AMBO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF

BIOLOGY, ENVIROMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

Assessing the role of Traditional Land Management Practices in

Improving Cropland Productivity: the case of Diga Woreda,
Oromia
By: Tolera Megersa

A Thesis is submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Ambo University

in partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of
Science, in Environmental Science

May, 2011
Ambo

 
 
 AMBO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

Assessing the role of Traditional Land Management Practices in Improving

Cropland Productivity: the case of Diga Woreda, Oromia

By Tolera Megersa

Approved by the Examining Board:

___________________________________ __________

Chairman, Department’s Graduate Committee

_____________________________________ ________________

Advisor

______________________________________ ________________

Advisor

______________________________________ _________________

Examiner

________________________________________ ___________________

Examiner

 
 
 

Approval sheet

1. Submitted by:

______________________ _______________ ___________

(PG Candidate) (Signature) (Date)

2. Advisor

_________________________ _____________ ______________

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

3. Co-advisor

__________________________ _______________ ________________

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

4. College/Institute Dean

__________________________ _______________ _____________

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

4. Director School of Graduate studies

_____________________________ _________________ __________

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

 
 

 
 
 Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank almighty God for helping me to start and successfully
complete this work. I convey my deepest thanks to my major advisor Dr. Makuria
Argaw, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa for giving me constructive advice and guidance in preparing the
proposal, research guidance and finalizing the thesis. Without his encouragement,
suggestion and support the completion of this research work would not have been
possible.
I am also thankful to my Co-advisor Prof.Dr.P. Natarajan, Ambo University for his
comments, suggestion and guidance from the very beginning of my research wok. I
would like to express my sincere appreciation to Nile Basin Development Challenge
(NBDC) International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Addis Ababa for financial
support, evaluation of field work and technical support they rendered to my research
work.

I would like to acknowledge the employers of East Wollega Agricultural Office for the
materials, transport and computer support extended to me in my research work.
Furthermore, particularly, I am thankful to Ato Temesgen Fita, Ato Mangistu Terefe, Ato
Tekalengi Dhaba, W/r.Lensa Dhangiya and Miss. Genet Gebisa who have supported my
research in many ways.
I would like to acknowledge Diga Woreda Agricultural Office staffs who have given me
necessary data and information needed for the research work during the study area
survey. I would also like to acknowledge Ato Teshome Gemeda, Head of East Wollega
Food Security, Disaster Presentations and Preparedness Office (FSDPP) for his support in
providing me necessary transportation to transport materials and men during data
collection and field survey.

I would also like to thank the Wollegga University, particularly Ato Teshome Takele,
Ato Asfau Temesgen and Mulata Ayana who supported me in providing the internet
services. I am indeed highly indebted to my friends Ato Mesfin Kinfu, Ato Solomon
Bekalo, Tiruwork Aseffa, Kidane Yambo, Lebesu Bikila and Niguse Semaheng who gave
support to my family when I was on regular visits to fields for my data collection as well
as at Ambo University.

I am grateful to my beloved Almaz Aschalew and my son Abyi Tolera who have given
me moral support, strength and encouragement in completing my thesis on time.
 
                       

i 
 
 Table of contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i

Lists of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi

Lists of Figures ................................................................................................................. vii

Lists of Appendices.......................................................................................................... viii

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... ix

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... x

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Justification .................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................... 4

1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review............................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Concept of soil erosion .............................................................................................. 7

2.2 Approaches to soil conservation ............................................................................... 8

2.3 Soil and water conservation practices ....................................................................... 9

2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability ............................ 12

2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures .......................................... 13

2.5.1 Strip cropping........................................................................................................... 14

2.5.2 Crop rotation ............................................................................................................ 14
2.5.3. Intercropping ........................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Physical soil management Practices ........................................................................... 17

2.6.1 Conservation tillage .............................................................................................................. 18

2.6.1.1 Contour cultivation .................................................................................... 19

2.6.1.2 Mulching/crop residue management .......................................................... 19

ii 
 
 2.7 Population pressure and land degradation ............................................................... 20

2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion ......................................................................... 21

2.9 Soil Organic Matter ................................................................................................. 23

2.10 Total Nitrogen ....................................................................................................... 24

2.11 Available phosphorus ............................................................................................ 25

2.12 Soil pH................................................................................................................... 26

3. Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 28

3.1 Description of the study area ................................................................................... 28

3.1.1 Location ................................................................................................................... 28

3.1.2. Agro-ecology .......................................................................................................... 28
3.1.3. Topography ............................................................................................................. 29
3.1.4. Soils of the study area ............................................................................................. 29
3.1.5. Land use .................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.6. Water resources....................................................................................................... 30
3.1.7. Climate .................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.8. Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 31
3.1.9. Population ............................................................................................................... 32
3.2. Farming system and land management practices....................................................... 32

3.2.1. Farming system ....................................................................................................... 32

3.2.2. Land Management Practices ................................................................................... 33
3.2.2.1 Biological land management practices ...................................................... 33

3.2.1.1. Crop rotation ............................................................................................. 34

3.2.1.2. Intercropping ............................................................................................. 34

3.2.1.3 Agro-forestry.............................................................................................. 34

3.2.1.4 Grass strip .................................................................................................. 35

3.3.2 Physical land Management Practices ....................................................................... 35

3.3.2.1 Residue Management ................................................................................. 35

3.3.2.2 Contour farming ......................................................................................... 36

3.3.2.3 Minimum Tillage ....................................................................................... 37

3.4 Methods .................................................................................................................. 37

iii 
 
3.4.1 Reconnaissance Survey............................................................................................ 37
3.4.2 Biophysical survey ................................................................................................... 37
3.4.3 Study design and sampling strategy ......................................................................... 38
3.4.3.1 Design of the study .................................................................................... 38

3.4.3.2 Sampling Technique .................................................................................. 38

3.4.4. Type and Ssource of data ........................................................................................ 39

3.4.5 Soil survey ............................................................................................................... 40
3.4.6 Soil analysis. ........................................................................................................... 40
3.4.7. Socio economic survey ........................................................................................... 41
3.4.7.1 Household survey....................................................................................... 41

3.4.8 Method of data collection ....................................................................................... 42

3.4.9 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 43
3.4.9.1 Soil data Analysis ...................................................................................... 43

3.4.9.2 Socio-economic data analysis .......................................................................... 43

4. Result and Discussions ................................................................................................. 45

4.1. States of traditional Biological and physical land management practices ................. 45

4.1.1 Biological land management practices ................................................................... 45

4.1.1.1 Crop rotation .............................................................................................. 45

4.1.1.2 Intercropping .............................................................................................. 45

4.1.1.3 Grass strip .................................................................................................. 46

4.1.1.4 Agro-forestry.............................................................................................. 46

4.1.2. Physical land management practices ...................................................................... 47

4.1.2.1 Contour farming ......................................................................................... 47

4.1.2.2 Residue Management ................................................................................. 48

4.1.2.3 Minimum tillage.................................................................................................... 49

4.1.3 The state of land management practices by HHs ..................................................... 50

4.2 Traditional land management practices and soil quality............................................. 51

4.2.1 Soil organic matter content ...................................................................................... 51

4.2.2 Total nitrogen ........................................................................................................... 52
4.2.3 Available pphosphorus............................................................................................. 53
4.2.4 Available potassium(meq/100g) .............................................................................. 54

iv 
 
4.2.5 pH water ................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.6 .Cation Exchange Capacity ...................................................................................... 55
4.2.7 Bulk density ............................................................................................................ 55
4.2.8 Land degradation indices% of soil quality of land without as compared to with
traditional BPLM practices. .............................................................................................. 56
4.3.Traditional land management practices and cropland productivity ........................... 57
4.3.1 Plant fresh biomass weight .................................................................................................. 57 

4.3.2 Plant dry biomass weight ..................................................................................................... 58

4.3.3 Plant height .............................................................................................................. 59

4.3.4 Buck wheat yield..................................................................................................... 59
4 .3.5 Summery of the role of traditional BPLMP and crop productivity ........................ 60
4.3.6 Teff yield.................................................................................................................. 61
4.3.7 Maize yield.............................................................................................................. 62
4.4 Effectiveness and suitability of the traditional land management practices .............. 64

4.4.1 Farmers’ responses on effectiveness of each traditional land management practices

........................................................................................................................................... 64
4.4.2 Effectivness of traditional land management practices onsoil quality................... 64
4.4.3 Effectiveness of traditional land management practices for plant growth & yield. 66
5. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................... 68

5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 68

5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 69

6. References ..................................................................................................................... 70

Appendices........................................................................................................................ 74 

v 
 
 

Lists of Tables
Table 1. Rating of Organic Matter and its categories ....................................................... 24

Table 2 classification of soil based on total nitrogen content (%) .................................... 25

Table 3: Relationship between soil nutrient levels and soil chemical rating .................... 26

Table 4 : Soil PH value with associated soil reaction ....................................................... 27

Table 5: Topographic of the Diga Woreda ....................................................................... 29

Table 6: Different land use type in the study area ............................................................ 30

Table 7: Types water sources in Diga Woreda ................................................................. 31

Table 8: Paired samples t-test for Soil Organic Matter content ....................................... 51

Table 9: Paired samples t-test for Total Nitrogen content ................................................ 52

Table 10: Paired samples t-test for available Phosphorus content .................................... 53

Table 11: Paired samples t-test for available Potassium content ...................................... 54

Table 12: Paired samples t-test for Soil pH content ........................................................ 54

Table 13: Paired samples t-test for Soil CEC ................................................................... 55

Table 14: Paired samples t-test for Soil Bulk density ...................................................... 56

Table 15: land degradation indices% of soil without as compared to soil with BPLM... 56

Table 16: Paired samples t-test of wet biomass weight of crops ...................................... 57

Table 17: Paired samples t-test of dry biomass weight of crops....................................... 58

Table 28: Paired samples t-test of plant height ................................................................. 59

Table 29: Paired samples t-test of buck wheat yield......................................................... 59

Table 20: Summery of the role of BPLM practices and cropland productivity............... 60

Table 21: Paired samples t-test of Teff yield data records................................................ 61

Table 22: Paired samples t-test of Maize yield data records .......................................... 63

vi 
 
Table 23: Farmers responses on effectiveness of traditional BPLM practices ................ 64

Table 24: Summary of the role of traditional BPLM practices & cropland productivity . 67 

Lists of Figures
 

Figure 1: Map of Diga Woreda ......................................................................................... 28 

Figure 2: Intercropping Practices ...................................................................................... 34 

Figure 3: Agro-forestry practice ....................................................................................... 35 

Figure 4: Grass strip practice on farmland ........................................................................ 35 

Figure 5: crop residue recycling practices ........................................................................ 36 

Figure 6: Burning of crop residue practices ...................................................................... 36 

Figure 7: contour farming practice ................................................................................... 37 

Figure 8: Furrow irrigation practice .................................................................................. 37 

Figure 9: Traditional BLM practices by respondents ....................................................... 47 

Figure 10: State of Physical land management practices by the respondents .................. 50 

Figure 11: Trends of ten years Teff yield data records ..................................................... 62 

Figure 12: Trends of ten years maize yield records ......................................................... 63 

Figure 13: Suitability evaluation of land management practices based on OM value ...... 65 

Figure 14: Suitability of land management practices based on AVP ............................... 65 

Figure 15: Suitability of land management practices for Plant biomass .......................... 66 

Figure 16: Suitability of land management practices for crop yields .............................. 67 

vii 
 
 Lists of Appendices

Annex 1: laboratory results of soil sample taken from Diga Woreda............................... 74

Annex 2: Wet biomass weight of 50 plants in (gm) ......................................................... 75

Annex 3: Dry biomass weight of 50 plants in(gm) ........................................................... 75

Annex 4: Plant height in cm............................................................................................ 75

Annex 5: Ten years Teff yield records in quntal/hectar ................................................... 76

Annex 6:Ten years records of maize yield in quntal/hectar .......................................... 76

Annex 7: Buck wheat yield in kg /hectare ........................................................................ 77

Annex 8: Household Questionnaires ................................................................................ 77

Annex 9:Household and population size of the Woreda, 2010 ........................................ 90

Annex10:Population size of sample PAs .......................................................................... 90

Annex 11: Educational status of sampled HH heads ........................................................ 91

Annex 12: Age category of the respondent....................................................................... 91 

 
 

viii 
 
 Acronyms

m.a.s.l Meter above sea level

AVP Available phosphorus

AVK Available potash

BPLM Biological and physical land management

BLM Biological land management

CSA Central statistics authority

CEC Cation exchange capacity

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FFW Food for work

FSDPP Food security, disaster prevention and preparedness

HHs Households

ISWC Indigenous soil &water conservation

MoARD Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

NPK Nitrogen, phosphorus and potash

PAs Peasant associations

PLM Physical land management

TBPLMP Traditional biological &Physical land Management practice

SPSS Statistical package for social science

SWC Soil and water conservation

WAO Woreda Agricultural Office

ix 
 
 Abstract
A Land management practice has many forms and the focus of this research is on
traditional land management practices. The main objective of this study was to assess the
role of traditional land management practices in improving cropland productivity in the
study area. The study was mainly focused on describing the soil fertility status between
lands with and without traditional land management practices.12 Soil sample was taken
from farmland with four and above practices and another 12 soil sample from farmland
without practices at the distance of less than 2km.The sample were compared for its soil
quality, crop biomass weight and yield.. Multistage sampling technique was used to
select peasant association, cultivated fields for soil sampling and households for
questionnaire survey. Transects were used to collect soil samples and structured and
semi-structured questionnaires to gather the necessary information from the sampled
households, key informants and group discussions. The results of soil chemical property
analysis revealed that, the status of soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available
phosphorous, available potassium, cation exchange capacity and pH of the soil with
traditional land management practices recorded the highest mean value ranging from 5
to 40 per cent than soil without traditional land management practices. Furthermore, dry
biomass weight and crop yield in land with traditional practices has showed a greater
mean value as compared to soil without practices. The traditional land management
practices improved cropland productivity through addition of organic matter to the soil,
adding nitrogen, maintaining organic matter and plant nutrients, and improving soil
structures increasing water infiltration and reducing run off. The decline in fertility of the
soil without the practices might was due to the removal of plant nutrient by erosion and
crop harvest without replacement. The Majority of the farmers (68 to 95%) reported that
combinations of practices are very effective in improving cropland productivity.

x 
 
 1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Justification

The majority of the population of Ethiopia consists of farmers and their families where
reside in rural areas and whose life is almost entirely dependent on agriculture and
agricultural products. Agriculture is the main stay of the major proportion of human
population of the country, even though it is threatened by human induced degradation and
climatic factors. Traditional mixed crop livestock production system under developed and
dominated by subsistence farmers, focusing on household food security.

Lal (1990) points out that confusion often arises over the relationship between the terms;
soil erosion, soil depletion and soil or land degradation. Soil erosion refers to a loss in
soil productivity due to: physical loss of topsoil, reduction in rooting area, removal of
plant nutrients, and loss of water. Soil erosion is a quick process. In contrast, soil
depletion means loss or decline of soil fertility due to crop removal or removal of
nutrients by water passing through the soil profile. The soil depletion process is less
drastic and can be easily remedied through culture practices and by adding appropriate
soil amendments. Similarly, land degradation is defined as the temporary or permanent
lowering of the productivity of land.

Soil erosion is not a new phenomenon, it has been a problem ever since human beings
started cultivating the land; in other words, soil erosion is as old as human history (De
Roo, 1993). It has been and is a particular problem associated with exploitative types of
agriculture on steep slopes and undulating landscapes. However, the critical problem in
all cases is that processes of soil erosion usually undermine the soil resource and remain
unobserved until the last stage. This is because erosion is noticed when crop production
starts to decline and this usually happens at a very critical phase of soil erosion. Soil
erosion has a great effect on the economies of developing countries to which Ethiopia is
not an exception. Agriculture, which is the basis of Ethiopian economy is dominated by
subsistence production and widespread poverty (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

1 
 
The majority of the resource poor farmers are subsistence oriented, cultivating poor soils
on sloping and marginal lands, which are highly susceptible to soil erosion, and other soil
degrading forces. Since individuals’ land use decision-making are patterned by the
structure of the society that they create through their interaction over time and space,
social scientists have suggested the collaborative actions are easier to understand in the
context of the role of institutions. Institutions are the social rules, conventions and other
elements of the structural framework of social interactions. This framework is taken for
granted in much of the mainstream economics, and often pushed so much into the
background that many of its central propositions are sometimes stated with an idea of
institutional neutrality (Bardhan, 1989)

Soil erosion causes a considerable, in most cases an irreversible soil fertility and
productivity loss. The effect of erosion on soil productivity is especially severe in the
southern, southeast and southwestern highlands, where Nitiosols are the predominant soil
types, and most of the soil fertility is concentrated in the topsoil. To control soil fertility
decline, and to have sustainable agricultural development, soil erosion has to be arrested
or at least reduced to a tolerable level that is to a level below soil formation rate (Belay,
1992).

Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of structural types have been constructed over

croplands in Ethiopia. However, reports indicate that these conservation structures have
not been as successful as they could be, because the farmers were not enthusiastic enough
in accepting and maintaining the technology (Wood, 1990). The failure of conservation
programs partly emerge from the fact that planners and implementing agencies ignore or
fail to consider socio-cultural factors as key determinants of the success or failure of
conservation programs (Belay, 1992)

Tesfaye (2003) points out that our understanding of farmers' knowledge and their
perception of factors that influence their land management practice is of paramount
importance for promoting sustainable land management. It is also interesting to know if
and when farmers practice what they know and perceive. Conservation agriculture
achieves sustainable benefits through minimal soil disturbance (i.e., zero- or reduced-
tillage farming; hereafter conservation tillage), permanent soil cover, and crop rotations.

2 
 
The potential gains from conservation or reduced tillage lie not only in conserving but
also in enhancing the natural resources (e.g., increasing soil organic matter) without
sacrificing yields. This practice makes it possible for fields to act as a sink for carbon,
increase the soils’ water retention capacities, and decrease soil erosion, and cuts
production costs by reducing time and labor requirements, as well as mechanized farming
costs, e.g., for fossil fuels (FAO 2008).

This ability to address a broad set of farming constraints makes conservation tillage a
desirable and widely adopted component of sustainable farming (Lee, 2005). Moreover,
the water-retention characteristics of conservation tillage (Twarog, 2006) make it
especially appealing in water-deficient farming areas. In addition to reducing natural
risks, conservation tillage enables poor farmers to avoid the financial risk of purchasing
chemical fertilizer on credit and overcomes the prevailing problem of late delivery of
chemical fertilizer. Consequently, since 1998, Ethiopia has included conservation tillage
as part of its extension packages to help reverse extensive land degradation (Sasakawa
Africa Association, 2008). Although encouraging adoption of conservation tillage is
important, an equally if not more important aspect is whether or not it enhances
productivity. How does conservation tillage compare to external inputs, such as chemical
fertilizers, in terms of its impact on crop productivity? These are important questions that
farmers presumably consider when deciding to adopt a given technology. If conservation
tillage and chemical fertilizer increase yields, are their impacts on productivity influenced
by agro ecology? Using chemical fertilizer in water stressed areas could, for example,
entail production risks.

