Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Livestock ownership, market participation and household cash income

91 vues

Publié le

Presented by Berhanu Gebremedhin, Mengistu Woldehanna, Fiona Flintan, Barbara Wieland and Jane Poole at the Validation Workshop, Addis Ababa, 28 February 2019

Publié dans : Sciences
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Livestock ownership, market participation and household cash income

  1. 1. Livestock Ownership, Market Participation and Household Cash Income Berhanu Gebremedhin, Mengistu Woldehanna, Fiona Flintan, Barbara Wieland and Jane Poole ILRI Validation Workshop, Addis Ababa, 28 February 2019
  2. 2. Presentation Outline • Livestock Ownership • Cow and camel milk productivity • Livestock market participation • Livestock market access and market information service • Household cash income and savings
  3. 3. • Overall, about 83% of households own cattle, 85% own sheep, 92% own goats, 50% own camels and 31% own donkeys. • The proportion owning sheep ranged from about 73% in Amibara to about 93% in Telalak, while the proportion who owned goats ranged from about 83% in Amibara to 100% in Chifera. • Camel ownership is highest in Telalak (70% of households owning), followed by Amibara and Aura. • Proportion of households who own donkeys ranged from just 10% in Amibara to about 42% in Chifera. Cattle sheep goats Camel donkey Amib ara 81.7 73.3 83.3 48.3 10.0 Chifer a 83.3 90.0 100.0 46.7 41.7 Dawe 78.3 80.0 86.7 43.3 40.0 Telala k 75.0 93.3 95.0 70.0 36.7 Aura 86.7 86.7 96.7 48.3 28.3 Gewa ne 90.0 85.0 91.7 43.3 26.7 Total 82.5 84.7 92.2 50.0 30.6 Proportion who owned livestock
  4. 4. • Overall, the proportion of households who own livestock seems to be higher in the pastoral than the agropastoral areas. • Interestingly, proportion who own sheep in the pastoral areas is higher by about 17.5% than the proportion in the agropastoral areas. • Similarly, the proportion who owned goats in the pastoral areas was higher in pastoral by about 13% than in the agropastoral areas. • While more than half of the households in the pastoral areas own camels, just about a third own camel in the agropastoral areas. • There does not seem to be significant numerical difference in the proportion of households who own livestock by sex of household head, or by youth versus adult heads Pastoral Agropastoral Cattl e shee p goat s Cam el don key Catt le she ep goat s Cam el donk ey Amib ara 82.6 76.1 78.3 43.5 8.7 78.6 64.3 100. 0 64.3 14.3 Chife ra 83.3 90.0 100. 0 46.7 41.7 na na na na na Daw e 78.3 82.6 95.7 50.0 37.0 78.6 71.4 57.1 21.4 50.0 Telal ak 74.6 94.9 94.9 71.2 37.3 na na na na na Aura 92.0 88.0 98.0 50.0 26.0 60.0 80.0 90.0 40.0 40.0 Gew ane 89.1 89.1 95.7 54.3 28.3 92.9 71.4 78.6 7.1 21.4 Total 83.1 87.3 94.1 53.1 30.6 79.2 69.8 81.1 32.1 30.2 Proportion who owned livestock by livelihood zone
  5. 5. • The average holdings were 8.1, 18.2, 22.2, 5.6 and 2.2 per household for cattle, sheep, goats, camels and donkeys, respectively. • Mean cattle ownership ranged from 5.1 in Telalak to 11.6 in Gewane. • Mean sheep ownership ranged from 12.1 in Telalak to 28.1 in Gewane. • Mean camel ownership had narrower range, ranging from 3.6 in Chifera to 8.6 in Gewane. • Interestingly, the average donkey holding fluctuates around two across the districts. • Average holding slightly higher in male headed households than in female headed households district Cattle sheep goats Camel donkey Amibar a 6.7 15.1 16.6 5.3 2.2 Chifera 6.9 18.9 22.1 3.6 2.2 Dawe 6.2 14.8 24.2 6.7 2.6 Telalak 5.1 12.1 22.6 5.1 2.0 Aura 11.0 20.2 17.8 4.7 1.5 Gewan e 11.6 28.1 29.7 8.6 2.8 Total 8.1 18.2 22.2 5.6 2.2 Size of livestock holding (among those who owned)
