Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

Nuru Temam*,  Suleiman Aman,  Diriba Hordofa
Published in International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 10, Issue 3)
Received: 30 April 2025     Accepted: 20 May 2025     Published: 25 June 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Farming system characterization and analysis is a roadmap for dynamic agricultural production constraints and opportunities identification and prioritization. Hence, this activity was initiated to identify and characterize the existing farming system, its constraints and opportunities in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones. A cross sectional research design with two-stage sampling was employed. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources. A total of 386 household heads were selected for quantitative data whereas qualitative data were collected from focus group discussion and key informants via face to face interviews. Secondary data were collected from relevant published and unpublished documents. In SPSS version 20 software, simple descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, percentage and pair-wise ranking were used for data analysis. The result revealed that, there was a diverse crop-livestock mixed farming system where crop farming system was the dominant and characterized as rain fed and irrigation-based farming system. Cereal, horticulture, and coffee-khat-based farming systems were common in rain fed whereas few cereal and horticultural crops under irrigation farming systems were practiced in the study areas. The types of livestock reared in the areas were cattle, poultry, sheep, goats, and equines. Even though, there were numerous development supporting government and non-governmental organizations including research centers, universities, agricultural offices, climate action through landscape management (CALM) program for results project, sustainable land management (SLM) project, more young entrepreneurs in silk honey (MOYESH) project and private sectors that are contributing in crop and livestock improvement, natural resource management and job creation; high price of agricultural inputs, lack of improved seed and breeds, delay of fertilizers supply, low production and productivity, lack of capital, shortage of land, crop and livestock diseases, feed shortage, poor soil fertility, soil erosion and lack of common understanding on lime application were the major agricultural production constraints in the study areas. Therefore, all government and non-government development practitioners in the areas should consider the existing agricultural production systems, constraints and opportunities for fruitful interventions.

Published in International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 10, Issue 3)
DOI 10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14
Page(s) 126-148
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Agro-ecologies, Crop, Farming System, Farming Typologies, Mixed Farming

1. Introduction
Agriculture is backbone of Ethiopian economy where smallholder farmers are play crucial roles in economy of the country and which represents about 33.88% of its GDP
[12]
. It also enhances economic activities by creating job opportunities for approximately 72.7% of rural farmers and continues as a means of producing income and source of economic welfare for about 83% of the small-scale participants
[6, 11]
. Country’s favorable diverse agro ecological zones coupled with abundant natural resources makes the agriculture sector remains a critical part of Ethiopia's economy. According to
[5]
, the existence of diverse agro ecological conditions enables the country to grow a large crops variety and other different types of fruits and vegetables. Moreover, Ethiopia's moderate climate provides significant opportunities for dairy development, allowing the country to generate approximately 3.89 billion liters of milk annually
[3]
.
Despite its numerous importance’s, agricultural production and productivity is constrained by an interlinked factors in the country
[15]
. Among these constraints, depletion of natural resources, inadequate improved technology, weak institutional collaboration, pests/disease severity and price fluctuation are the main obstacles of agriculture sector development
[9, 15]
. For effective intervention, various agricultural production constraints and opportunities need to be extracted through analysis and characterization of farming system. As stated by
[13]
farming system characterization and analysis is a basic procedure to identify the point of intervention to enhance production and productivity of crop, livestock, and natural resources.
It is a roadmap for dynamic agricultural production constraints and opportunities identification and prioritization. To this end,
[1]
conducted farming system characterization before eight years when Buno Bedele was administrated under Ilu Ababor zone. There were numerous development supporting government and non-governmental organizations including research centers, universities, structured agricultural offices, climate action through landscape management (CALM) program for results project, sustainable land management (SLM) project, more young entrepreneurs in silk honey (MOYESH) project and a private sectors that are contributing in crop and livestock improvement, natural resource management and job creation for resource poor and youths in the study areas. Being farming system is a dynamics by its nature in one hand and scant study on analysis and characterization of farming systems in Buno Bedele zone in the other, this activity was pertinent in the study areas. Hence, this study was conducted to map farming system typologies of the zones, to identify and characterize farming system of the zones and to identify the existing farming system constraints and opportunities in the zones.
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Description of the Study Areas
The research was conducted in six districts namely Bacho, Alle and Bure from Ilu Ababor zone, and Didessa, Chora and Dega from Buno Bedele zone (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of the study areas.
Buno Bedele is among the zones of Oromia Regional state of Ethiopia. The zone is bordered on the east and south-east by Jimma zone, on the west by Ilu Ababor zone, on the north by East Wollega and West Wollega zones. Bedele is the administrative town of the zone. The zone is located at 8°27` - 8°45`N latitude and 36°21’ - 36°35` E longitude with an elevation of 500-2575 meters above sea level. Annual precipitation of the zone ranges from 1500-2200mm with 6 to 9 months of rain fall. The zone has 9 districts and one town. Mixed crop production and livestock rearing farming system supported by off and non-farm activities are practiced as a means of income generating activities.
Ilu Ababor is among the zones of Oromia Regional state and delineated by Keffa zone on the south, by Gambela Regional State on the southwest, by Kelem Welega zone on the west, by West Wollega zone and Benishangul-Gumuz Region on the north, by East Welega zone on the northwest, and Buno Bedele zone on the east. The capital city of the zone is Mettu. It is located on 600 km distance away from Addis Ababa the capital city of Ethiopia. The zone has thirteen districts and one town. The zone is situated between longitudes of 33°47′ - 36°52′ East and latitudes 7°05′ - 8°45′ North, with the elevation ranged from 1,500–2,500 meters above sea level. Mixed farming system of crop production and livestock husbandry is the main source of income were coffee remains the leading income source.
2.2. Sampling Technique and Sample Size
Two-stage sampling method was employed to select representative districts and kebeles whereas simple random sampling was used to select representative respondents. In the first stage, all districts of Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones were stratified into three agro-ecologies based on altitude, namely; highland, midland and lowland based on the traditional agro-ecological classification of respective Zonal Agricultural Offices. From each stratum, one representative district was randomly selected. Accordingly, Dega, Chora and Didessa were randomly selected from highland, midland and lowland districts of Buno Bedele zone, whereas Alle, Bacho and Bure were randomly selected from highland, midland and lowland districts of Ilu Ababor zone respectively. In the second stage, two-three kebeles were selected randomly from each stratified highland, midland and lowland districts. Consequently, eight kebeles from Dega, Chora and Didessa districts whereas nine kebeles from Alle, Bacho and Bure districts were selected. Finally, 386 households’ from 17 sampled kebeles were randomly selected based on probability proportional to size (PPS) using Yemane (1967) formula at 95% confidence interval.
n=N1+Ne2(1)
Where n is the sample size, N is the population size which is 11,165 households’, and e is the level of precision.
2.3. Data Type and Method of Data Collection
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources using semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaires were pre-tested so as to collect relevant information that addresses the specific objectives of the study. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 386 households via face to face interview, focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews. Secondary data were also collected from respective zonal, district agricultural offices and other relevant unpublished documents.
2.4. Method of Data Analysis
The descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviations, percentage and frequency were used to analyze and summarize the socio-economic, demographic, infrastructure and institutional characteristics related data of the sampled households. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tool such as pair-wise ranking was used to analyze and narrate the qualitative data.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Demograpic and Socio-economic Characteristics of the Households
The mean age of households was 41 years with mean family size of 6. The mean education level of the sampled households was 5 years of schooling. The mean total land holding of the respondents was 2.1 hectare where the mean land size for cultivaition was 1.1 hectare in study areas.
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of continuous variables of sample households.

No.

