ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF

TRITICALE (X-Triticosecale wittmack) AND ITS IMPACT: THE CASE

OF FARTA WEREDA.

M.Sc. Thesis

MESFIN ASTATKIE

June 2005
Alemaya University
 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF
TRITICALE (X -Triticosecale wittmack) AND ITS IMPACT: THE CASE
OF FARTA WEREDA

A Thesis Submitted to the

Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Graduate Studies
ALEMAYA UNIVERSITY

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)

BY
Mesfin Astatkie

June 2005
Alemaya University
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ALEMAYA UNIVERSITY

As members of the Examining Board of the Final M.Sc. Open Defense, we certify that we
have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Mesfin Astatkie Lyih.
Entitled: Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale (X-Triticosecale wittmack)
and Its Impact: The Case of Farta Woreda and recommended that it be accepted as
fulfilling the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture
(Agricultural Economics).
--------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------- -------------------
Name, Chairman Signature Date
Belaineh Legesse ------------------------- -------------
Name, Major Advisor Signature Date
Elias Zerfu --------------------- ---------------
Name, Co-advisor Signature Date
---------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------
Name, Internal Examiner Signature Date
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------
Name, External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final
copy of the thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the Department
Graduate Committee (DGC) of the candidate's major department.

I hereby certify that I have read this thesis prepared under my direction and recommend
that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

---------------------- --------------------- -----------------

Name of Thesis Advisor Signature Date

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicated this Thesis manuscript to my parents and my family for their partnership in the
success of my life.

iii
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First of all, I declare that this Thesis is my work and that all sources of materials used for
this Thesis have been duly acknowledged. This Thesis has been submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced (M.Sc.) degree at the Alemaya University
and deposited at the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of
the Library.

Brief quotations from this Thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of the source is made.

Name Mesfin Astatkie Signature -------------------

Place: Alemaya University, Alemaya
Submission Date 20/ 6/005

iv
 ABBREVIATIONS

AISCO Agricultural Input Supply Corporation

ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institute
BOE Bureau of Education
CADU Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit
CSA Central Statistics Authority
CIMMYT Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maize Y Trigo
CC Contingency Coefficient
DOA Department of Office of Agriculture
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft for Technische Zusammenarbeit
DA Development Agents
DAP Di Ammonia Phosphate
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNP Gross National Product
IFSP Integrated Food Security Program
md Manday
MRR Marginal Rate of Return
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimate
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
NRC National Research Council
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
OARD Office of Agricultural and Rural Development
OoA Office of Agriculture
OPE Office of Plan and Economy
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
PEDD Planning and Economic Development Department
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WFP World Food Program

v
 BIOGRAPHY

The author was born on September 1967 in Debre Tabor, South Gondar Zone, Amhara
National Regional State. He completed his primary and secondary education in
Theowodros II Elementary and Secondary school, Debre Tabor (1978-1986).

After passing the Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination (ESLCE), he joined
the then Alemaya University of Agriculture in September 1987 and graduated with B.Sc.
degree in Animal Sciences in June 1990.

Following his graduation, he was employed by Ministry of Agriculture in September 1991

as a junior animal breeding and forage development expert at Metekel Cattle Breeding and
Multiplication center, Metekel Administrative Region. He worked there until the end of
1994.

Since October 1995 he was transferred to South Gondar Zone and served in different
Weredas at different capacities in the field of livestock production and management: from
October 1995 to April 1997 as livestock team leader at Ebinat and Fogera Weredas, from
May 1997 to July 1999 as animal breeding and forage development expert at Fogera
Wereda, and from August 1999 to May 2001 as Extension team leader of Fogera Wereda.
After June 2001 he was transferred to South Gondar Zone Agricultural Department and
worked until 2003 as animal breeding and forage development expert, from October 2002
to July 2002 as extension team leader at South Gondar Zone Department of Agriculture
and later from mid July 2002 he was transferred to Dera Wereda office of agriculture and
served as head of the office of agriculture until he joined the School of Graduate Studies at
Alemaya University in 2003.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study is the result of the encouragement and support of many individuals and
institutions. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest grateful thanks to my
major advisor Dr. Belaineh Legesse and co-advisor Dr. Elias Zerfu for their
encouragement, intellectual stimulation as well as constructive and helpful comments.
They edited the entire document timely and made very constructive comments all along.
Their support was also at my disposal in providing their personal reference materials. They
guide me with patience to enable me accomplish my study. I would like to express my
heartfelt thanks to Dr. Edilegnaw Wale to his helpful comments on the entire document.

My thanks also goes to GTZ-IFSP-South Gondar staff members and particularly Mr. Klaus
Feldner, the project coordinator, for granting me research financial support and for
allowing me to use computer programmed and transport facility in my research work. My
grateful thanks also goes to Dera Woreda Office of Agriculture for granting my salary till I
accomplish this study. I would also like to extend my thanks to Farta Woreda Office of
Agriculture and Rural Development particularly Ato Shumye Alemu, Ato Molla Abatte
and Ato Mohamed Yesuf who allowed me to use computer and duplication facilities.

I am indebted to my intimate friend Ato Zenebe Teka for his unreserved support and
friendly encouragement all the way through my study period. Special thanks goes to Ato
Abebawe Getachewe for providing advice and his personal reference materials. I would
like to thank my friends, Ato Sitotaw Assaye and Ato Legesse Gelawe, for their advice and
support that was crucial for accomplishment of my study.

I am particularly indebted to my wife, Aster Kebede, for her unreserved moral support,
encouragement and responsibility she took in taking care of our family during my leave of
absence. Special thanks are due to my father, Ato Astatkie Lyih, my Mother, w/o Huluager
Amera, my brothers, Ato Asmare Gebru, Ato Tesfa Astatkie, and my sister, w/o Demam
Kebede, for taking care and unreserved support to my family during my study. Finally, yet
importantly, I would like to thank all my brothers and sisters for their support and love.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT PAGE

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR iv

ABBREVIATIONS v

BIOGRAPHY vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xiv

ABSTRACT xv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4
1.3. Objectives of the Study 5
1.4. Significance of the Study 6
1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study 6
1.6. Organization of the Thesis 7

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

2.1. Importance of Triticale 8

2.2. Adoption of New Technologies 10
2.2.1. Adoption definition 10
2.2.2. Theoretical background 11
2.3. Adoption Models 14
2.4. Impact Assessment on Farm Income 15
2.5. Empirical Studies 17

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENT (Continued)

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23

3.1. Description of the Study Area 23

3.1.1. South Gondar Zone 23
3.1.1.1. Population 25
3.1.1.2. Agriculture 25
3.1.1.3. Infrastructure 26
3.1.1.4. Agricultural credit and input supply systems 27
3.1.2. The study wereda (Farta) 27
3.1.2.1. Population 28
3.1.2.2. Agriculture 28
3.1.2.3. Agricultural extension service 30
3.1.2.4. Agricultural credit and input supply 30
3.1.2.5. Infrastructure 31
3.2. Data Requirement and Sources 31
3.3. Sampling Design 32
3.4. Methods of Data Collection 34
3.5. Methods of Data Analysis and Econometric model used 34
3.5.1. Partial budgeting technique 38
3.5.2. Definition of variables and working hypotheses 39

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48

4.1. Results of Descriptive Analysis 48

4.1.1. Household characteristics 48
4.1.1.1. Distribution of sample households head by age and labour
availability 48
4.1.1.2. Distribution of sample household heads by family size 49
4.1.1.3. Sex distribution and marital status of respondents 50
4.1.1.4. Distribution of respondents by their involvement in non and
off- farm activity 51
4.1.1.5. Distribution of respondents by their participation in leaderships of
social organization and access to information. 52
4.1.1.6. Farming experience 53

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENT (Continued)
4.1.1.7. Educational status of sample household heads 54
4.1.2. Farm Characteristics 55
4.1.2.1. Distribution of respondents by land holding and land use patterns 55
4.1.2.2. Distribution of sample households by means of land acquisition 57
4.1.3. Distribution of respondents by type of crops produced 58
4.1.4. Distribution of respondents by labour shortage 59
4.1.5. Livestock holding of the sample households 59
4.1.6. Institutional characteristics 61
4.1.6.1. Distribution of respondents by access to extension services 61
4.1.6.2. Distribution of sample respondents by access to source of credit
and access to input supply 63
4.1.7. Accessibility to markets and all weather roads 65
4.1.8. Farmers perception about triticale yield and other parameters 67
4.1.9. Distribution of non-adopters by reasons for not using triticale 70
4.2. Econometric Results and Discussion of Factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale 70
4.2.1. Explanation of the significant variables influencing triticale adoption 71
4.2.2. Sensitivity analysis 76
4.3. Analysis Impact of Triticale Adoption on Income. 78
4.3.1. Results of partial budgeting analysis 79
4.3.2. Sensitivity analysis 82

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATION 87

5.1. Summary of Major Findings 87

5.2. Conclusions and Policy Implications. 89

6. REFERENCE 91

7. APPENDICES 98

7.1. Appendix.I Tables 99

7.2. Appendix II. Survey Questionnaire Used 102

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Area coverage and production of major crops in the zone during 2003/04 cropping
season.............................................................................................................................. 26
2. Average yield of major crops grown in the wereda......................................................... 29
3. Numbers of triticale growing kebeles in dega and woinadega and sample kebeles....... 32
4. Total number of households selected and sample size from each kebele. ...................... 33
5. Definition, and units of measurement and summary of continuous explanatory variables
used in the logistic regression......................................................................................... 46
6. Definition, units of measurement and summary of the discrete (dummy) variables used
in the logistic regression ................................................................................................. 47
7. Distribution of sample households by age, family members age group and labour
availability. ..................................................................................................................... 49
8. Distribution of sample respondents by family size ......................................................... 50
9. Distribution of sample household heads by sex and marital status ................................. 51
10. Distribution of respondents by participation in leadership of social organization and
access to information.................................................................................................... 52
11. Distribution of the respondents by engagement in non / off -farm activities ................ 53
12. Distribution of sample households in terms of their years of experience in farming.... 54
13. Distribution of sample respondents by their educational status .................................... 55
14. Distribution of respondents by size of land holding and land use pattern.................... 56
15. Land holding differentials between sample farmers...................................................... 56
16. Distribution of respondents by access to leasing in land............................................... 57
17. Distribution of sample respondents by reasons they have provided for leasing-in land58
18. Distribution of sample household by types of crops grown ......................................... 59
19. Distribution of respondents by problem of labour availability...................................... 59
20. Distribution of sample households by livestock holding .............................................. 60
21. Distribution of sample households by oxen holding ..................................................... 61
22. Access differentials of sample respondents to extension services ................................ 62
23. Distribution of sample households’ frequency of contact with extension agents ......... 62
24. Distribution of sample household by attendance in agricultural training and
demonstration day ........................................................................................................ 63

xi
 LIST OF TABLE ( Continued)

25. Distribution of sample household by access to input supply, access to credit and its
source............................................................................................................................ 64
26. Distribution of sample household by types of constraints faced in the use of
credits ........................................................................................................................... 65
27. Distribution of sample households by distance to markets ........................................... 66
28. Distribution of respondents by distance from all weather roads ................................... 67
29. Distribution of sample respondents based on perception of triticale yield compared
with barley.................................................................................................................... 68
30. Distribution of respondents by perceptive differences about of triticale yield as
compared to wheat........................................................................................................ 68
31. Respondents' perception of triticale compared to barley with regard to the different
crop characteristics ....................................................................................................... 69
32. Respondents' perception of triticale compared to wheat with regard to the different crop
characteristics ............................................................................................................... 69
33. Distribution of non-adopters by reasons provided for not using triticale...................... 70
34. Results of maximum likelihood estimates..................................................................... 75
35. Change in the probability of adoption of typical farmers with regard to dummy
variables........................................................................................................................ 77
36. Change in the probability of adoption of typical farmer with regard to continuous
variables........................................................................................................................ 78
37. Average labour requirements and cost of different crops per hectare of land............... 81
38. Cost of inputs per hectare of land for the three crops.................................................... 81
39. Results of partial budget analysis for the three crops................................................... 82
40. Sensitivity analysis of the net income of three crops with regard to grain price
variations ...................................................................................................................... 83
41. Sensitivity analysis the net income of the three crops with regard the input price
increase by 20%............................................................................................................ 84
42. Sensitivity analysis of the benefits of triticale relative to other substitute crops ......... 85

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Fig. 1.The map of South Gondar Zone and Study wereda (Farta) . .................................. 24

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. Conversion factors used to estimate man equivalent. ..................................................... 99
2. Conversion factors used to estimate TLU ...................................................................... 99
3. Variance inflation factors and R2 of continuous variables ........................................... 100
4. Contingency coefficient for dummy variables to test multicollinearity........................ 100
5. Five years input use of the wereda (In quintal)............................................................. 101

xiv
 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF
TRITICALE (X-Triticosecale wittmack) AND ITS IMPACT: THE CASE
OF FARTA WEREDA

ABSTRACT

Ethiopia with a population of 70.7 million is predominantly an agrarian country with the
vast majority of the people directly and indirectly depending on agriculture and hence,
agriculture plays a vital role. The agricultural sector is characterized by inadequate
resource endowment, traditional methods of cultivation and husbandary practices, limited
access to land saving agricultural innovation such as high yielding varieties. Hence, there
is a gap between food supply of the sector and demand.

In response to this problems large numbers of technologies have been generated over the
last many years. However, the adoption of these technologies by small holder farmers is
limited. The adoption of new technology, under varying contextual setting, is influenced by
many socio-economic, institutional and demographic factors of the farm households. So it
is vital to be awear and there is a need to understand the contextual factors affecting the
adoption of new technologies in order to generate and disseminate appropriate
technologies to farmer . Triticale is one of the potential technologies is used in the study
area. Hence, this study attempts to examine the farmers’ opinion about adoption of
triticale and the identification of factors influencing and its impact on farm income. This
study was undertaken in Farta wereda of South Gondar Zone . It has analysed the
influence of different facrors on farmers’adoption decision, its impact and to quantify the
relative importance of the significant variables on the adoption decision of triticale. In the
process of the study both primary and secondary data were used. In this study, multi-stage
random sampling procedure was used to select 5 sample kebele and 143 specific sample
farm households. The respodents were selected by employing probability proportional to
size (PPS) random sampling procedure. The requiered data were collected using interview
through structured questionnaire.

Descripitive statistics were used to understand the socioeconomic, demogrphic and

xv
institutional factors that affect adoption of triticale in the area .The survey result revealed
that about 42% of the sample respondents were adopters of the technology and 58% non-
adopters. T-test and χ 2 tests were employed to examine the mean difference of adopters
and non adopters for both continuous and dummy variables, respectively. Logistic
regression (binary logit) analysis was used to identify factors influencing adoption of
triticale.Results of the logistic regression analysis indicate that among 19 identified
explanatory variables 7 of them significantly influenced adoption of triticale. The
probability of adoption of tritcale for typical farmer in the study area was estimated by
keeping them at their mean value for the continuous varaibles and most frequent values of
dummy variables and it was found to be 0.904. The sensitivity analysis revealed that an
increase in the perecived yield level of triticale increase the probability of adoption of
triticale by 60.47% and an increase in the availability of leased-in land increase the
probability of adoption of triticale by 22.20%. Similarly, a 10% increase in distance to all
weather road and market decrease the probability of adoption by 0.32% and 1.66%,
respectively. An increase in a 10% of livestock holding, investment cost and non and off-
farm income is found to increase the probability of adoption by 1.60%, 0.48% and 0.77%,
respectively. The findings of the study revealed that perception on yield of triticale, having
access to leased-in land, construction of all weather roads, and establishment of markets
in the locality, an increase in investment cost and an improved livestock holding would
promote adoption of triticale.

xvi
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Ethiopia, with a population of 70.7 million (Tadesse and Belay, 2004) is predominantly an
agrarian country with the vast majority of its population directly or indirectly being
involved in the production of crop and livestock. Hence, agriculture plays a vital role in
Ethiopian economy.

Agriculture in Ethiopia contributes about 45% of the GDP and more than 80% of
employment. Agriculture accounts for 90% of the foreign earning, and 70% of raw
material requirements for large and medium sized industries that are agro based (Frehiwot,
1997). The smallholder farmers sub sector, which produces more than 90% of crop output,
dominates the agricultural sector (Abrar, 1996). Within agriculture, some 60% of the
output of the agricultural GDP comes from crop production. Whereas, 30% and 7% is from
livestock and forestry, respectively (MOA,1997). Subsistence farming using traditional
methods is dominant and account for over 90% of the output out of which cereal crops
taking 75% of the total cultivated area. Among the cereals, teff covers 24% of the
cultivated area, maize 14%, barley 11%, sorghum 12%, wheat 10%, and millet 3% (CSA,
1998). Despite its importance in the livelihood of the people and its potential, the sector
has remained at subsistence level. Moreover, the performance of the agricultural sector has
been poor (Amare, 1998). In general, low productivity characterizes the Ethiopian
agriculture. The average grain yield for various crops is less than one metric tone per
hectare (Asrat et al., 2003). The average land holding is only about one hectare per farming
family and the population growth is increasing pressure on land and other natural resources
(CSA, 2001 as cited in Asrat et al., 2003).

The available evidence indicates that peasant agriculture in Ethiopia is characterized by in

adequate resource endowment and traditional methods of cultivation and husbandry
practices. The majority of the smallholders in Ethiopia have limited access to land saving
agricultural innovations, such as high yielding varieties, inorganic fertilizer and chemicals
(Million and Belay, 2004).

The FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) /WFP (World Food Program) mission
estimated the population of Ethiopia for the mid year 2003 at 69 million comprising 58
million rural (84%) and 10 million urban dwellers (16%), respectively. The overall annual
population growth rate is estimated at 2.9% with an average life expectancy of 43 years at
birth (Ashenafi, 2003).

Population is growing at a fast rate and the scope for expansion of the cultivated area is
limited. However, there is significant room for yield improvement through intensification.
Ethiopia’s per capita GNP of 100 US$ in 2001 places her as one of the poorest countries in
the world (World Bank, 2003, as cited in Tadesse and Belay, 2004). Technology adoption
by agricultural producer is an essential prerequisite for economic prosperity in less
developed countries particularly in Ethiopia.

Many people in Ethiopia are facing enormous problems as they struggle to feed themselves
and to generate sufficient income to meet their basic needs. A historical survey reveals that
for a period of 40 to 50 years, the country had to live with regional or national famine
(Gallia, 1985, as cited in Belay 2004). In this respect, Yibeltal (1995) pointed out that
Ethiopia had been one of the major recipients of food aid and importer of commercial food
grain in the third world. The poor performance in food production coupled with rapid
population growth of 3.19% during 1980-1990 aggravated the problem of household food
security and per capita food production. Various factors can be cited for slow growth rates
of agriculture. Climate change, reduced soil fertility, recurrent and prolonged drought
periods coupled with backward traditional agricultural practices, weak agricultural research
base, due to lack of inadequate financial services and human capital, weak agricultural
markets and poor infrastructure, low productive crop cultivars with low agricultural input,
environmental degradation, over grazing, deforestation, low utilization and inadequate
conservation schemes of natural resources, increased human and livestock population
pressure and fragmentation of landholdings can be cited as the major ones ( Berhanu,
2002). The low productivity of agricultural sector has made it difficult to attain food self-
sufficiency at both national and household levels. Food insecurity and sluggish growth in
agricultural production, accelerated by increasing population pressure characterized the
Ethiopian agriculture (Million and Belay, 2004).

In order to avert these horrifying situations, the present government has put agriculture at
the heart of its policies so that it accelerates economic growth and development. The

2
agricultural development program focuses on agricultural growth and provides support to
small farmers, pastoralists and large-scale commercial farmers. In particular, attempts have
been made to increase agricultural production in the country through increasing, among
other things, the use of fertilizers, improved seeds, trained manpower, improved cultural
practices and reclamation of waste lands (Deresse, 1988). Moreover, food security problem
calls for diversification of livelihoods and the adoption of newly introduced crops and
livestock technologies. In this regard, adopting the newly introduced and released triticale
varieties and other additional cereal crops as an alternative is vital for the production of
food grains particularly in South Gondar zone (study area). In connection with this,
Yibabie (2003) indicates that farmers desperately need to diversify crop production in this
area in order to minimize risk of crop failure.

In fact, rapid population growth relative to food production and the scarcity of suitable
arable land necessitates the application of science based production technologies in
agriculture. At present, the Ethiopian government devotes considerable resources to
research and extension in view of encouraging small scale farmers to increase their
productivity and to enable them achieve food self sufficiency.

The effort has also included introduction of better performing crops in the country. One of
such crops is triticale. Triticale (X-Triticosecale wittmack), a crop which resulted from a
cross between wheat and rye, was first introduced and tested in Ethiopia in the 1970’s by
international agricultural research but was abandoned because of its undesirable
characteristics for consumption. Later, improved cultivars of triticale were introduced from
the university of Stellern Bosch in South Africa, through the GTZ-IFSP- South Gonder in
1998 (Manfred and Tesfaye, 2003).

Triticale with its inherent characteristics of productive capacity is believed to satisfactorily

perform in extreme environments with marginal soils and might contribute to the crop
diversification needs of farmers. Hence, triticale was introduced as an alternative food crop
in the study area to exploit its potential and to benefit farmers. Regarding the future
prospect of triticale, there is a need for large-scale production of this crops as a potential
and alternative food crop. Thus, triticale with satisfactory performance in this environment
could be considered as one of the alternative food crops in view of the ongoing effort to
attain household’s food security.

3
In order to increase the production and productivity of agricultural output, the use of
modern agricultural technologies are vital, out of which fertilizer and high yielding variety
of crops are the most important technologies to increase the level of crop production. The
South Gonder region has achieved a considerable progress in triticale use because of new
extension intervention program. Thus, improved cultivars such as triticale (X-Triticosecale
wittmack) with satisfactory performance in marginal environment can widely be cultivated
as alternative to other low-yielding crop varieties. Thus, the present study is proposed to
assess the potential factors that influence adoption of triticale and its impact on the rural
livelihood.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Most of the developing economies are characterized, inter alias, by heavy dependence on
agricultural sector, traditional type of farm practices, higher labour to capital ratio, low
adoption rate of technology and farm inputs, poor infrastructure facilities including roads,
transport, marketing, etc. and low farm productivity.

Similarly, traditional technology, low production and high risk due to adversely changing
environmental conditions characterize Ethiopia's agriculture. Its development is limited by
institutional, economic and physical factors. Furthermore, imbalance between the
population growth rate and agricultural production growth rate is one of the highly
pronounced national problems (World Bank, 1995).

Many researchers and economic analysts are concerned about the potentials created by new
technologies in developing countries and the implications of agricultural development
policies and programs in meeting the socio-economic goals of these countries. For
instance, Arnon (1981) noted that subsistence farmers have not yet been able to benefit
fully or partly from the fruits of technological innovations because of different factors
hindering the adoption of farm technologies.

The major challenge facing most of developing countries such as Ethiopia is improving
rural as well as urban food security and to stimulate underlying food system development.
There is an ever-increasing concern that it is becoming more and more difficult to achieve

4
and sustain the needed increase in agricultural production based on extensification, because
there are limited opportunities for area expansion. Hence, the solution to food problem
would depend on measures, which help to increase yield through intensification.

In Ethiopia, adoption of improved agricultural technologies has been a long-term concern

of agricultural experts, policy makers, and agricultural research and many others linked to
the sector. However, evidence indicates that adoption rate of modern agricultural
technologies in the country are very low (Kebede et al., 1990).

The adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries attracts considerable

attention because it can provide the basis for increasing production and income. Small-scale
farmers’ decisions to adopt or not adopt agricultural technologies depend on their
objectives and constraints as well as cost and benefit accruing to it (Million and Belay,
2004). Hence, farmers will adopt only technologies that suit to their needs.

