Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of

Improved Wheat Varieties in Ethiopia

Chilot Yirga, Moti Jaleta, Bekele Shiferaw,

Menale Kassie, and Asfaw Negassa

8-12 October 2012

Outline

Introduction

Some facts about wheat production in Ethiopia

Wheat varieties released

Need for adoption study

Methodology

Sampling procedure

Survey instruments

Results

Socio-economic characteristics

Awareness and experience of wheat varieties

Current level of adoption of IMV (% HHs and % area)

Intensity of use of complementary technologies

Conclusions

Introduction

Wheat is third most important cereal after tef and maize

Produced by:

• Smallholder farmers (95%)

• Commercial farms (5%)

Two types : Bread wheat & Durum wheat

Wheat 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

Introduction

Current Productivity is low:

National=1.83 ton/ha

Pre-scaling up and demonstrations

3 - 4 ton/ha

Wheat has been recognized as a strategic food

security crop in the country’s attempt to bridge the

persistent food gap

A lot of resources has been invested in the

generation and transfer of wheat technologies

Table 1: Number of improved wheat varieties

released by year of release, Ethiopia

Year Released Improved Wheat varieties

(Number) Bread wheat Durum wheat Total

Before 1981 3 - 3

1981-1990 3 1 4

1991-2000 15 8 23

2001-20010 25 20 45

Total 46 39 85

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

Introduction

A notable drawback of previous technology adoption 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 levels

Objective

document the level of improved wheat variety knowledge and adoption among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia

Sampling Procedure

A 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

Sampling Procedure

The maximum number of kebeles to be surveyed were set

as 125 (logistic reasons)

The targeted 125 sample kebeles were distributed to the 8

AEZs based on the proportion of wheat area to each

Regional States.

Once arrived at the kebeles, the survey team leader using

a complete list of household members in a kebele randomly

selects 15-18 sample households

Table 2: Distribution of wheat sample household and

kebeles by agro-ecology, Ethiopia, 2011

Agro-ecology

Number of

Kebeles

Households

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

Distribution of Survey Locations

Survey Instruments

Two complementary survey instruments were developed 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

Modules of the HH level questionnaire

Module Coverage

1 Interview Background

2 Current HH composition and characteristics

3 Living condition of the farm household

4 Social capital and networking

5 Household assets

6 Improved wheat variety knowledge and adoption

Variety attributes affecting adoption

7 Crop production and utilization

Detailed plot characteristics, investment and input use

8 Transfer and other sources of income during 2010 cropping season

9 Access to financial capital, Information and institutions

10 HH expenditure

Results

Characteristics Whole

sample (N=2093)

Region

Amhara (n=635)

Oramia (n=1108)

SNNP (n=246)

Tigray (n=104)

Age of HH head Mean 43.5 44.4 42.9 42.6 46.4 Gender 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 23.1 Education 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

Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households,

Ethiopia, 2009/10

Table 2: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households,

Ethiopia, 2009/10

Characteristics Whole

sample

(N=2093)

Region

Amhara

(n=635)

Oramia

(n=1108)

SNNP

(n=246)

Tigray

(n=104)

Years the HH head lived in the village

(Mean Years)

38.88 38.51 38.62 39.17 41.19

Whether the HH head is model or

follower farmer

Model (% HHs) 33.73 39.37 32.31 28.05 71.54

Follower (% HH) 65.74 60.63 66.7 71.95 28.46

Status 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

Figure 1: Distribution of farm size by region

1.74

3.34

2.08

1.32

2.61

0.96

2.01

1.26

0.84

1.81

Amhara Oromia SNNP Tigray wholesample

Mean Std

Table 4: Smallholder farmers’ awareness and use of improved

wheat varieties as of 2011, Ethiopia, (% of farmers reporting)

