Vol. 11(3), pp.

57-68, 14 February, 2017

DOI: 10.5897/AJBM2016.8175
Article Number: 5A70C1C62738
ISSN 1993-8233 African Journal of Business Management
Copyright © 2017
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Full Length Research Paper

Contribution of Small Scale Irrigation to Households’

Income and Food Security: Evidence from Ketar
Irrigation Scheme, Arsi Zone, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia
Eshetu Tefera* and Young-Bohk Cho
Pusan National University, School of Business, South Korea.
Received 7 October 2016; Accepted 19 January, 2017

Livelihoods of the rural people of Ethiopia depend on agriculture. However, erratic nature of rain and
prevalence of drought in the country make agricultural production a challenge. To counter this problem,
use of the available water resource for irrigation development is the most promising option. Ketar small
scale irrigation scheme is found in Ketar-Genet Peasant association, Tiyo District, Arsi zone,
established with the aim of improving level of income and food security of beneficiary households.
Nevertheless, no previous study was conducted on the contribution of the scheme to income and food
security of households. Thus, this study was conducted with the objective to investigate the
contribution of small-scale irrigation to rural household income and food security. The required data set
for the study were gathered primarily through survey method from 130 randomly selected sample
households both from irrigation users and non-users (65 each). Structured interview was used as data
collection method. Both descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyze the
required data. Results of the study revealed that, income from irrigated vegetable crops contributed for
21.38% of the total annual crop income for the irrigation users; irrigation users were in better position in
terms of livestock (7.58 to 4.38 TLU) and oxen ownership (1.78 to 1.12 TLU); participation in credit (52 to
23%) and the use of extension advisory services. Results of the logit model indicated that age of
household head, education level of household head, size of the cultivated land, number of oxen,
livestock holding (TLU), income from livestock and irrigation found to be influencing household food
security at 1, 5, and 10% significant levels. In general, the empirical analysis confirms that small-scale
irrigation development would have positive impact on income and food security of beneficiary
households. Thus, the concerned development partners being governmental or non-governmental
should join hands to promote the development of such small scale irrigation schemes.

Key Words: Small-scale irrigation, food security, agricultural production.

INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa. level. Incidence of poverty is higher for rural areas, than
The incidence of poverty stands at 30% at the national urban areas at 33 and 29%, respectively. Agriculture

*Corresponding author. E-mail: eshetugirma2011@gmail.com.

Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
58 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