Diga woreda is found in East Wollega zone of Oromia Region and located at the western
parts of Ethiopia where the reamaing natural forest relatively existed before 20 years ago,
but currently the situation of these forests are under severe pressure of deforestation for
the expansion extensive agriculture and majority of forestland converted to cropland..
The area having all these potential, currently due to the decaling of soil fertility, cropland
productivity has been declined and as a result majority of the farmers are exposed to
seasonal food shortage in the area. Therefore, it is better to conduct a research on the
assessment of the role of biological and physical land management practices in improving

3 
 
cropland productivity by assessing and analyzing crop yield and soil fertility status
respectively in the study area.
 

1.2 Statement of the problem

The well-being of present and future generations depends on the fertility status of soil in
agricultured countries like Ethiopia. The natural phenomena and interference of human
activities are aggravating soil degradation that needs immediate remedies to sustain
cropland livestock production and productivity. Soil is the only media, which supports
the germination, growth and maturity of crops in association with other life supporting
systems for better yield (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

However, due to high population pressure, continuous and steep slope cultivation,
deforestation and with inadequate soil conservation practices, cropland productivity has
been declining in the study area in which Teff yield in year 1997 were 8quntal/hec have
been reduced to 6-7quntal in year 2002, even though few farmers practiced some
traditional biological and physical land management practices.

Sustainable soil management technologies and practices, which have been supported by
research finding, were not yet transferred to the farming communities in the study area.
Thus, it is important to conduct a research to assess how cropland productivity has been
improved through traditional biological and physical land management practices in the
study area.

1.3 Objectives

General objectives

The overall purpose of the study was to assess and examine the role of traditional
biological and physical land management practices in improving cropland productivity.

4 
 
Specific objectives

¾ To identify and assess the states of traditional biological and physical land
management practices undertaken by local farmers.
¾ To examine and document the existing types of traditional biological and physical
land management practices.
¾ To examine the role of traditional land management practices in maintaining soil
quality
¾ To investigate the role of traditional land management practices in improving
crop land productivity
¾ To identify and select suitable traditional biological and physical land
management practices in improving crop land productivity for up scaling.

1.4 Scope of the study

The study was conducted at Diga Woreda specifically by considering four representatives
peasant association. The research mainly focused on two methods of land management
practices, although land management can take many forms, only traditional biological
and physical land management practices were considered.

1.5 Significance of the study

The most significant element in the process of economic development involves an

appropriate land resource management. The economy of Ethiopia in general and a
specific study area in particular primarily depends on agriculture and hence sustainable
agricultural production depends on the appropriate soil fertility management. Over the
study area, scondary data showed that some biological and physical land management
practices were undertaking in order to improve cropland productivity. Land degradation
in general and soil erosion in particular is the most serious environmental problems

5 
 
threatening the study area. Since the well-being of our population is highly interrelated to
land, particularly soils, soils have to be managed properly and economically.

Therefore, this study is so significant, which assessed and identified the role of traditional
biological and physical land management practices in improving cropland productivity in
the Woreda.It helps in identifying the suitable practices of soil for further up scaling
through sampled household interview. Farmers' perceptions of land degradation problems
and status and determinants of food security are of paramount importance. Hence, it was
crucial to identify a suitable and sustained land management practices to increase
production of food grain for economic growth and development. So, the results of the
study have assumed to be significant for the land management practitioners, agricultural
development agents, environmental analysts and researchers to make land resource
management analysis.

6 
 
 2. Literature Review

2.1 Concept of soil erosion

Less than a quarter of the earth’s land area has the potential to be agriculturally
productive and almost all of it is already under cultivation. Although the remaining land
is of marginal quality for agriculture, it is increasingly under pressure in many parts of
the world. Moreover, human population is increasing at a shockingly high rate and the
productive capacity of soil resources necessary to sustain that population is increasingly
decreasing because of soil degradation (Gete, 2000).

Soil is the basic natural resource for sustenance of life on the planet. The use of this
resource should not cause its degradation or destruction because the existence of
humankind depends on the continued productivity of the soil, but the problem is that an
over exploitation of resources without due attention to the management aspects.
According to Hurni (1993), over 90% of all human food and livestock feed is produced
on land, on soils of varying quality and extent. Hence, our well-being is highly dependent
on the potential of soils throughout the world and the way we manage them.

The laws of market demand and supply are simply applied to resource allocation without
being fully conscious of the complexity of institutions on which contracts in actual
markets crucially depend. Most studies on soil erosion analyze the impact of physical
factors like topography, climate and soils, farming practices and population pressure on
soil erosion. These analyses suggest interesting causal relationship that shed light on the
impact of population pressure on resource degradation. When the population-land ratio
increases, the processes of intensification takes place and threaten the sustainability and
productivity of natural resources (Pender, 1998).

On the other hand, from a Boserupian, perspective the scarcity of land induced by
population pressure would increase the drive to invest in land quality (Boserup, 1965).
Population growth may induce farmers to make labor-intensive investments in land
improvement and soil management, such as constructing terraces, composting or
mulching (Tiffen et al., 1994). Population growth may also induce beneficial changes in

7 
 
markets and institutions or investments in infrastructure (Pender, 1998). Therefore, far
from being a purely technical problem of soil science or plant nutrition, the case of soil
erosion as problem is economic, social and institutional. The perception of soil erosion as
purely technical (physical, chemical and biological) problem needs to be reconsidered.
An alternative and broad perception focusing on institutional, social and economic
considerations is required to understand the principal causes of these problems, and to
prescribe innovative policies to reverse soil erosion problem in these areas (Ayalneh,
2003).

2.2 Approaches to soil conservation

In the course of history of soil and water conservation, in various approaches have been
followed. A study carried out for the World Bank has identified three main approaches
towards dealing with difficulties of land degradation in developing countries, which are
neither strictly sequential in their historical development nor mutually exclusive. These
approaches include; the classic (technical), populist and neo-liberal approaches (Biot et
al., 1995). The classic approach takes for granted that the extent of and solutions to the
problems of land degradation are well known, but the problem is to get people to
implement them. It identifies mismanagement of land by users, which are ignorant,
irrational and traditional and their subsistence fundamentalism as the core problems in
soil and water conservation (SWC) practice. Many SWC projects in developing countries
failed to take into account the factors determining resource users’ land management
decisions and collapsed shortly after special incentives and subsidies are no longer
available. The typical to failures with this approach has been to find “escape hatches”,
blaming unfavorable weather conditions, lack of cooperation by different governments,
lack of political will and lack of cooperation from farmers (Million, 2001).

Contrary to the classic approach, the populist approach argues that the nature and extent
of land degradation are imperfectly understood, that local people often reject
conservation technologies for good reasons and in fact adopt their own individual resort
to their own practices and adaptations. The idea of this approach call for site-specific
participatory study and design using a multidisciplinary approach by teams of specially

8 
 
trained and oriented natural and social scientists in combination with local farmers and
resource users and organizations. Indigenous technical knowledge is being taken
seriously and new forms of constructive dialogue between resource users and scientists,
for example participatory rural appraisal (PRA) continued to be developed. However, the
populist approach is not applied on a widely expanded basis and is unrealizable on a large
scale (Ayalneh, 2003).

The neo-liberal approach shares some views with the classic with regard to soil and water
conservation technology. While assuming problem definition unproblematic, this
approach claims that incentive structures motivate farmers to adopt these technologies,
through extension. These approaches have influenced a number of projects in several
countries, including Ethiopia, by laying foundation for soil and water interventions
(Tesfaye, 2003). Nowadays, rural development projects and soil and water conservation
projects are mostly guided by the populist approach, with some elements of the neo-
liberal approach appearing in the process.

2.3 Soil and water conservation practices

Soil and water conservation practices consist of biological, mechanical measures and
institutional arrangements. The first category refers to particular management practices
that make use of agronomic skills and biological material rather than physical structures.
Mechanical practices, on the other hand, refer to practices that involve physical
structures, often with a barrier function. Institutional arrangements refer to land tenure
arrangements, forms of labor sharing, and so forth that may also contribute to
maintenance of soil fertility (Grohs, 1994).

Soil conservation involves the use of biological and physical measures to offset the effect
of land degradation. Biological or agronomic measures refer to farming practices, which
help to minimize erosion, improve fertility and soil structures. Physical or structural
measures include earthworks aimed at controlling and diverting the run off in the arable
areas. These measures are applied to maximize infiltration, to drain excess water from

9 
 
rainstorms and to retain moisture in the soil. However, this study is concerned with the
physical conservation measures practiced by farmers in the study area (Hoben,1996).

Soil and water conservation interventions are first a response to the perceived land
degradation problem. It includes all forms of human actions to prevent and treat soil
degradation (Grohs, 1994, cited in Demeke, 1998). Physical soil and water conservation
practices are categorized into two: traditional (indigenous) and improved practices.
Whatever the measures might be, these measures aim to control run off, improve soil
fertility and harvest water.

Indigenous soil and water conservation (ISWC) is defined to be a practice or idea

generated locally or imported from outside and transformed by the local people and
interpreted in their way of life. Whereas, Kruger et al. (1997), understood traditional
conservation measures as farming practices that have evolved through the course of time
without any known outside institutional interventions and which have some soil
conservation effects. Various mechanical, biological and agronomic techniques used by
farmers in various combinations are incorporated in the term. The traditional soil and
water conservation(SWC) are simple structures of a short-term nature that could be
reshuffled each year to make use of the soil captured above the structure and avoid rodent
production (Wagayehu, 2003). These structures are much more flexible and tend to
spread labor requirements for construction and maintenances (Scoones et al., 1996). They
are frequently site specific and accordingly vary in purpose. They may harvest water in
lowland areas (with the help of tied ridges, level physical soil conservation structures);
conserve soil in-situ (traditional stone and soil bunds); dispose of excess water from
croplands during heavy rains; improve drainage and conserve soil while simultaneously
increasing soil fertility (agro forestry, mixed cropping and intercropping) (Hans-Joachim
Kruger et al., 1996). The dynamic nature of the technologies and their adaptability to the
changing conditions is the fundamental feature of indigenous technologies. This dynamic
interpretation of ISWC leads to a wide-ranging perspectives on technology (Yohannes,
1999). Unlike outsiders who often maintain a single objective, farmers are faced with
multiple objectives in their livelihood. In addition, farmers' ISWC does not aim at merely
protecting the soil or improving the moisture level. They make compromises with their

10 
 
multiple objectives, resources, level of the erosion problem, urgency of the HH needs,
profitability, etc. Therefore, the best soil conservation practice from farmers' perspective
is not necessarily that which conserves the most soil (Kerr and Sanghi, 1993). In view of
this, farmers often favour SWC practices that give them a quick benefit, while
minimizing soil erosion (Tesfaye, 2003).

The improved type of soil and water technologies refers to the recommended type of
structures, which have standard length, width, and height (Wegayehu, 2003). These
structures have specific design requirements and need major investments of labour in
construction, often during a single period (Scoones et al., 1996). Hence, this particular
measure has been widely constructed within the food for work (FFW) programme areas
(Wagayehu, 2003). In most areas of Ethiopia, new SWC technologies were introduced
more than two decades ago. During such span of time, the introduced SWC measures
have been under continuous modification, which make it very difficult to trace them back
to their origins to compare them with recent development.

The modified type of structures refers to those practices in which farmers have
constructed with their own preferred length, spacing and /or height that are different from
recommended type (Wagayehu, 2003). Farmers' responses to externally imposed SWC
methods are highly shaped by their indigenous practices that are embedded in their local
institutions and culture (Tesfaye, 2003). On this issue found out that under small farming
households different types of modifications are made in time and space. Some
modifications are done at micro level (plot), where the local people are not easily
observed by their surroundings let alone by an outsider. Hence, in this study also minor
modifications of original technologies are referred to as adopted.

The three SWC structures differ in their initial labor requirement, area lost to
conservation structures, durability, flexibility and effectiveness of the structures. When
Wagayehu (2003) analyses these differences he found out that the recommended type of
structure involves a higher cost in terms of both labor requirements and area lost to
conservation structures. According to MoARD (2005), the labor requirement for initial
construction of improved structures is estimated to be about 150 person days and 250
person days per kilometer for soil bunds and stone bunds respectively. Whereas, the

11 
 
initial labor requirement for check dam is 2 person day per cubic meter. The same source
revealed that, with respect to the effectiveness of the structures in reducing soil loss, the
recommended type of structures, which has a shorter slope, length, spacing between
consecutive structures, is expected to be more effective particularly on steeper plots. The
recommended and to some extent the modified type of structures are long-term structures
that will stay in place for several years. The modified and traditional types of structures
have the advantage of flexibility to adjust to specific farm and plot characteristics.

In this study, however, in order to better capture household's conservation decision with
respect to SWC, different types of physical SWC measures used by farmers in the study
area were grouped in to two categories: traditional and improved SWC measures.
Traditional measure consists of soil bund, stone bund, tied ridge, diversion channel and
check dam. Whereas, improved soil conservation measures include those technologies
introduced by SWC Programe operating in the study area such as soil bund, stone bund
and check dam. Farmers who retained and renewed conservation structures built on the
plot by FFW and those farmers who constructed a similar type of structure on their plot
by their own initiative were considered as adopters in this study. The latter is because
experience from the area and other parts of the country proved that most farmers
destroyed the structures (Admassie, 1995; Hoben, 1996; Shiferaw and Holden, 1998
Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)

Soil conservation must be an integral component of intensified agriculture-the choice of

adequate conservation measures will need to be based on an assessment of the form and
intensity of the degradation process, and the choice of management practices adapted to
the environmental conditions, economic feasibility, and the social acceptability of the
proposed control techniques. It is vital that land resources be protected. Yet it must be
realized that farmers will do so only when they are given the motivation and the means to
do so (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1987)

2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability

Sustainability in agriculture and more specifically in land use has been on the top of
priority list of natural management issues in developing countries. Sustainable soil

12 
 
management means cropping, pastoral and forestry use of the limited and only partially
renewable resources soil, water and plant nutrients to safeguard soil productivity also for
future generations and prevent or reverse degradation process (Senait, 2002).The
objective of sustainable land management is to harmonize the complementary goals of
providing environmental, economic and social opportunities for the benefit of present and
future generations, while maintaining and enhancing the quality of the land (soil, water
and air) resource.

There are various technical solutions recommended for managing land towards
sustainability. Techniques aimed at erosion control include contour tillage,
minimum/zero tillage, construction of physical soil conservation measures, etc. Soil
nutrient replenishment has to be achieved through organic and inorganic fertilizer
applications. Traditional erosion control practices, for example; mulch application and
long-term fallow management no longer keep pace with the increasing frequency of land
use. They include the stabilization of the soil by stone lines, terraces, herbal (grass) strips
and various forms of agro forestry measures, for example; planting and management of
trees, shrubs and windbreaks hedges .However, these technical solutions alone are not the
remedy for the problem (Senait, 2002). To understand soil erosion we must be aware of
the political and economic factors affecting land users’ and preventing soil erosion
requires political, economic and technical changes. Land management measures need to
be adapted to specific soil and landscape characteristics such as soil texture or terrain
slope and to socio-economic circumstances of the largest population. This study mainly
focuses on the role of socio-economic circumstances, farmers’ perception, and land
tenure system in land management.

2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures

Biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil
fertility improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil
losses and improve productivity. Agronomic measures are practiced as the second line of
defense in erosion control exercise while mechanical/physical measures are primary

13 
 
control measure and are often considered as reinforcement measures (Ministry of
Agriculture, 2001)

2.5.1 Strip cropping

Strip cropping is a cropping practice where strips of two or more crops are alternately
placed on the contour for erosion control. The practice is useful for controlling soil
erosion in areas where cropping system is dominated by row (sparsely populated) crops.
If the first strip of crop is a row crop or a crop, which is susceptible to erosion such as
sorghum and maize, the second crop should be a crop that effectively controls soil
erosion. Hence, if the first strip is maize or sorghum, the second should be forage/food
legume that forms dense ground cover. Maize and sorghum are soil-depleting crops while
the legume is soil enriching. Other crop that can effectively control the impact of
raindrops and runoff can be grown in alternate strips with crops such as maize and
sorghum.

In strip cropping, erosion takes place from the strips of row crops and the soil removed
from these strips is trapped in the strips planted with soil conserving crops. Strip cropping
for erosion control is not normally required on slopes less than 3%, and can be effective
up to 10% if well designed. However, on steeper slopes it may be necessary to support it
with additional vegetative barriers such as grass strips and hedgerows of grass or shrubs.
Strip cropping is best suited to well drained soils. On poorly drained soils, it can result in
water logging. Strip widths vary with the severity of erosion, but are generally between
15 and 45 meters. Narrower strips on steep slopes and wider strips on gentle slopes.

2.5.2 Crop rotation

Crop rotation is a practice of growing different crops one after another on the same piece
of land, season after season or year after year. It is a valuable traditional practice, which
plays an important role in maintaining ecological stability and improving agricultural
productivity. If the same crop is grown on a piece of land year after year, the soil nutrient
depletes sharply and as a result yield decreases. Nevertheless, if different crops are
rotated, the depletion of soil nutrient and the decline in crop yields is minimized.

14 
 
Crop differs in their effect on soil. Some crops restore or build fertility of the soil, while
others deplete its fertility. For instance, legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen and hence
enrich soil fertility. Forage legumes and grasses provide good ground cover that protects
soil erosion and enriches the soil with organic matter, which in turn improves the
structure and biological activities. Cereals such as sorghum and maize deplete soil
fertility.

Crop rotation, in addition to fertility restoration and soil and water conservation use, is a
traditional cropping practice for controlling diseases, pest and weed infestation. Different
crops are not equally susceptible to pests or diseases. Growing the same crop every year
leads to build up of pests and diseases in the field, which attack that particular crop.

Crop rotation maintains or improves productivity as a result of improved fertility of the

land and reduced pest/diseases problems. Different crops vary in their response to
different pests and diseases. Some crop are resistant to some pest and disease including
weeds, while others are susceptible. Sorghum is more susceptible to the parasitic weed
(striga) than leguminous crop(e.g. chickpea)and oil crop (Noug).Therefore, it is advisable
to grow legumes or oil crops after sorghum than growing sorghum after sorghum or
millet after sorghum and vice-versa.( Ministry of Agriculture,2001).

2.5.3. Intercropping

Intercropping is a practice of growing two or more crops at the same time on the same
piece of land. While the principles and objectives of intercropping and mixed cropping
are the same, the patterns are different. Intercropping follows specific arrangements. It is
not difficult to distinguish the rows of the main crops from that of companion crops in
intercropping. However, in mixed cropping, two or more crops are mixed up and
broadcast over the field so that one cannot distinguish the rows of one crop from another.