With this understanding, triticale was introduced in 1998 to improve the food security
status in the study area. Currently triticale is distributed to different agro-climatic zones.
As a result, its area coverage is increasing over time and has attracted the government's
attention. Consequently, there is a growing interest to expand it into the other Weredas of
the region.

However, factors influencing adoption and the impact that has come due to the
introduction of the crop was not systematically and empirically studied and documented in
the study area. This lacuna has created an information gap. Therefore, this study was
proposed to analyze factors that influence the adoption of triticale and it attempts to fill the
existing knowledge gap.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the study were:

1. To identify factors that influence adoption of triticale in Farta Wereda;
2. To quantify the relative importance of the various factors associated with adoption
of triticale; and
3. To asses the impacts of triticale adoption on income level of farmers by

5
 comparing the users and non- users of the crop

1.4. Significance of the Study

The productivity of peasant farmers must be increased considerably if self-sufficiency in

food has to be achieved. Unless the productivity of farmers increase to the level where they
could achieve self sufficiency at household level and have surpluses for market, it is
unlikely for the country to attain improvements in rural welfare.

In this respect, all development partners like extension educators, technical assistants,
NGOs and other development agents involved in agricultural development must be aware
and understand the impacts and factors affecting the adoption of new technologies in order
to target and extend appropriate technologies to farmers. It is also important for
policymakers to know the impact of new technologies and the critical factors that could
accelerate there use. This could facilitate efficient allocation of major resources for
research, extension and development programs. Hence, this study attempted to figure out
the impact of adoption of triticale on farm income and factors affecting its adoption by
smallholder farmers in the study area. It is expected that this study would serve as a
springboard (facilitator) to undertake detailed and comprehensive studies in another
weredas.

1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study was undertaken in one wereda, namely Farta wereda of South Gondar zone.
The adoption of new technology is influenced by many factors. The influence of these
factors goes in opposite directions. A factor which is found to enhance adoption of a
particular technology in one locality at one time might be found to hinder it or to be
irrelevant for adoption of the same technology in another locality at the same or different
time for the same or different crops or the other way round. From these conflicting results
that it is difficult to identify universally defined factor either impeding or enhancing
adoption of technology. This study was restricted to identification of factors influencing
and assessing the impacts of triticale adoption on income of farmers in the selected
wereda. Hence, the results should be read with caution. In addition to the spatio temporal
issue, this study had also a limitation of resources (budget, time and other) consequently,

6
the study was restricted to limited number of farmers who were sampled from the study
wereda and its result will have practical validity mainly to areas having similar features
with the selected wereda.

1.6. Organization of the Thesis

The thesis was organized in five chapters. The next chapter deals with literature review
including importance of triticale, adoption definition, theoretical backgrounds of adoption,
adoption models, impact assessment and empirical results. The third chapter presents the
research methodology, data required and source, methods of data collection, and methods
of data analysis. The fourth chapter brings forth the results and discussion, the impact
analysis and the final chapter depicts summary, conclusion and policy implications.

7
 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Importance of Triticale

Cereal grains are the staple food of the majority of the people in underdeveloped countries
and provide between 70 and 80 percent of the total calories in the diet and more than two-
third of the protein (Yibabie, 2003). Hence, triticale (X-Triticosecale wittmack) seems
likely to play a role in sparing millions of the poor from malnutrition in Africa, Asia and
Latin America (NRC, 1989). Skovmand et al. (1984) state that in 114 years, triticale has
progressed from a mere biological oddity to the status of commercial crop. They further
stated that it is safe to say that triticale has crossed the threshold of commercial production
and now has a role in feeding the mankind. Report from the University of Stellern Bosch
indicated that triticale is a recent commercial crop with the first cultivars having been
released in 1968, and it was during the last 15-20 years that triticale was successfully
cultivated as a cash crop (Yibabie, 2003).

Triticale is exceptionally nutritious as their grains contain more protein and lysine (an
essential amino acid) vital to human health, than wheat (NRC, 1989). According to the
same source, it is for this reason that triticale is potentially important. By and large, this
plant makes better use of sub optimal soils and requires fewer inputs of fertilizer and
pesticides.

Agronomically, triticale out performs other cereals in the areas of low soil fertility, high
and low PH and in waterlogged situation (Srivastava, 1974). As Mergoum et al. (1998)
presented triticale’s advantage over other small grain commodities such as wheat is its
ability to grow and produce grain and biomass yields under a wide range of soil and
climatic conditions. On marginal land, by resisting drought, triticale performs better as
compared to wheat and barley (CIMMYT, 1977). NRC (1989) also stated that triticale has
recently begun to be cultivated as an alternative crop to wheat, especially under low
moisture or high temperature stress environments. Dhindsa et al. (1998) from Punjab
Agricultural university, India, reported that the grain yield in some of the triticale entries is
higher than the best bread checks and based on the average of ten years data, the best
triticale entries yielded 18.2 and 15.6 percents higher than the best bread wheat checks

8
under timely sown irrigated and rain fed conditions, respectively.

In many countries, especially in those where there is wheat shortage, triticale is used for
manufacturing different types of bread cookies, biscuits, pasta as well as traditional food.
In North America, some amount is sold in government food stores, and a proportion of the
crop is also being used as human food in Europe. Mexico alone is growing 80000 hectares
of triticale, primarily for food (NRC, 1989). Hence, farmers adopted triticale for making
tortillas in their homes. Triticale flour produces a tortilla that is softer and more flexible
than a wheat tortilla. Its greatest promise is for producing flat breads in locations where
wheat growing is unreliable (NRC, 1989).

Triticale is resistant to drought; disease and lodging as compared to wheat and barley, as a
result triticale will achieve the ability to adopt broadly. The continuous integration of new
germplasm is changing its adaptive potential very rapidly. There are now triticale varieties,
which compete closely with wheat, check varieties in any location. In addition, both
chemical analysis and feeding trial have indicated that triticale protein has a slightly higher
nutritional value than wheat protein (CIMMYT, 1977).

According to the report of NRC (1989) the most important advantages of triticale over
wheat are:
i. Increased yield especially on marginal lands affected with abiotic stresses such
as low and erratic rain fall, soil acidity, salt and trace element toxicity or
deficiency, and it is also more resistant to biotic stresses such as the barley
yellow dwarf virus, leaf rust, powdery mildew and insect pests such as the
Russian wheat aphid,
ii. Low input requirements of triticale,
iii. Enhanced nutritional value with greater amino acid balance and with adequate
levels of the essential vitamins, and
iv. Multiple end use of the crop for human food, animal feed and fodder, malting
brewing, and production of bioethanol and insulation materials that are used in
building construction.

Ample evidence now exists to show that triticale is a valuable additional crop in a wide
range of environments, particularly for marginal and drought prone conditions. Triticale

9
has been reported to be very good for the preparation of non-fermented products, such as
cookies, cakes and biscuits (NRC, 1989).

2.2. Adoption of New Technologies

2.2.1. Adoption definition

The adoption of an innovation with in social system takes place through its adoption by
individuals or groups. According to Feder et al. (1985), adoption may be defined as the
integration of an innovation into farmers' normal farming activities over an extended
period of time. Dasgupta (1989) also noted that adoption, however, is not a permanent
behavior. This implies that an individual may decide to discontinue the use of an
innovation for a variety of personal, institutional and social reasons one of which might be
the availability of another practice that is better in satisfying farmers' needs.

Feder et al. (1985) classified adoption as individual (farm level) adoption and aggregate
adoption. Adoption at the individual farmers’ level is defined as the degree of use of new
technology in long run equilibrium when the farmer has full information about the new
technology and its potential. In the context of aggregate adoption behavior they define the
diffusion process as the spread of new technology with in a region. This implies that
aggregate adoption is measured by the aggregate level of use of specific new technology
with a given geographical area or within the given population.

Rogers (1983) defines the adoption process as the mental process through individual passes
from first hearing about an innovation or technology to final adoption. This indicates that
adoption is not a sudden event but a process. Farmers do not accept innovations
immediately; they need time to think over things before reaching a decision.

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 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).

10
2.2.2. Theoretical background

The issue of agricultural technology adoption by small-scale farmers is one of the

development topics in low-income countries. This is due to its contribution to increase
agricultural yields and food production, income and food security. The decision to adopt or
not to adopt new technologies at any time is influenced by various factors. At the most
basic level, an economic agent is assumed to make decisions to adopt or not to adopt a new
innovation based on its objectives and constraints as well as cost and benefit it is accruing
to it.

Adams (1992) is pointed-out that innovations are new ideas, methods, practices or
techniques that provide the means of achieving sustained increase in farm productivities
and income. The innovation may not be new to people in general but, if individual has not
yet accepted it, to that person it is an innovation.

A study on diffusion has generally shown that the aggregate adoption of an innovation
generally follows a normal, bell-shaped curve when plotted over time on a frequency basis.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) indicated that, if the cumulative number of adopters is
plotted, the result is approximately an S-shaped (sigmoid) curve. The S-shaped adoption
curve rises slowly at first since there are few adopters per time of period. Then, adoption
accelerates to a maximum when about half of the individuals in the system have adopted. It
then increases at a gradually slower rate to ceiling that may or may not involve 100 percent
adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Mahajan and Peterson, 1985).

According to Bedassa (1998), the major characteristic of agriculture is that it is more or

less dominated by nature and its productivity depends on two factors namely technological
progress and institutional changes achieved in a given economy. Ethiopia’s sluggish
agricultural production growth coupled with a rapid population growth, which failed to
match with and to feed the rapidly increasing population. The low productivity of the
agricultural sector coupled with the rapid population growth relative to food production
have forced the nation to be an important recipient of food aid and importer of commercial
food grain. A closer look at the performance of Ethiopian agriculture reveals that over the
last three decades it has been unable to produce sufficient quantities to feed the country’s
rapidly growing population (Belay, 2004). Moreover, with a rapidly growing population, it

11
is vital that agricultural production as well as productivity be increased at a commensurate
rate. But, the opportunity to increase production through area expansion is very limited
practically in the Ethiopian highlands (Yohannes et al., 1990). As a result, Mulugeta
(1995) suggests that yield could be increased through more intensive application of new
technologies. Among the most widely emphasized technological factors that help in raising
productivity substantially is the use of improved inputs and methods. Nonetheless,
sustainable increase in productivity cannot be attained unless these are accompanied by
complementary institutional arrangements like access to credit, extension services and
marketing facilities (Bedassa, 1998).

Rogers and shoemaker (1971), Rogers (1983) and Dasagupta (1989) indicated that there is
a great deal of variation in the length of the technology transfer period from innovation to
diffusion. It was found that the receivers' perceptions of the attributes of innovations affect
their rate of diffusion. They identified five critical characteristics of the innovations
including 1/ relative advantage, 2/ compatibility, 3/ complexities, 4/divisibility, and 5/
Absorbability. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is recognized as
better than the idea or an object it is intended to replace. Relative advantage is usually
expressed in terms of economic gain, although subsistence farmers may consider the
reduction of risk as more important. On the other hand, compatibility is the degree to
which the farmers perceive an innovation to be consistent with the values, his/her
management objectives, and the level of technology and the stage of farm development.
The same authors state that complexity is the degree to which an innovation is understood
and can be used by farmers while; absorbability is the degree to which results of
innovation are visible to farmers. The easier the technology for a person to see the
advantages of an innovation the more likely he/ she adopts it. Divisibility is the degree to
which a farmer on a limited scale can try out an innovation before deciding to adopt it.
New ideas or technology, which can be tried on a small scale will generally be adopted
more quickly that innovations which are not divisible.

Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and Dasgupta (1989) have shown that adoption process
involves four stages. Knowledge is the first stage when the individual learn of the
existence of the innovation and gains some understanding of its function. Persuasion is the
second stage when the individual forms a favorable or unfavorable option of the
innovation. While decision in individual engagement in activities, that leads to a choice

12
between adoption and rejection. The final stage is confirmation where the individual makes
a final decision to accept or abandon the innovation.

Adoption process is conceptualized to include several mental stages through which an

individual passes after first hearing about an innovation and finally deciding to adopt or
reject it (Dasgupta ,1989). The process generally includes five stages, awareness, interest,
evaluation, trials and adoption. As noted by Feder et al. (1985) and Dasgupta (1989),
farmers are categorized according to their tendency to adopt as innovators, early adopters,
followers and laggards.

The economic advantage of new technologies and the economic profitability of adopting
would attract farmers towards these improved practices. According to Dasgupta (1989), the
utility or usefulness of an item, as understood by a potential adopter determines its rate of
diffusion. Moreover, the extent to which the practice is simply a modification of the
existing one or totally foreign to the knowledge and experience of the adopter will also
determine whether or not it will be accepted. A technology is sometimes accepted for its
prestige-giving quality rather than its utility. Dasgupta (1989) also reported that the
incompatibility of high yielding variety of wheat with local norms, values and habits
contributed to the failure of recommended practices in Western Uttar Pradesh villages,
India. The author further explained that when a high yielding variety of wheat was
introduced in villages, it gained immediate acceptance by the farmers for its economic
profitability but its use slowed down perceptibly in subsequent years because of its
diffusion in these villages. Generally, farmers will adopt technologies in a stepwise pattern
based on the criteria of profitability, initial capital requirements, complexity and
availability (Feder et al., 1985).

The group dynamic theory for adoption also takes into consideration the influence of
community in the adoption processes. These theories are based not only on the wants,
desires and wishes of individuals, but also on how the community influences the decision
of individual and how they act and react as groups towards new ideas or practices. From
the period between an individual becomes aware of the existence of the technology and the
time of accepting or rejecting, he/she must be convinced that the new technology will
either suit his/her needs or not. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) argue that during this period

13
the individual is likely to seek conviction that he is right in his judgment of the technology
by means of inter personal communication channels.

2.3. Adoption Models

In analyzing farmers’ adoption decision behavior different models are used. Results of
earlier studies showed that models of aggregate adoption follow pattern of S-shaped curve
(Mahajan and Peterson, 1985; Feder et al., 1985). The exact form of each S-shaped curve
of diffusion pattern may differ depending on the theory and models used to describe the
diffusion process. Models that generate S-shaped curve include logistic function and
cumulative normal distribution function. Among these models, the logistic distribution
function is the most widely used function in adoption and diffusion studies. Mulugeta
(2000) pointed out that, the logistic function represents a close approximation to the
cumulative normal functions and is simpler to work with from computational point of
view.

Some analytical tools are commonly used in adoption studies, such as descriptive statistics
(mean, frequency, chi-square test etc) and qualitative choice models including linear
probability function, logistic distribution (logit) and normal distribution functions. Multiple
regression and discriminate analyses are less frequently used. Such models approximate
the mathematical relationships between explanatory variables and the dependent variable
that is always assigned qualitative response variables. These tools are often used
independently or some times in combination with others (Mulugeta, 2000). Simple
descriptive statistics analyses have their merits, as well as limitations in the ex-post
analyses of adoption. Using correlation analyses does not lead to obtaining quantitative aspect
of factors responsible to affect, and fails to identify variable, which affect adoption. Using
chi- square contingency tables to perform non-parametric hypothesis tests does not enable
measurement of the qualitative importance of an explanatory variable or the effects of
several variables taken together on the adoption decision. Moreover, these techniques do
not separate out the influence of other variables (Feder et al., 1985).

A number of models can be used to study the adoption behavior of farmers. One purpose
of qualitative choice models is to determine the probability that an individual with a given
set of attributes will make one choice rather than alternatives. They are important in

14
analyzing relationships involving a discrete dependent variable (Amemiya, 1981; Pindyck
and Rubinfeld, 1981). In such relationships, the probabilities of an event occurring is a
function of a set of non-stochastic explanatory variables often specified as the linear
probability, probit and logit models.

Amemiiya (1981), Aldrich and Nelson (1984), Green (1991) and Gujarati (1995) stated
that commonly, when the dependent variables are continuous, linear models or OLS
methods could be used to see the effect of independent variables. The authors pointed out
that the probability model, which expresses the dichotomous dependent variable as a linear
function of the explanatory variables has some econometric problems like non normality of
the disturbance term, heteroscedastic variance of the disturbances, non fulfillment the
prediction might lie in the interval fbetween 0 and 1, lower value of R2 as the measure of
goodness of fit.

As the simplest probability, binary logit and probit models have only two categories in the
response variables (0, 1) for non-occurrence and occurrence of events respectively (Liao,
1994). The logit and probit models will guarantee that the estimated probabilities will lie
between logical limit of 0 and 1(Pindyck and Runbinfeld, 1981). Because of this and other
facilities, both probit and logit analyses are well-established approaches and most
frequently used models in the literature on adoption of technology (e.g. Amemiya, 1981;
Feder et al., 1985). The cumulative normal distribution and the logistic distribution are
very close to each other. However, the estimates from the logit model have to be multiplied
by 31/2/ Π to be comparable to the estimates obtained from the probit model (Amemiya,
1981; Maddala, 1983). With these techniques, farmers are classified according to their
status at the time of survey, and then the distribution of farmers across the two groups was
explained in terms of the farmer and farm characteristics.

2.4. Impact Assessment on Farm Income

Impact analysis refers to the analysis of the distributional impact (change) of adoption of
new technology on the well-being or welfare or income of the beneficiary (World bank,
2003). Adoption of new technology aims at impacts or changes that are intermediate to
livelihood outcomes and that relate more to the income of the user to the policies and
structure in the sustainable livelihood framework (Asres, 2003).

15
Any change (monetary or non monetary) faced by farmers when they switch to varieties
worth maintaining (adopting) is called impact of changing of variety use computing
impacts that has come due to the use of new technology. Varieties can have important role
in the income status of beneficiaries because the bargaining power of the farming
household is mainly a function of the income that has come due to the use of that variety
(Goldfeld and Quandt, 1973).

Reference on impacts of different innovations introduced, said that desired impacts on

income need to be articulated in detail and in every practical terms in any particular
situation such as a village, a community of minority people. Assessing changes in
beneficiary and livelihood of poor people is one thing, studies of impact whether
participatory or not, tend to start with an assessment of changes, intended or unintended by
valuing the trend in one or another indicator of impact (better of change). After this the
reason for that change emerge from combining various data and doing analysis of causal
links, possibility structured by the sustainable livelihoods framework (Koos Neefjes,
2000).

From the utilitarian vantage point of view, to be maintained on-farm, each additional
variety (be it local or improved) must have a positive marginal utility to the farm
household that the other variety in use cannot offer. According to the random utility theory,
a farmer uses improved varieties if the utility of adopting the technology is at least as large
as the utility with out its use.

After gross margin per hectare for both group of farmers is computed, one can see as how
the impact on income of farmers varies along different farm households and localities
considering different variables. In essence of an evaluation study of the effect of improved
variety use on gross margin per hectare because comparing use of improved variety and
use of local variety with respect to gross margin gives it a treatment control flavor. The
most important problem in any evaluation study is the lack of a counterfactual, i.e., it is not
possible to observe what would the gross margin of use of improved varieties have been
had they been use of local varieties and the vice versa (Blundell and Costa-Dias, 2000).
Some analytical tool commonly used in impact analysis were matching, treatment
regression model, switching regression model and partial budgeting (gross margin)
analysis (CIMMYT, 1988; Blundell and Costa-Dias, 2000). Bludell and Costa-Dias (2000)

16
have reviewed different evaluation methods in empirical economics. For the purpose at hand,
the homogenous treatment effect model (treatment regression model and matching)
assumed that every farmer benefits equally from improved variety use. Even though it is
hard to defend this assumption, this model can generate information that provides an
indication on the level of mean impact of the new or improved varieties. While the
switching regression model enables us to estimate the effect of different contextual factors
on the impact for each farmers in the two regimes as well as the over all impacts of the
technology on gross margin. Whereas partial budgeting organize the data and information
about the costs and benefits of the various alternatives of the new technology (CIMMYT,
1988). Based on this, an individual with a given set of attributes will make one choice
rather than the other. In the present study, to analyze impact of triticale use on farm
income, partial budgeting technique was considered.

2.5. Empirical Studies

Adoption studies, using econometric models, have been undertaken in different parts of the
world. The results of various empirical studies confirmed that adoption of a new
technology offers opportunities for increasing productivity, output quality and income.
However, what determines the actual improvements in productivity and product quality,
thereby enhancing economic welfare, are not the rate of development of new technologies,
but the speed and extent of their application into their normal operations (Berhanu, 2002).

Feder et al. (1985) have summarized the vast amount of empirical literature on adoption
and indicated that the constraints to adoption of a new technology may arise from many
sources, such as lack of credit, inadequate farm size, unstable supply of complementary
inputs, limited access to information, uncertainty and so on. Schultz (1995) suggested
many testable hypotheses: that the probability of adoption of a new technology will depend
on the difference in profitability between the new and old technologies, and the ability of
the farmer to perceive the advantages and efficiently utilize the new technology.

Nkonya et al. (1997) analysis factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and
fertilizer in Northern Tanzania and they have indicated that farm size, education and
frequency of visits by extension agents significantly and positively influenced maize seed
adoption where as the factors such as farmers’ age, family labour and yield variability have

17
not significantly influenced improved maize seed adoption.

A study conducted on the adoption of improved chickpea in Tribal Region of Gujarat, used
Tobit model to identify factors, which determine adoption of new varieties. The results
have shown that the market distance, level of education and experience of growing
chickpea influence adoption positively, but the size of land holding was found negatively
related with adoption (Shiyani et.al., 2000).

Green and Ng’ong’ola (1993) used logistic regression model to analyze factors affecting
fertilizer adoption in Malawi. The results have shown that the type of crops grown (Maize
and tobacco), variety, credit access, regular labour and the farming system were the main
factors influencing fertilizer adoption.

The study on farmer’s perception and adoption of new agricultural technology in Guinea
Bissau indicated that the level of farmers’ education is found to be positively related with
the adoption of improved varieties as it provides an opportunity to the individual to acquire
knowledge about new varieties. Adesina and Seidi (1995) found positive relationship
between education and the adoption of modern mangrove rice varieties in Guinea Bissau.
Similarly Adesina and Seidi (1995) and Adesina and Forson (1995) have also confirmed
that experience in farming is positively related with the adoption of new technologies.

Sarup and Vesisht (1994) also employed logit model to analyze a farm level adoption of
modern varieties of rice in Orissa. Their study has shown that farm size and amount of
credit availability to the households have positively and significantly influenced adoption.

Similar studies that assessed factors affecting technology adoption in Ethiopia have been
documented. The results of these studies are summarized below.

Kebede et al. (1990) conducted a study on adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian

agriculture in Tegulet-Bulga District, Shoa province was found to be education level of
farmers had positive effect on the adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture.
Also, experience in growing chickpea was found to be related to his/her ability to obtain
process and use information relevant to its cultivation.

18
A study conducted by Degnet and Belay (2001) on factors influencing the adoption of high
yielding maize varieties in South Western Ethiopia underlined those factors such as age of
the farmers, frequency of contact with extension workers, annual on farm income level and
farmers’ knowledge of fertilizer use and its application rate significantly affected farmers
adoption decision.

Wolday (1999) conducted a study to understand the major factors which dictate the use of
improved seeds in Ethiopia and reported that, price of inputs, access to credit, fertilizer use,
economic status of the household, size of land owned, visits of extension agents and
infrastructure development are the principal determinants of the adoption of improved
seed.

Teressa and Heidhues (1996) in their study on factors affecting the adoption of fertilizer in
Lume area, found that extension service, number of oxen owned, access to credit and hired
labor were among the important determinants of the decision to adopt fertilizer. The rate of
adoption was attributed to farm size, family size, access to credit, hired labor and off farm
income.

The study conducted by Tesfaye (1975) in the CADU area of Ethiopia using probit model
showed that the probability of adoption of improved varieties and fertilizer increase with
farm size, availability of cash for down payment, membership in local association and
literacy level. However, the researcher emphasized that the influence of literacy level and
participation in local associations was not as strong as the influences of farm size and
extension service.