plays an important role in the development of the national rural household food security in particular. Though,
economy, contributing about 50% of the gross domestic irrigated agriculture has positive impact on household
product (GDP, and employs 85 % of the population (FAO, food security and income (Fuad, 2002; Desta, 2004)
2012). there are cases where irrigated agriculture failed to
Combinations of natural and manmade factors have achieve intended impact on household wellbeing
resulted in serious and growing food insecurity problem in (Quasem, 1994).
many parts of the country. Currently, about fifteen million The contribution of farmer based small-scale irrigation
people are facing food insecurity, either chronic or for semi-cash cropping has not been studied, though
transitory in nature. About five to six million people are such schemes cover more than 40% of the irrigated land
chronically food insecure every year. There are people in the country (Dessalegn, 1999). Seleshi et al. (2005)
who do not have the capacity to produce or buy enough indicated the need for undertaking impact assessment of
food to meet their annual food needs even under normal small-scale irrigation particularly on production and
weather and market conditions. The remaining ten million productivity of rural households.
are vulnerable, with a weak resilience to any shock. Oromia is one of the nine regional states in the country
Under any emergency circumstances, the likelihood of with its surface area of 359.620 square kilometres,
these people falling back into food insecurity is high constituting about one third of the total area of the
(FAO, 2012). country. The problem of food insecurity has increasingly
In order to address food insecurity of the rapidly become worse in the low land areas of the region, which
growing population in Ethiopia, the current agricultural represent about 30 percent of the total land mass. Coping
area assumed to increase by 25%, while average yields mechanisms of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in these
are assumed to increase by one-half by 2020 (Ehui et areas are so fragile that minor change in rainfall
al., 2002). Food insecurity often turns into famine with the distribution often results in famine (OIDA, 2004). The
slightest adverse climatic incident. The challenge, same source indicates that, the region has about 1.7
therefore, is how to meet the increasing demand given million hectares of land suitable for irrigation. Because of
the existing but dwindling natural resources and the growing concern over food security and an increasing
worsening climatic conditions. Hence, there should be trend in the occurrence of drought in the region, the
ways to use improved technologies of agricultural regional government has planned to utilize the exiting
production to enhance the economic, social, and irrigation potential.
institutional conditions necessary for increased Ketar irrigation scheme is found in Tiyo district in Ketar-
agricultural production and productivity (Mekuria, 2003). Genet peasant association. The scheme has been
The challenge posed by recurrent drought, declining established in order to address household food insecurity
agricultural production at household level and ever and income problems. However, an in-depth analysis of
increasing population pressure necessitated close the contribution of the irrigation to this effect has not been
attention to water resource management and small-scale studied so far. Therefore, this research was conducted to
irrigation development (Hune, 2003). The country may assess contribution of the small-scale irrigation to the
not be able to meet its large food deficit through rain-fed livelihoods of the beneficiary rural households in terms of
agriculture alone (Desta, 2004). Irrigation development improving income and food security.
has been given priority in the Agricultural Development The study also envisaged to generate empirical
Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy of Ethiopia. Under evidences on the role of small- scale irrigation in
the program, irrigation is planned to be introduced and enhancing rural household income and food security. At
implemented in areas where agro-ecological conditions the same time to contribute to the knowledge and
are in harmony with the interventions (GoE, 2001). understanding of development actors in their future
On top of this, the Ethiopian Government, in planning and development of small-scale irrigation
collaboration with its development partners, has schemes. Hence, the objectives of this study is to assess
developed a Food Security Programme (FSP) within the households’ food security status, to assess the
framework of the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained contribution of irrigated agriculture to household’s crop
Development to Eradicate Poverty (PASDEP), which is a income and food security and to identify the major
guiding strategic framework for the five-year period 2005 determinants of households’ food security in the study
to 2010. In the PASDEP and the FSP, due emphasis has area.
been given to developing and using the huge potential of
the country for irrigated agriculture to produce food crops
as well as raw materials needed for agro-industries (FAO, MATERIALS AND METHODS
2006).
Description of the study area
Irrigation development is being promoted by
government and non-government organizations as one of Tiyo district is one of the districts in Arsi Zone, Oromia Regional
the development strategies contributing to the overall state. The district is bordered to the south by Munesa, to the west
agricultural development of the country in general, and to by Ziway Dugda, to the northeast by Hetosa, and to the southeast
 Tefera and Cho 59

by Digeluna Tijo districts. The zonal capital of the district is Asella, Econometric model
which is found 175 km away from the capital Addis Ababa. Mount
Chilalo is the highest point in this district. Major rivers in the district Logistic model is used to identify the determinants of food security,
include the Ketar, Kulumsa, Gonde, Dosha and Welkesa. A survey and to assess their relative importance determining the probability
of the land in this distric shows that 40% is arable or cultivable of being in food secure. The functional form of logit model is
(32% was planted with cereals), 23.1% pasture, 8.7% forest, and specified as follows, Gujarati (1995):
the remaining 28.2% is considered swampy, mountainous or
otherwise unusable.
The district has a tropical heavy and erosive rainfall as well as
cool to moderate climate. The altitude of the area ranges from 2240 (1)
to 2740m above sea level, the annual means temperature ranges
from 15 to 22°C, and the mean annual rainfall ranges from 900 to For ease of exposition, we write (1) as:
1100mm. The rainfall pattern is bimodal which are short rainy
season (Belg) and long rainy season (Meher).
According to CSA (2011), the total population of the district is
86.727 of which 43.443 are male and 43.284 are female. From the
population of the district, about 80.204 or 92.5% lives in rural areas (2)
and the remaining proportion lives in urban areas. Farmers in the
area practice mixed type of farming. Major crops grown in the The probability that a given household is food secure is expressed
district are cereals (barley, wheat, teff, and maize), pulses (bean by (2) while, the probability for food insecure is:
and pea), oil crops (linseeds and rape seeds) and vegetables
(potato, tomato, onion and cabbage). In the district, Ketar-Genet
Peasant association is known as rain shortage area, by which
farmers residing in the water bank of Ketar River are benefiting from (3)
the irrigation schemes.
Ketar River is the major source for Ketar irrigation scheme which Therefore, we can write:
covers 367 ha of land. The irrigation scheme is located in Ketar-
Genet Peasant association which is found 39 km away from the
zonal capital Asella.