The aim of intercropping is to increase productivity of the land and to protect the soil
against erosion. The intercrop stand makes better use of the available environmental
resources. Intercropping reduces the problem of soil erosion. If properly applied
intercropping could be a solution to low crop yield and soil erosion in row crops. Fodder

15 
 
legumes tend to produce more biomass than food legumes and the amount of nitrogen
fixed is proportional to their biomass. The inclusion of forage legumes in intercropping
increases the level of atmospheric nitrogen utilization. Nitrogen will be available to the
main crop from root and nodule decay of intercropped leguminous crops (Ministry of
Agriculture, 2001).

Besides the “mechanical” or “engineering” techniques used, another way of treating soil
conservation has been extensively used. This is usually referred to as “vegetative” or
“biological” conservation. The underlying principle here is that soil only becomes subject
to erosion if it is bare and exposed to the erosive forces of wind and water. It follows
from this that if the soil can be kept under a permanent or near-permanent cover of
vegetation, then little or no erosion will occur. To understand this concept fully, it is
important to realize the force that both wind and rain can exert on bare soil. For instance,
the energy dissipated by a 50 mm rainstorm is theoretically capable of lifting 18 cm of
soil 1 m into the air. If the raindrops are large, they fragment soil clods and disperse them
in all directions. If there is a cover of vegetation on the surface, either living or dead, the
soil is protected as the energy of the falling raindrops is dissipated when they hit the
vegetation. Research into this subject shows that the vegetation does not even have to
provide a complete cover to be effective; if only about 40% of the soil’s surface is
protected by low-level vegetation (not more than 1 m above the surface) and evenly
distributed cover, erosion can be reduced by as much as 90%.

Not only this, but a cover of vegetation on the ground slows down the movement of water
across the surface and allows it to sink into the soil, becoming available to the roots of
plants or percolating down to the water table. In addition, if vegetation can be retained,
and allowed to break down and become part of the soil, the physical and chemical
properties of the soil are improved. This, in turn, makes the soil less susceptible to
erosion and more conducive to plant growth.

A great range of biological conservation measures have been developed and used. In the
case of grazing land, this can simply amount to ensuring that the land is never overgrazed
and that sufficient cover is always retained to protect the soil. For land that is cropped,
the problem is more complicated as it is difficult to cultivate without exposing the land to

16 
 
the wind and rain for at least part of the year. One practice that has become very popular
in recent years is to use mulches. New types of plows and cultivators have been designed
which can break up the soil without burying all the residues or becoming blocked by the
straw and stalks in the process. One of the primary reasons for cultivation is to kill weeds,
but this is now often done by spraying chemicals rather than cultivating. A wide range of
agrochemicals is now available for this purpose, some of them selective so that they will
kill the weeds but not affect the crop.

A practice called “relay cropping” is often used in tropical countries. It is very commonly
used in China. With this system, different crops are planted in a rotation but the farmer
does not wait until one crop is harvested before the next crop is planted. So, for example,
seedlings of maize may be planted in narrow strips running through a wheat crop. The
maize is planted out a few weeks before the wheat is harvested so that, when the wheat
crop is harvested, the maize plants are already big enough to provide a partial cover to the
soil.

A system called “Agro forestry” has been widely promoted in the tropics in recent years.
Here tree and field crops are grown together in the same field. The trees are often grown
in narrow strips, often on the contour, and are usually cut at different times so that they
do not provide shade that would affect the field crops. The trees may be either fruit trees
or trees, which have the ability to trap nitrogen from the atmosphere and return it to the
soil where it can be used by other plants.

Trees are used in many ways to protect the soil. They are particularly effective as
windbreaks and are frequently used to control erosion and reclaim badly degraded land.
However, trees are seldom very effective on their own, as soil cover needs to be no more
than about 1 m above the surface of the soil to prevent water erosion. A good ground
cover of grasses, shrubs, and/or leaf litter is needed if the trees are to effectively control
water erosion (David Sanders, 2004).

2.6 Physical soil management Practices

Soil management practices refer to the practices, which improve the physical, chemical
and biological properties of the soil for enhancing germination, establishment and crop

17 
 
growth. Whereas the agronomic soil conservation practices described below contribute to
the restoration and maintenance of soil properties. Soil organic matter management and
conservation tillage practices are key tools in soil management practices (Ministry of
Agriculture, 2001).

2.6.1 Conservation tillage

Conservation tillage is a tillage practice aimed at creating favorable soil environment for
germination, establishment and plant growth. Conservation tillage is designed to avoid
the tillage operations that destroy soil structure, which initiate problems of surface
sealing and soil compaction.

This umbrella term can include reduced tillage, minimum tillage, no-till, direct drill,
mulch tillage, stubble-mulch farming, trash farming, strip tillage, plough-plant .In
countries with advanced soil conservation programs, particularly the USA and Australia,
the concept of conservation tillage is the main theme of the recommendations for
cropland, and it is also being taken up quickly in other areas, for example southern Brazil.
The application is mainly in mechanized high production farming with good rainfall, or
for the control of wind erosion where there is large-scale mechanized cereal production.
It is less applicable to low input level crop production, or subsistence agriculture.

The principles are equally effective in any conditions - to maximize cover by returning
crop residues and not inverting the top soil, and by using a high crop density of vigorous
crops. Conservation tillage also has the advantage of reducing the need for terraces or
other permanent structures. However, there are several disadvantages which hinder the
application of conservation tillage in semi-arid conditions: dense plant covers may be
incompatible with the well-tested strategy of using low plant populations to suit low
moisture availability; crop residues may be of value as feed for livestock; planting
through surface mulches is not easy for ox-drawn planters although there may be no
problem with hand jab planters tillage includes zero tillage, reduced/minimum tillage,
mulch tillage, and strip or zero tillage. All conservation tillage operations are aimed at
controlling soil degradation and improving soil productivity.

18 
 
Zero tillage is a tillage in which land remains untilled before planting, but planting
furrow or hole is opened at planting.

Minimum /Reduced tillage is a tillage practice in which the least possible tillage
operation is performed to break up hard pans/compacted layers to increase infiltration,
water storage capacity of the soil and to minimize resistance to root development

Mulch tillage is a tillage operation, which follows the principles of least soil disturbance
and maximum crop residue application/maintenance. The crop residue is incorporated
into the soil. The practice also includes in-situ mulch management system where residue
of dead or chemically killed cover is left in place.

Strip/Zonal tillage is a tillage practice in which the seedbed is divided into two that is
seedling zone and soil management zone (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

2.6.1.1 Contour cultivation 

Contour cultivation and planting is a practice of ploughing land and planting crops along
a contour line. Carrying out cultivation and planting on the contour reduces soil erosion
from slope. In dry areas, contour cultivation can be adjusted to standard ridge and furrow
system to make it effective in controlling soil erosion and moisture conservation in dry
areas. The most effective way to reduce soil erosion and conserve soil moisture is by
minimizing the rate of runoff.

2.6.1.2 Mulching/crop residue management 

Mulching is the covering of the soil with crop residues such as straw, maize or sorghum
stalks or standing stubble. The cover protects the soil from raindrop impact and reduces
the velocity of runoff. Maintaing crop residues or mulches on the farm controls
effectively soil erosion and has considerable potential for the restoration and maintenance
of soil fertility. Mulching is one of the most effective methods to minimize erosion. A
crop residue covering the ground intercept raindrop impact, preventing splash erosion,
slow down the water flows and increases the infiltration rate. It also encourages insects

19 
 
and worms to take holes into the ground, thus increasing the permeability of the soil
(Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

2.7 Population pressure and land degradation

The population pressure concept is a relative and a dynamic concept the extent of which
at a given point in time is determined by taking into account endowment of natural
resource, human capability, cropping system and production technologies in use and
alternative employment/ income opportunities within and outside an area which are by
themselves subjected to change (Tesfaye , 2003). In connection to this the same source
further point out that as population growth increase fallowing and crop rotation as
traditional soil fertility maintenance practice are substantially reduced or totally cease to
exist. This would lead to soil mining and decline in per capita output unless significant
investment is made in drainage terracing and most importantly in soil fertility
management.

Any measure aiming at restoring soil fertility if it is to have sustainable beneficial effect
on the livelihood of the rural households has to be related to the causes of degradation,
and not just visible system (Ayalneh, 2003). The main causes of land degradation
problems are very complex and attributed to both physical and socio- economic factors.
Many empirical studies have indicated that the main facets of land degradation such as
deforestation, overgrazing, cultivation of marginal lands and soil fertility depletion can
attribute to population pressure. Methodology, classify the causes of soil erosion, which
is the main form of land degradation in developing countries in to physical factor and
human factors. This source further explained that population growth and apparently
decline in holdings (fragmentations) are the first most important perceived causes of
human induced land degradation. As population increases many farming, households are
pushed to poor marginal agricultural land where inadequate and unreliable rainfall,
adverse soil condition, fertility and topography limit agricultural productivity and
increase the risk of chronic land degradation

20 
 
Among different form of land degradation processes in Ethiopia soil erosion by water is
the most important environmental problem that possesses an ominous treat to the food
security of the population and future development prospects of the country (Hurni, 1988).
This process has been accelerated by population growth that has brought with it more
deforestation. With the increase of population pressure development of agricultural
production involves an increased risk of land degradation through deforestation and
expansion to new marginal lands that are often fragile and susceptible to erosion.

2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion

Perception is the process whereby sensory stimulation is translated into organized

experience. That perception is the joint product of stimulation and of the process itself. In
most empirical studies, perception is defined as an attitudinal process explained by the
psychological state of an individual that is determined by individual characteristics,
socio-economic, institutional and physical factors. The main prerequisite for attaining
sustainable land management is the formulation of appropriate resource management
policies, which are supported by the farming communities and to which they are willing
and able to respond (Ayalneh, 2003). The responses, commitments and responsibilities
required for the success of such policies still depend on the knowledge and perception of
the problem by smallholder farmers.

To identify changes, which occur in the state of nature, it is valuable to get insights on the
awareness of the physical processes and the changes of land management systems and
visions and sense of control over the land that the local people have becomes paramount
important. With regard to this, Atakilte (2003) states that the local people have a detailed
understanding of the biological and the physical elements of their environment. He adds
the land degradation problem was real issue and problems that the local people
experience in their farming system.

Regarding the farmers’ perception on soil degradation, Biota et al. (1995) suggests that
the views of different actors in land management should be considered, because all have
their own perceptions on land degradation and the criteria to be used for it. This view is

21 
 
consistent with the social learning perspective, which claims that different actors perceive
different things according to their engagement with their immediate environment.

Therefore, resource users have their own reasons for what they do with their resources,
their perception of the process and whether they see any problem or not (Leeuwis, 2004).

Local people’s visions and sense in terms of managing and controlling problems related
to soil erosion were positive and strong. Ayalneh (2003) found out that farmers’
perception of soil fertility status as fertile, moderately fertile, and degraded is harmonious
with what was developed by the International Society of Soil Science. Furthermore, he
stresses that through their several years of observation on farming and grazing land and
with the knowledge handed down to them by their ancestors, farmers acquired diverse
information to recognize extreme indicators of land degradation. Farmers’ perceptions
can have a major bearing on land management. Farmers who have already perceived the
problem of soil erosion are more likely to be willing to practices land management
activities (Tesfaye, 2003; Paulos et al., 2002). Although farmers are often more acutely
aware of the condition of their land than is sometimes assumed by experts, they may not
be fully aware of land degradation. Thus, the perception variable is expected to have a
strong relationship with decision-making on land management practices (Ervin and
Ervin, 1982; Bekele and Holden, 1998). Soil degradation is often a very slow process and
may be almost invisible. Farmers thus may not observe ongoing erosion or nutrient
depletion problems, or perceive them as immediate problems. Even if farmers do
accurately perceive land degradation as a problem, they may not be induced to act to
reverse it. They may attribute the problem to natural or divine causes beyond their control
(Ervin and Ervin, 1982).

On the other hand, they may understand that the problem is affected by their own actions,
but the alternatives that they are aware of to address the problem may be too costly
relative to the perceived short-term benefits. In some cases, conservation measures
reduce farmers’ yields in the short term by reducing cropped area or harboring pests.
These problems are compounded if farmers discount the future heavily as a result of
poverty and/or credit constraints (Bekele and Holden, 1998).Thus; many farmers require
food-for-work to voluntarily participate in soil conservation programme. On the other

22 
 
hand, some farmers may have attitudes favoring conservation; that is, they may obtain
psychological benefits from taking actions to conserve the land, regardless of the
economic benefits (Singh et al., 1986). If such attitude can be effectively promoted,
promotional efforts could be more effective in the long run than using subsidies or
compulsory approaches to promote conservation.

2.9 Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter is plant and animal residence in the soil in various stage of
decomposition (Gardiner and Miller, 2004). It has a number of positive effects such as it
is a sources of 90 to 95 percent of the nitrogen in unfertilized soil, is the major source of
both available phosphorous and available sulfur, contributes to the cation exchange
capacity (CEC): often furnishing 30 to 70 percent, increases water content and air and
water flow rate, supply carbon for many microbes that perform other beneficial functions
in soil, when it is left of top of soil against changes in acidity on toxicity (Gardiner and
Miller, 2004).So, that help to sustain soil fertility by improvising retention of mineral
nutrients of soil flora and fauna. It’s also a key factor associated with improvement of
decline of soil fertility (Brawn et al,. 1994) which plays an important part in establishing
the intrinsic property of soils.

Organic matter enhances the soil in many ways. It is also important for physical,
chemical and biological soil properties. The organic matter builds and improves soil
structure, thereby, improving soil drainage, infiltration of water in to the soil, aeration
and water holding capacity. The improved soil structure results in well-developed plant
root system and healthier, more disease resistant crops. Soil organic matter increases the
cation exchange capacity of a soil and provides of neutralizing or buffering effect on soil
pH (preventing rapid changes in pH). Soils that are high in organic matter contents have
water stable aggregates that bind soil particles together and are resistant to being broken
down by the impact of raindrops.

Organic matter depilation has been by far one of the most problems leading to soil
degradation. This situation must be reversed and accumulate carbon in the soil which
help preventing soil degradation). It is affected by the kind of farming and soil fertility

23 
 
management practices for instance; in his study reported that continuous cultivation
becomes the major causes of most organic matter losses. Continuous cropping can also
reduce soil organic matter or soil organic. Thus, assessment of soil organic matter is a
valuable step towards identifying the overall quality of soil. Table below shows that the
rating of soil organic matter categories.

Table 1. Rating of Organic Matter and its categories

Rating Total organic matter (%)
Very high >6
High 4.3-6.0
Medium 2.1-4.2
Low 1.0-2.0
Very Low <1.0
Source: Tan (1996)

2.10 Total Nitrogen

Nitrogen (N) is one of the major nutrients required for the nutrition of plants and is often
the controlling factor in plant growth. Thus, lack of nitrogen is the greatest single cause
of low crop yield (Young, 1976). Of the total amount of nitrogen present in soils, nearly
95-99% is in the organic form and 1-5% in the inorganic form as ammonium and nitrates.
It is a major competent of soil organic matter which contains an average of about 5
percent nitrogen (Gardiner and Miller, 2004).Total nitrogen is merely an indicator of the
soil potential for the element, but not the measure in which it becomes available to the
plant. Nitrogen in organic forms is not available to plants but must be converted to
available forms, either the cationic form ammonium ion (NH4+), or the an ionic form
nitrate (NO3-).

Even though total nitrogen is not a measure of available nitrogen to plants, but it is an
important indicator of the soil potential for the element. Nitrogen contents of soils are
also needed for the evaluation of C-N ratios of soils, which give an indication of the
processes of transformations of organic N to available N like ammonia nitrite and nitrate-

24 
 
N. The principal cause (up to 100kg or more, in intensive cropping) come from removal
in harvested crops and insufficient replenishment through manures or fertilizers.

According to Barber (1984), soil total nitrogen can be classified as from very low to very
high in total nitrogen.

Table 2 classification of soil based on total nitrogen content (%)

Total nitrogen Class
>0.4 Very high
0.3-0.4 High
0.2-0.3 Medium
0.1-0.2 Low
<0.1 Very low

Source Barber (1984)

2.11 Available phosphorus

Next to nitrogen, phosphorus has more widespread influence on both natural and
agricultural ecosystems than any other essential elements. Phosphorus- deficient plants
are often severely stunted, since this element takes part in the synthesis of several
essential compounds upon which all plant and animal life depends (Barber, 1984). In
agricultural ecosystems, phosphorus contains are much more critical because phosphorus
in the harvested crops is removed from the system, with only limited quantities being
returned in crop residues and animal manures. Neither plants nor animals can grow
without phosphorus. It is an essential component of the organic compound often called
the energy currency of the living cell adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and an essential
component of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA).

The principal environmental problems related to soil phosphorus are land degradation
caused by two little available phosphorus and accelerated eutrophication caused by too
much. The low phosphorus availability is partly result of extensive losses of phosphorus
during long periods of relatively intense weathering and partly due to the low viability of

25 
 
phosphorus in the aluminum and iron combinations that are the dominant forms of
phosphorus in these soils. Table below illustrates that the relationship between soil
nutrient levels and soil chemical rating of available phosphorus in ppm.

Table 3: Relationship between soil nutrient levels and soil chemical rating

Soil chemical value Soil chemical ratings of available P(ppm)

Very low <5
Low 5-10
Medium 10-25
High 25-50
Very high >50
Source: Barber (1984)

2.12 Soil pH

The term pH is from the French pouvoir hydrogen or hydrogen power. Soil reaction (pH)
is an indication of the acidity or basicity of the soil and is measured in pH units. It also
defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in which in very dilute
solution can be expressed as concentration, in gram mole per liter. The scale ranges from
0 to 14 with pH 7 as the neutral point. From pH 7 to 0 the soil increasing more acidic,
from pH 7 to 14 the soil is increasing more alkaline (basic) (Purohit et at., 2004). The pH
is a very important property of soil as it determines the availability of nutrients, microbial
activity and physical condition of the soil. Soil PH depends on a variety of factors
including all five soil forming factors plus the season of the year, cropping practice, the
soil horizon sampled, the water content at the sampling time and the way the pH is
determined (web site). The soil pH is easily determined and provides clues about other
soil properties. The soil pH greatly affects the solubility of minerals. For instance, in
acidic soils the phosphate ions react with iron, aluminum, manganese ions to firm
insoluble phosphate, since acidic soils have high amount of exchangeable aluminum,
manganese and iron. On the other hand, in alkaline soils soluble phosphate ions adsorb on
solid calcium carbonate surface so phosphorous is most available at about pH 6.5 by

26 
 
minerals soils and pH 5.5 for organic soil (Gardiner and Miller, 2004). Moreover, it
influences plant growth by its effects on the activities of beneficial
microorganisms. According to Tan (1996), soil pH is the most important determinant of
soil chemical properties.

