AMBO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

INSTITUTE OF COOPERATIVES & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION

DETERMINANTS OF TEFF PRODUCTION OF SMALL HOLDER

FARMING HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF GINDEBERAT DISTRICT,
WEST SHOA ZONE, OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

BY
FEYISSA TEFFERA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES OF

AMBO UNIVERSITY FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

ADVISOR: GEMECHU SHALE (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

NOVEMBER, 2020
AMBO, ETHIOPIA
DETERMINANT OF TEFF PRODUCTION OF SMALL HOLDER FARMING
HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF GINDEBERAT DISTRICT, WEST SHOA ZONE,
OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA.

A RESEARCH SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES OF AMBO

UNIVERSITY FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

BY:

FEYISSA TEFERA BELAY

ADVISOR: GEMECHU SHALE OGATO (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

NOVEMBER, 2020
AMBO, ETHIOPIA
 APPROVAL SHEET
Submitted by

Feyissa Tefera Belay _______________ ______________

Name of candidate Signature Date

Approved by

1. Gemechu Shale Ogato _________________ _________________

Name of Advisor Signature Date

2. _________________________ __________________ _________________

Department Head Signature Date

3. __________________________ ___________________ _________________

Institute Dean Signature Date

4. __________________________ ___________________ _________________

Director, School of Graduate Studies Signature Date

 Ambo University

School of Graduate Studies

Result Approval Form.

A. Candidate’s Bio-data

1. Candidate’s Name: FEYISSA TEFFERA

2. Department of: RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

3. Specialization: ______________________________________________

4. Degree aspired: MSc  MA  Ph.D. 

5. Thesis topic: DETERMINANTS OF TEFF PRODUCTION BY SMALL HOLDER

FARMING HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF GINDEBERAT DISTRICT, WEST
SHOA ZONE, OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

Examination Board

Members of the Examination Board:

Responsibility Name Department/Affiliatio Signature Date

n
1. External Dr.Asfaw Gnefato Hawassa University Tikimt 12, 2013 EC
Examiner Kite
2. Internal Ambo University
Examiner
3. Chairperson Ambo University
 DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis Determinants of Teff Production of small holder farming

households: the case of Gindeberat district, West Shoa zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia is

my work and all sources of the materials used for this thesis have been properly acknowledged.

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the MA degree in

development study at Ambo University and is deposited at the university library to be made

available to any other institution anywhere for the awarded of any academic degree, diploma, or

certificate. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided

that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation

from or reproduction of this manuscript is whole or in part may be granted by the head of the

major department or the director of postgraduate program when in his or her judgments regarding

the proposed use of the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however,

permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Feyissa Tefera Belay Signature ___________ Date of submission: ________

i
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author, Mister Feyisa Tefera Belay was born on April 23, 1984 in Gindeberat district, West

Shea Zone, Oromia Regional State. He attended his primary school at Gonfi Yebalo Elementary

School from Grade one up to grade six and secondary school at Gindeberat secondary high

school from grade seven up to grade twelve. After he achieved at high School, he joined Jemma

University Ambo Agriculture College in 2003 G.C. and graduated with Diploma in General

Agriculture 2004. Again he joined St’ Merry University College in 2008 G.C. graduated in BA

with Rural Development. After his graduation, he was employed by Agriculture and Rural

Development Office in Gindeberat district, West Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State. He was

worked at various governmental offices at different positions for 12 years. Finally, the author

ii
joined Ambo University to pursue his MA degree in Development Studies in 2018 and graduated

in 2020.

AKNOWLDEGMENTS

First of all, I thank the Almighty God for giving me health, strength and patience for the
completion this thesis work.

iii
Next to God, my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude goes to my advisor Assistant Professor
Gemechu Shale for his valuable comments, suggestions, guidance and encouragement from
proposal preparation, questionnaire development up to the final thesis submitted; as without his
encouragement, insight guidance and professional expertise the completion of this work would
not have been possible. My thanks also for Dr. Werkow Legesse (Department Head of
Development Studies) for his unreserved advice, guidance, and his encouragement from the very
commencing up to thesis completion; without his support the completion of this work would not
have been possible.

Special thanks for my wife Senait Asefa and Furno Lemu, and all of my family members. Your
encouragement and advice was a backbone on my success. I have grateful thanks for Mr. Getu
Did and Mr. Zerihun Gezagn, Mrs. Meti Tolesa and Mulu Shema and Mr. Sagne Deressa for their
unforgettable material and financial supports and Gindeberat Rural Land Administration office
workers for their precious support on materials and financials.

I express my deepest gratitude from my heart for the key informants, FGDs participants and all
people met in the entire process of this study. My gratitude also extends to all the offices and their
respected staffs for their contributions by providing the necessary information and materials.

Also I thanks to Gindeberat district Administration for facilitation of district Offices and rural
sampled Kebeles during data collection. Finally, I thank you all for your noble supports and you
have special place in my heart.

iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CC Contingency Coefficient

CSA Central Statistical Agency

DA Development Agent

EATA Ethiopia Agricultural Transformation Agency

FTC Farmers Training Center

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Growth Domestic Product

KII Key Informant Interview

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

v
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty

SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Science

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

vi
 TABLE CONTENTS

CONTENTES PAGES

vii
APPROVAL SHEET………………..…………………………………..………………….....ii

CERTIFICATION SHEET….…………………………...………………...…………………iii

DECLARATION…………..………………………………………….……..…………...…..iv

DEDICATION………………..……………………………………………………………….v

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………..…………………………………………………….….vi

AKNOWLDEGMENTS……..…………………………………………….…….…….……..vii

TABLE CONTENTS…………………….....………………………………….…….………viii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………..…………………………………….…..…....…ix

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………....………….…………………………….…..x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS……...……………………….…………...……..…xi

ABSTRACT……..………………………………..…………….…………..…………….…...xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………….…………………………….……...……..…..1

1.1. Background Of The Study…………………………………………………...…...….....….1

1.2. Statements Of The Problem………………………...…………………………………...….2

1.3.Objectives Of The Study……………...………………………………….………………....3

1.3.1.General Objective Of The Study……………….……………………….……..……….....3

1.3.2.Specific Objectives Of The Study………………………………………………..…...…..3

1.4. Research Questions………………………………………...……….……….…………...…3

viii
1.5. Significance Of The Study…………………………………...……...…………………..…4

1.6. Scope And Limitation Of The Thesis………………………………...….……...……...…..4

1.7. Organization Of The Thesis……………...………………………..……………………..…4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………..…,…5

2.1. Theories Of Teff Production…………..………………………….…...……………...…….5

2.1.1. Conceptual Review Teff Production …………..……..………..………….…..………5

2.1.2. Teff Production in Ethiopia.............……….……...…………..……......…….……...…5

2.1.3. Economic Importance of Teff.....………………………...…………..............................6

2.2. Empirical Reviews Teff Production….……………………….………...…………………..7

2.2.1. Global History of Teff Production…………………….………………………….….….7

2.2.2. Origin of Teff in Ethiopia……………………………………………….………….…….8

2.2.3. Practice of Teff production………...……………………………………….…………….8

2.2.4. The challenges of Teff production…...............................................................................10

2.2.5. The opportunities of Teff production…………………………………………………..10

2.2.6 . Empirical Studies on Teff Production...……..…………………………………...….…12

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………….….13

3.1. Description of the study area…….…………………………………………………….…...13

3.2. Research Design…………..……………………………………………………….………..17

3.3. Sampling Methods and Procedures……………………………………………..………….17

ix
3.4. Data Types and Sources………..…………………………………………………………..18

3.5. Methods of Data Collection…………………………………..……………………………19

3.5.1. Methods of secondary data collection………………………...………………………..19

3.5.2. Methods of Primary data……………………………………………………………...….19

3.6. Data Quality Issue Test…...………………………………………………..…………….…..21

3.7. Methods of Data Analysis……………………………….………………………………...…21

3.8. Ethical Consideration……………………………………………………….……………..…27

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION…………………………….……..………….28

4.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics ………………………………...…………………………...28

4.2. Analysis of Econometric Results…………..………………………………….…………….31

4.2.1. Determinants of Teff Production……………………………….……...………….……31

4.3. Teff Production Practice………………………..………………….……………….………39

4.4. Challenges of Teff production …….…………………………..……………………….…..42

4.5. Opportunities of Teff farming ……………….……..……………….……...…..…………..46

4.5.1. Increased demand for Teff ………………………………………………..….……..…46

4.5.2. Improved Teff Seeds……………………………………………………………..…….. .47

4.5.3. Values of Teff Straw..................................................................................................…...48

4.5.4. Suitable Governmental Policies on Agricultural……………….………...……………..48

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………..….50

5.1. Summary……………..…………………………………….……………………………….50
x
5.2. Conclusion………….………………………………………………………………………51

5.3. Recommendation…………………..……………………………………………………….51

5.4. Lesson Learned and Future Study…………………………………………………………52

Reference…………………….…..………..……………………………………………………53

Apendices………………………………………………….………………………………........57

Appendix 1: Questionnaires used for data collected…………………………..….…………….57

Appendix 2: Multicollinearity result of VIF Coefficients ………………………..............….…62

Appendix 3: Coefficient for dummy variable...........................……………………….…….......63

Appendix 4: Land Holding and Size ……………………..……………………….…….…….63

Appendix 5: Farming Practice activities………………..……………………………………….64

Appendix 6: Non/Off Farm, Access of Market, Extension and Credit service………………....65

Appendix 7: Activities off Farm and non-farm participation..................................................66

Appendix 8: Off farm and non-Farm income………………………………………………..67
Appendix 9: Livestock ownership (TLU)……………………………………………………….67

Appendix 10: Service provision…………………………………………………………………69

Appendix 11: Agricultural Input Uses …………………………………………………………..69

Appendix 12: Challenges of Inputs and Technology………………………….………………….69

Appendix 13: Convectional ration………………………………………………………………..70

xi
 List Table
Table 1:- Sample distribution of kebeles ...............................................................................18
Table 2: Definition of Variables.........................................................................................................26
Table 3. Sex and Age of respondents.................................................................................................29
Table 4: Marital status and Family size..................................................................................30
Table 5: Total area, Production and Yield ........................................................................................33
Table 6: Technologies, Seed and Labor...............................................................................................35
Table 7: Socio-economic of Teff………………………….…………………….………….…….…....38
Table 8: Socio- economic problems on Teff production………….…………………..………………..41
Table 9: Summary of regression analysis……………………………………………………….….....46

xii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Frame work...………………………………….…………...…….……….13

Figure 2: Study area map ......................................................................................…....................16
Figure 3: The Educational level of household respondents………………………….…………..30
Figure 4: Young farmer household home at sampled area …………………….………………...32
Figure 5: Threshing, cleaning and collecting grains……………………………………………...32
Figure 6: Farmer Training Center at sampled area............................................................……….45
Figure 7: On Market White Teff Grain……………………………..……………………...........46
.

xiii
 ABSTRACT
The production and productivity of cereal crops insure food security and poverty alleviation in
cereal growing areas. Teff plays the great role in smallholder farmers daily life family feeding
and as source of income. However, Small holder farmers’ Teff production was constrained by
different factors. This research attempts to assess Teff production by smallholder households
farming in Gindeberet district. The study was conducted in Gindeberat District, West Show Zone
Oromia Region of Ethiopia. Purposively two Teff growing kebeles were selected from the
districts, followed by selection of 137 sample respondents by using simple random sampling
technique from each kebeles based on probability proportional to size for the interview purpose.
Semi-structured interview schedule was developed, pre-tested and used for collecting the
essential quantitative data and qualitative data was collected from focus group discussion, key
informant interview and field observation for the study. A mixed research design was employed
the exploratory and case study was combined. The descriptive statistics and inferential statistics

xiv
were used for data analysis. The descriptive statistics shows that from the total 13 variables, five
of them show statistically significant at 1 %, 5 % and 10% level of significance. The results of the
econometric model indicated that experience on teff production, land size, extension service and
livestock were positively and significantly influenced whereas, sex of household and credit
service negatively influenced teff yield at individual household level in the study area. Farm
practices and inputs technologies with institutional service provision on teff production were the
bone of high teff yield spring of Teff yield doubling.
Therefore, the study concludes that, intermediation is required to improve capacities of small
hold farmers, inputs of agriculture utilization expected from farmers and assist of government
play role on Teff production.

Key words: Multiple liner regression models, Small holders, Teff Farming

xv
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the study
Agricultural growth in Sub-Saharan Africa is considered to be low and not much driven by
technological change (World Bank, 2008). Teff (Eragrostis Teff) is a small-grained cereal that has
been grown as food crop in East Africa for thousands of years (D’Andrea , 2008). It is one of the
cereals believed to have originated in Ethiopia between 4000 BCE and 1000 BCE. It accounts for
about a quarter of the total cereal production in Ethiopia. Teff has been widely cultivated and used in
Ethiopia, which is used for making Injera. It is indigenous to Ethiopia and is a vital part of the
culture, tradition and food security of people (MOARD, 2010).

It is now raised in the U.S., in Idaho in particular, with experimental plots in Kansas, American
customers including people from traditional Teff consuming countries and also people desiring to eat
Teff to avoid glutens that irritate celiac disease (Bruk et al., 2014). Teff is a superior cereal grain crop
solely produced and is considered as the noble grain of Ethiopia. It is a staple food for the majority of
the population in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Teff grows in most of the agro ecology zones of Ethiopia
ranging from Lowland to highland areas that is from sea level up to 2800m above sea level under
various rain fall, temperature, and soil conditions (Seyfu, 1997).

Teff, which is the most valued staple crop in Ethiopia, is cultivated over approximately 2.8 million
hectares and accounts for 28.5 percent of land area under cereal cultivation, the largest share of all
staple grains in Ethiopia (MAFAP, 2013). The crop solely produced in this country for human
consumption purpose. It is an important crop used to make the Ethiopian staple food, Injera. This
food is consumed at least once a day in better off households. It is nutritionally rich with high levels
of iron and calcium, as well as highest amount of protein among cereals consumed in Ethiopia. It
ranks low on the glycemic index, is gluten free and is high in fiber.

