FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF IMPROVED

MAIZE VARIETIES IN GENA- BOSSA DISTRICT OF DAWRO ZONE,

SOUTHERN NATIONS NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES REGIONAL
STATE, ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

GIRMA AYELE GEBEYEHU

AUGUST 2016
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA
 FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF IMPROVED
MAIZE VARIETIES IN GENA-BOSSA DISTRICT OF DAWRO ZONE,
SOUTHERN NATIONS NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES REGIONAL
STATE, ETHIOPIA

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Agricultural Economics and Agri-

business, Post Graduate Program Directorate

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Girma Ayele Gebeyehu

August 2016
Haramaya University, Haramaya
 POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

As research advisors, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by
GIRMA AYELE GEBEYEHU under our guidance, which is titled “Factors affecting Adoption
of Improved Maize Varieties in Gena-Bossa District, Dawro Zone,Southren Ethiopia”. We
recommend that the thesis be submitted as it fulfills the requirements.

Bosena Tegegn (PhD) _________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Degye Goshu (PhD) _________________ _______________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis open defense examination of
GIRMA AYELE GEBEYEHU, we certify that we have read, evaluated the thesis and
examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as it fulfills the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agricultural Economics).
Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy
to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the Departmental Graduate Committee
(DGC) of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management.

----------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------

Chairperson Signature Date

---------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------

Internal Examiner Signature Date

---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------

External Examiner Signature Date

ii
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this Thesis is my own work. I have followed
all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data
analysis and compilation of this Thesis. Any scholarly matter that is included in the Thesis has
been given recognition through citation.

This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MSc degree at the
Haramaya University. The Thesis will be deposited in the Haramaya University Library and is
made available to borrowers under the rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this Thesis
has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis may be made without special permission provided accurate
acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this Thesis in whole or in part may be granted by the Head of the School or
Department when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in interest of
scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author of the
Thesis.

Name: Girma Ayele Gebeyehu Signature:________________

Date:
School: Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness

iii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born on October 10, 1983 in Hawassa SNNPRS. He attended his elementary
school at Hawassa Tabor elementary and Junior school and his secondary school at Hawassa
Tabor secondary high school. After successful completion of his high school education, he
joined Jimma University College of Agriculture in 2001 and graduated with diploma in 2003.

After graduation, he served as an agricultural expert at Gena Bossa Woreda Agricultural and
Rural Development Office of SNNPRS. By the year 2008 he joined Haramaya University and
graduated with BSc degree in Agricultural Economics in 2011. Again he rejoined the woreda
and working as an agricultural expert until he joined the school of post graduate studies at
Haramaya University in September 2013 to pursue his M.Sc. study in Agricultural Economics.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank the Almighty God who gave me the wisdom, endurance and
all aspects to successfully pursue my research work.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my major advisor Dr. Bosena Tegegn and Co-
advisor Dr. Degye Goshu for their encouragement, intellectual stimulation as well as
constructive and helpful comments. They edited the entire document timely and made very
constructive comments all along. They guided me with patience to enable me accomplish my
study.

My thank also goes to Building Ethiopia’s Research Capacity in Economics and Agribusiness
(BERCEA) project and particularly Dr. Mengistu Ketema and Dr. Degye Goshu the project
coordinators, for granting me research financial support and providing me a useful training
which helped me to do my research. My grateful thank also goes to Gena BosaWoreda Office
of Agriculture for granting my salary till I accomplish my education. I would also like to
extend my thanks to Mr. Birhanu Faris, Woreda Agricultural Office Expert, for supporting me
to get information related to my research.

v
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB African Development Bank

BERCEA Building Ethiopian Research Capacity in Economics and Agribusiness
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DFEDO District Finance and Economic Development Office
EEA Ethiopian Economic Association
ESE Ethiopian Seed Enterprise
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GBDAO Gena- Bosa District Agricultural Office
GBDFO Gena - Bosa District Finance Office
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IMV Improved Maize Varieties
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NGOs Non- Governmental Organizations
OPV Open-Pollinated Variety
SNNPR Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WDR World Development Report

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xi
ABSTRACT xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Statements of the problem 4
1.3. Scope and Limitations of the Study 5
1.4. Significance of the Study 5
1.5. Research questions 6
1.6. Objectives of the study 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Concepts and Definitions of Key Terms 7
2.1.1 Improved seeds 7
2.1.2. Adoption of Agricultural Technology 7
2.2. Improved Maize Varieties and-Productivity 8
2.3. Seed System and Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia 9
2.4. Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties 13
2.4.1. Farmers’ Decision-making Behavior 13
2.4.2. Farmers’seed variety adoption 15
2.5. Farmers Access to Maize Seed and the Seed Quality in Ethiopia 16
2.6. Empirical Studies on Improved seed variety Adoption 17
2.7. Models for Analyzing Maize Variety Adoption 19
2.8. Conceptual Framework of the Study 19

Continued…
vii
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 22
3.1. Description of the Study Area 22
3.2. Data Type, Source and Method of Data Collection 24
3.3. Sampling Procedure 24
3.4. Method of Data Analysis 25
3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics 25
3.4.2. Econometric Analysis 25
3.5. Definition of Variables and Working Hypotheses 29
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 36
4.1. Descriptive Statistics of socio economic and institutional variables 36
4.2. Econometric Results 41
4.2.1. Determinants of adoption of improved maize varieties 41
4.2.2. Marginal Effects of significant variables 44
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46
5.1. Summary and Conclusion 46
5.2. Recommendations 48
6. REFERENCES 50
7. APPENDICES 61

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Distribution of sample households in sampled kebeles 24
2. Definition and unit of measurement of the variables 35
3. Characterstics of Adopters and Non-Adopters (continuous variables) 38
4. Characterstics of Adopters and Non-Adopters (Dummy variables) 40
5. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Tobit Model 43
6. Effect of changes in significant Explanatory variables 44

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Conceptual framework of the study 21
2. Map of Gena Bossa woreda 23

x
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Tables in the Appendix Page

1. Variance inflation factors of continuous variables to test multicollinearity 61
2. Contingency coefficient of dummy variables to test multicollinearity 61
3. Conversion factors of Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) 62
4. Conversion factor for adult equivalent (AE) 62
5. Survey questionnaire 63

xi
 FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF IMPROVED
MAIZE VARIETIES IN GENA-BOSSA DISTRICT OF DAWRO ZONE,
SOUTHERN NATIONS NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES REGIONAL
STATE, ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT
Adoption of improved maize varieties in agricultural production is considered as one of the
most promising ways to ensure food security and alleviate poverty in Ethiopia. However, the
adoption and dissemination of these varieties were constrained by various factors. This study
was aimed at identifying the factors that influence adoption and intensity of use of improved
maize varieties in Gena Bossa District of Dawro Zone, Sothern Nations Nationalities and
Peoples Regional State. Cross-sectional household level data were collected during the 2015
production year from 120 randomly selected sample household and used for the study. Both
descriptive statistics and econometric model were used to analyze the data. The result of
descriptive statistics indicated, existence of significant mean and proportion differences
between adopters and non-adopters in terms of age of the household head, family size,
educational level of the household head, access to credit, frequency of contact with extension
agent, access to fertilizer, agricultural training, number of oxen owned and radio ownership.
From seventeen explanatory variables included in the model, six variables (access to credit,
frequency of contact with extension agent, access to fertilizer, agricultural training, number of
oxen owned and radio ownership) were the important variables which had positively and
significantly influenced adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties. Based on the
findings, the following recommendations were forwarded. Policy and development intervention
should give emphasis to the improvement of institutional support system by strengthening the
existing agricultural extension system, providing the required fertilizes and agricultural
training on time, expanding the distribution of radio program and expanding access to credit
for the purchase of oxen and other inputs to achieve the target of adoption of improved maize
varieties for increasing the production and productivity of smallholder farmers in Gena-Bosa
district.

Key words: adoption, agriculture, maize varieties, intensity, Tobit model.

xii
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

In developing countries, agricultural innovations are perceived as significant pathways out of

poverty (Simtowe et al., 2011; Mwangi and Kariuki, 2015) and therefore, improved new
agricultural technology adoption has become an important way of boosting productivity
(Mignouna et al. 2011). A new technology is assumed to offer a pathway to substantially
increase production and income (Beshir and Wegary, 2014).Increasing agricultural productivity
using improved agricultural technologies that enhances sustainable food and fiber production is
critical for sustainable food security and economic development (Mwangi and Kariuki, 2015).

The agricultural sector has not been able to ensure food security in most of the SSA countries
both at the national and the household level. Although production has increased over the years,
productivity has not increased as much as the area cultivated. For example, in the 50 years
between 1961 and 2010, the maize area in SSA tripled. However, excluding South Africa,
maize yields in SSA increased only by about 40% over this period (Shiferaw et al.,
2011).Increases in productivity in agriculture can reduce poverty by increasing farmers’
income, reducing food prices and thereby enhancing increments in consumption (Diagne et al.,
2009).

Addressing food security and poverty problems in agriculture-based economies demand for
substantial efforts in improving agricultural production and productivity (WDR, 2008). Alene
et al. (2009) and Kassie et al. (2011) also shows the contributions of agricultural technologies
to the welfare of smallholder farmers and other poor households who benefited from the
enhanced adoption of technologies and improved agricultural productivity and production over
time. Improvement of agricultural productivity provides an important solution in addressing the
problems of food insecurity and poverty, and enhancing the development of agriculture in
Ethiopia. Consequently, attempts are being channeled in ways by which increased agricultural
productivity can be achieved through promoting the use of improved agricultural technologies
 2

and improving the efficiency of production of agriculture in Ethiopia (Sinafikeh et al., 2010;
Yu and Nin-Pratt, 2014).

Increasing agricultural production at the household level is vital to achieve food security
(Degnet and Belay, 2001). On the other hand, any marketable surplus could be sold to the non-
farming and even to the farming communities (Hailu, 2008).Therefore, increasing the
production and productivity in a sustainable manner could address the problem of food
shortage (Habtemariam, 2004). As one of the approaches to ensure households food security,
the Ethiopian rural development policy and strategy document has given weight to follow
diversification and specializations in production systems along with improved access and use of
agricultural technologies (Hailu, 2008).In general, raising agricultural output and productivity
on a sustainable basis necessitates large scale adoption and diffusion of new technologies
(Mohumud et al., 2009).

Maize is a major staple food crop grown in diverse agro-ecological zones and farming systems,
and consumed by people with varying food preferences and socio-economic backgrounds in
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The central role of maize as a staple food in SSA is comparable to
that of rice or wheat in Asia, with consumption rates being the highest in eastern and southern
Africa. Of the 22 countries in the world where maize forms the highest percentage of calorie
intake in the national diet, 16 are in Africa. Maize accounts for almost half of the calories and
protein consumed in, and one-fifth of the calories and protein consumed in West Africa. An
estimated 208 million people in SSA depend on maize as a source of food security and
economic wellbeing. Maize occupies more than 33 million ha of SSA’s estimated 200 million
ha of cultivated land. Considering the low average maize grain yields that are still pervasive in
farmers’ fields, meeting the increase demand for maize grain in Africa presents a challenge
(Harold, 2015).

The major cereal crops cultivated in Ethiopia are teff (3.02milion ha), maize (2.11milion ha),
sorghum (1.83million ha), wheat (1.66million ha), and barley (0.99million ha) (CSA 2015).
Although agriculture is the foundation of the country’s economy, crop productivity has
remained low. For instance, the average national yield of important food crops such as teff,
 3

maize, sorghum and wheat are 1.58, 3.43, 2.37 and 2.54 tons per hectare respectively (CSA,
2015) while the potential of those crops are two to three times higher (MoARD, 2008).

Among cereals, maize is the most important crop in terms of production and contributes
significantly to the economic and social development of Ethiopia (CSA, 2015). Maize
cultivation is largely a smallholder phenomenon. The smallholder farmers that comprise about
80% of Ethiopia’s population are both the primary producers and consumers of maize in
Ethiopia (Alemu et al., 2008). More than eight million smallholders have been involved in
maize production in 2015 production year, compared to 6.5 million for teff and 5 million for
sorghum, making it critical to smallholder livelihoods in Ethiopia. In addition, maize
production accounts for 27% of the total cereal production in the country with the greatest
production 7.2 million tons compared to teff and sorghum standing at 4.7 million and 4.3
million tons respectively (CSA, 2015).

In Ethiopia, maize is currently produced by more farmers than any other crop (Chamberlin and
Schmidt, 2012) and its total cropping area is still expanding (Taffesse et al., 2012).Maize is a
strategic crop grown in 13 agro-ecological zones covering 90% of Ethiopia. In any one year,
small holder farmers produce over 95% of the total maize. Ethiopia is one of the largest maize
producing countries in Africa (FAO, 2013). Within the country, maize is the largest cereal
commodity in terms of total production and yield and the second in terms of acreage next to
teff. It is also the most important crop where 8.7 million smallholder farmers are engaged in its
cultivation (CSA, 2015).

There have been good attempts to improve the productivity of maize through the utilization of
improved maize verities in Ethiopia. However, some studies such as Paarlberg et al. (2006),
ECEA (2009) and Yu and Nin-Pratt (2014) attest that the utilization of better production
technologies on the part of maize producing farmers were not to the required levels.

In Southern Nation, Nationalities and People Regional State, from the total land size 883,290.8
hectares are planted by all cereals. Maize is the first major crop in the region and 1.3 million
farmers are engaged in maize production CSA (2015).
 4

According to the report of (CSA, 2015), in 2015 production year in SNNPR, regional
productivity (t/ha) of maize was 3.22 which is too low and less than the potential productivity of
world average which is 5t/ha. There are different stakeholders participating in the regional
improved maize varieties or seed system for implementation of farmers based seed multiplication
such as the SNNPR Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), SNNPR Agricultural Development
Bureau (BoARD), Cooperatives, ESE, NGO and the farmers themselves. In Gena-Bossa woreda,
improved maize varieties are being supplied by government.

1.2. Statement of the problems

In Ethiopia, adoption of improved agricultural technologies has been a long-term concern of

agricultural experts, policy makers, and agricultural research and many others linked to the
sector. However, several area-specific evidences indicate that adoption rate of modern
agricultural technologies in the country is very low (Degnet et al., 2001). This low rate of
adoption decisions of farmers may usually be determined by various factors which may be
specific to socio-cultural, geographical and agro-ecological zones.

Maize is one of the most important crops that contribute to household’s food security in Gena-
Bossa district. Due to its yield and its early maturity stage, maize has been grown by most of the
farmers in the study area. The households rely on maize as the main staple food, and even though
many households are not self-sufficient in maize, they still sell some maize at harvest time to
meet immediate cash needs and later buy. Research efforts have been made to generate and
release improved varieties of maize and a number of improved varieties of maize has been
developed and disseminated among the farmers through different extension organizations such as
MoARD and NGOs.

Improved maize varieties like BH 540, PHB 3250, BH 140, and BH 660 were introduced to the
study area by MoARD that were tested by the Ethiopian National Seed Industry and Ethiopian
Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). The decision to adopt or not hinges upon a care
full evaluation of factors influencing adoption of maize varieties in the study area. Furthermore,
the farmers are not adopting the intended maize varieties completely and efficiently as
 5

recommended by the agronomist. That is the adoption rate and level remained at low level and
the output is not satisfactory (GBWAO, 2015).

