Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

ISSN: 0038-0768 (Print) 1747-0765 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tssp20

Teff (Eragrostis tef) production constraints on

Vertisols in Ethiopia: farmers' perceptions and
evaluation of low soil zinc as yield-limiting factor

Bereket Haileselassie, Tjeerd-Jan Stomph & Ellis Hoffland

To cite this article: Bereket Haileselassie, Tjeerd-Jan Stomph & Ellis Hoffland (2011) Teff
(Eragrostis tef) production constraints on Vertisols in Ethiopia: farmers' perceptions and
evaluation of low soil zinc as yield-limiting factor, Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 57:4,
587-596, DOI: 10.1080/00380768.2011.593482

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2011.593482

Published online: 26 Aug 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10339

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tssp20
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition (2011), 57, 587—596 doi: 10.1080/00380768.2011.593482

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Teff (Eragrostis tef ) production constraints on Vertisols in

Ethiopia: farmers’ perceptions and evaluation of low soil
zinc as yield-limiting factor
Bereket HAILESELASSIE1,2, Tjeerd-Jan STOMPH3 and Ellis HOFFLAND2
1
Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, Mekelle Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 258, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 2Department of
Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands and 3Centre for Crop Systems
Analysis, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract
Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) is a major food crop in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is well adapted to
Vertisols. Yields are low (around 1000 kg ha1) despite fertilization with urea and diammonium phosphate.
The objectives of this study were to understand farmers’ perception on teff production constraints and to
evaluate on-farm yield response of teff to zinc (Zn) fertilization. We conducted a farm survey and a
participatory fertilization experiment in three teff-based sites (peasant associations) on Vertisols in the mid
highland and lowland agroecological zones in Ethiopia. Per site 10 farmers participated in the survey and
on-farm experiment. Poor soil fertility in the mid highland and moisture deficit in the lowland agroecological
zones were mentioned by farmers as major teff production constraints, respectively. On-farm application of
Zn fertilizer at a rate of 8 kg Zn ha1 increased teff grain and straw yields by 14% and 15% on average,
respectively, which could be economically profitable. Not all plots showed a positive response, however,
indicating the necessity for enhanced insight in indicators for soil Zn bioavailability as a yield-limiting factor.
Our study indicates the importance of Zn in teff production on Vertisols. We propose further research on
management options to prepare for effective interventions based on the farm survey and on-farm experiment.
Key words: Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter, farmers’ perception, participatory research, Vertisol, zinc.

INTRODUCTION total cereal grain production and 17% of cereal crop

Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) is a small-grained
cereal that has been grown as food crop in East Africa for
thousands of years (D’Andrea 2008). It is a staple food
for the majority of the population in Ethiopia and
Eritrea. Teff is adapted to a large variety of environ-
mental conditions and widely grown from sea level up to
2800 m above sea level (a.s.l.) under various rainfall,
temperature, and soil conditions (Seyfu 1997). It is
cultivated in Ethiopia on about 2.59  106 ha and
occupies about 28% of the total crop area allocated to
cereals (Anonymous 2010a), delivering about 20% of the
Correspondence: E. HOFFLAND, Department of Soil Quality,
Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen,
The Netherlands. Email: Ellis.Hoffland@wur.nl
Received 15 December 2010.
Accepted for publication 31 May 2011.
residues production annually (Anonymous 2010b; FAO
1987). The average teff grain yield of 1228 kg ha1
(Anonymous 2010b) is low compared to other cereals,
which is attributed to nutrient limitations, drought and
water logging (Tulema et al. 2005). Farmers using
improved cultivars and management practices, however,
can obtain yields up till 2500 kg ha1 (Tefera and Belay
2006), while the yield potential under optimal manage-
ment and when lodging is prevented, is as high as
4500 kg ha1 (Teklu and Tefera 2005).
This paper focuses on teff grown on Ethiopian
Vertisols to which it is ecologically well adapted due to
its tolerance to water logging (Efrem 2001). Vertisols
comprise 2.5% of the world’s total land area, with major
areas in India, Africa and Australia. They occupy about
105  106 ha in Africa and about 12.6  106 ha in
Ethiopia (Blokhuis 1982; Debele 1985) and around

