FinalCoffeebasedFSresearchreport Editedantu 3-1 AGT 23aug21 2

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359578652
Agricultural Production and Technology Use Practices of Small-holders in

Coffee-Dominated Farming Systems of Ethiopia
Technical Report · March 2022
CITATIONS READS
0 351
1 author:
Samuel Diro
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
30 PUBLICATIONS 140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Diro on 30 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agricultural Production and
Technology Use Practices of
Small-holders in Coffee-
Dominated Farming Systems of
Ethiopia
Research Report No. 132
Samuel Diro, Agajie Tesfaye, Beza Erko, Tamirat Girma,

Muluken Philipos
የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
List of authors with their affiliation
Samuel Diro Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holeta

Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
Agajie Tesfaye Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia
Beza Erko Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Jimma

Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
Tamirat Girma Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,

Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
Muluken Philipos Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,

Wondo Genet Agricultural Research Center,
Ethiopia
Correspondence: Agajie Tesfaye, EIAR, Addis Ababa

Email: agajie@gmail.com
Agricultural Production and
Technology Use Practices of
Small-holders in Coffee-
Dominated Farming Systems of
Ethiopia
Research Report No. 132
©EIAR, 2021
Website: http://www.eiar.gov.et
Tel: +251-11-6462633
+251-11-6-676926
P.O.Box: 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ISBN: 978-99944-66-92-4
Copy editing and design: Anteneh Yilma

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................. I

Chapter One: Introduction ...................................................... 5
1.1. Background and justifications...................................... 5
1.2. Objectives .................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Methodology .................................................... 7
2.1. Study area..................................................................... 7
2.2. Sampling procedure ..................................................... 8
2.3. Data collection and analysis ......................................... 9
Chapter Three: Results and Discussions ............................... 15
3.1. Farmers’ demographic characteristics ....................... 15
3.2. Asset ownership and dynamism ................................. 18
3.3. Land ownership and its dynamism............................. 19
3.4. Crop production and improved varieties adoption ..... 22
3.5. Fertilizer use dynamism ............................................. 31
3.6. Intensity of chemical fertilizer use ............................. 35
3.7. Adoption of pesticides ............................................... 36
3.8. Adoption rates of row planting practices ................... 37
3.9. Improved agricultural practices ................................. 41
3.10. Productivity of crops and yield gap ......................... 45
3.11. Crop output utilization ............................................. 47
3.12. Determinants of coffee commercialization .............. 50
3.13. Post-harvest loss....................................................... 55
3.14. Livestock production ............................................... 57
II
3.15. Factors affecting adoption of different agricultural
technologies ...................................................................... 72
3.16. Soil and water management and its adoption
constraints ......................................................................... 77
3.17. Irrigation access ....................................................... 79
3.18. Agricultural mechanization ...................................... 80
3.19. Credit services.......................................................... 81
3.20. Extension services .................................................... 83
3.21. Food security status.................................................. 88
3.22. Farmers' perception of climate change..................... 92
3.23. Farmers’ mitigation and adaptation strategies to
climate change .................................................................. 97
3.24. Farmers’ production and marketing constraints ....... 98
Chapter Four: Conclusions and ........................................... 101
Recommendations ............................................................... 101
Reference ............................................................................ 110
III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The study was conducted in coffee-based farming systems of
Oromia and SNNP Regional states with the purpose of
characterizing the farming and technology use practices,
assessing the dynamism of farming systems, and identifying
the driving factors to changes in farming systems. The study
regions account for 89% of coffee growers, 97% of the coffee
area, and 99% of coffee production. The required information
was drawn from a randomly selected 953 households (480
from SNNP and 473 from Oromia regions). Additional
information was also collected from Zonal and District
Offices of Agriculture and other stakeholders across the
coffee value chain. The data were analyzed and synthesized
using appropriate statistical and econometric models.
According to the findings, the literacy level of household
heads in both regions was 88%, which is a witness that the
government investment in the education sector has largely
contributed to raise literacy levels and help farmers in making
appropriate decisions in technology use and improve
production and productivities. It was also impressive to note
that 63% of the household heads (69% from SNNP and 58%
from Oromia) had access to mobile phones at the time of this
study, which is still helpful for farmers to get a timely market,
technology-related and other information for informed
decision making. At the time of the study, the average
landholding per household in the coffee-growing regions of
the two regions was 2.09 ha, out of which 25% was allocated
for coffee production. Farmers allocated the largest share of
land for coffee production compared to cereals and other
crops.
Not only that the farmers have allocated more land for coffee
but 60% of them in both Oromia and SNNP regions have also
adopted improved coffee production technologies. As to the
I
adoption intensity, 58% of the coffee area has been covered
with improved coffee varieties. This is a witness that coffee
extension service is keeping well. But still, it should be noted
that 40% of the farmers did not get access to improved coffee
varieties and associated packages because of limited
promotion of the technologies and scarcity of improved coffee
variety seedlings. Among the cereals, maize is a highly
adopted crop where 72% of the farmers depend on improved
varieties. Availability of improved variety seeds and extensive
promotion through extension services have contributed to
higher adoption rates of improved maize varieties than other
crops. However, adoption rates of improved varieties of other
crops were well below 50%. One of the reasons might be that
the focus of the farmers in the coffee belt agro-ecology is on
coffee production.
The study has also figured out that 98% of the farmers did not
use inorganic fertilizers on coffee, which is a witness that
Ethiopian farmers produce organic coffee. Farmers are well
aware that organic coffee is highly demanded in the world
market and because of this, they depend on organic fertilizers
to improve the fertility of coffee soils. Instead, farmers use
inorganic fertilizers for cereals, such as maize (79%), teff
(77%), and wheat (68%). The major issue identified was that
farmers did not adequately use improved management
practices along with improved varieties as recommended by
research. Because of this, farmers missed a substantial amount
of yield. For instance, improved coffee variety adopters
yielded 7.7 quintals of coffee per hectare while its potential
yield under recommended management practices was 18
quintals per hectare. This implies that farmers have missed
57% of the yield from coffee for not adequately applying
recommended management practices, such as row planting
and other management practices. Farmers have also missed
59% of the yield from maize and 48% from teff for not
II
adopting associated management packages along with
improved varieties.
The findings indicate that only 15% of the farmers had access
to irrigation facilities despite the huge water resources in the
regions. The use of agricultural mechanization is also almost
nonexistent in the coffee-based farming systems of the
regions, where only 1% of the farmers claimed to have
adopted some of the farm machines, such as tie ridges,
threshers, and enset decorticator. The extension service seems
to have provided limited focus in the promotion of farm
machinery. Even in the cash crop dominant farming systems,
securing food all year round for the family is still a challenge
for 39% of the households. It was also noted that 58% of the
coffee growers in the Kellem Wollega zone of the Oromia
Region and 54% in the Sidama zone of the SNNP region
faced the worst food insecurity for some months in a year.
The major reason for this was a poor saving culture of the
households, who overspend much of the earnings in
unproductive matters at the time of coffee harvesting and face
cash shortages to purchase grain for food in the later seasons.
Over decades, changes in farming systems have been noticed

in the study regions. The drivers of this change were
identified to be the introduction and expansion of improved
agricultural technologies and public infrastructure (such as
health and education centers, transportation, communication
networks, and others).
A substantial proportion of farmers (69%) had access to

mobile phones at the time of this study, which is a witness
that farmers have recognized the importance of business-
related information and social communication.
Overall, farmers are still facing the following problems: many

farmers still do not have access to improved varieties and
III
associated packages of coffee, cereals, and other technologies.
Limited availability of improved seeds is still a challenge to
many farmers. Inadequate information on full technological
packages has also costed the missing of substantial yield.
Even those technology adopters could not make use of
achieving the highest potential yield for not adopting full
technological packages. This coupled with poor saving culture
has driven farmers to food insecurity. Taking corrective
measures for these constraints is believed to address farmers'
concerns and improve production and productivity.
Introducing and promoting formal and informal saving and
credit institutes should be given a priority for coffee growers.
Multiplication and distribution of improved variety seeds and
seedlings of coffee, cereals, and other crops need also be
given due focus by both Federal and Regional governments.
Extension services need to raise farmers’ awareness on the
use of full technological packages, such as improved varieties
and associated recommended management practices.
Keywords: Adoption, Technology packages, Food Security, Productivity
IV
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Background and justifications
Farming is one of the biggest activities and a subset of the
agricultural sector. The farming system is a mix of farm
enterprises such as crops, livestock, aquaculture, agroforestry,
and fruit crops to which the farm family allocates its resources
to efficiently manage the existing environment for the
attainment of the family goal. Farming system studies have a
long tradition in agricultural research. It is based on the
classification of homogeneous zones of farming systems that
reflect natural and economic conditions determining the
evolution of farm types. The description of each farming
system contains their production characteristics, including the
ecological conditions, representation of the farming
population, production orientation, and its contribution to the
production of strategic crops (NAPC, 2006).
Farming systems in Ethiopia are highly diverse in terms of

biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics. The diversity
among systems stems from differences in soil fertility,
farmers' livelihood aspirations, and resource endowment
including land, labor availability as well as cash income.
Instead of providing blanket recommendations for smallholder
farmers in certain areas, recognizing and responding to the
variability in local farm characteristics (farming system)
promises more appropriate, targeted, and efficient design
recommendations to achieve improvements in agricultural
production (Ojiem et al., 2006; Tittonell et al., 2009).
The farming system is often in dynamic change over time.

