International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis最新文献

{"title":"Causes and Consequences of Land Degradation in Ethiopia: A Review","authors":"Amanuel Tadesse, Worku Hailu","doi":"10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.12","url":null,"abstract":"The term \"land degradation\" refers to the deterioration of the land's quality and that of its surrounding components due to either natural or artificial factors. The most frequent cause of land deterioration in Ethiopia is water-induced soil erosion. Due to decreased agricultural soil fertility, land degradation has a detrimental effect on Ethiopia's economy as well as agricultural production. It is now a significant issue impacting all aspect of Ethiopians' social, political, and economic lives. It is one of the main obstacles to the nation's agricultural growth and food security. Rapid population growth, significant soil erosion, deforestation, overgrazing, insufficient vegetative cover, uneven crop production on steep slopes, erosive rainfall patterns, a lack of fallowing, and inadequate conservation measures are the main drivers of land degradation in Ethiopia's highlands. The consequences of land degradation include the loss of fertile soil, which reduces the amount of land that can be used for agriculture. The state of family food security is negatively impacted by land degradation, which also directly lowers livelihoods in rural areas and has catastrophic effects on Ethiopia's sociocultural context and ecological setting. Lower crop yields are the direct result of soil degradation, and agricultural households experience increased rates of poverty as a result.\u0000","PeriodicalId":470771,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis","volume":"115 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141126381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition","authors":"Misba Abdu, Atsbaha Gebreslassie","doi":"10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11","url":null,"abstract":"The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.\u0000","PeriodicalId":470771,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis","volume":" 38","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141128885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}