Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022

Editor-in-Chief
Associate Editor
Cheng Sun
Jesus Simal-Gandara
Editorial Board Members
China Branch of World Productivity Federation of Science and Technology; Academic Committee of the United Nations
NGO International Information Development Organization, China
University of Vigo, Spain
Alberto J. Nunez-Selles Universidad Nacional Evangelica (UNEV), Dominican Republic
Jiban Shrestha National Plant Breeding and Genetics Research Centre, Nepal
Zhiguo Wang China Association for Science and Technology, China
Xiaoyong Huang International Energy Security Research Center, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
Geeth Gayesha Hewavitharana University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka
Alamgir Ahmad Dar Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, India
Xiuju Zhang Hunan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
Keshav D Singh Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Canada
K. Nirmal Ravi Kumar Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, India
Lijian Zhang Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
Zhengbin Zhang Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Ruhong Mei China Agricultural University, China
Mingzao Liang Institute of Agricultural Resources and Agricultural Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricul-
tural Sciences, China
Rishi Ram Kattel Agriculture and Forestry University, Nepal
Yunbiao Li Jilin University, China
Zhizhong Huang Shandong High-end Technology Engineering Research Institute, China
Jianping Zhang Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, China
Lin Shen China Agricultural University, China
Juan Sebastián Castillo Valero Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Kassa Tarekegn Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia
Shahbaz Khan National Agricultural Research Centre, Pakistan
Gioacchino Pappalardo University of Catania, Italy
Alisher Tleubayev Suleyman Demirel University, Kazakhstan
Ali Darub Kassar University of Anbar, Iraq
Fabian Capitanio University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Volume 3 Issue 4 • December 2022 • ISSN 2737-4777 (Print) 2737-4785 (Online)
Research on World
Agricultural Economy
Editor-in-Chief
Cheng Sun

Volume 3 ｜ Issue 4 ｜ December 2022 ｜ Page1-73
Research on World Agricultural Economy
Contents
Editorial
72 Agriculture Economic Overview
Cheng Sun
Research Articles
1 The Agricultural Sector of Ukraine in the Global Food Market: Pre-war State and Post-war Prospects
Olena Shubravska Kateryna Prokopenko
12 Production and Commercialization Status of Improved Panicum Grass Cultivation in the Lowland Live-
stock Production System of South Omo South-Western Ethiopia
Denbela Hidosa Asmera Adicha Muhaba Sultan
36 Access and Control of Resources by Rural Women in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Abiro Tigabie Beneberu Teferra Amsalu Abe
48 Climate Adaptation in Rain-fed Agriculture: Analyzing the Determinants of Supplemental Irrigation
Practices in Nepal
Ganesh Raj Joshi Ramchandra Bhandari
59 Cattle Marketing System in Bena-Tsemay District of South Omo, South-Western Ethiopia
Zelalem Adane Denbela Hidosa
Review Article
25 Macadamia Nuts (Macadamia integrifolia) Value Chain and Technical Efficiency among the Small-scale
Farmers in Zimbabwe
Wellington Bandason Cosmas Parwada Abbyssinia Mushunje

1
Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022
https://ojs.nassg.org/index.php/rwae
Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published by NanYang Academy of Sciences Pte. Ltd. This is an open access article under the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
*Corresponding Author:
Olena Shubravska,
Department of the Forms and Methods of Management in the Agri-Food Complex, Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the
NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, 01011, Ukraine;
Email: shubravska@gmail.com
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.693
Received: 31 August 2022; Received in revised form: 4 October 2022; Accepted: 25 October 2022; Published: 16
November 2022
Citation: Shubravska, O., Prokopenko, K., 2022. The Agricultural Sector of Ukraine in the Global Food Market: Pre-war
State and Post-war Prospects. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 3(4), 693. http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.
v3i4.693
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Agricultural Sector of Ukraine in the Global Food Market: Pre-war
State and Post-war Prospects
Olena Shubravska*
Kateryna Prokopenko
Department of the Forms and Methods of Management in the Agri-Food Complex, Institute for Economics and
Forecasting of the NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, 01011, Ukraine
Abstract: For a long time, Ukraine played an essential role as a producer of agricultural products in ensuring global
and internal food security. The hostilities on the territory of Ukraine have caused significant risks to the activity of its
agricultural sector and affected its current export potential. This study set out to assess the importance of Ukraine for
world food security and its place in the global agricultural market, to outline current risks and to determine the prospects
for the further development of agriculture in the conditions of post-war recovery. In particular, the integration of the
agricultural sector into the global economic space was investigated, which showed the rapid expansion of the presence
of agri-food products in certain commodity markets of some countries. An increase in the level of involvement of the
agricultural sector in the global flows of goods related to food production has been established. This conclusion is based
on calculations made using the data of input-output tables at basic prices. It is substantiated that the post-war recovery
of Ukraine’s economy should ensure the reconstruction of the agricultural sector on the basis of sustainability. In this
context, the authors presented the results of the assessment of possible changes in the production of the main types
of agricultural products during the implementation of the concept of ecological resource-conserving agriculture. The
impact of these changes on the country’s export potential and its food security was assessed by developing food balances
for the main types of agricultural products. The conducted assessment confirmed the necessity of such restructuring to
ensure the preservation of the country’s agricultural potential in the long term.
Keywords: Agricultural sector; Agri-food export; Food security; Sustainable development

2
1. Introduction
World trade in agricultural and food products is carried
out in order to provide the inhabitants of the planet with
a sufficient amount of diverse food. Food supply to the
population is a strategic priority of the governments of all
countries in the world without exception. This problem is
especially acute in poor countries, which, moreover, are
not able to fully saturate their food market through domes-
tic agricultural production. For such countries, the global
food supply is essential to avoid hunger and diseases as-
sociated with malnutrition, thereby also providing social
stability [1]
.
According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the number of people in the world affected by hunger con-
tinued to increase in 2020 and amounted between 720 to
811 million people. Of the total number of undernourished
people, more than half live in Asia and more than one-third
in Africa [2]
. Many of these countries have recently been sig-
nificant importers of Ukrainian agri-food products. Accord-
ing to our estimates based on data from the State Statistics
Service of Ukraine these deliveries to Asia and Africa in
2021 amounted to 49% and 13%, respectively, of the total
volume of Ukrainian agri-food exports.
In general, Ukraine supplied more than 14% of the glob-
al food market [3]
, including 12.5% of the world export of
wheat and 12.8% of corn, as well as 47% of the world trade
in sunflower oil and 54% of sunflower meal [4]
. According
to USDA estimates, in the last pre-war year, Ukraine was
the fourth largest exporter of corn in the world after the
USA, Brazil and Argentina. As of the end of 2021, Ukraine
was the fourth supplier of food to the EU (with the volume
of supplies of 6,896 million euros in 2021). According to
estimates of the Kyiv School of Economics, more than 400
million people in the world depend on Ukrainian grain sup-
plies [5]
.
The war started by Russia in Ukraine radically changed
the situation. Increasing military conflicts in developing
countries have long been recognized by the FAO as one
of the main factors contributing to food insecurity in these
countries. Research has shown that there is strong evidence
for a link between food security and violent conflict [6]
. At the
same time, it is obvious that in a situation of a full-scale mili-
tary confrontation between countries that are among the larg-
est global suppliers of grains and oilseeds (which are Ukraine
and the Russian Federation), a food crisis can affect a much
larger part of the world’s population. The problems with
export logistics, reduction of cultivated areas, and the prob-
able decrease in the yield of agricultural crops, caused by the
war in Ukraine have already significantly affected the current
state of global food security. Thus, the world is witnessing
an increase in prices for many products and their shortages,
especially felt in the Middle East and North Africa. This has
already forced many of them to close agricultural exports in
order to maintain their own food security [7]
.
The long-term high agrarian status of Ukraine became one
of the important factors in mitigating the consequences of
military actions for the domestic food supply during the war.
At the same time, the destruction caused by the war in the
field of production and sale of agri-food products can create
prerequisites for the further recovery and development of the
Ukrainian agrarian sector on the basis of sustainability and
structural balance of production and export.
The post-war recovery of the agricultural sector of
Ukraine should form the basis for its further long-term de-
velopment. That is why it is extremely important to choose
the priorities of such development and directions of their
implementation. The fundamental goals should be to ensure
national food security, as well as the reproduction and pres-
ervation of natural resources of agricultural production. To
achieve this, innovative modernization of the agricultural
sector and its structural transformation are needed. As a
result, there should be a gradual transition from a highly spe-
cialized mono-product structure of agri-food production and
export to a structure of agricultural production that is more
effective in view of national economic interests.
Considering all the above, the purpose of the article is to
reveal the role of the agricultural sector of Ukraine as a guar-
antor of world food security in the pre-war period, to identify
risks of the impact of military operations on the Ukrainian
agricultural sector, and to outline the prospects for post-war
agricultural production and exports of Ukraine, taking into
account the need to comply with the principles of sustainable
development.
2. Research Methods and Materials
The authors sought to analyze the changes that have oc-
curred in Ukrainian agrarian production and exports over
the past 18 years (2004-2021). Calculations are based on
the data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine.
The time series of export covering the period of 2004-
2021 is analyzed from the point of view of the commodity
structure. Commodity structure is based on the Ukrain-
ian classification of goods of foreign economic activity
(UCGFEA), whereas we have considered the correspond-
ence between the UCGFEA positions and positions of
The Combined Nomenclature, designed for the EU stat-
isticians, using eight-digit coding system. The Combined
Nomenclature is the primary nomenclature as it is used by
the EU Member States to collect detailed data concern-
ing their trade. It is based on the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System (managed by the World