Biophysical and socioeconomic factors that affect farming
systems are in a state of rapid change. The state of natural
resources, consumers’ taste and preference, industrial
development, climate change, an outbreak of diseases and
5
pests, science and technology, infrastructural development,
and the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved
agricultural technologies are some of the factors which are
believed to change and influence the farming systems at
different dimensions and extents. In par with the changes, it
requires adjustment of technology development and
dissemination processes and other associated initiatives. For
this to take place there is a need to make an assessment and
generate up-to-date farming systems information. However,
such information is not adequately available especially in the
south, southwest, and western part of Ethiopia which is
characterized by coffee-based farming.
Limited previous studies conducted are not only location

specific and unrepresentative, but also the information is
obsolete and inadequate to capture the growing development
interests of the farmers. This study is believed to bridge-up
the gap by generating up-to-date farming systems information
which helps to generate appropriate technologies and design
workable and applicable development programs. It will also
provide inputs for informed policy-making.
1.2. Objectives
The general objective of the study is to identify and
characterize biophysical and socio-economic opportunities
and constraints in the coffee-based farming system of Oromia
and SNNP regions for research intervention, technology
generation, and promotion. The specific objectives are:
1. To characterize major socioeconomic and

biophysical constraints and opportunities of the
coffee-growing areas of the Oromia and SNNP
regions.
2. To assess access to improved agricultural
technologies in the study areas.
6
3. To appraise and prioritize improved agricultural
technologies interventions.
This study will also be helpful for researchers and

academicians as an input for further studies on the area of
study. It will not only fill a gap in the research but also in
developing programs that focus on increasing the
development, diffusion, dissemination, and adoption of
improved agricultural technologies. The information
generated from the study could also be used by policy makers.
Chapter Two: Methodology

2.1. Study area
The study used quantitative and qualitative primary data
collected from smallholder farmers and other stakeholders
(district and zone officials and experts) from major coffee-
growing regional states of the country: Oromia and SNNP.
Gedeo, Sidama, Kafa, and Sheka zones from the SNNP
regional state and Ilubabor, Jimma, West Wollega, and
Kellem Wollega zones from the Oromia regional state were
coffee-producing zones selected for the study [Figure 1].
7
Figure 1: Map of the study area
2.2. Sampling procedure

A multistage sampling technique was employed to select the
population for the study which involved both purposive and
random sampling techniques. First, regions and zones were
purposively selected based on the number of coffee growers,
the area allocated for coffee, and the quantity of coffee
produced. Accordingly, Oromia and SNNP regions were
purposively selected for the study because these regions alone
accounted for 89% of coffee growers, 97% of the coffee area,
and 99% of coffee production in the country (CSA, 2018).
Secondly, woredas and kebeles were selected using a random
sampling technique. Finally, households were randomly
chosen from the sampling frame of coffee grower populations
at the kebele levels. Eventually, a total of 953 sample
households were selected for the study (584 from SNNP and
369 from Oromia Regions).
8
Table 1: Total sample size and sample distribution along study
zones
Region Zone Total sample size % Of the total
SNNP Gedeo 199 21

Sidama 200 21
Sheka 81 8
Kafa 104 11
Sub-total 584 61
Oromia Ilubabor 121 13
Jimma 107 11
West Wollega 105 11
Kellem Wollega 36 4
Sub-total 369 39
Grand Total 953 100
2.3. Data collection and analysis

Data was collected through a structured questionnaire
administered to sampled farmers. Before the actual survey, the
questionnaire was pretested in non-sampled villages. Trained
enumerators were used to collect the data with close
supervision of researchers. The data was collected using
CSPro software which largely helped to minimize non-
sampling errors and improve data quality. The data was
thoroughly cleaned before commencing analysis. Both
descriptive statistics and econometric models were used to
analyze the data.
The Tobit model was also used to analyze factors affecting

coffee commercialization in the coffee-based farming
systems.
9
The value ranges from 0 to 100%. The higher the value of the
index, the higher the degree of commercialization. While the
value of 100% HCI represents a fully commercial farmer, a
value of zero is an indication that the farmer is fully operating
under subsistence agriculture. Onyebinama (2012) has also
reported that the closer HCI is to100, the higher the degree of
commercialization.
The Tobit model was developed by Tobin (1958) to capture

situations in which the dependent variable under study is
observed for values greater than 0, i.e., for participation in
coffee sales, but is not observed, i.e., censored or non-
participation for values of 0 or less. The standard Tobit model
is defined by:
Where yi is an observed variable and, yi*is a latent variable.

The observable variable is defined to be equal to the latent
variable whenever the latent variable is above zero and zero
otherwise. The latent variable (the dependent variable) is
defined in terms of the following relationships:
Where xi is the hypothesized independent variable, β is a

vector of parameters to be estimated by the model, which
determines the relationship between the independent variable
(vector) and the latent variable, սi is a normally distributed
error term to capture random influences on this relationship.
McDonald’s and Moffit’s (1980) approach were also followed
to decompose marginal effects to assess the effect of a change
10
in the explanatory variables on the explained variable.
Therefore, the three types considered in the analysis of the
Tobit model are shown below. These are:
a) The marginal effect on the latent variable

(unconditional expected value)
b) The marginal effect on the expected value of

observations conditional on being
c) uncensored
Where λ(c) is called the inverse mill’s ratio. It

captures the change in the dependent
Variable (conditioned on y>0) when changing x.
d) The marginal effect on the probability that the
observations are uncensored
Multivariate probit (MVP) regression was also used to

estimate the factors that influenced the adoption of improved
agricultural technologies (coffee, maize, and crossbreed
cows/heifers). Farmers adopt a mix of technologies to deal
with a multitude of agricultural production constraints. This
implies that the adoption decision is inherently multivariate,
and attempting univariate modeling would exclude useful
economic information about interdependent and simultaneous
adoption decisions (Dorfman, 1996). The Multivariate Probit
(MVP) approach simultaneously models the influence of the
set of explanatory variables on each of the different
agricultural technologies, while allowing for the potential
correlation between unobserved disturbances, as well as the
relationship between the adoptions of different technologies
11
(Belderbos et al., 2004). One source of correlation may be
complementarities (positive correlation) and substitutability
(negative correlation) between different agricultural
technologies. Failure to capture unobserved factors and
interrelationships among adoption decisions regarding
different practices will lead to bias and inefficient estimates
(Greene, 2008).
The observed outcome of agricultural technologies adoption

can be modeled following random utility formulation.
Consider ith farm household (i= 1, 2, 3 …N) which is facing a
decision on whether or not to adopt improved coffee, maize
and dairy technologies. Let U0 represents benefits to the
farmer from local technologies (local varieties and breeds)
and let Uk represent the benefit of adopting the Kth technology
(ICV, IMV, CBC) denoting adoption of Improved Coffee
Varieties (ICV), Improved Maize Varieties (IMV) and
Crossbreed Cows/heifers.
The farmer decides to adopt the Kth technology if Y*ik=U*k-

U0>0. The net benefit (Y*ik) that the farmer derives from Kth
technology is a latent variable determined by observed
household and location characteristics (Xi) and unobserved
characteristics (µi):
Y*ik = X’iβk+ui (K= ICV, IMV, CBC)
Using the indicator function, the unobserved preferences in

the equation above translate into the observed binary outcome
equation for each choice as follow:
In the multivariate model, where the adoption of several

technologies is possible, the error terms jointly follow a
12
multivariate normal distribution (MVN) with zero conditional
mean and variance normalized to unity (for identification of
the parameters) where (µICV, µIMV, µCBC) ~ MVP (0, Ω) and
the symmetric covariance matrix Ω is given by:
ρ is the pairwise correlation coefficient of the error terms with

regards to any two of the estimated adoption equations in the
model. The correlation between the stochastic components of
different improved technologies adopted is represented by the
off-diagonal elements (e.g., ρICVIMV ρICVCBC) in the variance-
covariance matrix (Danso-Abbeam and Baiyegunhi, 2017).
The correlation is based on the principle that adoption of a
particular improved technology may depend on another
(complementarity or positive correlation) or may be
influenced by an available set of substitutes (negative
correlation) (Khanna, 2001). If these correlations in the off-
diagonal elements in the covariance matrix become non-zero,
it justifies the application of a multivariate probit instead of a
univariate probit for each technology.
As provided in Table 2, the study engaged a range of variables

that help explain the model. The variable types included
continuous, categorical, and dummy, and they were selected
based on the context of technology adoption in the farming
systems of the study areas. The normality of continuous
variables was checked before fitting them into the model.
13
Table 2: Variables included in the model and their descriptive
summary
Variable Description Observations Mean SD Min Max

Coffee Continues 868 73.55 13.2 51 93
commercialization 9
index in %
Coffee improved 0=No; 1=Yes 915 0.45 0.63 0 1
variety adoption
Maize improved 0=No; 1=Yes 720 0.82 0.38 0 1
variety adoption
Crossbreed 0=No; 1=Yes 953 0.08 0.27 0 1
cows/heifer’s
adoption
Region 0=Oromia 953 0.61 0.49 0 1
1=SNNP
Sex of the household 0=Female 945 0.90 0.29 0 1
head (HH) 1=Male
Household head age Continuous 953 42.60 12.2 21 90
9
Family size Continuous 951 6.33 2.34 1 17
Mean HH education Continuous 950 4.81 3.48 0 16
Mean family Continuous 953 3.89 2.31 0 12
education in years
Radio ownership 0=No; 1=Yes 948 0.54 0.50 0 1
TV ownership 0=No; 1=Yes 953 0.11 0.31 0 1
Mobile ownership 0=No; 1=Yes 951 0.64 0.48 0 1
Training on crop 0=No; 1=Yes 923 0.72 0.28 0 1
management
Extension service on 0=No; 1=Yes 916 0.81 0.39 0 1
livestock
management
Extension service on 0=No; 1=Yes 923 0.92 0.28 0 1
crop management
Credit service 0=No; 1=Yes 923 0.37 0.48 0 1
Distance to district Continuous 913 9.43 8.07 1 90
market in km
14
Distance to the all- Continuous 910 2.05 4.95 1 78
whether road in km
Engaged in off-farm 0=No; 1=Yes 919 0.25 0.43 0 1
income-generating
activities
Total land size in Continuous 928 2.09 1.79 0.13 12
hectares
Tropical Livestock Continuous 953 4.15 4.43 0 19
Unit/TLU
Farm income in Birr Continuous 951 3784 9223 2750 100000
Chapter Three: Results and Discussions