  6. 6. • Average holdings among owners seem to be numerically higher among pastoral households than agro- pastoral households, except cattle Pastoral Agropastoral Cattl e shee p goat s Came l donk ey Cattl e shee p goat s Came l do nk ey Amiba ra 6.4 16.0 16.9 6.0 2.3 7.7 11.6 15.7 3.5 2.0 Chifer a 6.9 18.9 22.1 3.6 2.2 na na na na na Dawe 6.1 15.5 25.8 6.9 2.6 6.6 12.3 15.1 5.3 2.6 Telala k 5.0 12.1 22.4 5.1 2.0 na na na na na Aura 11.4 20.8 17.9 5.2 1.4 7.7 16.8 17.2 1.5 1.8 Gewa ne 11.4 31.0 31.7 8.6 2.9 12.5 16.1 21.9 8.0 2.0 Total 7.9 18.8 22.8 5.8 2.3 9.0 14.1 17.9 3.6 2.2 Livestock ownership by livelihood zone
  7. 7. • The average livestock holding in TLU was 17.5. • As expected, the highest contribution to TLU comes from cattle and camels • The holding in TLU ranged from 14.2 in Telalak to 25.2 in Gewane, indicating a wide difference in livestock holding. • The overall average livestock holding in TLU is slightly higher in the pastoral (16.5) than in the agropastoral (14.2) areas. • Overall, livestock holding seems to be higher in adult headed than in youth headed households. District Cattl e shee p goat s Came l donke y Total TLU Amiba ra 4.7 1.5 1.7 5.3 2.2 15.3 Chifera 4.8 1.9 2.2 3.6 2.2 14.8 Dawe 4.2 1.5 2.4 6.7 2.6 17.5 Telalak 3.6 1.2 2.3 5.1 2.0 14.2 Aura 7.7 2.0 1.8 4.7 1.5 17.6 Gewan e 8.1 2.8 3.0 8.6 2.8 25.2 Total 5.6 1.8 2.2 5.6 2.2 17.5 Average livestock holding in TLU
  8. 8. • The overall mean per capita livestock holding was about 1.94 TLU. • The per capita TLU in pastoral households is higher by 0.5 TLU than in the agropastoral households. • There is no difference in per capital TLU between male headed and female headed households. • TLU per capita in youth headed households is higher by 0.53 perhaps because of the smaller family size in youth headed households. • Per capita TLU lower than the minimum per capita TLU required for above poverty line (3-4 TLU per capita, Cornelis de Haan, 2016, World Bank) Distr ict Livelihood Sex of household head Age of household head Total Pastor al Agrop astora l Male heade d Femal e heade d Youth head ed Adult head ed Ami bara 1.83 1.60 1.83 1.65 1.52 1.81 1.78 Chife ra 1.84 na 1.92 1.54 2.25 1.71 1.84 Daw e 1.81 1.27 1.71 1.71 2.27 1.60 1.71 Telal ak 2.23 na 2.05 2.96 3.64 1.52 2.20 Aura 2.00 .84 1.81 1.80 1.16 1.90 1.81 Gew ane 2.34 2.17 2.26 2.50 2.37 2.29 2.30 Total 2.01 1.51 1.93 1.98 2.49 1.82 1.94 Per capita TLU
  9. 9. • The average milk yield per lactation period was 1.5 liters. • Cow milk yield ranged from 1.4 (Amibara and Dawe) to 1.9 liter (in Aura). • The average lactation length in the pastoral areas was 173 days, • The average lactation length in the agropastoral areas was about 182 days. District Lactation length (days) Average total yield (lt/day) Pastoral Agropas toral Amibara 177 176.7 1.4 Chifera 176 na 1.5 Dawe 175 181.4 1.4 Telalak 161 na 1.6 Aura 167 192.5 1.9 Gewane 182 187.5 1.5 Total 173 181.8 1.5 Cow milk productivity
  10. 10. • The overall average milk yield over a lactation period was 2.8 liters. • Lactation length in the pastoral areas ranged from 156 days (in Aura) to 250 days in Dawe). • A maximum of 300 days lactation length was observed in the agropastoral areas in Gewane. District Lactation length average yield Pastoral Agropastoral Amibara 217 190 2.6 Chifera 216 na 3.3 Dawe 250 240 2.9 Telalak 216 na 3.1 Aura 156 210 2.8 Gewane 230 300 3.4 Total 217 213 2.8 Camel milk productivity