ß 2011 Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

588 B. Haileselassie et al.
Table 1 Description of the study sites
Region Oromia
District Ada liben
Altitude (m above sea level) 1886
Latitude, longitude 8 400 N, 39 010 E
Average annual rainfall over past 20 years (mm) 859
Mean maximum temperature over past 20 years ( C) 27
Mean minimum temperature over past 20 years ( C) 12
5.9  106 ha is in use by farming systems in which teff is
an important crop (Bull 1988). Vertisols are dark,
montmorillonite-rich clay soils with characteristic shrink-
ing and swelling properties. They have high clay content
(430% to at least 50 cm depth from the surface) and
when dry they show cracks of at least 1 cm wide
and 50 cm deep (FAO 2000). They have high calcium
and magnesium contents.
Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) fertilizers are the
major soil fertility management practices applied by
Ethiopian smallholder farmers growing teff on Vertisols.
These fertilizers were introduced in 1967 following four
years of trials carried out by the government, with the
assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s
(FAO’s) Freedom from Hunger Campaign (FAO 1995).
Continuous application of N and P fertilizers without
due consideration of other nutrients may have led to
deficiencies of e.g. potassium (Astatke et al. 2004) or zinc
(Zn). It is suspected indeed that cereals’ response to N
and P fertilization is declining on central mid to high
altitude Vertisols (T. Mamo, Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development of Ethiopia, February 2008, personal
communication) indicating factors other than N and P
might potentially be growth-limiting.
Zinc could possibly be a yield-limiting factor on
Vertisols (Dang et al. 1993; Ahumada et al. 1997;
Rupa and Tomar 1999; Sharma et al. 2006). It can be
adsorbed to clay minerals, metal(hydr)oxides and
organic matter, specifically at high pH (Catlett et al.
2002; Gao et al. 2010). In addition, Zn deficiency may
have a soil physical cause, related to the limited plant
rootability of Vertisols or to low transport towards the
root due to drought. Contrasting information is available
on the Zn status of Ethiopian Vertisols: Syers et al.
(2001) reported that Zn deficiency can be common in
Vertisols, Desta (1983) reported considerable variation
in micronutrient contents in soils in Ethiopia, Itanna
(1996) reported low availability of Zn on Vertisols and
according to Haque et al. (2000) the decision on
(in)sufficiency depended on the extractant used.
Site
Ude Hatsebo Selam Bikalisi
Tigray Tigray
Laelay Michew Alamata
2083 1500
14 500 N, 38 400 E 12 230 N, 39 330 E
763 782
28 30
11 15
Zinc, being a micronutrient for plants, animals and
humans, would not only be relevant as a yield-limiting
factor, but also in relation to quality of food and feed.
Zinc deficiency is widespread in Ethiopia’s human
(Umeta et al. 2000; Hotz and Brown 2001; Umeta
et al. 2003) and cattle (Khalili et al. 1993) populations
that depend on teff grain and straw, respectively, as
major source of Zn. Teff Zn concentration has been
reported to be low (Umeta et al. 2005). This could be
partly due to low soil Zn supply.
Information on farmers’ soil fertility management on
Vertisols and their perceptions on production constraints
of teff is limited. In this study we describe teff farming
systems on Vertisols in what has been classified as mid-
highland and lowland agroecological zones (Anonymous
2000) and evaluate Zn as possible growth-limiting
factor. To design future interventions we interviewed
farmers to understand their perceptions on teff produc-
tion constraints and soil fertility management, and we
performed a participatory on-farm Zn fertilization
experiment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site description
A farming system survey and an on-farm experiment
were conducted in northern and central Ethiopia in
2008. The sites were selected upon advice of Debrezeit,
Axum and Alamata Agricultural Research Center
Managers and Extension Office Heads at district level.
They suggested three peasant associations (sites) in teff
growing areas where Vertisols are the dominant soil type.
The three selected sites differ in management practices
and are located in the sub-moist mid-highland (Ude and
Hatsebo) and in the hot to warm lowland (Selam
Bikalisi) agroecological zones of Ethiopia (Anonymous
2000) (Table 1; Fig. 1). Hatsebo is not located in a main
Vertisol area (Fig. 1), but the farmers’ plots were on
small Vertisol pockets (Gebretsadikan et al. 2009)
characterized by a high clay content and visible cracks

