|
Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences
Vol. 9(2), pp. 229-241, 2019
ISSN: 2276-7770
Copyright ©2019, the copyright of this article is
retained by the author(s)
DOI Link: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.041719071
http://gjournals.org/GJAS
|
|
Adoption
and Perception of Farmers towards Attributes of Improved Teff (Quncho) Varieties:
Evidence from Benishangul-Gumuz Region of Ethiopia
Regasa Dibaba Wake1*, Afework Hagos Mesfin2,
Chilot Yirga3, Endeshaw Habte3
1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa
Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box: 265, Assosa, Ethiopia
2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa
Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box: 265, Assosa, Ethiopia
3Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia;
|
ARTICLE INFO
|
ABSTRACT
|
|
Article
No.: 041719071
Type: Research
DOI: 10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.041719071
|
Adoption
of improved Teff varieties (Quncho) is very important to increase
productivity and it can also improve food security. To get
the expected benefit, the technology should be adopted well by smallholder
farmers. However, the rate of adoption of improved varieties in the country
has remained low. Hence, the study looks in to preferences of small-holder
farmers to varietal attributes that determine the adoption of Teff varieties in the study area. In this study, multistage sampling techniques
were employed to select sampled households from two districts. About 249 smallholder farmers were selected randomly from
nine kebele administrations proportionally. Both qualitative and quantitative
types of data were used. Primary data was collected by using both close ended
and open ended (semi- structured) questionnaire and personal interview, focus
group discussion and key informant interview was used to collect the data.
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. In
2015/16 production season, about
58.23% of the sampled household were adopters 41.77% of them didn’t
adopt Teff varieties in the study
area. The finding of this study suggest that
farmers in the area seek specific varietal attributes, such as yield
potential, tolerance to disease and lodging, better Teff grain price and color, etc. The farmers’ perceptions of
improved Teff varieties-specific
characteristics significantly determine adoption decisions, which suggests
the need to go beyond the commonly considered socio-economic, demographic and
institutional factors in adoption process. Information about the benefits of
improved Teff varieties should be
given for farmers to increase farmer’s awareness about the preferences and
develop farmer’s attitude towards improved Teff varieties. Therefore, the research centers and extension
system has to give more attention to participatory research which considers
farmers’ priorities and needs.
|
|
Submitted: 17/04/2019
Accepted: 25/04/2019
Published: 13/06/2019
|
|
*Corresponding
Author
Regasa
Dibaba,
E-mail:
regasadibaba@ yahoo.com
|
|
Keywords: Improved Teff varieties;
small-holder farmers; Perceptions; Varietal attributes
|
|
|
|
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
and Justification
Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.) is
a small cereal grain indigenous to Ethiopia. Teff grains are milled into flour and mixed with water in order to
form slurry and fermented for two or three days and bake in to a flat soft
bread –just like pancake, which is locally known as “Injera” (Haftamu et al, 2009). It is predominantly grown
in Ethiopia as a cereal grain and widely grown in both high potential and marginal
production areas (CSA, 2010). The energy content is only surpassed by maize.
Compared
to other cereals, Teff is a
relatively low risk crop as it can withstand adverse weather conditions. In
addition, the crop suffers from fewer disease and pest problems, and can grow under
water logged conditions and mainly produced for the market because the price is
less variable than for other crops (Fufa et
al., 2011). Teff grows on various
soil types ranging from very light sandy to very heavy clay soils and under
mildly acidic to slightly alkaline soil conditions. It can also be grown in low
rainfall and drought prone areas characterized by protracted growing seasons
and frequent terminal moisture stress; that tolerates reasonable levels of both
drought and water logging better than most other cereals and cultivation of Teff in Ethiopia has partly been
motivated by its relative merits over other cereals in the use of both the
grain and straw (Miller, 2010).
Besides,
it has been given little attention in research, development and public support
(CSA, 2013). This is due of its localized importance in Ethiopia (Fufa et al., 2011). However, recently improved
technologies are increasingly promoted to farmers in sub-Saharan-African
countries to address low agricultural productivity in their staple crops
(Vandercasteelen et al, 2016). In Ethiopia, the Government has significantly invested
in helping farmers to increase crop production and productivity by providing yield-enhancing
inputs and benefit farmers from economies of scale (ATA, 2016).
Teff is among a
major cereal crop produced in Benishangul-Gumuz region for consumption and
market. To increase Teff production
and productivity different technologies have been introduced by different
stakeholders along the Teff value
chain. Part of it Teff improved
varieties like Quncho and Tsedey were promoted by research and development
organizations.
According to
(Fufa et al., 2011), previously
released varieties have not been widely accepted by farmers because of their
varietal attributes like color, despite high yield levels. However, because of
its color and yield, Quncho (DZ-Cr-387) variety has become popular. It is one
of the new crop varieties which are rapidly expanding to the most Teff growing areas of the country with the
genetic capacity of the crop’s production more than 30 quintals per hectares of
land, which is three times more than the local Teff but faces the adoption bottle neck (ATA, 2012).
Given the above mentioned facts, it is imperative to describe the existing
adoption level and identify varietal attributes that determine the preferences
of small-holder farmers the adoption of improved Teff varieties.