The straw serves as a feed for livestock. Also the straw is important row material for the purpose of
house construction. Marketwise, urban dweller has very high demand to consume Teff. These
demand made its price level higher than other cereals. As a result, Teff price is reasonably stable
(MAFAP, 2013). It is the dominant cereal by area planted and second only to maize in production and
consumption (Yihenew 2002).
Mostly Teff is produced at the central, eastern and northern highlands of the country on fragmented
lands with rain fed conditions in both, Meher and Belg, seasons (Engdawork, 2009). In addition to
1
this, it is relatively resistant to many biotic and abiotic stresses and can be grown under different
agro-ecological conditions, ranging from lowland to highland areas (FAO, 2015). Teff is mostly
concentrated in the center and the northwest of the country. East Gojjam, East Shewa, West Shewa
and North Shewa are the four most important Teff producing zones all in Amhara and Oromia
regional states (Yihenew et al, 2013).

It is observed that Teff production is increased in rapid rate recently. It is estimated that annual Teff
production has been increasing by 11%, which has resulted in a 100% increase every seven years.
Increased productivity is believed to contribute about 6% of that 11% growth while about 5% was
attributed to expansion in area cultivated for Teff (EATA, 2013). But land is a limited resource that
cannot replace or expand in any situation. Having all these in to consideration, the researcher aims
mainly to assess determinant of Teff production by small holder farmers’ in Gindeberat district. As
the knowledge of the researchers, no study has been conducted on determinant of Teff production by
small holder farmers’ in the study area.

1.2. Statements of the problem

Teff is a superior cereal grain crop solely produced and is considered as the noble grain of Ethiopia. It
is the dominant cereal by area planted and second only to maize in production and consumption
(Yihenew 2002). However, yields are relatively low (around 12 quintals/ha) and high loss rates (25-
30% both before and after harvest) reduce the quantity of grain available to consumers by up to 50%
(Azeb, 2016). Agricultural production and productivity is very low and the growth in agricultural
output has barely kept pace with human population growth. Sustainable food security and welfare
cannot be achieved through subsistence agriculture (Pingali,

Theoretically, seed can play a critical role in increasing agricultural productivity as it relatively
determines the maximum upper limit of crop yields and the productivity of all other agricultural
inputs given optimum environment in any farming system (Mywish et al., 1999, Maredia et al.,
1999). The national average yield of teff is only 1.1 ton ha-1, the yield using improved varieties range
from 1.5 to 2.7 ton ha-1 on research sites and from 1.3 to 2.3 ton ha-1 on farmers’ fields (Dawit et al.,
2010). Ethiopia’s crop agriculture continues to be dominated by the country’s numerous small farms
that cultivate mainly cereals for both own-consumption and sales. Five major cereals (teff, wheat,
maize, sorghum, and barley) occupy almost three-quarters of total area cultivated. Much of the
increase in crop production in the past decade has been due to increases in area cultivated.

2
To what extent expansion can continue remains a question, therefore obtaining higher yield rates is
the challenge of Ethiopia’s agricultural system (Alemayehu et al., 2009). Based on data from the
national scaling up program; farmer-based yield gap analysis was done. The grain yield of up to 3.6
tone ha-1 was reported for teff in the recent national scaling up activities (Hailu and Seyfu, 2001).
Small holder farmers collected low yield of Teff at the end of harvest in the study area. Yield of
production per hectares of land measured by different Institutions and organization but analysis of
production Teff at small holder farmers was not clearly stated.

In the study area even though there were a number of practice of Teff production, the challenges and
opportunities concerned problems were no such a study assumed. Production of Teff at small holder
farmers level in the study area, are not well known base on agricultural offices of the study areas, it
needs to be studied, and appropriate solution should be explored. Thus, the researcher initiated to
study the determinants of Teff production of small holder farming of smallholder house hold farmers
in in the study area, study made effort to identify influence points and intervention strategies for
further advance Teff yield of small holder farmers

1.3. Objectives of the study

1.3.1. General objective
The general objective of the study was to assess determinants of Teff production of small holder
farmer households in Gindeberet district.
1.3.2. The specific objectives
The specific objectives of study were:
2. To investigate practices of Teff production by smallholder farming households in the study
area;
3. To examine challenges of Teff production in the study area; and
4. To explores opportunities of Teff production in the study area.

1.4. Research Questions

Four research questions were developed to analyze determinants of Teff production by small holder
farming households in Gindeberat district.
1. What are the practices of Teff production by smallholder farming households in the study area?
2. What are the challenges of Teff production in the study area?
3. What are the opportunities of Teff production in the study area?

3
1.5. Significance of the Study
The results of this research have both theoretical and practical contribution to identify household
practice, challenges and opportunities of small holder farming households Teff production and come
across with relevant solutions and recommendations. In other way, the result of the research used as
an input for policy makers, planners and development experts. Similarly, it may Governmental
institutions, NGO’s and all other stakeholders’ development projects by focusing on Teff production
in their program. It also initiates the administrators to think about production of Teff at yield level by
small holder farmers. Moreover, it may help as a reference for other studies in the area with similar or
other themes of study.

1.6. Scopes and limitation of the study

This study was conducted in Gindeberat district, West Shoa zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia.
This woreda was selected from the zonal districts for the study for it has high potential of teff
production all though the area and known with quality of teff in the central market area of the
country. It is a onetime research only that undertaken in Gindeberat district. The data were collected
only from two sampled kebeles of the district which was randomly selected. Small holder farmers
yield level of teff and the farming system of the study area and the researcher will have been very
happy if he has made the research on a broader concept than only on farming practice, challenges and
opportunities of small holder farming household of Teff production. Due to time and financial
constraints, the researcher could not go behind. It cannot represent the whole sample population of
the district kebeles and this, hindered the more generalization. However, it may be useful for areas
with similar context with the study area. The data was collected from the respondents before the
announcements of COVID 19 outbreak in the country.

1.7. Organization
This study organized in to five chapters. The first chapter includes background, objectives, and
statements of the problem, research questions, and significance of the study, scope and limitation of
the study. Chapter two presents review of relevant literature that includes conceptual reviews on the
basic concepts and empirical reviews on practice, challenges, opportunities Teff production. Chapter
three presents research methodology including description of the study area, types and source of data
and its collection method and method of data analysis. Results are presented and discussed in the
fourth chapter. Chapter five present summary, conclusion and recommendations.

4
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE RVIEW
2.1. Conceptual and Theoretical Review of Teff Production
2.1.1. Basic Concepts of Teff production
Agriculture is a major contributor to the national economy of Ethiopia, representing 41% of
Ethiopia’s GDP (CIA, 2012). The findings from a nationally representative survey of 7, 186 farm
households in Ethiopia, focusing on production and marketing decision of two cereal crops (Teff and
maize), indicates that most producers of the crops are either subsistence-oriented or net buyers; and
that these group of producers is found to be poorer in many respects than net sellers (Pender and
Dawit, 2007). Increasing production of Teff and maize is a major factor contributing to higher sales.

Similarly, the price of Teff is increased in fast rate and as a result of this Teff becomes highest-priced
cereal grown in Ethiopia (Bekabil et al., 2001). Among cereals, Teff accounts for the largest share of
the cultivated area (28.5 % in 2011), followed by maize (with 20.3 %) (Demeke and Marcantonio,
2013).Teff is second next to maize in terms of quantity of production. However, Teff market price is
often two or three times higher than maize price. Teff accounts for the largest share of the total value
of cereal production. Teff is grown by a total of 6.2 million farmers.

2.1.2. Teff Production in Ethiopia

Teff is predominantly grown in Ethiopia as a cereal grain. It is widely grown in both high potential
and mar genial production areas. Teff is grown in almost all regions of the country for home
consumption since it is a preferred grain, and for local market since it fetches the highest grain
price compared with other cereals and is used as a cash grain by farmers (Seyfu, 1997).

Teff is produced in five regions of Ethiopia in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Benishangul.
However, the main producer regions are Amhara and Oromia. It is reported that these two regions
produced along about 85% of the total cultivation land of Teff and 87% of production share of Teff in
the country during 2014-2015 production year (CSA, 2015).
Teff is the most important cereal in terms of production and consumption in Ethiopia (Demeke and
Marcantonio, 2013). It is the most preferred cereal among better off households, especially urban
areas in Addis Ababa is the capital city where many of the affluent reside, and the largest Teff market
of the country found (Minten et al., 2016).

5
 According to Abebe (2000), beginning from 1970, a number of improved varieties of Teff seed have
been produced and distributed for farmers’ utilization. Most of the materials used by the National
Teff Improvement Program come from the 4,300 Teff accessions preserved in the Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation. On-station yield levels for improved Teff ranged between 13 to 36
quintals per hectare while farm-level yield levels for Teff ranged between 12 and 25 quintals per
hectare. Thus, the yield gap between experimental and farm farmers’ conditions can be as high as 12
quintals per hectare, showing substantial potential for yield improvement if farmers are able to
adopt some of the practices developed on station.

Besides the social preference for the white color, the popularity of the white comes from the
introduction of the improved variety Quncho (Minten et al...2016).Quncho meaning the top in the
local language is the major achievement of the Teff breeding program in Ethiopia. The variety was
derived from the combination of two traits, high yield and white seed. With its release in 2006,
Quncho became the first improved variety broadly adopted by the Ethiopian farmers and contributed
to 10 % increase in Teff productivity (Minten, 2016 and Cheng et al., 2017).

Teff is fetched a relatively high price in the market and this making it attractive as a cash crop to
farmers. Compared to other staple crops, the price of Teff has increased at a faster rate in recent
years, hence the price gap between Teff and other staples is widening. Not only the price increased
yearly but also production is increased faster rate. When computing the production of Teff from 2004
to 2014 it increased by 10% annually on average. However, Bekabil et al (2011) reported that Teff
production increase by 11% per year.

2.1.3. Economic Importance of Teff

One of the advantages of Teff is a reliable crop and low risk cereal. This crop can grow on a wider
ecology under moisture stress and waterlogged areas with few plant diseases and grain storage pest
problems (Gebremariam et al., 2014). It has nutritional, economical and health importance. Teff
currently account for up to a quarter of total cereal production in Ethiopia. The grain is gluten free
and has a high concentration of different nutrients, very high calcium content, and significant levels
of the minerals phosphorus, magnesium, aluminum, iron, copper, zinc, boron, barium, and thiamin.

6
Teff is also high in protein. It is considered to have an excellent amino acid composition, including all
essential amino acids for humans, and is said to have lysine levels higher than wheat or barley
(Piccinin 2002). When Teff is grown as a cereal, farmers highly value the straw and it is stored and
used as a very important source of animal feed especially during the dry season. Farmers’ feed Teff
straw preferentially to lactating cows and working oxen. Cattle prefer Teff straw to the straw of any
other cereal and its price is higher than that of other cereals (Seyfu, 1997).The quantity and quality of
residues from various cereal grains vary greatly depending on the grain species. Wheat and barley
usually give high straw yields, though of inferior quality. Among cereals, Teff straw is relatively the
best and is comparable to a good natural pasture (Bekabil et al., 2011).

Seyfu (1997) reported that Teff is not attacked by weevils and other storage pests; therefore it is
easily and safely stored under local storage conditions for an extended period of time without attack
from storage pests. This results in reduced post-harvest management costs, the ability of Teff to
tolerate and grow under waterlogged conditions is one of its advantages and a characteristic that
makes it preferred by farmers. The major reasons why Teff remains as an important grain in Ethiopia
are firstly, it is the diet of most Ethiopians; secondly, it can grow under diverse soil type and
climatic conditions like drought-prone or water logged; thirdly, it is a reliable cash grain
because if unexpected drought or pest infestation occurs, the field can be re-planted with Teff;
fourthly, the straw (chid) is of relatively higher digestibility to livestock (ATA, 2013b).

2.2. Empirical Literature Reviews

2.2.1. Global History of Teff Production

Agriculture was started many thousands of years ago. Through the emergence of agriculture was not
properly known. It was the oldest of human being lively hood. Agriculture had old history in ancient
world civilization like China, Egypt and other parts of the world (Dr. Akshay, 2017). Around the
world,
Teff is most widely known as a forage crop. It was introduced as a forage crop to countries such as
Australia, India, Kenya and South Africa as early as the end of the 19th century (Costanza et al.,
1979) and spread to many other parts of the former British Empire (Van Delden, 2011).While there is
some production of Teff for grain in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, the
vast majority of Teff grain production is still in Ethiopia.

7
The Smallholders considered more than 80 % of the world’s estimated 500 million small farms and
afford over 80 per cent of food items consumed in a large part of under developed world, contributing
significantly to poverty reduction and food security (UNEP, 2013). They harvest foodstuff and non-
food products on a small scale with inadequate external inputs, cultivating field and tree crops as well
as livestock, fish and other aquatic organisms. The extraordinary and interconnected challenges
facing small farmers at global level like increasing competition for land and water, increased
influence of and changing markets, rising fuel and fertilizer prices, and climate change (Bioversity et
al., 2012).

2.2.2. Origin of Teff In Ethiopia

Teff (Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.) Trotter) is actually an ancient grain crop dating back to before the birth
of Christ. Originated and domesticated in Ethiopia, the genetic diversity of Teff exists nowhere else
in the world. Ethiopia is the largest Teff producer in the world. Scientists are interested to know
about the composition of teff because of its socio-cultural, market values, high preference, good
nutrient composition, and being gluten-free. As an evidence for the good nutritional quality of teff,
some researchers mentioned the resistance and general good fitness of Ethiopian sportspeople.

The nutritional properties, and the changes that happen during grain fermentation for preparation of
injera, flat bread that is responsible for about 70% of the Ethiopian population also received concern;
many universities from Ethiopia and other countries, and privates companies are working on this crop
to make it a “golden grain”. The strong preference of Ethiopian consumers for Teff over other grains
means that farmers can demand higher prices for Teff grain. Teff straw also brings in a higher price
than other types of straw, as it is a superior feed and is also used for construction purposes (Seyfu,
1197). Farmers produce Teff not only for its grain but also for its straw which is widely and mainly
used for the purpose of animal fodder and also construction materials (Bekabil: 2011). Due to this
reason Teff farmers give high value for the quality of Teff straw equally with that of grain production
this is because livestock is very important for livelihood of the local farmers.

