International Food Policy Research Institute/ Ethiopia Strategy Support Program (IFPRI/ ESSP)and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Coordinated a conference with Agriculutral Transformation Agency (ATA) and Ministry of Agriculutrue (MoA) on Teff Value Chain at Hilton Hotel Addis Ababa on October 10, 2013.

1. Improved access and use of mechanization in the tef
value chain
Seife Ayele (ATA)
with Tamiru Habte (MoA) and Girma Moges (EIAR)
Presentation made at the conference on ‘Improved evidence towards better
policies for the tef value chain’.
October 10th, 2013

2. 1. Why work on tef?
2. The application of pre-harvest technologies
on tef
3. The application of post-harvest technologies
on tef
4. Conclusions and next steps
Contents

3. The focus of the ATA and partners (incl. MoA and EIAR) has been to tackle key issues within specific crop and
mechanization areas. As such, partners are focusing on two distinct areas: pre- and post-harvest mechanization
and crop-based interventions, with the primary focus being on tef.
Value Proposition Crop Applicability
Animal/human-
drawn Row
Planters
• Forces the practice of reduced seed
rate, thus increasing yield
• Reduces labor involvement in the
planting process
Tef, wheat, barley
Handheld
Harvesters
Tef, wheat, barley
• Greatly decreases labor used in
harvesting crops
• Creates potential low-investment
entrepreneurship opportunity
Threshers (includes
maize shellers)
• Reduces post-harvest losses by up to
30%
• Significantly decreases manual labor
usage
Tef, wheat, barley, maize
USG Machines
• Able to produce more effective urea
pellets, which have twice the potency
or regular urea for approximately the
same cost
Tef, wheat, barley, maize
Directional Overview: Mechanization for smallholder farmers
WHY WORK ON TEF?

4. 4
Needs for mechanization: Why do we need small-scale pre/post harvest technologies
(example of tef row planters)
Challenge: lack of suitable row planters
Planting tef in rows reduces seed use to 3-5kg/ha; speeds up planting, contributes to increased
productivity and reduced loss.
Broadcasting also results in lower yields due to increased competition for resources among
seedlings
Broadcasting tef by hand often uses up 30-50kg/ha; much higher than the ideal amount advised
Tef is amongst the most common crops in Ethiopia – its production and consumption affect
millions of Ethiopians.
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

5. 5
Tef traditional planting methods are inefficient and often wasteful
In addition to its cultural significance, tef is grown by 6 million households in Ethiopia, accounts for 15% of total calories
consumed by all Ethiopians, and is the dominant cereal grown in the country by area, and second only to maize in production and
consumption.
Distance
between rows
(cm)
20
Distance
between
seeds (cm)
.3
Depth (cm)
3
Seeding rate
(kg/ha)
3-5
Time taken
w/traditional
row planting
(days/ha)
3-4*Tef
Agronomic Recommendations for tef
*Indicative, as most tef farmers still plant by hand broadcasting
WHY WORK ON TEF?
Spacing of
fertilizer (cm
deep, cm
adjacent)
5, 3
Average seed rate and yields by planting type
Yield (quintal/hectare), Seed rate (kg/hectare)
4
1011
30
2222
15
0
10
20
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
TransplantingRow plantingBroadcastingNational
average
13
Seed rate
Avg yield
*Source: 2012 Data from Regional, Zonal and Woreda administration staff (collected Feb-April 2013)
Note: Includes data from 14,605 farmers (omitted error/outlier data from 15,790 total collected)

6. The approach: ATA worked with its partners, EIAR and MoA, to source, test, and adapt
15 row planters for extensive demonstration in the 2013 planting season
Preliminary
Testing
• Tested planter prototypes on
different soil types: light,
sandy, and vertisol
• Ten machines progressed to
next stage of testing (some
machines had identical
metering mechanisms,
some did not pass track
testing)
• None of the models tested
met all the required criteria
Hybridization
• The assessment panel of 8
public and private sector
experts reviewed the
models that met all
necessary requirements
for row planting
• Developed three models
that were designed for
varying agroecologies
Production
• 24 prototypes units
produced for learning of
production and for
training and promotion in
the regions
• Initial orders for 3,000
units from the BoAs;
partially produced by a
consortium led by Techtra
Engineering
• Operator and training
manuals produced and
trainings given
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

