SALALE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL

RESOURSE
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
ASSESSMENT ON FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION
OF TEFF ROW PLANTING TECHNOLOGY IN CASE OF
DEMEBECHA ZURIA DISTIRICT, WEST GOJJAM,
ETHIOPIA.

SENIOR RESEARCH PROPOSAL

SUBMITTED BY
GROUP MEMBERS: - ID No: -

ABRHAM LENCHA RU 0240/11

WOGAYEU ENDALEW RU

ADVISOR’S NAME: MR. BIRHANU A.

FICHE, ETHIOPIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We fill pleasure to thank God, who gave us health to complete this work. Second, we would like
to appreciate our advisor Mr. Birhanu A.who directs us for whatever it is not clear to us and for
his supportive and constructing comments. In addition to this, we would like to give sincerely to
our Instructor who guides us how to do the research proposal in his contribution to this
senior research proposal course. Then we would like to gratitude our parents for supporting
money. Finally, we would like to thank our group members for their contribution of relevant
ideas, experiences, knowledge and providing money.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................................................i
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS.......................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................v
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background and Justification of the study........................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the problem..................................................................................................................2
1.3. Objective of the study.......................................................................................................................3
1.3.1. Specific objectives.....................................................................................................................3
1.4. Research questions...........................................................................................................................3
1.5. Significance of the study...................................................................................................................4
1.6. Scope and delimitation of the study..................................................................................................4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................5
2.1. Definition and concepts of adoption.................................................................................................5
2.2. Definition of row planting................................................................................................................6
2.3. Teff production in Ethiopia...............................................................................................................6
2.3.1. Major Teff Producing Regions..................................................................................................8
2.4. Methods of sowing teff.....................................................................................................................9
2.4.1. Broadcasting method.................................................................................................................9
2.4.2. Teff row planting method........................................................................................................10
2.5. Review of empirical studies on related to the study........................................................................10
2.5.1. Empirical studies on factors affecting adoption teff row planting technology.........................10
2.6. Conceptual frame work...................................................................................................................12
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................15
3.1. Description of the study area..........................................................................................................15
3.2. Sampling Technique and Size determination..................................................................................16
3.2.1. Sample technique.....................................................................................................................16
3.2.2. Sample size..............................................................................................................................16
3.3. Research design..............................................................................................................................16
3.4. Sources of data collection...............................................................................................................17
3.5. Types of data collection..................................................................................................................17
3.6. Methods of data collection..............................................................................................................17
3.7. Methods of data analysis.................................................................................................................17
3.8. Definition of variables....................................................................................................................18
4. WORK PLAN.......................................................................................................................................19
5. LOGISTICS (COST ESTIMATIONS) OF THE STUDY.....................................................................20
REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................21

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

ATA Agriculture and Transformation Agency

CSA Central Statistics Agency

DAs Development Agents

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GDP Growth Domestic Product

MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science

USAID United States of America International Deficiency

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: work plan.....................................................................................................................................18
Table 2: Stationary expense.......................................................................................................................19
Table 3: Miscellaneous expense................................................................................................................20
Table 4: Budget summary..........................................................................................................................20

iv
 ABSTRACT
The title for this senior research proposal is assessment on factors affecting adoption of teff row
planting technology in Tach Teda, North Gondar, Oromo

region, ra rEthiopia with the objective of to assess the factors affecting adoption of teff row
planting technology and to investigate the willingness of farmers towards adoption of teff row
planting technology. Teff production system used by the majority of farmers is very traditional,
most of the farmers in the country as well as in the study area broadcast Teff seeds, i.e.
scattering seed by hand, at high seed rates. Therefore the aim of this study proposed to fill the
gap on what the previous researcher overlook regarding to adoption of teff row planting
technology in the study area, to assess the factors that affect adoption of teff row planting
technology, to assess the opinion of farmers about the row planting technology practice. Source
of data for this study will both primary (DAs, key informant interview, observation, FGD and
selected respondents) and secondary( books, published and unpublished documents, official
records and related literature and type of data in line with both quantitative and qualitative data
will be employed. Probability and non-probability sampling technique will be employed to select
sample respondents. The total respondents 36 will be selected for the sake of interview. In line
with this, a combination of data collection techniques like interview with sample respondents
and concerned agricultural experts and focused group discussion will be employed to gather
qualitative and quantitative data for the study. The researchers will employ comparative
research design and the study will analysis by using SPSS, Likert scale, mean, variance,
frequency and standard deviation.

v
1. INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification of the study
From time of the ancient days, agriculture remains the backbone of Ethiopia ‘s economy and still
expected to play a dominant role in the years to come. Agriculture employs about 83% of the
total population and 90% of the total export earnings, 43% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
and provides about 70% of the county's raw material requirement for large and medium scale
industries (MOFED, 2013). Hence, the performance of the agricultural sector largely determines
the performance of the entire economy of the country.

