COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCE

M.Sc. in Horticulture

THESIS

ASSESMENT OF PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS, OPPORTUNITIES AND

DORMANCY BREAKING METHODS OF APPLE (ANNA, DORSET GOLDEN,
PRINCESA), IN LEGAMBO DISTRICT, SOUTH WOLLO ZONE, ETHIOPIA

i
1.3 Objectives

The general objective to assess apple production constraints and opportunities and evaluating
different methods of bud dormancy breaking in Legambo district.

Specifically:
 To assess constraints and opportunities of apple production in Legambo district.
 To evaluate the effect of different dormancy breaking methods in Legambo district.
.

1
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the Survey Area

The survey was conducted at Legambo district, south Wollo Zone, , Ethiopia. Legambo is
located at about 501 km away from Addis Ababa, (380 55” - 39° 25”E latitude, 100 40”-110 00”
N) and longitude and altitude range of 1500 to 3700 meters above sea level. Its annual rainfall
ranges from 700 mm to 1200 mm with a minimum temperature of below 0°C maximum
temperature 13°C. The district is known for its high production potential for crops such as
barley, faba bean, peas, apple and livestock such as cattle, sheep, goat, horse, and donkey. It has
three agro-ecological zone ; ,,dega,,(48.4%), ,,woina dega,, (49.4%) and ,,wurch,, 2.2% ; with
total area of 111,382 ha. The population of the woreda is 203,535(Female 102,634 and Male
100,901) and 24440 households, of which 4613 households are female headed. The district has
37 rural kebeles and 3 urban kebeles. From the total kebeles 35 kebele are producing apple. This
survey was conducted in Lagambo district. Lagambo district is bordered by Lagahida and Kalala
in the south, Borena in the west, Dessie Zuria in the northeast and WaraIlu in the southeast. The
administrative center of the district is Akesta (Nurilign et al., 2017).

2
Figure 1: Map of study District in Legambo Woreda

3.2. Data Type and Collection Methods

Survey was done to assess factors that were constraints and opportunities of apple production in
the study area. The questionnaires were prepared to collect information about the opportunities
and constraints of apple production. Five potential apple fruit growing kebeles and twenty farmer
respondents from each kebeles‟ were purposely selected in the study area with the help of
district ‟ agricultural office extension experts. A total of 100 farmer respondents were listed in a
separate sheet and used for the interviewee.

The interviews and discussions were conducted in the local language amharic (አማርኛ). The
opportunities and constraints of apple production were asked and recorded and discussions were
made with respondents.

Primary and secondary data that comprise quantitative and qualitative data sets were used for the
study. For data acquisition, structured questionnaires were administrated to 100 selected
household respondents. The surveyed respondents were composed of apple producing farmers,
development agents, institutional heads and experts in the district. From gender perspective, the
sample was composed of male (95%) and female (5 %) household respondents. A series of focus
group discussions, key informant interviews, institutional analysis and repetitive field
observations were held across the sample kebeles to extract qualitative data of the study. Five
separate focus group discussions were conducted in five focal centers: Chiro, Merkemecha,
Segno gebaya, Terad and Dejmach centers.
In each discussion centers, representatives of five kebeles were screened to participate on the
discussion. That means all sampled kebeles were addressed. The group discussants were selected
purposively from female household heads, model farmers, and youth farmers. Thus, a total of 20
participants were involved in each center. The main criteria for focus group discussants selection
is their versatile knowledge and experience on apple history, production, constraints and
opportunities. Key informants were also selected purposively among major stakeholders and
important figures or expertise of stakeholders responded to questions crafted to suit each
stakeholder’s role and contribution in constraints and opportunities of apple production
(expansion, marketing and management). Eleven enumerators and one field coordinator with
some previous experience were recruited on merit bases and trained on code of conduct for data
3
collection, survey objectives, interview approaches and survey data collection techniques by the
research team. The field data were collected under strict supervisions of the research team.
Secondary data were collected from published and unpublished zonal and district government
offices such as Legambo Woreda Agriculture Office, Cooperatives and Marketing Office, Non-
Governmental Organizations such as Church Mekane yesus North central synode Development
and Social service commission , World Vision Ethiopia, Dereba light house program ; Central
Statistics Authority, other pertinent sources.

3.3. Sampling Techniques and Sample size

Two stage purposive sampling was used in this study. Primarily, five apple producing kebeles
were purposively selected from Legambo wereda. Likewise from those selected kebeles, a total
of 100 apple producing farmers were selected. Apple was first introduced to Legambo and it is
cultivated almost in all the 40 kebele administrations of the district. And the district was
purposively selected for this study. The population of the district is homogeneous in agro-
ecology, socio-economic condition and share common culture and hence simple random
sampling technique was used to select sample kebele administrations. Consequently, 5 kebeles
namely dejmach( 014), Segnogebaya (023), Merkemecha (024), Chiro (025) and Terad (027)
were drawn as sample kebeles.

