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

1. Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of
Improved Wheat Varieties in Ethiopia
Chilot Yirga, Moti Jaleta, Bekele Shiferaw,
Menale Kassie, and Asfaw Negassa
8-12 October 2012

2. Outline
Introduction
Some facts about wheat production in Ethiopia
Wheat varieties released
Need for adoption study
Methodology
Sampling procedure
Survey instruments
Results
Socio-economic characteristics
Awareness and experience of wheat varieties
Current level of adoption of IMV (% HHs and % area)
Intensity of use of complementary technologies
Conclusions

3. Introduction
Wheat is third most important cereal after tef and maize
Produced by:
• Smallholder farmers (95%)
• Commercial farms (5%)
Two types : Bread wheat & Durum wheat
Wheat area: 1.50 million ha (CSA, 20010/11)
Major Growing Regions:
Oromia = 857,603ha
Amhara = 548,315ha
S.N.N.P.R.= 156,661
Tigray = 113, 596

4. Introduction
Current Productivity is low:
National=1.83 ton/ha
Pre-scaling up and demonstrations
3 - 4 ton/ha
Wheat has been recognized as a strategic food
security crop in the country’s attempt to bridge the
persistent food gap
A lot of resources has been invested in the
generation and transfer of wheat technologies

5. Table 1: Number of improved wheat varieties
released by year of release, Ethiopia
Year Released Improved Wheat varieties
(Number)
Bread wheat Durum wheat Total
Before 1981 3 - 3
1981-1990 3 1 4
1991-2000 15 8 23
2001-20010 25 20 45
Total 46 39 85

6. Background
These improved varieties with associated crop
management practices have been made available
to farmers through various projects and programs.
Hence, uptake of the improved varieties by
farmers and their impact on HH welfare remained
a concern to all involved in the generation and
transfer of wheat technologies.
Some effort had been made towards
estimating adoption and
explain farmers rational behind observed
adoption levels

7. Introduction
A notable drawback of previous technology
adoption studies are
Almost all studies are highly location specific,
• Around research centers
• Project intervention areas
Fail to allow generalizations indispensable
for policy making at national and regional
levels
Objective
document the level of improved wheat variety
knowledge and adoption among smallholder
farmers in Ethiopia

8. Sampling Procedure
A two-stage sampling procedure was used
Using the CSA/IFPRI 2002 data 353 wheat
producing districts with their respective wheat
area were identified
148 districts >2000ha wheat area were
selected (85% of the national wheat area)
The 148 districts were classified by major
AEZ
It was found to be located in 8 AEZs and 4047
kebeles

9. Sampling Procedure
The maximum number of kebeles to be surveyed were set
as 125 (logistic reasons)
The targeted 125 sample kebeles were distributed to the 8
AEZs based on the proportion of wheat area to each
Regional States.
Once arrived at the kebeles, the survey team leader using
a complete list of household members in a kebele randomly
selects 15-18 sample households

10. Table 2: Distribution of wheat sample household and
kebeles by agro-ecology, Ethiopia, 2011
Number of Households
Agro-ecology Kebeles Number (%)
H2 18 313 14.9
H3 5 66 3.1
M1 5 71 3.4
M2 43 715 34.1
SA2 2 23 1.1
SH1 5 90 4.3
SH2 21 367 17.5
SM2 26 451 21.5
Total 125 2096 100.0

11. Distribution of Survey Locations

12. Survey Instruments
Two complementary survey instruments were
developed and used in the study
A community level questionnaire administered to
community leaders and key informants; and
A household questionnaire administered to randomly
selected farm households

13. Modules of the HH level questionnaire
Module Coverage
1 Interview Background
2 Current HH composition and characteristics
3 Living condition of the farm household
4 Social capital and networking
5 Household assets
6 Improved wheat variety knowledge and adoption
Variety attributes affecting adoption
7 Crop production and utilization
Detailed plot characteristics, investment and input use
8 Transfer and other sources of income during 2010 cropping season
9 Access to financial capital, Information and institutions
10 HH expenditure