7. 7
Level 1 Planter
Number of Rows Type of MachineType of Machine
Approximate
Production Price (ETB)
Basic
Level I
• Sled-based seed drill,
with furrow opener,
no closer
Four 1350
This is the most basic planter
designed. It was intended to be
simple and affordable, with
relatively few moving parts. This
model only makes rows and
seeds, it does not apply fertilizer.Photo Placeholder
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

8. 8
Level 2 Planter
Number of Rows Type of MachineType of Machine
Approximate
Production Price (ETB)
Photo Placeholder
Intermediate
Level II
• Furrow
opening, seeding, clos
ing, animal-drawn
Four 5330
This is the mid-range planter,
that is more widely applicable
across soil types and features a
dual-hopper for seed. Again, this
model does not apply fertilizer.
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

9. 9
Level 3 Planter
Number of Rows Type of MachineType of Machine
Approximate
Production Price (ETB)
Advanced
Level III
• Furrow opening,
seeding, fertilizer
application, closing,
animal-drawn
Four 9500
Photo Placeholder
This model utilizes a dual-hopper
for seed and fertilizer and as with
the level II machine, is functional
across soil types. This can be
animal or human-pulled.
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

10. 10
Quality of Technology
There are very few entities with the
manufacturing ability, experience, or
facilities to produce the quantity of
units that are needed to supply
Ethiopian smallholder farmers
Lack of Production Scaling Ability
There is no existing infrastructure for
the support and upkeep for these
types of machines, especially in
rural/semi-rural areas that would be
necessary to keep these machines
functional.
Distribution Channels
While co-ops/unions provide many
traditional crop inputs, this is more
difficult to do mechanized goods.
Spare Parts/Maintenance
Almost no expertise in this area
currently exists. While co-ops/unions
provide many traditional crop inputs,
this is more difficult to do mechanized
goods as they are often more capital
intensive and less divisible.
Increased
use of
mechanized
technologies
Challenges to adoption of mechanized technologies
The demand for these three hybrid models far exceeded supply, which faced a number of significant challenges, including a
lack of domestic production capacity, lack of raw materials, and the operational challenges in trying to move towards scale in
such a short amount of time. In addition to the demand from the Regional Bureaus of Agriculture, there was also significant
demand from the private sector that were difficult to aggregate.
In addition, several systemic issues were identified in the dissemination of these technologies:
PRE-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

11. 11
Context for post-harvest mechanization: How do these technologies help
smallholder farmers?
Outcome
 Small-scale threshers have
been deployed in some areas
and been shown to reduce
post-harvest losses by 50%
 They also add significant value
in reducing human and animal
labor, threshing expenses, and
increase income
 Threshers can also serve as
additional income source to
farmers who provide threshing
services
d
Example from 2012: small-scale
threshers
 Type of crops: Tef, wheat, barley
 Price: Approx 50,000-60,000 ETB
 Power: Diesel powered
The government is developing
solutions to help the farmers
 Post-harvest loss: occurs
during harvesting, gathering,
piling , threshing, etc., and
can cause up to 30% yield
loss
 Labor intensity: traditional
methods are human and
animal labor-intensive and
time consuming
 Quality risk: manual
practices can cause priority
crops to be mixed with soil,
sand, and other foreign
matter
Ethiopian farmers are facing
significant challenges
A collaborative and concerted effort are required by relevant stakeholders to avail these
impactful technologies for smallholder farmers.
POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

