\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Household Food Security Situation in Central Oromia, Ethiopia: A Case Study from Becho Wereda in Southwest Shewa Zone},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2016-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2016)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2016-01-15}
\title{Household Food Security Situation in Central Oromia, Ethiopia: A Case Study from Becho Wereda in Southwest Shewa Zone}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Furgasa  Derara}

             \affil[1]{  Jigjiga University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 9 December 2015 Accepted: 4 January 2016 Published: 15 January 2016}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Becho Wereda has been perceived to have a surplus food situation for a long time. This study was therefore conducted with the main objective of looking into the reality of this long held perception in the area. To this effect, a total of 145 households were randomly sampled from the three purposively selected kebeles. Primary data were collected through Household Survey Questionnaire, Focus Group Discussion, Key Informant Interview, Individual Case Studies and Field Observation. Household Food Balance Model was used to quantify households? daily per capita calorie available for consumption. Statistical techniques like frequency, percentage, and measures of central tendencies were mainly used to analyze the data. It was found out that, unlike the long held external perception, about 38% of the study households failed even to satisfy the minimum recommended daily per capita dietary caloric requirement for an active and healthy life. High fertilizer price, shortage of farm land, erratic rainfall pattern, water logging, poor soil fertility, lack of oxen, lack of grazing land, crop disease and insect pests, lack of improved seed supply, and lack of farm machineries were identified to have mainly constraining food production among the study households. Seasonality of food shortage was also found to prevail in the area against which households developed different behavioral and material responses. It is therefore likely to yield better results in terms of improved agricultural practices and technologies, and alternative employment opportunities for key productive asset poor households in the long run.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{food security, status, constraints, strategies.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
ood Security is one of the urgent and emerging development challenges of the 21 st century \hyperref[b17]{(Jonathan, 2010)}. Since its first articulation in official discourse in 1974, it has become the primary cognitive lens through which the prevalence and complexity of global hunger are viewed \hyperref[b19]{(Rupert, 2009)}. Today, after about four decades of its recognition as a basic mankind scourge, food insecurity problem has still remained a growing issue of global discourse, national policy as well as public concern and the problem seems more pressing in sub-Saharan Africa (Sara 2011; Mesay 2011). As understood from FAO annual reports (2014), though world hunger has generally showed significant improvements, sub Saharan Africa has still remained with sizable food gap.\par
As of  {\ref IFPRI (2002)} and Degefa (2002 and 2005) explanations, the reasons why sub-Saharan Africa has failed to feed its population have mostly associated with both natural and man-made factors such as climate shocks, recurrent drought, prevalence of epidemic diseases, resource degradation, conflict, bad governance, inefficient policies, deep-rooted poverty and poor access to modern agricultural technologies. Similarly, as indicated in \hyperref[b8]{Devereux (2000)} and Mesay (2011), the food insecurity problems of this region (emphasizing Ethiopian case) are the resultant effects of the interplay between natural and human factors that encompass recurrent drought, fragmented and unevenly distributed land holding system, population pressure which further exacerbated the fragile natural resource bases, poor soil fertility coupled with limited application of agricultural production enhancing inputs, inappropriate storage facilities, and limited off-farm employment opportunities.\par
As a part and parcel of sub-Saharan region emblematic to this problem is Ethiopia in which a sizable portion of the population is categorized as food insecure (Zerihun and Getachew, 2013). As of Degefa (2005), since food security is a multi-faceted phenomenon, it can be better understood by exploring the situations at community and household levels especially in countries like Ethiopia which is much diversified in its physical environment and socioeconomic characteristics of the people.\par
Despite the fact that achieving food security in its totality continues to be a challenge for Ethiopia, multifaceted efforts are taking place among which boosting up smallholder agricultural production has been taken as a strategic tool to improve food security status of the country. The efforts are also found optimistic at macro levels of the country both in terms of agricultural production and food security. As of Global Food Security Index report (2013), for instance, among the developing countries that made the greatest progress in food security achievement Ethiopia showed the biggest increases. While the country is once again back to the international attention in the same year (2015) for drought-induced food crisis, FAO et al  {\ref (2015)} report has also put Ethiopia in the short list of sub Sahara African countries who have significantly reduced the number of hungry people. However, improvements at national and regional levels are neither necessarily true reflection of the existing situations at micro levels nor are still there sufficient empirical researches from which a clear picture of different pocket areas of the country could be drawn for the effective food security policy formulation, planning and interventions. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Problem Statement and Objectives}]{Problem Statement and Objectives}\par
Unless it is a matter of variation in its severity, many developing countries experience food insecurity for different environmental, socio-economic and many other reasons. On the other hand, since food security is a multi-faceted phenomenon, it can be better understood by exploring the situations at community and household levels especially in countries like Ethiopia, which is much diversified in its physical environment and socioeconomic characteristics of the people which in turn directly results in the variation in vulnerability to food shortage \hyperref[b3]{(Degefa, 2002;}\hyperref[b4]{2005)}. However, though a number of research findings are produced on different aspects of Ethiopian food security issues, there is still a paucity of information on how food security situation looks like in different pocket areas in the country at grass root levels. This study is thus an attempt to fill the existing gap in this regard and thereby add a brick to the food insecurity reduction endeavor.\par
Being one of the agriculturally potential Weredas in Central Oromia, there existed a long held perception that Becho Wereda is a surplus food producer pocket area in the region. As a result, the people over there are also perceived as highly better off segment of the society in light of food security policy formulation, planning and interventions from the government side. However, no empirical study has so far tried to look into the reality of this long held perception. On the other hand, there exist certain households severely and chronically suffering from food shortage due to such a groundless long held perception that made the area invisible to food security policy makers, planners and intervention themes. Therefore, the central intention of this study was to empirically look into the reality of this perception in a way that helps the government re-focus the area and make an evidencebased and informed decision on food security planning and intervention in the area. To this end, the study has tried to answer the following leading questions:\par
? Is Becho really as better off in food security status as perceived over years?\par
? What food security constraining factors are there in the area?\par
? What are the major coping strategies used in times of food shortage?\par
III. 
\section[{Literature Review and Theoretical Framework a) Concepts and Definitions of Food Security}]{Literature Review and Theoretical Framework a) Concepts and Definitions of Food Security}\par
Famine and malnutrition has been a mankind scourge for a long time. However, the concept of food security became a prominent issue on the development debate in 1970s. Since then, its definition has considerably evolved over time and its concern has also rarely been out of scene  {\ref (Devereux and Maxwell, 2001)}.\par
Though food security is conventionally defined as, "access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life" (World \hyperref[b22]{Bank, 1986)}, the comprehensively accepted version of definition is the one formulated in the First World Food Summit. It is defined as the situation when all people at all times have physical, economic and social access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life  {\ref (FAO,1996)}.\par
The definition is still evolving and thus the contextual definition for this study is drawn from Getachew (1995) and Degefa (2002) which defines food security as the ability to establish access to production resources such as land, livestock, agricultural inputs and family labor combined to produce food or cash. This definition in other word states that food security analysis at the household level is determined by a household's own production and members' ability to purchase food of the right quality. It best defines food security in the context of subsistence farmers which this study particularly deals with. 
