 56 Annex A). These factors persisted and remained critical after three years. 
Nevertheless, the FEED III project has contributed to the reduction of some of the problems. For 
instance, the proportion of farmers who reported shortage of improved forage seeds was 59 percent
before three years. After interventions made by the FEED III project, the proportion of farmers who 
reported shortage of improved forage seeds was reduced to 39 percent. This means the project has 
contributed to reduction of improved forage seed shortage by 34 percent. This is also evidence of the 
FEED III project creating households’ access to improved forage seeds.
Different types of forage crops were introduced by FEED projects and other development partners. 
According to the baseline study that was conducted before three years (2018), the proportion of farmers 
who planted elephant grass was 39 percent (Table 57 in Annex A). After three years of interventions by
the FEED III project, this proportion was raised to 62 percent. This provides evidence that the FEED III 
project has contributed to increasing households’ access to elephant grass by 59 percent.
Similarly, the proportion of farmers who have been growing sesbania before the FEED III project was 5
percent. After the FEED III project, this proportion was raised to 15 percent. In this case, the project has 
contributed in increasing sesbania growers by three-folds. 
During FGDs and KIIs with beneficiary farmers of the Amhara region, participants shared the following 
ways they changed their attitudes regarding forage crops: 
“How could we think that a grass can be sown and grown on a farmland? It was difficult to accept,
and we did not recognize the advantages of planting a grass in our yard. But after we took 
trainings, we started to believe that forages could be helpful in addressing feed problems. First, 
we started by planting Elephant grass around our courtyard as fencing for our compound. Later, 
we started to see and witness its benefits as animal feed. Then we expanded it. After the FEED III 
project gave us the training, we even started searching for more different types of grasses and 
we requested Development Agents (DAs) to bring us seeds and seedlings of these types of grasses. 
It was difficult to adapt Rodes at initial stages because its seed was difficult to sow. However, this 
time, we have become familiar with how to manage it and it is getting productive. So, this project 
56
has helped us change our earlier thoughts and learned that a grass can be sown and that we 
confirmed it. Our feed problem is now getting solved.”
The above transcription reveals the attitude farmers were having before the FEED III project and how their 
thoughts changed as they receive trainings and observed demonstrations. Their demand for forage crops 
has been raised and they are even looking for more forage seeds and seedlings. According to survey 
respondents, there are some farmers who already allocated a quarter to a half hectare of land to grow 
forages, as presented in earlier sections.
3.6.1. Forage Production and Nursery Establishment 
Farmers require different types of forage inputs, most of which are commercially purchased and include 
seeds and seedlings. As revealed in Table 15 in Annex A, 9 percent of the beneficiary farmers have 
purchased forage inputs, while this proportion is 7 percent for non-beneficiary farmers. This means, not 
only the FEED III project beneficiaries, but also non-beneficiaries have experienced purchasing forage 
inputs. The supports made by the FEED III project through trainings and other interventions is believed to 
have contributed to farmers engaging in forage production. The household decision to purchase forage 
inputs was mainly the responsibility of men in 73 percent of the beneficiary households, while it is women 
in 27 percent of the households. The same trend holds true for non-beneficiary households, revealing 
male dominance in decision-making. 
Farmers had options for sources from which to purchase forage inputs in the last 12 months. As indicated 
in Annex C10, 51 percent of the beneficiary households sourced forage inputs from government (Office 
of Agriculture), followed by farmer-to-farmer exchange through which 25 percent of the farmers sourced 
forage seeds and seedlings. The contribution of ACDI/VOCA through its FEED projects has also been a 
source of forage inputs for 12 percent of the farmers. ACDI/VOCA has especially been a major source of 
forage inputs for 67 percent of the farmers in the SNNP region. 
Forage is still scarce for another 50 percent of the beneficiary farmers, even though the FEED III project 
has created adequate access to half of the beneficiaries. The major reason for this shortage was attributed 
to high input prices, as reported by 61 percent of the farmers (Figure 17 in Annex A). Availability of forage 
inputs, such as seeds and seedlings, are also still a problem for 26 percent of the households. These should 
be one of the focus areas for subsequent development interventions in the feed sector.
During FGDs with beneficiary farmers, some expressed the feed problem they had and how they 
addressed it in the following ways: 
“In our surrounding, there was not enough grazing land, and we were suffering a lot in search 
of feed for our animals. After we got involved as beneficiaries, we received not only trainings 
but also seeds and seedlings of improved grass types, which helped us solve animal feed 
problems. When we see some of our neighbors, they are still suffering from acute feed 
problems.” 
The Feed II project had established about 23 nurseries in the project sites of SNNP, Amhara, Tigray, and 
Oromia. Various species of forage crops were planted in these nursery sites. High demand has also been 
57
created from farming households through trainings offered by the FEED III project. The TOT training was 
provided to Woreda and Zonal Agriculture Experts and DAs, which was later cascaded to farmer 
beneficiaries. The focus of the FEED III project has been raising awareness of beneficiary households on 
the importance of growing forage crops for enhancing livestock production and productivity. Once this 
awareness is created and demand is raised, the farmers themselves (especially those with access to 
irrigation) started planting forage seeds and seedlings on their own plots of land. They also purchased 
concentrate feeds with their own cash. This was mainly due to attitudinal changes of farmers on the 
importance of growing forages on farmlands. 
The FEED II project had also been supporting private enterprises to produce and distribute forage seeds 
and other feed products. The FEED III project established linkages of these enterprises with beneficiaries 
through organizing events, such as B2B workshops and trade fairs. Experience sharing visits were also 
organized during the FEED III project. This has further enhanced the demands of farmers for forage crops 
and feed products. Once they plant forages on their own plots, they have also been receiving technical 
supports, especially from DAs and model farmers. 
The study team made visits to one of the nursery sites in the Amhara region, Dembecha nursery. It was 
recognized that as the FEED III project is phasing out, the Woreda Agriculture Office is taking over to 
manage the nursery site. Four employees were engaged on this nursery site, operating the day-to-day 
activities. Elephant grass, Dinsho, Setaria, punicum, Dismodium, and Alpha-Alpha were forage types 
established in the nursery. DAs were supporting the distribution of these forage species to farmers. 
However, the biggest problem they are facing is the lack of a vehicle for transportation and supply of 
forage seedlings to farmers as per their demand. The workers described the status of the nursery site as 
follows: 
“Following trainings provided to farmers by VOCA, the demand for forage species has been 
raised largely because the training has changed their attitude. To meet their demands, we 
are facing transportation problems and poor road access during rainy season. 
Unfortunately, we learned that VOCA is terminating and because of this we are not getting 
seeds and seedlings of other new forage species to plant in our nursery. We do not also 
have enough generators to pump water. There is also not enough budget to expand the 
nursery. Therefore, this nursery requires special attention either from the government or 
any other body. There should also be consecutive trainings for the farmers. We also need 
on-the-job training to enhance our skills.” 
From the transcription, it has become obvious that the farmers’ demand for forage crops has been raised 
and it is increasing over time not only for project beneficiaries, but also for neighboring farmers. This is 
evidence for the substantial contribution of the project. The other issue that has come out clearly is that 
nursery sites require due attention and supports in the post-FEED III period. Unless the nurseries are 
structurally supported along with their own budget, project initiatives will not be sustained, and the high 
demand created among the farmers will not last long. This will in turn result in exacerbated feed problems 
and poor livestock productivity.
58
3.7. Technology Transfer by Model Farmers
The final evaluation also asked model and follower farmers whether they have received any knowledge 
transfers from others. The data indicates that, on average, 79 percent of the farmers have received 
transfer of knowledge from others over the last four years. Specifically, 85 percent of them received 
transfer of knowledge on improved dairy animal nutrition and management, 82 percent on improved 
fattening management, 77 percent on improved poultry production, and 73 percent on improved forage 
production (Table 34). The data also indicate that about three-fourths of the follower farmers have 
received the knowledge transfer from model farmers, while 22 percent and 5 percent received the 
technology/practice from development agents and others. This indicates the importance of model 
farmers (farmer-to-farmer extension) in technology transfer (see Table 51 in Annex A for details). More 
than 50 percent of knowledge transfers were via one-on-one meetings with the model farmer, followed 
by visits to activities/practices of model farmers (more than 15 percent), and the remainder were learned 
through informal talks with the model farmer (Table 52 in Annex A).
Table 34. Percentage of follower farmers that received transfer of knowledge from model farmers over the past four 
years
Technology/practice Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Received any transfer of knowledge on dairy 
animal nutrition and management 
Yes 63.2% 94.1% 100.0% 85.1%
No 36.8% 5.9% 0.0% 14.9%
Received any transfer of knowledge on improved 
fattening management 
Yes 68.4% 90.2% 88.7% 82.0%
No 31.6% 9.8% 11.3% 18.0%
Received any transfer of knowledge on improved 
poultry nutrition and feeding 
Yes 54.4% 92.2% 86.8% 77.0%
No 45.6% 7.8% 13.2% 23.0%
Received any transfer of knowledge on improved 
forage production 
Yes 52.6% 68.6% 98.1% 72.7%
No 47.4% 31.4% 1.9% 27.3%
The improved technologies practiced include cut and carry (91 percent), feeding troughs to feed animals 
(83.2 percent), use of drinking troughs to provide clean water (81.4 percent), use of rotational grazing 
(78.3 percent), use of hay making (78.3 percent), use of forage chopping (60 percent), use of 
supplementation of crop residues with green fodder (59 percent), use of silage making (53.4 percent), use 
of feeding a total mixed ration (53.4 percent), use of urea treatment of crop residues (49.1 percent), use 
of feed factory produced formulated feed (47 percent), use of baling (44.1 percent), use of record keeping 
(37 percent), and use of supplementation with urea molasses lick blocks (32.3 percent) in order of 
importance (Figure 10). 
Figure 10. Percentage of follower farmers and their use of different improved practices 
59
3.8. Project Evaluation Results Against the OECD-DAC Criteria
The project performance was assessed against the five OECD/DAC criteria, namely: relevance, efficiency, 
effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. The following section briefly discusses the findings of qualitative 
and quantitative extracts collected from community focus group discussions, case studies, key informant 
interviews, and secondary data of the FEED-III Project. Additional information has also been provided in 
Annex B. 
3.8.1. Project Relevance 
Based on the open-ended questions administered to the target beneficiaries, government officials, and 
experts operating in this sector of the Oromia, Amhara, and SNNP regions, the respondents have 
demonstrated a sheer agreement regarding the relevance of the project. They consider that the 
ACDI/VOCA project is a direct complementary project to what the government is undertaking and 
consistent with those of the government policy documents. They have also affirmed that the project 
objectives are in line with the interests and demands of the smallholder farmers, unions, and other 
stakeholders. The level of satisfaction regarding relevance of the project both to their needs and the policy 
documents have been reflected by the respondents. Thus, to say the least, the project was believed to be 
instrumental in raising awareness levels of the beneficiaries on livestock feed production and feeding. To 
this end, the respondents’ satisfaction matrix also indicated that there is a high level of satisfaction 
regarding the project’s relevance. Supplementary information on relevance has been provided in Annex 
B.
3.8.2. Project Efficiency 
The project’s efficiency was evaluated against the accomplishment of the project objectives within the 
limits of its allocated budget, time, and other relevant resources. It also considered the transparency and 
90.7%
83.2%
81.4%
78.3%
36.6%
53.4%
59.6%
44.1%
59.0%
49.1%
32.3%
78.3%
53.4%
46.6%
70.2%
0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%
Cut and carry
Feeding troughs to feed animals
Drinking troughs to provide clean water for animals
Rotational grazing
Record keeping of any practice
Feeding a total mixed ration
Forage chopping
Baling practice
Supplementation of crop residues with green fodder
Urea treatment of crop residues
Supplementation with urea molasses lick blocks
Hay making
Silage making
feed factory produced formulated feed
Provide free choice access to clean water
60
integrity of the resource utilization process of the project. According to qualitative information, the 
project efficiency has shown positive results. KIIs in the Oromia region have underlined that the project 
was efficient in terms of resource allocation and use. They reported that budget disbursement was 
undertaken in a transparent manner. The budget was allocated to the respective offices in a transparent 
manner, and so was the resource utilization. Besides its transparent allocation and utilization of resources, 
the project was carried out at a relatively lower cost than other similar projects they have known. 
The total budget of the FEED III project allocated to the four regional states was Ethiopian Birr (ETB) 
156,509,524.28, including both the program and administrative budget. Equal amounts of the budget 
were allocated for each of the project regions. Out of the total budget, 98.3 percent was utilized until
December 31, 2020 (Table 58 in Annex A). Assessment of budget utilization by activity reveals that the 
highest budget was allocated for activity 2 of the project, while the least was allocated for activity 1 (Table 
59 in Annex A). Budget utilization status of activities in the project period until December 31, 2020, ranged 
from 49 to 95 percent. While the budget utilization status of activity 3 was the highest (95 percent), it was 
the least for activity 4 (49 percent) (Figure 18 in Annex A). Further explanation on project efficiency is 
included in Annex B.
3.8.3. Project Effectiveness 
The OECD/DAC criterion of effectiveness was aimed at capturing the attainment of project objectives as 
per the original plan of the FEED III project. To this end, the FGD extracts from the Amhara region have 
shown that the project was effective in achieving its intents, as it was a timely response in addressing their 
pressing demands for feed. The training provided by the project changed their attitudes about animal 
feeding. It was widely reported that they were given adequate training on animal feeding, animal food 
preparation, concentrated feed, forage production, and strategies for how to maximize animal products. 
Besides the basic training that focused on forage production, they were trained on dairy farming, 
fattening, and poultry production, which they attest has introduced them to new and specialized types of 
forages. The video-assisted approach to training had been attractive, adult-centered, and helpful to retain 
the imparted knowledge among the participants. It was also reported by beneficiary FGD members that 
the spillover effect of the project has now been evident among those who haven’t been included in the 
training. Their neighbors have begun to adopt the new technology and undertake similar activities in 
planting forages and improving their traditional ways of animal husbandry, emulating what their 
neighbors were doing.
Plan versus achievement of project outputs and performance indicators 
The FEED III project has planned about seven key results, as indicated in the project result framework, for 
which there are 14 performance indicators. In all the indicators, the level of achievement ranged from 0
to 255 percent (Table 60 in Annex A). Out of 14 performance indicators, the level of achievement for 12 
of them was above 80 percent. Over achievement (above 100 percent) was recorded for six of the 
performance indicators. There were only two performance indicators for which the extent of performance 
lagged behind the plans, zero for one of them and 66 percent for the other.
61
Among the project outcomes, the project has achieved two out of three indicators in outcome 1. For 
instance, the target of increasing poultry productivity by 15 percent was achieved far more than the plan 
(Table 61 in Annex A). Increasing the productivity of milk was also achieved far more than the 15 percent
plan. However, the project did not progress as planned in increasing the productivity of fattened cattle. 
The plan was to increase the number of fattened animals by 15 percent in the project period. However, 
this was not achieved. According to qualitative information, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted timely 
provision of trainings for beneficiaries. Other details of project effectiveness have been described in Annex 
B.
3.8.4. Project Outcomes and Impacts 
Even though it is a bit early to measure the impact, the FEED-III project has been impactful in several ways. 
The following outcomes were observed in the project intervention areas: 
• Attitudinal changes of farmers on forage crops: Before the FEED III project, no one was aware of 
forages used for animal feeding and the practice of allocating land for forage grown was little 
known. After the FEED III project, this attitude was changed and the farmers started demanding 
for more forage crop seeds and seedlings, which is one of the substantial impact of the project. 
Adopting forages was also observed to minimize feed problems.
Figure 11. Income generated from sales of poultry products
• Household income growth: The FEED III project has contributed to enhancing incomes, especially 
of beneficiary households. For instance, farmers during baseline generated Birr 3,168 from sales 
of poultry products (Figure 11). After project interventions, this income level was raised to Birr 
4,848, which is a 53 percent rise. Even the incomes of beneficiaries grew by 51 percent over that 
of non-beneficiary farmers. This is one case and there could also be income growth from sales of 
forage seedlings.
• Minimizing feed problems: The main reason why FEED projects have been focusing on feeds is to 
minimize acute feed shortage problems. Compared to baseline situations, the FEED III project has 
had impacted in minimizing feed problems of beneficiaries by 50 percent.
• Improved livelihoods of the beneficiaries: Apart from income increment, the FEED III project has 
gone further and contributed to improvements in livelihoods of families, such as asset creation, 
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Baseline Beneficiaries Control
farmers
3168
4848
3203
Annual income (Birr)
62
strengthened self-dependence, building new houses, saving money in bank, improved resilience,
and others. Practical cases 1 to 3, below, demonstrate how the FEED III project helped households 
improve their livelihoods. Households have also obtained alternative income sources, which 
helped them improve their resilience to unexpected shocks. FGD participants in the Amhara 
region described how their livelihood changed as follows: 
“Compared to the life situation we had before 4 or 5 years, currently our lifestyle has 
been improved. Though it depends on individuals’ performance, the training was life 
changing. Those who properly applied the concept of the training by the FEED-III 
project accumulated wealth. Even some people built houses in the nearest town. If 
we see our life before the project, we had nothing to save, but this time we have at 
least a bank account. This time we also have alternatives to escape unexpected 
natural or man-made hazards. Before the project, they were entirely dependent on 
seasonal crop production. This time, if we fail to secure our food consumption from 
crop production because of a natural disaster, we will escape the crisis by fattening 
animals.” 
• Increased adoption of forage technologies: The adoption level of farmers has substantially 
improved for forage crops. Compared to baseline, adoption rate of beneficiary farmers was raised 
by more than three-folds (Figure 12). Compared to non-beneficiary farmers, adoption rate of 
beneficiaries was enhanced by more than two-folds. This is a substantial impact of the project 
because the practice of allocating farmlands for forage crops was limited practice among the 
farmers.
Figure 12. Adoption rates of forage crops
• Image of ACDI/VOCA built: The substantial contributions FEED projects have had in the 
community and the unique approaches adopted during the FEED III project have built positive 
images of ACDI/VOCA. The farmers wished ACDI/VOCA would continue interventions and 
reinforce achievements. During KIIs with one of the beneficiary unions in the Amhara region, 
participants expressed the following about ACDI/VOCA:
“To be frank, it would be very difficult to compare VOCA with other partners. 
