CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS IN ADOPTION OF IMPROVED

MODERN AGRICULTURAL INPUTS IN GANTA AFESHUM WOREDA

By: Diro Geleta

Advisor: MohammedAwel Yesuf (Msc)

A senior Essay Submitted to Economics Department in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Art in Economics

Adigrat University

College of Business and Economics

Department of Economics

May, 2016

Adigrat- Ethiopia
 ADIGRAT UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

APPROVAL OF SENIOR ESSAY

As an advisor of the Final Senior Essay BA Degree, I certify that I have read and
evaluated the senior Essay prepared by Diro Geleta entitled Challenges and
prospects in adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in Genta Afeshum
Woreda and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the senior Essay
requirement for the BA degree in Economics.

…………..…………. ………....……. ….…………….

Name of Advisor Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and for most, I would like to thank almighty GOD for giving me the strength to bring my
longtime dream and effort in to reality.
Then I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my advisor instructor
MohammedAwel Yesuf (MSc) who really scarified his precious time by giving constructive
comments and intellectual guide. I am also indebted to express my thanks to my fatherGeleta
Hurisa and My mother Warki Alula and to all of my families who give me an advice and
financial support starting from joining University up to the final graduated day and my research
work.I would like a special thanks for my brother Tedesse Geleta and Amenu Geleta for
helping both financial and guidance from first up to this for truth my vision blood donor when I
was a serious seek in that time their sacrifice lead to me this stage.I would like to thanks my
friends firstly; Adisu Bekele in typing, lending flash and for his suggestion, Secondly, I would
like to thanks Senbeto Tamiru by lending computer. I would like to also thanks those my
uncles aunts, cousins for their financial support and important ideas and incentives to me.
Finally I thanks all those who assisted me ideas, comments and contacts to numerous to mention
your names here your costless contributions have not forgotten.

i
ABSTRACT

The study was carried out to determine the challenges and prospects in adoption of improved
modern agricultural inputs in rural areas; in case of Genta Afeshum Woreda. The data was
collected from in the farmer who lives in Genta Afeshum Woreda. The data for the study was
collected from the sample of 100 farmers selected by purposively and stratified sampling
techniques from the two kebeles in Genta Afeshum Woreda. The adoption of agricultural input
in the distinct is influenced by both demographic characteristics such as sex, age distribution,
martial, family size, ox number, educational level and farm-land size and factors affecting
adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs like extension contact, price of farm-inputs,
price of farm-out puts, physical factors(level of infrastructural availability), agro-ecological
factors such as (risk and uncertainty), credit availability and constrained, economical problem,
family labor, information associated problem, availability distribution of inputs, effectiveness of
input, shortage of most needed inputs, accessibility of commodity market.

KEY WORDS:Adoption, Innovation, Improved seed, Agriculture, Fertilizer ,

Pesticides, Herbicides, Farmers and Extension agents (DAs).

ii
ACRONYMS

GDP Gross Domestic Product

DAs Development Agents
GAWARD Genta Afeshum Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development
IMAI Improved Modern Agriculture inputs
NGO Non-Government Organization
GR Green Revolution
HYV High Yield Varity

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Pages
Acknowledgment………………………………………………………………………………..…i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..………………..ii
Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………iii
Table of content…………………………………………………………………………………..iv
List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………vi
Chapter one………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Background ofthestudy...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem........................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives of the study............................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General Objective...............................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific objectives..............................................................................................................3
1.4 Significance of the study.........................................................................................................4
1.5 Scope and limitation of the study............................................................................................4
1.6 Organization of the study……………………………………………………………………...4
Chapter two………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Literature review.............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Theoretical literature review....................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Definition of Technology, adoption, Innovation measurement.........................................5
2.1.2 Technology adoption…………….……………………………………...……………......5
2.1.3 Adoption and its measurement……………………….…………………………………..6
2.1.4 Innovation...........................................................................................................................6
2.1.5 Theoretical frame work.....................................................................................................10
2.1.5.1 The diffusion model theory……………………………………………………………10
2.1.5.2 The high pay-off input model theory………………………………………………….10
2.2 Empirical literature review..................................................................................................11
2.2.1 Adoption and Productivity Studies in developing countries…………………………….11

iv
2.2.2 Adoption and productivity studies in Ethiopia ….............................................................14
2.3 Critical evaluation……………………………………………………………………………16
Chapter Three…………………………………………………………………………………….17
3 Methodology of the study..........................................................................................................17
3.1 Description of the study………………………………………………...…………..……...17
3.2 Type and Source of data…………… ….............................................................................17
3.3 Method of data collection……………………………………………………………….…17
3.4 Sampling techniques and size…………………………………………….………………..17
3.5 Method of data analysis……………………………………………………………….…..18
Chapter Four…………………………………………………………………………………..…19
4 Data analysis and discussion…………………………………………………………………..19
4.1 primary data analysis…………………………………………………………….…………..19
4.2 Factors affecting farmer’s adopting behavior……………………………………………….23
Chapter Five………………………………………………………………………………….......27
5 Conclusion and Recommendation……………………………………………………………..27
5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...…27
5.2 Recommendation…………………………………………………………………………….28
Reference………………………………………………………………………………………...30
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………31

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sex of sample respondents …………………………………………………….……….19

Table 2 Age of distribution of sample respondents ….………………………………….………20
Table 3 Education level of sample respondents…………………………………….…………...20
Table 4 land owner of the sample respondents……………………………….…….……………21
Table 5 ox owner of the sample respondents…………………………………………………....22
Table 6 Input adoption behavior of sample respondents……………………………..………….22
Table 7 prospects or opportunity in adoption of IMAI………………………………..…………24
Table 8 Challenge in the adoption of IMAI……………………………………………………..25