\section[{b) Food Security Situation in Ethiopia}]{b) Food Security Situation in Ethiopia}\par
As noted in Webb and von Braun, (1994) and Degefa, (2005), Ethiopia is listed among those countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with the most perilous long term food situations. Various historical records have also revealed that Ethiopia has faced some 45 severe famine catastrophes with a series of rain failures and substantial livestock loss. As stated in Dessalegn (1991), the history of Ethiopia is highly linked with severe recurring food shortages and famine. Failure in agricultural productivity and the resultant humanitarian crises of  {\ref 1958} {\ref , 1973} {\ref , 1984} {\ref -86 and 2002}\hyperref[b5]{(Degefa, 2006))}, for instance, are among most grievous recent cases in point though Ethiopia has a long history of famine. Also as of Mesay (2011), the food security situation in Ethiopia is not better than the general picture of the region; rather the appalling environmental and climatic conditions in Ethiopia in conjunction with the consequential failure in agricultural productivity have been afflicting millions of Ethiopians over years. For the last three and half decades , on average about 4.72 million people has been suffering from food shortage crises per annum. 
\section[{c) Causes of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia}]{c) Causes of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia}\par
The causes of Ethiopian food insecurity are multifaceted and complex in their nature. As noted in FDRE (2002), for instance, adverse climate changes combined with high population pressure, environmental degradation, technological and institutional factors have led to a decline in the size of per capita landholding causing a severe food insecurity problem in the country. Furthermore, Degefa (2002) and Hussein (2006) have also indicated that though the causes of household food insecurity vary from household to household, the major causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia are closely related to environmental, demographic, economic, social, infrastructural and political factors. In sum, the nature of the main causes of Ethiopian food insecurity directly or indirectly laid their root in environmental, demographic, economic, social, technological, infrastructural, and/or political aspects of the country. On top of that, it is important to consider that as Ethiopia is heavily an agrarian country, whatever challenges its production directly manifests itself through food insecurity situation of the country. 
\section[{d) Coping Strategies in Times of Food Shortage}]{d) Coping Strategies in Times of Food Shortage}\par
As there are seasons of plenty, there are also seasons of food shortage. However, rural households in Ethiopia are not passive victims of food shortfalls; they have inherited various behavioral and material responses to balance and maintain their food requirements that help them cope up with the adverse situation of food shortage period (Yared, 1999; Debebe, 1995;  {\ref Davies and Maxwell, 1996;}\hyperref[b4]{Degefa, 2005;}\hyperref[b9]{Ejiga, 2006 and}\hyperref[b20]{Tagel, 2008)}. These include, among the others, sale of livestock and fire woods, agricultural tools rental, alteration of consumption patterns, reduction of food portion, cash for work, gifts and/or borrowing cash and/or grain from well-off relatives and/or neighbors, sale off or mortgaging land, collection of wild foods, relief assistance and spontaneous migration. 
\section[{e) Theoretical Underpinning}]{e) Theoretical Underpinning}\par
There are many theoretical orientations for food security situation analysis which have progressively developed and expanded overtime (Debebe, 1995). Accordingly, Hussein (2006) also revealed that it is impossible to employ a single theory to best analyze the whole aspect of food security as each and every theory has its own weakness in light of multi-disciplinary nature of food security. With this view in mind, the study employed the two most commonly used theoretical approaches, in context of as subsistent farm households as in case of this study, in such a way that they could support each other to reflect a reliable food security picture of the study households.\par
The first approach is the 'General Explanation'. In this regard, a number of environmental and socioeconomic attributes are concerned. The principal ones include: ecological degradation, climatic elements, government mismanagement, and unequal access to resources, unequal exchange, socio-economic factors, and political unrests. The argument here is that one or a combination of these can disrupt food production. The second approach is through food security models of which only Food Availability Decline (FAD) and Food Entitlement Decline (FED) models are considered. As of \hyperref[b7]{Devereux (1988)}, the central argument of FAD model is that anything which disrupts food production can cause food insecurity. The model basically demonstrates a situation of subsistence farmers, like those this study has concerned with. However, since the model is criticized for overemphasizing food supply and undermining the demand for available food, FED model is pioneered by Amartya Sen (1981) as an alternative method for food insecurity analysis which suggests that food availability in the economy does not necessarily entitle a person to consume it, and famine can occur without aggregate food availability decline. This means access to food plays a crucial role in securing command over food which is, in turn, determined by production among the other factors.\par
Therefore, this study is generally framed by the complimentary point of the above approaches. However, since the study area is basically considered to have a surplus food situation for its aggregate production while there exist socio-economic variations across the households to command over the available food, FED model is more stressed than FAD. As framed in Figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1}, a number of interlocked biophysical and socio-economic factors determine households' food availability and accessibility depending on which households finally end up either as food secure or food insecure. As households are rarely passive victims of food shortage, those who have ended up with food gap finally respond in any possible coping strategies. Astronomically, Becho Wereda is located between 8031'N-8045'N and 3807.5'E-38024.5'E in According to CSA (2011), Becho wereda has a total population of about 86,263 of which about 43,674 are males while the remaining 42,589 are females. The Wereda has 19 rural kebeles and mixed farming system is the main livelihood strategy in the area. The major crops grown in the wereda are tef, chickpea, wheat, lentil, barley and field pea, in order of their importance. Livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, donkey, horses, poultry, etc) rearing is also another livelihood activity in mix with crop production in which households are engaged as a source of food, cash income and draught power.  IV. 
\section[{Source: Authors' Own Construction}]{Source: Authors' Own Construction} 
\section[{Methodology a) Method of Data Collection}]{Methodology a) Method of Data Collection}\par
The study employed mixed research approach blending some methods from qualitative and quantitative. As indicated in Figure \hyperref[fig_1]{2}, three rural Kebeles: Awash Bune, Kobbo and Soyyema were purposively selected from which a total of 145 household heads were statistically sampled. In light of the complex nature of analysis of household food security issues, no single method of data generating can satisfy the need for sufficient information on various aspects of the study in question to come up with a reliable finding. Therefore, different data generating tools were employed to generate adequate and reliable first hand data. These tools include: Household Survey Questionnaire, Focus Group Discussion, Key Informant Interview, Individual Case Studies and Field Observations. Three Focus Group Discussions were held, one in every study Kebeles. The groups consisted of seven members on average and involved both men and women. A total of nine Key Informant Interviews were conducted with Development Agents, Model Farmers, Elderly, Wereda and Kebele Administrators. Three Individual Case studies were conducted; two in Awash Bune and one in kobbo Kebele. Field Observations were also conducted both before and during the survey giving attention to the overall livelihood situation of the study households. 