2.2.3. Practice of Teff production

There are two major types of Teff farming practices in Ethiopia; such as; broadcasting and row
planting. Teff planting with broadcasting method is considered as a traditional Teff farming practice
and it has a number of disadvantages like it need much amount of seed rate; reduces the productivity
computation of soil nutrients and alike. On the other hand; Row Teff planting method is expected to

8
increase Teff productivity; requires small amount of seed rate; but; in reality; it is labor intensive and
requires mechanization issues due to the size of the seed is too small.
As a result; farmers exposed only put a relatively small part of their farm plots aside for row sowing
due to requiring additional labor and back to the traditional way (Teff sowing with broadcasting).
Farmers plow the fields during the short rainy season of February through March, leaving the fields
bare for two to three months, and then planting begins in the middle of the rainy season between July
and August (Habtegebrial et al., 2007). Lightly covering or packing the seedbed after sowing will
increase seed-to-soil contact and promote germination, resulting in a higher yield (Ketema, 1997).

Under native habitat and for maximum production, Teff performs best with a day length of 12 hours
and a temperature of 10 – 27°C.The recommended seeding rate is 15 kg ha-1 at a planting depth of
0.6 – 1.3 cm. Teff germinates rapidly, emerging within 3 – 7 days. It is minute seed head, with nearly
two million seeds per pound and diameter of only 0.7 to 1.0 mm. In fact, Teff in Amharic literally
means ―the lost seed‖ because if dropped, it is so easily lost (Ketema, 1997).
In Ethiopia, Teff is harvested by hand when the vegetative part of the plant turns yellow (Ketema,
1997). Oxen are used to trample the grass to separate the seed from the rest of the plant (Ketema,
1997). Teff is then cleaned by using a hard leather strap to waft air over the grain to separate the chaff
from the mix (Zewdu, 2007). The intensity of use of improved Teff varieties was high in Ethiopia;
which is estimated about 84% (Setotaw F 2011). This indicates that farmers have established a
system whereby they produce and exchange the seed of improved Teff varieties locally either sold by
Ethiopian currency or exchange by items (exchange by another crop).

The main Teff seed sources were neighbors; own saving from the previous year; seed sources were
neighbors; own saving from the previous year; farmers union or cooperatives; local traders; extension
agent; local seed producers and research institutes (Setotaw F 2011). Among such types of seed
sources; seed sources from neighbors are the first largest improved Teff seed source; which is
estimated about 47% (Setotaw F 2011). This implies that Teff producing farmers are highly
depending on the behavior of the other Teff producing farmers who spatially closed; for instance;
information exchange; making network and other issues regarding agricultural improved inputs and
knowledge might have high for spatially closed or neighbor farmers.

9
2.2.4. The challenges of Teff production
Teff production system used by the majority of farmers is very backward and traditional, most of the
farmers in the country broadcast Teff seeds, i.e. scattering seed by hand, at high seed rates. This
impedes Teff yields because of high amount and uneven distribution of the seeds makes weeding
difficult and increased competition with weeds and other Teff plants lowers nutrient uptake by the
individual Teff plant (Berhe et al., 2011; Fufa et al., 2011). This result in the reduction of Teff yield
at the harvesting period.

Among the main challenges for Teff production in Ethiopia; inefficiency production system; climatic
factors; presence of low yield varieties are the most significant problems which affect the Teff
production across different agro-ecology zones (Fikad et al., 2019). Crop yield per area (amount of
crop harvested per amount of land cultivated) is the most common used impact indicator for
agricultural productivity activities. Crop yields are inevitably affected by many factors, these are
weather, input price, changes in farming practices, amounts of fertilizer used quality of seed varieties,
and use of irrigation (CSA, 2016).

2.2.5. The opportunities of Teff production

While Teff has survived for thousands of years as a major staple food for humans and as fodder for
cattle; it has a number of advantages in health benefit; animal feed; crop risk aversion and other
aspects. For instance; Teff can be grown under moisture- stress areas and waterlogged conditions; is a
valuable animal feed due to highly preferred by animals; gluten free; a reliable and low- risk crop; not
attacked by weevil and other storage pests; stored for a relatively long period of time (Ketema, S
(1997b).
Recently; the government gives permission for a small number of commercial farmers to start
producing Teff to fulfill this export demand because of the local price increment and exports of injera
are rapidly increasing (Fikad et al., 2019). Teff is popular because it is a low risk crop (Minten et al.,
2016). Of the 12 million smallholder farmers in Ethiopia, 6.2 million grew the crop between 2004 and
2014 (Bachewe et al., 2015). It can be harvested two to five months after sowing (Crymes, 2015). It
is relatively resistant to many biotic and biotic stresses (Assefa et al., 2015, FAO, 2015). Thus, it
adapts to a range of growing conditions where major crops may fail.

10
However, the overall Teff production in Ethiopia is at a rudimentary stage. Adoption of improved
Teff seeds is low, farm plots are fragmented, mechanization is almost absent, harvest loss is
substantial, and public investment in research is lacking (Assefa et al., 2015). In fact, Ethiopia
initiated Teff research programs as early as late 1950s. The research programs focused on breeding
Teff varieties to enhance production (Gebremedhin and Hoekstra, 2007; Minten, et al., 2016,
Chenget et al., 2017), with such efforts, 35% of Teff producers adopted improved Teff seeds in 2012,
compared to 7% in 2002. Although increased over the decade, the limited access to and unaffordable
price of the improved seeds still prevent smallholder farmers from widely adopting the seeds (Minten,
2016). Changes in the types of cultivated Teff are observed over time.

A noticeable change is the increase in white-colored Teff at the expense of red and mixed-colored
Teff. The white Teff made up 69.6% of the Teff grown in 2012, compared to 48.2% in 2002. On the
other hand, the share of red Teff declined from 36% to 19.7% during the same period (Minten et al.,
2016), the color of Teff grains, white, mixed and red, mostly decides its grade for quality and price.
The white commands the highest price and red the lowest. The very-white magna, a sub-type of the
white, commands even a higher premium price (Assefa et al., 2015,, FAO, 2015).

For fertilizer, Teff accounts for 54% of the total fertilizer applied in the grain production of Ethiopia,
and for the largest fertilized area among cereals (Urgessa, 2011). It may seem counter spontaneous
that Teff producers would use more fertilizer in this low-yielding cereal. However, the increasing
Teff market price could justify fertilizer application. Although the cost of chemical fertilizers can be
three times higher around the capital city than other remote areas, the yields and output values per ha
are high enough to offset the cost (Mintenet al., 2016, Urgessa, 2011). Nevertheless, Anecdotal
claims report that distribution, access and affordability are still serious issues with fertilizer.

An underlying reason for these issues is the dominance of the government in the agricultural input
supplies; the government agencies are the sole fertilizer importer and distributor. Its dominance limits
private sector’s participation and competition for an efficient fertilizer supply chain (Urgessa, 2011).
Macro-economic and trade policies, market reform, rural infrastructure improvement and the
development of legal and contractual environments in which smallholders and processors may
operate are among the major driving forces of increased agricultural commercialization
(Gebreselassie, Sharp, 2008) drought prone areas of Ethiopia.

11
Moreover, the speed of adoption of these technologies is rather found to be slow and irregular
(Yitayal and Adam, 2015). Technologies such as row planting and transplanting, where the seed rate
is reduced and more space between seedlings is given, are assumed to be superior to traditional
broadcasting because they allow for weeding and diminish competition between seedlings (Bekabil et
al., 2011). Additionally, it can develop and strengthen Teff value- addition opportunities through
the exploration of new Teff based products and products such as biscuits, scones, bread, and other
dishes can be created from Teff for both domestic consumption and international export (EATA,
2013)

2.2.6. Conceptual Framework of the study

The central aim of this section is to identify the socio-economic, institutional and household specific
factors that affect market decision of farm house hold and the relation between variables and
household decision through reviewing different related articles. The main challenges of Teff
production and supply to the market in areas are included lack of finance to invest; lack of improving
production farm tools; practicing very poor harvesting methods like using backward devices and
techniques; shortage of land; high cost of production and low productivity Access to training and
information on new improved Teff varieties had positive effect on increasing areas allocated to
improved Teff varieties.

This indicates that creating access to training and information enable to aware farmers on the yield
advantages of improved varieties and enhance the technical capacity of farmers on the agronomic
practices of Teff cultivation (Ragas, 2018). The factors influencing small hold Teff production varies
due to socio- economic, and demography of the farmer factors. Based on the literature review that
deal with personal characteristics of small hold farmers which affect toward Teff production such as;
age, level of education, and family size, size of land holding and Livestock owned are assumed
important Economic factors are access to credit and extension services identified by considering as
they are important situational factors.

Using double hurdle econometric model, Efa et al (2016), indicated that family size, credit access,
farm size, lagged market price, agro-ecology and transport equipment affect the market participation
of Teff supplier in Bacho and Dawo districts of Oromian region. The analysis by Azeb et al., 2017,
determining smallholder Teff farmers’ market supply in Ambo district of West Shewa Zone

12
employed multiple linear regression models to verify the influence of explanatory variable on market
supply. The result show that quantity of Teff sold on the market; family labor force, income from
nonfarm and market price of Teff significantly affect the market decision of smallholder farmers.

The analysis of Akshaya, 2018 on performance and determinants of teff production in oromia region:
a case of chalia woreda by using linear econometrics model determinants of teff production includes
farm size, modern inputs, select seeds, livestock, family size and education of households which have
the great positive contribution of the output of teff. The conceptual framework for this study is
developed based on the theories of empirical models of Teff production discussed in the previous
section.

Practice Teff Farming

Fertilizes uses
Labors Availability

Opportunities of
Teff production
Quantity of Teff
Demand for Teff
produced
Values of Teff Straw
Improved Teff Seed

Institutional services

Credit access
Access to extension
Access to Market area

Figure1: Conceptual Framework of the study

Sources: Researcher sketch, 2020

13
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study conducted in Gindeberet district, West Showa Zone, Oromia Region. The district is 193
km far away from Oromia capital city and 138km far from zonal city. The district is located in West
from Addis Ababa and north from Ambo Zonal city. The road turn at Ginchi Administrative city to
north by living Addis to Ambo asphalt main roads to Jeldu and cross Abuna Gindeberet. The District
bounded in North with Amhara region, Ambo, Cobi, Mida Kegni, Ilfata and Jeldu district with South,
in East with Abuna Gindeberat, and Horo Guduru Wollega Zone in West. Gindeberat located 10 0 6’
o
N latitude and 37 4’ longitude E. The agro-ecological zone of the study area was 60 % was low land
(kola) and 40 % midland (Woenadega) and the soil type was sand, loam silt and clay soil.

The climatic condition of the area is influenced by altitude, which ranges from 1500-2604 above sea
levels. The minimum rainfall is 1000mm- 1400mma and the range of temperature is from 9 0c- 270c.
The total population of the district was 107,844; from these 52,267 are males and 55,577 females.
Administratively the district has 22 kebele and three towns. The rural and urban roads are not well
constructed. Agriculture considered to be the main activity in district has a total land of 119,879
hectares; cultivated land 42,548.9 ha, pasture land was 15,172.1ha; forest including bushes and
shrubs 43,431 ha and others like offices, religion area, schools and water bodies and roads covers
18,724 hectare (GAO, 2018).

Livelihoods of the area

The livelihoods farmers’ of the district were mainly depend on agricultural sectors; the crop
production and animal rearing. The cereal production was higher than the other activities for revenues
generation in the study area as the source of income. Animal fattening and trading was the other
important works that support the farmers’ life in addition to farming activities usage of animals.

14
Figure 2: Study area map
Source: developed by expert from GIS, 2020

15
3.2. Research Design and Method
This study followed a mixed research design (Exploratory and A case study research design) was
combined. This two, exploratory, and whereby qualitative and quantitative methods of data
collection case study research design was combined for a generating a better results. Exploratory
research design was employed as many of the issues to be investigated were explored through
qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. According to Jonson and Onweugbuzie, 2004,
mixed research method is the class of research design where the researcher mixes or combines
quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods approaches, concepts or language.

A case study research design was applied as focus groups discussion, key informant interview and
field observation were conducted with selected respondents that participated on Teff farming
activities by small holder household farmers. A mixed research method was employed to gather
information related to demographic, socioeconomic, institutional, and farm characteristics. In
the study, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. To make effective survey, the
investigator was adopted both probability and non-probability sampling technique for selection of
study kebeles as well as, to take the sample size.

3.3. Sampling methods and procedure

Both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were employed to select one district and
two kebeles and Gindeberat district was selected from West Shoa Zone districts purposively. The
reason why Gindeberat district was purposively selected by the researcher so that the data obtained
from West Shoa Zone Agriculture and Rural Development office shows that Gindeberet district was
one of the massive Teff grower districts in quantity and quality and also no previous research
conducted that related to the topic on the study area. In addition to this, the researchers had worked in
the district and had insight information which leads to identify the district for this study.

Once the district was selected as a study area, two selected sample kebeles were taken purposively
depending on potentials of Teff production among the existed kebeles, only two kebeles namely:
Goro Aba Sabat and Bake Bela were identified. Simple random sampling technique was employed to
select 137 households from the existing 1144 total households of the two kebeles (GARDO Report,
2018). Accordingly, 67 households and 70 households were selected from Goro Aba Sabat and Bake
Bela kebeles respectively based on probability to proportional to size procedure (table 1).

16
The sample size determination of proportional to size formula developed by Yamane (1967) was used
in respondent selection. The sample size is given by:

N
n = 1+N ( e2 )
Where: - n= is the sample size,
N= is the population size, and
e=is the level of precision.
1144
n = 1+1144(0 . 082 )
= 137
It is common to use 95% confidence interval (precision level of 0.5) to determine sample size;
however, in this study 92% confidence interval (0.08 precision level) utilized by considering the cost
and availability of time without compromising the probability of generating reasonable sample which
can represent the entire population of the study.

Table 1:- Sample distribution of sampled kebeles

Kebele Total house hold Selected respondents
Bake Bela 620 70
Goro Aba Sabat 524 67

Total 1144 137

Source: Sketched by researcher, 2020

In addition to 137 sampled households, 2 FGD with 8 member each group holds (2x8 = 16) and 7
Key informant interview participators were selected purposively.

3.4. Data Types and Sources

In this study both primary and secondary sources of data was utilized.

Primary data: Primary data was collected by researcher and two supporters from respondents
through household interviews, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews and
observations of life history of Teff producer farmers in the study areas. The primary data collected

17
from respondents that supplemented with data obtained from secondary sources in order that bond
information break from primary sources. During primary data collection the questionnaires were
translated from English into Afan Oromo by researcher which was the local language of the study
area.
Secondary data: Secondary sources of data were the data type that collected from different
published and unpublished materials such as official reports, reports, official records, and census
records.