VOCA is our eye. The supports of the project are ground touching, visible, and 
0
10
20
30
Baseline Beneficiaries Control
farmers
9
30
11
% of households
Forage adoption rates, %
233% 173%
63
measurable. So, if we are forced to compare it with others, we can say that there 
is no other partner who can even be comparable to VOCA. Since the supports we 
received from VOCA, we increased the amount of concentrate feed production, 
our awareness on the business of feed production was enhanced, and we were 
also linked to various customers for business relationships.”
Further information on project outcomes and impacts, and case analysis have been provided in 
Annex D4.
3.8.5. Project Sustainability
Sustainability of project initiatives depend on the commitment of the organization that overtook FEED III 
project initiatives. Even though the capacity of beneficiaries has been built, they still require technical 
support. The cooperatives and private enterprises engaged in feed processing and supply require closer 
technical and financial supports. Business orientation of cooperative unions is not yet very strong. Most 
of them are still constrained with financial shortages. Turnover of trained staff members is still a big 
concern among unions. The newly appointed personnel require immediate training supports to effectively 
run their duties. Strengthening unions and private processing enterprises ensures sustainable supply of 
feeds for beneficiaries. This, in turn, largely contributes to the sustainability of FEED III initiatives. 
Forage nurseries, which are sources of planting materials for farmers, are also constrained by many 
factors, such as transportation, budgets, and inadequate skills of the staff. Unless these nurseries are 
strengthened by addressing their challenges, sustainability of farmers’ use of forage feeds will be at stake.
Pico projectors provided to each woreda/kebele to provide video-based trainings are also believed to 
contribute to the sustainability of the project’s achievements. This provides the Woreda Agriculture 
Offices and kebele-level DAs the ability to provide extended trainings for the farmers using these videos. 
Additional information on project sustainability has been provided in Annex C.
3.9. Best Practices and Lessons Learned From FEED III Project 
During FGDs and KIIs with project beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, and partner organizations, the 
following best practices and lessons were drawn:
• Focus on enhancing capacity: The FEED III project was different from earlier FEED projects in that it 
did not make a focus on input supplies and financial supports. Instead, it has been striving to raise the
awareness, knowledge, and skills of beneficiary farmers on the importance of adopting improved feed 
technologies. In this approach, it was possible to raise demands of farmers, so they were able to 
purchase the required inputs on their own. This approach reinforced sustainability by making farmers 
act on their own. 
• Impressive training approaches: There have been different approaches for providing trainings. Out of 
these, FEED III introduced the approach of video-aided training provision, which the farmers valued as 
highly useful and unforgettable. The farmers described it as, “seeing is believing,” and that what they 
64
observed over video was best practices and experiences of model farmers, which motivates them to 
follow the same suit. This has also largely contributed to attitudinal changes of the farmers on planting 
improved forages on farmlands. 
• The practice of linking follower farmers7 with beneficiaries: This was recognized to be one of the best 
extensions approaches to disseminate technologies and improved knowledge. Beneficiary farmers 
have been sharing their knowledge and skills, seeds, and seedlings with their neighbors and follower 
farmers. Because of this, the impact of the project has spilled over to followers and neighboring 
farmers. 
• The practice of empowering input manufacturing units and dealers: The FEED III project has been 
focusing not only on the farmers but also enterprises engaged in the manufacturing of feeds and other 
inputs across poultry, feed, and livestock value chains. These enterprises have been receiving trainings 
and were supported in establishing linkages with their business customers. 
• Organizing trade fairs and B2B events: Following the empowerment of farmers and enterprises through 
training and experience sharing visits, one of the best practices of the FEED III project was creating 
opportunities for business linkages among producers and consumers. B2B events and trade fairs were 
observed to be best practices for establishing business linkages.
4.Conclusions
Both the household survey and the qualitative data gathered from KIIs and FGDs in the Amhara, SNNP,
and Oromia regions have provided positive results regarding the project’s performance, including against 
the five OECD-DAC criteria. Thus, the project was found to be relevant in addressing the felt needs of 
treatment and done in consistent manner with the policy prescriptions of the government. It was an 
effective undertaking which has been able to build local capacity in transforming the traditional practices 
of animal feed management. It has also been effective in changing the attitudes, knowledge, and skills of 
individual farmers, institutions, and actors in the entire value chain of animal feed production and 
marketing. The project was found to be efficient regarding its timeliness and cost effectiveness. 
Regarding the impact of the project, even though the true extent of the impact is not yet fully known, the 
project has yielded significant outcomes and become impactful in changing the traditional way of thinking 
and practice in livestock production. It enhanced the production of milk processing, income, and asset 
holding of the beneficiary farmers, while resulting in increased marketing of dairy products. 
However, there are still serious challenges in widening the project’s benefits. Additionally, there are
institutional capacity limitations in providing support services for poultry production, specifically in terms 
of the health services. Regarding the sustainability of the project benefits, the study has shown positive 
results. Local officials, experts, and communities were aware of their respective roles for maintaining the
program’s benefits in the absence of donor agencies due to the capacity building works of FEED III during 
7
Follower farmers are those neighbors of beneficiary farmers who benefit from spillover effects of project 
interventions. Beneficiary farmers share the knowledge and skills obtained from the project to follower farmers. 
65
its intervention period. In general, despite the challenges that require further work, the project was found 
to be successful in achieving its initial objectives. 
It was also evident that households’ participation in animal fattening has positively contributed to 
increasing income, skills of fattening, and livelihood diversification, as well as a spillover effect for
fattening. Additionally, the change in community perception among farmers is a major influence. Very 
few households were aware of forage and animal feed prior to the FEED III training. After the training, not 
only trained people, but also their neighbors and the community are developing innovations around
forage and livestock production.
The FEED III project has also contributed to improvements in the dairy sector. Being sensitized with project 
supports in addressing feed problems and enhancing the knowledge and skills of dairy management has 
increased the number of farmers engaged in dairy production during the project. Apart from this, 
productivity of dairy cows, such as milk yields and lactation length, have demonstrated increasing trends 
over the project period. The practice of selling dairy products, which was limited before the project, has 
also improved after enhancing business orientation of the beneficiary farmers. 
Another indicator of project contribution and attribution was the rise of beneficiary incomes from sales 
of dairy products during project periods compared to baseline and non-beneficiary farmers. The FEED III 
project has also witnessed empowering women and raising their participation in dairy activities and 
decision-making. The project has also tremendously contributed to reducing dairy production problems. 
The proportion of farmers who reported dairy production problems has reduced towards the end of the 
project, which is additional evidence for the positive contributions of the FEED III project. 
The number of improved poultry owners has increased during the FEED III project period. The use of 
improved poultry feed and housing types has also enhanced business orientation of project beneficiary 
farmers. The FEED III project has largely contributed to supplementing on-farm incomes of households 
from sales of poultry products. The enhanced knowledge and skills of poultry farmers gained from the
FEED III project trainings has helped improve feed and disease management practices. Poultry feed 
availability has also been improved because of FEED III project interventions. 
Poultry production has also revealed a gender dimension, where the involvement of women and youth 
was substantial. The prevailing information exchange mechanism among women during social gatherings 
and events has contributed to transfer of technologies and knowledge from beneficiary to non-beneficiary 
women, amplifying the spillover effect.
Since engagement of the FEED III project, the proportion of forage growers was enhanced, which 
contributed to reducing farmers’ feed problems by nearly half. Apart from this, the FEED III project has 
helped in increasing the number of forage grower farmers, which largely contributed to minimizing feed 
shortage problems. 
In general, the FEED III project has made tremendous contributions to the growth of the livestock sector. 
Out of the 14 performance indicators of the major outputs, the level of achievement for 12 of them was 
above 80 percent. Over achievement (beyond 100 percent) was also recorded for six of the performance 
indicators. However, the positive contributions of the project must be sustained to realize its full benefits.
66
The COVID-19 pandemic was the major reason why some of the activities suffered underachievement 
compared to the initial plans. 
Additionally, the initiatives made by the FEED III project should be taken over by development partners 
engaged in the agriculture sector, such as the Office of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Institutes, Higher 
Learning Institutes, and the NGOs. This will be good for the sustainability of the project’s benefits. 
5. Recommendations 
• Considering the project success, it would be imperative to advance the market information system, 
feed channels, and revenue diversification. This will help to resolve feed problems to sustain the 
good practices of FEED III. It should fit the context of the study area. Offices of Agriculture and NGOs, 
such as SNV and other development partners, have roles to play in scaling up the successful FEED III 
project initiatives.
• One of the positive impacts of the FEED III project is the knowledge transfer program of the model 
farmers to the follower farmers in the project intervention areas. Therefore, Woreda Agriculture 
Development Office, SNV, and other development partners engaged in the agriculture sector should 
encourage that knowledge and experience sharing activities model and follower farmers across 
study areas. This can be accomplished through creation of community experience sharing channels 
where farmers can share their experiences with other farmers in their localities. This will continue to 
trickle down and improve spillover effects of the FEED III project.
• It was also evident that households’ participation in animal fattening has positively contributed to
increased income, improved skills of fattening, and livelihood diversification, as well as spillover 
effects of fattening. Additionally, the change in community perception among farmers was a major 
influence. On this account, it would be imperative to advance the market information system and
feed distribution channels, as well as to provide periodic awareness training on the benefits of animal 
fattening as a livelihood strategy. The Woreda Agriculture and Livestock Office should work in 
partnership with locally deployed NGOs, institutes of higher education, unions and cooperatives, and 
others on strengthening and renovating animal fattening practices as part of livelihood diversification 
strategies, fitting to different agroecological settings.
• The positive outcomes and best practices of the FEED III project regarding animal fattening, and other 
livelihood diversification schemes, including poultry, forage, dairy, and poultry productions, need to 
be scaled up and handed over to the government. They should disseminate study findings and 
facilitate a forum for knowledge sharing between enterprises and feed producers. This can be 
facilitated by institutes of higher education working in the sector, locally deployed NGOs, the Woreda 
Administration, feed enterprises, private feed manufacturers, and respective regional offices. To 
materialize this, it would be important to capitalize on the best practices and innovations of the local 
communities on various livelihood diversification strategies and the previous experiences of FEED 
projects. Thus, for the effective implementation of such an innovative idea, it is crucial to create 
67
strong partnership, coordination, and synergy with the government system at different levels of 
administration and with locally deployed NGOs to avoid duplication of efforts.
• One of the mechanisms to make the project achievements sustainable would be strengthening inter 
and intra institutional collaboration with defined roles and responsibilities. Government bodies, such 
as Offices of Agriculture, Higher Learning Institutes, and development partners, including NGOs 
devoted to improving the agriculture sector, need to take over project initiatives. They should include 
them in their regular annual plans as per their mandates to ensure sustainability. This should be 
facilitated by the ministry of agriculture and the livestock development sector.
• Agricultural extension workers in respective woredas should keep strengthening and helping the 
farmers who have been beneficiaries of the FEED III project. The Woreda Office of Agriculture’s
livestock department should keep providing technical support for the farmers. 
• Feed processor enterprises need to be supported both technically and financially to help them supply 
feed inputs on a sustainable basis. The woreda cooperative promotion office should oversee this as 
part of their routine technical support to co-ops. NGOs working in the agriculture sector, such as 
SNV, should also take initiative to support these enterprises to ensure sustainable supply of feeds to 
the farmers engaged in dairy and poultry production, fattening, and others.
• Provide supports for feed ingredient importers. Feed ingredient importers are facing acute hard 
currency shortages. As a result, feed processors faced problems producing quality feed products. The 
prices of concentrate feeds also sky-rocketed, the consequence of which might seriously affect 
productivity of the dairy, fattening, and poultry sectors. The government should consider this issue 
as serious and give priority to accessing hard currency for feed ingredient importers. 
• Enhance the technical and financial capacities of feed processor cooperatives. Co-ops are still in need 
of technical supports on improved management and accounting practices. Trainings and experience 
sharing are required for co-ops to strengthen their ability of properly managing their enterprises. 
Offices of Agriculture, the Cooperative Promotion Agency, NGOs, and other development partners 
engaged in the agriculture sector can be supportive of this initiative. 
• Enabling credit services is also required for enterprises engaged in feed processing, dairy, fattening,
and poultry production. These enterprises often start their businesses with limited capital, which is 
not adequate to render the required services and satisfy input needs of the farmers and other clients. 
Public and private financial institutes should consider designing enabling credit services for these 
enterprises to enable them to exploit their potential to supply quality products for their clients. NGOs 
can also design revolving fund schemes for smallholder famers to help them start business-oriented 
enterprises and improve their livelihoods. 
• Some of the development interventions, such as improved poultry and dairy, need to focus on 
women and youth. Enhancing the capacity of selected women means building the capacity of other 
women in the community because information exchange among them is fast. Non-target women will 
also benefit from interventions through spillover effects. 
68
• Strengthen and scale-up video-based extension services to the farmers engaged not only in the 
livestock sector but also beyond. Farmers highly preferred video-based extension services, for they
provide opportunities for learning from best practices and success stories of other model or 
progressive farmers. Video transmission should focus on success stories of the farmers in their 
locality or other places and should be narrated in local languages. Offices of Agriculture should take 
leadership of this initiative and mobilize other development partners,such as NGOs and international 
development organizations. 
• Support and strengthen day-old chick hatching enterprises. As farmers’ awareness is raising on the 
importance of smallholder poultry production, their demand will also raise for chicks and pullets. 
Poultry enterprises and farmers require sustainable supply enterprises of chicks and pullets. 
Therefore, these enterprises need financial and technical supports through trainings and experience 
sharing. Youth can also be organized for establishment of new chicks and pullet production 
enterprises. Offices of Agriculture should take a lead on this, supported by NGOs and other 
development partners. 
• The respective woredas’ agriculture offices should strengthen forage nursery sites technically and 
logistically to help them supply forage seedlings and cuttings to the farmers at large on a sustainable 
basis. Nursery sites require stable administrative structures where adequate and skilled staff has 
been allocated. These staff require on-the-job trainings and experience sharing to develop their 
knowledge and skills further on improved nursery management practices. Apart from this, nursery 
sites required supports in transportation services, such as field vehicles, to sustainably supply forage 
seedlings to the farmers not only in their locality but also beyond. It would also be feasible and ensure 
sustainability if nursery sites are managed by youth as income-generating enterprises. Since good 
awareness has been created among the farmers on the uses of forage crops, it is also advisable to 
establish new nursery sites across different parts of the country. This should be preceded by 
awareness creation and experience sharing. Offices of Agriculture and NGOs engaged in the 
agriculture sector can play crucial roles in strengthening and sustaining existing nurseries and 
establishing new ones. 
69
Annexes
Bibliography 
FAO. 2019. The future of livestock in Ethiopia. Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty. 
Rome. 48 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2014). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Population 
projection of Ethiopia for all regions: At Woreda level from 2014 – 2017. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
McPeak, J. G., Little, P. D., & Doss, C. R. (2011). Risk and social change in an African rural economy: 
livelihoods in pastoralist communities (Vol. 7). Routledge.
CSA. (2007). Summary and statistical report of population and housing census: Population size by age and 
sex. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Saha, B., and Bahal, R. (2014). Livelihood diversification pattern among the farmers of West Bengal. 
Economic Affairs 59(3). doi 10.5958/0976-4666.2014.00001.1
Currently, 1 USD = 40.3082 ETB (Convert US Dollars to Ethiopian Birr - Exchange Rates (exchange￾rates.org) (Feb 24, 2021). 
Gudina Goda Korsa, Destaw Akele, K. Rajan, The Effect of Devaluation on Domestic Prices in 
Ethiopia, American Journal of Economics, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2018, pp. 191-201. doi: 
10.5923/j.economics.20180804.02
Central Statistical Agency. (2018): Government of Ethiopia, General year-on-year inflation increases, 
http://www.ena.gov.et/en/index.php/economy/item/4263
70
Annex A: Detailed Tables and Figures
Table 35. Percentage of households reporting participation in crop production
Dataset Comparison groups
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All 
Baseline 96.8 99.0 97.6 97.8
End line Beneficiary 96.7 98.6 88.5 94.6
Non-Beneficiary 92.3 96.7 76.9 88.6
Table 36. Percentage of households reporting participation in dairy production
Dataset Comparison groups
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All 
Baseline 52.2 53.3 61.4 55.6
End line Beneficiary 46.0 45.7 50.0 47.2
Non-Beneficiary 30.8 40.7 25.8 32.4
Chi-Square a 0.617 (.432)
Chi-Square b 20.777 (.000)
a Chi-Square between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b Chi-Square between baseline and end line data.
Table 37. Percentage of households reporting participation in animal fattening
Dataset Comparison groups Region Overall
Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline 34.2 29.0 30.6 31.3
End line Beneficiary 52.1 23.5 21.2 32.2
Non-Beneficiary 39.6 20.3 10.4 23.4
Chi-Square a 13.093 (.000)
Chi-Square b 1.981 (.159)
a Chi-Square between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b Chi-Square between baseline and end line data.
Table 38. Percentage of households reporting participation in poultry production
Dataset Comparison groups Region Overall
Amhara Oromia SNNP 
Baseline 61.4 44.0 47.1 50.9
End line Beneficiary 60.7 44.9 20.6 42.0
Non-Beneficiary 49.5 26.9 9.9 28.8
Chi-Square a 2.309 (.129)
Chi-Square b 52.334 (.000)
a
Chi-Square between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-Square between baseline and end line data.