\section[{b) Method of Data Analysis}]{b) Method of Data Analysis}\par
The net available food for the households was computed using a Mathematical Equation known as Household Food Balance Model, which is originally adapted by Degefa (1996) from FAO Regional Food Balance Model and thenceforth used by different researchers in this field to calculate the per capita food available. The conversion of the net available food into dietary calorie equivalent was based on Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute's food composition table. The calculated per capita calorie was finally compared against the recommended minimum daily caloric requirement for a moderately active adult (2100 kcal) to look into the dietary caloric status of the households in the area.\par
Household Food Balance Model: Amount of grain sold/year/household GV:NGA = (GP + GB + FA + GG) -(HL + GU + GS +GV),\par
Grain given to others within a year\par
The study employed both quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods. Majority of the data were analyzed mainly using descriptive statistical techniques like frequency, mean and percentage by the use of statistical software known as Statistical Package for Social Scientists. The qualitative data analysis approach included paraphrasing and case narrations in substantiation of the quantitative findings.\par
V. 
\section[{Results and Discussions a) Households Access To Key Productive Assets i. Households Landholding Status}]{Results and Discussions a) Households Access To Key Productive Assets i. Households Landholding Status}\par
The size of land holding is strongly linked to a farm household food security status. A household with enough cultivable land most likely yields more produce. Moreover, this can indicate the degree of the household dependability on its land as a main source of livelihood in general and determining its food security status in particular. As shown in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}, the land holding size considerably varies among the investigated households. Of the total respondents, 2.76\% were found to be landless at all, whereas households with less than 1 hectare of holding size make up 22.76\%. The holding size of the majority of the respondent households (31.72\%) concentrates within the holding range of 1 to 2 hectares of land whereas those respondents with holding size of 2.1 to 3, 3.1 to 4 and greater than 4 hectares make up 25.52\%, 10.34\% and 6.90\% respectively. The maximum land size held among the respondents is 12 hectares and the mean of overall land held among the study households is 2.15 hectare with 1.56 hectare of standard deviation (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}). Different studies indicated that farmland size positively affects the food security status of households. This is because food production can increase extensively through expansion of areas under cultivation. Therefore, under subsistence agriculture, landholding size plays significant role in influencing farm households' food security. The sample households plough fragmented plots with different sizes.\par
As indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{2}, the highest average farm land holding among the study kebeles was observed in Kobbo (2.6 hectare) followed by Awash Bune (2.1 hectare) whereas the lowest average holding size was observed in Soyyema (1.85). Except in Kobbo, the number of landless households was observed both in Awash Bune and Soyyema with equal percentage of 1.38\% separately. Source: Field Survey Related to this, various studies have also witnessed that it is not only the size of farm land held that affects farm households' food production status, but also the fragmentation of the farm land into different plots located at different places. The very logic behind this is that the more a farmer's farm land is fragmented into different plots of distant locations, the less will be the farmer's effectiveness in farm activities. This is because the farmers' time and energy are wasted fruitlessly during their travel between different plots of farms. With this view, it was also attempted to see the number of plots held among the study households. As depicted in Table \hyperref[tab_4]{3}, the overall average number of plots holding among the whole study households was found to be 4 whereas the average number of plots holding in Awash Bune and Soyyema was found to be higher, 7 and 5 respectively, compared to their counterpart kebele, Kobbo. This could be presumably an indication for either the relatively higher land shortage problem or higher difference in holding size in the two kebeles, Awash Bune and Soyyema, though the reality of this informed guess could be another research question. Before he married, he was a dependent on his parent, but after he married, he had to have his own life and for that he strongly considers land as the number one important resource. However, there was no way for him to be formally tenured land from government as there is no un-occupied land among his community. Therefore, though he shared a very insignificant size from his parent in the form of gift, the main way he could manage to access land is through renting and share cropping. However, the big problem on top of that is the fragmented number of plots he needed to plough from here and there. "For me," says Obbo Robale, "having fragmented land is not as such a less problem when compared to the problem of land shortage. For instance, I did have about seven plots of farm land in the last cropping year located here and there at different distances from my home. Some of the plots take long time to be reached. I used to reach them too late and the worst is that as most of the time I need to carry my farm equipments over long distance, I get tired of by the time I reach my farm and I am not as such effective to plough the land whole the day as my energy is wasted on the way to farm land from my home. On top of that, I also need to leave the farm a bit earlier to reach my home safely. In short, as a model farmer you can imagine how more productive I would be had my productive time and energy not been wasted on travel between plots of farms carrying heavy farm equipments."\par
diminished from time to time. This has become one of the limiting factors of agricultural production in the first place and food security as a consequence among many rural households where food is mainly accessed on production basis. In that view, the study households were asked whether the land they held is enough to satisfy their families' need with special focus on food production. Accordingly, from the overall sample households, as it is indicated in Table  {\ref 4}, only 33.10\% of them responded to have sufficient landholding size so as to sufficiently meet their families' food and other needs whereas the larger remaining sample households making up 66.90\% responded to have insufficient land in order to sufficiently meet their families' food and other needs. 
\section[{Table 4 : Land need situation of the investigated households c) Households Means of Access to Land}]{Table 4 : Land need situation of the investigated households c) Households Means of Access to Land}\par
As far as means of access to land among the study households is concerned, 33.10\% of the investigated households accessed land on formal land tenure system that is sufficient enough to satisfy their land need whereas the remaining 66.90\% of the study households who had insufficient land under the formal land tenure system responded to have accessed additional land through different ways so as to satisfy their land need. These include, share cropping, land renting and illegal purchasing which make up 33.79\%, 31.03\% and 2.07\% respectively (Fig. 3). Compared to the other two strategies of accessing land among the households with insufficient holding size, accessing land on purchase basis (though illegal according to the country's existing land policy) covered very insignificant proportion. This could be linked to the concept that land is the very key productive asset that determines the sustainability of rural farm households' livelihood. Therefore, almost all farm households do not tend to sell out even a very small portion of their land except in very rare cases as it could have long term negative implication and/ or even can cause a total disruption to their livelihood. 
\section[{Source: Field Survey}]{Source: Field Survey} 
\section[{d) Households Oxen Ownership Status}]{d) Households Oxen Ownership Status}\par
The empirical reviews show that livestock production is an integral part of mixed farming systems. Livestock are sources of traction power, manure, and cash income. Animal traction has been in use for centuries in the Ethiopian agriculture and it still prevails in the country. A pair of oxen draws the traditional Ethiopian plough by which most commonly the livelihood of the majority of rural farm households in the country is led. But not all farm households own a pair of oxen. Accordingly, the investigated households were asked their oxen ownership status. As depicted in Table \hyperref[tab_6]{5}, out of the total of 145 households sampled, 13 households (8.97\%) have responded not to have even a single ox while 22 (15.18\%) of them had only single ox each. The majority of the study households, 71 (48.97\%), had a pair of oxen whereas the number of households owning more than a pair of oxen was 39, (26.9\%). No household with either no or single ox was found in Kobbo whereas the number of households with no ox was higher in Awash Bune \hyperref[b8]{(10)} while only three households with no ox were found in Soyyema. The highest number of households with a pair of oxen and more was observed in Awash Bune followed by Soyyema.   As depicted in Figure 4, majority of the study households (75.85\%) were found to have access to oxen fully from their own ownership while households who have no oxen (8.97\%) get access to them in exchange for their labor through a traditional arrangement locally known as Qote Qotanna. Male farmers who have no draught animals provide labor for three days to those farmers who own a pair of oxen or more, but lack a fitting labor force that can plough land for them, and in exchange they get access to use the pair of oxen to plough their own land for the other two days, i.e., three man-days of labor exchanged for twooxen days. Farmers with only a single ox would pair it up with other farmers (15.18\%) who similarly own a single ox and each of them use the pair of oxen for an equal number of days to plough their own land by themselves. Pairing up oxen could also take place between farmers with single ox and those with un-paired extra single ox, the one having three oxen for instance. 