The sample kebeles has different household size. The sample households were drawn using
systematic random sampling proportionate to household head techniques. The household head
list in each kebele was used as sampling frame to select sample households. Literatures on
research as well as the rule of thumb in statistics suggest that 10 per cent of the accessible
population for the sample is statistically significant to represent the target population. Lastly, a
total of 100 household respondents were included in the study.

3.4. Data Analysis Method

The data were coded and entered in SPSS software version 20. Data collected from different
sources were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as mean, percentage and frequency, and
the results were presented in tabulation form.

4
5
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. The characteristics of household respondents

From the total purposely pre-selected five potential apple fruit growing kebeles, 100 farmers‟
respondents were interviewed and among this, 5% were females and 95% were males, (Table 1)
this implied that most of the households in the area were headed by male than female. The
educational background of the sample household heads is believed to be an important feature that
determines the readiness of household heads to accept new ideas and innovations As indicated in
Table 1most of the respondents , 60, 20, and 20% of respondents were found to have attained
primary, illiterate, and read and write holders respectively. The finding showed that a large
portion of the households attained primary education. In line with this, Seifu et al. (2011)
reported that most of the sampled respondents (39.8%) attained primary school education and
26.6% were above secondary school. Contrary to this study, they reported that a significant
portion of the respondents (33.7%) had never been to school. The results in table 1 show that the
Marital Status of respondent of most respondents (100%) Married. The apple size/number/ of
most respondents 40, 40 and 20% of from 80 to 150. From 30 to 80 and less than 30 ranged
respectively. Who found that over 20 % of the sampled households in this study district were
illiterate which might influence the adoption modern agronomic practices. In this study the
literacy was extended from read &write to attending regular school education.

As indicated in Table 2, from the total, 54.0, 20.0 , 14.0 ,9.0 and other 3% of respondents were
found to have attained Information of market , Price/free marketing/ and access of infrastructure ,
access of infrastructure, Price/free marketing/ respectively. Apple marketing opportunities in
Study district. Access of permanent and appropriate work place/infrastructure like road,
transportation and telephone/, access to free /fair pricing of marketing service, standards both in
quantity and quality of the product, and fair pricing some of the dominant opportunities by the
respondents.

Table 1. Characteristics of household respondents (N=100)

Variable Description Categories Frequency Percent
Gender of respondent Male 95 95%
Female 5 5%
Literacy/Educational status/ Illiterate 20 20%

6
 of household 60
Primary 20 60%
Read and Write 20%
Marital Status of respondent Married 100 100%
Unmarried 0 0%
Apple orchard size(ha) Less than 0.0261 20 20
From 0.027 to 0.072 40 40
More than 0.072 40 40
Apple size /Number/ Less than 30 20 20
From 30 to 80 40 40
From 80 to 150 40 40
Age of an orchard (years) Less than 10 70 70%
From 10 to 20 30 30%
More than 20
Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021

Table 2. Main marketing possibilities for apple fruit

Marketing possibilities Frequency Percent /

%/
Information of market 9 9.0
Price/free marketing/ 14 14.0
access of infrastructure 20 20.0
Information of market , Price/free marketing/ and access of 54 54.0
infrastructure
Information of market ; Price/free marketing/ , access of 2 2.0
infrastructure
Information of market, access of infrastructure 1 1.0
Total 100 100.0
Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021
As indicate in Table 3 Many studies have shown that rapid population growth in developing
countries is closely associated with very young population structure and high age dependency
ratio. Further, age of a farm household head in the district indicates his experience in farming,
land ownership, cropping calendar and adoption of new technologies that in turn determines food
security status of the household. The study revealed that the mean age of the surveyed
households in the district is 44.72 while the minimum & maximum age found to be 23 and 85,
respectively. Similarly, it is important to assess the dependency ratio in the households in order
to determine the burden on the productive age group. The dependency ratio is the ratio of the

7
 number of dependents (age groups between 0-14 and 65 and above) divide by the productive age
group (15-64). It is normally expressed as a percentage (Todaro and Smith, 2012).
Table.3 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Age scale 100 23.00 85.00 44.7200 9.82481

Total 100

Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021

4.2. Constrains of Apple Production and Marketing

Constraints of Apple Production

As shown in (Table 4), it is indicated that ‘problems of apple production farming to be

productive in apple from the total (21.0%, 18.0%, 16.0% and 15.0%) Disease and pest , Disease
and pest, Shortage/Lack/of material and Lack of training , Disease and pest, Selection of Varity
and frost, Shortage/Lack/of material and breaking of dormancy and Shortage/Lack/of material
with respectively are the top four priority challenges aggregated from apple producer farmers.

Poor agronomic management: agronomic management determines the quality and production
of fruits. For instance, Girmay et al. (2014) indicated pruning enhances apple fruit production
and quality through increased efficiency of light utilization, ease of air circulation through the
canopy and decrease incidence of fungal disease. Apple fruit production needs intensive
horticultural and agronomic managements like timely thinning, pruning, training, watering and
applying adequate amount of compost which was not done adequately in the district. In Legambo
apple fruit production mostly relied on rainfall and not irrigated adequately. The problem
manifested by decreased purity of the fruit (scared, spotted (tekateko) or cracked fruit) according
to district experts. Disease problem like powdery mildew, apple scap and apple canker. Lack of
training result lack skill manpower and knowledge of apple production. Not apply different
dormant breaking methods.

