BJSTR MS Id 002166

ISSN: 2574-1241 Volume 5- Issue 4: 2018
DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2018.11.002166
Guo Ruo. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res
Research Article Open Access
Climate Change Adaptation Practices by Ruminant

Livestock Producer of in Hintalo Wajerat District
Tigray Regional State, Northern Ethiopia
Guo Ruo*1, Brhane Weldegebrial2, Genet Yohannes3 and Gebremedhin Yohannes4
1
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongjji University, China
2
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Tongji, China
3
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gambella University, Ethiopia
4
College of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, Ethiopia
Received: : November 27, 2018; Published: : December 10, 2018

*Corresponding author: Guo Ruo, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongjji University, China
Abstract
Global warming has been termed ‘the greatest market failure the world has ever seen’ The earth’s climate has warmed on average by about
0.7 °C over the past 100 years with decades of the 1990s and 2000s being the warmest in the instrumental record .This study a hundred and fifty
six farmers’ households were interviewed or conducted in January and February 2018 and examined by used descriptive statistical analysis on the
climate perception of livestock producer, adaptation practices, effect of climate change on livestock production and barrier to adapt climate change
that responded by the local farmers in Hintalo wajerat district of Tire regional state of northern Ethiopia based on different agro ecology. Results
showed that Most of the respondents 150 (96.15 %) perceived that, climate change is indeed occurring and 6(3.85) respondents also none perceived
whether climate is changed or not. About 122 (78.2. %) of respondents also perceived that increases in temperature. While 110(70.5%) perceived
that decreased in precipitation over the fifteen years. Most of the respondents perceived that, climate change was affected on livestock production
and animal feed (forage) production.
The major adaptation strategies based on three agro ecological setting identified by the livestock farmers that included, Health care 138
(88.46%), clean of shade 128 (82.05%), provision of shade 120 (76.92%), Marketing during shock 97(62.18 %), Shade for day and dry season
76(48.71%), used Feeding & watering trough and cross bred 71(45.51%) respectively. Other results of descriptive analysis, farmers responded
on the different barriers of climate change adaptation practices. Among the barriers such as lack of finance, lack of awareness on climate change
adaptation strategies, lack of water and lack of lands. The benefits of climate adaptation practices on livestock that perceived by the farmers’
like, increase animal production and productivity, decrease animal pest and disease and other related benefits of climate adaptation practices on
livestock. Increased access to agricultural support services, which improves the availability and the quality of relevant climate information will
further enhance awareness of climate change within of the rural community and result in better management of climate-induced risks in these
vulnerable livestock production systems.
Keywords: HH Perception; Climate Change; Adaptation Strategy; Livestock Productivity
Abbreviations: NMSA: National Meteorological Survey Agency; FGD: Focus Group Discussion; KII: Key Informants Interview; PPS: Probability
Proportional Size
Introduction
continent most vulnerable to climate change than other continent
Global warming has been termed ‘the greatest market failure
due to lack of adaptation capacity. Thornton et al. [4], forecasted
the world has ever seen’ [1]. The earth’s climate has warmed on
that climate change was to bring about shortage of water which
average by about 0.7 °C over the past 100 years with decades of the
could reduce livestock feed and pasture yield. Ethiopia is one of
1990s and 2000s being the warmest in the instrumental record [2].
Africa country has a diversified climate ranging from semi-arid
Agriculture in Africa is more negatively affected by climate change
desert type in the lowlands to humid and warm (temperate) type
[3]. According to study by Abate et al., (2009), Africa is generally a
Biomedical Journal of
Scientific & Technical Research (BJSTR) 1/20
Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research Volume 11- Issue 5: 2018
(NMSA,2001). The size and diversity of major agro-ecological zones flood [23], and may not adapt to extreme climate change phenom-
is suitable for the support of large numbers and classes of livestock ena such as shortage of fodder, floods and droughts [24,25]. Ac-
[5]. However, the country has more suffered by extreme climatic cording to AL-Haidary et al. [26-28], study climate changes had the
change and variability [6,7]. thermal, nutritional, water related stresses, restlessness and affect
livestock productivity.
Climate related hazards in Ethiopia include drought, floods,
heavy rains, strong winds, frost, heat waves (high temperatures) Increased incidence of disease and parasitic infection, decreas-
and lightning than other Africa countries [6]. Tigray is also one ing trend of feed and fodder resources, low productive and repro-
of the Regional States in Ethiopia that is frequently affected by ductive performance are also some of the negative effects of climate
drought and other related hazards because it has both arid and change [29,30]. According to Deressa et al. [8,31], adaptation re-
semi-arid nature [8]. Consequently, the impacts of climate change mains one of the policy options to address climatic challenges pre-
and variability remain a serious challenge. According to FDRE 2011 vailed on all ecosystem especially on the livestock sector such as
[9] study, by 2020 in Ethiopia, the yields from agriculture could fall on cattle, sheep and goats. This has great relevance for developing
by 50 % because of the adverse effects of climate change like rise countries seeking to maintain food security if it is focused to go to-
in temperature, drought, flood, erratic rainfall and others. Climate gether with the long-term policy priority among poor farmers [32].
change has been recognized by different researchers as having Obviously, farmers with the low capacity are the most vulnerable
potentially severe impacts on livelihood and development [10]. to the negative impacts of climate variability and change. Within
Being a developing country, Ethiopia’s agriculture contributes about the spectrum of livestock versus adaptation methods to climatic
42–45 % to its gross domestic product, employs more than 80 % of change, has been identified by many researchers [29,30]. Despite
the population and generates more than 85 % of foreign exchange significant progress, many questions regarding the prospects for
earnings [3,11,12]. Livestock systems in developing countries are livestock have yet to be recognized [33,34]. Some studies Dick;
characterized by rapid change, driven by factors such as population Tologbonse indicates that, different adaptation methods to climate
growth, increases in the demand for livestock products as incomes change are applied by livestock farmers at different agro-ecolog-
rise, and urbanization [13,4]. ical zones. Despite the importance of livestock production for the
economy of Ethiopia especially for Tigray region very little or not
Livestock currently contribute about 30 percent of agricultural
enough information or study exists on climate change and its effect
gross domestic product in developing countries, with a projected
on livestock production.
increase to about 40 percent by 2030 FAO [14,15] and is becoming
the fastest-growing sub-sector of agriculture [13,16]. Livestock are Then this study was intended to fill the gap in the literature by
an important component of nearly all farming systems in Ethiopia examining the impact of climate change on livestock production,
and provide draught power, milk, meat, manure, hides, skins and identified the determinants of adaptation method used by farmers
other products [5]. Currently, the population of livestock found in located at each agro-ecological zone, analyzed famers’ perception
Ethiopia is estimated to be 53.4 million cattle, 25.5 million sheep on climate change, types of adaptation practices by ruminant live-
and 22.78 million goats [17]. However, Climate change is affecting stock producer farmers in the study area of South Eastern Tigray
the dynamics of livestock sector [18,19]. Studies had reported that Zones, Northern Ethiopia. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
there are correlations between rainfall variability and livestock assess the Climate Change Adaptation Practices by Ruminant Live-
population dynamics [20-22]. Among the livestock species, sheep stock Producer in Hintalo Wajerat District, Tigray Regional state,
and goats are more vulnerable to climate change due to their heav- Northern Ethiopia.
ily reliance on climate sensitive resources and immobility during
Figure 1: Map of the study area.
Cite this article: Guo R, Brhane W, Genet Y, Gebremedhin Y. Climate Change Adaptation Practices by Ruminant Livestock Producer of in Hin-
talo Wajerat District Tigray Regional State, Northern Ethiopia. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res 11(5)-2018. BJSTR. MS.ID.002166. DOI: 10.26717/ 2/20
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Materials and Methods Livestock Population