The average productivity of maize in Ethiopia and SNNPRs is 3.42t/ha and 3.22t/ha respectively
(CSA, 2015).But the average maize productivity of the district is 1.5t/ha (GBWAO,2015) which
is even below half of regional average. In the study area, there is no empirical study conducted
on adoption of maize varieties, hence there is no information about the status of adoption of the
improved varieties of maize. The intensity of adoption as well as the adoption rate of the new
maize varieties among farmers is not known in the study area. As a result, this study is designed
to identify the major factors influencing the adoption of improved maize varieties and intensity
of adoption in Gena-Bossa woreda, Dawro Zone of the Southern Nation, Nationalities and
Peoples’ Regional State.

1.3. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study was conducted in Gena-Bossa District located in Dawro Zone Southern Nations
Nationality People Regional State. The study was restricted to cross-sectional household level
data and identification of factors influencing probability of adoption and intensity of adoption of
improved maize seed varieties in the study area. Accordingly, improved seed varieties coverage
is limited to only maize production and also limited to the district in terms of area coverage. Due
to shortage of time, budget and other resources primary data collection for the study was limited
to five purposively selected rural kebeles in the district and 120 samples households were
interviewed.

1.4. Significance of the Study

Development partners like extension educators, technical assistants, NGOs and other
development agents involved in agricultural development must be aware and understand factors
affecting the adoption of improved maize seed varieties and level of adoption of this technology
in order to target and extend appropriate technologies to farmers. It is also important for policy
makers to know the critical factors that could accelerate the adoption of improved maize seed
varieties. This could facilitate allocation of major resources for research, extension and
development programs. Hence, understanding these factors are important for the researchers in
 6

providing information to develop agricultural technologies, which is favorable to the current

situation of smallholder farmers in the study area. The output of study provide information for
planners and policy makers for further promotion of important improved maize varieties in the
area by identifying the most important factors that influence the adoption of improved maize
varieties.

1.5. Research questions

1. What are the important factors influencing adoption of improved maize variety among
smallholder farm households in Gena-Bossa District?

2. What are the intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties among the adopters in
Gena-Bossa District?

1.6. Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to determine the factors that affect the adoption and
intensity of use of improved maize varieties by smallholder farmers in Gena-Bossa District.

The specific objectives were:-

1. To identify the important factors influencing adoption of improved maize varieties in Gena-
Bossa District.

2. To assess the intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties among the adopters in Gena-
Bossa District.
 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Concepts and Definitions of Key Terms

2.1.1. Improved Maize Varieties

Seeds are basic agricultural inputs. More importantly, quality seeds of any preferred variety are a
basis of improved agricultural productivity since they respond to farmers needs for both their
increasing productivity and crop uses (Pelmer, 2005).Improved seed varieties can be defined as
seeds that aim at increasing quality and production of crops by having characteristics such as
drought tolerance, high yielding and early maturity (FAO, 2009). Nkonya (2001) defines an
improved seed variety as any variety that has been bred using formal plant breeding methods.

Cho (2013) define improved seeds by dividing it into pieces as: Open pollinated seeds which are
those produced from natural, random pollination. Traditionally, farmers saved the best of these
seeds for use from year to year. Hybrid seeds result from cross-breeding two parent plants that
have desirable traits. The resulting plants realize their potential in the first season, but lose
effectiveness in subsequent generations so farmers must buy new seeds each year and
genetically, modified seeds are created when one or two genes with the desired traits from any
living organism are transferred directly into the plants genome.

2.1.2. Adoption of Agricultural Technology

The adoption of new agricultural technology such as improved seed varieties plays a
fundamental role in the development process. In order to increase adoption of new agricultural
technology different strategies needs to be undertaken. One of these strategies is promotion of
the new agricultural technology. Promotion can be done through field trials and demonstration
plots. Promotion can enable farmers to see the benefit from the introduced technology. After
promotion evaluation must be done in order to see whether the technology has been adopted by
the target group. Adoption of improved seed varieties is important because it helps farmers to
have enough food and reduce poverty. For instance, a study in Mexico showed that adoption of
improved maize varieties improves household welfare (Becerril and Abdulai, 2010). Similarly, in
sub-Saharan Africa, adoption of improved maize varieties was indicated to have positive
outcomes in poverty reduction (Alene et al., 2009).
 8

Several scholars defined adoption of agricultural technologies in different times. According to

Doss (2003), adoption can be defined as the continued use of recommended idea or practice by
individuals over a reasonably long period of time and the adoption is not a permanent behavior.
Adoption is a mental process through which an individual passes from hearing about an
innovation to its adoption that follows awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption stages
(Bahadur and Siegfried, 2004). Also Rogers (2003) defines adoption as the decision of full use of
an innovation as the best course of action is available.

According to Feder et al. (1985), adoption is classified into an individual (farm level) adoption
and aggregate adoption. The former refers to the degree of use of new technology in long run
equilibrium when the farmer has full information about the new technology and its potential
whereas the later refers to the spread of new technology within a region and is measured by the
aggregate level of specific new technology with a given geographical area or within the given
population. The intensity of adoption is defined as the level of adoption of a given technology.
The number of hectares planted with improved seed varieties referred to as the intensity of
adoption (Nkonya et al., 1997).

2.2. Improved maize varieties and Productivity

Productivity increases in agriculture can reduce poverty by increasing farmers’ income, reducing
food prices and thereby enhancing increments in consumption (Diagne et al., 2009). It is also of
considerable significance that when agricultural production increases through the use of
improved varieties of crops in a given area, farmers and their communities derive added socio-
economic benefit. Such activities can increase the value of locally produced crops, generate local
employment, stimulate local cash flow, and through processing, marketing, and related activities
can bring about improvement in socio-economic status and the quality of life (Mwabu et al.,
2006).However, several research findings have pointed to the fact that the use of new agricultural
technology, such as high yielding varieties of improved seed could lead to significant increase in
agricultural productivity in Africa and stimulate the transition from low productivity subsistence
agriculture to a high productivity agro-industrial economy (World Bank, 2008).

Solomon et al. (2011) stated that governments of developing countries have sought to promote
the diversification of production and exports away from the traditional commodities in order to
 9

accelerate economic growth, expand employment opportunities, and reduce rural poverty.
However, mere increase in production cannot guarantee for the overall improved welfare of the
smallholder farmers. Domestic and international markets opportunities should be created so that
farmers can supply their surplus production and support their lives with additional incomes.
Increasing maize productivity will benefit smallholder farmers only if the marketing activity
(aggregation and trading) is well-developed (IFPRI, 2008).

Low crop productivity in SSA including Ethiopia is mainly due to a limited use of improved
seeds varieties by smallholder farmers. The supply of certified seeds of grain crops in Ethiopia is
estimated to be about 10% of the annual seed planted (Spielman et al., 2010). Farmers’ access to
seeds of adapted varieties of modern or landrace to their agro-ecologies is critical in increasing
production (Feder et al., 1985). However, deficiencies have been observed in improved seed
supply due to inadequacies in seed varieties demanded and quantity required, prices, and
untimely seed delivery (Sahlu et al., 2008).

2.3. Seed System and Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia

One of the most important inputs in agriculture is seed. Seeds form the foundation of all
agriculture. Without seeds there is no next season’s crop. The genetic traits embodied within
seeds reflect and determine the nature of farming systems dependent on them. The genetic and
physical characteristics of seed determine the productivity in line with the use of other
agricultural inputs and improved cultural practices within the farming system. Improving the
genetic and physical properties of seed can trigger yield increase and lead to improvement in the
agricultural production and food security. In order for seed to act as a catalyst in agricultural
transformation, however improved seed has to be made available to a broad base of farmers on
continuing basis.

The use of good quality seed of improved varieties is widely recognized as fundamental to
ensure increased crop production and productivity. This is even more important in SSA in the
view of increasingly available land, declining soil fertility and ever growing population; those
facts increase the importance of promotion and use of good quality seed as a means to intensify
crop production. The potential benefits from the distribution of good quality seed of improved
varieties are enormous, and the availability of quality seed of wide range of varieties and crops to
 10

the farmers is the key to achieve food security in SSA. Enhanced productivity, higher harvest
index, reduced risks from pest and disease pressure, and higher incomes are some of the direct
benefits potentially accrued to the farmers (FAO, 2004).

The supply of any seed material depends on the availability of seed from the formal and the
informal sectors and their ability to develop and provide seeds of the cultivars needed by the
local producers. The Ethiopian formal seed sector is composed of the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR) and Universities (as crop breeding bodies) and the Ethiopian Seed
Enterprise (ESE) (as seed multiplier and supplier). Unlike the formal sector where there is clear
distinction between cultivar development and seed production and supply, in the informal seed
sector both, the production and the supply ends are linked, as farmers are the ones who manage
both. It is largely recognized in Ethiopia that farmers can obtain seed from the formal (seed
companies/enterprises, agricultural research centers and universities) as well as the informal
(local or traditional including farmers' saved seed, local markets exchanges). (Yealembirhan,
2006).

Production and distribution of improved seed and the creation of institutions that facilitate it are
some of the critical components (Lipton, 2005). In Ethiopia, there have been only two seed
producing enterprises, one is the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE), established in 1979 and the
other was the multinational private company (Pioneer Hi-bred Ethiopia established in 1990).
Before 1979, the Ethiopian Seed Industry was very much ad hoc, and seed multiplication and
distribution were carried out by a number of small uncoordinated agencies such as Agricultural
Research centers, Colleges and Universities of Agriculture, different project related agencies
such as Rural Development Unit. Until 1990, ESE was solely responsible for the sale of seed,
distribution of inputs such as seed, fertilizers and insecticides (Gemeda et al., 2001).

Historically, the ESE largely used to supply seed to state owned farms in the late 1970s and
1980s, under the Dengue regime. After the regime changed in 1991, the enterprise extended its
service to smallholder farmers whose demand was triggered by the mid-1990s extension package
intervention of SG2000 later widely adopted by the government (Belay, 2003). SG2000
conducted identification of potential varieties and undertook demonstrations on large plots of
 11

land to show the impact. Seed and other inputs were delivered to farmers on credit through
government offices.

The supply of basic seed such as improved maize varieties are the mandate of public research
institutes while the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE) mainly handled certified seed provision
until 2008. Seed and other inputs were delivered to farmers on credit through government
offices. The private seed companies have a considerable market share (30-40%) (Tesfaye et
al., 2012) in the hybrid maize seed provision whereas the OPVs are entirely provided by the
public sector. Most of the private companies use publicly−bred seed and are sub-contractors to
the ESE except for the Pioneer Hybrid. Both the public and the private seed enterprises deliver
their seed through the public extension services to farmers’ cooperative unions for distribution
and marketing.

The average seed production cost of private companies is lower than that of public seed
enterprises (e.g. ESE), but the marketing and the promotion costs are prohibitively high for them
(Alemu et al., 2008). Moreover, OPVs are not attractive to the private seed companies because
the farmers can recycle the seed for multiple years once they have obtained the seed. The public
seed enterprises are expected to make profits as well as to meet the needs of the farming
community. Nevertheless, they are unable to satisfy the needs of the smallholder farm
households residing in the countries highly diversified and risk prone agro-ecologies.

Like in many other Sub-Sahara African countries, maize plays a major role in the livelihood and
food security of most smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Maize is grown in most parts of the
country with different productivity potentials. For many years, maize in Ethiopia has been the
first in production and second (next to teff) in area of cropped land (Legese et al., 2011).

Agriculture continues to be the dominant sector in Ethiopia's economy, with cereals playing
central role. Grain production and marketing are particularly important, previous studies show
that cereals account for 65 percent of the agricultural value added, equivalent to about 30 percent
of the national GDP. In 2015 production year, smallholder farmers (14.16 million farmers)
cultivated 12.57 million hectares of land for grain crops. Out of the total grain crop area, 80.78%
(10.14 million hectares) was under cereals. Teff, maize, sorghum and wheat took up 24.02%
 12

about (3.02 million hectares), 16.80% (2.11 million hectares), 14.58 % (1.83 million hectares)
and 13.25% (1.66 million hectares) of the grain crop area, respectively. Cereals contributed
87.31% (about 236.08 million quintals) of the grain production. Maize, teff, wheat and sorghum
made up 26.76% (72.35 million quintals), 17.57% (47.51 million quintals), 15.65% (42.32
million quintals) and 16.05% (43.39 million quintals) of the grain production.

Maize is Ethiopia’s leading cereal in terms of production, with 7.2 million tons produced by 8.68
million farmers across 2.11 million hectares of land (CSA, 2015). Over two-thirds of all
Ethiopian farmers grow maize, mostly for subsistence, with 75 % of all maize produced being
consumed by the farming household. Maize is the cheapest source of calorie intake in Ethiopia,
providing 20.6 % of per capita calorie intake nationally (IFPRI, 2011). Maize is thus an
important crop for overall food security. As compared to other cereals, maize can attain the
highest potential yield per unit area. World average yield for maize is about 5.0 t/ha and that of
developed countries is 6.2 t/ha (MoA, 2014). The average yield in developing countries is 2.5
t/ha. In Ethiopia the national average yield is about 3.43 t/ha (CSA, 2015).

Maize is instrumental for the food security of Ethiopian households, and is the lowest cost
caloric source among all major cereals, which is significant given that cereals dominate
household diets in Ethiopia; the unit cost of calories per US dollar for maize is one-and-a-half
and two times lower than wheat and teff respectively. Maize is also a low-cost source of protein
in comparison to other cereals: maize provides 0.2 kg of protein per USD, compared to 0.1 kg of
protein per USD from teff and 0.2 kg of protein from wheat and sorghum. An average Ethiopian
consumes a total of 1,858 kilocalories daily of which four major cereals (maize, teff, wheat, and
sorghum) account for more than 60 percent, with maize and wheat representing 20 percent each
(Rashid et al., 2010).

During the past years, the government and NGOs have undertaken various attempts to enhance
agricultural productivity particularly that of cereal crops so as to achieve food security and to
reduce poverty in the country. The available studies on the productivity of cereal crops in general
and maize production in particular in Ethiopia found low productivity in comparison with the
international standards (Alemayehu, 2009), although, the current average national maize
productivity of Ethiopia (3.43 t/ha)( CSA, 2015) is better than the national productivity of many
 13

African countries. However, it is still low compared to that of the world average maize
productivity (50t/ ha) ( MoA, 2014).

The importance of maize in the country’s agricultural economy and household level food
security calls for increasing its production and productivity through use of improved maize
varieties. However, smallholder farmers’ knowledge and use of agricultural technologies in
general and improved maize varieties in particular, are limited due to various factors that are
either internal or external to the farmers’ circumstances. Most commonly internal factors that
affect adoption and use of agricultural technologies are farmers’ attitude towards risk (Feder et
al., 1985), household characteristics that affects the level of production and consumption,
resource endowments, and the like. External factors could be access to technologies, in particular
through a well-developed seed system (Byerlee and Heisey, 1996; Croppenstedt et al., 2003;
Alemu et al., 2008; Shiferaw et al., 2008; Asfaw et al., 2011), infrastructure, institutions (Beke,
2011), markets, and enabling policy environments (Maredia et al., 2000; Smale et al.,
2011;Tripp and Rohrbach, 2001).