3.5. Methods of Data Collection

The Primary and Secondary data was collected from fields and district of the study areas as
discussed below.

3.5.1. Methods of secondary data collection

The secondary data sources was collected from published materials, which include books, journals;
scientific research works, the trends Teff, trends price of inputs and Teff output from documents
Agriculture and Rural Development and Trade and market office of the district, internets and other
related sources that supplement primary data.

3.5.2. Methods of Primary data collection

In the study area primary data was collected through schedule interviews, From Focus group
discussions, Key informant interviews and Field Observation of related information was collected.

3.5.2.1. Scheduled Interviews

A household survey is a data gathering technique that is utilized to collect, analyze and interpret the
views of a group of people from a target population. Basic information was obtained through survey
questionnaires from the sampled households. During the personal interview information on Farming
practice, Challenges and Opportunities of Teff farming of house holder respondents; field survey also
focused on socio-economic, institutional and demographic characteristics of the households using
semi structured interview questionnaires included both Open and closed- ended was provided to the
respondents. Two data collectors was hired and trained by researcher on data collection.

3.5.2.2. Focus Group Discussion

18
Focus group discussion is a structured with the purpose of stimulating conversation around a specific
topic. The FGD was used for triangulation of interview results collected from interviews. It was led
by a facilitator who poses questions and the participants give their thoughts and opinions. Focus
group discussion given us the possibility to cross check one individual’s opinion with other opinions
gathered. The group discussions members of each village built from 8 members purposely selected
from each two sampled kebeles. Those include, two model farmers, one Development Agent, two
communities, one Woman and one youth representatives and one from local cooperative
representative. Check list was prepared and provided for data collection during group discussion.

3.5.2.3. Key informant interviews(KII)

Key Informants were those knowledgeable about Teff production from small hold farmers were
purposively selected. The researcher selected seven respondents. It provided detail information
regarding practice of Teff Farming, the challenges and opportunities on Teff Production in the study
area. These included two development agents from sample kebeles, one Agronomy officer from
agriculture office and one inputs development officer from Cooperative office and two village leaders
and one expert of Animal production office totally seven in numbers. From Key informants deeper
information was extracted by distributing checklist. It was done before COVID 19 announced in the
country.

3.5.2.4. Field Observation

Observation is ways of gathering data by watching behavior, events noting physical characteristics in
their natural setting. Observation enable the researcher to describe existing situations using the five
senses, Providing a ‘’written photograph’’ of the situation under study (kawulich, 2006). Based on the
above assumptions, the researcher was observed the existing conditions of small holder household
farmers, different documents, note and photos during the observation process.

Field observation is the most simple; observation involves ‘seeing’ things – such as objects,
processes, relationships, events – and formally recording the information. From Field observation
data was recorded against an agreed checklist. Accordingly the observation was employed on
information which was very important on the practice, challenges and opportunities of Teff
production of small holder farmers in the study area.

19
3.6. Data Quality issues

3.6.1. Pre-test
Before conducting the main survey, a pre-testing (pilot study) was conducted to validate the
instrument. The pre-test affords an opportunity to check whether there any ambiguous. The prepared
interview questionnaires were distributed to check and re- adjusted in non-sample kebeles farmers.
According to Baker (1993) a sample of 10-20% of the sample size for the actual study is a reasonable
number of respondents to consider enrolling in pilot study. Accordingly, from 137 total respondents
10% (n=14) participants was considered in the pre-test. After the questionnaires was adjusted in the
easer and understandable way and used for data collection in the sampled kebeles in the study area.

3.7. Methods of Data Analysis

Data obtained from primary and secondary sources were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative
data analysis techniques. Based on the objectives of the study, appropriate methods of data analysis
both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Descriptive statistics used such as frequency,
percentage, mean, standard deviation, and inferential statistics involving multiple regression analysis
were used and the result of the study were summarized by tables and figure to draw conclusions.

The reason of using these was to benefit from the insights that the two methods provided when used
in combination and qualitative information gathered using focus group discussion, and key informant
interviews and field observation analyzed and transcribed using qualitative techniques in the form of
transcribing, summarizing and narrating to support the quantitative data. The quantitative data was
analyzed and interpreted by using descriptive statistics and qualitative data was analyzed narratively
and interpreted.

Quantitative data was discussed, interpreted and analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentage,
frequencies, mean, and standard deviation) and respondents’ relating to demographic and socio
economic characteristics, practice, challenges and opportunities current interventional support data
were analyzed by using SPSS version 20.0 and summarized and presented by tables and chart.
The qualitative data was analyzed by using thematic analysis to triangulate the quantitative data to
achieve the stated objectives of this study. The summary of the analyzed qualitative data was
presented in tables, chart and tables. For the matter of simplicity methods of data analysis were
presented below based on the stated objectives as follow:

20
A. To investigate practices Teff production by smallholder farming households in the study area.
Qualitative data was interpreted and analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentage, frequencies,
mean, and Standard deviation). Quantitative data was interpreted and analyzed in computer with
the help of SPSS software (version 20). The results of the analyzed data were presented with the
help of tables.
B. To examine challenges of Teff production in the study area. Qualitative data was interpreted and
analyzed in the form of tables. Simple descriptive statistics (percentage, frequencies, mean, and
Standard deviation) was used in the computer with the help of SPSS software (version 20).

C. To explore opportunities of Teff production in the study area. Qualitative data captured through
focus group discussion, semi structured interview and structured interview was narrated,
interpreted and analyzed in the form of descriptions, and narrations. Quantitative data collected
from primary data household survey questionnaire was analyzed in computer with the help of
SPSS Version 25 software. Accordingly, simple descriptive statistics like frequencies and percentages
mean and standard deviations was employed.

3.7.1. Selection of the Econometric Models

Multiple regressions are a statistical technique that allows us to predict someone’s score on one
variable on the basis of their scores on several other variables. Multiple regression analysis is more
suitable for causal (ceteris paribus) analysis (Irisi 2003). In this study Multiple regression model was
used for examine the demographic, socioeconomic, and institutional factors associated with Teff
production. This model is chosen because it helps to identify factors that determine the amount of
Teff production by small hold Farmers.

In this study the determinants of Teff production (Y), explanatory variables include Age of household
(X1), Sex Household (X2), Family size (X3), Education level (4), Labor availability (X5), Livestock
own (X6), Size of land (X7), Distance to market (8), credit service (X9), Extension service (X10),
Fertilizer (X11), Technology (12) income from Non-farming(X13). The relationship can thus be
expressed as:
𝑌 ̂ = 𝛽 ̂1 +𝛽 ̂2𝑋2 +𝛽 ̂3𝑋3 +𝛽 ̂4𝑋4 +⋯+𝛽 ̂𝑘 𝑋𝑘𝑖 +𝜀𝑖
Dependent variable: Y of size nxi Independent (explanatory) variables: X1, X2, . . .,X k each of size
nxi.

21
Econometric model specification of supply function in matrix notation is the following.
Where: Yi = Teff quantity produced β = a vector of estimated coefficient of the explanatory variables
X = a vector of explanatory variables € = error terms.
Thus, multiple regression estimations are implemented using SPSS Software version 20.
Specification of error: Before fitting important variables into the regression models for analysis,
it was necessary to test multicollinearity problem among continuous variables and check associations
among discrete (dummy) variables, which seriously affects the parameter estimates.
One of the assumptions of the Coefficient of linear Regression modal is that there is no exact linear
relationship between any of the explanatory variables. When this assumption is violated, we speak of
perfect MC. If all explanatory variables are uncorrelated with each other, we speak of the absence of
MC. These are two extreme cases and rarely exist in practice. Of particular interest are cases in
between: moderate to high degree of MC.

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF): this method is used to detect multicollinearity of continuous
variables. As Ri2 increases towards one that is as the collinearity of regression Xi with other
regressions increases its variance inflation factor (VIF) also increases and in the limit, it can be
infinite. The larger the value of VIF, the more troublesome or collinear is the variable Xi. As a rule
of thumb, if the VIF is greater than 10(this will happen if R2 is greater than 0.910), the variable is
said to be highly collinear (Gujarati, 2003). A measure of multicollinearity associated with the
variance inflation factors is computed as: 𝑉𝐼𝐹(𝑋𝑖) =1/1−𝑅𝑖 2 Where, Ri2 is the multiple
correlation coefficients between explanatory variables, the larger the value of Ri2 is, the higher the
value of VIF (Xi) causing higher collinearity in the variable (Xi). Tolerance (TOL): can also be used
to detect multicollinearity. Clearly, TOL (Tolerance) is one if Xi is not correlated with the other
regression, whereas it is zero if it is perfectly related to other regression (Ashenafi, 2010). TOL=1-
Ri2 = 1=1/𝑉𝐼𝐹
Contingency Coefficient:

The value ranges between zero and one, with zero indicating no association between the row and
column variables and values close to one indicating a high degree of association between the
variables. The decision criterion is that variables with contingency coefficient closer to one would be
avoided from further consideration in the multivariate analysis.

22
 3.7.2. Variables Specification and Hypothesis
Dependent Variable: - Quantity of Teff production. The dependent variable for Multiple
Regression model take a continue values that measures in quintals that farmers produce on farm.
Independent Variables: Generally, farmers’ uses different inputs for the production of Teff in a
given period of times are hypothesized to be influenced by a combined effect of various factors such
as household characteristics, socioeconomic and Institutional factors. Those agents that expected by
having influence on dependent variable is:-

1. Sex: It was proposed that a dummy variable that refers to the sex of respondents being a
male or a female those participate on Teff production. Biological differences that affect
labor effort used on Teff production. Hence, this variable was expected to affect
proportion of Teff production positively.
2. Age: It was proposed that a discrete variable and is one of the factors that affect adoption
and speed of adoption in one of the several ways. The direction of influence is not,
however, very clear and there are always mixed results from empirical analysis. Hence, age
of the household head may have positive or negative effect on Teff production.

3. Education: It was proposed that a discrete variable that refers to the number of years of
formal schooling the household head attended. Educated household heads are expected to
have better skill, better access to information and make better use of their available
resources. Hence, this variable was expected to affect proportion of Teff production
positively.

4. Family size: It was proposed that a continuous variable that refers to the total number of
members of the household and measured in terms of adult equivalent. Having more
household members’ reduces the proportion of output that going to the market because of
households with large member tend to consume more of what they have produced.
Therefore, household size is expected to affect the quantity of Teff production positively.

23
5. Labor: Labor was measured in terms of Man Equivalent. It includes human labor used for
ploughing, seeding, weeding, fertilizer application and other pre-harvest crop management
activities. Family labor, exchange and hired labor involved in the production process, child
labor, adult men and women, and aged labor were registered separately and the total
weighed labor (man-equivalent) in person-hours were measured in man-days using
standard conversion factor as in Strock et al., (1991).

6. Livestock: It was proposed that a continuous variable measured in number of oxen they
have Livestock and crop production is usually considered as complementary enterprises,
that livestock can positively contribute to crop production by providing natural fertilizer,
oxen used for traction power and source of cash to finance purchased inputs. Ownership of
oxen has positive responses in increasing the volume of Teff sold due to its significant
effect on Teff production (Mebrahatom, 2014). Therefore, livestock ownership was
hypothesized to influence Teff production positively.

7. Land Size: It was proposed that a continuous variable measured in terms of a hectare of
land allocated for Teff production by the household. It includes slow, rented in and shared
in land. The larger area allocated to Teff production increases the quantity of produce
available for sale (Efa et al., 2016). Therefore, land size allocated for Teff production affect
positively.

8. Accesses to Market area: It was proposed that a dummy variable in this study that
measured in accessibility of the market area. Farmers located in a village or distant from
the market is accessible to the market, lesser will be the transportation cost and time spent.
Hence, accessible market area was hypothesized to affect proportion of Teff sold
positively.

9. Credit service: It was proposed that a dummy variable that taking a value of 1 if a
household head has access to credit service and 0 otherwise. Credit plays an important role
24
 in solving cash constraints needed in production and used to purchase inputs such as
fertilizers, improved seed and herbicide that used to enhance Teff production. Therefore, it
was hypothesized that access to credit influence quantity of Teff production positively.

10. Technology: It was proposed that a dummy variable that takes a value of one if the
households had access to Technologies on Teff production and otherwise o. the
technological support on Teff production increases both Teff production and productivities.
Hence, technology proposed positively influence on Teff production.

11. Extension Service: This is dummy variable that takes a value of one if the households
have access to Extension service. Extension service was positively related to the volume of
Teff supplied to the market. Hence, frequency of extension contact has a positive influence
on the quantity of Teff production.

12. Fertilizers: This is dummy variable that takes a value of one if the house holed used
fertilizer and improved seed and two if the household not used fertilizer in 2019 Teff
production year. Use of fertilizers and Improve seeds normally expected to boost
production and the possibility of increase production and hypothesized to have influences
on Teff production positively.

13. Non-farm: This variable is measured as a dummy variable that takes a value of 1 if a
farmer is engaged in non- farm activities and 0 otherwise. This is because; those farmers
engaged on non-farm activities could obtain additional income that will be used for the
purchase of agricultural inputs that would improve productivity of Teff. Therefore, current
market price of Teff is hypothesized Teff producer affect positively.

Table 2: Definition of Variables to be used in the Empirical Model

No. Variable Category Measurement Expect sign
25
 Unit
Dependent variable
Amounts of Teff production Continuous
Independent Variable
1 Sex of Households Dummy 1 or 0 +/-
2 Age of Households Discrete Years + or -
3 Education of household s Discrete Grade +
4 Family size Continuous Number +
5 Labor availability Continuous Number +
6 Livestock owned Continuous Number +
7 Size of land Continuous Hectare +
8 Suitable market area Dummy 1 or 0 +
9 Credit service Dummy 1 or 0 +
10 Extension Service Dummy 1 or 0 +
11 Technologies access Dummy 1 or 0 +
12 Fertilizers Dummy 1or 0 +
13 Income from non-farming Dummy 1or 0 +

Source: Developed by researcher, 2020

3.8. Ethical Consideration

In any scientific research, it is important to have ethical consideration in mind before starting it
should be ignore throughout the study and the researcher made sure for the participants that the study
was for research purpose and respect the dignity and freedom of the each individual,
(Densecombe&Dingwall, 2009). Frist and foremost, the researcher told the participants that their
information was confidential which in turn reduce the challenges of generating optimal data and had
an obligation to respect the right, needs, and values of the respondents .Moreover informed consensus
with respondents ensured in the document review as well. To this end the following protections were
employed to keep respondents ’rights: the research objective were articulated and written permission
to proceed with the study were reserved from Ambo University office of post graduate studies

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Introduction
This part deals with the result of descriptive statistics and regression output of the empirical model.
The analysis was made in the light of the objective of the study. Section 4.1 is about the descriptive
analysis of the model variables. Section 4.2 deals about the result of the econometric analysis are
presented.