3
Customs Organization). The volume of Ukrainian agrarian
foreign trade flows is estimated in US dollars.
The scope of research includes estimation of affect
both trade and production of increasing international frag-
mentation of production that has occurred over the last
decades. The time series of Ukraine input-output tables
provide a comprehensive map of transactions of goods
and services for estimation. The volume of this flow is es-
timated in Ukrainian hryvnia.
Authors also used balance method for development of
model for assessing the possible volumes of export of ag-
ricultural products with strict adherence to the principles
of sustainability in the further development. During the
development of this model relevant international experi-
ence in food balances preparation was taken into account,
specifically materials and recommendations developed by
FAO, USDA and Eurostat [8-12]
.
As a result, the following general scheme of forecast
balances preparation, coherent with international FAO
recommendations, was adopted:
DEMAND = SUPPLY
SUPPLY = STOCK at the beginning of the period +
PRODUCTION + IMPORT
DEMAND = DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION (human
consumption + seeds +livestock and poultry feed + in-
dustrial use + losses + other consumption) + EXPORT +
STOCK at the end of the period
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 The Dynamics of Foreign Agri-food Trade of
Ukraine in the Pre-war Period
The agrarian sector of Ukraine in the pre-war period
rapidly integrated into the global economic space, and
even more actively than the Ukrainian economy as a
whole. This process especially intensified at the begin-
ning of this millennium, after the industry overcame the
economic crisis of the mid-90s of the twentieth century
and during the country’s preparations for accession to the
WTO (2005-2008). It was during this period that Ukraine
laid the foundations for its current high status in the global
food market and formed an agrarian export hyper-spe-
cialization [13]
. So, only 6 commodity items, namely corn,
wheat, barley, rape, sunflower oil and sunflower meal
provided almost a third of the national and more than 70%
of Ukraine’s agri-food exports in the last pre-war years.
The high values of RCA (revealed comparative advantage
index), or otherwise the Balassa index, for these products
(at the level of almost 300 units for sunflower process-
ing products and up to 80 units for grain crops) indicate
that these products have strong comparative advantages,
which also reflects its high share in the world market (re-
spectively 42%~48% and 8%~13%).
In the pre-war period, Ukrainian agri-food products
from year to year expanded their presence both in the EU
market and the markets of Asian and African countries
(Table 1). This was largely facilitated by the gradual har-
monization of the national legislation of Ukraine in the
field of ensuring the quality of food products with the
relevant European regulations. The result was a noticeable
increase in the quality indicators of products, the introduc-
tion of modern production standards at all stages.
In recent years, the importance of India, Egypt, China,
as well as other countries as importers of Ukrainian prod-
ucts has significantly increased. For example, China for
2011-2021 increased the import of agricultural products
from Ukraine by 41.5 times, which increased the share
of this country in the structure of Ukrainian agri-food ex-
ports from 0.5% to 15.5%. In turn, India was the largest
importer of Ukrainian sunflower oil.
However, despite the high position of the Ukrainian
agricultural sector in the global space, it is quite obvious
that agricultural raw material exports should not dominate
in the overall structure of export deliveries due to the high
volatility of the conjuncture of the respective markets.
Therefore, Ukraine is faced with the task of increasing the
share of food products with a higher added value in agri-
food exports.
In the meantime, as statistics show, raw material
exports continue to dominate. The share of processed
products in both exports and imports is declining. The
information below on the commodity structure of agricul-
tural trade in Ukraine in 2004-2021 confirms the growth
of negative changes in the area of value added (Table 2).
Thus, the share of trade in unprocessed commodities has
been constantly increasing due to a decrease in the share
of processed products (currently down to 40%). Conse-
quently, Ukrainian agricultural exports are becoming more
and more raw materials, which requires a revision of the
country’s agri-food trade policy.
The high level of integration of the agricultural busi-
ness of Ukraine into the global economic space is also
confirmed by the increase in the indicators of its involve-
ment in GVC – global value chains. This, in particular,
is evidenced by both the dynamic growth of the index
of participation of agriculture and the food industry of
Ukraine in global value chains (GVC participation rate),
and the decrease in the indicator of domestic value added
(DVA) in these areas [14]
. Estimates by international ex-
perts show that for the period they studied 1995-2015
against the background of the expansion of the presence
of agriculture in GVC, its dependence on imported inter-

4
mediate inputs has significantly increased. At the same
time, since 2013 the trend has changed. This was the re-
sult of a significant increase in gross agricultural and food
exports, as well as a decrease (albeit insignificant) in the
import component in the export of these goods.
Our estimates for a later period using the input-output
tables confirm the persistence of this trend (Table 3). Im-
ports of goods and services matrix allows us to determine
the directions of use of imported products in the total
amount of goods and services used in the economy. Ac-
cording to input-output tables, in 2020 the share of the
import component in the intermediate consumption of
agriculture was 25.5%. This can be considered as an ap-
proximate level of use of imported resources in general
production, including in the production of exported goods.
Consequently, the dependence of Ukrainian agricul-
ture on external resources is somewhat higher than in the
economy as a whole, and significantly higher compared
to manufacture of food products, since the products of
Ukrainian agriculture are its main resource component. At
the same time, this dependence tended to decrease, despite
the fact that at the input (resource component) agrarian
sector is less involved in GVC than the output (Ukrainian
exports). So, Table 4 shows the level of involvement of
agriculture, forestry and fisheries of Ukraine in the GVC,
based on the indicators of input-output tables. It is dif-
Table 1. Dynamics of Ukraine’s foreign agri-food trade with the main importing countries (USD million)
Countries 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2021
EU countries
Netherlands 513.6 690.2 749.9 575.6 1275.7 1157.6 1762.1
Spain 724.1 759.0 923.0 852.9 1023.8 1039.8 1168.4
Poland 445.8 528.7 536.2 422.7 518.2 557.2 981.5
Germany 151.1 222.5 247.9 188.3 385.0 657.5 842.3
Italy 418.1 598.4 625.4 560.0 749.3 702.7 717.9
Other countries
China 103.1 484.0 764.9 1239.6 1015.3 1171.0 4282.3
India 944.9 1079.4 1390.9 1082.6 1953.4 1856.1 1953.7
Egypt 862.2 1524.3 1390.9 1022.9 1257.9 888.7 1600.5
Turkey 883.6 688.3 665.6 757.6 928.9 800.2 1464.0
Saudi Arabia 551.7 427.8 629.1 473.3 358.8 588.7 645.8
Iran 403.4 526.1 591.2 440.6 527.6 420.8 612.5
Israel 268.4 443.5 377.6 395.2 411.2 337.0 449.6
Russian Federation 2025.0 1941.1 911.8 276.5 102.3 92.2 45.9
Source: Calculated using the data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine.
Table 2. Structure of foreign agri-food trade of Ukraine in relation to the processed and unprocessed goods (USD million)
Indicators 2004 2008 2014 2016 2018 2021 Index 2021vs.2004, %
Exports
Non-processed total (UCGFEA items 1-14) 1784.4 6373.7 9750.6 8868.7 11097.4 16883.2 946.2
Processed total (UCGFEA items 15-24) 1686.5 4463.9 6918.3 6413.1 7515.3 10825.7 641.9
Total 3470.9 10837.6 16668.9 15281.8 18612.8 27708.9 798.3
Share of non-processed (%) 51.4 58.8 58.5 58.0 59.6 60.9 118.5
Share of processed (%) 48.6 41.2 41.5 42.0 40.4 39.1 80.5
Imports
Non-processed total (UCGFEA items 1-14) 754.4 3164.5 3155.8 1911.1 2446.9 3724.5 493.7
Processed total (UCGFEA items 15-24) 1154.0 3292.1 2903.5 1980.0 2604.8 4022.4 348.6
Total 1908.4 6456.6 6059.3 3891.1 5051.7 7747.0 405.9
Share of non-processed (%) 39.5 49.0 52.1 49.1 48.4 48.1 121.8
Share of processed (%) 60.5 51.0 47.9 50.9 51.6 51.9 85.8
Source: Calculated using the data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine.

5
ficult to single out the export flows that will be included
in global value chain, but the table contains data on the
export of products of section A (Agriculture, forestry and
fishing), which are essentially raw materials and require
further processing, and therefore the exported volumes of
these products with a high probability will be directed to
further processing and may become a component of GVC.
In this case, we estimated GVC participation rate as the
share of added value that came from products involved in
GVC. Thus, as we can see, the agriculture of Ukraine in
the pre-war period was quite deeply involved in the global
value chain.
In addition, during the research we assessed the de-
gree to which the country relies on imported inputs in the
production of some exported commodities (in particular
cereals). We measured it as the share of value of imported
inputs in total exports. The evaluation was carried out ac-
cording to the author’s methodology for wheat and corn.
Thus, the following imported resources were evaluated:
machinery, plant protection products, mineral fertilizers,
seed material. Export volumes included both grain itself
and products of wheat and corn processing (flour, cere-
als, starch, ready-made dough products, etc.). Since these
goods (cereals) are mainly export-oriented, the share of
import of production resources in the value of the speci-
fied export was insignificant and in 2019-2020 was 16.4%.
3.2 The Impact of Hostilities on the Agricultural
Sector of Ukraine
The war in Ukraine affected all areas of the country’s
socio-economic life. Losses, unfortunately, are already
catastrophically great. In this regard, FAO speaks of the
unprecedented scale of damage to Ukrainian agriculture,
which will have an impact not only on the Ukrainian
economy, but also on global food security. “Damage
caused by war to a country with an agricultural output and
exports as significant as that of Ukraine is unparalleled
since the Second World War” [16]
. According to the esti-
mates of the KSE Institute Center for Food and Land Use
Research and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food
of Ukraine, in just three months of Russia’s war against
Ukraine, direct losses (full or partial destruction of mate-
rial assets) in the agricultural sector alone reached almost
4.3 USD billion [17]
, and indirect (due to a decrease in pro-
duction, the blockade of ports and the increase in the cost
of production factors) – 23.3 USD billion [18]
. Forestry of
Table 3. Dependence on foreign input (at basic prices, million Ukraine Hryvnia (UAH))
Indicators 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total by types of economic activity
Use of imported goods and services 705090 827161 994369 1136089 1076165 972899
Intermediate consumption (without taxes
and subsidies on products)
2444526 2985429 3680226 4404755 4866204 4981105
Dependence on foreign input rate 0.2884 0.2771 0.2702 0.2579 0.2212 0.1953
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
309222 366186 412767 497649 494916 506638
Manufacture of food products, beverages and tobacco products
329094 400922 475163 498663 539547 601359
Source: Calculated according to Olena Shubravska, 2021 [13]
.
Table 4. Global value chain participation rate for agriculture, forestry and fishing (at basic prices, million Ukraine Hry-
vnia (UAH))
Indicators 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Use of goods and services for export 178390 208977 244472 267614 329968 315305
Output 558788 655569 727352 871971 866138 915800
GVC participation rate 0.319 0.319 0.336 0.307 0.381 0.344
Source: Calculated according to State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2015-2020 [15]
.

