1. Tef Breeding: Challenges and
Opportunities
CONFERENCE: Improved Evidence Towards
Better Policies for the Tef Value Chain
By
Kebebew Assefa
10 October 2013
Hilton Hotel
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia

2. Outline
 Introduction
Significance of
tef crop
Relative merits of tef

Tef Breeding: Historical Perspectives
 Objectives & Major Achievements
 Challenges
 Opportunities
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgements

3. Introduction
Tef is the most important cereal of
Ethiopia
About 29% of the total acreage and 19% of
the gross grain production of all cereals
(CSA, 2012) (Table 1)
It is grown by over 6 million farmers’
households
 It is the major staple food grain for most
Ethiopians (> 50 million people)
(Important in the national food security)

4. Table 1. Area, production and yield of cereals for private holdings for
2011/12 (2004 E.C.) main (meher) season in Ethiopia (CSA, 2012)
Crop
Tef
Maize
Sorghum
Wheat
Barley
Finger millet
Oats/Emmer
Rice
CEREALS
Area
Production
Million % of Million % of
ha
cereals
t
cereals
2.73
3.50
28.47
18.61
2.06
6.07
21.48
32.27
1.92
3.95
20.02
21.00
1.44
2.92
15.02
15.52
0.95
1.59
9.91
8.45
0.43
0.66
4.48
3.51
0.03
0.50
0.31
2.66
0.03
0.89
0.31
4.73
9.59
18.81
Av.
No. of
yield Farmers
(t/ha) (million)
1.281
2.954
2.054
2.029
1.672
1.507
1.618
2.891
1.962
6.30
9.16
5.17
4.33
4.09
1.57
0.25
0.09
13.09

5. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in husbandry
1) Versatile agro-ecological adaptation (0-
3000 m a.s.l.)
Center of both origin and diversity
 Wide genetic variability

2) Resilience to both drought and
waterlogging

6. Fig. 1. Tef production areas
6

7. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in husbandry
3) Fitness for various cropping systems
4) Use as a catch and low-risk reliable crop
(at times of failures of long-season crops)
5) Little or no serious threats of disease and
pest epidemics

8. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in utilization
1) Best quality, consumer-preferred
“injera”: Good water holding capacity,
long shelf-life, unique flavor (slightly
sour but pleasant), pliability, smooth
and glossy texture
2) High returns in flour : 99% compared to
60-80% from wheat (Ebba, 1969)
3) High returns in “injera”

9. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)
4) Minimal postharvest losses and
high storage
longevity (storability)

10. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)
5) Importance of the
straw mainly as
fodder for cattle
and as a binder of
mud used for
plastering walls of
local houses

11. Introduction (Cont’d)
Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)
6) Cash crop value owing to the high
market prices of both the grains and
the straw

12. Introduction (Cont’d)
7) Nutritive value
 Very nutritious cereal grain
 High mineral contents (Fe, Ca, Cu, Zn, Mg)
 Health and performance food



Gluten-free (Celiac disease)
Slow release carbohydrates (diabetics)
Anaemia

13. Nutritional content of tef grain
Table 2. Comparison of nutrition status of tef with some of the
major cereals
Item
Tef
Wheat
Rice
Maize Sorghum Barley
Protein
11.0
11.0
9.7
9.4
8.6
8.5
Fat
2.6
1.9
1.6
4.4
3.8
1.5
Fiber
3.5
1.9
5.8
2.2
1.9
4.5
Carbohydrate 73.0
69.3
64.7
69.2
71.3
67.4
Mineral ash
1.7
5.0
1.3
2.4
2.6
3.0
13

14. Some consumer products of
tef
14

15. Tef Breeding: Historical Perspectives
Inception: Late 1950s (Jima)
Five inter-related phases
1) Phase I: 1956-1974
 Germplasm enhancement
 Mass and/or pure-line selection from germplasm
 Initiation of induced mutagenesis
2) Phase II: 1975-1995
 Discovery of artificial hybridization technique by
Tareke Berhe in 1974
 Incorporation of intra-specific hybridization
15

16. Tef Breeding: Historical …(Cont’d)
3) Phase III: 1995-1998
Initiation of molecular approaches (molecular
markers and genetic linkage maps, analyses of
molecular genetic diversity)
4) Phase IV: 1998-2003
 Incorporation of in vitro culture techniques & Interspecific hybridization
 Reappraisal of induced mutation techniques
5) Phase V: 2003- present
 Introduction of participatory approaches (PVS
and PPB)
 Continued genomics
16

