Journal of

Innovative Agriculture

Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37446/jinagri/rsa/10.3.2023.1-21

Analysis on crop-livestock and agro-pastoral

farming system
Asmera Adicha*, Dawit Darcho, Gideon Ermias, Kutoya Kuse, Zeynu Kelifa

Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Economics and Gender Researchers,
SNNPR, Jinka, Ethiopia.

Identifying the current farming system is important for different

agricultural policy implementation as climate variability changed the
farming system in the study area. Hence, this study aimed to analyze
the current farming system of crop-livestock and agro-pastoral areas in
the south omo zone. A multistage sampling method was used to select
240 sample respondents from the study districts. Descriptive statistics
Received: 06 March 2023 and narrative approaches were used to analyze data. The result
Accepted: 12 August 2023 indicated that there was a dominance of crop production (63.3%) and
Published: 30 September 2023 supportive livestock production (36.7%) in crop-livestock farming
system whereas in agro pastoral farming livestock dominates (72.5%)
*Correspondence with supportive crop production (27.5%). The result also indicated
Asmera Adicha
[email protected] that the main livestock production constraints for farmers and agro-
pastorals in the area are extensive drought and erratic rainfall,
diseases, shortage of veterinary medicine, feed and water shortage.
Volume: 10 Moreover, the survey result shows that poor soil fertility management,
Issue: 3 low inputs use, pests (diseases and insects), delay of input supply and
Pages: 1-21 high costs are the main impediments in crop production for farmers
and agro-pastorals in the area. The major constraints of natural
resources in the study are soil fertility decline, land shortage due to
fragmentation of land for their children and deforestation. Therefore,
it needs more attention to reverse the mentioned major constraints so
as to enhance production and productivity. Timely supply of improved
inputs, improved forage, methods of disease control and intensifying
natural resource management and creating better awareness on
physical and biological soil management are critical for improvements
of soil to enhance productivity.

www.cornous.com 1
 Key words: agro-pastoral, crop, farmers, farming system, livestock

INTRODUCTION

It is known that agriculture is the mainstay of the national economy in Ethiopia despite its low
level of development and contributes about 85% of employment opportunities and more than
70% of total export earnings and 43% of GDP (MOA, 2010). Food producers, both pastoralists
and farmers, are an integral part of the broader farming systems in Ethiopia. They support the
livelihoods of a majority of the population, both on and off farms; hence they play an important
role in the ongoing economic transformation. Smallholders operating one or more parcels of
land, ranging from less than 0.25 ha to 25 ha of land on rare occasions, represent the majority
of farmers in Ethiopia (Taffesse et al., 2011). Ethiopia’s agricultural sector is highly diverse and
subject to change due to different factors such as climate and population growth. Consequently,
competition for available land, water, energy, and other inputs increases posing pressure on the
rural population’s livelihoods and food security. Thus, the existing whole farm systems
approach varies as the consideration of farmers ' perceptions and the extension process varies
including dynamic elements in the farming environment (Dixon et al., 2001).

Southern Nation Nationality and Peoples Region (SNNPR) is one of the largest regions in
Ethiopia, accounting for more than 10 percent of the country’s land area and one fifth of the
country’s population. Of this amount, around 10% are estimated to live in urban areas and the
rest 90% are residents in rural areas depending on crop production and livestock raising
(Zerssa et al., 2021). The majority of farmers in SNNPR of Ethiopia are smallholders, producing
mostly for their own consumption. They are estimated to generate 95% of total production for
the main crops (cereals, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, root crops, fruits, and cash crops). The
lack of site-specific fertile soil management, poor soil fertility circumstances, declining soil
fertility, minimal fertilizer use, cultivating of steep slopes, absence of better varieties,
inappropriate agronomic procedures, lack of weed and pest control, lack of rain, lack of
cultivars suitable for different seasons, post-harvest loss, and other biological and
environmental factors all contributed to the mean yield of the crops being less than the optimal
level in all landscape views (Alemu et al., 2016; Ahmed, 2017).

The livestock production system is mainly extensive in pastoral and agro-pastorals areas and
local breeds are predominant and are characterized by low milk production (Roberts, 2014).
Therefore, in order to develop demand driven agricultural technology and promote climate
smart agriculture and market-oriented production system in the region, farming system
characterization is detrimental. Moreover, dynamism in the farming system: shifting to agro
forestry system, vegetable, and root and tuber crop-based farming and change in income
source, changing livelihood options and lack of updated information on farming and production
systems highly demands farming system characterization study. A study conducted by Emana
et al. (2015) in West Shewa zone is located in Oromia National Regional State and, Gurage and
Hadiya zones and Yem-Special district located in the Southern Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples Region (SNNPR) was limited only to characterization of Vegetable Production and
Marketing Systems. Thus, there is literature gap and also lack of studies regarding the current
farming system in the south omo zone of southern Ethiopia. Hence, this study was initiated to
assess existing farming systems with regard to existing agriculture related policy directions
and extension services and to identify and prioritize major constraints limiting further
agricultural production and productivity.

www.cornous.com 2
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

To meet the objectives of this study, the qualitative and quantitative data were collected from
both primary and secondary data sources through data collection instruments such as
observation, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and pre-tested structured
questionnaires. A focus group guide questions were set and data was collected from 10
members (5 model farmers, three youth and two females) to have a clue in the overall scenario.
A multistage sampling method was used to select districts and sample kebele based on farming
practices (crop-livestock and agro pastoral system). Accordingly, two districts were selected
with the discussion of zonal agriculture offices and from each district, two kebeles were
selected based on agro ecology and farming practices. A total of 240 sample households were
selected from the sample kebele using the recent lists of households in the respective kebeles
as a sampling frame and applying probability proportional to size (PPS) to determine the
sample size from each kebele and then simple random sampling techniques to get the required
sample. The collected data was analyzed by using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard
deviations, percentages and frequency tables to summarize the socio-economic and
demographic characteristics related to sample respondents. Narrative approach was employed
to describe the details of the farming system in the study area.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socioeconomic and Household characteristics

Table 1 describes the socio-economic and household characteristics of sample respondents.