Sampling procedure (4)

For this study, 130 sample households were used (65 households Now, (Pi/1-Pi) is simply the odds ratio in favour of food security. The
from users of the irrigation scheme and 65 households from non- ratio of the probability that a household will be food secure to the
users of the irrigation schemes). probability that it will be food insecure. Finally, taking the natural log
of equation (4) we obtain:

Method of data collection

Data were collected both from primary and secondary sources. (5)

Where Pi = is a probability of being food secure ranges from 0 to

Method of data analysis 1. Zi = is a function of n explanatory variables (x) which is also
expressed as:
Descriptive statistics

Mean, standard deviation, frequency distribution and percentage

were used to examine and understand the socio economic (6)
situations of the sample respondents through comparing irrigation
users and non-users. The food items consumed by sample ß0 is an intercept
households' calorie content was computed using calorie conversion ß1, ß2 ------ ßn are slopes of the equation in the model
table of EHNRI (1968), and household members were also Li = is log of the odds ratio, which is not only linear in Xi but also
converted to their adult equivalent. Then, the amount of total linear in the parameters.
calories consumed by each sample household was computed and Xi = is vector of relevant household characteristics
divided by 14 days to get per day calorie consumed by household.
This figure was divided to the Adult Equivalent (AE) of respective If the disturbance term (Ui) is introduced, the logit model becomes
households and which finally gave the amount of calorie available
per AE for each sampled household. Thus, those households
greater than the minimum amount of calorie required (2100kcal) (7)
was put under food secured otherwise not food secured (Hoddinott,
2001). The situation of household food security within irrigation
users and non-users was also seen independently. In order to Hypotheses and definition of variables
calculate rate of return to land management of rain fed and
irrigated vegetable crops grown by irrigation users 2012/2013 Household food security (HHFSE)
production season, partial budgeting technique was applied which
used plot level input and output data collected for the crops. This is a dichotomous dependent variable in the model taking value
60 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 1. Hypothesized independent variables and expected sign.

S/N Hypothesized independent variable Expected sign

1 Age of household head (Age) +
2 Education of HH head (Education) +
3 Dependency ratio (DEPNDRTO) -
4 Number of livestock owned (excluding oxen) (livestock) +
5 Number of oxen owned (Oxen) +
6 Size of cultivated land (Landcult) +
7 Labor (Labor) +
8 Access to credit (Credit) +
9 Off-farm income (Offinco) +
10 Income from rain-fed crop produces (Raincrinco) +
11 Income from irrigated crop production (Irricome) +
12 Use of fertilizer (Fertilizer) +
13 Extension Service ( Extention) +
14 Income from livestock (Livesincome) +

Table 2. Age distribution of sample household heads.

Age Users (n=65) Non-users (n=65) Total (n=130)

(yrs) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
18-25 5 7.7 5 7.7 10 7.7
26-40 29 44.6 32 49.2 61 46.9
41-55 24 36.9 22 33.8 46 35.4
55-65 7 10.8 6 9.2 13 10
Mean 43.65 41.02 42.33
SD 11.4 12.0 11.76
t-Value 1.28NS (Not Significant)
Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14).

of 1 if a household is food secure and 0, otherwise. more risk avert. Table 1 indicates that mean age of the
sample household heads was 42.33 with standard
deviation of 11.76. The mean age of sample household
Independent variables
heads of irrigation users and non-users were 43.65 and
Various socioeconomic and household characteristic variables are 41.02 with standard deviation of 11.43 and 12.0
expected to affect household food security in the study area. The respectively; this indicated that the older the household
major explanatory variables hypothesized to influence household head, the more experience he has in farming. Moreover,
food secure situation are presented in Table 1. older persons are more risk averters, and mostly they
intensify and diversify their production activities (Abebaw,
2003) (Table 2).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dependency ratio: Household with high dependency
Descriptive analysis ratio will face shortage of labour to undertake activities
that bring benefit to household. Therefore, economically
Households characteristics active members of household have to support
themselves and other members of the household.
Age composition of the Household head: Farmers Household members aged below 15 and above 64 are
acquire experience and knowledge through devoting their considered as dependents and dividing it by household
time to farming activities. Therefore, higher age means members whose age is between 15 to 64 resulted in
better farming experience, and accordingly better dependency ratio. The distribution of dependency ratio
condition in terms of food security and they become for sample households showed that about 52% of sample
 Tefera and Cho 61

Table 3. Dependency ratio of sample households.

