Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of Improved Wheat Varieties in Ethiopia

1,324 views

Published on

Presentation by Dr. Chilot Yirga (EIAR, Ethiopia) at Wheat for Food Security in Africa conference, Oct 9, 2012, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,324
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
139
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of Improved Wheat Varieties in Ethiopia

  1. 1. Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion ofImproved Wheat Varieties in Ethiopia Chilot Yirga, Moti Jaleta, Bekele Shiferaw, Menale Kassie, and Asfaw Negassa 8-12 October 2012
  2. 2. OutlineIntroduction Some facts about wheat production in Ethiopia Wheat varieties released Need for adoption studyMethodology Sampling procedure Survey instrumentsResults Socio-economic characteristics Awareness and experience of wheat varieties Current level of adoption of IMV (% HHs and % area) Intensity of use of complementary technologiesConclusions
  3. 3. IntroductionWheat is third most important cereal after tef and maizeProduced by: • Smallholder farmers (95%) • Commercial farms (5%) Two types : Bread wheat & Durum wheatWheat area: 1.50 million ha (CSA, 20010/11)Major Growing Regions: Oromia = 857,603ha Amhara = 548,315ha S.N.N.P.R.= 156,661 Tigray = 113, 596
  4. 4. IntroductionCurrent Productivity is low: National=1.83 ton/haPre-scaling up and demonstrations 3 - 4 ton/haWheat has been recognized as a strategic foodsecurity crop in the country’s attempt to bridge thepersistent food gapA lot of resources has been invested in thegeneration and transfer of wheat technologies
  5. 5. Table 1: Number of improved wheat varieties released by year of release, EthiopiaYear Released Improved Wheat varieties (Number) Bread wheat Durum wheat TotalBefore 1981 3 - 31981-1990 3 1 41991-2000 15 8 232001-20010 25 20 45Total 46 39 85
  6. 6. Background These improved varieties with associated crop management practices have been made available to farmers through various projects and programs. Hence, uptake of the improved varieties by farmers and their impact on HH welfare remained a concern to all involved in the generation and transfer of wheat technologies. Some effort had been made towards estimating adoption and explain farmers rational behind observed adoption levels
  7. 7. IntroductionA notable drawback of previous technologyadoption studies are Almost all studies are highly location specific, • Around research centers • Project intervention areas Fail to allow generalizations indispensable for policy making at national and regional levelsObjective document the level of improved wheat variety knowledge and adoption among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia
  8. 8. Sampling ProcedureA two-stage sampling procedure was used Using the CSA/IFPRI 2002 data 353 wheat producing districts with their respective wheat area were identified 148 districts >2000ha wheat area were selected (85% of the national wheat area) The 148 districts were classified by major AEZ It was found to be located in 8 AEZs and 4047 kebeles
  9. 9. Sampling Procedure The maximum number of kebeles to be surveyed were setas 125 (logistic reasons) The targeted 125 sample kebeles were distributed to the 8AEZs based on the proportion of wheat area to eachRegional States. Once arrived at the kebeles, the survey team leader usinga complete list of household members in a kebele randomlyselects 15-18 sample households
  10. 10. Table 2: Distribution of wheat sample household andkebeles by agro-ecology, Ethiopia, 2011 Number of Households Agro-ecology Kebeles Number (%) H2 18 313 14.9 H3 5 66 3.1 M1 5 71 3.4 M2 43 715 34.1 SA2 2 23 1.1 SH1 5 90 4.3 SH2 21 367 17.5 SM2 26 451 21.5 Total 125 2096 100.0