6
Ukraine also suffered colossal losses. So, about 600,000
hectares of forest-covered land has already been affected
by the war. Landmines have become an extremely serious
problem, especially when fighting forest fires. According
to the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine, the
damage caused to forest ecosystem services is estimated
at 185 USD million.
The war in Ukraine also led to the loss of food stocks
available in the country before the war due to their physi-
cal destruction by the invaders and the placement of a sig-
nificant number of warehouses in the currently occupied
territories; lack of physical ability to conduct agricultural
activities in many key agricultural regions of Ukraine (in
July 2022 18% cropland were currently occupied, 5% were
previously occupied, 3% were just liberated); critically insuf-
ficient level of provision of fuel and lubricants to farmers; the
destruction of the supply chains of agricultural production
resources (plant protection products, seeds, and fertilizers),
which negatively affects the resource security of all produc-
tion processes and causes crop failure (Ministry of Agricul-
ture of Ukraine expects in 2022 a decrease in grain yield by
10%~15% compared to the past year); the increase in the
cost of agricultural work against the background of a sharp
reduction in exports and the impossibility of replenishing
the financial resources of agricultural producers because of
this. In Ukraine, there is currently a catastrophic violation of
export logistics. Namely before 24 February the maximum
throughput of export facilities was 6 mln·t per month (95%
by sea, 5% other), in June 2022 it was 2 mln·t per month (15%
by trucks, 35% by railway, 50% by river) [19]
.
Taking into account all of the above, according to our esti-
mates, in 2022, the production of grain crops in Ukraine may
decrease by 30 mln·t~33 mln·t compared to the previous
year, when a record harvest of more than 85 mln·t was har-
vested. International experts estimate the reduction of grain
production in Ukraine in the current year in the amount of
35 mln·t [20]
. A decrease in the production of sunflower seeds
is expected at the level of 6 mln·t, which will cause a corre-
sponding drop in the production of sunflower oil, the export
of which Ukraine has ranked first in the world for many years
in a row.According to the profile association “Ukroliyaprom”,
in 2022, the export of oil has already decreased by 8 times
compared to 2021, and the export of sunflower meal –
by 12 times.
In August report, the USDA noted that the volumes of
Ukrainian wheat production and export in 2022/2023 will
decrease compared to the previous period by 13.5 mln·t and
7.8 mln·t, respectively. The production of corn is forecast to
be 12.1 mln·t, and exports –12 mln·t less [21]
.
3.3 Prospects of the Ukrainian Agricultural Sec-
tor Post-war Development
In general, the further situation in the field of agricultural
production in Ukraine seems to be poorly predictable. Tak-
ing into account the problems of the war period noted above,
many agrarians may for some time completely abandon their
economic activity or radically restructure it. The choice of
large producers, who before the war narrowly specialized in
the production of grains and oilseeds, will be determined by
comparing their own financial and other resource capabili-
ties, as well as the scale of the costs of the autumn sowing
and the risks of its implementation with the problems of mar-
keting the grown crop and the profit that is poorly predicted
as a result of all this. It is expected that these producers will
give preference to crops that bring more income per 1 ha
with a smaller mass of grown crop. Thus, it is already known
that this spring many agrarians sowed fields with sunflower
instead of corn, which they planned to sow before the war. It
is assumed that in the future, sunflower and rapeseed, which
are in demand on the European market, can significantly re-
place corn and wheat crops in Ukraine. In addition, already
now many large grain producers are concerned about find-
ing effective solutions in the field of processing. The main
guidelines are the construction of bioenergy enterprises for
the production of bioethanol and biomethane, increasing the
production of compound feed, starch, including highly de-
manded modified, sugar alcohols (sorbitol, xylitol, etc.), the
most important organic components of animal feed - amino
acids (lysine, methionine, threonine, tryptophan), etc.
Small Ukrainian agrarians, who traditionally have a more
diversified production structure and are oriented mainly to
the domestic market, demonstrate relatively greater stabil-
ity during the war (as, indeed, in other periods of crisis). It
is on them that the national food security of Ukraine largely
depends, regarding such products as milk, vegetables, local
fruits – almost completely. However, the entry of such pro-
ducers into the global food market in the near future seems
problematic due to their generally unsatisfactory logistical
support and insufficient coordination of actions, which is
necessary for the formation of market lots of quality prod-
ucts. The only exception in this context is Ukrainian organic
producers, who have been successfully presenting their prod-
ucts on the world market for a long time, mainly in European
countries.
Thus, it is obvious that under the influence of the
war with Russian Federation, agricultural production in
Ukraine may reduce and, moreover, undergoes significant
transformations that may persist in the years following the
end of the war. This will undoubtedly affect the export op-

7
portunities of Ukrainian farmers, who, at least in the short
term, may lose their status as key players in the global
market in the segment of grain crops that were traditional
for Ukraine until recently. At the same time, mechanical
damage and chemical contamination of large areas of land
and water resources provoked by military actions as a re-
sult of explosions, mining of the territory and man-made
disasters, as well as changes in the structure of production
in the direction of the priority development of agricultural
crops that deplete land resources (primarily sunflower) are
fraught with production in Ukraine with long-term nega-
tive consequences. This is especially dangerous, taking
into account the unfavorable ecological situation in the
sphere of agricultural production in Ukraine even before
the war against the backdrop of the growing influence of
climate change on it.
Ukraine has the second largest arable land resource in
Europe. However, there is a steady trend of further inten-
sive degradation of soils – the main means of agricultural
production [22]
. The largest risks identified as erosion (38%
of agricultural land), soil compaction and loss of humus,
exacerbated by a high plowing rate (78% of soils and 56%
of land). More than 19% of soils are acidic. The balance
of nutrients in the soil, like humus, is negative. In addi-
tion, many soils are contaminated. Total forest area of
Ukraine (10.4 mln·ha) is much smaller than in EU: forest
cover rate is 14%~16% in Ukraine and 39% in EU aver-
age. As a result of the military operations, the problem of
restoration and preservation of natural resources of agri-
cultural production has significantly increased, since on a
significant part of the land, its solution must be preceded
by bringing the land into a state suitable for agricultural
use (demining, elimination of numerous man-made pollu-
tions, etc.).
So, during the period of post-war reconstruction,
Ukraine has no alternative to the development of agricul-
tural production on the principles of sustainability. This
approach is also due to the intensification of European
integration processes after Ukraine received the status of
a candidate member of the EU on June 23, 2022. Thus,
issues of sustainable development, a low-carbon strategy,
and the European Green Deal course should be prioritized
when Ukraine determines the prospects of its agricultural
production and forms agrarian policy to achieve them.
The realization of this goal involves the implementa-
tion of innovative modernization of agricultural produc-
tion and the formation of its structure based on the priority
of internal food needs and resource opportunities for their
implementation, and not on the global market situation
and the interests of its leading players [23,24]
.
This approach, in particular, involves optimizing the
structure of land and agricultural landscape; decrease
in agricultural development (by 5 percent) and plowed
territory (by 10 percent); increasing the productivity of
agricultural land (by 40-50 percent) through the rational
use of organic, organo-mineral and mineral fertilizers and
chemical meliorants on acidic and saline soils [25]
.
In this context, the authors estimated the possible vol-
umes of production and export of agricultural products,
which can be obtained by complying with the above
requirements of the government document and by the fol-
lowing assumptions:
l the post-war territory of Ukraine will be restored to its
borders as of February 23, 2022;
l all land will be demined and available for agricultural
activity;
l logistics infrastructure, even if it is not completely re-
stored, there will still be opportunities to provide farm-
ers with all the necessary resources and equipment;
l the structure of crop production will fundamentally
change in accordance with ecological requirements,
and the number of livestock of agricultural animals will
correspond to the area of available fodder lands.
The assessment of changes in the structure of crop pro-
duction was based on calculations of the optimal structure
of sown areas on the basis of crop rotations recommended
for different soil and climatic zones of Ukraine [26]
.
In the agricultural sector of Ukraine, as mentioned
above, there are two significant producers: enterprises and
farmers as well as households. The analysis carried out by
the authors [27]
proved that the households have a relatively
optimal structure of sown areas and there is no possibility
of introducing full-fledged crop rotations on small plots,
so this group of producers can only recommend directions
for improving the structure of production in their farms.
In 2021, enterprises and farms that produce products for
export had a non-optimal structure of sown areas with
the dominance of grain and industrial crops. Therefore,
changes in the structure of production were estimated for
such farms. In general, the changes related to compliance
with environmental requirements can be very significant,
as 3 mln·ha of agricultural land, 6 mln·ha of arable land
should be taken out of circulation, and the area of pastures
and hayfields should be increased by 2 mln·ha.
When making calculations, we assumed that: a) house-
holds will not change the structure of crop production
and will maintain production volumes; b) producers of
livestock products will increase the number of agricultural
animals in accordance with the above ecological require-
ments, without changing the structure. Taking into ac-
count all the assumptions made, one can expect the results
of agricultural production given in Table 5. Although the