3.1. Farmers’ demographic characteristics
Age and number of family members affect the adoption of

agricultural technologies and commercialization of
agricultural outputs (Alene et al., 2000; Tesfaye et al., 2001;
Habtemariam, 2004; Shiferaw and Tesfaye, 2006; Berhanu et
al., 2007; Motuma et al., 2010; Getachew et al., 2010). The
result of the study showed that 90% of the household heads
were male-headed and their mean age was 43 years. There
was no statistically significant difference between the two
regions in the age of the household, implying that households
included in the study were drawn from closely similar age
categories. The mean family size of the respondents along the
study regions was six members ranging from 1 to 17. A few
households are either divorce or widows with no other family
members while some of them are caring for tens of family
members, especially those from polygamous households.
The mean number of years of education of the whole family

and household head was 3.89 and 4.81 years, respectively
[Table 3]. This means the household head had attended about
five years of formal schooling on average. Some of them
15
have attended elementary levels while some others have
progressed to high school and a few of them to college levels.
The government of Ethiopia has largely invested in extending
education infrastructure almost all over the country since the
last three decades, which has created access to formal
schooling for most of the rural households.
Table 3: Age, family size, and education of the respondents along
the regions
Variables Oromia SNNP Overall P-

[N=473] [N=480] [N=953] value
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age of the HH 43.12 12.36 42.08 12.90 42.60 12.33 0.191
Family size 6.22 2.35 6.44 2.32 6.33 2.34 0.141
Mean HH education 4.70 3.52 4.93 3.45 4.81 3.49 0.308
Mean family 3.97 2.35 3.82 2.27 3.89 2.31 0.323
education
The overall mean family size of the area was 6.3 persons with
a maximum of 17 persons. The mean high family size was
seen at the Gedeo zone (6.9) followed by Jimma (6.8) and
Kefa zones (6.6). There was a significant difference between
the zones in family size at a 1% significance level [Table 4].
Table 4: Household family size by zone
Zone Mean SD Min Max

Gedeo 6.9 2.44 2 16
Sidama 6.3 2.16 2 17
Ilubabor 5.7 2.58 1 15
Jimma 6.8 2.73 1 15
West Wollega 6.0 1.88 2 11
Kellem Wollega 5.8 2.06 3 13
Kefa 6.6 1.99 2 11
Sheka 5.6 2.10 1 14
16
Overall 6.3 2.33 1 17
Chi2 =5.544; df=7; P=0.000***
In the study areas, 88% of the household heads were literate,

out of which 78% have attended formal schooling while 10%
were literate through informal education, such as adult
literacy and religious education. This indicates that
households in the study regions had good access to education
which is an essential instrument to enhance technology
adoption and improve livelihoods. The education level of the
household heads based on the education category also
exhibited that a considerable proportion of the household
heads in both regions (40%) fall under second cycle education
level ranging from 5th to 8th grades. Some farmers (less than
15%) were also non-educated (illiterate) [Figure 2]. The study
has also noted that the literacy level of both SNNP and
Oromia regions was the same, indicating that access to
education infrastructure is fairly distributed across the two
regions.
17
Figure 2: Household head education level along the regions in %
3.2. Asset ownership and dynamism

Ownership of basic communication and farm assets influence
the adoption of agricultural technologies and market
participation. This study has assessed households' asset
ownership along the study regions. The result showed that the
majority of farmers owned mobile phones (63%) and radio
(54%) in both study regions. The study has also figured out
that SNNP Region (69%) had better access to mobile phones
than Oromia (58%). On the other hand, Oromia (44%) had by
far better access to solar power equipment than SNNP Region
(9%). Only a few farmers with access to electric power
owned TV (11%), most of which are from the SNNP Region
[Table 5].
Table 5: Farmers’ asset ownership status along the regions in %
Assets Oromia SNNP Overall P-value

Mobile Phone 58 69 63 0.000***
Solar Power 44 9 26 0.000***
Functional Radio 63 45 54 0.000***
Functional TV 8 13 11 0.035**
Motor Bike 2 3 3 0.320
Cart 7 3 5 0.001***
Motor pump 2 1 2 0.114
Nowadays, the mobile phone is a major tool for sources of

information. The result of the survey showed that most of the
farmers in both study regions owned a mobile phone in the
last five years while the rest owned a phone before five years.
Out of those who owned mobile phones, 56% of them got
access in the last five years while others before that [Figure
3]. Mobile phone ownership is associated with improved
18
network coverage infrastructure, increased purchasing power,
and enhanced awareness of farmers to the importance of the
market, technology-related and other information.
Figure 3: Dynamism of mobile phone ownership in the last decades %
3.3. Land ownership and its dynamism

The study has also figured out the current land ownership and
the trend of household land size over the last ten years. The
result indicated that the mean land size was 2.09 hectares at
the time of this study while it was 2.33 hectares before ten
years [Table 6]. The result showed a reduction in land size in
the last ten years by 11%. There was no significant difference
between the regions in deviation of land size in the last ten
years, implying that both regions experienced a similar trend
of reduction. However, a significant difference was seen
between the regions in the total land size, annual and
perennial cropland, the land for other uses (grazing land and
others), and land owned before ten years. At the time of this
study, households of the Oromia region owned a relatively
large size of farmland (2.39 ha) compared to SNNP (1.78 ha).
The same status holds even before a decade. This might be
19
because population density is high in the SNNP region
compared to Oromia.
Table 6: Landholding and change in land size over the last ten years
Land size in ha per Oromia SNNP Overall P-value

household [N=473] [N=480] [N=953]
Total land owned currently 2.39 2.35 1.78 1.16 2.09 1.96 0.006***
Annual cropland 0.75 0.72 0.49 0.78 0.62 0.36 0.003***
Perennial cropland 1.22 1.11 0.93 0.83 1.08 1.11 0.003***
Others’ land 0.42 0.33 0.36 0.21 0.39 0.31 0.565
Land owned 10 years ago 2.68 2.34 1.99 1.96 2.33 2.2 0.000***
Deviation in land size in the -12 -11 -11 0.779
last 10 years in %
Based on the land size category, most farmers (33%) in the

Oromia region fall under 1.1-2.0 hectares. However, in the
SNNP region, the majority (37%) of farmers own less than
half of the hectares [Table 7]. This could be due to the high
population density in the SNNP region than in the Oromia
region.
Table 7: Farmers’ land ownership status along the study

regions in %
Category Oromia SNNP Overall

≤ 0.5 hectares 8 37 23
0.51-1.0 hectares 16 25 20
1.1-2.0 hectares 33 20 26
2.1-3.0 hectares 20 9 17
3.1-5.0 hectares 16 5 9
>5.0 hectares 7 4 5
20
The result of the study also exhibited a significant difference
between the two regions in land allocated for coffee, maize,
enset, sorghum, haricot bean, and fruits. Land allocated for
maize, coffee, and haricot beans is higher in the Oromia
region whereas land allocated for enset, fruits, and sorghum is
higher in the SNNP region [Table 8]. Obviously, farmers of
the SNNP Region had long years of experience than Oromia
in planting perennials. Enset is especially popular in SNNP
providing a stunning scene to the farming systems than
Oromia Region. Farmers of SNNP (0.35ha) allocated more
than double the area of farm size for enset than Oromia region
(0.15ha). On the other hand, Oromia is an ideal region for the
growth of diverse cereals and pulses. Farmers of the Oromia
region (0.57ha) still surpass SNNP (0.46ha) in allocating a
relatively large size of land to coffee.
Table 8: Land allocated to crops across the study regions in

hectares
Crop Oromia SNNP Overall t P-value
[N=473] [N=480] [N=953]
Coffee 0.57 0.56 0.46 0.44 0.52 0.51 4.09 0.000***
Maize 0.34 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.35 0.30 5.64 0.000***
Enset 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.31 -8.53 0.000***
Teff 0.35 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.34 0.24 1.47 0.142
Wheat 0.21 0.18 0.27 0.12 0.22 0.17 -0.81 0.426
Sorghum 0.27 0.19 0.38 0.26 0.29 0.21 -1.80 0.085*
Barley 0.25 0.18 0.22 0.13 0.25 0.17 0.49 0.625
Haricot bean 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.16 0.09 3.05 0.004***
Pulses 0.19 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.72 0.472
Vegetables 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.12 -0.78 0.437
Fruits 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.07 -7.81 0.000***
Chat 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 -1.56 0.121
Eucalyptus 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.15 1.51 0.134
Grazing and others 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.16 1.13 0.261
***, * indicate significance level at 1% and 10%, respectively
21
3.4. Crop production and improved varieties
adoption
The result of the survey showed that the majority of farmers
in Oromia are engaged in the production of coffee followed
by maize, teff, and sorghum. Farmers in SNNP also produce
coffee followed by enset, maize, and chat. The production of
chat in each region is also high and in increasing order due to
different reasons. These include the increasing demand for
chat, low cost of production, and considered as a cash crop for
immediate use. It also grows in infertile and marginal lands.
Table 9: Proportion of farmers engaged in the production of crops
(%)
Crops Oromia (n=478) SNNP (n=480) Overall (n=953)