Variables

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

1

Age of household heads

386

41

12.6

2

Average family size

386

6

2.5

3

Education level

386

5

3.5

4

Total land holding (ha)

386

2.1

1.8

5

Total cultivated land (ha)

386

1.1

1.0
Source: own survey result, 2023.
The result of dummy/categorical variable shown, about 97.4 percent of the sampled households were male headed with 2.6 percent were female headed. The majority of the sampled households were married (98.7%) while 0.8%, 0.3% and 0.3% were single, widows and divorced respectively. About 61.4 percent of sampled households were Islam followers which followed by Protestants (23.6%) and Orthodox (15%) in the study areas. As indicated on table 2, about 22.8 percent of the sampled households were engaged in off/non-farm activities.
Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of categorical variables of sample households.

No

Categorical variables

Category

Frequency

Percent

1

Sex

Male

376

97.4

Female

10

2.6

2

Marital status

Single

3

0.8

Married

381

98.7

Divorced

1

0.3

Widowed

1

0.3

4

Religion

Islam

237

61.4

Orthodox

58

15.0

Protestant

91

23.6

5

Participation in off/non-farm activities

Yes

88

22.8

No

298

77.2
Source: own survey result, 2023.
3.2. Farming System Typologies of Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones
In both zones, the selected districts were characterized by mixed crop-livestock farming system scattered in three major agro-ecologies (highland, midland and low land) areas. In this study crop-livestock farming system were further classified into crop farming system which were again classified as rainfed and irrigation based farming systems (Figure 2). The rainfed farming system was subclustered into cereal, horticulture and coffee-khat-based farming systems, where cereal and horticulture-based farming systems were practiced under irrigation farming systems. Maize and tef were the dominant cereal crops whereas hotpepper and potato were the dominant horticultural crops under rainfed farming system in the study areas.
Figure 2. Hierarchal classification of farming system typologies in Buno Bedele and I/A/Bor zones.
3.2.1. Rainfed Based Crop Production System
Rainfed crop production system refers to a type of farming that relies on rainfall for crop cultivation, without the use of irrigation. Accordingly a number of cereals, horticulturals, coffee and khat were practiced under rainfed production in the study areas. The rainfed farming system also further classified into cereal, horticulture and coffe-khat based farming system.
1). Cereal Based Farming System
Maize and tef are major grown in highland, midland and lowland agroecologies while sorghum is produced in midland and lowland areas of the study areas. The survey result indicated that out of cereal crops, maize production is dominant in terms of area coverage and productivity which followed by tef production (Table 3). Out of 2.1 hectares average land holding, the mean land allocated for maize and tef in the study areas were 0.55 and 0.35 hectares which indicates about 26% and 17% of land covered by maize and tef respectively. Besides, maize and tef production; wheat is also produced by smallholder farmers. Sorghum is mostly produced in midland whereas barley produced in highland areas.
2). Horticultural Based Farming System
Hot pepper-potato based farming system
In this farming system, hot pepper is mainly produced in midland and lowland areas of Didessa and Bure districts. Survey result indicates that, hot pepper is a major horticultural crops used for both home consumption and means of income generation in Didessa and Bure districts. The highest mean cultivated land of 0.12 ha was allocated for hot pepper with the mean yield of 19.04 qt ha-1 in lowland agro ecologies (Table 3). Potato is also grown by smallholder farmers in highland and midland areas of Dega, Chora, Didessa, Bacho and Bure districts, while onion is produced in three major agro-ecologies of Dega, Chora and Bure districts. Tomato, sweet potato, head cabbage, beetroot, carrot and garlic are among the horticultural crops produced on small proportion of land in the study areas.
3). Coffee-khat Based Farming System
Coffee-khat based farming system is found in all selected districts of three agro-ecological zones and known as dominant cash crops where coffee is the leading cash crop in terms of area coverage, income genaration and job creation in the study areas. Survey result revealed that, the mean land allocated for coffee and khat were 0.69 ha (33% of the total land of the study areas) and 0.1 ha respectively (Table 3). Perennial fruits like avocado, banana, mango, orange, and papaya are also produced in the study areas.
Table 3. Rain fed major crops produced per agro-ecologies.

Farming system typology

Major Crop produced

N

Area (ha)

Agro-ecology

Highland (N=141)

Midland (N=160)

Lowland (N=85)

Area (ha)

Yield (Qt/ha)

Area (ha)

Yield (Qt/ha)

Area (ha)

Yield( Qt/ha)

Cereal based farming

Maize

386

0.55

0.53

17.1

0.56

19.1

0.54

21.87

Tef

386

0.35

0.55

6.79

0.30

6.52

0.10

3.88

Sorghum

386

0.03

-

-

-

-

0.10

-

Horticure based farming

Hot pepper

386

0.10

-

-

0.03

10.04

0.12

19.04

Potato

386

0.01

0.02

18.25

0.004

8.00

-

-

Coffe-khat based farming

Coffee

386

0.69

0.5

7.23

0.80

8.79

0.94

12.20

Khat

386

0.10

0.03

-

0.02

-

0.1

-
Source: Survey data result, 2023.
3.2.2. Irrigation Based Crop Production System
Recently Ethiopian Government has been given special attention to irrigation based crop production to ensure food security of alarmingly increasing human population in the country. Irrigation based crop production is about effective and efficient utilization of land, water and man power. Inline to this, a number of cereals and horticultural crops are produced irrigation potential areas of the study districts.
1). Maize-wheat irrigation Farming System
In all agro-ecological zones of the study areas, maize and wheat are mostly produced under irrigation farming system. Survey results indicated that maize and wheat irrigated farming were mostly produced in highland areas of the study areas (Table 4). The FGD also confirmed that maize has a long history under irrigation system; wheat is recently introduced as irrigated wheat initiative in water sufficient areas to ensure food security and improve farmers’ livelihood. However, there were limited modern schemes compared to a plentiful rivers used for irrigation and numerous irrigations interested beneficiaries in the study areas.
2). Onion-potato Irrigation Farming System
A few horticultural crops were produced under irrigation farming system for consumption and as means of income generation. Survey result indicated that, onion and potato were mostly produced specifically in lowland and midland agro-ecologies of the study areas (Table 4). In addition, beetroot, carrot, garlic and head cabbages were among horticultural crops produced in the study areas.
Table 4. Major crops produced under irrigation system.

Farming system typology

Major Crops grown

N

Area (ha)

Agro-ecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

Area (ha)

N

Area (ha)

N

Area (ha)

Cereal based farming

Maize

386

0.03

141

0.05

160

0.04

85

0.001

Wheat

386

0.02

141

0.03

160

0.02

85

0.004

Horticultural based farming

Onion

386

0.002

141

0.002

160

0.002

85

0.003

Potato

386

0.004

141

0.01

160

0.002

85

0.001
Source: Survey data result, 2023.
3.3. Cropping System
Different cropping system with diverse management techniques were practiced where mono-cropping was the dominant followed by crop rotation and double cropping system in three major agro-ecologies of the study areas. Survey result indicated that maize based mono-cropping is the principal cropping system practiced by about 39.4% of respondents particularly in Alle, Didessa, Bacho, Chora and Bure districts of the study areas (Table 5). Crop rotation of cereal with cereal (maize-tef-sorghum), cereal with pulse (maize-haricot bean-faba bean) were also practiced within the intension to increase yield, improve soil fertility, diversify crop for home consumption and as means of income whereas double cropping was practiced by planting early maturing crop varieties like haricot bean, faba bean and barley with maize and tef in a single cropping season.
Table 5. Cropping system practiced by respondents per agro-ecology.