12. 12
Approach to assessment: How to identify the most compelling technologies
Steps
A Identification and collection of machines
Initially, four different threshers prototypes were imported, and to ensure a comprehensive evaluation
of all the technologies that exist in Ethiopia, ATA (with support of EIAR and MoA) initiated a public call
for prototypes for threshers, shellers, and harvesters. From this, 13 threshers, 9 shellers, and 4
harvesters were identified and collected.
B Assessment team established
By reaching across stakeholders, an assessment team was formed by utilizing the leading experts from
the Federal and Regional agricultural departments, the national agricultural research system, and ATA.
This team would be able to build consensus across backgrounds and bring a diversity of experience to
the testing process.
C Site and assessment criteria
The assessment team met to identify the most effective manner in which the respective technology
types could be tested, where they could be tested, and the process could be as effective and efficient
as possible in ensuring the most impactful technologies were reaching farmers. By identifying
standardized testing criteria, the team would be able to ensure the testing was fair and accurate.
D Conduct test
By utilizing previously purchased unthreshed crops, as well as belg harvest season crops, a wide
variety of both laboratory and field testing were conducted
Description of Process
POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

13. Preparations for production: Manufacturer capacity assessment
Type and source of technology
Threshers and shellers - Domestic
Threshers – Internationally sourced
A comprehensive assessment of manufacturers who could/do
produce agricultural equipment were assessed. Full capacity would
involve engaging all possible manufacturers to dedicate full capacity
to threshers/shellers.
Three thresher models, namely for wheat and barley, have been
sourced from overseas have performed well, however they require
significantly more time to import as they are required to be brought
in by sea. Additionally, these machines would need further
adaptation to be functional in the Ethiopian context.
70
0 (for 2013)
Estimated monthly capacity
If top 3 manufacturers are engaged:
If top 5 manufacturers are engaged:
If all 12 manufacturers are engaged:
90
150
13
Harvesters – Internationally sourced
Currently, no harvesters are produced domestically, thus this would
require all to be imported. While handheld harvester can be brought
by air, this is less economically viable for walk-behind models
(because of weight).
N/A
1
2
3
POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

14. Deployment options that have been tested by ATA
Innovative business models utilized for the deployment of 47 threshers in the 2013-13 harvest season
Model A – Owner/Operator
• Most successful model so far, as they tend to know the existing area/market conditions the best.
• Are given more flexibility in pricing, where they operate and how they reach farmers, but all given business model support
and technical training
Model B – Existing ‘high net worth’ entrepreneur
• Little opportunity to test in full-function so far, but offering threshing as a fee-for-service’ appears to be the most feasible
Model C – Salaried Managers
• Not tested, hasn’t been embraced by stakeholders
• Requires greater awareness of technology and requires greater time investment to locate managers
Model D – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise youth
• In Tigray – selected operators were not suitable (as per selection criteria), awareness of threshing benefits are very low. In Amhara –
MSMEs are still organizing the youth in Chilga Woreda.
• Found that this model generally requires more training of operators as they often have less practical training
POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES

15. Next Steps: The opportunities and challenges moving forward with mechanized
implements in tef
Pre-harvest
Technologies
Post-harvest
Technologies
Area Key challenges Key opportunities
Next steps
- Very few current product
available to meet the smallholder
context
- Lack of domestic production
capacity
- Extension system not incentivized
to promote new technologies
- Large potential for increase in
productivity compared with
traditional methods
- Increasing demand from farmers
- Traditional threshing widespread
- Threshing season for tef relatively
short; machinery is not always
functional on other crops
- Little local R&D done on new
models
- Value proposition for farmers very
evident, would make economic
sense, even without loss reduction
1
2
- Work to identify more effective, affordable, and reliable technologies to
overcome challenges with adoption
- Develop new deployment models to reduce accessibility barriers (e.g.
fee-for-service, use of ‘farmer entrepreneurs’
- Strengthen existing private sector to shorten distance between suppliers
and end-users of the technology
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT-STEPS

16. Innovations to help our country grow