26
 4.1.1. Characteristics of Respondents

This sub-section presents the demographic and socioeconomic features of the 137 sampled
respondents. These features are found to be of great help in terms of clearly showing the diverse
background of the respondents and the impact this diversity has had on the descriptive, as well as
econometric results.

Sex of the households

According to the survey result, 92 % are headed by male households and 8% of the sample
households are headed by female household (table 3below). The result of this data shows that the
majority of the respondents were male households accounted 96% of the respondents.

Age of households

According to Table 3 below the majorities of the respondents were between the age group of 31-42
years 41 %, followed by age group 43-54 years 25 %, age group of 18-30 years 15 %, age group of
55-66 years 12.4 % and above 67 years are 7 % respectively. The result of this data shows that the
majority 41% of respondents were found in the age groups of 31-42.

Table 3. Sex and Ages of respondents (N= 137)

Household Attributes Frequency %

27
 Sex Male 126 92

Female 11 11

Age 18 – 30 21 15

31 - 42 56 41

43 – 54 34 25

55 – 65 17 12

66 and above 9 7

Source: Survey result, 2020

Education
The farmers’ having of education was the main important for having notes on training, the work area
and understanding technology provided to be benefited from increased yield of Teff. The surveyed
result of this study indicates that 40 % of respondent attained primary school, 23 % of respondents
were unable to read and write, 18 % of respondent attained Secondary school, had certificate and
above, 14 % were can a read and write and 5 % able read and write. (See .Figure 3).

28
 Figure 3: Education Level
Source: Survey of data

Secondary
18%

College and above cannot read &write

5% 23%
can read &write
14%
Primary
40%

Marital status The study showed in the table 2 that 93 % sample household respondents married,
3 % were divorced, 3 % single, 1.5 % were widower, and the only remaining 0.7 % was widowed.
This indicates that the majority of the household are married (see table 4).

Family size
The survey finding of this study Table 4 reveals the majority the respondents’ family size between 4-
6 category family size was 39 % which is followed by category 7-9 family size 32 %, and 10 and
above which accounts 15 %, and 14 respectively.

Table 4: Marital status and Family size (N = 137)

Household Attributes Frequency Percent
Marital status Single 3 2
Married 127 93
Divorced 4 3
Widowed 1 0.5
Widower 2 1.5
Sum 137 100

29
 Family size
1-3 19 13.9
4–6 54 39
7–9 44 32
10 & above 20 15
Sum 137 100

Source: survey data, 2020

4.2. Teff Production Practices

Most of the Ethiopian farmers use traditional landrace of Teff and these are distributed all over the
country (Seyfu, 1997). The farming systems of the respondents were the traditional ploughing,
broadcasting seeds sowing which high lose seeds; and hand and chemical use of weeding methods.
The methods of seed sowings also traditional method 87 % was scattered method of sowing. Hand
weeding with chemical applications cover almost all respondents was 94 % (See Appendix 5).

The work participation of families and or hired labor activities starts from land preparation to grain
collection in the study area. Fertilizer and chemical application on Teff farm practical because of soil
fertility improvement technic and weed control (See Appendix 5). Low technological access in the
study area and under recommended fertilizer application; 69 % of Teff producing farmers reported
practiced traditional Teff farming system while the remaining 41 % of Teff producing sample
respondents exercised less developed farming (Appendix 12).

Land Holding and Size of land

Overall mean land holding size was 2.0 hectare, having standard deviation of 1.0. Minimum and
maximum land holding size was 0.125 hectare and 5.5 hectare respectively. The major source of land
for production year of 2019/2020 60 % was own land. The rest rented, own and equal land used,
equal land used, and equal and rented land accounts fourteen percent, thirteen percent, eight percent
and four percent respectively. The result indicated that 61 % had own Farm land and 26 % land less
respondents; 13 % had their own farm land but did not sufficient for Teff farming. The major land
hold size was 45 %, (1.125 – 2.0 ha) in 2019/2020 EFY followed by land size 25 % (0.125 – 1.0 ha),
land size covered eighteen percent, Eight percent and four percent of respondents covered the land
size were 2.125 – 3.0, 3.125 - 4.0 and 4.125 – 5.5 hectares (appendix 4).

The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII) reveals that the land owners
were those old men with weak working ability; these play a vital role in Teff production. The smaller

30
land size owners gained the land from long term rent that informal ways and the others temporary
equal sharing crops. Observation result also support this idea that the youth farmer house hold home
fenced in a small area of land in the compounds (figure 4).

Figure 4, young farmer household home at sampled area

Source: Field observation captured, 2020

4.2.1. Farming System

The result of table 1 shows that only 69 % of Teff producing farmers reported practiced traditional
Teff farming system while the remaining 31 % of Teff producing sample respondents’ exercised less
developed farming. The result indicates scattered Teff seed sowing practice covered 87 % and only 9
% and 4 % scattered and row planting practiced. This indicates that the respondents less advanced in
Teff farming system. Hand and chemical weed Control practice covered the 94 % weeding and the
least of respondent in number 4 % used chemical controlling measure and 4 % by hand (appendix 5).

31
Figure 5, young farmer ploughing
Source: Field observation captured, 2020

Fertilizer, herbicide and improved seeds provided by cooperative organization that under Government
control. However, there were numbers of traders these provide for farmers. The 50 % source of
Agricultural inputs were Cooperative institution and traders on market, 37 % respondent get the input
Cooperative institution, 10 % and 3 % market and neighbors respectively( See Appendix 12)..

Farm Land and Crop Produced

The survey results table 5 below indicated that land allocated for Teff farming mean was 1.09 (St.
dev. 0.71), mean 0.43 (St. dev. 0.38 for maize, for wheat mean 0.03 (St. Dev. 0.09), for barley mean
0.13 (St. Dev. 0.64), for sorghum mean 0.05 (St. Dev. 0.15), for pulse crop mean 0.08 (St. Dev. 0.19)
and for oil crop mean 0.03 (St. Dev. 13). The result of data table 5 below indicated that 60% land
allocated for Teff farm and the others covered the rest 40%; maize, oil crop, pulse crop, sorghum,
wheat, barley were 23.4 %, 7.2 %, 4.4 %, 3 %, 1.4 % and 0.7 % respectively.

The yield of Teff covered 48 %, proceeding of maize that was 39 % and the others crops were oil
crop, pulse crop, wheat, barley, and sorghum 5 %, 4 %, 2.5 %, 1.5 % produced by respondents. The
yield of Teff per respondent was 6.7 kuntals (6 quint/ha of productivity) EFY 2019/2020.

Table 5: Total area, Production and Yield of Crops 2019/2020 (n = 137)

Description Teff Maize Wheat Barley Sorghum Pulse Oil
crops crops

32
 Area(ha) 150 58.4 3.5 1.8 7.5 11 17.9
% 60 2 3.4 1.4 0.7 3 4.4 7.2
Production 920 748 47 19 10.8 81.25 94.75
(quint)
% 48 39 2.5 1 0.5 4 5
Mean(land) 6.72 0.43 0.023 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.03
St. Dev.(la) 0.39 0.38 0.09 0.64 0.15 0.19 0.13
Productivity 6 12.8 13.4 3.4 1.4 7.4 5.3

Source: survey result, 2020

Livestock holding
The survey results appendix 9 below indicates that the Livestock hold mean was 12.8. The Majority
of livestock 56 % covered by cattle with mean 7.2 (St. 17 % sheep (mean 2.2 and St. Dev. 3.4) and
goat, equines and poultry hold; ten percent (mean 1.3 and St. Dev. 3.0), eleven percent (mean 1.4 and
St. Dev. 1.6) and six percent (mean 0.8 and St. Dev. 2.1).

Technologies
The advanced farming incorporated with technology improves the production and productivities of
farmers. Benor et al., (1997) noted that without extension's guide, farmers often are unable to exploit
completely the opportunities available to them. Moreover, they have underlined that in advanced
countries itself; it is not possible to encourage farmers to adopt new technologies and practices
without farmers clearly understanding them.

In the study area technological associated problems exist as indicated 36 % inadequate technology,
31 % inadequate Extension service, 24 % no input supply on time, 5 % inadequate demonstration site
and 4 % indicated the natural phenomena also the challenge of respondents on Teff production
(appen.12). The result of the study table 6 below indicated the majority respondents used Fertilizers
and chemicals 69.3 %, Fertilizer only Thirteen percent, Row planting 7.3%, Chemical only six
percent, improved seed 4.4 % .

33
The respondents used local seed 52 %, previous harvested seeds 31 %, both local and previous
harvested seeds 12 % and Local seed covers more than half 52 % seed used of respondents preceding
F2 seed 31 %. Improved seed covered 4 % in the EFY 2019/2012 Teff production.

Fertilizers: Fertilizers demand of a farm household arises from the economic and technical
relationships professed by the farmers .The survey result indicates UREA mean 69.4 (St. Dev.69.1),
NPS Varieties mean 92.2 (St. Dev.123.7), and chemicals means 2.3 (St. Dev.1.5). Cost per kg of
UREA 12.80 birr, that higher than NPS Varieties 12.20 birr and the chemical cost per Litter 230.00
birr. The NPS fertilizer Varieties exceeded 3125 kg higher than UREA fertilizers used in the survey
time. The mean 37.1 (St. Dev. 42.8) of Teff seed and the Cost per kg of seed 23.2 birr indicated (see
Appendix 11) The mean seed utilized in the study area was above the recommended 25kgha -1 and
below the recommended 100kgper hectare GAO, 2019).

Labors Availability

The production of Teff needs human powers for Teff farm activities. The result of the study table 6
below indicated that the respondents’ families labor age range 17-50 years 21 %, 11-16 years 18 %
than 10 years 10 % and greater than 50 year 5 %, The respondents’ labor means 5.4 and 2.5 St. Dev.
was used. This indicates that the working age group participated on Teff farm activities all less than
50 years that covers 46 %. The 42 % respondents were used hiring and rent man power and 20 %,
respondents used cooperation with neighbors. 31 % Cooperative work, rent & hiring, 13% used own
family labor and equal sharing comprises 9 % of labor on Teff farming (appendix 12).

Table 6: Technologies, Seed and Labor

Variables Description N %
Fertilizers and chemicals 95 69.3
Fertilizer only 18 13
Technology Row planting 10 7.3
Chemical only 8 6
Improved Seeds 6 4.4
Sum 137 100
34
 local seed 71 52
Seed Used previous harvested seeds 43 31
local and second gen 17 12
Improved seed 6 4
Sum 137 100
Less than 10 years 14 10
Labor 11-16 years 24 18
17-50 years 29 21
Less than 50 years 63 46
greater than 50 years 7 5
Sum 137 100
Labor size Mean=5.4 and St. Dev. 2.5

Source: survey result, 2020

Off/Non-Farm activities and Incomes

The respondents off and non-farm activity participation increase the additional income that support
Teff production and input purchase in the farming season. Additional income earned from
agricultural activities outside the farm increases the farmers’ financial capacity and increases the
probability of investing on new technologies (Habtemariam, 2004; Rahmato, 2007). Among
respondents 51 % did not participated on off farm activities, 49 % respondents participated on off
farming actives. Non-farm activities that did not participated was 36.5 % and 63.5 % respondents
participated on non-farming actives (appendix 6).

The result of survey indicated 51 % of respondents did not participated on off farm activities and the
21 %, 15 %, 4 % and 2 were twice time of respondent participated on irrigation work, animal
fattening, trade, hand craft activities, labor work and cattle & ruminants trade. Respondents that did
not participate on non-farm activities covered 65 % and 15 % on trading, 12% on other and 8 %
participated on hand craft activities (see appendix 7). The respondent income from non-farm activities
were twelve percent earned 2,000 to 3,000 birr; seven percent earned above 12,000 birr, and five
percent and four percent earned 5,001 birr to 8,000 birr and 8,001birr to 11,000 birr respectively. The
respondents that participated on non-farm activities were 20% earned 1,000 to 2,000 birr; 17 %

35
earned above 12,000 birr, and 7 % and 5 % earned 3,001.00 birr to 4,000 birr and 5,001birr to 6,000
birr respectively.

Extension Service Access

Access to agricultural extension services is expected to have a direct influence on the Teff production
of the farmers. Survey result indicated that about 63 % of the respondents had access to extension
services provided and the remaining 37 % of Teff producing sample households responded that they
did not receive any extension services (appendix 6).

Source Extension Service

The result indicated that the 31 % of respondents responded no information source of extension
service, the others from Model Farmers, used the three Training, Field day, and Model Farmer, from
Training, From Field day, and from demonstration were 21 %, and 12.5 %, 7.5% and 3 %
respectively. The Media was source of Technology for respondents that took 36.5 %, training 25 %,
model farmer 17 %, 14.5 % of respondents got technology from field day, model farmers and media,
and seven percent from Field day (appendix 10).

Credit Services
The respondents’ access to credit was 47% while the remaining 53 % of sample respondents no
access to credit that used to buy improved seeds and fertilizer. Access to credit is one way of
improving smallholder farmers’ production and productivity. Farmers' ability to purchase inputs such
as improved seed and fertilizer is tied with access to credit (appendix 6). The respondents utilized the
money received by credited for 20 % Input purchases, the 13 % respondents used for Oxen purchase,
9 % used for Oxen and inputs purchase and 4 % and 3.6 of respondents used for home and other
purposes (appendix 10).

Market access suitability

The Teff producer farmers had access to near market (15 %) while the remaining 85 % of Teff
producing sample respondents had no access to near market that can be used to buy improved seeds
and fertilizer and sell Teff. The mean 7.6 km (St. Dev.4.4) distance to near market respondent home.
The result indicated that the majority of respondents 85 % had no near market access. Buy and sell all
inputs and out puts of farm production in the study area that of Teff (appendix 6).