Moreover, investigating the perception and preferences of the farmers’ towards
adoption of Teff improved varieties is also crucial. Hence, systematic research on
specific varietal attributes and farmers’ preferences is useful to provide
useful information, bridge the existing knowledge gap and helps to enhance the
success of Teff crop production. The
study was conducted in Benishangul-Gumuz Regional state, Assosa zone and
Mao-Komo special district where there is mixed farming systems. The research
result could be applicable for different non-traditional Teff growing areas especially on intermediate and humid low land
agro-ecologies which are characterized by ample arable lands both at
smallholder farmers and commercial ones. By pointing characteristics which determines
adoption of Teff improved
varieties, the study would provide
important input to the research and development for enhancing adoption of
agricultural technologies effectively in general and Teff improved varieties in particular.
Hence,
this study has aimed to identify small-holders improved Teff varieties preferences and attributes that affect adoption of Teff improved varieties in the study
area. The
objective of this study is to identify farmers’ preferences and varietal
attributes that determine farmers’ adoption of improved Teff varieties in the study area.
2.
Research Methodology
The study area is
located in the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State at the Western parts of
Ethiopia. Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State is found 661 km away from the
capital city of the country, Addis Ababa, in the west. It is located at 9030′-
11030′ latitude and 34020′- 36030′
longitude. Plain undulating slopes and mountains characterize the topography of
the region. The altitude of the region ranges mainly between 580 and 2731
meters above sea level. The research was conducted in Benishangul-Gumuz
Regional state, Assosa zone and Mao-Komo special district where there is mixed
farming systems. Major crops grown include:
sorghum, maize, Teff, soybean, groundnut, finger-millet, wheat, rice,
and sesame.
2.2.
Sampling Procedures
The districts were selected
purposively as potential Teff growing
area, where improved Teff varieties have
been introduced. In this study a two stage sampling technique was employed. The first stage was random selection of Teff growing Kebeles from the
study area, followed by selection of sample households randomly. The Kebele
identification was made through reviewing secondary data on production and area
coverage of Teff. Hence,
representative Teff growing Kebeles were
randomly selected from the study area. In the second stage, representative
number of household heads was selected for data collection from identified Teff growers using random sampling
technique taking into account proportional to size(number) of Teff growers in each selected rural
kebeles.
Hence,
a total of 9 kebeles/villages (6 from Assosa and 3 from Mao-Komo districts) Teff growing were selected. Before
selecting household heads to be included in the sample, Teff grower household heads of each rural kebele was identified in
collaboration with kebele leaders, key informants and development agents of the
respective rural kebele. Finally, 249 sample households were selected using
probability proportional to size considering from each kebeles.
The study used both primary
and secondary data sources that are consistent, available, adequate and
reliable for the objective intended to be addressed. Independent
questionnaires were designed for farmers to collect necessary data from the
study area. During the course of field visits, the questionnaire was tailored
to all sample farmers conditions in the study areas. Semi-structured formal
interview guidelines were prepared in the form of questionnaires. Before data
collection, the questionnaires were pre-tested. This led to further revision of
these lists to make sure that important issues had not been left out. The
survey made formal interviews with randomly selected farmers using the
pre-tested semi-structured questionnaires. In addition to the questionnaire
survey, an informal survey in the form of focus group discussion technique was
employed using checklists for farmers to obtain additional supporting
information for the study. The discussions were made with key informant
farmers, and agricultural and relevant experts. To fill gaps observed during
personal interviews, secondary data were obtained from various sources such as
reports of bureau of agriculture at different levels, CSA, previous research
findings, and other published and unpublished materials, which are found to be
relevant to the study.
To change the raw data of the study into fact, both descriptive
and inferential statistics were used. Descriptive statistics such as frequency,
mean, percentage, and standard deviation were used in the process of comparing
socio-economic, demographic and institutional characteristics of households.
Inferential statistics such as t-test and chi-square test, were used to test
the statistical significance of variations among the sample households.
3.1.
Sample
Households from each district
The
simple respondents were selected from 9 rural villages or farming communities (6
from Assosa and 3 for Mao-Komo districts) that were considered for the study. Moreover,
study employed random selection of sample households from each community,
giving a total sample size of 249 (170 for Assosa and 79 for Mao-Komo districts).
The number of rural communities and farmers chosen from Assosa district was
more because of its large potential of Teff
producers and well experienced in cultivating Teff crop relative to Mao-Komo special district.
Table 1. Sample households from each district
|
Assosa district
|
Mao-Komo special district
|
|
Kebele
|
Number
|
Percent
|
Kebele
|
Number
|
Percents
|
|
Belmele
|
13
|
5.22
|
Shoshor butuji
|
26
|
10.44
|
|
Megelle_37
|
33
|
13.25
|
Teja jalisi
|
36
|
14.46
|
|
Selga_19
|
23
|
9.24
|
Wetse
wedessa
|
17
|
6.83
|
|
Selga_22
|
31
|
12.45
|
|
|
|
|
Selga_23
|
41
|
16.47
|
|
|
|
|
Selga_24
|
29
|
11.65
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
170
|
68.27
|
|
79
|
31.73
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
3.2.
