See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358477783

) Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Forecasting

Article · February 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 422

3 authors, including:

Kanbiro Orkaido

59 PUBLICATIONS 122 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanbiro Orkaido on 09 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Forecasting

www.matjournals.com

Determinants of Smallholder Farmers Participation on Wheat Row

Planting and Its Impact on Wheat Yield: The case in Mari Mansa Woreda,
Dawuro Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia
Demeke Dafaro Damota1*, Dawit Gebeyehu Gelu2, Kanbiro Orkaido3
1
Lecturer and Department Head, 2Lecturer, 3Lecturer and Researcher
Furra College Hawassa Campus, Department of Business Management, Hawassa, Ethiopia
*
Corresponding Author: demekedafaro@gmail.com

ABSTRACT in the study area. Therefore, the office of

Wheat row planting is one of the main
agronomic practices supposed to increase
wheat yield. This study conducted to analyze
determinants of smallholder farmer’s
participation on wheat row planting and its
impact on wheat yield in in Mari Mansa
Woreda, Dawuro Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia..
The study used Multi-stage sampling
technique to select 4 rural kebeles out of 17
kebeles. The primary data collected using
random systematic sampling method from
307 sample households, of which 112 were
participants whereas 195 were non
participants. The data analyzed by using both
descriptive and inferential techniques,
including mean, standard deviation,
percentage, and frequency distribution. The
binary logit model and propensity score
matching used to analyze the determinant
factors of wheat row planting method and its
impact on wheat yield among small holder
farmers, respectively. Results of the logistic
regression reveals that age, education level,
amount of urea fertilizer application, access
to improved seed and pesticide, active family
labor force, participation in off-farm income,
access to agricultural extension, farmers
saving status, participation in training and
participation in field visit days found to be
highly important variables influencing
adoption of wheat row planting method in the
study area. From the result of the propensity
score matching the average treatment effects
on the treated (ATT) estimated result showed
that technology adaptor smallholder farmer’s
got with an average of 24.22 quintal of wheat
yield per hectare unlike to the matched
control group whose average yield of 18.30
qt/ha. This shows participating in wheat row
planting increases the yield of wheat by an
average of 5.9 qt/ha (24.46% more yield gain)
agriculture and other concerned bodies
should give more attention to participate
smallholder farmers on wheat row planting
method by narrowing the gap between
adopters and non-adopters so as to enhance
wheat yield.
Keywords-- Adoption, Impact, Propensity score
matching, Row planting of wheat, Yield
INTRODUCTION
Wheat is any of the cereal of the Triticum
genus. Three important species of wheat are
Triticum aestivum (common wheat), Triticum
durum, and T. compactum; T. aestivum is used
to make bread, T. durum is used to make pasta,
and T. compactum is used to make softer cakes,
crackers, cookies, and pastries. According to
Getachew (2018) it is a cereal grain which is
milled into flour for traditional bread, and use in
bakeries, for pastries and pasta as well as being
mixed with other cereals to make enjera. Wheat
is grown as a main food in the Ethiopia’s
highlands at temperatures between under seven
degrees celsius and over twenty-five degrees
celsius and with rainfall between 750 mm/year
and 1600 mm/year. Wheat in country is
produced under rain-fed situation predominantly
by small farmers. A few governments owned
large-scale (state) farms and commercial farms
also produce wheat. That's why wheat is grown
on the central plateau in the regions of Oromia,
Amhara, Tigray, and the SNNPRS [1].
Technological adoption in agriculture
comprises of introduction of high yielding
variety of seeds, fertilizers, and row plantation.
These changes in agricultural sector enhance the
productivity per unit of land and bring about
rapid increase in production. Technology is