Lack of production inputs: producers pointed out that inputs like scissor, saw, harvesting, and
packing

8
Materials were crucial in fruit production but not available in the district. There was no supplier
of these materials in the district. Key informant interview indicated that sometimes domestically
produced pruning and thinning materials supplied by dereba light house project and Church
Mekane yesus North central synode Development and Social service commission (washera)
project. But domestically produced materials did not have the required quality, easily broken and
did not properly work as producers blame. According to Legambo highland fruit cooperative,
which has around 162 member producers, scissors and saws that were bought by Church Mekane
yesus North central synode Development and Social service commission and Dereba light house
project from Switzerland, Germany and distributed for producers, were durable and demanded
by the producers but not accessible.

Theft and Birds: theft was another challenge in the district as far as apple fruit production is
concerned. Producers reported that their fruit was stolen from their orchard either in the night or
during heavy rain. Additionally, birds attack was a challenge faced by producers. Disease
problems such as powdery mildew, scab, crown gall and peach leaf curl are observed and some
of these are serious problems in most of the growing areas and become the major production
constraints.

Lack of organic certification: apple fruits produced in Legambo were free of any chemical
contact and fully organic. Producers did not use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
They controlled pests and disease using bio-chemicals like garlic, cattle urine, cattle dung and
neem solution. Producers were not certified for organic production, and did not benefit from
organic product they supply.

Table 4. Major problems of apple production activities (n=100)

problems of apple production Frequency Percent /%/

Disease and pest 21 21.0

Variety election problem and frost 4 4.0

Shortage/Lack/of material (pruning scissors, grafting and budding knife) 15 15.0

Lack of training 5 5.0

9
 Disease and pest, Selection of Varity and frost and Shortage/Lack/of
7 7.0
material

Disease and pest, Selection of Varity and frost, Shortage/Lack/of material

16 16.0
and breaking of dormancy

Selection of Varity and frost, Shortage/Lack/of material, breaking of

2 2.0
dormancy and Lack of training

Disease and pest, Shortage/Lack/of material/input/ pruning scissors,

18 18.0
grafting and budding knife) and Lack of training

Disease and pest, Selection of Varity and frost, Shortage/Lack/of material 7 7.0

Disease and pest, breaking of dormancy and Lack of training 4 4.0

Disease and pest, Selection of Varity and frost, Shortage/Lack/of

1 1.0
material , breaking of dormancy and Lack of training

Total 100 100.0

Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021

Constrains of Apple marketing

As shown in (Table 5), it is indicated that Marketing constraint of apple fruit to be productive in
apple from the total (33.0%, 24.0%, 13.0%, 9.0% and 9.0%) No-cooperative, lack of price
information and lack of reasonable price, No-cooperative, lack of price information, lack of
reasonable price, problem of postharvest handling and Lack of improve storage, Lack of price
information, lack of reasonable price and problem of postharvest handling, No cooperative and
Lack of price information and lack of reasonable price with respectively are the top four priority
challenges aggregated from apple producer farmers.

Unripe apple fruit trade: producers could be benefited more from the production if they could
supply ripe fruit to the market. some producers did not accept this because they prefer to sell all
fruits (ripen and unripe) at a time for collectors in intention of getting money for their immediate
expenses as fruit is main source of income from February to May in the area. Producers blame
cooperatives and wholesalers for sorting their fruit for quality and rejecting unripe and low
quality fruits.

10
 Illegal trade: There were no registered fruit collectors in the district. They bought fruits from
producers at farm gate and the district market. They bought fruits by guessing the kilogram using
plastic bag (pestal) and sometimes using spring balance. Farmers reported these buyers bought
fruit without sorting for quality but payed lower price. According to key informants these buyers
(collectors) cheated producers by using tied balance and enlarging the plastic bag (pestal) they
used to guess the kilogram.

Seasonality of supply: apple fruit supply reported to fluctuate seasonally. The season of lowest
fruit supply started from main rainy season June to mid-November when also prices were the
highest. Fresh fruit supply started to rise in January and reached its peak in April and May.
Generally, imported fruit tend to be more competitive than produced domestically, in terms of
quality and sustainability of the supply.

Poor market coordination and information flow along the chain: Traders incur high market
search cost because of poor communication and market coordination.