Users (n=65) Non-users (n= 65) Total (n=130)

Dependency ratio (No) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
0 – 1.00 34 52.3 33 50.8 67 51.5
1.01 – 2.00 25 38.5 30 46.2 55 42.3
2.01- 4 6 9.2 2 3.0 8 6.2
Mean (No) 1.22 1.25 1.23
SD 0.70 0.55 0.63
t-value -0.27 NS
Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14).

Table 4. Education status of sample household heads.

Users (n=65 ) Non-users (n= 65 ) Total (n=130 )

Education (grad)
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)

Illiterate 41 63.1 47 72.3 88 67.6

Read and write 9 13.8 5 7.8 14 10.8
Elementary school 8 12.3 9 13.8 17 13.1
Junior secondary school 7 10.8 4 6.1 11 8.5
Mean (grades) 1.71 1.54 1.62
SD 1.057 0.953 1.006
t-value 0.96 NS
Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14).

households' dependency ratio falls within 0 to 1 (Table 3) between the two groups in their education level (Table 4).
indicating that economically active member of a
household is expected to support at least one member of
the family. The result is almost similar for irrigation users Household resource endowment
(about 52%) and non-users (about 51%) that is, the
dependency ratio range is 0 to 1. The mean dependency Labor availability
ratio for irrigation users and non-users was found to be
1.22 and 1.25 with standard deviation of .70 and .55 As shown in Table 5, the mean available labor in man
respectively. The overall mean of dependency ratio of equivalent was 2.14 with the minimum and maximum
sample households was 1.23. The t-test result shows that being 1 and 5.1 respectively. The labor availability
there is no statistically significant difference in mean between irrigation users and non-users differ in that users
value dependency ratio between the two groups. A had large labor endowment (2.35 Man - Equivalent) than
household with more productive labour force compared to non-users (1.94 Man Equivalent). The result of test
the active age shows a high dependency ratio, and it is statistic is significant at 1%, which indicated that there is
more likely to be food insecure (Bigsten et al., 2002) significant difference between the two groups in terms of
(Table 3). availability of labor. This shows that irrigation user
households’ have much household labor to undertake
Education level of household heads: The average their farming activities as compared to non-user
number of years of formal schooling completed by the households’ (Table 5).
sample farmers was 1.62 (Table 4). Among the sample
farmers, the majority (67 %) were illiterate, while only
about 11% could read and write. The rest attended formal Farm land holdings
elementary or junior secondary school.
None of the household heads had attended school Results of Table 6 shows that, nearly 15% of the
beyond grade 8. Descriptive statistics result revealed respondents have farmland size of 1.5 hectare or less
that, there is no statistically significant mean difference while 53% of the respondents own land within 1.51 to 3
62 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 5. Labor availability of sample households.

Group of households N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation t-value

User 65 1.00 5.10 2.35 0.75
Non-users 65 1.00 4.60 1.94 0.75 3.09***
Total 130 1.00 5.10 2.14 0.78
*** Significant at 1% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 6. Cultivated land by sample households.

Users (n=65 ) Non-users (n= 65 ) Total (n=130 )

Land size (ha)
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)

<= 1.50 7 10.8 12 18.5 19 14.6

1.51 – 3 32 49.2 37 56.9 69 53.1
3+ 26 40.0 16 24.6 42 32.3
Mean (ha) 2.96 2.71 2.83
SD 1.03 1.02 1.03
t-value 1.39 NS
Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14).

Table 7. Livestock ownership by sample households (TLU).

Users (n=65) Non-users (n= 65) Total (n=130)

Livestock (TLU) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
<=3 14 21.5 29 44.6 43 33.1
3.01-8 20 30.8 27 41.5 47 36.2
8.01-12 21 32.3 7 10.8 28 21.5
>12 10 15.4 2 3.1 12 9.2
Mean (ha) 7.58 4.38 5.98
SD 4.77 3.67 4.53
t-value 4.28***
*** Significant at 1% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

hectare limits. Households who own land size of more ownership by irrigation users is almost double than that of
than 3 hectare accounted for 32.3 %. Irrigation users non-users. The number of farmers who own more than 8
have mean land size of 2.96 hectare whereas the non- TLU was 31 for users and only 9 for non-users. This
users have 2.71 ha with the mean difference of .25 and shows that, irrigation user households have large number
standard division of 1.03. The statistical test indicated of livestock as compared to non-users. A t- test result
that there is no statically significant difference between reveals that, there is a statistically significant difference
the two groups. However, irrigation user households’ are between users and non-users in the livestock ownership,
using more chemical fertilizer on their land and at a probability level of less that 1%.
continuously using extension advisory services as
compared to the non-users.
Oxen ownership

Livestock ownership Table 8 shows that 14.6% of the sample households

were without oxen, and about 35% of them owned only 1
The result on Table 7 shows that mean livestock ox and 50% owned 2 or more. The mean size of oxen
 Tefera and Cho 63

Table 8. Oxen ownership by sample households.