Ethiopia’s crop agriculture is complex, involving substantial variation in crops grown across the
country’s different regions and ecologies. Five major cereals (teff, wheat, maize, sorghum, and
barley) are the core of Ethiopia’s agriculture and food economy, accounting for about three-
fourths of the total area cultivated, 29 percent of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) in
2005/06 (14 percent of total GDP), and 64 percent of calories consumed (FAO 2010).

Nevertheless, it is mainly characterized by rain fed, subsistence oriented, smallholder production

system and traditional farming practices. The other factors related to poor agricultural
performance are reduced soil fertility, unreliable climatic conditions, poor infrastructure,
environmental degradation, and land scarcity have resulted in low crop yields and income
variability, on the one hand and high population growth rate on the other (FAO, 2010).

Teff which is one of the staple food crops of Ethiopians is believed to be originated,
domesticated and diversified in the country. It is a hugely important crop to Ethiopia, both in
terms of production and consumption. In a country of 104,238,646 million people, Teff accounts
for about 15% of all calories consumed in Ethiopia. Furthermore, approximately 6 million
households grow teff and it is the dominant cereal crop in over 30 of the 83 high-potential
agricultural woredas (MoARD, 2011).

In terms of production, Teff is the dominant cereal by area planted and second only to maize in
production and consumption in Ethiopia. There are 8 major Teff-producing zones in the oromo
region. Within Oromo, the East Gojam, West Gojam, North Gonder, South Gonder, North
Wollo, South Wollo, North Showa, and Awi zones are the major producers of Teff . However,
yields are relatively low (around 1.2 tones/ha) and suffer from high loss rates (25-30% both

1
before and after harvest). As a result of this it reduces the quantity of grain available to
consumers by up to 50%.In order to increase the production and productivity of teff among
different efforts made by the agriculture sector row planting technology was introduced in
2010/2011 at farm level (MoARD, 2008).

Statement of the problem

Teff is a highly valuable grain for Ethiopian people both in production amount and in
consumption level. It is a staple food and a source for more than 15% of calories intake by the
total population of the country. More than 6 million households’ life depend on the production of
teff covering the largest agricultural area of the country than any other types of grain, however
the amount of production is not as much as its production coverage and value (Berhe et al.,
2011).

Teff production system used by the majority of farmers is very traditional, most of the farmers in
the country as well as in the study area 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. In response to this currently there are some
works made in partnerships of Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and Agricultural Transformation
Agency (ATA) farmers are being introduced to modern technology of row planting of Teff with
reduced seed rate and application of other agronomic technologies (ATA, 2010).

Similarly, the method of sowing which is practiced in oromo regional state, North ambo, ambo
zuria district, Tach Teda kebele, as well as in other part of the country is hand broadcasting after
cattle trampling the field is the usual method of sowing teff. In most cases, the seeds are left
uncovered, although some farmers pull tree branches over the surface to cover the seeds lightly
with soil, in case there is dry spell after sowing. Uncovered seeds are also prone to erosion
(water and wind) and bird attack (MoARD, 2010).

The farmers use traditional farming system and the sowing method what they apply still now
broadcasting method (Dembecha Administration Office 2017).

2
There is research gap in Tache Teda kebele, Gondar zuria district, North Gondar, Amhara region
on factors affecting teff row panting technology especially in Tach Teda kebele little attention on
studying regard to adoption of teff row planting technology.Therefore the aim of this study is
intended to fill the gap on what the previous researcher overlook regarding to adoption of teff
row planting technology in the study area, to assess the factors that affect adoption of teff row
planting technology, to assess the opinion of farmers about the row planting technology practice.

Objective of the study

The general objective of the study is to assess factors affecting adoption of teff row planting
technology in, demebecha zuria district, west Gojjam, Ethiopia.

Specific objectives
 To assess the farmers level of adoption teff row planting technology in the study area.
 To examine the willingness of the farmers to adopt Teff row planting technology in
demebcha.
 To identify the major factors that affect adoption of teff row planting technology in the
study area.

Research questions
1. How do the farmer’s level of adoption teff row planting technology?
2. Are you willing to adopt teff row planting technology?
3. What are the major factors that affect adoption of teff row planting technology?

Significance of the study

This study will provide an insight on the effect of sowing in line on agricultural productivity. In
addition, this research will be basis for other research to investigate similar issues. Moreover,
this study may address policy implication to foster economic growth in Amhara, Ethiopia.
Therefore, this study may serve as a source of additional information which may be of significant

3
use to policy makers and planners of the Tach Teda, Gondar zuria district, North Gondar as well
as the region during the implementation of row planting technology.