Types of cropping system

Total HHs

HHs (%)

Agroecology

Highland

Midland (N)

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

Mono-cropping

152

39.4

50

35.5

69

43.1

33

38.8

Crop rotations

117

30.3

39

27.7

49

30.6

29

34.1

Double cropping

90

23.3

48

34.0

32

20.0

10

11.8

Inter-cropping

14

3.6

4

2.8

5

3.1

5

5.9

Coffee and Khat

13

3.4

0

0.0

1

0.6

12

14.1

Crop rotation and double cropping

48

12.4

29

20.6

16

10.0

3

3.5

Crop rotation and inter-cropping

12

3.1

5

3.5

6

3.8

1

1.2

Mono-cropping and double cropping

30

7.8

14

9.9

14

8.7

2

2.4

Fallow land

53

13.7

29

20.6

14

8.8

10

11.8
Source: Survey date result, 2023.
3.4. Agronomic Management Practices
3.4.1. Land Preparation and Ploughing Frequency
In southwestern parts of the country, animal draught power is commonly used for land preparation since the landscape is not such a suitable for mechanized farming. Focus group discussion also confirmed that, smallholder farmers in the study areas are extensively depend on animal draught power for land preparation whereas, some of the farmers who have not animal draught power are prepared their small plot of land by their hand tools (hoes). Land preparation starts at the onset of the rainfall, mostly from early March based on soil and sowed/planted crop types. Focus group discussion also stated that animal draught power based plowing frequency is directly associated with crop type, rainfall distribution, weed and soil types. The survey result indicated the plowing frequency were varies due to the aforementioned features, with plowing frequency ranged from one times for field pea to five for tef in the study areas (Table 6).
3.4.2. Planting Time, Methods of Planting and Seed Rate
Time of sowing varies depending on the crop types starting from mid-April for sorghum and maize to early August for tef and bread wheat. Row planting and broadcasting methods were practiced in the study areas where broadcasting method was common particularly for sorghum, barley and field pea. Both row planting and broadcasting methods were practiced for maize, tef, wheat, faba bean, groundnut and hot pepper (Table 6). Focus group and key informants stated that, even though maize is dominantly planted through row planting method in the study areas, sole row planting method was not practiced for other crops due to its intensive labor and time requirements. Even though, using the recommended seed rate is important not only for the improvement of crop production and productivity but also for the economic profitability of the farming system as a whole. In the study areas diverse seed rate either below or above the recommended rate were practiced for different crops specifically for the major crops like maize (24.4 kg ha-1), wheat (85.26 kg ha-1), tef (29.39 kg ha-1) and sorghum (31.75 kg ha-1). Survey result indicated that, only the seed rate of maize used by the respondents was proximate to the recommended rate (Table 6).
Table 6. Crops and their agronomic practices in the study areas.

Crops

Sowing methods

Seed rate kg ha-1

Fertilizer rate in kg ha-1

Plowing frequency

Weed control methods

Weeding frequency

NPS/B

Urea

Min.

Max.

Maize

Row & BC

24.41

85.56

81.60

2.89

4.10

HW and CH

2.24

Tef

BC & Row

29.39

61.83

26.76

3.66

4.92

Integrated

1.80

Sorghum

BC

31.75

0

0

2.75

3.76

CH

2.20

Wheat

BC & Row

85.26

66.06

56.58

2.95

4.39

Integrated

2.07

Barley

BC

135.80

0

3.85

2.09

3.10

HW and CH

1.42

Faba bean

BC & Row

60.50

19.87

12.75

1.67

2.68

HW

1.48

Groundnut

Row & BC

65.43

0

0

2.88

3.86

HW

3.57

Field pea

BC

49.33

0

0

0.9

1.68

HW

0.35

Hot pepper

Row and BC

98.54

96.77

93.55

3.45

4.55

HW

4.48
Source: survey data result, 2023 BC= broadcasting; HW= Hand weeding; CH= Chemical.
3.4.3. Fertilizer Application Rate
In the study areas, different types of inorganic fertilizer like urea, NPS and NPSB were used with different rates across all agro-ecologies. NPSB was commonly used for major crops like hot pepper, maize, tef and wheat. However, due to its high price coupled with late delivery system numerous smallholder farmers apply fertilizers below its recommendation rate (Table 6). Unexpectedly, respondents from Guddina sor kebele in Bacho district of Ilu Ababor zone stated that, any types of inorganic fertilizers were not applied for crop production due to the remoteness of the kebeles from the district and zone. Survey result indicated that, fertilizers were not applied for sorghum, barley, faba bean, field pea and groundnut in the study areas. There is livestock tethering practice on the farm land around their home so as to improve soil fertility.
3.5. Pest Management Practices
3.5.1. Major Crop Diseases, Insects and Weeds
Southwestern part of Ethiopia specifically Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor are known by high rainfall and relative humidity which is favorable for the development and distribution of crop diseases, insects and weeds. The aforementioned crop productivity hindering biotic factors attacks diverse crop types mainly at the very beginning of germination, vegetative, at flowering, grain filling, maturity, harvesting and even post-harvesting stages. Survey result revealed that the most common diseases recorded on maize were common smut, ear rot, gray leaf spot, turcicum leaf blight and head smut in cereal based farming system during rainfed season. The major diseases of wheat were stem rust, yellow rust and root rot during irrigation season whereas leaf rust and fusarium wilt on teff and Cercospora leaf spot, damping off, fusarium wilt, leaf blight, pod rot, root wilt, and late blight diseases were the primary causes of hot pepper damage horticultural farming system during rainfed in the study areas (Table 7).
Stem borer and fall army worm were the major insects affecting maize production. While fly shoot was also reported as a major insect on tef and wheat production. Weevil was the common maize and wheat production damaging insect at storage stage. Furthermore, termite infestation is a major problem of the study areas which was difficult to control and cause significant crop loss, from its early germination stage to the time of harvest and even to the storage.
Weeds are the primary biotic factors contributing to the loss of crop production. Various weed types that compete with the major crops for the nutrients, water and light were recorded in the study areas (Table 7). It was noted that farmers use both manual weeding and chemical applications to manage weeds. In fact the frequency of weeding varies accordance with crop, chemical and even weed types. In the study areas manual weeding was applicable predominantly for managing grassy weeds species whereas 2-4D used for broad-leaf weeds. According to FGD agro-dealers were the common herbicide suppliers with poor quality and double fold price.
Table 7. Major weeds for agro-ecology based common crops.

Crops

Major diseases

Major insects

Major weeds

Farming system

Season

Maize

Common smut, ear rot, gray leaf spot, dry root and turcicum leaf blight

Fall Army worm, weevil and stalk borer

Guzotia scabra (Vis.), Bidens pachyouma, Commelina benghalensis L., and Polygonum nepalense

Cereal based farming

Rain fed

Tef

Leaf rust and head smudge

Shoot fly

Trifolium pratense, Eleusine indica (L.), Spergula arvensis L., Cyperus esculentus L. and Guzotia scabra (Vis.)

Cereal based farming

Wheat

Stem rust, yellow rust and root rot

Shoot fly and weevil

Trifolium pratense, Guzotia scabra (Vis.) and Commelina benghalensis L.

Cereal based farming

Irrigation based

Hot pepper

Cercospora leaf spot, damping off, fusarium wilt, leaf blight, pod rot, root wilt and late blight

Pepper budworm, and pepper weevil

Ageratum conyzoides L. and Guizotia scarab

Horticulture based farming

Rain fed

Sorghum

Head smut, leaf blight and anthracnose

Bird attck

Bidens pachyouma, Polygonum nepalense and Guzotia scabra (Vis.)

Cereal based farming

Potato

Late blight and bacterial wilt

Potato aphid, grean peach aphid, cutworm, red ants and leaf hopper

Eleusine indica (L.)

Horticuture based farming

Rainfed and irrigation
3.5.2. Harvesting Methods and Post-harvest Management
In all the study areas, smallholder farmers use hand tools like sickle for harvesting tef, wheat, maize, sorghum, soybean and haricot bean and threshed by animal power. However, FGD and key informant interview result indicated that a number of smallholder farmers used thresher for maize threshing. Tomato and coffee were harvested/collected using basket where tomato and onion were packed and transported to the nearest market by wooden box. Onion is harvested manually by uprooting and then separating the bulb and biomass by cutting. More number of smallholder farmers store grains in the house they live in whereas few of them were stored the grain in independent store by using silo sack (chemical diluted sack).
3.6. Major Constraints of Crop Production in the Study Areas
The result presented in table 8 revealed that there were different constraints identified across agro-ecologies. In highland areas, low productivity, shortage of fertilizer and improved seed and high price of agricultural inputs were main constraints for crop production and high price of agricultural inputs, low price of input, lack of improved seeds and fertilizers and low productivity were identified key constraints in midland areas. Shortage of fertilizer and improved seed, high improved seed and fertilizer cost, low price of output and poor soil fertility were some of the major constraints on crop production in lowland areas.
Table 8. Major crop production constraints in the study areas.