Consequently, about 95% of sample households were male headed households and 5% were
female headed households in Debub Ari whereas 94.17% of sample households were male
headed households and 5.83% were female headed households in the Malle district. About
63.3% of respondents revealed that the share of crop production is beyond 75% and about
36.7% confirmed that livestock production is 25% of their livelihood means in Debub Ari
district. About 72.5% of respondents revealed that the share of livestock is beyond 75% and
about 27.5% confirmed that crop production as 25% of their livelihood means in the Malle
district. This indicates that crop production is dominant in mixed farming and livestock
production is dominant in agro pastoral areas of the study area. Sample household heads age,
education, family size and land holding are supposed to be a vital characteristic that limits the
willingness of household heads to receive novel ideas and technologies. The respondents have
a mean age of 38.5, and 38.7 years, mean family size of 8-person, mean of schooling of grade 3
and mean farm size of 10 and 7 timad in Debub Ari and Malle districts, respectively.

Table 1. Socioeconomic and household characteristics of households

Attributes Farming (Debub Ari =120) Agro pastoral (Malle =120)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Sex Male 114(95) 113(94.17)
Female 6(5) 7(5.83)
Share Crop >75% 76(63.3) 33(27.5)
Livestock >75% 44(36.7) 87(72.5)
Variables Mean (St. Deviation) Mean (St. Deviation)
Age 38.5(10.68) 38.7(10.2)
Family size 7.88(3.52) 7.67(2.77)
Education level 2.78(3.59) 2.96(3.59)
Farm size(timad) 9.94(4.67) 7.15(3.42)
Source: Own survey result, 2021

www.cornous.com 3
 Access to Land Resources

Land ownership and how the land under the farmers’ and agro pastoral use particulars was
observed. The findings in the Table 2 shows that a mean of 9.94 and 7.15 timad of owned in
Debub Ari and Malle districts respectively. Of the total land owned, land covered by annual
crop, perennial crop, grazing/browsing and allocated for multipurpose was in Debub Ari are
6.38, 1.88, 1.04 and 0.64 timad respectively. Higher land holding is observed Debub Ari 1st and
Malle district last implying sample respondents mean land holding per household in order of
land size in timad. In Malle district land covered by annual crop, perennial crop,
grazing/browsing and allocated for multipurpose are 5.01, 1.36, 0.79 and 0 timad respectively.
In all study districts land is covered by annual crop but there is some good practice of planting
perennial crops in Debub Ari district. As revealed in the group discussion land holding over
time is decreasing in Debub Ari and Malle districts are mostly due to land fragmentation for
their children.
Table 2. Land ownership and use particulars
Land ownership and use in timad (mean/standard deviation) Districts
Debub Ari Malle
Total land owned 9.94(4.67) 7.15(3.42)
Land covered by annual crops 6.38(4.05) 5.01(3.24)
Land covered by perennial crops 1.88(0.84) 1.36(0.95)
Land allocated for grazing/browsing 1.04(0.45) 0.79(0.33)
Land allocated for multipurpose trees 0.64(0.28) 0
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Crop production System

Major crops grown and production season

Crop production in the zone is categorized as none fallow lands in mainly Debub Ari and Malle
districts because of land shortage and fragmentation land for their children, and Intercropping
is experienced in the areas mainly maize with haricot bean.

Table 3. Crops grown and production particulars

Crop types District
Debub Ari(n=120) Malle(n=120)
Production season (frequency of responses) Production season(frequency of responses)
Belg Meher Irrigation Both Belg & Belg Meher Irrigation Both Belg &
Meher Meher
Maize 2 2 0 116 3 22 0 95
Sorghum 0 2 0 42 3 11 0 67
Common 2 2 0 82 3 22 0 89
bean
Groundnut 0 0 0 11 1 1 0 41
Finger millet 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2
Banana Perennial
Source: Own survey result, 2021

The production system of the crop is based on the rain fed system in Debub Ari and Malle
districts. The major types of crops cultivated under rain fed/irrigation: cereal crops (maize,
sorghum, wheat and barley), Pulses crops (haricot bean and faba bean), fruit and vegetables
(mango, avocado, onion and tomato), Root or tuber crops (enset and cassava) and Cash crop

www.cornous.com 4
 (coffee and cardamom). Cropping forms accepted by farmers and agro pastorals in the research
site are described above in Table 3. The cropping season of crops in the study areas are Belg,
Meher and both Belg and Meher seasons, whereby farmers/agro pastoral produce their main
crops by rain fed and they have a tiny traditional irrigation practice for vegetables in dry Bega
season. As discussion made with farmers in the study areas cropping calendar for wheat and
barley is Meher seasons, while maize, sorghum, common bean, onion and tomato are mostly
grown both in Belg and Meher season. The main production season for major crops like maize,
sorghum and common bean in the study areas are both Belg and Meher seasons and there is no
irrigation based an opportunistic rain fed cultivation.

Land allocated for major crop production

The mean land allocated for major crops is provided in Table 4 and shows that 7.53 and 2.32
timad for maize in Debub Ari and Malle districts. This implies that more land is allocated for
maize in Debub Ari district than Malle district. The mean land allocated for sorghum was 1.98
and 1.69 timad in Debub Ari and Malle districts. Whereas common bean produced in Debub Ari
and Malle with mean land holding of 2.2 and 1.54 timad, respectively. Intercropping, relay
cropping and crop rotation are practiced for some instances in both Debub and Malle districts.

Table 4. Area allocated for crop production

Crop type Debub Ari Malle
Area allocated(timad)
Maize 7.53 2.32
Sorghum 1.98 1.69
Common bean 2.20 1.54
Groundnut 1.23 1.19
Finger millet 2.73 2.00
Banana 1.01 0.21
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Trends of production for major food crops (2017-2021) in South Omo zone

Comparing predictions of post-harvest agricultural productivity for a few key agricultural

commodities from the period (2017–2021) has been undertaken.