\section[{33}]{33}\par
A case study from Awash Bune Kebele substantiated the arrangement as follows:\par
"For farm household, having no ox is not less challenging than not having the farm land itself," the case man begins with. "I am a head of five individuals under my roof. I have about a hectare of farm land scattered here and there. My land holding size is not accommodating enough for my family, nor do I have even a single ox of my own to plough it. As a result, instead of renting out my land every year, I manage to get access to oxen through a Qote Qotanna arrangement with my neighbors who need labor force at the expense of their oxen's service. I work on their farm for three days so that I could get access to their oxen to plough my land for the other two days. Though it is a bi-lateral benefit arrangement, it puts me at a more loser position than it does to my counter party because almost half of my seasonal energy is lost off-farm which otherwise I could have used it on my own farm. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Households Food Security Status a) Food Source and Supply Status}]{Households Food Security Status a) Food Source and Supply Status}\par
Though mixed farming system (Crop Production and Livestock Rearing) is the main livelihood strategy, the single most important source of food supply in the study area is subsistence crop farming. The top three most important crops produced in the area are tef, chickpea and wheat in order of their significance. Own production is the number one means of acquiring food for the majority of the investigated households. However, a sizable portion of the study households rely on grain purchase. This makes it the second most important source of food grain. Very small segment of the investigated households obtains food by borrowing from others whereas no food aid is observed in the area as a source of food grain.\par
As depicted in Table \hyperref[tab_7]{6}, food grain balance of the majority of the study households (49.67\%) concentrates between six and twelve quintals of net food grains while the average of the overall net food grains available for all the investigated households was 12.29 quintals. All food grains have naturally their own calorie content. However, the amount of calorie they supply changes with the way they are processed for consumption. In that view, it is important to have a brief look at of the types of grains mainly consumed in the study area as well as in what form they are most commonly consumed in the study households.\par
Accordingly, Table \hyperref[tab_8]{7} is a summary of types of grains mainly consumed in the study area with their respective form of consumption and average dietary calorie supply whereas the conversion factors for dietary caloric analysis were referred from Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute's (EHNRI) food composition table based on the type of food stuffs consumed utmost in the study households.   {\ref (FAO, 1998}) and used to comprehend the average dietary calorie in a given area. In fact, it should be noted that this technique fails to make out the intra-household variations in food security. This is because the analysis of the available dietary energy depends on the average value though the amount of calorie a person requires depends on his or her sex, age, body weight, health condition and physical activity. The average value helps to simplify the complexity that arises while analyzing the available daily dietary energy supply of a household.\par
Accordingly, the available grain supply was converted into its equivalent calorie using EHNRI's food composition table. This was done after computing the balance for each kind of grains using a Mathematical Equation known as Household Food Balance Model which originally adapted by Degefa (1996) from FAO Regional Food Balance Model and thenceforth used by different researchers in this field.\par
The average calorie value per 100 gram of each type of food grain was computed based on the kind of food that the community consumes utmost. This is because the calorie equivalent of the grains varies by the kind of the end product prepared for consumption. For instance, a 100 gram of tef grain (white) produces a dietary energy equivalent to 240.30 kcal when prepared in the form of bread and 145.00 kcal when it is consumed in the form of Injera. Therefore, the average value of the major end product of each crop for the conversion processes was taken based on EHNRI's food composition table. Accordingly, based on the result obtained from the dietary energy computation from all kinds of net food grains for all sample households the daily per capita dietary energy available is generally categorized as presented in Table \hyperref[tab_9]{8}. The daily per capita calorie level of the majority of the investigated households (90) satisfies the minimum daily per capita dietary energy recommended for healthy and active adult individuals, which is 2100 Kcal, whereas the daily per capita dietary energy level of the remaining 55 of the investigated households failed to satisfy the minimum daily per capita dietary energy recommendation. Furthermore, as it is observed in Table \hyperref[tab_9]{8}, the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the daily per capita dietary energy levels of the study households are 342.91, 17522.47, 2357.52 and 1551.50 Kcal respectively. The study area was thought as surplus food producer and as a result people over there were assumed to be highly food secure. However, unlike the long existed assumption, as it is observed from Table \hyperref[tab_9]{8}, though the majority of the investigated households making up 62.07\% were found to be food secure, the remaining 37.93\% of the investigated households were found to be food insecure. In order to see the intensity of food insecurity situation, the food insecure segment of the investigated households were further categorized into different groups based on their daily per capita dietary energy level. From the total food insecure group of the investigated households, 13.10\%, 9.66\%, 8.28\% and 6.90\% fell in mildly, moderately, highly and severely food insecurity categories respectively. This result has, therefore, come to reflect the idea of Amartyan Sen (1981) with regard to the disparities of food security status among the study households, which generally states that: in a certain community where food is in surplus production there may be households or individuals at risk of food shortage.\par
As it is indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_10]{9}, an attempt was also made to see how the distribution of food insecurity situation looks like by the study kebeles. Hence, Awash Bune tended to have mild and moderate food insecurity level whereas food insecurity situation in Kobbo and Soyyema Kebeles was found tending towards high and severe food insecurity levels. Thus, it is revealed that compared to its counterparts, Kobbo and Soyyema, Awash Bune had a relatively better food security status. As of the explanations given by some key informants, the reason why Awash Bune Kebele takes the better status was that they had strong linkage with agricultural development agents. They had also relatively more awareness on technological oriented agricultural practices. On top of that, the presence of relatively more organized and attractive Farmers Training Center for different trainings and demonstrations of different improved agricultural practices and technologies plays influential role in improving their food production. 