Figure 1 Map of Ethiopia with the three study sites. The major
areas with Vertisols are in grey (FAO et al. 1998). Note that
Vertisols in the Hatsebo study site are not in what is considered
a main Vertisol area but have been studied and considered true
Vertisols (Gebretsadikan et al. 2009).
(width 41 cm, depth 450 cm). In all three sites teff is
grown during the main rainy season from June to
September (Fig. 2). The teff growing season of 2008 had
an average rainfall in Ude and Hatsebo but rainfall was
relatively low in Selam Bikalisi (Fig. 2). The rainfall and
temperature data for the study sites were summarized
from the nearest district data (National Meteorology
Services Agency, unpublished data). Potential evapo-
transpiration was estimated using the LocClim 1.0
software (FAO 2002).
Farming system inventory
Ten farmers were interviewed at each site before the start
of the teff growing season. Farmers were selected upon
advice of development agents. The participating farmers
were supposed to represent farmers with a relatively high
exposure to extension services. They were selected
because they are the most probable innovators and
adopters of new technologies. They were 29 male and
one female (from Selam Bikalisi).
Each farmer was asked to list and rank the major
production constraints of teff on his/her fields. For each
production constraint mentioned we counted the number
of farmers who mentioned it among the top three
constraints.
On-farm zinc fertilization experiment
At the beginning of the growing season all selected
farmers agreed to provide a 100 m2 (10 m  10 m)-
experimental plot in one of their teff fields on
Zinc limits teff yield on Vertisols 589
Vertisol, based on their preference. All plots were on
level fields.
Before planting 10 surface soil samples (0—20 cm
depth) were collected from each plot in a diagonal
pattern using an auger. These samples were bulked into
one composite sample. The composite soil samples were
air-dried, cleaned from stones and plant residues,
ground—using pestle and mortal—and passed through
a 2-mm sieve. Sub-samples were taken after thorough
mixing with a stainless steel spoon. The soil sub-samples
were analyzed for pH (Jackson 1967), organic carbon
[modified Walkley and Black method (Jackson 1967)],
texture [hydrometer method procedure of Bouyoucos
(Day 1965)], available phosphorous (Olsen et al. 1954)
and Zn (DTPA-Zn; Lindsay and Norvell 1978). The Zn
concentration in the extract was analyzed using an
atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Varian Spectra
AA 240 FS).
Teff was grown in each farmer-managed plot. Half of
each plot (5 m  10 m) received Zn fertilizer at a rate of
8 kg Zn ha1 in the form of ZnSO4  5H2O. The rate of
8 kg ha1 Zn was based on a preliminary field experi-
ment in 2007 on Vertisols in Ethiopia (unpublished
data). In the presence of the researcher the Zn fertilizer
was broadcasted and incorporated in the top soil using a
rake at the day of sowing. Nitrogen and P were applied
to all experimental plots in Ude and Hatsebo in the form
of urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP, 46% P2O5)
according to farmers’ common practice. These fertilizers
were not applied in the case of Selam Bikalisi because the
participating farmers were neither used to nor willing to
apply. The teff varieties used for the experiment were
Dz-Cr-387 and Dz-Cr-196 in Ude and Hatsebo, respec-
tively. Farmers’ varieties were sown in Selam Bikalisi. All
other cultural practices were according to the participat-
ing farmers’ practices. Harvesting was conducted when
grains were hard enough. A composite sample was made
by combining plants from two random sample quadrants
of 1 m  1 m per sub-plot. Aboveground biomass per net
plot area was weighed after 15 days sun-drying. The
shoots were threshed and cleaned and the grain yield was
weighed. The straw yield was calculated by subtracting
grain yield from biomass yield. Yields are reported on air
dry basis as these are the best indicators of marketable
yields.
Farming system survey after experiment
After the harvest, individual interviews and a group
discussion with the 10 farmers of each site were held on
their farming system and crop management, using a
semi-structured questionnaire and a semi-structured
guide or check list, respectively. During individual
interviews, the farmers described the major crops and
590 B. Haileselassie et al.

(a)
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(b) 300
Evapotranspiration (mm/month)

250
Monthly Rainfall and

200

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(c)
300

250
200

150

100
50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (month)

Figure 2 Average monthly rainfall (solid lines and squares), actual monthly rainfall in 2008 (bars) and estimated potential
evapotranspiration (dashed lines and triangles) for (a) Ude, (b) Hatsebo, and (c) Selam Bikalisi. Arrows indicate teff sowing (solid)
and harvest (dashed) in 2008.

livestock, crop residue utilization, crop rotation, possible
crop rotation patterns, teff production constraints on
their individual farm, characteristics of teff fields on
Vertisols in relation to fertility status and production
objectives and soil fertility management, and gave their
opinion on the effects of the application of Zn fertilizer
on their plots. The farmers assessed the yield of the
Zn-fertilized and control plots while the crop was
standing at maturity. Estimations for area, urea and
DAP rates were based on the assumption that an oxen
plough day is equivalent to a quarter of a hectare land.
For those who applied manure or compost, application
rates were estimated from the farmers’ indication on the
weight and number of bags applied per unit area.
The group discussions mainly focused on production
constraints and were moderated by facilitators from the