Educational
Level of the sample households
Education
and use of improved Teff varieties
are positively related. Educational status of a farmer may directly affect
adoption and application of new agricultural technologies. Figure 1 below,
shows that the majority of respondents did not attended any kind of education
among the sample households, about 38.55 % were illiterates who cannot read and
write, since the majority of respondents did not have any access to education
the adoption process of new improved Teff
varieties (Quncho) may be affected.
Figure 1: Education level of the respondents
Source: Survey
results, 2015/6
About 34.54 % of the
respondents were attend elementary (1-4) while 19.68 % were second cycle (5-8),
4.42 % informal (religious and adult education) and only 2.81% attend high school. This implies
that the education level of households was highly skewed towards illiterate and
elementary (figure1).
As indicated from
figure 2 below, increased use of improved Teff varieties that enhance the productivity
of Teff in the country. This because of more advance farming practices and
knowledge and experience share between farmers themselves that may also have
contributed to increase over years.
Figure 2: Teff productivity trends in Ethiopia
The share of area allocated for all crops and
productivity indicated in the below table.
When we look at the average productivity of all crops in general were
below the national averages. The main reason is there were natural disasters
like insect pests’ infestation, heavy rainfall and other biotic and abiotic
stresses during the survey season in the study areas.
Table 2: Area under production and productivity of all crops cultivated in
2015/16 cropping season
|
Variable
|
Obs.
|
%
|
Mean Area
allocated (ha)
|
Area Share of all crops (%)
|
Adjusted-area share to sample (%)
|
Productivity(kg/ha)
|
|
Teff Area
|
249
|
100.00
|
0.36
|
25.01
|
36.00
|
552.4
|
|
Maize area
|
227
|
91.16
|
0.24
|
15.20
|
21.88
|
1905.13
|
|
Sorghum
|
200
|
80.32
|
0.39
|
21.77
|
31.33
|
1467.45
|
|
Millet
|
90
|
36.14
|
0.30
|
7.53
|
10.84
|
626.04
|
|
Soybean
|
50
|
20.08
|
0.25
|
3.49
|
5.02
|
858.21
|
|
Niger seed
|
58
|
23.29
|
0.34
|
5.50
|
7.92
|
458.00
|
|
Haricot bean
|
33
|
13.25
|
0.25
|
2.30
|
3.31
|
1013.1
|
|
Faba bean
|
6
|
2.41
|
0.32
|
0.54
|
0.77
|
1224.0
|
|
Groundnut
|
42
|
16.87
|
0.23
|
2.70
|
3.88
|
1921.42
|
|
Wheat
|
39
|
15.66
|
0.37
|
4.03
|
5.80
|
1202.22
|
|
Barley
|
4
|
1.61
|
0.15
|
0.17
|
0.24
|
583.14
|
|
Coffee
|
37
|
14.86
|
0.32
|
3.30
|
4.76
|
1196.54
|
|
Banana
|
3
|
1.20
|
0.25
|
0.21
|
0.30
|
5288.24
|
|
Red pepper
|
64
|
25.70
|
0.23
|
4.11
|
5.91
|
3982.62
|
|
Chat
|
45
|
18.07
|
0.33
|
4.14
|
5.96
|
4674.83
|
|
Total
|
100.00%
|
|
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
3.3.
Institutional
and social networks of the households
The Ethiopian extension system has engaged development
experts to serve farmers in various disciplines mainly in the areas of crop
production, livestock health and production and natural resources management.
Farmers had contact with extension agents in different ways and times. The survey result confirmed that the adopters
had high and significant frequency of contact with development experts than
non-adopter counterparts regarding new varieties of Teff at 1% probability level.
Moreover, extension agents are the major sources of information and
training for farmers regarding improved agricultural technologies. The result
of this study is in agreement with the study of adoption of Quncho Teff Tsibuk (2015). The survey results indicates farmers whose friends,
neighbors and relatives cultivated improved
Teff varieties have adopted
improved Teff varieties. This implies
that peer farmers exchange information regarding Teff farming and share knowledge and skills regarding newly
introduced agricultural technologies like Teff
improved varieties and this had high and significant effect on adoption of Teff varieties. As indicated in the below table farmers who
have friends and families in leadership position had also higher adoption level
than their counterparts.
Other factors like engagement in community leadership,
being a model farmer, access to media (radio-ownership), and beehive ownership
had an influence on adoption of improved Teff
varieties as indicated below.
As table
3 displayed that majority of the total respondents acquire knowledge about
improved Teff varieties for
production of Quncho varieties
through exposures of family members, friends and others by sharing their
experiences and play vital role in adopting new technologies. Moreover, about
73.09 % of the total sample respondents are exposed to the knowledge of
improved Teff varieties through
contact with colleagues, this had created knowledge share that contribute to
adoption. Sample respondents having leadership position in the village, radio
and community leadership acquire more information and knowledge about improved Teff varieties and had a significant
effect on the process of adoption of the technology. Therefore it can be
concluded that farmers’ social contacts, membership to affiliations, leadership
role and ownership of communication resources affect farmers’ adoption of the
technology.