Table 5. Marketing constraint of apple fruit

Marketing constraint Frequency Percent /%/

No cooperative 2 2.0

Lack of price information 7 7.0

lack of reasonable price 9 9.0

No cooperative and Lack of price information 9 9.0

Lack of price information, lack of reasonable price and problem of

13 13.0
postharvest handling

lack of reasonable price, problem of postharvest handling and Lack of

1 1.0
improve storage

problem of postharvest handling and Lack of improve storage 1 1.0

No-cooperative, lack of price information, lack of reasonable price ,

24 24.0
problem of postharvest handling and Lack of improve storage

No-cooperative, lack of price information and lack of reasonable price 33 33.0

11
Total 100 100.0

Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021

4.3. Opportunity of apple production and marketing

4.3.1. Opportunity of apple production

As shown in (Table 6), it is indicated that ‘opportunities of apple production to be productive in
apple from the total (51.0%, 25.0%, 10.0% and 14.0%) Enough labour, farmer interest increase,
production increase, price, medicinal value, suitable agro–ecological, access of water and Market
near ; enough labour, farmer interest increase, production increase, suitable agro –ecological,
access of water and Near market; suitable agro -ecological and other sum with respectively are
the top four priority opportunity aggregated from apple producer farmers. The involvement of
such age group and family size in apple production implies the presence of adequate productive
labor to divide for intensive apple management activities as necessary. To increase apple
production, farmers can both expand and increase interest apple cultivation. Agricultural
expansion which refers to increasing agricultural production through bringing more marginal
land under cultivation is impossible in the area while intensification which requires technological
backup is non- existent in the area.

Apple is widely cultivated temperate climate cash fruit tree. In addition to its dietary value, apple
tree is a source of household income and enhances soil conservation. Study district; located in
the Legambo highlands; has especial history in apple production in Amhara national region state.
Apple tree has introduced to the district in the early 2005s through the Church Mekane yesus
North central synode Development and Social service commission church. Whatsoever the
progress recorded, the district has become the pillar source of apple plantation in the region and
the Ethiopian Church Mekane yesus North central synode Development and Social service
commission and Legambo agricultural office Horticulture team took the lion share in the
expansion. The study district best suitable agro- ecological area.

The proverb "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", addressing the health effects of the fruit,
dates from 19th century. Research suggests that apples may reduce the risk of colon cancer,
prostate cancer and lung cancer. Compared to many other fruits and vegetables, apples contain
relatively low amounts of vitamin C, but are a rich source of other antioxidant compounds. The

12
 fiber content, while less than in most other fruits, helps regulate bowel movements and may thus
reduce the risk of colon cancer. They may also help with heart disease, weight loss, and
controlling cholesterol. The fiber contained in apples reduces cholesterol by preventing
reabsorption, and (like most fruits and vegetables) they are bulky for their caloric content.
(ViorelLeahu.etal. moldovan, 2011).

Table 6. Production opportunity of apple fruit

Production opportunity Frequenc Percent

y

Abundant labour 1 1.0

production increase 2 2.0

suitable agro –ecological 10 10.0

enough labour and farmer interest increase 2 2.0

enough labour, farmer interest increase, production increase, suitable agro

25 25.0
–ecological, access of water and Near market

farmer interest increase, production increase and Price 2 2.0

production increase, price and Medicinal value 1 1.0

Price, Medicinal value and suitable agro –ecological 1 1.0

suitable agro –ecological, access of water and Market near 5 5.0

Enough labour, farmer interest increase, production increase, price,

medicinal value, suitable agro–ecological, access of water and Market near 51 51.0
access

Total 100 100.00

Source: Own survey Result, 2020/2021

Constraints of apple market

SWOT
Strength Weakness

13
  Technical efficiency  No clustering system
 Apply watering and compost system  Not apply training
 harvest un maturing/No ripening
 Marketing system
fruits/
 Some farmers variety select  management problem
 Apply pruning and training  pruning and training problem
Major Constraints Major Opportunities
 Pruning material  Supply of different variety
 Disease protection /chemical  Pure water access
 Fertilizer supply  Resistance of frost
 Lack of Grafting technical  Suitable agro-ecology
 Government support ,Non- Government support
 Lack of apple back ground

Strength

Agronomic practices are steps farmers incorporate into their farm management system to
improve soil quality, enhance water use, manage crop residual and improve the farming system
through optimum application and management of agricultural inputs and technologies. The
common agronomic practices on apple production are application of organic fertilizer (manure),
grafting and pruning using appropriate equipment, spacing, intercropping and disease control.

Weakness

The sampled some farmers responded that absence of the pruning and grafting techniques and
its inflated harvested unripe and ripe fruit and the lack of technical know-how made them not to
do it. Not apply to clustering system and some producers did not accept this because they prefer
to sell all fruits (ripen and unripe).

Major constraints

Producers did not prune and graft their apple tree for they had no appropriate pruning and
grafting equipment. The sampled some farmers responded that absence of the pruning and
grafting materials at local market and its inflated price in regional market and the lack of
technical know-how made them not to do it.

Major Opportunities

14
The agro-ecology of the district is suitable for apple production (48.4% highland). Suitable
accessing land, water, and finance; and adequate skills and technology. the study area are both
governmental and non-governmental organizations which have been engaged in providing
financial, legal, technical and marketing services. Increase selection of improved apple variety,
compost application, apple grafting, harvesting and post-harvest handling. Production of
temperate fruits in Ethiopia is highly promising even though the culture is new to the farming
society and is limited to few places in the highland areas. Its development is not yet well
integrated into the agricultural system in-terms of use of resources such as land, water, labor, etc.
and experience in production, handling, use and marketing of the fruit is minimal..