Agro-ecology

% of households

Number of Improved

Wheat Varieties

Aware Ever Planted known

Ever

grown

H2 96.5 91.0 11 11

H3 75.8 59.7 11 11

M1 93.0 76.1 5 5

M2 81.0 65.1 10 10

SA2 100.0 87.0 11 7

SH1 98.9 96.7 15 14

SH2 95.6 80.4 14 13

SM2 92.3 85.4 11 8

Whole sample 89.6 77.9

Table 5: Improved wheat variety awareness and experience

among smallholder farmers, Ethiopia (Proportion of farmers)

Variety

Year

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

Table 6: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties

that farmers are aware of (Proportion of respondents)

Improved Wheat Variety

Reasons for never planting

known variety Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digelu

Mada-

Walabu Dashen

N=211 N=140 N=31 N=219 N=77 N= 110

Seed not available 28 39.3 32.3 79 44.2 24.5

Lack of cash to buy seed

(credit) 11.4 5.7 3.2 2.7 1.3 9.1

Susceptible to diseases/pests 9.0 6.4 6.5 0.5 10.4 15.5

Low yielding variety 12.3 14.3 25.8 2.3 10.4 21.8

Lack of enough land 24.2 16.4 22.6 5.5 13 20

Requires high skills 4.3 1.4 3.2 0.9 1.3 2.7

Lack of fertile soil 2.8 3.6 3.2 2.7 2.6 0.9

Not suitable for local

environment 4.3 9.3 3.2 4.1 14.3 0.9

Table 3: Source of variety information

55% 38%

5%

1% 0% 1%

Source of improved wheat variety information

Government extension

Another farmer

neighbour/relative

Farmer Coop/Union

Farmer group

From trader

Other media

Who is an adopter

Some 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 seeds

A farmer is considered an adopter if he/she used

any of the improved wheat varieties and used

seed recycled at most for five years

Table 10: Proportion of households using improved wheat by

wheat species and agro-ecological zone as of 2010, Ethiop

AEZ

Bread and Durum

Wheat Bread Wheat Durum Wheat

All

Varieties

Improved

Varieties All Varieties

Improved

Varieties

All

Varieties

Improved

Varieties

No % No % No % No % No % No %

H2 301 16.4 198 65.8 290 96.3 198 68.3 35 11.6 13 37.1

H3 35 1.9 30 85.7 35 100.0 30 85.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

M1 60 3.3 37 61.7 59 98.3 36 61.0 4 6.7 3 75.0

M2 596 32.5 318 53.4 508 85.2 313 61.6 158 26.5 48 30.4

SA2 21 1.1 15 71.4 21 100.0 15 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

SH1 88 4.8 74 84.1 88 100.0 74 84.1 2 2.3 1 50.0

SH2 310 16.9 232 74.8 305 98.4 232 76.1 12 3.9 6 50.0

SM2 423 23.1 247 58.4 404 95.5 247 61.1 95 22.5 54 56.8

Total 1834 100 1151 62.8 1710 93.2 1145 67.0 307 16.7 125 40.7

Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties as of 2010,

Ethiopia

% share from total

Wheat area

% share from total

improved wheat area

Kubsa 17.0 32.2

Galema 6.3 12.0

Dashen 5.7 10.8

Mada_walabu 3.0 5.6

Tusie 2.4 4.5

Mirtzer 2.9 5.5

Pavon 3.5 6.6

ET13 0 0.1

Digelu 1.2 2.3

Enkoy 1.2 2.2

Simba 0.8 1.5

All other IV 8.7 16.6

All Other IV 52.8 100.0

Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties by administrative

region as of 2010, Ethiopia

Variety Region

Tigray SNNP Amhara Oromia All regions

Kubsa 1.0 3.6 21.8 18.6 17.0

Galema 0.0 12.4 7.7 4.9 6.3

Dashen 5.5 5.1 6.6 5.3 5.7

Mada_walabu 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.0

Tusie 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 2.4

Mirtzer 14.5 5.8 0.2 2.7 2.9

Pavon 0.0 4.0 0.2 5.7 3.5

ET13 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Digelu 0.4 2.0 0.0 1.8 1.2