30000

25000
Area of production

20000 maize
sorghum
15000
common
10000
sesame
5000
sweet potato
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year
Figure 1. Trend of area coverage of major food crops
Source: own calculation from zone agricultural office information (2017-2021)

www.cornous.com 5
 The comparisons are thought to provide insight into how much of the over-year predicted rise
of the amount of production over last year's forecast is caused by increased cropped area or
because of the achievement of boosted crop yield or the contribution of both contributed to the
rise of each year production, but increased crop yield taken up the lion's share, so as to largely
show the path, the degree of variation, and the extent of step the agricultural sectors in the
South Omo zone bringing up on the hierarchy of change to market oriented agriculture from its
primary existence and back ward initial point. Consequently, as shown in the Figure 1 below
area of production and the post-harvest crop productivity predictions of selected vital food
crops over the year varies. The mean area of maize in the year 2017 was 19000ha and
increased in the years 2018, 2019, 2020 but decreased in the year 2021. On the other hand, the
mean area of sorghum was highly increased and recently turned back ward due to extensive
drought.

Since the rainfall was erratic in the South Omo zone for the last five years’ crop-growing season,
the (2017-2021) crop production has shown an unstable increment in estimated cropped
productivity. The mean yield of major crops in the year 2017-2021 in the zone was shown in
Figure 2 below as the lowest productivity in 2019 and 2021 in all food crops and the highest
productivity in 2020. It shows that the mean productivity of maize was 31.87, 28.67, 31.33,
31.94 and 28.97 quintals per hectare in 2017-2021. Recently the productivity of maize in the
zone is decreased as a result of drought and decreased fertility of the land. The mean
productivity of sweet potatoes was 230, 197, 183, 276 and 245 quintals per hectare in 2017-
2021, which is somehow good and climate smart.

300
280
260
240
220
productivity q/ha

200
180 sesame
160 common bean
140
sorghum
120
100 maize
80 sweetpotato
60
40
20
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year
Figure 2. Trend of productivity of major food crops (q/ha)
Source: own calculation from zone agricultural office information (2017-2021)

Crop production inputs use practices

Agriculture is cultivation practices whereby giving subsequent inputs such as seeds, fertilizers,
and pesticides, etc. A seed is considered the basic input for enhancing agricultural production
and productivity. However, these important inputs are not easily accessible for farmers, agro
pastoralists and pastorals in the study area. The efficiency of all other agricultural inputs, such

www.cornous.com 6
 as fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation, etc., as well as the impact of agro-climatic conditions, is
mainly determined by the quality of the seed used. The farmers do not have access to improved
seeds and they widely use the local varieties since the improved seeds are very expensive
(IFPRI, 2010). Therefore, ensuring the availability of quality seeds for enabling farmers to
achieve higher agricultural production is a strategic requirement. As revealed in focus group
discussion with farmers and agro pastorals they pointed that the price of fertile is very inflated
and also due to climate variability they faced productivity decline.

Input use practices for crop farming in Debub Ari and Malle districts

As one of the factors to boost yield, the application of inorganic fertilizer (Urea and NPS) was
used in both Debub Ari and Malle districts. The result shows that for all major crops the
farmers and agro pastorals were used inorganic fertilizer below recommendation which might
affect yields. As mentioned in the group discussion, the producers used low inputs due to the
higher price of fertilizer and unknown rainfall distribution and the application of fertilizer is
also mainly for maize and sorghum. The application of inorganic fertilizers for maize is 77.75
kg of NPS and 66.62 kg of urea in Debub Ari and 40.83kg of NPS and 39.17kg of urea in Malle
district. On the other hand, the application of inorganic fertilizers for sorghum is 37.5 kg of NPS
and 37.5 kg of urea in Debub Ari and 50kg of NPS and 50kg of urea in Malle district. Fertilizer
application for other crops such as common bean, groundnut, finger millet and others were not
practiced in the study areas. Fungicides and herbicides are not used by sample respondents in
the areas. Compost as fertilizer is not practiced by sample respondents but animal dung is used
as fertilizer in sampled areas of Debub Ari woreda. Some chemicals like insecticide were used
in both Debub Ari and Malle district. The application of insecticide for maize is 1.05 liter in
Debub Ari and 1.95 liter in Malle district (Table 5).

Table 5. Input use practices for crop farming

Crop type Debub Ari (120) Malle (120)
Average Fertilizer use (kg/ha) Insecticide (liter) Fertilizer use (kg/ha) Insecticide (liter)
NPS Urea 1.05 NPS Urea 1.95
Maize 77.75 66.62 40.83 39.17
Sorghum 37.5 37.5 - 50 50 -
Common bean - - - - - -
Groundnut - - - - - -
Finger millet - - - - - -
Banana - - - - - -
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Crop technology use practices

The study districts were dominantly annual crop producers by using rainfall with traditional
land plowing and planting methods. Land preparation in the study area is mainly done by oxen
and hand digging, and the frequency of tillage is determined by crop type, soil type and oxen
availability. Planting methods in the study are raw and broadcasting. In the study area wheat,
barely, and common bean are planted at the third frequency of tillage. As shown in Table 6
below, the mean frequency of plowing for maize, sorghum, common bean and groundnut are 3,
2.35, 2.59 and 2 times in the Debub Ari district. The mean frequency of plowing for maize,
sorghum, common bean and groundnut are 3, 2.96, 0 and 2.42 times in Malle district. To sum
up, the majority of farmers and agro pastorals plowing their fields in a mean range of 2-3 times
depending on the crop. About 87.5% and 85% of respondents plant maize crops using raw
planting methods in Debub Ari and Malle districts, respectively. This indicates that maize is
mainly planted using the raw planting methods and the technology is well adopted. On the

www.cornous.com 7
 other hand, about 91.3% and 77.78% of respondent’s plant sorghum by broadcasting in Debub
Ari and Malle districts, respectively. This indicates that sorghum is mainly planted using the
broadcasting planting method and the technology is not well adopted in the area. Planting
methods for common bean, groundnut and finger millet in the study areas are dominantly
broadcasting. Regarding awareness of improved variety and use of improved variety in both
district for maize and sorghum is good but for common bean, groundnut and finger millet is not
well demonstrated. Finger millet and common bean are not dominantly produced in Malle
district, whereas finger millet is not produced by sample respondents of Debub Ari district.

