Current Research in Agricultural Sciences

June 2019, Volume 6, 2, pp 68-82

Adoption and Perception of Farmers towards Attributes of Improved Teff (Quncho) Varieties: Evidence from Benishangul-Gumuz Region of Ethiopia


Regasa Dibaba Wake, Afework Hagos Mesfin, Chilot Yirga, Endeshaw Habte

Regasa Dibaba Wake 1 

Afework Hagos Mesfin 1 

Chilot Yirga 3 

Endeshaw Habte 3 
  1. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Assosa, Ethiopia. 1

  2. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 3

Pages: 68-82

DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.68.82

Share :

Article History:

Received: 24 January, 2019
Revised: 07 March, 2019
Accepted: 10 April, 2019
Published: 01 July, 2019


Abstract

Adoption and wider diffusion of improved Teff varieties (Quncho) are playing a vital role overriding present situation of food insecurity in many parts of Ethiopia. However, the use of improved teff varieties are constrained by various factors. Hence, in this study, an attempt was made to examine factors affecting the adoption and use of improved teff varieties (Quncho) regarding attributes of varietal preferences of small-holder farmers. A multi-stage random sampling technique was employed to select 249 sample households from Assosa district and Mao-Komo special district. Descriptive statistical tools like mean, percentage, frequency distribution and t-test were used to summarize the characteristics of the sampled households. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data collected during 2015/16 production season. About 58.23% of the sampled household were adopters while 41.77% of them didn’t adopt improved Teff varieties (Quncho) 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’ preferences with 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 the adoption process. There is a need to target small-holder farmers’ characteristics, priorities and production constraints while improved Teff varietal developments considering users preferences. Therefore, the research centers and extension system has to give more attention to participatory research which considers farmers’ priorities and needs.  

Keywords: Improved Teff varieties small-holder farmers, Preference, Varietal attributes.

Received: 24 January 2019 / Revised: 7 March 2019 / Accepted: 10 April 2019/ Published: 1 July 2019

Contribution/ Originality

The contribution of this paper is to analyze the preferences and perception of small-holder farmers towards attributes of improved teff varieties adoption and infer farmers’ perception of the new agricultural technology packages. Thus, the paper's primary contribution is finding that investigating the farmers’ varietal trait preference and characteristics of varieties required by farmers that would enhance the acceptance of the technologies in the farming community.


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 a slurry and fermented for two or three days and bake into a flat soft bread –just like a pancake, which is locally known as “Injera” [1]. It is predominantly grown in Ethiopia as a cereal grain and widely grown in both high potential and marginal production areas [2] . 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 problemsnd can grow under water logged conditions and mainly produced for the market because the price is less variable than for other crops [3]. 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 [4].

Besides, it has been given little attention in research, development and public support [5]. This is due of its localized importance in Ethiopia [3]. However, recently improved technologies are increasingly promoted to farmers in sub-Saharan-African countries to address low agricultural productivity in their staple crops [6]. 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 [7]. 

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. [3] 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 [8].

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 in Table 1). 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 Figure 1.

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.

Source: Taken from Cochrane [9].

The share of area allocated for all crops and productivity indicated in the Table 2.  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
0.36
25.01
36
552.4
Maize area
227
91.16
0.24
15.2
21.88
1905.13
Sorghum
200
80.32
0.39
21.77
31.33
1467.45
Millet
90
36.14
0.3
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
5.5
7.92
458
Haricot bean
33
13.25
0.25
2.3
3.31
1013.1
Faba bean
6
2.41
0.32
0.54
0.77
1224
Groundnut
42
16.87
0.23
2.7
3.88
1921.42
Wheat
39
15.66
0.37
4.03
5.8
1202.22
Barley
4
1.61
0.15
0.17
0.24
583.14
Coffee
37
14.86
0.32
3.3
4.76
1196.54
Banana
3
1.2
0.25
0.21
0.3
5288.24
Red pepper
64
25.7
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 Tsibuk [10]. 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
30.8
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 Table 4. 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
1.2
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
1.2
Free from gov’t/NGOs
4
1.61
Research center
13
5.22
Total
249
100
Main method of payment for seeds
Frequency
Percent
Own cash
77
30.92
Remittance
2
0.8
Credit from seed relatives, neighbors and friends
2
0.8
Credit from micro finance
2
0.8
Government extension
54
21.69
Stored seed
112
44.98
Total
249
100

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-6. 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-7. 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 as indicated on the Table 7.

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 Figure 3.

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-8. 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-9. 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

Source: Survey results, 2015/16.