A study conducted by Chilot (1994) in Wolemera and Addis Alem areas of Ethiopia
showed that the adoption of improved wheat seeds is positively and significantly
influenced by the wealth status of the farmers, farmers' contacts with extension agents and
availability of fertilizer on time. He underlined that the distance to an extension office from
a village influences the adoption of improved wheat seed negatively and significantly. He
goes on arguing that the higher the incremental net benefit of the improved technology
over the traditional practice, the higher the probability and rate of adoption. However, the
effect of other factors like area cultivated, literacy, livestock ownership and farmer’s years
of experience are found to be non significant.

19
Legesse (1992) based on his work in Arsi-Negele indicated that farmers’ degree of
experience was found to be significantly related to the probability of adoption of wheat
variety and the intensity of fertilizer and herbicide adoption on wheat. The same author
reported that farmer’s leadership positions in farmers’ organization were positively and
significantly influencing adoption. He also found that availability of cash for down
payment has a positive effect on intensity of adoption. Moreover, the author showed that
farmers’ expectations about yields, credit, and exposure to the technology were positively
related to the intensity of fertilizer adoption on both wheat and maize.

Study by Degnet (1999) in Mana and Kersa wereda, Ethiopia, showed that the number of
oxen owned by a farmer determines maize technology adoption. The study has revealed
that availability of off- farm income opportunity and wealth status of the head of household
affects adoption of maize technology significantly.

Itana (1985) conducted research on adoption and diffusion patterns of agricultural

technologies in two extension areas of Western Shoa (Dilalla and Welenkomi), Ethiopia.
His findings showed that farmers’ level of education, farm size, and adequacy of rainfall
affected fertilizer and/ or variety adoption positively and significantly, while price of
inputs affect it negatively and significantly in Welenkomi area. In Dilalla extension area,
farmers’ asset position, non-farm income, and price of farm output positively affected the
adoption of the new technologies. Unavailability of cash for down payment was found to
affect negatively the adoption decision of farmers in both areas.

Asfaw et al. (1997), in Bako area, reported that participation of farmers in extension
activities (which is represented by farmers attendance at the field days) is the only variable
which is found to significantly influence the adoption of improved maize variety. The same
study showed that the adoption of fertilizer technology in maize production is influenced
positively and significantly by the farmers’ use of credit and by the level of formal
education of farm household head.

The study conducted by Lelissa (1998) on determinants of fertilizer adoption, intensity and
probability of its use in Ejere district, West Shoa zone Ethiopia has also shown that agro-
climatic conditions, access to credit, extension service, oxen ownership, age of the farmer,

20
family size, farmers’ level of education, distance to fertilizer distribution center and
cropping pattern are the most important determinants of fertilizer adoption and intensity of
its use.

Tesfaye et al. (2001) conducted the study on adoption of high yielding maize technology in
major maize growing region of Ethiopia and the results revealed that distance to the nearest
market center, family size, livestock holding interims of tropical livestock unit, access to
credit, as significantly and positively influence the adoption decision of improved maize.
The same author in the same year conducted a study on adoption of maize technology and
inorganic fertilizer in Northwestern Ethiopia revealed the same result such as distance from
development center and that of market center were positively related to the probability of
adoption of improved maize.

A study conducted by Tesfaye and Alemu (2001) on adoption of inorganic fertilizer on

maize in Amhara, Oromiya and Southern Regions revealed that farm size, family size and
access to credit are found to have positive and significant influence on the adoption
decision of chemical fertilizer. The same author indicated that the level of education is
significantly related with the adoption of chemical fertilizer.

Adebabay (2003) in his study on factors influencing adoption of soil conservation practices
in South Gondar, Farta district, has found that perception of the soil erosion problem and
educational level of the household heads were found to influence the adoption of soil
conservation practices, positively and significantly.

A study undertaken by Kidane (2001) on factors influencing the adoption of new wheat
and maize varieties in Tigray, Hawzien wereda, has indicated that distance to the nearest
market place is the factor, which has a negative influence on the extent of adoption of
farmers. The author also indicated that the frequency of contact with development agents
and radio ownership also found to be positive and significantly explaining the variation in
the level and extent of adoption of new varieties of maize.

Haji (2003) in his study conducted on adoption of cross-bred cows in Aris zone, Tiyo and
Lemu-Bilbilo weredas, has indicated that formal education, leadership position of local
social organization, family size, total livestock holding, extension contact and access to

21
credit found to be positive and significantly influence the adoption decision of cross-bred
cows while total area of cultivated land and market distance were found to influence the
adoption decision of cross- bred cows, negatively and significantly.

A study conducted by Mulugeta (2000) on the determinants of adoption of soil

conservation practice in central highlands of Ethiopia revealed that formal education, total
cultivated land and off-farm income found to be statistically significant and positively have
impact on adoption decision of soil conservation practice. Similar study conducted by
Tadesse and Belay (2004) in Southern Ethiopia, Gununo, area revealed that perception of
soil conservation problem, the number of economically active family members, types of
house and farm size do positively and significantly influence adoption of soil conservation
technology where as family size is found to influence adoption of soil conservation
negatively and significantly.

Degnet et.al. (2001) a study conducted on adoption of high yielding maize varieties in
Jimma Zone: Evidence farm level data revealed that extension contact and farmers
knowledge of fertilizer use and its application rate found to influence adoption of high
yielding maize varieties positively and significantly. Similarly the study conducted by
Mulugeta et al. (2001) on determinants of adoption of physical soil conservation measures
in central highlands of Ethiopia: the case of three districts of North Shewa revealed that
size of cultivated land, technology specific characteristics, level of schooling, wealth status
of the household head and availability of off-farm income found an important determinants
of adoption of physical soil conservation practices.

22
 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Farta
wereda at five PAs situated in the area.

3.1.1. South Gondar Zone

South Gondar zone is situated between 11002’- 42033’ latitude and 370 25’ – 380 43’
longitude with the altitude range from 1500 to 4035 meter above sea level. The zone is
dominated by the agricultural sector, which employs 90 percent of the working force. The
zone is divided into 10 weredas and 311 PAs (PEDD, 2001).

The topography of the zone varies from place to place and significant differences in
altitude are observed even over a short distance. The zone is divided into four traditional
agroecological zones of which 10% is Kolla, 51% is Woinadega, 36% is Dega and 3% is
classified as Wurch. Out of the total area of the zone, 41.50% is arable land. The annual
rainfall ranges from 500 to 1566 mm. The rainfall in this zone is characterized by its uni-
modal distribution pattern. The main rainy season (Maher) is between May and August.
The mean annual rainfall is 1314 mm. The annual mean maximum temperature is about
23.660c and the mean minimum temperature is about 9.360c. The mean annual temperature
is about 16.510c (PEDD, 2001).

The zone is bordering in the north North Gondar, in the East with Lake Tana and East
Gojam, in the south with West and East Gojam and in the west with North Wollo. It has
surface area of about 1.4 million hectare or 14298.73 km2 (PEDD, 2001) See Figure 1. The
land use patterns in the zone are divided into 41.8, 12.85, 0.73, 5.76, and 39.04 percent of
the total area allotted for cultivation, grazing land, forest (including shrubs and bush),
settlement and others, respectively (DOA, 2002).

23
 Farta wereda (Study
area)

South Gondar zone

Fig. Fig. 1.The map of South Gondar Zone and Study wereda (Farta) .

24
3.1.1.1. Population

The population size of the zone was estimated at about 1.96 million (PEDD, 2002). The
male and female populations of the zone were estimated to be 997,751 (50.86%) and
963,830 (49.13%), respectively. According to PEDD (2002), the zone is one of the densely
populated with a density of 137 persons per km2. Of the total population of the zone, about
1,815,638 (92.56%) are rural dwellers of which 923518 (50.86%) are males and 892120
(49.13%) are females. The remaining 145,943 (7.44%) live in urban areas of which 74,233
(50.86%) are males and 71,710 (49.13%) are females.

3.1.1.2. Agriculture

Agriculture is the economic base of the zone. Agriculture is mainly rain-fed and is
characterized by low productivity. The majority of the residents depend on agriculture for
their livelihood. The farmers are using traditional technologies and with limited / no
accesses to agricultural inputs. Moreover, the sector in the zone is characterized by low-
level use of farm inputs, traditional farm practice, poor soil fertility and other related
problems. In the zone cereals, pulses, oilseeds and vegetables are cultivated annually in
their descending order of area coverage. Teff and barley being the leading cereal crops,
wheat, sorghum, maize, and finger millet share a high proportion of the cultivated area in
their order of importance. According to CSA (2003a), the average yields per hectare of
major crops grown were 16.16, 11.23, 10.3, 9.94, 9.55, 9.02, 8.35 and 7.98 quintals for
maize, beans, wheat, finger millet, barely, peas, sorghum and teff, respectively.

As shown in (Table 1), major crops grown in the zone include cereals, pulse, oil crops,
vegetables, and others. Among these crops, cereals cover the largest proportion (70.49%)
of the total cultivated land. Cereals are the principal staple food crops in the zone.

25
Table 1. Area coverage and production of major crops in the zone during 2003/04 cropping
season.

Types of crops Area coverage (ha) Production (quintals) Percentage of

cultivated land
1. Cereals 267,702.31 2,639, 448.82 70.49
2. Pulses 78,714.13 696,513.88 20.76
3. Oil seeds 26,387.95 114,998.55 6.96
4. Vegetables 3,014.91 54,575.26 0.79
5. Others 3,732.81 407,733.14 0.99
Total 379072.11 3,913,269.65 100.00
Source: South Gondar zone office of department of agriculture (2003), Annual Report,

It is estimated that 11.22 percent of the regional livestock population is found in the zone.
These are 1.18 million cattle, 925 thousand sheep and goat, 209 thousand pack animals,
and 1.57 million poultry is found in the zone. Feed shortage, disease, lack of improved
husbandry practices, etc, are the major constraints to livestock production in the zone. The
zone utilizes about 12% of the regional annual fertilizer and 6.34% of the regional annual
improved seed consumption.

3.1.1.3. Infrastructure

Infrastructure development like health and education services, communication network

such as roads, telecommunication, postal service, etc. are important for sustainable
agricultural development.

With respect to health services in South Gondar zone, there are one zonal hospital, 9 health
centers, 60 health stations and 42 health posts under the control of the regional
government. There are also 35 NGOs and private health stations. The zonal health service
coverage is estimated to be 41.3 percent (PEDD, 2001).

According to BOE (2003), with regard to the zonal education establishment, there are 19
kindergartens, 353 primary schools encompassing first and second cycles, 3 secondary
schools and 3 technical schools with gross enrollment ratio of 54.4% (59.6% for male and

26
49.1% for female), which is less than regional enrollment ratio of 56%.

With respect to the availability of roads, the zone has 887.6 km length of all weather roads.
All the main towns of the weredas in the zone are accessible to the zonal capital except
some difficulties of reaching two weredas, Tach Gaynt and Simada weredas during heavy
rainy seasons.

3.1.1.4. Agricultural credit and input supply systems

The availability of agricultural credit and modern input supply is the most important part of
the extension system to increase agricultural production through the use of modern
agricultural technologies such as fertilizer, improved seed, improved breeds of animals, d
farm implements, etc.

The major source of agricultural credit in the zone is the amount of loan received by
Regional Government from National Bank of Ethiopia by providing the annual
development budget as collateral. Agricultural credit distribution was undertaken through
Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI) and service cooperatives. The agricultural
credit is mainly used to purchase fertilizer, seed, and improved breeds of livestock and farm
implements. Agricultural input especially seed and fertilizer provision is undertaken
through Ambasel, AISCO and Service cooperatives.

3.1.2. The study wereda (Farta)

The study was conducted in Farta wereda, which is located in south Gondar zone of the
Amhara National Regional State. The wereda is bordering: Lay gaint wereda in the West,
Fogera wereda in the East, Libokemkem and Ebinat wereda in the North and Estie and
Dera weredas in the South (Figure 2). The wereda is located at about 667 km North of
Addis Ababa. It stretches along the Addis Ababa Gojam and Bahir Dar DebreTabor high
way. Its specific location lies between 11032’- 12003’ latitude and 37031’- 38043’ longitude
(PEDD, 2002), with the altitude range of 1900 to 4035 meters above sea level. The
topography of the wereda varies from place to place and significant difference in altitude
can be observed even in a short distance. The wereda is classified into two agro climatic
zones: Dega (high altitude) covers about 44% of the area with an altitude of more than

27
2300 meters above sea level and Woinadega (mid altitude) ranging between 1900–2300
m.a.s.l and encompasses about 56% of the area.

Farta wereda has 38 PAs and 2 towns. According to the office of agriculture of Farta
wereda the topography and terrains of the wereda consists of 45% gentle slope, 29% flat
and 26% steeply sloped. The total area of the wereda is estimated to be 1117.88 km2
(111788 hectare) of which 64.5% is cultivated land, 0.06% is occupied by perennial crops,
10.3% is grazing land, 0.63% is covered with forest and shrubs, 7.62% is for settlement
and the remaining 16.97% is not used for production purpose due to different reasons.

The mean maximum temperature of Farta wereda is 210c from February to May. The mean
minimum temperature is 9.60c from June to January while the mean annual temperature of
the wereda is 15.50c. The rainfall pattern in the wereda is uni-modal. According to the
meteorological report, the mean annual rainfall is 1570 mm. Rain usually starts in mid
March, but the effective rainy season is from May to mid September with mean
precipitation of 1950 mm.

3.1.2.1. Population

The estimated total population of Farta wereda was 316,513 (PEDD, 2002) or 16.13% of
the total population of South Gondar zone, which comprises of 182,866 males and 133,647
females. The sex composition of the population of the wereda is 51.22% and 48.78% for
males and females, respectively. Out of the total population of the wereda, 4424 persons
are urban dwellers and the remaining 312089 persons reside in the rural areas of the
wereda (PEDD, 2000). The total number of households in the wereda is 52257 and the
estimated average family size stands at 6.06 persons per household. The majority of the
people of the study wereda are from the Amhara Ethnic group and the dominant religion is
Ethiopian Orthodox Christian (PEDD, 2002).

3.1.2.2. Agriculture

In Farta wereda, agriculture contributes much to meet major objectives of farmers such as
food supplies and cash needs. The sector is characterized by its rain-fed and subsistence
nature. The study area comprises mixed farming zones where crops are grown for food and

28
cash, and livestock are kept for complementary purpose, as a means of security during food
shortage, and to meet farmers’ cash needs. Both crops and livestock productions are
equally important at dega and woinadega areas of the wereda. Agriculture in the study
wereda is virtually small scale, subsistence oriented and crucially dependent on rainfall.

The dominant crops grown in the wereda are barley, wheat, teff, sorghum, maize, field
beans, peas, chickpeas, oil crops and root and tuber crops like potato, etc. The average yields
per hectare of major crops growing in the wereda during the 2003/04-crop season are
presented below (Table 2).

Table 2. Average yield of major crops grown in the wereda

Types of crops Yield (quintal/ha)

Maize 16.8
Horse bean 11.92
Barley 10.76
Sorghum 10.13
Peas 10.2
Wheat 10.05
Finger millet 9.2
Teff 8.1
Triticale 18
Source: CSA, 2003.

It was found that the annual production of the majority of the farmers in the wereda could
not meet their subsistence requirements through out a year. The principal reasons for low
productivity level and food shortage were rainfall shortage and variability, soil erosion,
hail damage, shortage of draught power, disease and pests, low level use of improved farm
inputs, etc.

The livestock sub-sector is one of the components of the integrated farming system in the
wereda. Animals are kept as source of milk, meat and draught power. Cattle dung is also
an important source of manure and fuel. Animals act as an important buffer stock (shock
absorber) to purchase grain for compensating the crop failure due to drought and/or

29
prevalence of other sources of risk. It is estimated that 11.12 percent of the zonal livestock
population (143, 194 cattle, 121,752 sheep and goat, 31,104 equines, and 136, 460 poultry)
are found in the wereda (CSA, 2003b).

Different attempts are made to improve the productivity of livestock through crossing of
the local breeds with exotic ones through provision of artificial insemination, bull service
and sale of crossbred animals. This was supplemented through the introduction of
improved forage seeds and production practices to farmers with the view of improving the
productivity and traction power of local animals. The animal health service is rendered to
farmers through 6 animal health centers of which one is located in the town and the rest in
the rural areas (OoA, 2002).

3.1.2.3. Agricultural extension service

Agricultural extension is of paramount importance mechanism to introduce better

agricultural practices and improved technologies to smallholder farmers in a country like
Ethiopia where the traditional practices are dominating.

The office of agriculture, which is currently replaced by agriculture, and rural development
office through its technical experts and development agents at community level mainly
provides agricultural extension services in the study wereda. In the wereda, there are a total
of 80 DAs working in all kebeles to provide extension service mainly focused on providing
basic agricultural education, teaching and demonstration about the use of agricultural
inputs such as fertilizer, improved seeds, herbicides and insecticides, improved breed of
animals, forest development techniques, soil conservation and livestock production aspects
for about 51720 farm households. The DA to farmers’ ratio is estimated to be 647 farm
households per one DA (DOA, 2003). To supplement the efforts of the Government
institutions, CARE _UK International and GTZ-IFSP were also involved in provision and
support of the extension service in the wereda. In addition GTZ-IFSP introduced triticale to
the study area to support the existing extension services.

3.1.2.4. Agricultural credit and input supply

Availability of credit and modern inputs is an important part of the extension system

30
required to increase agricultural production through the use of modern agricultural
technologies, like fertilizer, improved seed, improved breeds of animals, farm implements,
etc. In the study area the use of improved seeds, fertilizer and credit is at bare minimum
level. For instance in the 2003/04 cropping season only 6209.35 quintals of fertilizer,
341.205 quintal of improved seeds and 308 litters of herbicides and insecticides were used
(Appendix Table 3). With regard to credit is an important component of the extension
service to increase productivities. It constituted about 10 million Birr worth of fertilizer,
improved seeds, chemicals and improved breeds of animals in the same cropping season
(OARD, 2003).

3.1.2.5. Infrastructure

The development of infrastructures such as health service (both human and livestock) and
education services, communication network, etc. are important for sustainable agricultural
development in the over all development of the economy in general.

With regard to the health service in the study area, there are six-health stations and eight
health posts under the control of governmental and there also one private rural drug vender
and one private health station which provide health service coverage of 40.3% (PEDD,
2001). Regarding the educational establishments, there are 41 elementary schools, 1 high
school, 1 community skill-training center and 102 basic adult educational centers. The
gross enrollment ratio of student is estimated to be 53% for primary education, which is
less than the zonal enrollment ratio of 54.4% (BOE, 2003).

3.2. Data Requirement and Sources

In the adoption literature, many social and economic factors are considered as determinants
of farmers’ adoption decision (Feder et al., 1985). Based on the literature and observations
made in the area, it is envisioned that huge database is required. These include, farmers
access to information, frequency of contact with extension workers, accesses to input
supply, input and output prices, investment cost, access to credit facility, farm size,
livestock holding, other socio-economic characteristics, like non and off-farm income, age
of household heads, gender, family size, educational level, distance from market center,

31
and / or to all weather roads, participation in leaderships of social organization, perception,
access to leased in land, labour availability, etc.
With regard to data source, this study makes use of data from primary and secondary
sources. The primary sources of data are sample farmers and input suppliers. The
secondary data are collected from the following relevant sources:
- South Gondar Zone MOARD Desk.
- Farta Wereda MoARD Office.
- GTZ/IFSP-South Gondar Office.
- South Gondar Department of Finance, Planning and Economic development.
- Published and unpublished materials of various kinds.

3.3. Sampling Design

Multistage stratified random sampling procedure was adopted for the selection of sample
respondents from the wereda. In the first stage, by considering the kebeles where triticale
were introduced, 12 triticale growing peasant associations were stratified based on the
traditional agro-climatic zone, in this regard, if the majority area of the kebele belong with
in the range of 1900 to 2000 masl is woinadega and the majority area of the kebele with in
the range of 2000 to 2300 masl belongs to dega in order to remove heterogeneity in
production system, types of crops grown, amount of rainfall, temperature etc. Accordingly,
5 kebeles were selected randomly using proportional allocation (Table 3).

Table 3. Numbers of triticale growing kebeles in dega and woinadega and sample kebeles.

Agro climatic zones Total number of Triticale growing Number of

kebeles kebels sampled kebeles
Dega 10 4 2
Woinadega 28 8 3
Total 38 12 5
Source: Farta district MOA office, 2004, and own survey results.

The farmers in each kebeles were stratified into adopter and non-adopter categories giving
the relative homogeneity of the sample respondents in terms of their adoption status of

32
triticale. In addition to this, farmers differ in their experience of growing triticale. Hence,
in this study, considering those farmers cultivated triticale seed for two and more years as
adopters and those not cultivating tritcale currently as non-adopters. Since the numbers of
farmers in each sample peasant association were different, specific numbers of respondents
were selected with probability proportionate to size (PPS) random sampling technique to
ensure representativeness of the population. Consequently, a total of 143 sample
respondents were selected to provide information (from both 143, adopters 60 and non
adopters 83 selected in the categories).

In the study area, the farmers do not grow triticale on all plots of land they own. Rather
they sow different types of crops on their different plots of land with the view of
diversifying crop activities. Because of this fact, the proportion of land under triticale was
not considered in this study (Table 4).

Table 4. Total number of households selected and sample size from each kebele.

Agro- Sample Number of Total Total Total Sample Sample

climatic kebeles total Adopters Non- Sample size of size of
Zone Households adopters size adopters non-
adopters
Dega Wowa & 1422 597 825 26 11 15
Magera
Wekro 1696 712 984 31 13 18
& Tado
Mender
Woina Workien 1614 678 936 29 12 17
Dega Koley & 1990 836 1154 36 15 21
Dengors
Tsegure 1180 496 684 21 9 12
& Adiko
Total 7902 3319 4583 143 60 83
(42%) (58%)
Source: Own computation.

33
3.4. Methods of Data Collection

Data collection was conducted from April to July 2004. Primary data were collected from
sample respondents through a structured questionnaire, which was designed to generate
data on some social, institutional and economic variables that are supposed to be important
for the study. Eight enumerators (2 in each kebeles) who speak the local language were
recruited from the study area and made acquainted with the questions, trained on methods
of data collection and interviewing techniques. Field trips were made before the actual
survey to observe the overall features of the selected kebeles and to pretest the
questionnaire. For pretesting purpose, 8 farm households outside the sample farmers were
interviewed, at the rate of one farmer by each enumerator. After pre-testing, a second
meeting was held with the enumerators to discuss on their field experiences, clarity of
questions, language, unexpected responses and additional response options for questions.
After incorporating corrections, the final version of the questionnaire was prepared (see
Appendix II). Continuous supervision was made by the principal researcher to correct
possible errors on the spot. Secondary data were obtained from various sources such as
reports of MOARD, PEDD, etc at different levels. Maps, information from NGOs
operating in the area and other published and unpublished materials, which were found to
be relevant for the study, were utilized.

3.5. Methods of Data Analysis and Econometric model used

This study employed both descriptive statistics and econometric model to analyze the data.
Farmers' adoption behavior especially in low-income countries is influenced by a complex
set of socio-economic, demographic, technical, institutional and biophysical factors (Feder
et.al, 1985). Hence, modeling farmers’ response to agricultural innovations has become
important both theoretically and empirically.

Conceptually, the model used to examine the relationships between adoption and factors
influencing adoption involves a mixed set of qualitative and quantitative data. The
dependent variable is dichotomous taking two values, 1 if the event occurs and 0 if it
doesn’t. Estimation of this type of relationship requires the use of qualitative response
models. In this regard, linear probability, logit and probit model are the possible
alternatives. In linear probability model, the dichotomous dependent variable is expressed

34
as a linear function of the explanatory variables. Although one can estimate linear
probability model by the standard Ordinary Least Squares methods as a mechanical
routine, the result will be beset by several estimation problems (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984;
Gujarati, 1995).