  11. 11. • Overall, about 61%, 83%, 85% and 53% of households participated as sellers for cattle, sheep, goats and camels, respectively. • The proportion of households who sold cattle ranged from about 44% in Telalak to 72% in Chifera. • The highest proportion of households who participated in livestock market as sellers was reported for sheep and goats, followed by cattle. • The proportion of sellers in the pastoral areas seems to be slightly higher than those in the agropastoral areas. • There is no marked difference in the proportion of sellers by sex of household head. Livestock market participation a seller (Proportion of households) District Total Cattle Sheep Goats Camels Amibara 55.1 63.6 76.0 42.9 Chifera 72.0 92.6 90.0 57.1 Dawe 61.7 87.5 94.2 57.7 Telalak 44.4 87.5 86.0 54.8 Aura 71.2 88.5 91.4 55.2 Gewane 57.4 74.5 70.9 50.0 Total 60.6 83.0 84.9 53.1
  12. 12. • Overall, gross commercial off-take rate of 8.5%, 11.1%, 12.6% and 10.5% were observed for cattle, sheep, goats and camels, respectively. • No marked difference in the off-take rates were observed between pastoral and agro-pastoral households. • There seem to be differences in the off- take rates by district. • As by livelihood zones, no marked difference in the off-take rates was observed by sex of heads or by age of household head. district Total Cattle Sheep Goats Camels Amibara 6.3 8.8 11.2 7.4 Chifera 9.0 13.5 14.9 16.6 Dawe 8.7 10.3 11.1 10.7 Telalak 8.7 12.5 13.5 10.1 Aura 8.3 12.4 16.6 15.8 Gewane 9.6 9.3 9.1 6.9 Total 8.5 11.1 12.6 10.5 Gross Commercial Off-take rate of livestock
  13. 13. • About 40% of households reported having access to livestock market within 3 hours of waking distance. • About 19% reported having access to the market within 5-8 hours of walking distance. • About a third of the households reported that they had to walk for more than a day to the nearest livestock market, suggesting the dire need to invest in market development in these areas. • Access to livestock market seems to be better in the pastoral than in the agropastoral areas. < 1 hour 1-3 hours > 3 – 5 hours >5 – 8 hours 1 day 2 days >2 days Amib ara 23.9 28.2 12.7 9.9 19.7 5.6 0.0 Chife ra 17.6 51.5 22.1 1.5 1.5 2.9 2.9 Dawe 12.8 32.6 32.6 8.1 5.8 4.7 3.5 Telala k 3.6 33.7 22.9 16.9 12.0 4.8 6.0 Aura 3.7 16.5 9.2 9.2 18.3 30.3 12.8 Gewa ne 12.5 18.3 16.3 5.8 1.0 5.8 40.4 Total 11.5 28.4 18.8 8.6 9.8 10.2 12.7 Proportion of households who reported access to market within certain distance
  14. 14. • More than half of the households used the livestock markets within two weeks. • More than a third reported using the market one a month, and about 9% reported using the markets once a year. • There is also a small fraction of households (0.4%) who never used the market in the year. • Livestock market use frequency is slightly more in the pastoral than in the agropastoral areas, as expected, since pastoralists rely more heavily on livestock sales for cash income Every day once a week Every two weeks once a month once a year Never Amiba ra 0.0 49.3 18.3 26.8 5.6 0.0 Chifer a 0.0 45.6 17.6 36.8 0.0 0.0 Dawe 2.3 32.6 20.9 38.4 4.7 1.2 Telalak 1.2 42.2 24.1 25.3 7.2 0.0 Aura 0.9 19.3 19.3 49.5 11.0 0.0 Gewa ne 10.6 25.0 11.5 31.7 20.2 1.0 Total 2.9 33.8 18.4 35.5 9.0 0.4 Market use frequency of households
  15. 15. Marketing fees • Marketing fees are paid in all the study districts. An overall average of Birr 9 was paid per cattle as marketing fee. Marketing fees per cattle seem to be slightly numerically higher in the agropastoral than in the pastoral areas. • An average of about Birr 5 was paid as marketing fee per shoat. Shoats marketing fees are paid in all the study districts and range from Birr 2 in Telalak to Birr 5. • An overall average of Birr 10 was paid per camel. The fees ranged from Birr 10 to Birr 15.