Table 39. Average livestock ownership by breed (baseline and end line surveys)
Livestock type Time Breed
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All 
Bull 
Baseline
Indigenous 2.6 2.6 2 2.46
End line 2.82 2.09 1.14 2.01
71
Livestock type Time Breed
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All 
Baseline 
Crossbreed 0.26 0.4 0.1 0.23
End line 0.36 0.26 0.22 0.28
Cow 
Baseline Indigenous 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.13
End line 2.09 1.65 1.64 1.79
Baseline 
Crossbreed 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.40
End line 0.49 0.49 0.69 0.56
Sheep & Goats
Baseline 
Indigenous 3.7 5.2 2.4 4.74
End line 2.75 1.27 1.90 1.69
Baseline 
Crossbreed 0.01 0.2 0.09 0.08
End line 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.06
Table 40. Percentage of households reporting purchase of animals for fattening
Dataset Comparison groups
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All 
Baseline 63.4 56.8 52.9 58.0
End line Beneficiary 53.4 43.0 82.3 56.5
Non-Beneficiary 57.4 42.4 87.5 57.3
Chi-Square a
.012 (.912)
Chi-Square b
.001 (.982)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 41. Percentage of households reporting receiving training on animal fattening
Dataset Respondent group
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All Regions
Baseline 24.6 9.6 38.8 24.2
End line Beneficiary 90.3 97.5 98.4 93.7
Non-beneficiary 16.4 9.1 18.8 14.5
Chi-Square a 424.815 (.000)
Chi-Square b 222.078 (.000)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 42. Percentage of households reporting the purchase of concentrate feed for fattening animals
Dataset Respondent group
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All Regions
Baseline 29.6 43.5 50.4 40.6
End line Beneficiary 25.0 27.8 64.5 33.4
Non-beneficiary 36.1 18.2 43.8 31.8
Chi-Square a 2.027 (.155)
Chi-Square b 4.415 (.036)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
72
Table 43. Percentage of households reporting the adequacy of feed distribution channels
Dataset Respondent group
Regions
Amhara Oromia SNNP All regions
Baseline 28.6 18.5 0.0 14.0
End line Beneficiary 43.2 59.1 27.5 40.6
Non-beneficiary 31.8 16.7 14.3 25.7
Chi-Square a 19.403 (.000)
Chi-Square b 17.763 (.000)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 44. Percentage of farmers reporting feed problems for fattening animals (multiple response 
items)
Dataset Respondent group Problems 
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All regions
Baseline High price 33.3 65.9 35.6 44.6
Low quality 3.3 7.3 1.7 3.8
Limited supply 63.3 24.4 62.7 50.8
Other 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.8
End line Beneficiary High price 55.6 100.0 63.6 61.9
Low quality 14.8 0.0 15.2 14.3
Limited supply 29.6 0.0 21.2 23.8
Non-beneficiary High price 82.4 100.0 50.0 76.9
Low quality 11.8 0.0 0.0 7.7
Limited supply 5.9 0.0 50.0 15.4
Table 45. Percentage of households reporting coping strategies used for feed problems for fattening 
animals (multiple response items)
Dataset
Respondent 
group Strategies 
Region Overall
Amhara Oromia SNNP All regions 
Baseline Reduce the quantity of feed 
given to chicken
13.3 19.5 5.1 11.5
Shift to own production 50.0 36.6 18.6 31.5
Use some other feed 
materials
36.7 43.9 76.3 56.9
End line Beneficiary Reduce the quantity of feed 
given to fattening animals
10.7 0.0 6.1 7.7
Shift to own production 78.6 75.0 57.6 67.7
Use some other feed 
materials
7.1 25.0 36.4 23.1
Don't know 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.5
Non-beneficiary Reduce the quantity of feed 
given to chicken
11.8 33.3 0.0 11.5
Shift to own production 82.4 33.3 66.7 73.1
Use some other feed 
materials
5.9 33.3 33.3 15.4
* Since these are multiple response items, the percentages do not add up to 100 percent.
73
Table 46. Percentage of households reporting on the affordability of concentrate feed for fattening 
animals (multiple response times)
Dataset Respondent group
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All Regions
Baseline 9.5 25.9 0.0 11.5
End line Beneficiary 11.4 45.5 25.0 23.6
Non-beneficiary 9.1 50.0 0.0 14.3
Chi-Square a 4.668 (.031)
Chi-Square b 3.071 (.080)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 47. Percentage of households reporting price fluctuation of concentrate feed for fattening animals
Dataset Respondent group
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All Regions 
Baseline 83.3 88.9 95.1 89.8
End line Beneficiary 88.6 90.9 42.5 71.7
Non-beneficiary 77.3 83.3 42.9 71.4
Chi-Square a 6.882 (.009)
Chi-Square b 11.173 (.001)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 48. Percentage of households reporting checking the quality of feed purchased for fattening 
animals
Dataset Respondent group
Region Overall
Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline 54.8 46.3 86.9 64.3
End line Beneficiary 50.0 81.8 62.5 61.3
Non-beneficiary 63.6 83.3 28.6 60.0
Chi-Square a
Chi-Square b
.000 (.989)
.008 (.928)
a
Chi-square test between beneficiary and non-beneficiary group at the end line evaluation.
b
Chi-square test between baseline and end line data.
Table 49. Percentage of households reporting quality checking methods (multiple response items)
Dataset Respondent 
group
Quality checking methods Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP All regions 
Baseline 
Through physical 
detection using 
indigenous knowledge
100.0 88.0 100.0 97.0
Through physical 
detection by livestock 
expert
0.0 8.0 0.0 2.0
Other (specify) 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0
End line
Beneficiary Through physical 
detection using 
indigenous knowledge
72.7 88.9 96.0 86.2
74
Table 50. Gender role in dairy production activities
Activities Responsible person Baseline (2018) 
End line (2020)
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Cleaning cows Adult male 41 42 43
Adult female 56 93 89
Children under 18 2 27 26
Feeding the 
cows
Adult male 76 77 71
Adult female 23 85 86
Children under 18 1.3 29 30
Forage 
collection
Adult male 74 86 80
Adult female 12 68 57
Children under 18 1.7 28 29
Concentrate 
feed purchasing
Adult male 41 89 76
Adult female 6 52 60
Children under 18 0.7 11 10
Factory 
ingredients 
purchasing
Adult male 41 89 78
Adult female 6 45 53
Children under 18 0 10 9
Milking Adult male 36 37 33
Adult female 62 88 86
Children under 18 0 14 5
Milk processing 
(butter, cheese)
Adult male 9 10 8
Adult female 87 97 100
Children under 18 0.5 16 10
Selling cows and 
calves
Adult male 78 84 82
Adult female 14 40 43
Children under 18 0 9 8
Selling dairy 
products
Adult male 24 32 34
Adult female 50 88 85
Children under 18 0 17 10
Calf feeding and 
management
Adult male 64 64 68
Adult female 33 91 90
Children under 18 2 34 42
Through physical 
detection by livestock 
expert
27.3 11.1 4.0 13.8
Other (specify) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-beneficiary Through physical 
detection using 
indigenous knowledge
92.9 100.0 100.0 95.2
Through physical 
detection by livestock 
expert
7.1 0.0 0.0 4.8
75
Activities Responsible person Baseline (2018) 
End line (2020)
Beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Watering Adult male 63 64 59
Adult female 35 88 88
Children under 18 2 42 44
Cow cleaning Adult male 76 59 54
Adult female 32 86 78
Children under 18 2 3 352
Udder washing Adult male 29 42 27
Adult female 45 83 90
Children under 18 0 21 14
Table 51. Who transferred the knowledge to the follower farmers?
Technology/practice Technology source 
Region
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Who transferred the knowledge on dairy 
animal nutrition and management to 
you?
Model farmer 94.4% 47.9% 88.7% 75.9%
Development agent 5.6% 43.8% 9.4% 20.4%
Others 0.0% 8.3% 1.9% 3.6%
Who transferred the knowledge on 
improved fattening management to 
you?
Model farmer 94.9% 45.7% 85.1% 74.2%
Development agent 5.1% 47.8% 10.6% 22.0%
Others 0.0% 6.5% 4.3% 3.8%
Who transferred the knowledge on 
improved poultry nutrition and feeding 
to you?
Model farmer 93.5% 44.7% 84.8% 71.8%
Development agent 6.5% 51.1% 10.9% 25.0%
Others 0.0% 4.3% 4.3% 3.2%
Who transferred the knowledge on 
improved forage production to you?
Model farmer 96.7% 37.1% 88.5% 75.2%
Development agent 3.3% 54.3% 5.8% 19.7%
Others 0.0% 8.6% 5.8% 5.1%
Table 52. How did you receive the knowledge transfer?
Knowledge transfer method Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
How did you receive 
the knowledge 
transfer on dairy 
animal nutrition and 
management?
One-on-one meetings with model farmer 47.2% 45.8% 86.8% 62.0%
Visiting model farmer activities/ practices 27.8% 31.3% 7.5% 21.2%
Informal talks with the model farmer 25.0% 22.9% 5.7% 16.8%
How did you receive 
the knowledge 
transfer on improved 
fattening 
management?
One-on-one meetings with model farmer 52.5% 45.7% 87.2% 62.4%
Visiting model farmer activities/ practices 37.5% 28.3% 10.6% 24.8%
Informal talks with the model farmer 10.0% 26.1% 2.1% 12.8%
How did you receive 
the knowledge 
One-on-one meetings with model farmer 58.1% 48.9% 84.8% 64.5%
Visiting model farmer activities/ practices 29.0% 27.7% 15.2% 23.4%
76
transfer on improved 
poultry nutrition and 
feeding?
Informal talks with the model farmer 12.9% 23.4% 0.0% 12.1%
How did you receive 
the knowledge 
transfer on improved 
forage production?
One-on-one meetings with model farmer 50.0% 42.9% 84.6% 63.2%
Visiting model farmer activities/ practices 40.0% 34.3% 11.5% 25.6%
Informal talks with the model farmer 10.0% 22.9% 3.8% 11.1%
Figure 13. Top five challenges in poultry production during baseline 
Figure 14. Top five challenges in poultry production during end line
Table 53. Quantity of poultry feed used and total cost of feed during baseline study, 2018
Feed type
Amhara Oromia SNNP Source of feed (% of respondents) 
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) 
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) 
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) Co-op
Own 
producti
on
Private 
Enterp
rise 
Other 
farmer
s NGO
Layers feed 88 611 56 552 43 299 24 48 10 18 0
Broilers feed 150 750 46 292 99 697 0 0 75 25 0
Grain 12 73 50 175 260 346 13 0 13 47 27
Table 54. Quantity of poultry feed used and total cost of feed during end line study, 2020
136
97
63
46
8
185
139
94 91
60
122
83
67
58
19
136 133
91
65 62
0
50
100 150 200
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP
Top 5 problems in poultry production
Predators Chicken disease 
Lack of knowledge on poultry production Lack of improved breed 
Theft
0
50
100
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
82
71 64
76
9 11 11 10 4 2.5 8 4
% of households
Top 5 problems in poultry production, end line 
% 
Predators
Chicken diseases
Theft
Lack of improved breeds
77
Feed type
Amhara Oromia SNNP Source of feed (% of respondents)
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) 
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) 
Qty 
(KG)
Cost 
(Birr) 
Co￾op
Own 
produc
tion
Private 
Enterpri
se 
Other 
farme
rs
NGO
Layers feed 22.3 542.5 486.3 6,602.
1
59.1 917.4 23 - 9 5 -
Broilers feed 0 0 525 925 32.4 312.1 45 - - 9 -
Grain 157.5 1,575 50 650 46.8 645 11 17 - 17 -
Table 55. Percentage of training recipient households and adopters of planting material in past 12 
months
Variable Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
BL* EL BL EL BL EL BL EL
Training on improved forage 23 89 29 92 40 98 36 94
Use of improved forage planting 
material 5 64 3 19 10 44 3 50
Source of planting material (% of households) 
Government 50 49 0 100 91 73 86 62
NGO 12 44 0 0 7 12 8 27
Private 37 1.3 0 0 0 5 5 3.1
Farmer-to-farmer 0 6 0 0 2 10 1.5 8
 *BL=Baseline EL=end line
Table 56. Major forage production problems by region and number of respondents, 2018
Problems Amhara Oromia SNNP
Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line
Lack of improved forage seed 7 46 4 19 59 39
Lack of water for irrigation 26 2.5 1 4 56 3
Shortage of land 29 47 4 73 92 51
Lack of knowledge on forage 
production 
7 0 4 0 42 0
Table 57. Forage varieties grown and used by survey households (%) during baseline and end line
Forage crop 
Amhara Oromia SNNP Total
Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line Baseline End line
Elephant 
Grass 9.7 48 14.3 19 50.0 96 39 62
Sesbania 16.1 27.1 14.3 6.3 0 0 5 15.4
Rhodes 3.2 11.8 0 0 1.9 1.8 2.1 7.1
Vetch 9.7 2.4 0 0 0.9 0 2.8 1.3
Sinar 16.1 1.2 14.3 50.0 5.7 0 8.3 5.8
Desho 0 4.7 0 18.8 65.1 1.8 47.6 5.1
Buffle grass 3.2 0 14.3 6.3 0.9 0 2.1 0.6
Others 61.3 3.5 71.4 0 17.0 0 29.0 1.9
78
Figure 15. Household experiences of purchasing forage inputs in the last 12 months, 2020
Figure 16. Sources of forage inputs for beneficiary farmers, 2020
Figure 17. Problems of forage supply for beneficiary farmers, 2020
0
20
40
60
80
Amhara Oromia SNNP Overall
63
33
9
51
12
67
0
12
5
0
9
5
19
0
55
25
% of households
Government ACDI/VOCA
Private enterprises Farmer-to-farmer exchange
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
High input
price
Low input
quality
Limited input
supply
Skill &
knowledge
gap
61
4
26
6
% of households
0
10
20
Amhara Oromia SNNP overall
14
4
7
9
7
0
8 7
% of households 
Purchase forage inputs
Beneficiary Non-beneficiaries
79
Annex B: Project Evaluation Against the OECD-DAC Criteria 
Project Relevance
Relevance was one of the criteria used to assess:
• Appropriateness of project objectives and implementation strategies to the felt needs of the 
project targets
• Consistence to and complementarity with existing policies and strategies in relation to livestock 
feed production
• Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in terms of geographic locations and households, including 
gender considerations in the selection process 
Similar FGD and KII extracts from the Amhara region have indicated that the project was an appropriate 
remedial response to the problems they have long been facing in terms of animal husbandry. Even though 
they have cattle and shoats in numbers, the level of productivity was deteriorating from time to time,
mainly due to lack of improved feed in quality and quantity. This was exacerbated by lack of knowledge 
and skills on feed production and feeding mechanisms. Thus, it was reported that the relevance of the 
project in addressing the right problem in a timely manner was undisputed in all the study sites of the 
Oromia, SNNP, and Amhara regions. 
In terms of beneficiary targeting, the qualitative responses from both regions have indicated that the 
choice of kebeles and beneficiary households were clearly done as per project targeting criteria. The 
choice of kebeles was based on livestock production potential considering land availability, agro￾ecological diversity, and the results of a needs assessment. Most of the beneficiary households were those 
who demonstrated enthusiasm, interest, and readiness to take part in the project. During the training 
sessions, the same interest was witnessed from the participant farmers who were energetic and 
determined to put the acquired skills into practice. The selection was criteria-based and upon agreement 
reached between the farmers and the Livestock and Fishery Development Offices. 
A senior official key informant from the Bureau of Fishery and Livestock in the Oromia region shared the 
same views with woreda officials, confirming the project objectives were in line with government 
development priorities and beneficiary interests. According to the senior official, the livestock subsector 
provides an important opportunity for the country’s development. As clearly stated in the project planning 
document, the intervention of the FEED III project is in line with government policy, strategy, and 
guidelines. The respondent further emphasized that nothing conflicted with the government strategic 
document, and it rather complements what the policy document laments to achieve. 
The respondent further reinforced the views of the woreda officials that the beneficiary targeting was 
carried out in a participatory and transparent manner whereby all relevant actors took an active role. It 
was done in the presence and active participation of the relevant government structure. Most of the 
beneficiaries were selected based on their agro-ecological conditions, readiness to adopt new 
technologies, and size of land and animals they have. Reports have also attested that there was gender 
consideration in the targeting process, which means many women were given an opportunity to 
participate in the project training. 
80
Similarly, FGD reports from the Amhara region confirmed the relevance of the project in terms of its 
gender inclusiveness. As the project targeted a minimum of 30 percent of the participants to be women 
households who took part in the training, its relevance in terms of gender inclusiveness was reported as
unquestionable. The FGD participants have reported that women were significantly involved in animal 
feed preparation, fattening, and dairy practices, and their cumulative contribution in the success of the 
project outcomes has been more significant than their male counterparts. Women were found to be best 
suited in caring for animals on timely basis and the task of feeding has been routinely undertaken by 
women. Thus, the project’s relevance in this regard has been evident. Overall, the project’s relevance in 
terms of being in line with beneficiary demands and government policies, as well as the targeting of 
kebeles and households, was found to be highly relevant and satisfactory.
Project Efficiency 
Respondents also mentioned that they were provided with budget utilization reports on a periodic basis 
which created enhanced transparency and gave them an opportunity to know the progress of the project 
in comparison to the budget utilization. Similarly, responses from the Amhara region have shared the 
same view with those from the Oromia region. They contend that this project was undertaken with limited 
cost and the entire process of budget allocation, disbursement, and utilization was fair, transparent, and 
efficient. Thus, the project has achieved the criteria of efficiency in all woredas.
Budget utilization status of the regions was similar, except Tigray where budget utilization was a bit lower 
standing at 92.59 percent. This was mainly attributed to political instability sparked in the Tigray region 
toward the end of the project period (October–December).
Budget utilization status in the Tigray region and some of the activities, such as activity-1 and activity-4 
exhibited underutilization. Budget utilization of activities 2, 3, and 5 was 75 percent and above.
Overall, budget utilization status of the FEED III project was excellent. The project management team 
made decisions that facilitated timely budget utilization. For instance, the underutilized budget was
shifted from the Tigray to Oromia region. In cases of unexpected incidences that could affect project 
implementation, it is a wise and expected decision to shift an underutilized budget from one budget code 
to another, from one activity to another, or from one project region to another.