17. Tef Breeding: Objectives
Increased productivity (Grain + Straw)
 Lodging Resistance
 Improved quality
- Tef (Grain color)
- Injera making quality
Resistance/tolerance to biotic stresses
Resistance /tolerance to abiotic stresses
Generation of basic information
 Promotion of improved varieties

18. Tef Breeding: Methodology
18

19. Major Achievements
 33 varieties released (MoA, 2012)

19 DZARC (10 from crosses)
2
Holetta (Holetta Key & Ambo Toke)
 1 Melkassa (Gemechis)
 5 Sirinka (Gola, Genete, Zobel, Mechare &
Laketch – RIL273 from DZARC)
 1 Areka (Ajora)
 3 Adet (Yilmana, Dima & Etsub)
 2 Bako (Guduru & Kena)
 Only 11 were from crosses (incl. Lakecth)

20. Table 3. Varieties mid and high altitude areas with adequate
moisture (optimum environment) (11)
Variety
DZ-01-354
DZ-01-99
DZ-01-787
DZ-01-196
DZ-Cr-44
DZ-Cr-82
DZ-Cr-255
DZ-01-974
DZ-Cr-358
DZ-01-1285
(Koye)
DZ-Cr-387
RIL
355 (Quncho)
Year
Seed color
released
Grain yield (t/ha)
Research field
Farmers' field
1970
1970
1978
1970
1982
1982
1993
1995
1995
2002
Pale White
Brown
Pale White
Very white
White
White
White
White
White
White
2.4-3.2
2.4-3.0
2.4-3.0
1.8-2.2
2.4-3.0
2.4-2.8
2.0-3.0
2.4-3.4
2.1-3.6
2.4-3.6
1.7-2.2
1.7-2.2
1.7-2.2
1.4-1.6
1.7-2.2
1.7-2.2
1.4-1.8
2.0-2.5
2.0-2.5
1.8-2.5
2006
Very White
2.5-2.7
2.0-2.8
20

21. Table 4. Varieties for terminal drought prone lowland areas (7)
Variety
DZ-Cr-37 (Tsedey)
DZ-01-1281 (Gerado)
DZ-01-1681 (Key Tena)
Ho-Cr-136 (Amarach)
Gemechis
Simada
(Cr-285
RIL295)
Boset
Year
released
1984
2002
2002
2006
2007
2009
Seed
color
Grain yield (t/ha)
Research
field
Farmers'
field
White
White
White
White
White
White
1.8-2.2
2.0-2.2
2.0-2.2
1.7-2.3
1.5-1.8
1.8-2.2
1.7-2.0
1.6-2.0
1.6-2.0
1.4-1.8
1.4-1.8
1.7-2.0
2012 Very
white
1.9-2.8
1.6-2.0
Boset: DZ-01-196 X DZ- Cr-37) HT'01-409
(sel 50d)
21

22. Table 5. Varieties released for cool waterlogged highlands (3)
Variety
DZ-01-899
(Gimbichu)
DZ-01-2675
(Dega tef)
Year
released
Seed
color
Grain yield (t/ha)
Research
field
Farmers' field
2005
White
1.8-2.0
1.6-1.8
2005
White
1.8-2.8
1.6-2.0
Two candidate varieties: under verification in 2013/14
main season
22

23. Institutional Set-up
DZARC/EIAR
National coordinator
Development and execution of countrywide tef research projects
Federal Research Centers
RARIs
HLIs
On-farm trials

24. Collaborations
Local
 Various institutions
 NGOs
 Private sector
International
 McKnight
Foundation (MF-CCRP)
 ODA
 IAEA
 TTU
and Cornell University
 University of Bern

25. Challenges
1) Lack of attention (both local and
international)
 Orphan/under-researched crop
 Little or no international focus (CGs,
regional or other national
institutions, donors, etc.)
 Limited national focus:

Recognition as a national priority

26. Challenges
2) Institutional Problems
 DZARC as a center of excellence
 No adequate enhancement of
capacity both at the CoE and
national level at large
 Lack of coordination

27. Challenges
3) Resource limitations
Acute shortage of human resources
Lack of adequate infrastructure
and facilities

28. Challenges
4) Technical problems
 Limitations in basic knowledge on tef
 Lodging has persisted as major challenge
in tef
 Seed size
 Shattering
 Resistance to diseases such as leaf rust
 Weak seed systems and technology
dissemination systems