Enkoy 11.9 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.2

Simba 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8

All Other IV 2.8 31.7 1.7 8.7 8.7

Total 36.1 65.1 38.4 60.5 52.8

Figure 3: Number of years wheat seeds recycled

16%

29%

30%

20%

5%

No recycle

one to two years

Three to five years

Six to ten years

Over ten years

Table 10: Average Yield of wheat by variety, wheat adoption

survey, Ethiopia, 2010

Variety

Year

released

No of

observations

Mean

Yield

(kg/ha)

Std

(kg/ha)

% yield

gain over

local

Digelu 2005 39 1785 1175 12.2

Simba 2000 34 1689 1174 6.2

Mada_walabu 2000 98 1675 839 5.3

Tusie 1997 90 2128 926 33.8

kubsa 1995 549 1746 1076 9.7

Galema 1995 217 1663 1127 4.5

Mirtzer 1984 79 1689 1103 6.2

Dashen 1984 164 1688 1021 6.1

Pavon 1982 79 2026 1024 27.3

ET13 1981 56 1591 1029 0.0

Enkoy 1974 36 1503 713 -5.5

Other IM

varieties n.a 249 1689 923 6.2

Local n.a 1385 1591 973 n.a

Reasons Variety Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digel

u M.Wala

bu Pavo

n Tusie Dashe

n Enkoy

Susceptible to diseases/pests 35.9 43.5 18.3 0.0 30.8 24.3 54.5 21.5 34.2 Low yielding variety 39.1 30.5 60.0 18.2 30.8 54.1 0.0 52.3 32.9 Lack of enough land 3.9 6.9 5.0 18.2 7.7 5.4 13.6 7.6 1.4 Seed not available 4.7 6.1 8.3 9.1 2.6 10.8 9.1 9.3 17.8

Not suitable for local env. 7.0 4.6 3.3 36.4 12.8 0.0 13.6 1.7 1.4

Lack of cash (credit) 2.3 1.5 1.7 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.4 Lack of fertile soil 2.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 9.1 2.3 6.8

Table ZZ: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties in the

future (% respondents)

Table Z: Intensity of use of DAP fertilizer on wheat in

Ethiopia, 2009/10 cropping season

Indicator of use

Agro-ecology

H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 All

No. of plots 531 58 115 951 38 157 422 852 3881

% plots DAP

applied 69.3 86.2 83.5 67 97.4 49.7 83.2 73.7 63.9

Average rate per

cultivated Wheat

Area (kg/ha)

55.9

(50.2)

71.9

(49.2)

45.5

(38.2)

58.3

(56.6)

111.4

(53.9)

60.0

(72.8)

78.8

(57.9)

70.9

(63.9)

64.8

(58.9)

Average rate per

fertilized Wheat

Area (kg/ha)

80.6

(40.4)

83.4

(42.7)

59.3

(34.1)

87.0

(47.7)

114.4

(51.2)

120.8

(57.5)

94.7

(50.2)

96.2

(55.7)

90.1

(50.3)

Table Z: Intensity of herbicide use on wheat in Ethiopia,

2009/10 cropping season

Indicator of

use

Agro-ecology

H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 All

No. of plots 535.0 59.0 111.0 931.0 38.0 150.0 391.0 859.0 3074.0

% plots

herbicide

applied 75.5 86.4 44.1 44.6 89.5 88.7 88.5 24.9 53.5

Mean rate per

cultivated

Wheat Area

(lt/ha)

0.51

(0.47)

0.64

(0.41)

0.25

(0.35)

0.31

(0.45)

0.50

(0.28)

0.69

(0.48)

0.55

(0.44)

0.16

(0.34)

0.36

(0.45)

Mean rate per

sprayed

Wheat Area

(lt/ha)

0.68

(0.42)

0.74

(0.35)

0.58

(0.31)

0.71

(0.42)

0.56

(0.24)

0.78

(0.44)

0.62

(0.62)

0.65

(0.40)

0.67

(0.41)

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.

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.

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

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.

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).