Simultaneous Estimation of Multiple Dairy Technologies uptake
Abstract
The low productivity of the Ethiopian diary sector has been explained by the genetic potentials and management practices. Milk production and consumption largely rely on the indigenous cows. To enhance the contribution of dairy to household food security, nutrition and income, adoption of improved dairy breeds together with the component practices is indispensable. To study the adoption of the dairy technologies and the factors stimulating the choices, a cross-sectional household survey was conducted in the central and eastern Ethiopia. Results declare that the rate of adoption of improved breeds, artificial insemination and improved forage remained to be limited. The uptake of concentrate feeding is found to be relatively better. As the joint multivariate probit estimation confirmed, there is complementarity and interdependence in the uptake of improved breeds, artificial insemination, concentrate feeds and improved forages. Utilization of forage lagged behind to complement adoption of improved cows. Tobit model determination confirmed that the same factors are affecting the adoption decisions. The factors responsible for the joint adoptions, the number of cows owned and intensity of adoption include education status, household wealth, access to markets and district centers, contacts with extension and gender roles. Both the joint and individual analyses highlighted the need for strategies that could overcome the constraints and ensure better uptake of the technologies.
Keywords
Download Options
Introduction
Despite Ethiopia has high potentials for dairy development, farm productivity and consumption of milk lags behind the World and African average. Recent estimates showed that the national average daily milk yield of the indigenous cows is 1.32 liter with a lactation period of 180 days. While improved cows yield 7 liters with a lactation period of 242 days (Gebremedhin etal., 2014). Reasons of poor genetics, insufficient animal feeding and poor management practices explain the low productivity levels. Availability of feed both in quantity and quality remain to be the major impediment for livestock production and also specifically to the dairy sector. The size of land allocated for livestock grazing is minimal compared to land devoted to crop productions (Ahmed et al., 2004; Gebremedhin et al., 2009; Ayele et al., 2012). Moreover, limited availability of land and water resources and climate variability are important challenges (Godfray et al., 2010; Smith, 2013; Alemayehu et al., 2012).
Current studies indicated that there is a high supply and demand gap for fresh milk and milk products. Population growth, rising income and urbanization justify the recent growing trend of the demand for livestock products in the domestic and export markets (Delgado, 2003; Smith, 2013; Dunkan et al., 2013). Keeping pace with an increasing demand for livestock products, improving household income and reducing poverty requires revolutionizing productivity though adoption and diffusions of dairy technologies. Literatures emphasized that adoption of new technologies is promising path way to agricultural development (Baltenweck et al., 2006) or to accelerate economic growth and ensuring food security in Africa (Hazell, 2013).
Notwithstanding the availability of agricultural technologies, adoption rates in Sub-Saharan agriculture remained low (Gollin et al., 2005; Kondylis et al, 2017). In Ethiopia, several technologies of improved breeds of dairy cattle, artificial insemination, improved forages and veterinary health care have been promoted to the users (Staal et al., 2008 ; Ahmed et al., 2004; Spielman et al., 2010). However, the uptake of the technologies by the stallholder farmers proved to be minimal (Ayele etal., 2012; Duncan et al., 2013). Several scholars have tried to find out the reasons for the lower rate of adopt ion of technologies. Some farmers have better acceptance towards the disseminated technologies while others are reluctant and they maintain their status quo positions. Determination of the complementarity, extent, intensity and the factors explaining smallholders’ adoption decision is therefore crucial to suggest research and extension policies to design mechanisms that facilitate adoption of technologies.
Conclusion
Due to subsistence nature of the diary system in the country, there is limited surplus production of dairy products. High dependence on local breeds, poor feeding and health management practices contribute for low productivity of dairy cows. The source of feed for dairy is dominated by crop residues and grazing. The poor quality of crop residue and need for improvement options has been mentioned. Lack of adoption of improved forage limits the potential productivity gains of both improved and local breeds. The presence of the informal market channel in many rural areas and lack of dairy processing facilities constrained the incentives for market orientation, utilization of inputs and technologies. It hampers the potential income and livelihood prospects from the sector.
Most of farmers raised the high cost of improved cow breeds as the major restriction and lack of supply is the second reason for not adopting improved dairy breeds. The adoption of improved cows requires high capital so that more wealthy households more likely own them. Sequential and package adoption approaches are debatable in many of the literatures. Recent efforts in the study of technology adoption emphasized the complementarity and substitutability of farm practices and adoption decisions. Analysis on the joint dairy adoption decision proved the existing complementarity in the uptake of the technologies. The availability of concentrate feeds and AI services have association with the adoption of improved breed cows. The adoption of forage is not satisfactory though positive association and long established dissemination efforts by extension. The responsible factors for the adoptions include education position of the household, wealth status, extension contacts, number of years became aware of improved cows, access to the markets and district center, and women’s involvement in decision making. However, household wealth did not sufficiently explain the adoption of improved forages and concentrate feeds.
The market constraints are important for adoption decision that high transaction costs reduce the incentives of farmers’ participation and have less preference to invest in high return dairy technologies. In support of this, it is concluded that milk market participation is limiting for adoption of the dairy improved breeds. Strategies that ensure improved market access for dairy products through linkages to formal market channels, farmer institutions, dairy infrastructure, enhancing awareness, and lessening the financial burden of the poor are indispensable. Interventions need to consider specific realities for improving adoptions of dairy technologies.