Description of the Study Area The livestock population of the district is estimated about 132,
Hintalo wajerat district is found 748km and 35km far from the 422 cattle, 44,000 sheep, 498,000 goat, 21,737 equines, 165,600
capital city of Ethiopia (Addis Ababa) and capital city of Tigray Re- poultry, and 4,580 camels. The livestock distribution in the six
gional State (Mekelle) respectively. It is situated lies between lati- specific study area (kebeles) also estimated about 37666 cattle,
tudes 12º 55’N to 13º 20’N and longitudes 39º 20’E to 39º 55’E… 170242 sheep,6787 goats, 6468 donkeys, 46 mules ,30402 hens,
This district is bounded with the east Afar regional state, with the 34 horse and 642 camels (Figure 2). The district covers an area
west Samre district, on the South Alaje district, and on the north of 2,864.79 Square km. (Source: Hintalo Wajerat District Office of
Enderta district (Figure 1). Agriculture and Rural Development, 2015 G.C).
Figure 2: Livestock distribution in the specific study area (kebeles).
Human Population study. Primary data were collected from sample households using
questionnaire survey, focus group discussion, and key informants’
This district has an estimated human population of 173,863
interview. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected for
(male 47.56%, female 52.44%) and 53,863 households with twenty
this study. Qualitative data were obtained using in-depth interviews
two peasant associations (tabias).and from the total population
that included group discussion and key informants. Primary data
90% of the people are lives in the rural area. (Source: Hintalo
were mainly related to respondents’ demographic characteristics;
Wajerat District finance office, 2010 G.C).
farmers’ perception on climate change; farmers’ adaptation
Climate (Agro-Ecology Zone) practices to climate change; the effect of climate change on livestock
Agro ecology of the district is highland 13.75%, midland 22.5% production and the barrier of adaptation practices to climate change
and lowland 63.75% and the study area has summer rainfall (June- based on agro ecology. Secondary data such as information on the
November) and dry season (December-may) with mean annual number of household heads, livestock population and climatic data
rainfall which ranges from 200-500mm and the mean temperature of the study were collected from kebele administration offices,
estimated ranges from 16 to 25 °C. (FAO, 2004 G.C). district agriculture office and National meteorological survey
Agency (NMSA).
Land Use Characteristics
Household Survey
Agriculture is the mainstay of the livelihood of people with
a mixed farming system. Livestock plays an integral role for The semi-structured questionnaire (close-ended and
agricultural activity in the district. Livestock also provide meat, open-ended questions) was used to generate quantitative data
milk, cash income and transportation purposes. The livestock on household characteristics, demographic and educational
species reared in the area include; cattle, sheep, goat, equines, characteristics of farmers, farmer perceptions on climate change,
camels and poultry. Animals are kept in protected and communal adaptation strategies to climate change, effect of climate change on
grazing system. Crops commonly produced are maize, teff, barely, livestock productions and barrier to adapt climate change based on
sorghum, wheat, and Beas and beans. agro ecology.
Data Collection Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

For this study, data from both primary and secondary data According to May (1993) the advantage of FGD is that it allows
sources were collected and used to achieve the objectives of the the interaction with a range of key informants and allows the
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
researcher to focus on group norms and dynamics around the issue climate change. Such as, Rest, Catholic, AGP, HHP and farmers’
being investigated. According to Gill and Chadwick, 2008), a focus cooperatives. These organizations participating on reforestation,
group discussion composed of between six and fourteen members supporting on livestock feed during drought season, on soil and
is adequate. Some open-ended questions that help in addressing water conservation and on diversification of livestock cross bred.
objectives of the study were prepared for discussions. In this study,
Key Informants Interview (KII)
FGDs were conducted among the people comprising 6 participants
in each group. One FGD was undertaken from each selected kebeles KII was employed in order to support the data which would be
(Table 1). For FGD some questions to collect information were collected from household survey. The key informants were those
used such as: qualitative information which is related to what type experienced and knowledgeable households on using appropriate
of adaptation strategies were used in their locality, opportunities adaptation practices on their livestock to adapt climate change in
that help farmers to cope climate change in their area, any support the study area. Twenty four key informants (4 key informants from
(financial, technical) from concerned bodies for farmers in order to each peasant association were selected by the help of agricultural
help their effort during the use of adaptation mechanisms. office kebeles experts’ (Tables 1 & 2). Informants were interviewed
in their homes during weekend time to find them easily and get good
The contribution of farmer associations in using appropriate information about their experience of adaptation practices on their
adaptation mechanisms and any other relevant information for livestock to adapt climate change. The interviews were conducted
this study were collected. During this FGD most respondents in their local language (Tigrigna language). During the interview
perceived on climate change occurred and temperature was rising, the different KII respondents perceived that the temperature was
and rainfall decreased due to climate change over the last fifteen rise and the amount of rainfall decreased over the last fifteen years
years and they practiced on their livestock to adapt the adverse of Due to this, they have been used different adaptation practices on
climate change. Among most their practices such as; health care their livestock to adapt climate change. Among the most adaptation
their livestock, home feeding, used cross breed, house provision practices who were used, such as supplementary food for their
house cleaning and marketing livestock during shocks. The other livestock, provision of house, home feeding, used cross bred
responds that responded by farmers during FGD in the study area livestock, health care their livestock and house cleaned.
they have some supporters by financial and technical to adapt
Table 1: Participant farmers on the FGD & KII.

Participant Kebeles Total
Farmers Participant
Ady Ady Tsehafty Bahry Dejen Aweyanemdy

Mesno Keyih Tseba
Male female male female male female male female Male female male female
FGD 5 1 4 2 5 1 4 2 3 3 4 2 36
KII 3 1 3 1 4 0 3 1 3 1 3 1 24
Table 2: Distribution of sample sizes in each selected kebele.

Agro-Ecology Total Number of Kebeles Household Heads Sample Size Taken
Highland Adymesno 1666 20