  11. 11. Distribution of Survey Locations
  12. 12. Survey InstrumentsTwo complementary survey instruments weredeveloped and used in the study A community level questionnaire administered to community leaders and key informants; and A household questionnaire administered to randomly selected farm households
  13. 13. Modules of the HH level questionnaireModule Coverage1 Interview Background2 Current HH composition and characteristics3 Living condition of the farm household4 Social capital and networking5 Household assets6 Improved wheat variety knowledge and adoption Variety attributes affecting adoption7 Crop production and utilization Detailed plot characteristics, investment and input use8 Transfer and other sources of income during 2010 cropping season9 Access to financial capital, Information and institutions10 HH expenditure
  14. 14. Results
  15. 15. Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households, Ethiopia, 2009/10Characteristics Whole Region sample Amhara Oramia SNNP Tigray (N=2093) (n=635) (n=1108) (n=246) (n=104)Age of HH head Mean 43.5 44.4 42.9 42.6 46.4Gender of the HH head Male Headed 93.3 96.1 93.3 93.1 76.9 Female Headed 6.7 3.9 6.7 6.9 23.1Education of the HH Do not read and write 37.7 49.3 33.4 21.9 50.0 Adult education 12.5 20.9 8.1 9.8 13.5 Grades 2-6 31.4 18.90 38.5 35.0 24.0 Grades 7-10 16.4 10.1 17.8 28.5 11.5(Grades 11-14) 2.0 0.8 2.18 4.9 1.0
  16. 16. Table 2: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households, Ethiopia, 2009/10Characteristics Whole Region sample (N=2093) Amhara Oramia SNNP Tigray (n=635) (n=1108) (n=246) (n=104)Years the HH head lived in the village 38.88 38.51 38.62 39.17 41.19(Mean Years)Whether the HH head is model orfollower farmer Model (% HHs) 33.73 39.37 32.31 28.05 71.54 Follower (% HH) 65.74 60.63 66.7 71.95 28.46Status of food consumption last year(% HHs) Food shortage all year round 2.24 3.18 1.75 0.41 6.06 Occasionally food shortage 35.29 35.93 36.56 21.81 50.51 No food shortage but no surplus 46.82 54.05 43.55 49.38 30.30 Food surplus 15.7 6.88 18.4 28.4 13.1
  17. 17. Figure 1: Distribution of farm size by region Mean Std 3.34 2.61 2.01 2.08 1.74 1.81 1.26 1.32 0.96 0.84 Amhara Oromia SNNP Tigray whole sample
  18. 18. Table 4: Smallholder farmers’ awareness and use of improvedwheat varieties as of 2011, Ethiopia, (% of farmers reporting) Number of Improved % of households Wheat Varieties EverAgro-ecology Aware Ever Planted known grownH2 96.5 91.0 11 11H3 75.8 59.7 11 11M1 93.0 76.1 5 5M2 81.0 65.1 10 10SA2 100.0 87.0 11 7SH1 98.9 96.7 15 14SH2 95.6 80.4 14 13SM2 92.3 85.4 11 8Whole sample 89.6 77.9
  19. 19. Table 5: Improved wheat variety awareness and experienceamong smallholder farmers, Ethiopia (Proportion of farmers) Year Variety Released Aware Ever tried Kubsa 1995 52.2 41.8 Galema 1995 29.3 22.4 Dashen 1984 29.2 23.6 Mada Walabu 2000 12.5 8.6 Tusie 1997 11 7.9 Mirtzer ? 5.8 4.7 Pavaon 1982 9.2 7.4 ET-13 1981 10.6 9.1 Digelu 2005 17.4 5.9 Enkoy 1974 8.9 6.6 Simba 2000 7.8 4.4
  20. 20. Table 6: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties that farmers are aware of (Proportion of respondents) Improved Wheat VarietyReasons for never planting Mada-known variety Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digelu Walabu Dashen N=211 N=140 N=31 N=219 N=77 N= 110Seed not available 28 39.3 32.3 79 44.2 24.5Lack of cash to buy seed(credit) 11.4 5.7 3.2 2.7 1.3 9.1Susceptible to diseases/pests 9.0 6.4 6.5 0.5 10.4 15.5Low yielding variety 12.3 14.3 25.8 2.3 10.4 21.8Lack of enough land 24.2 16.4 22.6 5.5 13 20Requires high skills 4.3 1.4 3.2 0.9 1.3 2.7Lack of fertile soil 2.8 3.6 3.2 2.7 2.6 0.9Not suitable for localenvironment 4.3 9.3 3.2 4.1 14.3 0.9