14. Results

15. Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households,
Ethiopia, 2009/10
Characteristics Whole Region
sample
Amhara Oramia SNNP Tigray
(N=2093)
(n=635) (n=1108) (n=246) (n=104)
Age of HH head
Mean 43.5 44.4 42.9 42.6 46.4
Gender of the HH head
Male Headed 93.3 96.1 93.3 93.1 76.9
Female Headed 6.7 3.9 6.7 6.9 23.1
Education of the HH
Do not read and write 37.7 49.3 33.4 21.9 50.0
Adult education 12.5 20.9 8.1 9.8 13.5
Grades 2-6 31.4 18.90 38.5 35.0 24.0
Grades 7-10 16.4 10.1 17.8 28.5 11.5
(Grades 11-14) 2.0 0.8 2.18 4.9 1.0

16. Table 2: Socio-economic Characteristic of Sample Households,
Ethiopia, 2009/10
Characteristics Whole Region
sample
(N=2093) Amhara Oramia SNNP Tigray
(n=635) (n=1108) (n=246) (n=104)
Years the HH head lived in the village 38.88 38.51 38.62 39.17 41.19
(Mean Years)
Whether the HH head is model or
follower farmer
Model (% HHs) 33.73 39.37 32.31 28.05 71.54
Follower (% HH) 65.74 60.63 66.7 71.95 28.46
Status of food consumption last year
(% HHs)
Food shortage all year round 2.24 3.18 1.75 0.41 6.06
Occasionally food shortage 35.29 35.93 36.56 21.81 50.51
No food shortage but no surplus 46.82 54.05 43.55 49.38 30.30
Food surplus 15.7 6.88 18.4 28.4 13.1

17. Figure 1: Distribution of farm size by region
Mean Std
3.34
2.61
2.01 2.08
1.74 1.81
1.26 1.32
0.96 0.84
Amhara Oromia SNNP Tigray whole
sample

18. Table 4: Smallholder farmers’ awareness and use of improved
wheat varieties as of 2011, Ethiopia, (% of farmers reporting)
Number of Improved
% of households Wheat Varieties
Ever
Agro-ecology Aware Ever Planted known grown
H2 96.5 91.0 11 11
H3 75.8 59.7 11 11
M1 93.0 76.1 5 5
M2 81.0 65.1 10 10
SA2 100.0 87.0 11 7
SH1 98.9 96.7 15 14
SH2 95.6 80.4 14 13
SM2 92.3 85.4 11 8
Whole sample 89.6 77.9

19. Table 5: Improved wheat variety awareness and experience
among smallholder farmers, Ethiopia (Proportion of farmers)
Year
Variety Released Aware Ever tried
Kubsa 1995 52.2 41.8
Galema 1995 29.3 22.4
Dashen 1984 29.2 23.6
Mada Walabu 2000 12.5 8.6
Tusie 1997 11 7.9
Mirtzer ? 5.8 4.7
Pavaon 1982 9.2 7.4
ET-13 1981 10.6 9.1
Digelu 2005 17.4 5.9
Enkoy 1974 8.9 6.6
Simba 2000 7.8 4.4

20. Table 6: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties
that farmers are aware of (Proportion of respondents)
Improved Wheat Variety
Reasons for never planting Mada-
known variety Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digelu Walabu Dashen
N=211 N=140 N=31 N=219 N=77 N= 110
Seed not available 28 39.3 32.3 79 44.2 24.5
Lack of cash to buy seed
(credit) 11.4 5.7 3.2 2.7 1.3 9.1
Susceptible to diseases/pests 9.0 6.4 6.5 0.5 10.4 15.5
Low yielding variety 12.3 14.3 25.8 2.3 10.4 21.8
Lack of enough land 24.2 16.4 22.6 5.5 13 20
Requires high skills 4.3 1.4 3.2 0.9 1.3 2.7
Lack of fertile soil 2.8 3.6 3.2 2.7 2.6 0.9
Not suitable for local
environment 4.3 9.3 3.2 4.1 14.3 0.9

21. Table 3: Source of variety information
Source of improved wheat variety information
1% 0% 1%
Government extension
5%
Another farmer
neighbour/relative
Farmer Coop/Union
38% Farmer group
55%
From trader
Other media

