ST.

MARY’S UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE
STUDIES

ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF

ENHANCED DAIRY SECTOR GROWTH
PROJECT IN ETHIOPIA (EDGET) AND
SATISFACTION OF ITS BENEFICIARIES: The
case of Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions

By: Yohannes Tesfu

Advisor: Dr Workneh Kassa

JUNE 2017
SMU
Addis Ababa
 ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF
ENHANCED DAIRY SECTOR GROWTH
PROJECT IN ETHIOPIA (EDGET) AND
SATISFACTION OF ITS BENEFICIARIES: The
case of Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR regions

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of ST.

Mary’s University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Project
Management

By: Yohannes Tesfu

Advisor: Dr Workneh Kassa

June 2017
SMU
Addis Ababa
 ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY
School of graduate Studies

ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF ENHANCED

DAIRY SECTOR GROWTH PROJECT IN ETHIOPIA (EDGET)
AND SATISFACTION OF ITS BENEFICIARIES: The case of
Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR regions

MBA in Project Management thesis

By: Yohannes Tesfu

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS

Dean, Graduate Studies Signature

Advisor Signature

External Examiner Signature

Internal Examiner Signature

Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work, prepared under the
guidance of Dr Workneh Kassa. All sources of materials used for the thesis have
been duly acknowledged. I further confirm that the thesis has not been submitted
either in part or in full to any other higher learning institution for the purpose of
earning any degree.

Name Signature
ST. Mary’s University School of graduate studies, Addis Ababa June 2017
ENDORSEMENT

This thesis has been submitted to ST. Mary’s University School of Graduate Studies
for the examination with my approval as a University advisor.

Dr Workneh Kassa

Advisor Signature
St Mary’s University School of graduate studies, Addis Ababa June 2017
Acknowledgement
I give the usual thank and praise for Almighty God for granting guidance, protection,
wisdom and acknowledgement.
First and for most my gratitude goes to my advisor Dr Workneh Kassa for his
dedication in providing continual guidance in pursuit of excellent and quality. I want
to thank Professor Wondosen Tamrat for his support in the thesis edition. I sincerely
appreciate their detailed feedback during the dissertation process. And I really debated
for kindly responded emails and timely provided valuable tips and pieces of advice.
Secondly, I would like to thank the dairy beneficiary farmers of the EDGET project,
and woreda livestock offices for their responding of the questionnaires and interview.
I also want to thank for the EDGET project staffs for their advice and continuous
encouragement to the successful pursuit of this study. I am also grateful to all my family
who devote their time, effort and support on behalf. They have all been a big part of
this dissertation achievement.
Finally, my sincere thanks also go to SNV Ethiopia office especially for the EDGET
project Regional managers.

i
Acronyms

AI Artificial Insemination
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency
BOAM Business Organisation their Access to Market project
DA Development agent
DFID Department for International Developmental
EDB Ethiopian Dairy Board
ENA Ethiopian News Agency
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation
FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organisation Statistics
FO Farmers Organizations
GTP Growth and transformation plan
HH Household
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MRS Highland mixed crop-livestock rainfall sufficient zone
MTS Milking transporting and storage plastic
SNV Netherlands developmental organisation
SPSS Statistical package for social scientists
SNNPRs Southern Nation and Nationality Regional state
ToT Trainers of the trainee
UNICEF United Nation International Children’s Emergency Fund
USAID United State Agency for International Development
VC Value chain
WASH Water And Sanitation for Health
WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre; Netherlands

ii
 Contents
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms .............................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... v
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER I ......................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of Problem ........................................................................................ 3
1.3 Objectives of the study ...................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 General objectives of the study ..................................................................... 5
1.4 Significance of the study .................................................................................... 5
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the study .................................................................. 6
1.5.1 Scope of the study .......................................................................................... 6
1.5.2 Limitations of the study ................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER II ....................................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Global performance of the dairy sector ........................................................... 7
2.3 The Dairy sector in Ethiopia ............................................................................. 8
2.4 Dairy sector opportunities and challenges in Ethiopia................................... 9
2.4.1 Opportunities of the dairy sector in Ethiopia ............................................. 9
2.4.2 Challenges of the dairy sector in Ethiopia ................................................. 10
2.5 Dairy sector policy in Ethiopia ....................................................................... 11
2.6 Gender in milk value chain ............................................................................. 13
2.7 SNV EDGET Project Dairy Activity .............................................................. 13
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 18
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 18
3.1 Research design and approach ....................................................................... 18
3.2 Sample size and sampling procedure ............................................................. 18
3.3 Data sources and data collection method ...................................................... 22
3.4 Methods of Data analysis ................................................................................ 22
3.5 Reliability test ................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER IV .................................................................................................................... 24
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................... 24
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 24

iii
 4.2 Results obtained and discussions from the male and female headed
Beneficiary Dairy Farmers of EDGET project ......................................... 24
4.2.3 Results on the comparison of EDGET Project Beneficiaries change with
respect to non-beneficiary ........................................................................... 39
4.3 Results obtained from the Livestock office Experts on the contribution of
EDGET project to Dairy sector .................................................................. 42
4.3.1 General information obtained from the government livestock experts on
the EDGET Project contribution to the dairy sector ............................... 42
4.3.2 Results and discussion on the EDGET Project alignment with the
government plan and contribution to dairy sector .................................. 49
CHAPTER V ..................................................................................................................... 54
SUMMARY OF FINDING, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .............. 54
5.1 Summary of finding ......................................................................................... 54
5.1.1 Summary of findings on the EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers
satisfaction.................................................................................................... 54
5.1.2 Summary of findings on the EDGET project contribution to the dairy
sector ............................................................................................................. 55
5.1.3 Summary of findings on the EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers
difference on milk yield and dairy practice with the neighbor non-
beneficiary dairy farmers ........................................................................... 56
5.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 57
5.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................. 59
For Future researcher....................................................................................................... 63
References .......................................................................................................................... 64
Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 69
Annex I. Questionnaire to be filled by beneficiary farmers of the EDGET project. .. 69
Annex II. Questionnaire to be filled by woreda livestock office staffs of the EDGET
project areas. .............................................................................................................. 74

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Expected outputs of the EDGET project ..............................................15-16
Table 3.1: Sample size for male and female headed HH from both strong and weak
performing woredas.....................................................................................21
Table 3.2: Reliability test for each kebele beneficiary farmers of the three regions...23
Table 4.1: Percentage and frequency of data from the dairy beneficiaries’ response
from Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions...............................................26-27

iv
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of the variable related to the EDGET project goal
on the satisfaction of beneficiary dairy farmers in Amhara region.................31
Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics of the variable related to EDGET project goal on the
satisfaction of beneficiary farmers in Oromia region …….............................34
Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics of the variable related to EDGET project goal on the
satisfaction of beneficiary farmers in SNNPRs region……..........................37
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics of the variables on difference of the EDGET project
beneficiary with the neighbour non-beneficiary on milk production, on milk
hygienically handling and overall cow management....................................40
Table 4.5: Percentage and frequency of data from the government offices (livestock
and fishery bureau) response from Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions..43
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics of the variables on the EDGET Project
contribution to dairy sector and alignment with the government plan…… 50-51

List of Figures

Figure 4.1: In Amhara region at Dangla woreda livestock experts on the EDGET
Project risk management.............................................................................45
Figure 4.2: In Amhara region at Jabithenan Woreda livestock experts on the EDGET
project risk management.............................................................................46
Figure 4.3: In Oromia region at Degem woreda livestock experts on the EDGET
Project risk management.............................................................................46
Figure 4.4: In Oromia region at Boset woreda livestock experts on the EDGET
Project risk management.............................................................................47
Figure 4.5: In SNNPRs region at Aleta wondo woreda livestock experts on the
EDGET project risk management...............................................................47
Figure 4.6: In SNNPRs region at Kocherie Woreda livestock experts on the
EDGET project risk management..............................................................48

v
 Abstract

The objective of the study was to assess farmers’ assessment of the contribution of enhanced
dairy sector growth project in Ethiopia (EDGET) and satisfaction of its beneficiaries. The study
used descriptive statistics research with qualitative data. The sample frame was from the
selected two kebeles (one from well performing and one from poor performing kebele in
livestock extension activities) of each regions of the Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs. The
selection was based on the consultation and recommendation of regional livestock experts and
Enhanced Dairy sector Growth in Ethiopia project regional managers. The sample was taken
from each kebele stratified as female and male headed household. The data from the beneficiary
dairy farmers were analysed by using descriptive statistics on the variables: dairy beneficiary
farmers satisfaction on milk production by the EDGET project support, on the intervention of
the EDGET project for an increase on milk consumption specially for children (under two years
old and women (pregnant and lactating) through awareness creation, on an increase in income
of the dairy beneficiary farmers from dairy related activity, on the process of EDGET project
extension support to beneficiary farmers. Whereas the data collected from the government
livestock bureau on the contribution of the EDGET project to the sector: EDGET project
contribution to the sector, the level of the project objective alignment to the government office
objectives, assessment of EDGET project activity, and evaluation of the EDGET project
beneficiary with non-beneficiary farmers by the government livestock staffs. The result showed
that the beneficiary farmers were satisfied in the milk production per cow per day and obtaining
additional income from the dairy business except the female headed households of the poor
performing kebele with 3.4 to 3.9 (between neutral and agreed point in the Likert scale). In all
region, the female headed households were less satisfied as compare to the male headed
household in the EDGET project extension supports. The government livestock expert staffs
agreed with more than 4 point in Likert scale for the EDGET project is positive contribution to
the sector. Finally, the government livestock expert staffs had shown that EDGET project
beneficiary dairy farmers had positive difference on the milk production, on the milk
hygienically handling and overall cow as well as calf management practices with respect to the
non-beneficiary farmers. Therefore, the study result revealed that EDGET project satisfied to
the beneficiary farmers and also contributed to the dairy sector except on the awareness
creation for the improvement on the milk consumption. Hence the study recommend to get
experience or align this activity with ministry of health through the health extension workers
and voluntary community health workers.

Key Words: Household farmers, extension, forage development, intervention, dairy,

vi
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a brief overview of the study by introducing the key concepts
that will be used throughout the paper. It offers the background section followed by
problem statement, research objective, significance of the research, as well as the
limitations of the research.

1.1 Background of the study

Livestock is vital to the economics of Ethiopia in providing protein for human diet,
income, employment and foreign exchange. According to WoldeMicheal (2014)
livestock served as the storing of wealth, draught power, fuel, prestige and the source
of organic fertilizer. In Livestock sector, cattle population count for 69.5% and from
which female and milking cow are 55% and 20% respectively (MoA, 2011). According
to FAOSTAT (2013), from the total of 10.67 million milking cows, 2.94 million tons
of milk is produced per annum in Ethiopia.

However, Ethiopia, regardless of its largest dairy cattle population, is not among the
four largest milk producing countries in Africa i.e. Egypt, Kenya, South Africa and
Sudan (FAO, 2010). Even if the milk production in Ethiopia tends to have increased
during the last two decades at the national level, the per capital consumption has
decreased from 26 litre per annum in 1980 to 22 litre in 1993, 19 litre in 2000, 16 litre
in 2009 and 19 litre in 2013. With total domestic consumption of 893,699 tons of milk,
Ethiopia remains to be the lowest compared to total domestic milk consumption of
2,212,323 tons of milk in Kenya and 2, 753, 129 tons of milk in Sudan (FAOSTAT
2013). Moreover, Ethiopia has remained to be a net importer of dairy products with
import values significantly exceeding export values. The three regions of Ethiopia
(Amhara, Oromia and Southern Nations and Nationalities and People’s Region) put
together account for 89.94% of the total cattle population and 89.55 % of the total
milking cows in Ethiopia (Yilma et al., 2011).

Therefore, the Enhanced Dairy Sector Growth in Ethiopia Project (EDGET) has been
introduced to solve the above sectorial problem. This project is implemented by
Netherlands Developmental Organisation (SNV). The Netherlands Developmental

1
Organisation has experience in implementation of the dairy projects locally like BOAM
(Business Organization Access to Market) project from 2006 to 2011, as a consortium
for the dairy sector on the Livestock Market Development Project 2012 to 2016, Survey
on the dairy greening value chain for the Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation
Agency (ATA). So, SNV having looked the dairy sector, tries to implement the EDGET
project on the small holders farmers (pro poor development project model in the sector)
or at the lower level of the dairy value chain from 2013 to 2017. The EDGET project
is funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The project budget is 13
million Euro. The project implementation is in three regions (Amhara, Oromia and
SNNPRS) of the selected milk shed areas. The selection of the woreda livestock office,
regional livestock office and SNV is based on their potential for the milk production.
In addition to this the selection of the beneficiary farmers were done by the woreda live
stock office and SNV dairy extension officers. The project has an intention to expand
to other regions and other woredas of these three regions after completing EDGET
Project I based on the donor interest.

The EDGET project has the main office in Addis Ababa and satellite offices in Bahir
Dar and Hawassa. The EDGET project has totally 76 staff in all the three regions. The
programme manager is the leader and there are board members of the EDGET project
from the federal livestock, regional livestock country director of the SNV, Embassy of
the kingdom of Netherlands (EKN), and programme manager (PM) of the SNV. There
are three regional managers at each three regions, one monitoring and evaluation
specialist, one private sector and institutional development specialist, one dairy product
and nutritional specialist and one finance and operation manager directly report to the
programme manager. There are four drivers and one grant manager reporting to finance
and operation manager. There are 51 woreda dairy extension promotor and 10 zonal
dairy community mobilizer. The project operates 15 woredas in Amhara region and 22
woredas in Oromia region and 14 woredas in SNNPRS region aiming to reach 65,000
farmers (beneficiaries). The project operates in 10 zones 4 zones in Amhara region
(south Gondor zone, Awi zone, West Gojam zone, and East Gojam zone), in Oromia
region the project operate in 4 zones (North Shewa zone, East Shewa zone, Arsi zone
and West Arsi Zone), and in SNNPR the project operates in two zones (Sidama zone
and Gedio Zones). There are also three dairy business experts supporting these regional
managers at each region.

2
The overall goal of the EDGET Project is to improve household income and nutritional
status of children through increased dairy production and enhanced dairy processing &
marketing. The EDGET project aims at two targets. The first one is to enable 65,000
households to achieve a 100% increase of income from dairy activities within 5 years
of project period and the second one is to improve the nutritional status of children,
through increased consumption of dairy based nutritional products.

This increase in milk production will be achieved by exploiting the genetic potential of
more than 50,000 new cross bred dairy calves and cows. SNV is funding and managing
a small holder training and advisory service in the 51 target districts. The training and
advisory service will focus on women in the target households as they dominate small
holder dairy activities. SNV Dairy will also work to significantly expand local fodder
production and also incentivise a district level agricultural dealer network to facilitate
commercial feed distribution.

The objectives of the EDGET project are to double the income of the dairy farmers
(beneficiaries) from the base line data taken at 2014 through the dairy activity.
So, there is a need to study the performance of the project on the beneficiary farmers’
perspective since a lot of resources and efforts has been applied. It will also help to
draw a lesson and perform well on the rest project time.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Ethiopia have endowed with a number of dairy cows with a total of 10.67 million
milking cows, and 2.94 million tons of milk was produced per annum in Ethiopia
(FAOSTAT, 2013). In contrary, Ethiopia imported 1,829 MT milk and dairy products
in 2011 (USAID AGP LMD, 2015). So, EDGET project intervene to increase
productivity of the dairy farmers to produce more. This paper then were used to know
the status of the dairy farmers which were supported by EDGET project.