Users (n=65) Non-users (n=65) Total (n=130)

Oxen (No)
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
0 2 3.1 17 26.1 19 14.6
1 23 35.4 23 35.4 46 35.4
>=2 40 61.5 25 38.5 65 50.0
Mean 1.78 1.12 1.45
St. deviation 0.96 0.80 0.94
t-value 4.27***
***Significant at 1% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 9. Use of credit service by sample households.

User (n=65) Non-user (n=65) Total (n=130)

Credit
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
Yes 34 52.3 15 23.1 49 37.7
No 31 47.7 50 76.9 81 62.3
2-value 11.82***
***Significant at 1% (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

ownership between irrigation users is larger (1.78) than role for production and productivity. In the study area, use
that of non-users (1.12) and the overall mean being 1.45. of fertilizer is a very important input for the production of
There is a statistically significant difference in oxen crops. Irrigation by its very nature demands high use of
ownership between the means of irrigation users and improved agricultural inputs like fertilizer in order to
non-users at 1% significant level. Oxen power is the main produce high value crops like vegetables. In most cases,
source of traditional means to cultivate land in Ethiopia. It availability of irrigation encourages farmers to use
allows effective utilization of land and labor resources fertilizer for production of high value crops, which fetches
where family labor could be spread over peak and slack high prices and cover incurred costs (Hazell and
periods to carry out both farm and non-farm activities. Ramasamy, 1991). Analysis of fertilizer use by the two
Households with relatively larger number of oxen can groups indicates that, the mean amount of fertilizer use
perform better on their farm and achieve sustainable food was almost three fold for users than non-users of the
security. irrigation (Table 10). The mean difference was highly
significant at 1% probability level.

Inputs and extension services

Extension service
Credit services
Provision of extension service to farmers play important
The majority of irrigation participants (66.7%) reflected role in terms of creating knowledge and skills in using
that their participation in credit during the last five years improved agricultural inputs. The frequency of using an
increased. However, in case of non-users this was extension service in case of users and non-users of
44.6%. Table 9 shows the result. Credit serves as a irrigation differs. One of the areas where extension
means to boost production and expand income generating service was given was in area of irrigation development
activities (DIAGNE, 1998; DEVEREUX, 2001). Thus, a where irrigation users benefit out of it. Frequency of
household which has access to credit does initiate extension service was measured and the results are
investment in farm and non-farm activities and achieve indicated in Table 11.
food security.

Household income
Fertilizer use
As shown in Table 12, irrigation users have generated
Use of fertilizer for crop production plays an important mean income of Ethiopian Birr 2106.66, the maximum
64 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 10. Fertilizer use by sample households.

Users (n=65 ) Non-users(n= 65 ) Total (n=130 )

Fertilizer(Kg/ha) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
0-30 13 20 37 56.9 60 46.2
31-60 26 40 11 16.9 37 28.5
>=61 26 40 17 26.2 33 25.3
Mean(Kg/ha) 77.35 27.29 52.32
SD 51.69 18.23 73.30
T-value 4.13***
*** Significant at 1% (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 11. Extension service by sample household.

User (n=65) Non-users (n=65) Total (n=130)

Contact 2-value
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
Once a week 22 33.8 8 12.3 30 23.1
Every 15 days 32 49.2 34 52.3 66 50.8
10.78**
Once a month 8 12.3 17 26.2 25 19.2
Once in three months 3 4.6 6 9.2 9 6.9
**Significant at 5% (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 12. Annual income generated by sample households their mean income.
from the irrigated crops. Farmers also generate income from livestock in different
forms. As shown in Table 14, income from livestock for
Irrigation users (n=65) sampled households differs between irrigation users and
Income (Birr)/household/year
n Percentage (%) non-users. In both cases, the majority of households of
645-1500 38 58.5 users (87.7 %) and non-users (93.8%) fall in the first
1501-3170 14 21.5 income range, which is Birr 34 to 1500 /year. The result
3171- 4840 8 12.3 of test statistic indicated that there is significant difference
4840-6510 5 7.7 between the mean incomes of the two groups with
Mean 2106.66 irrigation users having higher livestock income than non-
Std. deviation 1460.24 users. The difference shows that, irrigation user
households’ have better access to get feed by planting
Note= One Dollar= 20 Ethiopian Birr (Source: Computed from the
fodder seeds on the marginal areas of their farm and
field survey data (2013/14)).
applying proper livestock husbandry system by following
the advice of agricultural extension agents.

