Simane, Belay (PhD)Zeleke, Cherinet2018-09-202023-11-182018-09-202023-11-182008-06http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/12345678/12028Two sample Keheles of Tach Gayint Woreda were randomly selected by 10ttelY method wir/iout replacement /i'om six potential Keheles producing this crop, to explore the contribution of cultivating haricot bean to rural household food security. 100 sample households were randomly selected for the study. Of these, 5% of cultiva/ors and noncult ivators were selected Fom the total in each sample Kebeles. Thus, 59 sample cultivators and 41 non-cultivators were taken out randomly by proportionate simple /'Ul1do/1/ sampling technique using lottery method without replacement respectively. Pril1ullY data was gathered via household interview, key informant interview, focus group discussion and field observation. Moreover, primary da/a was supplemen/ed with secondwy data obtained Fom different sources. Data was analyzed by using SPSS computer sojiware. Cultivators of haricot bean were found to be better in their food securi/y status than the non-cultivators. The crop output obtained by cultivators was higher than the non-cuitiva/ors simply because of gelling addi/ional ou/put Fom harico/ bean. On average, cultivators of haricot bean obtained 7,219.40 Birrlhousehold/year Fo", this crop as compared to the non-cultivators who lacked this opportunity. The available kilocalorie/person/day from own production was found to be 568153 for cultivators and 81998 for non-cultivators. Th e share of haricot bean Fom all crop O!ilputs to income and available kilocalorie of households was found to be 56.6% and 35. 1% respectivelv Taking the 2200 kilocalorie/adult equivalent/day, which is the bench lIIark of measuring food security, cultivators and non-cultivators of haricot bean fulfilled 011 Iv 70.8% allrl 10. 2% of/he minimum kilocalorie requiremen/ respectively. However, i/ was idelltified Ihat own production was 1I0t sufficient enough to bring up households Fom food insecurity. But, households were participated in different non-farm income gellerating activities such as the food and cash for work activities via the Produc/ive Safety Net Program. Therefore, cultivators and non-cultivators had obtained 430144(42.4%) and 408172(50.8%) kilocalories/person/day Fom this food for work respectively. Similarly, from all the non-farm activities both types of households had obtained 5, 798.50 Birr and 6,301.00 Birr in that order. Cultivators had fulfilled more than their minimum calorie requirement (113%) and non-cultivators fulfi lled only 61 %. However, still there are households who are unable to cover even a quarter of their daily kilocalorie intake and income requirement. Insec/ p ests; shor/age of rainfall; hail/snow; lack of farm lalld; lack of extellsion package support and improved seeds were reducing production and productivity of haricot bean in the area. Thus, employ ing extension package policies; provision of early ma/uring, moisture tolerant and insect pest resistant improved seed varieties; application of suitable moisture conserving activities; illFastructural developments; creating more labor based non-farm income generating activities and others are possible areas of intervention to improve food security of households of the study areaenRuralHousehold Food SecurityThesis