8
calculations are quite conditional, they still give an idea
of the scale of the main changes that can take place in the
structure of agricultural production in Ukraine with full
compliance with environmental requirements. In accord-
ance with the implementation of structural changes in pro-
duction, there will also be changes in the country’s export
potential.
The main method of calculations was the balance sheet
method. The balance sheet item of the estimated balance
sheet became its “Exports” item, in contrast to the fact
balance sheets, where the balance sheet item is usually
“Fund of consumption”. In the evaluation process, in
addition to production volumes, domestic consumption
volumes were determined and, in particular, such item
of the balance of demand and supply for certain types of
products were evaluated, as the consumption fund (which
may be formed in the post-war period), expenditures on
processing and domestic use (sowing, planting, fodder), as
well as losses and wastes. Since the goal of the structural
restructuring of the agricultural sector is to achieve food
security (that is, food sufficiency) on the basis of sustaina-
ble development, when calculating the consumption fund,
it was assumed to ensure consumption norms per person,
which were formed in the pre-war period. To estimate the
consumption fund, it is currently difficult to predict the
population size in the post-war period, since migration
processes are still ongoing in Ukraine, the scale of which
will depend on the activity and duration of hostilities in
the country. According to some estimates, depending on
the duration of the war, the loss of population will be from
600,000 to 5 million people [28]
, so for the calculations,
losses at the level of 10% were determined.
Estimates indicate that the production of a number of
crops may decrease with structural restructuring in ac-
cordance with ecological requirements. In particular, the
agricultural sector may lose significantly in the produc-
tion of corn (up to 35%), wheat (up to 8%) and sunflower
(about 45%). This may accordingly reduce the produc-
tion and export volumes of sunflower oil. Soybean and
rapeseed production may also decrease. However, these
changes are necessary, since the share of cultivated areas
under technical crops (primarily sunflower) is now in the
range of 35%~50% depending on the region, which is an
unacceptable violation of environmental requirements.
Such a situation allows obtaining only short-term eco-
nomic profit, and in the long term it leads to land degrada-
tion, a decrease in harvests and the loss of export potential
and the ability to ensure food security at the global level.
Insignificant exports of sunflower, soybeans and rape-
seed will be due to large volumes of their domestic pro-
cessing, i.e., mainly products of oil crops processing will
be exported. Therefore, it can be expected that Ukraine
will be able to avoid significant losses of export revenues
due to the reduction of sowing of grain and technical
crops, ensuring the development of appropriate processing
capacities. This is fully consistent with the need to speed
up the transition from raw materials exports to exports
of processed products, declared by the government in the
Draft Ukraine Recovery Plan [29]
. Significant amounts
of soybeans and sunflowers are already exported in pro-
cessed form, but in addition to this, in order to increase
the value of exports, it is planned to increase the process-
ing capacity of grain crops, soybeans and rapeseed.
According to calculations, the changes may also lead to
an increase in Ukraine’s production of potatoes, which is
currently recognized as the third most important food crop
in the world. At the same time, potatoes are a strategic
crop with regard to the requirements of sustainable and
ecological food production, as they generate fewer green-
house gas emissions compared to other main crops and at
Table 5. Expected export by Ukraine in the post-war period of the main types of agricultural products when transition-
ing to production taking into account environmental requirements (thousand tons)
Types of products
Production Changes in the volume of
production
Expected domestic
consumption
Expected export
2021 expected
Grain and legumes 86011 73120 –12891 20575 52545
Wheat 32151 29750 –2401 7200 22550
Corn 42110 27200 –14910 10700 16500
Soya 3493 2610 –329 1300 1310
Rapeseed 2939 2260 –679 260 2000
Sunflower 16392 9140 –7252 9050 90
Potatoes 21356 23920 2564 23750 170
Meat 2438 3650 1212 2000 1650
Milk 8729 13100 5119 8750 4350
Source: Authors’ calculations.

9
the same time ensure the receipt of cash by small produc-
ers. In Ukraine, the increase in the volume of this product
is predicted due to production in enterprises, so it will be
suitable for industrial processing and export.
According to the assessment (follow the ecological
standards), the total area of fodder lands in Ukraine can
reach 13.1 million hectares. Thus, Ukrainian farmers will
be able to increase the number of livestock by 1.5 times
(up to 13.1 million in standard livestock unit) if they com-
ply with the requirement of a 1:1 livestock load on fodder
grounds. This will not only give a notable impetus to the
development of animal husbandry, but will also allow to
significantly activate the process of applying organic fer-
tilizers to improve the condition of the soil. In addition,
according to the calculations, increasing the production of
livestock products, along with ensuring its domestic con-
sumption, will also increase export.
The Ukrainian agricultural sector also has a significant
potential for the development of organic production, as
a system of agricultural production that fully complies
with all principles of sustainable development, contributes
to the restoration of the natural balance and ensures the
sustainability of the food system. The Ukrainian National
economic strategy for the period until 2030 envisages an
increase in the area of land with organic status to at least
3% of the total area of agricultural land against the current
slightly more than 1%.
4. Conclusions
Prior to the start of full-scale Russian aggression in
2022, Ukraine for many years was one of the leading sup-
pliers of agricultural, to large extent raw materials, prod-
ucts to the global food market, providing more than 14%
of its total volume. According to our estimates, both the
level of participation of the country’s agricultural sector in
the GVC and its dependence on imported resources have
generally increased, albeit to varying degrees.
The current war in Ukraine not only has a catastrophic
impact on the national economy, but also poses a threat
to food security throughout the world, primarily in low-
income countries in Asia and Africa. In Ukraine, people
are dying en masse, crops and warehouses with food
stocks are being destroyed, agricultural land is rendered
unusable by shelling, and well-established supply chains
of products and resources are being destroyed. All this is
an incomplete list of the consequences of ongoing hostili-
ties. It is already obvious that this year the situation will
lead to a significant (by 30%~35%) reduction in Ukraine’s
production of its global food specialization, in particular,
grain.
The ongoing significant destruction of Ukrainian ag-
riculture as a result of the war testifies to the need for a
large-scale post-war restoration of agricultural production.
The result of this should be the formation of an environ-
mentally sound specialization that meets both nationally
oriented goals and international requirements (in par-
ticular, the EU Green Deal). This will make it possible to
implement the concept of ecological resource-conserving
agriculture and preserve national natural resources in the
long term. Our assessments have shown the possibility of
achieving under these conditions a high level of self-suffi-
ciency of the country’s population with food, diversifying
agricultural exports, and entering foreign markets with
new types of products. In particular, against the back-
ground of the expected reduction in the production and
export of sunflower, corn, sunflower oil, we can expect
an increase in the total area of forage land and the corre-
sponding potential for the production and export of live-
stock products, an extension of the commercial production
of potatoes, an expansion of the organic segment, as well
as an accelerated development of processing industries.
To achieve such goals, the state must first of all inten-
sify the stimulation of sustainable technologies’ usage by
farmers, as well as promote the expansion of capacities
for processing agricultural raw materials. For this, follow-
ing the example of other countries, it is necessary to adopt
and finance appropriate programs. Obviously, the cardinal
solution of such problems in Ukraine will be postponed
until the end of the war, when farmers’ incomes stabilize
and investment risks are minimized.
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Fanzo, J., Covic, N., Dobermann, A., et al., 2020. A
research vision for food systems in the 2020s: Defy-
ing the status quo. Global Food Security. 26, 100397.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100397
[2] FAO, 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition
in the World.
https://www.fao.org/3/cb4474en/online/cb4474en.html.
[3] FAOSTAT. Data. Trade Indices. https://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/#data/TI (Accessed on 12 August 2022).
[4] USDA. Production, Supply and Distribution. FAS.
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/
app/downloads.
[5] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The aggression of the
Russian Federation threatens hundreds of millions of
people around the world with famine.
https://www.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/220250.html.

10
(Accessed on 30 June 2022).
[6] Martin-Shields, C., Stojetz, W., 2018. Food security
and conflict. Empirical challenges and future op-
portunities for research and policy making on food
security and conflict. FAO Agricultural Development
Economics. Working Paper. 18-04. Rome, FAO. pp.
42. https://www.fao.org/3/ca1587en/ca1587en.pdf.
[7] Ben Hassen, T., El Bilali, H., 2022. Impacts of the
Russia-Ukraine War on Global Food Security: To-
wards More Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems?
Foods. 11(15), 2301.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152301
[8] FAO, 2017. Guidelines for the compilation of Food
Balance Sheets. Rome. Available online: https://
www.fao.org/3/ca6404en/ca6404en.pdf. (Accessed
on 22 June 2022)
[9] FAO, 2001. Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
X9892E/X9892E00.HTM. (Accessed on 30 June
2022)
[10] USDA Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS),
2016. Food Availability Documentation of the Food
Availability (Per Capita) Data System. Available
online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
food-availability-per-capita-data-system/food-avail-
ability-documentation/. (Accessed on 22 June 2022)
[11] USDA Office of the Chief Economist (USDA-OCE),
undated. How the WASDE is Prepared. Available on-
line: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity-markets/
wasde/faqs#sources (Accessed on 22 June 2022).
[12] European Commission, 2018. Crop balances. Hand-
book. The European Statistical System Committee.
Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/
metadata/Annexes/apro_cbs_esms_an1.pdf.
[13] Shubravska, O., 2021. Specialization of the agri-food
export of Ukraine: trends, drivers, prospects. Econo-
my of Ukraine. 4, 51-67. (in Ukrainian)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2021.04.051
[14] Nenci, S., 2020. Mapping global value chain (GVC)
participation, positioning and vertical specialization
in agriculture and food. Technical note for The State
of Agricultural Commodity Markets – Background
paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Mar-
kets (SOCO) Rome, FAO.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0850en
[15] State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2015-2020. Table
Input˗Output of Ukraine at basic prices. Available
online: https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/opera-
tiv2021/vvp/kvartal_new/tvv_oc/arh_tvv_oc_u.html.
(Accessed on 11 July 2022).
[16] FAO, 2022. Assessing Investment Needs in Ukraine’s
Agricultural Reconstruction and Recovery. Available
online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb9450en/cb9450en.
pdf. (Accessed on 17 May 2022).
[17] KSE, 2022. Agricultural war damages review
Ukraine. Rapid Damage Assessment. Available on-
line: https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/
Damages_report_issue1-1.pdf.
[18] KSE, 2022. Agricultural war losses review Ukraine.
Rapid Loss Assessment. Available online: https://
kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Losses_report_
issue1.pdf.
[19] AMIS, 2022. Webinar: What will happen to
Ukrainian grains? Gorbachov N., Ukrainian Grain
Association. Presentation. Available online: http://
www.amis-outlook.org/fileadmin/user_upload/amis/
docs/AMIS_webinar_on_Ukraine_grains/AMIS_we-
binar_July_2022_UGA_Gorbachov.pdf.
[20] Cramon-Taubadel von, S., 2022. The Russian in-
vasion of Ukraine reminds us that agriculture and
agricultural policy have global and geostrategic
dimensions. Agrar Debatten. Available online:
https://agrardebatten.de/agrarzukunft/russias-in-
vasion-of-ukraine-implications-for-grain-mar-
kets-and-food-security/. (Accessed on 19 May 2022)
[21] United States Department of Agriculture, 2022.
Grain: World Markets and Trade. Foreign Agricul-
tural Service. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.
gov/psdonline/circulars/grain.pdf. (Accessed on 24
August 2022)
[22] Ministry of energy and environment protection of
Ukraine, 2022. National report on the state of the en-
vironment in Ukraine in 2020. (in Ukrainian) Avail-
able online: https://mepr.gov.ua/news/38840.html.
[23] Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., et
al., 2020. Innovation can accelerate the transition
towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food. 1,
266-272. Available online: https://eprints.whiterose.
ac.uk/163942/7/NATFOOD19080212%20%20Per-
spectives%20SI%20NF%20final%20accepted%20
version%20v2.pdf.
[24] Lang, T., Barling, D., 2012. Food security and food
sustainability: reformulating the debate. The Geo-
graphical Journal. 178(4), 313-326.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00480.x
[25] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 2022. Decree of the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of January 19, 2022
No. 70-р “On approval of the Concept of the State-
wide target program for the use and protection of
land”. (in Ukrainian). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/
show/70-2022-%D1%80?lang=en#Text
[26] АgroVobu, 2022. Methodological recommendations

11
on the optimal ratio of agricultural crops in crop rota-
tions of different soil and climatic zones of Ukraine.
(in Ukrainian) Available online: http://agro.vobu.
ua/1094. (Accessed on 24 June 2022)
[27] Shubravska, O., Prokopenko, K., 2022. Ensuring
food security of Ukraine: post-war context. Economy
of Ukraine. 7. 21-42. (in Ukrainian).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2022.07.021
[28] Slovo, I.D., 2022. How the population of Ukraine
will decrease due to the war - a forecast of a so-
ciologist. (in Ukrainian). Available online: https://
www.slovoidilo.ua/2022/06/07/novyna/suspilstvo/
yak-skorotytsya-chyselnist-naselennya-ukray-
iny-cherez-vijnu-prohnoz-soczioloha. (Accessed on
12 August 2022)
[29] Government of Ukraine, 2022. Draft Ukraine Re-
covery Plan. Materials of the “New agrarian policy”.
The National Council for the Recovery of Ukraine
from the Consequences of the War. Available online:
https://www.kmu.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/recov-
eryrada/eng/new-agrarian-policy-eng.pdf.