The Ethiopian daily milk production per cow is very low. According to Bereda et al.,
(2014) the overall average daily milk production per cow per household, lactation
length and calving interval were 1.83±0.08 litre, 10.6.87±0.2 months and 24.03±0.4
months, respectively. Cows in other countries like Israel and United States of America
give up to 28 litres per day (FAOSTAT, 2012). Since SNV EDGET has made many

3
support to the dairy farmers and wants to know the status of the outputs like the milk
consumption increment by the household (SNV Ethiopia annual report, 2015).

The EDGET project has made many supports to the dairy farmers in the selected
Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRS regions like provision of training on forage
development, dairy cow management, calf feed usage and follow up, milk qualify and
hygienically handling, and dairy processing and marketing. According to SNV EDGET
project proposal (2013), the EDGET project also provides inputs like forage seeds
(Oats, Dismodium, Rodus grass, Treelusen, Alfalfa), and splits like Elephant grass and
Dasho grass, calf feed (industrial processed products for calf with appropriate
proportion of minerals, salt, wheat bran, oil cake, molasses, milk transportation and
storage plastic (MTS) for milking and keeping the milk hygienically, training materials
like brochure, and set of full package of dairy processing materials for the cooperatives.
The project has also established the agro-dealers to supply inputs for the dairy farmers
nearby at perspective woredas. Therefore EDGET has invested a lot of money and
effort to the farmers and there is a need to make assessment on the support of the dairy
farmers. So far there is a gap by the EDGET project that there is no assessment for the
dairy beneficiary farmers’ satisfaction on the EDGET project performance. Off course
there will be Monitoring and evaluation report after the project closure.

Since the EDGET project was lately started in its operation for many reasons like staff
recruiting was late and there was disagreement and disengagement with the
implementing partner called Wageningen University (Wur) for the introduction of
technology like fortification of skimmed milk with the vegetable oil. In addition to this,
there was non-implementation period of the project due to the security problem in
Oromia, Amhara and SNNPRs region to implement the project smoothly in 2016.
Therefore, due to all the above reasons there is a need to assess the actual activities
performance and make the quick-win plan to recap some of the EDGET project
activities for the rest periods or to request possible extension for the project after the
end of 2017.

There is also need for the next phase of EDGET II project or for any other dairy based
developmental project to get input and do better in the future.

At the end of 2015, there were the structuring of the livestock and fishery as separate
ministry from the Ministry of Agricultural. So, the planned midterm EDGET project

4
performance review together with the livestock office and other stallholders hasn’t been
done due to the staffing of livestock office and other reasons. So, there is a need to
know the status of the EDGET project
Therefore the paper will help understand the effectiveness and success of the project
with the purpose of drawing important lessons for immediate beneficiaries,
stakeholders and developmental projects in general.

The following are the research questions of the study.

i) What is the satisfaction level of the beneficiary’s (dairy farmers) on the EDGET
project activity?
ii) What is the contribution of EDGET project to the dairy sector of the country?
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General objectives of the study
The objective of this paper is to assess the EDGET project main activities from the
beneficiary dairy farmers’ perspective.

1.3.2 Specific objectives of the study

The specific objectives of the study are to:

a) Investigate the beneficiary’s (dairy farmers) satisfaction level on the EDGET
project activity.
b) Assess the contribution of EDGET project to the dairy sector of the country.
c) Evaluate the dairy practices of the EDGET project beneficiary farmers as
compared to the non- beneficiary dairy farmers.

1.4 Significance of the study

The outcome of the paper may help the project to make many adjustments by allowing
SNV EDGET project to get lessen from the study as an input in crafting other new
dairy development projects.
It is also significant for other implementing agencies that work on the dairy sector
development projects. Currently such developmental organizations like USAID, DFID,
SDI-VOCA are operating on dairy projects in Ethiopia. Since the EDGET project is
working on the Ethiopian dairy sector, any assessment and lesson learned will help the
interested local professionals in the sector and the government to get information on
such useful projects.

5
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the study
1.5.1 Scope of the study
The study investigates the EDGET project activity on the EDGET project beneficiaries.
The activities of the project on which the study is focussed are listed below
i. Forage development (capacity development and provision of forage seeds)
ii. Calf feed (provision of formulated Nutritious concentrate specific for calf)
iii. Cow housing management (provision of capacity development and advise)
iv. Dairy processing and marketing (provision of capacity development, facilitate
the formation of formal group, establishment of service provider and provision
of dairy processing equipment)
v. Gender and youth participation (capacity development, ensure women
participation from the beneficiary selection and dairy cooperative leadership)
vi. Institutional support (supporting the livestock on breeding material and
capacity development)
vii. Awareness creation from the consumption of dairy based Nutritional products.

The study assessed based on the EDGET project scope which was limited to the
smallholder dairy farmers in all dairy value chains except the veterinary service and
breeding services.

1.5.2 Limitations of the study

This research has been constrained by shortage of time and budget to cover all the
woredas of EDGET project in the Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions. Due to the
constraint of time study also weren’t checking the milk quality test at laboratory for
looking the milk quality and hygiene of the smallholder dairy farmers.

6
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the review of literature on the opportunities and challenges in the
Ethiopian dairy sector, Ethiopian dairy sector policies, gender and dairy as well as the
SNV EDGET project activities, outputs and expected impacts.

2.2 Global performance of the dairy sector

According to Morgan (2015), globally particularly in Asia, agriculture provides a
livelihood for more people than any other industry either it is primary or secondary,
while dairy farming is one of the major agricultural activities. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimated that the world’s milk production in 2012 stood at 754
billion tonnes. Hemme and Otto, (2010), estimated that 12–14% of the world’s
population (or a total of 750–900 million people) live on dairy farms or are within dairy
farming households. Livestock provide over half the value of global agricultural output
and one third of the value of agricultural output in developing countries Morgan,
(2015). Milk is nature’s most complete food and dairy farming represents one of the
fastest returns for livestock keepers in the developing world.

The world dairy production has socio-economic importance. According to FAO, (2011)
in Morocco, the dairy chain provides jobs for 770 000 people, about 10 percent of
agricultural jobs. In addition to the employment opportunity in the dairy sector, the
dairy sector improves the food and nutritional security of the poor if more dairy
products were added to their diet since milk is a complex food containing numerous
nutrients.

In most developing countries the smallholder farmers contribute a lot to the dairy
sector. According to Mbogoh, (1984) over 95% of the milk produced in West Africa
was derived from the traditional livestock sector. The dairy herds are kept primarily in
smallholder’s households, where milk is processed before selling. Milk production,
processing and marketing are thus combined within numerous small independent dairy
“units”.

7
When we see dairy sector regionally in East African countries, Bebe et al., (2003),
showed that the smallholder dairy farming contribute a lot to the economies. For
example In Kenya, 80% of the three million dairy cattle population is in the hands of
smallholders and help in milk production depend on small holders. In Uganda dairy
sub sector accounts for about 67 percent of value of output from the livestock sector
(Grimand et al., 2007). According to Feleke and Geda, (2001 as cited Alejandro et al.,
2008), agriculture in Ethiopia contributed about 45% of national GDP while the
livestock sector contributed about 40% of agricultural GDP (18% national GDP) and
30% of agricultural employment. Dairy output accounted for about half of livestock
output.

World Bank, (2008) showed that East African countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania
and Uganda are characterized as “agriculture-based,” that is, agriculture is the
backbone of these economies. Agriculture in this region characterized as dominate
smallholder farmers who occupy the majority of land and produce most of the crop and
livestock products FAO, (2009).

2.3 The Dairy sector in Ethiopia

Ethiopia, one of the tropical and subtropical countries in Sub Saharan Africa, has about
53.9 million cattle, 25.4 million sheep, 24.06 million goats and 0.9 million camels on
which dairy production is based (CSA 2012/13) excluding the livestock population of
the three zones of Afar and six zones of Somali regions. According to Workneh, (2015),
cattle’s produce 83 % of the total milk production in Ethiopia and among which 97%
of this cow milk comes from the indigenous breeds.

According to Felleke, (2009), although the Ethiopian livestock population is the highest
in African continent and many efforts have been exerted to develop the sector, the
expected outcome is insignificant. The disposable income from the dairy sector for
house hold dairy farmers have not yet improved. Yilma et al., (2011), argue that
Ethiopia is endowed with the largest livestock population in Africa and give
justification as most of the cattle breed are not improved breed. According to CSA,
(2010) the indigenous breeds accounted for 99.19 percent, while the hybrids and pure
exotic breeds were represented by 0.72 and 0.09 percent, respectively. This in turn is
related to the low performance of the milk production. According to the Tsehay (2002),

8
as cited by Nigusu, (2014), the 2014 milk production was very low and estimated as
3.2 million ton. While the growing rate of the indigenous cattle is only 1.2% where as
that of the improved breed is 3.5 %.

Some scholars try to identify the cause of the above low milk production performance
of the local breed cattle. According to the Mukasa-Mugerawa, (1989), and Yoseph et
al, (2003), as cited in Nigusu, (2014), this low milk production performance is due to
reduced lactating length, extended calf interval, late age at first calving, poor genetic
makeup. In addition to the above causes of low milk production (Ahmed et al, 2010)
shortage of livestock feeds both in quantity and quality especially at dry season
accounts for the low productivity.

One of the dairy development in Ethiopia is the dairy marketing. Dairy products are
channelled through both formal and informal dairy marketing systems. A 2010 study
reported that 98% of milk in Ethiopia is marketed through the informal market channels
or is consumed in the household USAID, (2010). The informal market involves direct
delivery of fresh milk by producers to consumers in the immediate neighbourhood or
sale to itinerant traders or individuals in nearby towns. In the informal market, milk
may pass from producers to consumers directly or through two or more market agents.
The informal system is characterized by no licensing requirement to operate, low cost
of operations, high producer price compared to formal market and no regulation of
operations. Formal milk markets are particularly limited to peri-urban areas and Addis
Ababa. Therefore, both production and marketing problems must be addressed; if
dairying is to realise its full potential to provide food and stimulate broad-based
agricultural and economic development.

2.4 Dairy sector opportunities and challenges in Ethiopia

2.4.1 Opportunities of the dairy sector in Ethiopia

The Dairy sector in Ethiopia has potential to grow since the climate condition and the
number of livestock population (cattle population) are conducive for its growth.
According to Zelalem, (2011), the government has development interventions in the
various components (breeding, animal health, feeding, milk collection, storage,
processing and distribution). In this regard, it is essential to encourage the involvement
of the private sector in the dairy value chain, and put an efficient and operational
coordination system in place that connects the various actors in the dairy sector. The

9
Ethiopian Dairy Board (EDB), which is under establishment, is a good initiative. This
will elevate the existing subsistent type of milk production to commercial levels to the
benefit of all the actors involved ranging from the individual producer and consumer
to the country level.
Currently, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has made some structural
amendment to the livestock sector to have better development in the livestock sector.
This structural amendment has made the Livestock and Fishery Ministry as a separate
Ministry from the former Agricultural Minister. This will help to make more focus and
use the endowed resource in the area. The government has assigned veterinary experts
at woreda level and the breed as well as the animal science experts at kebele level. In
addition to these the GTP2 (the Growth and Transformation Plan II) of Ethiopia has
identified many focus areas to improve and transform the dairy sector with innovation
and strengthening the Ethiopian meat and dairy institute.

2.4.2 Challenges of the dairy sector in Ethiopia

According to Zelalem, (2011), the dairy sector in Ethiopia has the following constraints
that account for the poor development of the sector.

-industrial by-products;
water and

Post-harvest milk loss is high due to the highly perishable nature of milk coupled with
mishandling practices from production up to the consumption stage. The amount produced
is usually subject to high post-harvest losses. According to Felleke, (2003), as cited in
Zelalem, (2011), estimated post-harvest losses of up to 40 percent of milk and its derivatives
have been reported from milking to consumption. Post-harvest losses and quality
deterioration are mainly attributed to mishandling in the dairy chain from farm grass to
glass. These include:

temperature before consumption;

10
According to FAO (ENA, 2004), the value of annual milk and dairy product losses due
mainly to mishandling across five African and the Middle East countries (Kenya,
Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Syria) was over US $90 million. Reducing such losses
and improving quality are effective ways of making more and safer milk available. This
helps to improve the welfare of resource-poor dairy producers and low income
consumers through increased supply in terms of volume and geographical distribution
and marketing of safe and better quality milk and milk products.

2.5 Dairy sector policy in Ethiopia

The Federal Government of Ethiopia (GoE) has a livestock policy that include policies
for poultry, red meat-milk, and crossbred dairy cows. The GoE currently has prioritized
the transformation of the agricultural sector (Getachew et al, 2015). This approach has
been adopted in the 2010–2015 Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I) and its
successor, the 2015–2020 GTP II. Yet, the absence of clear roadmaps to develop the
livestock sector has persistently hindered successful implementation of these previous
investment plans. Detailed inter-disciplinary research has revealed the potential
benefits of a comprehensive livestock master plan (LMP) in Ethiopia.

According to Getachew et al, (2015) the expected projection of an increase in national

cow milk production, as a result of the proposed interventions, during these GTP II
period (2015–2020) is 93%, a surplus of 2501 million litres over projected domestic
consumption requirements. This production increase would make it possible to meet
the milk production targets in the GTP II phase, exceeding the growing domestic
demand for milk by 47%. This surplus of milk could then be substituted for imported
milk products and used domestically for new or additional industrial uses (e.g. in the
baking industry), or exported as milk powder or UHT to raise foreign exchange
earnings.

11
Priority investment interventions
Various combinations of the three standard types of livestock technology interventions
are needed to generate higher incomes and animal productivity, and to lead to the
achievement of the GTP II development objectives: improved genetics, health and feed.
Shapiro et al., (2015) shows that appropriate combinations, depending upon the
biophysical, agro-ecological and market conditions facing livestock in the three
production typology zones in Ethiopia, include:
• Improvement of cattle dairy through breeding interventions, combining artificial
insemination using exotic semen with oestrus synchronization in MRS dairy
systems and in peri-urban milk sheds throughout Ethiopia;
• Improvement of productivity of local breed animals (cattle, sheep, goats, and camels)
for meat and milk through investments in genetic selection (recording schemes, etc.)
and in animal health to reduce young and adult stock mortality, and by implementing
critical vaccinations and parasite control programs;
• Increase of public investment in rehabilitating range and pasture lands to improve
feeding and animal management to complement genetic and health improvements;
• Promotion of the importation and dissemination of improved semi-scavenging
poultry breeds by the private sector and/or through public-private partnerships,
combined with the improved capacity of private animal health services to provide
critical vaccines, in tandem with the continued promotion by the GoE extension
services of improved feeding; and
• Increase of specialized commercial production units and—where conducive agro-
ecological and market conditions prevail—consequent increases in animal numbers
for all three commodities, and the adoption of appropriate genetic, health and feed
technologies.
In general policies and strategies aimed at creating enabling environment for
investments in the dairy development in Ethiopia are part and parcel of the Ethiopian
rural development policy. As referred in several documents MoFED, (2005) and
Demise et al, (2009) as cited by Getachew et al, (2015) the Ethiopian Rural
Development policy, based on the principles of promotion of labor-based technologies
and land capitalization is the governing policy for agricultural and livestock
development in general dairy development included in livestock. The strategy is
basically aimed at increasing agricultural production for both domestic and

12
international markets; the enhancement of which is believed to serve as the catalyst for
economic growth and could therefore contribute significantly to achieving food
security, creating employment and reducing poverty at the national and household
levels.