Table 3: Institutional and social networks of the households
|
Characteristics
|
Adoption status
|
Total
|
χ2
|
|
Non-adopters
|
Adopters
|
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Friend and
families planted improved Teff
|
48
|
56
|
19
|
126
|
67
|
182
|
33.63***
|
|
Friend and
families leadership position
|
48
|
56
|
48
|
97
|
96
|
153
|
4.354**
|
|
Coop
membership
|
44
|
60
|
76
|
69
|
120
|
129
|
2.477
|
|
Radio
ownership
|
60
|
44
|
68
|
77
|
128
|
121
|
2.82*
|
|
Mobile
ownership
|
50
|
71
|
54
|
74
|
121
|
128
|
0.02
|
|
Model
farmer
|
71
|
33
|
83
|
62
|
154
|
95
|
3.12*
|
|
Community
leadership
|
62
|
42
|
71
|
74
|
133
|
116
|
2.76*
|
|
Coop
membership
|
44
|
76
|
66
|
69
|
120
|
129
|
2.477
|
|
Beehive
ownership
|
76
|
28
|
123
|
22
|
199
|
50
|
5.210**
|
|
Knowledge on
recommended rate of fertilizer
|
73
|
31
|
80
|
65
|
153
|
96
|
5.76**
|
|
Applied the
recommended rate of fertilizer
|
93
|
11
|
104
|
41
|
197
|
52
|
11.48***
|
|
Participation
in field visit of Teff varieties
|
65
|
39
|
74
|
71
|
139
|
110
|
3.23*
|
|
Hosted
field day or variety selection
|
102
|
2
|
132
|
13
|
234
|
15
|
5.31**
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
Exchange visits, field days and
demonstration activities are very important to create awareness and share
knowledge and skills on new agricultural technologies. For this reason the
national extension system has engaged in promoting and popularization of
agricultural technologies at National, regional and even kebele levels for
wider dissemination of newly released improved varieties. Hence, the survey
results revealed that participation in field visit of Teff varieties had significant effect on adoption.
3.4.
Access, sources and utilization of inputs for Teff
According to
the survey results, about 5.85 kg non-bought and 8.6 kg of bought Teff seeds were used during the survey
time. The mean non-bought seed of the adopters and non-adopters was highly and
significantly different at 1% probability level. Thus, implies that the seed
rate of adopters was higher than non-adopters as the area covered by adopters
is higher than non-adopters as indicated in the table below.
Table 4: Quantity of bought and non-bought seeds and cost incurred for seeds
by sample households
|
Characteristics
|
Non-adopters
|
Adopters
|
Total
|
Difference
|
t-test
|
|
Quantity of
non-bought seed(in kg)
|
5.85
|
8.58
|
7.44
|
-2.73
|
-3.08***
|
|
Quantity of
bought seed (in kg)
|
1.928
|
2.438
|
2.22
|
-0.51
|
-0.81
|
|
total seed
cost incurred
|
19.04
|
30.80
|
25.89
|
-11.76
|
-1.34*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
Moreover, on
average about 2.4 kg of bought seed was used by the adopters while 1.9 kg for
non-adopters. The mean seed cost incurred during the survey season was about 19
Ethiopian birr for non-adopters and about 31 Ethiopian Birr for adopters. The
implication is that most of the time Teff
grower farmers utilize stored seeds in the study areas.
Table 5: Source of Seeds and Method of payment for seeds
|
Main source of seed
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
Own saved seeds
|
114
|
45.78
|
|
Government extension
|
33
|
13.25
|
|
Gift from family
|
3
|
1.20
|
|
Farmer to farmer
seed exchange
|
31
|
12.45
|
|
Purchased from local
market
|
33
|
13.25
|
|
Extension demo plots
|
6
|
2.41
|
|
Farmer groups/coop
|
9
|
3.61
|
|
Local seed producers
|
3
|
1.20
|
|
Free from gov’t/NGOs
|
4
|
1.61
|
|
Research center
|
13
|
5.22
|
|
Total
|
249
|
100.00
|
|
Main method of payment
for seeds
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
Own cash
|
77
|
30.92
|
|
Remittance
|
2
|
0.80
|
|
Credit from seed relatives, neighbors and friends
|
2
|
0.80
|
|
Credit from micro finance
|
2
|
0.80
|
|
Government extension
|
54
|
21.69
|
|
Stored seed
|
112
|
44.98
|
|
Total
|
249
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Survey results, 2015/16
The main
sources of seeds were own saved seeds 45.37% followed by government extension
and purchased from local markets accounted for a total of 26.5%. Farmer to
farmers’ seed exchange and research centers have also provided improved Teff seeds accounted for 12.45 and
5.22%, respectively. About 31% and 21.7% of the respondents replied that the
methods of payment for Teff seeds was
own cash and government extension services, respectively while 45% of them used
saved/stored seeds by recycling as indicated in the table 5 above.
3.5. Adoption of Teff improved varieties
The survey data revealed that in 2015/2016 production
year, about 58.23 % of the sampled household adopts Teff improved varieties, while 41.77 % of them didn’t adopt Teff improved varieties in the study
areas (table 6). However, the rate of adoption varies across the
districts. About 64.56 % of the
households were non-adopters while only 35.44% had adopted improved Teff varieties at Mao-Komo special
district. The rate of adoption in Assosa district is much higher compared to
that of Mao-Komo district. Hence, about 68.82 % of the households adopts
improved Teff varieties whereas the
remaining 31.18% of them were non-adopters.