12
https://ojs.nassg.org/index.php/rwae
Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published by NanYang Academy of Sciences Pte. Ltd. This is an open access article under the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
*Corresponding Author:
Denbela Hidosa,
Livestock Research Directorate, Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia,
Email: denbelahidosa@gmail.com
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.694
Received: 31August 2022; Received in revised form: 21 October 2022; Accepted: 28 October 2022; Published: 31 October 2022
Citation: Hidosa, D., Adicha, A., Sultan, M., 2022. Production and Commercialization Status of Improved Panicum
Grass Cultivation in the Lowland Livestock Production System of South Omo South-Western Ethiopia. Research on
World Agricultural Economy. 3(4), 694. http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.694
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Production and Commercialization Status of Improved Panicum
Grass Cultivation in the Lowland Livestock Production System of
South Omo South-Western Ethiopia
Denbela Hidosa1*
Asmera Adicha2
Muhaba Sultan3
1. Livestock Research Directorate, Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
2. Socio Economic and Gender Research Directorate, Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
3. Natural Resource Research Directorate, Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
Abstract: Lack of information on the production and commercialization status of improved Panicum grass is one of
the major livestock production impediments in South Omo. The improved Panicum grass is a perennial grass species
used throughout the tropics for livestock feeding. Therefore, the present study was conducted to understand the seed and
hay production status and the economic visibility of improved Panicum grass cultivation. The face-to-face interviews
were conducted with improved Panicum grass producers. The quantitative data, such as the number of bales and seeds
produced, and the qualitative data, such as agro-pastoralists perceptions, were analyzed using simple descriptive
statistics and the Likert scale. The results revealed that the seed yield and herbage productivity after seed harvest were
2.5 quintals and 788 bales per hectare per cut, respectively. The average income generated from the sale of herbage and
seed of Panicum grass was 325,350 ETB and 442,500 ETB per hectare per year, respectively. Based on the results, the
authors concluded that joint efforts are needed to step the agro-pastoralists out of the poverty vicious cycle by promoting
wide-scale improved Panicum grass production by linking products to market sources in addition to legumePanicum
grass-based cattle and goat fattening intervention..
Keywords: Agro-pastoralists perception; Economic visibility; Herbage Panicum grass; Seed

13
1. Introduction
Ethiopia has about 70 million cattle, 42.9 million
sheep, 52.5 million goats, 8.1 million camels, 2.15 mil-
lion horses, 10.8 million donkeys, 0.38 million mules, and
57 million chickens [1]
. Livestock herds have provided
food, power for crop production, transportation, organic
fertilizer, a source of biofuel, security in times of crop
failure, and a means of wealth accumulation to 3.85 mil-
lion rural households in the highland and 7.15 million
rural households in the lowland [2,3]
. Similarly, in South
Omo’s lowland areas, livestock production has played
an important role in providing quality foods (milk, meat
and egg), sources of cash income, social insurance, and
esteem [4-7]
. However, the livestock production system is
characterized by a low-input/low-output system and the
productivity, which refers to the ability of the animals
grown to produce economic outputs such as livestock
products and by-products, is generally very low [6]
. This
is due to poor livestock feed quality and quantity, a lack
of improved forage production practices, and as a result,
herders rely entirely on natural pasture, which is unable
to meet the nutrient requirements of livestock to obtain
required production from the livestock. Moreover, in the
study area, improved forage seed production and supply
systems are found to be critical for livestock production
due to prevailing of high improved forage seed prices, that
makes inaccessible to livestock keepers and, as a result,
improved forage production is poorly adapted by livestock
keepers. Cognizant of this state of affairs, during the last
several years, Jinka Agricultural Research Center (JARC)
has been carrying out an adaptability study on different
improved forage species by using irrigation and an array
of potential grass, legume, and browse trees of improved
forage species were recommended for South Omo agro-
ecologies. The selected improved forage species have
shown better herbage yield and quality than those in the
naturally occurring rage-forage grasses. The improved
Panicum grass is among the adapted and recommended
improved forages for South Omo agro-ecologies and is
used throughout the tropics for livestock feeding inform
of pasture, cut-and-carry, silage, and hay making [8]
. Pani-
cum grass has a global average dry matter yield of 2,000
bales per hectare per year [9]
, which can vary depending
on the species and variety, fertilizer application, and farm
management practices. Thus, the studies reported from the
research station of South Omo [10,11]
have shown that the
Panicum grass yields about 1,000 bales per hectare per cut
without fertilizer in rain-fed conditions and 1200 bales per
hectare per cut in irrigated conditions, respectively. How-
ever, its dry matter yield was reported at up to 2,800 bales
per hectare in nitrogen-fertilized conditions [12]
. Moreover,
grass is generally preferable to supplement with sources
of protein to improve animal performance due to the fact
that it is well eaten by all classes of grazing livestock, par-
ticularly high intakes of young leafy plants stages. It is re-
ported that the cows grazing on improved Panicum grass
yield 10 kg to 12 kg of milk per day. The other feeding
trial conducted on goats showed that goats supplemented
with improved Panicum grass give better results when it
is complemented with a legume-based or concentrate diet.
Also, improved Panicum grass is a fast-growing and bulky
grass that helps prevent soil erosion since it provides rapid
ground cover when it is well managed. However, with this
notable potential, the improved Panicum grass seed and
hay production and commercialization status, and agro-
pastoralists’ perception level are not well documented in
the study area due to the scarcity of surplus viable seed,
the limited knowledge and capability of agro-pastoralists,
and the poor extension services delivered by the govern-
ment in the study area [13]
. In recent years, a few NGOs
in the Dasenech district have been trying to multiply and
produce small-scale seeds by mobilizing agro-pastoral
communities in groups, but they have not able to satisfy
the voracious demand for improved Panicum grass seed
and hay, which has continued forward at country level.
It is hoped that by understanding how agro-pastoralists
perceive the Panicum grass seed and hay production and
commercialization approaches and linking products (seed
and hay) to market sources will transform poor agro-
pastoralists into productive and prosperous livelihoods.
Therefore, the present study was initiated (1) to under-
stand the production and commercialization status and
agro-pastoralists’ perception on improved Panicum grass
seed and hay production and (2) to understand the eco-
nomic visibility of improved Panicum grass seed and hay
production under agro-pastoralists managed system.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Descriptions of the Trial Location
The study was conducted in Alkatakech Kebele (Ad-
ministrative-subunit) of the Dasenech district of South
Omo. It is located in the Omo River basin, south of the
Omo River, not more than 500 meters from the Omo Rate,
the capital city of Dasenech district, and 200 kilometers
from Jinka, the capital city of South Omo. The site is
situated at 5°14’ N latitude, 36°44’ E longitude, and has
a temperature range of 25 °C ~ 40 °C. The altitude of the
study site is 350 m and rainfall ranges from 350 mm to
600 mm with a bimodal rainfall type in an erratic distribu-
tion [14]
. The majority of economic activity that has pre-

14
vailed in the study area is low-input/low-output livestock
and small-scale sorghum, maize, and banana production
using small-scale irrigation from the Omo River. The ma-
jor indigenous livestock species that have been kept in the
study area are cattle, sheep, and goats [13]
.
2.2 Agro-pastoral Selection
Based on irrigation facility and agro-pastoralist inter-
est in producing Panicum grass seed and hay for livestock
feeding and commercialization purpose, JARC established
one improved Panicum grass seed and hay producing
pastoral and agro-pastoral research and extension group
(PAREG), which consisted of about 41 agro-pastoralist
members from Alketekech Kebele in collaboration with
the Dasenech district of Livestock and Fisher Develop-
ment Office.
2.3 Site Selection and Planting
Each household (HH) in a group received 0.25 ha of
communal land, and a total of 10.25 ha of land per group
was plowed, disked, harrowed, and ridged using tractors
and corrected by laborers donated by PAPREGs members.
Panicum grass seed was purchased from the local market
and sown by drilling with a seeding rate of 15 kg/ha at a
30 cm interval between rows [18]
.
2.4 Trial Site Management
Appropriate site management activities such as weed-
ing, irrigating, hoeing, and monitoring were conducted.
The trial farm was kept nearly weed-free by using PA-
PREG. Family members and trial agro-pastoralists kept
the trial site free of animals and rodents. The regular
monitoring of the trial site was held at different times by
researchers and experts.
2.5 Seed and Hay Harvesting
The hand-harvesting method was used, and grass seed
heads were mowed with sickles, bound and stoked in
the field, then collected for threshing after drying in the
shade. Then the heads of grass were beaten with sticks
and hands, roughly sieved, and then sun-dried. The inert
matter and damaged seed from harvested seed threshed
and dried materials were cleaned by hand to ensure good
seed quality. Finally, at the end of processing, the threshed
seed was packed and sealed in locally available containers
(jars) and stored in ventilated rooms until sold to the local
market. Regarding haymaking, after seed harvest for those
interested in hay production, the grass was cut and laid
out in the sun under shade, raked a few times, and turned
regularly to hasten its drying and then dried grass was
raked and baled.
2.6 Technology Promotion
At mid-term grass production, a field day was organ-
ized for agro-pastoralists, administrative bodies, experts,
and other stakeholders and participants to compare the
introduced technological options with existing practices.
The posters, banners, and other promotional materials
were displayed to participants during the field day pro-
gram. The discussion was held among the stakeholders
on the way forward, and some additional roles might be
identified, and roles and responsibilities were shared for
the next contributions along the value chain of grass hay
production and commercialization.
2.7 Data Collection
Data on agro-pastorals’ perceptions of improved Pani-
cum grass production, amount of bale and seed produced,
harvesting frequency, the selling price of a bale, and the
economic visibility of Panicum grass production were col-
lected by using face-to-face interviews from the total of
were 41 respondents (16 males and 25 females).
2.8 Method of Data Analysis
Quantitative data such as the amount of bales and seed
produced and qualitative data such as agro-pastoralists’
perceptions were analyzed using simple descriptive statis-
tics (percentage and mean) and the Likert scale. A benefit
and cost ratio was used to analyze the cost of production
and net income from Panicum grass production.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Trial Agro-
pastoralists
The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
of trial agro-pastoralists in the study area are presented
in Table 1. The result on demographic characteristics re-
vealed that the majority (60.97%) of interviewed Panicum
grass growers were female-headed, while about 39.02%
were male-headed. It is obvious that in pastoral areas of
Ethiopia, the females are more involved in agricultural
activities like planting, weeding, harvesting, and thresh-
ing than the males, aside from household routine activities
such as preparing dishes, clearing the house and barn, car-
ing for children, and fetching water and firewood. This is
because, culturally, males were paid more dowries during
marriage time for females’ families, and thus, they were
considered slaves, allowing females to be more involved
in agricultural activities than males. They reported that
most of the time, males were involved in preparing land