1 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved

 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
assumed to mean a new, scientifically derived,
input supplied or introduced to farmers by
organizations with deep technical expertise.
However, production and productivity of the
agricultural sector is low in developing countries
due to low technological adoption and
techniques among others. The two common
approaches of technology adoption of
agricultural technology include whole package
adoption advocated by technical scientist and
stepwise or sequential adoption recommended
by farming system and participatory research
groups.
Different researchers have conducted
their research on same topic in and outside part
of the world. For example, researchers [2] [1]
studied the same topic and found out those
sound determinants of smallholder farmer’s
participation on wheat row planting and its
impact on wheat yield.
This study is different from the prior
studies reviewed above by employing inferential
statistics (multiple regression model) to identify
and analyze the determinants of smallholder
farmers participation on wheat row planting and
its impact on wheat yield in Mari Mansa Woreda,
Dawuro Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia, which
enhances the reliability of the findings more than
that of descriptive statistics used in the above
studies. Besides, this study will fill the
geographical gap of prior studies as far as they
have conducted outside Ethiopia and there is
also two year time gap to be covered by the
current study since the aforementioned studies
covered time range of 2006 to 2021.
Concerning studies conducted on
another way, as different author’s research
results shown, adopting wheat row planting on
average has a positive impact on farmers wheat
yield except its yield difference. Wheat row
planting technology adopter small farm
household heads obtained with a range of 40 to
60 quintal of wheat yield per hectare (increased
their wheat yield 50 to 80 %) as compared to the
matched control group (which is below 20 qt/ha)
on the same single production on year According
to Baye et al., (2019) [3] the average
productivity of full and partial adopters was 17.6
qt/ha and 13.4 qt/ha respectively that of
non-adopters was only 9.3 qt/ha. This shows that
there is significant difference in productivity
level between these two pairs of groups of
households. Similarly, Gashaw et al., (2014)
revealed that farmers who have adopted selected
2 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
wheat seed, a lower seeding density, row
planting, fertilizer recommendations, and
marketing assistance as full-package obtained 12
to 13 % higher wheat yields as compared to
non-users. Conversely, according to Tolesa et al.,
(2014) average yield of row planting was 27.95
qt/ha in the highland district and 17.37 qt/ha in
the lowland district. The average yield of
broadcast planting method was 23.35 qt/ha and
15.74 qt/ha in 56 the highland and lowland,
respectively.
Hence, the researcher wants to
differentiate and evaluate the impact of adopting
row planting technology on wheat yield in the
specific study area. Therefore, the ultimate aim
of this study was to fill such research gaps by
conducting an empirical assessment on
determinants of smallholder farmer’s
participation on wheat row planting and its
impact on wheat yield in Mari Mansa Woreda,
Dawuro Zone, Southern, Ethiopia.
Research Objectives
The general objective of this study is to
analyze the determinants of smallholder farmer’s
participation on wheat row planting and its
impact on wheat yield .In line with the above
general objective, the current study addressed
the following specific objectives:
1. To identify the determinant factors that
affect smallholder farmer’s decision on the
adoption of wheat row planting method in
the study area.
2. To assess the impact of the row planting
method on wheat yield in the study area.
Research Questions
1. What are the potential determinants of
smallholder farmer’s decision to adopt
wheat row planting practice?
2. What is the impact of row planting practice
on wheat yield?
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Meaning and Advantages of Wheat
Wheat originated in South West Asia in
the area known as the Fertile Crescent. The
earliest archaeological evidence for wheat
cultivation comes from the Levant (large area in
Middle East) and Turkey. Around 10,000 years
ago, Wilde in korn and emmer wheat was
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
domesticated as part of the origins of agriculture
in the Fertile Crescent. It is grown on more than
240 million hectares exceeding other
commercial crops and continues to be the most
important food grain source for humans. And it
normally requires between 110 and 130 days
between planting and harvest, depending upon
climate, seed type, and soil conditions. The row
planting with appropriate distance between rows
and plant density that allows for sufficient airing
humidity, sunlight, and nutrient availability that
lead to the suitable root system development and
helps faster growth of plants that in turn gives
better yield as well. The row plantation
technology adoption on average raises
production by 30% and falls the amount of seed
to one-fifth of existing seed use per hectare [4]
Scaling up of the adoption of yield-increasing
technological innovations could therefore
potentially have large benefits for boosting
agricultural productivity in SSA [2].
Wheat Production and the Introduction of Row
Planting in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia the wheat row planting
technology have been practicing manually with
in farmers since 2009. Mostly, wheat is
produced in Oromia and Amhara Regions, with
smaller quantities in Tigray and SNNP Regions.
Wheat is a cool-weather grain grown at
elevations ranging from 1,500 to 3,200 meters
above sea level in the southern and central
highlands and produced by close to 5 million
smallholder farmers. Wheat is planted during the
main (meher) rainy season from June to
September and harvested from October through
January [5] [6]. In Ethiopia, it is also an
important stable and cash crop in increasing
income of the people, food security, employment
and national GDP increment. For instance, it
provides about 15% of the calorie intake for the
country’s over 90 millions population [1] [6].
Wheat row planting in Mari Mansa District
According to Mari Mansa District Office
of Agriculture (2020) report; agricultural
extension activity is concerned with the
promotion and scaling-up of wheat row planting.
Wheat row planting technology introduced in
2013/14 to the district and it was first applied on
selected farmer training center (FTCs) (row
3 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
planting and transplanting of seedlings).
Afterward, the district agriculture office
continued to scale up the adoption of the
technology to the wheat producing belts. Even
though such interventions, adoption of row
planting technology in Dawuro Zone specifically
in the study district is still low and the dominant
sowing system of the district is broadcast sowing
method which is also limited only to Meher
season. This show in the study area there are
some factors that influencing the farmers'
decision to adopting and non-adopting of wheat
row planting technology.
Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural
Technology
The factors affecting technology
adoption in agricultural technologies can
classified in farmer characteristics, farm
structure, institutional characteristics and
managerial structure [2]. Access to credit service,
extension visit and source of information could
affect the adoption of new innovation by the