being Birr 6510.00 and a minimum was Birr 645. The

majority of irrigation users' (58.5%) income fall in the first Food security status of sample households
category (Birr 645 to 1500), and it is only 20% of the
farmers who managed to generate income with the range Food security status of sampled households is computed
of Birr 3171 to 6510. As shown in Table 13, sample with the conversion of the weekly consumption data into
households' income from rain fed crop production is kilocalorie using the nationally standardized food
indicated. composition table manual (Ehnri, 1997). The converted
From the table, it is possible to note that the majority of data were divided into household Adult Equivalent (AE).
the sample households' income was found within income Following this, the amount of energy in kilocalorie (kcal)
range of Birr 235 to 1200. In terms of mean income, available for the household was recorded. Then after, the
irrigation users were in better position, (since they are results obtained were compared with the minimum
using chemical fertilizer and properly used extension subsistence requirement per Adult Equivalent (AE) per
advisory services), and the test statistic revealed that day (which is 2,100 kcal). Households which consume
there is significant difference between the two groups in below this minimum requirement were categorized as
 Tefera and Cho 65

Table 13. Income generated by sample households from rain fed crops.

Users(n=65) Non-users (n=65) Total (n=130)

Income from rainfed (Birr)/household/year
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
235-1200 37 56.9 51 78.5 88 67.7
1201-2625 17 26.2 12 18.5 29 22.3
2626-5475 11 16.9 2 3 13 10
Total 65 100 65 100 130 100
Mean 1438.47 886.78 1162.62
Std. deviation 1200.27 753.02 1035.73
t-value 3.14***
*** Significant at 1% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 14. Income generated by sample households from livestock.

Users (n=65) Non-users(n=65 Total (n=130)

Income from livestock(Birr)/year
n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
34-1500 57 87.7 61 93.8 118 90.76
1501-3500 5 7.7 4 6.2 6 4.62
3501-8542 3 4.6 0 0 6 4.42
Mean 999.58 540.98 770.28
Std. deviation 1365.08 543.99 1060.30
t-value 2.51**
** Significant at 5% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

Table 15. Food security status of sample households.

Food security Users(n=65) Non- Users(n=65) Total(n=130)

status n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%) n Percentage (%)
Food secure 42 64.6 19 29.2 61 46.9
Food insecure 23 35.4 46 70.8 69 53.1
Pearson 2-value 16.34***
*** Significant at 1% level (Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)).

food insecure and those households which consume insecure (Table 16). Out of 69 sample households
above the threshold were considered as food secure. identified as food insecure, kilocalorie (kcal) consumption
The food security situation between irrigation users and of 37.7% falls between 287.39 to 1500 Kcal. If we see the
nonusers was different. The irrigation users were in better two groups separately, 26.2% of irrigation users and
position than that of non-users. About 65 % of irrigation 49.2% of non-users were found in this category.
users were food secured where this was only 29% for
non-users. The statistical test indicates that there is
significant difference between users and non-users with Contribution of Irrigation to crop Income
regard to food security situation (Table 15).
Further analysis was made to see the position of From the data collected, it is possible to note that in the
sample households with regard to calorie consumption. study area, sample households were primarily engaged
To this effect, the data on household calorie consumption in production of wheat, teff and potato under rain-fed
per Adult Equivalent was categorized taking 2100kcl as a agriculture through allocating large proportion of land for
cut of point. Those households more than this value are production of these crops.
food secured but with different value and less are food Therefore, these crops were considered for estimation
66 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 16. Households' calorie consumption per AE

Kilocalorie User(n=65) Non-users(=65) Total(n=130)

Consumption/AE n % n % n %
287.39 -1500 17 26.2 32 49.2 49 37.7
1500.01-2100 6 9.2 14 21.5 20 15.4
2100.01-2500 14 21.5 4 6.2 18 13.8
2500.01-3500 22 33.8 12 18.5 34 26.2
>=3500 6 9.2 3 4.6 9 6.9
Source: Computed from the field survey data (2013/14)

Table. 17. Net return from rain fed and irrigated crops (household average).