Table 58. FEED III project budget utilization status of regions in the project period (Ethiopian Birr)
Regional state
Total project 
budget Total expenditure Balance % of utilization 
Amhara 39,127,381.07 39,053,978.40 73,402.67 99.81
Oromia 39,127,381.07 39,442,814.73 (315,433.66) 100.81
SNNP 39,127,381.07 39,123,733.69 3,647.38 99.99
Tigray 39,127,381.07 36,228,115.23 2,899,265.84 92.59
Overall 156,509,524.28 153,848,642.05 2,660,882.24 98.30
Table 59. FEED III project budget utilization status by activity (Ethiopian Birr)
81
Project activity 
Total project 
budget
Total 
expenditure Balance
Activity 1 - Feed Ingredient Supply Chain 7,000,000.00 3,645,516.73 3,354,483.27
Activity 2 - Grow Feed Sector Enterprises 30,490,000.00 22,836,004.96 7,653,995.05
Activity 3 - Sustainable Forage Production 14,360,000.00 13,632,701.72 727,298.28
Activity 4 - Fattening, Dairy, and Poultry Enterprises 8,796,000.00 4,283,580.74 4,512,419.26
Activity 5 - On-Farm Feeding Practices 11,936,000.00 8,989,535.53 2,946,464.47
Total 72,582,000 53,387,339.68 19,194,660.33
Figure 18. Budget utilization status by region (left) and by activity (right)
A-1: Activity, A-2: Activity 2, A-3: Activity 3, A-4: Activity 4, A-5: Activity 5
Project Effectiveness 
The bulk of qualitative information from different groups of respondents (key informants and FGDs) in the 
Oromia region has shown the effectiveness of the project from various angles. They contend that the 
project has been effective in creating a feed industry for local unions. It increased awareness about 
livestock feed types and livestock production systems (animal fattening practices, dairy production 
practices, poultry production, and livestock feeds by livestock types). Respondents are bald enough in 
speaking out that the project has achieved its objectives as planned in the project document. Besides the 
capacity that has been built among the beneficiaries, experts, and unions, as well as local government 
structures, in terms of new methods of feed production and use, it has been beneficial in changing the 
practice of the traditional way of animal husbandry. 
The qualitative data from KIIs of the Oromia and Amhara regions have shown that livestock product highly 
increased after the intervention of FEED III projects. The demand of concentrated feed and improved 
forage increased from time to time, which is indicative of an ongoing transfer in technology. In other 
words, the beneficiaries have already been acquainted with the new technologies and have given up the 
traditional ways of livestock management. The respondents further indicated that since the demand for 
dairy products is increasing from time to time, they have benefited from the increasing size of marketable 
dairy products.
The project has been effective in introducing new forage production technologies, especially on the 
highland and midland agro-ecological areas, that include improved forage production of alfalfa, elephant 
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00 99.81 100.81 99.99
92.59
98.30
% of budget utilized
% Total Budget Utilization by Region 
 -
 20
 40
 60
 80
 100
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 Total
52 
75 
95 
49 
75 74 
% of budget utilized
% of Total Budget Utilization by Activity 
82
grass, cowpea vetch, and others which are widely observed on the farming fields and backyards of the 
beneficiary households. The reports indicated that these technologies were introduced by ACDI/VOCA, 
SLM, and the government’s livestock and fishery offices. The demand for these newly introduced 
technologies is fast growing among local communities, and it brought about a bright prospect to the 
households to enhance production and get the most out of their endeavors. 
However, these technologies have only been introduced in areas where there is adequate water supply 
or areas with access to irrigable lands. Areas with water scarcity have yet to be addressed with similar 
interventions. Moreover, it was reported that there is a severe scarcity of forage seeds impeding further 
multiplication of feeds. Thus, seed scarcity and water supply problems are critical bottlenecks which must
be addressed to expand the project’s effectiveness. Despite the challenges, respondents have attested in 
several ways that the project has been effective in achieving its objectives and accrued enormous benefits 
to the beneficiary communities and to those who operate in the livestock value chain.
One of the outputs related to improved policy and regulatory framework was not delivered in the project 
period (Annex D3.1). This activity was supposed to be implemented in collaboration with the International 
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). One of the approaches to be adopted for this activity was conducting 
a series of workshops with policymakers drawn from the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Agricultural 
Transformation Agency (ATA), Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), and Ethiopian Central 
Statistics Agency (CSA). However, this was not implemented due to the emergence of COVID-19 in 
Ethiopia in March 2020. The other reasons included turnover of higher-level policymakers at the MOA. 
The scientist responsible from the side of ILRI felt seriously sick in the project period and eventually passed
away. 
The other indicator thatsuffered underperformance was related to the output “Increased use of improved 
agricultural technologies and techniques.” One of the indicators under this output was “Number of 
hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance.” The 
performance of this indicator was only 66 percent. This was because data for this indicator was collected 
from smallholder farmers through DAs. COVID-19 travel restrictions affected timely collection of data for 
the project indicators. Apart from the COVID-19 crisis, political insecurity in the Tigray region has 
exacerbated slow progress for some of the project activities. 
The overall achievement of the project was highly satisfactory, as this performance was achieved in the 
face of two big challenges: 1.) the first year of the project was almost spent for preparation without fully 
commencing activity implementation; and 2.) the emergence of COVID-19 restricted many of the project’s 
activities from being implemented as planned. A third could even be political instability in the Tigray 
region. Project management and staff made the utmost efforts to implement most of the activities in the 
second year of the project.
83
Table 60. Plan versus achievement of FEED-III project outputs and indicators
Outputs or activity 
title 
Performance indicators Target plan Achievement % of 
achievement
Reasons for 
discrepancy, if any
Increased 
agricultural 
productivity 
Number of individuals receiving short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training because of
USDA assistance
48,768 42,768 88 Farmer training not 
conducted in Tigray 
region due to COVID-19
pandemic
Number of farmers and others who have received training 
in improved farm management practices (i.e., 
governance, administration, financial management, 
recordkeeping) because of USDA assistance 
48,768 42,414 87 Same as above
Number of individuals benefitting directly because of
USDA assistance (9,547 trained on sustainable forage 
development, improved animal feeding and nutrition 
practices, and improved farm management)
48,768 43,451 89 Same as above
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly because of
USDA assistance 
242,200 357,169 147
Increased leverage 
of private sector 
resources 
Number of public-private partnerships formed because of
USDA assistance (expanding markets for commercial 
feed)
144 138 96 Same as above
Value of new public and private sector investments
leveraged by USDA assistance (the project objective of 
expanding markets for commercial feed)
$256,028 
USD
$402,017 USD 157
Improved policy and 
regulatory 
framework 
Number of policies, regulations, and/or administrative 
procedures in each of the stages of development because 
of USDA assistance (forage seed certification and 
voluntary feed certification activities)
5 0 0
Improved capacity 
of key groups in the 
agriculture 
production sector 
(co-ops and 
smallholder 
farmers)
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations, 
water user associations, women’s groups, trade and 
business associations, and community-based 
organizations that applied new technologies or 
management practices as result of USDA assistance 
(training was also provided on feed retail business 
management)
144 138 96
Number of farmers who have applied new techniques or 
technologies introduced by the project (trainings 
29,261 38,918 133
84
Increased use of 
improved 
agricultural 
technologies and 
techniques 
provided to farmers on improved techniques and 
technologies related to forage production, livestock, and 
poultry management)
Number of hectares of land under improved techniques 
or technologies because of USDA assistance (provided 
training to smallholder farmers in sustainable forage 
development)
2,000ha 1,313ha 66
Value of loans provided because of USDA assistance $1,410,000 
USD 
$2,385,738 
USD
 
169
Increased use of 
financial services 
Number of individuals receiving financial services because 
of USDA assistance
14,112 36,025 255
Expanded rrade of 
agricultural 
products (domestic, 
regional, and 
international)
Value of sales by project beneficiaries (sold items: dairy, 
fattening, poultry, and sheep and goat feed products)
$9,600,000 
USD 
$10,647,368 
USD
111
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries (sold 
products: dairy concentrate, fattening concentrate, 
poultry concentrate, and sheep and goat concentrate) 
38,400 MT 36,098 MT 94
85
As revealed in Table 61, over achievement was observed in some of the activities, while 
underachievement in others, from the perspective of initial plans. Reasons for underachievement have 
been provided for each of the indicators. The negative effect of COVID-19 impacted many of the 
indicators, which restricted some of the project activities, especially trainings that were planned for 
beneficiary farmers. 
Assessment of FEED III project outcome level indicators are also presented in Table 66. In outcome 1, 
there were three indicators for which baseline and end line progresses were measured. The project 
achieved two out of the three indicators. At the time of baseline study, households owned 4.6 chickens
of all breed types (local and improved). Through feed-based interventions and capacity development 
trainings, beneficiary farmers owned 11.4 chickens at the end of the project. Increasing the productivity 
of milk was also achieved far more than the 15 percent plan. For instance, the baseline productivity of 
milk for crossbred cows was 2.2 liters per day per cow. Through feed interventions and trainings facilitated 
by the FEED III project, this productivity was raised to 4.11 per day per cow at farmers’ level, which is an 
increase of 87 percent. 
COVID-19 disrupted the achievement of indicators related to fattening. This was because some of the 
beneficiaries received trainings recently, after the government lifted its state of emergency (after 
September). Apart from this, the beneficiaries faced a shortage of forage seeds and seedlings. In some of 
the locations with moisture stress, the farmers faced a shortage of water. Some other farmers also faced 
shortage of supplies, such as concentrate feeds. Some of the farmers also claim that they needed more 
trainings to capture the knowledge and skills of fattening techniques, which help them start or strengthen 
the fattening business.
Table 61. FEED III outcome indicators, baseline and end line values
Outcome-1: Increased 
agricultural productivity Definition Baseline 
benchmark values
End line values Remarks
Indicator-1 15 percent 
increase in 
unit 
productivity 
of fattened 
cattle
Percentage increase in 
productivity of fattened 
cattle per head over the 
measured baseline. 
Unit: Percent
Number of cattle 
fattened/year/HH:
Total = 1.77
1.39 (a decline by 
21 percent)
The project 
didn’t 
achieve this 
target.
Indicator-2 15 percent 
increase in 
unit 
productivity 
of poultry
Percentage increase in 
productivity of local and 
exotic/improved 
poultry, by counting the 
total number of poultry 
(all types) raised over 
baseline. 
Unit: Percent
Number of poultry 
(all types) 
raised/year/HH:
Total = 4.6
11.4 (an increase 
by 148 percent)
This is over￾achievement 
of the 
project.
Indicator-3 15 percent 
increase in 
unit 
productivity 
of milk
This indicator will 
measure the 
percentage increase in 
productivity of milk by 
counting kilograms of 
milk produced and 
calculating the 
Average quantity 
(liters) of milk 
produced/milking 
cow/day:
Indigenous = 1.51 
Indigenous = 1.99 
(an increase by 32
percent)
Crossbred = 4.11 
(an increase by 87
percent)
The project 
has achieved 
this target.
86
percentage increase 
over the measured 
baseline. 
Unit: Percent
Crossbred = 2.20
Outcome-2: Expanded trade 
of agricultural products Definition Baseline 
benchmark values
End line values Remarks
Indicator-1 15 percent 
increase in 
sales of 
agricultural 
products 
(fattened 
cattle, 
poultry, feed, 
milk/milk 
products, and 
eggs) by 
project 
beneficiaries
This indicator will 
calculate the gross sales 
of these five products 
by beneficiaries at 
various points over the 
life of the project to 
compare. 
Unit: Percent
Sales of indicated 
products/year/HH 
(birr):
Poultry = 2,371.40
Milk/milk products
= 2,544.10
Eggs = 796.10
Total = 5,711.60 
ETB 
Poultry = 3,013.70
Milk/milk 
products = 19,419
Eggs = 1,834.30
Total = 24,267 
ETB 
This is over￾achievement 
of the 
project.
The performances of FEED III intermediate results are also presented in Annex D3.3. There were three key 
indicators for the results to which the project has made good progress. For instance, the project has 
contributed to increases of forage area from a baseline of zero to 0.23ha. The proportion of farmers who 
have applied new techniques introduced by the project also reached 91 percent during the project period. 
All the cooperatives from the project have also adopted the practice of recordkeeping.
Table 62. Performance of FEED III intermediate results
Intermediate 
results Project target Indicator definition Baseline benchmark 
value
End line values
FFPr 1.1 IR-1.1 Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources 
FFPr-1.1 
Indicator-1.1
Hectares of eroded land in 
target areas made 
productive by conversion 
to sustainable forage 
production
Count the number of hectares of 
sustainable forage plots that are 
established because of the 
project. 
Unit: Hectares
Baseline is 0 (i.e., this 
measures the results 
of activities to be 
implemented during 
the project)
0.23ha
FFPr 1.2 IR-1.2 Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies 
FFPr-1.2 
Indicator-1
Number of farmers who 
have applied new 
techniques or 
technologies introduced 
by the project
Count those farmers who have 
applied the following techniques 
and technologies defined as: 1.) 
Improved forage growing 
systems, 2.) Increased use of 
manufactured feed, 3.) 
Improved feedlot, dairy, and 
poultry production practices. 
"Application" will be assessed 
through a survey.
Baseline is 0 (i.e., this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed 
in trainings yet to be 
conducted).
91 percent
FFPr 1.3 IR-1.3 Improved Farm Management (Operational, Financial) 
FFPr-1.3 
Indicator-1
Number of farmers who 
have applied improved 
farm management 
This indicator will estimate,
through a representative 
sample, the number of project 
Baseline is 0 (i.e., this 
measures adoption of 
practices addressed 
100 percent
87
practices (in the case of 
FEED III this indicator 
considers application of 
recordkeeping)
farmers who have applied 
improved farm management 
practices. 
Unit: Number
in trainings yet to be 
conducted).
Project Outcomes and Impacts 
The FGD members in the Oromia and Amhara regions have shared similar views that the project has been 
instrumental in improving the livelihoods of beneficiary households. It enhanced the production and 
productivity of milk processing with a concurrent increase in the nutrition, income, and asset holding of 
the farming households. It was also reported that some of the FEED III project beneficiaries have seen real 
changes in their livelihood status, as well as their family lifestyle. However, the KIIs also mentioned there 
are still a significant number of households struggling to give up traditional livestock rearing and 
demonstrated little outcome. 
According to the field reports, there are also formidable challenges to be tackled in the future with regard 
to poultry production, which are limiting project outcomes and further impacts. These include poultry 
diseases, poor management practices, lack of proper institutional support (very poor health services), lack 
of capital to expand chicken production, shortage and high price of feed, marketing problems (seasonality 
of price), and limited technical advice on breed requirements. Some of the key informants in the Oromia 
region have also expressed dissatisfaction in the health services and feed price, as there is no adequate 
immunization of poultry to prevent disease outbreaks. Thus, contagious disease and the soaring price of 
poultry feed are major problems identified by all zonal respondents in the Oromia region, which they fear 
could stifle the impacts of the project.
In addition to the responses of FGDs and KIIs presented above in two regions, a field observation in one 
of the woredas in the Amhara region has shown that the project achieved an outcome by securing animal 
feeds from year to year. Because of the new technologies, the farmers secured animal feeding over a 
period that extends beyond a single farming season. During the field visit, data collectors were able to 
observe, in the backyard of a small farm holder named Emanuel*8
(resident of Adet Zuria kebele,
Elma’na’Denssa woreda), heaps of crop by-products from last year’s harvests.
Some of the Cases of the Project Impact 
Case 1:
“My name is Dani*9
from Yilmana Densa District of West Gojam zone, Amhara Region. I am 49 
with an adult level of education. My only size of land is half a hectare. I don’t have resources 
and because of this I was suffering from poverty for a longer period of time. Especially after the 
death of my husband, I was in severe problem of securing my daily food consumption. Because 
of poverty, two of my daughters migrated to Addis Ababa and my older son has been hired in
the neighbor’s house. Before the project intervention, I was involved in poultry. However, I was 
not effective since I used traditional ways to take care of hens. One day all my chickens died of 
a disease pandemic. While I was hopeless and confused on what to do, extension agents 
8*Alias used for privacy.
9 *Alias used for privacy.
88
recruited me to a training organized by the FEED III project. I have got ample knowledge and 
skills from the training for the training was so practical. Since I had experiences in poultry, I 
started again by purchasing 100 pullets with Birr 8,000. My income was significantly increased, 
and my livelihoods started to change in a better way. I decided to expand the business and 
requested another 200 pullets, but extension agents gave me 100. This time, I have 186 mother 
hens and, on average, I can get 160 eggs per day. My life has been improved tremendously 
thanks to the FEED III project.” 
Case 2: 
“My name is Kaleb*10 from Yilmana Densa district, Adet Zuria, Amhara region. I am 56 with a
5th grade level of education. I only own a hectare of land. I have learned about taking care of 
plants and animals from my father. One day, extension agents (DAs) gave me the chance to 
participate in the project where I have received trainings and got ample experiences. Even 
though I own a small plot of land, I allocated a quarter of it to grow vetch grass. Since then, we 
are feeding our animals year-round. I have 5 crossbred cows and they are productive since I can 
feed them well and that they give birth within a year. They are valuable assets and profitable 
for me. Last week, for example, I sold one cow for Birr 54,000. I plan to have up to 7 cows to 
maximize my incomes. Currently, there is no forage problem. I have sold calves for my 
neighbors, and this time, they are effective. I have brought changes in my livelihood because of 
the project. I have built my house with corrugated iron/tin roof. Not only my home, but also the 
corral, kitchen, and shelter for forage are built from tin roof. I have built a house in Adet town 
that has nine rooms and one big house in which all of them have been rented and I am 
generating monthly income. My life changed drastically since I engaged with the project.” 
Case 3: 
“My name is Salim*,11 aged 32 from Hanu Jewe Kebele, Shirka Woreda of Arsi Zone, Oromia 
Region. Some 8 years ago, being hopeless, young in farming, I moved to Saudi Arabia as a haj 
maker and lived there for three years. After many Ethiopians expelled out from the Saudi, I also 
returned home and begun to actively participate and help my old Mama. After a while, I tried to 
save money and bought one crossbred cow and later on got engaged on fattening as well. One 
day, I got a chance to get involved with an ACDI/VOCA project where they helped me in providing 
training, forage seeds, and exposed me to experience sharing in various parts of the country. I
visited Mr. Ebo*12 the field, and came up with Desho cuttings and now I am using various forage 
technologies that increased production and productivity of my livestock. I am now the owner of 
more than 5 hybrid cows and 3 new hybrid calves. The knowledge and skills I got from 
ACDI/VOCA trainings and experience sharing have audibly changed my life. Every training given 
by the project was helpful. The main important benefit I got from the training was the 
application of animal feed technology. ACDI/VOCA and other partners helped me scale up my
farm business. Now, I have built a house and also have around Birr 800,000 in my bank account. 