15
and herding cattle rather than planting, weeding, and
harvesting. Similarly, the studies reported by Hidosa and
Ayele [15]
and Zelalem et al. [6]
from the pastoral and agro-
pastoral areas of Hamer and Bena-Tsemay districts have
shown that most of the time, females were involved in
agricultural activities like planting, weeding, and harvest-
ing, in addition to house routine activities, while males
herded cattle. Meanwhile, the study reported by Worku
and Lisanework [16]
elucidated that young males are in-
volved in herding cattle to distant places, especially to an
island (Desset) in the Dasenech district of South Omo,
while females are involved in crop farming activities us-
ing small irrigation systems adjacent to residential areas
in addition to household routine activities. The minimum
family size of agro-pastoralists who were involved in
Panicum grass production was 3, and the maximum was
9, and the average was 6. The overall average family size
from the present study was lower than the reported value
of 9.65 persons by Demerew et al. [4]
for the Malle district
of South Omo and 10 persons for Borana pastoralists by
Zekarias [17]
, but it was similar to the reported value of
6.19 persons for agro-pastoralists of the Bena-Tsemay
district of South Omo by Zelalem et al. [6]
. Regarding ex-
perience in Panicum grass production, the findings of this
study indicated that the minimum year of experience for
agro-pastorals who have been involved in Panicum grass
production was one year, while the maximum was seven
years, and on average about three years. The finding on
Panicum grass production experience from this study im-
plies that agro-pastoralists are not new to improve Pani-
cum grass production, but that successful production and
getting benefit from the production might depend on the
provision of training. Less experienced agro-pastoralists
are expected to have less access to Panicum grass seed
and hay production and marketing information. Similarly,
the study reported by Gebreegziabher and Tsegay [18]
in-
dicated that more experienced farmers adopted forage
production practices more quickly than less experienced
ones. The maximum number of family members involved
in Panicum grass production in the study area was 5 peo-
ple, while the minimum was 2 people, and the average
was 3.22 people. The involvement of family members in
Panicum production is important to implement different
farm management operations like irrigating, weeding, and
harvesting to share among them. The involvement of fam-
ily members in Panicum grass production is also impor-
tant to create more job opportunities for jobless household
members and thus generate income and reduce jobless
family members, thereby improving their means of liveli-
hood.
As indicated in Figure 1, the majority of the agro-pas-
toralists who were involved in Panicum grass production
were illiterate (61.1%), about 16.1% had acquired pri-
mary education, and very few (11.1%) had learned grade
5-8 and above grade 8 (11.1%). The studies reported by
Zelalem et al. [6]
and Demerew et al. [4]
have shown that
about 66% and 12% of agro-pastoralists of Bena-Tsemay,
and 68.3% and 11% of agro-pastoralists of Malle dis-
tricts who are involved in cattle production were illiterate
and acquired primary school (Grade 1-4th
), respectively,
which was relatively in agreement with the results from
our study. However, the results from this study were not
in line with the previously reported values of 41.7% by
Tollossa et al. [19]
for Borana pastoralists who had attended
formal education (1-4th
grade) and 83.88% by Hidosa and
Ayele [15]
for Hamer pastoralists who were illiterate, i.e.,
unable to read and write.
3.2 Reason for Improved Panicum Grass Production
The important attribute factors that have motivated
agro-pastoralists to improve Panicum grass production
in the study area are presented in Table 2. According to
agro-pastoralists, livestock feed shortages are an impor-
tant factor that has motivated them to get involved in
improving Panicum grass production. Accordingly, about
51.23% of agro-pastoralists replied that for the last 10
years they have faced a livestock feed shortage, but cur-
Table 1. Demographic and Socioeconomic characteristics of sample respondents
Characteristics of respondents Frequency Percent
Sex Male 16 39.02
Female 25 60.97
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev
Age of household 25 50 35.72 7.98
Family size 3 9 6.22 1.96
Experience in Panicum grass production (year) 1 7 3.44 1.82
Family number engaged in Panicum grass production 2 5 3.22 1.06
Source: Own survey, 2022

16
rently they have solved this by starting the production of
improved Panicum grass in their backyard and feeding it
by cut and carry system. In addition, they were reported
that agro-pastoralists involved in Panicum grass produc-
tion because they were trained by researchers from the
JARC and experts from the Dasenech district of Livestock
and Fisher Development Office (DDLFDO) and obtained
improved Panicum grass seed freely from these organiza-
tions. During the focus group discussion with them, they
mentioned that there were a lot of cattle that died this year
in nearby Kebeles who were not involved in Panicum
grass planting as we did due to the lack of rainfall in the
last three consecutive years as result of climate change.
On the other hand, about 36.58% of respondents reported
that they did not observe livestock feed shortages because
they were recently solved by planting Panicum grass, and
very few agro-pastoralists (12.19%) replied that livestock
feed shortages occurred sometimes. Similarly, the study
reported by Getaneh et al. [13]
indicated that livestock feed
shortages in the Dasenech district were severe problems,
especially between January and March due to a lack of
awareness of improved forage species except that very
few agro-pastoralists were involved in Panicum grass
production. As it is indicated in Table 2, all respondents
(100%) have replied that they have participated in the
growing of improved Panicum grass due to an improve-
ment in awareness of the importance of improved Pani-
cum grass. They mentioned that the improved Panicum
grass production is important because they sell seed and
hay on the local market and buy grains like maize and
sorghum to fulfill the food requirements of their family
members, besides feeding their cattle, sheep, and goats by
the cut and carry system. Similarly, the study reported by
Mengistu et al. [20]
indicated that farmers of the Damota
Gale district of Wolaita Zone have produced improved
forages as a source of cash, for use as feed, for soil ero-
sion control, or two or more of these functions. Regard-
ing the benefits of growing Panicum grass, the majority
(92.68%) of respondents reported that the benefits of
growing improved Panicum grass were highly improving;
while very few (7.32%) reported that benefits obtained
were slowly improving. This implies that the majority of
respondents realized the importance of growing Panicum
grass as their main livelihood improvement activity in
the study areas. The high improvement in the growth of
Panicum grass is due to growers’ having received training
on planting methods, irrigating schemes, harvesting time,
conservation methods, hay-making practices, and ways of
utilization. The studies reported by Gebreegziabher and
Tsegay [18]
and Dejene et al. [21]
have indicated that about
74.5% and 66.7% of farmers participated in improved
forage production in highland areas of Ethiopia due to an
improvement in awareness of the importance of improved
forage production, respectively.
pastoralists who had attended formal education (1-4th
grade) and 83.88% by Hidosa and Ayele [15]
for Hamer pastoralists who were illiterate, i.e., unable to read and write.
Figure 1. Map of study Area
3.2 Reason for Improved Panicum Grass Production
The important attribute factors that have motivated agro-pastoralists to improve Panicum
grass production in the study area are presented in Table 2. According to agro-pastoralists,
livestock feed shortages are an important factor that has motivated them to get involved in
improving Panicum grass production. Accordingly, about 51.23% of agro-pastoralists replied
that for the last 10 years they have faced a livestock feed shortage, but currently they have solved
this by starting the production of improved Panicum grass in their backyard and feeding it by cut
and carry system. In addition, they were reported that agro-pastoralists involved in Panicum
grass production because they were trained by researchers from the JARC and experts from the
Dasenech district of Livestock and Fisher Development Office (DDLFDO) and obtained
improved Panicum grass seed freely from these organizations. During the focus group discussion
with them, they mentioned that there were a lot of cattle that died this year in nearby Kebeles
Figure 1. Map of study Area