Table 7:
Adoption of Teff
improved varieties by districts
|
Districts
|
Adoption status
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
|
Mao-Komo
|
28
|
11.24
|
51
|
20.48
|
|
Assosa
|
117
|
46.99
|
53
|
21.29
|
|
Total
|
145
|
58.23
|
104
|
41.77
|
Source: Survey results, 2015/16
3.6. Adoption and Non-adoption of improved Teff varieties in the study areas
The survey results
showed that Quncho is the most preferred Teff
improved variety by about 70.28 % of the sample households. While about 12.85% and
1.2% preferred local and Tsedey varieties,
respectively. The remaining sample households which 15.66% households do not
respond to the varietal preference for Teff
crop. Some of non-adopters had an experience of practicing use of improved Teff varieties and then stopped adopting
the new improved varieties.
Table 8: Reasons for non-adoption and stopping Adoption of improved Teff varieties
|
No.
|
Reasons for non-adoption
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
1
|
Un availability of seeds
|
34
|
62.96
|
|
2
|
High price of seeds
|
7
|
12.95
|
|
3
|
Lack of access to credit
|
2
|
3.7
|
|
4
|
Diseases and pests susceptibility
|
1
|
1.85
|
|
5
|
Low grain yield
|
1
|
1.85
|
|
7
|
Shortage of farm land, draught power etc
|
6
|
14.81
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
Accordingly, about 62.96%, 14.81%, and 12.95%
were due to unavailability of improved seeds in the area, shortage of farm land
and oxen power for draught, high price required for purchasing seeds,
respectively. Furthermore, due to unavailability of improved seeds, shortage of
farmland, traction power, high price of improved seeds the households did not
adopt and stopped adoption of improved varieties.
3.7.
Production
and productivity gaps of Teff crop
The study
revealed that there is huge productivity gap among the on-farm productivity of
improved Teff varieties, national,
regional and zonal yield of Teff and
improved and land races varieties as indicated in the table and figure below.
Figure 3: Productivity of Teff at national, regional, zonal, on-farm and households’ level during
2015/16 cropping season
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
Actually the yield gap is mainly due to stresses like
insect pests, frost (occurred at Mao-Komo), water lodging, diseases and
hailstorm as indicated in the table 8 below. As shown on table 9, the stress
level were 41.89 % and 29.43 which indicate moderate and sever that decreasing
yield up to 50 %. Thus, in addition to these factors other factors like low
soil fertility and input usage attributes to low production and productivity of
Teff crop in the study areas.
Table 9: Types of Teff stresses occurred and rank during 2015/16 cropping season
|
Type of stress
|
Frequency
|
Rank
|
Total
|
Index
|
|
First
|
Second
|
Rank 1
|
Rank 2
|
|
Insect pests
|
86
|
14
|
172
|
14
|
186
|
0.6764
|
|
Disease
|
12
|
21
|
24
|
21
|
45
|
0.1636
|
|
Water lodging
|
20
|
21
|
40
|
21
|
61
|
0.2218
|
|
Drought
|
11
|
13
|
22
|
13
|
35
|
0.1273
|
|
Frost
|
28
|
22
|
56
|
22
|
78
|
0.2836
|
|
Hail storm
|
12
|
13
|
24
|
13
|
37
|
0.1345
|
|
Animal trampling
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
6
|
18
|
0.0655
|
|
Others
|
6
|
3
|
12
|
3
|
15
|
0.0545
|
|
Total
|
475
|
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
Table 10. Stress level of improved Teff varieties in the study area
|
Level of stress at
plot levels
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
No stress
|
64
|
24.15
|
|
Moderate
|
111
|
41.89
|
|
Sever
|
78
|
29.43
|
|
Catastrophic
|
12
|
4.53
|
|
Total
|
265
|
100.00
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
3.8.
Households Varietal attributes
and preferences of improved Teff
Varieties
Farmers have their own preference criteria for adoption among the
available improved Teff varieties.
The finding of this study suggest that farmers in the area seek specific
varietal attributes, such as yield potential, tolerance to disease and lodging,
better Teff grain price and color,
etc. The farmers’ perceptions of improved Teff
varieties-specific characteristics significantly determine adoption decisions,
which suggests the need to go beyond the commonly considered socio-economic,
demographic and institutional factors in adoption process. Information about
the benefits of improved Teff
varieties should be given for farmers to increase farmer’s awareness about the
preferences and develop farmer’s attitude towards improved Teff varieties. Therefore, the research centers and extension
system has to give more attention to participatory research which considers
farmers’ priorities and needs.
The overall varietal attributes and
preference of improved Teff varieties
(Quncho-Dz-X-387) and landraces index was about 0.63 and 0.37, respectively.
This implies that over all Quncho variety is preferred than the land race
varieties. Moreover, Quncho is the most preferred improved Teff variety compared to landraces in terms of grain color, grain
yield, yield stability, marketability, grain price etc as indicated in the appendix
table 2. The varietal attributes, marketability, food making quality, resistant
traits preference etc are described at the same appendix.
The agronomic practices of Teff crop like land preparation is mostly done by human and animal
power. Land preparation is one of the most labor consuming tasks in Teff production. The frequency of
plowing varies among households, and adopters and non-adopters with an average
plowing frequency of 3times. Unlike other crops field, Teff plots are ploughed frequently to break up the soil in order to
facilitate germination of the very small Teff
seeds. The results are in line with (Fufa et
al., 2011). The sowing method of Teff in the study areas is broadcasting.