farmers [7]. Farmers, participation in trainings
and visits has made them to achieve relevant and
timely information about agricultural production
could motivate them to adopt agricultural
technology. Institutional variables play
important role in the everyday operations of
farm businesses. Extension agent acts as a link
between the innovators (researchers) of the
technology and adopters of that technology [7].
According to (Janvry et al., 2016) [8] farmers
decision to adopt new technologies can also be
influenced by factors related to their objectives
and constraints. These factors include farmers,
resource endowments as measured by (1) size of
family labors, farm size and livestock
ownership,
(2) farmers characteristics (sex, age, and formal
education) and
(3) institutional support system available for
inputs. The row planting is labor intensive
practice and it needs high labor for seeding on
the farm.
Empirical Literature Review of Related
Studies
According to Abu, 2020 [5], Adugnaw
and Dagninet, 2020 [6], [2], 1], the researcher
reviewed different studies that mainly focus on:
farmers‟ demographic characteristics such as sex,
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
age, educational level; economic factors like
active family labor force, farm size, tropical
livestock ownership, farmers saving status, off
farm income participation; institutional factors
like: participation in agricultural training,
participation in field visit day, extension service,
credit service, access to the nearest market; and
technological factors such as access to improved
seed and pesticides, amount of NPS fertilizer
applied and amount of urea fertilizer applied as
important factors influencing farmers‟ decisions
to adopt the new row planting technologies and
its impact on wheat yield. Lets’ review one by
one by developing the tentative statement that
the current study will going tested:-
Farmers’ Demographic Characteristics
 The study conducted to Worku and Yishak,
2017) [9]. Sex: the variable sex influenced
the adoption decision positively and
significantly, i.e., male headed households
have the higher probabilities of being
adopter than their female counterparts.
 The study conducted to (Hailu et al., 2014;
Ejigayehu 2016; Melese, 2018; Yalemwork,
2018). Age: had a negative and significant
relationship with adoption of wheat row
planting at 1% significance level. This
variable accounts 1.21% of the variation in
adoption of wheat row planting. Because
those younger age groups, who may have
schooling and adapt new ideas like
technological advancement are more easily
adopters compared to counterpart elders.
 The study conducted to Yalemwork, 2018
[11]. Education level: had a positive and
significant effect on household adoption
and intensity of use of row planting for
wheat production at 5% level of
significance. This entails that better
educated household heads are in a position
easily to understand and interpret what ever
technology and implement it on their own
farms.
Economic Factors
 The study conducted to Worku and Yishak,
2017 [9] Adune and Fekede, 2019 [7].
Family labor: shows a positive and
significant impact on adoption of
row-planting. It was significant at less than
4 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
5% significant level and positive in
explaining the household adoption status.
 The study conducted to Akshaya, 2020 [12].
Farm size: The econometric model output
for farm size shows that farm size is among
the major positive determinants of wheat
technology package adoption and the result
is statistically significant at 5% level.
 The study conducted to Tadele, 2016 [15].
Off-farm activities: Many farmers earn
additional income by engaging during slack
periods. This is believed to raise their
financial position to acquire new inputs
such as easy hire of labor because row
planting is labor intensive activity.
Institutional Factors
 The study conducted to Yalemwork, 2018
[11] Akshaya, 2020 [12]. Access to
extension service: contact with extension
agent was positively and significantly
related to adoption of wheat row planting at
1% significance level. The variable
accounted 17 for 9.14% of the variation in
the adoption of wheat row planting.
 The study conducted to (Bilaliib, 2017).
Access to credit: access to credit promotes
the adoption of risky technologies through
relaxation of the liquidity constraint as well
as through the boosting of household’s-risk
bearing ability.
 The study conducted to Akshay, 2020 [12].
Access to the nearest market: Farmers who
live in remote areas are reluctant to adopt
improved agricultural inputs because of the
increased transaction costs associated with
purchasing inputs.
 The study conducted to Adune and Fekede,
2019 [7] Akshaya, 2020 [12]. Training
Participation: As the logit result shows,
farmers who participate in training would
be more likely to adopt new technology
than other wise.
Technological Factors
 According to Tsegaye and Bekele, 2012
[13]. Access to improved seed and
pesticides: using a propensity score
matching (PSM) stated that improved wheat
seed varieties that resist pesticides and grew
based on a recommended planting space
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
(row) which had a robust and positive effect
on small farm household level of food
consumption.
 According to (Gedefaw and Sisay, 2020).
Use of fertilizer: stated that use of chemical
fertilizer is negatively correlated with early
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study.
Source: Survey our design, (2021)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study adopted both quantitative and
qualitative type of research in which cross
sectional data collection mechanism was
employed. The survey design quasi experimental
research design that encompasses both adopters
(wheat row planting technology participants) and
non adopters (non -participants of wheat row
planting) were used. According to Jalan and
Ravallionn (2003) the quasi-experimental
research design is non-experimental method
used when there is no baseline survey data and
randomization is not possible alternative for
impact evaluation. A logit regression model was
employed to identify factors that determine
wheat row planting method, whereas the PSM
model that measures the impact of adoption of
row planting technology on wheat yield was
applied.
5 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
planting and positively correlated with
timely planting at 1% level of significance
for both 1kg decreases in use of chemical
fertilizer increases early planting by 0.0018,
ceteris paribus.
Data Type and Methods of Data Collections
To generate the appropriate data both
qualitative and quantitative data were collected
from both primary (cross-sectional) and
secondary data sources. However, due to the
nature of smallholder farms studies, the primary
data source was collected through questionnaire
from both technology adopters and non-adopter.
Target Population
The target populations of this study are
Total wheat Producing farmers. The total
number of taking the available resources into
account, out of the 17 Kebeles‟1 of the district,
four Kebeles (namely Daka, Nekri, Mari bolla
and Mari guta) were selected randomly by
lottery method. Generally from above point of
view, total population is 1317 the study
considered 307 target populations from selected
four kebeles in Mari Mansa district, Dawuro
Zone and SNNPR.
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
Determination
To select the representative sample for
this study, a stage sampling technique that
involved both the combination of purposive and
random sampling techniques was applied. Then,
within selected Kebeles, after lists of farmers