2.4. Adoption of Improved Maize varieties

2.4.1. Farmers’ decision-making behavior

The theories of decision-making have been largely rooted in disciplines economics and
psychology. In psychology, observations are made to describe human judgment process and how
people make alternative judgments based on their perception. According to Dunn (1984)
decision-making is a ubiquitous activity inherent in the behavior of individuals or society.
Decision can be categorized as intuitive, programmed, and analyzed. Those choices that
individuals make without conscious thought as to the alternatives and the relative evaluation are
known as intuitive decisions. Whereas programmed decision making are those in principle
capable of being automated. There are certain decisions that one has to analyze possible
outcomes and their consequences (Gebre-Mariam, 2012).

A decision problem consists of: (i) alternatives available to the decision maker, (ii) state of
nature (rainfall, price etc), (iii) probability attached to the state of nature influencing the decision
problem (iv) consequence of action, (v) process of conducting experiments to obtain additional
benefit, (vi) process of conducting additional information about the likelihood of outcome given
 14

the state of nature, and (vii) the strategy for action which are conditional on the experimental
outcome observed (Dunn, 1984). The distinction between farmers producing improved varieties
or old or both is key for studying farmers behavior which is much complex when the
environment is highly unpredictable.

Decision-making takes different aspects. According to the Rational Decision-making Model; a

model in which decisions are made systematically and based consistently on the principle of
economic rationality people strive to maximize their individual economic outcomes (Taher,
1996; Mendola, 2007). Information about all possible alternatives, their outcomes and the
preference of decision makers is assumed available. Various statements identified the factors
influencing the decision-making process in farm management. Taher (1996) emphasized the
community influence on the farmer. He argues that decisions in farming will be determined not
only by the goal of maximizing the benefit or of reducing the risk, but also by willingness to
accept criticism from the community (depending very much on a farmer's social position in
different groups).

According to Reijntjes et al. (1992), the decision-making process is influenced not only by the
culture of the community to which the household belongs but also by other factors such as
personality of the decision maker, biophysical characteristics of the farm, the availability and
quality of external inputs and services, and socio-economic and cultural processes within the
community. More details about the characteristics of households that influence the farm
household decision-making are the number of men, women and children, their ages, state of
health, abilities, desires, needs, farming experience, knowledge and skill, and the relations
between household members. Those factors that influence the farmers' decision-making to
achieve their outcomes can be systematized in physical environment, socio-economic
environment (included political aspect), and farmers’ household size and production factors.

Adoption is acceptance and use of new agricultural technologies by the farmers. It is a dynamic
process that is determined by various factors such as farmers perception of benefits of the
technology, efforts made by the extension services to disseminate these technologies to the
farmers, risks involved, costs involved, profitability and complexity like that the likelihood that
farmers will be able to apply it correctly. Adoption of agricultural technologies by the farmers is
 15

an essential pre-requisite for economic prosperity in less developed countries (Nkonya et

al., 1997). If certain groups of farmers are not adopting improved agricultural technologies or are
adopting them at a lower rate than other groups, then, there is need to determine why.

Consequently concerted efforts are needed to unearth the exact reasons behind low levels of
adoption of agricultural technologies; otherwise the appropriate technologies could remain on the
shelves while yields in agricultural production especially maize, the staple diet continue to
decline. This is because it only by understanding the reasons, that the researchers will be able to
develop improved technologies that are appropriate for all such as technologies that will
influence farmers’ perception towards adopting them entirely. Most empirical studies on
adoption of agricultural technologies such as Ransom et al. (2003) concentrate on farmers’
characteristics as the main factors that influence adoption or rejection of agricultural technology
package. They compare farmers who have adopted or rejected a certain technology at a point in
time against their own socio-economic characteristics. They overlook the influence that
technology characteristics can have on adoption.

Technology specific attributes can influence the farmers adoption decision in the same way as
his/ her own socio-economic circumstances can influence his/her decision to adopt or reject a
technology. These technology characteristics include initial cost, risk involved, relative
profitability and complexity of technology. The present study has used some selected socio-
economic, demographic and institutional characteristics to examine how they have influenced
adoption of improved maize varieties in Gena-Bossa district.

2.4.2. Farmers Seed Variety Adoption

Improving maize production is considered to be one of the most important strategies for food
security in the developing countries. The diffusion of the improved maize varieties (IMV), like
hybrids and open pollinated varieties (OPV) can greatly increase maize yield per unit of land.
However, farmers‟ choice on improved varieties is one of the most crucial factors affecting the
productivity of a crop. This is influenced by many factors that affect the farmers‟ variety
adoption decisions (Rogers, 2003).
 16

Decision of farmers to adopt a new agricultural technology in preference to other alternative

technologies is based on intricate factors such as farmers’ resource endowment, socio-economic
status, demographic characteristics and access to institutional services (Negatu and Parikh,
1999). Farmers’ decision-making may not be based on as rational decision-making model
suggests, is based on the assumption that individual have perfect information and there are less
constraint in choices thus individuals are expected to maximize their economic outcomes
(Taher, 1996).

The adoption of agricultural innovation such as improved maize seed varieties has obtained
substantial attention among researchers and policy makers because the majority of the
populations of less developed countries derive their livelihood from agriculture mainly crop
farming. Improved agricultural technologies (improved seed varieties) are believed to offer an
opportunity to increase production substantially. The introduction of improved agricultural
technologies, however, has met with only limited success, as measured by observed rates of
adoption. Spielman et al. (2010) documented aggregate adoption of crop in Ethiopia between
4.7% to 19%. Langyintuo et al. (2010) reported that improved maize adoption in many Africa
countries is low with few exceptions.

Agricultural technology adoption is described as a decision made to use an innovation in usual

farming practice (Feder et al., 1985). An innovation can be described as technological entity that
can improve the production frontier, yet it has perceived uncertainties since it is new for the
adopter. The uncertainty is expected to weaken over time as the adopter develops experience and
confidence (Feder et al., 1981). In this research, adopters are farmers who have experience using
improved varieties of maize seed.

2.5. Farmers Access to Maize Seed and the Seed Quality in Ethiopia

Access to quality seed is crucial for food crop production. In order to realize sustained crop
production and productivity, modern breeding has considerably increased the yield potential and
improved varieties of crops seed over the last century. Both modern breeding and farmer seed
selection have significantly contributed in generating suitable seed for sustainable food
production. The provision of improved variety seeds has remained a point of discussion in
developing countries such as Ethiopia (MoFED, 2010).
 17

Different approaches of seed provision such as local seed projects and emergency seed projects
have been tried in developing counties in order to increase farmers’ access to suitable seed
(Tripp, 2006). In Ethiopia, for example, farmer based seed multiplication and marketing schemes
were executed across the country to boost certified seed provision (Sahlu et al., 2008). However,
the practice did not last beyond the project periods as it was based on creating contractual seed
producers for the formal seed enterprise rather than establishing a self-sustaining seed provision
entity at the community level with sufficient linkage to basic seed provision.

There are two sources of seed in the Southern Nation Nationality People Regional State to renew
the seed stock. The formal one, which is dominantly supplied by Ethiopian Seed Enterprise for
cereals and different types crop seeds, Seedlings of different fruit and other perennial crops
multiplied in government and NGOs' owned modern nursery sites. The informal seed sources
that include a seed retained by the farmers from current harvest and obtained through farmers-to-
farmers exchange. However, both have their own drawbacks. That is, the capacity of the formal
sector is limited to supply the nations demand and the traditional one (informal system) is
incapable of producing improved quality seed in the existing situation.

2.6. Empirical Studies on Improved Seed Varieties Adoption

Many studies have focused on the relationships of key variables to the adoption behavior of
farmers. A review of previous studies is important as it provides some conceptual and theoretical
basis for identifying the relevant variables to be included in the analysis. Hassan et al, (1998), for
Kenya, Adesina and Baidu- Forson (1995) for Burkina Faso, Baidu-Forson (1999), for Niger,
and Itana (1985), for Ethiopia, reported that farmer’s age is negatively related to adoption and
hence implying that the older the farmer the lower is the probability of adoption. According to
their analyses, this may be because conservativeness (risk aversion) increases with age, which
may be one cause of low adoption of agricultural technologies. Freud et al. (1996) in the case of
Ghana and Cote d‟Ivoire, have found that farmer‟s age and adoption of modern varieties of
cocoa are not at all related, whereas, Hossain et al (1992), revealed that the probability of
adoption of new farm practices increases with farmer‟s age in Bangladesh.

The study conducted on adoption of improved maize varieties in developing countries,

particularly Africa and South Asia, pointed out a number of socio-economic characteristics,
 18

agro-ecological variables, and farmers’ perception as an important determinant of maize varieties

adoption (Bindod, 2010). Among these variables, extension contact, education, farm size, credit
availability, use of fertilizer, low land area, yield and profitability are found to be major
determinants which have strong positive influences. The adoption studies are found more
focused to socio-economic variables in comparison to agro-ecological variables and farmers’
perception. Researchers suggested considering these variables as important as the socioeconomic
variables in any adoption studies of agricultural innovations (Bindod, 2010).

The study conducted on Determinants of adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
varieties in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia by using Tobit model revealed that the adoption of
improved maize varieties significantly influenced by education level of the household head
,abour, farm size, farm income, availability of improved variety of maize and access to
agricultural extension service(Alene et al, 2000).The study conducted on Determinants of
Adoption of Improved Wheat Varieties By Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Angacha Woreda,
Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region, Ethiopia by using
Tobit model showed that the adoption of improved Wheat varieties significantly influenced by
cultivated land size of the household, frequency of contact with extension agent(s), age of the
household head, farm experience and Market distance to input and output centre(Abera,2013).

A study conducted by Shiyani et.al., (2000) on the adoption of improved chickpea in Tribal
Region of Gujarat, used Tobit model to identify factors, which determine adoption of new
varieties. The result have shown that proximity to market center, level of education and
experience of growing chickpea influence adoption positively, but the size of land holding was
found negatively related with adoption. The study conducted on factors influencing adoption of
improved maize varieties in Nepal Chitwan District which using logit model showed that the
adoption of improved maize varieties significantly influenced by winter maize cultivation,
education of the household head, lowland area, upland area as well as access to credit and
extension services (Pashupati and Atsushi, 2008).

Similarly, a study by Kidane,(2001) used a Tobit model and the result showed that frequency of
contact with development agents, annual on-farm cash income and radio ownership were found
to have a positive influence on adoption decisions of improved maize varieties, whereas distance
 19

of the farmers residence to the nearest market place was found to have a negative influence on
probability of adoption and intensity of using the improved maize varieties. Mubarak (2009) also
identified that farmers’ educational level, farm size, number of oxen, total active labor force,
total livestock holding, crop income, off-farm income, contact with extension agents and
perception of the technology were found to have a positive influence on the probability of
adoption and area allocated to the improved maize varieties, whereas age and market distance
were found to have a significant and positive influence on the adoption decisions of the
improved maize technology.

Several studies in Ethiopia with regard to factors influencing the adoption of improved seed
showed that extension service, access to credit and market are the main factors influencing the
adoption of improved maize seed and also emphasized that access to credit is a powerful policy
option in raising the probability of adoption of improved maize seeds like Negasa et al. (1997);
Degu et al. (2000); Feleke et al.( 2006). The study conducted by Alene et al. ( 2000) to examine
factors that influence the adoption and Intensity of utilization of improved maize varieties in the
West Shoa Zone in the central Highlands of Ethiopia indicate that age, level of education,
household labor, farm size, extension services, farm income, off farm income, and timely
availability of improved maize seeds significantly influence the adoption and intensity of use of
improved maize.

2.7. Models for analyzing maize variety Adoption

A number of previous studies used various econometrics techniques to identify the determinants
of the status and extent of agricultural technology adoption. The application of each model
depends on the objective of the research. Shiferaw and Tesfaye (2006), Hailu (2008), Assefa and
Gezahegn (2010) and Moti et al. (2013) employed Logit or Probit models for estimating status of
technology adoption. Some other authors such as Hassen et al. (2012) and Yu and Nin-Pratt
(2014) used double hurdle model to analyze the status and intensity of technology adoption
sequentially, Moti et al. (2013) and Menale et al. (2011) used multinomial probit model for
estimating the status of more than two interdependent technologies choice options. Hailemariam
et al. (2013) estimated both multinomial and multivariate probit models for estimating adoption
decisions of multiple sustainable agriculture practices in rural Ethiopia.
 20

Logit or probit is best suited if the objective of the research is to analyze only status of
technology adoption, multinomial model for analyzing the status of more than two independent
technologies adoption options and multivariate probit model for analyzing the status of more
than two interdependent technologies adoption options. Tobit and Double-hurdle models
estimate both status and intensity of adoption sequentially, but it overlooks the aspect of
selectivity bias (Green, 2012). As a result, studies such as that of Nega and Senders (2006), Jon
(2007), Solomon et al. (2011) and Moti et al. (2013) used Tobit model and assume the two
decisions (status and extent of technology adoption) are affected by the same set of factors.

2.8. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Agricultural technology adoption and diffusion patterns often vary from location to location. The
variations in adoption patterns are created due to the presence of disparity in agro ecology,
Institutional and social factors. Moreover farmers’ adoption behavior, especially Low-income
countries, is influenced by a complex set of socioeconomic, demographic, technical, institutional
and bio-physical factors (Feder et al., 1985). From different literature review depending on the
adoption decision of the technology the important key variables that were expected to influence
the adoption of improved maize varieties in the study area were summarized in conceptual
framework as follows.
 21
Household’s personal and
Household’s resource
Demographic variables Owner ship variables
 Age  Labor
 Education
 Land fertility
 Farming experience
 Radio ownership
 Family size
 Oxen ownership
 Farmers perception

Factors affecting the adoption

and intensity of adoption of
improved maize varieties

Institutional factors
Household’s
economic variables  Access to credit

 Off-farm income  Frequency of

 livestock owned extension contact

 Land size  Distance to market

 Distance to road

 Access to training

 Access to fertilizer

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study

 22

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Gena Bossa district is found in, Dawro Zone of the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples
Regional State (SNNPRS), of Ethiopia. It is located 519 km South West of Addis Ababa and 269
km west from the regional capital Hawassa. And it has 36 peasant associations. The district is
bordering with Oromia in the West by Gogeb river, Wolaita zone in the East by Omo river,
Kembata zone in the North also by Omo river and Loma and Mareka Districts of Dawro Zone in
the South (figure 2). The mean annual temperature of the district is 27 C0 and means annual
rainfall ranges between 600-1400mm.The altitude of the district range between 600 and 2200
meters above sea level, constituting 41.7% and 58.3 %, Weyenadega and Kola agro ecologies,
respectively. The district is characterized by highly rugged topography dominated by mountains.
The total area of the district is estimated to be 90,122 hectares having 18,823, 32,304.64,
8065.54, and 6818.54 hectares of arable land, grazing land, forest, wood land and shrubs,
respectively (GBDOA, 2015). The total population of the district was 112,253; the male and
female accounted for 50.16% and 49.84%, respectively (GBDFO, 2015).