Table 4 : Soil PH value with associated soil reaction

PH Value Acidity PH value Acidity

4.0-4.5 Extremely acidic 6.5-7.4 Neutral
4.5-5.0 V-strong acidic 7.4-7.8 Slightly alkaline
5.0-5.5 Strong acidic 7.8-7.8 Moderately alkaline
5.5-6.0 Moderately acidic 8.4-9.0 Strongly alkaline
6.0-6.5 Slightly acidic 9.0-10.0 V. Strongly alkaline
Source: SSSA (1996)

 
 

 
 
 

27 
 
 3. Materials and Methods
3.1 Description of the study area
3.1.1 Location
The study was conducted at Diga Woreda of East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State.
The Woreda is located at about 346 km away from Addis Ababa and 15km from
Nekemte town to the West. The area shares boundaries with West Wollega Zone in the
West, Guto Gida Woreda in the East, Sasiga in the South and Leka Dulecha in the North.
There are 21 Peasant Associations in the Woreda, among these four PAs (Peasant
Association) were selected for the study purposively based on the activities of traditional
land management practices under taken by the local farmers, in which two sample PAs
from the middle altitude area and two PAs from the low land areas; namely: Jirata,
Firomsa, Arjo Kote bula and Mada Jalala.

Figure 1: Map of Diga Woreda

 
Sample PAs 

3.1.2. Agro-ecology

The study Woreda is stratified into two regions, based on agro-climatical conditions
namely: middle altitude ranges 2100-2342m.a.s.l and low land ranges 1200-2100
m.a.s.l(Josha O,et al;2010). From these total land area middle altitude occupy 42% and
low land occupy 58% according to Woreda office of Agriculture, 2010.

28 
 
3.1.3. Topography

As indicated in table 5 the topography of the study area is characterized as flat, gentle
slope, steep slope, very steep slope and hill.

Table 5: Topographic of the Diga Woreda

No Topography Area/ha % coverage

1. Flat (0-3%) 14170 34%
2.. Gentle slope (3-15%) 21247 52%
3. Steep slope (15-30%) 3420 8%
4. Very seep (30-50%) 1675 4%
5. Hill>50% 150 0.37%
6. Others 126 0.3%
Total 40788

Source: Diga BOA, 2010

3.1.4. Soils of the study area

The dominant soil color of the area is red in the middle altitude, and black in the low land
and generally classified as Acrisols and Alisols according to FAO-UNSCO classification
(2008) and Alluvium deposits are found along the riverbanks at downstream of the low
land.

3.1.5. Land use

The total area of the Woreda is estimated at 40788 hectares. This total land is allocated to
arable land, grazing land, forest land, bushes and shrubs, construction and others which
are yet to be classified according the data obtained from Woreda Agricultural Office,
2010. The unclassified land is assumed to be covered by woodland and others (Table 6).

29 
 
Table 6: Different land use type in the study area

No Land use Coverage in hectares % coverage

1 Arable land 28952 71%

2. Grazing land 4444 11%

3. Forest land 4003 10%

4. Bushes and shrubs 770 2%

5. Construction 399 1%

6. Unclassified land 2220 5%

Total 40788

Source: Diga BOA, 2010

3.1.6. Water resources

The study area is generally located at the high altitude region of the country and receives
high rainfall during rainy season, which begin in late April, and ends in early September.
Before some 20 years, the area were known in water resource potential(Table 7), but
currently it is under severe depletion, due to land degradation caused by water erosion,
steep slope cultivation, deforestation for expansion of agriculture and plantation of
Eucalyptus tree on farm land and, along river and stream bank at the middle altitude area
also causes water depletion. During the dry season, some streams and wells are dry out or
the volume of water reduces significantly due to clearance of vegetation cover at the
upstream areas of the watershed. This indicates that surface runoff and soil erosion is
increased and reducing the annual recharge of the ground water.

30 
 
Table 7: Types of water sources in Diga Woreda

No Types of water Quantity(No) Annual Perennial Protected Non-protected

1. Rivers 26 26 26

2. Streams 167 75 92 29 138

3. Reservoirs 1 1 1

4. Deep well 2 2 2
5. Shallow well 7 1 6 7
Source: Diga Woreda Water Resource Office, 2010

3.1.7. Climate

Diga Woreda is general located among the high land areas of the country where the
rainfall varies from 1376- 2037mm, and the annual mean temperature varies from 14.60
to 30.40 Celsius (Josha O.et al;2010).Within the Woreda, there are two agro ecology
region (middle and low land).

3.1.8. Vegetation

The study area is known for its natural vegetation cover before some 20 years ago, where
remnant natural vegetation of a country is expected to be existed. But currently the area is
under severe pressure of deforestation and land degradation, because of population
increase and their encroachment in forestlands which are converted into farm lands
especially in untouched low land areas of the Woreda. This intensive destruction of
natural vegetation had occurred during the last two decades according to Woreda
agricultural office.

Continuing increase in population pressure results not only through increase in local
population but also from the migration of adjacent lowland farmers. Such population
increment declined the crop productivity at the lowland areas, which forced the continued
expansion of cultivation in steep slopes, often involving the clearance of native upland
vegetation. The loss of vegetation cover has caused increased soil erosion, biodiversity
loss and ultimately reduced the water flows in streams and rivers (MoA, 1989).

31 
 
Deliberate burning, clearing of forests for expansion of agricultural lands and fuel wood
collection are some of the factors for the removal of natural vegetation in the study area.
.The remnants of some indigenous tree species and natural vegetation are found along the
banks of river and streams and at the top of the hilly areas. Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
Camaldulensis) is the dominant tree species widely planted in the middle altitude of the
Woreda. Currently, most farmland and roadside areas are under Eucalyptus plantation.
Farmers prefer to plant eucalyptus tree than other indigenous species due to its economic
importance as a source of income from sale of wood as construction materials and fuel
wood. However, the Eucalyptus negatively affects the soil fertility and water potential of
the Woreda which was reported by farmers during the interview.

Since natural vegetation is being an open access resource and it is exposed to misuse and
over exploitation, upland soils have been subjected to misuse and unsustainable for
farming practices that have resulted in land degradation. The uplands are being eroded
and their nutrients depleted, resulting in soil instability and permanent damage. As the
land, resource base becomes less productive, food insecurity and competition for
dwindling resource increases.

3.1.9. Population

The population size and their distribution vary from the history of early human
settlements. High population pressure existed in the middle altitude where human beings
were settled first and in low land areas, the distribution of population was low and
scattered. The total population of the Woreda is 106,664 while 62513 are women and
44,351 are men. The populations of the sampled four PAs are 27,653, where 16,247 are
women and 11,406 are men (CSA, 2007).

3.2. Farming system and land management practices

3.2.1. Farming system

Traditional mixed crop- livestock system is the predominant farming system in the study
area. The main crops grown in the study area are; Teff(Eragrostis tef) Finger millet,
Maize(Zea mays.L),Noug(Guizotia abyssinica),Faba bean(Vicia faba) and

32 
 
Barely(HordeumVulgare) in the middle altitude,and Maize, Sorghum, Seasam(Sesamum
indicum L) and Haricot bean(Phaseolus Vulgaris) are grown in the low land areas. In
addition to land management practices for improving crop land productivity, majority of
the farmers except a few farmers who use shifting cultivation at low land areas, are
using Inorganic fertilizers for soil fertility amendment .DAP and UREA fertilizers are
widely applied according to farmers recommendation rate(less than research
recommendation) and a few farmers have applied according to the recommendation in
the area only for maize. Oxen power is the main power source for ploughing and
threshing activities except maize, sorghum and sesame uses human labor for threshing.
Crop weeding is mostly practiced by hand pulling, but before some 10 years, they have
started to use herbicide for controlling weeds from Teff, Finger millet and wheat
(Triticum spp) farm. Some perennial crops like coffee, Banana and Mango are also
grown in the low land areas. Rainfall is the main source of water for agriculture in the
area. Besides supplementary irrigation water is also used for agriculture. Shifting
cultivation is widely practiced at the low land areas and continuous farming in middle
altitude, where the population density is relatively high.

3.2.2. Land Management Practices

3.2.2.1 Biological land management practices

Land degradation is an emergent issue in the study area and becoming one of the prime
agricultural constraints in crop- livestock production. The area was previously known for
its forest cover and agricultural potential. However, recently land degradation is
increasing and cropland productivity is decreasing, due to deforestation, steep slope
cultivation, over grazing and erosion. Biological land management is one of the
traditional practices, where some farmers have started exercising it after realizing the
problem of crop- land productivity reduction. Some of the biological land management
practices that practiced by the local farmers are: crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip,
agro-forestry and very few Alley cropping.

33 
 
3.2.1.1. Crop rotation

Crop rotation is mainly a common practice exercised by many farmers as compared to

other practices both in the middle altitude and low land areas for soil fertility
maintenance, weed and diseases control. The sequence of rotation is not similar in both
agro-ecology, because it depends on crop grown in the area. All sampled farmers’ fields
were cultivated for annual crops with a common rotation sequence in middle altitude teff-
bean- finger millet and Noug one after the other. Teff and finger millet are considered as
soil depleting crops and bean and Noug are legumes and enrich soil fertility. At the low
land areas: maize- seasam and sorghum are grown one after the other and seasam is
considered as soil fertility improving crop.

3.2.1.2. Intercropping

Intercropping is mostly practiced at the low land areas where Haricot bean and forages
are growing with maize and sorghum (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Intercropping Practices

3.2.1.3 Agro-forestry
Agro-forestry is also one of the practices mainly at the low land areas in the Woreda
where Mango (Mangifera indica L) is well integrated with the cultivated crops and
considered as an important component of the farm (Table 4). A few farmers continue this
practice, but the practice is still very much in progress. The reason why farmers pay more
attention for mango tree is because of its double benefits, one for the income through sale
of mango, and the second that it enhances the cropland productivity by increasing the
infiltration and by controlling the runoff and soil erosion.

34 
 
  

Figure 3: Agro-forestry practice

3.2.1.4 Grass strip

Grass strip is the other biological land management practice in the area, which is being
practiced by a few farmers in their fields by planting vetiver and native grasses along the
contour at the top and in between the farmland (Table 5). Besides serving as fodder for
the cattle, also impacts soil. It is being used for the control of soil erosion or for effective
soil and water conservation.

Figure 4: Grass strip practice on farmland

3.3.2 Physical land Management Practices

Residue management, contour farming, minimum tillage and zero tillage are some of the
physical land management practices followed in the study area. Except zero tillage
practice, all other practices are very much in vogue in the study area.

3.3.2.1 Residue Management

Residue management is one of traditional practices in which crop residues are left on
farmland, recycled until the last date of planting and used as mulch. Three different
practices are observed in the study area regarding use of crop residues (Table 6&7)

35 
 
1. C
Clearing of ccrop residues before plooughing the field.

Crop residues are left in the field annd used as annimal feed aand for fenccing.
2. C

3. B
Burning of reesidues in thhe field befoore ploughinng a farm.

Evenn though thet three prractices havve their ow wn advantaages and diisadvantage, crop
residdues in field, and incoorporating with
w the soill, they becoome organicc manure thhrough
decoomposition and controol run off. Mulch appplication inccreases watter use efficciency
during dry seasoon by regulating soil m
moisture losss

ure 5: crop residue reccycling praactices

Figu Figure 6: Burningg of crop reesidue

3.3.22.2 Contour farming

Conntour farminng is a coommon tradditional praactice exerrcised by m

many farmeers as
com
mpared to othher physicaal land manaagement praactices. Madda Jalala Peeasant Assocciation
settller is one off the sampleed PA wherre best practtice of contoour farmingg is exerciseed (Fig
7&
&8). The re-ssettlers occuupied the arreas before six years thhrough statee sponsoredd from
the E
Eastern parrts of Orom
mia Region ,East and west
w of Haraaghe Zone ((RRC,1988)).. The
areaa is where thhe State farm
m has been growing croops for veryy long periood, and as a result,
the soil fertilitty has conssiderably beeen declineed. Howeveer, those faarmers whoo have
praccticed waterr and soil conservation
c n measuress have rehaabilitated thhe degradedd land.
Theyy are well eexperiencedd in contourr farming, harvesting
h raainwater and water divversion
pracctices for irrrigation. They
T also use
u their ow
wn local eexperience in
i designinng and
impllementing w mmon
water diverssion and chhannel consttruction. Fuurrow irrigattion is a com
pracctice in the aarea under sstudy.

36 
 
  
 
ure 7: contoour farming practice
Figu ure 8: Furrow irrigation practicee
Figu

3.3.22.3 Minimu
um Tillage

Conntinuous andd intensive tillage pracctices attribuute for the ddeclining off soil fertiliity. As
the frequency of tillage increases, soil particlles are gettting finer and as a result,
propportional sppace for airr and waterr is disturbeed which afffects the normal
n grow
wth of
cropps. For exam
mple, in the study area,, frequency of tillage ffor Teff is 55-6 and for F
Finger
millet it is 4-5 times. A few farmerrs have starrted to miniimize tillage intensity in the
studdy area.

3.4 Methodss
3.4.11 Reconnaiissance Surrvey
A reeconnaissance survey w
was conducteed for selecttion of the sstudy site, teerrain, locattion
and specific stuudy fields inn October 20010 before thhe crop harvvest for seven days withhin a
Worreda. Four ssample PAs were selectted based onn the topograaphic repressentative off the
remaaining PAs..

3.4.22 Biophysiccal survey

Biollogical andd physical environmennt existing within thee study areea was idenntified
through field suurvey; Survvey of soil, water and drainage, vvegetation, and conserrvation
pracctices and sstrategies annd land mannagement ppractices, cllimate (rainnfall, altitudde, and
windds), specifiic topographhic featuress (gradient aand length oof slope, shhape and dirrection
of past/current erosion
e featture, land usse and croppping history.

37 
 
 3.4.3 Study design and sampling strategy

3.4.3.1 Design of the study

The research was designed and implemented in Diga Woreda and the role of traditional
biological and physical land management practices was assessed and examined in
improving cropland productivity. From the total of 21 PAs, four sample PAs were
selected purposively for the study. From the four PAs, 120 household’s samples and their
farm were selected for the study, in which 60 farmers field with and 60 without
traditional biological and physical land management practices on their farm. The most
common practices were: crop rotation, intercropping, alley cropping and strip-cropping,
residue management, contour farming and minimum tillage based on field observation.

Sample House Holds (HHs) and their field were selected as fields of biological and
physical land management practices based on maximum and minimum criteria set for,
and where at least four and above practices practiced on their farm and at a minimum two
for each practice. Another 60 households and their farm sample without biological and
physical land management practices were selected purposively where zero or at
maximum one practice was practiced on their fields (based on field observation). Two
sites have been analyzed and assessed for their soil fertility status, plant biomass weight
and crop yield respectively. Soil sample was taken from area of 100x50m cultivated
farmer’s field per PA for each and total 24 (12with and 12without) practices within the
range of less than 2km distance between each sample; it was due to limited number of
farm land sample found adjacently.

3.4.3.2 Sampling Technique

The research was implemented within the project area of the funding the study, namely
Diga Woreda of East Wollega Zone. Multi stage sampling techniques have been used to
select PAs, draw sample households and their farm fields for the study. The criteria for
the selection of PAs were based on; soil erosion problem, potential in agricultural
production and where some traditional biological and physical land management

38 
 
practices were relatively undertaken and while other field factors (topography, slope, soil
type and crop type) remained homogenous.

Households and their fields were purposively selected and registered from each PAs,
based on traditional biological and physical land management practices practiced on their
field through survey and data obtained from the respective PAs administration offices.
For each practice, 60 farm households were selected. Farmers and their field with and
without practices were selected purposively due to limited number of farmers who
applied the practices. A total of 120 farm households ‘with equal size (30 sample) from
each PA and random sampling techniques were used to draw sample households from list
of registered document from each PAs. Individual farmers were identified based on
variation in traditional BPLM practices observed in their farm. Efforts were made to
include diversity of BPLM practices as much as possible. 60 farmers and their fields with
and 60 without traditional biological and physical land management practices were
selected for the study.

3.4.4. Type and Source of data

Both relevant qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and
secondary sources. The primary data for qualitative study were collected from elders,
community leaders and non-participant farmers who have adequate knowledge and
information about the past and present environmental conditions of the study area. The
knowledge and information of these people include; available natural resources and its
managements, agricultural production, land use, land management practices, institutional
support,. The primary data which were collected for quantitative study include:
household characteristics (age, education, farming experiences, family size, marital
status), farm characteristics (number of plots), crop yield records, biological and physical
land management practices of soil conservation measures, labor availability, agricultural
extension and credit. The primary data were collected from sample household farmers.

Secondary data for quantitative study such as description about the study area, location,
topography, climate, population, agricultural production, land management practices

39 
 
were collected from published and unpublished documents of different Governmental
organizations.

3.4.5 Soil survey

12 soil samples was taken from selected 12 farmer’s fields (treated) those who practiced
at minimum four (two for each practices) on their farmland. Another 12 (control) soils
sample from 12 farmers’ fields with no biological and physical land management
practices exercised on their field were collected from four PAs.The distance between the
two sample were from adjacent to less than 2km. 6 soil samples from each farmland and
for each practices were collected by using auger at 20cm depth in a zigzag manner and
mixed into one composite soil sample and taken to laboratory for soil physic-chemical
properties analysis. A total of 24 soil samples(12 treated and 12 untreated) were collected
from 24 farmer’s fields on which the two dominant crops (Teff and Maize) were grown
and analyzed in the laboratory for its organic matter, NPK, CEC, pH and bulk density.
All soil samples have been taken from cropland grown on the slope range of 3-10% at the
distance of not more than 2km between the two practices.

From the same sampled farmland, 50kg of soil sample from 6 fields from each PA for
each practice was collected and taken to nursery site, and Buck wheat was grown on
1x1m of 8 seed bed, 4 for each practice by using irrigation water in randomized block
design. After 35 days of its planting, fresh biomass weight and plants height of 50 plants
from each seedbed of the two practices (treated and controll) were measured. Dry
biomass weight measurement of the seedlings was also taken after air-dried. Crop yields
were taken and measured after 75 days of its planting.

3.4.6 Soil analysis.

The soil samples were air dried, crushed with mortar and pestle, mixed well and passed
through a 2 mm sieve for the following physico-chemical analysis; organic matter
content, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, available K, soil pH, CEC and bulk
density.

40 
 
Organic carbon content was determined by wet oxidation method (Walkly, 1947). This
method involves a wet oxidation of the organic carbon with a mixture of potassium
dichromate, sulphuric acid and titrated by ferrous sulphate solution. Conversion of carbon
to organic matter was done with the empirical factor of 1.724. Total nitrogen was
determined following the Micro-Kjeldahl (1883) procedure for converting organic
nitrogen to ammonium-nitrogen that can be readily estimated. Available phosphorous of
soil samples was determined by measure absorbance on spectrophotometer following the
method of Olsen et al. (1954) at pH 7.0 AVK was by Flame photometer measurement.
pH of soil samples was measured from a soil suspension solution prepared with 1:2.5(one
gram soil with 2.5 distilled water) soil water ratios using conventional glass electrode
meter. CEC were determined by direct method NH4CHCOO (Ammonium Acetate) at pH
7.0 (Mocek et al., 1997). Bulk density of the soil was determined by the mass of a unit
volume of soil bulk including pore space. Bulk density of the soil samples were
estimated by taking undisturbed soil core from the surface of the soil by driving a metal
cylinder /core sampler (Black, 1965) with a diameter of 5 cm and a height of 5 cm.