The rate of fertilizer applied for an average of 0.36 ha of Teff is 18.45 kg of Urea and 34.21kg of
DAP.
Meanwhile,
the results showed that there is significance difference between adopters and
non-adopters in fertilizer rate application in the study areas as indicated in
table below. The result
of this study is in agreement with the study of Alemitu (2011).
Table 11: Teff
Agronomic practices of the sample
households
|
Characteristics
|
Non-adopters
|
Adopters
|
Total
|
Difference
|
t-test
|
|
Total
Nitrogen Fertilizer (N2) (in kg) used
|
15.01
|
20.92
|
18.45
|
-5.91
|
-1.5*
|
|
Total DAP
(N2PO5) in kg Used
|
23.31
|
42.03
|
34.21
|
-18.72
|
-4.2***
|
|
Plowing
frequency(No.)
|
3
|
3.23
|
3.13
|
-0.23
|
-2.06**
|
|
Weeding
frequency(No.)
|
1.87
|
1.92
|
1.90
|
-0.05
|
-0.5
|
N.B: ***, ** and * shows that significance level
at 1%, 5% &10% respectively.
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
The weeding frequency of Teff field is up to two times. Weeding
is done both manually (hand weeding) and chemicals herbicides (2-4-D and
Roundup). However, there is no significant difference on weeding frequency
between adopters and non-adopters in the study areas.
3.10.
Labor
availability
Teff production in the study area a little bit labor
intensive. The total labor used to produce Teff
showed that on average 37.88 man-equivalents labor was engaged in ploughing,
land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting and threshing of Teff production activities for 2015/16
cropping season.
Table 12: Labor employed by the households in 2015/16 cropping season for Teff production
|
Variables
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
Min
|
Max.
|
Labor share
|
|
Child labor (men
equivalent)
|
1.16
|
1.81
|
0
|
12.75
|
3.05
|
|
Women labor(men
equivalent)
|
8.54
|
7.64
|
0
|
44
|
22.50
|
|
Men labor
|
25.30
|
17.3
|
0
|
133
|
66.80
|
|
Total hired
labor(Men equivalent
|
2.82
|
7.34
|
0
|
40.8
|
7.45
|
|
Total labor (men
equivalent)
|
37.88
|
22.32
|
2.3
|
177
|
100.00
|
Source: Survey
results, 2015/16
About 67% of the total labor used was men, while 22.5%
and 3% was women and children. The total hired labor had 7.45% share of the
total labor. This study finding is in line with ATA (2016) report and showed
that smallholder agriculture is organized around households drawing labor
primarily from household members, with very limited wage labor (table 11).
The adoption of new agricultural
technologies is usually constrained by different factors. Hence, the main
objective of this study is to identify attributes of improved Teff varieties and preferences of
farmers for adoption of Teff improved
varieties in the study area. Moreover, to assess the existing knowledge,
perception and attitude of the farmers’ towards adoption of improved Teff varieties.
The process of developing and applying
improved Teff varieties in farming
communities needs close work and consultation with all concerned bodies; researchers,
extension experts and mainly with farmers
before doing much promotion work, campaign and try to scale up the
technology without identifying the preferences of small-holder farmers. This
intern helps to ensure the focus areas of work on addressing the most important
needs and challenges. Hence, appropriate strategic
interventions that consider the interest and varietal attributes of farmers are
required to increase the technology adoption of improved Teff varieties in sustainable manner.
The demographic, resource ownership,
socio-economic and institutional factors that affect the level of adoption
includes sex of the household head, level of education of the households,
family size, farming experience, off farm income, contact with extension agents
and attending field day influence on the probability of adoption of improved Teff varieties in the study area.
Given the growing demand for Teff at international and domestic
markets, due to population growth and consumption patterns production and
productivity of Teff should be
increased to fill the demand and supply of the produce. Furthermore, technologies and packages that
enhance production and productivity of Teff
like adopting improved Teff varieties
are highly important. Hence based on the results of this study suggestions are
drawn as follows:
¢
Capacity building and awareness
creation activities should be done to enhance the farmers’ education level
through adult literacy programs and this would in turn improve the adoption of improved
Teff varieties through increasing
farmers’ level of understanding on the varietal attributes and farmers’
perceptions towards improved varieties. Government extension service should
enhance farmers experience on improved Teff
varieties practices by providing training, proper awareness creation to the
technology with frequent farmers’ visit that could be convinced farmers toward
attributes of improved Teff varieties.
¢
New agricultural technology improvements
should be made to convenient for practice and accessible by enhancing
participation of smallholder farmers through participatory variety selection on
farmers’ fields and enhance farmers’ innovation adoption. To increase adoption of improved Teff varieties and make it more sound with the farmers’ interest;
it’s important for policy makers and technology developers to understand
farmers’ preferences, release technology with considering farmers’ background
and their perception toward varieties attributes to adopt new technologies.
Alemitu Mulugeta.2011.Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved
Haricot bean Verities and Associated Agronomic Practices in Dale Woreda, SNNPS Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University.