\section[{d) Households Food Security Constraints}]{d) Households Food Security Constraints}\par
In light of food security, the nature of the problem a household encounters in the course of its food production is an important indicator of the likelihood of a household's vulnerability to food shortage sooner or later. With this view in mind, the sample households were asked to identify the major factors constraining their food production, mainly food grains. As depicted in Figure 6, high fertilizer price, shortage of farm land, lack of grazing land, erratic rainfall pattern, water logging, poor soil fertility, lack of oxen, crop disease and insect pests, lack of improved seed supply, lack of improved farm machineries are identified as the Though it needs further work to know the extent to which these constraints affect crop production, as it is observed from Figure 5, the proportion of the households responded to the problems is taken as an indicator of the relatively serious nature of each constraint. Likewise, shortage of grazing land takes the lead respectively followed by high fertilizer price, shortage of farm land, erratic rainfall pattern, water logging and poor soil fertility problem in order of their seriousness in affecting crop production among the study farm households while the remaining four constraining factors: lack of oxen, crop disease and pests, and lack of improved seed and farm machineries were found neither as such serious nor constraints of less weight in challenging crop production.©\par
The problems of livestock production were also identified in a similar way to crop production problems. Livestock in the study area is reared with insufficient and low quality feed under low management conditions. The common problems identified are shortage of grazing land and improved animal feeds, lack of improved animal breeds, animal disease, water shortage, and capital shortage. However, the severely constraining factors in this sub-sector revolve around feed and shortage of pasture land. Feed and pasture shortage definitely cause the most severe and widespread problems in the area. Likewise, out of the total of 145 sample households 129 of them which make about 88.97\% of the investigated households strongly confronted that compared to crop production livestock rearing is really unlucky in the area most importantly due to problems related to feed and pasture shortage. The severity of the problem is related to stocking rate of animals since grazing land is very limited in the study area. Moreover, feeds obtained from the cultivated areas such as crop leaves and residues of cereals are not enough for animals in both seasons. Shortage of water is also another problem in the area as long distances have to be covered to take animals to water ponds during the dry season. Furthermore, a Key Informant's expression quoted in Box 2 illustrates different inter-woven challenging factors of agricultural production in the area. Obbo Waqwayya is an inhabitant of Kobbo kebele. He is 49 years old and a father of five children. He lives on mixed farming system. When asked about his agricultural production performance, "relatively speaking, Becho is good in agriculture but it is not as a surplus producer as it is externally assumed because we have a number of interlocked problems that challenge our agricultural production," says Obbo Waqwayya. Some of the problems had not been as such boldly existed some years before and Waqwayya takes land shortage for instance. As he states, most of the inhabitants of the community had sufficient holding size that could accommodate their families' need for food and others. But these days, the number of young generation is rapidly increasing whereas the worst is unavailability of non-farm economic activities that can absorb them. Not only is the holding size failing to accommodate the holders, but also the limited land they have has also characteristics of holding excess water (i.e. water logging) which is a big problem to their crop production especially during the months of July and August. To reduce the problem, Broad Bed Maker technology was introduced to the community some years before. However, since it was too heavy to be pulled by draught power, it was not as such effective even at least with average farmers. It has also counted some years since the situation of rainfall pattern has become a big problem in the Wereda. Sometimes it starts late in a season and ceases too early. Sometimes it falls with poor intensity whereas excessive rainfall happens other times. The worst is when it comes at a critical crop harvesting time. The soil is also losing its nutritional status. On top of that, the price of fertilizer is getting worst. Shortage of improved seed supply, lack of pasture for the animals and crop pests and diseases are also other challenges. "In short," says Obbo Waqwayya, "our agricultural problems are too numerous to tell you in exhaustive list."\par
Source: Field Survey In many rural settings it is not uncommon to observe both the months of plenty and shortfall in food availability. However, though the coping mechanisms may differ across different households may be depending upon the cultural values of the community they live in and the degree of the problems, households are not passive victims of food shortage as stated in Yared (1999), Debebe (1995),  {\ref Davies and Maxwell (1996)}, Degefa (2005) Ejiga,  {\ref (2006)} and \hyperref[b20]{Tagel (2008)}. Due to the fact that achieving food security in its totality is impossible, it is something inevitable that certain households living in a certain community encounter food shortage with varying intensity and the households act back their way to cope with the food shortage period. Therefore, coping strategies are the very integral part of food security issue and thus they are rarely left out when it comes to the assessment of food security situation of certain households or communities. This section therefore tries to analyze the seasonality of food shortage in the area and the major coping mechanisms used among the investigated households in times of food shortfall.\par
Accordingly, the investigated households were asked whether they encountered seasonal food shortage and as it is indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_13]{10}, some 57.93\% of the investigated households responded not to have encountered seasonal food shortage whereas the remaining 42.07\% responded to have encountered seasonal food shortage. From the investigated households encountering seasonal food shortage, 24.83\% of them encountered food shortage from mid of July to mid of September while the remaining 10.34\% and 6.90\% encountered it during mid of July to late September and from early July to mid October respectively. However, no single studied household was found irresponsive to the problem; rather they all have reacted both behaviorally and materially as a means of getting through the food gap period and this has strongly reflected, but not limited to, the previous works and ideas of Yared (1999), Debebe (1995),  {\ref Davies and} As depicted in Figure 6, out of the coping strategies used by the investigated households in the study area, maintaining household food availability through consuming locally less preferred foods (e.g. maize, vetch and cabbage) and selling small animals were practiced by the largest proportion of the study households facing food shortage, which is 90.16\% and 65.57\% respectively. Cash income generating ventures such as sell of small animals, borrowing money, engaging in casual labor wages and petty trade and renting out land were used to purchase food from markets. Furthermore, compared to cattle the area is better in ownership of simple animals like goats, sheep and poultry which are very important in light of food shortage coping strategies. Such animals serve as a buffering stock and highly lessen the vulnerability of farm households to serious food insecurity in times of food shortfall. meal, and reducing the number of meals per day were the major ones. \hyperref[b18]{Maxwell (1996)} and Degefa (2005). "As far as the coping strategies are concerned" the study showed that households in the study area have been responding to the problem in different ways. These include, consuming less preferred foods, selling out small animals, borrowing grains on double repayment, reducing food portion at every meal times, reducing daily meal rate, purchasing food on credit, engaging in wage laboring and petty trade, and renting out their land.\par
As far as grain borrowing is concerned, key informants noted that some years back lending grains to the nearby household facing food shortage was one of the social supports in the study area and the borrowers used to repay only the unit of grains they had borrowed. However, these days, as everything is getting business, such a trend is changed and the borrowers are expected to repay a double unit of the grains they borrow, which they locally call it 'Araxa' which also applies for money, except when it happens between very close relatives, neighbors or friends. The repayment of the borrowed grains most commonly takes place during as early period of crop harvesting as possible. However, in case the borrowers sometimes fail to properly repay the borrowed grains for different reasons, it becomes a source of even serious conflict with the lenders and the borrowers are consequently mistrusted among the community. As a result, no matter how serious food shortage they may face, their chance of borrowing grains again among that community becomes very low and this sometimes may put them at a serious risk of food insecurity problem if they do not have some other buffering resources to sell off in order to purchase grains from market.\par
Compared to the other different coping strategies, land renting is rarely used as food shortfall coping strategy. The very reason behind is that renting out land is very much linked to the issue of sustainable livelihood. As it is obviously known, for farm households land is the number one and long lasting productive asset on which the farm households put their strong confidence compared to the other productive resources to sustain the livelihood of their family members. On top of that, as the majority of the study households have insufficient landholding, renting it out for a certain hard time could rather put them into a vicious cycle of food insecurity problem. Therefore, the farm households generally tend to use as many other coping strategies as possible so that they could secure their fundamental productive assets. 