Maize 63 45 54
Coffee 91 87 89
Enset 15 63 39
Teff 25 6 16
Sorghum 21 4 12
Haricot bean 10 9 9
Barley 8 2 5
Wheat 7 3 5
Pulses 6 3 4
Vegetables 12 12 12
Fruits 12 13 12
Chat 36 21 28
Eucalyptus 8 7 7
Adoption at the individual farmers' level is defined as the

degree of use of new technology in long-run equilibrium
when the farmer has full information about the new
technology and its potential. Thus, the adoption process
22
involves an interrelated series of personal, cultural, social, and
institutional factors. Oromia and SNNP regional states have
been introducing and disseminating improved agricultural
technologies for decades. The Bureaus of Agriculture had
been supporting and enhancing the capacity of farmers to help
them improve the adoption of technologies. In response,
farmers' technology adoption status is revealing improvement
over time [Table 15].
According to the findings of this study, 60% of the farmers on

average have adopted improved varieties of coffee in both
Oromia and SNNP regions [Table 10]. This indicates that
both regions had similar access to coffee production
technologies. The fact that coffee is mainly grown in these
two regions, it is encouraging progress to see more than half
of the farmers using improved coffee (varieties). In the face of
high demand for coffee in domestic and world markets on the
one hand and inability to meet the demand due to very low
supply of quality coffee on the other, adoption of improved
coffee varieties needs to be enhanced further.
The other major crop highly adopted in both Oromia and

SNNP regions was the use of improved maize varieties with
an adoption rate of 72% on average. However, the farmers of
the SNNP region (77%) were more adopters of improved
maize varieties and associated technologies than Oromia
(68%). Oromia is basically a major grower of maize than
SNNP despite the expansion of improved technologies still
requires further attention.
The other major crop in the study areas is wheat where 45%
of the overall farmers on average adopted improved varieties.
Wheat is not only a major one but also a highly adopted crop
in the Oromia (53%) region compared to SNNP (25%).
23
Since the farmers allocate more than one plot to a crop, the
study has also assessed plot-level adoption. For instance, out
of the many plots' farmers allocated for coffee, they planted
improved varieties on almost half of (48%) them while the
other half (52%) were still occupied by local varieties.
Because of this, a substantial proportion of coffee growers are
still partial adopters. Strengthening extension services and
creating access to quality and adequate quantities of improved
coffee seeds will eventually lead to full adopters where they
will allocate all of their plots to improved coffee. In such
cases, coffee supply both for domestic and world markets will
be largely enhanced in quantity and quality.
Table 10: The adoption of improved varieties of major crops along
the study regions in %
Crop Oromia SNNP Overall Chi2 The P-

value for
Plot Household- Plot Household- Plot Household- HH level
level level level level level level adoption
Coffee 48 60 48 61 48 60 0.02 0.898
Enset 5 5 10 11 9 10 2.34 0.126
Teff 16 21 50 63 22 29 31.6 0.000***
Haricot 24 24 50 25 32 25 4.37 0.037**
bean
Maize 72 68 76 77 73 72 6.42 0.011**
Pulses 11 14 25 25 14 17 8.31 0.04**
Barley 30 27 50 27 33 27 1.33 0.248
Sorghum 5 6 1 1 4 5 1.08 0.298
Wheat 53 53 67 25 55 45 0.38 0.549
***, ** indicates significance level at 1% and 5%, respectively
The adoption rate of major crops by zone demonstrated that

Kefa and Jimma farmers are the top improved coffee adopters
by 77 and 71%, respectively. One of the reasons could be due
to the strategic location of these zones close to Jimma and
24
Bako Agricultural Research Centers. Kellem Wollega zone,
on the other hand, is the top maize variety adopter (90%)
followed by West Wollega (89%) and Ilubabor (88%) [Table
11]. These zones are really hot spots for maize and they
provide enormous supplies to the country (CSA, 2018). The
agricultural extension program has worked well in these zones
and the best practices gained need to be scaled up to other
maize growing spots of the country.
Table 11: Adoption of major crops varieties along the study

zones in %
Zones Crops
Coffee Maize Wheat Barley Teff
Gedeo 54 76 - - 45
Sidama 62 84 72 14 43
Ilubabor 69 88 65 16 17
Jimma 71 80 50 14 24
West Wollega 60 89 18 31 24
Kellem Wollega 69 90 25 14 11
Kefa 77 78 68 13 18
Sheka 46 60 19 17 44
Overall 60 72 45 27 29
In the farming systems of the study areas, there are two types
of farming households: male-headed households (MHH) and
female-headed households (FHH). In the context of Ethiopia,
access to and uses of agricultural technologies are very
divergent in both types of farming households. To figure out
this difference, the study has also assessed the extent of
gender disparity in the adoption of agricultural technologies.
The findings indicate that out of the overall improved coffee
variety adopters, a large proportion of them (63%) were
25
drawn from male-headed households while 54% were from
female-headed households [Figure 4]. Even though male-
headed households seem to be better adopters, the adoption
status of female-headed households is still encouraging since
more than half of them have had access to the technologies.
Substantial divergence is revealed in the adoption of improved

wheat technologies where the adoption rate for MHH was
51% compared to 16% for FHH. This might be because wheat
has been frequently attacked by rust disease and getting
access to disease tolerant and quality improved seeds of wheat
varieties was not as easy to all the farmers, especially to FHH
that are also economically constrained to meet all the required
inputs. It is difficult to find disease tolerant varieties
elsewhere and do not afford the inflated price of improved
seed. The study has also revealed that female-headed
households (34%) are relatively better adopters of improved
teff varieties than MHH counterparts (28%). Overall, the
study points out that MHH is a better adopter to crop
technologies than FHH. FHH often faces limited access to
technical information, labor, and resources. Even their access
to agricultural extension services is limited compared to
MHH.
Figure 4: Adoption rates of major crops by male and female-headed households in %
26
Farmers usually grow different types of crop varieties for
various purposes, such as for market, food, productivity, and
other merits. It is also one of the risk aversion mechanisms for
farmers to depend on diverse varieties of a crop, some of
which are disease tolerant while some others are tolerant to
stresses. While farmers grow one type of variety for it is high
yielder, they also grow another type for it is highly demanded
in the market because of attractive color, shininess, or other
features. Agricultural Research Institutes of the country have
also generated different types of varieties for a crop, such as
more than 100 types of improved wheat varieties and more
than 40 types of improved coffee varieties. The study has,
therefore, attempted to capture the adoption status of crops by
varieties.
The findings demonstrated that the majority of farmers used

one or two types of improved varieties except for maize where
they used many improved varieties. Even though tens of
improved coffee varieties have been disseminated to farmers,
farmers had adopted only a few ones. As provided in Table
12, 87% of the overall farmers on average depend on only two
coffee varieties while 13% have grown 3-4 varieties. The
diversity of improved varieties seems to be better in Oromia
than SNNP region. In the case of maize, 28% of the farmers
have adopted more than two improved varieties, which is a
better trend than any other crop. Maize is one of the crops
where seed grower companies provide due focus in seed
multiplication and distribution.
Availability of tens of improved varieties is a favorable

opportunity for the farmers as it provides access to choose.
However, all of them have not been well promoted and
disseminated to the farmers on time. Moreover, seeds of all of
the improved varieties are not easily available to the farmers
on time because national and regional seed grower companies
focus on the multiplication of some varieties. There are still
27
many crops and varieties, multiplication of improved seeds of
which, have not yet been incorporated in the plans of seed
grower companies.
Table 12: Number of improved varieties in use along the study
regions
Crops Oromia SNNP Overall P-value

(Number of (Number of (Number of
improved varieties improved varieties improved varieties
in use) in use) in use)
1 2 3 4 ≥5 1 2 3 4 ≥5 1 2 3 4 ≥5
Coffee 57 33 9 1 0 40 44 14 2 0 49 38 11 2 0 0.000***
Maize 33 27 21 11 8 80 12 5 2 1 49 23 15 8 5 0.000***
Haricot 63 24 13 0 0 88 11 1 0 0 85 13 2 0 0 0.055*
bean
Teff 73 20 7 0 0 85 15 0 0 0 78 18 4 0 0 0.346
Wheat 43 38 19 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 55 30 15 0 0 0.129
Barley 33 33 34 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0.108
Sorghum 75 25 0 0 0 67 33 0 0 0 71 29 0 0 0 0.540
Enset 62 38 0 0 0 41 39 15 5 0 43 39 13 5 0 0.069*
***, * indicates significance level at 1% and 10%, respectively
Intensity of adoption1 was also examined for the regions. The

result exhibited that a large proportion of coffee land (58%)
was covered by improved varieties which is significantly high
in the Oromia region. The result could be due to the high
emphasis given by the Coffee Improvement Project (CIP) and
Jimma Agricultural Research Center (JARC) in the promotion
and dissemination of coffee production technologies. On the
other hand, farmers in the Oromia region had a large land size
which gave them the confidence to uproot unimproved coffee
and replace it with an improved one. Alongside, improved
maize variety has covered 63% of total maize land which
1
The proportion of land allocated to improved varieties out of total
land allocated to the same crop or variety.
28
is also significantly high in Oromia compared to the SNNP
region. There was also a statistically significant difference
between the two regions in land allocated to improved
varieties of sorghum, haricot bean, and enset [Table 13]. Low
proportion of land allocated for improved varieties of enset,
pulses, teff and sorghum is due to low adoption rate of the
crops even as a country due to low attention given to the
crops.
Table 13: Area under improved varieties along the study regions in
%
Crop Oromia SNNP Total t P-value
Coffee 61 54 58 4.46 0.000***
Maize 87 74 63 6.94 0.000***
Teff 47 46 46 0.56 0.581
Sorghum 61 19 52 4.26 0.000***
Haricot bean 60 44 53 2.83 0.031**
Wheat 56 62 57 -1.01 0.345
Barley 42 43 47 0.07 0.943
Enset 27 44 35 -2.92 0.021**
Other pulses 48 33 45 0.01 0.991
***, ** indicate significance level at 1% and 5%, respectively
The source of improved crop variety seeds was also assessed