Although Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression estimates can be computed for binary
model, the error terms are likely to be hetroscedastic leading to inefficient parameter
estimates. Consequently, hypothesis testing and construction of confidence interval
becomes inaccurate and misleading. Likewise, a linear probability model may generate
predicted values outside the admissible 0-1 bound, which violate the basic tenets of
probability. To alleviate these problems and produce relevant empirical outcomes, the most
widely used qualitative response models are logit and probit models (Amemiya, 1981).
However, Maddala (1983) and Gujarati (1995) have noted that the logistic and cumulative
normal functions are very close in the mid-range, but the logistic function has slightly
heavier tails than the cumulative normal function. That is, the normal curve approaches the
axis more quickly than the logistic curve.

The logit model based on cumulative logistic probability function is used in this study.
Ignoring the minor differences between logit and probit models, Liao (1994) and Gujarati
(1995) indicated that the probit and logit models are quite similar, so they usually generate
predicted probabilities that are almost identical. The choice between logit and probit
models is largely a matter of convenience (Green, 1991; Gujarati, 1995). But the logit
model is computationally easier to use and leads itself to a meaningful interpretation than
the other types (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1981;Green, 1991; Gujarati, 1995).

Following Maddala (1983), Green (1991) and Gujarati (1995) the logistic distribution
function for the adoption of triticale can be specified as:

1 eZi
P= = (1)
(1+ e−Zi ) (1+ eZi )
th
where pi - is a probability of adoption of triticale for the i farmer and it
ranges from 0-1. P is the observed response of the ith farmer (i.e., the binary variable, P =
1 for an user, P = 0 for a non user).

35
 e z i − stands for the irrational numbers e to the power of zi
z i - Is a function of m- explanatory variables (Xi) which is also expressed as
m
Ζ i = β 0 + ∑ β i χ i + ut
i =1

Z is an underlying and unobserved stimulus index for the ith farmer

i = 1, 2,…. m, are observations on variables for the adoption model, m being the
number of explanatory variables in this study represents 19 independent variables.
β0 = is the constant term and
β j = Are the unknown parameters to be estimated, and
Ut = is the disturbance term

The slope tells how the log-odds ratio in favor of adoption of triticale changes as
independent variables change. If Pi is the probability of adopting triticale then 1-Pi
represents the probability of not adopting it.

1 e Ζi
1− P = =1− (2)
Z
(1 + e i ) 1 + e Ζi

e−Ζi 1
= =
1 + e−Ζi 1 + eΖi
Therefore, the odds ratio can be written as
Z
Pi 1+ e i Z
= −Zi
=e i (3)
1 − Pi 1 + e
Pi
Now is simply the odd ratio in favor of adopting triticale. It is the ratio of the
1 − Pi
probability that the farmer would adopt a triticale to the probability that the farmer will not
adopt. Finally, taking the natural log of equation / the log of odds ratio can be written as

 Pi   B 0 + ∑ β i X i 
L i = ln   = ln  e i=1


 1 − Pi   
m (4)
= Z i = β 0 + ∑
i=1
β iX i

36
 Where: Li = is log of the odds ratio in favor of triticale adoption, which is not only

linear in xi but also linear in the parameters.

In reality, the significant explanatory variables do not all have the same level of impact on
the adoption decision of the farmer. The relative importance of quantitative explanatory
variables in adoption decision can be measured by examining adoption elasticities, defined
as the percentage change in probabilities that would result from a percentage change in the
value of these variables. To compute the elasticity, one needs to select a variable of
interest, compute the associate Pi vary the Xp of interest by some small amount and
recomputed the Pi, and then measure the rate of changes as
dPi
dXi
Where:
dXi and dPi stand for percentage in the explanatory variable (XPi) and in the associated
probability level (Pi) respectively. When dXPi is vary small, this rate of change is simply
the derivative of Pi with respect to Xp and it is expressed as follows (Aldrich and Nelson,
1984).

dP exp ( Z i ) 1 ^
i
= * B
dX i 1 + exp ( Z i ) 1 + exp (Z i )

= P i ( 1 − P i ˆ) B
The impact of each significant explanatory variable on the probability of adoption is
calculated by keeping the continuous variables at their mean values and the dummy
variables at their most frequent values (Zero or one).

In addition to the logit model mentioned above descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency
and average) were employed to address the first two objectives. The variables that were
assumed to influence the adoption decision of triticale were tested for multicollinearity.
The parameters ( β i ) of the model were estimated using the iterative maximum likelihood
(ML) estimation procedure.

37
3.5.1. Partial budgeting technique

Partial budgeting analysis is used to analyze the impact of triticale adoption on income.
Partial budgeting is a method of organizing the data and information about the costs and
benefits of various alternatives (CIMMYT, 1988). Partial budgeting is employed to asses
profitability of any new technology (practice). This procedure is a bit modified one
compared to the classical partial budgeting. In this case one can look into the theoretical
critics against budgeting and partial budgeting to be used in achieving the impacts of
triticale on farmers income. According to Asmare (1998) budgeting assumes linear
relationships among inputs and outputs, which implies constant marginal physical product
and constant marginal rate of substitution. This virtually ignores the law of diminishing
return. The author criticized budgeting to be inefficient technique for profit maximization
objectives. According to him, many budgets may be needed before a high profit plan is
obtained and still there would be no certainty that substantially more profit plans did not
exist.

Partial budgeting technique more or less shares these all criticisms. Besides partial
budgeting is capable of analyzing only two alternatives at a time, the current situation and
a single proposed alternative. Some authors like, Kay and Edwards (1994), explain that
partial budgeting analysis may simulate marginal analysis. Their argument is that partial
budgeting considers relatively small changes in the farm business. In the standard
microeconomics marginal analysis models are those models in which choice between
alternative factor-product relationships combinations are made on the bases of small
changes in factor product combinations. In a single input and single output case, profit is
maximized by choosing the input output combination when marginal cost of production
equals the output price, which partial budgeting procedure does not look into.

Marginal analysis for profit maximization model is usually used as an alternative to the
partial budgeting approach to assess profitability of improved practices to the small
farmers. Marginal analysis is primarily concerned with the process of making choice
between alternative factor-product combinations considering small changes in factor
product combination (Thomas and John, 1969). Following these arguments, partial
budgeting technique was employed to analyze the impact of triticale on farmers' income,

38
because of its simplicity in estimation and interpretation.

3.5.2. Definition of variables and working hypotheses

Different variables were expected to affect household adoption status in the study area.
The variables hypothesized to affect adoption of triticale were tested whether they were
statistically significant or not using t-statistics and chi-square ( χ 2) tests. The t-test was
used to test the significance of the mean value of continuous variables of the two groups of
adopters and non-adopters. Like wise the potential discrete (dummy) explanatory variables
were tested using the chi-square ( χ 2) distribution.

After the analytical procedure and its requirement are known, it is important to identify the
potential explanatory variables and define its measurements as well as the symbol to
represent them. Accordingly, the major variables expected to have influence on the
adoption status of household are explained below:

The dependent variable of the model (TRIT): The dependent variable of the study,
dichotomous in nature, represents the observed triticale adoption status. It was represented
in the model as TRIT=1 for the household that cultivated triticale for two years and above
and TRIT=0 for household that did not cultivate triticale.

The independent variables that are hypothesized to affect the farmers’ adoption decision of
triticale are combined effects of various factors such as: household characteristics, socio-
economic characteristics and institutional characteristics in which farmers operate. Based
on the review of adoption literature, past research findings and the researcher’s knowledge
of the farming system of the study area, among the large number of factors which were
expected to relate to farmers’ adoption behavior, 19 potential explanatory variables were
considered in this study and examined for their effect in farmers’ adoption decision of
triticale. These are presented as follows.

1. Education level of the household heads (EDLEH): This is a continuous variable; this
represents the level of formal schooling completed by the household during the survey
time. It assumed that formal schooling is expected to enhance farmer's ability to perceive,

39
interpret and respond to new events. Furthermore, education level increases farmer's ability
to get, process and use information and increase farmers’ willingness to adopt a new
technology. Therefore, it is hypothesized that education influences adoption of triticale
positively. Previous research results have also revealed that education would influence
adoption positively (e.g. Adebabay, 2003; Kebede et. al., 1990)

2. Farming experience (YFEHH): Farmers with longer farming experience are supposed
to have better competence in assessing the characteristics and potential benefits of new
technology than farmers with shorter farming experience. Moreover, farmers with longer
farming experience are expected to be more knowledgeable and skillful. It is assumed that
farmers who have more farming experience can adopt triticale earlier than farmer with
shorter farming experience. Therefore, this variable is hypothesized to positively influence
triticale adoption.

3. Sizes of land holding of the household (SLHH): This refers to the total arable
farmland that a farmer owns measured in hectares. Many agricultural innovations require
substantial economic resources of which land is the principal one. Farmers operating on a
larger area of land generally can allocate some of it to adopt agricultural innovation (Sarup
and Vasisht, 1994). The hypothesis in this study is that field size is directly related with
adoption of triticale.

4. Sex of the household head (SEXH): This is a dummy variable, which takes a value of 1
if the household is male and 0 if female. The literature indicates that female-headed
households have less access to improved technologies, land and extension than male-
headed household (Green and Ng’ong’ola., 1993). Therefore, it is expected that the male-
headed households are better adopters of triticale.

5. Contact with extension agents (EXTCO): This is a dummy variable, which takes a
value of 1 if the household received extension service and zero, otherwise. The variable
represents extension service as an important source of information, knowledge and advice
to smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Empirical results revealed that extension contact has an
influence on farm households’ adoption of new technology (Nkonya et al., 1997).
Following this argument, extension contact is hypothesized, in this study, to influence
farmers’ decision to adopt triticale positively.

40
6. Non/Off farm income (NO/OFFI): This variable measures the amount of non/off farm
income (Birr) that the sample household has earned at the survey time. Some farmers in the
study area are engaged in non/off-farm activities such as working as daily laborers (selling
of labor to the fellow farmers), renting out of oxen, petty trading, handicraft, etc. which
helps them earn additional income. This additional income increases farmers’ financial
capacity and is expected to increase the probability of investing in new technologies.
Hence, availability of non/off farm income opportunity is hypothesized to influence
adoption of triticale positively

7. Access to credit facility (ACINC): It is a dummy variable, which takes a value of 1 if

the farm household had access to credit and 0 otherwise. Adoption of new technology with
complementary inputs required considerable amount of capital for purchase of inputs
(seed, fertilizer). However, smallholder farmers cannot finance these inputs for adoption of
triticale. On the other hand the availability of farm credit especially from formal sources
becomes vital components of the modernization of agriculture and to increase productivity.
Those farmers who have access to agricultural credit are believed to adopt technology
more than those who have no access to credit. Previous research result reported by Lelissa
(1998) and Tesfaye and Alemu (2001) confirmed that access to credit positively influence
adoption of technology. Hence, it is hypothesized that access to credit will influence
adoption of triticale positively.

8. Distance from market (DEMRK): It is measured in kilometer. It refers to the distance

between the farmers’ residence and the nearest market center. It shows access to the market
to buy input and/or to sell output. As the farmer is nearer (closer) to a market, the higher
will be the chance of adoption of triticale. It is also about securing information at market
place. Previous result reported by Kidane (2001) has revealed that market distance
negatively influence adoption of technology. Therefore, in this study it is hypothesized that
distance from market will relate negatively to the adoption of triticale.

9. Distance to the main road (DROAD): It is a continuous variable measured in

kilometer. It refers to the distance from farmers home to the main all weather road. As
farmers’ home gets closer to the main road, they can have access to transportation

41
facilities, which might increase the use of technology. Therefore, in this study, it is
hypothesized that this variable is negatively related to the adoption of triticale.

10. Access to input supply (ACIPSU): This is a dummy variable, which takes a value of
1 if the farm household has access to input supply and 0 otherwise. As availability of
triticale seed and fertilizer supply at the sowing time increase, farmers’ use of triticale
would be enhanced. On the contrary, if triticale seed and fertilizer supply are not adequate
at the time of sowing, farmers allot their land to other crops. Therefore, in this study access
to input supply is hypothesized to positively influence adoption of triticale.

11. Family size (FAMSI): It is a continuous variable that refers to the number of family
members of a given household. The family members are important in the operation of farm
activities, such as weeding, harvesting, etc. Adoption of new technology often implies a
need for additional labour. Family size contributes to the variation in the decision to adopt
triticale. Previous research result reported by Tesfay and Alemu (2001) shows that family
size influence adoption positively. Therefore, it is hypothesized that family size will
influence the adoption of triticale positively.

12. Livestock holding of household head (NULSH): This refers to the total number of
livestock measured in tropical livestock unit (TLU). Livestock is important source of
income, food and draught power for crop cultivation in Ethiopian agriculture. More
livestock holding is expected to increase the probability of adoption of triticale. Therefore,
in this study it is hypothesized that higher TLU will have positive influence on the
adoption of triticale. Previous research result reported by Tesfaye et.al. (2001) confirmed
that livestock holding have positive influence on technology adoption.

13. Investment cost (INVCO): This variable refers to the cost of seed, fertilizer and
chemicals, which are average, investment cost (financial layout) of input measured in Birr.
Higher investment cost decreases the probability of adoption of new technology.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that investment cost influence adoption of triticale negatively.

14. Access to information (ACINFO): It is a dummy variable, which takes 1 if the farm
household has access to information and 0 otherwise. Access to information refers to the
ownership of radio, television, etc. that the farmers have the advantage of getting

42
information about new technology. The farm household that own radio is expected to have
high probability to adoption of triticale. It is, therefore, hypothesized that it affects
adoption of triticale positively.

15. Perception of household head on the yield of triticale (PERYT): It is a dummy

variable that takes the value of 1, if the household head perceives that yield of triticale
exceeds other crops, and 0 otherwise. This variable measures farmers’ recognition of the
superiority/ inferiority of triticale yield that is the expected influence on the adoption of
new technology such as triticale. Hence, it is hypothesized that perception is expected to
positively influence the adoption of triticale. The previous research results that are reported
by Adebabay (2003) and Asrat et. al. (2004) shows that perception influence adoption
positively.

16. Participation of the household in leadership of social organization (PARSO): It is

a dummy variable that takes a value of 1 if households participate in leadership of social
organizations and 0, otherwise. The participation of farmers in leadership of social
organization will increase skill and awareness on the existence and importance of new
technology. It also creates an access to information on the use of improved technology.
Thus it is hypothesized that it influences adoption of triticale positively.

17. Number of oxen owned (NUOXO): This is a continuous variable that refers to the
number of oxen the household owns. In the small scale Ethiopian agriculture oxen are the
most important means of land cultivation. Teressa and Heidhues (1996) reported that
adoption of improved technology is positively influenced by oxen ownership. Based on
this dominant role of oxen, the number of oxen owned by the household is, therefore,
expected to influence the adoption of triticale.

18. Access to land leasing in (LEINL): It is a dummy variable that takes 1 if the
household has the possibility of access to lease in land, 0 otherwise. Farmers having
access to more area of land through leasing might have more chance of adoption of
triticale. Hence, this variable is expected to influence adoption of triticale positively.

19. Availability of labour force (LABAV): It is measured in terms of man-equivalent (see

Appendix I) and it is the active labour force the household owns. Adoption of new

43
technology demands additional labour for different farming operations. A household with
large labour force can adopt triticale more than a household with small number of labour
force. Therefore, it is hypothesized that adoption of triticale is directly related to the level
of labour availability.

Binary logit model was selected to analyze factors influencing adoption of triticale. To run
the model, the data entry and analysis was carried out using SPSS version 10. Before
taking the selected variables into the logit model, existence of multicollinearity among the
continuous variables was seen and association among the dummy variables was verified.
Multicollinearity problem arises due to a linear relationship among explanatory variables;
result could not obtain unique estimates of all parameters (Gujarati, 1995). This causes large
variance and standard error with a very low t- ratio and wide confidence interval.

To avoid the problem of multicollinearity, both continuous and dummy variables were
checked prior to executing the logit model. Different methods are often suggested to detect
the existence of multicollinearity problem. Among them, variance inflation factors (VIF)
technique was employed to detect multicollinearity in continuous explanatory variables
(Gujarati, 1995) and contingency coefficient (CC) for dummy variables.

According to Gujarati (1995) VIF (Xi) can be defined as

1
VIF (Xi) = 2
(1 − R i )
Where: R2 is the multiple correlation coefficient between Xi and other explanatory
variables.

For each selected continuous explanatory variable, (Xi) was regressed on all other
continuous explanatory variables, the coefficient of determination (Ri2 ) constructed for
each case. The larger the value of Ri2 the higher the value of VIF (Xi) causing higher
collinearity in the variables (Xi). For continuous variables according to Gujarati (1995), if
the value of VIF is 10 and above, the variables are said to be collinear (if the value of R2 is
1, it would result in higher VIF and causes perfect multicollinearity between the variables).
Whereas for dummy variables according to Healy (1984) as cited in Paulos (2002), if the
value of contingency coefficient greater than 0.75, the variables said to be collinear. The

44
statistical package SPSS version 10 was employed to compute the VIF values.

Similarly, contingency coefficients were computed for dummy variables from chi-square
(χ2) value to detect the problem of multicollinearity (the degree of association between
dummy variables).

χ2
C.C=
n+ χ2
2
Where: C.C = Contingency coefficient, n= sample size, χ =Chi-square value.

45
Table 5. Definition, and units of measurement and summary of continuous explanatory
variables used in the logistic regression

Explaining Description Mean Standard

variables Deviation
EDLEH Level grade attained 0.94 1.02
FAMSI The number of family members 6.11 1.89
SLHH Sizes of arable land the farmers own 0.98 0.52
DEMARK Distance of farmers’ homestead from the nearest market 9.76 4.20
(km)
DROAD Distance farmers’ residence to all weather road 3.27 3.28
NULSH Number of livestock the farmer own (TLU) 3.44 2.12
YFEHH The number of years experience in farming 30.27 13.66
NO/OFFI Off and non farm income the farmers obtained during 250.35 632.09
the survey time
LABAV Number of active labour (man-equivalent) farmers 3.17 1.30
posses (having at disposal)
INVCO The amount of Investment cost the farmers pay to buy 48.91 80.47
input (seed or fertilizer or both)
NUOXO Number of oxen the house hold owns 1.31 0.81

46
Table 6. Definition, units of measurement and summary of the discrete (dummy) variables
used in the logistic regression

Explaining Description % With 1

variables value

PARSO 1 if the household head participates in leaderships of 36.36

social organization; 0 otherwise
SEXHH 1 if the household head is male; 0 otherwise 90.2

PERYTR 1 if the household head perceives triticales’ yield is 58.74

superior; 0 otherwise
EXTCO 1 if the farmers have access to extension service; 0 72.72
otherwise
ACINPS 1 if there is access to input supply; 0 otherwise 37.06

ACINCR 1 if there is input credit supply; 0 otherwise 30.06

ACINFO 1 if the farmers have access to information; 0 otherwise 18.18

LEINL 1 if the household has leased-in land ;0 otherwise 53.1

47
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter reports the findings of descriptive and econometric analysis in line with the
different adoption categories. Results about the significance difference between the means
of adopters and non-adopters are presented. Binary logistic, sensitivity, impact analyses
results are also provided.

4.1. Results of Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive statistics was run to observe the distribution of the independent variables.
The socio-economic and institutional characteristics of the respondents such as family size,
age, sex, availability of labour, level of education, land holding, farming experience,
livestock holding, type of crops grown, oxen holding, perception about yield of triticale,
etc. of adopters and non adopters of triticale are analyzed. Of the total sample respondents
interviewed 60 were adopters and 83 were non-adopters. These were 42 and 58 percents of
the total sample, respectively.

4.1.1. Household characteristics

4.1.1.1. Distribution of sample households head by age and labour availability

Age of the household head of sample respondents ranged from 25 to 80 years with mean of
46.85 years and standard deviation of 13.29. The average ages of adopters and non-adopter
was found to be 45.62 and 47.75 years with the standard deviations of 12.62 and 13.75,
respectively. The mean difference, i.e., -2.13 was found to be statistically insignificant
(Table 7).

The man equivalent (ME) of the economically active family labor (15-64 years) was
calculated for the sample respondents based on Bekele (2001) (See Appendix-I Table. 1).
The average number of economically active labor force for adopters and non-adopters were
3.19 and 3.15, with standard deviations of 1.28 and 1.32, respectively and that of the total
sample was 3.17 with a standard deviation of 1.30. The size of labour force in the
household is expected a priori to contribute for variation on adoption decision of triticale.

48
However, in this study significant difference was not observed with regard to the size of
labour force between adopters and non-adopters (Table 7).

Table 7. Distribution of sample households by age, family members age group and labour
availability.

Age group Non adopters Adopters Total sample

in years Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev T- value Mean Std.Dev
AGEHH 47.75 13.74 45.62 12.65 -0.95 46.85 13.29
0- 10 1.46 1.21 1.55 1.10 0.47 1.50 1.166
10 - 14 0.93 1.05 1.22 0.78 1.81* 1.05 0.95
15 - 64 3.36 1.66 3.4 1.49 0.143 3.38 1.59
>64 0.20 0.40 0.17 0.42 -0.507 0.19 0.44
ME(active 3.15 1.32 3.19 1.28 0.20 3.17 1.30
labour)
*, Significant at 10%,

4.1.1.2. Distribution of sample household heads by family size

Family size of the sample respondents ranged from only 1(single farmer) up to 12 persons,
with an average family size of 6.11 and a standard deviation of 1.89. The average family
size in the sample was higher than the average family size of the wereda (6.06). The
average family size of the adopters and non-adopters was 6.33 and 5.95, with standard
deviations of 1.64 and 2.04, respectively and with mean difference of 0.38 that was found
to be statistically insignificant (Table-8).

49
Table 8. Distribution of sample respondents by family size

T-value for mean

Family size Non adopters Adopters Total sample difference
N % N % N %
1- 2 6 7.2 0 0 6 4.2
3-5 22 26.5 18 30 40 27.97
6-8 47 56.6 36 60 83 58.04
>8 8 9.6 6 10 14 9.8
Mean 5.95 6.33 6.11 1.194

4.1.1.3. Sex distribution and marital status of respondents

Sample households were composed of both male and female household heads. It was found
that among the total sample household heads 90.2% were male and the remaining 9.8%
were female. The proportion of male-headed households was 91.7% for adopters and
89.2% for non-adopters. The result revealed that the percent of male-headed households of
adopters of triticale were higher than that of female-headed households. This could be
attributed to various reasons, which could be the problem of economic position of female-
headed households, including shortage of labour, limited access to information and
required inputs due to social position, etc. (Table 9). The chi-square test of sex distribution
between the two groups was run and the difference was found to be insignificant
( χ 2=0.248).

With regard to the marital status, from the total sample respondents 86.71%, 2.8%, 2.8%
and 7.7% were married, single, divorced and widowed, respectively. The marital status of
adopters were 90%, 1.7%, 1.7% and 6.7% are married, single, divorced and widow,
respectively while for the non adopters it is 84.3%, 3.6%, 3.6% and 8.4% (Table 9) in the
same order. Regarding the housing condition it was found that 70% of the adopters and
78.3% of the non adopters made their livelihood in thatch roofed houses, respectively
whereas 20% of the adopters and 16.9% of non adopters live in corrugated iron roofed

50
houses. The remaining 10% of adopters and 4.8% of non-adopters own both thatch roofed
and tin roofed houses.