\section[{VII.}]{VII.} 
\section[{Concluding Remarks}]{Concluding Remarks}\par
Unlike the long held food surplus perception towards the study area, the daily per capita energy analysis clearly showed that a sizable segment of the households, 37.93\%, has been suffering from food insecurity problem. Though food is mainly accessed on production basis in the study area, the study has revealed that food production is highly constrained by various interlocked biophysical, socioeconomic and technological factors. Therefore, the findings of this study mainly lie at the interface position between 'General Explanation Theory' and 'FED Model' of food security by way of production and other means of entitlement respectively. From food production aspect, this finding is supported by the argument of 'General Explanation Theory' which puts one or a combination of the above mentioned factors as food production challenging forces. On the other hand, there are households having poor or no physical assets for sufficient food production. They have also poor or no other sufficient alternative incomes to command over food from market otherwise. In this regard, the study reflects Sen's entitlement argument, FED Model, of food security. This is because though Becho is, relatively speaking, better in agriculture, but not as a bread basket as the long existing perception, it has no food insurance for productive assets and /or alternative opportunity poor segments of the community out there.\par
The study has also revealed the seasonality of food shortage in the area, though there are households experiencing it year round, which generally extends from the month of July to October though this duration varies across the households. To cope with the food gap period households use both behavioral and material responses. Though it varies across different households, the coping strategies used revolve around increasing food availability and reducing consumption size and rate. Households generally employed shortterm consumption coping strategies to mitigate the incidence of food shortages. Most of the coping strategies employed by households were effective in mitigating the food insecurity situation. The coping strategies employed were mostly not detrimental to their sustainable livelihoods and the future of their food security.\par
However, some of the coping strategies were not reversible, meaning that they were detrimental to the sustainable livelihoods and the future of food security situation of the households. For instance, a considerable number of households were found to cope with food shortfall period by selling out their land in partition though it is illegal according to the country's existing land policy. This is a potential danger to their sustainable livelihood in general and the future of their food security in particular as land is a fundamental livelihood asset for farm households.\par
For the inter-woven food production challenges in the area, it is generally recommendable to further work on best agricultural practices, technologies and innovations accordingly. More specifically speaking, issues like high fertilizer price and shortage of land remain the concern of broad policy, not just a specific pocket area. However, it is still recommendable to review the fertilizer subsidize and land tenure policy. Erratic rainfall pattern is also the local implication of the broadly and globally changing climate. It is thus better if seriously worked on different mitigation and adaptation strategies in line with the local contexts. For the prevailing water logging problem in the area, it is strongly recommendable to encourage and work on the because through the course of this study there were key informants who told the story of, though not necessarily presented in this paper, how their own indigenous broad bed maker innovation outworked the one brought from somewhere else for adoption for instance. As far as shortage of grazing land is concerned, it is also highly recommendable to work on improved animal feeds as well as innovative and efficient use of local crop residues. Equally important, it also needs further work in area of improved crop varieties and other related production inputs. Despite the fact that agriculture plays a lion's share in ensuring food security, the considerable food insecurity problem in Becho Wereda cannot be solved by promoting agriculture alone. This is because a considerable number of households neither have access to sufficient key productive assets for food production nor have they alternative income sources. Therefore, it is likely to yield better results in terms of employment for key productive asset poor households as well as further income generation for the better off ones to re-finance their farm if due attention is also given to the promotion of non-farming economic activities in the long run, particularly those that are associated with the smallholder agriculture. However, for households currently at a perilous food situation a sort of food security intervention is highly suggested as a short term solution.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
      \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.13497164461247635\textwidth}P{0.4724007561436673\textwidth}P{0.117296786389414\textwidth}P{0.12533081285444234\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Household Food Security Situation in Central Oromia, Ethiopia: A Case Study from Becho Wereda in}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Southwest Shewa Zone\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Food Secure/Better off Households}\\
\tabcellsep Households' Food Production/A vailability Situation\tabcellsep Households ' Food Security Status\tabcellsep Food Insecure Househol ds\\
Year 2016\tabcellsep Access to Improved Farm Inputs Access to Major Productive Assets\tabcellsep Households' Food Accessibility Situation\tabcellsep Food Gap Period Coping Strategies\\
4\tabcellsep Socio-economic\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Characteristics\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XVI Issue II Version I\tabcellsep Biophysical Contexts\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( H )\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Human Social Science -\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep s\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3046242774566474\textwidth}P{0.05404624277456647\textwidth}P{0.16705202312138728\textwidth}P{0.1375722543352601\textwidth}P{0.18670520231213872\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Landholding}\tabcellsep No of\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Percent of}\\
categories\tabcellsep \tabcellsep households\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{households}\\
Landless\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.76\\
<1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 33\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 22.76\\
1 -2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 31.72\\
2.1 -3\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 25.52\\
3.1 -4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10.34\\
> 4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.90\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 145\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\\
Min\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Max Range}\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std\\
0.25\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 11.75\tabcellsep 2.15\tabcellsep 1.56\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3935185185185185\textwidth}P{0.14953703703703702\textwidth}P{0.13773148148148148\textwidth}P{0.16921296296296295\textwidth}}
List of\tabcellsep Minimum\tabcellsep Maximum\tabcellsep Average\\
Study\tabcellsep farmland\tabcellsep farmland\tabcellsep farmland\\
Kebeles\tabcellsep held in\tabcellsep held in\tabcellsep held in\\
\tabcellsep hectare\tabcellsep hectare\tabcellsep hectare\\
Awash\tabcellsep 0.25\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 2.1\\
Bune\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Kobbo\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep 2.6\\
Soyyema\tabcellsep 0.25\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 1.85\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Overall average farm land holding status of}\tabcellsep 2.15\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{all study kebeles}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6008620689655172\textwidth}P{0.085\textwidth}P{0.09086206896551724\textwidth}P{0.07327586206896552\textwidth}}
List of\tabcellsep Minimum\tabcellsep Maximum\tabcellsep Average\\
Study\tabcellsep number of\tabcellsep number of\tabcellsep number\\
Kebeles\tabcellsep plots held\tabcellsep plots held\tabcellsep of plots\\
Awash\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 7\\
Bune\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Kobbo\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 3\\
Soyyema\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 5\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Overall average number of plots held among}\tabcellsep 4\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{the study households}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Source, Field Survey}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Box 1 : A case study on a challenging aspect of}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{fragmented farms to different places}\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: s -]} 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.18687943262411347\textwidth}P{0.08439716312056737\textwidth}P{0.045212765957446804\textwidth}P{0.10549645390070922\textwidth}P{0.04822695035460993\textwidth}P{0.1175531914893617\textwidth}P{0.06329787234042553\textwidth}P{0.09946808510638298\textwidth}P{0.09946808510638298\textwidth}}
List of Kebeles\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Households}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Households with a}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Households with}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Households with more than}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{with no ox}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{single ox}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{a pair of oxen}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep a pair of oxen\\
\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\\
Awash Bune\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 6.90\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 8.28\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 26.21\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 16.55\\