Bahrytsaba 2473 30
Midland Amdyweyane 2440 29
Dejen 2102 25
Lowland Tsehafty 2317 28
Adykeyih 1972 24
Total 12970 156
Note: Wereda Hintalo Wajerat Finance Office, 2010 G.C).
Sampling Techniques and Procedures roads. At the third stage, lists of household heads in the selected
kebeles were obtained from Kebele administration offices. Then,
For this study, multi-stage sampling procedures were followed.
the total sample size of the target population at 92% confidence
At the first stage, the districts were stratified in to three agro-
level and 0.08 (8%) level of precision were determined by using
ecological zones (namely, highland, midland and low-land). At the
a simplified formula provided by Yamane (1967) and reviewed by
second stage, six kebeles (two kebeles from each agro ecological
Israel, (2012);
zones) were selected purposively based on their potential livestock
N
population across the three agro ecological zones of the district, n= (1)
frequency of climate related hazard occurrence and accessibility to 1 + N ( e) 2
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the barriers to adaptation practices to adapt climate change.
level of precision at 92% significance level.
Dependent and Independent Variables
In the third stage, Probability Proportional Size (PPS) sampling Dependent Variables: The dependent variables included in
technique were used to determine the number of sample households the analysis were the adaptation strategies adopted by ruminant
from each kebeles. Finally, simple random sampling technique was livestock producer farmers. The most common adaptation strategies
used to select 156 samples of households from the six kebeles. identified during household surveys, focus group discussion and
Data Analysis key informant were housing of livestock, livestock marketing
during shock (destocking), cross breeding, feeding management
Data were summarized using descriptive statistics of Microsoft
and health care practices.
excel and SPSS software version 20 was used to analyze the col-
lected data. Tables and figures (graphs) were used to present the Independent Variables: Independent variables include in the
analyzed data. Moreover, independent sample chi-square test and analysis were institutional characteristics, the household head,
regression were also employed to test the existence of a significant environmental factors and specifically desired variables were sex
difference between perceived and non- perceived of house hold and age of the house hold head, marital status, access to information
heads based on the agro ecology on climate change. Descriptive sta- of climate change, educational status of the household head,
tistics was employed to determine and assess the following aspects: access to credit, family size, farm size, agro-ecological zone, herd
respondents’ demographic and institutional characteristics and size, access to extension service, farming experience and distance
their attitude towards their climate perception, adaptation practic- to main market. Independent variables are clearly mentioned in
es to adapt climate change, effect of climate change on livestock and (Table 3).
Table 3: Institutional characteristics of livestock farmers.
Variable Agro Ecology Setting Total
Highland Midland Lowland
Sex House Hold Head
Male 34(68%0 39(72.22%) 46(88.46%) 119(76.28%)
Female 16(32%) 15(27.78%) 6(11.54%) 37(23.72%)
Education
Illiterate 23(46%) 20(37.03%) 29(55.77%) 72(46.15%)
Tertiary 1(2%) 0 0 1(0.64%)
Primary School 22(44%) 28(51.85%) 22(42.39%) 72(46.15%)
Secondary School 4(8%) 5(9.25%) 1(1.92%) 10(6.41%)
Above Secondary 0 1(1.95%) 0 1(0.641%)
Access Credit
Yes 41(82%) 52(96.29%) 49(94.23%) 142(91.02%)
No 9(18%) 2(3.71%) 3(5.77%) 14(8.97%)
Extension Service
No 14(28%) 3(5.55%) 6(11.53%) 23(14.74%)
Yes 36(72%) 51(94.44%) 46(88.46%) 133(85.25%)
Distance to Market
<5 36(72%) 49(90.74%) 23(44.23%) 108(69.23%)
6 Up To 10 11(22%) 5(9.25%) 26(50%) 42(26.92%)
>10 3(6%) 0 3(5.77%) 6(3.85%)
Access to Information
No 14(18%) 3(5.55%) 6(11.53%) 23(14.74%)
Yes 36(72%) 51(94.44%) 46(88.46%) 133(85.25%)
Source of Information
TV Only 15(30%) 9(9.6%) 17(31.48%) 41(26.28%)
TV, RA, DA 10(20%) 5(9.25%) 9(17.30%) 24(15.38%)
RA, OBS, DA 11(22%) 23(42.59%) 22(42.31%) 56(35.9%)
OB, DA 3(6%) 15(27.78%) 2(3.85%) 20(12.85%)
NO Information 11(22%) 2(3.71%) 2(3.855%) 15(9.62%)
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Land Size
0.125 Up To 0.25 11(22%) 29(53.7%) 12(23%) 69(44.23%)
0.5 Up To 1 28(56%) 18(33.33%) 33(63.46%) 68(43.59%)
>1 17(34%) 7(12.96%) 1(1.92%) 8(5.13%)
No Land 05(10%) 0 6(11.54%) 11(7.05%)
Herd Size
No Livestock 6(12%) 2(3.7%) 0 8(5.13%)
<5(1) 22(44%) 33(61.11%) 29(55.77%) 84(53.85%)
6 Up To 10 17(34%) 9(16.66%) 14 (26.92%) 40(25.64%)
11 Up To 15 3(6%) 6(11.11%) 5(9.62%) 14(8.97%)
16 Up To 20 1(2%) 2 (3.7(%) 1(1.92%) 4 (2.56%)
21 Up To25 1(2%) 2 (3.7%) 3(5.77%) 6 (3.85%)
Results and Discussion Access to Climate Change Information

This part comprises the findings of the study and their brief Out of the 156 conducted farmers’, 133 (85.25%) had access
respective discussion. Mainly, it includes the farmers’ perception on on climate change information and they have different source of
climate change with different agro ecologies; farmers’ adaptation climate information. Among their sources of climate information,
practices to climate change and compare their adaptive strategies the most sources that responded by the farmers, 56 (35.9%), own
in different agro ecologies; the effect of climate change on livestock observation, radio and development agent.
production and identify constraints to climate change adaptation
Purpose of Keeping Cattle and their Importance in the
practices.
Study Area
Socio Economic Characteristics of Respondents Ruminant livestock production is one of the most important
Socio economic characteristics of the households are shown in agricultural sectors for rural and urban communities. During
(Table 3). One hundred fifty six households in three agro-ecological the questioner’s survey in the specific study area indicates,
settings were enrolled in this study. Among these households 119 farmers’ respond on purpose of ruminant livestock production
(76.28 %) were male-headed households; whereas the rest 37 has responded that farmers were kept their ruminant livestock
(23.72 %) were female-headed. for different purposes. Such as, for consumption only (5.12%),
for income only (4.5 %%) and for both consumption and income
Access to Credit Service
(90.38 %%), respectively.
Significant number of the households 142(91 %) had access
to credit, and 147(94.23%) have own land and they participated Farmers Perception on Climate Change
in farm activities (Table 3). As confirmed by key informants and Farmers’ were asked about their perception whether climate is
group discussants, most farmers in the midland area such as Dejen changing or not over the last 30 years. As shown in (Table 4). out
kebeles have fertile farmlands and better opportunity to grow of 156 respondents 150 (96.15 %) farmers ‘perceived that climate
different crops, vegetables and livestock feeds or pastures using change is indeed occurring and 6(3.85%) respondents also none
irrigation practices. perceived whether climate is changed or not. This study results
agrees with findings farmers’ response towards perception on
Access to Extension Service
climate change is consistent with other studies. Studies conducted
Generally, 133 (85.25%) respondents had access to extension by Abraham et al. and Mengestu [35,8,10] in Ethiopia reported that
services on climate change. As compared agro ecological setting, the temperature is rising, and rainfall amount is decreasing due to
the midland respondents 51(94.44%) had access to extension climate change. Studies conducted in other African countries like
services than the two agro ecology respondents. Due to this there South Africa [36-38] also documented similar findings with this
is statistically significant different on access extension services study on farmers’ perception about climate change.
among the three agro ecological setting (p<.005).
Causes of Climate Change
Distance to Markets
As written by different previous researchers; cause of climate
Distance to market is one of the important things for farmers change had classified natural and human activities. In this study
climate adaptation opportunity; that means when the markets also, the most causes of climate change responded by the respon-
nearby to the farmers’ is easy to buy animal feeds and for animal dents revealed that anthropogenesis and human activities. These
marketing during shock. As shown in (Table 3), 108 (69.23%) more common causes such as; overgrazing 126 (80.8%), deforestation
than half of the respondents had marketing access nearby their 110(70.5%), urbanization 106 (67.9%), population growth 99
local area (<5 Kms). (63.5%), natural variability 96(61.1%), Agriculture 82(52.6%),
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Poor waste management 72(46.8%), Industry 59(37.8%) transpor- soil fertility, reduced indigenous biodiversity, increased food prices
tation 55(35.3%) and mining 50(32.1%) respectively [39-49]. and Conflict over scarce resources (water...). As showed in above
Table 4, the farmers’ perception on climate change based on sex*
Climate Change Indicators
agro ecology categories indicates that, the respondents perceived
Among the climate change indicators, temperature and rainfall whether climate is changed or not during the questionnaires
were considered as parameters for the analysis in this study. The survey in the study area. Due to this when compared the perception
responses from respondents in relation to changes in temperature on climate change based on sex categories; out of 119 male
and rainfalls across three agro-ecological zones are depicted in respondents, 117(98.31%) of male farmers and out of 39 female
Figure 7 and Figure 12 respectively. Most of the respondents respondents 33(89.19%) of female farmers were revealed that
acknowledged that there is rise in temperature and decline in perceived climate was changed over last 30 years respectively. The
rainfall amount. The other climate change indicators that mentioned rest 4(10.8%) female and 2(1.68%) male respondents were not
by the farmers during the questioner’s surveys included, reduced perceived whether climate is changed or not [49-59].
crop yields (crop failure) Limited availability of water, Reduction in
Table 4: Purpose of livestock rearing by farmers in the study area.
Sex Purpose of Livestock Total
Consumption Income Both
Female Count 2 1 34 37
% 5.4% 2.7% 91.9% 23.7%
Male Count 6 6 107 119
% 5.% 5% 89% 76.3%
Total Count 8 7 141 156
% 5.12% 4.5% 90.38% 100.0%
These non-perceived respondents may be due to educational (Table 5) indicates, the farmers’ perception on climate change
level, lack of awareness and lack of information on climate change. based on age categories between 36-45 had more perceived than
So this indicates that, the climate perception between the perceived other age categories. This may be due to the educational status
and non-perceived respondents on climate change was there is of farmers’ and their climate perceptions based on age categories
statistically significant different (p<.029). The climate change had statistically significant different (P< 0.05). While, the farmers’
perception among three agro ecology also indicates, there is some perception on climate change based on three agro ecological setting
different. While, except in the highland the rest two agro ecology was there is not significant different and this may be due to their
there is not significant different on climate perception. The above similar awareness on all the three agro ecology [59-69].
Table 5: Farmers climate perception based on Sex*agro ecology.