  16. 16. • About 62% of households reported having access to livestock price information, primarily from informal sources. • Similar proportion of households reported having access to livestock price information across the districts. • About half of the households said that access to price information would influence their marketing decision. • This suggests the important role of developing market information system in supporting livestock marketing decision of households. District Pastoral Agropastoral Total Amibara 58.7 64.3 60.0 Chifera 61.7 na 61.7 Dawe 58.7 57.1 58.3 Telalak 64.4 na 65.0 Aura 72.0 30.0 65.0 Gewane 60.9 64.3 61.7 Total 62.9 56.6 61.9 Proportion of households who reported access to livestock price information
  17. 17. • The overall average cash income of the surveyed households was about Birr 11, 975. • The large standard deviation indicates that there is a wide variation in cash income among households. • The mean cash income ranges from about Birr 14, 638 (in Amibara) to Birr 19, 583 (in Aura). • The mean cash income seems to be numerically higher in the pastoral than the agropastoral areas, perhaps because of differences in come from the sale of livestock. • However, there is no significant statistical difference in cash income between pastoral and agropastoral areas in any of the districts. Pastoral (mean) Agropast oral (Mean) Whole sample Mean Standard Deviation Amibara 14363 15540 14638 11297 Chifera 18250 na 18250 11479 Dawe 16784 13696 16064 12387 Telalak 16538 na 16636 11816 Aura 20412 15433 19582 11896 Gewane 18400 16025 17846 12764 Total 17493 15290 17169 11974 Household cash income
  18. 18. • livestock sales accounts for more than two-third of household cash income. • The second most important contributor to cash income seems to be PSNP, followed by wage income. • Gifts, remittances and aid stands as the fourth important contributor. • Interestingly, livestock product sales, crop production and business activities contribute very small. live animal sale livest ock produ cts Crop sales Wage empl oyme nt Busin ess activi ties Gifts remitt ance and aid PSNP Amib ara 9138 121. 178 1704 717 970 1809 Chifer a 12850 137 25 1197 850 623 2569 Dawe 10369 156 743 1036 83 1072 2603 Telala k 11217 50 316 1408 42 1066 2538 Aura 14479 292 305 1614 67 723 2102 Gewa ne 12963 295 1050 848 425 848 1417 Total 11836 175 436 1301 364 883 2173 Cash income structure of households
  19. 19. • Overall, about 7.5% of households reported savings. • The proportion of households who saved money in the agropastoral areas was more than twice the proportion in the pastoral areas. • Similarly, the proportion of male headed households who saved money was almost twice as much as in the female headed households. • Almost equal proportion of households saved money in the youth-headed and adult- headed households. Past oral Agropa storal Male headed Female headed Youth headed Adult head ed Total Ami bara 4.3 14.3 4.8 11.1 14.3 5.7 6.7 Chife ra 1.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.7 Daw e 2.2 7.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.3 Telal ak 3.4 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.3 2.4 3.3 Aura 12.0 10.0 13.2 0.0 14.3 11.3 11.7 Gew ane 15.2 28.6 20.0 10.0 33.3 16.7 18.3 Total 6.2 15.1 8.2 4.5 8.1 7.4 7.5 Proportion of households who saved money
  20. 20. • The overall mean annual saving among those who saved was Birr 8143. • The mean annual saving ranged from Birr 3000 in Dawe to Birr 10, 418 in Gewane. District Mean Min Max Mode Amibara 4000.0 1000 6000 6000 Chifera 10000.0 10000 10000 10000 Dawe 3000.0 1000 5000 1000 Telalak 3750.0 3000 4500 3000 Aura 9396.7 1777 20000 15000 Gewane 10418.2 500 30000 30000 Total 8143.6 500 30000 3000 Savings of households (Birr)
  21. 21. • The only saving institutions used by savers are the home and banks. • About 90% of savers saved their money at home, while about 11% of savers saved money in banks. • No saving was reported in saving and credit groups, SACCOS or microfinance institutions. • About 90% of savers saved their money at home, while about 11% of savers saved money in banks. • Agropastoralists did not use banks to save money. District Pastoral Agropastoral Total Amibara 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chifera 100.0 na 100.0 Dawe 100.0 100.0 100.0 Telalak 100.0 na 100.0 Aura 66.7 100.0 71.4 Gewane 85.7 100.0 90.9 Total 84.2 100.0 88.9 Proportion of households who saved at home
  22. 22. Conclusions and implications • Ownership of livestock indicates that improving livestock productivity could benefit more than 80% of households • Per capita livestock holding in the pastoral areas lower than the minimum requirement to stay above poverty line  need to develop alternative sources of livelihoods or build asset base • Low milk productivity (1.5 lt/cow and 2.8 lt/camel) indicate that doubling milk yield could improve household income and food security • High market participation but low commercial offtake rate implies the need to promote intensity of market participation •
  23. 23. Conclusions and Implications • Market access (as measured by distance) remains a challenge implying the need to develop market infrastructure • Access to livestock price information influences marketing decisions suggesting importance of developing market information system • Per capita cash income vey low at birr 2452 implying the dire need to develop alternative income generating activities • Livestock product sales contribute very little to household cash income.
  24. 24. THANK YOU !!!
  25. 25. This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. better lives through livestock ilri.org ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund

×