Scope and delimitation of the study

Since it will not possible to cover the whole kebeles that are found in the district with the
available time and resources, the research proposal confined in terms of scope of the problem
and geographical area to a manageable size. Hence, the study will be carried out in Tach Teda
kebele, Gondar zuria district. The study considers farmers who are practicing row planting of teff
and who doesn‘t practice it. Substantial qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered on
agricultural production, the different aspects of the row planting technology adopted, problems
related with the technology intervention and potential solutions, and reason not to adopt by non-
users of the technology. It is impossible to extend the study away from this kebele; on the other
hand, some respondents could be reluctant to give accurate information about their back ground
and they fear to give correct information on sensitive issues. So, to minimize this limitation we
will just create awareness for the respondents to change their behavior towards the researcher in
order to get relevant information as regard to this study.

4
 2.LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition and concepts of adoption

Adoption is defined as a decision to apply an innovation and to continue to use it over a
reasonably long period of time (Ban and Hawkins, 1996). It is further noted that adoption is not a
permanent behavior. An individual may decide to discontinue the use of an innovation for a
variety of personal, institutional, or social reasons, one of which it might be the availability of an
idea or practice that is better in satisfying needs.
Feder et al. (1985) argue that adoption is a process which passes through several mental stages
on which an individual passes after first hearing about an innovation to finally deciding to accept
or reject it. This process generally includes five stages: aware about the new innovation, creating
interest on the new innovation, evaluation or weighing the advantage and shortcomings of the
innovation, trial in small scale to see the suitability of the innovation and finally adopted and
apply it in the large scale for further expansion if it is satisfying the needs of the local
condition.Farmers are classified according to their tendency to adopt and accept an innovation as
innovators, early adopters, followers, and laggards (Feder et al., 1985).

The contribution to the innovation process tried to determine the possibility of adoption of these
five innovative systems by examining the socio-economic determinants behind their adoption of
the technology. It is now well-known that farmers often fail to follow the technical advice put-
out by the extension services, and do not always adopt technical innovations (Bonin and Cattan,
2006). This makes assessing the factors that can enhance innovation adoption a useful step to
redirect appropriate technology development and define suitable policy and strategies to improve
the possibility of adoption of innovations entailing lower chemical input use. According to Feder
et al. (1985), the adoption category of individuals and their proportion is 2.5%, 13.5%, 34%,
34%, and 16% for innovator, early adopter, early majority, late adopter and laggards
respectively.

The rate of adoption is defined as the percentage of farmers who have adopted a given technology.
The intensity of adoption is defined as the level of adoption of a given technology. The number of
hectares planted with improved seed (also tested as the percentage of each farm planted to improved

5
seed) or the amount of input applied per hectare will be referred to as the intensity of adoption of the
respective technologies (Nkonya et al., 1997).

Adoption does not necessarily follow the suggested stages from awareness to adoption; trial may
not be always practiced by farmers to adopt new technology. Farmers may adopt the new
technology by passing the trial stage. In some cases, particularly with environmental innovations,
farmers may hold awareness and knowledge but because of other factors affecting the decision
making process, adoption may not occur (Barron et al., 2003).

Definition of row planting

Planting with space' involves the growing of plants on a plot of land with sufficient space
between each of the plants so that they can develop their roots and shoots more fully. As
emphasized by ATA (2012), Crop 'planting with space' starts with growing seedlings in a nursery
and planting these in the field with sufficient and equal spacing between each seedling or, the
seed can be sown in rows with sufficient spacing between the seeds and between the rows. In
Ethiopia, it is the practice with crops such as sorghum, maize and teff that, when these begin to
grow, there will be some areas in the field where they are close together and other areas where
there are gaps between the plants. Farmers lightly plough and lift the plants out from the densely-
growing areas and re-plant them in the gaps. This is a traditional type of 'planting with
space'(Tenkir Bonger, 2009).

Teff production in Ethiopia

Teff accounts for about a quarter of total cereal crop production in Ethiopia. According to
USAID (2012), teff is currently the most expensive grain in Ethiopia because it requires labor-
intensive harvesting and processing techniques, while producing the lowest yield per hectare of
all cereal crops. Economic indicators unveil that teff is the most dominant cereal crop in
Ethiopian agriculture. For instance, in 2010 cropping season, it was estimated that a total of 3.2
million tons of teff has been produced on 2.59 million hectare of land (CSA, 2010). This is
equivalent to 20.50 and 28% of the total cereal crop production and acreage in the country
respectively. This makes teff the leading crop among cereals and even among other annual crops.

6
Teff is Ethiopia’s most important cereal crop, but the national average yield level is low. One of
the presumed reasons is that current agronomic practices constraining teff productivity. By
planting seed in rows at a low seed rate instead of the traditional practice of broadcasting seed at
a high rate, yield is shown to improve significantly on-station. Field demonstrations of row
planting of teff showed that yields increase on average by 70% compared to the national average
(ATA, 2013). Consequently, these new production technologies are being promoted to Ethiopian
teff farmers on a large scale.