The main economic activity in the district is farming. The livelihood of the population in the
district depends on agriculture. Agriculture is the major source of food and cash needs of
farmers. In the study district, mixed farming is practiced and both crop and livestock activities
are equally important. Maize is the major economic enterprise and is grown by nearly all
farmers. The climatic pattern in the district has dictated farmers to plant the drought resistant
local maize varieties over years though their yield potential is low. However, with introduction
of improved maize seed varieties suitable for marginal lands by the researchers, farmers have
started to plant them in the study area. These varieties have high yielding potentials especially
when all the agronomic practices recommended for them are fully adopted. Farmers usually inter
crop these improved maize varieties with beans, cow peas or pigeon peas as a way of increasing
returns to land and also as crop diversification strategy against risks of crop failure.
 23

Figure. 2. Map of Gena- Bossa woreda

Source: Ethio GIS Database (2015)
 24

3.2. Data Type, Sources and Methods of Data Collection

In this study both primary and secondary data were used. The primary data was collected from
randomly selected farmers. Primary data was supplemented with secondary data collected from
the district office of agriculture, development centers, and Zonal Agricultural Office and other
published and unpublished sources.

Primary data was collected through personal and face-to-face interview using semi- structured
questionnaire. Secondary data was obtained from various sources such as reports of Bureau of
Agriculture at District Administrative office, previous research findings and other published and
unpublished materials, which are relevant to the study.

3.3. Sampling Procedure

In this study three-stage sampling procedure was used to select representative sample farmers
that were included in the study. In the first stage, out of the 5 woredas of dawro zone, Gena-
Bossa woreda was selected purposively. In the second stage from 36 maize producing kebeles of
the district, 5 kebeles were selected randomly. In the third stage, from the selected kebeles, 65
from adopters households and 55 from non-adopters households which made a total of 120
respondents were randomly selected based on probability proportional to sample size technique
of households of each kebeles(Table 1).

Table.1. Distribution of sample households in sampled kebeles.

Sample kebeles Household size Sample size
Total Adopters Non- Total Adopters Non-
Adopters Adopters

Bara 2273 1196 1077 19 10 9

Mela 2107 1171 936 18 10 8

Wola duga 3401 1822 1579 28 15 13

Beza koysa 3943 2151 1792 33 18 15

Arusi offa 2591 1413 1178 22 12 10

14315 7753 6562 120 65 55

Source: Own survey result (2015)

 25

3.4. Method of Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and econometric models were used to analyze the data. Descriptive analysis
was employed to assess the similarities and differences between the adopters and non-adopters.
Factors influencing the adoption and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties were
analyzed by econometric analysis using Tobit model.

3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics involving mean, percentage and standard deviations were used to assess the
socioeconomic characteristics of the sample households and farmer’s response for adoption of
improved maize varieties. And also, t-test and chi2 –test were employed to assess the relationship
among the variables of interest.

3.4.2. Econometric Analysis

In analyzing the adoption of improved maize varieties, the dichotomous adopter or non-adopter
classification may not give a complete picture. Even within adopters there is a wider range of
variation in the intensity of maize area allocated to improved maize varieties. Some households
allocate only limited share of their maize plots to the improved varieties while others were
completely replacing the existing practices. To assess the intensity of adoption, this study only
used the area share of improved maize varieties.

The adoption of maize can be influenced by various set of socio-economic, demographic and
institutional factors. Modeling households response towards these influencing factors of adoption
practices of improved maize varieties will, therefore, become important both theoretically and
empirically. Adoption decisions can be analyzed with different binary choice models. When a
dependent variable is binary, the ordinary least squares (OLS) method can no longer produce the
best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE); that is, OLS is biased and inefficient. Limited dependent
variable models are often used to evaluate farmers’ decision-making process concerning
adoption of agricultural technologies. Those models are based on the assumption that farmers are
faced with a choice between two alternatives (adoption or no adoption) and the choice depends
upon identifiable characteristics (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1997). In adopting new agricultural
technologies, the decision maker (farmer) is also assumed to maximize expected utility (expected
profit) from using a new technology subject to some constraints (Feder et al., 1985). In many
 26

cases (e.g. Kaliba et al., 2000) a Probit or Logit model is specified to explain farmers adoption of
a given technology without considering the intensity of use of the technology. However, the
Probit or Logit models cannot handle the case of adoption choices that have a continuous value
range. Intensity of use is a very important aspect of technology adoption because it is not only
the choice to use but also how much to utilize that is often more important. The Tobit model of
Tobin (1958) can be used to handle such a situation.

Tobit model is used when the decision to adopt and intensity of adoption are assumed to be
made jointly and factors affecting the probability to adopt and intensity of adoption are assumed
to be the same (Asfaw et al., 2011). Heckman’s selection model assumes that the probability to
adopt and the intensity of use are not explained with exactly the same set of explanatory
variables, where some (at least one) variables are only explaining the probability to adopt. Tobit
and Double-hurdle models estimate both status and intensity of adoption sequentially, but it
overlooks the aspect of selectivity bias (Green, 2012). As a result, studies such as that of Nega
and Senders (2006), Jon (2007), Solomon et al. (2011) and Moti et al. (2013) used Tobit model
and assume the two decisions (status and extent of technology adoption) are affected by the same
set of factors. The present study also employed a Tobit model to analyze factors affecting
probability of adoption and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties. Because it handles
both the probability and intensity of adoption at the same time and assume the two decisions
(status and extent of technology adoption) are affected by the same set of factors.

Tobit model is differing in mapping of the latent variable in to unobserved variables that is,
extension of probit model and it is one of the approaches dealing with the problem of censored
data (Johnston and Dandiro, 1997). Some authors call such model Limited dependent variable
model, because of the restrictions put on the values taken by the regress and (Gujarati, 1995).
Tobit model is superior over other dichotomous regression models in that not only attempts to
explain factors influencing the probability of adoption of the technologies by the farm
households but also the intensity of adoption of technology. Strictly dichotomous variable often
is not sufficient for examining intensity of adoption (Feder et a.l, 1985).In this study, Tobit
model was used to examine factors affecting adoption and intensity of adoption of improved
maize varieties. Moreover, because of the significant number of observations on dependent
variable having a value zero, Tobit model was found to be appropriate to deal with such censored
 27

data and used to analyze the intensity of use of improved maize varieties. Tobit model can be
defined as:

Y*  o  i X i  U i
Yi  Y *if  0   i X i  U i  0 ……………………………………………………………1
Yi  0 if  0   i X i  U i  0
Where:
Yi= is observed adoption of improved maize for the ith farmer, is a continuous variable measured
in proportion of land allocated for improved maize varieties
Y*= is the latent variable and the solution to utility maximization problem of adoption of
improved maize varieties subjected to a set of constraints per household and conditional on
being above Certain limit, it is unobserved variable
Xi= Vector of factors affecting improved maize varieties adoption,
Bi= Vector of unknown parameters, and
Ui= is the error term which is normally distributed with mean 0 and variance σ 2.

The model parameters are estimated by maximizing the Tobit likelihood function of the
following form (Maddala, 1997 and Amemiya, 1985).

L=  Y*>0 1 f    X i i   ix 
  Y*≤0 F    ------------------------------2
      

Where f and F are the density function and the cumulative function of Y*, respectively.
ΠY*≤0 means the product over those of i for which Y*≤0 and ΠY* >0 means the product over
those of i for which y*>0.

It may not be sensible to interpret the coefficients of a Tobit in the same way as one interprets
coefficients in an uncensored linear model (Johnston and Dinardo, 1997). The significant
variables do not all have the same impact on the adoption of improved maize seed. Hence, one
has to compute the derivatives of the estimated Tobit model to predict the effects of changes in
the explanatory variables. That is probability and intensity of the adoption of improved maize
 28

seed. As cited in Maddala (1997), Johnston and Dinardo (1997) and Nkonya et al. (1997),
McDonald and Moffit (1980) proposed the following techniques to decompose the effects of
explanatory variables into adoption and intensity effects. Thus; change in Xi (explanatory
variables) has two effects. It affects the conditional mean of Yi in the positive part of the
distribution, and it affects the probability that the observation will fall in that part of the
distribution. Similarly, in this study, the marginal effect of explanatory variables was estimated
as follows.

The marginal effect of an explanatory variable on the expected value of the dependent variable
is:

E Yi 
=F   Bi----------------------------------------------------------------3
Xi
BiXi
Where is denoted by Z, following maddala (1997)


The Change in the probability of adopting a technology as independent variable Xi change is:

F  
=f   Bi
Xi  ----------------------------------------------------------------4

The change in the intensity of adoption with respect to a change in an explanatory variable
among adopters is:

f    f    2
(∂E (yi/yi*>0)/∂xi=Bi[1- -  
F    F   --------------------5

Where,
F (z) is the cumulative normal distribution of Z,
ƒ (z) is the value of the derivative of the normal curve at a given point (i.e., unit normal density),
Z is the z-score for the area under normal curve,
β is a vector of Tobit maximum likelihood estimates and σ is the standard error of the error term.
 29

Before running the Tobit model all the hypothesized explanatory variables were checked for the
existence of multi-collinearity problem. There are two measures that are often suggested to test
the existence of mulit-collinearity. These are Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for association
among the continuous explanatory variables and contingency coefficients for dummy variables.
In this study, variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test multi collinearity problem for
continuous variables. According to Maddala (1992), VIF can be defined as:

1
VIF (Xi) = --------------------------------------------------------------6
1  Ri 2

Where R2 is coefficient of multiple determination between Xi and the other explanatory

variables. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable exceeds 10 (this will happen if R 2 exceeds
0.95), that variable is said to be highly collinear (Gujarati, 1995). Contingency coefficients was
computed for dummy variables using the following formula.

C= X ----------------------------------------------------------------------7
2
n X

Where, C is contingency coefficient, χ2 is chi-square value and n = total sample size. For dummy
variables if the value of contingency coefficient is greater than 0.75, the variable is said to be
collinear (Healy, 1984 as cited in Mesfin, 2005).

3.5. Definition of Variables and Working Hypotheses

The dependent variable of the model: It is a continuous variable and measured the area share
in hectare allocated for improved maize varieties.

Different variables were expected to affect household adoption status of improved maize
varieties in the study area.

The independent variables: The independent variables that were hypothesized to affect the
farmers’ adoption decision of improved maize varieties were combined effects of various factors
such as: household characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics and institutional characteristics
in which farmers operate.
 30

The number of improved maize varieties a farmer could know depends on several factors which
include farmer’s own interest in gathering variety information, social networks he/she has within
and outside the village, maize production potential of area where he/she lives, closeness of maize
breeding research centers and variety testing sites. Based on the review of adoption literature and
past research findings, the important key variables that are expected to influence the adoption of
improved maize seed varieties in the study area are considered as explanatory variables. Among
the large number of factors which could be expected to relate to farmers’ adoption behavior, 18
potential explanatory variables were considered in this study and examined for their effect in
farmers’ adoption decision of improved maize varieties. These are presented as follows.

Age of the household head: It is a continuous variable and measured in number of years from
birth. The role of a framer’s age in explaining technology adoption is somewhat controversial in
the literature. Whatever the condition, it is important to include age as a factor that would help
explain adoption decisions. It is assumed that as farmer age increases the probability of adoption
is expected to decrease, because as the farmer’s age increases, it is expected that the farmer
becomes conservative (Techane et al., 2006). Contrary to this Hailu (2008) reported positive
relationship between age and adoption which enables easy adoption of new technologies. In this
study it was hypothesized to affect improved maize variety adoption positively or negatively.

Sex of the household head: It is a dummy variable used as (1 if male, 0 female). Gender
difference is found to be one of the factors influencing adoption of new technologies. Due to
many socio-cultural values and norms, male has freedom of mobility and participation in
different extension programs and consequently have greater access to information (Mesfin, 2005;
Teha, 2007). Therefore, it was hypothesized that male farmers are more likely to adopt a new
technology.

Educational level of the household head: This is a continuous variable measured in years of
schooling. Education level increases farmer's ability to get process and use information and
increase farmers’ willingness to adopt a new technology. According to Binod (2010), education
level is assumed to increase farmer’s ability to obtain process and use the information relevant to
adoption. Therefore, this variable was hypothesized to positively influence improved maize
variety adoption.
 31

Farming experience of the household head: It is a continuous variable measured in years since
a respondent started farming on his own. Farmers with higher experience appear to have often
full information and better knowledge and are able to evaluate the advantage of the technology.
Farmers having more experience are expected to adopt improved maize varieties (Tura et al,
2010).Therefore, this variable was hypothesized to positively influence improved maize variety
adoption.

Family size of the household: It is a continuous variable measured in number; that refers to the
number of family members of a given household. The family members are important in the
operation of farm activities, such as weeding and harvesting. Family size had a positive and
significant relation with adoption of improved maize varieties (Motuma et al., 2010). Previous
research result reported by Tesfay and Alemu (2001) shows that family size influence adoption
of new technology positively. Therefore, family size was hypothesized to influence the adoption
of improved maize varieties positively.

Farm size of the household head: It is a continuous variable measured in hectares. Land is one
of the most important and scarce resources in agricultural production. Research result by Nega
and Sanders (2006) and Hassen et al. (2012) found a positive and significant relationship
between farm size and improved maize varieties adoption. Therefore, farm size was
hypothesized to influence the adoption of improved maize varieties positively.

Land fertility: This is a dummy variable that tack a value of 1 when the land is fertile and 0
otherwise. A difference in fertility of land could also have a bearing in the decision of the farmer
to adopt a new crop technology or not. Farmers with a relatively fertile land tend to be more
receptive to improved crop technologies, as they supplement a relatively minimum quantity of
commercial fertilizers, than those with poor fertility of lands. Therefore, in this study, it was
hypothesized that land fertility would have positive correlation to adopt improved maize
varieties.

Number of oxen owned: This is a continuous variable that refers to the number of oxen the
household owns. In the study area oxen are the most important means of land cultivation.
Farmers need at least one pair of oxen to be able to prepare their land well (Endrias, 2003).
Teressa and Heidhues (1996) reported that adoption of improved agricultural technology has
 32

been positively influenced by oxen ownership. Therefore, in this study, it was hypothesized that
oxen ownership influence improved maize variety adoption positively.

Access to fertilizer: This is a dummy variable, which took a value of 1 if the farm household has
access to fertilizer and 0 otherwise. As availability of fertilizer supply at the sowing time
increases, farmers’ use of improved maize varieties will be enhanced. On the contrary, if maize
seed and fertilizer supply are not adequate at the time of sowing, farmers allot their land to other
crops. Fertilizer availability determines adoption decision of new maize varieties (Asfaw et al.
1997; Teferi, 2003). Availability of fertilizer on time to the farmers’ increased,
adoption/intensity of adoption is expected to increase. Therefore, in this study access to fertilizer
was hypothesized to positively influence adoption of improved maize varieties.

Labor availability: It is the active labor force the household owns in man-equivalent. Adoption of
new technology demands additional labor for different farming operations. Household’s labor
availability has positive and significant effect on adoption (Million and Belay, 2004). As labor
increases, adoption also is expected to increase and correlate positively (Alene et al., 2000).
Therefore, it was hypothesized that adoption of improved maize varieties was positively related
to the level of labor availability.