36
 4.2.2. Socio-Economic values
Teff fetches the highest grain price compared with other cereals and is used as a cash grain by farmers
(Seyfu, 1997). The survey result table 7 below indicates 51% responded that Teff production
increased for its high test for feed, 20 % of the respondents indicated Teff cost was high, 12 % as
responded the climatic condition was also the important for Teff Farming.
.
Nine percent indicated that Teff is high productive crop and 8% of respondents cultivate Teff for its
high cost, productive, its test for feeding & withstand climatic problems. The socio-economic
importance of Teff production increase Teff production. The survey result table 7 below 70%
supported having socio economic values of Teff crop. The 28 % disagreed on the idea.

4.2.3. Female House hold Participation on Teff Farming

Teff production wide labor it needs from land preparation to yield collected. Female house hold in
Teff farming was 64 % the same participation, social and economic on Teff production as male house
hold farmer respondents and 36 % respondents did not supported the question.

Table 7: Socio-economic of Teff values

Description N %
High cost value 28 20
High productive 12 9
Teff Purpose High test for feed 70 51
Suitable climate 16 12
High cost, productive, test and 11 8
climate
Sum 137 100

Socio- Yes 99 72
economies No 38 28
Sum 137 100
Yes 87 64
Female No 50 36
HH support Sum 136 100

Source: Survey result, 2020

37
FGD, KII and Observations results shows that farmers experienced Teff farming to increase
production like compost preparation, chemical application before farming to reduce farming time
and for easily ploughing farm land, Ploughing, cutting and threshing, and carrying together and the
likes activities of neighbor farmers practiced to overcome challenges of Teff Farming (see figure 5
below) .

4.3. Determinants of Teff Production by Small hold householder Farming in

the study area

38
Small holder household Farmers determined on Teff production that affects consumption and the
incomes from crops sales of selected respondents of sampled kebeles in particular Gindeberat district.
4.3.1. Inferential Analysis
Econometric analysis was performed to identify the household-level demographic and socio-
economic factors that determine the quantity of Teff Production. Multiple regressions estimation
methods were used to identify the decisive factors that determine the quantity of Teff produced at
study area by respondents.

4.3.2. Multicollinearity Test

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and contingency coefficients were computed to check association
between continuous and discrete variables, respectively by using statistical package SPSS 20.0. The
VIF value showed in appendix 2 that all explanatory variables have no serious multicollinearity
problem. The result of this study value of VIF ranges from 1.314 and 1.5 (Annex 2). This showed that
all values of VIF were less than 10. Similarly the values of CC were ranging from 0.0334 to 0.4991,
(Annex 3). The values of CC were between “0.004 to 0.189”. Hence, multicollinearity was not a
serious problem both in continuous and dummy variables.

Over all goodness of fit of the regression model is measured by the coefficient of determination (R 2).
R2 lies between 0 and 1, the closer it is to 1, and the better is the fit. Hence, the overall model
goodness of fit represented by model count R2 0.294 that shows fitness of the model and it was
implying that 29.4 % explained by those explanatory variables. The explanatory variables selected for
the model explained 29.4 % (R=0.542 and R2=0.294) But, the rest variation is from the insignificant
explanatory variables and other unstudied variables.

4.3.3. Econometric Results and Discussions

Thirteen independent variables were hypothesized to determine Teff production. The continuous
independent variables were: land size, Total livestock, suitable market area, labors on Teff farm and
dummy (some discrete) variables: Sex of household head, Age of household head, Family size of
household head, Education of household head, Credit service , Fertilizer use, on-farm work,
Extension service and Technology uses. Based on multiple linear regression model analysis six

39
variables were significantly affected Teff productions. Four variables influence positively and two
variable significantly affected Teff production of farmers’ negatively. These were total crop land size
holding, number of livestock owned, access to extension service, Sex, Age of household head and
access to credit services. The remaining seven variables were found have no significant effect on Teff
production in the study area (Table 8).

Table 8: Summary of the result of multiple linear regression analysis

Explanatory variables Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficient Statistics

B Std. Error Beta t Sig Tolerance VIF

Sex of Household -1.474 1.159 -.102 -1.272 .206*** .880 1.137
age of Household .169 .297 .047 .570 .570 .827 1.210
Family Size -.021 .408 -.005 -.052 .959 .641 1.560
Education level .141 .197 .064 .713 .477 .732 1.367

land Size in hectare 1.261 .317 .345 3.972 .000*** .756 1.322
Livestock owned .110 .038 .273 2.863 .005** .627 1.594
Adopt Technology -1.366 4.188 -.051 -.326 .745 .232 4.305
Fertilizers use 1.096 3.603 .047 .304 .761 .237 4.219
Labor used -.014 .156 -.009 -.088 .930 .582 1.719
Non-farm work .047 .660 .006 .071 .944 .864 1.158
Suitable Market area -.047 .082 -.052 -.567 .572 .672 1.489
Extension service a .839 .702 .104 1.196 .234*** .758 1.319
Credit access -.762 .654 -.097 -1.165 .246*** .817 1.224
Constant 4.688 3.256 --- 1.440 .152 - -- ---

***, **,*indicate statistically significant at1%, 5%, and 10% probability level, respectively
Number of Observation = 137 F = 0.0000
2
R _0.293, Adjusted R Square – 0.225
Sta. error estimate _ 3.45700
Source: Computed from model analysis

Land Size Holding: Land size has showed positive effect on Teff production significance level at
1% as prior assumption of positive sign. The results indicated that as land holding of respondents
increase by one additional unit, Teff production increased by 0.345 quintals. This is quite similar with

40
the studies of Fisher and Lewin (2013), Degefa (2005), van deer veen and Tagel (2011), Haile,
Alemu and Kudhlande (2005); Shishay and Messay (2014).

Number Livestock owned: Number of Livestock owned by household respondents was

assumed that it has positive relationship with households’ Teff production in prior assumption. The
econometric results revealed that households’ Teff production affected positively and significant at
5% significance level. This showed that as the number of livestock owned increased by one unit,
households’ Teff production increases by 0.27 quintals. The result of this study is in line with Adugna
(2009) who found that number of oxen owned by household significantly and positively affected
farmers’ level marketable supply of onion and tomato in Alamata districts.

Access to Extension service: This dummy variable has positive relationship with Teff
production of small holder farmers. The econometric results indicated that access to credit influence
Teff production positive effect at 10 % significance level. The result showed that as household
farmers have access to extension service by a one unit Teff production increases by 0.104 quintals.
The extension service support provided to the Farmers increase the yield of Teff.

Access to credit service: This dummy variable has negative effect on Teff production. The
econometric results indicated that access to credit influence Teff production negatively at 10 %
significance level. The result showed that household farmers did not have access to credit or not used
credit for Teff production decreases by 0.097 quintals. The results further depicts that those farmers
who have credit access improve their financial problems and bought the necessary input for Teff
production.

Sex of Respondent: This dummy variable has negative effect on Teff production. The
econometric results indicated that Female Household farmers affect Teff production negatively at
10% significance level. The result showed that Female household farmers Participation decreases
Teff production by 0.102 quintals. The results further shows that those male farmers who participated
on Teff farming increase production of Teff using improved input for Teff production.

The result of this study has no agreement with Rahmeto, (2007), Alemitu (2011). However, all the
other remaining variables such as: , total family size, distance to market center, , non-farm work,
Fertilizer use, labor use, Education and Family size did not significantly influenced the Teff
production in the study area as expected.

41
 4.4. Challenges of Teff production
The plants stand unevenly after germination and have a nutrient efficiency use of the crop and crop
yield. Owing to scattered plants, farmers find it difficult to use mechanical weeding implements and
are forced to either hand-weed or use chemical herbicides (Alemayehu, 2001). Farm land owners
have a great choice on Teff production compering with landless respondents. The owners plough part
of the land totally or hire to other landless farmers.

The small size of Teff seed possess problem of sowing, weeding and threshing. The discussion above
showed that 87 % respondent used scattered seed sowing methods. The other challenges of farmers
were Teff yield increasing challenge as indicated on the discussion production. Teff yield 6 quint per
hectare indicates low level of productivities. Through a year individual house hold farmers collect
averagely Teff grain only 6.7 kuntals per household farmer of in by EFY 2019/2020. In the study
area 65 % of respondent did not participate on non-farm activities that support agricultural input
purchase (see appendix 6).

Credit service access was the challenge of respondents 47 % participation. The difficulty to reach
near market area was 85 % the result indicate and discussed earlier that the majority of had no near
market access. To buy and sell all inputs and out puts of farm production in the study area was
challenge 7.6 km mean distance to near market area and the other was location of respondent home
blocked by hill (picture 3) that makes difficult for transportation (appendix 6).

Socio – economic problems on Teff farming

The 75.5% respondents did not have institutional service provision on Teff farm and 25.5 % of
respondents had institutional service (appendix 12). The result of survey table 7 below indicates 47 %
was Teff traders (cost breaker) that influence Teff farming by breaking low Teff cost. The traditional
way of Teff farming affects 15 % of respondents, 14.5 % respondents replayed that activities of
institution also affect Teff production. Market Distance & Teff cost breakers, Market distance and
Climatic problems were responses given covered 9.5 %, 8 % and 6 % respectively.

42
Land is one of the most important production resources base for any economic activity especially
agricultural sector. The result of table 8 indicated that the challenges respondents on Teff farming
were farm landless. 35 % of respondent replied land influenced Teff farming, land scarcity & low
labor 20 %, Landless, small no of oxen, impact of access to technologies 18 %, Land scarcity and
technologies 17 %, and Low labor, & technology 12% were the influential identified in the study
area.

Table 9: Socio- economic problems on Teff production

Attribute N %

Traditional Teff farming 21 15

Market distance 11 8
Service
problems Teff cost breakers(trader) 64 47
Institution role 20 14.5
Climatic problem 8 6
Market Distance & Teff cost breakers 13 9.5
Sum 137 100

Resource Land scarcity 48 35

problems less Technology access 25 18
Land, labor, technology and Oxen 13 12
scarcity
land scarcity & Low labor 27 20
Land scarcity& technology access 24 17
Sum 137 100

Source: Survey result, 2020

The Agriculture workers support totally ignored from farmers as discussed. FTC was closed but
opened at the time of meeting at kebele. This idea was similar to descriptive analysis but disagree
with secondary data from the Agriculture office reported that for the rural farmers there was enough
training, demonstration and DA access.
43
The field observation result showed that the farmers train center was closed (see figure 6). Fertilizer
distribution on time, credit service problems, market problem and lack of enough extension support
agents were the major problems in the area. Some House hold head Females ignore themselves from
higher communities’ affaire and assume inferior to males. Working forces were found at school to
participate in different activities of production process such as sowing, weeding, cultivation, harvest,
transport, storage and preparation of threshing field, the nature of participation is not full time. The
other constraints were improved seed & high cost of inorganic fertilizers, livestock and grazing land,
were among the constraints.

FTC

Figure 6, Farmer Training Center at sampled area

Source: Field observation captured, 2020

The FGD at each study area described important constraints to Teff production. Focus group
discussion confirmed that there were no newly released Teff varieties to increase production and
productivity Teff. The quncho white variety had been provided were mixed with other local varieties
and became “Abolse” local name given to less preferred mixture of white and red Teff. The reason
for farmers using the local varieties of Teff was the absence of newly released Teff varieties. FGD
discussion and KII result indicates the main central point found the problem of inadequate extension
provision with developmental agents including the higher organization. The field observation results
also support this; even though the demonstration sites in the study area was available that prepared
practical training sites of Teff and wheat beds were unprofitable.
FGD, KII and Field observation results also indicated that credit service increases production for
the farmers with lower economic status. However, the farmers spend the money received from credit
service; buy family feed crops, pay other received money during money shortages and the others for
drinking local alcohol “Arake” said. The main problems regarding the varieties were low market
44
price of Teff at trashing time, and extension support. The other constraints identified by FGD and KII
were inadequate credit providers’ service problems appointed returning the credit at the time of Teff
harvesting that influenced cost of Teff.

4.5. Opportunities of Teff farming

Teff is the most value-added crops compared to other cereal crops in the study area. Following the
imposing ban on raw Teff grain export; selling of processed from of Teff product is started to rise at
national and global level as well as benefited many stakeholders involved in the process. The
government gives permission for a small number of commercial farmers to start producing Teff to
fulfill this export demand because of the local price increment and exports of injera are rapidly
increasing (Fekadu et al., 2019).

4.5.1. Increased demand for Teff

Teff is a highly demanded cereal and has higher market prices than the other cereals for both its grain
and straw in Ethiopia. Farmers earn more for growing Teff than growing other cereals (Yenesew,
2015). The cost of on the production area was above three thousand birr that makes it high value
crop. It was three times to maize cost at local market value (observation result) see figure 7.

45
 Figure 7: On Market White Teff Grain

Source: Field Observation Captured

A noticeable change is the increase in white-colored Teff at the expense of red and mixed-colored
Teff. On the other hand, the share of red Teff declined (Minten et al., 2016), the color of Teff grains,
white, mixed and red, mostly decides its grade for quality and price. The white commands the highest
price and red the lowest. The very-white magna, a sub-type of the white, commands even a higher
premium price (Assefa et al., 2015, FAO, 2015).

Teff production raising in the U.S., in Idaho in particular, with experimental plots in Kansas,
American customers including people from traditional Teff consuming countries and also people
desiring to eat Teff to avoid glutens that irritate celiac disease (Bruk et al., 2014). Technologies such
as row planting and transplanting, where the seed rate is reduced and more space between seedlings is
given, are assumed to be superior to traditional broadcasting because they allow for weeding and
diminish competition between seedlings (Bekabil et al., 2011). Additionally, it can develop and
strengthen Teff value- addition opportunities through the exploration of new Teff based
products and products such as biscuits, scones, bread, and other dishes can be created from Teff for
both domestic consumption and international export (EATA, 2013).

4.5.2. Improved Teff Seed

46
According to Abebe, 2000 beginning from 1970, a number of improved varieties of Teff seed have
been produced and distributed for farmers’ utilization. Most of the materials used by the National
Teff Improvement Program come from the 4,300 Teff accessions preserved in the Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation. On-station yield levels for improved Teff ranged between 13 to 36
quintals per hectare while farm-level yield levels for Teff ranged between 12 and 25 quintals per
hectare.