vi
CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Agriculture is the main economic activities in the developing countries. The role of agriculture in
economy development has been viewed as largely passive, supportive and secondary. It provides
as with almost all our basic need: clothing, shelter, foods and as a source of our wants: high
value quality cloth, high value house, normal good consumption and etc. Besides agriculture it
provides material used in making industrial products such as paints and medicine. About 50.8%
of world populations are engaged in agricultural sector. Based on the historical experience of
western nation’s economics, economic development was seen to require a rapid structural
transformation of the economic one to determinant focus on agricultural activities to a modern
industrial, service society. As a result agriculture primary role as was to provide sufficient low
price food and man power to expand industrial economic development (Nigate and Aklilu, 2005
E.C)
According to United Nation Development Program (UNDP, 2012 G.C) two third of the people in
developing countries are living in rural areas. Agriculture is the main source of subsistence and
income for the majority of the rural people, many of them are small scale farmers whom their
lands was as agricultural labor (Oxam press, 2013 G.C)
Farmers in developing countries are depending on the farmer income and they are characterized
by low income and deficiency in supply of grain. This is because technological backwardness,
rapid population growth and low productivity of livestock (FAO, 2011G.C)
Approximately 1.4 billion people in the world today lives in extreme poverty level that-they
survive on less than the united states dollar of 1.25 per day,(world bank data base 2013) .842
million people or one out of eight people in the world do not have enough food to eat. 98% of the
worlds undernourished people lives in developing countries. Among those 223 million people
lives in sub-Saharan Africa.75%of world poorest people lives in rural areas and depends on
agriculture and related activities,(FAO,2011)
Agriculture sector has always been an important component of the Ethiopian economy accounts
for 42%of gross domestic product (GDP),employs 80%of the Ethiopian labor force and supply
1
90%by value of all exports,(MOA,2002).78% of Ethiopian people struggle with an income
below 2 us dollar per a day. A predominant portion of Agricultural production takes place at
subsistence level. In all 99% of coffee production and 94% of other agricultural production
comes from peasant farms, (Samuel G, 2005)
Appropriate investment to increase Ethiopian Agricultural productivity should focus on
appropriate land saving techniques and technologies that is increasing crop yield per unit of
adoption of new farming techniques specifically related to production inputs, such as fertilizer
delivered positive impacts more than 60% of the time, (Samuel.G, 2005).
Thus the farmer to increase agricultural productivity based on the adoption of modern farm input
(innovation) more successfully. It is important that the effect of agro-climatic and socio-
economic factors on their adoption of modern agricultural inputs shall be assessed. As it has been
clearly explained above, there are numerous studies, reports, and findings of different aspects of
agricultural and adoption process of innovation. However the effect of factors in the adoption
process is not well addressed. Therefore the aim of the study is to assess (investigate) the effect
of those factors on the adoption of modern agricultural innovations in Ganta Afeshum Woreda.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Ethiopian economy is dominated by agriculture. The agriculture account for about 50% of GDP.
This sector provides likelihood for around 85% of the total population as agriculture plays a
dominant role in the economy the real and sustainable development is an achievable without
prioritizing the progress of agricultural output. It is for this reason that every government would
be given priority to fight wide spread poverty and food insecurity through agricultural sector.
(Fact about Ethiopia, 2004 EC page. 71)
When population is growing fast in developing countries like Ethiopia, Nigeria, Egypt and etc.
population of Ethiopia is increasing at the rate of 2.9% per annum (EEA, 2010).
The existing conceptual and empirical literature on the studies also suggest that the adoption
behavior of modern agricultural technologies affected by the inter-relation of such agro-climatic
and socio-economic factors such as age, family size, education, risk aversion, access to
information, access to credit, farm labor supply, supply of high yielding varieties, price of farm
output, chemicals, extension contacts, and etc (Ibid)
2
 The ultimate goal of any rural or agricultural strategy or program is to improve the welfare of
rural households. This goal is to achieve among other things by increasing productivity at farm
level and by raising farmer’s income and by improving their welfare. This is possible if and only
if improve agricultural technologies are properly transferred and disseminated to farmers. So as
to deepen and intensify their production (Assefa and Gezahegne, 2010).
Agricultural development project can be successful if evidences on factors responsible for
adoption and risk taking behavior are known in advance (EEA, 2009).
Accordingly appropriate measure can be taken to mitigate the effect of risk and provide
complementary input and output. It would not be possible to increase the involvement of
productivity in development programs. That involves new production technologies unless they
are convinced with the benefits expected from the participation (EEA, 2009).
Several modern technology packages have been introduced in Ethiopia over the past four
decades. While some studies in the past have attempted to access the factors behind the adoption
behavior of farmers. The adoption and diffusion of these technologies has not been satisfactorily
and comprehensively assessed even at national and regional level. So we can conclude that there
is little or not enough empirical and conceptual studies regarding to the adoption of improved
agricultural modern inputs at Ganta Afeshum Woreda Eastern part of Tigray region.
1.3. Objective of the study
1.3.1. General objectives
The general objective of this study is to assess the challenges and prospects in adoption of
improved modern agricultural inputs in Ganta Afeshum Woreda.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
The specific objectives of this study:
 To address the extent of the adoption of modern agricultural innovation inputs in the
study area.
 To identify the challenges and prospects of the farmer on the use of adoption of
innovation in the study area.
 To identify the socio-economic and agro-climatic factors that affects the adoption of
improved agricultural inputs in Ganta Afeshum Woreda.

3
1.4 Significance of the study
Conducting this study would have several advantages for the Woreda and other students.
To provide further information to individuals and student interested on the topic for further,
study used to provide helpful feedbacks from farmers and to access the effectiveness of
technology transfer and improve the flow of information between research and extension.
1.5 Scope of the study and limitation of the study
This study would be conducted in Ganta Afeshum Woreda trying to assess challenges and
prospects in adoption of improved agricultural inputs. It covers the period between 2004 to 2007
because availability of data and keep the study present. And also most adoption improved
agricultural inputs takes place between these periods in this particular Woreda.
One of the main constraints for this study is lack of enough full information because of
unwillingness of the respondents in giving reliable information in addition to the lack of full
information, storage of time and budget as well as lack of experience in conducting the research
process were constraints of the study.

1.6 Organization of the paper

The study organized in five chapters. Accordingly, the first chapters deals with the introductory
part of the study which contained background ,statement of the problem , objective of the
study ,significance of the study and organization of the study. The second chapter focused on
review of related literature. The third chapter contains methodology, data source target
population sample size and sampling techniques, data collection, and data analysis method were
presented. Chapter four contains data analysis and discussion as last, chapter five provides
conclusion and recommendation.

4
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 THORETICAL LITRETURE REVIEW

2.1.1 Definition of Technology, Adoption, Innovation, Productivity and their Measurement

The vast majority of the world’s poor lives in rural areas and is engaged in agriculture, and
therefore activities designed to address the vulnerability of these rural poor are often geared
toward improving agricultural practices as a means of increasing productivity, efficiency and,
ultimately, income. Governments, NGOs, aid agencies and extension workers have long known
that the success of any project depends, in part, on whether farmers adopt the offered
technologies and, if they do, whether those farmers adopt the technologies in an ideal
combination and for the proscribed length of time needed to produce designed results.
Researchers have conducted decades’ worth of surveys and analyses around the world in an
attempt to understand the adoption decisions of individual farmers and the diffusion patterns
among communities of farmers and rural poor. By understanding how farmers and communities
decide whether to adopt a technology, aid professionals can refine their agricultural technology
outreach projects to address the conscious and subconscious concerns of targeted communities,
and increase the probability that farmers will be willing and able to participate in project
activities (FAO, 2011)

2.1.2. Technology Adoption

Technologyis assumed to mean a new, scientifically derived, often complex input supplied to
farmers by organizations with deep technical expertise. Neill and Lee point out that the majority
of existing literature on agricultural technology adoption is focused on Green Revolution (GR)
technologies such as irrigation, fertilizer use, and the adoption patterns of high-yield variety
(HYV) seeds.