3.4.7. Socio economic survey

Quantitative data were collected from sampled household respondents using structural
quaternaries (both open and closed ended questionnaires) which have been developed
prior to interview schedule. Semi-structured questionnaire were used to gather both
quantitative and qualitative data from household interview, key informants, focused
group discussions by open-ended questions.

3.4.7.1 Household survey

Household survey was conducted and crop yield data/ records was taken from 120
sample households, where 60 farmers and their field with and 60 without traditional
biological and physical land management practices practiced on their farm within the
selected PAs. From each PA, a history of yield records of 30 households, 15 with and 15
without traditional biological and physical land management practices practiced on their
field were taken from the secondary sources for the last consecutive ten years for the two
dominant crops (Teff from the middle altitude and Maize from the lowland) grown in the

41 
 
study area, and examined for its yield variation and the role of traditional land
management practices in improving cropland productivity was described between the two
practices.. In addition, the various types of traditional biological and physical land
management practices that have been practiced by the local farmers were identified
through farmer’s interview and field observation. Furthermore, the suitable traditional
biological and physical land management (TBPLM) practices and their effectiveness in
improving cropland productivity were also identified by examining farmer’s level of
application and preference to each or cumulative practices of different types of biological
and physical land management practices at field through household survey for further up
scaling.

3.4.8 Method of data collection

For qualitative data; observation, individual and group interview and discussions were the
main methods used for data collection where semi-structured interview have been used
primarily. Besides these, transect survey was also undertaken. During the survey,
discussion was carried out with different groups of farmers. Observations and
identifications of biological and physical land management practices practiced in the
study area were also done .The researcher and four enumerators have collected all these
data until the end of the fieldwork.

The primary data required for the quantitative study were collected from sample
households through formal survey using a structured interview schedule. However,
before the actual data collection, several preparatory activities were carried out. First,
four enumerators were trained for one day in class room on the objectives, content of the
questionnaire and method of data collection; and second, one day practical field training
on the types, identification and assessment of biological and physical land management
practices. Four development agents of Agricultural Development Office (enumerators)
who have better knowledge and experience on the farming and land management system
of the study area were participated in data collection both at household and field level.

42 
 
3.4.9 Data Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data that have been obtained through data collection
methods were analyzed by using appropriate methods for each analysis. The quantitative
data obtained from the soil analysis, were subjected to statistical sample analysis using
SPSS computer software like; mean, standard deviation and standard error of mean for
mean separation of each soil parameters. Paired samples T-Test analysis was done to
detect whether the differences in soil attributes studied differed significantly between
farmers’ fields with and without TBPLM practices. While household survey for the states
of traditional BPLM practice was analyzed using descriptive statistics to examine the
difference and relationship between the variables. Descriptive statistics like: percentage,
mean, variance, figures, charts and standard deviation. Qualitative data was analyzed and
interpreted in words.

3.4.9.1 Soil data Analysis

Data that have been obtained from the laboratory test and analysis for each soil chemical
property of soil with and without BPLM practices were subjected to descriptive statistical
analysis for determination of mean, standard deviation and standard error of mean for
each variable. Mean difference between the two variables (with and without), traditional
BPLM practice was calculated and concluded accordingly. Also to detect the presence of
significant difference between the two practices in soil physic-chemical properties, paired
samples T-Test analysis were conducted by using SPSS-16 software computer at 0.01,
0.05 and 0.1 significance level. The final output of the analysis was interpreted in words
and figures depending on criteria stated for accepting or rejecting null hypothesis based
on t calculated and p-value and the mean values of each variable were displayed on tables
and figures.

3.4.9.2 Socio-economic data analysis

The data which were collected from household respondents about their trend and
experience of traditional BPLM practices on their farmland by using questionnaire were
analyzed using descriptive statistics such as standard deviation, means, and percentages.

43 
 
Paired samples T-test analysis was also used to compute yield data obtained from
household respondents, which has been practiced through time series and examined to
check whether yield difference existed between farmland with and without traditional
BPLM practices during the last 10 years. Finally mean and computed percentages of each
variable was displayed on tables and charts and interpreted accordingly.

44 
 
 4. Result and Discussions

4.1. States of traditional Biological and physical land management practices

4.1.1 Biological land management practices

Biological land management practice is one of the traditional practices under taken by the
local farmers in the study area. Some of the biological land management practices that
practiced by the local farmers were: crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip and agro-
forestry (Fig 9).

4.1.1.1 Crop rotation 

This is very important, as a shortage of nitrogen is one of the most common causes of
crops not growing well. Plant nutrients specially nitrogen which has been removed by
crop harvest or lost from soil by erosion must be replenished by incorporating nitrogen
fixing leguminous crop in cropping sequences for better yield. Crop rotation as indicated
in the (Fig 9) above ranked first, which has been practiced by almost all sampled
households 59 (98.3%). Almost all of sampled farmers’ fields were cultivated for annual
crops with a common rotation sequences; Teff-bean- finger millet and Noug (Niger seed)
one after the other in middle altitude. Teff and finger millet are considered as soil
depleting crops and bean and Noug are legumes and enrich soil fertility. At the low land
areas: maize- seasam and sorghum are grown one after the other and seasam is
considered as soil fertility improving crop. It is a long year’s farmer’s experiences in
which legume crops were rotating with other non-leguminous crops for the main
purposes of soil fertility improvement in the study areas. The use of crop rotation helps to
increase soil organic matter, reduce erosion and bring biological diversity back to the
soil.

4.1.1.2 Intercropping 

Intercropping follows specific arrangements where some legume animal fodder and
haricot bean grown in rows within the main crops (maize and sorghum) in the study area.
From the total 60 sampled households 43(71%) of them were used intercropping
practices on their field (Fig 9). Even though, farmers practices intercropping mainly to

45 
 
ensure the availability of food from different crops and to obtain animal feed on
continuous supply, it also improves soil fertility through crop diversification and provide
soil cover to protect the impact of rain drop on soil and minimize erosion which is in
agreement with the finding of (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) reported that, the aim of
intercropping is to increase productivity of the land and to protect the soil against erosion.

4.1.1.3 Grass strip 

The barriers were usually of grasses, which has been planted or left to grow naturally in
narrow strips along the contour at intervals across the slope of a field. The grass strips act
in the same way as the crop residue barriers act, trapping moving soil, slowing down
moving water, and encouraging it to sink into the soil. When planted as a contour hedge it
acts as a continuous filtering system that slow down run off and collects soil sediments at
the hedge faces. 17(28%) of sampled households were used grass strip practices for soil
fertility improvement in the areas (Fig 9).Some natural grasses were left in between
cropland across the contour and vetiver grasses were planted across contour line between
the crops for controlling run off and nutrient loss and increases water infiltration in the
study areas.

4.1.1.4 Agro‐forestry 

Agro forestry has been promoted in the lowland areas in recent years where tree and
field crops are grown together in the same field. Mango trees are often grown in narrow
strips, often on the contour, and are usually used for intercepting raindrop and decreases
run off which is in agreement with (Sanders, 2004) who reported that, Agro-forestry
practices are used in many ways to protect the soil. They are particularly effective as
windbreaks and are frequently used to control erosion and reclaim badly degraded land.
It is also a valuable traditional practice which plays an important role in maintaining
ecological stability. Very few innovative farmers were started to integrate fruit tress into
their farmland. From the total 60 sampled households only 14 (23%) of them were
grown mango trees within the cropland specifically at the low land areas of the Woreda,
but still in progress. The states of traditional biological land management practices by
sampled HHs presented in (Fig 9).

46 
 
 States of BPLM practices
70
59
Number of respondents

60
50 43
40
30
20 17
14
10
0
Crop rotation Grass strip Intercropng Agro‐forestry
Types of practices

Figure 9: Traditional BLM practices by respondents

4.1.2. Physical land management practices

A Socio-economic survey result indicates that contour farming, residue management and
minimum tillage are some common traditional physical land management practices
practiced in the study area. Among these practices, contour farming is a potential practice
exercised by 56(93.3%) sample households followed by residue recycling 52(86.6%) and
41(68%) minimum tillage as presented in (Fig 10).

4.1.2.1 Contour farming

This consists of cultivating the land on or close to the contour instead of up and down the
slope or round and round the field. When this is done, each furrow acts as a small dam,
catching water as it runs down the hill and encouraging it to soak into the soil. This
simple conservation measure may be enough by itself to prevent the runoff of water and
erosion where slopes are gentle and the rainfall intensities are low. Such land
management practices were also supported with semi-parallel drainage furrows
depending on the slope and types of crops grown. For example Teff in the middle altitude
is planted after the seed bed is smoothed and packed by animals, and higher run off rates
are expected. In such cropland drainage furrows was constructed relatively at closer

47 
 
interval depending on the slope for controlling soil erosion in the study area which is in
agreement with the finding of (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) that reported, contour
cultivation can be adjusted to standard ridge and furrow system to make it effective in
controlling soil erosion and moisture conservation.

56(93%) sampled households were practiced contour farming on their field, particularly
Mada Jalala farmers among sampled PAs in the Woreda have a long years’ experience in
using such practices which accompanied with semi-parallel furrow with a sufficient
slope to allow excess water to gently flow based on the degree of the slope (Fig 10).

4.1.2.2 Residue Management

Residue management is an act of leaving crop residue on the field after harvest mainly
for the purpose of animal feed, fuel and construction materials in the study area. Despite
its uses as animal feed, fuel and construction purpose crop residues are very important for
crop land improvements by enhancing water availability to crops and increasing the soils
water retention capacity (CAB International, 1997).

It is one of the physical land management practices applied by farmers in both middle
altitude and low land areas of the study Woreda. Crop straw, Maize and sorghum stalks
are among crop residues used as soil mulch in protecting soil moisture lose during dry
season, intercepts rain drops impacts from striking soil surface and contribute in reducing
run off. These add organic matter to the soil through decomposition of its litters and
improve physical structures of the soil. Until the recent years returning crop residues to
soil were not common practices for most farmers, who prefer to use for livestock feed,
fuel and construction materials or to burn or remove from the fields.

Currently,52( 86%) of the households were started to practice residue recycling on their
farm fields for soil fertility improvement (Fig 10), which adds organic matter to the soil
and increases moisture retention capacity of the soil. This finding was found to be in
agreement with the works (FAO, 1995), reported that, mulches are materials placed on
the soil surface to protect it against raindrop impact and erosion, and to enhance its
fertility Crop residue mulching is a system of maintaining a protective cover of
48 
 
vegetative residues such as straw, maize stalks, palm fronds and stubble on the soil
surface.

 4.1.2.3 Minimum tillage

Minimum tillage is also the other traditional physical land management practice in which
soil disturbance is reduced. This practice was mostly done at the area where soil
compaction is less and the soil is light, such type of soil is found at the low land areas of
the Woreda. Furthermore, in the study area particularly at the middle altitude 6-5 time’s
tillage and packing of the fine seedbed by animals is a common practice for teff and
finger millet. This intensive tillage practices reduces infiltration, smoothens the land
surface and consequently low surface water storage and leading to high runoff and soil
loss. The finding was found to be in agreement with the works (Teklu Erkossa and
Gezahegn Ayele, 2003) who observed that high rate of erosion is caused mainly by
vegetation clearance and intensive tillage. In the region, 7-9 times tillage and packing of
the fine seedbed by animals is a common practice for teff in Digga Leeqaa district. This
reduces infiltration, smoothens the land surface and consequently low surface storage
leading to high runoff and soil loss.

Most farmers in the low land areas have started to reduce the frequency of tillage, since
their soil is relatively fertile and lose. About 41( 68%) of the sampled households were
practiced reduced tillage on the crop land for fertility improvement in the study area from
the total of 60 households based on crop grown and soil type( from 6 times to 4 for Teff
and from 4 times to 2-3 for Maize)as it was reported from the respondents(Fig 10).

Soil disturbances tend to stimulate soil carbon loss through enhanced decomposition and
erosion. Therefore, reducing soil disturbances through minimal tillage systems reduces
soil carbon losses.  At the soil surface, the impact of raindrops on a bare soil surface can
decrease porosity through the formation of surface seals and crusts. These limit the rate
of infiltration, leading to increased runoff (McGarry, Des. 2000).

49 
 
 States of PLM practices
60 56
52
Number of respondants

50
41
40

30

20

10

0
Contour farming Residue management Minimum tillage
Types of practices

Figure 10: State of Physical land management practices by the respondents

4.1.3 The state of land management practices by HHs

Both biological and physical land management practices are the same coin of different
face, and one supports the other, and one without the other is not as much effective in
improving cropland productivity. However, application of a set practice of traditional
biological and physical land management practices on the farmland simultaneously
would have improved cropland productivity.

From the household survey results the role of crop rotation, intercropping, contour
farming and residue recycling have showed a greater role in improving cropland
productivity in the study area. Generally, from the 60 household croplands, most farmers
applied a combination of traditional BPLM practices to maintain soil fertility. However,
as it indicated in(Fig 9& 10), majority of the surveyed farmland (70%) were used a set of
practices; consists of 98% crop rotation, 93% of contour farming, 86% of residue
recycling, 71% of intercropping, 68% of minimum tillage, 28% of grass strip and 23% of
agro-forestry. Adopting a single practice alone may not lead to in improving crop land
productivities, but a set of practices will improve more. Crop rotation practice is the first
practice in maintaining soil fertility above all as it reported from sampled HHs.

50 
 
4.2 Traditional land management practices and soil quality
Based on the results of the following parameters, soil organic matter, total nitrogen,
available phosphorus, available potassium, CEC, pH, bulk density, the role of traditional
BPLM practices in improving soil quality was identified and documented.

4.2.1 Soil organic matter content

The results of the soil organic matter content analysis showed that traditional land
management practices have a significant impact in maintaining and improving the soil
organic matter content (Table 8). Those fields without biological and physical land
management practices showed significantly lower amount of organic matter than those of
the treated fields.

Table 8: Paired samples t-test for Soil Organic Matter content

Mean (%) Std. Error Mean t-value P-value

With BPLM 7.4925 .09780 2.820 .017
Without BPLM 7.2167

The greater SOM content of the soil on fields with BPLM practices could possibly be due
to the added organic matter input to the soil through decaying of plant biomass,
maintenance of the available organic matter and plant nutrients and by improving the
physical structures of the soil by reducing run off. On the other hand, burning of crop
residues, clearing of crop residue after harvest, steep slope cultivation that causes
accelerated erosion, continuous cultivation which makes the soil more loose and
susceptible to soil erosion would decrease crop land productivity. Therefore, traditional
BPLM practices play a great role in improving crop land productivity by adding and
maintaining the organic matter in the soil. The finding was in agreement with (Brawn et
al,. 1994) who reported that increased infiltration also improves groundwater recharge,
thus increasing well supplies and also organic matter builds and improves soil structure,
thereby, improving soil drainage, infiltration of water in to the soil, aeration and water
holding capacity.

51 
 
4.2.2 Total nitrogen

The results of the total nitrogen content of soil analysis revealed that, traditional land
management practices have a significant role in adding and maintain the total nitrogen
contents of soil. Those fields with biological and physical land management practices
showed significant different in the amount of total nitrogen than the untreated fields as
indicated Table 9.

Table 9: Paired samples t-test for Total Nitrogen content(%)

Mean Std.error t-value p-value

With BPLM .3742 0.00529 2.67 0.021
Without BPLM .3600

The higher total nitrogen values on the soil with BPLM fields could be a result of
conservational tillage, crop rotation, intercropping and grass strip, which add SOM and
prevent soil erosion, and such condition creates favorable condition for the activities of
micro-organism in decomposing SOM.

Incorporating legume crop in the sequences of crop rotation enables to add Organic
nitrogen to the soil through fixation. Nitrogen content of soil is directly related to the
presence of SOM. SOM content of cropland without BPLM practice is low as relative to
cropland with BPLM practices. Burning of crop residues is the other cause of nitrogen
loss to the atmosphere. Moreover, removal of plant nutrients without proportional supply
of organic matter to the soil and removal of nitrogen either by erosion or leaching from
the soil due to slope cultivation are the other causes of decline of total nitrogen. So
application of traditional BPLM practices reverses such removal of plant nutrients and
improves crop land productivity. Soil cover protects the soil against the impact of
raindrops, prevents the loss of water from the soil through evaporation, and also protects
the soil from the heating effect of the sun. Soil temperature influences the absorption of
water and nutrients by plants, seed germination and root development, as well as soil
microbial activity and crusting and hardening of the soil. This means that the amount of

52 
 
water that enters the soil (infiltration) must be increased and that the moisture lost
through runoff and evaporation must be reduced. Increasing soil cover and better soil
management can help achieve this. Soil should be disturbed as little as possible, there
should be permanent soil cover and the amount of organic matter should be increased
(Bauer, A. & Black, A.L. 1994).

4.2.3 Available pphosphorus

The results of soil analysis of available phosphorus content revealed that, traditional land
management practices have a significant impact on the availability of phosphorus in the
soil by providing organic matter which adds phosphorus and protect from the removal
and fixation of phosphorous. Fields with biological and physical land management
practices showed significantly higher amount of available phosphorus than untreated
fields as indicated in Table 10.

Table 10: Paired samples t-test for available Phosphorus content

Mean(ppm) Std.error t-value p-value

With BPLM 5.8333 .4820 4.841 0.001

Without BPLM 3.5000

Based on the results of soil quality analysis above, the role of traditional BPLM practices
in this regard is providing vegetation cover, adds organic matter to the soil, and reduces
the removal of available water-soluble cation by erosion and increase buffering capacity
of the soil. As the result fixation of P by aluminum and others, which formed under acid
soil is reduced. Intensive tillage increases the loss of organic matter by enhancing
decomposition and hence loss of nutrient which is also in agreement with the report that
the presence of low organic matter decreases the amount of available phosphorous in
soils (Haile, 2007). Therefore, a traditional BPLM practice play great roles in improving
crop land productivity by providing vegetation cover and makes more phosphors
available to plants by reducing its fixation in the soil.

53 
 
4.2.4 Available potassium(meq/100g)

The results of soil analysis of available potassium content showed that, traditional land
management practices have no significant impact on the potassium availability in the soil.
Those fields with biological and physical land management practices and untreated field
was not significantly different in available potassium contents ((Table 11).

Table 11: Paired samples t-test for available Potassium content

Mean Std. error t-value p-value

With BPLM .4392 .07697 1.41 .184

Without BPLM .3300

4.2.5 pH water

The results of the soil pH content analysis revealed that traditional land management
practices have a significant role in providing necessary soil cover, organic matter and
reduces run off, as the result plant nutrient is easily accessible to the crop. Those fields
without biological and physical land management practices showed significantly lower
amount of soil pH than the treated fields (Table 12).