Agricultural Extension advice and training

As indicate in table this is the governmental institution which provides extension service for
small scale farmers in agricultural sector in the study area. This organization provides various
extension services specifically in apple sector in the study area. The major services which this
organization is providing in the apple sector are apple breeding, provision of improved apple
variety, compost application, apple grafting, harvesting and post-harvest handling, and provision
of improved harvesting material. The assessment has further indicated that despite extension
service is providing technical advice in apple sector, provision of extension service is not
covered the whole farming families in the study area.

Table 7. Assessment of satisfaction for extension advice and training

Extension advice and training Frequency Percent /%/

Low 51 51.0

Medium 48 48.0

High 1 1.0

Total 100 100.0

4.4. FGD result on the constraints and Opportunities of Apple Production and
Marketing

15
Although apple production started in the early 2005s in Legambo due to its suitable agro-
ecology, the coverage is still far below from the available potential; the average income earned
from its production is low. They trained a number of farmers starting from production up to post
harvest management. The sector has yet facing a number of challenges. According to focus
group discussion participants and key informants, the main challenges of apple production in the
study area include among others;

 Shortage of grafting and pruning equipment’s and lack of storage

 Poor agronomic practices and poor awareness

 Shortage of trained manpower on apple production and management techniques

 Focusing on immediate income from mother tree plantation rather than apple seedlings

 Shortage of seed capital and poor farmer-research and development linkage

 Diseases such as apple scab, powdery mildew, leaf curl and insect pest, and

 Poor marketing channels (prevalence smugglers and lack of perfect market)

Focus group discussants also allege cooperatives for unfair competition and sabotage among
themselves; key informants like cooperative office vindicate the case. Wholesalers market is a
market segment where transaction takes place mainly in between Primary Cooperatives and
whole buyers. A number of government and non-governmental organizations have been exerting
unilateral efforts to enhance apple production and productivity as well to improve its market for
the last years.

Description of the Experimental site

Experimental Treatments (treatments and experimental design)

Treatments were consisting of five dormancy breaking techniques (control, application of Neem
extracts, garlic extracts, cow dung and cow urine) and three apple varieties (Anna, Dorset
Golden, and Prencisa).

16
Experimental Procedures
Uniform, ten-year-old trees of Dorset golden, Princesa and Anna apple varieties (Malus
sylvestris, Mill.) grafted on Malling-Merton 106 (MM 106) rootstock and grown on loamy sand
soil were randomly selected for this research study in the 2020 seasons. All trees (n=15) were
grown on in an attempt to reach break dormancy at the Qersole high land fruit nursery. The
treatments were factorial combinations of three varieties, namely Dorset golden, Princesa and
Anna and five dormancy breaking agents, namely control, garlic extracts, neem extracts, cow
dung and cattle urine. The 3x5 treatment combinations were arranged in Randomized Complete
Block Design (RCBD) replicated three times (i.e. each tree was designed as one replicate, and
each treatment included five trees).

In an attempt to reach break dormancy at the appropriate time, trees grown in the Qersole high
land fruit multiplication were selected (n = 5 for each treatment) and labeled in November and
received foliar treatments during December 2020. Each tree was designed as one replicate, and
each treatment included five trees.

Experimental Data Collection

Morphological characteristics and yield measurements

In the studied season, bud counts were made for each tree (n=5) in all treatments. The dates on
which floral and vegetative buds started to open were recorded. Numbers of buds were counted
when all the buds had opened, and the percentages of buds opened were estimated. The dates on
which flowering reached 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the total final number of flowers were
estimated in each treatment. Flowers in which the calyx began to extend were tagged, in order to
measure the percentage of fruit-set. At harvest, all the apple fruits were harvested from each tree,
counted, and weighed. Data on –No/ of buds, flowering data, %age of flowering set, yield.

Data Analysis
All collected data were subjected to statistical analysis following the standard procedure
described by Gomez and Gomez (1984) using SAS software version 9.3 software (SAS Institute,
2008). The ‘F’ test was applied to assess the significance of the treatment, using the Least
Significant Difference test (LSD) at the 5% level of probability (P ≤ 0.05). Pearson’s correlation

17
analysis was used to reveal the magnitudes and directions of relationships among buds, flowers
and fruit yield.

18
 4. Resultand discussion

4.1. Date of floral bud break in the orchard

With the buildup of low temperature, the chilling demand for fruit trees was step by step happy.
Data in Table (1) indicated the dates to flowering (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% flowering) for
Anna, Dorset golden and Prencisa, respectively.