Crop production constraints

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

High improved seed and fertilizer cost

131

93.0

3

157

98.1

1

80

94.1

2

Shortage of fertilizer and improved seed

134

95.1

2

146

91.2

3

82

96.5

1

Termite

39

27.7

10

30

18.7

11

17

20.0

11

Disease

43

30.5

9

69

43.2

9

42

49.4

8

Insects

82

58.1

8

104

65

6

38

44.7

9

Poor soil fertility

127

90.1

4

131

81.9

5

74

87.1

4

Weed infestation

27

19.1

11

39

24.4

10

18

21.2

10

Shortage of land

104

73.8

7

99

61.9

7

53

62.3

7

Lack of capital

115

81.5

6

84

52.8

8

58

68.2

6

Low productivity

138

97.9

1

138

86.2

4

66

77.7

5

Low price of output

125

89.3

5

149

93.1

2

75

89.3

3
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7. Livestock Production System
Livestock production is among the existing mixed farming system in the study areas and was sources livelihood for major smallholder farmers in terms of generating income, food, draught power, transportation, manure, security against risks during crop failure. Livestock production also used as soil fertility improvement by tethering them on cultivable land which known as ‘Dhayi or Mooraa Loonii in Afaan Oromoo’ in the study areas.
3.7.1. Livestock Ownership
Survey result indicated that the primary livestock species reared in all agro-ecological zones of the study areas were cattle (cows, oxen, heifers, and calves), chickens, shoats (sheep and goats), and equines (donkeys and horses), listed in order of importance (Table 9). The main purposes for keeping cattle are milk production, draft power, and income generation during seasons of food scarcity. Furthermore, for smallholder farmers in the study districts, small ruminants like sheep and goats and among equine horses serve as major means of income and transportation respectively. This result is line with finding of
[8]
in Ethiopia where they report that, a livestock is an important source of animal protein, energy for growing crops, transportation, farming manure, buffer during crop failure, and a way to accumulate wealth.
Table 9. Types of livestock and their population in the study areas.

Livestock types

Mean livestock production

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

M

SD

Min

Max

M

SD

Min

Max

M

SD

Min

Max

M

SD

Cow

2

2

0

15

2

2

0

30

2

3

0

7

2

2

Oxen

1

1

0

4

2

1

0

6

1

1

0

6

1

1

Heifers

1

1

0

5

1

1

0

5

1

1

0

5

1

1

Calves

1

1

0

6

1

1

0

5

1

1

0

5

1

1

Sheep

1

2

0

10

1

2

0

6

1

1

0

5

1

1

Goats

0

1

0

6

1

1

0

5

0

1

0

5

0

1

Donkey

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

4

0

1

Horse

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

2

0

0

Chicken

2

3

0

10

2

2

0

14

2

3

0

10

2

3
Source: survey data result, 2023 NB: M= Mean and SD: standard deviation.
3.7.2. Livestock Production Practices
Majority of livestock species in the study areas were indigenous with small number of crossbred cattle and exotic poultry. Even though local breed cows are the major sources of milk in Ethiopia, the study result revealed that there was poor performance in terms of milk production. Most FGD and key informants explained that, feed shortage and disease over the past five years were the major causes for low milk yield in the study areas. The average milk yield gained from local dairy cow was reported to be 1 liter per cow per day while 3 L/day/cow were gained from crossbred in the study areas (Table 10). The average calving interval was about 7.83 and 5.25 months for local and crossbred cow respectively.
Table 10. Milk production performance and lactation period of cattle in the study areas.

Milk production performance

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Local cow average milk (L/day/cow)

321

0.00

4.00

1.18

0.61

Cross cow average milk (L/day/cow)

17

2.00

6.00

2.91

1.15

Local cow Lactation period (in month)

317

2

18

7.83

2.96

crossbred cow Lactation period (in month)

16

2

8

5.25

1.81
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7.3. Feed Sources and Feeding System
The agro-ecological zone, farming systems practiced and land use patterns are the main factors influencing the availability and supply of livestock feed. Survey results indicated sources of livestock feed varied depending on the land use patterns and agro-ecology where free grazing being the principal feed source in all agro-ecologies of the study areas. Similarly, the study reported by
[8]
demonstrated that free grazing is the most common feeding system in mixed crop-livestock farming areas. In the highland areas, a mix of tethering on private grassland and crop residues followed by free grazing and tethering on private grassland with crop residues is commonly used feed source. Meanwhile, in the midland areas, the major animal feed sources include tethering on private grassland, free grazing with private grassland and crop residues and crop residues alone. In the lowland areas, free grazing with private grassland and crop residues, as well as private grassland and crop residues were widely practiced (Table 11).
Table 11. Major livestock feeding systems per agro-ecologies in the areas.

Major livestock feeding systems

Proportion of livestock feeding system

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Free grazing /communal

175

45.3

52

36.9

84

52.5

39

45.9

Tethering on grassland

42

10.9

18

12.8

19

11.9

5

5.9

Crop residues

28

7.2

11

7.8

12

7.5

5

5.9

Tethering on grassland and crop residues

45

11.7

31

22.0

9

5.6

5

5.9

Free grazing, Tethering on grassland and crop residue

49

12.7

21

14.9

15

9.4

13

15.3

Free and Tethering on grassland

6

1.6

3

2.1

2

1.2

1

1.2

Transhumances

1

0.3

1

0.7

0

0.0

0

0.0
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7.4. Improved Forage Utilization Status
Improved forage production and utilization were limited due to lack of awareness by several stallholder farmers’ in the study areas. Survey result indicated that about 45 (11.7%) respondents practiced improved forage where elephant grass was widely practiced specifically in highland agro-ecologies compared to desho and vetiver grasses in the areas. FGD and key informants also confirmed that, next to animal feed elephant grass was used for fence whereas vetiver grass was used for soil and water conservation practice in the study areas.
Table 12. Improved forage feed utilization status of the study areas.

Parameters

Total

Agroecology

Highland (141)

Midland (160)

Lowland (85)

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Improved forage technologies

Yes

45

11.7

23

16.3

15

9.4

7

8.2

No

341

88.3

118

83.7

145

90.6

78

91.8

Which improved forage varieties/grass you used?

Elephant grass

41

10.6

24

17.0

12

7.5

5

5.9

Desho grass

3

0.8

0

0.0

1

0.6

2

2.3

Vetiver grass

2

0.5

0

0.0

2

1.3

0

0.0

Not practiced

340

88.1

117

83.0

145

90.6

78

91.8
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7.5. Feed Shortage and Coping Mechanisms
A single natural grass of communal and private land was not sufficient for animal feed particularly during dry seasons and this inter reduces livestock production and productivities in the study areas. According to
[7]
low livestock production and reproduction performance, loss of body condition, slow growth rate and increased susceptibility to diseases and parasites were caused due to seasonal fluctuations in feeds supply. During animal feed shortage smallholder farmers used crop residues, transhumance to grass areas (forest land), conventional supplementary feeds (left grain mill) and palatable trees leaves.
3.7.6. Common Livestock Diseases and Parasites
A number of livestock diseases and parasites like Trypanosomiasis, Black Leg, Anthrax, Ticks, Bloat, Lamp skin, Lichen, Pastereollosis, Mastitis and Fugel were identified in the study areas. The three most common devastating diseases in the study districts were trypanosomiasis (72.8%) and Pastereollosis (68.1%) whereas ticks (67.1%) were the serious parasite (Table 13). Agroecology is one of the primary variables determining the development of diseases. According to FGD mastitis was one of the most prevalent diseases in the highland and midland areas.
Table 13. Major livestock diseases in the study areas.