Table 2 Soil properties of teff fields on Vertisols from the
participating farmers
Site
Soil parameters Ude Hatsebo Selam Bikalisi
pHwater (1:2.5) 6.8  0.1 7.8  0.1 8.0  0.1
Organic carbon (%) 1.3  0.1 0.8  0.0 1.2  0.1
P-Olsen (mg kg1) 12  2 11  2 61
DTPA-Zn (mg kg1) 0.92  0.07 0.59  0.02 0.54  0.08
Clay (%) 57  1 58  1 41  1
Data represent means  standard error (n ¼ 10).
P-Olsen, available phosphorous using procedure by Olsen et al. (1954).
DTPA-Zn, Zinc (Zn) determined by diethylene triamine pentaacetate
extraction (Lindsay and Novell, 1978).
development agents and the research centers. The pro-
duction constraints of teff were listed and ranked. While
comparing the teff production constraints (two at a
time), there was sometimes a debate before consensus
was reached.
Data analysis
Both the quantitative and qualitative data from the
individual interviews and soil were analyzed using SPSS
15.0 for Windows. Grain and straw yield data from the
on-farm Zn fertilization experiment were analyzed con-
sidering site and Zn application rate as fixed effects, and
farmers and their interaction with the fixed effects as
random effects. The variance components and their
maximum standard errors of difference were generated
with GenStat 12.1 using the linear mixed models
(REML) procedure.
RESULTS
Soil properties of the farmers’ fields on
Vertisols
Seven, ten and nine out of ten farmers’ fields on Vertisols
were low in soil Zn (DTPA-Zn51.0 mg kg1) in Ude,
Hatsebo and Selam Bikalisi, respectively. Mean
DTPA-Zn was low in all three sites (Table 2). Mean
soil pH varied from neutral to moderately alkaline.
The mean soil P status was high (P-Olsen410 mg kg1)
in Ude and Hatsebo and low (P-Olsen510 mg kg1) in
Selam Bikalisi. The mean soil organic carbon content was
low (52%) in all sites.
Farming systems of the study sites
The major farming system was a mixed cereal/
legumes-livestock system in Ude and Hatsebo and a
mixed cereal-livestock system in Selam Bikalisi (Table 3).
Zinc limits teff yield on Vertisols 591
Farmers in Ude and Hatsebo were well aware of the
importance of crop rotation to replenish soil fertility and
skillfully used this option. They choose the crop to be
grown in rotation depending on rainfall (total amount
and distribution), soil type, market demand for the
legumes, expenditures such as loan and ceremonial as
well as the need to meet their food and livestock feed
requirements. Farmers prefer to grow chick pea and grass
pea as leguminous rotation crops and wheat as cereal
rotation crop in both sites and in addition fenugreek in
Hatsebo in rotation crop with teff on Vertisols. The
leguminous rotation crops are usually planted towards
the end of August and partly grow on residual moisture.
Farmers in Ude and Hatsebo reduce their N fertilizer rate
for teff after leguminous crops, mostly for one year.
Farmers in Selam Bikalisi are not practicing crop
rotation. The main reason is traditional land allocation
to teff and sorghum, based on seasonal soil moisture
conditions and soil fertility: relatively fertile lands
receiving seasonal floods from upstream are allocated
to sorghum.
Farmers in all three sites carry crop residues away from
their field. The aftermath is grazed by their animals. The
major uses of crop residues are livestock feed, sale and
construction purposes. Farmers in Hatsebo and Selam
Bikalisi take part of their straw to the nearby markets of
Axum and Alamata, respectively, where it is sold to feed
urban livestock. Farmers in Ude sell part of their teff
straw to wholesalers who in turn sell the crop residue for
urban cattle fattening and dairy farms in the nearby
towns of Debrezeit and Nazreit. Some of the crop residue
is sold in towns bordering Djibouti and Somalia. Crop
residue, especially of teff, is also used locally for
plastering after mixing with clay, and as manure fuel
cakes in all three sites. Rare farmers in Hatsebo use crop
residues to make compost particularly from the remains
of livestock feed. Farmers in Selam Bikalisi use crop
residue of sorghum for roofing and fuel. Here, sorghum
stumps are also an important source of fuel for both the
rural and nearby urban dwellers.
The average farm size of teff fields on Vertisols and
livestock holding were higher in Ude than Hatsebo and
Selam Bikalisi sites (Table 3). In all sites, the average
operated land of the farmers involved in the study in
2008 was greater than the average owned landholding.
Farmers’ perception on teff production
constraints
At the first individual interview, before any hint to Zn as
a potential yield-limiting factor was made, poor soil
fertility (Ude and Hatsebo) and moisture deficit (Selam
Bikalisi) were mentioned among the three major
constraints of teff production by all participating
592 B. Haileselassie et al.

Table 3 Summary description of farming systems as provided by the participating farmers at the three sites (n ¼ 10 per site)

Site
Descriptor
Ude Hatsebo Selam Bikalisi
Farming system Cereal/legume-livestock Cereal/legume-livestock Sorghum/
teff-livestock
Major crops Teff, wheat, chickpea, faba bean, Teff, wheat, barley, chickpea, Sorghum and
grass pea and lentil faba bean, grass pea, fenu- teff
greek, field pea and lentil
Major livestock Cattle, sheep, goat and donkey Cattle, sheep, goat and donkey Cattle, goat,
sheep and
donkey
Crop rotation Yes Yes No
Rotation pattern on Vertisols Year 1: Chickpea or grass pea Year 1: Chickpea or fenugreek or No
Year 2: Teff or wheat grass pea
Year 2: Teff or wheat
Rotation pattern on others soils Year 1: Faba bean or lentil Year 1: Faba bean or lentil or No
Year 2: Teff or wheat field pea
Year 2: Teff or wheat or barley
Crop residue removal Yes Yes Yes
Average own land holding (ha) 2.3  0.2 1.1  0.2 0.8  0.1
Average operated land 2008y (ha) 3.7  0.4 1.7  0.2 1.6  0.2
Average plot size of teff fields on 0.74  0.10 0.38  0.06 0.40  0.05
Vertisols 2008 (ha)
Average livestock holding, TLUz 8.5  1.0 3.4  0.6 3.6  0.8
yOwn plus rented or shared land.
zTropical livestock unit.