Kobbo\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 8.97\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 5.52\\
Soyyema\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 2.07\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 6.90\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 13.79\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 4.83\\
Total\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 8.97\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 15.18\tabcellsep 71\tabcellsep 48.97\tabcellsep 39\tabcellsep 26.9\\
Source: Field Survey\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.13700657894736842\textwidth}P{0.36348684210526316\textwidth}P{0.07828947368421052\textwidth}P{0.12582236842105263\textwidth}P{0.14539473684210527\textwidth}}
Self-Ownership\tabcellsep 75.85\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Pairing-up with others\tabcellsep 15.18\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Qote Qotanna\tabcellsep 8.97\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
0\tabcellsep 20 40 60 80\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Net grain\tabcellsep No of\tabcellsep \% of\tabcellsep Average\\
\tabcellsep available\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep grain (Qtls)\\
\tabcellsep (Qtls)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep <6\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 11.03\tabcellsep 4.60\\
\tabcellsep 6 -12\tabcellsep 72\tabcellsep 49.67\tabcellsep 9.21\\
\tabcellsep 12.1 -18\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 25.52\tabcellsep 14.79\\
\tabcellsep 18.1 -24\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 8.28\tabcellsep 20.34\\
\tabcellsep 24.1 -30\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.45\tabcellsep 25.89\\
\tabcellsep ? 30\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 2.07\tabcellsep 41.33\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 145\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 12.29\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Source: Field Survey Note: Qtls -Quintals}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.33319283456269755\textwidth}P{0.48008429926238144\textwidth}P{0.036722866174920966\textwidth}}
Food grains\tabcellsep Description of major food kinds in the area\tabcellsep Kcal/100gram\\
\tabcellsep -Tef flour + maize flour (Buddena)\tabcellsep 161.20\\
Tef\tabcellsep -Pure tef flour+ water (Buddena)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep -Tef flour + sorghum flour (Buddena)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep -Boiled wheat (Mullu/shumo)\tabcellsep 170.18\\
\tabcellsep -Wheat flour +maize flour + water (Buddena)\tabcellsep \\
Wheat\tabcellsep -Wheat bread\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep -Wheat flour + water (Buddena),\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep -Porridge(Marqa)\tabcellsep \\
Chickpea\tabcellsep -Sauce: split chick pea + shallot chili + oil + garlic + salt (Itto)\tabcellsep 227.00\\
\tabcellsep -Roasted chick pea + salt(Akawwi)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep -Chickpea flour + wheat flour + tef flour (Buddena)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 127.83\\
Lentil\tabcellsep -Split lentil + butter + shallot + chili + salt (Itto)\tabcellsep 93.50\\
\tabcellsep -Sauce: split lentil + chili + shallot + oil +salt(Itto)\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Survey Data and EHNRI's Food Composition Table}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{c) Households Daily Per Capita Dietary Caloric Status}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Dietary energy analysis is an important indicator}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of food adequacy level of a household. It is the per}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{capita dietary energy supply measured in calorie. It}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{provides the average daily food available for each}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{person in a country or region}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Maize-Cooked maize flour with salt and water (Porridge) -Cooked maize flour with milk, salt and water (Porridge) -Split boiled maize with salt (Qinche) -Cooked maize flour with meagre saltand water (Bread) -Cooked maize flour, fermented (Buddena)]} 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3023861171366594\textwidth}P{0.2212581344902386\textwidth}P{0.03318872017353579\textwidth}P{0.1511930585683297\textwidth}P{0.14197396963123643\textwidth}}
Food security status\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Level of daily per capita}\tabcellsep Number of\tabcellsep Percent of Households\\
categories\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{dietary Kcal available}\tabcellsep households falling in\tabcellsep falling in the respective\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep the respective\tabcellsep category\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep category\\
Food secure\tabcellsep ?2100\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 62.07\\
Mildly food insecure\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{?1750 -< 2100}\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 13.1\\
Moderately food insecure\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{?1500 -< 1750}\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 9.66\\
Highly food insecure\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{?1000 -< 1500}\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 8.28\\
Severely food insecure\tabcellsep <1000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 6.9\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 145\tabcellsep 100\\
Min. (Kcal)\tabcellsep Max. (Kcal)\tabcellsep Mean (Kcal)\tabcellsep Std (Kcal)\\
342.91\tabcellsep 17522.47\tabcellsep 2357.52\tabcellsep 1551.50\\
Source: Field Survey\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.18091216216216216\textwidth}P{0.10912162162162162\textwidth}P{0.12922297297297297\textwidth}P{0.13783783783783785\textwidth}P{0.12347972972972972\textwidth}P{0.12922297297297297\textwidth}P{0.0402027027027027\textwidth}}
List of\tabcellsep Number of\tabcellsep Number of mildly\tabcellsep Number of\tabcellsep Number of\tabcellsep Number of\tabcellsep Total\\
Sample\tabcellsep food secure\tabcellsep food insecure\tabcellsep moderately food\tabcellsep highly food\tabcellsep severely food\tabcellsep \\
Kebeles\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep insecure\tabcellsep insecure\tabcellsep insecure\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep households\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep households\tabcellsep \\
A/Bune\tabcellsep 51\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 84\\
Kobbo\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 21\\
Soyyema\tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 40\\
Total\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 145\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Field Survey}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Household Food Security Situation in Central Oromia, Ethiopia: A Case Study from Becho Wereda in\\
Southwest Shewa Zone\\
proves the previous works and explanations given by\\
Devereux (2000), Degefa (2002, 2005), and Mesay\\
(2011) towards why sub Sahara African farm\\
households repeatedly failed to sufficiently feed their\\
population.\\
Year 2016\\
10\\
Volume XVI Issue II Version I\\
( H )\\
Global Journal of Human Social Science -\\
major constraining factors to food crop production\\
among the investigated farm households making up the\\
percentage coverage of the confronted responses of\\
71.4\%, 69.1\%, 68.97\%, 61.38\%, 46.9\%, 31.03\%, 27.59\%,\\
22.76\%, 16.55\%, 14.48\% and 6.21\% respectively in\\
order of their importance. This finding therefore strongly\\
s\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40561403508771926\textwidth}P{0.05368421052631579\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}P{0.02087719298245614\textwidth}P{0.07157894736842105\textwidth}P{0.04473684210526315\textwidth}P{0.05964912280701754\textwidth}P{0.0656140350877193\textwidth}P{0.07157894736842105\textwidth}}
Food shortfall duration\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Awash Bune}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Kobbo\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Soyyema}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sub-total}\\
\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep \%\\
No period of food shortfall\tabcellsep 41\tabcellsep 28.28\tabcellsep 27\tabcellsep 18.62\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 11.03\tabcellsep 84\tabcellsep 57.93\\
Mid. July -Mid. Sept.\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 6.90\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 6.21\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 11.72\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 24.83\\
Mid. July -Late Sept\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 2.07\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.45\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 4.83\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 10.34\\
Early July -Mid Oct.\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 0.69\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 2.76\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.45\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 6.90\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 145\tabcellsep 100\\
Source: Field Survey\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24285714285714283\textwidth}P{0.6071428571428571\textwidth}}
12\tabcellsep \\
Volume XVI Issue II Version I ( H ) Global Journal of Human Social Science\tabcellsep 90.16 65.57 45.74 39.34 34.43 18.03 8.23 16.39 29.51 0 20 40 60 80 100 Engaging in wage ? Renting out their land Reducing daily meal ? Consuming less ? Borrowing grains on ?\\
\tabcellsep Regarding reducing household food consumption\\
\tabcellsep related strategies, reducing consumption during each\\
© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: s -]} 
\caption{\label{tab_14}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) Volume XVI Issue II Version I 5 ( H )} 			\footnote{Household Food Security Situation in Central Oromia, Ethiopia: A Case Study from Becho Wereda in Southwest Shewa Zone} 			\footnote{Source: Field Survey} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Davies ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Adaptable Livelihoods: Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel},  		 			S Davies 		.  		1996. Macmillan.  	 