Due to the development process of HYV and the inputs required to make them productive,
studies examining HYV adoption look at very advanced forms of technology; HYV seeds are
often the product of intensive laboratory research.

5
And when they are targeted to farmers they are bundled with other technology inputs such as
chemical fertilizers, pesticides and extensive irrigation because these are necessary for the HYV
seeds to perform as designed.

Because so many studies of agricultural technology adoption and diffusion focus on HYV and
other GR inputs, their findings are concentrated on a “high-tech” definition of agricultural
technology.

2.1.3 Adoption and its measurement

Adoption: refers to the decision to use or not to use a new technology, method, practice, etc. by
a firm, farmer or consumer. Rogers (1983) defined adoption behavior as the process by which a
technology is communicated through certain channels overtime among the members of a social
system. In the context of this study, adoption refers to the decision of an individual farmer to use
or not to use a modern agricultural technology at a point in time. According to Colman and
Young (1989) adoption always presuppose that the innovation exists and studies of adoption
analyze the reason or determinants of whether and when adoption takes place.
The measurement of adoption of a given technology depends on whether the technology is
divisible or not. If a technology is divisible, its adoption can be measured at the individual level
in a given period of time by the share of the farm area under the new technology or by the per
hectare quantity of input used in relation to the resource recommendation (Feder et al, 1985). In
this study, the focus is only on technologies of divisible nature, especially fertilizer, HYVS and
Chemicals (Colman and Young, 1989).

2.1.4 Innovation
Innovation: is the process of translating an idea or invention in to good or service that creates
values or for which customers will pay. Innovation is a source of technological changes. For a
technological change to occur a technology is assumed to be generated from some sources within
or outside the concerned or agricultural sector or adopted by the users.

6
The domain tradition and expectation in developing countries is that technologies are generated
by formal national or international research and development organization, (FAO, 2011)
According to Schumters (2001) an innovation may consists of the following elements.
A, introduction of new knowledge or product
B, the introduction of new method of production
C, the opening up of new market and
D, the conquest of new source of supply or raw material or semi-finished goods
Limitation and challenges of agricultural extension in Ethiopia
Her below are some limitations and challenges that were worth considering while looking at the
performance of the national extension system in Ethiopia.
 Lack of clarity: as Tesfaye, (2003) remarked the Ethiopian extension system
operates without concentrate extension policy.
 Gaps in decentralization and linkages: power is being developed to woreda’s to
plan and implement extension service.
 Unidirectional information flow: extension has been based on the linear model of
knowledge utilization.
 Number and quality of extension personnel until recently the number of DA s and
their quality until recent is very low.
 Assuming that awareness alone always leads to adoption, (Belay, 2003).
 Difficulties in assessing the performance and impact of agricultural extension
system is poor or unknown (MOA,2010)

Mostly Farmers do not adopt technologies as a package, but rather adopt a single component or a
few suitable techniques. The principal reasons given for sequential adoption of a package of
technologies are profitability, riskiness, uncertainty, lumpiness of investment and institutional
constraints. For example, Ryan and Subrahmanyam (1975) argue that this type of choice is a
rational choice for farmers with limited cash.
Only a few numbers of farmers adopt a new technology in the early stage of the diffusion
process.

7
At this state, only a few farmers will have full information about the potential advantage of the
technology and even if they get full information about the potential advantage of the technology,
fear of the possible risk associated with the new technology will make the adoption speed low.
But after a subsequent time period, potential adopters will acquire full information about the
potential advantage of the technology, and the degree of riskiness associated with it becomes
clear so that adoption become rapid. The adoption increases gradually and begins to level off,
ultimately reaching an upper ceiling.

Mansfield (1961), Griliches (1957), Gutkind and Zilberman (1985) and Bera and Kelley (1990)
attributed the S-shaped diffusion curve to the spread of information as well as to economic
factors. The adoption rate of a given technology mainly depends on its profitability, the amount
of investment required to adopt it, the degree of uncertainty associated with it and its availability.

According to Rogers (1983), Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and Mosher (1979), all farmers do
not adopt a given technology at the same time, rather they adopt in order time sequence. Based
on the time when farmers first begin using a new technology, they identified and described five
possible adopter categories in any social system: innovators, early adopts, early majority, late
majority, and laggards.

According to Ellis (1993) there are two kinds of innovation that can enhance the productivity of
farmers. The first is a process innovation which changes the amount, combination, quality, or
types of inputs required to produce the same kind of output. Most innovations in agriculture are
process innovation where the output produced remained unchanged. But sometimes, such a
process innovations may charge the test and size of agricultural outputs. The second type of
innovation is a product innovation where the nature of the output changes and it is usually
considered more prevalent in industry than agriculture. But still the product innovation in the
industrial sector like tractors and fertilizers can be used as an input in the agricultural sector.

8
But the concept of induced innovation is not as such acceptable in fewer developing countries
where the market doesn’t work well and mostly technologies transferred from developed
countries to developing countries where there is less room for endogenous technological change
(Ellis, 1993). Moreover, in most of Less Developing Countries, agricultural innovations are
imposed on farmers from above rather than conforming to the idea of choice between markets
driven alternatives (Burmesiter, 1987).

Productivity can be measured in two ways; partial productivity and total productivity. Partial
productivity measures the productivity of each input in the production process, like the
productivity of fertilizers, HYVS, pesticides and so on, whereas total productivity measures
productivity in relation to all inputs.

Agricultural productivity of a given farm household depends on many factors in the literature.
Ellis (1993) argued that small farms in terms of land size are more productive than large farms
and his recommendation that agricultural development strategy based on the promotion of small
rather than large farms can serve both growth and income distribution objectives are based on
this argument.
In general, there is little irrigation available and inputs are scarce in Africa. So the problem is not
so much of developing HYVS that need a lot of care, but of growing varieties that can adapt to a
difficult environment and eventually develop resistance to several diseases.

Concerning fertilizer, mainly used to improve the fertility of soil which is degraded because of
over production are of two types; organic and inorganic. The organic one is mainly animal dung
and green manure which are available to the farmer at his/her disposal. But the inorganic
fertilizers are the purchased chemical fertilizers like DAP and Urea. Just like HYVS fertilizers
are also divisible technologies. But when we see its application in most developing countries,
because of many constraints, is below the recommended rate with sub-optimal use which let
alone to improve soil fertility, it will not maintain the previous fertility which results in decrease
in the productivity of the soil.