in this study. The results provided that most of the improved
crop variety seed was supplied to farmers by government
extension services through cooperatives followed by research
centers and, farmer-to-farmer seed exchange mechanisms.
Extension service facilitates the supply of improved seeds
from seed grower enterprises and research centers to
cooperatives. Then, cooperatives distribute the certified and
quality seeds to all the needy farmers irrespective of their
membership to coops.
Ethiopia is one of the African countries where cooperatives

are in the spotlight. The government has placed a large
emphasis on promoting cooperatives as one of the main
29
organizational vehicles for enhancing food security and
reducing rural poverty. The government has also focused on
the development and dissemination of agricultural
technologies through public sector research, extension, and
education services. In response, cooperative societies are also
making diffusion of agricultural technologies and catalyzing
smallholder commercialization an integral part of their
strategy. Through cooperatives, smallholders obtain inputs,
adopt new agricultural technologies, and access technical
assistance. Cooperatives can also provide credit services,
especially to member farmers to help them ease financial
constraints. These all have led to the claim that cooperatives
have a positive impact on farm incomes, in particular and on
food security, in general. The improved crop seeds obtained
from research centers were channeled through the seeds
harvested from demonstration plots. Farmers also save
improved seeds from their production for use in subsequent
growing seasons [Table 14].
Table 14: Sources of improved crop variety seeds in the study

areas (%)
Source of improved Coffee Maize Teff Wheat Beans Enset

varieties
Extension 70 82 59 85 67 40
Research centers 13 10 26 5 17 3
Farmer-to-farmer seed 10 3 7 10 10 45
exchange
Farmers’ own saved 5 3 2 0 4 10
seed from farms
Local traders (markets) 1 1 3 0 2 2
Other sources 1 1 3 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
30
The dynamism of the adoption of improved crop varieties also
revealed that the adoption rate of improved crop varieties was
largely increased in the last decade. However, the adoption
rate for coffee, maize, and haricot bean was higher in the last
two decades [Table 15]. The reason could be that the
agricultural extension service has become more intensive in
recent years following the commencement of new agriculture
strategies in the Growth and Transformation Plan periods. The
contribution of national and international research institutes
for maize and maize-haricot bean intercropping has also
driven increased adoption rates for improved maize and
haricot bean technologies. Several studies have also
demonstrated the increased land productivity advantage due to
maize-common bean intercropping owing to efficient use of
resources, minimized soil erosion and increased soil fertility
(Fininsa, 1997; Tamado and Eshetu, 2000). On the other hand,
CIP (Coffee Improvement Project) funded by the EU
(European Union), has made huge efforts in supporting the
release and dissemination of improved coffee varieties in the
country since the last four decades (EIAR, 2007).
3.5. Fertilizer use dynamism

Ethiopian agriculture is characterized by smallholder
production with the small size of arable land and therefore the
need to raise productivity. A key tenet to achieving the
agricultural growth targets in the GTP is the adoption of
improved technologies that will augment yields. This
increases household incomes for smallholder farmers by
increasing production and productivity.
In this study, the use of chemical fertilizer along the regions
was investigated both at the plot and household levels. The
findings showed that a large proportion of farmers have the
practice of using urea chemical fertilizer, especially for maize,
teff, and wheat. A significant difference in urea chemical
31
fertilizer use was observed between the study regions,
especially for maize plots, indicating that the proportion of
households who used Urea fertilizer was higher for SNNP
(80%) than for Oromia (74%). In terms of several plots, more
maize plots in Oromia have received Urea fertilizer than the
SNNP region [Table 16]. In other crops, both regions have
experienced similar practices of using Urea fertilizer.
Table 15: Dynamism of adoption of improved crop varieties along
the study regions in %
Crops Oromia SNNP Overall Chi2 P-value

1-5 6-10 11- ≥16 1-5 6-10 11- ≥16 1-5 6-10 11- ≥16
yrs. yrs. 15 yrs. yrs. yrs. 15 yrs. yrs. yrs. 15 yrs.
yrs. yrs. yrs.
Coffee 26 38 16 20 54 26 6 14 38 33 12 17 63.24 0.000***
Maize 29 35 14 21 47 36 5 11 35 36 11 18 31.78 0.000***
Haricot 43 29 6 23 54 33 5 7 53 33 5 9 3.72 0.293
bean
Teff 62 19 19 0 60 36 4 0 61 28 11 0 3.55 0.17
Wheat 56 31 13 0 50 50 0 0 55 35 10 0 0.844 0.656
Barley 33 67 0 0 40 60 0 0 38 63 0 0 0.04 0.850
Sorghum 50 50 0 0 50 50 0 0 50 50 0 0
Enset 67 33 0 0 58 29 14 0 59 29 12 0 1.38 0.501
*** indicate significance level at 1%; Yrs.=years
Table 16: Farmers’ practices of using Urea chemical fertilizers

along the study regions in %

Plot House Plot House Plot House
hold hold hold
Wheat 70 72 33 17 64 57 3.2 0.917
Barley 19 30 14 45 17 33 8.4 0.292
Teff 59 69 68 62 61 65 30.3 0.229
Sorghum 27 22 9 10 25 16 17.9 0.117
Pulses 11 13 13 8 12 11 5.1 0.172
Maize 74 74 67 80 72 77 86.2 0.015**
32
Coffee 2 3 1 1 1 2 9.9 0.619
Haricot 9 14 10 7 9 11 8.5 0.292
bean
** indicate significance level at 5%
As provided in Table 17, a large proportion of households

used DAP/NPS for maize (79%) followed by teff (77%) and
wheat (68%). DAP/NPS use is common in both Oromia and
SNNP regions. This was largely a result of agricultural
extension services that have been provided to farmers almost
all over the country. The farmers in the country have realized
the importance of using inorganic and organic fertilizers to
enhance the production and productivity of crops, especially
cereals and pulses.
Table 17: DAP/NPS chemical fertilizer use practices along the study
regions in %

Plot House hold Plot House hold Plot House hold
Wheat 76 78 50 25 72 68 11.7 0.457
Barley 28 41 29 55 28 43 10.4 0.410
Teff 72 79 74 74 72 77 15.9 0.725
Sorghum 27 21 9 10 23 15 17.2 0.102
Pulses 17 20 22 16 18 18 9.0 0.175
Maize 74 75 68 81 73 79 86.4 0.077*
Coffee 2 3 2 1 2 2 7.8 0.734
Haricot bean 14 26 10 15 13 21 10.4 0.410
* Indicate significance level at 10%
However, almost all of (98%) coffee growers in the study

regions do not use inorganic fertilizers for two reasons. The
first was the direction of the local government to restrict
inorganic fertilizer use and promote the production of a highly
demanded organic coffee to which Ethiopia is known at world
markets. The second reason was that farmers usually opt to
33
use organic fertilizers on coffee, such as coffee husk to reduce
cost of production. This was confirmed by the findings that
98% of the coffee growers did not apply inorganic fertilizers
on coffee. On the other hand, 2% of the farmers were reported
to have used small quantities of chemical fertilizers in
producing coffee only after consulting researchers and coffee
experts to facilitate the growth of improved variety seedlings.
However, the chemical fertilizer used does not affect the
organic behavior of Ethiopian coffee because of the small
quantity applied as compared to South American coffee-
producing countries such as Brazil. This was the reason why
Ethiopian coffee is branded as 100% organic with unique
features.
Assessment of fertilizer use trend reveals that the majority of

adopters of chemical fertilizers (33%) have started using a bit
earlier, since a decade ago. Even 34% of the farmers had
started using the fertilizer before a decade, implying that
inorganic fertilizer use is a long tradition in the study regions,
especially in the Oromia region [Figure 5].
Figure 5: Dynamism of chemical fertilize use along the study

regions in %
34
3.6. Intensity of chemical fertilizer use
The findings reveal that farmers apply a smaller quantity of
chemical fertilizers on their crops, much lower than research
recommended rates. For instance, the amount of UREA
farmers applied on maize was 37% lower than recommended
rates [Table 18]. Similarly, lower rates were applied for other
cereals, such as barley, sorghum, and wheat. The other
interesting experience is that farmers instead applied 12%
more quantity of UREA on tef than the recommended rate.
Basically, it is not advisable to apply UREA on pulses.
However, farmers were noticed using UREA on pulses, which
is not advisable because pulses themselves fix Nitrogen in the
soil.
The intensity of use of DAP/NPS is also lower than
recommended rates in most of the crops. For instance, farmers
used a 14% lower quantity of DAP/NPS on maize than the
recommended rate. In such cases, farmers may not achieve the
maximum possible yield for using the below-recommended
rate of fertilizer. On the other hand, farmers were observed
using 24% more quantity of DAP/NPS on tef than
recommended rates, which is believed to be a waste of
resource and addition of unnecessary costs. Some of the
reasons for the use of the limited quantity of chemical
fertilizers could be unaffordable price, lack of awareness on
the recommended rates, and lately supply of fertilizers. The
price of fertilizer is highly increasing and the supply is either
untimely of not adequate based on farmers’ demand. This
should be a key role of government to control the supply
chain of fertilizer as well as the price. Research and extension
should also continue their part in education farmers to use
only the recommended rate of fertilizers.
35
Table 18: Intensity of chemical fertilizer use for major crops in
kg/ha
Crops UREA DAP/NPS

Farmer Recommend Deviation Farmer Recommend Deviation
s’ rate ed rate from the s’ rate ed rate from the
kg/ha kg/ha recommend kg/ha kg/ha recommend
ed ed
Barley 66.1 100 -34 92.4 100 -8
Haricot 122.6 - - 88.9 100 -11
bean
Other 48.8 - - 73.6 100 -26
pulses
Sorghu 89.1 100 -11 118 100 18
m
Teff 111.6 100 12 123.6 100 24
Wheat 116 150 -23 127.1 125 2
Maize 125.1 200 -37 172.8 200 -14
Source: study result, 2018; EIAR, JARC, MARC, and HARC training manuals
3.7. Adoption of pesticides