Agro Ecology Sex Total X2
Female Male
No 3 0 3
Highland Yes 13 34 47 .029
Sub Total 16 34 50
No 1 1 2 .482
Midland Yes 14 38 52
Sub Total 15 39 54
No 0 1 1 .885
Lowland Yes 6 45 51
Sub Total 6 46 52
No 4 2 6(3.85%)
Yes 33 117 150(96.15) .029
Grand Total 37 119 156
The effect of the sex of the respondents on perception of male and female on climate perception and this indicating that,
temperature variability and trends of temperature in the study 98(82.35%) male respondents perceived on climate change than
area is given in Figure 3. Most of the respondents were perceived female 24(64.86 %) counter parts. The respondents which did not
that temperature was increased. There is difference between the have any perception about climate changes were 4(10.8%) females
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
and 2(1.7%) males. while about 7(18.9%) females and 7(5.88%) climate change through variability in temperature as shown in
males reported agreed that, decreasing trends of temperature in Figure 4, the age categories between 36-45 respondents perceived
the study area. On top of this few 2 (5.4%) females and 12(10.8%) that, temperature was increased in the thirty years than other
males perceived no change in temperature in the study area. The respondents and this may be due to educational level [69-79].
age of the respondents had affected the perception of farmers on
Figure 3: Group discussion, on climate perception and adaptation methods in kebele dejen.
Group discussion, 2018.
Figure 4: Climate perception based on sex-trends of temperature.
While the age categories between 16-25 and >55 were have perception confirmed by scientific description of meteorology
less perceived on climate change through variability or change data from average monthly maximum and minimum temperature
in temperature. Farmer’s perception through climate change in was increased and the same that during the questionnaires survey
temperature- based on agro ecology as shown Figure 5, Most of the respondents perceived on the rising of temperature. (Tigray
respondents’ perceived that, temperature is increased. Especially metrological data of the study area. 2018) [79-83]. As shown in
the lowland respondents perceived than midland and highland Figure 7, based on a scientific description of meteorology agency the
respondents on the rising of temperature. It was observed that trends of annual average temperature were increased. The farmers’
most of the respondents reported temperature is increasing. The perception on climate change during questionnaire survey also
respondents from lowland area perceived more than midland and indicates, that agreed the trends of annual average temperature.
highland on the rising of temperature. As shown in Figure 6, the
Figure 5: Effect of age of the respondents on the percetion variability of temprature.
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Figure 6: Perception of farmers to change in temperature in the study area.
Figure 7: Average monthly maximum and minimum temperature in study area.
Such as among hundred and fifty six farmers’122 (78.2%) compared to the respondents. Similarly, the perception of all age
respondents were perceived or said that, trends of temperature categories of the farmers on trends of precipitation indicated
were increased due to climate change. While 14 (9%) of decreasing in amount and frequency in the study area. When
respondents were perceived decreased in temperature whereas 14 farmers were compared based on sex and age categories, male
(9%) of respondents perceived no change in temperature and the farmers and female farmers with the age classes between 36-45
other 6 (3.85%) respondents said that, no know how whether the years had perceived that decreasing trends of rain fall than the
temperature was increased or decreased over the thirty years due other respondents’ age categories (Figure 9). This indicates, may be
to climate change. When compared the scientifically metrological due to their educational status, accesses on climate information and
data annual maximum and minimum temperature results with awareness on climate change. As shown in Figure 10, the change in
farmers responds during questionnaire survey on the trends of rainfall amount due to climate change as reported by farmers from
temperature, they agreed the rising of temperature on over the three different agro-ecological settings, the midland respondents
three decades. (Tigray metrological data of the study area. 2018). had reported that the precipitation was decreased as compared to
respondents from the lowland and highland agro-ecologies.
As shown in Figure 8, decreasing trends of precipitation was
reported by both sexes of the respondents in the study area as
Figure 8: Trends of mean annual av max and min temperature in study area (1987-2017).
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Figure 9: Effect of sex on farmers’ perception on climate change based on precipitation.
Figure 10: Effect of the age on farmers’ perception of climate change based on precipitation.
While, there is no statistically significial different among there were agreements between perception of the farmers during
three agro ecology setting on the trends of precipitation. During questionnaires survey and meteorology data on the amount of
the questionnaires survey, the perception of the farmers on the rain fall in the study area. Due to this, farmers perceived that the
trends of precipitation was reported as declining in amount and rain fall was observed to decrease both in amount and frequency
intermittent in frequency of occurrence. While metrological agency of occurrence and the NMA reported also indicates the amount of
in the studied area reported that the trend monthly amount of rain annual rain fall showed decreased trend with reduced frequency
fall showed slightly increasing (Figure 11). It was observed that (Figure 12).
Figure 11: Effect of agro ecology on amount rain fall as perceived by respondent farmers.
Figure 12: Trend of Mean monthly amount of total rain falls in study area.
Tigray metrological data of the study area 2018.
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Effect of Climate Change on Livestock Production and livestock production and animal feed production.
Animal Feed Production
Due to this as shown in Tables 6-8, the age between 36-45 years
As showed in Table 6, the perceptions of farmers on the effect old were more perceived or agreed that, the adverse effect of climate
of climate change on livestock and livestock feed production was change on livestock production than the other age categories.
indicates, most of the respondents agreed that climate change had When compared the perception of farmers on the effect of climate
negatively affected livestock and on animal feed production in the change on livestock production and animal feeds based on different
study area. Especially the female respondents 35 (94.59%) were agro ecology indicates there is some different on their climate
perceived than male 110 (92.44%) on the effect of climate change perception Such as, midland.52 (96.29%), lowland 50 (96.15%)
on livestock production and animal feed production. Even, the and highland 43 (86%) respectively. While, there is no significant
farmers perception on the effect of climate change on livestock difference on farmers’ perception on the adverse effects of climate
production and animal feed production was different between the change on livestock production and animal feeds among the three
female and male respondents on different agro ecology. While, there agro ecology. This may be due to their similar awareness on climate
is no significant different between the female and male respondents change on the three agro ecology setting. Table 9 showed that, the
on the response of effect of climate change on livestock production farmers’ perception on the effects of climate change on livestock
and feed production in the study area. This may be due to their production based on sex. Due to this most of respondents137
similar awareness’s. The respondents based on age categories (87.8%) agreed that, the livestock production decreased by the
that reported their perception on the effect of climate change on adverse effects of climate change.
Table 6: Farmers climate perception based on Age*agro ecology.
Agro Ecology Age Total X2
16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55
Highland No 1 2 0 0 3 .869
Yes 14 24 7 2 47
Sub Total 15 26 7 2 50
Midland No 0 1 1 0 0 2 .932
Yes 1 23 15 7 6 52
Sub Total 1 24 16 7 6 54
Lowland No 0 1 0 0 1 .621
Yes 10 18 14 9 51
Sub Total 10 19 14 9 52
No 0 2 4 0 0 6 .548
Yes 1 47 57 28 17 150
Grand Total 1 49 61 28 17 156
Table 7: Farmers perception on the effect of c/change on livestock production and animal feed production based on sex*agro
ecology.
Agro Ecology Sex Total X2