In 2011/12 production season, it was estimated that teff made up of 20% of all the cultivated area
in Ethiopia, covering about 2.7 million hectares and grown by 6.3 million farmers. The second
most important crop was maize at 15% of all cultivated area. However, given the relatively low
yields of teff; the total national production of teff is 3.5 million ton which was lower than maize
with 6.1 million ton and sorghum with 3.9 million ton (CSA, 2012).

On the consumption side, teff is more readily eaten by urban households than by rural
households. Guush et al. (2011) show that, relying on national household consumption data that
urban consumption per capita is as high as 61 Kilogram per year. This compares to 20 Kilogram
per capita per year for rural areas. Teff is therefore an economically superior crop commodity
that is relatively more consumed by the rich than by the poor. The lower consumption by the
poor is also partly explained by the high prices of teff which are typically twice as high as the
price of maize (Minten et al., 2012).

Teff is resistant to extreme weather conditions, as it is able to grow under both drought and
waterlogged conditions (Minten et al., 2013). Combined with its low vulnerability to pest and
diseases, it is considered as a low risk crop (Fufa et al., 2011).

In Ethiopia, teff is sown during the main summer rainy season between July and August, while
harvesting is done in most cases in November and February. Seeds are broadcasted on a well
ploughed soil and lightly covered with soil until germination. During the growing period, several
weeding are often required (Assefa et al., 2011).
Teff has enormous potential for growth as it has been given very little attention in research,
development and public support (CSA, 2013). Additionally, it has remained an important crop to

7
Ethiopian farmers for several reasons, namely: the price for its grain and straw are higher than
other major cereals; the crop performs better than other cereals under moisture stress and
waterlogged conditions; its grain can be stored for a long period of time without being attacked
by weevils. Increased productivity is believed to contribute about 6% of the growth while about
5% was attributed to expansion in area cultivated to teff.
So a reasonable conclusion that can be inferred from the literature is that, the current or existing
level of technology and factor endowment, there is a potential to boost agricultural output like
teff production by improving the internal efficiency of the farmers through promoting new
production innovation, education and providing credit facilities to the farmers, to mention few
(Assefa et al., 2011).Teff is primarily grown to prepare injera, bread, porridge and some native
alcoholic drinks (MoARD, 2009). It is the most adapted and major crop in the diverse agro-
ecologies of the country.

Major Teff Producing Regions

In Ethiopia, teff is mainly produced in vast areas of Amhara and Oromia, the total area covered
by teff in these regions are 1,014,268 ha and 1,289,405 ha respectively (CSA, 2011).With
smaller quantities in SNNP and Tigray. There are 19 major Teff-producing zones in the country.
Within Oromo, the East Gojam, West Gojam, North Gonder, South Gonder, North Wollo, South
Wollo, North Showa, and Awi zones are the major producers of Teff. The Central and South
Tigray zones are the major zones in Tigray. In Oromia, the major zones include East Shoa, West
Shoa, Southwest Shoa, North Shoa, East Wallaga, Horo Guduru Wollega, Jimma, Illuababora,
and Arsi (ATA, 2013b).

Methods of sowing teff

Broadcasting method
For broadcast sowing, very poor establishment percentages are common, often falling below 50
percent (Oyewole et al., 2010). Part of this is due to rough seedbeds, poor seed covering and
poor contact between seed and moist soil. Additionally, where seed is hand harvested and stored
on-farms, quality can be poor because of storage at high temperature and moisture. Sticks, stones
and weed seeds reduce quality further. With such poor seed, farmers have to use very high seed
rates to obtain adequate plant populations. The optimum seed rate for broadcast grains can be

8
twice that for drill-sown grains. Maximum yield in broadcast grains is also likely to be lower.
This in part is because applied fertilizer is mixed through the soil rather than placed near the seed
as in drilling, so is less directly accessible to plant roots (Tareke, 2008).

For germination to occur in seeds there is the need for row seeded to be in perfect contact with
the soil to facilitate water uptake (Oyewole et al., 2010). Broadcasting does not bring seed in
perfect contact with the soil for water uptake (Oyewole et al., 2010).

Which must have accounted for the observed reduction in mean stand count among broadcast
plots in comparison with the broadcast. The broadcasting system with poor quality of seed, poor
soil fertility, and seed rate which is 25-50 kg/ha which make the mature plant to lodge i.e. fall
over. All these things affected the production of teff (Tareke, 2008).