10 Ude
Hatsebo
9
Selam Bikalisi
constraint among the top three
Number of farmers mentioning

0
Poor soil High cost Pests Weeds Moisture Rains Water Lack of Labour in
fertility of deficit during logging draught peak
fertilizers ripening power seasons
Teff production constraint

Figure 3 Initial individual farmers’ identification of teff production constraints at the three investigated sites.

farmers (Fig. 3). In Ude and Hatsebo, the high cost of
fertilizers ranked second.
In the group discussions organized per site after the Zn
fertilizer experiment, poor soil fertility as constraint was
again ranked first both in Ude and Hatsebo. Farmers in
both sites noticed that the yield response to urea and
DAP application was less than they remembered from
the past. Farmers tried to put this into words by
expressing the feeling that their land ‘‘is getting old’’.
High cost of fertilizer was ranked as the second most
important constraint in both sites. Weeds in Ude and
pests in Hatsebo were ranked as third most important
constraints. The results were almost identical to the
initial individual interviews as reported in Fig. 3.
 Zinc limits teff yield on Vertisols 593

Table 4 Classification of the different teff fields on Vertisols Table 5 Farmers’ soil fertility management to teff fields on
during the 2008 cropping season as provided by the 10 Vertisols during the 2008 cropping season
participating farmers per site
Sitey
Sitey
Selam
Selam Type Ude (28) Hatsebo (18) Bikalisi (21)
Ude Hatsebo Bikalisi
Plot characteristics Class (28) (18) (21) Urea 73  4 (28) 86  10 (18) 0
DAPz 101  8 (28) 82  11 (18) 0
Soil fertility Unfertile 0 7 1 Compost 930 (1) 2000 (3) 1000 (1)
Medium 3 3 9 Manure 0 2000 (1) 1160  275 (6)
Fertile 25 8 11
Data (in kg ha1) represent means  standard error.
Production Market 23 6 1
yFigures in parentheses indicate the number of teff fields evaluated.
objective Home consumption 2 8 9 zDiammonium phosphate (46% P2O5).
Both purposes 3 4 11
yFigures in parentheses indicate the number of teff fields evaluated.
Table 6 Main effects of zinc fertilizer and site on grain and
straw yields of teff studied on 10 farmers’ Vertisol fields per site

Yield (kg ha1)