Table 12: Paired samples t-test for Soil pH content

Mean N Std. error t-value p-value

With BPLM 5.3742 12 .10067 2.24 .046
Without BPLM 5.1483 12

The possible reasons for lower pH value for soil without BPLM practice was due to low
organic matter content resulted from inadequate traditional land management practices ,
as a result water soluble nutrients are removed by soil erosion and leaching, and what is
remaining in the soil is water insoluble acid forming elements like; Fe and Al. When H
ion in the soil is high some plant nutrients are becoming less available to the plants,
which is also in agreement with (Taffa Tulu, 2002) reported that, mono cropping creates
an artificial ecosystem, which alters the pH of the field, and removal of calcium by crop
54 
 
can tend to make soil more acidic. Traditional BPLM practices will reverse the condition
by providing necessary soil cover, organic matter and reduces run off, as the result plant
nutrient is easily accessible to the crop.

4.2.6 .Cation Exchange Capacity

The result of caton exchange capacity level of soil raveled that traditional land
management practices have a significant role in improving soil quality by providing
necessary soil cover, organic matter and reduces run off, as the result CEC of the soil was
improved. Those fields with biological and physical land management practices were
significantly higher in CEC than untreated fields (Table 13).

Table 13: Paired samples t-test for Soil CEC(meq)

Mean Std. error t-value p-value
Soil with BPLM 44.33 1.54779 2.365 0.046
Soil without BPLM 41.95

The reasons for low CEC of soil without BPLM practice is due to low organic matter
content of the soil. Therefore, traditional land management practices are important in
improving cropland productivity by adding organic matter to the soil; as a result CEC of
soil is also increased. The finding was also in agreement with (Haile, 2007) that reported
the low level of clay and humus in soil is low in CEC, whereas, soil high in clay and
humus has a higher in CEC.

4.2.7 Bulk density

The result of bulk density contents of the soil sample showed that, traditional land
management practices have a significant impacts in maintain soil fertility. Those fields
without biological and physical land management practices showed significantly higher
amount of soil bulk density than the treated fields (Table 14).

55 
 
Table 14: Paired samples t-test for Soil Bulk density(gm/cm3)

Mean Std.error t-value p-value

Soil with BPLM .9542 .02538 2.75 .019
Soil without BPLM 1.0242

The possible reason for the reduction of bulk density in soil with BPLM practice is due to
the addition of soil organic matter to the soil through the application of traditional land
management practices. The result of organic matter content and bulky density is inversely
proportional to each other. The higher the OM and the lesser bulk density. Therefore,
traditional land management practices have a role in improving cropland productivity by
providing necessary organic matter to the soil.

4.2.8 Land degradation indices% of soil quality of land without as compared to

with traditional BPLM practices.

Table 15: land degradation indices% of soil without as compared to soil with BPLM

Soil parameters Mean values of soil chemical Soil with-soil Degradation Sign.
properties of the two practices w/o BPLM indices % level

Soil with Soil without Mean Soil without

BPLMP BPLMP difference BPLM %

Organic matter 7.49 7.2 0.29** -4% 0.017

Total nitrogen 0.37 0.36 0.01** -3% 0.021

Available Phosphorus 5.83 3.5 2.33*** -40% 0.001

Available Potash 0.44 0.33 0.11ns ns ns

CEC 44.33 41.95 2.38** -5.4% 0.046

pH 5.37 5.15 0.22** -4% 0.046

Bulk density 0.95 1.03 0.08 ** 8% 0.019

*** Significant at 0.01, ** significant at0.05 and ns=not significant

56 
 
4.3.Traditional land management practices and cropland productivity

Buck wheat was used for the biomass weight, height and crop yield test and analysis.

4.3.1 Plant fresh biomass weight

Plant wet biomass weight of 50 plants from each replication have been taken after 35
days of planting date. The results of the measured biomass weight of crops showed that
traditional land management practices play a significant role in improving soil fertility. A
crop which has been grown on soil with land management practices scored significantly
greater wet biomass weight than untreated fields (Table 16).

Table 16: Paired samples t-test of wet biomass weight of crops

Mean(gm) Std. error t-value P-value
Soil with BPLM 92.5 4.11299 3.52 0.039
Soil without BPLM 78

The possible reasons for the greater plant biomass difference in soil with BPLM practice
is the availability of plant nutrient in the soil. Nutrient availability was maintained by
application of traditional BPLM practices on the farmland. These practices are protecting
the removal of plant nutrients by soil erosion, enhancing water infiltration, adds organic
matter and organic nitrogen into the soil. It was the effort of a few innovative farmers
who have been applied some traditional BPLM practice to improve cropland
productivity, where other factors were remain the same for the two practices.

Traditional BPLM practice with very low cost can enrich the soil with necessary plant
nutrients by providing necessary soil cover and protect from the direct impact of rain
drop and reduces run of, adds organic matter and make plant nutrients more available to
the plant which is also in agreement with(Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) reported that
biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil
fertility improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil
losses and improve productivity.

57 
 
The results of the analysis revealed that, combination of traditional Biological and
Physical land management practice make difference in wet biomass weight between the
two practices. This difference is due to addition and maintaining of organic matter in the
soil through crop rotation, vegetation cover, mulch and minimum soil disturbance
practices. The low wet biomass weight of soil without BPLM practice was resulted from
the soil nutrient depletion by erosion and crop removal due to inadequate traditional
biological and physical land management practices, since other abiotic factors (physical
factors) were remain similar between the two practices which were assessed during the
biophysical survey of the study area.

4.3.2 Plant dry biomass weight

50 plants which were measured for its wet biomass weight from each replication was
exposed to air dried for about five days. The result of dry biomass weight of a crop grown
on soil with traditional land management practices showed that traditional BPLM
practices have a significant role in improving soil fertility through addition of organic
input to the soil and maintain organic matter existing in the soil. Dry biomass weight of
crop grown on soil of land with BPLM practice showed significantly greater than soils
from untreated fields(Fig 17).

Table 17: Paired samples t-test of dry biomass weight of crops

Mean(gm) Std. error t-value p-value

Soil with BPLM 20.8 .91287 4.38 .022
Soil without BPLM 16.8

The results of dry biomass weight of a crop revealed that traditional biological and
physical land management practice make difference in wet biomass weight between the
two practices. This difference was due to addition and maintaining of organic matter in
the soil through crop rotation, vegetation cover, mulch and minimum soil disturbance
practices. The low wet biomass weight of soil without BPLM practice was resulted from
the soil nutrient depletion by erosion and crop removal due to inadequate traditional
biological and physical land management practices; since the other abiotic factors

58 
 
(physical factors) were remain similar which were assessed during the biophysical survey
of the study area. Therefore, traditional land management practice plays a great role in
improving cropland productivity by providing necessary soil cover which prevents the
impact of rain drop and as a result erosion is reduced.

4.3.3 Plant height

The results of plant height measurement showed that there was no significant difference
between land with traditional land management practices and without practices in plant
height (Table 18).

Table 18: Paired samples t-test of plant height

Mean Std. error t-value P-value

Soil with BPLM 44.2500 1.5536 2.62 .079
Soil without BPLM 40.1750

4.3.4 Buck wheat yield

The result of buck wheat yield of the test revealed that soil of land with traditional land
management, have a significant role in increasing crop yields by the addition of organic
matter to the soil through the practices of crop rotation, intercropping, residue recycling
on farmland. there was a significant yield difference at 0.1 level significance between the
two practices (Table 19).

Table 19: Paired samples t-test of buck wheat yield

 
Mean Std. error t-value P-value
Soil with BPLMP 517.00 28.097 2.63 .078  

Soil without BPLMP 442.88  

The possible reasons for the higher in crop yield of soil with traditional biological and
physical land management practices are due to available plant nutrient in the soil. Land

59 
 
management practices enables plant nutrient more stable and accessible to crops. Such
nutrient availability was due to soil management practices that maintain the existing organic
matter, replaces nutrient which have been removed by crop harvest and prevents soil erosion.
Absence of adequate traditional BPLM practices on the cropland leads to soil fertility
deterioration and as result crop productivity is being declined

4 .3.5 Summery of the role of traditional BPLMP and crop productivity

As indicated in table 22 the result of buck wheat measurement in wet and dry biomass weight,
plant height and yield, which have been grown on soil with and without traditional BPLM
practices showed that a significant difference in all measured parameters between the two
practices. The result showed that traditional biological and physical land management
practices have a great role in improving crop land productivity by providing necessary soil
cover which prevent the loss of nutrient either by erosion or leaching and adds organic matter
to the soil as compared to without practices. Percent difference showed that soil with
traditional BPLM practices have greater by 16% in wet biomass weight, 19% dry biomass
weight, 5% plant height and 14% than soil without traditional BPLM practices.

Table 20: Summary of the role of BPLM practices and cropland productivity
Parameters Soil with Soil without Mean Difference (%)
BPLMP BPLMP difference
Fresh biomass 92.5 78 14.5** 16%
weight(gm)
Dry biomass 20.57 16.75 4** 19.30%
weight(gm)
Plant height (cm) 42.25 40.15 2.08ns 5%
Crop yield (kg) 517 442.75 74.25* 14.40%

** Significant at 0.05 and * significant at 0.1, ns= not significant

The greater crop yield of soil of land with traditional land management practices was due
to availability of plant nutrient to crops through appropriate land management practices.
The practices provides soil cover and protect from the impact of rain drops and reduces

60 
 
runoff and adds organic matter by its biomass decomposition as a result nutrients are
more available to the crop. Less crop yield of soil of land without land management
practices was due to the removal of plant nutrient by soil erosion and crop harvest
without replacement by adequate land management practices. Therefore, traditional land
management practices have a role to play in increasing crop yield by adding and maintain
the available nutrient in the soil and enable the crop to take it on a continuous bases.

4.3.6 Teff yield

The result of ten years teff yield record and trends showed that traditional land
management practices have a high significant role in improving cropland productivity
through conserving soil by its vegetative barriers from the removal by runoff. Ten years
yield records of land with traditional land management practices was significantly greater
than untreated farmers fields (Table 21).

Table 21: Paired samples t-test of Teff yield data records

Mean Std. error t-value P-value

Soil with BPLM 6.3000 .32318 8.97 .000

Soil without BPLM 3.4000

The higher yield records of land with traditional land management practices was due to a
significant impacts of land management practices which adds and conserve the organic
matter content of the soil, and as a result cropland productivity have been improved.

Yield reduction in the case of soil without BPLM practice was due to inadequate
traditional BPLM practices, since other physical factors were remaining the same for the
two practices. It means that there was no crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip, residue
recycling practices on their fields which play an important role in soil fertility
improvement. So, appropriate traditional biological and physical land management can
improve crop land productivity and crop production by providing vegetative cover,

61 
 
organic matter which improves physical structure of soil, reduce soil erosion and as result
nutrients are more available to the plants.

As indicated in (Figure 11), it showed that there were yield variations within and between
practices during the last ten years. This difference was resulted from the use of a set of
practices, reduced practice and without land management practices. The highest yield
within practices resulted from application of appropriate set of traditional BPLM. Yield
difference between the two practices was due to application of traditional BPLM
practices on farmland which maintain soil fertility by providing soil vegetative cover,
adding organic matter and it improves soil physical structures as a result soil erosion is
reduced.

Teff yield of ten years trends
10
Yield in quntals/hec

8
6 Soil with
4 BPLM
2
0
1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

years
 

Figure 11: Trends of ten years Teff yield data records

4.3.7 Maize yield

The result of ten years maize yield record and trends revealed that traditional land
management practices have a high significant impact in improving cropland productivity
by its vegetative barriers which prevent nutrient removal by runoff, adds organic matter
and conserve moisture loss. Ten years yield records of land with traditional land
management practices was highly significantly greater than untreated farmers fields
(Table 22).

62 
 
Table 22: Paired samples t-test of Maize yield data records

Mean Std. error t-value P-value

Soil with BPLM 26.9000 .86987 11.15 .000
Soil without BPLM 17.2000

The expected reason for high yield records of soil with BPLM practice as compared to
untreated fields was due to the application of traditional BPLM practice on their field
particularly crop rotation, grass strip, intercropping and agro-forestry practices. These
practices were playing a significant role in cropland improvement among biological land
management practices. Residue recycling especially residue of maize, sorghum, sesame,
and contour farming have a leading potential practices among physical land management
practices in the study area. Soils with appropriate traditional practices were protected
from runoff by vegetation cover, mulch and contour farming. Low yield records of soil
without BPLM practice were due to lack of traditional Biological and physical land
management practices on their farm; while other physical factors were, remain
homogenous. As indicated in Fig 12 land with traditional land management practices
were scored the higher yield than without practices.

Tenyears trends of maize yield
40
Yield in quntals/hec

30
Soil with BPLM
20
Soil without BPLM
10
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

Years
            
Figure 12: Trends of ten years maize yield records

63 
 
4.4 Effectiveness and suitability of the traditional land management practices

4.4.1 Farmers’ responses on effectiveness of each traditional land management

practices

The results of socio-economic survey indicated in the table 23 crop rotation ranked first
by almost all respondents as it is highly effective in improving crop land productivity and
contour farming ranked second, residue management third, Intercropping fourth,
Minimum tillage fifth, Agro forestry sixth and Grass strip ranked last under the score of
highly effective option. From soil laboratory result and household survey about the
suitability of each practices, one can conclude that the cumulative application of both
biological and physical land management practices are very effective in improving crop
land productivity within the slope ranges of 3- 8% according to farmers report . From the
total 60 sample households, only three farmers were responded differently on the
effectiveness of the practice by answering, no to the option.

Table 23: Farmers responses on effectiveness of traditional BPLM practices

Types of practices Highly Moderately effective Less effective
effective(n=60) (n=60) (n=60)

Crop rotation 57(95%) 0 0

Grass strip 10(16.6%) 6(10%) 1(1%)
Intercropping 26(43.3) 14(23%) 2(3%)
Agro-forestry 14(23.3%) 0 0
Contour farming 49(81.6%) 5(8.3%) 1
Residue Management 37(61.6%) 14(23%) 1(1.6%)
Minimum tillage 18(30%) 11(18.3%) 2(3.3%)
Combinations of practices 57(95%) 0 0

4.4.2 Effectiveness of traditional land management practices on soil quality

The result of soil chemical property analysis indicates those soil samples which have
been taken from the field with set of practices scored higher mean value for all
parameters except for bulk density. As presented in (Fig. 13) for organic matter contents
and (Fig. 14) for AVP contents. Soil at middle altitude area have less organic matter
contents as indicated in sampled farmers field (1,2,3,4,5&6), while the soil at low land

64 
 
areaa are relatiively have higher OM
M in samppled farmlaand(7,8,9,100,11,&12). These
variaations in m
mean value were
w due too applicationn of a set of practice inn which low
w land
areaas, farmers w
were practicced a set off practices ass comparedd to middle land
l farmerrs.. So,
appllication of tthe combinaation of all traditional BPLM pracctices on a farm land iis very
suitaable practicce in improvving crop lland producctivity in thhe area and the higher mean
valuue revealed this facts. T
The expecteed variation in the valuue of soil chhemical propperties
amoong sampledd soil is ddue to inheerent soil m
material andd types andd extent off land
mannagement prractices withhin a field.

O
Organic mattter

0.6
Om value in%

0.4
0.2 with BPLM
M
0 without BP
PLM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1
12
Sampled ffarmland

Figu
ure 13: Effeectiveness oof land man
nagement p
practices baased on OM
M value

Avalaible phosp
phers

10
AVP value in ppm

5
With BPLLM
0 W/o BPLM
M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sampled
d farmland

ure 14: Effeectiveness oof land man

Figu nagement p
practices baased on AV
VP

65 
 
4.4.33 Effectiven
ness of trad
ditional land managem
ment practices for plaant growth &
yield
d

As presented iin (Figure 15) the plaants which have beenn grown onn soil with better
tradiitional BPL
LM practices scored higghest wet bbiomass weiight due to a set of praactices
praccticed as coompared to reduced practices. Sooil without traditional BPLM praactices
scorred less weet plant bioomass weigght, due too lack of trraditional land managgement
pracctices exerccised on theeir fields w which improoves croplaand productivity througgh the
appllication andd conservattion nutriennt by adeqquate tradittional BPLM M practices. So,
appllication of sset of practiices is veryy suitable trraditional BPLM practiices in imprroving
cropp land produuctivity.

Sam
mple plots (11&2) have been
b taken ffrom the miiddle altitudde areas whiich is low inn plant
wet biomass weight
w as coompared to sample ploots (3&4) frrom low lannd area relaatively
withh the higheest plant biomass weight. Such variation iis due to soil fertilitty and
appllication of traditional BPLM pracctices differrence between the twoo agro-ecollogical
regioons in the Woreda.
W

As iindicated inn (Fig. 16) thhere is a yieeld differennce betweenn the practicces and withhin the
pracctices. This difference iis due to appplication ofo set of praactices, reduuced practicces, no
pracctices and agge of croppping years. R Replication with the hiighest yield shows thatt, a set
of or
o combinattions of prractices werre practicedd on their ffarmland as relative tto low
yieldded replicattions within agro-ecologgical regionn.

plant fressh biomass wieght
Weight in (gm)

150
100
50 Witth BPLM
0 without BPLM
1 2 3 4
Replicattion

Figgure 15: Efffectiveness of land maanagement p

practices on
n Plant bioomass

66 
 
 Buck wheat yield
d
Yield in kg/hec

600
400
Soil with BPLM
200
Soil witho
out BPLM
0
1 2 3 4
Replication
ns

ure 16: Effeectiveness oof land man

Figu nagement practices
p on
n crop yield
d

67 
 
 5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions

The finding of the study revealed that traditional biological and physical land
management practices have a significant role in improving cropland and biomass
productivity based on its impact on soil quality like; soil organic matter content, total
nitrogen, available phosphorous, available potash CEC, pH and bulk density, even though
no statistically significant differences were seen in Available potash and CEC. Moreover,
the results of field experiment also revealed that, the crop grown on soil with traditional
BPLM practices have been scored the highest plant wet and dry biomass weight, plant
height and yield as compared to without BPLM practices. The reason for soil fertility
differences are due to application of a set of traditional BPLM practices on the farm land
in which , crop rotation, grass strip, intercropping and agro forestry practices of
biological land management and contour farming, residue management and minimum
tillage of physical land management’s were applied on farm lands.

The fertility deterioration of farm fields without traditional biological and physical land
management practices are due to inadequate traditional BPLM practices like; crop
rotation, intercropping grass strip, agro forestry, residue recycling, contour farming and
minimum tillage resulted from continuous removal of plant nutrients by erosion and crop
harvest without any replacements. Traditional BPLM practices of soil conservation
measures on cropland with the slope range between 3 and 8% alone can improve
cropland productivity without any supplementary physical structures of soil conservation
measures with a minimum cost, the potential role of land management practices are
improving and maintaining soil fertility by providing soil vegetative cover, adding
organic matter which improves soil physical structures and as a result nutrient removal
by soil erosion and leaching are reduced, the results of the study revealed these facts. A
soil that is porous, absorptive, and rich in organic matter and biological activity is able to
support maximum crop production for every drop of water it receives.