3.8. Households Varietal Attributes and Preferences of Improved Teff Varieties Technologies are viable only when farmers use them. No matter how well the new technologies work on research stations, if farmers do not have them for use, their development would be in vain. Farmers have their own preference criteria for adoption among the available improved Teff varieties. With regard to the perception of farmers towards certain attributes of improved Teff variety (Quncho) meet farmers’ preference over the local variety was considered. Perception of farmers towards improved Teff varieties is one of the factors that could speed up the change process and adoption of new crop 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 finding of farmer perceptions of high yielding wheat varieties-specific characteristics significantly determine adoption decisions and is consistent with evidences in literature, which suggests the need to go beyond the commonly considered socio-economic, demographic and institutional factors in adoption modeling by Feder, et al. [11]; Feder and Umali [12]. Similar to this, adoption studies by Wubeneh [13] and Bayissa [14] considering farmers’ perception of technology attributes have found that attributes condition the adoption choices of farmers. In addition, studies by Adensina and Zinnah [15] revealed that farmers have subjective preferences for technology characteristics and this could play major roles in adoption.

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. [3]. 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 [16].

Table-10. 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
1.9
-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 Table 10. 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-11. 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
22.5
Men  labor
25.3
17.3
0
133
66.8
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

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 (Agricultural Transformation Agency) [7] 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 the 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 a 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:

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.   
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

[1]          G. Haftamu, H. Mitiku, and C. F. Yamoah, "Tillage frequency, soil compaction and N-fertilizer rate effects on yield of Teff ( Eragrostis Teff (Zucc) Trotter) in Central Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia," Agronomy Journal, vol. 1, pp. 82 – 94, 2009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v1i1.46043.

[2]          CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural statistics abstract: Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA, 2010.

[3]          B. Fufa, B. Behute, R. Simons, and T. Berhe, "Teff diagnostic report: Strengthening the Teff value chain in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," 2011.

[4]          D. R. Miller, Teff grass crop overview and forage production guide, 2nd ed. Woodland, CA: Cal/ West Seed Company, 2010.

[5]          CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural sample survey: Area and production of major crops, Meher season vol. 1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA, 2013.

[6]          J. Vandercasteelen, M. Dereje, B. Minten, and A. S. Taffesse, Perceptions, impacts and rewards of row planting of teff, ESSP Research Note 33. Addis Ababa: IFPRI, 2014.

[7]          ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), "Transforming agriculture in Ethiopia", Annual Report 2015/20162016.

[8]          ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), "Annual Report: Transforming Agriculture in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," 2012.

[9]          L. Cochrane, "Strengthening food security in rural Ethiopia," Doctoral Dissertation (Interdisciplinary Studies) Submitted to the University of British Columbia, 2017.

[10]        B. Tsibuk, "Factors affecting adoption of Quncho Teff variety: The case of Medebayazaza Woreda, North –Western admenstration zone of Tigary Redion Ethiopa," M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University, 2015.

[11]        G. Feder, R. E. Just, and D. Zilberman, "Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: A survey," Economic Development and Cutlural Change, vol. 32, pp. 252-257, 1985.

[12]        G. Feder and D. L. Umali, "The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 43, pp. 215-239, 1993.

[13]        N. Wubeneh, "Farm-level adoption of new sorghum technologies in Tigray Region, Ethiopia," M Sc. Thesis. Purdue University. USA, 2003.

[14]        G. Bayissa, "Adoption of improved sesame varieties in Meisso District of West Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia," M.Sc Thesis Submitted to Haramaya University, 2010.

[15]        A. A. Adensina and M. M. Zinnah, "Technology characteristics, farmers’ perception and adoption decisions: A tobit model application in Siera-Leone," Agricultural Economics, vol. 13, pp. 1-9, 1993.

[16]        M. Alemitu, "Factors affecting adoption of improved haricot bean verities and associated agronomic practices in Dale Woreda, SNNPS Ethiopia," M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University, 2011.

[17]        H. Storck, E. Bezabih, A. Birhanu, A. Borowiecki, and W. H. Shimeles, "Farming systems and farm management practices of small holders in the Hararghe Highlands," Farming Systems and Resources Economics in the Tropics, 1991. Wissenshafts Varlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany, vol. 11, pp. 41-48, 1991.

APPENDIXES

Appendix-1. Conversion factor used to compute Man- Equivalent (labor force).

Category in years
Male
Female
Less than /<10
0
0
13-Oct
0.2
0.2
14-16
0.5
0.4
17-50
1
0.8
Greater than />50
0.7
0.7

Source: Storck, et al. [17].

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
0.6
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
0.42
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
0.02
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

Source: Survey results, 2015/16

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.