Table 1. Date of flower bud opening and flowering period in apple varieties in the orchard

Date of flower bud opening

Varieties Botanical 25% 50% 75% 100%(End of Duration
extraction and flowering flowering flowering flowering Flowering(day)
cow urine and
dung
Anna Control 10.00 31.00 35.00 40.00 29.0
Garlic 4.667 23.333 27.667 30.00 21.42
Neem 9.00 27.333 32.333 35.667 26.1
Cow urine 6.667 25.667 29.333 33.667 23.8
Cow Dung 9.333 27.667 31.667 37.333 26.5
Dorset Control 11.667 30.00 38.00 42.00 30.42
golden
Garlic 4.333 23.667 27.00 29.667 21.17
Neem 8.667 27.333 32.333 35.667 26.0
Cow urine 6.333 25.667 29.333 33.667 23.75
Cow Dung 8.667 27.667 31.667 34.667 25.67
Prencisa Control 15.00 33.00 41.00 45.00 33.5
Garlic 4.667 27.333 32.00 36.00 25.0
Neem 8.00 29.333 34.333 37.667 27.33
Cow urine 6.667 28.333 32.333 37.00 26.1
Cow Dung 9.00 29.00 33.667 36.667 27.1
*Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P > 0.05

Data in Table 2 clearly indicated that spraying apple trees with all concentrations of the garlic, neem,
and cow urine and cow dung extract hastened the different level of flower number as compared to the
control. This flower number reached about over the control in the 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
flowering and in the apple varieties for anna, Dorset golden and prencisa at 25%, 50%, 75% and
100% respectively. As regards the effect of the tested substances on 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
flower number, the present results clearly show that all treatments hastened 25%, 50%, 75% and
100% flower number as compared to the control. Further, the number of flowering days is more hastened

19
 by garlic treatment in all apple varieties as compared to Neem, Cow Urine and Cow Dund.

4.2. Apple fruit Phonological stages as influenced by botanical extraction, cow

urine, cow dung and varieties
Data presented in Table (2) indicated that Anna apple varieties gave a high percentage of flower
bud breaks, comparing with the Dorset golden and Prencisa apple variety. The proportion of
flower bud break was 781.364 for Anna apple varieties respectively as compared with 688.80
and 616.53 for Dorset golden and Prencisa apple variety. However, the percentage of botanical
extraction was 804.33, 710.48, 704.15 and 696.00 for Garlic, Cow dung, Neem, and Cow urine
extract respectively as comparison with 562.85 for control chemical.

Data presented in Table (3) indicated that early- opining apple varieties gave a high number of buds
comparing with the late-opining apple variety. The number of flower bud break was 781.364 and 688.80
for Anna and Dorset Golden varieties respectively as comparison with 616.53 for Prencisa variety.

20
Table 2. Apple fruit Phonological stages as influenced by Botanical extract, cow urine and cow dung and varieties

Treatment Parameter
of Varieties Number of flower at Flowering data at
25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% Number of
floweri flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering buds
ng data data data data
Anna 155.3a 193.51a 263.02a 319.57a 7.9b 26.87b 31.2b 35.33b 781.364a
Dorset Golden 139.4b 173.51b 227.47b 292.58a 7.9b 27.0b 31.67b 35.13b 688.80b
Prencisa 110.8c 138.87c 190.42c 249.07b 8.67a 29.4a 34.67a 38.47a 616.53b
LSD (5%) 15.71 14.899 27.69 40.979 0.6 1.43 1.75 1.87 75.81
CV% 15.53 11.81 16.31 19.085 10.05 6.68 7.18 6.88 14.6
Botanical Parameter
extraction, Number of flower at Flowering data at
25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% Number of
flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering flowering flowerin buds
data data data g data
Neem 134.44bc 174.04b 239.37ab 298.99 8.56b 28.0b 33.0b 36.33b 704.15b
Garlic 168.70a 210.297a 273.52a 361.04a 4.56d 24.78c 28.89d 31.89 804.33a
Cow urine 152.5ab 194.557a 263.44a 323.2ab 6.56c 26.56bc 30.33cd 34.78b 696.0b
Cow dung 126.29c 160.70b 218.85b 279.70b 9.00b 28.11b 32.33bc 36.22b 710.48ab
control 93.89d 103.55c 139.67c 172.52c 12.22a 31.33a 38.00a 42.33a 562.85c
LSD (5%) 20.28 19.23 35.75 52.9 0.79 1.84 2.25 2.4 97.86
CV% 15.53 11.81 16.31 19.085 10.05 6.68 7.18 6.88 14.6
*Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P > 0.05

1
4.4. Yields and its components
Data in Tables 3 show that all concentrations of garlic, cow urine, neem and cow dung extract
increased apple yield and its components; fruit-set and fruit number as compared to the control
trees. The trend of this result was true in the all parameter. Maximum increases were recorded
varieties with anna, dorset golden and prencisa. These varieties recorded 308.53,284 and 232.22
for fruit number respectively, and 335.186, 305.7, 279.74, 261.369 and 192.93 for fruit number
tree−1 in the garlic, cow urine, neem, cow dung and, respectively over the control.

4.5. Fruit weight per plant, Average fruit weight, Fruit per plant, Fruit size:
small, medium, and large
Data in Table (3) also show that indicate , apple varieties (Anna and Dorset golden) have great
number of Fruit weight per plant, Average fruit weight, Fruit per plant, Fruit size: small,
medium, and large when compared to the apple variety (Princesa). Botanical extraction ( Garlic,
Neem, Cow Urine and Cow Dung have a great number of Fruit weight per plant, average fruit
weight, Fruit per plant, Fruit size: small, medium, and large when compared to the control
respectively.

Data in Table (4) also show that early-flower opining apple varieties have a great number of apple fruits
and total fruit yield when compared to the late-opening apple variety.