Rain-fed crops(n=65) Irrigated crops(n=65)

Variable
Teff Wheat Potato Onion Tomato
Area (ha) 0.62 1.15 0.28 0.68 0.36
Production (qt) 5.72 17.27 4.19 18.94 9.38
Output price (Birr/qt) 1580.13 523.07 200.05 229.42 323.01
Gross revenue (Birr) 9038.34 9033.42 838.21 4345.21 3029.83
Cost Item(Birr)
Seed 2149.99 1955.10 74.81 1299.62 1118.87
Fertilizer 368.00 409.64 34.21 238.50 134.07
Chemicals 0.00 11.03 14.02 169.00 92.35
Fuel - - - 46.31 59.00
Labour 309.62 851.00 97.52 383.57 211.29
Oxen (based on daily rental rate of the
189.55 368 99.85 218.46 136.92
area that is, 80 birr/day)
Opportunity cost of capital 1.5 2.76 .49 4.9 5.5
Total cost 3018.66 3597.53 320.90 2360.36 1758.00
Net return to land and Management
6019.68 5435.89 517.31 1984.85 1271.83
(Birr)
Source: Own computation (2013/14).

of net return. In the same manner, the data collected coefficients of seven variables were significantly
shows that, vegetables grown during the study period differentfrom zero and found to affect food security status
(2013/2014 production season) by the irrigation users of the households in the study area. However, all
were onion and tomato. variables have showed the expected sign. Age of
Therefore, onion and tomato were the crops grown household head (Age) and income from irrigation
under irrigation and included in this analysis. Table 17 (Irrincome) were significant at the 1% level; education of
indicates crop based information on input costs and household head (Education) and cultivated land size
returns. The figures in the table are mean values. The (Landcult) were significant at the 5% significant level.
mean gross revenue generated by the farmers from rain- Oxen ownership (Oxen), livestock ownership (Livestock)
fed crops was Birr 6303.32, where the gross revenue and income fromlivestock (Liveincome) were significant
from teff accounted high (47.80%) followed by wheat at 10% probability level.
(47.77%). Mean gross revenue generated by farmers
from irrigated crop was Birr 3687.52; where onion
contributed high (58.92%). CONCLUSION

The research was conducted to assess whether the

Food security determinants irrigation scheme has had the desirable impact. The
empirical analysis used household level data gathered
The logit model result (Table 18) indicated that from 130 randomly selected households through survey
 Tefera and Cho 67

Table 18. The maximum likelihood estimates of binary logit model

(BLM).

Variable B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp (B)

Age 0.058 0.022 6.786 0.009*** 1.060
Education 1.202 0.592 4.125 0.042** 3.326
Depratio -0.651 0.407 2.562 0.109 0.521
Labour 0.358 0.389 0.846 0.358 1.430
Landcult 0.765 0.304 6.319 0.012** 2.150
Oxen 0.623 0.349 3.193 0.074* 1.865
Livestock 0.109 0.057 3.628 0.057* 1.116
Credit 0.199 0.508 0.153 0.696 1.220
Extension 0.396 0.562 0.497 0.481 1.487
Irrincome 0.001 0.000 6.602 0.010*** 1.001
Liveincom 0.0003 0.000 3.558 0.059* 1.011
Fertilizer 0.006 0.004 1.833 0.176 1.006
Raincroin 0.000 0.000 0.224 0.636 1.000
Constant -7.518 1.865 16.256 0.000 0.001
a; b
-2 log likelihood: 110.96 Prediction success: 85% ; *, **, ***, Indicate
a
significance at 10, 5 and 1%, level respectively ( Based on a 50% probability
b
classification schemes; Correctly predicted food-secure households based on a
50% probability classification).