2.6 Gender in milk value chain

According to FAO et al. (2010) the Milk production and marketing are one of the areas
where both men and women are involved, however we need to take remark on the gender
biases remain prevalent in the dairy sector. In this regard, women, men, boys, and girls
provide labour for different livestock-related tasks. However, gendered roles are not set in
stone and are open to change for different social, economic and environmental related
reasons. According to Kristjanson (2003) in Tanzania, even if there is clear division of
labour and business activity the society use the women labour at times where shortage of
labour to perform men’s tasks, such as herding and making available drinking watering to
the animals. Even though there exist difference between regions on livestock production
system, women are almost universally recognized for their role as the main actors in
poultry, small ruminant, and micro livestock production as well as dairying, including the
processing and marketing of milk and milk products (Njuki et al., 2011).
Ethiopia has adopted a range of sectoral and general policies that emphasize the critical role
of gender, including:
 The National Policy of Ethiopian Women (1993)
 The Development and Social Welfare Policy
 National Action Plan on Gender and Development (2006-2010)
 Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) (2010-2015)
 Development Plan for Women and Children (2011-2028).

2.7 SNV EDGET Project Dairy Activity

The EDGET project has many activities to support beneficiary dairy farmers in
Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions (SNV EDGET project proposal, 2013). The
overall objective (impact level results of the EDGET project) of the EDGET project is
to increase dairy income of 65,000 farmers’ households by 100% and to improved
nutritional status of the children and lactating women through increasing consumption
of the dairy products. The objectives of the EDGET project are stated as:

13
 1. To enhance sustainable dairy production and productivity, input supply and
related services
2. To increase processing and marketing of dairy products
3. To contribute to development of regional institutions and to dairy sector-wide
initiatives
4. To develop a knowledge base on dairy related issues and
5. To improve nutritional statues of children and women through dairy
consumption
The project outcome level results are:-
 Volume and quality of milk marketed by targeted farmers increased;
 Diversity and volume of processed dairy products increased;
 Regional Dairy sector & institutional issues better addressed;
 Women & youth participation in dairy farmer organizations and enterprises
Increased;
 Project experiences and knowledge base are known and used by Ethiopian dairy
sector and beyond;
 Utilization of dairy products increased;
 Increased volume & quality of Milk Produced;
 Improved technologies, strategies, and assets of VC actors;
 Improved coordination and capacity of key regional Dairy sector Institutions;
 Increased use of improved inputs and services by targeted farmers and VC
actors;
 Improved awareness of value of dairy products [for children].

At the level of output, the EDGET project interventions has the following expected
result, indicators and planned targets in the table 2.1.

14
 Table 2.1 Expected outputs of the EDGET project.
Areas of Expected Outputs Indicators Targets
Interventio
n
1. Milk Dairy Farmer Groups Number of dairy farmer groups 800
production, promoting milk organized and strengthened
input supply production and marketing Number of dairy HHs who 20,000
and related organized and received training and extension
services strengthened support on dairy development
Better quality inputs & Number of Dairy HHs benefited 20,000
services to targeted from input supply scheme
farmers and VC actors Number of Input suppliers and 15
available dealers supported
2. Milk Milk collection and Number of milk collection and 160
collection, cooperative enterprise cooperative enterprise processing
processing, processing centres centres established
marketing established
and related Development of Number of dairy farmer 164 [160+4]
services Technologies & groups/FOs received processing
strategies in processing and marketing technology support
and marketing supported
Business relationships & Proportion of business linkages To be
investments in strengthened and supported determined
production, processing later
and marketing supported

3 Sector and Dairy sector stakeholders Number of dairy sector To be

Institutional that address critical stakeholders supported determined
Developmen constraints for the dairy later
t/Enabling sector development
Environme specifically in the region
nt supported
4. Women and Women & youth dairy Number of women & youth dairy To be
Youth enterprises established FOs and enterprise established determined later
Entreprene Women & youth % of women and youth who have To be
urship participation in and leadership role in FO's determined later
leadership of farmer
organizations and % of women and youth who have To be
enterprises promoted leadership role in enterprises determined later
% of women and youth who are To be
members of target FO and determined later
Enterprises
5. Knowledge Knowledge base of ’’best Number of knowledge materials To be
and practices’’ in dairy developed and disseminated determined later
Learning production, processing
Number of knowledge/best practice 68[60+8]
and marketing developed
sharing events organized
and disseminated
Number of dairy HHs participated 800
in experience sharing visits

15
 Continued
Areas of Expected Outputs Indicators Targets
Intervent
ion
6. Nutrition Awareness raising Number of events organized in the 45
events/campaigns on regions
value of dairy products Number of people addressed through To be
for child nutrition awareness raising events/campaigns determined later
organized
Affordable & accessible Number of affordable & accessible To be
dairy products targeting dairy products targeting children determined later
children developed developed
Number ofandevents
adopted
organized in the 45
regions

(Source: SNV EDGET project proposal, 2013)

The key strategies of the EDGET Project

The EDGET project has set the following strategies SNV EDGET project proposal,
(2013),
 To work primarily with households (HHs), who gain their first cross bred dairy
calf/heifer and pregnant cow resulting from the GoE AI activities and female
headed HH who has potential local breed with good condition to be linked the HH
with GoE AI service, to increase milk production;
 To work primarily with women who have prime responsibility for calf rearing and
dairy activities and to give special priority to female headed households for
participation in the project;
 To accelerate the adoption of commercial supplemental feed and production of
fodder crops by making available risk sharing discount vouchers to qualified
participants;
 To promote hygienic collection and safe transportation of milk by the introduction
across Ethiopia of a milking and milk transportation product developed by Global
Good, a Division of Intellectual Ventures of Seattle, Washington, USA.
 To promote dairy processing businesses in “rural centres” when farmers are
interested to form informal co-operatives (“Pre-coops”) to carry out in-packet milk
pasteurisation and improve efficiency in butter, yogurt and cheese making;
 To promote local business initiatives, particularly involving unemployed young
people, for local and regional dairy product marketing;
 To ensure the establishment of one agricultural inputs dealership in each woreda
stocking, selling and advising on calf and cow supplemental feed, veterinary

16
 medicines and dairy related inputs and equipment. Where feasible the tested
practice of advancing inputs against future milk sales (the check-off system) will
be developed by linking input dealers to milk collection centres;
 To promote dairy as an outstanding child nutrition product, in part by developing
new fortified and flavoured, long shelf life yogurt-based drinks targeted at children
in their first 1000 days;
 To link dairy farmers & dairy farmer groups to formal and/or semiformal markets
as appropriate through appropriate private sector actors and promote access to
microfinance funds and credit schemes when appropriate and possible;
 To contribute to regional institutional and dairy sector wide development through
a planned and disciplined organisation development approach, led by a senior
project staff;
 To collect and disseminate experience and learning from the project to other actors
in the sector.
According to the SNV EDGET project proposal, (2013), the EDGET project contributes
to the sector by introducing new innovations like the milking, transporting and storage
plastic Jerican to maintain the milk hygiene and safety.

17
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology adopted in conducting in order to

achieve the study’s objectives. The chapter is thus structured into research design,
sample size and sampling procedure, data sources and data collection methods and
finally data analyses.

3.1 Research design and approach

The research approach used in this study was qualitative. The data were collected both
from the beneficiary dairy farmers and government livestock expert staffs using the
questionnaire, observation and discussion. The research design was descriptive in type.
This research used Likert scale on identifying whether the EDGET project objectives
were met by satisfying the beneficiary dairy farmers. The interventions were related to
the forage development, calf feed, milking and transporting storage plastic equipment,
agro dealers’ establishment for the input supplying and the establishment of the dairy
processing cooperatives. The research used primary data by structured interview and
questionnaire were developed to the beneficiary dairy farmers and the woreda livestock
experts. The research also used secondary data sources which were extracted from the
literature like articles, journals and books.

3.2 Sample size and sampling procedure

The EDGET project has operated in the three regions of Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRS
and in the selected 51 woredas. The project supported totally 65, 000 small holder dairy
farmers. The numbers of household farmers differ from woreda to woreda. The
selection of the household farmers was done by the project with the selection criteria
like:
 The dairy small householder farmers should be in the EDGET project area;
 The dairy farmers should have milking cows not more than three by the time of
selected;
 The priority has been given for those who are female headed house hold dairy
farmers;
 Priority has been given to those dairy farmers who have cross breed cow;

18
  The small holder dairy farmers should be willing to adopt the training practices
on his farm;
 The selected farmers need to attend the training packages provided by the
project;
 The selected dairy farmers should be willing to form groups for experience
sharing at kebele level or cooperative for milk processing and marketing;
 The female headed small holder dairy beneficiary farmer will be selected even
if they have local breed cow with good cattle management.

The EDGET project main stakeholder, has participated along with the perspective woreda
administrative and EDGET project regional managers at each region who coordinated and
managed the EDGET project activity in the field.

The research used as a target population a total of 65,000 smallholder beneficiary dairy
farmers of the EDGET project. The Amhara region has a total of 20,000 beneficiary dairy
farmers in the East Gojam, West Gojam, Awi and South Gondor Zones, whereas the Oromia
region has totally 30,000 beneficiary dairy farmers in East Shewa (4,300 beneficiary), North
Shewa (9,500 beneficiary), Arsi (8,200 beneficiary) and West Arsi Zones (8,000
beneficiary). The SNNPR has 15,000 beneficiary dairy farmers in Sidama (11,000
beneficiary) and Gedio (4,000 beneficiary) zones.
The study also obtained some information from the EDGET project staff through structured
interview. Information from the woreda livestock office experts of the EDGET project
operational 51 woredas (15 woredas in Amhara region, 22 woredas in Oromia region and
14 woredas in SNNPRS region) were also collected to countercheck the information
obtained from the EDGET project office. This information also was gathered through
structured interview and observation.

The research was also designed by taking one strong and one weak performing woredas in
terms of such criteria as forage development, the number of cross breed cow, based on the
activity on extension services, milk production and the quick adoption of new technology.
The selection was done by consulting the perspective woreda and zonal livestock bureau
heads as well as the SNV EDGET regional managers in Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRS
regions. Based on the experts’ recommendation in Amhara region, Girargie Kebele in
Dangla woreda and Weynima Kebele in Jabithenan woreda are selected as strong

19
performing and weak performing Kebeles in overall extension respectively. Similarly Ano
Kerie kebele Degem woreda and Merko kebele in Boset woreda of the Oromia region were
selected as strong performing and weak performing kebeles on extension, respectively.
From SNNPR Gediebo kebele in Aleta Wondo woreda and Bunno kebele in Kocherie
woreda were selected as strong performing and weak performing kebeles on extension,
respectively. The research used the cluster of male headed and female headed house hold
per each category (strong or weak performing kebeles) on their perspective regions.

Therefore, the total sample size is 275 HH and the sample size per region, is 92 HH in
Amhara, 93 HH in Oromia and 90 HH in SNNPR. The research used the 95 %
confidence interval since the sample beneficiary HH are selected based on some criteria
and most of the HH comply at least the minimum requirement stated in chapter II.
The sample size was determined by using formula Yemane (1967:886) as shown below.
pq𝑍 2
( )
𝑒2
n= pq𝑍2
( +1)
𝑒2
1+ 𝑁

Where P = estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population, 0.5 is

taken in this research.
q = (1-p), it will be 1-0.5=0.5
Z = is abscissa of the normal curve that cuts off an area α at tails (1- α equals
the desired confidence interval in this context 95%. Z will be 1.96
e = is the desired level of precision, in this research it is 5%.
N = population size

In this research the p (the estimate proportion of attribute that present in the population)
is 0.5. The q (failure of the estimate proportion attribute to population) is 0.5. The
desired level of precision taken in this research is 5%. Z value is 1.96 (which is the area
of the normal curve where is the confidence interval 95%). N is the sample frame and
differs from kebele to kebele and shown in table 3. The sample size has also increased
by 10% to compensate to the non –respondent due to many reasons.

20
 Table 3.1 Sample size for male and female headed HH from both strong and weak
performing woredas
No SNV EDGET Number of household dairy Number of household dairy Total
project farmers in Strong performing farmers in Weak performing sample
operational kebele kebele frame
Regions Male headed HH Female headed Male headed HH Female headed of HH
HH HH per
region
Sample Sample Sample Sampl Sample Sampl Sample Sampl
frame size frame e size frame e size frame e size

1 Amhara Girarge kebele in Dangla woreda Weynima kebele in Jabithenam

(strong performing) woreda (Weak performing)
40 HH 36 HH 10 HH 10HH 35 HH 32HH 10 HH 10HH 92 HH

2 Oromia Ano Kerie kebele in Degem Woreda Merko kebele in Boset Woreda
(strong performing) (Weak performing)

48 HH 43 HH 15 HH 14HH 22 HH 21HH 8 HH 8 HH 93 HH

3 SNNPRs Gedibo kebele in Aleta Wondo Bunno kebele in Kocherie Woreda

Woreda (strong performing) (Weak performing)

30 HH 28 HH 22 HH 21HH 27 HH 25HH 11 HH 11HH 90 HH

Therefore, 46 samples of questionnaires were taken from beneficiary HH in Girarge

kebele and 42 sample in Weynima kebele of the Amhara region. Similarly 57 samples
of questionnaires from beneficiary HH in Ano Kerie kebele and 29 sample in Merko
kebele of the Oromia region as well as 49 samples of questionnaires from beneficiary
HH in Gedibo kebele and 36 sample in Bunno kebele of the SNNPRs region were
collected.

Another questionnaire has also been distributed to each kebele DAs (Girarge and
Woynima kebele from the Amhara region, Ano Kerie and Merko kebele from Oromia
region, and Gedibo and Bunno kebele from SNNPRs region). At each kebele the
government employs three livestock DAs (one on breed, one on forage and the other

21
will supervise the two). In addition to this, four questionnaire has been distributed to
each woreda livestock office experts. Each woreda livestock staffs have seven expert
staffs (one head and one staff from breed, one from veterinary, and forage
development).

3.3 Data sources and data collection method

The primary data were collected mainly through questionnaires as well as through
interviewing of the woreda livestock experts in the EDGET project areas and the
EDGET project team members. The secondary data source is extracted from books,
Journals, articles and literatures on the subject matter.
The research collect sample randomly from stratified strong performing and weak
performing kebeles in extension services from both male headed HH and female headed
HH beneficiary dairy farmers.

3.4 Methods of Data analysis

The qualitative data were collected from the respondents through questionnaires were
analysed and interpreted by the descriptive analysis of the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 16 and Microsoft Excel) software. Likert scale were also used
to analyse the respondent beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction on the EDGET project
support. The qualitative data were also be gathered from another questionnaire and
interviews to the perspective woredas to see the contribution of EDGET project to the
dairy sector. The qualitative data were further organized and presented to respond
appropriately on the research questions and draw conclusion as well as
recommendations.