22. Who is an adopter
Some considerations
Smallholder Farmers operate multiple plots
Use local (traditional), old and recently released
improved varieties simultaneously on separate
plots of land
Most depend on locally produced seeds
Most use recycled (own saved exchanged or
purchased) wheat seeds
A farmer is considered an adopter if he/she used
any of the improved wheat varieties and used
seed recycled at most for five years

23. Table 10: Proportion of households using improved wheat by
wheat species and agro-ecological zone as of 2010, Ethiop
Bread and Durum
Wheat Bread Wheat Durum Wheat
All Improved Improved All Improved
Varieties Varieties All Varieties Varieties Varieties Varieties
AEZ No % No % No % No % No % No %
H2 301 16.4 198 65.8 290 96.3 198 68.3 35 11.6 13 37.1
H3 35 1.9 30 85.7 35 100.0 30 85.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
M1 60 3.3 37 61.7 59 98.3 36 61.0 4 6.7 3 75.0
M2 596 32.5 318 53.4 508 85.2 313 61.6 158 26.5 48 30.4
SA2 21 1.1 15 71.4 21 100.0 15 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0
SH1 88 4.8 74 84.1 88 100.0 74 84.1 2 2.3 1 50.0
SH2 310 16.9 232 74.8 305 98.4 232 76.1 12 3.9 6 50.0
SM2 423 23.1 247 58.4 404 95.5 247 61.1 95 22.5 54 56.8
Total 1834 100 1151 62.8 1710 93.2 1145 67.0 307 16.7 125 40.7

24. Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties as of 2010,
Ethiopia
% share from total % share from total
Wheat area improved wheat area
Kubsa 17.0 32.2
Galema 6.3 12.0
Dashen 5.7 10.8
Mada_walabu 3.0 5.6
Tusie 2.4 4.5
Mirtzer 2.9 5.5
Pavon 3.5 6.6
ET13 0 0.1
Digelu 1.2 2.3
Enkoy 1.2 2.2
Simba 0.8 1.5
All other IV 8.7 16.6
All Other IV 52.8 100.0

25. Table 10: Area share of improved wheat varieties by administrative
region as of 2010, Ethiopia
Variety Region
Tigray SNNP Amhara Oromia All regions
Kubsa 1.0 3.6 21.8 18.6 17.0
Galema 0.0 12.4 7.7 4.9 6.3
Dashen 5.5 5.1 6.6 5.3 5.7
Mada_walabu 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.0
Tusie 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 2.4
Mirtzer 14.5 5.8 0.2 2.7 2.9
Pavon 0.0 4.0 0.2 5.7 3.5
ET13 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Digelu 0.4 2.0 0.0 1.8 1.2
Enkoy 11.9 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.2
Simba 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8
All Other IV 2.8 31.7 1.7 8.7 8.7
Total 36.1 65.1 38.4 60.5 52.8

26. Figure 3: Number of years wheat seeds recycled
5%
16%
20% No recycle
one to two years
Three to five years
Six to ten years
29%
Over ten years
30%

27. Table 10: Average Yield of wheat by variety, wheat adoption
survey, Ethiopia, 2010
Mean % yield
Year No of Yield Std gain over
Variety released observations (kg/ha) (kg/ha) local
Digelu 2005 39 1785 1175 12.2
Simba 2000 34 1689 1174 6.2
Mada_walabu 2000 98 1675 839 5.3
Tusie 1997 90 2128 926 33.8
kubsa 1995 549 1746 1076 9.7
Galema 1995 217 1663 1127 4.5
Mirtzer 1984 79 1689 1103 6.2
Dashen 1984 164 1688 1021 6.1
Pavon 1982 79 2026 1024 27.3
ET13 1981 56 1591 1029 0.0
Enkoy 1974 36 1503 713 -5.5
Other IM
varieties n.a 249 1689 923 6.2
Local n.a 1385 1591 973 n.a