From soil laboratory results and household survey, application of the combination of all
traditional BPLM practices on farmland is highly a suitable practice in improving

68 
 
cropland productivity. Therefore, traditional biological and physical land management
practices play a significant role in improving cropland productivity by better matching
management practices to local crop and soil conditions.

5.2 Recommendations

¾ Training and experience sharing program should be given to the local farmers on
use of traditional land management practices for up scaling.
¾ A combination of traditional biological and physical land management practices
should be practiced for effective cropland improvement.
¾ Agro forestry and experience of leaving indigenous trees practices on farm is
important in improving cropland productivity and environmental stability.
¾ Contour farming practices should be practiced for improving water use efficiency
of the crop and controlling run off
¾ The sequence of crop rotation (non-legumes with legume crop) should be kept,
which is a base for the effectiveness of the other practices.
¾ Appropriate plant seedling of leguminous trees, which used for agro forestry and
grass strip purpose should be provided to the local farmers.
¾ Due attention should be given to leave and incorporate crop residues in the soil,
which maintain organic matter and increases water infiltration by reducing run
off.
¾ A set of traditional biological and physical land management practices are
effective in rain water management and soil conservation measures on land with
less than 8% slope.

69 
 
 6. References

Admassie, (1995). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures
Atakilte, B. (2003). Soil conservation, land use and property right in northern
Ethiopia. Understanding environmental change in smallholder farming systems.
Doctoral Thesis

Ayalneh, D. (2003). Integrated national resources management to enhance food

security.The case of community based approaches in Ethiopia, FAO, Rome,
Italy 1-44

Barber, R. (1984). An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in the

highlands their impacts and hazards. Ethiopian highlands reclamation Study. Land
use Planning and Regulator Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia

Bardhan, P. (1989) Alternative approaches to the theory of institutions in economic

developmentIn population growth and agricultural change in Africa, Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Bauer, A. & Black, A.L. (1994). Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter
content on soil productivity. Am. J. Soil Sci. Soc., 5: 185-193.

Bekele, S. and Holden, ST. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land
conservation technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andi
Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18: 233-247

Bekele, W,and Darke, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of
subsistence farmers in the eastern highlands of Ethiopia a case study of the
Hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics 46:437-451

Belay, T. (1992). “Farmers’ perception of erosion hazards and attitude towards soil
Conservation in Gununo, Welayita.” Ethiopia Journal of Development Research.
Biot, Y., Blaikie, P.M., Jackson, C.and Jones, R.P. (1995). Rethinking research o land
degradation in developing countries. The World Bank, Washington D.C
Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian
change under population pressure. Allen Unwin. London
CAB International, (1997).Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming
system, New York,USA

Central Statistic Authority, (2007). Ethiopian housing and population censuses program
Addis Ababa

70 
 
David Sanders, (2004). Soil conservation, in Land use ,Land Cover and Soil Sciences,
[Ed,and Willy H, Verheye], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),
Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK,

De Roo, A.P. (1993). Modeling surface run-off and soil erosion in catchments using
geographical information system. PhD Dissertation. University of Utrecht.
The Netherlands.

Ervin, A. and Ervin, D.E. (1982). Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices:
Hypotheses, evidence, and policy Implications. Land economics, 58(3): 277–292.

Food and Agriculture Organization,( 2008). Web site. “Conservation

Agriculture.”

Food and Agriculture Organization (1974). Tree planting practices in African savannahs.
FAO Forestry Development
Gardiner, D.T. and Miller, R.W. ( 2004). Soils in Our Environment. tenth ed. Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NewJersey. 07458

Gete Zeleke, (2000). Landscape dynamics and soil erosion process modeling in the
Northwestern Ethiopia highlands. African Studies Series. University of Berne
Switzerland

Grohs , (1994).Physical soil and water conservation practices; Cited in demeke,1998

Hoben, (1996). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures
Haile Fesseha (2007). Land Degradation Assessment At Idris Resettlement Scheme,
Kafta Humera Woreda, Western Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. M.Sc., Thesis,
Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University,

Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian.

Highlands Mountain research and Development,

Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famines and resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In:
Pimental, D. (Ed). World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Lal R, (1990). Soil erosion in the tropics: Principles and management. New York.

Lal R, (1995) Sustainable Management of Soil Resources in the Humid Tropics. United
Nations University Press, Tokyo

Lee, D.R. ( 2005). “Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and
Policies for Developing Countries,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

71 
 
Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking Agricultural
Extension. Third Edition, Black Well.

Joshua O,Ogunwole,Bharat R.Matthew P,McCarteny,and Biranu Z.(2010).Biophysical

Aspects of landscape soil quality improvement for sustainable Agricultural
productivity in Ethiopian highlands(draft)

Juma, N.G. (1998). The pedosphere and its dynamics: a systems approach to soil science.
Volume 1. Edmonton, Canada, Quality Color Press Inc. 315 pp.

McGarry, Des. (2000). Optimising soil structure condition for cropping without tillage.
Soil and Tillage Conference Paper. ISTRO, July 2000.

Million, T. (2001). Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices in

Wolaita Zone. M. Sc Thesis. Alemaya, Ethiopia. (MOA)Ministry of Agriculture.,
2001.Soil and water conservation. Guide line for Ethiopia. pp 151-169

Ministry of agriculture and rural development, (2005). Community Based Participatory

Watershed Development. A Guideline. Part 1 and 2. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

MoA-Ministry of Agriculture (1989). Anger Gutin Resettlement Afforestation and

Rural infrastructure Development Project: Preparation Report in Two volumes
(volume 2 Annexes)

Olsen, S.R. Cole, C.V., Watnahe, F.J. and Dean, L.A. (1954).Estimation of available
phosphorous in soils by extraction with Sodium bicarbonate, U.S. Department Agr.
Circ. 939

Paulos, A. (2002). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in soil

conservation practices in the highlands of Bale: The case of Dinsho farming system
area.

Pender, J. (1998). Population growth, agricultural intensification, induced innovation and

natural resource sustainability: An application of neoclassical growth theory.
Agricultural Economics, 19: 99–112.

Sasakawa Africa Association, (2008). Web site. “Country Profile: Ethiopia.”

http://www.saatokyo. org/English/country/ethiopia.shtml. Accessed April 2009
Senait R. (2002). The economics of managing land resources towards sustainability in the
High lands of Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. University of Hohenheim, Germany.

Singh, B., Squire, T. Strauss, J. (1986). Agricultural household models. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Scoones I., Margisoni, J., and Phiri GS. (1996). Sustaining the soil: New perspectives on
72 
 
 local conservation techniques: International institute for environment and
development, UK

Shiferaw and Holden, (1998). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation
structures (Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)

SSSA (Soil Science Society of America), (1996). In Glossary of soil science terms,
(SSSA), Madison, WI, 1

RRC, (1988). The Advent of Resettlement and Settlement History in

Wollega.

Tan, H.K.(1996). Soil sampling, preparation and analysis Marcel Dekker., New York.
Taffa Tullu,(2002).Water and soil conservation for sustainable agriculture
Teklu Erkossa and Gezahegn Ayele, (2003). Indigenous knowledge and Practices for soil
and water management in East Wollega, Ethiopia.Conference on International
Agricultural Research for Development

Tesfaye, B. (2003). Understanding Farmers: Explaining soil and water conservation in

Kons Walaita and Wello, Ethiopia. PhD. Dissertation Wegeningen University.
The Netherlands.

Tiffen M., Mortimore, M., and Gichuki, F. (1994). More people, less erosion:
Environmental recovery in Kenya. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Twarog, (2006). “Organic Agriculture: A Trade and Sustainable Development
Opportunity for Developing Countries.” In Trade and Environment Review 2006.
NewYork and Geneva: UN/UNCTAD.

Wagayehu, B.(2003). Economics of soil and water conservation: Theory and empirical
application to subsistence farming in the eastern Ethiopian highlands. PhD
Dissertation,Uppsala.

Walkly, A. (1947). Critical examination of rapid method for determining organic

carbon in soils, effect of variation in digestion conditions and an inorganic
soil constituent. Soil Science, 632.251

Wood, P.A. (1990).Natural resource management and rural development in Ethiopia. In:
Pause Wang, S., Cheru, F., Brune, S., Chole, E., (Eds). Ethiopia: Rural development
options. Zed Books Ltd, London and New Jersey

73 
 
Appendices

Annex 1: laboratory results of soil sample taken from Diga Woreda

Soil with traditional BPLM practices Soil without traditional BPLM practices
No Soil parameter Code Code

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9 10’ 11’ 12
’

1 Organic matter 5.92 5.85 6.12 5.45 6.12 5.72 11.1 10.1 10.9 6.25 8.07 8.27 5.4 5.75 5.38 5.0 5.8 4.96 10.8 9.6 11. 6.05 7.73 8.
6 5
(%) 4 5 8 43 40

2 Total nitrogen .30 .29 .31 .27 .31 .29 .55 .50 .55 .31 .40 .41 .27 .29 .27 .25 .29 .25 .54 .48 .57 .30 .39 .4
(%) 2

3 Available 4 4 4 2 10 4 8 10 2 10 4 8 2 2 2 2 4 2 6 6 2 8 2 4
phosphorus

4 Available .39 .80 .78 .38 .88 .41 .25 .21 .20 .37 .27 .33 .25 .18 .73 .27 .33 .49 .24 .61 .22 .24 .18 .2
potassium 2

5 CEC 38.60 36.2 43.0 36.8 35.6 38 41.6 53.6 66.6 32.6 41.6 50.8 37. 40.2 36.6 37. 41 38 53.4 46. 62. 29.6 42 46
8
6 6 8 .6

6 pH 4.78 5.12 5.07 4.82 5.72 4.83 5.55 5.63 5.96 5.82 5.53 5.66 4.9 4.61 4.97 4.7 4.7 4.89 4.85 5.7 5.9 5.53 5.27 5.
6
5

7 Bulk density 1.04 1.25 1.01 1.04 1.14 .92 .79 .88 .76 .90 1.01 .99 1.1 1.15 1.06 1.2 1.1 1.04 .86 .96 .80 1.03 .78 .9
0
4

74 
 
Annex 2: wet biomass weight of 50 plants in (gm)

Replication Treatment
With BPLM without BPLM
1 86 81
2 74 49
3 125 110
4 85 72
sum 370 312
mean 92.5 78
SD 22.34 25.23
SE 11.17 12.61

Annex 3: Dry Biomass weight of 50 plants

in(gm)

Replication Treatment
With BPLM W/o BPLM
1 21 16
2 18 12
3 23 21
4 21 18
sum 83 67
mean 20.75 16.75
SD 2.06 3.77
1. 1.
SE 03 89

Annex 4: Plant height in cm

Replication Treatment
With BPLM W/o BPLM
1 46 38
2 38 34.7
3 50.5 46
4 42.5 42
Sum 177 160.7
mean 44.25 40.175
SD 5.30 4.90
2
SE 2.65 .45

75 
 
Annex 5: Ten years Teff yield records in quntal/hectar

Code Years Soil with BPLM Soil without BPLM

1 1993 5.00 2.00
2 1994 4.00 3.00
3 1995 6.00 3.50
4 1996 6.00 4.50
5 1997 8.00 4.00
6 1998 7.00 3.00
7 1999 7.00 3.00
8 2000 6.00 4.00
9 2001 7.00 5.00
10 2002 7.00 3.50
Total N 10 10 10
Sum 19975 63.00 35.50
Mean 1997.50 6.3000 3.5500
Std. Deviation 3.028 1.15950 .86442

Std. Error of Mean .957 .36667 .27335

Annex 6:Ten years records of maize yield in

quntal/hectar
Years Soil with BPLM Soil without BPLM
1 1993 22.00 15.00
2 1994 25.00 14.00
3 1995 20.00 14.00
4 1996 23.00 16.00
5 1997 23.00 15.00
6 1998 30.00 17.00
7 1999 32.00 20.00
8 2000 35.00 21.00
9 2001 28.00 19.00
10 2002 31.00 21.00
Total N 10 10 10
Sum 19975 269.00 172.00
Mean 1997.50 26.9000 17.2000
Std. Deviation 3.028 4.99889 2.82056
Std. Error of Mean .957 1.58079 .89194

76 
 
Annex 7: Buck wheat yield in kg /hectare

Replication Soil with BPLMP Soil without BPLMP

1 456 350
2 452 315
3 580 550
4 580 556
Total N 4 4
Sum 2068 1772
Mean 517.00 442.88
Std. Deviation 72.764 128.268
Std. Error of
36.382 64.134
Mean

Annex 8: Household Questionnaires

Survey Area: Region: ____________ Zone: ____________ Woreda: ____________ PA:
______________ Village: _____________

Date of interview: ___________________ Name of interviewer: _________________

Name of head of Household: ______________________ Age: ______ Sex: ________

I. Soil and water conservation practices

A. Biological and physical land management

1. Do you use biological soil and water conservation measures in your plots? Yes=1, No=2

2. If yes, which type do you use in each of your plots? (Possible to choose more than one
answer)_______1. Crop rotation----, 2.Intercropping-----, 3.Grass strip---, 2.Agroforestry- 5.Alley
cropping----, others specify _______________.Yes=1, No=2

3. What are the physical land management practices of soil conservation measures undertaken in
your field? ____1 .Residue management---, 2.Zero tillage----, 3. Minimum tillage----, 4.Contour
farming----, 5.Noting---- Yes=1, N0=2
4. Why do you use conservation measures in your plots? __________1. To conserve soil-----, 2.to
conserve water-----, 3.Both 1 and 2------- 3.others, specify___ Yes=1, No=2

5. Please would you rank the effectiveness of different Biological and physical land management
practices?

77 
 
5.1 In controlling soil erosion

Types of practices Very Moderately effective Less effective Remark

effective(yes=1,No=2) Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,No=2

1.Biological
-Crop rotation
-Intercropping
-Grass strip
-Alley cropping
2.Physical
-Residue recycling
-Contour farming
-Minimum tillage
5.2. In improving crop land productivity

Types of practices Very effective, Moderately effective Less effective Remark

Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,NO=2
1.Biological
-Crop rotation
-Intercropping
-Grass strip
-Alley cropping
2.Physical
-Residue Management
-Contour farming
-Minimum tillage

6. What is your source of information regarding conservation strategies of land management?

__1. Neighboring farmers----, 2. NGOs-----,3. Regular extension services (DAs) ,4.From field
days and training’-----, 5. Others (specify) ______ Yes=1, NO=2

7. What results do you expect from your effort on BPLM practices done on your plots? (Possible
to give more than one answer)__1. Reduce soil erosion----, 2. Increase soil fertility---, 3. Increase
crop land productivity---, 4. Increase crop production---- 5. All-----Yes=1, NO=2

8 .What other measures are you using to improve soil fertility? (Possible to give more than one
answer)_? 1. Inorganic fertilizer-----, 2.Farm yard manure------, 3. Fallowing----- 4.others,
specify_ Yes=1, NO=2

9. If your answer in qes 1 is No, what is your reason of not using BPLM? ____1.I use fertilizer----
-, 2.I used physical structures to control erosion----, 3.my land is fertile----, 4.I don’t know their
role ------- Yes=1, No=2

A. Soil fertility decline

1. Is there any soil fertility problem in your farm? ___________ Yes =1, No =2.

78 
 
2. On which 3. When did you 4. What 5. What 6. How did you 7. Did you see any
plot?Plot No. realize the indicators did management learn these methods? improvement?
problem?(years) you observe? practices have you
applied?(Code b) (Code c) Yes =1,No =2
(Code a)

           
           
           
Code a: Yield decline=1; Soil structure and color change=2; increased input demand=3; others
(specify) =4
Code b: Fallowing=1; Crop rotation=2; Intercropping=3; Grass strip=3 Residue management=4;
Contour farming=5; Mulching=6; Legume trees=7; Minimum tillage=8 others (specify) =9
Code c: From parents (inherited)=1; From neighbors=2; From extension agents(training)=3; From
NGOs=4; From school=5; Others________________________

II. Forests And water

1. Is there a forest currently in this village? Yes -----1, No -------2.

2. If No, was there a forest 5 years ago? Yes---1, No---2; 10 years ago? Yes----1, No---2; 20 years
ago?
3. If yes, what type and how much? Natural _________, ha, Plantation ___________ha.
4. Who owns the forest? 1. Government ------; 2.Community---- 3.Individuals----
Yes=1, No=2
5. What changes have you observed in the forest cover since the last 10 years? Years
1. Natural forest has disappeared------, 2.plantation forest has increased-----,3.Natural Forest has
increased-------, 4. Natural forest has decreased-----, 5. Plantation forest has decreased-------
Yes=1, No=2
6. Is there anything that you used to get and but now lost due to the change in the forest cover?
Yes -1, No --2.
7. If yes, can you tell us what they are?
__________________________________________________________________
8. Has the change negatively affected your land, adjacent land and the uplands in general? Yes --
1, No ---2
9. If yes, can you mention some of the negative changes?
1. Stream flow decreased or dried--- 4.Farm land fragmented------
2. Run-off increased------ 5.yield has declined-----
3. More gullies and rills created----- 6.Others (specify)_________
Yes=1, No=2
10. What is the source of water for human consumption? 1. Streams----, 2.River---- 3.Shallow
wel------, 4. Deep wel-------Yes=1, No=2
11. Does it is a perennial or annual? 1. Perennial---- 2.Annual---- Yes=1, No=2
12. How far from your home in Minutes?_________________
13. How about the quality of the water? 1. good---, 2.low, --- 3.worse---- Yes=1,No=2

79 
 
14What are the source of water for animal drinking?
1. Streams----, 2.River-----, 3.shallow well-----, 4.deep well-----, 5.pond---- Yes=1, No=2
15. Do you have an irrigated land? 1=yes,2=No
16. If your answer in qes 15 is yes, tell me the size of the land you have_________ha
17. What are the sources of water for irrigation? 1. Stream----, 2.River----, 3.pond-----, 4.shallow
well----- Yes=1, No=2
18. How do you irrigate your land? 1. Furrow irrigation-----,2.flooding-----,3.spot/ring
application----- Yes=1, No=2
19. Is there water shortage in your area? 1=yes, 2=No
20 If your answer for question NO19 is yes what are the possible reasons? 1. Drought----
2.forest clearing------, 3.erosion/sedimentation-----, 4.I don’t know------ Yes=1, No=2
21. Which crop do you grow on irrigated land? 1. Maize----, 2.sorghum-----, 3.potato------,
4.other vegetables-----, 5.Banana---- Yes=1, No=2
22. How much do you earn from the yield of irrigated crops per year in birr_________

80 
 
 III. Agriculture

A: Land holding, land use and Tenure

1. We would like to ask you questions about all the land your household is using. Please include all the land owned by you and all land that is
cultivated by you (even though it belongs to others). What is the size of your farm? Please list plot by plot.