obtained from the Kebele administration
agriculture extension coordinator and
MMWARDO extension staff, households were
stratified into two strata, namely adopter and
non-adopter of wheat row planting method, from
which the sample households were selected.
After calculating by formula, 307 respondents
were included in this study.
According to the formula provided by Yamane
[14] at 95% confidence level, 0.5 degree of
variability and 5% (0.05) level of precision
which is expressed as:
Where n=Sample size
N=Sample frame population of wheat producing
farmers.
e=Margin error at 5% (0.05)
= 307
Operational Definition of Variables
Dependent Variable
In this study participation in wheat row
planting technology adoption was the first step
in propensity score matching procedure. The
variable is dummy (given a value 1 if the
household participated in wheat row planting
technology adoption and 0 for non-participants).
For the second step to match the model,
smallholder farmer’s wheat crop yield is a
continuous variable that is measured in
kilograms per hectare.
Independent Variable
1. Sex of the household (Gender): It is a
dummy variable, refers to the sex of the
household head taking a value of 1 for male
and of or female. Most agricultural input
decisions in Ethiopia are influenced by
decision of the male household heads.
2. Age of the household head: This variable is
measured in years as a continuous
determinant factor. With age farmers
become more or less risk averse to new
6 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
technologies. It was assumed that
households with an older age have control
over more resources and more experienced,
a better reputation, and more responsible.
3. Education level: is a continuous variable
that enables individuals with the necessary
knowledge of how to make their living
decision well. Thus, in this study, it is
believed that those who are literate and
have at least some formal education chance
were better to adopt the new row planting
technology than those of illiterate.
4. Farm size: This variable represents the total
land holding size of a household in hectare
and refers to the total cultivated land of the
household. Any kind of decision made by
farm household is basically and highly
influenced by size of their land holding
5. Size of active family labor: is a continuous
variable that refers the number of farm
household family labor force or family
member in working age group. Agricultural
production in general and row planting
technology adoption in particular requires
strong labor force in all process of land
cultivation especially in line sowing system.
6. Tropical Livestock unit (TLU): having
many oxen make farmers possible to
participate in row planting technology of
the wheat crop. Households with larger
livestock holding might have the
opportunity to plough at any time with
minimum labor cost, especially for oxen.
7. Participation in agricultural training:
Training is one of the extension events
where farmers get practical skill and
technical information for the new wheat
row planting technology.
8. Participation in field visit days: Farmers
who have attended field days, visited
demonstration plots, and participated in
formal agricultural training are expected to
have a positive attitude to the adoption of
wheat row planting method.
9. Off-farm income participation: It is a
dummy variable that is a measure of a
household member participating in non–
farming activities and generates an income.
Participation in off- farm activity promotes
the capacity to invest in new agricultural
technologies
10. Access to extension agent: is a dummy
variable having value 1 if the household
have contact with an extension worker and
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
0 otherwise. Farmers having extension
contact knows the source and possible
benefit of wheat crop production and hence
expected to be better adopters of row
planting.
11. Distance to the nearest market: stands for
distance to the nearest main market from
residence measured in kilometer. When the
farm area is near to the market the potential
of the farmer to sell their product is high
and there is no high cost incurred by the
households while transportation.
12. Access to credit service: is a dummy
variable with values of 1 if the household
head had an access to credit and 0 if had
never been borrowed from any lender
organization. So, it is hypothesized that
accesses to credit and wheat row planting
had positive relationship.
13. Saving status of the household: It is a
continuous variable, taken as one of the
determinant factor that affects adoption of
wheat row planting technology. In this
study it refers the amount of money (in
ETB) which farmers save their financial
income in the year.
14. Access to improved seed and pesticides:
Improved farm inputs utilization is a factor
for enhancing agricultural productivity. The
utilization of optimum level of seed per
hectare i.e., seed rate is a prerequisite for
better production and productivity.
Improved seeds have better yield due to
their resistance to various pests and
environmental factors.
15. Quantity of NPS fertilizer applied: use of
NPS fertilizer is essential to improve
agricultural productivity. Row planting of
seed is usually carried out with fertilizers.
In this case access to fertilizers can
positively influence adoption of row
planting.
16. Quantity of urea fertilizer applied: Urea
fertilizer is one of the basic inputs used in
wheat row planting technology adoption
that provide important nutrients for soil.
Increasing the application of urea fertilizer
up to agronomic optimum increased the
productivity of wheat.
7 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Assumptions of Classical Linear Regression
Model
The following diagnostic tests were
carried out to ensure that the suits the basic
assumption of binary logist model.
 Heteroscedasticity Problem: If the
heteroscedasticity problem were the errors
do not have a constant variance we say they
are heteroscedasticity. Heteroscedasticity
were tested by hettest used Breusch-Pagan
heteroscedasticity test to check existence of
heteroscedasticity problem for errors.
 The goodness of fit: It measures states that
the model fits the data well. The likelihood
ratio test statistics exceed the chi-square
critical values with 16 degrees of freedom
at less than 1% significance levels
indicating that the hypothesis that all the
coefficients, except the intercept, are equal
to zero is rejected. The value of Pearson
chi-2 test showed the overall goodness of fit
of the model at less than 1% significance
level.
 Model Specification Error: The model
specification error was tested and the model
was specified used by linktest. The result of
linktest was revealed that the model has
correctly specified when the hatsq was
insignificant (0.098) which is greater than
p-value (0.05) and hat is significant (0.000)
by less than 1% probability level
Model Specification
The Logit Model
Binary choice models assume that
individuals are faced with a choice between two
alternatives and that the choice depends on
certain identifiable characteristics. In binary
choice models, it is implicitly assumed that the
dependent or response variable is dichotomous
in nature, taking a value 1 or 0. A unique feature
of such a model is that it elicits a yes or no
response. Preference for logit or probit models
(compared to linear probability models) derives
from the well-known shortcomings of the linear
probability model, especially the unlike of the
functional form when the response variable is
highly skewed and predictions that are outside
the [0, 1] bounds of probabilities.
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Forecasting