Total livestock owned by the farm household: This refers to the total number of livestock
measured in tropical livestock unit (TLU). Livestock is important source of income, food and
draught power for crop cultivation in Ethiopian agriculture. Therefore, in this study it was
hypothesized that higher TLU would have positive and significant influence on the adoption of
improved maize varieties. Previous research result reported by Tesfaye et.al. (2001) confirmed
that livestock holding have positive influence on agricultural technology adoption.

Access to credit for improved maize varieties: It is a dummy variable, which took a value of 1
if the farm household had access to credit and 0 otherwise. Adoption of new agricultural
technology with complementary inputs required considerable amount of capital for purchase of
inputs (seed, fertilizer). Salasya et al. (2007); Mugisha and Diiro (2010) in their studies on
factors influencing adoption of improved maize varieties and its effects on yields among
smallholder maize farmers found that access to credit relaxes income constraints of famers hence
enabling them to have access to key inputs as well as in hiring of labor. In this study it was
hypothesized that access to credit would influence adoption of maize technology positively.
 33

Frequency of extension contact: It is continues variable and measured by number of contact

with extension agents. Empirical results revealed that extension services play important role in
the implementation and diffusion of innovation and has positive and significant influence on
adoption of new agricultural technology (Solomon et al., 2011). Extension agent acts as agent for
change and as a communication media who builds the gap between farmers and the innovation
(Tura et al., 2010; Mignouna et al., 2011; Akpan et al., 2012).Following this argument; in this
study extension contact was hypothesized to influence farmers’ decision to adopt improved
maize varieties positively and sidnificantly.

Radio ownership: It is a dummy variable, which takes 1 if the farm household has radio and 0
otherwise. Radio is one of the sources of information to the farmers. Farmers who owned radio at
their home are more have high probability of adoption of improved maize varieties than those
households who have no radio at their home(Yishak and Punjabi,2011).Therefore, it was
hypothesized that farmers’ ownership of radio would influence adoption of improved maize
varieties positively.
Access to agricultural training: It is a dummy variable, which took 1 if the farm household has
attended farmers training program and 0 otherwise. Participation on farmer training will help
farmers to identify the productivity differences between improved maize varieties and local
maize seed. Training is one of the means by which farmers acquire new knowledge and skills.
Hence, participation in training is expected to positively and significantly influence farmers’
adoption behavior ( Alemitu, 2011; Belay, 2003). Therefore, access to farmers’ training was
hypothesized to influence adoption of improved maize varieties positively.

Perception on current input price: is dummy variable represented by 1 if the farmers perceive
the prevailing input price is expensive and 0 otherwise. This variable refers to the cost of
improved maize varieties which are average, financial layouts of input measured in Birr. Higher
perception of input price decreases the probability of adoption of new technology (Leaku and
Adam, 2015). Therefore, in this study, this variable was hypothesized to affect adoption of
improved maize variety negatively.

Distance to the main road: It is a continuous variable measured in kilometers. It refers to the
distance from farmer’s home to all weather roads. This variable affects adoption decision of
 34

farmers negatively and significantly (Isaiah et al., 2007). Therefore, in this study, this variable
was hypothesized to affect adoption of improved maize varieties negatively.

Distance to the nearest market: It is a continuous variable measured in kilometer. It refers to

the distance between the farmers’ residence and the nearest market center. It shows access to the
market to buy input and/or to sell output. As market distance increases adoption and intensity of
adoption is expected to decrease (Hailu, 2008). Previous result reported by (Alemitu, 2011;
Kidane, 2001) revealed that market distance negatively and significantly influence adoption of
agricultural technology. Therefore, in this study it was hypothesized to affect adoption of
improved maize varieties negatively.
 35

Table. 2. Definition and units of measurement of the variables

1.The dependent variable is the Share of land allocated for improved maize varieties
2.The independent variables and their description and measurement are listed below
Expected
Variables effect

Sex of household head +

Age of household head (year). +/-

Family size of household +

Labor availability (man equivalent). +
Educational level of household head (number of years in school). +
Farm experience of household (years). +
Farm size of household (hectare). +
The number of oxen owned (number). +
Total livestock owned by the farm household (TLU). +
Access to fertilizer, dummy variable, 1; if fertilizer is available on time, 0 otherwise. +
Land fertility, dummy variables, 1;if fertile ,0 otherwise +
Access of farmer to fertilizer and seed on credit (=1, if yes; =0, otherwise) +
Number of time extension agent visited/advised farmer (number). +
Radio ownership, dummy variable (=1, if yes; =0, otherwise). +
Farmer attended agricultural training, dummy variable (1=, if yes; =0, otherwise) +
Perception on current input price(fertilizer and improved maize seed),
Dummy variable (=1, expensive; =0, otherwise). _
Distance to the main road (km). _
Distance to the nearest market (km). _
 36

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of Socio economic and institutional characteristics

Age of the household head: The average age of sample respondents was 39 years. The mean
age of adopters and non-adopters were found to be 38 and 42 years respectively. The mean
difference in age between adopters and non- adopters was significant at 1% significance level
(Table 3).This imply that adopters are younger than non-adopters.

Family size of the household: The average family size of the sample farmers in the study area
was 6 persons. The average family size of the adopters and non-adopters were 6 and 7
respectively. This was found to have statistically significant mean difference between the two
groups at 5% significant level (Table 3). The result shows that adopter’s households have less
family than non-adopters households.

Land holding: The land size of sample households varies from 1 to 5.0 hectare with an average
holding of 3.06 hectares. The average size of land for adopters was 2.99, while that of non-
adopters was 3.12. Statistically, there was no significant difference between adopters and non-
adopters related to size of land holding.

Educational level of the household head: Average educational level of respondents was grade
4. The mean educational level of adopters was grade 5 and that of non-adopters was grad 3.
There was a significant mean difference between adopters and non-adopters in relation to
education level at 1% significant level. The study indicated that adopters have more educational
level than non-adopters.

Livestock (TLU) holding: As shown in Table 3, mean TLU kept by the adopters and non-
adopters of improved maize varieties during the study period was 7.21 and 7.26 respectively.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of livestock holding.

Number of Oxen Owned: The number of oxen owned by the respondents ranged from one to
four with mean holding of 2.3 oxen. The average number of oxen owned by adopters was 2.4,
whereas for non-adopters was 2.2. The mean difference in oxen holding was found to be
statistically significant at 5% significance level. The result shows adopters have more oxen than
non-adopters.
 37

Frequency of contact with extension agents: It was observed that sample households in the
study area do have a better access to extension services that was illustrated by frequent visit of
extension agents. With regard to the frequency of extension contact among the total respondents
the average number of extension contact was 2.18 time per month. The mean frequency of
extension contact for adopter was 2.32 and for non-adopters households were 2.02 per month.
There was statistically significant difference between adopter households and non-adopter
households in terms of frequency of extension contact at 1% significance level in favor of the
adopters (Table 3).

Distance to all-weather roads:. The survey result indicated that the average distance of the
respondents' home from all weather roads was 1.83 km. The average distance of the adopters and
non-adopters from all-weather road was found to be 1.71km and 1.98 km respectively, and the
mean difference was statistically insignificant.

Distance to nearest markets:. The survey result indicated that the average distance of
respondents' home from the nearest market place is 7.72 km. On average adopters were located
about 7.47 km distances whereas non-adopters were about 8.01 km far away from the nearest
market. The result also revealed that mean difference of distance to market was statistically
insignificant.
 38

Table.3.Socio-economic characteristics of (Adopters and non- Adopters) continuous Variables

Variables Adopters Non-Adopters Total t-values

(N=65) (N=55) (N=120)

Mean Mean Mean

Age of household head 38 42 40 2.73***

Family size of household 6 7 7 1.81**

Land holding size (in ha) 2.99 3.12 3.1 - 0.65

Education of household 5 3 4 -3.31***

Livestock (TLU) holding 7.21 7.3 7.2 0.68

Number of oxen owned 2.4 2.2 2.3 -1.57**

Frequency of extension 2.32 2.02 2.18 -4.13***

Distance from all weather roads 1.71 1.98 1.83 0.80

Distance to markets 7.47 8.01 7.72 0.78

Source: Own survey, 2015

*, **and *** refers to significant at 10%, 5% and 1% significance level, respectively.

Sex of the household head: The survey result indicated that 42.5% of the non-adopters, 48.33%
of the adopters and 90.83% of the total respondents were male headed and 3.33% of the non-
adopters, 5.83% of the adopters and 9.17% of the total respondents were female headed.(Table
4).
Access to credit: The survey result indicated that 13.33% of the non-adopters, 28.33% of the
adopters and 41.67% of the total respondents had access to credit in 2015 production year. This
was found statistically significant at 1% significance level. This implies that adopters had better
access to credit compared to non-adopters (Table 4).

Participation in agricultural training: In addition to encouraging farmers to use improved

farm inputs, agricultural training also play important role in creating awareness about the benefit
of using improved maize technology. Among the total number of respondents, 56.67%
participated in agricultural training. About 44.16% of the adopters and 12.5% of the non-
 39

adopters participated in training. Statistically significant difference was found between adopters
and non-adopters with respect to Participation in agricultural training. This was significant at 1%
significance level. This implies that adopters had better access to agricultural training than non-
adopters (Table 4).

Land fertility: Difference in fertility of land could also have a bearing in the decision of the
farmer whether to adopt a new crop technology or not. From the survey result 22.5% of the
adopters’ and 8.33% of the non- adopters have fertile soil, and 41.67%, of the adopters and
37.5% of the non-adopters have less fertile land.

Radio Ownership: From the total sample respondents 60% have radio and among them 39.16%
were adopter and 20.83 were non- adopters. The result shows significant mean difference
between the two groups in terms of radio ownership at 1% significance level. This implies that
adopters had better information about the benefit of improved maize seed varieties compared to
non-adopters.

Access to fertilizer: As shown on table 4 below 80.83% of the total household gets fertilizer on
time. When we see the two groups 92.31% of the adopters and 67.27% of the non-adopters get
fertilizers on time. The result shows significant mean difference between the two groups at 1%
significant level. The result implies that adopters have better access to fertilizer than non-
adopters.

Labor availability: The labor requirement for the different agricultural activities in the study
area was often met by family labor in man equivalent(ME).From the total sample respondents,
27.5% reported that they faced labor shortage. The breakdown of this information reveals that
about 17.5% of adopters and 10% of non-adopters have faced labor shortage (Table. 4).

Perception on Input price: As indicated in table 4 below 86.7% of the total respondent
households in the study area considers that the price of improved maize varieties was expensive.
Among them 45.83% were adopter and 40.83 were non- adopters.
Table.4.Characterstics of Dummy variables
40
Variables Adopters(65) Non-adopters(55) Total(120) Chi-square
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % test
Access to credit
Yes 34 28.33 16 13.33 50 41.67
No 31 25.83 39 32.5 70 58.33
Total 65 54.16 55 54.33 120 100 6.61***
sex of household head
Male 58 48.33 51 42.5 109 90.83
Female 7 5.83 4 3.33 11 9.17
Total 65 54.16 55 45.83 120 100 0.44
Agricultural training
Yes 53 44.16 15 12.5 68 56.67
No 12 10 40 33.33 52 43.33
Total 65 54.16 55 45.83 120 100 35.73***
Land fertility
Yes 15 22.5 10 8.33 25 20.83
No 50 41.67 45 37.5 95 79.17
Total 65 64.17 55 45.83 120 100 1.56
Radio ownership
Yes 47 39.16 25 20.83 72 60
No 18 15 30 25 48 40
Total 65 54.16 55 45.83 120 100 8.95***
Access to fertilizer
Yes 60 50 37 30.83 97 80.83
No 5 4.17 18 15 23 19.17
Total 65 54.17 55 45.83 120 100 12.05***
Perception on input price
Expensive 55 45.83 49 40.83 104 86.67
Not-expensive 10 8.33 6 5 16 13.33
Total 65 54.16 55 45.83 120 100 0.52
Labor availability
Available 21 17.5 12 10 33 27.5
Not- available 44 36.67 43 35.83 87 72.5
Total 65 54.17 55 45.83 120 100 1.64
source:owen survey,2015
 41

4.2. Econometric Results

4.2.1. Determinants of adoption of improved maize varieties

This part presents the Tobit econometric model estimates of the determinants of adoption and
intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties in the district. The factors considered were
related with demographic, socio-economic and institutional variables relevant to the adoption
and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties. To check Multicollinearity problem
Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) and contingency coefficients were computed for continuous
and categorical variables respectively. In the continuous variables age of the household head
was found to be collinear with farming experience, due to this problem farming experience was
not included in the tobit model. The VIF values shown in Appendix 1 indicated that on the
other continuous explanatory variables there was no serious multicollinearity problem.
Similarly, contingency coefficients computed for dummy variables were less than 0.75
Appendix 2. Hence there was no serious collinearity problem among the categorical variables
used.

From the total of seventeen (9 continuous and 8 discrete) explanatory variables considered in
the analysis, 6 variables were found significantly influencing probability of adoption and
intensity of use of improved maize varieties. These include access to credit, access to fertilizer,
number of oxen owned, frequency of extension contact, radio ownership and agricultural
training (Table 5).

Oxen ownership: Result of this study indicated that, oxen ownership was positively and
significantly related to adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties at 5%
probability level of significance. In the study area oxen are the most important means of land
cultivation. The farm household that own oxen is expected to have high probability to adopt
improved maize varieties. The study is consistent with the finding of (Yishak and Punjabi,
2011, Teressa and Heidhues ,1996).

Access to fertilizer: As result of this study indicated, access to fertilize was positively and
significantly related to adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties at 5%
significance level. This implies that the supply of fertilizer at the sowing time increases, the use
 42

of maize varieties would be enhanced. This result was consistent with the finding of (Teferi,
2003)

Access to credit: As the model result indicated, the variable access to credit had positive and
significant influence on the probability of adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
varieties at 5 % significance level. From this result it can be stated that, those farmers who have
access to credit were more likely to adopt improved maize verities than those who have no
access to credit. This result is consistent with the study conducted on adoption of cereals and
maize by (Mekuria et al., 2008); (Amaza et al., 2007);Paudel and Matsuoka (2008) and (Tura
et al., 2010).They reported that credit correlate positively and significantly with adoption of
improved agricultural technologies by farmers.

Frequency of extension contact: Result of the study indicated that, contact with extension
agent has positive and significant relation with adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
varieties at 10% significance level. Contact with extension agent is the other means through
which farmers get information about improved maize varieties. The implication of this result is
that, frequent contacts with extension agent enhancing the exposure of farmers on the adoption
practice and the study is consistent with the findings of Alene et al. (2000), Taha (2007), Idrisa
et al. (2012), Kudi et al. (2011) and Pashupati and Atsushi (2008).