Plot Enumerator’s 2. Plot size 3. What is 4. 5. When 6. When 7. How 8. How is 9. What is 10. What type of
No. identification the current Ownership did you get was it did you the fertility the slope of crops are grown
note Area Unit* use of the the land cultivated get the of the soil? the plot? on the plots?
plot? (Code b) (year) for the first land?
(crop type) time (year) (Code d) (Code e) (Sate all)
(Code a) (Code c)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*Local units = Sanga =1, Gasha = 2, Chimidi = 3, hectare = 4, Massa = 5, change to standard hectare
Code a: Cultivated crop land = 1, Grazing land = 2, Woodlot (forest) = 3, Backyard garden = 4, Unusable = 5, Fallow = 6, others (specify)
________Code b: Own = 1, Share cropped in = 2, Share cropped out = 3, obtained as loan=4
Code c: Inherited from parents=1 Allocated from the family=2 during redistribution=3, Local administration= 4, Purchased= 5, Leased= 6,
clearing forest=7 Code d: good=1, medium=2, poor=3 Code e: flat=1, gentle slope=2, steep slope=3

81 
 
11. Have you done or are you currently doing any soil improvement or any soil and water conservation
works on your land? ________ Yes -------1, No ------2.
12. If not, what are your main reasons? ___1.I don’t have any problem on my land------,2. Such type of
works are very expensive------,3. The land may be taken sometime in the future---- 4. I don’t have the
knowledge------ 5.Other reasons (specify) Yes=1, No=2
13. What type of rights do you have on your land? ___.1. Use for any purpose------, 2.Use for specified
purpose-----, 3. Right to sell------, 4.Right to transfer------ 5.Right to lease out----- Yes=1, No=2
14. Is the land you have now sufficient for the household? ____ Yes ---1, No -----2.
15. When a member of the household gets married, where does she/he get her/his own land? ____1.From
the household land------, 2. From local administration (kebele) ------- 3. By clearing the nearby forest-----
,4. Others ______ Yes=1, No=2
16. How long do you think all the land you have will remain yours? _1. Forever-----,
2. Until next redistribution----- 3. until I pass it to my children-----, 4. I don’t know------
Yes=1,No=2
Land Tenure.

1. Who owns /to whom do you think that land belongs? ______

1).To my own-------, 2. To the government-------, 3.To the Community------,4. Others------

Yes=1, No=2

2. Does the present ownership of land affect your decision to invest on land management practices? 1)
Yes=1, 2) No=2

3. Is your answer is yes for que.2 what are the possible causes?_________________________________

4. Do you expect that you will use the land throughout your lifetime?___1) Yes=1, 2) No=2, 3) I do not
know=3

5. Do you think that you have the right to inherit the land to your children? __ 1) Yes=1, No =2,

6. If the government allows you to sell land, would you sell it? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2,

3) Difficult to decide=3, 4) No response=4

7. If no, why you will not sell it? 1.I do not have other alternative means of living------, 2. I do not have
enough land-----3. I want to inherit to my children------- 4. I do not support land sales------- 5. Others-----
Yes=1,No=2

8. Have you rented in land before?__________ 1) Yes=1, 2) No=3

9. If yes, who was responsible for keeping the rented land management?_______ 1).The owner------,
2.Myself------,3. Both of us----- Yes=1, No=2

11. Landholding in hectares (in 2002 E.C)

Total land holding (hectares) _____ Cultivated land (hectares) _____Grazing land (hectares) _____
Fallow land (hectares) _________forest land______Others specify (hectares) ________

82 
 
 13. Farm plot characteristics

No Characteristics Plot1 Plot2 Plot3 Plot4 Plot 5

1 Slope
2 Distance from home
3 Type of soil
4 Degree of erosion
5 Degree of plot fertility
6 Types of land management
6.1 Biological

6.2 Physical

7 Rain fed or Irrigated

Code*1. Slope: - very steep, =1, steep=2, gentle slope=3, flat=4

2. Distance from home: In traveling hours

3. Type of soil: clay=1, sand=2, loam=3, Clay loam=4, sandy loam=5

4. Degree of erosion: High=1, medium=2, Low=3

5. Degree of fertility: crop yield

6. Types of land management:

6.1 crop rotation =1 Grass strip=2, Intercropping=3, alley cropping=4, all=5

6.2 Residue management=1, Contour farming=2, Minimum tillage=3, all=4

7. Rain fed=1, Irrigation=2

B. Crop production

1. What are the major food crops produced by the household during 2002/2003 E.C? Please rank them

Crop type 2.Area 3.Types of seed used Cod 4.Types of fertilizer used 5.Amount of 6.Yield/Qun
coverage a cod b fertilizer used
           
           
           
Code a=Improved seed=1, Local seed=2, I don’t know=3
Unit= convert the local into Hectare for area and Kg/Qun for yield

Cod b Fertilizer= DAP=1, UREA=2, DAP+UREA=3, No fertilizer=4, Organic=5

7. Please can you recall and tell us a land size and a yield obtained from one of a dominantly crop you
produced for the last 10years?

83 
 
 7.1. Land size/hectare in E.C

Crop Type 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average
1.Teff
2.Maize

7.2. Yield obtained/quintals in E.C

Crop Types of 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average
Type seed coda
1.Teff

2.Maize

* Teff for Middle altitude

* Maize for low land area

Cod a; Improved seed=1, Local seed=2

Quantity Expressed by local unit should change to standard unit, Kg

8. What are the major cash crops produced by the household? ________ Please rank them Coffee=1,
chat=2, both=3, others, specify_____

9. What type of crop is usually grown with coffee in your farm? _________

1. Maize-----, 2.Sorghum-----, 3.Haricot bean------ 3. No crop------ 4.others,

specify______________________ Yes=1, No=2

10. Have you used commercial fertilizer in the past five years? ______ No=1, Yes=2

11. If yes, what type and quantity of fertilizer used in 2002 E.C? 1) DAP______Qt,

2) Urea______Q others__________

12. Do you think that inorganic fertilizer increases the productivity of the land? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

13. What is your feeling about price of fertilizer? _______1. Low------, 2.Reasonable-------, 3.High------,
Very high------ Yes=1, No=2

14. If you didn't use fertilizer, why? _______1.High cost of fertilizer--------, 2.Lack access of fertilizer----
-, 3.Lack of credit------, 4.I use organic fertilizer-------- Yes=1, No=2

15. What is the major purpose of producing food crops? ____ 1.Consumption------, 2. Sale----, 3.
Consumption and sale------ Yes=1, No=2

16. How did you judge the experience of crop production during the last ten years?____

84 
 
1. Shows a progress------, 2.the same------, 3.Declined------ Yes=1, No=2

17. What constraints did you face in crop production? Please rank them______1. Shortage of rainfall----,
2.Pests and diseases-----, 3.Soil fertility decline------, 4.Lack of farm tools------, 5.Lack of oxen-----,
6.Shortage of land------, 7.Lack of fertilizer and improved seeds-------, 8.others Yes=1,No=2

18. For how long the household consume what it produces in a year? _________Months

19. In which months in a year the household face critical food shortage? _________

20. How does the household cover the deficit? _____________

1. Purchase of grain from market------,2. Food /cash for work------, 3.from relatives and friends------,
4.others, ------- Yes=1,No=2

C. Information on Livestock ownership

1. Do you have oxen? ________; 1) Yes=1,2) No=2

2. If your answer is no for ques 1 how you ploughs your farm?____________;

1. Use of hoe/spad-------, 2.Use of rented oxen------,3. Shared out the farm------, 4.Others_________
Yes=1, NO=2

3. What are the major sources of animal feed? ______________

(Write in order of importance) 1) Natural grazing land=1, 2) Crop residue=2, 3) Improved forage=3, 4)
others____________Yes=1,No=2

4. How about the status of animal feeding? 1. Sufficient------, 2. Deficit----- 3.Excess-------

Yes=1, No=2

5. If deficit, how did you overcome? __________________________________

6. What is your feeling about the price of your livestock and livestock products?

1. Low------, 2.Reasonable------, 3. High-------, 4.Very high------- Yes=1,No=2

D. Agricultural Extension Services

1. Do you get extension service?_________ 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

2. If yes, for how long do you get the service? ____Years

3. Who provides the extension service? __ 1.Development agents------, 2. NGOs ------, 3. Others,
specify________ Yes=1, No=2

4. How frequent were you visited by development agents last year? ______

5. Do you get extension advice on BPLM practices? 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

85 
 
 6. If yes, how often have you obtained advice on BPLM practices? ______

1. Once per month------, 2.Twice per month------, 3. Three times per month-----, 4.Four times per month--
-----, 5) others, specify ________________Yes=1, No=2

7. Have you participated in training on BPLM for the past three years? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

8. If yes, for how many days? _____ days

9. Who gave the training? _______ 1. Agriculture office-----, 2. Development agent------, 3. NGOs------
4.all-------- Yes=1, No=2

10. Do you think that the training was helpful to gain knowledge and skill to solve your practical
problems? ___________ 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

11. If no, why? __________________________________________________________

12. Do you have radio /tape? ____________ 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

13. If yes, do you get information on soil and water conservation practices?__1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

14. What are your sources of information regarding soil and water land management practices? Rank
them in order of importance_____1) Development agents=1,

2) Neighbor farmers=2, 3) Mass media like Radio=3, 4) Filed days and training=4, 5) NGOs=5, 6)
Others___________

IV. Household profile

A: Demography

ID 1. Name 2. Relationship 3. Age 4. Sex 5. Education 6. 7. Member’s

Code (permanent to the head (Years) Male= 1 Illiterate=0 Marital main activity
HH member) (Code a) Female=2 Literate=1, status For ages >8
Grades:1,2,3… (Code b) (Code c)
1
2
3
4
5
Code a: Spouse/Husband =1; Daughter/Son =2; Father/Mother = 3; Sister/Brother = 4; Niece/Nephew= 5;
Grand Child= 6; Grandparents=7 others (specify) ______________________

Code b: Single=1; Married=2; Divorced=3

Code c: Farm work= 1; Domestic work= 2, Off-farm work=3 (skilled & unskilled)

7. Have you stored grains of any cereals or pulses at present? Yes-----1, No------2

86 
 
8. Which type of grains 9. What amount in local units* 10. Are you storing for future sale? Yes--1,
have you stored? or kg No--2

     
     

* Local units: Kuna, Gomode, Quntala, Dawla, Tasa Estimate of 1 ____(local unit) = __kg
11. How many and what type of grain stores do you have? Modern/improved_____Traditional/Cultural

12. Could you tell us what type and number of domestic animals you have?

Type of animals Number 13. Did you sell any animals in the last two years? Yes--
1, No--2,
Which How many How Why? (Code a)
much?
           
           
           
           

Code a: To pay for school= 1, to pay for labor= 2, To pay tax= 3, To buy grains for food=4, To buy
inputs= 5, To pay for health=6, Others ___________________

B. Labor Availability.

1. What is the main source of labor for your farm operation?_____________

1) Family labor=1, 2) Hired labor=2, 3) Labor organization=3, 4) Others, specify

2. Did you involve in labor organization? ______ 1) Yes=1 2) No=2

3. If yes, for which activities did you involve in labor organization (labor exchange/ cooperation labor)?
__________ 1. Land preparation------, 2.Cultivation (hoeing) ------- 3. Harvesting-------, 4. SWC
activities---------, 5. Others specify________________________ Yes=1, No=2

4. Did you use hired labor? _______ 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

5. If yes, what type of labor do you hire? _____ 1.Causal-------, 2. Permanent------, 3. Both------ Yes=1,
No=2

6. Who construct and maintain SWC structures in each of your plots? (Possible to give more than one
answer)_____1.Community participation------, 2.Food/ cash for work______, 3.Family labor____,
4.Labor exchange ___, 5. Hired labor___ Yes=1,No=2

87 
 
7. In which farming activities do your female family members participate? ____1. Land preparation___,
2.Ploughing___, 3.Hoeing___, 4.Weeding__, 5.Harvesting___ 6. Trashing___, 7. Other Yes=1,No=2

C. Agricultural Credit

1. Do you have credit access 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

2. If yes, did you take credit in the past three years? 1) Yes=1,2) No=2

3. Who is the source of credit? 1. Government organization____, 2. NGOs___, 3. Relatives___ 4. Local

lenders___, 5. Neighbors___, 6. Local credit association___, 7. Commercial bank____ Yes=1,No=2

4. In what form did you take the credit? 1. In cash____, 2. in kind___, 3.loan___ Yes=1,No=2

5. What was the purpose of the credit? 1. Fertilizer credit___, 2. Improved seed credit___, 3. Livestock
credit___, 4. Post-harvest credit____, 5. land management____, 6.others, specify__________
Yes=1,No=2

6. Have you ever obtained credit for Land management activities 1) Yes, 2) No=2

7. If yes, for what purpose? 1. To purchase farm tools_____, 2. To purchase fertilizer_____3.To hire
labor____, 4. to raise seedling or purchase___, 5.others specify______ Yes=1,No=2

8. If you did not use credit for BPLM, what was the reason?

1. Lack of credit access____, 2. High interest rate____, 3. I didn't have a problem____

4.I dislike the process_____, 5.it is not profitable ____, 6) others Yes=1,No=2

9. Do you want credit for BPLM in the future? 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

10. If yes, in what form? 1. in cash____, 2.in kind___, 3.Both____ Yes=1,No=2

D. Household income and expenditure

1. Do you or your family members work on non-farm activities? Yes=1, No=2

2. If yes, in which of the following non-farm activities did you engage? (Possible to give more than one
answer)____1. Petty trade____, 2.Selling of wood____, 3.Pottery____, 4.Carpenter____, 5.Daily work__
Yes=1,No=2

3. For what purpose did you spent your non-farm income? ______________;1. for loan payment____,
2.seed purchase____,3. Food____, .4for school fee____, 5.for medical services__ Yes=1,No=2

4. If no, why you did not engage in non-farm activity? ______ 1.We are busy on our own farm___,2. we
do not have interest to work on non-farm Job____,3. Income from non-farm job is not attractive, 4.we
have enough cash income____, 5.we have enough food production_____, 6.There is no non-farm job
opportunity____ Yes=1,No=2

5. Did you get any income from sale of grains in the last 12 months? ___Yes ---1, No ---2,

88 
 
 6. What type of crop grains 7. How much is 8. How much is the 9. How much is the total amount
did you sell? (put a mark) the amount in local current market price per of income generated? (in Birr)
unit* or kg unit? (in Birr)
Coffee
Maize
Wheat
Barley
Teff
Haricot beans
Sorghum
Faba bean
Chick pea
Others (specify)
* Local units: Kuna, Gomode, Gubo, Dawla, Tasa, Quintal, others Estimate of 1 _________ (local
unit)kg.
10. Did you get any income from the sale of animals or animal products in the last 12
months?__________; Yes --1, No --2,

11. Which type of 12. How many or how 13. What is the market 14. How much is the total
animals or products much? value per individual or per amount of income generated?
did you sell? unit of product? (in Birr)

       
N.B. Put estimates of local units. 1 ________ (local unit) = _________kg or litre
15. Did you get any income from the sale of fuel-wood or charcoal in the last 12 months? Yes ---1, No --2

16. What are the sources of 17. How many of fuel- 18. How much is the 19. How much is the total
fuel wood or charcoal for sale? wood or charcoal did price) of fuel-wood or amount of income
(Code a) you sale? (local unit) charcoal? (local unit) generated? (in birr)
       
       
Code a: Natural forest=1, Community woodlot=2, Private woodlot=3, Farm trees=4, residues (straw) =5
Cow dung=6, Crop others= 7
Local units: Joniya, Madabera, Quintal, Ba’aa, others (specify). Estimate of 1 ___ (local unit) kg

89 
 
 Annex 9:Household and population size of the Woreda, 2010

No  Name of PAS  Family head  Family members  Total 

      Male  Female  Total  Male  Female  Total  Male  female  total 
1  Demaksa  313  69  382  1120  1270  2390  1884  2841  4725 
2  Jirata  730  101  831  1551  2274  3825  3213  4757  7970 
3  Firomsa  583  55  638  1204  1513  2717  2480  3410  5890 
4  Garuma  424  49  473  1194  1195  2389  2140  2911  5051 
5  Oda Gudina  594  90  684  1479  2086  3565  2847  4339  7186 
6  Adungna  543  67  610  656  689  1345  1876  2022  3898 
7  Gudisa  506  66  572  1050  1619  2669  2194  3307  5501 
8  Biqila  347  47  394  712  1055  1767  1500  2208  3708 
9  Gemachis  260  48  308  740  983  1723  1356  2079  3435 
10  Burka Gudina  616  74  690  1282  1482  2764  2662  3528  6190 
11  Furdisa  332  68  400  442  791  1233  1242  1701  2943 
12  Arjo Kote blua  959  140  1099  1848  2565  4413  4046  5652  9698 
13  Karsa Dako  239  25  264  438  577  1015  966  1304  2270 
14  Mada Jalala  443  23  466  735  1204  1939  1667  2428  4095 
15  Bachi bachi  180  32  212  401  589  990  825  1234  2059 
16  Dagaga Dhidhesa  345  38  383  582  825  1409  1348  1828  3176 
17  Lalisa Dimtu  631  86  717  1934  1822  3756  3368  4559  7927 
18  Wayesa Dimtu  594  86  680  943  1380  2323  2303  3089  5392 
19  Biqiltu Gudina  598  17  615  1071  1774  2845  2301  3477  5778 
20  Malka bayti jirma  634  49  683  1514  1940  3454  2880  4186  7066 
21  Bareda Soruma  279  12  291  671  679  1350  1253  1653  2906 
   Total  10150  1242  11392  21567  28312  49881  44351  62513  106864 

Annex10:Population size of sample PAs

         
No  Name of PAS  Family head  Family members             Total 
      Male  Female Total Male Female Total  Male  female total
1  Jirata  730  101  831  1551 2274  3825  3213  4757  7970 
2  Firomsa  583  55  638  1204 1513  2717  2480  3410  5890 
3  Arjo Kote blua  959  140  1099  1848 2565  4413  4046  5652  9698 
4  Mada Jalala  443  23  466  735  1204  1939  1667  2428  4095 
   Total  2715  319  3034  5338 7556  12894  11406  16247  27653 

90 
 
Annex 11: Educational status of sampled HH heads
Types of practices 1-4 5-8 9-10 Illiterate
F M F M F M F M
With BPLMP(n=60) 18 15 7 20

Without BPLMP(n=60) 2 16 9 3 30

Annex 12: Age category of the respondent

 

Types of practices 20-35 36-50 50+ Total

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

With BPLMP(n=60) 25 22 13 60

17 2 24 17 58 2
Without BPLM(n=60)

Total 42 2 46 30 118 2

91 
 
 Declaration

This thesis is my original work, and it has not been presented for a degree in any other university
and the source materials used for the thesis is fully acknowledged.

Tolera Megersa _____________________

This thesis has been submitted for the examination with our approval
as a university advisor

Dr. Mekuria Argaw _______________________

Signature

Prof. Dr. P.Natarajan ________________________

Signature

92 
 
 93