www.matjournals.com

Z=βo+ ∑ reliability is satisfied by an instrument

Where, Pi= the probability of participating to the
program, βo= intercept term,
βi= Regression coefficients to be estimated or
logit parameters, µi=A disturbance term,
and
iZ =Pre-intervention characteristics,
e=Represents the base of natural logarithms
As indicated above, the logit model for this
study is expressed as:
Yi=βo+β1SEXHH+β2AGEHH+β3EDUHH+β
4CLNDS+β5NPSFR+β6UREFR+β7ACSDP+
β8FMLAB+β9TLUOW+β10OFARM+β11AC
EXT+β12ACRDT+β13SAVED+β14PATRN+
β15PAVED+β16ANMKT+µi
Method of Data Analysis
Both descriptive statistics and
econometric tools were used to analyze the
empirical data. After the data cleaned,
information would be coded, arranged,
summarized, and tabulated for interpretation and
analysis. Chi-2 was used to see the difference
between wheat row planting technology
participant and non-participant households
across discrete explanatory variables. Besides,
test was used to compare the mean difference
between two groups across continuous
explanatory variables of the study.
Test of Questionnaire
Reliability Test
Reliable measuring instrument does
contribute to validity, but a reliable instrument
need not be a valid instrument. If the quality of
cronbach’s alpha is 0.827, then while using it we
can be confident that the transient and situational
factors are not interfering the data and the data
collected before making regression analysis is
reliable. In current research, the researcher
employed Cronbach’s Alpha (α) which is the
most common measure of scale reliability and a
value greater than 0.7 is very acceptable. This has
tested as follow:
Table 1: Reliability Statistics.
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
0.827 24
Source: personal survey, 2020
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response Rate
As the results of descriptive analysis
showed, from the total respondents (307),
63.52% (195) of the respondents were
non-participants of the wheat row planting
method, while the rest 36.48 % (112) of the
respondents were participants of the wheat row
planting method.
Description of Dummy Variables
As we can see from below table most of
dummy variable which access of seed and
pesticide, access of off farm, access to extension,
participating of training, participating in field
visit the chi-2 test result implies that there is
significant association with wheat row planting
participation but two dummy variable which sex
and access of credit of the chi-2 test result
implies that there is no a significant association
wheat row planting participation.