17
Table 2. The attribute factors that have motivated agro-
pastoralists in improved Panicum grass production
Attributes Respondents response Freq Percent
Feed shortage • Yes it occurs often but not now 21 51.23
• Yes it occurs sometimes 5 12.19
• No, recently solved 15 36.58
Awareness
improvement in
improved forage
production
• Yes 41 100
• No 0 0
The benefit of
growing panicum
• Highly improving 38 92.68
• Slowly improving 3 7.32
Source: own survey, 2022
As indicated in Figure 2, the majority (66.67%) of
respondents of Panicum grass growers reported that they
were trained by researchers from JARC, whereas very few
(5.55%) of respondents were trained by experts from DL-
FRDO, and the remaining were trained by JARC in col-
laboration with LLRL (11.11%) and JARC in collabora-
tion with DLFRDO and LLRP (16.67%). The result from
the present study implies that in the study area, Panicum
grass growers were well trained on the improved panicum
grass production package by the different organizations.
As mentioned by DLFRDO experts during household
surveys in the study area, the different improved forage
species like Elephant grass, Sesbania, Luecunea, Lablab,
Cowpea, Rhodes, and Panicum grass were demonstrated
to agro-pastoralists by different organizations, but of
these, Panicum grass was highly adopted by agro-pasto-
ralists. The reasons for the high adoption rates of Panicum
grass by agro-pastoralists were that grass is highly pre-
ferred by their animals; it is easy to establish; it has high
herbage and seed yielding potential; it is resistant to water
and moisture stress; and there is a high demand for herb-
age and seed at the local market.
3.3 Herbage and Seed Productivity
The total amount of herbage (bales) and seed (quintals)
produced in the study area is presented in Table 3. Ac-
cording to agro-pastoralists, the seed yield and herbage
productivity after seed harvest of Panicum grass were 2.5
quintals per hectare per cut and 788 bales (11.82 tones)
per hectare per cut, respectively. Of the total herbage pro-
duced, about 964 bales were fed to their cattle by a cut
and carry system, while about 650 bales of green herbage
were gifted to their relatives who were not involved in
Panicum grass cultivation to save their cattle, goats, and
sheep during a severe drought in the study area. Moreo-
ver, agro-pastoralists reported that about 760 bales of
green herbage were exchanged with 65 goats in a barter-
ing system, and about 1,566 bales of green herbage were
sold both at the farm gate and local market and purchased
grains and covered the food requirements of family mem-
bers. The results obtained from the present study were
lower than the reported values of 1000 and 1200 bales by
Denbela [10]
and Hidosa et al. [11]
for improved Panicum
grass cultivated in rain-fed and irrigated conditions, re-
spectively. The result of seed yield from the present study
was lower than the reported values of 3.1 quintals per hec-
tare by Hassen [22]
and 4.71 quintals per hectare by Zeleke
et al. [23]
for Panicum antidotale grass from the Afambo
and Amibara districts of the Afar region, respectively.
61.10%
16.80%
11.10%
11.10%
Illiterate
Grade1-4
Grade5-8
>Above grade8
Figure 2. Education status of improved Panicum grass producer house hold

18
Table 3. Amount of improved Panicum herbage and seed
produced and utilized by agro-pastoralists in irrigated
lowland of Dasenech district under agro-pastoral manage-
ment system
Seed(Quintal)/ha/cut 2.5
Herbage (Bale)/ha/cut 788
Amount of herbage consumed/HH/year
• Own cattle(Bale) 964
• Gifted (Bale) 650
• Bartering(Bale) 760
• Sold at the farm gate(Bale) 1,566
3.4 Herbage Utilization Way
The Panicum grass herbage utilization practices after
seed harvest are indicated in Figure 3. As indicated in
Figure 3, the majority (49.3%) of respondents replied that
they fed their cattle, goats, and sheep and sold green herb-
age at the farm gate, while about 20.90% of respondents
fed their cattle, sheep, and goats by cut and carry system.
On the other hand, about 23% of respondents replied that
they used herbage as a direct feed to cattle, sheep, and
goats by cut & carry system, haymaking for their cat-
tle, and selling green herbage in the farm market, while
very few agro-pastoralists (6.8%) reported that they sold
fresh herbage on the farm. Similar to the current study’s
findings, Zereu and Lijalem [24]
found that approximately
98.4% and 75.6% of farmers in the Wolaita zone’s mid-
land and lowland agro-ecologies used improved forage by
cut and carry systems, respectively. Moreover, the study
reported by Tolera [25]
stated that cultivated forages are
mainly important as cut-and-carry sources of feed and as
a supplement to crop residues and natural pastures, which
was concurrent with the result of this study.
3.5 Seed and Herbage Harvesting Frequency
According to agro-pastoralists, the average improved
Panicum grass seed harvesting day in the study area was
between 50 and 60 days. They mentioned that if their farm
was irrigated with enough water every week, the seed was
harvested 50 days after planting, while if the farm was not
irrigated with enough water every week, the seed harvest-
ing days were extended up to 60 days. Similarly, the seed
harvesting frequency was dependent on irrigation water
access, and as the agro-pastoralists, the minimum Panicum
grass harvesting frequency was 4 times, the maximum was
6 times, and the average was 5 times per year for seed pro-
duction. Similarly, the study reported by Zeleke et al. [23]
indicated that the improved Panicum antidotale grass was
harvested 61 days after planting for seed. The result of
this study was lower than that reported 7 times per year
by Zeleke et al. [23]
from the Amibara district of the Afar
region, Ethiopia. Concerning the harvesting frequency of
improved Panicum grass for herbage production, agro-
pastoralists reported that at 45 days, improved Panicum
grass bloomed up to 50% and it was ready to feed animals
by cut and carry system. The study reported by Denbela [10]
indicated that improved Panicum grass bloomed up to
50% at 78 days after planting under rain-fed conditions,
which was longer than what agro-pastoralists reported in
the present study. This study’s inconsistent results on seed
harvesting date and frequency when compared to previ-
ous studies are due to soil variability, weather conditions,
species difference, or management practices. Forage yield
and yield-related agronomic parameters may vary due to
66.67%
5.55%
11.11%
16.67% JARC
LLRP
DLFRDO
JARC+LLRP
Figure 3. Training delivery organizations on improved Panicum grass production packages

19
differences in soil parameters, harvesting age, irrigation
effect, management, and agro-ecological differences [5,26,27]
.
3.6 Income from Panicum Grass Production
The income generated from improved Panicum grass
production (seed and herbage) is presented in Table 4. Ac-
cording to agro-pastoralists, the average price of herbage
(bale) was 90 ETB, whereas the minimum and maximum
prices of bale were 80 ETB and 100 ETB, respectively.
The mean price of improved Panicum seed per kg was
300 ETB, whereas the minimum and maximum prices
per kg were 250 ETB and 350 ETB. Based on the result,
the minimum and maximum bales produced per cut per
hectare were 650 and 926 bales, respectively with aver-
age 788 bales (Table 4). The average income generated
by households per year per hectare from the sale of fresh
herbage and seed was 325,350 ETB and 442,500 ETB,
respectively, and the mean total income of 767,850 ETB.
The high incomes were a major driver of the development
of forage production for sale and animal feeding in the
study area. For instance, by cultivating improved Panicum
grass for sale in local markets, small-scale irrigated Pani-
cum grass production is viable as a cash crop. It has been
determined that irrigated Panicum grass production is eco-
nomically competitive with other crops based on frequent
harvesting with promising herbage yield, quality, and on-
farm gate prices. Other advantages include increasing and
improving the productivity of farm animals in terms of
milk and meat production, meaning the amount of profit-
ability derived from the improved Panicum grass may
be greater and clear. Previous research from Vietnam,
Cambodia, and China found that improving animal feed-
ing increased the financial benefits of smallholder cattle
production systems [28-31]
. The study reported by Getnet [32]
indicated that the initiatives aimed at fodder agronomy,
value chain development, and business viability over the
long term can increase stabilized farm revenue.
3.7 Cost of Panicum Grass Production
The total cost for the production of improved Panicum
grass is described in Table 5. The Panicum grass produc-
tion cost was calculated from a face-to-face semi-struc-
tured interview of beneficiary agro-pastorals by the price
norms approved by the Jinka Agricultural Research Center
for wage employees in 2021, which have been taken into
consideration during the total cost calculation. Based on
the approved wage norm of JARC, the average cost of
production for improved Panicum grass production per
hectare per year was 114,000 ETB. Regarding the price of
land, it is not considered in the cost price calculation be-
cause the land is a free resource/value or communal in the
agro-pastoral and pastoral areas.
3.8 Net Income from Panicum Grass Production
The net income from improved Panicum grass seed and
hay production in the study area is presented in Table 6.
The mean net income per hectare per year from the sale
of green herbage and seed was 767,850 ETB by consider-
ing five harvesting frequencies per year and the required
production cost for improved Panicum grass production
was 114,000 ETB. This means that agro-pastoralists that
participated in improved Panicum grass production would
get a net income of 653,850 ETB/year. Moreover, the ben-
efit-to-cost ratio of Panicum grass production was 5.73:1,
which indicated that each household gets a benefit from
Panicum grass production nearly six times the cost of pro-
duction. This result would motivate new agro-pastoralists
to tend to participate improved Panicum grass cultivation
to realize benefits of this profitable enterprise.
Table 4. Income from improved Panicum grass herbage and seed/ha/cut/year
Attributes Min Max Mean
Harvesting frequency per year 4 6 5
Herbage/ha/cut (bale) 650 926 788
Price per bale (ETB) 80 100 90
Seed produced/ha/cut (kg) 150 350 250
Price per kg (ETB) 250 350 300
Income from the sale of herbage/HH (ETB) 234,000 416,700 325,350
Income from the sale of seed/HH (ETB) 150,000 735,000 442,500
Total income (ETB)/ha/year 384,000 1,151,700 767,850

20
Table 6. Net income from improved Panicum grass seed
and hay production/ha/year
Income and cost of production Mean (ETB)
Gross income (seed + herbage) 767,850
Cost of production (seed and herbage) 114,000
Calculated net income 653,850
Benefit: cost ratio 5.73:1
3.9 Benefit of Establishing Improved Panicum
Grass-producing Cooperative
The benefits of establishing improved Panicum grass-
producing cooperative in the study area are indicated
in Figure 4. As indicated in Figure 4, about 38.9% of
respondents replied that producing Panicum grass and be-
ing in a cooperative enables them to earn a high income,
while about 27.8% replied that being in a cooperative is
imperative to share forage cultivation practice and other
experiences. The remaining 33.3% of agro-pastoralists
said that growing Panicum grass in cooperatives gives
them access to irrigation and other new technological
options. Several empirical studies have shown that agri-
cultural cooperatives raise farm output by encouraging
the use of productivity-enhancing technological options
and thereby enhancing their collective bargaining power,
which reduces the market risks they may face. Further-
more, they provide member farmers/pastoralists with
financing options that raise productivity ceilings and are
essential for the distribution of agricultural products like
chemical fertilizers, seeds, and other inputs [33-36]
.
Table 5. Cost of Panicum grass production per household per hectare per year
Items Measurements Amount Price/ETB Total cost Remark
Panicum Seed Kg 15 300 4,500
Land clearing Person/day 30 100 3,000
Land preparation Person/day 20 100 2,000
Planting Person/day 20 100 2,000
Irrigating Round 104 100 ETB*8person*104 83,200 Irrigation frequency per ha
1st
wedding Person/day 20 100 2,000
2nd
weeding Person/day 20 100 2,000
Herbage harvesting Person/day 20 100 2,000
Haymaking Person/day 20 100 2,000 For tedding and baling
Seed harvesting Person/day 20 100 2,000
Seed threshing Person/day 66 100 6,600 Drying and packing
Seed cleaning Person/day 27 100 2,700
Total 114,000 Per year
20.9%
6.8%
49.3%
23%
Cut& carry system
Sold in field
Cut &carry,&sold in field
Cut and carry, hay& sold in field
Figure 4. Utilization ways of herbage of Panicum grass after seed harvesting