9
Further, countries should not stick to the blanket recommendation of fertilizer application; rather
have to develop their own rate depending on their own socioeconomic and agro ecological
environments (Nigussie and Mulat, 2003; Feder et al., 1985). In the economic models of
adoption behavior, the farmer’s choice between alternative technologies depends on different
socio-economic and agro-climatic factors.
According to Rahm and Huffman (1984) and Legesse (1998), farmers’ adoption decisions are
assumed to be based on the objective of utility maximization. Lastly, insecticides and pesticides
are chemicals used to protect production from pest and insects which could damage yield
because of disease and low productivity.

2.1.5. Theoretical frame work

2.1.5.1The diffusion model theory

The diffusion of better husbandry practice and of crop and livestock varieties has been a major
source of productivity. Growth in agriculture in US crop exploration and introduction became a
major activity of the US department of agriculture. The effective diffusion of known technology
was provided by the research of rural sociologist on the diffusion process. Methods were
developed emphasizing the relationship between diffusion rates and the personality
characteristics and educational accomplishment of farm operates until the late of 1930,s and
1940,s. a significant portion of total effort was devoted to the testing and refinement of farmer
innovation and to the testing and adoption exotic crop varieties and animal species.

2.1.5.2. The high pay off input model theory

The key to transferring a traditional agriculture sector in to a productive source of economic
growth is investment to make modern high pay off inputs available to farmers in poor countries.
There are three types of relatively high productivity investment for agricultural development
 In the capacity of agricultural experiment station to produce and market new
technical knowledge
 In the capacity of agricultural sector to develop, produce and market new technical
inputs and

10
In the capacity of farmers to use modern agricultural factors effectivelyThe unique implication of
the model for agricultural development policy are emphasize on the process of development and
propagation of new inputs or techniques through public investment in scientific research and
development

2.2. Empirical Literatures

Studies on the adoption process of modern agricultural innovation focusing on the entire family
and farm HHs is quit recent. Factors determining technology adoption and productivity differ
from one sector to the other and from one region to the other in the same sector.
Especially, dealing with agricultural technologies where the sector has its own peculiar
characteristics like seasonality of production and its high dependence on the vagaries of natures
makes it different from the other sectors. Moreover, there is a significant difference in terms of
the characteristics of agriculture in developing and developed countries. In developing countries,
the agricultural sector is characterized by its high dependence on natural phenomenon, highly
constrained by shortage of resources and undertaken by less educated farmers.
As a result, the empirical literature part covered in this paper emphasizes only on adoption and
productivity studies undertaken in developing countries agricultural sector. This part has two
parts, the first deals with different adoption and productivity studies in developing countries and
the second concentrates on adoption and productivity studies in Ethiopia.

2.2.1 Adoption and Productivity Studies in developing countries

Most of the adoption studies in developing countries are under taken in Asia and Latin American
countries where the Green Revolution took place and was successful. Kamilson (2004), studies
on agriculture service and input use in Nigeria. He concludes that adopting inputs were
difference and unabsorbed heterogeneity of state and local government level. Different authors
have emphasized on different factors as a significant determinants of adoption decision. Perrin
and Weinkelman (1976) summarized adoption studies on wheat and maize in six countries,
namely Kenya, Colombia, El-Salvador, Mexico, Tunisia, and Turkey and reported that the
difference in adoption rates in these countries are explained by difference in information, agro-
climatic and physical environments, availability of inputs, difference in market opportunities for
the crops, and difference in farm size and farmers’ risk aversion characteristics.

11
For the detail analysis of the factors determining agricultural technology adoption, this part of
the literature is classified in to household head’s characteristics, farm characteristics, institutional
and agro-climatic factors and the characteristics of the technology.

In relation with the household head’s characteristics, the two most important variables
considered in most literatures are education and age. Most of the adoption studies undertaken in
developing countries, using the probit model show that education level of the household head has
a positive and significant effect on the adoption decision of modern agricultural technologies
(Jha et al, 1990; Strauss et al, 1991; Lin, 1991; Akinola and young, 1985). But other researchers
like Shakya and Flinn (1985) and Pitt and Sumodiningrat (1991), using the same probit model
found the impact of education on technology adoption to be non-significant. It could be argued
that the role of education on technology adoption may not be an important factor in the case
where there is effective extension service and the technologies are simple like fertilizer and
HYVS. But in the absence of effective extension service and complex technologies, education
becomes an important factor in determining the farmer’s decision.

Concerning age of the household head, different authors have reported opposing results using
the same probit model. For Jha et al. (1990), Akinola (1987) and Akinola and Young (1985)
reported negative relationship between technology adoption and the age of the household head.
But Zegeye (1989) and Mahabub (1988) found a positive relationship between technology
adoption and the household head’s age. They argued that older farmers have more experience
and hence better knowledge of the use of the technologies than younger farmers.

Coming to farm characteristics, the two most common variables considered are family size
(which is mostly used as proxy to labor availability) and farm size. The impact of family size on
the technology adoption decision of a farmer mainly depends on the characteristics of the
technology. If a technology is labor saving like tractors, harvesters, pesticides and the like its
impact will be negative, while if a technology is labor intensive like fertilizer and HYVS, its
impact will be positive.

12
Akranove (2010), studies on agricultural productivity difference between Africa and Asia. He
concludes that the substantial difference in agricultural productivity between Asian and African
farmers were the difference in use of modern inputs.

The evidence suggested that better access to infrastructure such as roads, irrigation and better
access to modern inputs in Asian farmer, while sub-Saharan African farmers without such access
is not able to fully exploit the benefits of modern agricultural inputs.

Here, whether farm size affects the adoption decision depends on the characteristics of the new
technology. If the technology is of divisible nature, it is scale neutral and hence small farmers
can adopt it as large farmers do. But in the case of lumpy technologies, there is a high probability
for large farmers to adopt than small farmers do. But for Feder and O’Mara (1981), even if
divisible technologies are neutral to scale, the record of adoption and diffusion experiences
throughout the world show that adoption rates and the time patterns of adoption are related to
farm size. The argument for this is the differences in information acquisition costs, which is
higher for small farmers than large farmers which may discourage adopting the technology.

For Ruttan (1977), farm size plays a significant role at the early stage in the adoption process. It
is true that large farmers adopt technology early because of the relative advantage they have, but
as adoption progresses, their relative advantage will diminish and the small farmers will catch
up. Hence at the latter stage of the adoption process, farm size will be a non- significant factor.