ATA (Agricultural
Transformation Agency). 2012. Annual Report: Transforming Agriculture in
Ethiopia”. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ATA (Agricultural
Transformation Agency). 2016. Transforming agriculture in Ethiopia. Annual
report2015/2016.
CSA (Central Statistical
Agency). 2010. ―Agricultural
Statistics Abstract: Agriculture”. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2013. ―Agricultural Statistics Abstract:
Agriculture”. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fufa, B., B. Behute, R.
Simons, and T. Berhe. 2011. Teff
Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Teff
Value Chain in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Haftamu Gebretsadik, Mitiku
Haile and Yamoah.C.F. 2009. Tillage frequency, Soil Compaction and N-Fertilizer
Rate Effects on Yield of Teff ( Eragrostis
Teff (Zucc) Trotter) in Central Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agron.J
1 (1): 82 – 94.
Tsibuk Berhe.2015.Factors affecting Adoption of Quncho Teff varity:The case of Medebayazaza
woreda ,north –western Admenstration zone of Tigary Redion ,Ethiopa .M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University.
Appendix 1: Conversion factor used to compute Man-
Equivalent (labor force)
|
Category
in years
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Less than /<10
|
0
|
0
|
|
10-13
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
|
14-16
|
0.5
|
0.4
|
|
17-50
|
1
|
0.8
|
|
Greater than />50
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
Sources: Storck, et
al. (1991)
Appendix 2: Teff Varietal attributes and preferences of households
|
Description
|
Score based on
importance
|
Total
|
Within index
|
Overall index
|
Over all rank
|
|
S1
|
S2
|
S3
|
S4
|
S5
|
S6
|
S7
|
S8
|
S9
|
S10
|
|
Grain color of Quncho
|
1010
|
333
|
112
|
861
|
6
|
10
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
4
|
2342
|
0.737
|
0.046
|
1
|
|
Grain color of land races
|
150
|
162
|
224
|
70
|
96
|
65
|
48
|
15
|
2
|
5
|
837
|
0.263
|
0.017
|
42
|
|
Marketability of Quncho variety
|
1030
|
351
|
152
|
14
|
36
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
1590
|
0.631
|
0.031
|
2
|
|
Marketability of landraces
|
110
|
171
|
248
|
119
|
204
|
45
|
20
|
9
|
0
|
3
|
929
|
0.369
|
0.018
|
34
|
|
Grain yield of Quncho
|
950
|
396
|
152
|
21
|
36
|
10
|
16
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
1588
|
0.623
|
0.031
|
3
|
|
Grain yield of landraces
|
260
|
189
|
192
|
49
|
144
|
80
|
28
|
18
|
0
|
2
|
962
|
0.377
|
0.019
|
25
|
|
Better grain price of Quncho
|
930
|
351
|
224
|
42
|
18
|
15
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1585
|
0.63
|
0.031
|
4
|
|
Better grain price of landraces
|
120
|
171
|
216
|
126
|
180
|
105
|
8
|
3
|
0
|
2
|
931
|
0.37
|
0.018
|
32
|
|
Enjera making quality of Quncho
|
810
|
342
|
224
|
56
|
30
|
10
|
12
|
6
|
0
|
3
|
1493
|
0.617
|
0.029
|
5
|
|
Enjera making quality of
landraces
|
120
|
270
|
160
|
161
|
126
|
60
|
28
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
927
|
0.383
|
0.018
|
34
|
|
Flour making quality of Quncho
|
750
|
315
|
288
|
28
|
30
|
5
|
20
|
3
|
0
|
7
|
1446
|
0.607
|
0.029
|
6
|
|
Flour making quality of landraces
|
140
|
207
|
248
|
140
|
120
|
60
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
938
|
0.394
|
0.019
|
30
|
|
Threshability of Quncho
|
750
|
180
|
232
|
133
|
84
|
20
|
28
|
3
|
0
|
4
|
1434
|
0.605
|
0.028
|
7
|
|
Threshability of landraces
|
250
|
144
|
240
|
126
|
78
|
45
|
24
|
18
|
6
|
6
|
937
|
0.395
|
0.019
|
30
|
|
Tillering ability of Quncho
|
630
|
333
|
248
|
84
|
66
|
35
|
0
|
18
|
0
|
7
|
1421
|
0.602
|
0.028
|
8
|
|
Tillering ability of landraces
|
210
|
198
|
184
|
147
|
108
|
60
|
20
|
6
|
0
|
8
|
941
|
0.398
|
0.019
|
28
|
|
Early maturity of Quncho
|
710
|
333
|
152
|
70
|
60
|
20
|
20
|
9
|
2
|
9
|
1385