Thus, the yield gap between experimental and farm farmers’ conditions can be as high as 12 quintals
per hectare, showing substantial potential for yield improvement if farmers are able to adopt
some of the practices developed on station. Newly released Teff seed higher was Quncho. Quncho
meaning the top in the local language is the major achievement of the Teff breeding program in
Ethiopia. The variety was derived from the combination of two traits, high yield and white seed. With
its release in 2006, Quncho became the first improved variety broadly adopted by the Ethiopian
farmers and contributed to 10% increase in Teff productivity Minten, (2016), Cheng et al. (2017).

4.5.3. Values of Teff Straw

When Teff is grown as a cereal, farmers highly value the straw and it is stored and used as a very
important source of animal feed especially during the dry season. Farmers’ feed Teff straw
preferentially to lactating cows and working oxen. Cattle prefer Teff straw to the straw of any other
cereal and its price is higher than that of other cereals (Seyfu, 1997).The quantity and quality of
residues from various cereal grains vary greatly depending on the grain species. Wheat and barley
usually give high straw yields, though of inferior quality.

Among cereals, Teff straw is relatively the best and is comparable to a good natural pasture (Bekabil
et al., 2011). In addition to this Teff straws have high value in study area for house building that
influenced by the expansion of cities followed by the division of home land Government policies
suited in the local administration. The newly owners of land search Teff straw in turn increase cost of
straw (ibid).

4.5.4. Suitable Governmental Policies on Agricultural

47
Current government policy and strategies give due attention to agricultural transformation and
development of basic infrastructures like road development, communication, and telecom services
outreach throughout the country, particularly in rural areas. Extension services in the agricultural
sector and support and encouragement for model farmers are putting as a main agricultural
development strategy. The assignment of development agents at each Kebeles based on their
academic background is also important policy dimensions.

Furthermore, provision of infrastructures facilities like roads, telecommunication (mobile, wireless,

and optic fiber), power supply and financial institutions as Banks, Micro Finances Institutions are the
infrastructural advantages that facilitate the production and marketing of Teff in the study areas
(Habte, 2018).

FGD and KII discussion explained the role played by female household Teff cultivation as very
crucial. According to farmers of the study area, women role is not restricted to biological, labor and
social reproduction; involved Teff farming activities. The majority of Teff farming works covered by
the Females started at home ended at home by serving the all-time activities participating and
supporting of families. The increased demand of Teff on the central markets of countries was for food
and cultural celebration, for weddings and ceremonies. At local areas from at near distance the
roads of market areas occupied with Teff traders. The straws of Teff more important on the study
areas for two main reason the first the Oxen feeding during ploughs and reserved for dry seasons to
insure animal feeding; the second was cash generation. The farmers’ sale the straw for the house
builders to mixes it with the soil for wall building. At field observation the life history observation of
respondent residents this was recorded.

48
 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section summarizes the major findings of the study and proposes recommendations for the
research problems. Section 5.1 is the Summary of the study and Section 5.2 is about the
conclusion and recommendation.

5.1. Summary of Major Findings

Accordingly, the discussion result shows that there were suitable potential of Teff production in the
study areas; the Medias, Model Farmers Available Teff food demands. Therefore, it is concluded that
intermediation is required to improve capacities of small hold farmers, improvements needed on
inputs utilization from farmers on Teff Farms and assist of government play and other stockholders
role on Teff production.

The smallholder farming households practiced tradition ways of farming, hand weed controls
measure, low fertilizer and herbicides utilization on Teff crop in the study area. Teff production was
at low level as observed from the results. These factors together with demographic characters and
49
socio-economic factors influenced farming practice. The suitable potentials for Teff production exist
in the study areas were: available Teff demands for food source; national and expansion of Injera
market in the local and in foreign countries.

Teff yield 6 quint per hectare indicates low level of productivities. Through a year individual house
hold farmers collect averagely Teff grain only 6.7 kuntals per household farmer of in by EFY
2019/2020. In the study area 65 % of respondent did not participate on non-farm activities that
support agricultural input purchase. Low participation on off and non-farm activities of respondents
were recorded in the study area. Female household head participation on Teff farming was at good
level as compared with male household head in the study area

The multiple regressions were implemented showed that out of the thirteen variables hypothesized to
influence small hold farmers Teff production, five was statistically significant. The factors that
significantly and positively influenced the farmers Teff production were land size, extension service,
and livestock own. Thus an increase in any of these variables increased the amount of Teff grain;
whereas sex and credit service negatively influenced amount teff production of respondents. Being
femaleness of households and credit accessibility has inverse significant effect on Teff farming.

5.2 . Conclusion
The researcher answered the research question from analysis results of data collected from study area.
The determinants that affect Teff Production farming of small holder householder Farming were land
size, extension service, and livestock own significantly and positively influenced, and sex and credit
service negatively influenced amount teff production of respondents. The smallholder household
farmers practiced tradition ways of farming, hand weed controls including chemical application,
fertilizer and manures utilization, on Teff crop exist in the study area. The labor utilization with own
families and where the shortage existed hiring of workers, collaboration with neighbor farmers was
practiced. Teff grain production in the study area was at low level; it was far from range of expected
as observed. These factors together with several household personal, demographic and socio-
economic factors greatly affected the small hold farmers’ Teff production.

The small holder farmers challenge on Teff production mainly Land size, small number of livestock,
Labor of production, access of technologies, extension and credit services access, work opportunities
both on off and non-farm, and access to near market areas. Teff Farming was hindered by different

50
farm practice and agricultural inputs technologies of production. The unimproved back warded
traditional ways farming activities determined the small holder Teff production households farming.

5.3. Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, the following specified recommendations will be aimed at the promotion
of small holder farming households of Teff production in the study area.
 The production of Teff at individual household farmers was at low from recorded at national
level and research center. Therefore, it needs attention of District Agriculture office in order to
promote farmers farming practices through strategic, involvement and awareness creation on
modern technology uses.

 Supplying necessary agricultural inputs at the right time and the as the farmers demand with
reasonable cost in the study area so the Union of cooperative of the study area should give
attention on provision of inputs as the demand of farmers at the nearby area.

 Provisions of adequate extension service, improved seed provision and technology for Teff
production with high quantities and quality to be a market competent. So at all level,
agricultural and development offices and other stockholders should play role in assisting and
capacitating small holder farmers on Teff Farming.

 Farmers ought to use improved seeds, inorganic fertilizers and chemicals as recommended,
improving farming practice with advanced technologies on Teff farm. The district
Administration office follows the strategies of offices how farmers assisted with stock holder
on the farm activities.

 The Teff production demand was high on the central market of the country but the farmers
have no opportunities to be participating directly on the market so the Development of Market
office of the study area should focus and create the opportunities for Teff grower farmers.

5.4. Lesson learned and future research issues

51
The following point is suggested for future research and study implication.
1. Study on Small holder farmers Perception, constraints and row planting of Teff crop.
2. Study on Importance of local Teff seed preservation and adopting new teff seed varieties
3. Study on technology transformation of FTC on teff productivities and its challenges

REFERANCE

Akshaya Kumar Mohanty (D.r) (2017):- Performance and Determinants of Teff Production in
Oromia Region: Department Of Economics, Wollega University ,International Journal of Research in
IT & Management, Vol. 7, Issue 9, September- 2017, pp. 42-56.

Agricultural Transformation Agency (2013) Working Strategy for Strengthening Ethiopian’s Teff
Value Chain: Vision, Systemic Challenges, and Prioritized Interventions, ATA Addis Ababa.

Alemayehu Refera, 2001: TEF: Post-harvest Operations. Institute of Agricultural Research

Organization, Holeta Agricultural Research Organization Center (IARO)

Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, Paul Dorosh, and Sinafikeh Asrat, 2009: Crop Production in Ethiopia:
Regional Patterns and Trends. Summary of ESSP II Working Paper 16, “Crop Production in
Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends”

Asfaw, A., & Admassie, A. (2004): The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertilizer under
different socio-economic environments in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 30, 215-228

52
 ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency), 2013a: “Value Chain Programs: Tef.”
http://www.ata.gov.et/programs/value-chain- programs/tef/ [accessed online on 15/07/2013].

Azeb Bekele (2016): determinants of smallholder farmers’ participation in Teff market in Ambo
district, West Shoa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia.

CIA World Factbook: Ethiopia. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-

factbook/geos/et.html.

Bachewe FN, Koru B, Taffesse AS: Productivity and efficiency of smallholder teff farmers in
Ethiopia International Food Policy Research Institute; IFPRI, 2015.

Bekabil Fufa, Befekadu Behute, Rupert Simons and Tareke Berhe, (2011): Strengthening the Teff
Value Chain in Ethiopia (Unpublished Report): Agricultural Transformation Agency.

Bioversity, C. C. (2012). Sustainable agricultural productivity growth and bridging the gap for small-
fam. Mexico: World Bank.

Cheng A, Mayes S, Dalle G, Demissew S, Massawe F. Diversifying crops for food and nutrition
security - A case of teff. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2017; 92(1): 188-98.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/brv.12225] [PMID: 26456883]

Cleave M K. and Donovan W G. (1995): Agriculture, poverty and policy reformation in Sub-Saharan
countries. Washington: World Bank.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2015:, Area and Production of Major Crops, Statistical Bulletin,
May 2012, Addis Ababa. Agricultural Sample Survey 2014/2015

CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2016: Agricultural sample survey 2015/16 (2008E.C): volum v-
report on area, production and farm management practice of belge season crops for private peasant
holdings: Statistical Bulletin, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Crymes AR. The international footprint of Teff: Resurgence of an ancient Ethiopian grain, 2015.

D’Andrea AC 2008: Teff (Eragrostis Teff) in ancient agricultural systems of Highland Ethiopia.
Econ. Bot., 62, 547–566.

Demeke M., Di Marcantonio F. (2013) Analysis of incentives and disincentives for Teff in Ethiopia.
Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO. Rome.

Dawit Alemu, Rashid S and Tripp R. 2010: Seed system potential in Ethiopia: Constraints and
opportunities for enhancing the seed sector. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington DC. 62pp.

53
Efa Gobena, Degye Goshu, Tinsae Demisie and Tadesse Kenea, (2016): Determinants of market
participation and intensity of marketed surplus of Teff producers in Bacho and Dawo districts of
Oromia State, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development; 5(2): 020-032.

Engdawork, T., (2009): Understanding Teff: A Review of Supply and Marketing Issues .Ethiopia
Commodity Exchange Authority.

FAO, (2015): Analysis of price incentives for Teff in Ethiopia Technical notes series, MAFAP, by
Assefa B. Demeke M., Lanos B, and Rome.

Fikadu, Asmiro Abeje, Wedu, Tsega Desalegn and Derseh, Endalew Abebe: Aksum and Bahir Dar
University, Ethiopia Review on Economics of Teff in Ethiopia. Submission: February 11, 2019;
Published: April 19, 2019.

Fufa, B.,B. Behute, R. Simons, and T. Berhe. 2011. “Tef Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Tef
Value Chain in Ethiopia”. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Gebretsadik H, Haile M, Yamoah CF. Tillage frequency, soil compaction and N-fertilizer rate effects
on yield of teff (Eragrostis teff (Zucc) Trotter) in central zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Momona
Ethiop J Sci 2009; 1(1) [http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v1i1.46043]

Hailu Beyene Abera (2008):- Adoption of improved Teff and wheat production technologies in crop
Livestock mixed systems in northern and western Shewa zones of Ethiopia.

Habtegebrial, K., B., R. Singh,and M. Haile (2007). "Impact of tillage and nitrogen fertilization on
yield, nitrogen use efficiency of Teff (Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.): Trotter) and soil properties." Soil &
Tillage Research 94(1): 55-63

Hailu Tefera, Seyfu Ketema: (2001): Production and importance of tef in Ethiopian Agriculture.
International Workshop on Tef Genetics and Improvement, 16-19 October 2000, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. pp. 3-7.

Iris Wang (2003): Basic Econometrics; Multiple Regression Analysis: Estimation: Chapter7.
iris.wang@kau.se

Kaleab B (2018): Nutrient composition and health benefits. The Economics of Teff: Exploring
Ethiopia’s Biggest Cash Crop, 2018. International Food Policy Research Institute Washington

Ketema, S (1997b). Teff, Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.) Trotter: Promoting the Conservation and Use of
Underutilized and Neglected Crops 12. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research:
Gatersleben; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.27. Label DB: Cass many.

Kawulich, B. B. (2006). La observation participant como method de recollection de data’s, Forum

Qual. Soc. Res, 6(6).
54
Miller, D. T., Adam, M. P., Aradhya, S., Biesecker, L. G., Brothman, A. R., Carter, N. P.,. & Faucett,
W. A. (2010). Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for
individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. The American Journal of Human
Genetics, 86(5), 749-764

Minten B, Tamru S, Engida E, Kuma T. (a) Feeding Africa’s cities: The case of the supply chain of
Teff to Addis Ababa. Econ Dev Cult Change 2016; 64(2): 26597

Paul Mansingh (Prof), Debella Deressa (Ass. Prof), 2017: Awareness of improved practices of Teff
by smallholder farmers: Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Ambo
University, Ambo, Ethiopia.

Piccinin, Doris. "More about Ethiopian Food: Teff." 2002.

Seyfu K. 1997: Teff. Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.) Trotter: Promoting the Conservation and Use of
Underutilized and Neglected Crops. 12, p. 35 Institute of Plant Genetic and Crop Plant Research,
Gaterstleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

Seyfu Ketema. (1993): Teff (Eragrostis Teff): Breeding, Agronomy, Genetic Resources, Utilization
and Role in Ethiopian Agriculture. IAR, Addis Ababa.

UNEP. (2013). Smallholders, food security, and the environment; Enabling poor rural people to
overcome poverty;. UNEP.

Urgessa M. Market, 2011: Value chain analysis of Teff and wheat production in Halaba Special
Woreda, southern Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).

Yihenew G (2002): Selected chemical and physical Joachim V, characteristics of soils of Adet
Research Centre and its testing sites in north western Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Natural
Resources 4: 199-215.

Zewdu A.D (2007): Aerodynamic properties of Teff grain and straw material. Elsevier 98:304-309
Yihenew G (2002) Selected chemical and physical characteristics of soils of Adet Research Centre
and its testing sites in north western Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources 4: 199-215.