The data gathered through the document review like the monthly, bi-annual and annual
EDGET project report were analysed and interpreted by comparing with the standard
literature review to draw appropriate findings about the research study areas,
conclusion and provide recommendations for the better performance of the EDGET
project as well as other similar projects in the subject matter.

22
3.5 Reliability test

Research should always be based on absolutely correct, less defect and errorless
measuring instruments, tools or procedures of measurement. For this purpose the
acceptability of a measuring instrument should be tested on the principles of adherence
to the standards of perfect reliability.

Reliability is the degree to which the measures are free from error and can yield
consistent results. It is concerned with the internal consistency of the items. The
Cronbach’s α measure the consistency with which participants answers items within a
scale. According to George and Mallery (2003) the Cronbach’s α measure results
greater than 0.9 has excellent consistency; greater than 0.8 is Good; greater than 0.7 is
acceptable; greater than 0.6 is questionable; greater than 0.5 is Poor; and less than 0.5
is unacceptable. SPSS version 20 has used to produce the values for Cronbach’s α.

Table 3.2 Reliability test for each kebele beneficiary farmers of the three regions

No Regions Kebele Cronbach’s α

1 Amhara Male headed household in Giragrie kebele 0.670

Female headed household in Giragrie kebele 0.710
Male headed household in Weynima kebele 0.727
Female headed household in Weynima kebele 0.810
2 Oromia Male headed household in Ano Kerie kebele 0.740
Female headed household in Ano Kerie kebele 0.850
Male headed household in Merko kebele 0.640
Female headed household in Merko kebele 0.560

3 SNNPRs Male headed household in Gidibo kebele 0.730

Female headed household in Gidibo kebele 0.810

Male headed household in Bunno kebele 0.650

Female headed household in Bunno kebele 0.560

23
 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
The results of the study were classified as per the regions and their categories on the strong
performing and weak in performing the woredas in the dairy extension and specific kebeles’
in the woredas. In addition to this, the obtained results from the questionnaire were both the
beneficiary households and government livestock bureau. The obtained result showed the
level of satisfaction of the beneficiary farmers on the EDGET project activity and
deliverables and also the contribution of the EDGET project to the dairy sectors.

4.2 Results obtained and discussions from the male and female headed
Beneficiary Dairy Farmers of EDGET project

The response collected from the sample beneficiary farmers classified as the general
information, satisfaction of the beneficiary farmers on different variable related to the
EDGET project goals like beneficiary farmers satisfaction on milk production by the
EDGET project support, on the intervention of the EDGET project for an increase on milk
consumption specially for children (under two years old and women (pregnant and lactating
women) through awareness creation, on the increase in income of the dairy beneficiary
farmers from dairy related activity, on the process of EDGET project support on extension
and the comparison of the dairy beneficiary farmers dairying practice and neighbouring non-
beneficiary dairy farmers..

The questionnaires data were collected from the three regions on both the Strong performing
in dairy extension Kebeles and weak performing in dairy extension Kebele.

The questionnaires data were collected from the dairy beneficiary farmers of Amhara region
Dangla Woreda (Strong performing in dairy extension at Girargie Kebele) and Jabithenan
woreda (weak performing in dairy extension at Weynima Kebele). From the Girargie
Kebele, totally 46 questionnaire has been collected (36 male beneficiary dairy farmers and
10 female beneficiary dairy farmers) whereas from the Woynima Kebele, totally 42
questionnaire has been collected (32 male beneficiary dairy farmers and 10 female
beneficiary dairy farmers). Similarly, the questionnaire data were collected from the Oromia
region data were collected at Degem Woreda (Strong performing in dairy extension at Ano
Kerie Kebele) and Boset woreda (weak performing in dairy extension at Merko Kebele).

24
From the Ano Kerie Kebele, totally 57 questionnaire has been collected (43 male beneficiary
dairy farmers and 14 female beneficiary dairy farmers) whereas from the Merko Kebele,
totally 29 questionnaire has been collected (21 male beneficiary dairy farmers and 8 female
beneficiary dairy farmers). Finally, in SNNPRs region Aleta Wondo Woreda (Strong
performing in dairy extension at Gedibo Kebele) and Kocherie woreda (weak performing in
dairy extension at Bunno Kebele). From the Gedibo Kebele, totally 49 questionnaire has
been collected (28 male beneficiary dairy farmers and 21 female beneficiary dairy farmers).
Similarly from the Bunno Kebele, totally 36 questionnaire has been collected (25 male
beneficiary dairy farmers and 11 female beneficiary dairy farmers).

The general information were pertinent to the study about the beneficiary dairy farmers on
the dairy development activities of the EDGET project. This general information were
gender of the beneficiary, the number of dairy cows, the breeding status, the milk yield per
cow per day, the percentage of milk consumption at the household level, the land allocation
for forage development and concerning different supports from the EDGET project.

4.2.1 General information on dairy beneficiary farmers response in Amhara, Oromia

and SNNPRs regions

The results of the general information about the beneficiary farmers was collected through
the questionnaire were analysed using the percentage and frequency on the variables as
shown below.

25
Table 4.1. Percentage and frequency of data from the dairy beneficiaries’ response from Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions

N Variables Choices for variables for Girargie Kebele Woynima Kebele Ano Kerie kebele Merko kebele Gedibo kebele Bunno kebele
o response Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1 Gender of the Male headed 36 78.3 31 73.8 43 75.4 21 72.4 28 57.1 25 69.4
Head of
Female Headed 10 21.7 11 26.2 14 24.6 8 27.6 21 42.9 11 30.6
Household 21
2 Number of dairy 1 dairy cow 1 2.17 8 19 4 7 5 17.2 13 26.5 9 25
cows
2 dairy cows 21 45.7 19 45.2 7 12.3 11 37.9 30 61.2 23 63.9

3 dairy cows 18 39.1 10 23.8 34 59.6 4 13.8 6 12.2 4 11.1

More than 3 dairy cows 6 13 5 11.9 12 21.1 9 31

3 Milk yield per From 0 up to 2 litre

cow before
EDGET above 2 litre to 3 litre 28 60.9 16 38.1 1 1.8 20 69 30 61.2 24 66.7
intervention
above 3 litre to 4 litre 19 39.1 26 61.9 56 98.2 8 27.6 19 38.8 12 33.3

Above 4 litre to 5 litre 1 3.4

4 Milk yield per From 0 up to 3 litre

cow after EDGET
intervention above 3 litre to 4 litre 5 10.9 14 33.3 1 1.8 20 69 27 55.1 24 66.7

Above 4 litre to 5 litre 25 54.3 22 52.4 18 31.6 6 20.7 22 44.9 9 25

above 5 litre 16 34.8 6 14.3 38 66.7 3 10.3 3 8.3

5 Number of cross No cross breed 5 10.9 19 45.2 3 5.3 13 44.8 22 44.9 15 41.7
breed cows
One dairy cow 32 69.6 22 52.4 12 21.1 12 41.4 27 55.1 21 58.3

2 dairy cows 9 19.6 1 2.4 32 56.1 4 13.8

3 dairy cows and more 10 17.5

26
Continued
N Variables Choices for variables for response Girargie Woynima Ano Kerie Merko kebele Gedibo kebele Bunno kebele
o Kebele Kebele kebele
Freq. % Freq % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq %
. .
6 Number cross No cross breed 2 4.3 19 45.2 3 5.3 19 65.5 43 87.8 24 66.7
breed calves or
One dairy calf/Heifer 36 78.3 23 54.8 41 71.9 10 34.5 6 12.2 12 33.3
Heifer
2 dairy calves 8 17.4 13 22.9
3 dairy calves and more

7 Percentage of No land allocation for forage/ mixed 1 2 10 23.8 1 3.4 31 63.3 27 75

Land allocation on crop
for the forage 5% and less 19 38 23 54.8 5 8.8 8 27.6 16 32.7 6 16.7

More than 5% up to less than 10 % 21 42 9 21.4 33 57.9 10 34.5 2 4.1 3 8.3

More than 10% up to less than 20 % 5 10 15 26.3 9 31

More than 20% 4 7 1 3.4

8 Household Yes, satisfied 14 30.4 7 16.7 25 43.9 8 27.6 5 10.2 6 16.7
satisfaction on
No, I am not satisfied 32 69.6 35 83.3 32 56.1 21 72.4 44 89.6 30 83.3
breed service
9 Percentage of
from livestock From Zero percent to 5% 3 6 20 47.6 2 3.5 12 41.4 25 51
HH income from
bureau
More than 5% up to less than 10 27 54 18 42.9 13 24.6 8 27.6 24 49 23 63.9
dairy
%
More than 10% up to less than 20 12 26.1 4 9.5 22 38.6 9 31 13 36.1
%
More than 20% up to less than40 4 8.7 15 26.3
%
More than 40% 4 7

10 Percentage of 5% and less 1 2.2 28 66.7 11 19.3 16 55.2 6 12.2 2 5.6

milk consumed
More than 5% up to 10 % 39 89.8 14 33.3 38 66.7 12 41.4 7 14.3 7 19.4
at dairy farmers
household level More than 10% up to 20 % 5 9 8 14 1 3.4 9 18.4 11 30.4

More than 20% 1 2.2 27 55.1 16 44.4

27
Discussion

The percentage of women headed household being considered in the beneficiary farmers
were less than 30% except at Gidibo and Bunno kebeles which is 42% and 30.6%
respectively.

When we looked the general information about the household, the number of cows per
household was more in Oromia region at Ano Kerie Kebele. In this Kebele the more than
80% of the dairy beneficiaries of the EDGET project had 3 and more cows. In contrast,
in SNNPRs region the Gidibo and Bunno kebele had 6% and 4% of their dairy
beneficiaries of the EDGET project had 3 cows per household respectively which was
quiet low.

In all study kebeles of the three regions, almost all beneficiary dairy farmers produced
milk less than or equal to 4 litres of milk per cow per day before the EDGET project
interventions. But after the EDGET project interventions more than 66% of the
beneficiary dairy farmers produced more than 4 litres of milk per cow per day except in
Merko kebele of the Oromia region and both kebeles of the SNNPRs regions (Gidibo and
Bunno kebeles) where more than 31% of the beneficiary farmers in these kebeles
produced more than 4 litres of the milk per cow per day. According to FAO (2011), in
the year 2010, the average daily milk production was 1.69 litres with average lactation
length of about 180 days and mean annual milk yield per cow of 305 litres. So, the
intervention of the EDGET project showed significant change on the improvement of
milk yield per cow.

Except the Girargie kebele in Amhara region and Ano Kerie kebeles in Oromia region
the rest kebeles had more than 40% non-cross breed cow. Whereas the Girargie kebele
and Ano Kerie kebeles showed 10.9% and 5.3 % non-cross breed respectively. This
showed the breeding of the local cow need a lot of attention. Similarly, when we looked
the cross breed calves and heifers, except the Girargie kebele in Amhara region and Ano
Kerie kebele in Oromia region, the others had more than 45% non- cross bred calves and
heifers. This bred condition indicated that the future potential milk production in this area
hasn’t improved much whatever effort has been done on the forage and calf feed.
According to Land O’lake Inc, and USAID (2010), the smallholder milk producers in
Ethiopia do not practice the use of breeding records, and there is the possibility of in-
breeding. The government provides semen and AI services at a subsidized cost. But the

28
success rate or pregnancy rate was not satisfactory as per the response from the
beneficiary dairy farmers.

The land allocation for forage development showed that more than 63% of the dairy
beneficiary farmers in both Kebeles of SNNPRs region was not allocate land for forage
development. But most of these farmers develop forage with limited variety on mixed
farm like coffee and ‘Chat’. The project also trained farmers to use the crop residue by
improving the nutrient with ingredients. According to MoA (1999), the land usage for
forage was only 39.4 hectar in the country as a whole. This was quiet low as compare to
the large population of cattle in the country (54 million cattle population).

In all kebeles the more than 56% of the beneficiary dairy farmers were not satisfaction
from the breeding service. This service was agreed initially on the signed project charter
document to be fully carried out by the regional livestock and fishery office of the
government. The EDGET project has support for the Woreda livestock office after
discussion the AI equipment.

The percentage of income for the households were quiet low from the dairy and dairy
related activities. Except the Ano Kerie woreda in Oromia region, 60% of the beneficiary
farmers in other kebeles got less than 10% of household income from dairy. This showed
that the dairy farmers focus was on the other income generation activity and gave less
attention to the dairy or didn’t consider dairy as a business. According to Yilma (2011),
the Ethiopian majority of smallholders milk producers marketing system was not well
developed, had limited access to the market and even showed less than seven percent of
the annual milk production was estimated to be marketed at national level in 2010. When
we looked the other angle, like the consumption of dairy product by households, 90% of
the beneficiary farmers wasn’t consume more than 10% of their dairy products at
household level.

29
4.2.2 Results and discussion on the satisfaction of the dairy beneficiary farmers
that relate to the EDGET project goals in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPRs region

The beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction on different variable related to the EDGET
project goals were classified to three categories. These variables were checked on both
female and male headed dairy beneficiary household farmers.
i. On milk production by the EDGET project support,
ii. On the intervention of the EDGET project for an increase on milk consumption
specially for children (under two years old and women (pregnant and lactating
women) through awareness creation,
iii. On the increase in income of the dairy beneficiary farmers from dairy related
activity,
After analysing these three variables, the following result has been obtained. The
obtained result then discussed well in relation to the beneficiary dairy farmers.

30
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of the variable related to EDGET project goal on the satisfaction of beneficiary farmers in Amhara region

N Region Kebel Head of Variables related to the project goal Descriptive Statistics
o e Househ
Sample size Range Minimum Maximum Mean Statistic
old
Statistic Statistic Statistic

1 Amhara Girar Male Milk consumption increment as the result of 32 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.78
gie EDGET project awareness creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 32 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.65

Milk production increment 32 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.62

EDGET project over all support process 32 .36 4.36 4.73 4.53

Female Milk consumption increment as the result of 14 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.71
EDGET project awareness creation events
Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 14 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.14

Milk production increment 14 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.21

EDGET project over all support process 14 .36 3.73 4.09 3.95

Weyn Male Milk consumption increment as the result of 32 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.81
ima EDGET project awareness creation events
Kebel
Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 32 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00
e
Milk production increment after EDGET 32 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.03

EDGET project over all support process 32 .27 4.00 4.27 4.16

Female Milk consumption increment as the result of 10 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.40
EDGET project awareness creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 10 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.80

Milk production increment after EDGET 10 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.90

EDGET project over all support process 10 .09 3.82 3.91 3.90

31
Discussion on Income from dairy and Milk production

In both Kebeles of the Amhara region the beneficiary farmers were satisfied with the
income and milk production after the EDGET project intervention except at Weynima
kebele’s of female headed household. As per discussions made with the beneficiary
farmers, they have said that these was due to the draught in the area coupling with less
extension support process of the EDGET project to accommodate the female headed
households’ convenient time and place to attend the training and other extension support.

In all the cases, the female headed household got less satisfaction in terms of the milk
production as the result from EDGET project intervention, and on additional income
obtained from Dairy after EDGET project interventions as compare to the perspective
male headed household beneficiary farmers. For instance, these had been seen on the
Girargie Kebele where the male headed household beneficiary farmers showed above 4.5
in the Likert scale mean value as compare to the female headed household (got below 4.2
in the Likert scale).