Now I am planning to expand my business to poultry production (both pullets and layers).” 
10 *Alias used for privacy.
11 *Alias used for privacy.
12 *Alias used for privacy.
89
Project Sustainability 
The issue of sustainability of the project’s benefits is well articulated among the key informants who are 
on the frontline of project implementation and coordination. They are well aware of the needs and 
possible strategies to maintain the outcomes of the project in the future.
To this end, they reiterated that once the benefits of the intervention are properly understood by 
beneficiary farmers, facilitating access to improved forage seeds and cuttings, concentrated feeds, 
technologies to treat dry crop residues, and more, on continual basis, will be a key task ahead of them. 
They further contend that, even though there is no clear exit strategy set out for the project, as farmers’ 
benefits continue from the introduced knowledge and technology, they vowed to shoulder and effectively 
discharge the task of taking care of the project benefits. They believe that the project has successfully 
worked on the software aspects of the farmers, where practical scientific knowledge about every aspect 
of livestock production was taught, and, hence, it would not be difficult for local government and 
community institutions to maintain those practical successes and benefits accrued from the project. 
However, KIIs from the two regions have expressed similar concerns that the project has been lacking a 
clear and well thought out exit strategy. 
Project Personnel 
FEED III has 23 staff, with 5 of them having BSc/BA, 16 having MSc, and 2 of them having PhD levels of 
education. Appropriate staff qualifications and experiences facilitated the high achievement of project 
outputs. Even though the project has gone through two big challenges (delays and COVID-19), staff utilized 
their experiences and qualifications to design effective approaches to accomplish many of the project 
activities as planned. One of the approaches adopted was capacitating and engaging regional-, zonal-, and 
woreda-level staff to run the activities on the ground. These staff received TOT trainings, which were later 
cascaded to lower-level structures. 
90
Annex C: Detailed Evaluation Methodology
Sources and Type of Data
Data for the end line evaluation was generated both from primary and secondary sources. Primary data 
was collected from targeted smallholder farmers, feed service providers, cooperative unions, agricultural 
extension workers, feed processors, and enterprises in selected woredas and kebeles of the end line
evaluation. In addition, qualitative data was collected through key informant interviews with USDA staff, 
relevant project staff, and key stakeholders, such as regional woreda staff, cooperative unions, and feed 
manufacturing enterprises. Focus group discussions were held with smallholder farmers, women, and
union/cooperative members of the feed/milk/meat/egg value chains. This also included personal 
observations of animal feed, poultry, and milk processing areas. The use of multiple sources of data has 
enabled triangulation of findings across sources.
Secondary data related to the project, including FEED III semi-annual performance reports, project 
documents, the baseline survey report, the FEED III work plan, the FEED III resultsframework, and relevant 
literature, were reviewed to get a clearer picture of the FEED III project’s performance. 
Methods of Data Collection 
Household Survey
The quantitative data for the priority project indicators were collected from project beneficiary and non￾beneficiary farmers (livestock keepers) in sample woredas and kebeles. A representative random sample 
of 1,640 farmers drawn from 12 woredas and 36 kebeles were interviewed using a Computer Assisted 
Personal Interviewer (CAPI) with the CSPro application. The key variables for the survey are milk 
production, poultry production, feed production, and adoption of improved dairy, poultry, and livestock 
fattening practices,such as improved feeds and feeding practices. In general, the household survey covers 
dairy, animal feed, animal fattening, poultry, gender perspectives in feed management practices, and 
household dietary diversity. Attention was given to key impact and outcome indicators in the project 
results framework.
Sample Size Determination for the Household Survey 
We used the following sample size determination formula to estimate project impact from the household 
survey. We used a baseline average percentage of households engaged in milk production, animal 
fattening, and poultry to estimate the sample size. The baseline proportion of households that participate 
in the three value chains was 42 percent, and a 10 percentage point increase was assumed to get the 
desired change of 52 percent. The following sample size determination is used to arrive at the final sample 
size. 
Where:
 ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2
2 1
2
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
P P
deff Z P P Z P P P P
n
−
 − + − + −
=
− −
91
• P1 is the value of the indicator (0.42)
• P2 is the expected value of the indicator (1+10%) * P1 = 0.52
• P = (P1+P2)/2
• Za is the standard normal deviate value for a type I error and Z1-b is the standard normal deviate value 
for a c type II error
• Deff is the design effect; in the case of multi-stage cluster sample design = 3
• Z1-α (where α = Type 1 error) is 1.96, and Z1-β (where β = statistical power to detect an increase or a 
one-sided change) is 0.90
Using the above formula, 1,561 was the estimated sample size. Considering a 5 percent non-response,
and rounding off, the overall sample size was 1,640. Assuming fair distribution across regions and a 67
percent beneficiary (project recipient HHs) and 33 percent non-beneficiary (non-project recipient HHs) 
ratio, 1,100 households were drawn from intervention woredas and the remaining 540 were picked from 
non-intervention kebeles. 
Qualitative Methods of Data Collection 
Qualitative methods were used to complement the findings of the quantitative methods. Key informant 
interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews, field observation, and case success 
stories were the qualitative data collection methods used.
Focus group discussions: Like the baseline survey, FGDs were held with adult women, adult men, youth 
feed growers, and farmers engaged in fattening, dairy, and poultry production. The kebele leaders and 
extension agents were consulted to select the target farmers and facilitate access to the targets. Special 
care was taken to ensure the sample FGD participants were individuals knowledgeable about the target 
value chains and FEED III project activities. Furthermore, the task was carried out by experienced male 
and female qualitative data collectors who can lead the discussion and solicit the required information. 
These FGDs provided both complementing and diverging views about the performance of FEED III and its 
prospects. Pre-determined discussion guides were used for each type of FGD. Considering the COVID-19 
pandemic, the FGD size was set at 5 to 8 participants. In conducting the FGDs, special safety measures to 
prevent transmission of the virus, such as using face masks, sanitizers, and social distancing, were strictly 
followed.
Key informant interviews: KIIs were carried out with program staff, including USDA staff, relevant FEED 
III technical staff, and key stakeholders from federal, regional, zonal, and woreda levels of government. 
These KIIs allowed the end line evaluation team to obtain relevant information on the project, policy and 
regulatory framework issues, strengths, weaknesses, capacity gaps, opportunities, and COVID-19 impacts 
on the project’s implementation and outcomes. Like the FGDs, in conducting the KIIs, special safety 
measures to prevent transmission of the virus were followed.
In-depth personal interviews (IDIs): In-depth interviewing was a qualitative research technique that 
involved conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of respondents living within the 
community who benefited directly or indirectly from the FEED III project. Interviews explored their 
perspectives on the project’s performance. This generated details on qualitative project benchmark 
92
indicators, which were not perceived/revealed by the participants in the FGDs, KIIs, and household 
surveys. In a close collaboration with the FEED III project team, representatives and local officials, our 
supervisors, and qualitative data collectors selected informants for IDIs, including feed manufacturing 
units of the Farmers Cooperatives Unions (FCUs) established by the FEED I and FEED II projects, feed 
ingredient suppliers, agro-dealers, forage nursery enterprises, and livestock development agents.
Field direct observation: Direct observation was carried out in the selected study woredas/kebeles to 
document the observable facts of the FEED III project intervention. In collaboration with project staff, 
relevant government offices, development agents, and other relevant individuals in each kebele, field 
observations were conducted using checklists. The observation on selected FEED III project sites focused 
on forage production, communal grazing areas, animal fattening, dairy processors, feed marketplaces, 
feed processors, poultry sites, on-farm innovative feeding practices, primary cooperative-based
enterprises, and indigenous and adoptive forage management practices, which provided valuable insights 
and perceptions for the project. The observed cases were documented in the form of photographs. 
Case story: Case stories of exemplary project achievements were collected. Those storytellers (from feed, 
livestock, and poultry value chain node) were selected in coordination with FEED III project team 
representatives, local leaders, kebele extension workers, and field teams. 
The exemplary individuals were selected considering household head (woman-headed got priority), 
individuals involved in environmentally friendly livestock, poultry, and feed production practices, 
innovative practices (practicing indigenous but effective technology and adopting new technology), and 
other criteria compatible with the project objectives. 
This also required the willingness of respondents to be included in photographs and video recordings for
the case stories. The evaluator performed two case stories per target area, and, therefore, a total of six 
case stories covering three project regions. 
Data Collection Procedures and Quality Controls
The data gathering team worked together and traveled within a defined woreda from one kebele to the 
next. The entire team joined a kebele together as a procedure and then separated into the allocated 
households within that kebele. This allowed easy supervision and made it easier for the kebele guides to 
effectively lead each interviewer to their assigned household.
Using the Interviewer's Assignment Sheet, supervisors assigned households and interviewees for data 
collection based on the lists within each study area. The Interviewer’s Assignment Sheet also served as a 
summary of the results of each interviewer's work in the field for each household/interviewee. At the end 
of each data collection day, the interviewer recorded final outcomes for all household visits and individual 
interviews conducted. The supervisor compared the results on the assignment sheet with the completed 
questionnaires/checklists/observed sites as a way of verification, in addition to spot-checks, surprise 
visits, and re-interviewing. 
Field staff took on both the listing and the actual survey, which facilitated easy tracking of the households. 
In updating the sampling frame (based on the ToR sampling frame constructed during the baseline 
survey), local guides (like development agents) were consulted. In addition, other social networks were 
93
used to identify the identities and location of the respondents. Local concerned government bodies 
helped to identify the selected respondents/informants. In case the primary target of the survey in the 
household was not available during the first visit, enumerators re-scheduled a follow-up visit on separate 
days before reporting a non-response. To increase the response rate, the informants were well informed 
through a targeted campaign using development agents and kebele administrators. 
The enumerators and qualitative data collectors (keeping their social distance and using a face mask) give 
a clear and brief introduction to the respondents about the objective of the survey before they start the 
actual interview. The consulting team prepared a short statement for an introductory message so that 
each data collector provided similar and consistent information about the objective of the evaluation and 
how the data were used. Enumerators/data collectors only proceed with the survey once participant 
informed consent has been given to respondents.
Methods of Data Analysis
Results from the end line 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 end line 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. The findings are also presented using the difference of difference approach (i.e., 
comparison of baseline against end line and beneficiary against non-beneficiary households). 
The qualitative information was thematically analyzed 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.
94
Annex D: Data Collection Tools 
D1 Household Survey Questionnaire
FINAL EVALUATION FOR THE FEED ENHANCEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ETHIOPIA (FEED-III)
A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
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 ACDI/VOCA. We are conducting a final evaluation to assess whether the project has achieved 
the expected objectives. You are being asked to participate in this final evaluation survey because of your 
participation in the project as beneficiary or your participation in livestock production. I will ask you a 
series of questions that would take about 45 to 50 minutes. Your responses will be presented as a summary 
and used for development purposes only. It is your choice whether or not to take part in this interview,
and if you choose to participate, you have the right to not answer any question or to stop the interview at 
any time. If you do not choose to participate, it will in no way impact your relationship with ACDI/VOCA 
or the government. Before we begin, do you want to ask me any questions about the survey? Shall I 
continue in asking you each question? 
1=Yes, 2=No; If “Yes,” continue the interview, if “No,” thank the respondent and end the interview.
MODULE 1: HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION 
S.No. Questions Code Description
M1.0 Is the respondent a “FEED III 
beneficiary?" 
1 = FEED III Beneficiary 
2 = Not FEED III Beneficiary 
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 = Gamogofa 
M1.4 Woreda 1 = Tsegede, 2 = Alamata, 3 = Tahitay-maychew, 4 = Hintalo 
Wajirat, 5 = Lay Gayent, 6 = Guangua, 7 = Awabel, 8 = Yilmana 
Densa, 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 Intervention status 1 = intervention, 2 = control 
M1.7 Sex of household head 1 = Male, 2 = Female 
M1.8 Are you or any member of 
your household a member 
of a cooperative union?
1 = yes
2 = no
95
M1.9 Co-op/union type 1 = Livestock and livestock products 
2 = Multi-purpose 
M1.10 Date of interview ________________________
M1.11 Enumerator Name________________________
MODULE 2: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M2.1 Is the respondent the head of the household?
1 = Yes
2 = No
M2.2 Age of the household head 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 owned by the household in hectare (2012 
E.C)
__________
M2.10 Total land cultivated (own, rented, or shared) in hectare 
during the 2012 E.C production seasons (meher and belg)
__________
MODULE 3: HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES AND INCOME SOURCES
[Please indicate the type of livelihood activities involved in and estimated annual income earnings for all
household members during the last 12 months]
S.No. Livelihood activities Has any household member 
participated in [livelihood activity] 
during the last 12 months? 1 = Yes,
2 = No
Estimated annual income earned 
in Birr during the last 12 months
M3.1 Crop production
96
M3.2 Fruit production
M3.3 Vegetable production
M3.4 Root crop production 
M3.5 Dairy production 
M3.6 Animal fattening
M3.7 Poultry production
M3.8 Off-farm activities 
M3.9 Non-farm activities
M3.10 PSNP or other transfer 
M3.11 Remittance/gift 
M3.12 Beekeeping 
M3.13 Perennial crops 
M3.14 Wild products 
M3.15 Enset production
M3.16 Others (specify)
Livestock production and sale during the last 12 months
SN Type of 
livestock
Does the 
household 
own [livestock
type] 
currently?
1 = Yes
2 = No [Skip to 
number sold]
Number of 
indigenous 
breeds 
owned
Number of 
crossbreeds
owned 
Total 
number of 
livestock 
owned 
currently 
(auto sum)
Estimated 
current 
value of 
the total 
livestock if 
sold, in 
Birr
Number 
of 
livestock 
sold 
during the 
last 12 
months
Total 
value of 
livestock 
sold 
during the 
last 12 
months,
in Birr
M3.17 Cow
M3.18 Ox
M3.19 Bull 
M3.20 Heifers (6 
months to 
first calf)
M3.21 Male cattle 
(6 months to 
2 years)
M3.22 Calf (male < 
6 months)
M3.23 Calf (female 
< 6 months)
M3.24 Sheep
M3.25 Goats
M3.26 Chickens
M3.27 Horses
M3.28 Mules 
M3.29 Donkeys
M3.30 Camels
M3.31 Pigs
97
MODULE 4: DAIRY PRODUCTION
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M4.1 Did your household participate in dairy 
production during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to Module 6/animal fattening, if “No,”
to question # M4.1]
M4.2 How many lactating indigenous cows have
you owned in the last 12 months?
____________________
M4.3 How many lactating crossbred cows have you
owned in the last 12 months? 
____________________
M4.4 Total amount of milk collected per day in liters
from all indigenous cows? 
Maximum _________
Minimum__________
M4.5 Total amount of milk collected per day in liters
from all crossbred cows? 
Maximum _________
Minimum__________
M4.6 Average number of months of lactation per 
indigenous cow in a single lactation period?
____________________
M4.7 Average number of months of lactation per 
crossbred cow in a single lactation period?
____________________
M4.8 Who in the household decides on the sales of 
dairy products?
1. Male household members
2. Female household members 
3. Both men and women equally 
Cow feeding and management practice 
What technologies or management practices 
did you apply in dairy farming?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Improved breeds
2 = Artificial insemination
3 = De-Worming
4 = Vaccinations
5 = Supplements
6 = Improved feeding
7 = Interval calf-weaning
8 = Veterinarian services
9 = Livestock housing
10 = Waste management practices
11 = Feedlots 
12 = Weighing 
13 = Marketing information
14 = Financial management 
15 = Others (specify)______
M4.9 What types of feed did you feed your milk cow 
during the last 12 months? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Concentrate feed 
2 = Agro-industrial by-products (wheat bran, 
nug cake, etc.) 
3 = Other high-quality feed (Atela, grains) 
4 = Green forage, grass, hay, silage 
5 = Crop residue (teff straw, wheat straw, 
maize stover, and others)
6 = Other (specify)____________
M4.10 What type of animal feed preservation and 
storage practices do you use for your dairy 
cows? [Circle all that apply]
1 = Hay making
2 = Bailing
3 = Silage
98
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
4 = Other (specify)____________
5 = Don’t know / Didn’t use any
M4.11 What equipment have you used for watering 
and feeding activities? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Feeding trough
2 =Watering trough
3 = Other (specify) ____________
M4.12 What type of physical and chemical treatment 
of feed did you use for your dairy cows?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Cut and carry
2 = Crop residue treatment
3 = Chopping
4 = Other (specify)______________
5 = Don’t know / Didn’t use any
M4.13 What type of feeding practices have you 
implemented for your dairy cows?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Cut and carry
2 = Rotational grazing
3 = Open grazing
4 = Feeding of factory produced formulated 
feed 
5 = Mixed or balanced ration feeding
6 = Other (specify)______________
M4.14 Did you/your household member receive any 
training in dairy animal nutrition and 
management during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to question # M4.17, if “No,” to 
question # M4.15]
M4.15 If yes for question # M4.14, who has provided 
the training to you? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Co-op/Union 
2 = Private enterprise 
3 = Government
4 = NGOs 
5 = Don’t know the provider 
6 = Other (specify)___________________
M4.16 If yes for question # 4.14, who received the 
training? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Household head
2 = Spouse
3 = Both head and spouse 
4 = Head and another household member
5 = Another household member 
6 = Other (specify)________
FILTER: 
ASK THIS QUESTION IF THE RESPONSE TO 
QUESTION M1.0 IS “1 = FEED III Beneficiary"
Are you receiving any direct ACDI/VOCA FEED 
III intervention on dairy production since 
2017?
