IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/roaaec/281187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Farmers Seasonal And Full Year Stall Feeding Adoption In Northern Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • HADUSH, Muuz

Abstract

Adoption of stall feeding (SF) as well as choices of animals and seasons for its application were assessed in northern Ethiopia in 2015 using a household field survey. The study was conducted in 21 communities to account for differences in agro ecology and to better understand the adoption process. A Heckman selection model was used to estimate adoption and extent of adoption based on a model of technology adoption within an agricultural household framework. A Poisson model was also applied to explain the number of SF adopting seasons. Further a multinomial logit model was estimated in order to reinforce understanding of the choices. The purpose of this study was to understand the driving factors of full or seasonal SF adoption and its intensity as well as animal and seasonal choices. The study results indicate that farmers actually practicing SF in a full year are 36% while those of actual seasonal adopters are 55.6%. The choice of animals allocated to SF include cow (40%), ox (31%) and other animals (29%) of the given sample indicating feeding cow under SF takes the largest share. Similarly, the choice for season were, 65% full year, 29 % wet (summer and autumn) and 6% dry (winter and spring), implying that more than half of the sample farmers practice SF the year round. Empirical results of this study showed that result is in favour of the Boserupian hypothesis indicating that small grazing land and large exclosure are associated with a higher probability of use of SF and with a higher number of SF adopting seasons throughout the year. In a similar vein, small average village farm size stimulated full SF adoption and SF adopting seasons, Availability of labour relative to farm size and a number of breed cows significantly increased the probability of using SF by 0.01% and 66% respectively. While animal shock appeared to have a marginal effect of 14%.The finding also revealed that factors such as access to information and early exposure increased the probability of SF adoption by 18% and 6%. Similarly, the positive marginal effect of real milk price is 15%. However, SF appears to be less attractive to those farmers with more herd size relative farm size and less crop residue. Regarding the intensity of SF adoption, while total labour time, farm size positively affect the extent of SF adoption, total herd size and grazing land ratio negatively influence farmers’ extent of SF adoption in all seasons.

Suggested Citation

  • HADUSH, Muuz, 2018. "Understanding Farmers Seasonal And Full Year Stall Feeding Adoption In Northern Ethiopia," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 21(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:roaaec:281187
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.281187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/281187/files/RAAE_1_2018_Hadush.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.281187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muuz Hadush, 2021. "Does it pay to switch from free grazing to stall feeding? Impact of stall feeding practice on household welfare in Tigrai Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:roaaec:281187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feuagsk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.