  21. 21. Table 3: Source of variety information Source of improved wheat variety information 1% 0% 1% Government extension 5% Another farmer neighbour/relative Farmer Coop/Union 38% Farmer group 55% From trader Other media
  22. 22. Who is an adopterSome considerations Smallholder Farmers operate multiple plots Use local (traditional), old and recently released improved varieties simultaneously on separate plots of land Most depend on locally produced seeds Most use recycled (own saved exchanged or purchased) wheat seedsA farmer is considered an adopter if he/she usedany of the improved wheat varieties and usedseed recycled at most for five years
  23. 23. Table 10: Proportion of households using improved wheat by wheat species and agro-ecological zone as of 2010, Ethiop Bread and Durum Wheat Bread Wheat Durum Wheat All Improved Improved All Improved Varieties Varieties All Varieties Varieties Varieties VarietiesAEZ No % No % No % No % No % No %H2 301 16.4 198 65.8 290 96.3 198 68.3 35 11.6 13 37.1H3 35 1.9 30 85.7 35 100.0 30 85.7 0 0.0 0 0.0M1 60 3.3 37 61.7 59 98.3 36 61.0 4 6.7 3 75.0M2 596 32.5 318 53.4 508 85.2 313 61.6 158 26.5 48 30.4SA2 21 1.1 15 71.4 21 100.0 15 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0SH1 88 4.8 74 84.1 88 100.0 74 84.1 2 2.3 1 50.0SH2 310 16.9 232 74.8 305 98.4 232 76.1 12 3.9 6 50.0SM2 423 23.1 247 58.4 404 95.5 247 61.1 95 22.5 54 56.8Total 1834 100 1151 62.8 1710 93.2 1145 67.0 307 16.7 125 40.7
  24. 24. Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties as of 2010,Ethiopia % share from total % share from total Wheat area improved wheat areaKubsa 17.0 32.2Galema 6.3 12.0Dashen 5.7 10.8Mada_walabu 3.0 5.6Tusie 2.4 4.5Mirtzer 2.9 5.5Pavon 3.5 6.6ET13 0 0.1Digelu 1.2 2.3Enkoy 1.2 2.2Simba 0.8 1.5All other IV 8.7 16.6All Other IV 52.8 100.0
  25. 25. Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties by administrative region as of 2010, EthiopiaVariety Region Tigray SNNP Amhara Oromia All regionsKubsa 1.0 3.6 21.8 18.6 17.0Galema 0.0 12.4 7.7 4.9 6.3Dashen 5.5 5.1 6.6 5.3 5.7Mada_walabu 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.0Tusie 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 2.4Mirtzer 14.5 5.8 0.2 2.7 2.9Pavon 0.0 4.0 0.2 5.7 3.5ET13 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Digelu 0.4 2.0 0.0 1.8 1.2Enkoy 11.9 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.2Simba 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8All Other IV 2.8 31.7 1.7 8.7 8.7Total 36.1 65.1 38.4 60.5 52.8
  26. 26. Figure 3: Number of years wheat seeds recycled 5% 16% 20% No recycle one to two years Three to five years Six to ten years 29% Over ten years 30%
  27. 27. Table 10: Average Yield of wheat by variety, wheat adoptionsurvey, Ethiopia, 2010 Mean % yield Year No of Yield Std gain overVariety released observations (kg/ha) (kg/ha) localDigelu 2005 39 1785 1175 12.2Simba 2000 34 1689 1174 6.2Mada_walabu 2000 98 1675 839 5.3Tusie 1997 90 2128 926 33.8kubsa 1995 549 1746 1076 9.7Galema 1995 217 1663 1127 4.5Mirtzer 1984 79 1689 1103 6.2Dashen 1984 164 1688 1021 6.1Pavon 1982 79 2026 1024 27.3ET13 1981 56 1591 1029 0.0Enkoy 1974 36 1503 713 -5.5Other IMvarieties n.a 249 1689 923 6.2Local n.a 1385 1591 973 n.a