In developing countries, where farmers have only limited capacity to finance investment in new
technologies, the role of credit cannot be overestimated (Feder et al., 1985; Bhalla, 1979).
Almost all the literatures reviewed found a positive and very strong relationship between
availability of credit and the farmer’s decision to adopt a new technology in developing countries
(Akinola, 1987; Pitt and Sumodiningrat, 1991; Shakya and Flinn, 1985) using the probit model
and (Green and Ng’ong’ola, 1993) using the logit model. The availability of infrastructures (like
roads, transportation, irrigation and the likes) and good agro-climatic conditions (like rainfall,
soil fertility, salinity, and the likes) have also a positive impact on the adoption of modern
technologies, while drought has a negative impact on the adoption decision

13
(Pitt and Sumodiningrat, 1991; Jansen et al., 1990), using the probit and logit model respectively.

Lastly, concerning the characteristics of technology, the farmer’s preference, evaluation of the
varietals characteristics and perception of specific traits like test, yield, cooking quality and the
like strongly affect the farmer’s decision to adopt the new technology (Smale et al., 1995 and
Adesina and Zinnah, 1993), using the tobit model and (Heisay et al., 1993), using the
multinomial logit.

2.2.2. Adoption and Productivity Studies in Ethiopia

A study by Tesfai (1975), using the probit model in Arsi zone reported that the probability of the
adoption of improved varieties and fertilizer strongly increase with farm size and extension
service. The availability of cash for down payment, membership in local association and literacy
also increase the probability of adoption but less strong than the above two factors. He further
reported that tenants are less likely to adopt improved varieties and fertilizer as compared to
owner cultivators.

Yohannes et al. (1991), using the logit model in Tegulet and Bulga area of North Shewa zone
found that the adoption of modern technologies are positively affected by farm size, family size,
education, farm and off farm income, exposure to outside information and experience as
represented by age. But debt and degree of risk aversion had a negative influence. According to
Legesse (1992) using the probit and tobit models, access to credit, expected yield, cash
availability for down payment, participation in farm organization as a leader and close exposure
to technology had positive impact on the probability of adopting HYVS, intensity of fertilizer
and herbicides.

According to Lelissa (1998) the most important determinants of fertilizer use and intensity in
Ejere district of west Shewa zone are agro-climatic conditions, land tenure systems, credit,
extension service, oxen ownership, age of the farmer, family size, farmers level of education,
manure, ratio of price of crops to fertilizer cost, distance to fertilizer distribution center and
cropping pattern.

14
 Legesse (1998) studied adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies in East and West
Shewa zones using probit and Tobit models and found that location, oxen ownership, distance to
market, credit, gender and degree of risk aversion had significant impact on the adoption
decision of the new technologies. But education and the index of awareness had no effect on the
adoption decision. He also found that the impact of increase in output price on the probability of
adopting modern technology is very high.

Mulat and Bekele (2003), using the Cobb-Douglas production function model studied the
determinant of yield of major cereals in 18 sites of the four major regions in Ethiopia, namely
Amhara, Tigray, Oromiya and Southern Nations and Nationalities Peoples (SNNP). They
reported that, DAP and Urea alone are not solutions for the productivity problems in Ethiopian
agriculture and the contribution of extension to yield is not significant, holding other factors
constant. According to this study, farmers’ education is one of the explanatory variables with
consistently significant and positive coefficient in determining productivity. The rate of fertilizer
application, quantity of labor used, use of herbicide and sex were found to be significant
determinants of the productivity of teff and wheat but ownership of oxen were not significant. In
the case of barely, fertilizer coefficient was not significant but contact with extension, literacy,
farm size, seed rate and labor intensity positively affects the productivity.

Lastly, a study by Assefa and Gezahegn (2004) on the adoption of improved technologies in
Ethiopia, using probit and logit models reported that age of the farmer and the distance of the
farmer from the market center had a negative impact on the adoption decision of the farmer. On
the other hand, household size, farm size and farmers contact with extension agent had strong
and positive effect on the adoption of improved technologies in Ethiopia. They further reported
that religion is also an important factor in the adoption decision. According to this study, both
Muslim and Orthodox farmers are less likely to adopt new technologies as compared to farmers
practicing other religions. But literacy, formal education, number of oxen owned and credit were
found to be non-significant determinants in the adoption decision of the farmer.

15
2.3 Critical Evaluation
Most of the adoption studies in Ethiopia are not regional or countrywide, rather undertaken in
specific areas, especially in the areas where the package and the extension approach are applied
as a model. Most of the studies accomplishment were taken before the last three and four decades
ago. For this purpose their relevance for the present generation was not significance because of
the modern improved agricultural technology inputs are requirement of modification which
coincides with the time. And as explained above most literatures were disused as a whole not
studying detail especially in west Adigrat zone had not relevant study worked.
The paper doesn’t deal with all modern agricultural inputs, rather is restricted to HYVS,
fertilizers and chemicals. HYVS are those seeds which have not only higher yield, but also resist
disease and pest, tolerate drought and have shorter growing period. Such seeds have resulted in a
substantial increase in output in many countries, but to realize their potential, they highly depend
on complimentary purchased inputs. The potential of HYVS is not affected by farm size, scale or
Socio– economic status because they are infinitely divisible (Ellis, 1993). But locational
endowments like natural soil, water, irrigation, infrastructural disparities affect their potential.
For example, Chambers et al. (1989) stated that HYVS are less successful in resource poor and
semi-arid environment like in Africa.

Moreover there is no literature regarding on the adoption of improved modern agricultural

technology inputs in Genta Afeshum woreda. For this reason the researchers aim is to fill this
time constrained and place concentration (most works were accomplished out of the researchers’
field of operation).
From the literatures some of the researches were done out of Africa. From this I can conclude
that African technology and the rest of the world are not comparable so that the technology
available in the rest world is not the same for our country Ethiopia.

16
CHAPTER THREE
3 METHODOLGY OF THE STUDY

3.1 Description of the study area

Ganta Afeshum Woreda is found in eastern zone of Tigray region. Which between 10,14,46 and
10,36,12 north latitude and 37,23,45 and 37,15,42 longitude. It found 898km far from Addis
Ababa and 120 km from Mekele. The climate of this area such as dega, kola and woina dega
(On www. Google .com)

3.2 Types and Source of data

When conducting this researches both qualitative and quantitative would be used. The
quantitative data would be expressed in numbers, percents, which take from some documents
and interviews. The qualatitative data collected from questionnaires and interviews of
respondent’s suggestion, behavior towards new improved modern agricultural technologies.

3.3 Method of data collection

To conduct this research both primary and secondary data source would be used. The primary
data are collected by interviewing selected farmers fromtwo kebeles of the sample and by
distributing the questionnaire. The questionnaire is both open-ended and closed-ended.
Secondary data can be collected from Genta Afeshum woreda agricultural bureau, books,
journals and from the internet.