Farmers usually use herbicides for weed control especially for
wheat, barley, teff, and coffee. However, the use of herbicides
for coffee is low as compared to other crops which are even
nil in SNNP than Oromia. Only a few farmers in SNNP use
the herbicide for coffee due to plenty of labor in the area
[Table 19]. On the other hand, since coffee in SNNP is mostly
garden coffee and is on a small land size, farmers usually opt
for hand weeding. This enhances coffee quality and
opportunity for farmers to reduce cost of production.
36
Table 19: Herbicide adoption along the study regions in %

Plot Household Plot Household Plot Household
Wheat 76 78 17 17 61 60 13.2 0.068*
Barley 58 57 22 18 46 48 1.5 0.983
Teff 78 76 35 11 69 61 8.8 0.000***
Coffee 10 22 4 7 7 14 28.4 0.019**
***, **, * indicate significance level at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively
Though few farmers use the herbicide for coffee in both

regions, the amount applied per hectare base is high as
compared to other crops. Low per hectare base herbicide was
applied for wheat followed by teff [Table 20].
Table 20: Per hectare herbicide use for major crops along the study
regions in liters
Crops Oromia SNNP Overall t P-value

Wheat 2.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.14 0.132
Barley 4.2 3.8 2.5 2.1 4.1 3.7 0.63 0.538
Teff 2.8 2.0 4.3 3.4 2.9 2.0 -2.61 0.010**
Coffee 4.1 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.3 3.0 -1.03 0.312
** indicate significance level at 5%
3.8. Adoption rates of row planting

practices
Row planting is one of the agronomic practices almost
recently introduced to help increase crop productivity, ease
crop management and increase efficient use of inputs
(fertilizers and seed). The adoption status of row planting
37
showed that a substantial number of farmers used row
planting mainly for maize (79%), coffee, haricot bean (61%),
and sorghum (53%) [Table 21]. Even though farmers are
advised to adopt the practice, no farmer, however, had yet
started using row planting for pulses, teff, wheat, and barley.
A large proportion of the farmers in the SNNP region had the
practice of using row planting for haricot bean and sorghum
compared to the Oromia region counterparts.
The case of coffee is a bit different compared to cereals and

pulses. All the farmers actually plant coffee seedlings in rows.
The issue, however, is whether they plant the seedlings in
straight rows as per the recommended spacing between plants
and rows, or just plant in irregular rows. The findings have
figured out that half of the coffee growers (51%) are planting
coffee seedlings in regular rows in spacing as advised by
agricultural extension services. It was also noticed that a large
proportion of coffee growers in SNNP (65%) had the practice
of planting the seedlings in regular rows compared to the
farmers of the Oromia Region (47%). On the other hand, 41%
of the overall coffee growers still practice planting seedlings
in irregular rows without consideration of spacing that should
be kept between plants and rows.
38
Table 21: Farmers planting methods along the study regions in %
Crop Oromia SNNP Overall

Broadcast Row Both Broadcast Row Both Broadcast Row Both
Coffee2 49 47 4 26 65 9 41 51 8
Haricot 58 37 5 15 83 2 35 61 4
bean
Maize 16 80 4 20 78 2 18 79 3
Sorghum 57 41 2 39 61 0 46 53 1
Pulses 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Teff 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Wheat 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Barley 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Note: Raw planting for coffee is for plantation
The result of this study also showed that a substantial

proportion of land is covered by row planting across different
crops. For instance, 34% of coffee land is covered by
regularly planted and spaced seedlings [Table 22]. And yet,
30% of the coffee area is covered by a mix of both regular and
irregular row plantings and spacings. But it should be
seriously noted that more than half of the coffee area is still
occupied by irregularly planted seedlings and arbitrary
spacings between plants and rows. This could be one of the
reasons why farm-level productivity of coffee is still very low
and the supply of coffee is limited for both domestic and
export markets. The limited supply has in turn contributed to
the high domestic price of coffee, even much higher than the
export price.
2
In the case of coffee, broadcasting is to mean planting coffee
seedlings in irregular rows while row planting refers to planting the
seedlings in a straight line with consideration of recommended
spacing between plants and rows.
39
There is still a large proportion of land covered by the
broadcast type of planting for haricot bean followed by coffee
and sorghum. The use of broadcast for maize and coffee is
high in Oromia than SNNP region.
Table 22: Land covered by different planting methods along the
study regions in %
Crop Oromia SNNP Overall

Broad Row Both Broad Row Both Broad Row Both
cast cast cast
Coffee 42 35 23 29 31 40 36 34 30
Haricot 50 47 3 52 45 3 52 45 3
bean
Maize 40 35 25 27 24 49 33 30 37
Sorghum 33 28 39 38 62 0 34 31 35
The dynamism of adoption revealed that the use of row

planting is being highly practiced in the last decade except for
coffee and maize which had long experiences of row planting.
For instance, out of coffee row planting adopters, 30% of
them started planting seedlings in regular rows in the last five
years while 38% of them before a decade [Table 23]. An
almost similar trend holds for maize. On the other hand, row
planting is almost a recent experience for haricot bean and
sorghum where more than 80% of the row planting adopters
started the practice later than a decade. This result showed
increasing trends in technology use practices by small-scale
farmers though there is still a gap in using all the packages as
per the recommendations.
40
Table 23: Dynamism and proportion of households covered by row
planting (%)

1-5 6- 11- ≥16 1-5 6- 11- ≥16 1-5 6- 11- ≥16
yrs. 10 15 yrs. yrs. 10 15 yrs. yrs. 10 15 yrs.
yrs. yrs. yrs. yrs. yrs. yrs.
Coffee 22 32 18 28 42 35 6 17 30 33 14 24 52.42 0.000***
Maize 25 35 17 22 43 39 6 13 30 36 14 19 36.32 0.000***
Haricot 30 50 10 10 45 44 6 5 42 45 7 6 2.08 0.056*
bean
Sorghum 63 24 14 0 73 27 0 0 65 24 11 0 1.71 0.427
***, * indicates significance level at 1% and 10%, respectively
3.9. Improved agricultural practices

Few improved agronomic practices were observed and
characterized along the study areas. These include plowing,
weeding, compost use, intercropping, and row planting. These
practices will be elaborated below except row planting which
was presented above.
Plowing frequency
The result of the study exhibited that majority of farmers used
to plow their farmland 2-4 times. However, the majority of
pulse growers plowed 1-2 times and few farmers used to plow
teff and wheat 5 times [Figure 6]. The result indicated that the
high frequency of plowing on the coffee-based farming
system could be the reason for high soil acidity in the area
which is primarily caused by soil erosion. The area is
characterized by high soil erosion due to undulating
topography and high average annual rainfall.
41
Figure 6: Ploughing frequency along the study areas in %
Weeding frequency
Different studies exhibited that weed negatively and
significantly affects the productivity of crops. Weeds compete
with crop plants for essential growth factors like light,
moisture, nutrients, and space. Weeds can also increase
harvesting costs, reduce the quality of the product (Bibi,
Hassan, and Noor, 2008). Apart from increasing the
production cost, weeds also intensify the disease and insect
pest problem by serving as alternative hosts, and uncontrolled
weed growth throughout the crop growth caused a yield
reduction of 57 to 73% (Tesfay, Sharma, and Kassahun,
2014). Tilahun (1998) also found that uncontrolled weed
populations can substantially reduce the yield of the crop up
to 90%. The result of this study showed that the majority of
farmers weed their crops 1-3 times. Among the crops, coffee
and maize are intensively weeded crops. About 13 and 10% of
farmers do not weed sorghum and pulses, respectively [Figure
7].
42
Figure 7: Weeding frequency for major crops along the study areas
in %
Compost use
The use of compost across the farming system for different
crops showed a significant difference was seen between the
farming systems for maize, barley, teff, sorghum, coffee,
haricot bean, and enset. SNNP region intensively uses
compost for crops than the Oromia counterparts. The reason
could be farmers in SNNP use compost since they have a
small land size and operate these crops in the garden [Table
24].
Table 24: Compost use for major crops along the study regions
in %

Maize 26 39 30 15.60 0.000***
Wheat 12 33 15 1.76 0.185
Barley 14 56 22 7.23 0.070*
Teff 8 24 11 6.98 0.008*
Sorghum 8 3 6 4.65 0.051*
Coffee 24 80 48 4.57 0.000***
Other pulses 11 38 16 3.25 0.072*
Haricot bean 21 48 30 4.56 0.033**
Enset 63 80 77 10.63 0.001***
43
Intercropping
Intercropping, also referred to as mixed cropping or poly-
culture, is an agricultural practice that involves the growing of
two or more crops in the same piece of land at the same time
or relayed (Anil et al., 1998). It offers a means of promoting
diversity of diet and income, stability of production, reduced
insect and disease incidence, efficient use of land and labor,
intensification of production with limited resources, and also
maximization of returns under low levels of technology. This
technology may also enable the intensification of a farming
system, leading to increased general productivity and bio-
diversity in the intercropped fields as compared to
monocultures of the individual intercropped species. The
result of the study showed a significant difference between
regions in the use of intercropping in coffee, maize, enset,
fruits, and chat. Farmers in SNNP use intercropping
intensively than the Oromia counterparts. The reason could be
farmers in SNNP own small land sizes and must use the extra
spaces in coffee, maize, enset, fruits and chat to increase their
production per unit of the area [Table 25]. This suggests that
extension and research should play their role in capacitating
farmers to use every possible space to increase productivity
per unit of land.
44
Table 25: Use of intercropping along the study regions in %