A research was conducted at Debrezeit Agriculture research center by using 25kg/ha but the
result was very low as comparing to row sowing. The yield of the broadcasting plot was 500-
1200kg/ha on the other hand the transplanted ones have given 3,400-5,100kg/ha. This shows the
new the row planting has a four-fold increase in yield. One of the risks associated with higher
plant populations is the increased potential for lodging which can impact yield and quality. This
may be particularly true under high yield environments like the Red River Valley. When using
higher seeding rates, growers are advised to select semi-dwarf and shorter-straw varieties or
varieties with very strong straw strength. Another consideration of higher plant stands is a
thicker canopy which may lead to higher disease pressure. Scouting will be important during the
season to monitor disease pressure in case fungicide applications are warranted (Tareke, 2008).

Teff row planting method

It has been argued recently that low Teff productivity is partly caused by the way farmers sow
Teff seed. Traditionally, farmers broadcast the seed using a rate of 25–50 kg per hectare (ATA
2013a). This practice reduces yields because of the uneven distribution of the seeds, higher
competition between plants for inputs (water, light and nutrients), and difficult weeding once the
plants have matured (Fufa et al. 2011).
As a solution, it has been proposed to reduce seed rates and to plant seed in rows or to transplant
seedlings (as is often done for rice, for example). Reducing the seed rate to between 2.5 and 3 kg

9
per hectare allows for reduced competition between seedlings and optimal tillering of the Teff
plants. By row planting or transplanting the seeds, land management and especially weeding can
also be done more readily and the incidence of lodging is reduced (Berhe et al. 2011, Chanyalew
and Assefa 2013).

The belief in the potential of reduced seed rate technologies to increase Teff productivity is the
outcome of on-station agronomic research. The System of Teff Intensification (STI) —based on
the insights of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) experience (Moser and Barrett 2006)
assessed the impact of different planting methods on Teff yield (World Bank 2012).

Experiments in research settings1 showed that when Teff was transplanted in rows and
appropriate types of fertilizer were used, Teff yields were on average three times higher than
yields obtained when using traditional broadcasting. Transplanting improved yields over
broadcasting because it increased the number of plant tillers, produced stronger and fertile tiller
culms, and the number of seeds per panicle increased (Berhe et al. 2011).

Review of empirical studies on related to the study

Empirical studies on factors affecting adoption teff row planting technology

The factors affecting adoption in teff row planting technology are classified in farmer
characteristics, farm structure, institutional characteristics and managerial structure (Blazy,
2008). Evidence from previous studies shows that, the critical role that underdeveloped input
supply and marketing systems play on input choices and technology adoption in smallholder
agriculture (Shiferaw et al., 2008). Access to credit service, extension visit and source of
information could affect the adoption of new innovation by the farmers. The need to provide
credit services to the farmers to empower them so as to acquire inputs which will enhance their
adoption of new teff row planting technology (Okunlola, 2009).
Farmers‟ participation in trainings and visits has made them to achieve relevant and timely
information about agricultural production could motivate them to adopt teff row planting
technology (Kafle, 2011).According to (Feder et al., 1985; Doss, 2006; Bandiera and Rasul,
2006; Pycroft, 2008; Yu et al., 2010; Di Falco and Bulte, 2011; Teklewold et al., 2013). The
factors related to the characteristics of producers include education level, experience with the

10
activity, age, gender, level of wealth, farm size, labor availability, resource endowment, risk
aversion, etc.

According to Ayele et al. (2006), reported that the farmers who participated in extension
programs utilized teff row planting technology in Ethiopia. Another study by Bekele and Drake
(2003) in the Eastern highlands of Ethiopia demonstrated that plot-level adoption of teff row
planting technology was positively associated with farmers’ access to information and support
programs at initial stages. In one hand, According to Bewket (2007), insecurity of land tenure
was one of the major constraints for adoption and dictated the choice of teff row planting
technology in the north-western highlands of Ethiopia. Bewket, (2007).Found that SWC with
low labor demands was adopted better when farmers faced tenure insecurity problems. Policy
studies showed a positive association between poor access to the district town and adoption of
teff row planting technology. Market involvement increases the income opportunity of
households and increases the adoption of agricultural and teff row planting technology (Amsalu
and de Graaff, 2006).
On the other hand, According to (Yaron et al., 1992; Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002).In fact, the
influence of extension agents can counter balance the negative effect of lack of formal education
in the overall decision to adopt teff row planting technology. Exposure to extension contact
enhances farmers’ awareness of adoption problem and motivates them to look for solutions or
accept proposed interventions by the extension system. Similarly Ayele et al. (2006), reported
that the farmers who participated in extension programs utilized teff row planting technology in
Ethiopia.
The positive association between poor access to market and adoption of teff row planting
technology is likely to be due to poorer households' access to NGO credit and extension
programmes in remote areas, which was the case also in the study by Benin et al.
(2003).According to Tsibuk Berhe, (2015). Increase or decrease in education level has no
significant relationship with the adoption of teff row planting technology. On the contrary,
Asfaw and Admassie (2007); Salasya et al., (2007) reported that education has positive and
significant relationship with the adoption of teff row planting technology. Additionally,
According to (Chianu and Tsujii, 2004). Reported that in line to Asfaw and Admassie (2007).
Education will affect positively with the increase in education level of farmers.