3.4 Sampling techniques and size

Since the number of kebele in the woreda 20 the total number of population is 169790 based on
this information the research would be selected 2 kebeles. Based on applying method of stratified
sampling techniques such as dega, winadega, and kola because the area has different climate
condition. The study was used stratified sampling techniques method because this method is
more representative of the true population and it can easily improve. The research uses 100
sampling size from 2 kebele of total population of 6000 from the first kebele 3300 and the
second kebele 2700.

17
Strata formula
Strata= n.pi
Where: pi- represents the proportion of the population
n- Represent the total sample size
Duku kebele = 3300/6000×100=55
Mayi masanu kebele= 2700/6000×100=45
The total sample size or N=n1+n2
N=55+45=100

3.5 Method of data analysis

The study would be used simple descriptive analysis method which includes percentages, tables,
graphs, and charts as well as the qualitative description through the statement collected from
interviews and questionnaires.
Because descriptive statistics method of data analysis is more important and widely used method
due to its nature of simplicity and clarity to analysis especially for the beginner it is advisable. So
this method is very important.

18
CHAPTER FOUR
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Primary Data Analysis

This chapter deals with the challenges and opportunities in adoption of improved modern
agricultural inputs in rural areas on the Genta Afeshum Woreda in the case of two kebeles. The
results and discussion mainly deals with the demographic characteristics of respondents, factors
affecting in the adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs for the farmer and what looks
like the adoption percentages.

The total number of households that were selected for sample respondents were one hundred
(100) from those 50 were selected from Duku kebele and another 50 sample respondents were
selected from Mayi masanu kebele. The sample selected from each kebele proportionally in
terms of kebele.

Table: 1Sex of sample respondents

No Sex Kebele one Kebele two Total

No respondents Percentages No respondents percentages
1 Male 45 90 35 70 80
2 Female 5 10 15 30 20
3 Total 50 100 50 100 100
Source own survey, 2016

According to the data above in both kebeles the majority (large proportion) of the respondents
aremales and remains small proportion of sample respondents are females. From this I can
review in both of the kebeles females are low user.

19
Table: 2Age distribution of sample respondents

No Age Kebele one Kebele two Total

No respondents Percentages No respondents percentages
1 <30 10 20 8 16 18
2 30-40 12 24 10 20 22
3 40-50 18 36 20 40 38

4 >50 10 20 12 24 22
5 Total 50 100 50 100 100
Source own survey, 2016

According to the above table in both kebeles under aged 40-50 are the majority of the
respondents. In addition to this the smaller portion of respondents found in the age of less than
30.

Table: 3Education levels of sample respondents

No Education Kebele one Kebele two Tota

level l
No respondents Percentages No respondents percentages
1 Illiterate 20 40 18 36 38
2 1_4 14 28 12 24 26
3 5_8 7 14 10 20 17
4 8_10 6 12 8 16 14
5 >10 3 6 2 4 5
6 Total 50 100 50 100 100
Source own survey, 2016

20
According to the table above the majority of the respondents are illiterate. Which is 40% in Duku
kebele and also around 36% of the respondents in mahimusanu kebele are illiterate.

This can be its negative impacts in the adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in this
area. Only 6%of the respondents are educated above the level of grade 10 in the Duku kebele and
only 5% in the mahimusanu kebele.

Table: 4Land owners of the sample respondents

N Kebele one Kebele two Total

o No respondents Percentages No respondents percentages
1 Non owner 9 18 7 14 16
2 Below 1 30 60 32 64 62
hectare
3 1_2 8 16 9 18 17
4 2_3 3 6 2 4 5
5 >3 0 0 0 0 0
6 Total 50 100 50 100 100

No Ox in no Kebele one Kebele two Total

No respondents percentages No respondents percentages
1 Non ox owner 20 40 22 44 42
2 1 16 32 18 36 34
3 2 10 20 7 14 17
4 3 2 4 2 4 4
5 4 2 4 1 2 3
6 >4 0 0 0 0 0
7 Total 50 100 50 100 100
According to the above table majority of the respondents were none oxen owner , 40% in Duku
kebele and 44% in mahimusanu kebele from the above table there were no respondent who
have own more four oxen in both kebele

Table 6Input adoption behavior of sample respondents

No Types of inputs Kebele one Kebele two Total

used by sample User Non user User Non user no %
respondents No %age No %age No %age no %age
1 Fertilizer 50 100 0 0 50 100 0 0 100 0
2 HYV seeds 45 90 5 10 47 94 3 6 92 8
3 Pesticides 40 80 10 20 38 96 12 24 78 22
4 Practicing 7 14 43 86 5 10 45 90 12 88
irrigation
Source own survey, 2016

22

According to the above table all of the sample respondents adopt fertilizer. In Duku kebele
100% of the respondents’ uses fertilizer and in mahimusanu kebele 100% of the sample
respondent adopt fertilizer so there were none user fertilizer in both kebele.

This indicates chemical fertilizer is the only improved modern agricultural inputs in this areas
adopted by the sample respondents. This is because without fertilizer it is impossible to produce
agricultural products in these areas.

Next to fertilizer the next most widely used improved modern agricultural inputs in this areas
adopted by the sample respondents is high yielding variety seeds. This input adopted in both
kebeles nearly in the same way more than 90%. This rate of adoption is very important and plays
a role model to the rest of improved modern agricultural inputs to be adopted in these areas.
Pesticides were also adopted. The rate of adoption of pesticides is significance. Pesticides
adopted in duku kebeles by 80%and it adopted by 76% in mayi masanu kebeles more than that of
Duku kebeles.

Practicing irrigation scheme is one of the most important techniques that should be practiced by
farmers. According to the table above irrigation scheme is practiced both kebeles.