29. Opportunities
1) Improved attention
Government attention against the
previous belief that tef is not
amenable to improvement
Improved international attention
especially by donors

31. Table 6. Tef germplasm collections [udated
from Seyfu, (1997)]
Source /Institution
No. of samples/
accessionss
Ethiopia, IIBC
5169
Germany, Inst. of Crop Science, Braunschwelg
30
Germany, Insti. for Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, (IPK) 5
Genebank, Gatersleben
Japan, Dept. of Genetic Resources, I Nat. Inst. of Agrobio. Resources
30
Yemen, Agricultural Research and Extension Authority
2
Russia, N.I. Vavilov All-Russian Res. Insti. of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg,
14
Slovak Republic, Botanical Garden of the University of Agriculture
1
South Africa, Division of Plant and Seed Control. Dept. of Agric. Tech.
Service, Private Bag X179, Pretoria
UK, Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Inst. of Grassland and Environ. Res.
USA, National Seed Storage Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado
USA, Western Region Plant Introduction Station, USDA-ARS, Washington
State University, Pullman
Total
3
3
341
368
5966
31

32. Table 7 . Ranges for some traits of tef
(Kebebew et al., 2001)
Trait
Minimum
Maximum
Days to panicle emergence
25
81
Days to mature
60
140
Grain filling period (days)
29
75
Plant height (cm)
20
156
Culm length (cm)
11
82
First culm internode length (cm)
2.68
8.05
Second culm internode length (cm)
4.15
11.45
First and second culm internode diameter
(mm)
1.2
4.5

33. Table 7. Cont’d
Trait
Minimum
Maximum
Panicle length (cm)
Peduncle length (cm)
10
5.85
65
42.3
No. primary panicle branches
10
40
No. spikelet/panicle
30
1070
No. florets/spikelet
3
17
Grain yield/panicle (g)
0.11
No. tillers/plant (total)
4
22
No. tillers/plant (fertile)
1
17
2.5

34. Table 7. Cont’d
Trait
Grain yield/plant (g)
Total phytomass/plant (g)
Hundred kernel mass (mg)
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Shoot phytomass yield
(kg/ha)
Diameter of grains (mm)
Harvest index (%)
Lodging index
Minimum
0.54
4
18.97
1058
Maximum
21.9
105
33.88
4599
6355
19630
0.50
5
20
1.0
39
100

35. Opportunities (Cont’d)
3) New insights in breeding approaches
 Participatory approaches
 Germplasm Collection/acquisition
 Hybridization
 Increasing
number of crosses
 Intra-specific and inter-specific crossing
 Harnessing potentials of wide crosses (Divergent
Crossing)
 Targeted Crossing

36. Opportunities (Cont’d)
3) New breeding approaches (Cont’d)
Ideo-type crossing for lodging resistance
Semi-dwarf compact panicle ideotypes with
reduced peduncle length
Semi-dwarf semi-compact (Gomadie-like) panicle
types with short peduncles (i.e. inflorescence ideotype more or less similar to that of rice)
Semi-dwarf loose panicle types with reduced
length between panicle branches and short
peduncles)

37. Opportunities (Cont’d)
3) New insights in breeding
approaches (Cont’d)
Biotechnological approaches
 In
vitro culture techniques (especially DH
production)
 Molecular markers and linkage map
 QTL analysis
 Comparative genomics (association mapping)

38. Opportunities (Cont’d)
3) New insights in breeding
approaches (Cont’d)
Biotechnological approaches (cont’d)
TILLING
and Eco-TILLING
Genome sequence and annotation
(functional genomics)
 MAS
 Genetic transformation
 Harnessing
important tef genes

39. Opportunities (Cont’d)
3) Brighter prospects (cont’d)
 Development and release of a value
chain strategy
 Initiation of focus on enhancement of
national tef research capability
 Improvements in seed multiplication
and technology dissemination

40. Summary: Less problem with good stuff

41. Conclusions
Commendable progress but yet
not sufficient
For Ethiopia, improvement of tef
is not an option but a dire need
Strengthened efforts in all aspects
Refinement
&
strict
implementation of the strategy

42. Acknowledgements
Ethiopian Government
IFPRI/ATA
EIAR
MF-CCRP
donors
and
other

43. Tef in Europe
43

44. Quncho tef scaling-up

45. THANK YOU!!!