Local name

Scientific name

Respondents ‘Yes’ response

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Common livestock diseases

343

88.9

135

95.7

140

87.5

68

80.0

Gandii

Trypanosomiasis

281

72.8

108

76.6

116

72.5

57

67.1

Abbaa Gorbaa

Black Leg

97

25.1

35

24.8

43

26.9

19

22.4

Abbaa Sangaa

Anthrax

138

35.8

51

36.2

56

35.0

31

36.5

Silmii

Ticks

259

67.1

112

79.4

104

65.0

43

50.6

Bokoksaa

Bloat

232

60.1

90

63.8

98

61.2

44

51.8

Shifshaafii

Lamp skin

230

59.6

97

68.8

93

58.1

40

47.1

Dhulaandhula

Lichen

153

39.6

53

37.6

70

43.8

30

35.3

Gororsaa

Pastereollosis

263

68.1

104

73.8

108

67.5

51

60.0

Dhibee Harmaa

Mastitis

257

66.6

106

75.2

102

63.8

49

57.6

Dhibee Lukkuu

Fugel

242

62.7

98

69.5

97

60.6

47

55.3
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7.7. Beekeeping Practices
Beekeeping was currently encouraged by the government so as smallholder farmers and rural youths are widely practiced as the main source of income generation. As indicated in table 14, about 31.6% of the respondents practice beekeeping where traditional beehives were commonly used in highland (30.5%), in midland (20.6%) and in lowland (34.1%) agro-ecologies of the study areas. The finding is consistent with a recent study conducted by
[2]
in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones, which found that the majority of respondents (47.3%) used traditional beekeeping systems, with 30.1% and 22.6% using box hives and transitional beekeeping systems respectively. FGD and key informants stated that, honey production has been decreasing from time to time due to ants, birds, chemicals and pesticides, lack of bee feeds, and market fluctuations in the study areas. In a recent study conducted by
[14]
, it was reported that honey bees are threatened by disease, pests, lack of forage, parasites, and predators.
Table 14. Beekeeping practices per agro-ecologies of the study areas.

Beekeeping

Proportion of colonies and types of beehives

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Honey bee colonies

Yes

122

31.6

47

33.3

43

26.9

32

37.6

No

264

68.4

94

66.7

117

73.1

53

62.4

Types of beehives

Traditional

105

27.1

43

30.5

33

20.6

29

34.1

Modern

31

7.9

6

4.2

15

9.4

10

11.8

Transitional

21

5.5

2

1.4

5

3

5

5.9
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.7.8. Livestock Production Constraints
Table 15. Major livestock production constraints.

Livestock production constraints

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

Disease

135

96.5

1

138

87.9

1

68

88.4

1

Shortage of animal health centers

87

62.1

7

89

56.7

5

55

71.4

3

Feed shortage

122

87.1

4

124

78.9

3

54

69.2

5

Shortage of grazing land

124

88.6

3

130

82.8

2

54

70.2

4

Lack of improved breed

129

92.2

2

123

78.3

4

63

81.8

2

Water shortage

13

9.3

8

15

9.6

8

8

10.3

8

Lack of capital

114

81.4

6

85

54.1

7

46

59.7

7

Shortage of awareness

116

82.9

5

88

56.1

6

47

61.0

6
Source: survey data result, 2023.
Livestock production is an essential component of agriculture, contributing to soil fertility improvement, food security, nutrition, poverty alleviation and economic growth. However, high livestock production and productivities are constrained by a number of factors. As showed in Table 15 diseases was a first ranked common constraint of livestock production in study areas. Lack of improved breeds, limited grazing land and feed shortages in highland as well as limited grazing land, feed shortage and lack of improved breed in midland and lack of improved breed, shortage of animal health centers and shortage of grazing land were key constraints for optimum livestock production and productivities of lowland areas in the study areas (Table 15).
3.8. Natural Resources Management
3.8.1. Land Use Land Cover
The mean land size of the selected districts is 2.08 ha, of which the cultivated and forest land are the dominant land use patterns with the mean land size of 1.08 and 0.99 ha respectively (Table 16). Being agriculture is the dominant activities in the areas, land holding size per household in each agro-ecology has been consistently declining and agricultural land has been more fragmented from time to time because of population pressure and/or land sharing among family members. Share cropping and land renting for a certain period of time were also practiced particularly by resource poor and the youngest those who have no land ownership in the farming community. In share cropping, the harvest yield was shared equally between the land owner and the farmer who manages the land. In most cases, farmers who rent-in land also pay additional money in cash to the land owner as an incentive to sustain the contract. However, the absence of common contract and share crop land use policy and expensive agricultural inputs like improved seed, fertilizer and agro-chemicals makes the resource poor smallholder household non-profitable.
Table 16. Land use land cover per three agro-ecologies of the study districts.

Land use types

Total land use size (mean ha)

Land use land cover per three agro-ecologies

Highland

Midland

Lowland

Mean

SD.

Mean

SD.

Mean

SD.

Mean

SD.

Total land holdings (ha)

2.08

1.83

2.16

1.56

1.90

1.75

2.28

2.32

Cultivable land (ha)

1.08

1.07

1.17

0.89

0.89

0.86

1.29

1.53

Grazing land (ha)

0.29

0.53

0.34

0.47

0.31

0.60

0.18

0.46

Fallow land (ha)

0.07

0.22

0.13

0.31

0.04

0.14

0.05

0.16

Forest land (ha)

0.99

6.59

1.33

10.51

0.77

2.55

0.84

1.52

Degraded land (ha)

0.01

0.10

0.01

0.06

0.02

0.15

0.00

0.03

Rented in land (ha)

0.04

0.19

0.06

0.26

0.01

0.09

0.05

0.19

Shared in land (ha)

0.24

0.43

0.27

0.52

0.25

0.39

0.17

0.34

Shared out land (ha)

0.01

0.20

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.32

0.00

0.00

Residential land (ha)

0.16

0.09

0.18

0.13

0.15

0.07

0.15

0.05
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.8.2. Natural and Plantation Forest
Southeastern parts of the country particularly Ilu Ababor and Buno Bedele zones are endowed by natural forest where Yayo forest is found and registered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2010 as a biosphere reserve for the in-situ conservation of wild Coffee Arabica. The areas are also known by plantation forests. Survey result revealed that about more than half (57.3%) of smallholder households had their own forest of which 20.5% had both natural and plantation forests followed by those had sole plantation and natural forest with the proportion of 18.9% and 18.1% respectively (Table 17). The common purpose of forest ownership in the study areas were for income generation, coffee shade/weather balance, soil erosion control, soil fertility improvement, bee keeping and for construction.
Table 17. The status of household forest ownership across three agro-ecologies.

Types of forest

Proportion of hh forest ownership

Household forest ownership per agro ecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Forest ownership

Yes

221

57.3

75

53.2

94

58.8

52

61.2

No

165

42.7

66

46.8

66

41.2

33

38.8

Type of forest

Natural

70

18.1

20

14.2

28

17.5

22

25.9

Plantation

73

18.9

28

19.9

33

20.6

12

14.1

Both

79

20.5

28

19.9

33

20.6

18

21.2

I didn’t practice

164

42.5

65

46.1

66

41.2

33

38.8

Purpose of forest production

Income generation

88

22.8

28

19.9

36

22.5

24

28.2

Soil erosion control

10

2.6

5

3.5

3

1.9

2

2.4

Soil fertility improvement

7

1.8

3

2.1

4

2.5

0

0.0

Coffee shade and weather balance

36

9.3

6

4.3

13

8.1

17

20.0

For construction

4

1.0

2

1.4

2

1.2

0

0.0

Bee keeping

7

1.8

1

0.7

5

3.1

1

1.2
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.8.3. Agroforestry Practices
A number of agroforestry systems have been practiced by about 60.9% of smallholder farmers in the study areas. The dominant types of agroforestry were home gardens followed by coffee based agro-forestry which supports the finding of
[10]
conducted in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones, who found that among the identified agroforestry activities, home garden is a leading practice which followed by coffee-based agroforestry practice. FGD and key informants reported that, agro-forestry provides a number of benefits like soil-fertility improvement, food, animal feed, fuel wood, timber, medicines, for beekeeping, soil erosion control, construction/fences for livestock and human beings, shade, windbreak and recreation.
Table 18. The status of agroforestry across three agro-ecologies.