Table 2: Descriptive analysis of sex, access to seed and pesticide, off-farm income, extension service,
credit, training and participation in field visit day.
Participating in Wheat Row Planting X2 P-Value
Dummy Variables Non
Participant Total
Participant
N N% N N% N N%
Female
Sex of HH head 38 20 18 10.6 57 18.8 0.72 0.39
Male 156 80 94 83.9 250 81.5
Access to seed and No Access 140 71.8 11 9.82 151 49.2
109.3** 0.00
pesticide Have access 55 28.2 101 90.2 156 50.8
No Access 129 66.2 24 21.4 153 49.8
Access to Off farm 56.9*** 0.00
Have access 66 33.8 88 78.6 154 50.2

8 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved

 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Forecasting

www.matjournals.com

Access to extension No Access 57 29.2 4 3.57 61 19.8

29.42*** 0.00
Service Have access 138 70.8 108 96.4 246 80.1
No Access 89 45.6 41 36.6 130 42.3
Access to Credit 2.38 0.123
Have access 106 54.3 71 63.4 177 57.6
Participate in Not trained 177 60 8 7.1 125 40.7
82.3*** 0.00
Training Trained 78 40 104 92.6 182 59.3
Not
Participate in Field 140 71.7 49 43.7 189 61.6
participate 23.6*** 0.00
Visit
Participate 55 28.2 63 56.2 118 38.4
*** p<0.01 Source: Own survey result, 2021

Description of Continuous Variable
As we can see from the below table the
most of description of continuous variable which
age in year, education level, cultivate land size,
urea fertilizer, active family labor force, total
livestock in TLU, saving status, distance from the
nearest market are the t-test confirms that there is
a significant mean difference between
participant and non-participant of wheat row
plant at 1% significance level, but one
continuous variable which cultivate land in
hectare insignificance mean between participate
and non-participate of wheat row plant.

Table 3: Descriptive analysis of age, education, cultivated land, NPS fertilizer, Urea fertilizer, family
labor, total livestock, saving status and distance from nearest market.
Wheat Row planting X2 P-Value
Cont. Variables Whole Sample Non
Participant
Participant
Mean Min(Max) Mean SD Mean SD
Age in year
45.2 26(87) 48.2 13.48 39.9 11.78 5.28*** 0.00
Education in grade 4.3 0(12) 3.19 3.20 6.25 3.21 8.04*** 0.00
Cultivated land in
2 0.075 1.87 6.06 2.22 1.31 0.59 0.27
ha
NPS fertilizer in Kg 79.6 0(150) 69.87 34.92 96.61 13.21 7.79*** 0.00
Urea fertilizer in
28.9 0(150) 15.18 20.71 53.01 37.2 11.45*** 0.00
Kg
Family labor in no. 5.2 0(12) 4.42 2.86 6.59 2.08 7.02*** 0.00
Total Livestock in
7.1 1(17) 6.15 2.80 8.81 3.31 7.49*** 0.00
TLU
Saving Status in
1244 0(10000) 514.61 1369.6 2513.9 2940.6 8.09*** 0.00
ETB
Distance from
Nearest Market in 7.2 0(17) 7.76 13.18 6.24 2.59 4.31*** 0.00
KM
*** p<0.01
Source: Own survey result, 2021

As indicated in Table 4, among the 16 extension service were significant at 5% and

variables used in the model, 10 variables were
significant with respect to wheat row planting
participation at different probability levels.
Among those five variables like education level,
urea fertilizer, family labor, saving status,
participation training was significant at 1%
significance level. The remaining age, seed and
pesticide, off-farm income and access to
farmer’s participation in field visit day was at
10% significance level. From these variables age
was negatively significant whereas, education,
urea fertilizer, seed and pesticide, family labor,
off-farm income, saving status, participation in
training, access to agricultural extension and
farmers‟ field visit day were found to be
positively significant. The remaining seven

9 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved

 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Forecasting

www.matjournals.com

explanatory variables such as sex, cultivated service had not shown significant influence on
land size, NPS fertilizer, and total livestock wheat row planting participation in this specific
ownership, access to nearest market and credit study area.