Female Male
No 2 5 7 .604
Highland Yes 14 29 43
Sub Total 16 34 50
No 0 2
2
Midland Yes 15 37 52 .518
Sub Total 15 39 54
No 0 2 2
Lowland Yes 6 44 50 .781
Sub Total 6 46 52
No 2 9 11
Yes 35 110 145 .495
Grand Total 37 119 156
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Table 8: Farmers perception on the adverse effects of climate change on livestock production and animal feed production age*agro
ecology basis.
Agro Ecology Age Effect of Climate Change on Livestock Total
No Yes
26-35 3 12 15
36-45 2 24 26
Highland 46-55 1 6 7
>55 1 1 2
Total 7 43 50
16-25 0 1 1
26-35 0 24 24
36-45 1 15 16
Midland 46-55 0 7 7
>55 1 5 6
Total 2 52 54
26-35 1 9 10
36-45 1 18 19
Lowland 46-55 0 14 14
>55 0 9 9
Total 2 50 52
16-25 0 1 1
26-35 4 45 49
36-45 4 57 61
Total 46-55 1 27 28
>55 2 15 17
Total 11 145 156
Table 9: Farmers perception on the adverse effects of climate change on livestock production based on sex.
Sex Animal Products Total
No Know How Increase Decrease No Change
Female Count 4 2 28 3 37
% 10.8% 5.4% 75.67% 8.022% 23.7%
Male Count 2 4 109 4 119
% 1.68% 3.36% 91.59% 3.36% 76.3%
Total Count 6 6 137 7 156
% 3.8% 3.8% 87.8% 4.5% 100.0%
Table 10: Farmers perception the effects of climate change on livestock feed production based on sex.
Sex Feed Production Total
Female Count 4 1 28 4 37
% 10.8% 0.6% 75.67% 10.8% 23.7%
Male Count 2 6 107 4 119
% 1.68% 3.36% 89.91% 3.36% 76.3%
% 3.8% 4.5% 86.5% 5.1% 100.0%
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
When compared the female and male perception on the effects livestock feed production, the male (89.91%) was agreed on
of climate change on livestock production, the male (91.59%) was decreased the livestock feed production by the effects of climate
agreed on decreased the animal products by the adverse effects change than the female (75.67%) respondents. Table 11 showed
of climate change than the female (75.67%) respondents. Table that, the farmers’ perception on the adverse effects of climate
10 showed that, the farmers’ perception on the effects of climate change on livestock production based on categories Due to this
change on livestock feed production based on sex. Due to this among the different age categories the farmers who have the age
most of respondents135 (86.5%) agreed that, the feed production between 36-45 old that more agreed the livestock production
decreased by the effects of climate change. When compared the decreased by the adverse effects of climate change than other age
female and male perception on the effects of climate change on categories.
Table 11: Farmers perception on the adverse effects of climate change on livestock production based on age.
Age Livestock Production Total
16-25 Count 0 0 1 0 1
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%
26-35 Count 2 2 43 2 49
% 1.3% 1.3% 27.6% 1.3% 31.4%
36-45 Count 4 2 53 2 61
% 2.6% 1.3% 34.0% 1.3% 39.1%
46-55 Count 0 2 23 3 28
% 0.0% 1.3% 14.7% 1.9% 17.9%
>55 Count 0 0 17 0 17
% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 10.9%
% 3.8% 3.8% 87.8% 4.5% 100.0%
This may be due to their educational status and their awareness farmers who have the age between 36-45 old’s that more agreed
on the adverse effect of climate change on livestock production. the livestock feed production decreased by the adverse effects of
Tables 12 & 13 showed that, the farmers’ perception on the adverse climate change than other age categories. This may be due to their
effects of climate change on livestock feed production based on educational status and their awareness on the adverse effect of
age categories Due to this among the different age categories the climate change on livestock feed production.
Table 12: Farmers perception the effects of climate change on livestock feed production based on age.
Age Livestock Feed Production Total
16-25 Count 0 0 1 0 1
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%
26-35 Count 2 1 40 6 49
% 1.3% 0.6% 25.6% 3.8% 31.4%
36-45 Count 4 5 51 1 61
% 2.6% 3.2% 32.7% 0.6% 39.1%
46-55 Count 0 1 26 1 28
% 0.0% 0.6% 16.7% 0.6% 17.9%
>55 Count 0 0 17 0 17
% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 10.9%
% 3.8% 4.5% 86.5% 5.1% 100.0%
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Table 13: Adaptation options used by livestock producer based on agro ecology.
Adaptation Practices Agro Ecology Setting
Highland Midland Lowland Total
Provision of shade 40 (80 %) 41(75.92 %) 39(75%) 120(76.92%)
Clean of shade 37(74%) 49(90.74%) 42(80.77%) 128 (82.05%)
Home feeding 11(22%) 10(18.52%) 20(38.46%) 41(26.28%)
Supplement feeding 8(16%) 24(44.44%) 17(32.69%) 49 (31.41%)
Marketing duringshok 23(46%) 45(83.33%) 29(55.77%) 97(62.18 %)
Health care 44(88%) 47(87.04%) 47(90.38%) 138(88.46%)
Cross breed 16(32%) 29(53.70%) 26(50%) 71(45.51%)
Irrigation for pasture 11(22%) 22(40.74%) 22(42.31%) 55(35.26%)
Shade for dry season 17(34%) 43(79.62%) 16(30.77%) 76(48.71%)
Feeding watering trough 15(30%) 32(59.26%) 24(46.15%) 71(45.51%)
Note: Field survey, 2018.
Adaptation Practices to Climate Change by Livestock old were perceived on climate adaptation than other age categories.
Producers’ Farmers said; whether practiced or not to adapt climate change
based on agro ecology. Due to this; the perception of respondents on
Figure 13, indicates whether farmers used the adaptation
climate adaptation was kept on different agro ecology categories as
practices on their livestock to adapt climate change or not based
following respectively. Such as 51(94.44%) midland, 49 (94.23%)
on sex. Due to this among the female house hold head 33(89.20%)
lowland and 38 (76%) highlands Figure 15. This means most of
respondents and male105 (88.23%) respondents were said that;
the midland respondents said that; they used adaptation practices
they used adaptation practices on their livestock to adopt climate
on their livestock to adapt climate change more than lowland and
change and the remained percent 14 (11.76%) males and 4(10.81%)
highland respondents. Education has an important effect on the
females were said not used adaptation practices on their livestock
choice of adaptation strategies to climate change. Because literates’
to adopt climate change. As shown in Figure 14, indicated that;
individual peoples are expected to perceive about climate change
farmers’ perception on adaptation to climate change based on age
and thus chooses compatible adaptation strategies.
categories. Due to this; among the age categories between 36-45
Figure 13: Trend of annual rainfall in study area (1987-2017).