1
Table 3. Apple fruit growth stages as influenced by botanical extract, cow urine, cow dung and varieties

Treatment of Parameter
Fruit size distribution at Fruit size distribution at Number Fruit weight Average Fruit per
Varieties Small Medium Large no/ Small % Medium% Large % of fruit per plant (kg) fruit weight hectare
no/ no/ (kg)
Anna 68.6a 102.58a 137.13a 22.26b 33.21b 44.52a 308.53a 34.90a 33.89a 37630.3a
Dorset Golden 63.2a 93.57a 115.87b 23.03a 34.18a 42.97b 284.22a 27.42b 28.24b 31377.5b
Prencisa 51.88b 77.53b 94.99c 22.88a 34.27a 42.94b 232.22b 24.15c 23.44c 26043.3c
LSD (5%) 6.03 9.52 9.29 0.46 0.86 1.06 26.496 3.08 2.31 2550.8
CV% 13.16 13.95 10.71 2.73 3.39 3.25 12.88 14.3 10.82 10.76
Botanical Parameter
extraction, Fruit size distribution at Fruit size distribution at
Small Medium Large no/ Small % Medium% Large % Number Fruit weight Averag Fruit per
no/ no/ of per plant (kg) e fruit hectare
fruit weight
(kg)
Neem 62.2bc 93.14bc 117.41b 22.66a 34.297a 43.37a 279.74bc 29.21ab 29.15b 32389.4b
Garlic 74.49a 110.33a 141.44a 22.77a 33.66a 43.57a 335.19a 33.03a 34.39a 38167a
Cow urine 68.39ab 102.1ab 130.099a 22.79a 33.76a 43.57a 305.7ab 31.29ab 32.16a 35727a
Cow dung 58.08c 87.12c 109.99b 22.66a 33.98a 43.36a 261.37c 28.64b 26.95b 29938b
control 42.87d 63.5d 81.04c 22.74a 33.73a 43.53a 192.93d 21.95c 19.98c 22198c
LSD (5%) 7.78 12.29 11.99 0.56 1.12 1.36 34.21 3.98 2.98 3293.02
CV% 13.16 13.95 10.71 2.73 3.39 3.25 12.88 14.3 10.82 10.76
*Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P > 0.05

1
1
 Table 4. Mean square estimates of phenology, growth, yield components and yield of apple for
randomized complete block design

  Mean squares for source of variation†  

Plant parameter Chemical (4) Variety(2) ChemXVar( 8) Error (28) CV (%)

Bud 66915*** 102388*** 3056ns 10271 14.6

Number of fruit 25902*** 22796*** 756ns 1255 12.88

Fruit weight per plant 159.98*** 455.83*** 28.47ns 16.98 14.3

Flower number at:

25% flowering (F1) 7219.7*** 7611.8** 39.6ns 440.9 15.53

Flowering data 25% 74.09*** 2.69*** 4.52*** 0.67 10.05

50% flowering (F2) 15154.2*** 11466.0*** 316.8ns 396.8 11.81

Flowering data 50% 52.4* 30.49** 1.04ns 3.64 6.68

75% flowering (F3) 25513*** 19719*** 1308ns 1370 16.31

Flowering 75% 108.59*** 53.09*** 3.26ns 5.45 7.18

100% flowering (F4) 45206*** 18975*** 2091ns 3002 19.085

Flowering 100%
130.9*** 52.42** 6.39ns 6.24 6.88

Average Fruit weight 277.87*** 410.51*** 14.02ns 9.53 10.82

Fruit per hectare 341791575*** 504523385*** 17111184ns 11629687 10.76

Fruit Size:

Small no/ 1293.4*** 1087.2*** 37.7ns 64.9 13.16

Small% 0.03ns 2.49** 0.15ns 0.39 2.73

Medium no/ 2860.5*** 2414.9*** 119.7ns 162.0 13.95

Medium % 0.6ns 5.1* 0.7ns 1.32 3.39

Large 4739.8*** 6657.2*** 157.4ns 154.2 10.71

Large % 0.1ns 12.28** 0.19ns 1.99ns 3.25

*Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P > 0.05

2
3
4
3. 9 Economic Analysis
For partial budget analysis, cost, return and marginal rate of return will be calculated for each
treatment following CIMMYT (1988). Partial budget analysis will be first carried out and
generated the net benefits of the alternatives under study. It will be then followed by marginal
analysis which compares net benefits with partial budget by considering the magnitude of
corresponding variable costs. Data such as, cost of garlic and yield sale price of apple fruit will
be the only cost that varies between treatments and will be undertaken partial budget analysis.

