• Save
Perceptions on the impcat of improved teff technologies by exposed farmers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Perceptions on the impcat of improved teff technologies by exposed farmers

on

  • 775 views

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Seminar series. May 27, 2013. ATA Presentation

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Seminar series. May 27, 2013. ATA Presentation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
775
Views on SlideShare
775
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Perceptions on the impcat of improved teff technologies by exposed farmers Perceptions on the impcat of improved teff technologies by exposed farmers Presentation Transcript

    • ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENTRESEARCH INSTITUTEPerceptions on the impact of improved tefftechnologies by exposed farmersIFPRI-ESSPMay 27th, 2013Presentation ATA1
    • 2Overview presentation1. Background (row planting vs transplanting vsbroadcasting)2. Perceptions of yields on the experimental plots byadopters of the improved technologies3. Perceptions on yield differences4. Perceived advantages and disadvantages of the differenttechnologies5. Planning next year
    • 31. Background- Selected randomly 10 AGP woredas in the Oromiaregion (major teff production region)- In each woreda, 4 FTCs selected; in total 40 FTCsselected; 970 farmers interviewed- Farmers were part of pilot rollout to test the effects ofimproved technologies (broadcasting vs row plantingvs transplanting)
    • 41. Background- There are 838 farmers (“compliers”) that participatedin the teff experiment• 462 row planting (55%)• 76 transplanting (9%)• 166 normal broadcasting (20%)• 134 reduced broadcasting (16%)- As these farmers are very much aware of the newtechnologies, we call them the ‘exposed’ farmers andfurther analysis refers to their answers
    • 52. Perceptions of teff yields on experimentalplot (for adopters of new technologies)% Row planting TransplantingDo not know 5 4Higher 89 78The same 1 1Lower 5 17Total 100 100
    • 62. Perceptions on straw yields on experimentalplot (for adopters of new technologies)% Row planting TransplantingDo not know 5 4Higher 60 53The same 4 6Lower 31 37Total 100 100
    • 72. Perceptions on labor use on experimentalplot (for adopters of new technologies)% Row planting TransplantingDo not know 5 4Higher 51 53The same 43 42Lower 1 1Total 100 100
    • 82. Perceptions on teff yields on experimentalplot (farmers’ declarations)Teff productionof experimentalplot (kg/ha)Broad-castingRow planting TransplantingMean 1336 1490 1882Relative increase(in %)12 41Median 1171 1311 1317Relative increase(in %)12 11Number ofobservations284 72 420
    • 92. Perceptions on straw yields onexperimental plot (farmers’ declarations)Straw production ofexperimental plot(bails/ha)Broad-castingRowplantingTransplantingMean 49 48 68Relative increase(in %)-2 39Median 34 34 50Relative increase(in %)0 47Number ofobservations299 76 457
    • 103. Perceptions on teff yields for differenttechnologies (for ‘exposed’ farmers)Quintals/ha(mean)Quintals/ha(median)Traditional broadcasting 10 8Broadcasting withreduced seed rate15 12Row planting 18 16Transplanting 21 20
    • 113. Perceptions on straw yields for differenttechnologies (for ‘exposed’ farmers)Bails/ha(mean)Bails/ha(median)Traditional broadcasting 26 20Broadcasting withreduced seed rate25 20Row planting 26 22Transplanting 24 20
    • 123. Perceptions on labor need changescompared to traditional broadcasting% A lothigherA bithigherThesameA bitlowerA lotlowerTotalBroadcastingwith reducedseed rate1 21 53 14 11 100Row planting 50 49 0 1 0 100Transplanting 93 7 0 0 0 100
    • 134. Major three advantages of improvedtechnologies (for adopters next year)% BroadcastingreducedseedRowplantingTrans-plantingHigher teff yield 90 98 94Lower seed rates 51 74 61Higher straw yield 50 31 26Less wastage offertilizer20 32Good branching out 24 19 31Less labor needed 18
    • 144. Major 3 disadvantages of improvedtechnologies (for non-adopters next year)% Broad-castingreducedseedRowplantingTrans-plantingToo much additional labor 91 91Difficulty of doing thetechnology8 35 50Sensitivity of seedlings toshortage of rainfall6 12 37It does not give higher yield 44 12 7Much harder to control weeds 16 9Lack ofskill/awareness/knowledge28 6
    • 155. Planning next year(by all ‘exposed’ farmers)% of farmersTraditional broadcasting 73Broadcasting withreduced seed rate61Row planting 77Transplanting 15
    • 165. Planning next year(by all ‘exposed’ farmers)Would you do row planting next year if… % of farmers… inputs such as teff seeds and fertilizer were NOTgiven for free?79… inputs such as teff seeds and fertilizer were given ata discounted rate?83… inputs such as teff seeds and fertilizer were given forfree87… were NOT given for free but you had access to a rowplanter79
    • 175. Planning next year(by all ‘exposed’ farmers)% of areaTraditional broadcasting 56Broadcasting withreduced seed rate28Row planting 14Transplanting 2Total 100
    • 18Conclusion• Based on teff yield declarations of participating farmers,row planting and transplanting have teff yields that are onaverage respectively 12% and 41% higher• Based on straw yield declarations of participating farmers,row planting does not lead to higher straw yields whiletransplanting have yields that are 39% higher• However, perceptions on the potential of thesetechnologies are much higher; exposed farmers estimatethat teff yields would double because of these newtechnologies; no major differences in straw yields though
    • 19Conclusion• Given this positive results, a high level of adoption of thereduced seed technology is expected next year (except fortransplanting). Of the “exposed” farmers, 77% of thefarmers will adopt row planting next year; 15% will adopttransplanting• However, farmers are only willing to adopt the newtechnologies on small areas (seemingly because of thelabor requirement of the new technologies)