55
Appendix
Appendix 1 Questionnaires used for data collected
Interview Schedule
Dear respondents,
This interview questionnaire is designed by Mr. Feyisa Teffera to gather information on Determinants
of Teff Production by Small holder Farmers' in Gindeberet district, West Showa Zone, Oromia
Region of Ethiopia for partial fulfillment of Master degree in the area of study. The information you
provide is intended to serve for research and development purpose. Therefore, you are kindly
requested to provide accurate information. I confirm you that all data will be treated confidentially.

Thank you!

Respondent Id. No.__________________________

Village/ Kebele_____________________________
Name of household head: __________________
Name of enumerator ______________________
Date of ________________________________

56
Instruction: Circle or write the answer as may be necessary to indicate your appropriate response.
A. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
1. Age of respondent (year): A. 18_30 B. 31_42 C. 43_54
D. 55_66 E. 67 and above
2. . Sex: A. Male B. Female
3. Marital Status: A. Single B. Married C. Divorced D. Widowed
E. Widower F. Any other_____________
4. Educational level: A. can’t read and write B. Can read and write C. Grade 1-4
D. Grade 5-8 E. Grade 9-10 F. Grade 11-12 G. Certificate and above
5. Family size: A. 1_3 B. 4_6 C. 7_9 D. 10 and above
B. Socio- economics Characteristics of respondents
6. Do you have your own land? A. Yes B. No
7. If yes, how many hectares do you have? ________. If you have additional contracted land, how
many hectare? ___________________________
8. What are your major crops and yield in quintals

No Types of crops Area of land Yield in Remark

(ha) quintal/ha
1 Maize
2 Teff
3 Wheat
4 Barley
5 Pulse crops
6 Oil crops
7 Others
Total

9. Do you have your own Livestock? A. Yes B. No; If you say yes, how many?
No Types of Live stock Yes ‗ 1 or Numbers Remark
No ‗ 2
1 Cattle
2 Sheep
3 Goat
4 Equines(donkey,
horse and mule)
Total

57
10. Which technologies you have adopted on Teff production? ( Multiple answers possible) A.
Use of improved seeds varieties B. Use of modern farming C. Use of recommended fertilizer
D. Use chemical (pesticides and herbicides)
11. Did you use fertilizer on your farm to increase Teff production? A. Yes B. No. If yes,
No Type of Fertilizer Amount (KG) Cost (birr)
1 UREA
2 NPS
3 Mixed(keyite)
4 Other____________
Total

12. Which type of Teff seeds you used?

No Type Amount(kg) Cost(birr) Remark
1 Local Seed
2 Improved Seed from last
year harvested crops
3 Improved Seeds
4 Chemicals Herbicides
insecticides
Total

13. What is your Family Labor?

No. Age category Number Teff farm activities
Participated
1 Children<10 years Male Female Total
2 11-16 years
3 17-50 years
4 Greater than 50 years
5 Total

14. Did you participle on off -farm activities last year? A. Yes B. No, If you say yes, which
type of off-farm activities? (Multiple Answer can be possible)
A. Daily laborer B. Handcraft work C. Trading ruminants and/or cattle D. Dairy fattening E. If
others, specify__________
15. Amount of income earned from your off- farm activities in birr.
A.1, 000-2,000 B. 3,000-4,000 C. 5,000-6,000 D. Above 7,000.
16. Did you participate on non-farm activities last year? A. Yes B. No, if you say yes, which types
of non-farm activities? (Multiple answer can be possible) A. Petty trading B. Handicraft
activities C. If other, specify ________.
17. Amount of income earned from your non- farm activities in birr.
58
A. 2,000-5,000 B. 5,001-8,000 C. 8,001-11,000 D. Above12, 000

C. Institutional Characteristics of Respondents

16. How far market place from your home? (in kilometers ) __________
19. Do you have suitable transportation of farm outputs to the market area?
A. Yes B. No
20. Is there extension service at your village? A. Yes B. No, If you say yes, How extension
services reach you? A. Training B. Demonstration C. Field day
D. Neighbor farmers experience sharing E. If other, specify________________
21. Do you have access to credit service? A. Yes B. No, if yes why do you borrow money from
credit service? (Multi answer is possible). A. To buy agricultural inputs B. To buy livestock C.
To cover house hold expenditure D. If other, specify___________

D. Questions relating Practice of Teff production of small holder Farming

22. Do you have the experience of increasing Teff production? A. Yes B. No
23. Which types of farming systems you experienced? (Multiple answers can be possible) A.
primitive farming B. partially improved C. Improved Farming systems
24. Why do you practice Teff production over others crop?
A. The value of Teff is higher C. Teff has high Outputs B. The test of Teff higher
D. More Suitable climatic Conditions for Teff
25. What method you practice to control weeds? (Multiple answers can be possible)
A. herbicide application B. hand use C. both A and B D. If other specify_________
26. Which Method of Teff seed sowing do you using? A. Broadcasting B. Row planting C.
Both Why? ____________________-
27. Where do you buy improved seeds, herbicide Fertilizers? (Multiple answers can be possible)
A. Cooperative Organization B. market place C. Neighbor farmers D. If other______
28. On which Development Agent support you? (Multiple answer can be possible)
A. Technology adoption B. Input Supply C. Farming season
D. Disease outbreak E. If other specify_________________________
E. Questions relating Challenges of Teff production of Small holder Farming
29. Do you have problem on Teff production? A. Yes B. No
30. If you say yes, which one is the challenge ( Multiple response can possible)
A. Scarcity of farm land B. labor shortage C. Technology problems
D. Oxen shortage E. If other specify_____________________

59
31. What challenges faced you on increase Teff yield? ( Multiple response can possible)
A. Access to Technology B. Inadequate demonstration site
C. Extension service shortage D. Agricultural input E. If other specify____
32. The Labor you used to perform activities on Teff productions has shortage? A. Yes B. No, if
your answer is yes, how do you solve the Problems?
A. By hiring B. Cooperation (like Debo, Jigi and Wonfel)
C. Labor contracting D. Share farming E. If other, specify___
33. What problems credit services have? A. Input advances absence B. Inadequate local lenders
C. Difficulty to pay its loans D. If other, specify______________________
34. What socio economic problems exist in Teff production? A. Local Culture B. Market distance
C. Teff cost breakers D. Local polices setters E. If other ____________
F. Questions relating Opportunities of small holders farmers Teff production
A. Do you have access to technologies on Teff crop? A. Yes B. No
B. How technologies reach you on Teff Farming? (Multiple responses possible) A. demonstration
site B. Extension service C. Model Farmers
C. Media Source E. Training
D. Do you have adequate Institutional services on Teff production in your village?
A. Yes B. No
E. There socio economic motivation of Teff production? A. B. No
F. Are Female House hold farmers having equal access to Teff production technologies as male
house hold farmers? A. Yes B. No
I. Checklist prepared for Focus Group Discussion
1. Do you practice high yield Teff production?
2. Do you have institutional access to increase Teff production?
3. Do you have agricultural inputs problems?
4. Do you have socio economic challenges on Teff production?
5. What challenges you experienced in Teff production?
6. Do you have opportunities on Teff production in area?
7. Do Female house hold farmers equally treated as male farmers on Teff production?

II. Checklists prepared for key informants Farmers

Numbers of participants________________
1. Did you play roles in high Teff production in your village?
2. What are the challenges facing Teff Producer farmers?

60
3. What opportunities are available for Teff production?
4. Is there a problem concerning on improved seed varieties Teff?
5. Did credit accessibility improve Teff production of farmers?
6. Do institutions support Female houses hold farmers on Teff production?

III. Checklist prepared for key informants at Organization level

Name of the organization: _______________________________
Positions of the interviewee ____________________________
Location and contact information: District______ Kebele ________
1. What is your organization role Teff production in the study area?
2. What are the challenges facing in undertaking those roles assigned to your organization
3. What are the opportunities you are facing in undertaking those roles to your organization?
4. Do the farmers experiencing difficulty in Teff production?
5. Did your organization play roles in supplying agricultural inputs for farmers?
IV. Checklist for Field Observation
1. To observe respondents’ activities at home.
2. To observe the current situation of Teff production practice of respondents.
3. To observe challenges of respondents on Teff production.
4. To observe the material and tools the respondents for uses Teff productions.
5. To observe hopes of respondents in Teff production.

Appendix 2 Multicollinearity result of VIF Coefficients

92.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics
Model Lower Bound Upper Bound Toleran VIF
ce
Family Size -.708 .685 .667 1.500
land size .815 1.885 .808 1.238
Total livestock .037 .163 .703 1.423
Labors -.242 .284 .622 1.608

Source: own computation result of model (2020

61
 Appendix 3 Coefficient for dummy variable
Correlate Credit, Educ., Fertilizer, Non-farm, Extension Age, Sex, Market,
&Technology.
Variable Credit Educ. Family Fertilizer Non- Extension Age Off Sex Techno Market
farm -farm
Credit 1
Educ. .056 1
Family .064 -.054 1
Fertilizer .131 .043 -.022 1
Non-farm -.065 -.015 .022 -.029 1
Extension -.189 -.069 .120 .000 .004 1
Age -.027 .379 -.067 -.145 -.083 .241 1
Off –farm -.302 .025 -.019 -.090 -.341 -.184 -.092 1
Sex .023 .149 .161 .035 -.011 -.056 -.070 .144 1
Techno -.176 -.130 .003 -.863 .036 -.036 .050 .089 -.024 1
Market .134 .126 .041 -.151 .123 -.104 .013 .105 .071 .201 1

Source: own computation result (2020)

Appendix 4 Land Holding and Size 2019/2020 EFY (N = 137)

Household Attributes Frequency Percent
Far land source own land 83 61
rented land 19 14
equal land use 11 8
own and equal use 18 13
equal and rented 6 4
Sum 137 100

Land size (hectare) 0.125 – 1.0 34 25

1.125 – 2.0 62 45
2.125 – 3.0 25 18
3.125 - 4.0 11 8
4.125 – 5.5 5 4

62
 Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 5 Farming Practice activities

Attribute N %
Teff farming Tradition system 94 69
less improved system 43 31
Sum 137 100
Seed sowing Scattered method 119 87
Row planting 6 4
Both methods 12 9
Sum 137 100
Weeding Hand weeding 4 3
Herbicide control 4 3
Hand and herbicide 129 94
Sum 137 100
Farm Input Cooperative 51 37
Source Market 14 10
Neighbor 4 3
cooperative and market 68 50
Sum 137 100

Source: Survey result, 2020

Appendix 6: Non/Off Farm, Access of Market, Extension and Credit service

Attributes N % Means ST. Dev.
63
Non-farm Yes 48 35 1.64 0.48
No 89 65
Off farm activities Yes 67 49 5.85 2.14
No 70 51
Access to extension service 86 63 1.37 0.50
Yes
51 37
No
Access to near market 20 15 7.6 4.4
Yes
N 117 85
o
Credit service access 65 47 1.53 0.50
Yes
72 53
No

Source: survey result, 202

Appendix 7 Activities off Farm and non-farm participation

Description N %
labor work 3 2

64
 hand craft activities 5 4
Animal trade 3 2
animal fattening 20 15
Off Farm
irrigation work 29 21
activities Trade 6 4
not participated 70 51

Sum 137 100

Not participated 89 65
Non-Farm Trading 21 15
hand craft activities 11 8
Activities
Other 16 12
Sum 137 100

Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 8: Off farm and non-Farm income

Attributes N % Means ST. Dev.
Non-Farm income( birr)
0.00 89 65
2,000.00 – 5,000.00 27 12
5,001.00 - 8,000.00 5 4
8,001.00 - 11,000.00 7 5

65
 above 12,00.00 9 7 0.70 1.20

Sum 137 100

Off farm income (birr)
0.00 70 51
1,000.00 – 2,000.00 27 20
3,000.00 -4,000.00 10 7
5,000.00 - 6,000.00 7 5
above 7,000.00 23 17 1.2 1.51
Sum 137 100

Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 9: Livestock ownership (TLU)

Description No % Mean Std. Deviation
Cattle 985 56 7.2 5.7
Sheep 301 17 2.2 3.4
Goat 173 10 1.3 3.0

Equines 197 11 1.4 1.6

Poultry 108 6 0.8 2.1
Livestock (sum) 1751 100 12.8 9.7

Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 10: Extension Service, Technology Sources and Credit use

Variable Description N %

Training 17 12.5
Demonstration 4 3
Field day 10 7.5
Extension Model farmer 34 25
Service No support 43 31
Training, Field day & Model 29 21
Farmer
Sum 137 100
Field day 10 7
model farmers 23 17
66
Technology media 50 36.5
Sources Training 34 25
Field day, model farmers & 20 14.5
Media
Sum 137 100
Input purchase 27 20
Oxen purchase 18 13
home use 6 4
Credit cash
used for others 5 3.6
use Input & Oxen purchase 12 9
Not Used 69 50.4
Sum 137 100

Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 11: Fertilizers, Chemicals, Improved Seeds and costs (N=137)

Attributes Sum Total Cost Cost unit Means ST.
birr Dev.
UREA(kg) 9,510.0 121,692.00 12.80 69.4 69.1

NPS Varieties(kg) 12,635.0 153,693.00 12.20 92.2 123.7

Teff Seed(kg) 5,082 117,758.00 23.20 37.1 42.8

Chemical(L) 3,12.50 72,064.00 230.00 2.3 1.5

Source: survey result, 2020

Appendix 12: Inputs and Technological Challenges on Teff farming
Attribute description N %
Inadequate technology 49 36
Inadequate demonstration area 7 5
Inputs and
technological Inadequate Extension service 42 31
No Input supply on time 33 24
challenges
Other ( natural phenomena) 6 4

Sum 137 100

67
Low Labor Hiring and rent 58 42
Cooperative work 27 20
Equal use 16 9
own human power 18 13
Coops work, rent & hiring 18 13
Sum 137 100
Yes 35 25.5
Institution service No 102 74.5
Sum 137 100

Source: Survey result, 2020

68
AppeAppendix 13: Conversion factors used to estimate tropical livestock unit

Animal Category TLU

Oxen 1.0
Cows 1.0
Sheep 0.13
Goat 0.13
Horse 1.1
Poultry 0.013
Donkey(Adult) 0.7

Source: Stork, et al., 1991

69