Types of forest

Proportion of hh forest ownership

Household’s Agroforestry per Agro ecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Agroforestry practices

Yes

235

60.9

71

50.4

98

61.2

66

77.6

No

151

39.1

70

49.6

62

38.8

19

22.4

Type of agroforestry

Home gardens

101

26.2

27

19.1

39

24.4

35

41.2

Fruit based agro-forestry

9

2.3

1

0.7

6

3.8

2

2.4

Coffee based agro-forestry

18

4.7

7

5.0

6

3.8

5

5.9

Woodlots

14

3.6

6

4.3

8

5.0

0

0.0

Home-gardens and windbreaks

14

3.6

6

4.3

6

3.8

2

2.4

Home-gardens and fruit trees on cropland

8

2.1

2

1.4

4

2.5

2

2.4

Home-gardens, woodlot and trees on rangelands

4

1.0

2

1.4

2

1.2

0

0.0

Home-gardens, fruit trees on cropland, Woodlot and windbreaks

8

2.1

2

1.4

5

3.1

1

1.2

Didn’t practice

151

39.1

70

49.6

62

38.8

19

22.4
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.8.4. Soil Fertility Management
1). Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) Practices
Soil and water are among the natural resource that requires a comprehensive preservation, maintains and optimum utilization for their sustainability. Different types of soil and water conservation practices were implemented by smallholder farmers as a means of soil erosion control, soil fertility and moisture improvement. Survey result indicated majority of the respondents were practiced different soil and water conservation for different purposes of which terracing/soil bund is the dominant one in the study areas.
Table 19. The status of soil and water conservation practice across three agro-ecologies.

Types of soil and water conservation practice

Proportion of conservation practice

Agro ecologies

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

conservation practice

Yes

261

67.6

91

64.5

116

72.5

54

63.5

No

125

32.4

50

35.5

44

27.5

31

36.5

Types of soil and water conservation practice

Terraces

148

38.3

49

34.8

62

38.8

37

43.5

Check dam

34

8.8

10

7.1

16

10.0

8

9.4

Grasses

14

3.6

3

2.1

8

5.0

3

3.5

Multipurpose trees

7

1.8

3

2.1

3

1.9

1

1.2

Not practiced

119

30.8

49

34.8

39

24.4

31

36.5

Soil bund & grasses

23

6.0

10

7.1

9

5.6

4

4.7

Soil bund & multipurpose trees

17

4.4

10

7.1

7

4.4

0

0.0

Soil bund, grasses & multipurpose trees

12

3.1

6

4.3

6

3.8

0

0.0

Check dam & Grasses

3

0.8

0

0.0

2

1.2

1

1.2

Purpose of soil and water conservation practice

Reduce soil erosion

160

41.5

42

29.8

78

48.8

40

47.1

Improve soil fertility

12

3.1

7

5.0

4

2.5

1

1.2

Reduce soil erosion and Increase soil moisture

12

3.1

5

3.5

4

2.5

3

3.5

Reduce soil erosion and Improve soil fertility

43

11.1

20

14.2

15

9.4

8

9.4

Reduce soil erosion, improve soil fertility and climate balance

14

3.6

13

9.2

1

0.6

0

0.0
Source: survey data result, 2023.
2). Soil Acidity
Respondents stressed soil acidity as the major agricultural production and productivity limiting factors in all identified farming system of the study areas. The major causes of soil acidity were mono-cropping with continuous tillage, high rain fall that causes leaching of exchangeable basic cations. To overcome soil acidity problem, a few numbers of respondents (3.2%) apply lime they got from respective district agricultural offices, research centers and universities (Table 20).
Table 20. Households (hh) lime utilization status across three agro-ecologies.

Total hh lime utilization status

Lime utilization status per agro-ecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Lime application

Yes

12

3.1

6

4.3

3

1.9

3

3.5

No

374

96.9

135

95.7

157

98.1

82

96.5

Methods of lime application

Based on soil test

11

2.8

6

4.3

3

1.9

2

2.4

By estimation

1

0.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

1.2

Did not applied

374

96.9

135

95.7

157

98.1

82

96.5

Source of lime

District agricultural office

7

1.8

1

0.7

3

1.9

3

3.5

Research center

4

1.0

4

2.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

University

1

0.3

1

0.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Did not get/applied

374

96.9

135

95.7

157

98.1

82

96.5
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.8.5. Natural Resource Related Constraints
The major constraints of natural resources identified by respondents were soil fertility decline, soil erosion and lack of sustainable SWC managements in highland and midland areas. The result in table 21 shows that lack of sustainable SWC managements, soil erosion and soil fertility decline were the main top three in lowland areas of the study areas (Table 21).
Table 21. Major natural resource related constraints in the study areas.

NR related constraints

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

N

%

Rank

Soil fertility decline

135

95.7

1

150

93.7

1

72

84.7

3

Soil erosion

127

90.1

3

139

86.8

3

75

88.3

2

Lack of sustainable SWC Managements

134

95.1

2

146

91.2

2

82

96.5

1

Lack of common understanding on SWC

109

77.5

5

104

65.0

4

58

68.1

5

Deforestation

42

29.8

6

36

22.5

7

18

21.2

7

Shortage of land for afforestation

47

33.1

7

38

23.7

6

21

24.8

6

Lack of seedling

8

6.3

8

11

6.9

8

4

4.8

8

Lack of lime accessibility

119

84.3

4

88

55.3

5

62

72.8

4
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.9. Livelihood System of the Farming Households
3.9.1. Major Livelihood Diversification and Source of Income
Table 22. Major livelihood diversification activities in the study areas.

Major Livelihood Activities

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

Livelihood activities

Mixed crop-livestock farming

123

87.2

133

83.1

77

90.6

Mixed farming and off/non-farm

16

1.4

25

1.2

6

2.4

Off/non-farm activities

2

11.3

2

15.6

2

7.1

Income sources (Birr/year)

Mixed crop-livestock productions

35,782.27

46,605.63

72,245.88

Farming and off/non-farm activities

19,250

27,041.67

21,150

Off/non-farm activities

4307.80

5193.75

7417.65
Source: survey data result, 2023.
In the study areas, smallholder farmers diversify their livelihood into agriculture which include crop production and livestock productions, farming combined with off-farm activities and off-farm activities alone. Mixed crop-livestock farming is the leading livelihood activities and hence the source of income in all agro-ecologies of the study areas (Table 22). Survey result revealed that, more income (72,245.88 ETB per annual) was generated from crop-livestock mixed farming in low land areas compared to highland (35,782.27 ETB per annual) and midland areas (46,605.63 ETB per annual). A combination of farming and off/non-farm activities was practiced following crop-livestock mixed farming where about 27,041.67 ETB per annual was gained by smallholder farmers in midland areas. Even though all respondents participated in livelihood diversification activities in all agro-ecologies, income generated varied, which may be due to inconsistent adoption of improved technologies, lack of awareness of improved technologies, and use of inappropriate inputs. Thus, attention is needed to improve equal dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies across the agro-ecologies of the study areas.
3.9.2 Farming Labor Sources
In developing countries like Ethiopia, agriculture is a labor intensive activity where a number of hand tools from land preparation to threshing were used. In this case diverse farming labor sources like family labors, mutual support, and resporical, daily hired and contract labor forces are used. Table 23 shows sources of labor in crop and livestock farming and times when labor scarcity occurs frequently in agricultural production across agro-ecologies. Even though, there was a labor shortage particularly during the pick time of teaching and learning process (school open) and coffee collection, family labor was commonly used followed by a combination of family, resporical and hired labor for every activities of the farming all across agro-ecologies in the study areas (Table 23).
Table 23. Agricultural labor sources in the study areas.