Tigray metrological data of the study area 2018.
Figure 14: Livestock farmers’ adaptation practices to climate change sex basis.
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Figure 15: Farmers perception on climate adaptation age basis.
As shown in Figure 16, during the questioner survey out of study indicated that literate respondents said had more used
156 respondents 72 (46.14%) of farmers were illiterates and 84 adaptation practices on their livestock to adapt climate change
(53.86%) respondents were literates. Due to this, out of 72 illiterates’ than non-educated respondents. So there is a significant different
respondents 60 (83.30 %) were used different adaptation practices between literate and non-literate farmers on climate change
on their livestock to adapt climate change. While12 (16.7%) of adaptation (p<.016) Figure 17 described that, most of the farmers’
non-illiterate’s respondents were not used adaptation practices on responded had practiced adaptation methods on their livestock to
their livestock to adapt the adverse of climate change. While out adapt climate change based on family size. Especially, among the
of the 84 literates’ respondents 78(92.86%) were used adaptation numbers of family size which have between 1-5 family sizes more
practices on their livestock to adapt climate change. whereas the perceived and used adaptation practices on their livestock to adapt
rest 6(7.14(%) of literate respondents were not used adaptation climate change than the other family size categories.
practices on their livestock to adopt climate change. Then in this
Figure 16: Farmers adaptation on climate change agro ecology basis.
Figure 17: Education level relation to adaptation on climate change.
However, in this study indicates that, there is no a statistically describe more had been used adaptation practices on their livestock
significant different among the different family size on climate to adapt climate change than other farmers experience categories.
adaptation practices on their livestock. Figure 18 indicated This may be due to their educational level and the adequate assess
that; livestock farmers’ adaptation practices relation to farmers’ of information on climate change. As shown in Figure 19, out of
experience. Due this; farmers who have <10 years’ experience that hundred and fiftysix respondents abut 147 (94.22%) farmers
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
‘have own land, whereas the rest 9(5.8%) respondents have no number of farm participant in the lowland agro ecological zone
own land. This indicates that, there is statistical different (p<.000) 52(100%) respondents have own land than the other two agro
between the land owned farmers’ and none land owned farmers. ecological zone.
Particularly, as compared the three agro-ecological zones; the
Figure 18: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock relation to family size.
Figure 19: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock based on farmers’ experience.
This descriptive statistical analysis also described that, have own land and about 138 (88.46%) respondents have been
compared between the female and male owned land and none own used different adaptation practices on their livestock to adopt
land. Due to this, out of 119 male respondents 113(94.96%, and out climate change. But the rest 18 (11.54 %) respondents have not
of 37 female respondents’34(91.89%) have own land respectively, used adaptation practices on their livestock to adopt the adverse
whereas the rest 6(5.04%) male and 3(8.1%) female have no own of climate change. So, this indicates the owned land farmers more
lands. this indicates that male respondents have own lands than participated or used adaptation practices on their livestock to
female respondents. However, there is not significant different adapt climate change than non-owned land farmers. However, the
between lands owned male and female respondents. As shown adaptation practices based on land size was there is no significant
in Figure 20. Indicate that, out of 156 respondents 147(94.22%) different.
Figure 20: Farmers whether have own land or not based on sex.
The farmers responded or said that, climate change is can on the three agro ecological setting. These includes; health care
effect on livestock production. Especially the midland respondents 138(88.46%), clean of shade 128 (82.05%), provision of shade120
more perceived than the other agro ecology categories. As shown (76.92%), Marketing during shock 97(62.18 %), Shade for day and
in the above Table 8. The most common farmers’ used different dry season76 (48.71%), Feeding& watering trough and cross bred
adaptation practices on their livestock to adopt climate change 71(45.51%) respectively. However, when compared the farmers
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
perception on climate change adaptation practices among three Benefit of Climate Adaptation Practices on Livestock: Most
agro ecological setting; the midland respondents were familiar of the respondents perceived or agreed that, the benefit of climate
or used different adaptation practices on their livestock to adopt adaptation practices on livestock was very crucial and revealed that
climate change than the other agro ecological setting (highland and increase animal production (like milk, meat, eggs) and increase
lowland) in the study area. animal reproductivity and decrease animal pest and disease.
Figure 21: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock based on land size.
Figure 22: Barriers to climate change adaptation practices based on agro ecology.
Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Practices by -based assessments on indicators of multiple adaptation choices
Livestock Farmers were conducted and the estimated results indicated that nearly
97(62.18%) of the farmers were found to use marketing. During
The major constrains or barriers to adapt climate change
drought periods, farmers used to sell their livestock because of
by livestock farmers are listed in Figures 21 & 22, such as lack of
fear of lack of natural grazing and animal feed and animal pest
finance, lack of awareness, lack of water and lack of land. As citied
(diseases).
by Temesgen et al. the analysis of barriers to adaptation practice to
climate change in the Nile basin of Ethiopia indicates that, there are Conclusion and Recommendation
five major constraints to adaptation. These are lack of information, Livestock can make a large contribution to climate-friendly
lack of money, shortage of labor, shortage of land, and poor potential supply systems. The sector offers substantial potential for climate
for irrigation. Then the barriers to adaptation practices on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation options are available
change by livestock farmers’ almost similar Tumescent previous along the entire supply chain and are mostly associated with
study with my study. feed production, enteric fermentation and manure management.
Discussion Livestock’s role in adaptation practices relates to organic matter and
nutrient management (soil restoration) and income diversification.
Findings from the three agro ecological area that more
Livestock also makes a key contribution to food security, especially
than 96.15 % of local farmers were able to perceive the adverse
in marginal lands where it represents a unique source of energy,
effects of climate change. They apparently noticed that climate
protein and micronutrients. The contribution of the livestock sector
change reduced the amount of rainfall, which evidently exhibited
to food security could be strengthened, particularly in areas where
in terms of occurrence of frequent drought with its immediate
current levels of consumption of livestock products are low. One can
consequences on loss of their livestock production. The responding
see that in this study, the perceived climate change and variability
the negative effects of climate change, producers of ruminants’
by farmers are not in line with the gauged meteorological data
livestock continued to pursue multiple adaptation methods. Field
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
results. Majority of farmers 122 (78.2%) in the study area perceived productivity. Trees also improve the supply and quality of forage,
an increase in temperature with some variability among the agro which can help reduce overgrazing and land degradation.
ecologies and among age groups.
h) Increased access to agricultural support services, which
On the other hand the perceived trend on rain fall indicates improves the availability and the quality of relevant climate
that most of the farmer’110 (70.5%) perceived the decreasing information will further enhance awareness of climate change
trend. The world meteorological organization recommended at within of the rural community and result in better management
least 30 years minimum data in order to understand the trends of climate-induced risks in these vulnerable livestock
of a given area’s climate variability and change. So it is better to production systems.
rely on perceived climatic trend results than the meteorological
References
data results. The adaptation strategy by farmers is also in line
1. Stern N (2006) What is the Economics of Climate Change? World
with their perceived climate changes of the area rather than that economics 7(2): 1-10.
of the positive meteorological results. The farmers’ adaptation
2. Watson B (2010) Climate change: An environmental development and
practices on their livestock to adapt to the changing climate on the security issue.
three agro ecological setting; are Health care, provision of Shade,
3. DC Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yusuf M (2009)
Marketing during shock, Shade for dry season, Feeding& watering
Determinants of farmer’s choice of adaptation methods to climate
trough and cross bred. These practices are among climate change change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change
adaptation strategies devised by IPCC therefore farmers are very 19(2): 248-255.
much aware of their area’s climate trend as their response strategy 4. Thornton PK, Kruska RL, Henninger N, Kristjanson PM, Reid RS, et
indicated. So from this one can see that the climate change of the al. (2002) Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world.
area are negatively affecting the study area’s farming community International Livestock Research Institute publishers, Nairobi, Kenya.
as it is already seen and indicated by the survey results and the 5. Funk C, Rowland J, Eilerts G, Kebebe E, Biru N, et al. (2012) A climate
discussants of key informants and focus groups. trend analysis of Ethiopia. Climate change adaptation series. US
Geological Survey. Famine Early Warning Systems Network-Informing
Based on this the following are recommended: (FEWSNET): 6.
6. Abebe T, Addis Ababa (2007) National Meteorological Agency (NMA).
a) It is necessary to ensure inter-sectoral coordination and Climate change national adaptation program of action of Ethiopia. In:
cooperation. Abebe T, Addis Ababa (Eds.), Ethiopia.
b) Considerable investment in: 7. Alebachew A, Woldeamlak B (2011) A Climate Change Country