Radio Ownership: The result of this study indicated that, radio ownership was positively and
significantly related to adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties at 5%
significance level (Table 5). The result shows that, the farm households that own radio were
expected to have better information about the technology and have high probability to adopting
improved maize varieties. The result was consistent with the result of (Yishak and Punjabi,
2011)

Participation in Agricultural Training: The result of the study indicated that adoption and
intensity of adoption of improved maize seed varieties is positively and significantly affected
by acquiring agricultural training at 1% significance level (Table 5). This may be explained by
the fact that farmers who have training gain better knowledge on production practices and
technologies than non-trained which helps to increase production and productivity of improved
maize seed varieties. The result consistent with the findings of Tesfaye et al. (2001) and Asfaw
et al. (1997).
 43

Table.5. Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Tobit Model

Variables Estimated Standard

Coefficient Error

Age of household head -.0019235 .0128074

Family size of household .0016392 .0470614
Labor availability .1229077 .1383631
Education of household .0324454 .0258715

Land holding size (in ha) .0096761 .0763755

Number of oxen owned .247601** .1138998
Livestock (TLU) holding -.0440799 .0495287
Access to fertilizer .4997761** .2131711
Land fertility .1539807 .1700094
Access to Credit .215175** .1394476

Frequency of extension .244978* .1431777

Radio ownership .281567** .1315061
Agricultural training .7419461*** .143753
Perception on input price .1324518 .1928184
Distance from all weather road -.0277876 .0408164
Distance to markets .0348354 .0252559
Sex of the household head -.3072877 .2402456
Constant -2.071977 .7942746

Log likelihood = -86.094

Pseudo R2 = 0.3153

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000***

Source: Model output, ***, ** and * represents significant at 1%, 5% and 10% probability of
significance, respectively.
 44

4.2.2. Marginal Effects of significant variables

All variables that were found to influence the adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
seed varieties might not have similar contribution in influencing the decision of farm
household. Hence, using a decomposition procedure suggested by McDonald and Moffitt
(1980), the results of Tobit model was used to assess the effects of changes in the explanatory
variables on adoption and intensity of adoption of improved maize seed varieties (Table 6).

Table:6. Effects of changes in explanatory variables (Marginal effects)

Change in Change in the Total change

Variables the probability intensity of use On
of adoption of improved maize entire sample
% varieties(in ha) ( in ha)
Oxen ownership 0.163 0.158 0.114
Frequency of extension contact 0.161 0.155 0.113
Access to fertilizer 0.276 0.334 0.199
Access to credit 0.144 0.135 0.101
Radio ownership 0.179 0.182 0.126
Agricultural training 0.458 0.461 0.331

Source: Model output, 2015

As shown on the above table a unit increase in quantity of oxen owned, increases the
probability of adoption by 16.3% and increases the area allocated for improved maize variety
by 0.158 and 0.114 hectare among adopters and the total sample respectively (Table 6). The
result revealed that, having oxen for land plowing increase adoption of improved maize
varieties. From the analysis of marginal effects, increase in number of frequency of contact
with extension agent increases the probability of being an adopter by 16.1% and increases the
area allocated for improved maize variety by 0.155 and 0.113 hectare among adopters and the
entire sample households respectively (Table 6). This implies that, contact with extension agent
increases availability of information about the improved maize varieties to farmers. Farmers
 45

can learn more about the technology. Hence farmers with more contact with extension agents
adopt more than farmers with less contact.

Access to fertilizer at the right time and in the required quantity has the expected positive and
significant influence on probability of adoption and level of use of improved maize varieties in
the study area. The marginal effects results computed indicate that, increase in the supply of
fertilizers on time increases the probability of adoption by 27.6% and increases the area
allocated for improved maize variety by 0.334 and 0.199 hectare among adopters and the total
sample respectively. The result revealed that, household that has access to fertilizer on time of
sowing could increase the probability of adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
varieties.

Results of analysis of marginal effects show that 1% increase in access to credit service
increases the probability of being an adopter by 14.4 % and increases the area allocated for
improved maize variety by 0.135 and 0.101 hectare among adopters and the total sample
respectively (Table 6).This implies that providing credit access in farming community will
enhance the adoption of improved maize varieties.

The marginal effect result also shows that being the owner of radio increase the probability of
adoption by 17.9% and increases the area allocated for improved maize variety by 0.182 and
0.126 hectare among adopters and the total sample respectively. Providing information through
radio is also an important method of extension to pull farmers in accepting technology
packages.

The marginal effect result shows that, participation in agricultural training increases the
probability of adoption by 45.8% and increases the area allocated for improved maize variety
by 0.461 and 0.331 hectare among adopters and the total sample households respectively.
Agricultural training is an important method of extension to pull farmers in accepting
technology packages. In agricultural training program, farmers can have an opportunity to see
the implementation of the technology practically.
 46

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary and Conclusion

This study was conducted in Gena Bossa district, which is located in Dawro Zone Southern
Ethiopia. In the area, maize is an important crop, which serves as a source of food and cash.
The main theme of this study was to assess factors affecting adoption and intensity of use of
improved maize varieties. A total of 120 (65 Adopters and 55 Non-adopters) sample
households were selected from 5 kebeles of the district and interviewed using structured
interview schedule.

The analysis was undertaken using both descriptive statistics and econometrics analysis. Result
of descriptive statistics using t-test and chi-square tests indicated there were significant mean
and proportion difference between adopters and non- adopters in terms of age of the households
at 1%(t=2.73),educational level of the household at 1%(t= -3.31), family size at 5%(t=1.81),
agricultural training at 1%(t=35.73), contact with extension agent at1%(t=-4.13), access to
credit at 1%(t=6.61), access to fertilizer at 1%t=12.05), radio ownership at 1%(t=8.95) and the
number of oxen owned at5%(t=-1.57) (Table 3 and 4).

The Tobit econometrics model was employed to estimate the effects of hypothesized independ-
ent variables on dependent variable. The study tried to investigate the status ofadoption and fact
ors influencing farmers’ adoption behavior. Variation in adoption among the sample household
was assessed in view of various factors categorized as household, demographic economic and
institutional.

The results of the econometric model also pointed out the influence of different variables on
probability and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties. A total of 17 variables were
included in the Tobit model of which 6 of them had shown signifcant relationship with adopti-
on of improved maize varieties. Accordingly, ownership of oxen, access to credit, attending agr
icultural training, access to fertilizer, radio ownership and frequency of extension contact were
found to have positive and significant influence on probability of adoption and intensity of
adoption of improved maize varieties (Table 5).
 47

In Ethiopia oxen are the most important means for land cultivation. This study also revealed
that adoption of improved maize varieties is influenced by oxen ownership positively and
significantly. It shows that being the owner of oxen facilitate adoption of new maize varieties.
The result of this study also reviled that access to fertilizer affect probability of adoption and
use of improved maize varieties positively and significantly, it implies that the farmers who are
accessible to fertilizer at the sowing time have more opportunity to adopt new maize varieties.

Formal credit service had been found as one of the important factors affecting the adoption of
improved maize variety positively and significantly. This indicate that credit service provide
better opportunity to the farmers to use improved maize varieties particularly to smallholder
farmers by reducing the existing cash constraint. The result also showed that frequency of
extension service affect adoption of improved maize variety positively and significantly;
implies the important role the extension workers played in order to improve farmers’ awareness
on the benefit of improved maize varieties. This in turn implies the need for advancing farmers
perception on the use of improved maize varieties to increase the productivity of maize crop.

Ownership of radio influence adoption of new maize verities adoption positively and
significantly, implies that it is important to give advices to the farm households to follow radio
programs which give information about the advantage of adoption of new agricultural
technology and other information related to farming activities which is distributed by ministry
of agriculture.

The result showed that participating on agricultural training affect adoption of improved maize
variety positively and significantly. This shows that providing more attention to research and
extension linkages and organizing frequent training for development agents, supervisors and
other stockholders about existing and newly developed improved agricultural technologies and
new methods of agricultural practices.
 48

5.2. Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following points are recommended to improve the
adoption of improved maize seed varieties so as to enhance its production and productivity.

In the study area oxen are the most important means for land cultivation. The result of this study
reviled that oxen ownership affect probability of adoption and use of improved maize varieties
positively and significantly. This result suggests that, those farmers who owned more oxen have
better chance to use improved seed technology in the district. Therefore, it is recommended that
government and non-governmental organization should create opportunities to the farmers by
providing different access to the farmers to make them oxen owners.

In the study area access to fertilizer determines the adoption of improved maize verities. The
timely availability of fertilizer related with availability of cash on hand. Most of the time
farmers save some amount of cash for the purpose of buying inputs for the coming season. The
result of this study also reviled that access to fertilizer affect probability of adoption and use of
improved maize varieties positively and significantly. Thus, it is recommended that the
government and other stockholders such as cooperative unions should work together to provide
the needed fertilizer in each cropping season on time for the farmers.

It was apparent from the study that if farmers get credit access more easily, they would use
improved varieties for maize cultivation. Making credit services available for seed purchase on
need basis increases the probability of adopting improved maize varieties and the intensity of
adoption. Thus, the credit facility should be accessible and target poor farmers especially those
who were not adopting the technologies due to lack of operating capital, assuring them loans at
reasonable rates of interest so that they can afford it. This may encourage farmers to do
commercial farming practice in which they can build their asset to implement adoption of
improved maize seed varieties in their farms. Therefore it is recommended that the government
and non-governmental organization should work together to provide credit service to farmers at
an affordable rate of interest to increase adoption of improved maize varieties.
 49

Frequency of extension contact was found to have a positive and significant relation with
adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties as it enhances ability to acquire and
use information required for production. This indicates that extension coverage should be
widened by establishing additional development centers and increasing the number of
extension workers. Therefore, the Government and other stakeholders should encourage
extension agents to enhance dissemination of improved maize varieties among the farmers
through long term and short term trainings, workshops, seminars, and demonstration activities.

The farmers have the advantage of getting information about new technology from radio. In
this study ownership of radio influence adoption of improved maize verities positively and
significantly. Therefore it is important to give advices to the farm households to follow radio
programs which give information about the advantage of adoption of improved vanities and
other information related to farming activities which is distributed by ministry of agriculture. In
addition to this, the government should expand the coverage of radio distribution in the region
to address all the farm households.

Agricultural training was found to have a strong positive relationship with the adoption and
intensity of use of improved maize varieties. This indicates that government and other
concerned stakeholders should plan and implement practical and continuous training in each
cropping season for farmers, extension agent and other agricultural experts. Therefore this will
enhance the probability and intensity of maize variety adoption by smallholder farmers.
 50

6. REFERENCES

Abera Abebe .2013. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Wheat Varieties By Smallholder Farmers:
The Case of Angacha oreda, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples Region, Ethiopia. An M. Sc. Thesis, Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University. Alemaya, Ethiopia.
Adessina, A.A. and Baidu-Forson, J. 1995. Farmer‟s perceptions and adoption of new agricultural
technology, Evidence from Burkina Faso and Guinea. Journal of Agricultural Economics,
1(3):1-9
Akpan, S. B., Veronica, S. and Essien, U. A. 2012. A double hurdle model of fertilizer adoption and
optimum use among farmers. Southern Nigeria. Journal of Tropicultura, 30(4): 249 – 253.
Alemayehu Seyoum. 2009. Cereal Production in Ethiopia: Recent Trends and Sources of Growth:
International Food Policy Research Institute, Mimeo. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alemitu Mulugeta. 2011. Factors affecting adoption of improved haricot bean varieties and
associated agronomic practices in Dale woreda, Sothern Ethiopia. An M. Sc. Thesis,
Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Hawassa University. Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Alene Arega, Poonyth, D. and Hassan, R. 2000. Determinants of adoption and intensity of use of
improved maize varieties in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia: A Tobit Analysis. Agrekon
39(4): 633-643.
Alene Arega, Menkir Abebe, Ajala, S. O., Badu-Apraku, A. S., Olanrewaju, V., Manyong, M. and
Ndiaye, A. 2009. The economic and poverty impacts of maize research in West and Central
Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40: 535 – 550.
Amaza, P., Kwacha, A. and Kamara, A. 2007. Farmers perceptions, profitability, and factors
influencing the adoption of improved maize varieties in the Guinea Savannas of Nigeria.
Research to nourish Africa.
Amemiya, J. 1985. Advanced Econometrics. T.J. Press, Pad stow Ltd, Great Britain.
Asfaw Negassa, Gunjal, R., Mwangi, W. and Beyene Seboka. 1997. Factors affecting the Adoption of
maize production technologies in Bako area, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1(2):
52-73.
Asfaw Solomon, Bekele Shiferaw, Simtowe, F. and Haile Mekbib . 2011.Agricultural technology
adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 3(9): 436-447.
 51

Assefa Admassie and Gezahegn Ayele. 2010. Adoption of improved technology in Ethiopia. Journal
of Economics, 1(5): 155-178.
Bahadur, K. and Siegfried, B. 2004. Technology adoption and household food security. Analyzing
Factors Determining Technology Adoption and Impact of Project Intervention: A Case of
Smallholder Peasants in Nepal, Paper prepared for presentation at the Deutscher Tropentag,
Humboldt University. Berlin, Germany.
Baidu-Forson, G. 1999. Factors Influencing Adoption of Land-enhancing Technology in the Sahel:
Lessons from a Case Study in Niger. Agricultural Economics, 2(0): 231-239.
Becerril, J. and Abdulai, A. 2010. The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: A
propensity score matching approach. World Development, 38(7): 1024-1035
Beke, T.E. 2011. Institutional Constraints and Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties: Econometric
Evidence from Ivory Coast. Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 92(2): 117-141.
Belay Kassa. 2003. Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: The Case of participatory demonstration and
training extension system. Journal of Social Development in Africa. (18)1: 49-84. .
Beshir Bedru and Wegary, I. 2014. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ hybrid maize adoption in
drought prone Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(17):
1334-1343.
Binod, K. 2010. Determinants of adoption of improved maize varieties in developing countries.
International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 1 (1), 1-7
Byerlee, D. and Heisey, P. 1996. Past and potential impacts of maize research in sub-Saharan Africa: a
critical assessment. Food Policy, 21(3): 255–277.
Cho, R. 2013. State of the planet: Improving Seeds to Meet Future Challenges. The Earth Institute,
Columbia University. Estern Africa Journal of Rural Development, 1(7): 25-34.
Croppenstedt, A., Demeke Mulat and Meschi, M. M. 2003. Technology adoption in the presence of
constraints: The case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Review of Development Economics 7(1):
58–70.
CSA(Central Statistical Agency). 2015. Agricultural sample survey 2014 / 2015 Area, Production and
Yield of Crops for Private Peasant Holdings for Meher Season. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Dawit Alemu , Mwangi, W., Nigussie Mandefro and Spielman, D. J. 2008. The maize seed system in
Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities in drought prone areas. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 3(4): 305-314.
 52

Degnet Abebaw and Belay Kassa. 2001. Factors influencing adoption of high yielding maize varieties
in southwestern Ethiopia; an Application of Logit. Quarterly Journal of International
Association of Agricultural economists. 40(2): 149-167.
Degu Getahun, Mwangi W., Verkuijl, H. and Abdishakur Wondimu. 2000. An Assessment of the
Adoption of Seed and Fertilizer Packages and the Role of Credit in Smallholder Maize
Production in Sidama and North Omo Zone, Ethiopia. International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center, and Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO).
Diagne Aliou, Adekambi, S.A., Simtowe F. and Biaou, G. 2009. The Impact of Agricultural
Technology Adoption On Poverty. The Case of Nerica Rice Varieties in Benin. A shorter
version of the paper is being presented as contributed paper at the 27th Conference of the
International Association of Agricultural Economists. Beijing, China.
Doss, R. 2003. Understanding farm level technology adoption: lessons learned from CIMMYT’s micro
surveys in Eastern Africa. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 03-07. Mexico, D.F.,
CIMMYT.
Dunn, D. W. 1984. Applied Decision Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, USA.
ECEA (Ethiopia Commodity Exchange Authority). 2009. Understanding Maize: A Review of Supply
and Marketing Issues, Economic Analysis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Endrias Geta. 2003. Adoption of Improved Sweet Potato Varieties in Boloso Sore Woreda, Sothern
Ethiopia. An M. Sc. Thesis, Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya
University. Alemaya, Ethiopia.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2004. Seed Multiplication by resource poor farmers. Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2009. Promoting the Growth and Development of
Smallholder Seed Enterprises for Food Security Crops. Best Practices and Options for
Decision Making. Plant Production and Protection Paper, Case studies from Brazil, Côte
d‟Ivoire and India.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. Factors that transform maize productivity in
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Silberman, D. 1981. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing
Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Paper.
 53

Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing
countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2): 255-298.
Feleke Shiferaw and Zegeye Tesfaye. 2006. Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern
Ethiopia. Food Policy, 3(1): 442–457.
Freud et al, 1996. Innovation in West African Smallholder Cocoa: Some. Conventional and non-
conventional measures of success. In: Food Security and Innovations: Successes and Lessons
Learned, International Symposium, Hohenheim, Germany: 131-146.
GBDFO (Gena Bossa District Finance Office). 2015. Annual report.
GBDOA (Gena Bossa District Office of Agriculture). 2015. Agricultural activities annual report.
Gebre-Mariam Yohannes. 2012. Holistic Analysis of Household Decision-Making Lanham, Maryland:
University Press of America.
Gemeda Abdisa, Aboma Girma, Verkuijl, H. and Mwangi, W. 2001. Farmers’ maize seed systems in
western Oromia, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, International Maize
and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Greene, W. 2012. Econometric Analysis, 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Gujarati, DN. 1995. Basic Econometrics, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York. 838p.
Habtemariam Abate, 2004. The comparative Influence of Intervening variable in the adoption
of Maize and Dairy Farmers in Shashemene and Debrezieit, Ethiopia. PhD Thesis,
University of Pretoria.