Independent
variable Level Grain Straw
Farmers in Selam Bikalisi ranked moisture deficit
Zinc Control 1675 3921
(rainfall amount and pattern) as the leading teff produc- 8 kg ha1 1914 4515
tion constraint followed by pests as second and weeds as P-Value 50.001 50.001
third constraint. This was again identical to the results of SEDy 57 151
the initial individual interviews (Fig. 3). Site Ude 2002 5256
Hatsebo 1853 4643
Selam Bikalisi 1528 2756
Farmers’ classification and use of teff fields on P-Value 0.08 50.001
SEDy 203 383
Vertisols Zinc  site P-Value 0.86 0.55
Farmers were asked to classify their teff fields on
ySED, standard error of the differences.
Vertisols according to fertility and production objective.
Farmers in all the three sites classified the more produc-
tive fields as fertile. Farmers in Ude and Hatsebo tended
On-farm yield response of teff to zinc
to apply more chemical fertilizer to what they consider
fertilization
their more productive fields in order to get more yield.
Farmers classified the majority of their teff fields on There was no interaction between Zn fertilizer applica-
Vertisol as fertile in Ude, against medium to fertile in tion and site for either grain or straw yield of teff.
Hatsebo and Selam Bikalisi (Table 4). Average grain and straw yields of teff were significantly
Teff production was mainly market-oriented in Ude, (P50.001) increased by application of 8 kg ha1 Zn with
mainly home consumption-oriented in Selam Bikalisi and 14% and 15% over the control, respectively (Table 6).
while farmers roughly considered market and home Regardless of Zn fertilizer application, grain and straw
consumption equally important in Hatsebo (Table 4). yields of teff were lowest in Selam Bikalisi. A comparison
of the appreciation of the Zn fertilizer effects by farmers
on the basis of visual inspection prior to harvesting and
Farmers’ soil fertility management on teff the measured effects showed correspondence on 12 and
fields on Vertisols 13 plots for grain and straw yield respectively (Table 7).
Farmers were used to apply chemical fertilizers to all teff On the other plots farmers appreciated yield effects
fields in Ude and Hatsebo. The average rates in 2008 differently from actual, measured effects. On two or
were 73 and 86 kg ha1 urea, and 101 and 82 kg ha1 three of the plots appreciation for grain and straw yield,
DAP respectively (Table 5). No chemical fertilizer was respectively, were opposite to measured effects.
applied to any teff field in Selam Bikalisi. The main
reason not to apply any chemical fertilizer was the
perception that moisture deficit was so strongly limiting
DISCUSSION
yield that fertilizer application was not worth the To our knowledge, this is the first paper identifying low
investment. soil Zn as a teff yield-limiting factor on Vertisols under
594 B. Haileselassie et al.
Table 7 Matrix showing yield effects for both grain and straw
of the application of 8 kg zinc (Zn) ha1 to teff plots in a
participatory field experiment on 10 farmers fields each in three
sites comparing measured effects and effects as indicated by
farmers on the basis of visual inspection prior to actual
harvesting
Indicated by farmers
Measured Positive No effect
Grain Positivey 9 3
No effect 10 3 3
Negativey 0 0
Straw Positivey 9 2
No effect 10 4 2
Negativey 1 0
yMore than 198 kg ha1 and 523 kg ha1 difference for grain and straw,
respectively, between the Zn-fertilized and control plot (i.e. 2  standard
error of the differences of the treatment by location interaction effect at the
same level of location in the Zn fertilization experiment).
farmers’ conditions. The on-farm experiments showed a
significant average yield increase upon Zn fertilization at
all three sites investigated (Table 6) and no interaction
between the Zn application and location. At two of the
three sites farmers indicated poor soil fertility as a major
production constraint, both prior to and after the
experiments. This offers excellent perspectives for inter-
ventions that may not only lead to increased crop
production, but also to improved quality of a major
staple food and feed for populations at risk of Zn
deficiency.
Farmers’ perception in Ude and Hatsebo on poor soil
fertility as the major teff production constraint (Fig. 3)
corresponded well with the results of our soil analyses
and the results of the on-farm experiment. The soil
organic carbon content was low (Table 2), probably
because of the continuous and total removal of residues
from all crops in the rotation. The mean soil P status was
high after long-term application of considerable amounts
of DAP (Table 5). The mean soil Zn status, however, was
low (Table 2) and teff grain and straw yields increased
significantly upon Zn fertilization (Table 6). Farmers’
perceptions on poor soil fertility and their statements that
their land ‘‘is getting old,’’ despite application of urea
and DAP, may therefore be related to depletion of their
Vertisols from bioavailable Zn. We cannot exclude,
however, that other nutrients may be depleted and have
become yield-limiting as well. Additional trials would be
needed to find out.
Regardless of the Zn fertilizer application, grain and
straw yields of teff were lowest in Selam Bikalisi. This is
probably related to the lower availability of P (Table 2),
water (Fig. 2) and N due to the absence of legumes in the
rotation (Table 3). Yet, there was an average increase in
yield upon Zn fertilization and a positive response on
half of the plots (Table 7) despite the absence of any
history in urea and DAP fertilization that could have
resulted in depletion of the soil from Zn, and even
though 2008 was considered as a relatively dry year
(Fig. 2). This could mean that Zn bioavailability is
inherently low in these Vertisols which is in line with
previous case studies from other Vertisol areas in the
Negative world (Dang et al. 1993; Ahumada et al. 1997; Rupa and
Tomar 1999; Sharma et al. 2006). Consequently, also
2 other crops grown on these soils are at risk of Zn
deficiency, even at low N and P fertilizer rates.
0
2 Average yield increases of 239 kg ha1 grain and
594 kg ha1 straw were recorded as a response to
0 8 kg ha1 Zn fertilization (Table 6). Taking into account
the local market prices of teff grain [700—1000 US dollars
(USD) ton1; Berhe 2009] and teff straw [49—150 USD
ton1, as converted from local currency data provided by
Gebremedhin et al. (2009)], the additional production
would mean an additional income of 167 to 239 USD
ha1 from grain and of 29 to 89 USD ha1 from straw.
The current price of Zn sulphate (heptahydrate, 21%
fertilizer grade) is 520 USD ton1 (cost, insurance and
freight) at the ports in Djibouti or Sudan [W. Chen,
Liuzhou Glory Zinc Minmetchem Co., Ltd. (Guangxi,
P.R. China), April 2010, personal Communication],
which for other inputs is roughly half of the farm gate
price in Ethiopia (Jayne et al. 2003). This would indicate
an average benefit/cost ratio for Zn fertilization between
5:1 and 9:1, costs for application not included. This is a
ratio generally considered attractive for market-oriented
farmers, who are the majority among the participants
(Table 4). Agronomical optimization of the ratios of N/P/
Zn fertilizer could lead to a reduction of N and P fertilizer
rates in favor of Zn, which would further improve the
cost/benefit ratio of Zn fertilizer application.
There was a fair correspondence between observed
positive yield effects on teff plots and the farmers’
assessment (Table 7). There were, however, also ample
false positive assessments of the Zn fertilizer effect on
grain and straw yield. On two or three of the plots
appreciation for grain and straw yield, respectively, were
opposite to measured effects. This implies that simple
demonstration plots may not be enough to inform
farmers about effects especially as false positive assess-
ment would imply an additional financial risk to farmers.
It should be noted that the participating farmers are
probably not representing the majority of subsistence teff
growers in the studied areas. They were selected because
they are relatively well exposed to extension services and
in conjunction their yields are relatively high. Further
research and intervention strategies should not only
focus on this category of farmers but consider how to
scale out by involving other teff growers to learn from
these potential early adopters.