Discussion on EDGET project support process

In both kebeles of the Amhara region, female headed households showed comparatively
less satisfaction as compare to the perspective kebele male headed counter parts on the
EDGET project supports processes for the dairy extension and input supply. For instance
the mean value for the beneficiary farmers satisfaction on the EDGET project support on
the dairy extension was 4.5 for the male headed household while the female head
household satisfaction level on the likers scale was 3.9 for Giragie Kebele whereas 4.1
and 3.9 for the male and female headed household respectively for the Weynima kebele.
These was due to lack of support for the women headed households while they were
trying to attend the trainings, experience sharing event or any field events or the
convenience the these sessions for the female headed households. The difference in the
extension led to the difference in the milk production and additional income from dairy
specially for the male headed households.

32
Discussion on EDGET project support to increase milk consumption

In both kebeles of the study areas of the Amhara region, both the female headed and the
male headed household was not satisfied (with less than 3 point except for Weynima
Kebele female headed household with 3.4 point in the Likert scale) on the EDGET project
intervention on the milk consumption increment on awareness creation events to improve
milk consumption to HH level specifically to children and women (pregnant and
lactating). According to the MoA (2012), the per capita consumption of milk was
estimated to 19.2 kg/year in Ethiopia which was lower than the African per capita
averages consumption of 27 kg/year. This intervention were not done in depth by the
EDGET project except intervening on the milk day event on some woredas like Dangla
woreda. But there were an intention that after the beneficiary got an increase in milk
production they were focusing on the milk marketing and got income. Therefore the
project intervened on an increase of the milk consumption by the farmers from their
increased milk production specially to children under two years old and women (lactating
and pregnant). This required the assessment of the suitable ways and communication
channel to aware on the increase of milk consumption to children under two years old and
women (lactating and pregnant) than using the milk day once per year.

33
Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of the variable related to EDGET project goal on the satisfaction of beneficiary farmers in Oromia region

N Region Kebel Head of Variables related to the project goal Descriptive Statistics
o e Househol Sample Range Minimum Maximum Mean Statistic
d size Statistic Statistic Statistic

1 Oromia Ano Male Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project 43 3.00 2.00 5.00 2.77
Kerie awareness creation events
Kebel
e Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 43 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.55

Milk production increment 43 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.53

EDGET project over all support process 43 .64 4.18 4.82 4.60
Female Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project 14 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.07
awareness creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 14 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.07

Milk production increment 14 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.07

EDGET project over all support process 14 .55 3.64 4.18 3.85

Merk Male Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project 21 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.24
o awareness creation events
Kebel
Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 21 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.10
e
Milk production increment 21 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.10

EDGET project over all support process 21 3.91 3.45 7.36 4.09
Female Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project 8 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.88
awareness creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 8 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.63
Milk production increment 8 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.63

EDGET project over all support process 8 .64 3.45 4.09 3.86

34
Discussion on Income from dairy and Milk production

From the above table, in both Kebeles of the Oromia region the farmers were satisfied
with the income and milk production after the EDGET project intervention except at
Marko kebele female headed household. These female headed household said that the
draught in the area as well as the inconvenience of the extension support led to the lesser
milk production and income from dairy. Their forage development was also only limited
to backyard system where they were capable of managing the back yard farm to feed their
cows.

In all the cases, the female headed house hold showed comparatively less satisfaction in
terms of the milk production as the result from EDGET project intervention, and on
additional income obtained from Dairy after EDGET project interventions as compare to
the perspective male headed household beneficiary farmers. For instance, in Ano-Kerie
Kebele where the male headed household beneficiary farmers showed above 4.5 in the
Likert scale mean value as compare to the female headed household (got below 4.1 in the
Likert scale).

Discussion on EDGET project support process

The EDGET project support processes like the training, experience sharing, input supply
and extension services was not convenient for female headed household as compare to
the male headed household. This was shown in the Ano Kerie Kebele where the male
headed households got more than 4.5 point on the satisfaction of the EDGET project
support process as compare to the female headed household with less than 4 point (agreed
point). Along with other inputs, these led to an increase of milk production as well as an
increase income from dairy as we observed in Table 4.3 with above 4.5 for the male
headed household and 4.1 for the female headed household of the Ano kerie kebele.

From the above table 4.3, we observed that there was a difference in the extension service
support of the EDGET project between these two kebeles’ of the Oromia region. These
in turned to the difference in the milk production and income from dairy specially for the
male headed household. In addition to the less extension support in the Merko Kebele,
draught had affected the forage development and crop residue sources.

35
Discussion on EDGET project support to increase milk consumption

Similar to the Amhara region, both the female headed and the male headed household
was not satisfied on the EDGET project intervention on the milk consumption increment
on awareness creation events to improve milk consumption to HH level specifically to
children and pregnant women. The above table showed that the farmer satisfaction level
on the milk consumption increment on awareness creation events to improve milk
consumption to HH level was less (with less than 3 point in the Likert scale) except for
the Merko kebele female headed household with 3.4 point in the Likert scale (just above
neutral). Although there were different extension material on different packages like on
forage development, milk hygiene, cow management, feed management, etc., they didn’t
have any extension material how the hygienically handled milk consumption help to all
human being and specifically to children, lactating and pregnant women.

36
Table 4.4. Descriptive statistics of variable related to EDGET project goal on the satisfaction of beneficiary farmers in SNNPRS region

No Region Kebel Head of Variables related to the project goal Descriptive Statistics
e Househol
Sample Range Minimum Maximum Mean
d
size Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

1 SNNPRs Gidib Male Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project awareness 28 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.57
o creation events
Kebel
Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 28 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.50
e
Milk production increment 28 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.54

EDGET project over all support process 28 .36 4.36 4.73 4.57

Female Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project awareness 21 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.95
creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 21 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.14

Milk production increment 21 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.10

EDGET project over all support process 21 .91 3.18 4.09 3.62

Bunn Male Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project awareness 25 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.92
o creation events
Kebel
Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 25 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.00
e
Milk production increment 25 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.08

EDGET project over all support process 25 .73 3.45 4.18 3.92

Female Milk consumption increment as the result of EDGET project awareness 11 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.91
creation events

Additional income from Dairy after EDGET 11 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.45

Milk production increment 11 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.82

EDGET project over all support process 11 .55 3.18 3.73 3.43

37
Discussion on Income from dairy and Milk production

From the above table 8, in both Kebeles of the SNNPRs region the farmers were satisfied
(with the above 4 point) on the income from dairy and milk production increment after
the EDGET project intervention except at Bunno kebele female headed household. In
addition to the weak support in extension service, the female headed household said that
their forage development was also only limited to backyard system where they were
capable of managing the backyard farm to feed their cows. The male headed house hold
showed comparatively more satisfaction in terms of income from dairy and increment of
the milk production with 4.5 and around 4.1 in the Gidibo kebele while 4.0 and around
3.8 in Bunno kebele for male headed and female headed household respectively.

Discussion on EDGET project support process

Similar to other regions of the study areas, the female headed household showed less
satisfaction on the EDGET project supports on the extension services and input supply as
compared to the male headed households. This has been shown with the 4.5 point for
male and less than 3.7 for female in Gidibo kebele whereas the 3.9 and 3.4 for the male
and female headed household in Bunno kebele respectively. Up on the discussion with
the female headed dairy farmers, they have said that the training time and place were
unsuitable for them to attend fully. But they had said that the kebele dairy farmers group
formation for experience sharing, and extension services through this group.

From the above table 4.4, we can observe that there was a difference in the extension
service support of the EDGET project between these two kebeles’ of the SNNPRs region.
These in turns to the difference in the income from dairy specially for the male headed
household. In addition to the less extension support in the Bunno Kebele, flood and
draught had affected the forage development and crop residue sources. According to
Felleke (2001), most of the grazing land was over grazed and no care for the soil erosion.
These led to the lower yield of forage and crop.

38
Discussion on EDGET project support to increase milk consumption

Similarly, both the female headed and the male headed household was not satisfied on
the EDGET project intervention on the milk consumption increment on awareness
creation events to improve milk consumption to HH level specifically to children and
women (pregnant and lactating). The above table 4.4 showed that the farmer satisfaction
level on the milk consumption increment on awareness creation events to improve milk
consumption to HH level was less (with less than 3 point in the Likert scale which was
below neutral).

Most of the beneficiary farmers were satisfied with the following support from EDGET
project:
1. Establishment of agro input dealer in each woreda
2. Milking, transporting and storage (MTS) plastic support for maintaining milk
hygiene.
3. Calf feed support (help for their calves to grow healthy and show early heating)
4. Dairy processing cooperative establishment
5. Dairy products marketing support
6. New trainings like cow signal training, milk hygiene and cow management.
7. Extension support, supervision and experience sharing events.

4.2.3 Results on the comparison of EDGET Project Beneficiaries

change with respect to non-beneficiary

The selected dairy beneficiary farmers at perspective kebele were supported by

EDGET project. The data were collected from the perspective government livestock
expert staffs about the dairy beneficiary farmers with respect to their neighbour non-
beneficiary dairy farmers. This variables were analysed with the descriptive statistics
and shown in the table below.

39
Table 4.5 Descriptive statistics of the variables on difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non-beneficiary on milk
production, on milk hygienically handling and overall cow management

N Regio Kebel Variables Descriptive Statistics

o n e
Sample Range Minimum Maximum Mean
size Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

1 Amha Girarg The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 .67 4.00 4.67 4.37
ra ie beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
overall cow management
Weyni The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 1.33 3.00 4.33 3.89
ma beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
Kebel overall cow management
e
2 Orom Ano The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 0.67 4.00 4.67 4.44
ia Kerie beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
overall cow management
Merko The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 1.00 3.33 4.33 3.93
Kebel beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
e overall cow management
3 SNNP Aleta The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.48
Rs Wond beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
o overall cow management
Bunno The difference of the EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non 9 1.33 3.33 4.67 4.15
Kebel beneficiary on milk production, on milk hygienically handling and
e overall cow management

40
Discussion

- The result showed that all except Weynima woreda livestock experts agreed on the
positive difference of the EDGET project beneficiary farmers and the neighbour non-
beneficiary dairy farmers with the result of the likert scale more than 4 (the average
point of the likers scale between 4.14 to 4.48). The Weynima woreda even also was
closer to point 4 from neutral (which is 3.92 point). This improvement in milk yield
were due to the forage development (with different forage seeds), use of the crop
residue effect, calf management and overall cow management led to an increase in
the milk yield per cow per day as compared to the neighbour dairy farmers. According
to Yilma (2011), cultivation of improved forage crops suitable for the different agro-
ecological zones and farming systems with accompanied technologies resulted in
nutritionally superior and more yield biomass per unit area as compared to tropical
natural pasture led to an increase dairy farm income through increased milk yield. But
some of the forage don’t sustain the weather and got somewhat lower result of
satisfaction. Since the most farmers were mixed farmers with the crop and animal
husbandry in the EDGET project beneficiary farmers, they had many crop residue for
their animal feed. But since crop residue missed the mineral and nutrient, the EDGET
project train the farmers how to improve it with the minerals and provide the inputs
required through agro dealers.

- In addition to the milk yield increment per cow per day, the EDGET project dairy
farmers had an improvement in hygienically milk handling. This was due to training,
extension services and the (MTS) Milking, transporting and storage plastic Jerican
provided by the EDGET project. This MTS plastic Jerian not only reduced the chance
of milk contamination through usage of different equipment for milking, storing and
transporting of milk but also helped to identify the Mastitis disease on the tits and go
for the treatment.

41
4.3 Results obtained from the Livestock office Experts on the
contribution of EDGET project to Dairy sector

The data were collected through questionnaire from livestock development and fishers
Bureau of the perspective region woredas’. The questionnaires were distributed all
livestock expert staffs (one to the woreda live stock head, two for each of the forage
expert, breed expert, veterinary experts, and for the kebele agricultural experts and one
for the DA) of each woreda and obtained 9 response from each kebeles. The
questionnaire were classified in to three parts. The first part was about the general
information about the EDGET project and the government support to the dairy farmers.
The second part focused on the EDGET project contribution to the sector, the level of the
project objective alignment to the government office objectives and assessment of
EDGET project activity by the government livestock office. Finally the evaluation of the
EDGET project beneficiary with the neighbour non-beneficiary farmers by the
government livestock staffs.

4.3.1 General information obtained from the government livestock experts on the
EDGET Project contribution to the dairy sector

The results of the general information collected from the government offices through the
questionnaire were analysed using the percentage and frequency on the variables as
shown below.

42
Table 4.6 Percentage and frequency of data from the government offices (livestock and fishery bureau) response from Amhara, Oromia and
SNNPRs regions
N Variables Choices for variables Girargie Kebele Woynima Kebele Ano Kerie Merko kebele Gedibo kebele Bunno kebele
o for response kebele
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1 Work experience in this 1 year and below 1 3 33.3 3 33.3 3 33.3

sector (livestock or dairy year
1-2 year 1 11.1 2 22.2 1 11.1 4 44.4 1 11.1 4 44.4
sector)
3-4 year 6 66.7 3 33.3 6 66.7 1 11.1 3 33.3 1 11.1
4 years and above 2 22.2 1 11.1 2 22.2 1 11.1 5 55.6 1 11.1
2 EDGET support To Yes 7 77.8 6 66.7 7 77.8 6 66.7 7 77.8 6 66.7
Institutions
No 2 22.2 3 33.3 2 22.2 3 33.3 2 22.2 3 33.3
3 EDGET change To Sector Yes 7 77.8 8 88.9 8 88.9 7 77.8 8 88.9 6 66.7
No 2 22.2 1 11.1 1 11.1 2 22.2 1 11.1 3 33.3
4 Risk management of the Strongly disagreed
EDGET project Disagreed 4 44.4 5 66.7 4 44.4 5 55.6 4 44.4 6 66.7
Neutral 3 33.3 3 33.3 4 44.4 3 33.3 3 33.3 2 22.2
Agreed 2 22.2 1 11.1 1 11.1 1 11.1 2 22.2 1 11.1
Strongly agreed
5 Livestock Breed Service Yes 5 55.6 3 33.3 5 55.6 4 44.4 5 55.6 2 22.2
To Dairy Farmer No 4 44.4 6 66.7 4 44.4 5 55.5 4 44.4 7 77.8

6 Livestock Veterinary Yes 7 77.8 3 33.3 7 77.8 3 33.3 7 77.8 3 33.3

Service To Dairy Farmer No 2 22.2 6 66.7 2 22.2 6 66.7 2 22.2 6 66.7

7 Livestock Forage Seed Yes 2 22.2 3 33.3 2 22.2 4 44.4 2 22.2 4 44.4
Supply To Dairy Farmer No 7 77.8 6 66.7 7 77.8 5 55.5 7 77.8 5 55.5
8 Livestock Support On Yes 3 33.3 2 22.2 3 33.3
Milk Marketing To Dairy No 9 100 6 66.7 9 100 7 77.8 9 100 6 66.7
9 Farmer
Livestock Support On Yes
Milk Processing To Dairy
No 9 100 9 100 9 100 9 100 9 100 9 100
Farmer

43
Discussion

In the three region of the study areas of the EDGET project, more than 55% of government
livestock office expert staffs were having less than 3 years of experience for those woredas
performing weak in the dairy extension. On the other hand, more than 88 % of the
government livestock office expert staffs were having more than 3 years of experience for
those woredas performing well in the dairy extension. This was the gap for the experts to
support the dairy farmers on cow management, breeding, veterinary and forage.