4.2. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption behavior

According to the data collected from field survey the most contribute for increasing production
and productivity is the adoption of chemical fertilizers. At this time without chemical fertilizer
adoption not only fails to increasing production and productivity but also unable to grow. So
organic fertilizer is the most important input for the production and productivity of crops.
According to the data collected the comparability between input prices and output prices, these
two things cannot be comparable because input prices such as fertilizer have a prices of above
1400 birr for a quintal in the current time on the other hand most widely produced crop like
barley and wheat have the prices of less than 500 and 700 respectively for a quintal.
 23
Table: 7 Prospects or opportunities in Adoption of IMAI
N Prospects Duku Mayi masanu Total %
o Respond % Respond % respondent
ent ent
1 Available 48 69 50 100 98 97
distribution
2 Available 25 50 45 90 70 70
infrastructure
3 Available credit 20 40 31 62 51 51
4 Effectiveness of 47 94 48 96 95 95
inputs
5 Available inputs 44 88 42 84 86 86
6 Family labor 46 92 42 84 88 88
7 Accessibility of 43 86 41 82 84 84
commodity
market
Source own survey, 2016
According to the table above, available distribution, better infrastructure, available credit, inputs
effectiveness, available inputs, accessibility of commodity market and family labor are the
opportunities or prospects to the adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in the area by
the farmers. According to the data available distribution of improved modern agricultural inputs
in these areas has significant role. That is from the sample respondent 97% of sample
respondents’ available distribution considered as the opportunity to adopt improved modern
agricultural inputs in this area. The effectiveness of improved modern agricultural inputs in the
area is another opportunities to adopt these IMAI. Available credit is better in Duka kebeles than
that of Mayi masanu kebeles available credit that means in Mayi masanu kebeles 62% of the
respondent are adopt IMAI due to available credit where as in Duku kebeles only less than 40%
of the respondents adopt due available credit. This indicates available credit service is better in
Duku kebele. There is also available infrastructural facility such as road is the best because it’s
nearest to the Adigrat town has its own advantages.
24
Table: 8 challenges in the Adoption of IMAI
no Challenges Duka Mayi masanu Total %
Respondent % Respo % respondent
ndent
1 Credit constraint 45 90 42 84 87 87
2 Low output price 40 80 42 84 82 81
3 High input price 38 76 41 82 79 79
4 Infrastructural problem 30 60 28 56 58 58
5 Shortage of most needed 36 72 39 78 75 75
inputs
6 Economical problem 47 84 45 90 82 87
7 Information problem 40 80 43 86 83 83
8 Lack of extension worker 42 84 41 82 83 83
incentives
Source own survey, 2016
According to the table 8 above, the most difficult challenges in the Adoption of improved
modern agricultural inputs in this area is shortage of much needed inputs that is 75 respondents
from the total of 100 respondents that is more than 75% of the respondents’ problem. From the
two kebele respondents’ infrastructural problem is both applicable for Duku and Mayi masanu
kebeles. The other most difficulty in the adoption of IMAI in these areas is information problem.
This information asymmetry problem challenges 80% 40 respondents from the total of 50
respondents in Duku kebeles. In Mayi masanu also appears this problem and makes the
hindrance to adopt IMAI in these areas. The above Table 8 Indicates that credit constraint, low
output price, high input price, infrastructural problem, shortage of important inputs, economical-
problems, informational problem and lack of extension worker incentives and advices are the
major problems to adopt improved modern agricultural inputs in the sample kebele of
respondents. So these prospects or opportunities and challenges are the problem of the whole
Genta Afeshum Woreda rural areas.

25

The effect of adopting improved agricultural inputs in quality and quantity would be explained as
follow. Before adopting improved agricultural inputs and after adopting improved agricultural
inputs there is an increased in production and productivity up to double and more increasing in
production after adopting. And in quality explained as in terms of the output price, that is output
price before and after adoption has significant differences. That means after adoption the output
price is increased. This is the impact of the adoption of modern improved agricultural inputs.

The role of extension workers for farmers to adopt modern improved agricultural inputs in Genta
Afeshum Woreda is not appreciated or significance. According to the data collected from sample
respondents on the role of extension workers to adopt IMAI in to their areas is very low. But
their role should be significance where countries like Ethiopia and as a farmer of Genta Afeshum
Woreda most of the population is not educated. This indicates that Extension workers are one
cause of the low adoption of modern improved agricultural inputs in Genta Afeshum.
 26

CHAPTER FIVE
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSION
The need for applying modern agricultural inputs in Ethiopian agriculture is not debatable. The
agricultural sector of the country is well known for its being traditional and use of backward
technologies.
Smooth relation between farmers and agricultural extension workers is a blue print to achieve
agricultural extensions strategies and to adopt different agricultural inputs such as fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, improved seeds and so on. In the study area the farmers of the kebele
contact with the agents for their purpose through them is not at the right time and place and not
all farmers contact equally.
The adoption of agricultural input in the distinct is influenced by both demographic
characteristics such as sex, age distribution, martial, family size, ox number, educational level
and farm-land size and factors affecting adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs like
extension contact, price of farm-inputs, price of farm-out puts, physical factors(level of
infrastructural availability), agro-ecological factors such as (risk and uncertainty), credit
availability and constrained, economical problem, family labor, information associated problem,
availability distribution of inputs, effectiveness of input, shortage of most needed inputs,
accessibility of commodity market.
According to the data available distribution of improved modern agricultural inputs in these
areas has significant role. That is from the sample respondent 97 of sample respondents’
available distribution considered as the opportunity to adopt improved modern agricultural inputs
in this area. The effectiveness of improved modern agricultural inputs in the area is another
opportunities to adopt these IMAI. Available credit is better in Dukakebeles than that of Mayi
masanu kebeles available credit that means in Mayi masanu kebeles 62% of the respondent are
adopt IMAI due to available credit where as in Duku kebeles only less than 40% of the
respondents adopt due available credit.
The result of the analysis using these techniques shown as the following.
 The extension agent contact and service weakness affects negatively the adoption
of agricultural inputs.
27
 High cost of farm inputs, economical problem, credit constrained, information associated
problems, agro-ecological factors, shortage of inputs, infrastructural problems are
negatively affect the adoption of improved agricultural inputs.

 Low price of output, family labor, effectiveness of inputs, infrastructural availability in

some areas, availability of distribution and some credit availability to extreme poor
farmers in the area facilitates the adoption of improved agricultural inputs or positively
affects the adoption of improved agricultural inputs.

The adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in the study area is expected to be 100%
but in reality it is more or less the adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in the study
area is half of the expected or only 53% of the farmer in the woreda adopts improved modern
agricultural inputs.

The finding describing that most difficulty in the adoption of IMAI in these areas is information
problem. This information asymmetry problem challenges 90% 45 respondents from the total of
55 respondents in Duku kebele. In Mayi Masanu kebele also appears this problem and makes the
hindrance to adopt IMAI in these areas.

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The researcher assumes that this study alone is not sufficient to make generalizations regarding
the common factors which affect the adoption of innovations in other areas of the country.
Therefore further investigation should be made in order to arrive at sound generalizations by
researchers, extension workers, and user of agricultural inputs.
The results obtained from the study can be used to show some intervention areas,

Based on findings, the researcher suggests the following recommendations that could be applied
for the enhancement of adoption of improved modern agricultural inputs in particular and the
development of agriculture to the rural poor in general.

Strength the relationships between farmers and extension agents by giving different training for
both of the farm-households and extension agents.

28

Expanding and strengthening, the education and training of the farmers to bring necessary
improvements of awareness and change attitudes.