Table 4: The Binary logistic regression model analysis output on determinants of wheat row planting
participation.
PARTC Coef. Std. Err. Z P>z Odd Ratio
SEXHH .4692833 .5960814 0.79 0.431 1.598848
AGEHH -.0462644 .0184546 -2.51 0.012** .9547894
EDUHH .2280537 .0679719 3.36 0.001*** 1.256153
CLNDS -.0442342 .2044851 -0.22 0.829 .9567299
NPSFR .0125635 .0124136 1.01 0.312 1.012643
UREFR .0317072 .0105755 3.00 0.003*** 1.032215
ACSDP 1.116871 .5432003 2.06 0.040** 3.05528
FMLAB .2887494 .1092845 2.64 0.008*** 1.334757
TLUOW -.0561953 .079839 -0.70 0.482 .9453545
OFARM .8804541 .4307279 2.04 0.041** 2.411995
ACEXT 1.891116 .8235233 2.30 0.022** 6.626758
ACRDT .7301583 .4597592 1.59 0.112 2.075409
SAVED .0003238 .0001208 2.68 0.007*** 1.000324
PATRN 2.752226 .7645688 3.60 0.000*** 15.67749
PAFVD .7674814 .4193095 1.83 0.067* 2.154334
ANMKT -.1159471 .0772587 -1.50 0.133 .8905223
_cons -8.492948 2.208495 -3.85 0.000 .0002049
Log likelihood 96.5
LR chi2(16) 51.5 0.000***
Pseudo R2 0.655
Number of obs 307
Source: Model output, 2021.
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05 and * p<0.1 significance level.

Therefore, as it is indicated in Table 5, insignificant (see Table 5). In addition, the

below the result also indicated that the results of
pseudo R2 dropped significantly from 63.7%
before matching to about 14.1% after matching,
ensuring that there were no systematic
differences in the covariates between both
groups. The likelihood ratio reduced from
256.82 to 16.42 and chi2 test resulted
standardized bias difference of mean (median)
between variables involved in propensity score
decreases from 86.8 (11.4). This low pseudo-R2
value and the insignificant likelihood ratio test
indicated that wheat row planting participant
households and non-participant households had
the same distribution in the covariates after