Most of the government office staffs in the three regions of the study areas (more than
66.7%) said that the EDGET project had given great support to the livestock institutions.
Most of the government staffs also said the EDGET project made a change to the dairy
sector specially on the milk quality and hygiene by provision of MTS plastic and calve feed.

Since the breeding service was not within the scope of EDGET project, this research tried
to get response from the government staffs. The government livestock experts of the three
regions showed that more than half of the weak performing kebeles (55.6%) were not
satisfied with the breeding services they were providing. Even in well performing in
extension kebele only 55.6 % of the government staffs were satisfied with the pregnancy
rate of the breed service. Up on the discussion with the government staffs, they said that
they need proper breeding material and logistic to provide timely service to the dairy
farmers.

Similarly, the most of the government livestock expert staffs of the three regions (more than
55.5%) showed their dissatisfaction with their service on the forage development to the dairy
farmers. These was mainly due to budget constraint to buy different forage seeds and logistic
arrangement for the training and extension.

The majority of the government livestock expert staffs (more than 66%) said that their
support on milk marketing service to the dairy farmers was quiet low. All the government
livestock expert staffs also said that their support to the dairy farmers on the milk processing
was not yet started. This was due to the limited knowledge in the area of dairy processing
(specially on the mainainance and training of the dairy processing operators|), on the

44
leadership and on the marketing and also lack of coordination of the activity with the other
government agency called cooperative agency.

In all the three regions of study area most of the government livestock expert staffs (more
than 77.8 % staffs) said that the risks of the EDGET project was not well managed. Up on
the discussion with the government livestock staffs, they said that the project didn’t consider
the drought and frost for forage development and couple the water harvest or irrigation along
with the other activities.

Figure 4.1. In Amhara Dangla woreda livestock experts on the EDGET project risk
management

45
Figure 4.2 In Amhara region Jabithenan woreda livestock experts on the EDGET project
risk management

Figure 4.3 In Oromia Dangla woreda livestock experts on the EDGET project risk
management

46
Figure 4.4 In Oromia Boset woreda livestock experts on the EDGET project risk
management

Figure 4.5 In SNNPRs region Aleta Wondo woreda livestock experts on the EDGET
project risk management

47
Figure 4.6 In SNNPRs region Kocherie woreda livestock experts on the EDGET project
risk management

Discussion
In Amhara region both the Dangla and Jabithenan woreda livestock experts showed their
disagreement on the well risk management of EDGET project on the Figure 4.1 (with more
than 50% of the livestock experts disagreement) and also on Figure 4.2 (with more than
40% of the livestock experts disagreement) respectively. They were explaining on the
discussion that the EDGET project miss to manage the risk related to the draught for the
forage development, considering the frost resisting forage type for the high land areas, and
the delayence due to the lack of foreign currency to import the materials and machinery for
the MTS plastic Jerican. But quiet few livestock expert staffs were agreed on the risk
management of the EDGET project for both Dangla and Jabithenan woredas with slightly
above 20% and slightly above 10% respectively.

Similarly, in Oromia region both the Dagem and Boset woredas livestock experts showed
their disagreement on the well risk management of EDGET project on the Figure 4.3 (with
more than 40% of the livestock experts disagreement) and Figure 4.4 (with more than 50%
of the livestock experts disagreement) respectively. In both Kebeles the slightly more than

48
10% of the livestock expert staffs agreed on the well management risks of the EDGET
project.

In SNNPRs region both the Aleta Wondo and Kocherie woredas livestock experts showed
their disagreement on the well risk management of EDGET project on the Figure 4.5 (with
more than 40% of the livestock experts disagreement) and Figure 4.6 (with more than 60%
of the livestock experts disagreement) respectively. Only slightly above 20% of the
livestock expert staffs from the Aleta Wondo woreda agreed on the well management risks
of the EDGET project whereas below 20% of the livestock expert staffs from the Kocherie
woreda agreed on the well management risks of the EDGET project.

4.3.2 Results and discussion on the EDGET Project alignment with the government
plan and contribution to dairy sector

The collected data from the government office has been analysed with the descriptive
statistics from the three regions Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPRs on the EDGET project
contribution for the dairy sector. This analysis had three variables namely contribution of
EDGET project to the sector, alignment of the EDGET project with the growth and
transformation plan of the country, and finally the assessment of the overall EDGET project
activity by the government livestock office. The result of the analysis has been shown below.

49
Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics of variables on the EDGET Project contribution to dairy sector and alignment with the government plan

N Regio Kebel Variables Descriptive Statistics

o n e
Sample Range Minimum Maximum Mean
size Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

1 Amha Girar Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 1.50 3.50 5.00 4.42
ra gie government bureau
Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the 9 .83 4.00 4.83 4.26
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers
Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by government 9 1.00 3.67 4.67 4.33
livestock staffs
Weyn Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 1.33 3.33 4.67 3.96
ima government bureau
Kebel 9 .67 4.00 4.67 4.33
Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the
e
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers

Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by government 9 1.00 3.75 4.75 4.25
livestock staffs
2 Orom Ano Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 1.00 3.67 4.67 4.30
ia Kerie government bureau
Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the 9 1.17 3.50 4.67 4.09
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers

Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by government 9 1.00 3.75 4.75 4.50
livestock staffs

50
Continued

N Regio Kebele Variables Descriptive Statistics

o n
Sample Range Minimum Maximum Mean
size Statistic

Oromi Merko Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 1.33 3.33 4.67 3.96
a Kebele government bureau

Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the 9 .67 4.00 4.67 4.33
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers

Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by 9 1.00 3.75 4.75 4.25
government livestock staffs

3 SNNPR Aleta Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 .67 4.00 4.67 4.33
s Wondo government bureau

Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the 9 1.00 3.83 4.83 4.19
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers

Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by 9 1.00 3.50 4.50 4.36
government livestock staffs

Bunno Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock 9 1.0 3.7 4.7 4.33
Kebele government bureau

Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the 9 1.17 3.67 4.83 4.17
EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers

Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by 9 .75 4.00 4.75 4.44
government livestock staffs

51
Discussion

- The result showed that all except Woynima and Merko woredas agreed the about
contribution of the EDGET project to the sector with the result of the Likert scale more
than 4 (the average point of the likers scale between 4 to 4.83). The Weynima and Merko
woredas even also was closer to point 4 from neutral (which is 3.96 point). According to
FAO (ENA, 2004), the value of annual milk and dairy product losses due mainly to
mishandling across five African and the Middle East countries (Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda, Ethiopia and Syria) was over US $90 million. Therefore, a lot has to be done to
reduce such losses and improving quality were effective ways of making more and safer
milk available. Most of the woredas said that the milking transportation and storage
(MTS) equipment contributes a lot for post-harvest losses and maintaining the milk
hygiene from the dairy producers’ households (by reducing chance of contamination by
bacteria through the usage of different equipment with the dairy value chain). This
material helped to the farmers to identify the tits problem like mastitis at early stage. This
milking transportation and storage (MTS) were used for milking, transporting, storing
and even don’t need any measuring plastic can to measure milk while selling the milk
since it has already been graduated.

- Beside to the MTS, most of them were happy on different training package (specially
cow signal and dairy as a business) and the calf feed supplement to calve with different
formula. They were also said that the EDGET project changed the awarance of the
farmers to allocate land for forage development. Some of the beneficiary farmers were
shifting some of the crop land for forage development after analyzing the benefit from
dairy product yield. After identifying the demand for the forage seed, some of the dairy
beneficiary farmers were even engage on the forage seed multiplication and sale to other
farmers and institutions.

- The EDGET project were also develop the training material for the different packages.
These training materials were forage development, calf management, cow management,
milk quality and hygienically processing, dairy business management, cooperative
leadership, farm economics.

52
- Most of the government livestock bureau experts said that the cow signal training were
new to most of the expert to the dairy sector. The training was provided by the EDGET
project with the trainer from the Wageningen University livestock experts. The EDGET
project has also bought the books from the Wageningen University and distribute to the
three regions.

- Similarly, when the EDGET project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers were
evaluated by government livestock expert staffs as well as EDGET project activity
evaluated on the alignment with the livestock office plan, the average result of the Likert
scale showed above 4 or agreed result in both variables (between 4.09 to 4.5). According
to the MoA and ILRI (2015), indicated the plan to increase the availability of forage
feeds by improving forage feed production as well as marketing, and improve the
breeding service and to achieve the result of an increase of 93% national cattle milk
production over the GTP II period (from 4132 in 2015 to 7967 liters in 2020); an increase
in the contribution of cow milk to the national GDP from ETB 28 billion in 2014/15 to
ETB 52.9 billion in 2019/20; and finally to over projected domestic consumption
requirements by 2020 from the surplus of milk production of 2501 million liters of milk.

53
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDING, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
The study was conducted to assessment of the contribution of enhanced dairy sector growth
project to farmers in the Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRs regions. This chapter offers
summary of the major findings of the study, the conclusion drawn and the recommendations
pertinent to the study.

5.1 Summary of finding

This summary of finding section had three parts on the EDGET project beneficiary dairy
farmers satisfaction, on the contribution of the EDGET project to the sector and on the on
the EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers difference on milk yield and dairy practice
with the neighbour non-beneficiary dairy farmers

5.1.1 Summary of findings on the EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers

satisfaction
The major finding showed that in all the three regions the EDGET project dairy beneficiary
farmers were satisfied (with more than 4 or agreed point in the Likert scale) in terms of the
milk production and an additional income obtained from Dairy after EDGET project
interventions except female headed households of Weynima, Merko and Bunno kebeles’
(closer to 4 point in the Likert scale). This was due to the inconvenience of the extension
supports time and place for the female headed households coupling with the draught as well
as flood in these kebeles.

The female headed households were less satisfaction as compare to male headed households
in terms of EDGET project extension support process. Since these female headed
households were tied more on household activities, they weren’t able to take training,
experience sharing events and any extension service supports from farmers training support.

In contrary to milk production and income from dairy, all of the beneficiary dairy farmers
in all the study areas, were not satisfied on the EDGET project intervention on the increment
of dairy products consumption habit through awareness creation events to HH level
specifically to children, lactating and pregnant women. These was summarized with
dissatisfaction of average result above the disagreement and below the neutral point (2 or

54
dissatisfaction to 3 or neutral point in the Likert scale) result except the female headed
household of Weynima and Merko kebeles as well as the Male headed household of the
Ano- kerie kebeles that showed slightly above neutral on the average Likert scale (slightly
above 3 point).

The major finding on the breeding service showed that in all the study areas except the
Girargie kebele in Amhara region and Ano Kerie kebeles in Oromia region the percentage
of non-cross breed cow was more than 40%. This was mainly due to lack of experienced
and logistic service avail for the experts. According to Yilma (2011), the indigenous breed
in Ethiopia accounted for 99.19 percent, whereas the hybrids and pure exotic breeds were
represented by 0.72 and 0.09 percent, respectively.

The study summarized that most of the Amhara and Oromia region dairy beneficiary
farmers has allocated land for forage development. But in both kebeles in the SNNPRS
region majority of the dairy beneficiary farmers didn’t allocate land for forage.

The major finding of the study indicated that before EDGET project intervention the milk
yield per cow per day for all beneficiary dairy farmers were less than 4 litre per cow per day
while after the intervention of the EDGET project, majority of the dairy beneficiary farmers
(more than 66%) in all region produced more than 4 litre per cow per day.

The Study indicated that the percentage of women headed household being considered in
the beneficiary farmers were less than 30% except at Gidibo and Bunno kebeles which is
42% and 30.6% respectively. This should be improved by through looking the beneficiary
selection process.

5.1.2 Summary of findings on the EDGET project contribution to the dairy sector

The major findings on the contribution of the EDGET project to the dairy sector revealed
that the EDGET project contributed for the dairy sector with average Likert scale point
ranging from 4 to 4.5 point except the Merko and Weynima kebeles with the average point
of 3.96 which was above neutral and closer to agreed point.

The EDGET project activities was summarized by government livestock expert staffs on
the support to the dairy beneficiary farmers and also on the alignment of the EDGET project
activity with the government livestock master plan and showed the agreed result on the
average point ranging from 4.09 to 4.5 point.

55
The study showed that the livestock expert staffs of the weak performing kebeles in the
livestock extension was characterized by less experienced in their expert as compared to the
well performing kebele, less participation of the livestock staffs on the EDGET project
launching or review sessions, even most of their staffs didn’t read the EDGET project
document and with respect to the breeding success was even worse in the weak performing
in extension kebele as compared to well performing kebeles. Whereas, the beneficiary
farmers of the weak performing kebeles in the livestock extension was characterized by
most of their dairy beneficiary farmers stay lesser time with the EDGET project support as
compare to well performing kebele, and even most of the beneficiary farmers had less
number of cows as compare to well performing kebele, and also less number of crossbred
cows as well as calves as compare to well performing kebele except for the SNNPRS region.

The study revealed that all of the dairy farmers had shown better result from the introduction
of calf feed (special concentrate formula feed for calves) support and follow up from
EDGET project to grow fast their calf well at healthy condition. This calves showed heat
(maturity) early and gave more volume of milk. They said that they haven’t got such
extension support in mass before.

The study revealed that the risk management of the EDGET project was not well managed
properly as 77% of the livestock expert staffs showed their dissatisfaction. Their
disappointment was focused on the draught, forest, lack of consideration of the delayance
of the procurement that come from aboard and flood.

The major finding of the study showed that majority of the government livestock experts
(more than 66%) expressed their limited support to the dairy farmers on the milk processing
and marketing. This was mainly due to lack of depth knowledge in the areas and lack of
coordination of effort with government cooperative agency Bureau.

5.1.3 Summary of findings on the EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers

difference on milk yield and dairy practice with the neighbor non-beneficiary
dairy farmers

In all the study kebeles the government livestock expert staffs showed their agreement with
average point of above 4 with the range of 4.18 to 4.48 point that the EDGET project
beneficiary dairy farmers made difference on the improvement with respect to the neighbour
dairy beneficiary farmers on the increment of the milk production per cow per day, on milk

56
hygiene, on forage development and over all cow management except the Weynima kebele
with the average point of 3.92 which is closer to 4.

5.2 Conclusion

The study showed that the breeding service was not effective to obtain the intended result
of high number of crossbred calves. According to the scholars Yilma (2011), the indigenous
breeds which was characterized by the low productivity as they produced 400–680 kg of
milk/cow per lactation period while that of the crossbreed animals that had a potential to
produce 1120–2500 litres over 279 days lactation period. This result implied that the other
efforts to get higher milk yield per cow like forage development, cow and calf management,
concentrate feed and calf feed supply, cow health services etc. would have been given far
more better result than if all the above efforts were coupled with the effective breeding
service to have more number of crossbred cows. Therefore, the government livestock must
assess thoroughly the core problem in the breeding for the better success on the
improvement of milk production.