|
0.600
|
0.027
|
9
|
|
Early maturity of Landrace
|
240
|
234
|
168
|
77
|
102
|
35
|
24
|
30
|
2
|
10
|
922
|
0.399
|
0.018
|
36
|
|
Grain size of Quncho
|
630
|
315
|
304
|
49
|
18
|
20
|
20
|
12
|
2
|
10
|
1380
|
0.611
|
0.027
|
10
|
|
Grain size of Landraces
|
120
|
153
|
192
|
147
|
168
|
55
|
28
|
6
|
2
|
9
|
880
|
0.389
|
0.017
|
39
|
|
Grain yield stability of Quncho variety
|
600
|
297
|
264
|
49
|
102
|
15
|
36
|
3
|
0
|
9
|
1375
|
0.594
|
0.027
|
11
|
|
Grain yield stability of Land races
|
320
|
117
|
192
|
77
|
120
|
60
|
48
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
940
|
0.406
|
0.019
|
28
|
|
Straw yield of Quncho
|
490
|
279
|
296
|
119
|
90
|
10
|
40
|
15
|
0
|
9
|
1348
|
0.581
|
0.027
|
12
|
|
Straw yield of landraces
|
360
|
108
|
112
|
168
|
156
|
30
|
28
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
972
|
0.419
|
0.019
|
24
|
|
Straw palatability of Quncho
|
630
|
198
|
240
|
112
|
102
|
35
|
8
|
12
|
4
|
9
|
1350
|
0.584
|
0.027
|
13
|
|
Straw palatability of landraces
|
320
|
153
|
144
|
119
|
156
|
25
|
20
|
15
|
2
|
6
|
960
|
0.416
|
0.019
|
25
|
|
Other foods making quality of Quncho
|
750
|
189
|
224
|
56
|
42
|
25
|
20
|
6
|
2
|
12
|
1326
|
0.608
|
0.026
|
14
|
|
Other food making quality of landraces
|
150
|
162
|
232
|
126
|
96
|
50
|
24
|
6
|
0
|
9
|
855
|
0.39
|
0.017
|
41
|
|
Storability of Quncho
|
880
|
180
|
136
|
28
|
30
|
0
|
40
|
0
|
8
|
21
|
1323
|
0.555
|
0.026
|
15
|
|
Storability of landraces
|
690
|
171
|
48
|
35
|
42
|
15
|
48
|
0
|
0
|
11
|
1060
|
0.445
|
0.021
|
22
|
|
Insect tolerance of Quncho
|
410
|
306
|
272
|
119
|
78
|
80
|
24
|
9
|
6
|
6
|
1310
|
0.584
|
0.026
|
16
|
|
Insects tolerance of Landraces
|
230
|
180
|
208
|
91
|
102
|
80
|
24
|
9
|
4
|
6
|
934
|
0.416
|
0.018
|
32
|
|
Shattering tolerance of Quncho
|
470
|
198
|
256
|
98
|
90
|
70
|
40
|
39
|
0
|
5
|
1266
|
0.572
|
0.025
|
17
|
|
Shattering Tolerance of Landraces
|
380
|
81
|
144
|
77
|
126
|
100
|
32
|
0
|
4
|
5
|
949
|
0.428
|
0.019
|
27
|
|
Disease tolerance of Quncho
|
430
|
216
|
240
|
168
|
102
|
30
|
40
|
27
|
2
|
9
|
1264
|
0.578
|
0.025
|
18
|
|
Disease tolerance of local
|
220
|
180
|
184
|
84
|
138
|
70
|
20
|
21
|
0
|
6
|
923
|
0.422
|
0.018
|
36
|
|
Drought tolerance of Quncho variety
|
470
|
198
|
176
|
98
|
108
|
50
|
64
|
12
|
4
|
18
|
1198
|
0.579
|
0.024
|
19
|
|
Drought tolerance of landraces
|
250
|
162
|
160
|
91
|
96
|
55
|
24
|
9
|
4
|
17
|
868
|
0.420
|
0.017
|
40
|
|
Less demand to inputs Quncho
|
470
|
153
|
176
|
56
|
108
|
35
|
92
|
27
|
2
|
10
|
1129
|
0.556
|
0.022
|
20
|
|
Less demand to inputs landraces
|
240
|
153
|
112
|
119
|
156
|
45
|
52
|
18
|
2
|
6
|
903
|
0.444
|
0.018
|
38
|
|
Water Lodging tolerance of Quncho
|
370
|
162
|
264
|
91
|
66
|
60
|
32
|
30
|
10
|
20
|
1105
|
0.603
|
0.022
|
21
|
|
Water lodging tolerance of landraces
|
240
|
135
|
96
|
49
|
78
|
65
|
36
|
12
|
0
|
17
|
728
|
0.397
|
0.014
|
43
|
|
Frost tolerance of Quncho
|
370
|
144
|
200
|
77
|
72
|
40
|
56
|
21
|
6
|
30
|
1016
|
0.598
|
0.020
|
22
|
|
Frost tolerance of landraces
|
220
|
108
|
112
|
49
|
96
|
30
|
36
|
9
|
2
|
20
|
682
|
0.402
|
0.014
|
44
|
|
Overall rank of Quncho
|
810
|
324
|
208
|
49
|
60
|
10
|
8
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
1475
|
0.631
|
|
1
|
|
Overall rank of landraces
|
80
|
225
|
120
|
119
|
246
|
60
|
12
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
864
|
0.369
|
|
2
|
|
Total score
|
50652
|
|
|
|
|
Cite this Article: Regasa Dibaba Wake; Afework Hagos Mesfin; Chilot Yirga; Endeshaw Habte (2019). Adoption
and Perception of Farmers towards Attributes of Improved Teff (Quncho) Varieties: Evidence from Benishangul-Gumuz Region of Ethiopia. Greener Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 9(2): 229-241, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.041719071.
|