It must be understand that Ethiopia’s food insecurity problem that were caused mainly by rapid
population growth and low productivity could be solved only through high investment in
agriculture and expansion of modern inputs which could exploit the maximum yield on existing
cultivated land. Hence, there is a need to minimize constraints that hinder farmers from adopting
the modern inputs. This include the establishment of input supplying institutions in the farmers
nearby and developing and providing appropriate credit schemes to minimize the financial
constraints of the farmers, which could be used as a means of breaking the vicious circle.

To increase the productivity of the farmers with large farm size, who are mostly endowed with
more resource, there is a need to develop a means to make them able to apply the variable inputs
to exploit the maximum benefit out of their land. This could be done through different ways like
arranging financial sources that can be used for the purchase of the variable inputs and
developing a framework for off-farm employment opportunities in the rural labor market. Since
most of the farmers in the country are very poor who can’t afford to purchase modern inputs,
there is a need to develop and use local productivity enhancing technologies available at the
farmer’s disposal in addition to the purchased inputs.

This includes the use of inorganic fertilizers like animal dung and other technologies like crop
rotation. In order to obtain the possible benefits of adopting agricultural inputs, should provide at
prices that subsistence farmers could afford and encourage other alternatives such as green
manure or organic wastes.
 29
REFERENCES
Assefa and Gezahegn. 2010, Adoption of improved technology in Ethiopia. Assefa Admassie
Colman, D. and T. Young (1989) Principles of Agricultural Economics: Markets a Prices in Less
Developed Countries. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
EEA (2004) “Annual Report on the Ethiopian Economy,” Vol III, 2003/2004, The Ethiopian
Economic Association (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)
EEA, 2010. The challenges of increasing food production in Ethiopia.
F. Ellis, 1991. Agricultural policies and developing countries.
FAO (2002) Food and Agricultural Organization, Annual Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FAO (World Bank, 2011). Agricultural knowledge and information system for rural
development.
Samuel G. 2010. Techniques of increasing agricultural productivity in developing countries.
And Gezahegn Ayele (2004) “Adoptions of Improved Technologies in Ethiopia,” Ethiopian
Development Research Institute, Research Report 3.
CSA (2001), (2003), Central Statistics Authority Statistical Abstract, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hayami, Y. and V. W. Rut tan (1984) “The Green Revolution: Inducement and Distribution,”
The Pakistan Development Review4
Legesse Dadi (1992) Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption and the Impact of Wheat and
Maize Technologies in Arsi Negele Area of Ethiopia, M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University of
Agriculture, Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Nigussie Tefera and Mulat Demeke (2003) “The Productivity and Profitability, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
 30

APPENDIX: 1
Questionnaire on the challenges and prospects in adoption of improved modern
agricultural inputs in rural areas in case of Genta Afeshum woreda

This questionnaire is prepared by Adigrat University, college of business and economics, in

Economics department on the title of “the challenges and prospects in adoption of improved
modern agricultural inputs in rural areas in case of Genta AfeshumWoreda”so your participation
by giving the truth and relevant information will have a great role for the researcher so by
considering this I would like to ask to give a relevant and timing information for below listed
questions.

Parts I house hold characteristics

Name of interviewer__________________________ Kebele _______________ date of
interview________________________
1. Sexes: a) Male b) Female
2. Age: a) <30 b) 30-40 c) 40-50 d) >50
3 How many member are in the HH you heading__________
4. What is your marital status: a) single b) married c) divorced
No Members of family Sex Age
1 Household head
2 Wife
3 Son
4 Daughter

5. What is your education level: a) illiterate b) 1-4 grades c) 5-8 grades

d) 9-12 grades e) above 12grades

6. What is your major occupation? a Farmer b) crafts worker c) If other

specify____________________________________________
31
7. What is your religion? a) Orthodox b) protestant c) Muslim d)
other specify______________________________

Part II Agricultural inputs

8 What is the weather condition of your kebele? a) Dega b) woina Dega c) kola
d) Bereha
9 Do you own agricultural land? a) Yes b) No
10 If your answer number 10 is yes how much hectare do you have?_______________
11 Do you have own tractor? a) Yes b) no
12 If your answer number 12 is yes how many tractor do you have?_________
13 Do you own oxen? a) Yes b) No
14 Do you use the following agricultural inputs for your agricultural or farming practices?
 Credit service: a) Yes b) No
 If yes how much money borrow last year for your farming?_________________
 If your answer is no why do not use this services__________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 Do you use chemical fertilizer? a) Yes b) No
 If yes how much Kilograms do you use last year for your farming?
___________________kgs
 If your answer is no what is your problem make specify your challenges
__________________________________________________________________
 Do you use high yield variety seeds a)Yes b) No
 If yes how much Kilograms you use at the last year for your farming?
_____________
  Do you use Herbicides a) Yes b) No
 If your answer is yes how much litters use last year for your farming?_________
 Pesticides a) Yes b) No
 If yes how much liters’ use last year for your farming?

32
 If your answer is no why you do not use this pesticides______________________
__________________________________________________________________

 Do you use Irrigation a) Yes b) No

 If your answer is yes how hectares do you cover last year for your farming?
________________________________________________________________
 If do not use why do not use irrigation? ________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 Do you use motor pump? a) Yes b) No
15. For question number 15 is positive where did you got those agricultural inputs
 Chemical fertilizer___________________________________
 HYV seeds ________________________________________
 Herbicides_________________________________________
 Pesticides__________________________________________
 Irrigation__________________________________________
16 If you used irrigation practice what types of crop or vegetation do you grow?
a) Maize e) onion
b) Wheat f) sugarcane
c) Potato g) chat
d) Tomato h) If other specify it_____________________________

17 Which types of HYV seeds do you used last year (put a mark where applicable)
a) Maize d) potato
b) Teff e) check peas
c) Wheat f) barley
 If other specify it ____________________________________________________
18. Do you have any advises and Incentives from development agents in the previous crop
years?
a) Always b) sometimes c) never
33
19. What are the opportunities (prospects) to use improved modern agricultural inputs in your
locality?
a) _________________________ d) ___________________________
b) _________________________ e) ___________________________
c) _________________________ f) ___________________________
20. What are the challenges to use improved modern agricultural inputs in your locality?
a) _________________________ d) __________________________
b) _________________________ e) _________________________
c) _________________________ f) _________________________
21 What are the difference between before adopting improved modern agricultural inputs and
after adoption describe in terms of in quality and quantity? ______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
22 Which input do you think that have highest contribution for crop productivity? ___________
_____________________________________________________________________________
23 Do you think that the input and output prices are comparable
a) Highly comparable b) comparable c) non comparable
34