Table 6. Crop technology use practices

Crop type Frequency Planting method (%) aware of Use of still using
Districts

of plowing improved improved improved

variety variety variety
Mean Broadcast Row Both Yes No Yes No Yes No
Maize 3 12.5 87.5 0 100 0 96.7 3.3 99.1 0.9
Debub Ari

Sorghum 2.35 91.3 8.7 0 69.1 31.9 72.3 27.7 100 0

Common 2.59 52.94 14.7 32.4 44.8 55.2 42.9 57.1 91.7 8.33
bean
Groundnut 2 100 0 0 0 100 - - - -
Maize 3 15 85 0 100 0 81.7 18.3 90.8 9.18
Sorghum 2.96 77.78 22.2 0 0 100 - - - -
Common 0 - - - 0 100 - - - -
Malle

bean
Groundnut 2.42 66.67 33.3 0 9.1 90.9 9.1 90.9 100 0
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 7. Types, Source and Benefits of crop technology

Crop type Benefit of improved Source of improved variety Types of improved
Distri

variety seeds varieties used

cts

HI SI NC E FF MOA
Maize 40 57.5 2.5 67.5 3.33 29.17 BH140, BH661
Debub Ari

Sorghum 19.44 80.56 0 63.64 33.33 3.03 Lalo, Dano, and Gubiye
Common 33.33 66.67 0 53.33 1.33 45.34 Hawassa dume
bean
Groundnut - - - - - - -
Maize 61.67 38.33 0 53.33 15 31.67 BH140, M2 & M4
Sorghum - - - - - -
Common - - - - - -
Malle

bean
Groundnut 0 100 0 25 75 - -
Note: HI = highly improving, SI = slowly improving, NC = no change, E=Extension, FF= Farmer to farmer /own
saved, MOA= provided free by Minster of Agriculture
Source: Own survey result, 2021

As shown in the Table 7, about 40, 57.5 and 2.5 % of respondents revealed that benefit of
improved maize was highly improving, slowly improving and no change, respectively in Debub
Ari district. About 61.67 and 38.33 % of respondents revealed that the benefit of improved
maize was highly improving and slowly improving, respectively in Malle district. About 19.44,
80.56 % and 33.33, 66.675 of respondents revealed that the benefit of improved sorghum and
common bean was highly improving and slowly improving, respectively in Debub Ari district.
Moreover, about 67.5, 3.33, 29.17% of maize, 63.64, 33.33, 3.03% of sorghum and 53.33, 1.33,

www.cornous.com 8
 45.34% of common bean seeds were obtained from extension, farmer to farmer seed exchange
system and free support by governmental and non-governmental organizations respectively in
Debub Ari district. In the Malle district about 53.33, 15, 31.67% of maize and 25, 75, 0% of
ground nut seed was provided by extension, farmer to farmer seed exchange system and free
support by governmental and non-governmental organizations respectively. Some improved
crop varieties are maize varieties (BH140, BH661, M2 and M4), sorghum (Lalo, Dano, and
Gubiye) and common bean (Hawassa dume) in both districts.

Livestock Production System

Livestock Ownership

The major types of livestock found in study areas are cattle, shoat, poultry, donkey, camel
(Dasenech district) and horse (Debub Ari). As revealed in focus group discussions and key
informant interviews with woreda and kebele experts, elders, model farmer/agro pastorals the
main source for the local livestock technology/breeds are their own stock and markets
whereas for the improved livestock technologies/breeds; markets, extension, Jinka agricultural
research center and NGOs. The local livestock breeds are dominant in the study areas but there
are also some improved breeds such as Holstein Fersia, Jersey and Borana breeds. The type of
sheep breed in the area is more of local but now Bonga sheep (Debub Ari) breeds are
introduced and crossed with local breeds. There are both local and improved chicken breeds in
the area.

Table 8. livestock types reared in the study area

Livestock types owned Districts/Woreda’s
Debub Ari Malle
Mean (Standard deviation) Mean (Standard deviation)
Oxen 4.6(3.6) 2.3(1.3)
Cow 3.3(3.1) 2.4(2.3)
Bull 2.4(1.9) 2(1.4)
Heifer 3.2(2.7) 2.02(1.03)
Chicken 10.7(6.5) 5.2(2.7)
Cross chicken 5.3(2.5) 3.3(1.03)
Sheep 3.4(4.03) 2.6(1.3)
Goat 5.8(5.2) 4.8(2.9)
Source: Own survey result, 2021

In the study districts livestock major livestock reared are oxen, cows, bulls, heifer, chicken,
sheep and goats. The average oxen, cows, bull and heifer, owned by respondent household in
Debub Ari woreda were 4.6 oxen, 3.3 cows, 2.4 bull and 3.2 heifers respectively with standard
deviation of 3.6 oxen, 3.1 cows, 1.9 bulls and 2.7 heifers respectively which relatively higher
compared to the other study woreda’s. Chickens were categorized in to local chicken and cross
breed chicken. The average local chickens owned by the sample respondents in the study area
woreda’s were 10.7 and 5.2 chicken for Debub Ari and Malle districts respectively with
standard deviation of 6.5 and 2.7 chicken respectively. The mean cross breed chicken in the
study area were 5.3 and 3.3 chickens in Debub Ari and Malle woreda respectively. Shoats was
categorized in to sheep and goats. According to the survey result the average sheep owned by
sample respondent in Debub Ari woreda were 3.4 sheep and 5.8 goats with corresponding
standard deviation of 4.03 sheep and 5.2 goats, respectively. The average sheep owned by

www.cornous.com 9
 sample respondent in Malle woreda were 2.6 sheep and 4.8 goats with corresponding standard
deviation of 1.3 sheep and 2.9 goats, respectively (Table 8).

Livestock feed technologies

Livestock feed in the study districts are mainly grazing by their own farm and communal land,
and crop residues. However, about 79.17 and 82.5% of respondents raised feed shortage is a
problem and 20.82 and 17.5 % reported feed shortage as not a problem in Debub Ari and Malle
districts, respectively.