Coffee 2 61 28 5.96 0.000***
Maize 14 56 25 126.94 0.000***
Enset 8 44 37 30.03 0.000***
Fruits 8 34 19 17.17 0.000***
Haricot 4 10 6 0.78 0.376
bean
Chat 2 6 3 4.97 0.026**
***, ** indicate significance level at 1% and 5%, respectively
Haricot bean, banana, maize, and cabbage are crops

intercropped in chat. Farmers also intercrop enset in coffee
followed by a banana. On the other hand, maize, coffee, and
haricot bean were also crops intercropped in fruit trees [Table
26].
Table 26: Types of crops intercropped in %
Crops Haricot Banana Maize Cabbage Enset Avocado Coffee Others

bean
Chat 33 33 11 11 12
Coffee 5 12 65 5 13
Enset 6 9 6 71 8
Fruits 19 27 27 27
3.10. Productivity of crops and yield gap

A conventional agricultural productivity index is a measure of
output divided by a measure of inputs. However, Total Factor
Productivity (TFP) is defined as the ratio of the value of
output over the value of all inputs used. TFP measures are
45
difficult to construct since it is often difficult to value key
inputs where markets are not well-functioning. An alternative
approach is partial factor productivity (PFP). PFP measure
divides physical output (Q) by physical factor input (X). In
this study, we considered land productivity which is measured
as output per unit of land across the regions both for a local
and improved variety of major crops. Data from FAOSTAT,
CSA, and EIAR were used to compare the productivity of the
crops (CSA, 2018; EIAR, 2019). The overall mean was also
compared with the optimum potential productivity of
improved varieties among the best adopters.
Based on the result of the study, the productivity of major

crops among farmers of the study regions deviates between 14
and 72% compared to improved varieties at farmers' level
[Table 27]. The highest deviation was seen on wheat followed
by maize, coffee, and barley. For instance, improved wheat
has provided 70 Qt/ha at on-farm research demonstration
levels. However, sample farmers in this study have achieved
19.1 Qt/ha, which is 73% lower than the research yield
achieved at on-farm levels. The same is true for maize where
research achieved yield is 70 Qt/ha while the farmers of this
study achieved only 28.7 Qt/ha, which is 59% lower than on-
farm achieved. The findings clearly reveal that even though
the farmers have adopted improved varieties, they are still
missing a substantial amount of yield for not using
recommended packages along with improved varieties. The
farmers are substantially missing the yield for not using
recommended packages, such as recommended fertilizer type
and rate, weeding, plowing frequency, and others. Improved
varieties cannot express their potential productivity unless
complemented by improved agronomic practices. Varietal
segregation of improved varieties could also be the reason for
the high deviation in the yield of major crops.
46
When we observe the yield gap between on-farm research
achieved and the yield of non-adopter farmers, it is quite
substantial. For instance, in the case of maize, the yield gap
between on-farm research achieved and the yield of local
variety is 64%. This implies that the farmers are missing
nearly two-thirds of the yield for not adopting improved
varieties and associated packages.
There is no significant difference in yield between Oromia

and SNNP Regions in most of the crops, except that Oromia
surpasses SNNP Region by 10% in maize productivity while
the yield of coffee is 12% higher in the SNNP region than
Oromia. However, both Oromia and SNNP Regions have
missed a substantial amount of yield and production in almost
all of the crops for not adopting improved varieties and not
properly using recommended packages of practices along with
improved varieties.
3.11. Crop output utilization

Crop output utilization across the study regions was also
observed. Accordingly, the mean commercialization level of
coffee and maize was 74 and 48%, respectively [Table 28].
Coffee growers of the SNNP Region sell the largest
proportion of coffee (79%) than Oromia (73%). The
implication is that 74% of the coffee produced on average is
sold at the markets while the remaining proportion is left at
home for consumption, gift, seed, and other uses. The same is
true for maize where 48% of the production is sold at the
market while the remaining amount is used for similar
purposes as coffee. Coffee is the main cash crop in the study
regions and it is the means of livelihood for coffee growers
and other actors along the value chain. The mean
commercialization level of enset is 47% which is significantly
higher in the Oromia region than SNNP. The reason could be
that farmers in Oromia do not consume much enset as
47
households in SNNP Region. Enset planting, processing, and
consumption are perceived to be a culture and brand of rural
households in the SNNP Region. The commercialization
level of sorghum, teff, and wheat was 45, 47, and 55%,
respectively].
48
Table 27: Productivity of major crops across the regions (Qt/ha)
Crops Oromia SNNP Overall Overall CSA On-farm Deviation
Local Improved Local Improved Local Improved mean data achieved of mean
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD productivity (Qt/ha) productivity yield (A)
(A) (Qt/ha) (C) (Qt/ha)4 from on-
(B)3 (D farm
achieved
(D) (%)
Coffee 6.8 3.19 7.3 3.91 6.5 3.73 8.2 5.17 6.7 3.34 7.7 4.54 7.2 6.19 18 -57
Maize 25.9 12.14 29.6 13.94 22.3 7.36 26.8 14.07 24.9 11.17 28.7 14.03 26.8 39.4 70 -59
Sorghum 20.1 3.18 21.2 3.37 19.5 3.89 20.1 3.87 19.9 3.29 21.2 3.37 20.6 27.3 24 -12
Teff 6.9 1.81 7.8 2.05 6.8 2.99 8.9 2.22 6.9 1.92 8.3 2.18 7.6 17.5 16 -48
Haricot 11.3 1.83 13.2 1.73 11.6 2.41 12.4 2.30 11.5 1.98 12.4 2.17 11.9 16.6 15 -17
bean
Barley 16.4 3.99 17.9 4.83 15.7 3.72 16.5 3.00 16.3 3.90 17.6 4.36 16.9 21.6 40 -56
Wheat 19.2 2.66 18.5 1.70 17.4 8.50 18.6 1.09 18.9 2.57 19.1 1.57 19.0 27.4 70 -73
Faba 14.7 2.61 17.0 2.31 13.8 12.6 14.7 3.37 14.7 2.67 16.2 2.85 15.5 21.1 18 -10
bean
Source: study result, 2018; FAOSTAT, 2018; CSA, 2018; EIAR, 2019 (http://www.eiar.gov.et/index.php/crop-research)
3
Overall mean yield is the average productivity of local and improved varieties for sample households in this
study
4
On-farm research achieved yield is the maximum yield the best farmer achieved using improved varieties and
associated packages
49
Table 28: Utilization practices of major crops along the study
regions in %
Crops Utilization Oromia SNNP Overall t P
Coffee Sold 73 79 74 -1.59 0.014**
Consumed 13 10 12 1.92 0.050*
Other uses 14 11 14 4.25 0.000***
Enset Sold 75 37 47 2.25 0.023**
Consumed 17 47 39 -6.42 0.000***
Other uses 8 16 14 -9.17 0.000***
Maize Sold 47 48 48 1.44 0.125
Consumed 44 41 43 1.99 0.07*
Other uses 9 11 9 0.76 0.451
Sorghum Sold 44 39 42 0.55 0.585
Consumed 41 43 42 -0.01 0.990
Other uses 15 18 16 -1.57 0.123
Teff Sold 47 48 47 1.08 0.293
Consumed 42 42 42 -1.60 0.122
Other uses 11 10 11 1.17 0.332
Wheat Sold 46 60 55 -1.19 0.241
Consumed 44 35 38 0.45 0.666
Other uses 10 5 7 0.90 0.374
Sold 30 17 27 0.87 0.392
Barley Consumed 52 75 57 -0.66 0.515
Other uses 18 8 16 2.27 0.029**
Haricot bean Sold 49 46 48 -0.126 0.900
Consumed 39 40 40 -0.552 0.582
Other uses 12 14 12 -0.211 0.355
Other beans Sold 50 66 54 -0.44 0.700
Consumed 38 22 34 1.72 0.096*
Other uses 12 12 12 0.22 0.839
Note: other uses include gift, tithe, seed, and in-kind payment for labor
and land
3.12. Determinants of coffee commercialization

The Tobit model was used to investigate factors affecting the
commercialization of coffee among households. The result of
the model showed the location, education, radio ownership,
50
and training on crop management, coffee improved variety
adoption, engagement on off-farm income-generating
activities, and farm income affecting commercialization
significantly. The significant variables are further elaborated
on below.
SNNP Region
The result of the econometric model revealed that there is a
significantly higher level of coffee commercialization in
SNNP than Oromia national regional state. The reason could
be that the high-quality coffee comes from the southern part
of the country because of the high demand and premium
prices at world markets. The coffee coming from SNNP
region is branded as Sidama, Gedeo, and Yirgachefe, which is
internationally known and demanded.
Mean family education

The result of the study provides that the mean family
education has a positive and significant impact on coffee
supplied to the market. The result is consistent with Agwu et
al., (2012), Oliver and Georgina, (2013), Aman et al., (2014),
and Emilola et al., (2016). Education is theorized to have a
positive impact on the farmers' understanding of production
and market dynamics and hence, influences farmers' level of
commercialization (Martey et al., 2012). Educational
attainment enhances the farmers' ability to appreciate the
essence of credit, new techniques, and information
disseminated from extension agents which impact positively
on commercialization (Tolno et al., 2015).
Radio ownership
Radio ownership affected coffee commercialization positively
and significantly. The ownership of radio is related to
information access which enhances commercialization. The
result corroborates with Chanyalew et al., (2011) who found a
51
positive effect of market information for commercialization.
Access to market information is an important factor in
commercialization because it presents the farmers with all the
options which are available for them to choose from to get
higher returns.
Training on crop management

Training affected the commercialization of coffee positively
and significantly. Training on agricultural technology drives
technology adoption, and the adoption of technologies, in
turn, affects productivity (output) positively. An increase in
output also enhances commercialization which is consistent
with Emilola et al., (2016) and Andualem (2017).
Improved coffee variety adoption