Generally, most of the EDGET project the dairy beneficiary farmers were satisfied on the
variables related to EDGET project goal like an increment of the milk production per cow
per day and obtaining additional income from the dairy business (with more 4 point in the
Likert scale except the female headed households of Weynima, Merko and Bunno kebeles’
were comparatively less satisfied with closer to 4 point in the Likert scale). The reason for
this was due to the inconvenience of the extension support time and place for this female
headed household along with the draught. According to FAO, (2017) Women and Men face
different challenges in the dairy sector. In contrary to milk production, almost all of the
EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers weren’t satisfied on the awareness creation
intervention to increase the milk consumption habit to children and women (lactating and
pregnant women) at the household level. This result implies that the EDGET project success
will not be completed unless there is advocation on the health benefit of dairy product
consumption their children and women (pregnant and lactating). In addition to these, it will
also create demand for milk in the local area. Such awarance would also create a condition
that the dairy farmers give more care and focus for the dairy business.

When we see the EDGET project risk management activity, most of the government
livestock staffs didn’t agree on the proper management of risk related to draught, flood,

57
forest and delayance of the input that were procured from abroad. This implies that some of
the activities were affected since there were less preparations and response. Therefore the
EDGET project must update the list of the risk registry document and use the project risk
management steps like risk identification, planning, measuring, analysis (both qualitative
and quantitative), response, audit and document.

As most of the government livestock expert staffs were animal science, veterinary, breeding
and animal nutrition and forage experts by profession, the EDGET project need to provide
the dairy processing, cooperative leadership and marketing training to the government
livestock expert staffs. This will help for the suitability of the dairy processing cooperatives
and milk collection centres to function properly. Such support is highly important since milk
is perishable product unlike other crops, needs processing (high valued dairy product like
butter and cheese) and cooling equipment to prolong its shelf life and get time to transport
to market area. This implies the farmers will get better income from their dairy product
through the access to the market at rural area, get dividend and also will have better
bargaining power with bulk dairy products.

Since most of the beneficiary farmers of the weak performing kebeles in the livestock
extension was characterized by staying lesser time with the EDGET project support as
compare to well performing kebeles. The EDGET project need to work with stalkholders
on the commitment of the dairy farmers while selecting the beneficiary dairy farmers. This
therefore help the EDGET project to track the progress of these beneficiary farmers
throughout the project period of time.

As the government livestock expert staffs in the perspective area confirmed that the EDGET
project had contributed to the dairy sector with different activities, the government and other
stalkholders working in the dairy sector need to replicate this to other areas of the country.
This will lead to the better improvement in the dairy sector.

Since the government staffs indicated that the EDGET project activities showed important
support to the dairy beneficiary farmers, this support resulted in creating significant
difference on the improvement with respect to the neighbour dairy beneficiary farmers on
the increment of the milk production per cow per day, on milk hygiene, on forage
development and over all cow management. Therefore, this led to better result.

58
The EDGET project activities were alignment with the government livestock master plan
and GTP II on the milk yield increment, on forage development, cow management, capacity
building and on milk hygiene, the government livestock institution working on the dairy
development and other developmental agents need to take the lesson and knowledges from
the EDGET project. This led to the government staffs to review and coordinate their
activities with the EDGET project.

Since the percentage of the female headed house hold was less than 30% all the study areas
except in the Gidibo and Bunno kebeles, both the EDGET project and government livestock
Bureau should review the criteria for more participation of female headed household. This
implies for the female headed household to get more support and get better income from
dairy.

5.3 Recommendation

The extension support process of the EDGET project need to accommodate the female
headed household’s convenience in terms of time and place so that they could participate
well.
Even if the there was no draught in the some of the EDGET project areas, the success of the
forage development depends up on the water availability in the area. Hence, the study
recommends for other developmental projects or if the EDGET project had budget to
implement the irrigation or use of the available water source like using the simple rope pump
in case the underground water table is closer for the better success of the forage throughout
the year. In addition to this this will help in draught season for their crop and forage
development. In addition to this, it is better for the EDGET project and the government
livestock ministry to aware for the farmers that some of the forage help for the soil
conservation in case of erosion from flood along with the other soil conservation methods
and introduction of the frost resistance forages for the frost affected areas. Since some of
the farmers use rotation to recover the soil mineral, it would have been better to aware the
dairy farmers to plant the legumes forage that fix nitrogen from air for the soil while using
the growing forage for their cattle.

Since there were dissatisfaction on the EDGET project advocation on the intervention of the
EDGET project for an increase on milk consumption specially for children (under two years
old and women (pregnant and lactating women) through awareness creation), the study

59
recommends to get experience with the Ministry of Health related activity through the use
of the healthy extension workers and community healthy voluntary workers.

Since there was some delayance of the EDGET project activities while procuring the inputs
like ingredient for the MTS making, and dairy processing equipment from the aboard,
therefore the study recommend to make request ahead considering many delayance factors.

The EDGET project had perform many activities to satisfy the dairy beneficiary farmers
like provision of the training to the end user farmers and ToT training for the government
staffs for sustainability of the activity. But there was no evaluation of the training after
training was conducted. Therefore, the study recommend the EDGET project to perform
post training evaluation whether the provided training hit the intended target or not. Some
of the dairy beneficiary farmers said that the convenience of the training time and place need
to be arranged with the consultation of the farmers group the woreda experts, since they
would have been busy in some seasons not to be late or miss for the incoming rain or
sometimes the harvest time.

Since most of the government livestock staffs were agreed on the contribution of the
EDGET project to the dairy sector, the study will recommend for the government livestock
institutions on the disseminate or replicate of these contribution for the other areas of the
country.

The study also recommend to strengthen the private agro dealers in the EDGET project areas
and to establish others outside the EDGET project areas for better provision of input in their
local area with easy ways to dissemination the MTS and calf feed to the dairy farmers.

Since one approach can’t fit to all models, the study recommends the EDGET project to use
different approach by reducing the forage development focus to the areas where the land is
comparatively more scarce by more advocation of the concentrate and calf feed along with
the efficient use of the crop residue through the improvement of the nutritional value of the
forage with different ingredients like molasses, salt and some minerals. In addition to this,
the farmers need to use the forage withed with crops (mixed with crops by consultation to
the crop experts). Up on the data collection the research have seen the Dasho grass and
elephant grass planted on the coffee and ‘Chat’ farm in SNNPRs region.

As most of the government like stock expert staffs had limited knowledge on the areas of
the dairy processing (specially on the mainainance and training of the dairy processing

60
operators), on the leadership and on the marketing of the dairy products, the study
recommends the EDGET project or the government livestock office to organize the ToT
training in the area so that the dairy processing cooperatives get better support to sustain
their business and get better income from the dairy product. In the dairy processing and
marketing area, the study found out that there was lack of coordination between the other
government cooperative agency and government livestock ministry. Therefore, the study
recommends that these both these institutions and other stakeholders in the area need to
come together and coordinate their activities by planning together, implementing and
evaluating the activities.

Similarly, since most of the breeding experts lack the practical experience, the study
recommends provision of the practical training and follow up along with the organizing the
experience sharing on the best practices. Beside to these, there should be meeting to
thoroughly discussion and with the EDGET project stakeholders, researchers in the animal
breeding area, the government livestock experts and others and identify the root cause and
solve the problem.

Since the dairy issues are concerned by different institutions like ministry of industry,
ministry of livestock and fishery, Ethiopian food, medicine and environmental health
administration and control authority, Ethiopian standard agency, consumer association,
Milk processing associations, dairy farmers association, Ethiopian conformity assessment
enterprise, Ethiopian meat development and dairy institute, the study recommend one body
to coordinate the activity may be called the Ethiopian dairy board. These body will
coordinate the activities of different stakeholders throughout the dairy value chain and
propose the policy issues in the area at country level. The study also recommend for these
new dairy board to coordinate the implementation of quality base payment by looking
Kenya experience in this aspect since the issue of milk quality and hygiene has to be
improved with awarance and reward to the milk producer along with the punishment
through the regulation. In addition to these, the study recommend that this body also propose
the regulatory body a policy to use efficiently the communal land for grazing.

The study also recommend for any upcoming dairy development project to include biogas
from the manure (since available in bulk) for the energy source for the farmers (residue the
disafforestation with efficient use of resource) and for their use of natural fertilizer from it.
Specially the farmers were not able to use the cow dung at rainy season where they can’t

61
able to make it dry and use it as fire wood. If the farmers use the cut and carry system, they
will more dung (including day time dung) for their biogas.

Since there was times that the EDGET project was not implementing due to the security
issues, draught, flood and due to delayance happen while the Ministry of Agriculture was
restructured to Ministry of livestock development and fishery, the EDGET project need to
implement faster to recap the activities that need to be performed at that time or as extension
of the project time with no cost.

Since the livestock expert staffs of the weak performing kebeles in the livestock extension
had characterized by less experience staffs and most of them didn’t read the EDGET project
document, the EDGET project must make available the project document at easily available
place to be read by those livestock expert staffs of the weak performing kebeles in the
livestock extension who didn’t know the EDGET project objective and participate on the
EDGET project activities. In addition to this, EDGET project must coordinate the
experience sharing as well as practical training with the follow up for the livestock expert
staffs of the weak performing kebeles in the livestock extension who had less practical
experience in such experts. Otherwise, this will lead to the misunderstanding and less
coordination of the activities with government livestock staffs. This will also help the
EDGET project success.
Since milk production is a business to get income daily (short return) unlike the other crops
harvesting as well as also help for the small household dairy farmers not only to maintain
the food security but also the nutritional security since milk has better nutrient as compare
to the other crops where most farmers consume similar one or two types of food at that
harvest time with limited nutrient, the study recommends for the dairy farmers to focus on
the dairy and get income while consuming enough of these dairy products. Milk is the
healthy food we all know next to our mother breast that we need to keep on consuming.

62
For Future researcher

As the MTS plastic Jerican equipment reduces the milk chance of contamination and helps
to identify the mastitis problem on their Tits, the study recommend the interested
professional in the area to make research that show the difference in the bacterial count and
the milk hygiene condition on both the current situation or status quo condition and the use
of the MTS. This will help to identify quantitatively the extent of these MTS plastic Jerian
to maintain the milk hygiene from these smallholder household dairy farmers.

63
References
Ahmed, M.M. & Ehui, S. & Assefa, Y. (2003). Dairy development in Ethiopia. Socio-
economics and Policy Research Working paper no 58. International Livestock
Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 47pp.

Aklilu, Y. (2002). An audit of the livestock marketing status in Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan.
Volume I. African Union-IBAR, Nairobi, Kenya.

Ayele Solomon, Workalemahu, A., Jabbar, M.A., Ahmed, M. M. and Hurissa Belachew.
(2003). Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: A review of structure, performance and
development options. Socioeconomics and Policy Research Working Paper No 52.
ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. 28pp.

AGP-LMD. (2013). Agricultural growth project – Livestock market development, Value

chain analysis for Ethiopia: Meat and live animals – Hides, skins and leather – Dairy,
USAID/Ethiopia.

Bebe, B., Udo, H., Rowlands, G. and Thorpe, W., (2003). Smallholder Dairy Systems
in the Kenya Highlands: Breed Preferences and Breeding Practices. Livestock
Production Science 82(2): 117-127.

Bereda, A., Eshetu, M. and Yilma, Z. (2014). Microbial properties of Ethiopian dairy
products: A review. Afr. J. Micro. R, 8(23): 2264-2271.

Central Statistical Authority (CSA). (2010). Agricultural Sample Survey. Livestock,

Poultry and Beehives population. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA. (2006). Consumer Expenditure Survey. Statistical Bulletin 200.

CSA. (2005). Central Statistical Authority. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA. (2010). Agricultural Sample Survey, Land Utilization, Private Peasant Holdings,
Meher Season, Central Statistical Agency (CSA), Statistical Bulletin Vol. VI,
No. 468, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA. (2012). Agricultural sample survey 2011/12 Volume II Report on production and
livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings), Central Statistical Agency of
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

CSA. (2013). Agricultural Sample Survey 2012/13 [2005 E.C.] Volume II. Report On
Livestock And Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings) Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency (CSA) Document.
Ministry of Agriculture/ AFRDRD/AFRDT Food and Agriculture.

Ejigu, Belay. (2003). Opening address. In: Proceedings of the Ethiopian Dairy Master
plan.

64
ENA. (2004). Milk, Dairy Products Loss Of Five African, Middle East Countries Stands
At 90 Mln. USD, Ethiopian News Agency (ENA), Addis Ababa, 10/22/2004.

Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2009). FAOSTAT online database,

http://faostat.fao.org accessed on 20 December, 2008.

FAO (2011). Notes on Livestock, Food Security and Gender Equity. Animal Production
and Health Working Paper. No. 3. Rome 40pp.

FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent causes and prevention. Study
conducted for the International Congress, SAVE FOOD, at Interpack Düsseldorf,
Germany.

FAO. (2011). Combating micronutrient deficiencies: Food-based approaches, by B.

Thompson & L. Amoroso, eds. Rome, FAO; Wallingford, UK, CABI.

FAO. (2010). Status and prospects for smallholder milk production – A global
perspective, by T. Hemme and J. Otte. Rome.

FAOSTAT. (2012). FAO statistical database. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/.

Accessed 12 September 2012.

FAOSTAT. (2013). Cows for milk production in Ethiopia: 2006- 2011.

FAO. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Ethiopia. Rome,
Italy.

Fekade, N. and Yoseph Mekasha, (February, 2014). Assessment of milk production and
reproductive performances in urban and secondary town dairy production systems in
Adama milk shed, East Shoa Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Agricultural Sciences ISSN: 2167-0447 Vol. 4 (2), pp. 106-
110.

Felleke, G. & Geda, G. (2001). The Ethiopian dairy development policy: a draft policy
document. Ministry of agriculture (MoA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Feleke, G. (2003). Milk and Dairy Products, Post-harvest Losses and Food Safety in Sub-
Saharan Africa and the Near East. A Review of the Small Scale Dairy Sector –
Ethiopia. FAO Prevention of Food Losses Programme. FAO, Rome, Italy.

George D., & Mallery P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Grimand, P., Mpairwe, D., Chalimbaud, J., Messad, S., Faye, B. (2007). The place of
Sanga cattle in dairy production in Uganda. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 39:217-227.

Hill (2003).

Hemme, T. and Otto, J. (2010). Status and prospects for smallholder milk production:
A global perspective. FAO, Rome.

65
Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I.,
Kurwijila, L. R. and Boki, K. J. (2003). A Review of The Small Scale Dairy Sector
– Tanzania. Milk and Dairy Products, Post-harvest Losses and Food Safety in Sub-
Saharan Africa and the Near East. [http://www.fao.org/ ag/againfo
/thems/en/dairy/pfl/docs/plassessmenttanzan.pdf]. Site visited on 8 September,
2012.

Land O'Lakes, (2010). The Next Stage in Dairy Development for Ethiopia: Dairy value
chains, end market, and food security cooperative agreement. Land O’Lakes Inc.,
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). (2012). 2011/12 (2004 E.C) Performance Assessment

Report on the Growth and Transformation Agenda in the Spheres of Agriculture.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). (2008). Livestock

Development Master Plan Study. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoARD.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). (2010). Growth and

Transformation Plan (GTP). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoFED.