Table 9. Animal feed technologies

Districts
Debub Ari Malle
Feed shortage problem Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
yes, it is serious 35 29.17 19 15.8
yes, sometimes 60 50.0 80 66.7
No 25 20.83 21 17.5
Uses of this feeds (Frequency Ranking the use of this feeds (Frequency
Districts

Sources of feed /percent) /percent)

Yes No Most More Important
important Important
Grazing in the field 99(82.5) 21(17.5) 92(92.93) 7(7.07) 0
Green feed (cut and 68(56.7) 52(43.3) 11(16.2) 13(19.1) 44(64.7)
carry system)
Hay making 13(10.8) 105(87.5) 4(3.3) 4(3.3) 5(4.2)
Crop residues 97(80.8) 21(17.5) 14(11.7) 69(57.5) 9(7.5)
Concentrates of 8(6.7) 110(91.7) 4(3.3) 3(2.5) 1(0.8)
Debub Ari

different types
Improved forage 3(2.5) 115(95.8) - 1(0.8) 2(1.7)
Local beverage products 82(68.3) 36(30.0) 40(33.3) 29(24.2) 13(10.8)
(Atela)
Grazing in the field 113(94.2) 7(5.8) 93(77.5) 12(10) 8(6.7)
Green feed (cut and 67(55.8) 53(44.2) 43(35.9) 19(15.8) 6(4.1)
carry system)
Hay making 53(44.2) 67(55.8) 7(5.8) 25(20.8) 21(17.5)
Crop residues 95(79.2) 25(20.8) 49(49.2) 13(10.8) 23(19.2)
Concentrates of 5(4.2) 115(95.8) 1(0.8) 2(1.7) 2(1.7)
different types
Improved forage 35(39.2) 85(70.8) 4(3.3) 25(20.8) 6(5)
Malle

Local beverage products 8(6.7) 112(93.3) 3(2.5) 3(2.5) 2(1.7)

(Atela)
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Sources of feed in the Debub Ari district were the practice of grazing in the field (82.5%), Green
feed (cut and carry system) (56.7%), Hay making (10.8%), Crop residues (80.8), Concentrates
of different types (6.7), Improved forage (2.5) and Local beverage products (Atela)(68.3%), and
in the Malle district about 94.2, 55.8, 44.2,79.2, 4.2, 39.2 and 6.7% of respondents practice of
grazing in the field, Green feed (cut and carry system), Hay making, Crop residues,
Concentrates of different types, Improved forage and Local beverage products (Atela)
respectively. Grazing in the field is ranked as the most important in both districts. About 92.93

www.cornous.com 10
 and 77.5 % of respondents revealed the use of grazing in the field feed source as most
important in Debub Ari and Malle districts, respectively (Table 9).

Improved feed use and awareness

The status of the improved forage is at its rudimentary stage with few introductions of grass
species like elephant, desho and panicum. The utilization practice of improved forage is
increasing at decreasing rates due to low access to improved forage seeds, low awareness on
production and profitability of forage, and shortage of land. In both Debub Ari and Malle
district improved desho and elephant grass are not well demonstrated and about 3% and
26.7% of respondents have awareness in Debub Ari and about 18.3% and 46.7% of
respondents have awareness in Malle district (Table 10).

Table 10. Improved feed use and awareness

Improved feed Aware of feed / forage Use of feed/forage Frequency (%)
ricts
Dist

Frequency (%)
Desho grass Yes 4(3.3) Yes, still using 2(1.7)
Debub

No 116(96.7) Yes, but now discount. 3(2.5)

Elephant Yes 32(26.7) Yes, still using 15(12.5)
Ari

grass No 88(73.3) Yes, but now discount. 6(5.0)

Desho grass Yes 22(18.3) Yes, still using 20(16.7)
No 98(81.7) Yes, but now discount. 2(1.7)
Malle

Elephant Yes 56(46.7) Yes, still using 51(42.5)

grass No 64(53.3) Yes, but now discount. 15(12.5)
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Livestock health technologies and breeding

As discussion made with key informants the main challenges for livestock production and
management in the study area are diseases (trypanosomiasis, blackleg, anthrax, leg and foot
and mouth and dermatophytosis), shortage of veterinary medicine and weak vet services. The
death of livestock is lack of/fewer veterinary services and support of extension agents on
timely vaccination. As shown in the Table 11, about 97.5 and 90% of respondents confirmed
that livestock disease occurs often or sometimes in Debub Ari and Malle districts, respectively.
When their livestock get sick, they treat traditionally (33.3%), take to vet clinic (61.8%) and do
nothing (4.9%) in Debub Ari district and treat traditionally (15%), take to vet clinic (77.5%)
and do nothing (6.7%) in Malle district. About 80 and 83.3% of respondents get vaccination
services for cattle and goat in Debub Ari and Malle districts, respectively.

The main problem to health services in Debub Ari and Malle districts are do not get
veterinarians easily (36.7%), weak service from animal health clinics (21.7%), distant to
animal health clinics (16.7%) and less efficiency of tablets/drugs (15%); frequent occurrences
of animal diseases (35.8%), weak service from animal health clinics (25.8%), less efficiency of
tablets/drugs (14.2%) and lack of knowledge about disease & control (9.2%) respectively.
Breeding of cows in three districts are mainly improved bull service (uncontrolled mating) and
local bull service (uncontrolled mating). But the dominant one is local bull service
(uncontrolled mating) in Debub Ari (85.8%) and Malle district (71.7%).

www.cornous.com 11
 Table 11. Animal health technologies and breeding
Items Districts
Debub Ari Malle
Frequency % Frequency %
Livestock disease Yes, it occurs often 46 38.3 12 10.0
problem Yes, but it occurs only sometimes 71 59.2 96 80.0
No, it is not a problem 3 2.5 12 10.0
Livestock get sick Treat traditionally 34 33.3 18 15.0
Take to vet clinic 63 61.8 93 77.5
Do nothing 5 4.9 8 6.7
Get vaccination Yes 96 80.0 100 83.3
services No 24 20.0 20 16.7
Livestock type Cattle 94 97.9 88 73.3
getting Shoat 2 2.1 14 11.7
vaccination
Problem to health Distant to animal health clinics 20 16.7 6 5.0
services weak service from animal health 26 21.7 31 25.8
clinics
Frequent occurrences of animal 5 4.2 43 35.8
diseases
Lack of knowledge about disease 2 1.7 11 9.2
& control
Do not get veterinarians easily" 44 36.7 4 3.3
Less efficiency of tablets/drugs" 18 15.0 17 14.2
No money to purchase drugs" 2 1.7 8 6.7
Breeding of cows Improved bull service 17 14.2 34 28.3
(uncontrolled mating)
Local bull service (uncontrolled 103 85.8 86 71.7
mating)
Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 12. Animal housing and watering