Not all plots showed a positive yield response to Zn
fertilization (Table 7). One plot showed a negative straw
yield response, while on roughly half the plots no yield
effect was observed. The possible reasons could be
variation in actual Zn limitation related to variation in
bioavailability, interference with other yield-limiting
factor(s) or/and variation in handling and management
of the experimental plots by the farmers. This implies
that blanket recommendations are bound to lead to
disappointments and these are thus inappropriate.
Additional insight in predictors of success of Zn fertil-
ization that are plot specific should be sought to support
possible introduction of Zn fertilization practices, in
addition to verification studies over years and more
locations.
We also suggest further research on optimum N, P and
Zn utilization including options such as seed coating/
priming and use of Zn-enriched fertilizers in sites similar
to Ude and Hatsebo. In Selam Bikalisi-like sites, with low
soil fertility and current levels of manure and fertilizer
application to teff fields (Table 5), integrated organic and
inorganic soil fertility management could be an entry
point for further research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Debrezeit, Axum and
Alamata Agricultural Research Centers and Extension
Offices, participant farmers and development agents
in Ude, Hatsebo and Selam Bikalisi, the Mekelle Soil
Laboratory Staff and Yirgalem Weldegebriel from
Ezana Mining PLC for their support. The authors
thank Professor Dr Oene Oenema (WU) and Professor
Dr Tekalign Mamo (Ministry of Agricultural and
Rural Development, Addis Ababa) for their construc-
tive ideas. The authors would like to thank Dr Alfred
Hartemink (ISRIC-World Soil Information) for sup-
plying digital soil data and Dr Arnaud Temme (WU)
for making the map with the study sites. This study
was funded by the Wageningen University sandwich
PhD and INREF ‘‘From Natural Resources to Healthy
People’’ programs and the Tigray Agricultural
Research Institute.
REFERENCES
Ahumada TI, Bustamanate A, Schalcha EB 1997: Zinc speci-
ation in phosphate-affected soils. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal., 28, 989–995.
Anonymous 2000: Agro Ecological Zonation of
Ethiopia. Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/ethiopia/
ethiopia.htm (January, 2011).
Zinc limits teff yield on Vertisols 595
Anonymous 2010a: Agricultural Sample Survey 2009/2010:
Report on Farm Management Practices, Statistical Bulletin
468, Volume III, p. 15. http://www.csa.gov.et/survey/
Agricultural_Sample_Survery (January, 2011).
Anonymous 2010b: Agricultural Sample Survey 2009/2010:
Report on Crop and Livetock Product Utilization,
Statistical Bulletin 468, Volume VII, p. 17. http://www.
csa.gov.et/survey/Agricultural_Sample_Survery (January,
2011).
Astatke A, Mamo T, Peden D, Diedhiou M 2004: Partcipatory
on-farm conservation tillage trails in the Ethiopian high-
land vertisols: the impact of potassium application on crop
yields. Exp. Agric., 40, 369–379.
Berhe T 2009: Recent Development in Teff, Ethiopia’s
Most Important Cereal and Gift to the World. http://
www.slideshare.net (December, 2010).
Blokhuis WA 1982: Morphology and genesis of Vertisols:
Vertisols and rice soils of the tropics, Transactions of the
12th International Congress of Soil Science, pp 23—47,
International Society of Soil Science, New Delhi.
Bull TA 1988: Agroecological Assessment of Ethiopian
Vertisols: Management of Vertisols in Sub-Saharan
Africa. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.
fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5493E/x5493e07.htm (January,
2011).
Catlett KM, Heil DM, Lindsay WL, Ebinger MH 2002: Soil
chemical properties controlling zinc2þ activity of 18
Colorado soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 66, 1182–1189.
D’Andrea AC 2008: T’ef (Eragrostis tef) in ancient agricultural
systems of Highland Ethiopia. Econ. Bot., 62, 547–566.
Dang YP, Dalal RC, Edwards DG, Tiller KG 1993:
Understanding zinc reactions in vertisols to predict zinc
responses by wheat. Plant Soil, 155/156, 247–250.
Day PR 1965: Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis.
In Method of Soil Analysis Part I, Ed. CA Black,
pp 545—567, American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI.
Debele B 1985: The Vertisols of Ethiopia: their properties,
classification, and management. Fifth meeting of the East
African sub-committee for soil correlation and land
evaluation held in Wad medani, Sudan, 5—10 December
1983. In: World Soil Resources Report No. 56, pp. 31—54.
Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.
Desta B 1983: Micronutrient status of some Ethiopian soils,
IAR Soil Science Bulletin No. 4, p 43, Institute of
Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa.
Efrem B 2001: Performance of some cereals under drained
Vertisols in the Ethiopian highland. In Advances in
Vertisol Management in Ethiopian Highlands, Eds
D Paulos, D Asgelil, Z Asfaw, A Gezahegn, K Abebe,
pp 151—157, Ethiopian Agricultural Research
Organization, Addis Ababa.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1987: Master Land
Use Plan, Ethiopia Range/Livestock Consultancy
Report prepared for the Government of the People’s