21
3.10 Agro-pastoral Perception on Panicum Grass
Production
Table 7 shows agro-pastoralists’ perceptions of im-
proved Panicum grass production. About 87.8% of agro-
pastoralists appraised the establishment potential of Pani-
cum grass as very good, while about 12.5% appraised it
as good compared to locally grown Panicum grass. They
stated that improved Panicum grass was easily established
within 4-5 days after planting, while their local Panicum
takes a week and requires high soil moisture. Regarding
early maturity, all agro-pastoralists reported that improved
Panicum grass was early mature for seed production as
compared to local grass, which took a long time to reach
its maturity for seed production. They mentioned that
improved Panicum grass had reached its maturity for
seed harvesting within 50~60 days after planting, but lo-
100
0
38.9
27.8 33.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
y
e
s
n
o
h
i
g
h
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
w
o
r
k
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
&
i
d
e
a
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
&
o
t
h
e
r
…
Percent
Member of cooperative
Benefit of engaging in cooperative
Figure 5. Benefit of engaging in cooperation during Panicum grass production
Table 7. Summary of agro-pastoralists’ perception of improved Panicum grass
Characteristics of variety Rate of scale (0= poor, 0.5=good, 1= very good)
Very good good Poor
N % N % N %
Ease of establishment 36 87.8 5 12.2 0 0
Early maturity 41 100 0 0 0 0
Resistance to stress 34 82.9 5 12.2 2 4.8
Biomass yield 41 100 0 0 0 0
Dual purpose 41 100 0 0 0 0
Repeated harvest 41 100 0 0 0 0
Leaf-to-stem ratio 41 100 0 0 0 0
Intake by animals 41 100 0 0 0 0
Seed yield 41 100 0 0 0 0
Marketability 41 100 0 0 0 0

22
cal Panicum grass lasted for 3~4 months. Similarly, the
study reported by Zeleke et al. [23]
from Amibara district
of Afar has elucidated that agro-pastoralists preferred
the improved Panicum grass over Rhodes and C. cilaria
grass due to higher establishment potential, the number of
multiple harvests per year, and high seed yielding poten-
tial. About 82.9%, 12.2%, and 4.8% of agro-pastoralists
reported that improved Panicum grass was very resist-
ant, resistant, and poorly resistant to different stresses,
respectively, as compared to the local one. They replied
that the improved Panicum grass was resistant to water,
nutrient, and disease/pest stresses by stating that Panicum
grass stays alive for up to a year in soil with less mois-
ture, while local Panicum grass easily vanishes after 2~3
months when exposed to moisture stress. Similarly, Has-
sen [22]
reported that agro-pastoralists who were involved
in improving forage production ranked Panicum anti-
dotale grass first rather than Rhodes and C. ciliaris grasses
because it stayed green and vigorously for a longer period
without water. Moreover, all the agro-pastoralists (100%)
perceive the improved Panicum grass as dual-purpose
(seed and herbage) with repeated harvesting as compared
to local Panicum grass species. They highly preferred im-
proved Panicum grass over local ones because the former
provided seed as well as quality herbage after seed har-
vest, which was used as a source of feed for cattle, sheep,
and goats. In support of the results from the present study,
the studies reported by Hassen [22]
and Abdullah et al. [37]
have shown that the cultivation of perennial forage crops
like Panicum antidotale grass provides the farmers with
available year-round feed sources for meeting the nutri-
tional requirements of the animals. They also mentioned
that high herbage production of improved grass with re-
peated harvest about five times per year is used as a source
of income for agro-pastoralists. Similarly, all agro-pas-
toralists agreed that improved Panicum grass has a high
leaf-to-stem ratio and is highly preferred by cattle, goats,
and sheep as compared to local Panicum grass. They were
raised to an astonishing idea by stating that the herbage of
improved Panicum grass is very soft and highly preferred
by their animals, while the local Panicum grass has high
stems rather than leafy, which leads to blood in the mouth
and lips of their animals. Correspondingly, a study report-
ed by Hassen [22]
indicated that agro-pastoralists preferred
the Panicum antidotale grass over Rhodes and C. ciliaris
grasses due to its high performance in terms of herbage
yield and palatability by livestock species. Moreover, the
results from the present study were in line with Amakirin
et al. [38]
, who reported that high-value fodder crops like
Panicum grass are vastly preferable by Nigerian farmers
as dry season supplementary feeding.
Figure 6. Small-scale cluster based improved Panicum
grass cultivation in Alketekech Kebele of Dasenech dis-
trict
4. Conclusions
The results from this study revealed that improved
Panicum grass production has highly improved agro-pas-
toralists’ livelihoods through income generation by selling
green herbage and seed. Each agro-pastoralist who has in-
volved in improved Panicum grass production is now able
to feed their cattle, sheep, and goats; gifted fresh biomass
to their relatives; and exchange green herbage with goats
by using a bartering system. The mean net income per
household from the sale of green herbage and seed was
653,850 ETB per hectare per year. Based on the results,
we concluded that joint efforts are needed to step-up the
agro-pastoralists out of the poverty vicious circle through
promoting wide-scale improved Panicum grass seed and
herbage production and a commercialization approach
by linking products to market sources to transform agro-
pastoralists into productive and prosperous livelihoods.
Moreover, we have concluded that agro-pastoralists
should be involved in cattle and goat fattening practices
by using a mixture of legume-improved Panicum grass-
based feeding systems to enhance their income besides the
sale of seed and green herbage.
Author Contributions
Mr. Denbela H. prepared the proposal, secured the
funds, conducted research, collected data, and wrote and
edited the whole paper. Mr. Asmera A. participated in data
collection, analysis, drafting, and formatting the paper ac-
cording to journal protocol. Mr. Muhaba S. participated in
land securing, preparing, planting, and monitoring activi-
ties.

23
Funding
This research activity was conducted funds from the
International Development Association (IDA) and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
through the Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project
(LLRP) to improve livestock feed and feeding systems in
South Omo and to enhance resilience in pastoral areas of
Ethiopia.
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted with funds from the Inter-
national Development Association (IDA) and the Interna-
tional Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) through
the Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) of the
Regional Bureau of Pastorals in Southern Nation, Nation-
ality and People Regional State for the enhancement of
pastoral livelihoods in the South Omo. We are extremely
thankful to the LLRP experts in Hawassa and the South
Omo LLRP coordinating office for collaboration in on-
time budget release and other logistic support. Finally, we
are grateful to acknowledge Dassench Woreda Livestock
and Fisheries and Water and irrigation Offices, develop-
mental agents, and agro-pastoralists for their participation
and collaboration during this study.
Data availability
All data are available in the main text or in the support-
ing materials, and raw data can be obtained from the cor-
responding author upon request.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Central Statistical Agency, 2021. Agricultural sample
survey 2020/2021. Report on livestock and livestock
characteristics (private peasant holdings). Statistical
bulletin. Addis Ababa 1–199.
[2] Didanna, H.L., 2015. The contribution of livestock
in meeting food production and nutrition in Ethiopia.
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 21-45.
[3] Shapiro, B.I., Gebru, G., Desta, S., et al., 2017. Ethi-
opia livestock sector analysis: A 15 year livestock
sector strategy. ILRI Project Report.
[4] Demerew, G., Sandip, B., Mestawet, T., 2019. Hus-
bandry and breeding practices of Malle Cattle reared
in Malle District South Omo Zone of Southwest
Ethiopia. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advanc-
es. 18(12), 323-338.
[5] Denbela, H., Shanachew, H., Joseph, O., 2020. Goat
Feed Inventory and Feed Balance in Hamer and Be-
na-TsemayWoreda of South Omo Zone, South West-
ern Ethiopia. Acta Scientific Veterinary Sciences.
2(6), 28-43.
[6] Adane, Z., Yemane, N., Hidosa, D., 2021. Repro-
ductive and Productive Performance of Indigenous
Cattle Breed in Bena-Tsemay District of South Omo,
South-Western Ethiopia. Journal of Fisheries & Live-
stock Production. 9, 312.
[7] Adane, Z., Yemane, N., Hidosa, D., 2021. Cattle Pro-
duction System and Breeding Practices in Bena-Tse-
may District of South Omo, South-Western Ethiopia.
International Journal of Agriculture and Biological
Sciences.
[8] Heuzé, V., Tran, G., 2020. Grape pomace. Feedi-
pedia, a Programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and
FAO.
[9] Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., et al.,
2005. Tropical Forages: an interactive selection tool.
[10] Denbela, H., 2015. Adaptation and evaluation of
Cenchrus ciliaris, Chloris gayana and Panicum col-
oratum grass species on station of Jinka Agricultural
Research Center, Jinka, Ethiopia. International Jour-
nal of Agriculture and Biosciences. 4(6), 236-239.
[11] Hidosa, D., Hitiso, W., Guyo, M., 2018. Biomass
production of different grass species available at irri-
gated lowland of Dassench Woreda in South Western
Ethiopia. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science.
46(3), 188-191.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v46i3.36313
[12] Phimmasan, H., 2005. Evaluation of tropical forages
as feeds for growing rabbits (Doctoral dissertation,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences).
[13] Getaneh, D., Mebrahtu, K., Berhane, A., 2020. As-
sessment of Livestock Production Constraints and
Technology Need Identification in Dasenech District
of South Omo Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Life Sci-
ences. 8(1), 28-39.
[14] South Omo Finance and Economic Development
Bureau, 2014. South Omo Zone, Zonal Statistical
Abstracts Jinka, Ethiopia.
[15] Hidosa, D., Ayele, B., 2015. Assessment on dairy
production, post-harvest handling and marketing sys-
tems in hamer woreda of South omo zone. Assess-
ment. 5(23).
[16] Worku, B., Lisanework, N., 2016. Pastoral percep-
tions towards livestock and rangeland management
practices in Kuraz District of south Omo zone, South
Western Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Re-
search. 6(1), 60-69.

Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022

Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022

Similaire à Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022 (20)

Plus de Bilingual Publishing Group

Plus de Bilingual Publishing Group (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Research on World Agricultural Economy | Vol.3,Iss.4 December 2022