10 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved

 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
matching. Hence, these results can be used to
assess the impact of wheat row planting among
groups of smallholder farmers having similar
observed characteristics. This enables to
Table 5: Matching Quality Indicators by Kernel Based Matching Estimator with Band Width of 0.01.
Sample Ps R2 LR chi2 p>chi2 Mean Bias Med Bias
Unmatched 0.637 256.82 0.000 82.9
Matched 0.141 16.42 0.424 17.6
* If B>25%, R outside [0.5; 2]
Source: Field survey, 2021
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the average yield of row
planted wheat was 24.22 qt/ha (24.46 % more
yield gain) compared to the local broadcast
sowing method in the study area. This shows
that adoption of row planting method had a
positive impact on its wheat yield. However,
planting wheat seed in line with out the
important agronomic practices, like
recommended level of (urea) fertilizer, improved
seed and other improved wheat farm
management practices, might have not been a
factor for yield increment over the
broadcasting sowing method. Besides to this, the
availability of active family labor force, access
to agricultural extension, participation in training
and field visit days, farmers saving status,
participation in off-farm income, education level
and age of smallholder farmers were important
determinant factors in influencing adoption of
wheat row planting method in the study area.
All in all, as the study conferred, the
wheat row planting participant groups are in a
better position than the non-participant groups
regarding wheat yield. This entails that,
consistent with expectations, encouraging
adoption of wheat row planting has a significant
effect than the usual traditional sowing practices
in terms of increasing wheat yield among
smallholder farmers. Therefore, the district of
agriculture and natural resources office through
development agents and with other concerned
bodies should create awareness on the benefits
of wheat row planting technology adoption by
giving short term training and continuous
discussion with effective support for smallholder
farmers especially to narrow the gap between
adopters and non-adopters in order to enhance
wheat yield.
11 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
compare observed outcomes for participants
with those of a nonparticipant group sharing a
common support.
B R %Var
86.8 249.5* 0.95 67
11.4 94.0* 0.88* 11
Direction for the Future Research
Since any study cannot be free from
limitations, accordingly there are some
limitations in current study. Eventually, it
focused only on the factors affecting smallholder
farmer’s participation on wheat row planting and
its impact on wheat yield in Mari Mansa Woreda,
Dawuro Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. So, the
findings of this study may be difficult to
generalize about all smallholder farmers’
participation on wheat row planting and its
impact on wheat yield in Ethiopia. Hence, this
study can be improved if it will be done at other
woredas, zone, regions, and nations by
comparing the smallholder farmer’s participation
on wheat row planting and its impact on wheat
yield by increasing sampling size than this one.
Additional researches should be carried out using
much larger sample size at different locations
setting to acquire more empirical findings on the
impact of adopting row planting on wheat yield
among smallholder farmers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very honorable to appreciate
Furra Institute of Development Studies and
Education which is the best education and
research institutions in Ethiopia that striving to
serve the community and supporting
problem-solving researches thoroughly. Our
pleasant thanks also go to the editors and the
anonymous reviewers for their guidance in
developing this research paper.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
We have carried out the whole work of
this study. We have designed the study research
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business
Forecasting
www.matjournals.com
design and carried out the fieldwork, document
analysis, literature work, manuscript draft, and
editorial.
FUNDING STATEMENT
There is financial support for conducting
this study is from Furra Institute of Development
Studies and Education
REFERENCES
1. CSA. (2018). Agricultural sample survey:
Area and production of major crops, Meher
Season Vol. I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Available at:
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/5757
166
2. Ugochukwu, A. I., & Phillips, P. W. (2018).
Technology adoption by agricultural
producers: a review of the literature. From
agriscience to agribusiness, 361-377. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-
7_17
3. Baye Belay, F. D., & Bezabeh, E. (2019).
Impact of Improved Wheat Technology
Package Adoption on Productivity in
Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 9(1), 76-85. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fitsum
-Daniel/publication/331650150_Impact_of_
Improved_Wheat_Technology_Package_A
doption_on_Productivity_in_Ethiopia/links/
5c8658d7458515831f9b5b80/Impact-of-Im
proved-Wheat-Technology-Package-Adopti
on-on-Productivity-in-Ethiopia.pdf
4. Abu, T. (2020). Grain and Feed Annual
Report-Addis Ababa-Ethiopia. United
States Department of Agriculture. Foreign
Agricultural Services. Available at:
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Re
port/DownloadReportByFileName?fileNam
e=Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Addi
s%20Ababa_Ethiopia_03-15-2020
5. Anteneh, A., & Asrat, D. (2020). Wheat
production and marketing in Ethiopia:
Review study. Cogent Food & Agriculture,
6(1), 1778893. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.177
8893
6. Dinku, A., & Beyene, F. (2019). Adoption
determinants of row planting for wheat
production in Munesa District of Oromia
Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
12 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved
Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Extension and Rural Development, 11(2),
25-34. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2018.0993
7. De Janvry, A., Macours, K., & Sadoulet, E.
(2017). Learning for adopting: Technology
adoption in developing country agriculture.
Ferdi. Available at:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-0153238
4/
8. Worku, M. and Yishak, G. (2017). Factors
affecting adoption of wheat row planting
technology: The Case of Sodo Zuriya
Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia.
International Konwledge Sharing
Plateform. Available at:
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IS
DE/article/view/34951
9. Behailu, G. (2014). Assessment of Factors
Affecting Farmers’ Adoption level of Row
Planting Technology and Yield
Improvement on the Production of
Eragrostis Teff [ZUCC.]: The Case of
Minjar Shenkora Woreda, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis
Ababa University). Available AT:
http://213.55.95.56/bitstream/handle/12345
6789/5016/Behailu%20Getu.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y
10. Yalemwork, A. (2018). Determinants of
adoption of wheat row planting:The Case of
Wogera District, North Gondar Zone,
Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, Raya
University, Maychew, Ethiopia. Journal of
Agricultural Science and Food Research.
Available at:
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/deter
minants-of-adoption-of-wheat-row-planting
-the-case-of-wogera-district-north-gondar-z
one-amhara-regional-state-ethio-17960.htm
l
11. Habtewold, A. B., Challa, T. M., & Latha,
D. A. (2017). Determinants of smallholder
farmers in teff market supply in Ambo
district, West Shoa Zone of Oromia,
Ethiopia. International Journal of advanced
research in management and social
sciences, 6(2), 133-140. Available at:
https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?t
arget=ijor:ijarmss&volume=6&issue=2&art
icle=010
12. Yamane, T.I. (1967). Statistics: An
Introductory Analysis Harper and Row,
New York, USA. 2nd Edition. Available
at:
 Recent Trends in Data Mining and Business Volume-3, Issue-1 (January-June, 2022)
Forecasting

www.matjournals.com

https://www.worldcat.org/title/statistics-an-i Wolaita zone). Open Access Library

ntroductory-analysis-2nd-ed/oclc/29972586 Journal, 3(03), 1. Available at:
6 http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformat
13. Tafese, T., & Sodo, W. (2016). Adoption ion.aspx?PaperID=69118&#abstract
and intensity of row-seeding (case of

13 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2022. All Rights Reserved

View publication stats