1 = Yes
2 = No
If yes, which intervention?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Training
2 = Technical assistance
3 = Linkage to market
4 = Equipment
99
5 = Fencing
6 = Access to finance
7 = Training videos
8 = Forage seeds
9 = Other (specify)____________________
Household dairy production and income 
Product 
type
Did the 
household 
produce 
[product] during 
the last 12 
months? 1 = Yes,
2 = No
If yes, what is 
the amount 
produced 
during the last 
12 months in 
kg?
Amount 
consumed 
at home in 
kg
Amount 
used for 
other 
purposes in 
kg
Have you sold 
any of the 
following 
product type? 1 =
Yes, 2 = No [skip 
to next]
If yes, 
quantity 
sold in 
kg 
What 
was the 
average 
price 
sold? 
What is 
the 
total 
value 
sold, in 
Birr?
M4.17 Milk 
M4.18 Yogurt 
M4.19 Butter 
M4.20 Cheese 
M4.21 Where do you sell your dairy products? MULTIPLE RESPONSE] [DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS] 
1 = Farm gate, 2 = Local market, 3 = Co-op/Union, 4 = Milk collection business, 5 = Milk processors, 
6 = Other (specify)
Household members’ participation [mostly] in dairy production tasks [circle all that apply]/Tick on [1]
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M4.22 Cleaning the cows’ house 1 1 1
M4.23 Feeding the cows 1 1 1
M4.24 Forage collection 1 1 1
M4.25 Concentrate feeds purchasing 1 1 1
M4.26 Factory ingredients purchasing 1 1 1
M4.27 Milking 1 1 1
M4.28 Milk processing (butter, cheese) 1 1 1
M4.29 Selling cows and calves 1 1 1
M4.30 Selling dairy products 1 1 1
M4.31 Calf feeding and management 1 1 1
M4.32 Watering 1 1 1
M4.33 Cow cleaning 1 1 1
M4.34 Udder washing 1 1 1
M4.35 Other (specify) 1 1 1
Challenges in dairy production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on [1]
Challenges faced during the last 12 months 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M4.36 Shortage of concentrate feed 1
M4.37 Land problem/limited land size 1
M4.38 Disease prevalence 1
100
M4.39 Lack of crossbred cows 1
M4.40 Lack of cooling and storage facilities at milk vending sites 1
M4.41 Water availability problem 1
M4.42 Low milk price 1
M4.43 High feed price 1
M4.44 Lack of knowledge for modern dairy cow management 1
M4.45 Limited access to credit 1
M4.46 Other (specify)_____________________ 1
MODULE 5: DAIRY VALUE CHAIN 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M5.1 Did your household purchase dairy 
concentrate feed for your milk cow 
during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to Module 6/animal fattening, if “No,” to 
question # M5.1]
M5.2 Who decides on concentrate feed 
purchase?
1 = Mainly men only 
2 = Mainly women only 
3 = Both men and women equally
M5.3 Who are the 
individuals/organizations involved 
in the dairy production in your 
locality? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
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 = Other (specify)________________
Type of feed 
purchased/u
sed during 
the last 12 
months
Quantity 
purchased 
over the 
last 12 
months
Unit 
1 = KG
2 = Liter 
3 = Number
4 = Kimir
5 = Chinet
6 = Esir
7 = Shekim
8 = Other 
(specify)
Average 
unit 
price in 
Birr
Total value 
purchased
(Birr)
What is the main source of 
feed? [multiple response 
possible]
1 = Co-op/Union enterprise, 
2 = Agro-processors (flour 
factory, oil factory, etc.), 3 =
Traders or agro dealers, 4 =
Government,
5 = Feed manufacturers, 6 = 
Own production, 7 = Other 
farmers, 8 = NGOs, 9 =
Other (specify)____
M5.4 Dairy 
concentrate 
feed 
M5.5 Noug cake
M5.6 Cottonseed 
cake
101
M5.7 Other cake
M5.8 Wheat bran
M5.9 Other bran
M5.10 Maize
M5.11 Pulse bran
M5.12 Molasses 
M5.13 Green 
forage
M5.14 Grass
M5.15 Hay
M5.16 Silage
M5.17 Crop residue
M5.18 Atela (Tela, 
Areke, Teji)
M5.19 Other 
(specify)
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M5.20 How long does it take to reach concentrate feed 
sales/distribution point from your house? (average walking 
distance in minutes per single trip)
___________________
M5.21 Do you think there are an adequate number of concentrate 
feed sales/distribution channels that fulfill the feed demand 
of the farmers in your area?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M5.22 If no for question # M5.19, what are the reasons? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = It serves too many farmers 
2 = The service is too far/not accessible 
3 = Unbalanced supply and demand 
4 = Other (specify)_____________
M5.23 Have you ever accessed feed market information in the last 
12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No (skip to question # M5.24)
M5.24 If yes for question # M5.21, what was your source of 
information? [MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Local feed traders 
2 = Feed suppliers
3 = Development Agents 
4 = Fellow farmers 
5 = Community meeting
6 = Radio
7 = Text message 
8 = Mobile call
9 = Other (specify)______
M5.25 Was the concentrate feed adequate to properly feed your 
milk cow during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
[Skip to question # M5.28, if “Yes,” to 
question # M5.24]
M5.26 If no for question # M5.24, what was the problem?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = High price 
2 = Low quality 
3 = Limited supply 
4 = Other (specify)________
102
M5.27 What strategies did you follow if you think that you do not 
access enough feed for your dairy cows?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Reduce the quantity of feed given to 
cattle
2 = Shift to own production 
3 = Use some other feed materials 
4 = Other (specify)____________
M5.28 What do you think are the possible consequences of the 
limited access to feed for dairy production?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
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)
M5.29 Was the price of concentrate feed for dairy production 
affordable to you?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M5.30 Did the price of dairy concentrate feed fluctuate across time 
in the last 12 months?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M5.31 Did you check the quality of concentrate feed purchased for 
dairy production?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M5.32 If your answer is yes for question # M5.30, 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 6: FATTENINING 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M6.1 Did your household participate in animal 
fattening during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to Module 8/poultry production, if “No”]
M6.2 Who in the household made the decisions 
about the fattened animals?
1 = Male only
2 = Female only
3 = Both men and women equally
M6.3 Did you buy any animals for fattening during 
the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to question # M6.7, if “No,” to question 
# M6.3]
M6.4 If yes for question # M6.3, how much did it 
cost to buy cattle (average price to buy one 
cattle for fattening)? (write in Birr)
_______________________
M6.5 If yes for question # M6.3, how much did it 
cost to buy sheep (average price to buy one 
sheep for fattening)? (write in Birr)
________________________
103
M6.6 If yes for question # M6.3, how much did it 
cost to buy goat? (average price to buy one 
goat for fattening) (write in Birr)
________________________
Description Type of Animal Fattened
Cattle Sheep Goat
M6.7 Number of fattened 
animals during the last 
12 months (write 
number)
M6.8 Typical length of 
fattening period for an 
animal (write in days)
Animal feeding and management practice [Circle all that apply]
M6.9 What types of feed did you feed your 
fattening animal during the last 12 months?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Concentrates feed 
2 = Agro-industrial by-products (wheat bran, 
nug cake, etc.) 
3 = Other high-quality feed (Atela, grains) 
4 = Green forage, grass, hay, silage 
5 = Crop residue (teff straw, wheat straw, 
maize stover, and others)
6 = Other (specify)____________
M6.10 What type of animal feed preservation and 
storage practices do you use for your 
fattening?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Hay making
2 = Bailing
3 = Silage
4 = Other (specify)___________
5 = Did not know or did not use any
M6.11 What is the equipment you have used for 
drinking and feeding activities? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Feeding trough
2 = Water trough
3 = Other (specify) _______________
M6.12 What type of feeding practices have you 
implemented for your fattening? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Rotational grazing
2 = Feeding of factory produced formulated 
feed 
3 = Mixed or balanced ration feeding
4 = Other (specify)______________
M6.13 Did you/your household member receive any 
training in animal fattening during the last 12 
months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to question # M6.19, if “No,” to 
question # M4.16]
M6.14 If yes for question # M6.13, who has provided 
the training to you? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Co-op/Union 
2 = Private enterprise 
3 = Government
4 = NGO 
5 = Other (specify)
M6.15 If yes for question # 6.13, who received the 
training? 
1 = Self
2 = Spouse 
3 = Both self and spouse
104
4 = Other household member (specify)
M6.16 FILTER: ASK THIS QUESTION IF THE RESPONSE TO 
QUESTION M1.0 IS “1 = FEED III Beneficiary"
Are you receiving any direct ACDI/VOCA FEED 
III intervention on fattening?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
If yes, which interventions did you receive?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Training 
2 = Technical assistance 
3 = Linkage to market 
4 = Equipment 
5 = Fencing 
6 = Access to finance 
7 = Other (specify)____________________
Household members’ participation [mostly] in animal fattening tasks [Circle all that apply]/Tick on 
[1]
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M6.17 Cleaning the animal house 1 1 1
M6.18 Feeding the fattening animal 1 1 1
M6.19 Forage collection 1 1 1
M6.20 Concentrate feed purchasing 1 1 1
M6.21 Factory ingredients purchasing 1 1 1
M6.22 Watering 1 1 1
M6.23 Cattle cleaning 1 1 1
M6.24 Selling fattened animal 1 1 1
M6.25 Other (specify)___________ 1 1 1
Challenges in animal fattening [Circle all that apply]/Tick on [1] 
Challenges Responses
M6.26 Shortage of animal feed 1
M6.27 Limited animal health services 1
M6.28 Formal trade competes with substantial informal trade 1
M6.29 Livestock disease 1
M6.30 Lack of access to concentrate feed 1
M6.31 Unpredictable cattle market 1
M6.32 Lack of knowledge on improved cattle fattening 1
M6.33 Lack of improved fodder for livestock fattening 1
M6.34 Limited access to credit 1
M6.35 Lack of market linkages 1
M6.36 Other (specify) 1
MODULE 7: FATTENING VALUE CHAIN 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M7.1 Did your household purchase animal concentrate feed 
for fattening animals during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
105
[Skip to Module 8/poultry 
production, if “No,” to question # 
M7.1]
M7.2 Who decides on the concentrate feed purchase in the 
household?
1 = Wife only 
2 = Husband only 
3 = Jointly (both)
4 = Children under 18
5 = Other (specify)
M7.3 Who are the individuals/organizations involved in the 
animal fattening during 12 months in your locality? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Producers 
2 = Collectors 
3 = Small private and cooperative
fatteners/feedlots
4 = Middlemen/brokers
5 = Livestock trading cooperatives
6 = Individual traders and 
exporters
7 = Other (specify) ___________
Type of feed 
purchased
(specify feed 
purchased 
during the 
last 12 
months)
Quantity 
purchased 
in the last 
12 months
Unit 
1 = KG
2 = Liter 
3 = Number
4 = Kimir
5 = Chinet
6 = Esir
7 = Shekim
8 = Other 
(specify)
Average 
unit 
price
Total 
value 
purchased 
(Birr)
Main Source of feed
1 = Cooperatives/Union 
enterprise 
2 = Own production
3 = Agro-processors (flour 
factory, oil factory, etc.) 
4 = Feed manufacturers
5 = Traders/Private 
enterprises 
6 = Government 
7 = Other farmers 
8 = Agro-dealers (private)
9 = NGOs 
10 = Other (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
M7.13 Hay
M7.14 Silage
106
M7.15 Crop residue
M7.16 Atela (Tela, 
Areke, Teji)
M7.17 Other 
(specify)
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M7.18 How long does it take to reach a concentrate feed 
sales/distribution point from your farm? (average 
walking distance in minutes for a single trip)
____________
M7.19 Do you think that these sales/distribution 
channels/points are enough? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M7.20 If no for question # 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)
M7.21 What is length of time to fatten cattle before 
receiving training? 
____________
M7.22 What is length of time to fatten cattle after 
receiving training?
____________
M7.23 Have you ever accessed feed market information 
in the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
(skip to question # M7.26 if “No”)
M7.24 If yes for question # M7.24, what was your source 
of information? [circle all that apply]
1 = Local feed traders/suppliers 
2 = Cooperatives or unions 
3 = Development Agents 
4 = Fellow farmers (farmer-to-farmer 
communication)
5 = Community meeting 
6 = Local cattle market 
7 = Radio 
8 = Text message from 
relatives/friends/government
institution/development agent/etc.
9 = Phone call from 
relatives/friends/government
institution/development agent/etc.
8 = Other (specify)
M7.25 Was the concentrate feed adequate (in terms of 
quantity) to properly feed your cattle?
1 = Yes 
2 = No [skip to question # M7.29]
M7.26 If no for question # M7.25, what was the problem 
for not being able to get adequate concentrate 
feed?
1 = High price 
2 = Low quality 
3 = Limited supply 
4 = Other (specify)
107
M7.27 What strategies did you follow when you were not 
able to 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)
5 = Did not know or didn’t use any 
M7.28 What do you think are the possible consequences 
of the limited access to feed for fattening animals?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Reduced meat quality 
2 = Reduced 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 
animal 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
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 question # 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 Did your household participate in poultry 
production in the last 12 months?
1 = Yes, 2 = No 
[Skip to Module 10/forage production, if 
“No,” to question # M8.1]
M8.2 Who makes the decisions about the production 
and sales of poultry products?
1 = Men only 
2 = Women only
3 = Both men and women equally
M8.3 How do you sell your poultry products? 1 = Directly sell to consumers
2 = Directly sell to small retail traders
3 = Other (specify)_________
Type of chicken Number of chickens 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)
108
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 [[MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 
M8.10 What types of concentrate feed did you feed 
your chicken during the last 12 months?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Layers feed 
2 = Broilers feed 
3 = Grain
4 = Other (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 = Other (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) laid 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) laid per improved hen during the past 
12 months (one year)?
_______________________
M8.15 What was the total egg production (number of 
eggs) laid per improved hen and local hen 
during the past 12 months (one year)?
_______________________
M8.16 Have you ever received any training on poultry
production during the last 12 months?
1 = Yes, 2 = No 
[Skip to question # M8.19, if “No,” to 
question # M8.16]
M8.17 If yes for question # M8.16, who has provided 
the training to you? 
[Circle all that apply]
1 = Co-op/Union 
2 = Private enterprise 
3 = Government
4 = ACDI/VOCA
5 =NGOs 
6 = Other (specify)
M8.18 If yes for question # 8.16, who received the 
training? 
1 = Adult men 
2 = Adult women 
3 = Children less than 18
Annual sales from poultry production
109
Product Type Quantity 
sold (No.)
Average 
unit price 
sold (Birr)
Total value 
sold (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 = Co-op/Union 
4 = Private Enterprise 
6 = Other (specify) _______
Household members’ participation [mostly] in poultry production tasks [Circle all that apply]/Tick on 
[1]
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M8.24 Chicken house cleaning 1 1 1
M8.25 Vaccination and treatment 1 1 1
M8.26 Egg collection 1 1 1
M8.27 House construction 1 1 1
M8.28 Chicken feeding and watering 1 1 1
M8.29 Chicken and egg selling 1 1 1
M8.30 Other (specify) 1 1 1
Challenges in poultry production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on [1] 
Challenges Responses
M8.31 Predators 1
M8.32 Theft 1
M8.33 Lack of improved breed 1
M8.34 High feed price 1
M8.35 Limited vaccination and health service 1
M8.36 Chicken disease 1
M8.37 Chicken concentrate feed supply problem 1
M8.38 Lack of knowledge on poultry production 1
M8.39 Other (specify)____________ 1
MODULE 9: POULTRY FEED AND FEEDING
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M9.1 Did your household purchase poultry concentrate 
feed for your chickens in the last 12 months/three 
years?
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to Module 10/forage 
production, if “No,” to question # 
M9.1]
M9.2 Who decides on the concentrate feed purchase? 1 = Men only
2 = Women only 
110
3 = Both men and women equally
4 = Other non-household member
M9.3 Who are the actors in your poultry production in 
your locality? [circle all that apply]
1 = Consumers at village level 
2 = Local middlemen/brokers 
3 = Traders 
4 = Commercial farmers 
5 = Rearing centers 
6 = Other (specify)_________
Type of feed 
purchased/used 
during the last 
12 months
Total quantity 
purchased/used 
in the last 12 
months
Unit 
1 = KG 
2 = Other 
(specify)
_______
Average 
unit price, 
if 
purchased
If 
purchased,
what is the 
total value 
purchased 
(Birr)?
Source of feed
1 = Cooperatives/Union 
2 = FCU feed manufacturing 
enterprise 
2 = Own production
3 = Agro-processors (flour 
factory, oil factory, etc.) 
4 = Feed manufacturers
5 = Traders/Private 
enterprises 
6 = Government 
7 = Other farmers 
8 = Agro-dealers (private)
9 = NGOs 
10 = Other (specify)
M9.4 Layers Feed 
M9.5 Broilers Feed
M9.6 Grain
M9.7 Other (specify)
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M9.8 How long does it take to reach a poultry 
concentrate feed sales/distribution point from 
your farm? (average walking distance in minutes
for a single trip)
_____________________
M9.9 Do you think that these distribution outlets are 
enough? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M9.10 If no for question # 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 poultry feed market 
information in the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No (Skip to question # M9.14 if “No”)
M9.12 If yes for question # M9.11, what was your source 
of information? [MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Local feed traders/suppliers 
2 = Cooperative union
3 = Development Agents 
111
4 = Fellow farmers (farmer-to-farmer 
communication)
5 = Community meeting
6 = Radio 
8 = Text message from 
relatives/friends/government
institution/development agent/etc.
9 = Phone call from 
relatives/friends/government
institution/development agent/etc.
10 = Other (specify)
M9.13 Was the poultry concentrate feed adequate to 
properly feed your chicken? 
1 = Yes, 2 = No
[Skip to questionn # M9.18, if “Yes,” to 
question # M9.14]
M9.14 If no for question # M9.13, what was the 
problem?
1 = High price 
2 = Low quality 
3 = Limited supply 
4 = Other (specify)_________
M9.15 What strategies did you follow if you could not
access enough feed for your poultry production?