\bibitem[An annual measure of the state of global food security Global Food Security Index ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘An annual measure of the state of global food security’.  	 	 		\textit{Global Food Security Index}  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Tolossa ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Belg Crop Production as a Strategy of Households' Food Security: A Comparative Study of Belg Grower and Non Belg Grower Farmers in Munessa woreda, Arsi Region},  		 			Degefa Tolossa 		.  		1996. Addis Ababa.  		 			Addis Ababa University 		 	 	 (M.A Thesis) 
\bibitem[Maxwell ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Determinants of Agricultural Productivity and Household Food Security: Case Studies from Kuyu District’.  		 			S Maxwell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Food Policy}  		1996. 2011. 21 p. .  		 			Central Ethiopia. U.S.A: LAP LAMBERT 		 	 	 (Food security: A post-modern perspective) 
\bibitem[Diriba ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Economy at the Cross Roads: Famine and Food Security in Rural Ethiopia’.  		 			Getachew Diriba 		.  	 	 		\textit{Addis Ababa: Care International in Ethiopia}  		1995.  	 
\bibitem[Devereux ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Entitlements, Availability and Famine: A Revisionist View of Wello’.  		 			S Devereux 		.  	 	 		\textit{Food Policy}  		1988. 13  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Webb and Braun ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Famine and Food Security in Ethiopia: Lesson for Africa},  		 			P Webb 		,  		 			Von Braun 		,  		 			J 		.  		1994. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.  	 
\bibitem[Tolossa ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Famine and Its Causes in the Perspective of the Modern Geographical Thoughts’.  		 			Degefa Tolossa 		.  	 	 		\textit{In Ethiopian Journal of the Social Sciences and Humanities}  		2006. IV  (2) .  		 			Addis Ababa University, College of Social Sciences 		 	 
\bibitem[Devereux ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Food Insecurity in Ethiopia, a Discussion Paper for DFID},  		 			S Devereux 		.  		2000.  	 
\bibitem[Habtewold ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Food Security: A Brief Review of Concepts and Indicators in Food Security, Nutrition and Poverty Alleviation in Ethiopia: Problems and Prospects, Proceeding of Inaugural and First Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia},  		 			Debebe Habtewold 		.  		1995. Addis Ababa.  	 
\bibitem[Amare (199)]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Household Resources, Strategies and Food Security in Ethiopia: A Study of Amhara Households in Wogda},  		 			Yared Amare 		.  		199. Northern Shewa.  	 
\bibitem[Tolossa ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Household Seasonal Food Insecurity in Oromiya Zone, Ethiopia: Causes’.  		 			Degefa Tolossa 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Science Research Report Series}  		2002.  (26) .  	 	 (OSSREA) 
\bibitem[Nigussie and Alemayehu ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Levels of household food insecurity in rural areas of Guraghe Zone’.  		 			Zerihun Nigussie 		,  		 			Getachew Alemayehu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Agricultural Research}  		2013. II. No. I.  		 			Bahir Dar University, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences 		 	 
\bibitem[Bekele ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Major Causes of Household Food Insecurity in Wuchale-Jidda Woreda, Oromiya National Regional State},  		 			Hussein Bekele 		.  		2006.  		 			Addis Ababa University 		 	 	 (MA Thesis) 
\bibitem[Bank ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Poverty and Hunger; issues and options for Food Security in Developing Countries},  		 			World Bank 		.  		1986.  	 
\bibitem[Gebrehiwot ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Rural Food Security in Tigray, Ethiopia: Policy Impact Evaluation},  		 			Tagel Gebrehiwot 		.  		2008. The Netherlands.  		 			International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede 		 	 	 (MSc Thesis) 
\bibitem[Tolossa ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Rural Livelihood, Poverty and Food Insecurity in Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation},  		 			Degefa Tolossa 		.  		2005. Trondheim: NTNU.  		 			Norwegian University of Science and Technology 		 	 
\bibitem[Rupert ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{Speaking Food: A Discourse Analytic Study of Food Security},  		 			A Rupert 		.  		2009.  		 			University of Bristol 		 	 
\bibitem[Fao ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition},  		 			Fao 		.  		2014. 2014. Rome, FAO.  	 	 (The State of Food Insecurity in the World) 
\bibitem[Jonathan ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{The Invisible Crisis: Urban Food Security in Southern Africa},  		 			B F Jonathan 		.  		2010.  		 			Kingston and Cape Town.: Queen's University, Canada 		 	 
\bibitem[Jemberu ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{The Persistent Food Crisis in Ethiopia: Causes, Government Responses and Household Strategies; the Case of Enebse Sar Midir District},  		 			Ejiga Jemberu 		.  		2006. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU.  		 			Norwegian University of Science and Technology 		 	 	 (MA Thesis) 
\bibitem[Fao ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World’.  		 			Fao 		.  	 	 		\textit{Meeting the 2015 International hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. FAO},  				 (Rome)  		2015.  	 
\bibitem[Fao ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{The State of Food Insecurity in the World in Brief},  		 			Fao 		.  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Devereux ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Theories of famine’.  		 			S Devereux 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvestor wheatsheaf: New York and London},  				1993.  	 
\bibitem[World Bank Policy Study]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{World Bank Policy Study},  		Washington DC.  	 
\bibitem[Fao ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{World Food Summit, Corporate Document Repository},  		 			Fao 		.  		1996. FAO, Rome.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