Agricultural labor sources

Proportion of labor source

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Labor Source

Family labor

128

33.2

40

28.4

62

38.1

27

31.8

Resporical/dabo

15

3.9

8

5.7

4

2.5

3

3.5

Hired labor

9

2.3

0

0.0

3

1.9

6

7.1

Family and hired labor

39

10.1

13

9.2

14

8.8

12

14.1

Debo and family labors

79

20.5

34

24.1

33

20.6

12

14.1

Family labor, Debo and Hired labor

107

27.7

44

31.2

40

25.0

23

27.1

Dado and family labor

7

1.8

1

0.7

4

2.5

2

2.4

Labor Shortage

Yes

253

65.5

90

63.8

103

64.4

60

70.6

No

133

34.5

51

36.2

57

35.6

25

29.4
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.9.3. Institutional Services for Agricultural Production
This section covers institutional facilities like agricultural extension, market and credit services. Improved agricultural technologies becomes persistently used by smallholder farmers as soon as institutional services like extension and credit services as well as market accessibility are improved and used effectively. With this context, these institutional services have tremendous influences in improving technology adoption which leads to improve productivity, market-oriented production system and increase farm income in identified farming system of the study areas. FGD and key informant stated that agricultural extension services includes provision of theoretical and practical advice on crop and livestock production, natural resource management, market information and access to credit in the study areas. Different agriculture targeting government and non-government organizations like Bedele and Jimma Agricultural Research Centers, and Metu University, SLM, CALM and MOASH have a remarkable contribution in the increment of agricultural production and productivity coupled with natural resource management in the study areas. Specifically, research centers generate, promote and disseminate improved technologies and approach, SLM and CALM focused on participatory soil and water conservation practice whereas MOASH provide modern beehive for improvement of honey yield through grouping the resource poor smallholder households and youths in the study areas. The result presented in table 24 shows that 65.5% of respondents were obtained access to market information. However, the majority of respondents (73.8%) were not access to credit due to high interest rate, no interest free loan, and lack of collateral and repayment time which is not convenient for the farmers (Table 24). This study is in line with the study conducted by
[4]
which stated that, the majority of sample respondents had not used credit in Dabo Hana district.
Table 24. Institutional services in the study areas.

Access to institutional services

Status HH access to services

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Extension Services

Yes

352

91.2

125

88.7

144

90.0

83

97.6

No

34

8.8

16

11.3

16

10.0

2

2.4

Credit Services

Yes

101

26.2

29

20.6

48

30.0

24

28.2

No

285

73.8

112

79.4

112

70.0

61

71.8

Access to Market Information

Yes

253

65.5

89

63.1

110

68.8

54

63.5

No

133

34.4

52

36.9

50

31.2

31

36.5
Source: survey data result, 2023.
3.10. Agricultural Mechanization
Agricultural mechanization is a matter of labor and time saving from the early farm preparation to storage in modern farming system. It minimizes crop postharvest loses and increase land productivity as well. However in the study areas the utilization mechanized machine particularly combiner and tractor were at infant stage. This might be due to unsuitable topography, fragmented farming system, and high initial capital to buy tractor/combiner and absence of spare part.
Figure 3. Farm machinery utilization statuses in the study areas.
4. Major Opportunities in the Study Areas
Even though there were different agricultural productions and productivity hindering factors, ample opportunities were available in study areas. Among the existing opportunities diverse favorable agro-ecologies for crop and livestock production, multiple agriculture supporting institutions, promising government strategies of cluster farming and farmer targeted loan provision services through Siinqee bank and the existence of perennial rivers for irrigation purpose in the areas.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusion
Farming activity remains a central to job creation, ensure food security, economic development and agriculture based industrial expansion. However, the traditional way of agricultural activity implementations that requires intensive labor sources, animal power, time, energy and budget for every segment of activities from land preparation and planting to threshing and storing has been practiced in the study areas. In fact a number of farming system typologies where crop-livestock mixed farming was the pillar and crop production, livestock rearing, rain-fed and irrigation based farming system, cereal, horticulture and coffee-khat-based farming systems as a branch were practiced in the study areas as means of livelihood diversification. The dominant crops were coffee, maize, tef, khat, hot pepper and sorghum whereas the livestock types reared in the areas were cattle, poultry, sheep, goats, and equines. Despite diverse farming system typologies, suitable agro-ecologies, abundant natural resources and ample agriculture supporting institutions in the study areas low productivity, shortage of fertilizer and improved seed and high price of agricultural inputs and poor soil fertility were identified as the major limiting factor across agro-ecologies. Likewise, livestock production in study area is constrained by disease, lack of improved breeds, limited grazing land, feed shortages, shortage of animal health centers and shortage of grazing land for optimum livestock production in different agro-ecologies in the study areas. Soil fertility decline, soil erosion and lack of sustainable SWC managements were main constraints to natural resources. Therefore, there is need for research, institutional involvements and development to solve the identified constraints to crop, and livestock production, natural resources and socioeconomic in the study area.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the current findings the following recommendations have been given.
1. Crop Research
1) High yielding and disease tolerant improved crop varieties should adapt and promoted by the existing Research Centers and Universities in lowland to mid-highland areas.
2) Pure improved seed and other agricultural inputs like fertilizers and agro-chemicals should deliver with reasonable price timely for smallholder farmers in lowland to mid-highland areas.
3) Smallholder farmers should use the recommended agronomic practices through updating their indigenous knowledge rather than seeking short lifespan monetary incentive during training and experience sharing.
4) To eliminate brokers and investors’ that influence agricultural input market price, government should set price for every agricultural input and follow its delivery system up to the end users.
5) Introduction and promotion of proven integrated pest management technologies in midland areas of the study areas for controlling of pests of cereal and horticulture crops based on the season of crop production.
6) Agriculture supporting finance institution should provide with appropriate repayment time, farmers owned asset based collateral credit for smallholder farmers in the study areas.
2. Livestock research and development
1) Provide sufficient drugs with reasonable price and improving the veterinary technician capacity to control animal diseases that constrained livestock production in all agro-ecologies of the study area.
2) Improve and boost community-based crossbreeding programs through AI service as shortage of crossbreeding is common to all agro-ecologies.
3) Adapt and promote improved forage suitable for the different agro-ecologies for increasing adoption in the study areas.
4) Development of veterinary service and use of proper animal farming in midland and lowland areas of the study areas.
3. Natural resources research
1) Low soil fertility is a major constraint of the study areas that is common to all agro-ecologies. So, the recommended rate of conventional and vermicompost untouched researchable agenda that may address low soil fertility in the study areas
2) Smallholder farmers should get practical training on lime use and application.
3) Create awareness on integrated soil and water conservation technologies is needed to persistent SWC management practices
4. Agricultural engineering research
Topogaraphy based agricultural machineries should introduced and promoted with necessary accessaries, spareparts, simple and on time purchasing system either for individual farmers or group of farmers in the areas.
Abbreviations