11
According to (Khanna, 2001), Sex is related to the adoption of modern teff row planting
technology by farm households. This means that male farmers are more likely to adopt modern
teff row planting technologies from their female counterparts due to the reason that men have a
capability to make production decisions and also control over productive resources which are
critical for the adoption of new technologies. Cultural settings of most African societies have
always being favoring males to be more dominant and acquiring more resources than females
and hence having relatively higher income (Duze and Mohammed, 2006).

The researchers (Group six) strongly disagree with the finding of Tsibuk Berhe, (2015). Increase
or decrease in education level has no significant relationship with the adoption of teff row
planting technology rather the researcher strongly support the idea of Asfaw and Admassie
(2007); Salasya et al., (2007) education level has own influence to adopt teff row planting
technology positively.

Conceptual frame work

It is clear that several factors may help to explain the adoption decision. However, the attempt to
include all these in the study is generally not viable option due to shortage of research funds and
time that may limit the amount of data to be collected. In addition, the relationship generally
exists among number of factors, precluding their inclusion in the analysis efforts. Considering
this limitation, therefore, those factors will be considered and defined to exert the largest
influence on teff row planting technology adoption; given the circumstances in the study area
will be investigated in the analyses in the adoption of the teff row planting technology for the
study. Based on the objective of the study, the independent variables selected to achieve the
ultimate objective of the study are broadly categorized in to economic, institutional, demographic
and psychological factor related variables.

The relationship between dependent and independent variables of the study are described in
Figure 1. Therefore, the decision to adopt on teff row planting technology is affected by the
institutional factor like participation in training, participation in field day, participation in
demonstration, frequency of contacts with extension agents, access to credit services, market
distance and social participation, demographic factors like age structure, sex, mass media
exposure and education level; economic factors like total household income, family labor, land
12
holding and livestock holding and psychological factors like perception related variables
included in the study. The framework emphasized on the relationship of the explanatory
variables with the dependent variables the relationship of the explanatory variables was not
shown in the diagram. This does not mean that there is no relationship between explanatory
variables, but simply to concentrate on their relationship with the dependent variables rather than
relationship among themselves.

Socio-economic
Institutional factors factors
Participation in Household income
training Family labor
Frequency of contact Land holding
with DAs Adoption of teff
Livestock size
Access to credit row planting
Social
Market distance technology participation
 Mass media exposure
Participation in
field days

Demographic factors
Age
Sex

Figure 1: Conceptual frame work Source: MoARD, (2008)

13
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Description of the study area

14
15
16
17
18
 Sampling Technique and Size determination

Sample technique

Both non-probability and probability sampling technique will be employed. The techniques that
will be used to select the study area by purposive sampling because of the study area is not too
far from the campus and the farmers who are from the study area suffered by traditional teff

19
production system that is broadcasting. The researcher also will employee systematic random
sampling to select sample respondents from the sample frame.

Sample size

The size of the sample depends up on the precisions desires and there is no single rule that can be
used to determine sample size, but the larger sample is much more to likely to representative of
the population. So these cases, the total population of the study area is about 4184 from which
2069 are male and 2115 are females. The total household is 708. The researchers assume 5% of
total population selected 36 households only. The sample size is limited because of time; budget
and other limitations are taken in to account.

Research design
In order to assess different factors affecting the adoption of teff row planting technology on teff
production between high adopter and low adopter comparative research designed will be
employed or used.

Sources of data collection

Data for this study will capture from primary and secondary sources of data. The majority of
primary data will be collected from selected farmers through focused group discussion (FGD),
structured interviews and field observation. Other informants-zonal and district agricultural
experts, kebele administrators and development agents (DAs) - will also be source of primary
data.

The secondary data for this study will use relevant literature, published, unpublished
documents, internet, referral books, reports of agricultural and rural development offices and
other publications and journal

Types of data collection

The types of data that will be employed for this study will be both quantitative and qualitative
data used. Qualitative method is used to capture data pertaining farmers willingness to adopt
sowing in line using semi-structured questionnaire. Quantitative data on demographic

20
characteristics and other basic information is collected from sample households using structured
questionnaire.

Methods of data collection

Different types of data will be collected and the data that will be relevant to the objective of the
study from different sources. The method of data collection for this study will employ for
primary data includes; focus group discussion, field observation, structured interview and key
informant interview. Secondary data will be collected from official report, published and
unpublished documents.