Table 9. Distribution of sample household heads by sex and marital status

Non adopter Adopter Total sample

Sex N % N % % % χ2 Value
Female 9 10.8 5 8..3 14 9.8 0.248
Male 74 89.2 55 91.7 129 90.21
Marital status
Married 70 84.3 54 90.0 124 86.71
Single 3 3.6 1 1.7 4 2.8
Divorced 3 3.6 1 1.7 4 2.8
Widow 7 8.4 4 6.7 11 7.7
Source: own survey result, June 2004.

4.1.1.4. Distribution of respondents by their involvement in non and off- farm

activity

About 18.2% of the total respondent households family members were involved in off farm
activities. Of the total respondents, 21.7% of the family members who participated in off
farm activities were adopters and 15.7% were from the non-adopters group (Table 10). The
percentage difference was tested statistically and it was found to be insignificant
( χ 2=0.844). This shows that difference in adoption was not observed due to family
members engagement in off-farm activities. On average, as low as 0.21 family members
per household were found to participate in off farm activity. The type of off farm activities
that they were engage -in were found to be 2.1% in ploughing, 1.4% in harvesting, 4.9% in
weeding, 2.1% in ploughing and harvesting, 1.4% in ploughing and weeding and 6.3% in
weeding and harvesting. On the other hand, from the total sampled households, 14.69%
were engaged themselves in non-farm activities. Among these about 15% were adopters
and 14.46% of the non-adopters had access to non-farm activities though the percentage
difference was statistically insignificant ( χ 2=0.008) (Table 10). The main non-farm
activities that sample respondents participated in were petty trading, carpentry, nursery

51
guarding and managing and school guarding. In general, the respondents on average earned
250.91 Birr with standard deviation 632.09 non-and off farm income during the surveying
period. Furthermore, the average non and off farm income earned by adopters and non
adopters about 450.88 and 105.38 Birr with standard deviation of 908.85 and 216.48,
respectively, and with mean difference of 345.5 that was found significant at 1% level of
significance. This shows that difference in adoption decision was observed due to the
amount of non/off income earned by the respondents.

Table. 10. Distribution of respondents by participation in leadership of social organization

and access to information.

Non adopter Adopter Total sample

Parameters N % N N %
Off farm activities
Not engaged 70 84.3 47 78.3 117 81.8
Engaged 13 15.7 13 21.7 26 18.2
Non farm activities
Not engaged 71 85.5 51 85 122 85.3
Engaged 12 14.45 9 15 21 14.68

4.1.1.5. Distribution of respondents by their participation in leaderships of social

organization and access to information.

Out of the total respondent households, 36.4 percent participated in leadership of formal
social organizations. From the sample households who have participated in leaderships of
formal social organization, 36.7% and 36.1% were adopters and non-adopters,
respectively. Chi-square test run showed that the difference in the level of participation in
local institutions were found to be insignificant ( χ 2=0.004) (Table 11). With regard to the
participation of the respondents in non-formal social organization such as Idir and Mahber,
100% of adopters and 97.4% of the non-adopters took part in various issues that require
participation. The difference was statistically tested and it was found to be insignificant
( χ 2=1.466).

52
With regard to access to information, it was assumed that respondents who owned radio,
television, etc., got information regarding new technologies. In line with this, the survey
result revealed that among those having access to information, 25% of adopters had
reported that they secure information while only 13.3% of the non-adopters. Pooled data
indicate that 18.18% of the total sample respondents have access to information (Table 11).
The percentage difference on access to information was statistically tested and it was found
to be significant at 10% ( χ 2=3.230). This hinted that there was systematic association
between access to information and adoption of triticale. It shows that higher access to
information could increase adoption of triticale.

Table 11. Distribution of the respondents by engagement in non / off -farm activities

Non adopter Adopter Total sample

Parameters N % N % N %
Participation in leadership
of social organization
Do not participate 53 63.9 38 63.3 91 63.64
Participate activities 30 36.1 22 36.7 52 36.36
Access to information
No access 72 86.7 45 75.0 117 81.82
Have access 11 13.3 15 25.0 26 18.18
Source: own survey result, 2004

4.1.1.6. Farming experience

The respondents' average experience in farming was 30.27 years with standard deviation of
13.66. Furthermore, the average farming experience of adopters was 28.92 years with
standard deviation of 13.23, while for the non-adopters it was 31.25 with standard
deviation of 13.97. The mean difference in farming experience was statistically tested and
it was not found to be significant (Table 12).

53
Table 12. Distribution of sample households in terms of their years of experience in
farming

Farming experience Non adopters Adopters Total sample t- value

(years) N % N % N %
< 10 1 1.2 1 1.7 2 1.4
10 - 20 24 28.9 21 35.0 45 31.47
21 - 30 19 22.9 16 26.7 35 24.47
31 - 40 21 25.3 12 20.0 33 23.08
41 - 50 11 13.3 7 11.7 18 12.59
> 51 7 8.4 3 5.0 10 7
Mean 31.25 28.92 30.27 -1.00
Sources: own survey result, 2004.

4.1.1.7. Educational status of sample household heads

The distribution of total sample respondents in terms of literacy level has shown that 38.
46% were illiterate, 41.96% could read and write, 10.49% had attended formal education
from grade 1 to 4, 6.29% were exposed to formal education from grade 5 to 8, 2.09% had
attended from grade 9 to 10, and the remaining 0.7% have succeeded in reaching higher
levels of grade 11 and above (Table 13). The total average educational level was 0.94 years
of schooling with standard deviation of 1.02. The mean educational level of adopters was
1.12 years and that of non-adopters was 0.81 years. The study indicated that farmers who
had higher education level show eagerness to grasp new ideas and to try the technology by
allocating some of the scarce resources. This could explain the variation with regard to
adoption decision of triticale. Similarly, in this study it was found that there exists
significant difference between adopters and non-adopters in relation to education level, at
10% level of significance.

54
Table 13. Distribution of sample respondents by their educational status

Non adopters Adopters Total sample t- value

Educational level N % N % N %
Illiterate 34 41.0 21 35.0 55 38.46
Read and write 38 45.8 22 36.7 60 41.96
From 1 - 4 5 6.0 10 16.7 15 10.49
From 5 - 8 5 6.0 4 6.7 9 6.29
From 9 - 10 1 1.2 2 3.3 3 2.09
11 and above 1 1.7 1 0.7
Mean 0.81 1.12 0.94 1.80*
*, Significant at 10%.

4.1.2. Farm Characteristics

4.1.2.1. Distribution of respondents by land holding and land use patterns

The land size of sample households vary from 0.38 to 4.0 hectare with an average holding
of 1.24 hectares with standard deviation of 0.56. The average size of land for adopters was
1.31 with standard deviation of 0.59, while that of non-adopters was 1.18 with standard
deviation of 0.54. Statistically, there was no significant difference between adopters and
non-adopters related to size of land holding. With regard to land use patterns, from the
total land holdings respondents allocated on average 0.087, 0.98 and 0.15 hectares of land
for grazing, cultivation and homestead, respectively. Difference in the land use patterns
between adopters and non-adopters was statistically tested and found to be insignificant
except for land allocated for homestead, which was significant at 5% level of significance.
This implies that there was not significant difference with regard to land use pattern. The
result showed that from the total farm size on average 0.98 hectare of the respondents land
was allocated for cultivated annual crops (Table14). The result revealed that the low
standard deviation for all types of land uses and both groups indicate that there is no great
variability within the groups.

55
Table 14. Distribution of respondents by size of land holding and land use pattern

Types of land Non adopters Adopters Total sample

use Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev t-value Mean Std.Dev
Total land size 1.18 0.54 1.31 0.59 1.32 1.24 0.56
Grazing land 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.09 -0.18 0.087 0.12
Cultivated land 0.95 0.49 1.03 0.57 0.79 0.98 0.52
Homestead 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.15 2.08** 0.15 0.16
land
Source: own survey result, 2004
** Significant at 5%

The survey result showed that from the total respondents, 46.85% were having up to one
hectare of land, while 3.5% of the respondents were having above 2.5 hectares of land. The
remaining respondents were having land size between 1 to 2.5 hectare (Table 15).

Table 15. Land holding differentials between sample farmers

Group of land size Non adopters Adopters Total sample

(hectare) N % N % N %
Up to 0.5 5 6.0 1 1.7 6 4.20
0.51 - 0.75 15 18.1 10 16.7 25 17.48
0.76-1.00 26 31.3 10 16.7 36 25.17
1.01-1.50 19 22.9 25 41.7 44 30.77
1.51-2.00 14 16.9 10 16.7 24 16.78
2.01-2.50 1 1.2 2 3.3 3 2.10
> 2.50 3 3.6 2 3.3 5 3.5
Source: own survey result ,2004

56
4.1.2.2. Distribution of sample households by means of land acquisition

In the study area the major means of land acquisition was through land redistribution,
inheritance and, leasing-in land. The survey result revealed that about 66.7% of adopters
and 50.6% of non-adopters leased-in (renting in) land during the survey year. The chi-
square test shows that leasing-in land has systematic association with adoption of triticale
at 5% level of significance ( χ 2 =3.67). On the other hand, 13.3% of the adopters and
25.3% of the non-adopters have leased-out their plots of land (rented out) for different
reasons. The average leased-in land was 0.36 hectares with standard deviation of 0.51 for
adopters and 0.29 hectares with standard deviation of 0.43 for non-adopters, respectively.
In this study, the amount of land leased-in was not found to significantly influence triticale
adoption (Table 16)

Table 16. Distribution of respondents by access to leasing in land

Non adopters Adopters Total sample T-value

Leased in land N % N % N %
No 41 49.4 20 33.3 61 42.7
Yes 42 50.6 40 66.7 82 57.3
Mean leased in land (ha) 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.78
Source: own computational result

The major reason for leasing-out land was reported to be lack of oxen, seed shortage and
disability. Whereas, possible reasons for leasing-in land, 32.14% of the respondents
reported shortage of land, 14.0% having extra seed, labour and shortage of land, 4.9%
having extra labour and shortage of land, 4.9% having extra seed and shortage of land and
the remaining 1.4% having extra labour (Table 17).

57
Table 17. Distribution of sample respondents by reasons they have provided for leasing-in
land

Non adopters Adopters Total sample

Reason for leasing-in land N % N % N %
Shortage of land 23 27.7 23 38.33 46 32.16
Possess extra seed, labour and 10 12.0 10 16.67 20 14.0
face shortage of land
Possess extra labour and face 4 4.8 3 5.0 7 4.90
shortage of land
Possess seed and face 3 3.6 4 6.7 7 4.90
shortage of land
Possess extra labour 2 2.4 0 0 2 1.40
Source: own survey result, 2004.

4.1.3. Distribution of respondents by type of crops produced

Crop production was the most important farm activity in the study area. The major crops
grown in the study area are barley, wheat, teff, maize, finger millet, pulses and other root
crops. Furthermore, oil crops, vegetables; chickpea etc. are also grown to meet immediate
cash requirements of the rural livelihoods. In the study area, both sole and mixed cropping
systems are practiced.

From the total sample respondents, 88.11% grew barley, 79.72% grew teff, 65.03% grew
pulses, 46.15% grew wheat, 41.95% grew triticale, 20.98% grew finger millets, and
16.78% grew maize and the remaining 4.2% grew other crops in 2004 cropping season
(Table 15).

58
Table 18. Distribution of sample household by types of crops grown

Non adopters Adopters Total sample

Types of crops N % N % N %
Barley 74 89.2 53 88.3 127 88.88
Wheat 38 45.8 28 46.7 66 46.15
Teff 72 86.7 42 70.0 114 79.72
Triticale 0 0 60 100.0 60 41.95
Finger millet 21 25.3 9 15.0 30 20.98
Maize 23 27.7 1 1.7 24 16.78
Pulses 60 72.3 33 55.0 93 65.03
Others 6 7.2% 0 0 6 4.20
Source: own survey result, 2004

4.1.4. Distribution of respondents by labour shortage

Labour shortage was reported to be one of the problems faced by the sample respondents
during 2004 cropping season for weeding, harvesting, threshing and ploughing. From the
total sample respondents, 60.14% reported that they faced labor shortage. The breakdown
of this information reveals that about 85% of adopters and 42.2% of non-adopters have
reportedly faced labour shortage (Table. 19).

Table 19. Distribution of respondents by problem of labour availability

Non adopters Adopters Total sample

Labour shortage N % N % N %
Prevailing 35 42.2 51 85.0 86 60.14
Not facing 48 57.8 9 15.0 57 39.86
Source: Own computational result

4.1.5. Livestock holding of the sample households

Farm animals have an important role in rural economy. They are source of draught power,

59
food, such as, milk and meat, cash, animal dung for organic fertilizer and fuel and means
of transport. Farm animals in the study area also serve as a measure of wealth in rural area.
The types of livestock found in the study area were cattle, equine, sheep, goat, chicken and
honeybees. To help the standardization of the analysis, the livestock number was converted
to tropical livestock unit (TLU). Conversion factors used were based on Freeman et al.
(1996) and indicated in Appendix I. Table 2

The average livestock holding of respondents was 3.44 TLU with a standard deviation of
2.12. The mean livestock holding of adopters was 3.91 with a standard deviation 2.09
while that of the non-adopters was 3.09 with a standard deviation of 2.08. This study
indicated that there was a significant difference in livestock holding between adopters and
non-adopters at a 5% significance level (Table 20). This shows that adopters have higher
livestock holding than the non-adopters. It could also indicate that adopters have better
access to financial source through sell of livestock which could be used to purchase farm
inputs, such as triticale seed and fertilizer, and livestock used for minimizing risk.

Table 20. Distribution of sample households by livestock holding

Types of Non adopters Adopters Total sample

livestock Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev t- value Mean Std. Dev
TLU 3.09 2.08 3.91 2.09 2.32** 3.44 2.12
Cattle 3.01 2.19 3.75 1.93 2.08** 3.32 2.11
Equine 0.60 0.73 0.78 0.85 1.37 0.88 0.78
Sheep 2.34 2.86 2.82 2.45 1.05 2.54 2.69
Goat 0.36 1.03 0.37 1.04 0.03 0.36 1.03
Chicken 0.92 1.44 1.27 2.24 1.14 1.06 1.82
** Significant at 5%.

Farmers in the study area owned different classes of livestock. Of the total sample
households, 61.44% of the respondents owned cattle, 43.8% owned equines, 66.75%
owned sheep, 16.8% owned goats, and 44.1% owned chicken (Table 20).

The number of oxen owned by the respondents ranged from 0 to 3 with mean holding of
1.31 oxen and standard deviation of 0.81. The average number of oxen owned by adopters

60
was 1.43 with standard deviation of 0.74, whereas for non-adopters it was 1.23 with
standard deviation of 0.85. The mean difference in oxen holding was found to be
statistically insignificant. It was also revealed that from the total sampled respondents
18.18% of households owned no ox, 35.66% owned one ox, 42.66% owned two oxen and
3.5% owned more than two oxen (Table 21).

Table 21. Distribution of sample households by oxen holding

Number of oxen Non adopters Adopters Total sample t- value

Owned N % N % N %
No ox 18 21.7 8 13.3 26 18.18
One ox 32 38.6 19 31.7 51 35.66
Two oxen 29 34.9 32 53.3 61 42.65
Three and above 4 4.8 1 1.7 5 3.5
Mean 1.23 1.43 1.31 1.5
Source: own computational result

4.1.6. Institutional characteristics

4.1.6.1. Distribution of respondents by access to extension services

The important institutional services that were required to increase agricultural productivity
through the adoption of new technology, among others, were extension contact
(participation), availability of input supply, and access to credit. It was understood from
previous studies that an increase in productivity is achieved through farmers’ access to
appropriate extension services. It is learnt that sample households in the study area do have
a better access to extension services that was illustrated by frequent visit of extension
agents, participation in demonstration day, training of the farmers and above all initiatives
of the farmers to knock the doors of the extension agents.

The survey result revealed that about 72.73% of the respondents had contact with
extension agents during the 2004 cropping season. Among the adopters, 85% had contact
with extension agents in the year 2003/2004 whereas only 63.9% of the non-adopters did
the same. The difference in extension contact between adopters and non-adopters were

61
statistically tested and found to be significant at 1% level of significance ( χ 2=7.850)(Table
22).

Table 22. Access differentials of sample respondents to extension services

χ 2-Value
Extension contact during Non adopter Adopter Total sample
the last crop season N % N % N %
No 30 36.1 9 15.0 39 27.27
Yes 53 63.9 51 85.0 104 72.73 7.850***
*** Significant at 1%.

With regard to the frequency of extension contact from among the total respondents
10.49% contact five times and above per month, 15.58% four times per month, 20.98%
three times per month, 16.78% two times per month, 9.09% once in month and the
remaining 27.27% have no contact with extension (Table 23).

Table 23. Distribution of sample households’ frequency of contact with extension agents

Frequency of extension Non adopters Adopters Total sample

contact N % N % N %
No contact 30 36.1 9 15.0 39 27.27
Once in a month 7 8.4 6 10.0 13 9.09
Twice per month 12 14.5 12 20.0 24 16.78
Three times per month 19 22.9 11 18.3 30 20.98
Four times per month 10 12.0 12 20.0 22 15.58
Five times and above per 5 6.0 10 16.7 15 10.49
month
Source: own survey result, 2004.

In addition to encouraging farmers to use improved farm inputs, training and

demonstration days also play important role in creating linkages. Among the total number
of respondents, 21.68% and 25.87% participated in training and field days, respectively.
About 31.7% of the adopters and 14.5% of the non-adopters participated in training, while

62
33.3% of the adopters and 20.5% of the non-adopters participated in field day. The
difference was statistically tested and participation in agricultural training was found to be
significant at 1% level of significance ( χ 2=6.074) while participation in field day were
found to be significant at 10% level of significance ( χ 2=2.999) (Table 24).
.
Table 24. Distribution of sample household by attendance in agricultural training and
demonstration day

Farmers participation Non adopters Adopter Total sample X2- Value

types N % N % N %
Training
No 71 85.5 41 68.3 112 78.32 6.07***
Yes 12 14.5 19 31.7 31 21.68
Field day
No 66 79.5 40 66.7 106 74.13 2.99*
Yes 17 20.5 20 33.3 37 25.87
Source: own survey result, 2004.
***, * Significant at 1% and 10% levels, respectively.

4.1.6.2. Distribution of sample respondents by access to source of credit and access to

input supply

Credit is an important institutional service to finance poor farmers for input purchase and
ultimately to adopt new technology. However, some farmers have access to credit while
others may not have due to problems related to repayment and down payment in order to
get input from formal sources. Hence, some farmers shun farm credit. The survey result
indicated that 15.7% of the non-adopters, 50.0% of the adopters and 30.07% of the total
respondents had access to credit in 2003/2004. This implies that adopters had better access
to credit compared to non-adopters. This was statistically significant at 1% level of
significance ( χ 2=19.527) (Table 22). With regard to access to input supply, out of the total
respondents 37 percent reported that there was access to input supply. Among the total
sample households, 61.7% of the adopters and 19.3% of the non-adopters reported that

63
they had access to input supply. The difference was statistically tested and it was found to
be significant at 1% level of significance ( χ 2 =26.827) (Table 25). With regard to the
average input price the respondents spent (paid) at 2003/2004-production year, the survey
result indicates that the average Investment cost (financial layout) that the respondents
spent (paid) 48.91 Birr with a standard deviation of 80.47. The average investment that
adopters and non-adopters spent Birr 89.17 and 19.80 with standard deviation of 97.22 and
48.69, respectively, and found to be with mean difference of 61.36 statistically significant
at 1% level of significance.

As to the sources of input credit, 18.88% got credit from cooperatives, 0.70% from ACSI
and 11.19% from GTZ. Among the total credit users, 18.88% used for fertilizer purchase
only, 2.8% for seed purchase only and 8.3% for the purchase of both seed and fertilizer
(Table 25).

Table 25. Distribution of sample household by access to input supply, access to credit and
its source

χ 2- value
Non adopters Adopters Total sample
Credit information
N % N % N %
Access to credit
No 70 84.3 30 50.0 100 69.93 19.53***

Yes 13 15.7 30 50.0 43 30.07

Access to input supply
No 67 80.7 23 38.3 90 62.94 26.827***
Yes 16 19.3 37 61.7 53 37.1
Credit source
ACSI 0 0 1 1.7 1 0.70

Cooperative 13 15.7 13 21.7 26 18.18

GTZ 0 0 16 26.7 16 11.19
Source: own surveying result, 2004
*** Significant at 1% level

Respondents reported about problems revolving around credit were related to many factors

64
7.69% of the respondents refrained from credit because of high interest rate, 11.19%
because of shortage of money for down payment, 18.88% because of shortage of money
for repayment, 9.79% because of its unavailability on time, 15.38% because of shortage of
money both for down payment and repayment, 3.5% because of high interest rate, shortage
of money for down payment and repayment, 2.8% because of high interest rate and
shortage of money for down payment and 30.77% because of other unspecified reasons
(Table 26).

Table 26. Distribution of sample household by types of constraints faced in the use of
credits

Non adopters Adopters Total sample

Problems related to credit use (N=83) (N=60) (N=143)
N % N % N %
High interest rate 6 7.2 5 8.3 11 7.69
Shortage of money for down 9 10.8 7 11.7 16 11.19
payment
Shortage of money for repayment 17 20.5 10 16.7 27 18.88
Not available on time 11 13.3 3 5.0 14 9.79
Shortage of money for both down 19 22.9 3 5.0 22 15.38
payment and repayment
High interest rate, lack of money for 4 4.8 1 1.7 5 3.50
down payment and repayment
High interest rate and shortage of 4 4.8 0 0 4 2.8
money for down payment
Others 13 15.7 31 51.7 44 30.77
Source: own computation result 2004.

4.1.7. Accessibility to markets and all weather roads

Respondents in the study area reported that they sold some of their agricultural products
right after harvest to cover costs of farm inputs, social obligation and urgent family
expenses by taking to the immediate near by local market. The survey result indicated that
the average distance of respondents' home from the nearest market place was 9.76 km. On

65
average adopters were located about 8.59 km distance whereas non-adopters were about
10.61 km far away from the nearest market. The result also revealed that mean difference
of distance to market was significant at 1% level of significance. From among the total
respondents, 31.47% lived at a distance of 6 km or below 6 km away from market, and
from among them 40% were adopters and 25.3% were non-adopters. About 57.3% lived at
a distance between 6.1-12 km away from the nearest market, and among them 55% were
adopters while 59% were non-adopters and 11.19% of them lived at a distance of greater
than 12 km away from the nearest market, of which 5% of the adopters and 15.66% of
non-adopters (Table-27)

Table 27. Distribution of sample households by distance to markets

Distance from market Non adopters Adopters Total sample T-value

center (km) N % N % N %
≤6 21 25.3 24 40.0 45 31.47
6.1 - 12 49 59.0 33 55.0 82 57.34
12.1 - 18 12 14.5 3 5.0 15 10.49
≥ 18.1 1 1.2 1 0.70
Mean 10.61 8.59 9.76 -2.91***
Source: own computational result
*** Significant at 1% level of significance

Road transport is a crucial service for farmers, as it helps them to buy farm inputs and sell
farm products. The survey result revealed that the average distance of the respondents'
home from all weather roads was 3.28 km. About 31.47% of the respondents lived at a
distance of less or equal to one kilometer away from the main road, and among these
46.7% of them were adopters. From among the total respondents, 60.84% lived at a
distance of 1 to 7 kms away from all-weather road, and from among these 51.67% were
adopters. Furthermore, 7.69% of the respondents lived at a distance of greater than 7 kms
away from all weather roads, and from among this 1.7% were adopters. The result was
found to be statistically significant at 1% level of significance. This indicates that adopters
lived near to all weather roads as compared to non-adopters. This could have motivated the
farmers to adopt triticale earlier than those who lived far from the road (Table 28).