CALM

Climate Action Through Landscape Management Program for Results Project

FGD

Focus Group Discussions

CSA

Central Statistical Agency

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

MOYESH

More Young Entrepreneurs In Silk Honey

PRA

Participatory Rural Appraisal

SLM

Sustainable Land Management Project

SPSS

Statistical Packages For Social Sciences

SWC

Soil And Water Conservation

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Oromia Agricultural Research Institute for funding this research Project and Bedele Agricultural Research Center for facilitating logistics. The authors would also like to extend our profound appreciation to researchers, drivers and supportive staff for their efforts that led to the success of this study. The contribution of all interviewed farmers, district office of agriculture and development agents for their cooperation in providing relevant information was also acknowledged.
Author Contributions
Nuru Temam: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Suleiman Aman: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Diriba Hordofa: Conceptualization, Investigation
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Addisu Hailu, Ajebush Defar, Diriba Mengistu, Hussen Abro and Yasin Esmael (eds.) 2019. Proceedings of Review Workshop on Completed Research Activities of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Gender Research Directorate held at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Adami Tulu, Ethiopia, 8-11 September 2018. Oromia Agricultural Research Institute (IQQO), Finfinne, Ethiopia.
[2] Bira T, et al. A Honey Production System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Abba Bora Zones, South Western Oromia, Ethiopia. J Agri Allied Sci. 2024; 13: 003.

https://doi.org/10.4172/2347-226X.13.1.003

[3] CSA. 2020a. Agricultural Sample Survey 2019/20 [2012 E. C.]. Volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[4] Dube B, Temam N, Chimdessa D, et al. Socio-economic characterization, identification and prioritization of major constraints and opportunities in Barite community watershed of Dabo Hana district of Buno Bedele zone. Adv Plants Agric Res. 2024; 10(1): 1‒9.

https://doi.org/10.15406/apar.2024.10.00456

[5] FAO & ECDPM. (2021). Political economy analysis of the Ethiopian food system.

https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3255en

[6] Gurmu, H. R. (2020). A review paper on impact of foreign aid on economic development of Ethiopia. International Journal of Economics and Business, Zambrut, 7(1), 43–48. ISSN: 2717-3151.
[7] Lukuyu, M. N.; Gibson, J. P.; Savage, D. B.; Duncan, A. J.; Mujibi, F. D. N.; Okeyo, A. M. Use of body linear measurements to estimate live weight of crossbred dairy cattle in smallholder farms in Kenya. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1–14. [CrossRef].

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1698-3

[8] Management Entity. 2021. Ethiopia’s Livestock Systems: Overview and Areas of Inquiry. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems.

https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116578

[9] Merga, B. and J. Haji (2019). "Factors impeding effective crop production in Ethiopia." Journal of Agricultural Science 11(10): 98.

https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v11n10p98

[10] Mezgebu, M. (2023). "Assessment of agroforestry practices in Buno Bedele and Ilu Abba Bora zone of Oromia region, Ethiopia."

https://doi.org/10.4172/2347-226X.12.2.002

[11] National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE), (2021). Annual report of 2020/21.
[12] Plecher, H. (2020). Ethiopia: Share of economic sectors in the gross domestic product (GDP) from 2009 to 2019.
[13] Taffesse, Alemayehu Seyoum Dorosh, Paul Gemessa and Sinafikeh Asrat (2012). “Crop production in Ethiopia: Regional patterns and trends.” Food and agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and policy challenges, 53-83.
[14] Wakshuma Gelalcha Gebewo, Mati Roba Bulcha, Mohammed Husen Tayir, Wakuma Mitiku Bune, Mahendra Pal. (2023) Current Status of Beekeeping in Ethiopia and Its Future Prospects. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 7(2), 219-228.

https://doi.org/10.26855/ijfsa.2023.06.007

[15] Yigezu Wendimu, G. (2021). "The challenges and prospects of Ethiopian agriculture." Cogent Food & Agriculture 7(1): 1923619.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1923619

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Temam, N., Aman, S., Hordofa, D. (2025). Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 10(3), 126-148. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Temam, N.; Aman, S.; Hordofa, D. Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. Econ. 2025, 10(3), 126-148. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Temam N, Aman S, Hordofa D. Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Int J Agric Econ. 2025;10(3):126-148. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14,
  author = {Nuru Temam and Suleiman Aman and Diriba Hordofa},
  title = {Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
},
  journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Economics},
  volume = {10},
  number = {3},
  pages = {126-148},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijae.20251003.14},
  abstract = {Farming system characterization and analysis is a roadmap for dynamic agricultural production constraints and opportunities identification and prioritization. Hence, this activity was initiated to identify and characterize the existing farming system, its constraints and opportunities in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones. A cross sectional research design with two-stage sampling was employed. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources. A total of 386 household heads were selected for quantitative data whereas qualitative data were collected from focus group discussion and key informants via face to face interviews. Secondary data were collected from relevant published and unpublished documents. In SPSS version 20 software, simple descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, percentage and pair-wise ranking were used for data analysis. The result revealed that, there was a diverse crop-livestock mixed farming system where crop farming system was the dominant and characterized as rain fed and irrigation-based farming system. Cereal, horticulture, and coffee-khat-based farming systems were common in rain fed whereas few cereal and horticultural crops under irrigation farming systems were practiced in the study areas. The types of livestock reared in the areas were cattle, poultry, sheep, goats, and equines. Even though, there were numerous development supporting government and non-governmental organizations including research centers, universities, agricultural offices, climate action through landscape management (CALM) program for results project, sustainable land management (SLM) project, more young entrepreneurs in silk honey (MOYESH) project and private sectors that are contributing in crop and livestock improvement, natural resource management and job creation; high price of agricultural inputs, lack of improved seed and breeds, delay of fertilizers supply, low production and productivity, lack of capital, shortage of land, crop and livestock diseases, feed shortage, poor soil fertility, soil erosion and lack of common understanding on lime application were the major agricultural production constraints in the study areas. Therefore, all government and non-government development practitioners in the areas should consider the existing agricultural production systems, constraints and opportunities for fruitful interventions.
},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Characterization and Analysis of Farming System in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

AU  - Nuru Temam
AU  - Suleiman Aman
AU  - Diriba Hordofa
Y1  - 2025/06/25
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14
T2  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JF  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JO  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
SP  - 126
EP  - 148
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3843
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20251003.14
AB  - Farming system characterization and analysis is a roadmap for dynamic agricultural production constraints and opportunities identification and prioritization. Hence, this activity was initiated to identify and characterize the existing farming system, its constraints and opportunities in Buno Bedele and Ilu Ababor zones. A cross sectional research design with two-stage sampling was employed. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources. A total of 386 household heads were selected for quantitative data whereas qualitative data were collected from focus group discussion and key informants via face to face interviews. Secondary data were collected from relevant published and unpublished documents. In SPSS version 20 software, simple descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, percentage and pair-wise ranking were used for data analysis. The result revealed that, there was a diverse crop-livestock mixed farming system where crop farming system was the dominant and characterized as rain fed and irrigation-based farming system. Cereal, horticulture, and coffee-khat-based farming systems were common in rain fed whereas few cereal and horticultural crops under irrigation farming systems were practiced in the study areas. The types of livestock reared in the areas were cattle, poultry, sheep, goats, and equines. Even though, there were numerous development supporting government and non-governmental organizations including research centers, universities, agricultural offices, climate action through landscape management (CALM) program for results project, sustainable land management (SLM) project, more young entrepreneurs in silk honey (MOYESH) project and private sectors that are contributing in crop and livestock improvement, natural resource management and job creation; high price of agricultural inputs, lack of improved seed and breeds, delay of fertilizers supply, low production and productivity, lack of capital, shortage of land, crop and livestock diseases, feed shortage, poor soil fertility, soil erosion and lack of common understanding on lime application were the major agricultural production constraints in the study areas. Therefore, all government and non-government development practitioners in the areas should consider the existing agricultural production systems, constraints and opportunities for fruitful interventions.

VL  - 10
IS  - 3
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information
Download PDF
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Document Sections

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Research Methodology
    3. 3. Results and Discussion
    4. 4. Conclusion and Recommendations
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.