Assessment Report for Ethiopia. Submitted to Forum for Environment.
i. Filling data and knowledge gaps and research. Epsilon International R&D. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
8. Deressa T, Hassan RM, Alemu T, Yusuf M, Ringler C (2008) Analyzing the
ii. Development of technologies.
determinants of farmers choice of adaptation methods and perceptions
iii. Conservation and production of suitable varieties and of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. In: International food
policy research institute (IFPRI) Washington DC, USA.
breeds.
9. Easter ling W, Apps M (2005) Assessing the consequences of climate
c) Strengthened institutional capacity to improve change for food and forest resources: a view from the IPCC. In Increasing
dissemination of modern adaptation strategies over large areas Climate Variability and Change Springer Netherlands 70(1-2): 165-189.
and numbers of farmers. 10. FDRE (2011) Ethiopia’s climate-resilient green economy green economy
strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Google, pp. 65-189.
d) Institutional and financial support for smallholders to
11. Mengestu DK (2011) Farmers perception and knowledge of climate
make the transition to better livestock management that is in change and their coping strategies to the related hazards: case study
climate smart principle manner. From Adiha, Central Tigray, Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 2(2): 138-145.
e) The use of weather information to assist rural 12. Gebreegziabher Z, Stage J, Kekkonen A (2011) Climate change and
the Ethiopian economy: a computable general equilibrium analysis.
communities in managing the risks associated with rainfall for
Resources for the Future, Washington, USA.
livestock management that needs to be addressed.
13. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C (2011) Perception and adaptation
f) Agro forestry is an integrated approach to the production to climate change by farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Journal of
of trees and non-tree crops or animals on the same piece of Agricultural Science 149: 23-31.
land. 14. Delgado CL (2005) Rising demand for meat and milk in developing
countries: implications for grasslands based livestock production. In Mc
g) Agro forestry is important both for climate change Gill way, DA (Eds.) Grassland: a global resource, Wageningen Academic
mitigation (carbon sequestration, improved feed and Publishers, Wageningen the Netherlands, pp. 29-39.
consequently reduced enteric methane) and for adaptation 15. FAO (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A life cycle
in that it improves the resilience of agricultural production assessment. A report prepared by Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations animal production and health division, FAO, Rome.
to climate variability by using trees to intensify and diversify
production and buffer farming systems against hazards. 16. FAO (2010) Climate change adaptation and mitigation: New initiatives
and update on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Proceedings:
Shade trees reduce heat stress on animals and help increase
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
Thirtieth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East: Khartoum the Ethiopia: status and prospects for improvement. Experimental
Republic of the Sudan. Agriculture 44(3): 399-412.
17. FAO (2009) Preparation of national strategies and action plans for 36. Abraham M, Birtukan Atinkut (2016) Determinants of farmers choice
animal genetic resources. Animal Production and Health Guidelines, No. of adaptation to climate variability in Deraworeda , south Gondar zone,
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Ethiopia.
18. Central Statistical Authority (2011) Agricultural sample survey 2010- 37. Mandleni B, Anim FDK (2011) Perceptions of cattle and sheep farmers
2011. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics Addis Ababa, on climate change and adaptation in the Eastern Cape province of south
Ethiopia. Africa. J Hum Ecol 34(2): 107-112.
19. Hoffmann I (2010) Climate change and the characterization, breeding 38. Kemausuor F, Dwamena E, Bart Plange A, Kyei Baffour N (2011) Farmers
and conservation of animal genetic resources. Animal Genetics 41(Suppl perception of climate change in the Ejura Sekyedumase district of Ghana.
1): 32-46. J Agric Biol Sci 6(10): 26-37.
20. Thornton PK, Gerber PJ (2010) Climate change and the growth of the 39. Apata TG (2011) Factors influencing the perception and choice of
livestock sector in developing countries. Mitigation Adaptation Strategy adaptation measures to climate change among farmers in Nigeria:
of Glob Change 15(2): 169-184. evidence from farm households in Southwest Nigeria. Environ Econ
2(4): 74-83.
21. Solomon D (2001) Cattle population dynamics in the southern
Ethiopian rangelands. Research brief -01-02. The GL-CRSP Pastoral Risk 40. IPCC International Panel on Climate Change (2007) “Climate Change
Management Project (PARIMA). Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. 2007: the physical science basis. Summary for policy makers. Assessment
Report” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Kgosikoma OE (2006) Effects of climate variability on livestock
population dynamics and community drought management in Kgalagadi, 41. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2009) Livestock and
Botswana. MSc thesis Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway, p. climate change. Livestock thematic papers.
57.
42. IFAD (2009) Comprehensive Report on IFAD’s Response to Climate
23. Abdeta A (2011) Effects of drought on cattle herd dynamics and its Change through Support to Adaptation and Related Actions.
implication on local livelihood systems in Borana, Ethiopia. Food
Security Center (FSC) Brief p. 1-6. 43. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2010)
Livestock and climate change. IFAD publishers, Rome.
24. OSeni S, Bebe O (2010) Climate change, genetics of adaptation and
livestock production in low-input systems. In: 2nd international 44. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate
conference: climate, sustainability and development in semi-arid Change: The Scientific Basis.
regions, Fortaleza Ceará, Brazil Google. 45. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (2007) Impacts,
25. Sahoo A, Kumar D, Naqvi SMK (2013) Climate resilient small ruminant adaptations and vulnerability. Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge
production. In Sahoo A, Kumar D, Naqvi SMK (Eds.) National Initiative on University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) Izatnagar, India: pp. 1-106. 46. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2013) Climate
26. Taruvinga A, Muchenje V, Mushunje A (2013) Climate change impacts change 2013: The physical science basis.
and adaptations on small-scale livestock production. International 47. Kurukulasuriya P, Mendelsohn R (2008) A Ricardian analysis of the
Journal of Development and Sustainability 2(2): 664-685. impact of climate exchange on African cropland. African Journal of
27. Al Haidary AA (2004) Physiological responses of Niamey sheep to heat Agricultural and Resource Economics 2(1): 123.
stress challenge under semi-arid environments. 48. Mc Dermott JJ, Kristjanson PM, Kruska RL, Reid RS, Robinson TP, et al.
28. Sevi A, Casamassima D, Pulina G, Pazzona A (2009) Factors of welfare (2002) Effects of climate, human population and socio-economicchanges
reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science on tsetse-transmitted trypanosomiasis to 2050. World Class Parasites 1:
8(sup1): 81-101. 25-38.
29. Alam MM, Hashem MA, Rahman MM, Hossain MM, Haque MR, et al. 49. Meyer WB (1996) Human Impact on the Earth. In Meyer WB(Eds.)
(2011) Effect of heat stress on behavior, physiological and blood Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK.
parameters of goat 22(1-2): 37-45. 50. Nisbet EG (1991) Leaving Eden: To Protect and Manage the Earth.
30. Henry B, Charmley E, Eckard R, Gaughan JB, Hegarty R (2012) Livestock In: Nisbet EG (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
production in a changing climate: adaptation and mitigation research in Kingdom.
Australia. Crop and Pasture Science 63(3): 191-202. 51. Notenbaert A, Mude A, Van de Steeg J, Kinyangi J (2010) Options for
31. Singh SK, Meena HR, Kolekar DV, Singh YP (2012) Climate change adapting to climate change in livestock-dominated farming systems in
impacts on livestock and adaptation strategies to sustain livestock the greater horn of Africa. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning
production. J Vet Adv 2(7): 407-412. 3(9): 234-239.
32. Di Falco S, Yusuf M, Kohlin G, Ringler C (2012) Estimating the impact of 52. (2001) NMSA (National Meteorological Services Agency) Initial
climate changes on agriculture in low-income countries: Household level national communication of Ethiopia to the United Nations Framework
evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Environmental and Resource Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Economics 52(4): 457-478. 53. Sejian V, Gaughan JB, Raghavendra Bhatta, Naqvi SMK (2016) Impact of
33. Di Falco, S Yusuf M, Kohlin G (2009) On adaptation to climate change and climate change on livestock productivity.
food production in the Nile basin, Ethiopia. Unpublished paper Ethiopia. 54. Seo SN, Mendelssohn R, Dinar A, Kurukulasuriya P (2009) Adapting to
34. Panin A (2000) A comparative economic analysis of smallholder cattle climate change musically: an analysis of African livestock management
and small ruminant production systems in Botswana. Tropical Animal by agro-ecological zones. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
Health and Production 32(3): 189-196. 9(2).
35. Legesse G, Abebe G, Siegmund Schultze M, Zarate AV (2008) Small 55. Seo SN, Mc Carl BA, Mendelssohn R (2010) From beef cattle to sheep
ruminant production in two mixed-farming systems of southern under global warming? An analysis of adaptation by livestock species
choice in South America. Ecological Economics 69(12): 2486-2494.
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.
56. Sidahmed A (2008) Livestock and climate change: Coping and risk 70. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2008) Climate change for
management strategies for a sustainable future. In: Livestock and Global fisheries and aquaculture: Technical background document from the
Climate Change Conference Proceeding, May, Tunisia. expert consultation held on7-9 April, Rome.
57. (2004) UN/ISDR (Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy 71. FAO (2010) Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal
for Disaster Reduction) (2004) Living with Risk - A global review of genetic resources. Animal Production and Health Guidelines, No. 3. Food
disaster reduction initiatives. and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
58. (2008) United Nations, Climate change and disaster risk reduction. 72. Gill P, Chadwick B (2008) Analyzing and presenting qualitative data.
British Dental Journal 204: 429-432.
59. (1992) UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change 2006, Technologies for adaptation to climate change. United 73. Gill M, Smith P, Wilkinson JM (2010) Mitigating climate change: the role
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Germany. of domestic livestock. Animal 4 (3): 323-333.
60. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing 74. Giridhar K, Samireddypalle A (2015) Impact of climate change on
Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia. forage availability for livestock. Climate Change Impact on Livestock:
Adaptation and Mitigation pp. 97-112.
61. Zhang YW, Hagerman AD, Mc Carl BA (2013) Influence of climate factors
on spatial distribution of Texas cattle breeds. Climatic change 118(2): 75. Hoffman MT, Vogel C (2008) Climate change impacts on African
183-195. rangelands. Rangelands 30(3): 12-17.
62. Anders Ekbom (2013) Ethiopia environment and climate change policy 76. Hoffmann I (2008) Livestock genetic diversity and climate change
brief and International. Journal of Agriculture and Biology 2: 307-309. adaptation. Livestock and Global Change Conference proceeding,
Tunisia.
63. Aydinalp C, Cresser MS (2008) The effects of global climate change
on agriculture. American-Eurasian journal of agricultural and 77. IPCC TAR (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. IPCC. IPCC
environmental science 3(5): 672-676. Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press vulnerability,
Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University.
64. Ban Ki Moon (2009) Climate change quotations.
78. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Impacts,
65. Battaglini A, Barbeau G, Bindi M, Badeck FW (2009) European adaptations and vulnerability. Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge
winegrowers’ perceptions of climate change impact and options for University Press, Cambridge, UK.
adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 9(2): 61-73.
79. Kemausuor F, Dwamena E, Bart Plange A, Kyei Baffour N (2011) Farmers’
66. Batima P (2006) Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the perception of climate change in the Ejura-Sekyedumase district of
livestock sector of Mongolia. Assessments of impacts and adaptations Ghana. J Agric Biol Sci 6(10): 26-37.
to climate change. International START Secretariat, Washington DC, USA.
80. Mannion A M (1997) Global environmental change: a natural and cultural
67. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, et al. (2013) environmental history. In: Mannion AM (Eds.), Harlow: Longman Press,
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic Global warming in the New York, USA.
scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2): 024024.
81. Thornton PK, Kruska RL, Henninger N, Kristjanson PM, Reid RS, et
68. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) al. (2002) Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world.
Irrigation potential in Africa: A basin approach. International Livestock Research Institute publishers, Nairobi, Kenya.
69. FAO (2008) Climate-related Tran boundary Pests and Diseases Including
Relevant Aquatic Species. Technical background document from the
expert consultation held on 25 to 27 February, FAO, Rome.
ISSN: 2574-1241
DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2018.11.002166 Assets of Publishing with us
Guo Ruo. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res • Global archiving of articles
• Immediate, unrestricted online access
This work is licensed under Creative
• Rigorous Peer Review Process
Commons Attribution 4.0 License
Submission Link: https://biomedres.us/submit-manuscript.php
• Authors Retain Copyrights
• Unique DOI for all articles
https://biomedres.us/
BJSTR.2018.11.002166.