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). (2012). 2011/12 (2004 E.C) Performance Assessment

Report on the Growth and Transformation Agenda in the Spheres of Agriculture.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). (2013). Development and

Poverty in Ethiopia: 1995/96 –2010/11. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoFED.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Ministry of Agriculture. (2011). A

review to improve estimation of livestock contribution to the national GDPMumba,
C, Samui, KL, Pandey, GS, Hang‟ombe, BM, Simuunza, M, Tembo, G and
Muliokela, SW. 2011. Economic analysis of the viability of small holderairy farming
in Zambia.Livestock Research for Rural Development. (23)137.

MoA. (2000). Second Five Year National Livestock Development Plan of Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). (2011). Livestock Genetic Improvement Strategy Manual,

Working Paper. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA.

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). (2012). Guideline on Import and Export of Animals and
Animal Genetic Materials. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA.

MoA. (2012). Livestock growth strategy and action. Draft discussion paper. Addis
Ababa: MoA. (Amharic version).

66
MoA and ILRI. (August 2015). Ethiopian livestock master plan, Roadmaps for growth
and transformation: A contribution to the Growth and Transformation Plan II
(2015-2020). ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). (2014). Livestock Breeding Policy and Strategy. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA. (Draft).

MoFED. (2005). Ethiopia: Building on Progress: A Plan for accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) for 2005/06 - 2009/10, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Morgan, J., (2015). Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia. Burleigh
Dodds Science Publishing Limited, Australia.

Mukasa-Mugerwa, E., (1989). A review of reproductive performance of Bos indicus cattle.

ILCA Monograph No. 6, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Njarui, D .M. G., Kabirizi, J .M, Itabari, J .K., Gatheru , M., Nakiganda A and Mugerwa, S.
(2012). Production characteristics and gender roles in dairy farming in peri-urban areas
of Eastern and Central Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 24,
Article No 122 from [http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/ njar24122.htm]. Site visited on
17September, 2012,

Shapiro B., Negassa A., Gebru G., Desta S., Negussie K., Aboset G., and Mechal H.,
(August, 2015). Ethiopian Livestock Master Plan: Roadmaps for growth and
transformation II (2015 – 2020). International livestock research Institute, ILRI
Editorial and publishing service, Addis Ababa, |Ethiopia.

Somano, W., (2014). Economics of Smallholder Dairy Production and Gender Roles in
Dale District of Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Applied
Science and Technology 5(1): 85 – 110.

SNV Ethiopia. (2015). Annual Report 2013/2014. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

SNV Ethiopia. (2013a, September). Enhanced dairy sector growth in Ethiopia (EDGET)
project charter of Oromia region. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

SNV Ethiopia. (2013b, September). Enhanced dairy sector growth in Ethiopia (EDGET)
project charter of Amhara region. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

SNV Ethiopia. (2013c, September). Enhanced dairy sector growth in Ethiopia (EDGET)
project charter of the SNNPRs region. Hawassa, Ethiopia.

Staal, S., Nin, Pratt A. & Jabbar, M.A. (2008). Dairy development for the resource poor.
Part 1: A comparison of dairy policies in South Asia and East Africa. FAO pro-poor
livestock policy initiative, Rome, Italy and ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Tsehay Redda. (2002). Small-scale milk marketing and processing in Ethiopia. In:
Rangnekar D. and Thorpe W. (eds), Smallholder dairy production and marketing—
Opportunities and constraints. Proceedings of a South–South workshop held at
NDDB, Anand, India, 13–16, March 2001. NDDB (National Dairy Development

67
 Board), Anand, Gujarat, India, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute),
Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 352–367.

Visser, P., Steen, M., Greiling J., Hayesso, T., Neefjes, R., and Greijn, H. (2012). Pro-Poor
Value Chain Development: Private Sector-Led Innovative Practices in Ethiopia, SNV
N|etherlands Development Organisation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Woldemichael S., (2008). Dairy marketing chains analysis: The case of Shashemane,
Hawassa and Dale districts milk shed, Southern Ethiopia. MSc thesis. School of
Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

World Bank. (2009). World Development Indicator http://web.worldbank.org/

WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS, accessed on 20 December, 2008.

Yamane, Taro. (1967). Statistics and Introductory analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and
Row.

Yilma, Z., GB, Emannuelle and S. Ameha. (2011). A Review of the Ethiopian Dairy
Sector. Ed.

68
Annexes
Annex I. Questionnaire to be filled by beneficiary farmers of
the EDGET project.
St Mary University School of Graduate Studies, MBA in Project
Management Program
Dear Respondent,

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect primary data for conducting a study on the
topic, “Assessment of the contribution of enhanced dairy sector to growth project to
farmers and to the sector: The case of Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR region “as partial
fulfilment of the requirements of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) specialized
in the Project management at St Mary University, School of Graduate Studies. The
information acquired through this questionnaire will be kept confidential and is purely
used for academic purposes. I would like to thank in advance for devoting your time to
complete this questionnaires.

Please note that you are not required to give your name; give your answer by putting a
tick mark “√” or in writing your answers as appropriate. In case you have ambiguities
on any of the questions, please do not hesitate to contact me through phone with
0915739955.

Part I. General information about the beneficiary farmers

1. Gender: Male Female
2. Number of dairy cows of your own: a. 1 dairy cow b. 2 dairy cows
c. 3 dairy cows d. more than 3 dairy cows
3. How long have you been the EDGET project beneficiary household (HH)?
a. 1 year and below b. above 1 year to 2 years
c. above 2 year to 3 years d. more than 3 year
4. How much of your cows are crossbred? a.No cross bred cow b One dairy cow
c. 2 dairy cows d. 3 dairy cowse. More than 3 dairy cows
5. How much of your heifer and calves are crossbred? a. No cross breed calf
b. One dairy calf/Heifer c. 2 dairy calves d. 3 dairy calves
e. More than 3 dairy calves
6. Do you satisfy the breeding service by Woreda livestock? a. Yes b. No
7. Do you satisfy the veterinary service by Woreda livestock? a. Yes b. No

69
8. How much of your farm land do you allocate for forage development?
a. No land allocation for forage or mixed on crop b. 5% and less
c. More than 5% up to less than10 %
d. More than 10% up to less than20 % e. More than 20%
9. How much percentage of your milk consumed at home (in average term)?
a. 5% and less b. More than 5% up to less than10 %
c. More than 10% up to less than20 % d. More than 20%
10. Average milk production per cow per day before EDGET project intervention?
a. 1 litre and below b. above 1 litre to 2 litre c. above 2 litre to 3 litre
d. above 3 litre to 4 litre e. Above 4 litre to 5 litre f. above 5 litre
11. Average milk production per cow per day after EDGET project intervention?
a. 1 litre and below b. above 1 litre to 2 litre c. above 2 litre to 3 litre
d. above 3 litre to 4 litre e. Above 4 litre to 5 litre f. above 5 litre
12. How much percent of HH income will be obtained from dairy and related activity?
a. from Zero up to 5%percent
b. more than 5 up to 10% c. More than 10% up to less than 20 %
d. More than 20% up to less than40 % e. More than 40%
Part II. Questions on the support to beneficiary farmers by EDGET project

13. Assessment of the beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction level by the EDGET
project process
No Questions Strongly Disagree Neutra Agreed Strongly
disagreed d (2) l (3) (4) agreed
(1) (5)
1 Adequacy of the training on dairy production
packages by EDGET project.
2 Adequacy of the forage seeds and splits from the
EDGET project.
3 Supervision support and extension service from the
EDGET project.

4 Adequacy of calf feeds from the EDGET project.

5 Provision service of the milk transport and storage

(MTS) jerican from the EDGET project.

6 Satisfaction from MTS equipment service on

solving milk hygiene problem and milk reduce loss.

7 EDGET Training condition on new ideas or

technology.

70
No Questions Strongly Disagree Neutra Agreed Strongly
disagreed d (2) l (3) (4) agreed
(1) (5)

8 Applicability of the training’s idea or technology.

9 Convenience of the training time/season to attend.

10 Satisfaction of the Agro input dealers (service

provider at local level) established at each woreda
by the EDGET project.

11 Provision of support on the milk processing

equipment and marketing through dairy processing
cooperatives of the EDGET project.

12 Satisfaction of experience sharing from the lead

farmers/good operating dairy processing
cooperatives by EDGET project.

13 Satisfaction of EDGET project support on

formalizing the farmers group to solve common
problems (like processing, marketing and input
supply).
14 An improved service provided from the EDGET
project as compared to the gov’t livestock office.

14. Assessment of the beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction on theoutcome of milk

production by the EDGET project intervention
No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed Strongly
disagreed (1) (2) (3) (4) agreed (5)
1 Satisfaction on milk production after
EDGET project intervention.

15. Assessment of the beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction on the forage

development and calf supply by the EDGET project intervention
No Questions Strongly Disagre Neutr Agreed Strongly
disagreed (1) ed (2) al (3) (4) agreed (5)

1 Satisfaction on the result of forage development

to get better milk production per cow.

2 Satisfaction on the result of calf growth from

forage development and calf feed support from
the EDGET project.

71
 16. Assessment of the beneficiary dairy farmers satisfaction on the outcome of
additional income by the EDGET project intervention
No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed Strongly
disagreed (1) (2) (3) (4) agreed (5)

1 An additional income from dairy product

/dairy activity after EDGET project
intervention.

17. Assessment of the beneficiary dairy farmers’ satisfaction on the outcome of

increasing milk consumption at HH level by the EDGET project intervention
No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed (4) Strongly
disagreed (2) (3) agreed (5)
(1)
1 An increment of milk consumption
specially for children (less than 2 year
old) and pregnant women at HH level
after the EDGET project intervention
through awareness creation.

18. What do you recommend for the project to do other than the current
interventions?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19. In your opinion, which of the following problem/s is/are the major constraint/s
or problems for your dairy production, processing and marketing activities?
(you can specify more than one problem and please rate them as 1st , 2nd and 3rd
in the spaced provided)
a. Forage seed supply
b. Calf feed/ concentrate feed
c. Breed service
d. Veterinary service
e. Milk marketing
f. Milk processing
g. water supply for irrigation
h. Others, specify

72
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________

20. Which EDGET project intervention impressed you most? Why?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

Thank you for your kind cooperation!

73
Annex II. Questionnaire to be filled by woreda livestock office
staffs of the EDGET project areas.

St Mary University School of Graduate Studies, MBA in Project

Management Program

Dear Respondent,

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect primary data for conducting a study on the
topic, “Assessment of the contribution of enhanced dairy sector to growth project
to farmers and to the sector: The case of Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR region “as
partial fulfilment of the requirements of Masters in Business Administration (MBA)
specialized in the Project management at St Mary University, School of Graduate Studies.
The information acquired through this questionnaire will be kept confidential and is purely
used for academic purposes. I would like to thank in advance for devoting your valuable
time in filling this form. If you are not able to read and write, I will support you in this
regard.

Please note that you are not required to give your name; give your answer by putting”√”
mark or in writing wherever appropriate. In case you have ambiguities on any of the
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me through phone with 0915739955.

Part I. General information

1. Name of the woreda _________________________. Position in the woreda

livestock office ________________________.
2. How long have you been in the woreda livestock Office?
a. less than one year b. 1-3 year c. 3- 4 year d. 4 year and above
3. Do you participate in the EDGET project launching, evaluation, or review
session? a. Yes b. No
4. Have you read the EDGET project document? a. Yes b. No
5. Do you see the EDGET project activity on the field?a. Yes b. No
6. Do you take training from EDGET project?a. Yes b. No
7. Does the EDGET project support the institution?a. Yes b. No
If yes, specify _________________________________________________
8. Does the EDGET project made change to the dairy sector? a. Yes b. No

74
9. Is there any difference between EDGET project beneficiary dairy farmers and
their neighbour farmers? a. Yes b. No
10. Do you provide the breeding service at satisfactory level? a. Yes b. No
11. Do you provide the veterinary service at satisfactory level? a. Yes b. No
12. Do you provide the forage seed to the farmers at satisfactory level?
a. Yes b. No
13. Do you support the dairy farmers on marketing their dairy products?
a. Yes b. No
14. Do you support dairy farmers technically on the processing of milk and
maintenance of dairy processing machines? a. Yes b. No
15. Does the EDGET project manage the risk well? a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree c. Neutral d. Agree e. Strongly agreed

Part II. Questions on the EDGET project contribution to the dairy sector
16. Assessment of the EDGET project contribution to the sector by livestock
government bureau.
No Questions Strongly Disagre Neutral Agreed Strongly
agreed (1) ed (2) (3) (4) agreed
(5)

1 Contribution of the EDGET project to the

dairy sector in general on the improved
practices of capacity development and
provision of extension manual as well as
material.

2 Introduction of MTS plastic can for standard

way of maintaining milk quality and safety at
house hold level on milking, transportation
and storage equipment.

3 Introduction of calf feed (special nutrient

formula) to the dairy sector contribution.

4 Contribution of the voucher system to link the

dairy beneficiaries with the established agro
dealer al local level (local service provider).

75
17. Assessment of the EDGET project support to the beneficiary by livestock staffs
No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed Strongly
agreed (2) (3) (4) agreed
(1) (5)

1 Adequacy of the supervision to the dairy

beneficiary farmers EDGET project.

2 Satisfaction on provision of capacity development

support to beneficiary dairy farmers by EDGET
project.

3 Satisfaction on provision of extension service

support to beneficiary dairy farmers by EDGET
project.

4 Satisfaction on provision of calf feed support to

beneficiary dairy farmers by EDGET project.

5 Satisfaction on provision of dairy processing

equipment to beneficiary dairy farmers by
EDGET project.

6 Satisfaction on provision of forage seed support

to beneficiary dairy farmers by EDGET project.

18. Assessment of EDGET project beneficiaries with Neighbour farmers by Livestock

office

No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed Strongly

agreed (2) (3) (4) agreed
(1) (5)

1 Difference in milk production between

EDGET project beneficiaries and other
farmers.

2 Difference in overall cow management b/n

EDGET project beneficiaries and other
farmers.

3 Difference in hygienically handling milk

between EDGET project beneficiaries and
other farmers.

76
19. Assessment of the livestock office plan and activities alignment with the EDGET
project support to the beneficiary dairy farmers
No Questions Strongly Disagreed Neutral Agreed Strongly
agreed (1) (2) (3) (4) agreed
(5)

1 Avoidance of the duplication of effort to

the dairy beneficiary farmers by EDGET
project and gov’t livestock activities.

2 Satoisfaction on communication of the

gov’t livestock office expert staffs and
EDGET project staffs.

3 Link of EDGET project activity with the

gov’t livestock office goal.

20. What do you recommend for the project to do other than the current interventions?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

21. In your opinion, which of the following problem/s is/are the major constraint/s or
problems for your forage development, cow management, hygienically dairy
production, processing and marketing activities? (you can specify more than one
and please rate them as 1st , 2nd and 3rd )
a. Forage seed supply b. Calf feed/ concentrate feed
c. Breed service d. Veterinary service
e. Milk marketing f. Milk processing
g. water supply for irrigation
h. Others, specify
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

22. Which EDGET project intervention impressed you most? Why?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

77
23. In your opinion, what intervention need the EDGET project include?
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24. If you observe difference on EDGET project beneficiaries and other nearby dairy
farmers, please specify it,
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
25. Do you have any information about the average percentage of income that comes
from the dairy/dairy related activity? Please state the information if you have any.
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your kind cooperation!

78