Methods of data analysis

The data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistical analysis methods
that will be employed to discuss the result of survey are; frequency, mean, standard deviation,
percentages, besides mean comparisons of independent samples and relation of sample category
with variables in questions. Perception will be measured using Likert scale with items developed
for the purpose of this study. To achieve this, five point Likert scale containing items with
response categories ranging: strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree and strongly disagree for
favorable statements questions will be developed. Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)
version 20 software will be employed to analyze the collected data.

Definition of variables
Dependent variable: Adoption of teff row planting technology.

Independent variable is a variable that stands alone and isn’t changed by the other variables
you are trying to measure. Now we are going to identify our independent variable based up on
our research proposal is that:

 Access to credit
 sex
 Family size
 Income of the farmer,
 Education
 Age
21
  Livestock size all this are independent variable.
 Land size
 Extension contact with DAs
 Participation in training
 Market distance
 Social participation
 Mass media exposure
 Perception of the farmers

2. WORK PLAN
Table 1: work plan

Activities to be done Schedule of the activities( duration)

Topic selection February 2017

Depth literature review February – may 2017
Develop proposal March 2017
Preparation of interview schedule February 2018
Purchase of stationary material February 2018
Pre-testing and amendment of March 2018
questionnaire
Selection of respondent household February 2018

Research design March 2018

Data collection March –April 2018

Data analysis April 2018

Write first draft report April 2017

Review the draft report May 2018

Write up or writing final report May 2018

Making power point May 2018

Report submission May 2018

22
 Presenting the report May 2018

3. LOGISTICS (COST ESTIMATIONS) OF THE STUDY

Table 2: Stationary expense

No Items Unit Unit price Quantity Total price

. in birr
1 Paper Packet 135 1 135
2 Printing Page 1.5 35 52.5
3 Pen Number 5 6 30
4 Flash disk Number 150 1 150
5 Photo copy Page 0.4 210 84
Sub Total =415.5 birr
Table 3: Miscellaneous expense

No. Item Price in birr

1 Internet fee 50
2 Telephone 30
3 Mobile card 100
3 Transport 60
Subtotal =240 birr

Table 4: Budget summary

Description Sub total

Stationary 415.5 birr
Miscellaneous expense 240 birr

23
Total = 655.5 birr

REFERENCE
Amsalu, A., De Graaff, (2006). Farmers’ Views of Soil Erosion Problems and their Conservation
Knowledge at Beressa Watershed, Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture and HumanValues
23:99-108

Asfaw, A. and Admassie, A. (2007). The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertilizer
under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia. Journal of agricultural Economics,
30:215-228.

Assefa, K., S. Aliye, G. Belay, G. Metaferia, H. Tefera, and M. E. Sorrells, (2011). Quncho: The
First Popular Tef Variety in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9 (1).

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), (2011). Teff value chain in Ethiopia. Teff.
http://www.ata.gov.et/programs/value-chain-programs/teff/ [accessed online on 15/02/2014].

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), (2012). Annual Report: Transforming Agriculture

in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), (2013b). Working Strategy for Strengthening

Ethiopian’s Tef Value Chain Vision, Systemic Challenges, and Prioritized Interventions. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency). (2013a). Results of 2012 New Tef Technologies
Demonstration Trials Draft Report VF. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ayele G., Bekele. M., Zekeria, S. (2006). Productivity and Efficiency of Agricultural Extension
Package in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EDRI. 2010

Ban, A.W. Van den and Hawkins, H.S. (1996). Agricultural extension. Second edition. Black
Well Science Ltd., Berlin, Germany.

24
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., Rasul, I. (2010). Team Incentives: Evidence from a Field
Experiment, mimeo, University College London.

Barron, J., Rockstorm, J., Gichuki, F. and Hatibu, N. (2003). Dry spell analysis and maize yields
for two semi-arid locations in East Africa. Agriculture for Meteorology, 117: 23-37.

Berhe, T., Gebretsadik, Z., Edwards, S. and Araya, H. (2011). Boosting teff productivity using
improved agronomic practices and appropriate fertilizer. In achievements and prospects of teff
improvement. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, November 7-9, 2011, Debre
Zeit, Ethiopia, edited by Assefa, K., Solomon, T. and Chanyalew, Z. 133–140.

Bewket, W. (2007). Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in
northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers. Land use Policy
24:404-416

Blazy, J.M. (2008). Evolution ex ante de systems de culture innovants par modélisation
agronomique et économique: de la conception à l‟adoption. Cas des systèmes de culture
bananiers en Guadeloupe. PhD thesis, Montpellier SupAgro.

Bonin and Cattan, (2006). Convergences and differences between the objectives of the financial
support facilities and those of the farmers: the case of fallow periods in banana production of
Guadeloupe. Fruits, 61: 9–23.