1 = Reduce the quantity of feed given to 
chickens
2 = Shift to own production 
3 = Use some other feed materials 
4 = Other (specify)__________
M9.16 What do you think are the possible consequences 
of the limited access to feed your chicken?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Reduced quality of poultry production 
2 = Reduced quantity of poultry production 
3 = Decreased income from poultry 
production 
4 = Poultry health effects 
5 = Other (specify)________
M9.17 Was the price of concentrate feed for poultry 
production affordable to you?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M9.18 Did the price of concentrate feed poultry 
production fluctuate across time in the last 12 
months?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M9.19 Did you check the quality of feed purchased for 
poultry production?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
M9.20 If your answer is yes for question # 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)
112
MODULE 10: FORAGE PRODUCTION 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M10.1 Did your household participate in forage 
production in the last 12 months? 
1 = Yes 
2 = No 
[Skip to Module 12, if “No,” to question # M10]
M10.2 Who made the decisions about the 
production and sales of forage 
production?
1 = Adult women only
2 = Adult men only 
3 = Jointly (both)
4 = Children under 18
5 = Other (specify)
Type of forage Amount of forage produced and consumed in the last 12 months
Unit 
1 = Kimir
2 = Chinet
3 = Esir
4 = Shekim
5 = Other
Produced
(in unit 
specified)
Consumed (in 
unit 
specified)
Mode of plantation
1 = Over sowing 
(rehabilitate/enrichment)
2 = Under sowing 
3 = Enter/mixed cropping
4 = Along the terrace/border
5 = Sole cropping 
6 = Other (specify)
M10.3 Grass annuals 
M10.4 Legumes 
annuals
M10.5 Grass 
perennials
M10.6 Legumes 
perennials
M10.7 Other (specify)
M10.8 Total land under forage last year (2012 E.C-both seasons) 
in hectare
______________
M10.9 What type of improved forage planting/input materials 
did you use during the last 12 months?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
0 = Not applicable 
1 = Seeds 
2 = Seedlings
3 = Cuttings
4 = Splits
5 = Fertilizer
6 = Other (specify)
M10.10 What types of forage feeding practices did you use in your 
farm? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
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 question # M10.15, if 
“No,” to question # M10.11]
113
M10.12 If yes for question # M 10.11, what was the focus on the 
training? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Improved 
technology/practice of forage 
production
2 = Pasture/rangeland 
management
3 = Nursery establishment
4 = Other (specify)______
M10.13 If yes for question # M 10.11, who has provided the 
training to you? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Co-op/Union 
2 = Private enterprise 
3 = Government
4 = ACDI/VOCA
5 = Other NGOs 
6 = Other (specify)_____
M10.14 If yes for question # M10.11, who received the training? 1 = Men only 
2 = Women only 
3 = Children less than 18
M10.15 Did you use improved forage planting materials last year? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M10.16 If yes for question # M10.15, please specify the source? 1 = Government
2 = ACDI/VOCA 
3 = Other NGOs
4 = Purchased (private seller)
5 = Exchange (farmer-to-farmer)
6 = Other (specify)
Annual sales from forage products
Product Type Quantity
Unit 
1 = KG
2 = Other 
(specify)
Unit price 
(Birr)
Total value sold 
(Birr)
M10.17 Sinar 
M10.18 Vetch
M10.19 Pigeon pea
M10.20 Other (specify)
M10.21 Do you have seed/seedling nursery? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M10.22 What types of improved forages do you grow in your 
seed/seedling nursery?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
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 = Other (specify)
114
Household members’ participation [mostly] in forage production tasks [Circle all that apply]/Tick on 
[1]
Tasks Adult male Adult female Children under 18
M10.23 Land preparation/planting 1 1 1
M10.24 Weeding 1 1 1
M10.25 Cultivation/hoeing 1 1 1
M10.26 Fertilizer application 1 1 1
M10.27 Watering 1 1 1
M10.28 Cutting or harvest 1 1 1
M10.29 Other (specify) 1 1 1
Challenges in forage production [Circle all that apply]/Tick on [1] 
Challenges Responses
M10.30 Shortage of improved forage seed/cutting 1
M10.31 Shortage of land 1
M10.32 No digestibility of the forage 1
M10.33 Pest/disease 1
M10.34 Lack of water for irrigation 1
M10.35 Lack of awareness on the usage 1
M10.36 High seed price 1
M10.37 Lack of knowledge on forage production 1
M10.38 Other (specify) 1
MODULE 11: FORAGE PRODUCTION VALUE CHAIN 
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M11.1 Did your household purchase forage inputs in the 
last 12 months? 
1 = Yes, 2 = No 
[Skip to Module 12, if “No,” to 
quesion # M11.1]
M11.2 Who decided on the forage purchase? 1 = Women only 
2 = Men only 
3 = Jointly (both)
4 = Other (specify)______
115
Type of 
seed/seedling 
purchased/use
d during the 
last 12 months
Total 
quantity 
purchased 
during the 
last 12 
months
Unit 
1 = KG
2 = Number
3 = Other
(specify)
Average 
unit 
price in 
Birr
Total 
value 
purchased 
in Birr
Source of feed
1 = Co-op/Union enterprise
2 = Own production
3 = Private enterprise 
4 = Government 
5 = Other farmers 
6 = ACDI/VOCA
7 = Other NGOs
7 = Other (specify)
M11.3 Seed
M11.4 Seedling
M11.5 Cuttings
M11.6 Splits
M11.7 Other (specify)
S.No. Question(s) Code Description
M11.8 How long does it take to reach a forage planting 
material (seed, seedlings, cuttings, splits, etc.) 
sales/distribution point from your farm? (average 
walking distance in minutes for a single trip)
____________________
M11.9 Do you think that these distribution outlets are 
enough? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
M11.10 If no for question # M11.9, what are the reasons? 
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = It serves too many farmers 
2 = The service is too far/not accessible 
3 = Unbalanced supply and demand 
4 = Other (specify)
M11.11 Have you ever accessed forage market information 
in the last 12 months?
1 = Yes 
2 = No (skip to question # M11.14 if “No”)
M11.12 If yes for question # M11.11, what was your source 
of information? [circle all that apply]
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Local traders/forage suppliers 
2 = Cooperative/Union
3 = Development Agents 
4 = Fellow farmers 
5 = Community meeting 
6 = Other (specify) ______________
M11.13 How did you receive the forage market 
information in your locality?
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
1 = Text message 
2 = Mobile call 
3 = Farmer-to-farmer communication 
4 = Community meeting
5 = In-person/face-to-face 
6 = Other (specify)________
M11.14 Was the forage adequate to properly keep your 
livestock?
1 = Yes, 2 = No
[Skip to question # M12.1/household dietary 
diversity, if “Yes,” to question # M11.14]
M11.15 If no for question # M11.14, what was the 
problem?
1 = High input price 
2 = Low input quality 
116
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
[DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS]
3 = Limited input supply 
4 = Skill and knowledge gap 
5 = Other (specify)____
M11.16 What were the alternatives that you applied to 
overcome the challenges?
1 = Reduce the quantity given to livestock 
2 = Started own production 
3 = Borrowed from neighbors 
4 = Brought inputs from other areas 
5 = Other (specify)
M11.17 What do you think are the possible consequences 
of the limited access forage production?
1 = Reduced quality of livestock production 
2 = Reduced quantity of livestock production 
3 = Reduced income from livestock
4 = Associated health effects 
5 = 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? 
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 TWO 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, chicken, 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, yogurt, butter, etc.)?
1 = Daily
2 = More than once per week
3 = Once per week
4 = Other (specify) _____________
117
D2 Primary Cooperatives Questionnaire 
[APPLICABLE ONLY FOR BENEFICIARY HHs]
SECTION A: AREA IDENTIFICATION
Region Zone Woreda Kebele Cooperative name Type of Co-op
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 have? 
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 cooperative (in Birr)?
118
6. Which services does the cooperative provide for its members? 
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) ______________________________ 
7. Has the cooperative been provided with any support (technical, material, or 
financial)?
1. Yes
2. No 
8. If yes for question #7, please specify the type of support provided:
1 = Technical support 
2 = Livestock feeds 
3 = Livestock forage seeds
4 = Other material support 
5 = Financial support 
6 = Credit facility
7 = Market linkage 
8 = Other (specify)__________________
9. If yes for question #7, please specify the organizations which provided the 
support [multiple response]:
1 = Government 
2 = ACDI/VOCA
3 = Other NGOs
4 = Private banks 
5 = Micro-finance institutions
6 = Other (specify)______________________ 
119
10. If the cooperative is engaged in milk processing, indicate the last 3 years’ 
performance.
The last 12 months’ milk and milk 
products 
2018 2019 2020
Raw milk collected (liters)
Processed milk (liters) 
Butter (kg)
Cheese (kg)
Yogurt 
Cream 
11. If the cooperative provides/supplies livestock feed for members for question # 
(6E=1), how many in average (quintal/annum) did it supply over the last 3 
years? 
Feed type 2018 2019 2020
11A = Dairy manufactured feed 
11B = Fattening manufactured 
feed
11C = Poultry manufactured feed
11D = Hay 
11E = Improved forage seed
11F = Feed ingredients 
11G = Other (specify) 
12. If the cooperative provides improved forage seed to its members for question 
# (11E), which of the following is the main source? 
1 = Government 
2 = ACDI/VOCA
3 = Other NGOs
4 = Union feed manufacturing units 
5 = Commercial feed manufacturers 
5 = Private vendors (retailers) 
6 = Wholesalers
7 = Primary cooperatives
8 = Other (specify)
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:
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
120
15. Name of the wholesalers 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 = Other (specify) 
18. What is the average distance of the union 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 wholesalers 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 purchase the commercial feed from?
1 = Union feed manufacturing units
2 = Commercial feed manufacturers
3 = Wholesalers
4 = Other (specify)
23. Who are the usual customers/buyers of commercial feed?
1 = Small holder farmers
2 = Commercial farmers 
3 = Retailers 
4 = Other (specify)______________
24. What is the total volume of sale during the past 12 months (classify by customer 
types like smallholder farmers, retailers, etc.)? 
1 = Smallholder farmers: _______________
2 = Commercial farmers: ___________________
3 = Retailers: ____________________
4 = Others: ______________________
25. What is the total value of sale during the past 12 months (classify by customer 
types like smallholder farmers, retailers, etc.)? 
1 = Smallholder farmers: _______________
121
2 = Commercial farmers: ___________________
3 = Retailers: ____________________
4 = Others: ______________________
26. If the cooperative provides/supplies livestock feed for its members (6E=1), 
what was its annual gross revenue in the last 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/limited member demand
27C = Lack of knowledge regarding the 
importance of commercial feed
27D = Shortage of capital/resource
27E = Other (specify) ______________________________ 
28. Does the cooperative prepare an annual business plan? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
29. Does the cooperative practice the financial documents?
1 = Practice Peachtree accounting
2 = Recordkeeping like ledger, register books
3 = Other (specify) 
30. Does the cooperative run a dairy farm? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
31. If yes for question #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 question #32, what was the annual gross revenue (Birr) from the 
fattening operation during the last 12 months?
122
34. What resources/infrastructure does the cooperative own for running its 
feed/livestock related enterprise?
Resources/Infrastructure type 1 = Yes, 2 = No
34A = Land
34B = Warehouse
34C = Working capital
34D = Vehicle 
34E = Other (specify) ______________________________ 
35.
Financial status of the cooperative 2018 2019 2020
Total annual gross revenue of the 
cooperative of the year (Birr)
Total annual sales from all 
operations in the year (Birr)
Total annual sales from milk and 
milk products in the year (Birr) 
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 do you retail their 
products? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
40. If yes, what are the names of the companies? 
41. If yes for question #39, what type of products? 
42. What are the buying prices for the product? 
43. What are the selling prices for the product?
123
D3 Key Informant Interview Tool
D3a: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guide for ACDI/VOCA
Name of respondent: ________________________________
Position in the project: _______________________________
Office location (HQ, project site): ______________________
Mobile phone: _____________________________________
1. Strategies and Approaches 
o What strategies and approaches were adopted to implement the project?
o Why did you select these strategies?
o Do you think these strategies and approaches worked well, as expected?
o What challenges did you face in strategy selected and implementation?
o What lessons did you learn from selection of strategies?
2. Project Relevance 
o What efforts did you make to make the project relevant to community interests?
o How have you been addressing the interests of private institutes?
o Was a government body involved in project planning and validation to ensure that 
activities and outputs are in line with government development priorities?
3. Beneficiary Targeting 
o Who were your targets in the implementation of the project?
o Which groups of community?
o How did you incorporate gender consideration in targeted community selections?
o Which governmental institutions did you target?
o Which non-governmental institutions?
o How did you select these beneficiaries?
o Why did you focus on these targets?
4. Project Effectiveness 
o To what extent has the FEED III project achieved its intended outputs, outcomes, and 
impacts?
▪ Extent of effectiveness of increased production and productivity
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planned targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of increased leverage of private sector resources
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planned targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
124
▪ Extent of effectiveness of increased capacity of key groups in the agricultural 
production sector (co-ops and smallholder farmers)
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planned targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of increased use of improved agricultural techniques and 
technologies
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planned targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of increased use of financial services
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of improved farm management (operations, financial)
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of expanded trade of agricultural products (domestic, 
regional, and international)
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of developing feed ingredient supply chain and service 
sector
125
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of building the capacity and growth of feed sector 
enterprises
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of developing sustainable forage production systems
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of expanding dairy, fattening, and poultry enterprises
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
▪ Extent of effectiveness of promoting improved on-farm feeding practices
Planned 
activities/outputs
Planed targets 
(# planned)
Achievements
(# achieved)
Reasons for 
discrepancy 
o What are the factors that have largely contributed to project achievements?
o What is the way forward set in place for activities which have not been achieved as 
planned?
5. Efficiency of the FEED III project
o Efficiency in budget utilization
▪ What is the total budget of the project?
▪ What was the total budget released?
126
▪ What proportion has been utilized?
Budget utilization summary ETB USD Remark 
Total project budget allocated 
Budget released 
Budget utilized 
Out of project fund utilized 
Total program cost 
Total admin cost 
▪ Budget utilization status by project components 
✓ Which of the project components was more efficient in budget 
utilization?
Budget utilization efficiency by project components
Project component Allocated 
budget (USD)
Utilized 
budget (USD)
ETB USD ETB USD
Agricultural productivity 
Leveraging of private sector resources 
Policy and regulatory framework 
Capacity building of key groups in the 
agricultural production sector 
Use of improved agricultural techniques and 
technologies 
Supports of financial resources 
Enhancing farm management practices 
Supports in expanding trade of agricultural 
practices 
o Efficiency in the extent to which the cost of the project has been justified by the benefits 
of the project components; The common question to all the following components will 
be: To what extent are the short-term and long-term benefits of the outcomes and 
impacts of this component justified compared to the resources utilized?
▪ Efficiency of increased agricultural productivity component 
▪ Efficiency of increased leverage of private sector resources 
▪ Efficiency of policy and regulatory framework 
▪ Efficiency of capacity of key groups in the agricultural production sector (co-ops 
and smallholder farmers)
▪ Efficiency in increased use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies 
▪ Efficiency in increased use of financial services 
▪ Efficiency in improved farm management (operations, financial) 
▪ Efficiency in expanded trade of agricultural products (domestic, regional, 
international)
▪ Efficiency in capacity building of community beneficiaries, enterprises, and 
stakeholders 
▪ Efficiency in availing project inputs on time, quality, and quantity 
127
▪ Efficiency in the day-to-day project management 
6. External Relationships and Partnerships of the FEED III Project 
o Partners of FEED III project 
o Modes and challenges of partnerships 
7. Outcomes and Impacts of the FEED III Project
Note: Baseline figures are essential here if there are some. In this chapter, efforts will be made to 
illustrate case analysis witnessing success stories in each of the following components, along with 
pictures:
o Outcomes and impacts of increased agricultural productivity component 
o Outcomes and impacts of increased leverage of private sector resources 
o Outcomes and impacts of policy and regulatory framework 
o Outcomes and impacts of capacity of key groups in the agricultural production sector (co￾ops and smallholder farmers)
o Outcomes and impacts in increased use of improved agricultural techniques and 
technologies 
o Outcomes and impacts in increased use of financial services 
o Outcomes and impacts in improved farm management (operations, financial) 
o Outcomes and impacts in expanded trade of agricultural products (domestic, regional, 
international) 
8. Best Practices and Lessons Learned
o What are the best practices of the FEED III project that can be scaled up and out?
o What lessons can be learned during project deliberations (from beginning to end)?
9. Prospects of Sustainability of FEED III Project Outcomes and Impacts 
o What is the extent of sustainability for each of the following project components?
▪ Enhanced agricultural productivity 
▪ Leveraged private sector resources 
▪ Adopted improved agricultural technologies 
▪ Strengthened financial services
▪ Capacitated farm management practices 
▪ Expanded trade of agricultural products
10. Program Management 
o How isthe personnel of the FEED III project (this sub-chapter will address the staff profiles
engaged in the implementation of the FEED III project)?
Staff profile of FEED III project 
Position Education Technical experiences (years)
Within the project Outside the project
128
o Project coordination and documentation
▪ To what extent were project coordinators effective, flexible, and supportive to 
their staff during implementation?
▪ How was the status of documentation of project plans, progresses, and 
achievements?
o Project planning, monitoring, and evaluation
▪ What are the approaches used in annual project planning?
▪ Who has been participating in annual project planning?
▪ How was flexibility of annual and quarterly plans in response to emerging 
circumstances?
▪ What are the M&E mechanisms adopted in the FEED III project?
▪ Was the M&E exercise following standard procedures?
▪ Is there an M&E plan for the FEED III project?
▪ How was the supportiveness of HQ ACDI/VOCA project management to field level 
staff?
11. Key Roles and Contributions of ACDI/VOCA and USDA in FEED III Project Implementation 
o What are the key roles of ACDI/VOCA in the overall project design and implementation?
o What are the contributions of USDA in the FEED III project?
12. Challenges Faced 
o What challenges did the FEED III project face during implementation from beginning to 
end?
o To what extent have these challenges affected project outputs?
o What are the response strategies and measures taken to address the challenges?