Hailemariam Teklewold, Menale Kassie and Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. Adoption of multiple sustainable
agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3) 597-623.
Hailu beyene, 2008. Adoption of improved teff and wheat production in crop livestock mixed system
in northern and western shewa zones of Ethiopia Ph. D. Thesis University of Pretoria,.
Johnston, J. and Dandiro, J., 1997. Econometrics Methods, fourth Edition, New York: McGraw
Hill Companies, Inc.
Harold, 2015. An action plan for African agricultural transformation.
Hassan, R. M., Kiarie, N., Mugo, N., Robin, O. and Laboso, A. 1998. Adoption and performance of
maize in Kenya. In: Hassan, R.M. (ed.) Maize Technology Development and Transfer: A GIS
Approach to Research Planning in Kenya. CAB international, London.
 54

Hassen Beshir, Bezabeh Emana, Belay Kassa and Jema Haji. 2012. Determinants of chemical fertilizer
technology adoption in north estern highlands of Ethiopia: The double hurdle approach.
Journal of Research Economics and International Finance, 1(2): 39-49.
Hossain, S., Alamgir, M. and Croach, R. 1992. Patterns and determinants of adoption of farm
practices: Some evidence from Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems, 3(8):1-15.
Idrisa, Y.L., B.O., Ogunbameru, and H. shehu, 2012.Effects of adoption of improved maize seed on
household food security in Gwoza Local Government area of Borno state, Nigeria.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2008. Cereal Availability Report on Ethiopia,
2008. Report Submitted to the Joint Research Center of the European Union.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2011. Crop Production in Ethiopia, Regional
Patterns and Trends. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program. International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Isaiah KO, Fred UN, Washington WO (2007). Socio-Economic Determinants of Adoption of
Improved Sorghum Varieties and Technologies Among Smallholder Farmers in Western
Kenya. 18p.
Itana Ayana. 1985. An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Adoption and Diffusion Patterns of Package
of Agricultural Technologies in Subsistence Agriculture: A Case Study in Two Districts of
Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, presented to School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Johnston, J. and Dandiro, J. 1997. Econometrics Methods, fourth Edition, New York,USA.
Jon, P. 2007. The Adoption and Productivity of Modern Agricultural Technologies in the Ethiopian
Highlands: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Maize Production in the West Gojam Zone,
University of Sussex.
Kaliba, A., Verkuijl, R.M. and Mwangi, W., 2000. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Seeds and
Use of Inorganic Fertilizers for Maize Production in the Intermediate and Lowland Zones of
Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(1):35-48.
Kassie Mehale, Bekele Shiferaw and Muricho, G. 2011. Agricultural technology, crop income, and
poverty alleviation in Uganda.World Development, 39(10):1784-1795.
Kidane Gebremariam. 2001. Factors influencing the adoption of new wheat and maize varieties in
Tigray, Ethiopia: The Case of Hawzine Wereda. An M.Sc. Thesis, Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of University. Alemaya, Ethiopia.
 55

Kudi TM, Bolaji M, Akinola MO, Nasa IDH (2011) Analysis of adoption of improved maize varieties
among farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Peace and Development
Studies 1(3), 8-12
Langyintuo, A. S., Mwangi W., Diallo, A., MacRobert, J., Dixon, J. and Bänziger, M. 2010.
Challenges of the maize seed industry in eastern and southern Africa: A compelling case for
private–public intervention to promote growth. Food Policy, (35)4 :323–331.
Leake Gebresilassie and Adam Bekele. 2015. Factors determining allocation of land for improved
wheat variety by smallholder farmers of northern, Ethiopia. Journal of Development and
Agricultural Economics, 7(3):105-112.
Legese Garedew, Langyintuo, A.S., Mwangi Wilfred and Moti Jaleta. 2011. Determinants of
Adoption of Improved Drought Tolerant Maize Varieties and Their Implication for Household
Food Security in Drought Prone Areas. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 8(1):
105-132.
Lipton, M. 2005. The Family Farm in a Globalizing World: The Role of Crop Science in Alleviating
Poverty. International Food Policy Research Institute .Washington DC.
Maddala, G.S.1992. Introduction to Econometrics. Second Edition. New York,USA.
Maddala, G.S. 1997. Econometrics, Singapore, Mcgrow-hill Book Company.
Maredia, M.K., Byerlee, D. and Pee, P. 2000. Impacts of food crop improvement research: Evidence
from sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 25(5): 531–559.
Mcdonald, J.F. and Moffit, R.A. 1980. The uses of Tobit Analysis.” Review of Economics and
Statistics, 62(2):318-321.
Mekuria Mulugetta and Langyintuo, A. 2008. Assessing the influence of neighbourhood effects on the
adoption of improved agricultural technologies in developing countries. African Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 2 (2): 151-169.
Menale Kassie, Bekele Shiferaw and Muricho, G. 2011. Agricultural technology, crop income, and
poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development, 3(9): 1784-1795.
Mendola, M. 2007. Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: a propensity-score
matching analysis for Rural Bangladesh. Food Policy, 3(2): 372– 393.
Mesfin Astatkie. 2005. Analysis of factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale and its impact: The Case
Farta Wereda. Msc. Thesis, Presented to School of Graduate studies of Alemaya University.
Alemaya, Ethiopia.
 56

Mignouna, D. B., Manyong, V. M., Mutabazi, K. D. S. and Senkondo, E. M. 2011. Determinants of

adopting imazapyr-resistant maize for Striga control in Western Kenya: A double-hurdle
approach. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(11): 572 – 580.
Million Tadesse, Belay Kasa, Legesse Dadi and Dawit Alemu. 2004. "Determinants of fertilizer us in
Gununo area". Proceedings of agricultural technology evaluation adoption and marketing
Ethiopia; Workshop held to discuss results of 1998-2002,pp, 21-31.
MoARD (Ministry of Agricuture and Rurla Development). 2008. Crop Variety Register. Animal and
Plan Health Regulatory Directorate Crop Development Department. Addis Ababa: Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Developmen (MoARD), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development). 2010. The Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) 2010/11-2014/15 Draft. Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development (MoFED), September 2010. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 2014. Manual for Maize Technology Utilization (Amharic Version),
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mohmmed Yesuf, Menale Kassie, and Gunnar Köhlin, 2009 Risk Implications of FarmTechnology
Adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands Working paper. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:Environmental
Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia/Ethiopian Development Research
Institute.
Moti Jaleta, Chilot Yirga, Menale Kassie, Groote, H.D. and Bekele Shiferaw. 2013. Knowledge,
adoption and use intensity of improved maize technologies in Ethiopia. Invited paper presented
at the 4th International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists,
September 22-25, 2013. Hammamet, Tunisia.
Motuma T, Dejene A, Wondwossen T, Roberto LR, Girma TMW, Germano M (2010). Adoption and
Continued Use of Improved Maize Seeds: Case Study of Central Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res.
5(17):2350-2358.
Mubarak Sh.Omer. 2009. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Maize Technology in Agro-pastoral
Farming systems: The Case of kabribayah District in Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. MSc.
Thesis submitted to School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University.
Mugisha, J. and Diiro, G. 2010. Explaining the adoption of improved maize varieties and its effects on
yields among smallholder maize farmers in Eastern and Central Uganda. Journal of Scientific
Research, 5(1): 6 – 13.
 57

Mwabu, G., Mwangi, W. and Hezron, N. 2006. Does Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Reduce
Poverty? Evidence from Kenya. Poster paper prepared for presentation at the International
Association of Agricultural Economists Conference. Gold Coast, Australia.
Mwangi, M.and Kariuki, S. 2015. Factors affecting adoption of new agricultural technology by smallh
o-lder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development,
6(5): 208-216.
Nega Gebresellasssie and Senders, H. 2006. Farm-level adoption of sorghum technologies in Tigray,
Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Systems, 91(1-2): 122-134.
Negasa Asfaw, Gunjal, K. Mwangi, W. and Seboka Beyene. 1997. Factors affecting the adoption of
improved maize production technologies in Bako area, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
agricultural economics, 1(2): 52-73
Negatu Workineh and Parikh, A. 1999. The impact of percepation and other factors on the adoption of
agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru District of Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics,
2(1): 205-216.
Nkonya, E., Sschroeder, T. and Norman, D. 1997. Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed
and fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 4(2): 1-11
Nkonya, E. 2001. Cross-Pollinated Crop Variety Adoption Studies and Seed Recycling: The Case of
Maize.
Paarlberg, R., Wafula, D., Minde, I. and Wakhungu, J. W. 2006. Projected Farm Income Gains in the
comesa/ asareca Region from Commercialization of Maize.
Pashupati Paudel and Atsushi Matsuoka, 2008. Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Maize
Varieties in Nepal: A Case Study of Chitwan District. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 2(4): 823-834
Paudel and Matsuoka. 2008. Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties in Nepal: A
Case Study of Chitwan District. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2(4): 823-
834.
Pelmer, D. P. 2005. Agriculture in the developing world. Connecting innovation in plant breeding
research to downstream applications. 44: 15739-15746.
Pindyck, R.S., and D.C. Rubinfeld, 1997.Econometric models and economic forecasts (2nd ed). Mc
Fraw-hill, New York.
Ransom, J.K., Pandyal, K. and Adhikari, K. 2003. Adoption of improved varieties in the hills of Nepal.
Agricultural Economics, 2(9): 299-305.
 58

Rashid Shahidur, Getnet Kinde and Lemma Sisay. 2010. Maize value chain potential in Ethiopia:
Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system. IFPRI Working Paper, International
Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, DC, USA.
Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B. and Bayer, A. W. 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low
External Input Sustainable Agriculture. Netherlands.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. Understanding Faculty Adoption of Technology Using
the Learning/Adoption Trajectory Model, 5th Edition. Sahin Free Press, New York, USA.
Sahlu Yonas, Simane Belay and Bishaw Zewde. 2008. The farmer-based seed production and
marketingscheme: lessons learnt. In: M. H. hijssen, Z. Bishaw, A. Beshir and W.S. de Boef
(eds). Farmers, seeds and varieties: supporting informal seed supply in Ethiopia, 33-47
Wageningen: Wageningen International.
Salasya, B., Mwangi, W., Mwabu, D. and Diallo, A. 2007. Factors influencing adoption of stress-
tolerant maize hybrid (WH 502) in Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research,
2(10): 544 – 551.
Shiferaw Bekele, Kebede Tewodrose and You, L. 2008. Technology Adoption Under Seed Access
Constraints and the Economic Impacts of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania.
Agricultural Economics, 39(3): 309-323.
Shiferaw Bekele, Prasanna, B., Hellin, J. and Banziger, M. 2011. Crops that feed the world 6. Past
successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food
Security, 3(3): 307-327.
Shiyani, R.L., P.K., Joshi, M. Asokon and M.C.S. Bantilan, 2000. Adoption of improved chickpea
varieties: evidences from Tribal Region of Gujarat. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 55(2):156-171.
Simtowe, F., Kassie Mehale, Diagne Aliou, Silim, S., Muange, E., Asfaw Solomon and Shiferaw
Bekele. 2011. Determinants of agricultural technology adoption: The case of improved
pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 50(4): 325-
345.
Sinafikeh Asrat, Getawork Getachew and Alemayehu Seyoum. 2010. Trend and Determinants of
Cereal Productivity, Econometrics Analysis of Nationally Representative Plot-level Data.
International Food Policy Research Institute. Development Strategy and Governance Division
Discussion Paper. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Smale, M., Byerlee, D. and Jayne, T. 2011. Maize Revolutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development
Research group, The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper, 5659.
 59

Solomon Asfaw, Shiferaw Bekele, Simtowe, F. and Haile Mekbib. 2011. Agricultural technology
adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 3(9): 436-447.
Spielman, D., Byerlee, D., Alemu Dawit and Kelemework Dawit. 2010. Policies to promote cereal
intensification in Ethiopia the search for appropriate public and private roles. Food Policy
,3(5): 185-194.
Taha Mume. 2007. Determinants of the adoption of improved onion production package in Dugda
Bora district, East Shoa, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Presented To School of Graduate Studies of
Haramaya Universirty. Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Taher, S. 1996. Factors influencing smallholder cocoa production: a management analysis of
behavioural decision-making processes of technology adoption and application. Wageningen
University,Wageningen, Holland.
Techane Adugna, Mulut Demek and Bezabh Emana. 2006. Detrminants of fertilizer adoption in
Ethiopia. The case of major cereal producing areas. Agricultural society of Ethiopia, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Teferi Wondale. 2003. Trends in and Determinants of Fertilizer Use in Gozamin Woreda, Amhara
region, M.Sc. Thesis, Agricultural Economics, Alemaya University. Alemaya, Ethiopia.
Teressa Adugna and Heidhues, F. 1996. A simultaneous equation approach to the analysis of factors
affecting the adoption of innovations: the case of fertilizer in Lume District, Central Ethiopia.
In Food Security and Innovations, Successes and Lessons Learned. International Symposium
Hohenheim.
Tesfaye Yewndwesen, Ayana Amsulu and Borman, G. 2012. Integrated Seed System Development
Briefing Note – September 2012: Ethiopia Seed Sector Assessment Integrated Seed System
Development .Wagenigen, Wagenigen Uninersity and Research Center.
Tesfaye Zegeye and Alemu Haileye, 2001. Adoption of improved maize technologies and inorganic
fertilizer in Northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (ERO).
Research Report No.40, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 51p.
Tesfaye Zegeye, Girma Taye, Tanner, D., Verkuijl, H., Aklilu Agidie and Mwangi, W. 2001. Adoption
of improved bread wheat varieties and inorganicfertilizer by small-scale farmers in Yelmana
Densa and Forta districts of Northern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural research organization
(EARO) and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Tobin, J., 1958.Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometric a 26:29 39.
 60