28. Table ZZ: Reasons for not using improved wheat varieties in the
future (% respondents)
Reasons Variety
Kubsa Galema ET-13 Digel M.Wala Pavo Tusie Dashe Enkoy
u bu n n
Susceptible to
diseases/pests 35.9 43.5 18.3 0.0 30.8 24.3 54.5 21.5 34.2
Low yielding
variety 39.1 30.5 60.0 18.2 30.8 54.1 0.0 52.3 32.9
Lack of enough
land 3.9 6.9 5.0 18.2 7.7 5.4 13.6 7.6 1.4
Seed not
available 4.7 6.1 8.3 9.1 2.6 10.8 9.1 9.3 17.8
Not suitable
for local env. 7.0 4.6 3.3 36.4 12.8 0.0 13.6 1.7 1.4
Lack of cash
(credit) 2.3 1.5 1.7 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.4
Lack of fertile
soil 2.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 9.1 2.3 6.8

29. Table Z: Intensity of use of DAP fertilizer on wheat in
Ethiopia, 2009/10 cropping season
Agro-ecology
Indicator of use H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 All
No. of plots 531 58 115 951 38 157 422 852 3881
% plots DAP
applied 69.3 86.2 83.5 67 97.4 49.7 83.2 73.7 63.9
Average rate per
cultivated Wheat 55.9 71.9 45.5 58.3 111.4 60.0 78.8 70.9 64.8
Area (kg/ha) (50.2) (49.2) (38.2) (56.6) (53.9) (72.8) (57.9) (63.9) (58.9)
Average rate per
fertilized Wheat 80.6 83.4 59.3 87.0 114.4 120.8 94.7 96.2 90.1
Area (kg/ha) (40.4) (42.7) (34.1) (47.7) (51.2) (57.5) (50.2) (55.7) (50.3)

30. Table Z: Intensity of herbicide use on wheat in Ethiopia,
2009/10 cropping season
Agro-ecology
Indicator of
use H2 H3 M1 M2 SA2 SH1 SH2 SM2 All
No. of plots 535.0 59.0 111.0 931.0 38.0 150.0 391.0 859.0 3074.0
% plots
herbicide
applied 75.5 86.4 44.1 44.6 89.5 88.7 88.5 24.9 53.5
Mean rate per
cultivated
Wheat Area 0.51 0.64 0.25 0.31 0.50 0.69 0.55 0.16 0.36
(lt/ha) (0.47) (0.41) (0.35) (0.45) (0.28) (0.48) (0.44) (0.34) (0.45)
Mean rate per
sprayed
Wheat Area 0.68 0.74 0.58 0.71 0.56 0.78 0.62 0.65 0.67
(lt/ha) (0.42) (0.35) (0.31) (0.42) (0.24) (0.44) (0.62) (0.40) (0.41)

31. Conclusion
The study showed that many survey farmers
are aware of the existence of improved wheat
varieties.
Adoption of improved bread wheat varieties is
also fairly high.
One factor affecting the widespread awareness
of the technologies in question is inter-farmer
interaction. Fellow farmers and family
members were identified as the major sources
of information by 50% of the respondents.

32. Conclusion
However, awareness and adoption of
recently improved wheat varieties among
survey farmers have been disappointingly
low revealing the existence of a huge gap
between time of variety release, farmer
awareness and subsequent adoption.
With respect to fertilizer, the intensity of
fertilizer application (DAP) has improved
remarkably well.

33. Conclusions
Of the four major wheat growing regions
intensity of fertilizer use is highest in SNNP
flowed by Amhara.
Unlike, inorganic fertilizer, herbicide use is
low.
A couple of implications could be derived
from this analysis:
First, the relatively high proportion of farmers
using improved wheat is an indication of their
willingness to test new improved technologies

34. Conclusions
However, very few farmers are growing the
recently improved wheat varieties. This is, in
part, due to the capacity and nature of the
formal seed system and in part to farmers'
lack of awareness of the existence of the
recently improved varieties due to poor
information flow.
Thus, appropriate mechanisms have to be
devised to bridge the gap between new
variety release, seed multiplication, farmer
awareness and adoption.

35. Recommendations
Second, the results show that farmers believe that
yields of improved, as well as local varieties of
wheat increase dramatically when properly fertilized.
And yet both rate (% of farmers using) as well as
intensity of use of fertilizer is still low indicating the
need to find ways and means for raising the use of
fertilize use.
Thus, the promotion of improved wheat varieties has
to be accompanied with timely and adequate supply
of complementary inputs (fertilizer and herbicide).