Districts
Debub Ari Malle
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Types of housing Animal barn/caraal 68 56.7 65 54.2
Non-barn fence 52 43.3 55 45.8
Keep animals According to cattle type 114 95 114 95.0
Together all cattle 6 5 6 5
Sources of water for animals River 118 98.3 116 96.7
Pond 2 1.7 4 3.3
Frequency of water livestock Once a day 65 56.7 117 97.5
Twice a day 55 55 3 2.5
Source: Own survey result, 2021

www.cornous.com 12
 Livestock housing and watering

Housing is essential for livestock production and productivity. Livestock in the study areas are
usually kept in the open and fence with no roofing. Types of housing in the study districts are
animal barn/caraal and non-barn fence. About 56.7% and 43.3% of respondents keep their
animal in animal barn/caraal and non-barn fence respectively in Debub Ari districts. In Malle
districts about 54.2% and 45.8% of respondents keep their animal in animal barn/caraal and
non-barn fence respectively. They keep animals according cattle type and together all cattle in
the study districts. About 95% of respondents keep animals according cattle type in both
Debub and Malle districts keep animal together all cattle. Source of water for their animal is
river and about 98.3 and 96.7% of respondents get water from river in Debub Ari and Malle
districts. Frequency of watering livestock in the study areas were one to two times a day (Table
12).

Natural resource Management

Soil and Water Conservation practices

In Debub Ari and Malle districts there is a problem of land degradation due to inappropriate
land use systems, erosion, and deforestation. As a result, the land of farmers/agro pastoralists
was susceptible to soil erosion and it causes loss of upper fertile soil. In response to these
problems introduced physical and biological structures such as tracing mostly practiced ones
are soil bund, stone bunds and bench terraces and as well desho and elephant grass
demonstrations to some extent in the districts. However, there is a gap in the maintenance and
sustainability of soil and water conservation practices. In both Debub Ari and Malle districts
the community participation in soil and water conservation structures is increasing from time
to time and it has greater importance on protecting losses of soil and water. Still soil and water
conservation activities have been done in communal degraded lands or in mountains area but
not practiced by individual farmers/agro pastoralists land. Some individual farmers/ agro
pastoralists planted desho and elephant grass to conserve soil and to use it as feed for livestock.

As presented in the Table 13, in Debub Ari district about 51.7% of respondents revealed that
they practice physical SWC on farm land whereas about 48.3% do not practice but they
participate in communal mountainous areas. Thus, the physical SWC structures practiced are
soil bund (51.7%), stone bund (32.2%) and half-moon (16.1%). On the other hand, in the Malle
district about 45% of respondents reported that they practice physical SWC on their individual
farm land whereas about 55% do not but practice physical SWC on degraded communal lands
and agro pastoralists training center. Thus, the physical SWC structures practiced are soil bund
(77.8%), stone bund (20.4%) and Half-moon (1.8%).

Table 13. Physical SWC practice in the area

Attributes of SWC Districts
Debub Ari Malle
Frequency % Frequency %
Practice of physical SWC Yes 62 51.7 54 45
No 58 48.3 66 55
Types of physical SWC Soil bund 32 51.7 42 77.8
Stone bund 20 32.2 11 20.4
half-moon 10 16.1 1 1.8
Source: own survey, 2021

www.cornous.com 13
 In the Debub Ari and Malle districts 69.2% and 61.6% of respondents reported physical SWC
on their farm land were not supported by biological stabilizers but 30.8 % and 38.4% tried to
support physical SWC with biological stabilizers respectively. However, physical SWC structures
on communal land were supported by biological stabilizers. About 43.2% and 0% of sample
respondents revealed that they haven’t observed change or the benefit of making biological
stabilizers because on their farm land physical SWC is not supported by biological stabilizers
but 13.5%, 43.2% and 92.3% and 7.7% of respondents said that supporting physical SWC by
biological stabilizers is becoming highly and slowly improving in Debub Ari and Malle districts
respectively (Table 14).

Table 14. Supporting physical SWC by biological stabilizers and its benefits
Districts Debub Ari Malle
Physical SWC supported with biological stabilizers
Attributes Frequency % Frequency %
Yes 20 16.7 26 21.7
No 83 69.2 74 61.6
Yes, but partially 17 14.1 20 16.7

Attributes Frequency % Frequency %

Highly improving 5 13.5 24 92.3
Slowly improving 16 43.2 2 7.7
Not good 7 18.9 0 -
No change 9 24.3 0 -
Source: Own survey, 2021

Climate change (vulnerability)

Climate change poses serious threats to agricultural sustainability and poverty alleviation in
the poorest and most vulnerable regions as impacts affect the dependence on rain fed
agriculture, results to increased level of poverty, low level of human and physical capital
development, inequitable land distribution and poor infrastructure development (Ikehi, Onu,
Ifeanyieze & Paradang, 2014). Climate change is the most serious problem in the study areas in
the form of drought, lack or insufficiency of rainfall.

Environmental disasters in Debub Ari

120 100
93.3
100
yes 80 63.3
Percent

no 60 44.2 50

I don't know 40
20
0

Figure 3. Environmental disasters in Debub Ari district

www.cornous.com 14
 Erratic rainfall (late start, early ceasing, excesses rain) are mainly challenge for both crop and
livestock production. Due to climate variability famers or agro pastoralists are challenge to
plant crops as the seasons were changed. As revealed in focus group discussion with
pastoral/agro pastoral groups there is recurrent drought, erratic rainfall patterns, and high
temperatures which had been induced crop and livestock losses in the year, 2017/2018. Also,
they raised climate change has direct effects on their livestock productivity and changes on the
availability of fodder and pastures. During drought season they search for water and move to a
place where there is available grazing land. As presented in the figure 3 above, all respondents
agreed that there are environmental disasters in Debub Ari district since the last 10 years.
About 93.3% of respondents revealed that extensive drought or lack of rainfall is one the main
environment disaster in the area. In the last ten years there was several climatic variability
effects observed and among those the most common in the area are too much rainfall (63.3%),
erratic rainfall (44.2%) and high temperature (50%).