66
Table 28. Distribution of respondents by distance from all weather roads

Distance from Non adopters Adopters Total sample t-value

road (km) N % N % N %
≤1 17 20.5 28 46.7 45 31.47
1.1 - 3 31 37.3 27 45.0 58 40.56
3.1 - 5 7 8.4 1 1.7 8 5.59
5.1 - 7 18 21.7 3 5.0 21 14.69
≥ 7.1 10 12.0 1 1.7 11 7.69
Mean 4.25 1.93 3.28 -4.44***
Source: own computational result
*** Represents significance at 1% level.

4.1.8. Farmers perception about triticale yield and other parameters

Farmer’s awareness about the relative advantage of triticale on pertinent parameters, such
as yield, drought resistance, weed resistance, labour requirement, hail resistance, etc. as
compared to the substitute crops (barley and wheat) could have convinced farmers to plant
triticale. According to the survey result, 60.84% of the total respondents perceived the
yield of triticale to be better than barley; on the other hand, 32.17% of the non-adopters
were not aware of the yield benefits of triticale as compared to barley. The chi square test
supported that the difference in perception was significant at 1% level of significance (X2=
61.420) (Table 29). This implies that framers’ perception about the crop had a systematic
association with the adoption of triticale in the study area.

67
Table 29. Distribution of sample respondents based on perception of triticale yield
compared with barley

Non adopters (N=83) Adopters (N=60) Total sample (N=143)

Yield of triticale N % N % N %
Very high 0 0 4 6.7 4 2.8
High 29 34.9 54 90.0 83 58.04
Low 6 7.2 0 0 6 4.20
Medium 2 2.4 2 3.3 4 2.8
Not known 46 55.4 0 0 46 32.17
Source: own survey result, 2004

Similarly 60.13% of the total respondents have perceived the yield of triticale superior as
compared to the yield of wheat. However, 55.4 % of the non-adopters were not aware of
the comparative yield that triticale has over wheat (Table 30). This was found to be
significant at 1% level of significance (X2=50.551). This indicates that perception about
yield of triticale may have helped to motivate farmers for the adoption of triticale in the
study area.

Table 30. Distribution of respondents by perceptive differences about of triticale yield as

compared to wheat

Non adopters Adopters Total sample

Yield N % N % N %
Very high 2 3.3 2 1.40
High 33 39.8 51 85.0 84 58.74
Low 3 3.6 1 1.7 4 2.80
Medium 1 1.2 5 8.3 6 4.2
Not known 46 55.4 1 1.7 47 32.87
Source: own survey result,2004.

The perceived relative importance of triticale as compared to wheat and barley, with regard
to the different dimensions (characteristics) of the crop was investigated. Results showed

68
that from among the total respondents 58.08%, 62.94%, 49.65%, 2.1%, 30.07% and
65.73% evaluated triticale to be better than barley with regard to yield, drought resistance,
disease resistance, early maturity, weed competition and hail/storm resistance, respectively
(Table 28). Similarly, when compared with wheat, the respondents reported that from
among the total respondents 66.43%, 65.04%, 54.56%, 5.59%, 27.27% and 65.03%
reported triticale to be better than wheat with regard to yield, drought resistance, disease
resistance, early maturity, weed competition and hail /storm resistance (Table 31).

Table 31. Respondents' perception of triticale compared to barley with regard to the
different crop characteristics

Yield Drought Disease Early Labour Weed Hail/storm

Perceived resistance resistance maturity requirement resistance resistance
status
% % % % % % %
Better 58.04 62.94 49.65 2.10 0 30.07 65.73
Inferior 6.99 4.20 4.20 71.33 69.93 35.66 0
No 3.5 2.80 2.80 0 1.4 4.9 0
difference
No clue 31.47 30.07 43.36 26.57 28.67 29.37 34.28
Source: Own computational result

Table 32. Respondents' perception of triticale compared to wheat with regard to the
different crop characteristics

Perceived Drought Disease Early Labour Weed Hail/storm

status Yield resistance resistance maturity requirement resistance resistance
% % % % % % %
Better 66.43 65.04 54.56 5.59 0 27.27 65.03
Inferior 20.10 4.20 4.90 55.24 61.54 23.78 0.70
No 0.70 1.40 2.80 11.89 11.19 17.48 0.70
change
No clue 30.7 29.4 36.4 27.3 27.3 31.5 33.6

69
4.1.9. Distribution of non-adopters by reasons for not using triticale

Non-adopters of triticale were asked why they did not use triticale. The major reasons
given by respondents were 26.5% absence of seed, 45.78% absence of seed suppliers and
its high price, 2.41% shortage of land and 25.30% absence of awareness about the
introduction of the seed in the locality (Table 33).

Table 33. Distribution of non-adopters by reasons provided for not using triticale

Number of Percent of
Reason for not using triticale respondents respondents
Seed is not available 22 26.5
Absence of suppliers and higher price of seed 38 45.78
Shortage of land 2 2.41
Lack of awareness about the crop 21 25.30

4.2. Econometric Results and Discussion of Factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale

Prior to the analysis of the data, it was found important to look into the problem of
multicollinearity or linear association among the hypothesized variables. Variance inflation
factors (VIF) were used to check the multicollinearity problem in continuous variables and
similarly contingency coefficient was used for dummy variables. In order to identify
variables influencing the adoption of triticale, the binary logit model (regression) was
estimated using maximum likelihood estimation procedure.

Based on the results of these tests, variables that have showed high degree of correlation
were eliminated from further analysis. It was concluded that there were no
multicollinearity and association problems between a set of continuous and discrete
variables, as the respective coefficients were very low (less than 10 for continuous
variables and less than 0.75 for dummy variables) (Appendix Table 3 and 4). Finally the
eleven potential continuous and the eight discrete variables were entered into the logistic
regression analysis. In the course of analysis, enter method of variable selection was
employed.

70
The model was assessed for its goodness of fit by examining how well the model classifies
the observed data (in the classification table) or by examination of how likely the sample
results actually are, given the estimates of model parameters (Hosmer and Lemeshow,
1989). The result indicates that (the model chi-square value) the parameters included in the
model taken together were significantly different from zero at less than 1 percent level of
significance. Thus, the hypothesis set that the entire coefficient except the intercept was
rejected. The value of chi-square ( χ 2=104.96) indicates also the goodness of fitted model
(Table 34).

Another measure of goodness-off fit in the logistic regression model is seeing how much
the observed value is correctly predicted. The fit is considered to be good if the overall-
correct prediction rate exceeds 50% (Callet, 1991 as cited in Abebaw, 2003). In other
words, the observation is grouped as an adopter if the computed probability of adoption is
greater than or equal to 0.5 (50%), and as non-adopters, otherwise. Based on this, the result
showed that about 90.4% of the non-adopters, and 85% of the adopters were correctly
predicted using the cut off value of 0.5. Overall, the model correctly predicted 88 % of the
sample cases (Table 34). Thus, the model predicted both adopters and non-adopters groups
of triticale accurately.

4.2.1. Explanation of the significant variables influencing triticale adoption

Maximum likelihood was used to estimate the parameters of the variables that are expected
to influence the adoption of triticale (Table 34). In the model, 11 potential continuous and
8 discrete variables were entered. Out of the total of nineteen explanatory (predictors)
variables only 7 variables of which 5 were continuous and 2 were dummies found to be
significantly influencing adoption of triticale. Variables found to be significant included;
perception of yield superiority of triticale (PERYTR) which was found to be significant at
1%, off / non-farm income (NO/OFFI) and distance from household residence to market
center (DEMARK), which were found to be significant at 5% probability level. Moreover,
leased-in land (LEINL), distance from household residence to all weather road (DROAD),
livestock holding (NULSH), and Investment cost (INVCO) are found to be significant at
10% probability level (Table 34). With the above brief background, the effect of the
significant explanatory variables on the adoption of triticale was discussed below.

71
Distance of the farmer's residence from the nearest market (DEMARK), The model results
show that distance of farmers residence from the nearest market associated with adoption
decision of triticale negatively and significantly at 5% probability level. The negative
association implies that for a unitary increase in distance between the farmers' residence
and the market centers, there will be less chance for adoption of triticale. When farmers are
far from the market, the transaction cost for acquiring input and output will be high and
this will, in turn, reduce the relative advantage of adopting new technologies. If the
farmers’ residence was not near to the market that might increase costs of marketing the
products. The result of the sample data shows that the probability of adopting triticale or
the odd-ratio in favor of adopting triticale decreases by a factor of 0.826, as the market
distance increases by one kilometer. Similar results were reported by Kidane (2001) and
Haji (2003). This implies that distance to the nearest market in different localities had
similar influence on the adoption of technology.

Distance of farmer's residence from all weather roads (DROAD), This variable was found
to influence adoption of triticale negatively and significantly at 10% significance level.
The implication of this negative relationship was that the farther farmers' residence from
all weather roads, the lesser would be farmers’ initiative to adopt triticale. As the farmers
adopting triticale have to transport farm inputs from the suppliers to their farm and farm
products to the market center, the proximity and accessibility issues are vital. The non-
proximity and non-accessibility of road in the area could take time and increase cost to
transport farm inputs and farm products from and to the market. The proximity of road can
reflect access to get inputs easily and transport farm products to the market quickly with
little post harvest losses. The odds ratio was by a factor of 0.800 for road distance, implies
that the probability of adopting triticale decreases by 0.800 as the distance from all weather
road increases by one kilometer, other things kept constant. From this it can be concluded
that the odd ratio in favor of adopting triticale increases with proximity to all weather
roads. The result was confirming the hypothesis.

Farmer’s perception about the yield of triticale (PERYTR) was found to be influence
adoption of triticale positively and significantly. The result confirms the hypothesis set
forth. Farmers' perception of the superiority of relative yield of triticale compared to other
crops creates interest to adopt triticale. The odds ratio of 26.5, other things kept constant,

72
implies that the probability of adopting triticale increases by a factor of 26.5 as the
perception of yield benefit relative to other crops increases. Similar result is reported by
Adebabay (2003). This implies that perception was an important factor influencing
adoption of technology in this woreda.

Off /non-farm income (NO/OFFI), The availability of off and non farm income was found
to have positive and significant influence on the adoption of triticale. The result confirms
the hypothesis, which states that off / non-farm income has a positive influence on the
adoption of triticale. The implication of the result was that availability of off / non-farm
income improves farmers' financial position, which, in turn, enables them to purchase farm
inputs such as, seed and fertilizer. Degnet (1999), Mulugeta (2000) and Itana (1985)
reported similar results. The odds ratio of 1.0, other things kept constant, implies that the
probability of adopting triticale increases by a factor of 1.0 as the farmers income from off/
non/farm source increase by one unit. This implies that non/off-farm income has similar
influence on adoption of new technology spatially.

Livestock holding (NULSH) -This variable was found to influence the adoption decision
positively and significantly, confirming the hypothesis. The implication of the result was
that livestock are an important source of cash in rural areas to allow purchase of farm inputs
that are needed to adopt triticale. Hence, having them offer a means for a better propensity
to buy triticale. Farmers who have large number of livestock might consider their asset
base as a mechanism of insuring any risk associated with the adoption of triticale. In
addition to the provision of the traction power, the livestock they maintain serve as a
source of additional income and food. Given this potential contribution of livestock to
sustainable household food supply; they encourage adoption of new technology. The odds
ratio of 1.685, other things kept constant, implies that the probability of adopting triticale
increases by the factor of 1.685 for each increase in TLU. The same results were reported
by Tesfaye el al (2001) and Haji (2003). This implies that livestock holding has an
influence on the adoption of new technology in different areas.

Input price (INVCO) - This variable was found to influence adoption decision positively
and significantly at 10% level of significance. This result was found to be in contrary to the
hypothesis set forth. One of the possible reason may be due to the credit system which
creating the difference in the form of accessing triticale seed was usually supplied by GTZ

73
and governmental source such as MOA in the study area .It was also worth noting that the
input supplied by GTZ has no initial payment (down payment), whereas, the one supplied
by MOA has initial payment. Hence, farmers get input without down payment or there was
a room for them to pay after harvest when taking seed from GTZ. The prevalence of this
difference might have led to the unexpected result, which hinted that as the Investment cost
increases the use of triticale also increases. On the other hand, inputs for other crops are
obtained from wereda agriculture office, which involves down payment. In practical terms,
when investment cost of inputs increases the amount of down payment also increases. This
might have shunned (threatened) farmers from using input sources requiring down
payment and moving towards inputs not requiring down payment. The odd ratio of 1.018,
other things kept constant, implies that the probability of adopting triticale increases by the
factor of 1.018 as the amount of input supplied with out initial payment increases by one
unit, disregarding the investment cost .

Access to leased-in land (LEINL): This variable was found to be positively and
significantly associated with the adoption of triticale at 10% level of significance. The
result confirms the hypothesis. The odds ratio of 3.989, other things kept constant, implies
that the probability of adopting triticale increases by the factor of 3.898 as the household's
access to a possibility of leasing-in land increases by a unitary value as compared to those
who do not lease-in land.

74
Table 34. Results of maximum likelihood estimates

Explanatory Coefficient Standard Wald Significance Odd ratio

variables estimated error value level
PARSO 0.276 0.699 0.156 0.693 1.318
EDLEH 0.216 0.371 0.340 0.560 0.806
SEXH 0.691 1.212 0.325 0.569 1.996
YFEHH -0.023 0.029 0.657 0.418 0.977
FAMSI 0.118 0.291 0.164 0.685 1.125
SLHH -0.297 0.731 0.165 0.685 0.743
LEINL 1.383* 0.770 3.225 0.073 3.989
DEMARK -0.191** 0.083 5.311 0.021 0.826
DROAD -0.223* 0.120 3.442 0.064 0.800
NULSH 0.522* 0.314 2.768 0.096 1.685
NUOXO 0.088 0.682 0.017 0.898 1.092
PERYTR 3.276*** 0.856 14.655 0.000 26.465
ACINC 0.759 1.390 0.298 0.585 2.135
EXTCO -0.694 0.848 0.670 0.413 0.499
ACINFO 0.199 0.795 0.062 0.803 1.220
LABAV -0.116 0.394 0.086 0.769 0.891
NO /OFFI 0.002** 0.001 5.148 0.023 1.002
ACIPSU -0.686 0.768 0.797 0.372 0.504
INVCO 0.017* 0.009 3.538 0.060 1.018
Constant -2.946 36.833 0.006 0.936 0.053
-2 log likelihood 89.558
2
Model chi-square (X ) 104.96 ***
Over all model prediction 88%
Over all prediction of adopters 85%
Over all prediction of non adopters 90.4%
*, **, *** represent significance at 10, 5 and 1 percent levels, respectively.

75
4.2.2. Sensitivity analysis

It is presumed that not all qualitative and quantitative explanatory variables have the same
level of importance on farmers adoption decision of tritcale. The relative importance of the
qualitative explanatory variables can be seen by examining the changes in probabilities that
would result from changes in values of these variables. The impacts of qualitative
explanatory variables on the probability of adoption a “typical farmer” is defined by the
most frequent values of the dummy variables included in the model and at its mean value
for continuous variables. The probability values were calculated keeping the continuous
variables constant at their mean values and other dummy variables at the typical farmers
level (zero or one).

Similarly, the relative importance of quantitative explanatory varibles in the adoption

decision is examined by the varibles elasticity. The variable elsticity or responsiveness to
adoption decision of tritcale was estimated for continuous variables, becaues it may not be
meaningful for binary variables (Greene,1991 and Liao,1994). Prediction of the marginal
effect of these significant dummy variables were done by changing their values ( by taking
the difference of the predicted probability keeping all the continuous variables at their
mean values.The typical farmer was male (90.2%), who perceived the yield of triticale to
be superior (58.74%) to other crops, had access for leased-in land (53.1%), who has
contact with extension service (72.72%), situated at 9.76 km from the nearest market,
residence at adistance of 3.27 km from the roads, who earns off/non farm income
amounting Birr 250.35,with livestock holding of 3.44 TLU and with a capacity of investing
on average up to Birr 48.91 for purchase of inputs (Table 5 and Table 6). The effects of
these significant variables are calculated by changing their value by keeping all other
continuous variables at their mean values and the dummy variables at their most frequent
values of the ‘typical’ farmers. Based on this, the calculated value of probability of
adoption of triticale for the typical farmers were found to be 0.904.

Accordingly, the predicted probabilities revealed how the likelihood of adoption of

triticale was influenced by the changes in the probabilities of the significant qualitative and
quantitative variables. More specifically, a ‘typical farmer’ who perceived triticale as low
yielder has the lowest probability of adopting triticale and will have less chance of growing
it. The probability of adoption of triticale declines by 60.47 percent for those farmers who

76
are typical in all aspects except that they did not percive yield superiority of triticale.
Moreover, the probability declines by 22.20 percent for farmers who were typical in all
aspects except that they did not have access to lease-in land . Thus, the result showed that
the relative importance of each qualitative variable in the adoption of triticale was different
(Table 35).

The relative importance of the quantitative variables in the adoption decision of trititcale
can be seen by examining variable elasticity, defined as the percentage change in
probability of adoption due to change in the value of these variables. The values were
calculated for a ‘typical farmer’ and Table 37 depicts the sensitivity of adoption to change
in the values of quantitative variables. For instance, a decrease in distance to the nearest
market center and all weather road by 10% would increase the probability of adoption of
tritcale by 1.66 and 0.31 percent, respectively. By contrast, an increase of liverstock
holding by 10% will increase the probability of adoption of triticale by 1.60 perecent.
Similarly an increase in off / non farm income by 10% will increase the probability of
adoption of triticale by 0.48 percent. Likewise, an increase in investment cost by 10% will
increase the probability of adoption of triticale by 0.77 percent due to the aforementioned
reasons and which need further study. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the relative
importance of the quantitative variables in the adoption of triticale do vary (Table-36).

Table 35. Change in the probability of adoption of typical farmers with regard to dummy
variables

Change of Percent change of

Variables Probability probability probabiliy
Typical farmer 0.9044
Typical farmers who do not 0.3575 -0.5469 60.47
perceive that triticale’s yield is
better
Typical farmers who do not 0.7036 -0.2008 22.20
lease- in land
Source: own computational result

77
Table 36. Change in the probability of adoption of typical farmer with regard to continuous
variables

Change of Percent change of

Variables Probability probability probability

Typical farmer 0.9044

10% decrease in the distance from 0.9194 0.015 1.66
market center
10% decrease in the distance from all 0.9072 0.0028 0.31
weather road
10% increase in livestock holding 0.9189 0.0145 1.60
10% increase in non / off farm income 0.9087 0.0043 0.48
10% increase in investment cost 0.9114 0.007 0.77

4.3. Analysis Impact of Triticale Adoption on Income.

This study was based on the farmers interview and this section attempts to address the
effect of triticale adoption on farmers’ income in Farta wereda.

In the country as a whole and particularly in the study area asking questions pertinent to
yield of crops, and income earned is sensitive. Farmers were reluctant to respond truly
when requested to comment on yield and income aspects. They usually underestimate the
yield and income earned because of the fear that higher taxes might be levied on them due
to high yield and income, possibility of exclusion from aid the government agencies and /
or NGOs supply in the area was also another concern. Hence, yield and income data
obtained by interviewing farmers are subject to underestimation. But, it was believed that
both adopters and non-adopters give underestimated yield and income data. Hence it
follows that the problem created by underestimation may not create bias in the analysis of
impact of triticale adoption, as data from both categories are liable to underestimation of
yield and income. Wheat and barley are used in the analysis, as they were the ones that are
often substituted due to the introduction of triticale in the study area.

78
Average yields for both crops (triticale, wheat and barley) were taken in the study area and
used for the analysis. The average yields of triticale, wheat and barley estimated for
analysis of impact of triticale are depicted in Table 39. Similarly, input costs and output
prices were obtained from three different markets in Farta wereda. These are Debre Tabor,
Gassay and Kimrdingay markets. The input costs and output prices in these markets are
different, hence, average input cost and output prices are considered for all the three crops,
i.e. triticale , wheat and barley (Tables 37 and 38).

Recurrent drought, low soil fertility and hail damage are the major production constraints
that hinder the productivity of the crops grown by the farmers in the study wereda.
Triticale is outshining other crops by resisting the above-mentioned problems and as a
result exhibiting a better performance compared to wheat and barley in the area. However,
triticale consumes more labour as compared to wheat and barely particularly for threshing
(personal communication). The farmers in the area are still interested to grow the crop
widely because of its superiority in yield compared to wheat and barley through its
resistance to drought, hail, etc. Thus, triticale is becoming the dominant crop that is widely
grown in the area substituting wheat and barley.

4.3.1. Results of partial budgeting analysis

Partial budget crystallizes ultimately into the statement of costs and returns based on input
and output data. Partial budgeting analysis was carried out according to CIMMYT (1988)
methodology, for variables that varied (labour, fertilizer amount and cost, herbicide and
seed amount and cost, and the yield amount and price data) for each crop, i.e. triticale,
wheat and barley (see Tables 37 and 38).

As mentioned earlier, the input costs and output prices of triticale, wheat and barley for
both adopters and non-adopters obtained from the three markets in Farta wereda, do vary.
So, the farm gate prices for the three crops (triticale, wheat and barley) are used to estimate
the average price of the three markets and price levels of Birr 2.12, 1.93 and 1.81 per kg
were used for triticale, wheat and barley, respectively. In addition, the price of herbicides
(2,4D) is obtained from the distributor (AISCO), which is Birr 44 per litter and the actual
fertilizer price on average for urea and DAP Birr 284 per quintal that the farmers have to
pay, while participating in extension package programs were considered (Table 38).

79
Table 40 shows the impact of triticale on farmers’ income. Interestingly, the partial budget
analysis revealed that under similar conditions, according to marginal rate of return
analysis, triticale raised the farmers’ net benefit by 312.49 and 229.39 percent with
additional cost of 539.72 and 677.01 Birr per hectare over wheat and barley, respectively.
Farmers who grew triticale spent 1341.43 Birr/ ha but those who grew wheat and barley
spent 801.71 and 664.42 Birr per hectare, respectively. Net benefit from triticale
production per hectare was Birr 2372.81 while net benefit per hectare of wheat and barley
were Birr 686.32 and 819.78, respectively. Therefore, the marginal benefits of triticale
compared to wheat and barley were 1686.49 and 1553.03, respectively (Table 39).

According to the result obtained from marginal rate of return analysis, comparison of
adopters of triticale with non-adopters who concentrate on wheat production only indicated
that triticale production raised the net benefit of the adopters by about 3.12 times which
was 312 %. Akin, comparison of adopters of triticale with non-adopters that grew barley
only hinted that adopters raised their net benefit about 2.29 (229 %) times. This means for
each 1 Birr invested in triticale, farmers could get additional 3.12 and 2.29 Birr more than
what they could get by investing on wheat and barley, respectively (Table 39). This implies
that adopter of triticale gets higher marginal benefit as compared to non-adopters of
triticale who grow barley or wheat.

