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

 

Description: C:\Users\user\Pictures\Journal Logos\GJAS Logo.jpg

 

 

 

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

 

2.1.   Description of the Study Area

 

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.

 

2.3.   Method of Data collection

 

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.

 

2.4.   Method of Data Analysis

 

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.        RESULT AND DISCUSSION

 

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.

                            

3.9.   Agronomic practice of Teff crop

 

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).

 

 

4.      CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

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.

 

 

5.        REFERENCES

 

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.

 


 

 

6.        APPENDIXES

 

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