13. Gaps of FEED III Project 
o What are the inherent gaps of the FEED III project?
o What should have been done by the FEED III project?
o What should not have been done by the FEED III project?
14. Any issue you (ACDI/VOCA) would like to describe related to the project which has not yet been 
captured in this checklist?
129
D3b: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides for Stakeholders 
Region: ________________________________________
Zone: _________________________________________
Woreda: _______________________________________
Name of respondent: _____________________________
Position of respondent: ___________________________
Institution: _______________________________________
Mobile phone: __________________________________
Guiding Questions: 
1. Awareness About Project Details 
o Are you a signatory of the FEED III project?
o To what extent are you aware of FEED III project goals and details?
o Have you ever participated in project inauguration and planning meetings?
o Have you ever participated in project validation or other workshops where progresses 
and achievements have been presented?
2. Issue of Relevance 
o Do you think project objectives are in line with government development priorities?
o Do you think project objectives are in line with beneficiary interests?
o What is your reflection on project relevance?
o What is your extent of satisfaction on project relevance (highly unsatisfied, satisfied, 
medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
3. Targeting
o Whom do you think are project targets or beneficiaries (community members, institutes, 
private enterprises, etc.)?
o How do you think these beneficiaries were selected?
o Do you think project targeting was transparent?
o Do you believe project targets were appropriately selected?
o What is your reflection project targeting?
o What is your extent of satisfaction on project targeting (highly unsatisfied, satisfied, 
medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
4. Participation 
o Have you ever participated in project design, validation, and implementation?
o How frequently have you been participating?
o What did you learn from participation?
o Do you have any formal agreement with the FEED III project (such as for implementation, 
cost sharing, etc.)?
5. Issue of Effectiveness 
o What do you think are the project’s achievements?
o Have you ever participated and contributed to the project’s implementation?
o Do you think the project has achieved its objectives or goals?
130
o What is your reflection on implementation of the FEED III project?
o How participatory was project implementation?
o Have you ever received project quarterly and annual reports?
o What is your extent of satisfaction on project effectiveness (highly unsatisfied, satisfied, 
medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
6. Project Efficiency 
o Are you aware of the FEED III project budget and resources?
o How transparent is the FEED III project in resource utilization?
o Was there cost sharing arrangement (have you ever contributed to the project through 
cost sharing mechanisms)?
o What is your reflection from resources utilized compared to what has been done 
(resources spent vs. outcomes/impacts achieved)?
o Have you ever received reports on financial utilization?
o What is your extent of satisfaction on project efficiency (highly unsatisfied, satisfied, 
medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
7. Cross-Cutting Issues 
o To what extent do you think the project has been addressing gender?
o Were women (married and female household heads) and youths addressed by the 
project?
o Do you think the project has also been addressing issues related to the environment?
8. Project Outcomes and Impacts 
o What outcomes and impacts did you witness from FEED III project implementation?
o Do you think project beneficiaries have brought changes in their livelihoods or economic 
status or food security because of the project?
o What do you think has contributed to this outcome?
o What is your extent of satisfaction on project outcomes and impacts (highly unsatisfied, 
satisfied, medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
9. Sustainability 
o Does the project have an exit strategy?
o Which institute do you think will overtake the initiatives if the project is going to phase 
out?
o Do you think the project outcomes/impacts would remain sustainable, how, and why?
o What do you think should be done to reinforce sustainability of project achievements?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the exit strategy of the project (highly unsatisfied, 
satisfied, medium, satisfied, highly satisfied)?
10. Lessons Learned
o What lessons do you think can be drawn from the overall project implementation? Such 
as from project:
▪ Planning
▪ Transparency
▪ Targeting 
▪ Implementation 
▪ Resource utilization 
131
▪ Reporting and documentation 
▪ Exit strategy and sustainability 
D3c: Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides for Smallholder Farmers
1. Types of Interventions Received/Hosted 
o What types of interventions did you receive from the FEED III project?
o Who provided you these interventions?
o When did you start hosting the interventions?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the types of interventions made?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
Extent of satisfaction 
from types of 
interventions 
2. Relevance of Interventions 
o Were the interventions based on your interests?
o Which interventions do you think are better than others, and why?
o How are the FEED III interventions different from interventions made by MOA, research 
institutes, universities, and other development partners?
o Were the interventions helpful in addressing feed problems?
o Which of the project components did you host?
▪ Dairy 
▪ Fattening 
▪ Poultry
o Why and how were one or more of these project interventions selected for you?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the relevance of interventions made?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
Extent of satisfaction 
from relevance of 
interventions 
3. Selection of Target Beneficiaries (Targeting) 
o How was selection of project beneficiaries made?
o How were you selected for this project?
o Do you think all the beneficiaries were selected appropriately?
o What do you suggest should have been done to make selection appropriate?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the targeting of beneficiaries?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
Extent of satisfaction 
on targeting made 
4. Performances of Project Interventions
o Do you think project components were implemented in a timely manner with the 
required quality?
132
o Which of the project activities were implemented properly and which ones not, and what 
are the reasons why?
o What was your role and contribution in implementation of the component you hosted?
o How was the input availability, quality, and price?
o What types of inputs did you utilize?
o Who purchased these inputs and adequacy?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the performance of the project?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
Extent of satisfaction 
on project 
performance 
5. Trainings Received Related to the Project Component You Hosted 
o What trainings did you receive from the FEED III project in the last three years?
o What types of trainings did you receive related to animal feeds? 
o How was the usefulness of these trainings in improving feed availability and quality?
o Please explain the nature of the trainings with respect to the following issues: 
▪ If the training was need-based 
▪ Relevance of trainings 
▪ Adequacy of trainings 
▪ Quality of trainings 
o Who were targeted for the trainings, and was that targeting correct?
o Who provided the trainings? How good were these trainers in terms of language and
supportiveness during the training?
o Was there availability of reading materials in local languages?
o Did trainers follow-up after the training and provide supportive supervision?
o Were the trainings provided during the appropriate time of season?
o Among the topics covered in trainings, which ones were most relevant and helpful? Why? 
o Which topics were not relevant? Why? 
o Was there practical demonstration?
o Was there experience sharing from model farms/farmers?
o What is your overall level of satisfactions on trainings received?
o What are the training gaps?
o What should be improved in the future?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the trainings provided?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
Relevance of trainings 
Adequacy of trainings
Timeliness of trainings 
Quality of trainings 
6. Feed Resources 
o How is feed availability in the locality after the training?
o What are the sources of feeds?
133
o How is the availability of feed processing companies in the locality (their capacity, ability 
to supply adequate feeds, their feed prices, seasonality of feed supply, quality of their 
feed)?
o What types of feeds are available (for dairy animals, fattening animals, poultry, sheep,
and goats)?
o How is the quality of feeds?
o What are the price trends of feeds before and during the project?
7. Adoption of New Feed-Related Technologies 
o What new technologies did you receive from the project?
o How helpful were these technologies?
o Were these technologies based on your interests?
o Did you receive trainings on how to apply and use these technologies?
o Out of the beneficiaries who received the technologies, how many of them do you think 
are still using (adopted)? 
All of the farmers 
adopted 
Many of the 
farmers adopted
Some of the 
farmers adopted 
No one at all 
adopted 
Extent of technology 
adoption 
o For those farmers who did not at all adopt, what are the reasons?
o Out of these technologies, which ones are good and which are not? Why?
o Out of the technologies you received, which ones are you still using, and which have you 
stopped using (please use the following table)?
Project 
components 
Specific 
technologies 
you received 
Which you 
are still using 
(adopted) 
What are the 
merits of the 
technologies 
Which did 
you stop 
using 
(rejected) 
What are the 
weaknesses of 
the technologies 
Dairy •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fattening •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Poultry •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Others (if 
any)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o How is the size of farmland allocation status to the technologies compared to the size 
before the project?
Type of technology adopted Area of land allocated before 
the project (ha)
Area of land allocated after the 
project (ha) 
134
o Was there adequate promotion and demonstration of the technologies? 
o Have you ever received a loan from the project?
o For what purposes did you use the loan?
o Was the loan helpful to use (adopt) the technologies?
o Do you keep records of improved technologies on various aspects, such as: 
▪ Types and quantities of inputs used?
▪ Quantities of outputs produced and sold?
▪ Market prices and trends over time?
▪ Other farm management particulars?
o What do you suggest in the future regarding technology introduction?
o How is profitability of the new technologies ?
Technology type Income per unit before 
the project 
Income per unit after the 
project 
Dairy technologies 
•
•
Fattening technologies 
•
•
Poultry technologies 
•
•
8. Marketing Participation and Business Orientation of Smallholder Farmers 
o How is marketing of dairy products, fattened animals, and poultry after the project 
compared to before the project?
o How is the price trend of products from adopted technologies?
o How is market participation and business orientation of the farmers now compared to 
before the project?
o Where and how do the farmers get market information?
9. Stakeholder Participation in Project Implementation 
o Who supported you in FEED III project implementation other than ACDI/VOCA?
o What did these stakeholders support?
o How helpful was their support?
o What should have been done by these stakeholders?
o What should not have been done by these stakeholders?
o Was there coordination among the stakeholders?
o To what extent are you satisfied with the performances of other stakeholders?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) Not satisfied 
135
Supportiveness of stakeholders
Coordination of stakeholders 
Timeliness of stakeholder supports 
Follow-ups made by stakeholders 
10. Effects of COVID-19 on Performance of Project Activities 
o What effects did COVID-19 impose on performance of the project?
o Which of the project interventions do you think were most affected by COVID-19?
o Which of the project beneficiaries are especially affected by COVID-19? Why?
o Which of the project beneficiaries were not affected by COVID-19? Why?
o What do you think should be done in the future to minimize the effects of COVID-19?
11. Outcomes and Impacts of FEED III Project Interventions 
o Did the interventions address animal feed problems?
o How do you describe the extent of improvement of feed intervention since the project?
Change factors Status before the project 
1. The problem was not very high
2. The problem was manageable 
(medium) 
3. The problem was very high
Status after the project 
1. It has improved a lot
2. It has improved a bit 
3. No change 
4. It became worse
Feed availability 
Feed quality 
Feed price 
Feed accessibility 
(Were households able 
to purchase feeds 
whenever and in
whatever quantity they 
wanted?)
o Did the interventions bring any change to your livelihoods?
o What changes did it bring to your livelihoods?
o What was the extent of changes brought up by the project?
Improvements observed by the family Status before the project 
1. The problem was not 
very high
2. The problem was 
manageable (medium) 
3. The problem was very 
high
Status after the project 
1. It has improved a 
lot
2. It has improved a 
bit 
3. No change 
4. It became worse
Improvements in assets (more livestock 
owned) 
Improvements in housing conditions 
(rehabilitated existing house or built new 
house) 
136
Improvements in income 
Improvements in food security (adequate 
food availability throughout the year)
Established new business for the family (new 
income sources)
Improvements in overall livelihoods 
Other improvements
o How satisfied are you with the overall interventions made by the project?
Highly satisfied Satisfied (medium) No change Not satisfied 
Overall extent of 
satisfaction 
o What should have been done and what should not have been done?
Project actors What they should have done 
instead 
What they should not have 
done 
ACDI/VOCA 
Other project stakeholders 
Community beneficiaries 
themselves 
o What are the unexpected positive benefits and negative changes brought up by the 
project (spillover effect)?
Unexpected positive benefits Unexpected negative changes 
12. Sustainability of Project Outcomes and Impacts 
o Do you think the project interventions, outcomes, and impacts will remain sustainable if 
the project phases out?
o What are the reasons for your responses?
o What activities did the FEED III project do to ensure sustainability?
o What do you think should be done to increase sustainability?
o Which of the project components do you think will remain sustainable?
Project 
components 
Will its outcomes 
and impacts remain
sustainable? 
1. Yes, 2. No, 
3. Both yes and no
Which of the sub￾components will 
continue to 
sustain?
Which of the sub￾components will 
not sustain?
What are the 
reasons?
Dairy 
interventions 
Fattening 
interventions 
137
Poultry 
interventions 
13. Lessons Learned and Best Practices 
o What do we learn from the project in general?
o What are the best practices of the project?
o Which of the best practices can be scaled up to others? Why?
Intervention categories Best practices 
Dairy interventions •
Fattening interventions •
Poultry interventions •
14. Any other issues you would like to describe related to FEED III project?
D4: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Interview Guides for Smallholder Farmers
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 notetakers. 
5. Let participants introduce themselves (list their name, sex, and other). 
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 only be used for the study purpose). 
2. Make clear what is expected of participants.
3. Make clear the time length of the discussion (between 45 to 60 minutes). 
4. Keep eye contact with the participants and make sure 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 speaks at a time, everyone has 
the right to speak without being interrupted, raise your hands and get a signal from the 
facilitator before you talk, keep your answers short and precise to allow others to 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
138
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)
Notetaker name
****************************************************************************
1. Types of Interventions Received/Hosted 
o What are the types of technologies introduced?
o How were these technologies identified and selected?
2. Relevance of Interventions 
o Was there a needs assessment to identify technologies?
o How helpful are the technologies?
o Out of the technologies introduced, which ones were relevant and which ones not?
3. Selection of Target Beneficiaries (Targeting)
o Who was involved in selection of beneficiaries?
o Were the selected beneficiaries appropriate and acceptable?
o How was involvement of women in the project?
o Which of the women farmers (married, female household heads) were involved?
o How was involvement of youths in the project?
4. Performances of Project Interventions
o Do you think all the project activities have been implemented as planned?
o Which of the project components were adequately implemented?
o Which of the project components suffered inadequate attention?
o How was the follow-up from the project implementers?
o Have the project managers and staff been supportive whenever problems arise?
5. Trainings Received Related to the Project Component You Hosted 
o What types of trainings were offered by the project?
o Were the trainings based on beneficiary needs?
139
o Who received the trainings?
o How good and supportive were the trainers?
o How was the quality of the training?
o Were the trainings provided timely in relation to seasonality of activities?
o Was there post-training follow-up?
o What are the problems related to trainings provided?
6. Feed Resources Availability, Quality, and Price
o Have feed problems been addressed by the project?
o How is feed availability now compared to the situation before the project?
o How is feed quality now compared to the situation before the project?
o How is the price of feed now compared to the situation before the project?
o Is there still a problem now?
o What are these problems and why have they not been addressed during the project?
7. Adoption Status of New Feed-Related Technologies 
o What technologies did you receive?
o Were these technologies based on your needs?
o To what extent have these technologies addressed the problems?
o Which of these technologies were preferred (adopted) by farmers?
▪ What are the good features/merits of these technologies?
o Which of these technologies were not preferred (not adopted) by farmers? 
▪ What are the weaknesses of these technologies?
o What should be done in the future to introduce new technologies?
o How is the profitability of the new technologies adopted?
8. Stakeholder Participation in Project Implementation 
o Apart from project staff, which stakeholders were involved in supporting beneficiaries?
o How helpful were these stakeholders?
o Was there coordination among these stakeholders?
o What should be done in the future regarding stakeholders?
9. Effect of COVID-19 on Performances of Project Activities 
o What effects do COVID-19 impose on performances of the project?
o Which of the project interventions do you think were most affected by COVID-19?
o Which of the project beneficiaries are especially affected by COVID-19? Why?
o Which of the project beneficiaries were not affected by COVID-19? Why?
o What do you think should be done in the future to minimize the effects of COVID-19?
10. Outcomes and Impacts of FEED III Project Interventions 
o What outcomes or impacts did beneficiaries bring as a result of the project?
o Were these outcomes/impacts helpful in improving livelihoods of beneficiaries?
o What factors have contributed to positive outcomes and impacts?
o What factors have impacted to negative outcomes and impacts?
o What are the unexpected positive benefits of project interventions?
o What are the unexpected negative problems created as a result of project interventions?
11. Sustainability of Project Outcomes and Impacts 
140
o Who do you think will take over project initiatives after phase out of the project?
o Do you think project outcomes or impacts continue to be sustainable?
o Which of the project components do you think will remain sustainable?
o Which of the project components do you think will not continue?
o What activities did the project staff make to sustain project initiatives?
12. Lessons Learned and Best Practices 
o What do we learn from the project in general?
o What are the best practices of the project?
o Which of the best practices can be scaled up to others? Why?
13. Any other issues you would like to describe about the project?
D5: Case Studies Guides 
Region: __________________________________________
Zone: ___________________________________________
Woreda: _______________________________________
Kebele: ________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________
Age: ______________________________________
Level of education: __________________________
Family size: ________________________________
Farm size: __________________________________
Type of intervention with which impact was brought up: __________________ 
Key Probing Questions 
1. When did you host the intervention?
2. How did you become a project beneficiary?
3. How did you select this technology?
4. How was the involvement of your wife and youths in managing this technology?
5. Which organizations helped you in managing the technology?
6. What impacts did you bring in your livelihoods?
7. Do you have other income sources?
8. Do you think these impacts will remain sustainable (how will you sustain)?
9. What is the main issue that made you bring these impacts?
10. What did you your learn from using technologies?
11. How do your neighbors feel about your success?
12. Did other fellow farmers and neighbors visit your successful site?
13. What is your future plan?
14. What do you think are main reasons why most of the other project beneficiaries did not bring 
impacts like you do?
15. What do you advise to other fellow farmers?
141
16. Anything else you would like to share?
D6: Field Observation Checklist
Part 1. Background Information of the Observation Area 
1. Region________________________________
2. Zone__________________________________
3. Woreda________________________________
4. Kebele__________________________________
5. Agro-ecological zone_______________________
6. Date and time of observation___________________
Guidelines for observation: the following issues will be observed during terminal evaluation
Observation points
Status of the items at the time of observation 
(pictures will also be taken) 
Farming type
Topography
Improved forage production sites 
Feed marketplaces
Sources of feed and forage for livestock/poultry
Infrastructural availability (electricity power 
source, water source, feed mill, feed mixer, 
warehouse, packing/trading)
Improved feed processors and enterprises
Technologies introduced and adopted by FEED III 
project interventions 
•
•
•
•
Fattening sites and animals 
Poultry farms 
Dairy animals and farms 
Impacts brought by households, such as:
• Improved housing 
• New assets created
• Others