80
Table 37. Average labour requirements and cost of different crops per hectare of land

Adopters Non-adopters
Activity Triticale Wheat Barely
-1
Labour for plowing (md ha ) 16.4 11.08 14.2
Wage rate for plowing (Birr) 12.85 12.85 12.85
Cost of plowing (Birr) 210.88 142.82 183.04
Labour for weeding (md ha-1) 73.64 36.92 14.56
Wage rate for weeding (Birr) 4.25 4.25 4.25
Cost of weeding (Birr) 312.97 156.91 61.88
Labour for harvesting (md ha-1) 22.36 15.44 17.28
Wage rate for harvesting 5.05 5.05 5.05
Cost of harvesting (Birr) 112.92 77.97 87.26
-1
Labour for threshing (md ha ) 21.28 7.08 8
Wage rate for threshing (Birr) 4.55 4.55 4.55
Cost of threshing (Birr) 96.82 32.21 36.40
source: own computational result

Table 38. Cost of inputs per hectare of land for the three crops

Adopters Non-adopters Non-adopters

Activity Triticale Wheat Barely
-1
Seed (qt ha ) 1.32 1.00 1.44
Cost of seed (Birr) 279.84 193 260.64
-1
Fertilizer (qt ha ) 1.00 0.70 0
Cost of fertilizer (Birr) 284 198.80 0
Chemical (lt) 1 0 0.80
Cost of chemical (Birr) 44 0 35.2

81
Table 39. Results of partial budget analysis for the three crops

Types of crops
Activity Triticale Wheat Barely
-1
Average yield (qt ha ) 17.52 7.71 8.20
-1
Gross benefit (Birr ha ) 3714.24 1488.03 1484.2
Cost of seed (Birr ha-1) 279.84 193 260.64
Cost of fertilizer (Birr ha-1) 284 198.80 0
Cost of chemicals (Birr ha-1) 44 0 35.2
Cost of plowing (Birr ha-1) 210.88 142.82 183.04
Cost of weeding (Birr ha-1) 312.97 156.91 61.88
-1
Cost of harvesting (Birr ha ) 112.92 77.97 87.26
-1
Cost of thrashing (Birr ha ) 96.82 32.21 36.40
-1
Total cost that vary (Birr ha ) 1341.43 801.71 664.42
Net benefit (Birr ha-1) 2372.81 686.32 819.78
Marginal benefit (MB)
Compared with wheat (Birr ha-1) 1686.49
Compared with barley (Birr ha-1) 1553.03
Marginal cost (MC)
Compared to wheat (Birr ha-1) 539.72
-1
Compared to barley (Birr ha ) 677.01
MRR (%)
Compared with wheat 312.47
Compared with barley 229.39
Source: own computational result

4.3.2. Sensitivity analysis

In order to capture the effect of the likely changes of price on marginal benefits, rerunning
the marginal analysis with alternative prices is very important (CIMMYT, 1988). Prices of
chemical fertilizer and pesticides supplied by AISCO and cooperatives in the study area
were fixed once in a year and the farmers have to pay that amount while participating in
extension package programs. Hence, it was assumed that the prices of fertilizer and
pesticides are constant in a given production year. Consequently, the analysis focused on

82
the effect of changes in the prices of the seed. Sensitivity analysis is undertaken by moving
the prevailing average grain price of triticale, wheat and barley upwards and downwards by
20% relative to the standard (average) market price (Table 40).

Table 40. Sensitivity analysis of the net income of three crops with regard to grain price
variations

Scenario
Types of crops 1a 2b 3c
Triticale 2372.81 3115.66 1629.96
Wheat 686.32 983.93 388.71
Barley 819.78 1116.62 522.94

a. No change in the grain price

b. An increase in grain price by 20%, Birr 2.54 per kg for triticale,
Birr 2.31 per kg for wheat and Birr 2.17 per kg for barley.
c. A decrease in grain price by 20%, Birr 1.69 per kg for triticale,
Birr 1.54 per kg for wheat and Birr 1.45 per kg for barley.

Assuming a 20% increase in the output price of triticale, wheat and barley, the net benefit
of the three crops increased but the marginal benefits obtained from triticale increased from
Birr 1686.49 to 2131.73 per hectare as compared to wheat and from Birr 1553.03 to
1999.01 per hectare as compared to barley. Similarly, a decrease in the output prices of the
three crops by 20% resulted in the severe decline of the net benefits of the three crops
(Table 40). Even though, the net benefits of the three crops declined the net benefits of the
adopters of triticale (1629.96 Birr per hectare) was found to be higher as compared to the
net benefits of non-adopters, i.e. wheat (388.71 Birr per hectare) or barley (522.94 Birr per
hectare) (Table 40).

In addition, the average output price (prevailing price) of triticale , wheat and barley held
constant but capture the effect of the likely changes of input cost on marginal benefits.
Consequently, the analysis focused on the effect of changes in the cost of fertilizer, seed
and chemical. Sensitivity analysis is undertaken by a 20% increase the input cost of
triticale, wheat and barley relative to the standard (average) input cost farmers have to pay

83
that amount while participating in extension package programs. Assuming a 20% increase
input cost of triticale, wheat and barley, the net benefit of the three crops severely decline.
Even thought, the net benefit of the three crops decline the net benefit of adopters of
triticale (2251.24 Birr per ha) was found higher as compared to wheat (607.96 Birr per ha)
and barley (760.61 Birr per ha). Thus, the sensitivity analysis shows that by 20% the input
cost triticale raised the farmers’ net benefit by 281.90 and 201.60 percent compared to
wheat and barley respectively (Table 41).

Table 41. Sensitivity analysis the net income of the three crops with regard the input price
increase by 20%

Types of crops Triticale Wheat Barley

Gross benefit (Birr ha-1) 3714.24 1488.03 1484.2
Cost of seed (Birr ) 335.81 231.6 312.77
Cost of fertilizer (Birr) 340.8 238.56 0
Cost of chemical (Birr) 52.8 0 42.24
Labour cost (Birr) 733.59 409.91 368.58
Total cost (Birr) 1463 880.07 723.59
-1
Net benefit (Birr ha ) 2251.24 607.96 760.61
Marginal benefit (MB)
Compared with wheat (Birr ha-1) 1643.28
Compared with barley (Birr ha-1) 1490.63
Marginal cost (MC)
Compared with wheat (Birr ha-1) 582.93
Compared with barley (Birr ha-1) 739.41
Marginal rate of return (MRR %)
Compared with wheat 281.90
Compared with barley 201.60
Source: Own computational result

Similarly, triticale grown in the study area is substituting the local crops mainly, wheat and
barley. It is, therefore, assumed to be good to consider sensitivity analysis in terms of
prices of substitute crops. This is because when supply to the markets increase, the price of
triticale might decrease and might show a tendency to be equal with the prices of substitute

84
crops. In this scenario, marginal benefit was recalculated considering the prices of wheat
and barley remaining as they are, and the price of triticale equaling the price of these crops.
The result of the analysis was presented as follows (Table 42).

Table 42. Sensitivity analysis of the benefits of triticale relative to other substitute crops

Scenario
Types of Crops 1a 2b 3c
Triticale 2372.81 2039.93 1829.69
Wheat 686.32 686.32 686.32
Barley 819.78 819.78 819.78
Marginal benefit
Compared to wheat (Birr ha-1) 1686.49 1353.61 1143.37
-1
Compared to Barley (Birr ha ) 1553.03 1220.15 1009.91
MRR (%)
Compared to wheat 312.47 250.80 211.84
Compared to barley 229.39 180.22 149.17

Where: a- using their own average market price (current market price), Birr 2.12 per kg
for triticale, Birr 1.93 per kg for wheat, and Birr 1.81 per kg for barley.
b- Equating the price of wheat to that of triticale Birr 1.93 per kg for triticale, Birr
1.93 per kg for wheat, and Birr 1.81 per kg for barley.
c- Equating price of barley to that of triticale, Birr 1.81 per kg for triticale, Birr
1.93 per kg for Wheat and Birr 1.81 per kg for barley.

Table 41 shows the sensitivity analysis that the marginal benefits of the farmers who
adopts triticale could be recalculated by the use of the prices of wheat and barley
alternatively. The result revealed that the adopter of triticale incur additional cost of Birr
539.72 per hectare and reap the marginal benefits of 1353.61 and 1220.15 Birr per hectare
compared to wheat and barley, respectively, using the price of wheat for triticale. But, the
marginal benefit of tritical declines from 1686.49 to 1353.61 Birr per hectare and from
1686.49 to 1220.15 Birr per hectare compared to the benefit that can be attained using
prevailing (current prices) average price of triticale with wheat and barley, respectively.
Putting differently, the net benefits of triticale by using wheat prices was 2039.93 Birr per

85
ha whereas the net benefits of wheat and barley were 686.32 and 819.78 Birr per hectare.
On the other hand, by using the prices of barley for tritcale, the adopter of triticale with
additional cost of 676.88 Birr per hectare, the marginal benefit of the users of triticale was
found to be 1143.37 and 1009.91 Birr per hectare compared to wheat and barley,
respectively. But the marginal benefit of triticale decreases from 1553.03 to 1143.37 Birr
per hectare and from 1553.03 to 1009.91 Birr per hectare by using barley prices that of
triticale compared to the benefit that can be attained using prevailing (current price)
average prices of tritcale. Thus, the sensitivity analysis shows that by using the price of
substitute crops, such as by using wheat price for triticale raised the farmers’ net benefit by
250.80% and 226.06% times with additional cost of 539.72 Birr per hectare over wheat
and barley, respectively. While, by using the prices of barley the adopters of triticale with
additional cost of 676.88 Birr per hectare raised the net benefit by about 168.92% and
149.20% times over wheat and barley, respectively (Table 41). This study revealed that for
each 1 Birr/ha on average invested in triticale, adopters recover their cost and additional
extra income over that of non-adopters that were growing barley or wheat as mentioned
above. In general, as the price of triticale decreases to the prices of substitute crops, the net
benefit of triticale declines from the benefit that can be attained using prevailing or current
market price but the net benefit of adopters of triticale is higher than as compared to the net
benefits of non adopters of triticale obtained from wheat or barley.

In general, the marginal rate of return from triticale was higher than wheat or barley. The
income of the adopters of triticale was higher compared to the income of non adopters
those who grow wheat and barley, as expected.

86
 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATION

5.1. Summary of Major Findings

This study has attempted to identify the contextual factors that influence farmers adoption
of triticale and its impact in Farta woreda, South Gondar Zone. Furthermore, attempts were
also made to identify the potentail factors that influence adoption of triticale and to
quantify the relative importance of the various factors. Moreover, an effort was made to
assess the impact of the adoption of tritcale on income level of farmers by comparing
adopters and non adopters of the crop relative to the substitute crops.

The descripitive statistics with regared to the socio-economic factors revealed that the
adopters of triticale were relatively younger, having shorter farming experience and more
literate than the non-adopters of triticale. Moreover, they were found to have larger family
size and economicaly active labour force than the non-adopters. Akin, the result of the
study also revealed that adopters of triticale have relatively more participated in off farm
activities, non-farm activities, leaderships of formal social organization, earning more non /
off farm income, and have relatively more access to information than the non adopters of
triticale.

With regared to land holding, the average land holding of adopters (1.31ha) was higher
than that of the non-adopters (1.18ha). Moreover, adopters had more livestock holding in
terms of TLU and more number of oxen holding than the non-adopters. This implies that
adopters are relatively wealthier than non adopters. In addition, more number of adopters
leased-in land than the non-adopters. The major reasons for leasing-in land were reported
to be shortage of land, having extra seed, both having extra labour and land shortage,
having extra seed and shortage of land. The respondents pointed out that labour shortage to
be one of the problems faced during the 2004 cropping season. In this line, the result
indicated that more number of adopters of triticale faced labour shortage compared to
nonadopters .

It was also found that adopters of triticale had relatively better access to extension service
(training, field day and frequency of contact), access to credit, access to input supply and

87
perception about superiority of triticale yield compared to non-adopters of triticale and
have the capacity to invest relatively on average highes input cost than non adopters. Also
it was mirrored that adopters live nearer (relatively in shorter distance) to all weather road
and market center than the non-adopters. Simlarily, the reasons of non-adopters for not
growing triticale were absence of seed, absence of suppliers and the expensiveness of
seed, shortage of land and lack of awarness about the introduction of the crop in the
locality.

The logistic regression model estimated using maximum likelihood estimation procedure
to identify factors influencing the farmers adoption decision of triticale. The model has
correctly predicted the adopters and non-adopters by 88% of the overall observation.
Correctly predicted adopters and correctly predicted non adopters value of the logit model
were 85% and 90.4%, respectively. Among the 19 explanatory variables included in the
model, distance to market centre, distance to all weather road, access to leased-in land,
perception about supperiority of yield of triticale, livestock holding, off/non farm income
and input price were found to influence farmers adoption decision of triticale.

The probability of adoption of triticale for a typical farmer is estimated using the mean
value of the continuous variables and the most frequent value of (zero or one) dummy
variables and was found to be 90.44%. The relative importance of each significant variable
on the adoption of triticale was quantified using sensitivity analysis. Accordingly,
perception of yield superiority of triticale was found to increase the probability of adoption
of tritcale by 60.47%. Moreover, an increase in the possibilty of having accesse to leased-
in land would result in the increase of the probability of adoption of triticale by 22.20%.
Similarly, a 10% decrease in the distance to market center and all weather road from the
farmers residence will increase the probability of adoption of tritcale by 1.66% and 0.31 %
, respectively. Moreover, an increase in livestock holding, off/non farm income and
investment cost by 10% is found to increase the probability of adoption of triticale by 1.60
%, 0.48 % and 0.77 %, respectively.

In this study, the impact of triticale adoption on income was also examined. Based on the
result, it was found that triticale increased farmers net benefit compared to wheat and
barley. Furthermore, the partial budgeting analysis revealed that adopters of triticale had
advantage on income over non-adopters of tritcale who grew wheat and barley.

88
Based on the above descripitive statistics and economertic results the following conclusion
and policy implications are forwarded.

5.2. Conclusions and Policy Implications.

The study revealed that famers’perception on the yield superiority of triticale has positively
and significantly affected adoption of triticale. However, the spread of the technology is
not as expected. The perception of farmers on yield superiority of triticale is important to
spread the technology, thus, further work is requiered to create awarness and improve
perception through training, education and demonistration, etc. Therefore, due attention
should be given to perception of farmers on new technology inorder to promote adoption
through provsion of knowledge by strengthening frequency of extension contact, training
and demonistration ( field day) of the gain from triticale (technology).

The empirical results of this study indicate that distance to all weather road and market
centers are negatively and significantly releated to adoption of triticale. This is similar with
the reports of various studies that revealed access to all weather road and market center are
very crucial in the adoption of technology. Therefore, the consruction of all weather roads
and improved the existing market centers in the locality should be given proper attention
to enhance adoption of tritcale.

The study revealed that the number of livestock holding interms of TLU influence
adoption decision of triticale positively and significantlty. This variable is used as the
proxy for farmers' wealth status indicating that farmers with large number of livestock earn
relatively high cash income that could enable them to purchase farm inputs such as
fertilizer, seed and chemical. This implies that the increase in the wealth status of farmers
has a chance to increase the adoption of triticale. Therefore, it should be given due
attention for increasing livestock holding inorder to enhance the income level of farmers to
increase adoption of triticale.

Access to leased-in land positively and significantly influenced the adoption of triticale.
This implies that farmers who have better access and possibilty of leasing-in land had
increased the chance to use new technology. The possible arguments are :

89
1, leasing- in land is proxy indicator of wealth, hence wealthy farmers have chance to
adopt triticale.
2, Leasing-in land makes farmers to have more land i.e.more land size enhance triticale
adoption. Thus, it needs proper attention through promoting contractual agreement to
further increase adoption of triticale.

The finding of this study shows that non/off farm income positively and significantly
influence adoption of technology. This additional income increased financial capaciy of
farmers to purchase farm inputs and increase adoption of triticale.Therefore, proper
attention is needed by the development of income generating schemse (activities) and
credit source inorder to increase adoption of triticale.

The empirical result of this study revealed that investment cost( financial layout)
influenced farmers' adoption decision of tritcale positively and significantly. Various
findings reported that an increase in the prices of fertilizer, seed etc. would decrease
adoption of new technology but the findings of this study is not in confirmity to some of
the earlier studies. The possible reason is that due to the credit policy that GTZ-IFSP-South
Gondar an international NGO supplies seed without dawnpayment, giving the chance for
the farmers to effect the pay after harvesting. Because farmers face shortage of cash during
sowing time, hence, the supply of input without down payment might have attracted
farmers to use tritcale.Therefore, creating mechanism to reducing downpayment should be
given due attention not to increase and controll the investment cost in order to remove
obstacle for triticale adoption.

In this study, the findings of partial budgeting analysis on the impacts of triticale adoption
on income of farmers revealed that triticale increased the farmer net benefit . Hence, we
should make necessary effort to ensure that the benefit of triticale is spread to more farmers
in the region.

90
 6. REFERENCE

Abebaw Getachew , 2000. Factors influencing engagement in non-farm activities: The

Case of Amhara Region. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.70p.

Abrar Suleiman, 1996. Technical efficiency of fertilized farms in Ethiopia, an application

of the stochastic frontier approach. Ethiop. J. Devel. Rese. 18 (8):1-30.

Adams, M.E., 1992. Agricultural Extension in Developing countries. Intermediate Tropical

Agricultural Series. 284p.

Adebabay Mengist, 2003. Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation practices in

South Gondar Zone: The Case of Farta District. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School
of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 129p.

Adesina, A.A. and J. Baidu-Forson, 1995. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new
agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea. West Africa
Agricultural Economics. 13 (1): 1-9.

Adesina, A.A. and S. Seidi, 1995. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural
technology: analysis of modern Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly
Journal of International Agriculture. 34 (4): 358-385

Aldrich, J.H. and F.D. Nelson, 1984. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models:
Quantitative Applications in the Social Science. Sage Pub.Inc. Sage University paper 45,
London England. 47p.

Amare Gebre Egziabher, 1998. Efficiency of small-scale farmers in Tiyo Woreda, Arsi,
Ethiopia. A Quadratic Risk Programming Approach. Ethiop. J. Agric. Econ. 2 (1): 26.

Amemiya, T, 1981. Qualitative response models: a survey. J. Economic Literature

.19:1483-1536.

Arnon, I., 1981. Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries: Resource

Potential and Problems. A Wiley-Inter Science Publication, New York.

Asfaw Negassa, K. Gunjal, W. Mawangi, and Beyene Seboka, 1997. Factor affecting the
adoption of maize production technologies in Bako area, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Agric.Econ.1
(2): 52-70

Ashenafi Gedamu, 2003. Contribution of international aid organizations to Ethiopia's

agricultural development to attain food self-sufficiency: The example of the Integrated
Food Security Program. Faculty of International Ecological Agriculture, University of
Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany. 69p.

Asmare Yalew, 1998. Economic evaluation of improved production practices to the small
farmers in Ethiopia using microeconomic theories and models, the case with bread wheat
production. An M.Sc. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.75p.

91
Asrat, P., Belay Kassa and Desta Hamito, 2003. Determinants of willingness to pay for
soil conservation practices in the Southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation
and Development. 15: 423-438.

Asres Kebede, 2003. Impact of incentive system on soil and water conservation activities
in Ambasel Area, South Wollo, Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 104p.

Bedessa Tadesse, 1998. Spatial variation in land holding distribution in Ethiopia: an

econometric approach. Ethiop. J. Agric. Econ. 2 (1): 79-102.

Bekele Hundie, 2001. Factors influencing input loan repayment performance of

smallholders in Ethiopia: the case of Oromia and Amhara National States .An M.Sc Thesis
Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture,
Ethiopia. 120p.

Berhanu Bedassa, 2002. Analyses of factors affecting the adoption of crossbred dairy cows
in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 128p.

Blundell, R. and M. Costa-dias, 2000. Evaluation methods for non-experimental data.

Fiscal Studies .21 (4): 427-468.

BOE, 2003. Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Education annual educational
statistics abstract, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. 55p.

Chilot Yirga, 1994. Factor influencing adoption of new wheat technologies: In the
Wolemera and Addis Alem areas of Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia. 108p.

CIMMYT, 1977. A Report on the Wheat Improvement Programme of the International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. EI Baton,Mexico.71p.

CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommandation : An Economics

Training Manual, Completly Revised Edition. Mexico, D.F. 79p.

CIMMYT, 1993. The Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A Guide for Survey Designe.
Mexico, D.F.

CSA, 1998. Agricultural Sample Survey 1997/ 98 Reports on Farm Management Practices.
Vol. III. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 374p.

CSA, 2003a. Agricultural Sampling Enumerations 2001/2002 Statistical Report on Area

and Production of Crops, Part IIA result for Amhara Region, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 729p.

CSA, 2003b. Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, 2001/2002 Results for Amhara
Region Statistical Report on Livestock and Farm Implements Part IV, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.729p.

92
Dasgupta, S., 1989. Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Village India. Willey Eastern.
Ltd. Com. New Delhi, India.193p.

Degnet Abebaw, 1999. Determinants of adoption of high yielding varieties of maize in

Jimma Zone: The Case of Manna and Kersa Woredas. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the
School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia.116p.

Degnet Abebaw, Belay Kassa and Aregay Waktola, 2001. Adoption of high-yielding
maize varieties in Jimma Zone: Evidence from Farm Level Data. Ethiop. J. Agric. Econ.
5(1&2): 25-39.

Degnet Abebaw and Kassa Belay, 2001. Factors influencing adoption of high yielding
maize varieties in Southwestern Ethiopia: An Application of Logit. Quart. J. Intern. Agric.
40(2): 149-167.

Deresse Kassu, 1988. Economic analysis of fertilizer use in maize and sorghum production
based on AUA filed trials. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia. 136p.

Dhindsa, G.S., A.S. Dasanjh, G. Singh and G.S. Nunda, 1998. Variation and adaptation of
triticale varieties for heat tolerance in North India. pp. 314-331. Proceeding of the 4th
International Triticale Symposium, 26-31 July, Alberta, Canada.

DOA, 2002. Annual reports of 1997/98-2000/2001 (Unpublished document) South Gondar

Zone Department of Agriculture, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 235p.

DOA, 2003. Annual report. (Unpublished document) South Gondar Zone Department of
Agriculture, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 95p.

Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman, 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovation in
developing countries. A survey, Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33(2): 255-
297.

Freeman, H., M. Jabbar, E. Simon and N. Gebreselassie, 1996.The role of credit in the
uptake of improved technologies. Ethiop. J. Agric. Econ. 1(1): 25-40.

Frehiwot Fisseha, 1997. Ethiopian agricultural research information management system

htt://falcon.ifs.Uni-linz.ac.at/Research/master/fisseha/over view.html. 87p.

Goldfeld, S. and R. Quandt, 1973. The switching of structural shifts by switching

regressions. Annuals of Economic and Social Measurement. 2 (4): 475-485.

Green H. William, 1991. Economic Analysis. New York University, Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York. 783p.

Green, D.A.G.and D.H. Ng’ong’ola, 1993. Factors affecting fertilizer adoption in less
development countries. An Application of Multivariate logistic Analysis in Malawi. J.
Agric. Econ. 44(1): 99-109.

Gujarati, DN., 1995. Basic Econometrics, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York. 838p.

93
Haji Biru, 2003. Adoption of crossbred dairy cows in Arsi Zone: The Case of Tiyo and
Lemu- Bilbilo Weredas. An M.Sc.Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 85p.

Hosmer, D.w. and S..Lemeshow, 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. University of

Massachusetts and Amberst , Wiley-Inter Science Publication, New York. 307p.

Itana Ayana,1985. An analysis of factors affecting the adoption and diffusion patterns of
packages of agricultural technologies in subsistence agriculture: A Case Study in Two
Extension Districts of Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.154p.

Belay Kassa, 2004. Management of drought and famines in Ethiopia. J. Soci. Deve. in
Africa. 19 (1) : 93-127.

Kay, R.D and A.D.N. Edwards, 1994. Farm Management, 3rded. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Kebede, Y., K. Gunjal and G. Coffin, 1990. Adoption on new technologies in Ethiopian
agriculture: The case of Tegulet-Bulga District, Shoa Province. Agric. Econ. 4 (1): 27-43.

Kidane Gebremariam, 2001. Factors influencing the adoption of new wheat and maize
varieties in Tigray, Ethiopia: The Case of Hawzine Wereda. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to
the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.140p.

Legess Dadi, 1992. Analysis of factors influencing adoption and the impacts of wheat and
maize technologies in Arsi Negele, Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia. 119p.