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Technical Report,
AG/ETH/82/010, 94 pp. Food and Agricultural
Organization, Rome.
596 B. Haileselassie et al.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1995: Country
Information Brief: Ethiopia Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://www.africa.
upenn.edu/eue_web/fao_soil.htm (December, 2010).
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 2000: Problem Soils
Database: Vertisols. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/prosoil/
vert.htm (December, 2010).
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 2002: Web LocClim,
Local Climate Monthly Estimator. http://www.fao.org/sd/
locclim/srv/locclim.home (December, 2010).
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),
Cooperazion-Italiana, IGAD 1998: The Soil and Terrain
Database for Northeastern Africa. Crop Production
Systems Zones of IGAD Subregion. Land and Water
Digital Media Series 2. Food and Agricultural
Organization, Rome.
Gao X, Schröder TJ, Hoffland E, Zou C, Zhang F, Van der
Zee SEATM 2010: Geochemical modeling of zinc bioavail-
ability for rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74, 301–309.
Gebremedhin B, Hirpa A, Kahsay B 2009: Feed Marketing in
Ethiopia. Results of Rapid Apprisal, 64 pp. International
Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa. http://
www.eap.gov.et/content/files/Documents/EAP Documents/
Extension Development/newdoc/exten/Feed marketing in
Ethiopia.pdf (January, 2011).
Gebretsadikan H, Haile M, Yamoah CF 2009: Tillage
frequency, soil compaction and N-fertilizer rate effects on
yield of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) in Central Zone
of Tigray, North Ethiopia. Momona Eth. J. Sci., 1, 82–92.
Haque l, Lupwayi NZ, Tadesse T 2000: Soil micronutrient
contents and relation to other soil properties in Ethiopia.
Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 31, 2751–2762.
Hotz C, Brown KH 2001: Identifying population at risk of zinc
deficiency: the use of supplementation trails. Nutr. Rev.,
59, 80–84.
Itanna F 1996: Micronutrients status of three Ethiopia Vertisol
landscapes at different agro ecological zones. In: The
Proceeding of Third Conference of the Ethiopian Soil
Science Society held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 28—29
February 1996, pp. 153—161. Ethiopian Science and
Technology Commision, Addis Ababa.
Jackson ML 1967: Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of
India, New Delhi.
Jayne TS, Govereh J, Wanzala M, Demeke M 2003: Fertilizer
market development: a comparative analysis of Ethiopia,
Kenya and Zambia. Food Policy, 28, 293–316.
Khalili M, Lindgren E, Varvikko T 1993: A survey of mineral
status of soils, feeds and cattle in the Selale Ethiopian
highlands. II Trace elements. Trop. Anim. Health Prod,
25, 193–201.
Lindsay WL, Norvell WA 1978: Development of DTPA soil test
for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
42, 421–428.
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Deal LA 1954: Estimation of
Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with Sodium
Bicarbonate, pp 1—19, Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. USDA Circular 939.
Rupa TR, Tomar KP 1999: Zinc desorption kinetics as
influenced by pH and phosphorus in soils. Comm. Soil
Sci. Plant Anal., 30, 1951–1962.
Seyfu K. 1997: Tef. Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter. Promoting
the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected
Crops. 12, p. 35. Institute of Plant Genetic and Crop Plant
Research, Gaterstleben/International Plant Genetic Res-
ources Institute, Rome. http://www.underutilized-species.
org/documents/PUBLICATIONS/tef.pdf (January, 2011).
Sharma BD, Mukhopadhyay SS, Katyal JC 2006: Distrbution
of total and DTPA zinc, copper, manganese, and iron in
vertisols of India. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.,
37, 653–672.
Syers JK, Nyamudeza P, Ahenkorah Y 2001: Sustainable
nutrient management of vertisols. In The Sustainable
Managment of Vertisols, Eds JK Syers, FWT Penning de
Vries, P Nyamudeza, pp 43—70, CABI Publishing,
Wallingford.
Tefera H, Belay G 2006: Eragrostis tef (Zuccagni) Trotter.
[Internet] Record from Protabase. In: Brink M, Belay G
(eds) PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/
Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen.
http://database.prota.org/search.htm (December, 2010).
Teklu Y, Tefera H 2005: Genetic improvement in grain yield
potential and associated agronomic traits of tef (Eragrostis
tef). Euphytica, 141, 247–254.
Tulema B, Zapta F, Aune JB, Sitaula B 2005: N fertilization, soil
type and cultivars effects on N use efficiency in tef
(Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). Nutr. Cycling
Agroecosyst., 71, 203–211.
Umeta M, West CE, Fufa H 2005: Content of zinc, iron,
calcium and their absorption inhibitors in foods
commonly consumed in Ethiopia. J. Food Comp. Anal.,
18, 803–817.
Umeta M, West CE, Haidar J, Deurenberg P, Hautvast JGAJ
2000: Zinc supplementation and stunted infants in
Ethiopia: a randomozied controlled trail. Lancet,
355, 2021–2026.
Umeta M, West CE, Haidar J, Hautvast JGAJ 2003: Factors
associated with stuning in infants aged 5—11 months in the
Dodota-Sire District, rural Ethiopia. J. Nutr.,
133, 1064–1069.