method. Partial budgeting technique and logistic influencing household food security at 10 and 1%
regression were employed respectively, to income and significant level, respectively.
food security effects of the scheme.
The result of analysis of return to land and management
for the rain fed and vegetable crops using Partial
Budgeting technique showed that income from irrigated IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
vegetable crops contributed for 21.38% of the total
annual crop income for the irrigation users. The results of The study result revealed that access to such small scale
the study also showed that irrigation users were in better irrigation can significantly improve income level and food
position in terms of livestock (7.58 to 4.38 TLU) and oxen security status of beneficiary households. Hence, in line
ownership (1.78 to 1.12 TLU); participation in credit (52 to with the findings of the study the following recom-
23%) and the use of extension advisory services. mendations are made:
The result on food security status in the study area
shows that, larger proportion (65%) of irrigation users 1. Compared to the non-users, irrigation user households
were found to be food secured whereas it was only 29% are getting a better income, hence in order to increase
for non-users. The analysis further indicated that most the income, saving and investment capacity of the
of food secured irrigation users found to be in a better farmers, all responsible development partners including
position in terms of calorie consumption per Adult government and non-governmental organizations should
Equivalent than food secured non-users. focus on promoting small and large scale irrigation
The result of the logit model indicated that age of schemes across the country.
household head has a positive effect on the probability of 2. Results of the study clearly indicated that, the
household being food secure with 1% significance level. promotion of small scale irrigation scheme to ensure food
Education of household head was found to influence security of the country should be the major focuses of the
positively household food security, and found to be government short, medium and long term strategic plan.
significant at 5% level. Moreover, production factors such 3. In the study area, non-users of the irrigation scheme
as cultivated land and oxen number had positive and households’ have no adequate access to credit,
significant influence on household food security through extension advisory services and participation in many of
their role on food production and income generation. the agricultural development activities. Hence, all
Livestock holding (TLU) was also positively and responsible bodies should empower these group of
significantly related to the probability of being the farmers through the provision of training and facilitating
households to be food secure (at 10% probability level). conditions for their full participation in any development
Income from livestock and irrigation found to be agendas.
68 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2006). Special report on
crop and food supply assessment mission to Ethiopia, FAO. Rome
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Adama Italy.
Science and Technology University (Research and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2012). Special report on
Publication Office), ARSI University (College of crop and food supply assessment mission to Ethiopia, FAO. Rome
Italy
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences) for their
Fuad A (2002). Small-scale irrigation and food security: A case study
technical, financial and material support. Above all, this from central Ethiopia: Discussion paper No 4. Forum for Social
work is supported by the National Research Foundation Studies, Addis Ababa. 55p.
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government Government of Ethiopia (2001). Rural Development Policies and
Strategies of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
(No. 2014S1A5A2A03065540). Moreover, this work is
Gujarati DN (1995). Basic Econometrics. 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill Inc,
supported by a 2-year research grant of Pusan National New York.
University. Hoddinott J (2001). Methods for Rural Development Projects. Choosing
Outcome Indicators of Household Food Security. IFPRI, Washington,
D.C. pp. 31-73.
Hune N (2003). Rain water harvesting technology and their contribution
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS to household food security in dry land areas of Ethiopia. Proceedings
of Food Security Conference, Addis Ababa, 13-15 August, 2003.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. UNCC
Mekuria T (2003). Small-Scale Irrigation for Food Security in Sub-
Sahara Africa. Center for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation (CTA)
working document number 8031:2-3
REFERENCES Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) (2004). Strategic
Planning and Management Document, Finfine.
Abebaw S (2003). Dimension and determinants of food insecurity http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11688033.pdf
among rural households in Dire Dawa area, Eastern Ethiopia. Quasem MA (1994). Irrigation and Household Income: A case study of
Alemaya University. 121p. Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric.Econs.17 (1 and 2):61-65.
Bigsten A, Kebede B, Shimelis A, Taddesse M (2002). Growth and
Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia: Evidence from Household Panel
Surveys. In: World Dev. 31(1):87-106.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2011). Area and Production Forecast
of Major Crops: Agricultural Sample Enumeration Surveys, Various
Issues, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dessalegn R (1999). Water Resource Development In Ethiopia: Issues
of sustainability and participation, Forum for Social Studies, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
Desta B (2004). Impact of community managed irrigation scheme on
farm production efficiency and household food security: The Case of
Weliso and Wechi Districts of Ormia Region. An MSc Thesis
Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.
107 p.
DEVEREUX S (2001). Livelihood insecurity and social protection: a re-
emerging issue in rural development. In: Dev. Policy Rev. 19(4):507-
519.
DIAGNE A (1998). Impact of access to credit on income and food
security in Malawi. FCND Discussion Paper No. 46. IFPRI,
Washington, D.C.
EHNRI (1968). Food composition table for use in Ethiopia, Part III.
EHNRI (Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute) (1997). Food
composition Table for use in Ethiopia. Part III, from 1968-1997. A
research project sponsored by Government of Ethiopia through
former ENI and EHNRI. Addis Ababa.
Ehui S, Benin S, Williams T, Meijer S (2002). Food security in sub-
Saharan Africa to 2020., Socio-economic and Policy Research
Working paper 49. ILRI (International Livestock Research Center),
Nairobi, Kenya. 2-3