BJSTR MS Id 002166

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BJSTR MS Id 002166

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BJSTR MS Id 002166

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN: 2574-1241 Volume 5- Issue 4: 2018

Research Article Open Access

Climate Change Adaptation Practices by Ruminant

Received: : November 27, 2018; Published: : December 10, 2018

Keywords: HH Perception; Climate Change; Adaptation Strategy; Livestock Productivity

Figure 1: Map of the study area.

Materials and Methods Livestock Population

Figure 2: Livestock distribution in the specific study area (kebeles).

Data Collection Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Table 1: Participant farmers on the FGD & KII.

Ady Ady Tsehafty Bahry Dejen Aweyanemdy

Table 2: Distribution of sample sizes in each selected kebele.

Highland Adymesno 1666 20

Note: Wereda Hintalo Wajerat Finance Office, 2010 G.C).

Results and Discussion Access to Climate Change Information

Table 5: Farmers climate perception based on Sex*agro ecology.

Figure 4: Climate perception based on sex-trends of temperature.

Figure 5: Effect of age of the respondents on the percetion variability of temprature.

Figure 6: Perception of farmers to change in temperature in the study area.

Figure 7: Average monthly maximum and minimum temperature in study area.

Figure 9: Effect of sex on farmers’ perception on climate change based on precipitation.

Agro Ecology Sex Total X2

Sex Feed Production Total

No Know How Increase Decrease No Change

% 10.8% 0.6% 75.67% 10.8% 23.7%

Male Count 2 6 107 4 119

% 1.68% 3.36% 89.91% 3.36% 76.3%

Total Count 6 7 135 8 156

% 3.8% 4.5% 86.5% 5.1% 100.0%

Age Livestock Feed Production Total

No Know How Increase Decrease No Change

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

% 1.3% 0.6% 25.6% 3.8% 31.4%

% 2.6% 3.2% 32.7% 0.6% 39.1%

% 0.0% 0.6% 16.7% 0.6% 17.9%

% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 10.9%

Total Count 6 7 135 8 156

% 3.8% 4.5% 86.5% 5.1% 100.0%

Note: Field survey, 2018.

Figure 13: Trend of annual rainfall in study area (1987-2017).

Figure 15: Farmers perception on climate adaptation age basis.

Figure 16: Farmers adaptation on climate change agro ecology basis.

Figure 17: Education level relation to adaptation on climate change.

Figure 18: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock relation to family size.

Figure 19: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock based on farmers’ experience.

Figure 21: Farmers adaptation practices on livestock based on land size.

b) Considerable investment in: 7. Alebachew A, Woldeamlak B (2011) A Climate Change Country

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.