In the Malle district all respondents confirmed that the environmental disaster and the effect of
it challenged the life of agro pastoralist. In the research location, rainfall had a direct impact on
the population of animals. One such direct connection, according to the locals, is between milk
and meat production. Additionally, it was claimed that animals grew during good seasons and
perished during extended dry spells. Due to less pasture, the study area's established reduced
rainfall pattern has resulted in a net decrease in the number of animals. During the area's
reported regular drought cycles, livestock did sell for low prices. The population of the main
livestock has decreased over the study period, with cattle and shoat being the most affected, it
was thus discovered. As the number of cattle decreased, their output, which is closely tied, also
decreased, thus hurting the agro pastoralists' means of subsistence. This has a direct influence
on food availability, and residents of the study area get government food assistance. According
to Farauta et al. (2011), climate change is a role in food price crises, and its effects on
agriculture in developing nations are predicted to worsen. As presented in the figure 4 below,
about 86.7% of respondents revealed that extensive drought or lack of rainfall is one the main
environment disaster in the area. In the last ten years there were several climatic variability
effects have been observed and among those the most common in the area are too much
rainfall (55.8%), erratic rainfall (45.8%) and high temperature (53.5%).

Environmental disasters in (last 10 years) in Malle

120
100
100
86.7
80
Percent

60 55.8 53.5
45.8 yes

40 no
I don't know
20

0
env't disaster drought/lack to much rain erratic high
ofrainfall rainfall temperature
Figure 4. Environmental disasters in Malle district

www.cornous.com 15
 Coping Mechanism to address environmental change

This study was also interested in establishing the coping mechanisms employed by the farmers,
agro pastoral, pastoral households to cope with climate variability. On this, the respondents
were asked to indicate whether there were strategies they devised to survive or reduce the
impact of climate variability. Asked which coping mechanisms they employed, the respondents
outlined a number of strategies among them receiving food aid, livestock sell, bought food,
borrowing money from relatives/traders and temporary migration were major mentioned. In
Debub Ari district the farmer’s main coping mechanisms are livestock sell, bought food, grain
storage and borrowing whereas agro-pastoralists in Malle receive food aid, bought food, sell
livestock and temporary migrations. As presented in the Figures 5 & 6 below about 60.8%
(sold livestock), 57.5% (bought food) and 46.7% (borrow money from relatives) of
respondents pointed that these as the priority coping mechanism in Debub Ari district whereas
about 87.5% (do nothing and bought food), 85.8% (migrate town temporarily), 73.3% (sold
livestock) and 71.3% (get food aid) of respondents pointed that these as the priority coping
mechanism in Malle district. In both districts sell of livestock and bought food is one most
common coping mechanism to the environmental change. However, agro pastorals were not
able to respond to the environmental change and do nothing.

Coping mechanism to environmental change in Debub Ari district

100

90

80

70
60.8
60 57.5
Percent

50 46.7 45.8 44.2

40
30
30
19.2
20
11.7
10

Yes No

Figure 5. Coping mechanism to environmental change in Debub Ari district

www.cornous.com 16
 Coping mechanism to environmental change in Malle district

100
87.5 87.5 85.8
90
80 73.3 71.3
70
60
Percent

50
40
26.7 28.7
30
20 12.5 12.5 14.2
10
0
Did nothing Sold livestock Received food Bought food Migrate to town
aid temporarily
Yes No

Figure 6. Coping mechanism to environmental change in Malle district

Adaptation strategies to environmental change

A change in weather conditions could influence the type of crops grown or animals reared. For
farmers and agro pastorals to adapt to the impacts of environmental change, those (farmers
and agro pastorals) that are currently experiencing warmer environments due to shift or
drastic rise in temperature should shift to planting of crops that can survive in the current
trend in their places. As shown in Table 15 below shows about 44.2 and 48.3% of respondents
do not have any adaptation strategies but more than 50% of respondents in all district practice
some adaptation mechanism like changing crop type, animal breeds, decreasing livestock
number, engage in irrigation and off-farm income sources.

Table 15 . Adaptation strategies

Districts
Items on Adaptation strategies Debub Ari Malle
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No adaptation mechanism Yes 53 44.2 58 48.3
Change crop type Yes 30 25 61 50.8
Change crop varieties Yes 15 12.5 52 43.3
Change animal breeds/forage Yes 5 4.2 0 0
Decrease number of livestock Yes 101 84.2 62 51.7
owned
Engage on irrigation Yes 11 9.2 15 12.5
Engage in off -farm employment Yes 96 80 60 50
Source: own survey, 2021

www.cornous.com 17
 Agricultural extension system

Access to extension services (agricultural technologies and practices) have been improved over
time due to result-oriented extension approach in which farmers/agro pastoralists could see
the yield difference of introduced technologies compared to the local one. Now a day farmers in
the area adopted agricultural technologies which can give a high yield over the local.
Information sources about improved agricultural technologies are DAs, farmer to farmer
communication, model farmers’ field visits, and experience sharing in the Woreda. Moreover,
most of farmers are open to use new agricultural technologies but still, agro-pastoralist is
waiting for free seed and fertilizer, and also external support from either the Woreda
government or NGOs. Nearly in all districts about more than 885% of respondents get
extension services but the level of satisfaction varies in each district. The level of satisfaction
with extension in Debub Ari (90.7%) and Malle district (89%) is medium as revealed by sample
respondents (Figure 7).

Access to Extension Service and satisfaction

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
yes No Very Medium Poor
Satisfied
Debub Ari Malle