Chianu, J.N. and Tsujii, H. (2004). Determinants of farmers‟ decision to adopt or not adopt
inorganic fertilizer in the savannas of northern Nigeria. Nutrition cycle and Agro-ecosystem, 70:
293–301

CSA (Central Statistical Agency). (2013). Agricultural Sample Survey: Area and Production of
Major Crops, “Meher Season”. Vol. I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Authority), (2010). Agricultural Sample Survey 2008/2009 vol. 1.
Report on area and production for major crops (private peasant holding meher season) statistical
Bulletin 417, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

25
CSA (Central Statistics Agency), (2011). Agricultural Sample Survey: Area Planed and
Production of Major Crops. Meher Season. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA, (2012). Central Statistic Authority. Agricultural Sample Survey: report on Area and
production of major Crops (Private peasant holdings meher season), Volume I Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Duze, M. and Mohamed, Z.I. (2006). Male knowledge, attitudes, and family planning practices in
Northern Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 10 (3): 53-65.
Environment, Helsinki, Finland, 7(2): 12-15.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), (2010). Food Production and
Food Balance Sheet Databases.

Feder, L.,R.E.,Just and O., Zilberman, (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in eveloping
Countries: A survey.

Fufa Bekabil, Behute, B., Simons, R., and Tareke Berhe, (2011). Strengthening the teff value
chain in Ethiopia. Mimeo, Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Guush Berhane, Zelekawork Paulos, Kibrom Tafere and Seneshaw Tamiru, (2011). Food grain
Consumption and Calorie Intake Patterns in Ethiopia. ESSP II working paper 23, May 2011.

Kafle, B. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of organic vegetable farming in Chitwan District,
Nepal: World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 7(5): 604-606

Khanna, M. 2001. Sequential adoption of site-specific technologies and its implications for nitrogen
productivity: A double selectivity model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 83(1), 35-51.
Metrological agency of Gondar, (2017). Metrological information of the tach teda, north
Gondar, Ethiopia.

Minten, B., Stifel, D.C. and Tamru Seneshaw, 2012. Structural transformation in Ethiopia:
Evidence from cereal markets. ESSP II Working Paper 39. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International
Food Policy Research Institute / Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II.

26
Minten, B., Tamru Senesha, Ermias Engida and Tadesse Kuma, (2013). Ethiopia‟s Value Chains
on the Move: The Case of Teff. ESSP II Working Paper 52. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and rural development), (2008). Crop variety register, Animal
and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), (2009). Crop variety register,
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate Issue No. 12, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 1-6

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), (2011) Extension Department. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development), (2013). Rural development policy
and Strategies. Economic Policy and Planning Department. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Moser, C. M., and C. B. Barrett. (2006). “The Complex Dynamics of Smallholder Technology
Adoption: The Case of SRI in Madagascar.” Agricultural Economics 35 (3): 373–388.

Nkonya, E., T. Schroeder and D. Norman, (1997). Factors affecting adoption of improved maize
seed and fertilizer in North Tanzania.Indian j. Agri.econ, 48(1):1-12.

Okunlola, J.O. (2009). Factors influencing adoption of rubber based technologies among small
holder farmers in Delta state, Nigeria: International Journal of Food Agriculture and
Environment, Helsinki, Finland, 7(2): 12-15.

Oyewole C. I., Ajayi. O. and Ojuekaiye. R O. (2010).evaluation of yields of seven upland rice
(oryzae sativa) cultivars sown by three methods in anyigba, kogi state, Nigeria: African Journal
of Agricultural Research Vol. 5(16), pp. 2089-2096, 18 August, 2010.

Salasya, B. Mwangi, W., Mwabu, D. and Diallo, A. (2007). Factors influencing adoption
ofStress-tolerant maize hybrid (WH 502) in Western Kenya.African Journal of
AgriculturalResearch. 2(10): 544-551.

27
Shiferaw Bekele, Kebede Tewodros and You, L. (2008).Technology adoption under seed access
constraints and the economic impacts of improved pigeon pea varieties in Tanzania‟, gricultural
Economics, 39 (3): 309-323.
Tareke Berhe, (2008). Increasing Productivity of Tef, Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter: New
Approaches with Dramatic results (Unpublished Report), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tenkir Bonger, Gezahegn Ayele and Tadesse Kuma, (2004). Agricultural Extension, Adoption
and Diffusion in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tsibuk Berhe, (2015). Factors affecting Adoption of quncho teff variety Ethiopia, Department of
rural development and agricultural extension, Hramaya University, Ethiopia, 31(3): 29-36.

USAID, (2012). Improved Grain Varieties: Impact through Research and Development, tool for
transformation, capacity to improve agriculture and food security. 13: 1

World Bank, (2012). Raising Smallholder Food Crop Yield with Climate-smart Agroecological
Practices. In the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Beyond: Coping with Climate Change,
1–24. The World Bank. Washington, DC, USA.

Yaron, Bonabana-Wabbi J. (2002). Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural

Technologies: The Case of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District, Msc. Thesis
Eastern Uganda

28