Tripp, R. 2006. Strategies for Seed System Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of Kenya,
Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. An Open Access Journal published by ICRISAT, 2 (1).
Tripp, R. and Rohrbach, D. 2001. Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy,
26(2): 147-161.
Tura Motuma, Aredo Dejene, Tsegaye Wondesen, Rovere, R., Tesfahun Girma, Mwangi, W. and
Mwabu, G. 2010. Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: Case study of Central
Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(17): 2350-2358.
The World Bank. 2008. Agriculture for Development. World Development Report. Washington,
DC,USA.
WDR (World Development Report). 2008. Agriculture for Development. The World Bank.Washingtn,
DC, USA.
Yealembirhan Molla. 2006. Integrating the Formal and Informal Wheat varieties Supply Systems to
Improve Farmers’ Access to Modern Cultivars in the North Shewa Zone of the Amhara
Region. A M.Sc. Thesis, Presented To The School of Graduate Studies of Hawassa University.
Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Yishak Gecho and Punjabi, N. K. 2011.determinants of adoption of improved maize technology in
damot gale, wolaita, Ethiopia. Journal of Extension Education 1(9) : 1-9.
Yu, B. and Nin-Pratt, A. 2014. Fertilizer adoption in Ethiopia‟s cereal production. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics, 6(7): 318-337.
 61

7. APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Variance inflation factors of continuous variables to test multicollinearity

Variable VIF 1/VIF

Age of household head(AGE) 2.58 0.387121

Family size of household(FMSIZ) 2.15 0.464689

Education of household(EDUC) 1.34 0.745579

Land holding size (in ha)(LANDSIZ) 1.60 0.624985

Number of oxen owned(OXEN) 2.59 0.386729

Livestock (TLU) holding 3.30 0.302620

Frequency of extension(FEXV) 1.12 0.890069

Distance to markets(DISTANTM) 1.55 0.643640

Distance from all weather road(DMROAD) 1.24 0.806382

Mean VIF 1.94

Source: Own computational result

Appendix Table 2.Contingency coefficient for dummy variables to test multicollinearity

LABR AVALFER LANDFER CREDIT RADIO TRAIN INPRICE SEX

LABR 1.0000

AVALFER -0.0320 1.0000

LANDFER -0.1066 0.0201 1.0000

CREDIT 0.1609 0.0680 -0.0402 1.0000

RADIO 0.0076 0.2074 -0.0243 0.1035 1.0000

TRAIN 0.0490 0.1296 -0.0960 0.1251 0.1785 1.0000

INPRICE -0.1427 0.0581 0.1050 -0.0663 0.0300 -0.1451 1.0000

SEX -0.0631 0.1388 -0.0137 0.0927 0.1533 0.0136 0.0453 1.0000

 62

Appendix 3 Conversion factor of tropical livestock unit (TLU)

Livestock Category TLU

OX 1

Cow 1

Heifer 0.75

Woyefen 0.34

Calf 0.25

Donkey (adult) 0.7

Donkey (young) 0.35

Horse 1.1

Sheep (adult) 0.13

Sheep (young) 0.06

Goat (adult) 0.13

Goat (young) 0.06

Hen 0.013

Source: Storck, et al., 1991

Appendix 4 Conversion factor for adult equivalent (AE)

Age group male Femal

<10 0.6 0.6

10-13 0.9 0.8

>13 1 0.75

Source: Storck, et al., 1991

 63

Appendix 5. Survey Questionnaire

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POST GRADUATE DIRECTORATE

Questionnaire developed for the factors affecting adoption of improved Maize seed varieties in
Gena- Bossa woreda South Region.

General information

Questionnaire number -------------------- Interviewer’s name -----------------------------------

Date of interview -------------------------Name of Kebele ---------------------

Respondents (Household) Name --------------------------Sex------ Age ------- Name of district ----

----

1. Personal information

1.1 Characteristics of the Household head

1.1.1. For how long the household has been living in this area ----------------years.

1.1.2. Marital status, 1. Single 2.Married 3.Divorced 4.Widowed

1.1.3. Have you participated in leaderships in some formal social organizations (position) in the
kebele?

1. Yes 2. No

If yes, what is the status of household head in the kebele?

1. Kebele executive member 2. Kebele cadre 3.Religion leader 4.No status 5.
Other specifies.

2. Family size

2.1.Total family size is-------------------------

 64

2.2. Family member’s information

Name Sex Age Education level

2.3. Have you or your family members worked in some off farm productive activities in this
year outside your farm? 1. Yes 2. No

2.4 If yes, what is the number of family members worked in off farm activity ---------

2.5 number of days spent on off farm activities-------------------- and specify the type of off farm
activities they are engaged in?

1,Ploughing 2, Harvesting 3, Weeding 4, Threshing 5, other specify

2.4. How many of your family members do permanently work on farm? ---------------

What about non-farm activities?? include it

3. Farm size

3.1. How much is the total size of the land (farm size) owned ---------------- timad , number of
plots-------------------------------------------.

A. The grazing area ---------------

B. Area allotted to annual crops ----------------------------
C. Area allotted to tree crops -------------------------------
D. Homestead area---------------------------
E. Leased- in --------------------------------
F. Leased –out ------------------------
G. Others specify ------------------------------
 65

Crops grown and area allocated to each crop during 2007/8 cropping season

Crop Variety Area Yield

Improved local Improved local Improved local

Maize
Wheat
Teff
Barely
Others

3.2.What is the type of the land 1. Fertile 0 ,othewis

where is location of the land: 1.Dega 2.Woina dega 3.Others specify--------

3.3. How was the yield of your crops during the last year’s crop season compared to the
Previous year (s) ? 1.Very high 2. High 3.Low 4.Very low 5.Medium

3.4. Which crop performed well at this year? Choose the number.

 Maize compared to barely -----------1.Very high 2.High 3.Very low 4. Low

5. Medium
 Maize compared to wheat ----------1. Very high 2. High 3. Very low
4. Low 5. Medium
 Maize compared to teff ------------1. Very high 2. High 3. Very low 4. Low 5.
Medium

3.5. Was the weather condition favorable for crop production in the last production season?
1. Yes 2.No.

If the answer is no, what was the existing problem? 1. Shortage of rain fall 2. Flood and
snow 3, others specify ---------

3.6. Have you leased-out (rented out) your plot of land to other farmers? 1.Yes 2. No
If the answer is yes, what is the size of the land rented out? ---------------------- timads
 66

If the answer is yes, what is the reason? 1, Shortage of seed 2, Shortage of ox (en) 3, Disabled
4, others specify

3.7. Have you leased in (rented- in) land from other farmers? – 1. Yes 2. No
If the answer is yes, what was the size of land? _______________ timads

what is the reason for renting in the land? 1, Because of extra labor
force I have on-farm 2, Because of land shortage 3, Because of extra seed I have 4,
others
specify ------------

3.8. How many killo meter do you normally travel to reach the nearest
Market ---------------km Extension office--------------km
Paved or all weather road ------------km District or the nearest town------km
School------------------km Clinic -------------------------km
Water supply -----------------km

4. Livestock holding

4.1. What livestock types and number do you own?

S.No. Types of livestock Number

1 Ox
2 Cow
3 Heifer
4 Calf
5 Sheep
6 Goat
7 Horse
8 Donkey
9 Others

4.2. Would you please tell me the number of oxen you own? ------------------
4.3. Did you face shortage of oxen during this crop season? 1. Yes 2. No.
If yes, how did you overcome it? A, Hiring B, Borrowing C, Exchange arrangement
 67

d, others --------------------

5. Use of new technology

5.1. Which type of Maize variety do you prefer? A. BH 540 B. BH660 C. Poinor D. others
spefsify

5.2. How many timad/hectar do you allocate for one/more of the prefer seed-----------------
timad/hectar

5.3. What are your reasons for preferring it?(multiple answers are possible)

High yield =1 Resistance to disease =2 Resistance to lodging =3 Earliness =4

Seed size =5 Seed color =6 Weed competition =7 Taste in dishes =8 Others =9(specify)____

5.4. Have you ever interrupted growing improved varieties since your start? Yes =1 No =0

5.5. If yes, why? Seed not available =1 Seed too expensive =2 not adaptable =3
Susceptible to diseases =4 Poor quality of seed =5 Other =6(specify) ____

5.6.On what basis did you obtain improved seed? Purchase =1 Credit =2 others =3(specify) -
------------

5.7. If purchased, where did you buy the seed? Merchant =1 Local market =2
ESE =3 Other farmers =4 MOA=5 Others =6(specify)______

5.8. If the seeds were obtained on credit, were did you obtain it?
MOA/Extension =1 Other farmers =2 Cooperatives=3 Others =5 (specify)___

5.9. What was the price of improved seed at the time of planting? ------------------- Birr/Quintal

5.10. What was the price of local seed at the time of planting? ------------------ Birr/Quintal

5.11. What are your constraints in using improved Maize seed? not available =1 high price of
seed =2 lack of credit to buy seed =3 low yield potential =4 low output price =5 unaware
of it =6
others = 7(specify)_______________

5.12. Did you get enough amounts of improved seed in last season? Yes =1 No =0
 68

6. Extension service

6.1.Did you have any contact with extension agents during the last crop season?
1. Yes 2. No

6.2. If yes, on average how many days did the development agents contacted (visited) you?
1. Once per month 2.Twice per month 3.Three times per month 4 others

6.3. Have you been attending any agricultural training program? 1. Yes 2. No
Where? ------------ For how long? ---------------------.

6.4. Have you ever attended any field demonstration day arranged by extension agents?

1. Yes 2. No.

If yes, which types of crops were demonstrated? ------------------

6.5. Have you ever been observing when other farmers were using improved Maize seed?

1. Yes 2.No
If the answer is yes, what are your sources of information? 1. Other farmer 2. NGOs
3.Extension agent’s 4.Other specify--------

6.6. From whom do you get advice on the use of Maize (new technology) other than
extension agents? 1. NGOs 2.Experts in woreda office 3. Radio/ TV 4.Others
specify-------------------

6.7. Do you own radio or television? 1. Yes 2. No.

If yes, would you tell me whether or not you get advice on the use of new technology?
--------------------------------------------------------------

7. Labor availability

7.1. Did you face any labor shortage during the last crop season? 1. Yes 2. No.

If yes, for which farm operations did you face the shortage of labor? 1. Ploughing

2. Weeding 3.Thrashing 4.Harvesting etc.

 69

7.2. And how did you solve the shortage? 1. Through hiring of daily laborers 2. Through
debo (by use of communal labor) 3.By using family labor 4.Others specify ------------

7.3. Did you hire labor for Maize ploughing , planting, weeding and harvesting?

Operation No. of worker No. of days Wage rate per day Total payment

7.4. Can you get labor to hire when you are in need? 1. Yes 2. No

7.5. On which types of farm activity your female family members participated? 1. Weeding
2. Harvesting 3.Ploughing 4.Trashing 5. Others specify---------------------
7.6. On which activities do children < 18 years involves? ----------------------
7.7.Are there family members who are engaged in off- farm activity?

Types of off - Rate of Duration of The amount of Numbers of family

farm activities payment activity (month/ income obtained members working
year/ day) (Birr)

8. Income and expenses

8.1. What are your main sources of income (in order of importance)? -1, Crop sale 2,
Livestock sale 3, Off-farm income 4, others specify -------------
8.2. What is the income earned from livestock and livestock products during last season?

8.2.1 Income from sale of livestock/2007/2008 E.C /

Animal type Number sold Unit price Total sale price

Oxen
Cows
 70

Heifers
Bull
Calves
Goats
Sheep
Donkey
Donkey
Horse
Poultry
Hide
Others
Total

9.3. What is the reason for selling the animals?

1) For purchasing farm inputs 2) For settling debts 3) For buying clothes for family 4) For
buying food grains 5) Others (Specify) ----------

8.2.2. Income from sale of livestock products/2007/2008 E.C/

Product Amount Consumed Sold Unit price Total revenue

type collected per
year
Milk
Butter
Egg

8.2.3. Income from participation in off - farm activities.

Do you have off-farm activities?

1/ Yes 0/ No

If yes, type of work:

 71

1/Trading 2/Laborer 3/Carpenter 4/Civil servant 5/Other (specify)_________

For what purpose do you use the income from off-farm activities? 1) To purchase household
items 2) to purchase farm inputs 4) to settle debts 5) to buy food

9. Market service and price

9.1. Have you sold Maize, wheat and barley recently? 1. Yes 2. No.

9.2. If yes, what is the total amount produced, consumed you have sold and price you
have received during last production year?

Types of crops Total produced Amount consumed Amount sold

Qt Birr Qt Birr Qt Birr
Maize
Wheat
Barely

9.3.Where do you sell your agricultural products? 1.At farmgate 2.Taking to Local market
3.Others specify--------------------

9.4. Do you think you have received a fair price for your crops sold? 1. Yes 2. No
9.5. At what season do you usually sell your farm product?
1. Right after harvest 2.Latter after harvest 3. Others ---------------

9.6. What are the crops usually consumed by your family? 1. Wheat 2.Maize
3.Barely 4.Others --------------------
9.7. What amount of crops was consumed by your family during the last crop season?
1. Maize----------- (Qt/kg) 2.Wheat ----------- (Qt/kg) 3. Barely----------- (Qt/kg)

9.8. Would you tell me whether or not you meet the family food consumption
requirement from your own production in good year? 1. Yes 2. No
How about in bad year? 1. Yes 2. No
9.9. If no, how do you feed your family in case of food shortfall? 1. Purchasing
2.Borrowing 3.Others specify--------------------------
 72

9.10. If you purchase, what amount have you bought for family consumption during the
last crop season? 1. Maize ---------------------- 2.Wheat -----------------------
3. Barely ----------------------

10. Input supply availability and price

10.1. Did you get input (Maize seed and fertilizer) on time during production season?
1. Yes 2. No.
If the answer is no, for how long it is late? ----1, till the time of sowing passed 2, It is
delayed little 3, We never get at all 4, other specify

10.2. Is there adequate number of input suppliers? 1. Yes 2. No.

If yes, which ones are the suppliers? -------------------------------
If no, from where do you get the input especially Maize seed? 1. Buy from
others (traders) 2.From woreda Agricultural office 3.Other specify-------------------

10.3. What are the inputs and implements you have purchased for Maize, wheat and
barely farm operation during the last crop season? -----------------------------------

s.no. Item Unit Amount Unit price Total price

1 Seed
2 Fertilizer
3 Chemical
4 Others

10.4. What are the major problem of the existing Maize seed and fertilizer supply system? ---
1.High input price 2.Lack of credit 3.Shortage of supply 4.Poor quality 5.No problem
6. Other specify ---