Figure 7. Access to extension services

Major constraints to livelihood improvement in the study area

The major constraints of livelihood improvement in the study area are presented in the Table
16. Extensive drought and erratic rainfall are the first constraint affecting both crop and
livestock production in the study areas. Shortage of rainfall and the frequently recurring
drought in the area is a major cause for reduced crop, livestock and forage production. The
second constraint associated with livelihood improvement is shortage of food or food
deficiency which is associated with loss of crops and livestock due to climate variability. Delay
of agricultural inputs such as seed, fertilizer, forage seed and animal drugs cause farmers and
agro pastoral/pastorals not to produce crops with erratic rainfall distribution and ineffective
vet service delivery for livestock production in the study areas. For instance, a month delay of
inputs enables farmers and agro pastoral/pastorals not plant crops and deny forage production
because rainfall distribution is unpredictable. Accessibility, quality, and efficient regular
delivery of services are in particular lacking. According to a group discussion with experts,
farmers, agro-pastoralists, and pastoralists about the quality and dependability of drugs, many
veterinary drugs are given out without a veterinarian's prescription or inspection, typically due
to the distance between clinics and health posts or the lack of adequate services in existing

www.cornous.com 18
 clinics. Due to the imbalance between the number of health staff and the livestock population
as well as the amount of vaccine and livestock population, vaccination coverage was mostly
inadequate and a sizable portion of the cattle were left unvaccinated. Particularly the regularity
of vaccinations was unpopular with pastoralists and agro pastoralists. In terms of accessibility,
price, and quality metrics, the existing animal health care delivery by both public sectors and
private retailers was usually inadequate. Animal health and productivity are severely impacted
by a lack of feed and water as well as the harsh local climate. Furthermore, the accompanying
animal deaths in the research areas are a very serious issue, particularly in the agro-pastoral
and pastoral areas of the zone.

Table 16. Major constraints to livelihood improvement in the study area

Major constraints to livelihood improvement Frequency Percent Rank
Drought or lack of rainfall 18 18.6 1
Lack of food or shortage 14 14.4 2
Livestock disease and weak vet services 12 12.4 4
Feed shortage 9 9.3 5
Delay inputs 16 16.5 3
Heavy flood 6 6.2 8
Irrigation water access problem 8 8.2 6
Weak extension support 7 7.2 7
Lack of infrastructure 5 5.2 9
Weak access to improved technologies 2 2.1 10
Source: own survey, 2021

CONCLUSION

A farming system in the South Omo zone is mainly based on dominant livestock and supportive
crop in agro pastoral areas and dominant crop and supportive livestock production in mixed
farming areas. The average productivity per hectare for major crops produced in the study
areas is less than the national mean productivity due to limitations such as poor soil fertility
management, low inputs use and erratic rainfall. Pests (diseases and insects), high input costs
(seed and fertilizer), a lack of land, and delays in input supplies (seed and fertilizer) were the
main causes of hardship for farmers and agro-pastoralists. The primary resource that agro
pastoralists in the study site depend on for their livelihood is livestock. All of the agro
pastoralist groups in the study area raise multiple species of animals, primarily goats, cattle,
and sheep, where they can benefit from the various ways that the various animal species have
adapted to diseases, a lack of food and water, drought, and a variety of products that can be
produced from the animals. In the research areas, natural pasture (both communal and private
grazing) was the main source of feed for livestock management practices. Improved forage
production in the research areas is practiced by limited respondents. The main impediments of
livestock production were drought, disease and parasites, shortage of feed and shortage of
veterinary medicine. The major constraints of natural resources in the study are soil fertility
decline, land shortage due to fragmentation of land for their children and deforestation.
Therefore, it needs more attention to reverse the mentioned major constraints so as to enhance
agricultural production and productivity. Timely supply of improved inputs(seed/fertilizer),
improved forage, methods of disease control and intensifying natural resource management
and creating better awareness on physical and biological soil management are critical for
improvements of soil and enhances productivity.

www.cornous.com 19
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Southern Agricultural Research Institute and Jinka Agricultural
Research Center for logistics support. Authors also express their great appreciation to Malle
and Debub Ari woreda experts, kebele administrative and farmers and agro-pastorals who
involve in this research study.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Asmera Adicha wrote and edited the entire manuscript in addition to writing the proposal,
securing the funding, and conducting the research and data collection. Mr. Dawit Darcho,
Gedion Ermias, Kutoya Kusse and Zeynu Kelifa involved in data collection, data entry and draft
analysis of this research report.

COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest. The manuscript has not been submitted
for publication in other journal.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Not applicable

REFERENCES

Ahmed, M. (2017). Factors affecting sweet potato production in crop–livestock farming systems
in Ethiopia. Norwegian university of Life Science. Master’s Thesis, Department of Plant
Sciences. Mekelle Ethiopia and Norway.

Alemu, L., Tekalign, M., Wassie, H., & Hailu, Sh. (2016). Characterization of Farming Systems in
Kedida Gamela, Kacha Bira and Damboya Woredas (Administrative Districts) in Southern
Ethiopia, Hawassa University, School of Plant and Horticulture Science, Ethiopia, Agricultural
Transformation Agency (ATA), Ethiopia, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(9), 1-16.

Emana, B., Afari-Sefa, V., Dinssa, F., Ayana, A., Balemi, T., & Temesgen, M. (2015).
Characterization and assessment of vegetable production and marketing systems in the humid
tropics of Ethiopia. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 54(2), 163-187.

Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., & Gibbon, D (2001). Farming systems and poverty: Improving farmers’
livelihoods in a changing world (English). Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank
Group. www.fao.org/ farming systems/.

Farauta, B. K., Egbule, C. I., Idrisa, Y. L., & Agu, V. C. (2011). Perception of climate change and
adaptation strategies in Northern Nigeria: an empirical assessment. Retrieved 23rd March,
2012 from http://unfec.inc/2860.php.

IFPRI (2009). A Study in Support of the Mars Food Action of the European Union. The Cereal
Availability in Ethiopia, 2007/08. Final Technical Report of the Project submitted to the
European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for the Protection and the Security of
the Citizen, Fermi, Italy.

www.cornous.com 20
 Ikehi, M. E., Onu, F. M., Ifeanyieze, F. O., & Paradang, S. P. (2014). Farming families and climate
change issues in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: extent of impact and adaptation strategies.
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(1), 1140-1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2014.512124.

MoARD. (2015). Ethiopia’s Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework: Ten Year
Road Map (2010-2020), Draft, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Roberts, Cl., & Azzarri, C. (2014). "Ethiopia Agricultural Snapshot 2011/12," Working Paper,
Harvest Choice International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Taffesse, A. S., Dorosh, P., & Asrat, S. (2011). Crop production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and
Trends. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II (ESSP II) ESSP II Working Paper No. 0016.

Zerssa, G., Feyssa, D., Kim, D. G., & Eichler-Löbermann, B. (2021). Challenges of smallholder
farming in Ethiopia and opportunities by adopting climate-smart
agriculture. Agriculture, 11(3), 192.

www.cornous.com 21