According to CIMMYT (1988), data was collected for the following parameters:
Gross average fruit yield (t ha-1) (AvY): An average fruit yield of each treatment converted in
hectare base.
Adjusted yield (AjY): Average fruit yield adjusted downward by 10 % to reflect the difference
between the experimental yield and yield of farmers. Thus:
AjY (t ha-1) =AvY × (1-0.1)
Gross field benefit (GFB) (ETB ha-1): Computed by multiplying field/farm gate price (quintal
ha-1) by adjusted yield thus:
GFB = AjY × field/farm gate price for the crop
Net benefit (NB) (ETB ha-1): Calculated by subtracting the total costs from gross field benefits
for each treatment. Hence:
NB = GFB - total cost
Marginal rate of return (MRR %): Calculated by dividing change in net benefit by change in
cost. Thus:
∆ NB Marginal benefit
MRR = or MRR (%) = × 100
∆ TVC ¿ Marginalcost

5
 7. ANNEX
Survey Format the status of Apple Crops’ Constraints and Opportunities in Legambo district South Wollo
Zones of Amhara region

1. Brief personal profile

1.1. Village______________________woreda-------kebele------
1.2. Name of farmer:__________________________
1.3 Gender: Male / Female; Household: Male-----Female-----
1.4 Ethnicity ________________________
1.5 Nationality_______________________
1.6 Age: ___________________________
1.7 Religion _________________________
1.8 What is your first language ______________________
1.9 What is your major means of income generation?
1. Khat/coffee production-------
2. Horticulture production-------
3. Grain and pulses production------
4. Grain trading----------------
5. Horticulture trading--------
6. Khat trading----------
7. Livestock production-------
8. Livestock trading-------
9. Other income generation---------
1.10 Do you have any formal schooling: Yes ___ No ___
Primary __________
Junior ____________
Secondary ________
Diploma __________
Illiterate___________
2. Household and Resource Data
2.1. Family size: [ ___] Male [ ___ ] Female [____] Total
2.2. Number of working persons: [ ___ ] Male [____ ] Female [ ____ ] Total
2.3. No. of children in school: [ ___ ] Male [ ____] Female [ ____ ] Total
2.4. Total crop land: _______ Qindi _______ ha
2.5. Total irrigable area: ____ Qindi _______ ha 2.6 What is the size of land used twice
ina year? _____ Qindi

6
3. How long have you practiced production of apple fruits? _____ year
4. What type of apple fruits do you produce? Area and production during last season?
Age of orchard (years)
Less than 10
From 10 to 20
More than 20

Land tenure

Property________________________________
Lease __________________________________
Other___________________________________ ___________________________________

5. Do you have any fruit trees? Yes __________ or No__________ (If answer is yes List down the
name and area coverage of each fruit. Since you do not have fruit trees, would you like to plant
fruit trees? Yes______ or No_________
6. Management practice
6.1. Do you apply fertilizers to your apple tree? Yes _____ or No______
6.2. What types of fertilizers? Manure (organic)_________ or Synthetic ______________
6.3. How often do you apply? Specify
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________

7. Pruning

7.1. Do you prune your apple trees?. Yes______ or No________

7.2. How frequent? Specify _______________________________________
8. What are the main pests and diseases in your apple fruit trees?

8.1. ________________
8.2.________________
8.3.________________
8.4.________________
8.5.________________
9. Are your trees grafted? Yes______ No______

10. What is the main purpose of apple fruits produced?

10.1. Mainly for home consumption __________________________
10.2. Mainly for sale __________________________
10.3. Partly for home consumption and partly for sale __________________________
10.4. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________

11. Other sources of food and income for the household

7
 Does the household own any livestock? Yes______No____. If yes fill the following table
Livestock and poultry Consumed Sales
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Equine
Chickens
Others (specify)

12. Constraint to fruit production.

12.1. What are the main constraints to increasing the number of apple fruit trees?
(Specify)__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
12.2. Which of these (from Question 12 above) do you consider should be addressed first (list in
order of importance No 1 being the most important and 5 the least important)
i)__________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
ii)_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
iii)_________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
iv)_________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

13. Marketing of apple fruit

13.1. Do you sell any of your apple fruit? Yes______No________. If yes:

Where do you sell your produce?

_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
13.2. What are the main marketing possibilities for the apple fruits that will encourage you to

rehabilitate or expand your fruit orchard?

8
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

9
14. Extension Services

14.1 What is the main source of technological and extension advice in this
household?
Agricultural extension services ______
Agricultural academic institutes (colleges) ______
Research organizations_______________
Private sector ______
Non-governmental organizations ______
Other (specify)_______________________________________
14.2. What are the agricultural extension approaches and methodologies for delivering technical
advice that would be more effective? (men, women and young farmers) (explain)?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________

14.3. What extension advice do you obtain from the sources listed in Question 14.1 (explain)?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

14.4. Has the advice given met your farming needs (explain)?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

15 Agricultural extension and training needs of apple producers

15.1. What is your assessment of the extension advice and training that is currently being provided?
Please explain the advice and training being implemented.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

15.2. What are the major problems you are facing regarding your apple farming activities?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
15.3. What do you consider as the main training needs that would help you to improve your
production?

10
_________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

16. Input of apple fruit

What is the major constraint input regarding your apple farming activities?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

What is the major opportunity input regarding your apple farming activities?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

17. Production opportunity of apple fruit

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

How highland fruit select

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

18. Marketing constraint of apple fruit

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

19. Sowt analysis

Farmer weakness part

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Farmer strong part

__________________________________________________________________
11
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

12