Lelissa Chalichissa, 1998. The determinants of adoption, intensity and profitability of

fertilizer use: The Case of Ejere District, West Shoa Zone. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to
the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. 75p.

Liao, T.F.,1994. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit and other Generalized
Models. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences,
07- 101. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, California. 87p.

Maddala, G.S.,1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. 401p.

Maddala, G.S., 1992. Introduction to Econometrics. 2ndedition, Macmillan, New York.

631p.

Mahajan, V., and R.A., Peterson, 1985. Models of Innovation Diffusion. Sage University
Paper Series on Qualitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series No. 07-048. Beverly
Hills London Sage Pubns. 88p.

Manfred, M.and Tesfaye Mebrahtu, 2003. An assessment of new approaches of the IFSP
South Gondar. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 24p.

94
Mergoum, M., W.H. Pfeiffer and J.L.Crossa, 1998.Triticale mixtures: A way to improve
and /or stabilize yield under adverse environments .pp 245-251. Proceedings of the 4th
International Triticale Symposium July 26-31, Alberta, Canada.

Million Tadesse and Belay Kassa, 2004. Determinants of fertilizer use in Gununo Area,
Ethiopia. Pp 21-31. In Tesfaye Zegeye, Legesse Dadi and Dawit Alemu (eds). Proceedings
of Agricultural Technology Evaluation Adoption and Marketing. Workshop held to discus
results of 1998-2002, August 6-8, 2002.

MOA( Ministry of Agriculture), 1997. National Livestock Development Program, Draft,

94-95. MOA, Addis Ababa.97p

Mulugeta Enki, 2000. Determinants of adoption of soil conservation practices in central

high lands of Ethiopia: The Case of three Weredas of Salale. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to
the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 92p.

Mulugeta Enki, Belay Kassa and Legesse Dadi, 2001. Determinants of adoption of
physical soil conservation measures in central highlands of Ethiopia: The Case of three
Districts of North Shewa. Agrekon. 40 (3): 293-315.

Mulugeta Mekuria, 1995. Technology development and transfer in Ethiopian agriculture:

empirical evidence. pp. 109-129. In: Mulatu Demeke, Woldey Amha, Simeon Ehui and
Tesfaye Zegeye (eds). Prospects and Transformations. Proceedings of the Inaugural and
First Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia; 8-9 June 1995.
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

Neefjes .K., 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment and Agricultural Development. A

comparative low study, FAO environmental paper No.2, Rome. 85p.

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

NRC, 1989. Triticale, A Promising Addition to the World Cereal Grains. National
Research Council, National Academy press, Washington. D.C. 99p.

OARD, 2003. Office of Agriculture and Rural Development South Gondar Zone annual
report 2002/2003 (Unpublished Document), Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 42p.

OoA, 2002. Farta Wereda Office of Agriculture 2000/ 2001 first round crop evaluation
result, (Unpublished document), Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 45p.

Paulos Asrat, 2002. Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in soil conservation

practices in the high lands of Bale: The Case of Dinsho farming system area. An M.Sc.
Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 131P.

PEDD (Planning and Economic Development Office of South Gondar), 2001. Basic data
for the districts ( unpublished document), Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 185p.

PEDD, 2001. South Gondar Administrative Zone Planning and Economic development
annual statistical abstract. Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. 157p.

95
PEDD, 2002. South Gondar Administrative Zone Planning and Economic Development
Department annual statistical abstract. Debre Tabor Ethiopia. 250p.

Pindyck, R.S.and D.L.Rubinfeld, 1981. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts.

Second edition, McGraw Hill Book Co. New York. .627p.

Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York. 367p

Rogers, E.M. and F.F., Shoemaker, 1971. Communication of Innovation: A Cross Cultural
Approach. The free press, New York. 476p.

Sarup, K. and D.C.,Vasisht, 1994. Adoption of modern varieties of rice in Orissa: A farm
level analysis. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 49: 88-93.

Schultz, T.W., 1995. The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. J. Econ. Liter.
13:827-846.

Shiyani, R.L.,P.K., Joshi, M. Asokon and M.C.S., Bantilan, 2000. Adoption of improved
chickpea varieties: Evidences from Tribal Region of Gujarat. Indian J. Agric. Econ.
55(2):156-171.

Skovmand, B.P., N. Fox, and R.L. Villareal, 1984. Triticale in commercial agriculture,
progress and promise. Advanced Agronomy. 37: 1-45.

Srivastava, J.P., 1974. Prospects of triticale as commercial crop in India. pp. 87-92.
Proceeding of International Symposium, 1973. El.Batan, Mexico.

Tadesse M. and Belay Kassa., 2004. Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation
measures in South Ethiopia: the case of Gununo area. J. Agric. and Rur. Devel. in the
Tropics and Sub Tropics .105(1): 49-62.

Teressa Adugna and F. Heidhues, 1996. A simultaneous equation approach to the analysis
of factors affecting the adoption of innovations: the case of fertilizer in Lume District,
Central Ethiopia. pp 118-145. In Food Security and Innovations, Successes and Lessons
Learned. International Symposium Hohenheim.

Tesfaye Teclie, 1975. Application of multivariate probit analysis to an adoption model of

new agricultural practices. Ethiop. J. Deve. Rese. l.2 (1): 43-54.

Tesfaye Zegeye and Alemu Haileye, 2001. Adoption of improved maize technologies and
inorganic fertilizer in Northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural Research
Organization (ERO). Research Report No.40, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 51p.

Tesfaye Zegeye, Bedessa Tadesse and Shiferaw Tesfaye, 2001. Adoption of high yielding
maize technologies in major maize growing region of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization (ERO), Research Report, No.41 Ethiopia. 35p.

Thomas, H.N and M.V. John, 1969. Microeconomics and Decision Model of Firm. Har
Court, Brace and World, Inc, New York.

96
Wolday Amah, 1999. Improved seed marketing and adoption in Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Agric.
Econ. 3: 41-81

World Bank, 1995. National fertilizer sector project, Staff Appraisal Report, No-13722,
Ethiopia.75p

World Bank, 2003. A users’ guide to poverty and social impact analysis. Poverty
Reduction Group and Social Development, Washington, D.C. USA. 90p.

Yibabie Adane ,2003. Effect of planting date, seeding rate and varieties on yield
components of Triticale. An M.Sc.Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University, Ethiopia.125p.

Yibeltal Gebyehu, 1995. Population pressure, agricultural land fragmentation and land use:
a case study of Diala and Shashemene Wereda, South Ethiopia. pp 101-119. In Dejene
Aredo and Mulatu Demeke (eds). Ethiopian Agriculture: Problems of Transformation.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on the Ethiopian Economy. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Yohannes Kebede, K. Gunjal and G. Coffin, 1990.Adoption of new technologies in

Ethiopia. The Case of Tegulet Bulga District, Shoa Province, Agricultural Economics. 4:
27-43.

97
7. APPENDICES

98
7.1. Appendix.I Tables

Appedix Table 1. Conversion factors used to estimate man equivalent.

Age group Male Female

<10 0 0
10-13 0.2 0.2
14-16 0.5 0.4
17-60 1 0.8
>50 0.7 0.5
Source: Bekele Hundie (2001)

Appendix Table 2. Conversion factors used to estimate TLU

Types of animals TLU

Cow 1
Ox 1
Bull 1
Heifers 0.75
Cafe 0.40
Sheep/ Goat 0.10
Donkey 0.50
Horse/ mule 0.80
Camel 1
Source: Freeman et al. (1996).

99
Appendix Table 3. Variance inflation factors and R2 of continuous variables

Types of variables R2 VIF

YFEH 0.416 1.712
EDLEH 0.352 1.543
FAMSI 0.650 2.857
SLHH 0.380 1.613
DEMAK 0.170 1.205
DROAD 0.223 1.287
NULSH 0.682 3.311
NUOXO 0.682 3.145
LABAV 0.666 2.994
NO/OFFI 0.058 1.062
INPUPR 0.155 1.183
Source: Own computational result

Appendix Table 4. Contingency coefficient for dummy variables to test multicollinearity

PARS SEXH PERYT ACINC EXTCO ACIFOR ACIPS LEIN

PARSO 1 0.102 0.013 0.137 0.167 0.096 0.038 0.182
SEXH 1 0.011 0.062 0.062 0.028 0.058 0.205
PERYTR 1 0.261 0.301 0.206 0.354 0.039
ACINC 1 0.025 0.086 0.452 0.185
EXTCO 1 0.164 0.080 0.116
ACINFO 1 0.125 0.150
ACIPS 1 0.053
LEINL 1
Source: Own computational result

100
Appendix Table 5. Five years input use of the wereda (In quintal)

Types of input 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004

1. Fertilizer 4374.5 4793.8 4680.3 2775.8 6209.4
2. Improved seed
2.1. Maize 9.2 19.1 1.5 - 33.8
2.2. Wheat 365.8 88.8 805.5 231.9 174
2.3. Teff 120.4 24.8 181.6 10.5 22.1
2.4. Barely 14.7 - 24 6.5 38.4
2.5. Triticale 5.6 13.5 20 73 115
Soure: Farta woreda office of agriculture and GTZ-IFSP South Gonda

101
7.2. Appendix II. Survey Questionnaire Used

ALE MAYA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Questionnaire developed for the adoption study of triticale in South Gondar Farta woreda
General information
Questionnaire number --------------------Interviewer’s name -----------------------
Date of interview -------------------------Name of peasants association (PA)---------------------
Name of district -----------------------------Respondents name (Household) ---------------------
1.Personal background

1.1 Characteristics of the Household head

A. Marital status ----------- 1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Widowed
B. For how long the household has been living in this area ----------------years.
C. Have you participated leaderships in some formal social organizations (position) in
the kebele? 1.Yes 2. No
If yes, what is the status of household head in the kebele?
1. PA executive member 2. Kebele cadre 3.Religion leader 4.No status
5. Other specifies.
D. Have you participated in some informal social organization in the community?
1, Yes 2.No
If yes, in which ones were you participating? 1. Idir 2. Mahibar 3. Others
committees specify ----
E. Farming experience, since started farming -----------------years.
F. When did you start farming for your own? ------------------- Years.
G. What is your main occupation currently? -------------------------
Do you have another occupation other than farming? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, in what type of activity you have been engaged? 1. Petty trading
2. Handicrafts 3. Weavery 4. Others specify--------------------
H. What is the type of house you own and live in? 1. Thatch roofed 2. Corrugated tin
roofed
2-. Family size

102
2.1. Family members information

Name Sex Age Education level

2.2. Have you or your family members worked in some productive activities i.e. in off-
farm activity (e.g. ploughing, harvesting, weeding etc.) This year out side your
farm? 1.Yes 2. No
If yes, what is the number of family members worked in off farm activity ---------
number of days-------------------- and specify the type of activity they are engaged in? -
1,Ploughing 2, Harvesting 3, Weeding 4, Threshing 5, other specify
2.3. How many of your family members do permanently work on farm? ---------------
3. Farm structure (farm size)

3.1. How much is the total size of the land (farm size) own ---------------- timad and ---------
number of plots.
1. The grazing area ---------------
2. Area allotted to annual crops ----------------------------
3. Area allotted to tree crops -------------------------------
4. Homestead area---------------------------
5. Leased- in --------------------------------
6. Leased –out ------------------------
7. Others specify ------------------------------

The types of cultivated crops gown last Location Types of land Area in timad
year of plot
1. Barely
2.Wheat
3. Teff
4.Triticale
5. Maize
6.Others

103
 Code for types of land 1. Fertile 2. Less fertile 3. Water lodging 4. Others specify-----
For location of land: 1. Dega 2. Woinadega 3. Others specify--------
3.3. How was the yield of your crops during the last year’s crop season compared to the
Previous year(s)? 1. Very high 2. High 3. Low 4. Very low 5. Medium
3.4. Which crop performed well at this year? Choose the number.

Triticale compared to barely -----------1. Very high 2. High 3. Very low 4. Low
5. Medium

Triticale compared to wheat ----------1. Very high 2. High 3. Very low
4. Low 5. Medium

Triticale compared to teff ------------1. Very high 2. High 3. Very low 4. Low 5.
Medium
3.5. Was the weather condition favorable for crop production in the last production season?
1. Yes 2.No.
If the answer is no, what was the existing problem? 1. Shortage of rain fall 2. Flood and
snow 3, others specify ---------
3.6. Have you leased-out (rented out) your plot of land to other farmers? 1.Yes 2. No
If the answer is yes, what is the size of the land rented out? ----------------------
And if the answer is yes, what is the reason? 1, Shortage of seed 2, Shortage of ox (en)
3, Disabled 4, others specify
3.7. Have you leased in (rented- in) land from other farmers? –1. Yes 2. No
If the answer is yes, what is the reason for renting in the land? 1, Because of extra labor
force I have on-farm 2, Because of land shortage 3, Because of extra seed I have 4, others
specify ------------
3.8. How many hours (minutes) do you normally travel to reach the nearest
Market --------------- Extension office--------------
Paved or all weather road ------------ District or the nearest town------
School------------------ Clinic -------------------------
Water supply -----------------
4. Livestock holding

104
4.1. What livestock types and number do you own?

S.No. Types of livestock Number

1 Ox
2 Cow
3 Heifer
4 Calf
5 Sheep
6 Goat
7 Horse
8 Donkey
9 Others
4.2. Would you please tell me the number of oxen you own? ------------------
4.3. Did you face shortage of oxen during this crop season? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, how did you over come it? ----A, Hiring B, Borrowing C, Exchange
arrangement d, others --------------------
5. Use of new technology

5.1 Have you ever planted triticale seed? 1.Yes 2. No.

5.2. If yes, when did you start using it? --------------year.
5.3 Why did you decide to try it? 1. Because of its drought resistance 2. Because of its
high productivity 3. Others specify ---------
5.4. Did you sow triticale seed during the last cropping season? 1 Yes 2. No).
5.5. If yes, what is the field size you have allotted to triticale ?------- in timade.
5.6. If no, why did not you use triticale? 1. Seed not available 2. Not heard about
introduction of this crop in this area 3 .Not good for food 4. Depletes the soil
nutrients 5. Not good for traditional bread 6. Current market price is not attractive
7. The seed is expensive 8. Others specify ------------------------------
5.7. How long is the time since you have first heard about triticale? ------------ years.
5.8. From where did you first hear about triticale? 1. Development agent 2. Neighbor
3. Radio 4. Television 5. On farmers’day 6. Others fellow farmers 7. Others
specify-
5.9. If you are growing triticale, from where do you usually get the seed?

105
 1.Market 2.MOA 3. NGOs 4. Own 5. Neighbor 6. Other fellow farmers
7.Others specify--------------------------
5.10 . Is triticale seed available on time in your locality? 1. Yes 2. No
If no, what is the reason ----------------------------------
5.11. Is it possible for you to purchase the amount of triticale seed you need every year?
1. Yes 2.No.
5.12. If no, from where do you get? 1. Use own triticale seed from previous harvest 2.
Others specify ---------------------
5.13. If you do not purchase triticale seed, what is the reason? 1. Not available in market
2. Too expensive 3. The benefit is not attractive 4. Not available on time 5.Not
better than the local substitute crops in terms of yield 6. Due to cash shortage 7.
Others specify
5.14. How many times have you purchased triticale seed since you have started using it --
-----------------------------
5.15. Have you ever used fertilizer with triticale? 1. Yes 2.No
If yes, when did you start using fertilizer with triticale? ---------------------------.
How about with manure? 1. Yes 2.no.
5.16. If you know triticale how do you compare the characteristics of this crop with
substitute crops e.g. wheat? ------------
(Choose one, 1, better 2, inferior 3, no change)
Yield-------------------------- Drought resistance -----------------
Disease resistance ------------------- Early maturity -----------------------
Human labor use ------------------------ Weed resistance ----------------------------
5.17 .If you know triticale how do you compare the characteristics of this crop with barely?
(Choose one, 1, better 2, inferior 3, no change)
Yield-------------------------- Drought resistance -----------------
Disease resistance --------------- Early maturity -----------------------

106
 Human labor use ------------------ Weed resistance----------------------
5.18 Would you tell me the type of farm chemicals you used in this year for tritcale?

Types of chemicals Amount of chemicals Price you payed

Herbicides
Pesticides
Fungicides
Others

What do you think of the yield of triticale? 1. Very high 2. High 3. Very
low 4. Low 5. Medium
5.18. Do you know the price of triticale seed in the market? 1. Yes 2. No.
5.19. If yes, do you think the price is fair? 1.Yes 2. No . And how much---------?
5.20. If not fair, why?-------------------------------
6. Credit Availability

6.1. Do you use triticale by buying in cash? 1. Yes 2. No

If the answer is no, what is the reason? 1, you don’t have cash 2, you never believe on the
advantage of triticale 3, Because of access to credit 4, Use the cash for other business
activity 5, others specify---------
6.2. Have you ever received any credit service during the last production season?
1. Yes 2. No.
6.3.If yes, for what purpose did you use the loan? 1. Both triticale and fertilizer
2. Fertilizer only 3. Triticale seed only
If no, what is the reason? 1. Interest rate on credit is too high 2. Do not have money
for down payment 3. Not available on time 4. No money for repayment 5. Others
specify----
6.4. From which agency did you borrow?
Agency
• ACSI ----------- Ambasel ------------
• Cooperative ------------ Friends ----------------
• Others ------------------
6.5. Have you paid back your loan? 1. Yes 2. No

107
 If not, what is the reason? 1, you never have got any profit 2, you lost your crops due
to natural hazard (s) 3, the government couldn’t force you to pay 4, other specify---
6.6. Have you faced cash shortage for down payment to obtain input credit? 1. Yes 2. No
6.7. What are the major problems you faced to get input credit? -------------------------------
1, Shortage of capital 2, High interest rate 3, Bureaucracy 4, Distance from the
farmer’s residence 5, others specify-------------------
6.8 In your opinion, what are the major problems of credit? --------------------------
7. Extension service

7.1. Did you have any contact with extension agents during the last crop season?
1. Yes 2. No
7.2. If yes, on average how many days did the development agents contacted (visited) you?
1. Once per month 2. twice per month 3. Three times per month 4 others
7.3. Have you been attending any agricultural training program? 1. Yes 2. No
Where? ------------ For how long? ---------------------.
7.4. Have you ever attended any field demonstration day arranged by extension agents?
1. Yes 2. No. If yes, which types of crops were demonstrated? ------------------
7.5. Have you ever been observing when other farmers were using triticale? 1. Yes 2.No
If the answer is yes, what are your sources of information? 1. Other farmer 2. NGOs
3. Extension agent’s 4.Other specify--------
7.6. From whom do you get advice on the use of triticale (new technology) other than
extension agents? 1. NGOs 2. Experts in woreda office 3. Radio/ TV 4. Others
specify-------------------
7.7. If you get some advice from other source would you specify it? ---------------------------
7.8. Do you own radio or television ? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, would you tell me whether or not you get advice on the use of new technology?
--------------------------------------------------------------
8. Labour availability

8.1. Did you face any labor shortage during the last crop season? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, for which farm operations did you face the shortage of labor? 1.ploughing,
2. Weeding, 3 thrashing, 4. harvesting etc.
And how did you solve the shortage? 1, Through hiring of daily laborers 2. Through
debo (by use of communal labor) 3. By using family labor 4. Others specify ------------

108
8.3. Did you hire labor for triticale ploughing, planting, weeding and harvesting?

Operation No. of worker No. of days Wage rate per day Total payment

8.4. Can you get labour to hire when you are in need? 1. Yes 2. No
8.5 . On which types of farm activity your female family members participated? 1.
Weeding 2. Harvesting 3. Ploughing 4. Trashing 5. Others specify---------------------
8.6. On which activities do children < 18 years involves? ----------------------
8.7.Are there family members who are engaged in off- farm activity?

Types of off- Rate of Duration of The amount of Numbers of family

farm activities payment activity (month/ income obtained members working
year/ day) (Birr)

9. Income and expenses

9.1. What are your main sources of income (in order of importance)? -1, Crop sale
2, Livestock sale 3, Off-farm income 4, others specify -------------
9.2. What is the income earned from livestock and livestock products during last season?
Livestock type Unit Amount Value
1. Cattle
2. Sheep
3. Goat
4. Milk
5. Butter
6. Hides and skin
7. Poultry
8. Bee
9. Others
9.3. Would you tell me the amount of money you have spent in buying input during last

109
 cropping year for -Triticale,----- wheat, -------barely ------------
-Fertilizer ------------- -Insecticides -------------
-Farm tool and implements --------- -Oxen----------------
-Others -----------------
9.4. Have you earn non-farm income during the last crop season? 1. Yes 2. No.
9.5. If yes, would you tell me the amount of non-farm income you have earns during last
crop season? -Gift ---------- -Handicraft activity --------- -Porte ring ------
Sale of firewood --------------- -Others -----------------------
9.6. Have you earned an off- farm income during the last crop season? 1.Yes 2.No.
9.7.If yes, in what activities and the amount of income? 1. Selling of labor to other fellow
farmers ------ 2. Renting of oxen ------ 3. Others specify -------
10. Market service and price

10.1. Have you sold triticale, wheat and barely recently? 1. Yes 2. No.
10.2. If yes, what is the total amount produced, consumed you have sold and price you
have received during last production year?

Types of crops Total produced Amount consumed Amount sold

Qt Birr Qt Birr Qt Birr

Triticale
Wheat
Barely
10.3. Where do you sell your agricultural products? 1. At farm gate 2. Taking to
Local market 3. Others specify--------------------
10.4. Do you think you have received a fair price for your crops sold? 1. Yes 2. NO
10.5. At what season do you usually sell your farm product?
1. Right after harvest 2. Latter after harvest 3. Others ---------------
10.6. What do you feel about the price of the crops at harvest? 1, cheap 2, costly
3, Normal
10.7. What are the crops usually consumed by your family? 1. Wheat 2. Triticale
3.Barely 4. Others--------------------
10.8. What amount of crops was consumed by your family during the last crop season?
1. Triticale----------- (Qt/kg) 2. Wheat -----------(Qt/kg)

110
 3. Barely----------- (Qt/kg)
10.9. Would you tell me whether or not you meet the family food consumption
requirement from your own production in good year? 1. Yes 2. No
How about in bad year? 1. Yes 2. No.
10.10. If no, how do you feed your family in case of food shortfall? 1. Purchasing
2. Borrowing 3. Others specify--------------------------
10.11. If you purchase, what amount have you bought for family consumption during the
last crop season? 1. Triticale ---------------------- 2. Wheat -----------------------
3. Barely ----------------------
10.12. Have you ever-full fill family consumption since you have started to grow triticale?
1. Yes 2. No
If yes, what is the reason? 1. You get high yield from triticale 2. You get low
yield from triticale 3. Others specify------
10.13. Have you increase the amount of crops you have sold since growing tritcale? 1. Yes
2. No.
If yes, what are the types of crops that you have sold by producing triticale? 1.
Wheat 2. Barely 3. Maize 4. Teff 5. Others
11.Input supply availability and price

11.1. Did you get input (triticale and fertilizer) on time during the last production season?
1. Yes 2. No.
If the answer is no, for how long it is late? ----1, Till the time of sowing passed 2, It is
delayed little 3, We never get at all 4, other specify
11.2. Is there adequate number of input suppliers? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, which ones are the suppliers? -------------------------------
If no, from where do you get the input specially triticale seed? 1.Buy from
others (traders) 2.. Form GTZ 3. Not to use triticale 4. Other specify-------------------

111
11.3. What are the inputs and implements you have purchased for triticale , wheat and
barely farm operation during the last crop season?---
--------------------------------
Item Unit Amount Unit price Total price
1. Seed
2. Fertilizer
3. Chemical
4. Others

11.4. What are the major problem of the existing triticale and fertilizer supply system? ---
1.High input price 2. Lack of credit 3. Shortage of supply 4. Poor quality 5. no
problem
6. Other specify -------------

112