  28. 28. Table ZZ: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties in the future (% respondents)Reasons Variety Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digel M.Wala Pavo Tusie Dashe Enkoy u bu n nSusceptible todiseases/pests 35.9 43.5 18.3 0.0 30.8 24.3 54.5 21.5 34.2Low yieldingvariety 39.1 30.5 60.0 18.2 30.8 54.1 0.0 52.3 32.9Lack of enoughland 3.9 6.9 5.0 18.2 7.7 5.4 13.6 7.6 1.4Seed notavailable 4.7 6.1 8.3 9.1 2.6 10.8 9.1 9.3 17.8Not suitablefor local env. 7.0 4.6 3.3 36.4 12.8 0.0 13.6 1.7 1.4Lack of cash(credit) 2.3 1.5 1.7 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.4Lack of fertilesoil 2.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 9.1 2.3 6.8
  29. 29. Table Z: Intensity of use of DAP fertilizer on wheat in Ethiopia, 2009/10 cropping season Agro-ecologyIndicator of use H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 AllNo. of plots 531 58 115 951 38 157 422 852 3881% plots DAPapplied 69.3 86.2 83.5 67 97.4 49.7 83.2 73.7 63.9Average rate percultivated Wheat 55.9 71.9 45.5 58.3 111.4 60.0 78.8 70.9 64.8Area (kg/ha) (50.2) (49.2) (38.2) (56.6) (53.9) (72.8) (57.9) (63.9) (58.9)Average rate perfertilized Wheat 80.6 83.4 59.3 87.0 114.4 120.8 94.7 96.2 90.1Area (kg/ha) (40.4) (42.7) (34.1) (47.7) (51.2) (57.5) (50.2) (55.7) (50.3)
  30. 30. Table Z: Intensity of herbicide use on wheat in Ethiopia, 2009/10 cropping season Agro-ecologyIndicator ofuse H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 AllNo. of plots 535.0 59.0 111.0 931.0 38.0 150.0 391.0 859.0 3074.0% plotsherbicideapplied 75.5 86.4 44.1 44.6 89.5 88.7 88.5 24.9 53.5Mean rate percultivatedWheat Area 0.51 0.64 0.25 0.31 0.50 0.69 0.55 0.16 0.36(lt/ha) (0.47) (0.41) (0.35) (0.45) (0.28) (0.48) (0.44) (0.34) (0.45)Mean rate persprayedWheat Area 0.68 0.74 0.58 0.71 0.56 0.78 0.62 0.65 0.67(lt/ha) (0.42) (0.35) (0.31) (0.42) (0.24) (0.44) (0.62) (0.40) (0.41)
  31. 31. Conclusion The study showed that many survey farmers are aware of the existence of improved wheat varieties. Adoption of improved bread wheat varieties is also fairly high. One factor affecting the widespread awareness of the technologies in question is inter-farmer interaction. Fellow farmers and family members were identified as the major sources of information by 50% of the respondents.
  32. 32. Conclusion However, awareness and adoption of recently improved wheat varieties among survey farmers have been disappointingly low revealing the existence of a huge gap between time of variety release, farmer awareness and subsequent adoption. With respect to fertilizer, the intensity of fertilizer application (DAP) has improved remarkably well.
  33. 33. Conclusions Of the four major wheat growing regions intensity of fertilizer use is highest in SNNP flowed by Amhara. Unlike, inorganic fertilizer, herbicide use is low. A couple of implications could be derived from this analysis: First, the relatively high proportion of farmers using improved wheat is an indication of their willingness to test new improved technologies
  34. 34. Conclusions However, very few farmers are growing the recently improved wheat varieties. This is, in part, due to the capacity and nature of the formal seed system and in part to farmers lack of awareness of the existence of the recently improved varieties due to poor information flow. Thus, appropriate mechanisms have to be devised to bridge the gap between new variety release, seed multiplication, farmer awareness and adoption.
  35. 35. Recommendations Second, the results show that farmers believe that yields of improved, as well as local varieties of wheat increase dramatically when properly fertilized. And yet both rate (% of farmers using) as well as intensity of use of fertilizer is still low indicating the need to find ways and means for raising the use of fertilize use. Thus, the promotion of improved wheat varieties has to be accompanied with timely and adequate supply of complementary inputs (fertilizer and herbicide).

×