According to Emilola et al., (2016), Chelkeba et al., (2016),
Andualem (2017), and Stephen et al., (2017), the supply of
output to the market is highly correlated with the output
produced which is directly related to using of improved crop
varieties. An increase in output is the product of the adoption
of improved technologies. Thus, the adoption of improved
coffee variety has significantly increased the quantity of
coffee supplied to the market.
Engagements in off-farm income-generating

activities
Engagements in off-farm income generation activities have
affected coffee commercialization positively and significantly.
This could be because household income can impact the
cultivated land size and technology use which thus impacts
commercialization. Household income also has the potential
of reducing dependency on agricultural produce as food and
52
income sources, and hence increases commercialization. The
result is in line with Oliver and Georgina, (2013) and Kabiti et
al., (2016).
Farm income
The coefficient of income was significant at a 5% level with a
positive sign. By implication, increasing the income of the
farm households will lead to an increase in the probability of
commercialization among the farmers. Household income,
both farm, and non-farm have the potential of reducing
dependency on the agricultural output and thus
commercialization. Furthermore, income leads to an increase
in volume or quantity traded and thus expansion of the
enterprise. The result corroborates with Agwu et al., (2012),
Oliver and Georgina (2013), and Emilola et al., (2016).
Table 29: Result of Tobit model
Variables Coefficient Unconditional Conditional on Probabilit

expected being y
value uncensored uncensor
ed
Region [SNNP] 2.763*** 2.642** 1.766*** 2.554***
[1.0342] [1.0317] [0.6423] [0.9265]
Household 0.018 0.017 0.011 0.016
head age [0.0406] [0.0407] [0.0253] [0.0365]
Family size 0.255 0.238 0.148 0.214
[0.2082] [0.2077] [0.1292] [0.1867]
Mean family 0.340* 0.339* 0.211* 0.305**
education [0.2057] [0.2058] [0.1281] [0.1851]
Radio 1.618 1.610* 1.013* 1.465*
ownership [0.9839] [0.9845] [0.6118] [0.8842]
[YES]
Mobile 0.333 0.298 0.236 0.268
ownership [1.0549] [1.0551] [0.6558] [0.9485]
[YES]
53
Training on 3.425** 3.396** 2.216** 3.211**
crop [1.7067] [1.6995] [1.0353] [1.5026]
management
[YES]
Coffee 2.352*** 2.351*** 1.462*** 2.114***
improved [0.7687] [0.7687] [0.4799] [0.6913]
variety
adoption [YES]
Total land size -0.628 -0.611 -0.398 -0.576
[0.4509] [0.4510] [0.2806] [0.4055]
Total coffee 0.639 0.617 0.402 0.582
land size [0.5788] [0.5791] [0.3601] [0.5206]
Distance to -0.065 -0.063 -0.040 -0.057
district market [0.0607] [0.0607] [0.0378] [0.0546]
Engaged in off- 1.797* 1.616* 1.127* 1.630*
farm income- [1.0846] [1.0852] [0.6725] [0.9725]
generating
activities [YES]
Tropical 0.095 0.093 0.064 0.092
Livestock [0.1317] [0.1316] [0.0818] [0.1183]
Unit/TLU
Farm income 0.001** 0.0001** 0.0001** 0.0001**
[0.0001] [0.00005] [0.00001] [0.00001]
Constant = 64.48*** [3.4810]
Sigma = 13.08 [0.3227]
Number of obs = 821 LR chi2(14) = 41.85 Prob > chi2 = 0.0001
Log likelihood = -3276.22 Pseudo R2 = 0.0063
Base/reference region: Oromia
Farmers usually store their agricultural produces for later sale,

seed and consumption. As the price of the produce increase
for seed and food lately after harvesting time, farmers store
their produce to sell during sowing time and Ethiopian
summer. The storage length of teff and coffee is relatively
long in both study regions. Farmers store coffee long period
because there are no storage pests. On the other hand, coffee
prices increase at least by 30% in July, August, and
September. Thus, farmers store coffee for about 5.6 months
on average for price increment [Table 30].
54
Table 30: Storage length of major crops in months
Crops Oromia SNNP Overall P value

[n=473] [n=480] [n=953]
Barley 4.35 2.26 3.39 2.31 4.11 2.28 0.284
Coffee 5.99 2.10 5.36 2.36 5.63 2.27 0.000***
Haricot 4.44 3.10 4.31 4.17 4.35 3.83 0.820
bean
Maize 5.52 3.19 6.09 4.11 5.72 3.56 0.050**
Pulse 4.48 2.88 4.26 3.19 4.41 2.93 0.848
Sorghum 5.29 3.34 4.78 2.71 5.20 3.24 0.512
Teff 7.58 3.84 7.92 4.05 7.64 3.87 0.656
Wheat 5.18 3.10 4.81 3.77 5.12 3.16 0.796
3.13. Post-harvest loss

Postharvest damage (physical alteration caused by biotic or
abiotic agents) and loss (the difference between total damaged
and recoverable damaged grain still fit for human
consumption) of staple grains due to insect pests, rodents and
birds are a common problem in developing countries. Post-
harvest loss of major crops on the coffee-based farming
system hub was also observed. The result revealed that the
mean postharvest loss of major crops ranged between 9 and
18% [Table 31]. The highest mean post-harvest loss was
observed on pulses (18%) followed by maize (17%) and
wheat (13%). The highest relative post-harvest loss was
observed in the Oromia region than SNNP. The mean post-
harvest loss in Ethiopia is also reviewed and attached in Table
31 for comparison.
Table 31: Estimated post-harvest loss (PHL) of major crops along

study regions in %
Crops PHL in PHL in Overall P- Post-harvest

Oromia SNNP PHL (%) value loss in Ethiopia
(%) (%) (%) *
55
Barley 14 13 13 0.960 23
Coffee 8 11 9 0.193 -
Haricot 9 13 11 0.015** 22
bean
Maize 18 15 17 0.733 24
Pulse 21 17 18 0.805 -
Sorghum 8 13 10 0.073* 23
Teff 13 11 12 0.392 21
Wheat 14 11 13 0.105 27
**, * indicate significance level at 5% and 10%, respectively
* FAO, 2017; Hengsdijk and de Boer, 2017
The study has also investigated farmers’ perception of the

causes of post-harvest loss of major crops in the study
regions. The result exhibited that the major causes of
postharvest losses for major crops were pest damage followed
by moisture/rotting. According to 82% of the households,
sorghum post-harvest loss was a result of pest damage
followed by maize (74%), and pulses (72%) [Table 32]. On
the other hand, 62% of the farmers identified moisture as a
problem that spoiled the stored coffee followed by wheat
(32%), and pulses (28%). Mold is also another factor that
affected the stored crops and caused post-harvest losses.
Table 32: Farmers’ perception of major causes of storage losses for
crops in %
Crops Pest damage Moisture/rotting Mold
Barley 70 30 0
Coffee 18 62 20
Haricot bean 67 31 2
Maize 74 26 0
Pulse 72 28 0
Sorghum 82 16 2
Teff 66 34 0
Wheat 68 32 0
56
3.14. Livestock production
Livestock is an integral part of agriculture, accounting for
about 45% of the total value of Agricultural GDP, 16-19% of
National GDP, and supporting the livelihoods of a large share
of the population (FAO, 2019; Brasesco et al., 2019).
Moreover, it supports livelihoods through the provision of
meat, milk, cash, draft power, hauling services, insurance, and
social capital (FAO, 2019). Livestock rearing is also the major
means of livelihoods in both study regions. The result
revealed that 61% of the overall sample households owned
oxen, the proportion being high in Oromia (74%) than the
SNNP region (51%) [Table 33]. In the SNNP region, half of
the farmers are not owning oxen while this proportion is 26%
in Oromia [Figure 8].
Oxen ownership is the fundamental factor in agriculture and it

is also an indicator of wealth. In the study regions, nearly 40%
of the farmers are not owning oxen, which is a substantial
proportion and an indication that considerable numbers of the
farmers could be in a problem of plowing their land timely
and properly. Some of these farmers could also be in a state of
poverty as they do not own the key resource to operate
agriculture.
Farmers in the Oromia region also owned large numbers of

livestock than their SNNP counterparts [Table 33]. The result
could be due to the difference in land size between the
regions. Population density is relatively high in the SNNP
region and land size per household is also scarce, because of
which owning oxen may not be feasible for some households.
They plant perennials, such as coffee and fruits, on their
limited size of land and use hand tools for digging pockets of
open spaces and plant spices or other crops for intercropping
with perennials. This could be one of the reasons why some of
the farmers of the SNNP region did not own oxen.
57
Table 33: Livestock ownership status along study regions
Local Oromia SNNP Overall

livestock
types % Mean SD % Mean SD % Mean SD
Own Own Own
Oxen 74 1.74 0.77 51 1.43 0.65 61 1.68 0.76
Cows 78 2.37 1.85 52 1.82 1.06 65 2.14 1.59
Heifers 55 1.79 0.94 21 1.38 0.65 38 1.67 0.89
Bulls 39 1.62 0.95 11 1.21 0.57 25 1.53 0.89
Calves 15 1.89 1.34 6 1.31 0.93 10 1.71 1.25
Chicken 70 4.83 4.08 64 2.88 2.51 67 3.88 3.54
Sheep 40 3.00 2.13 30 2.85 2.47 35 2.94 2.28
Goat 15 2.78 1.89 6 2.33 2.02 10 2.65 1.93
Donkey 23 1.36 0.70 3 1.00 0.00 13 1.31 0.66
Horse 9 1.33 0.90 4 1.05 0.38 7 1.24 0.78
Mule 3 0.92 0.28 0.8 1.00 0.00 2 0.94 0.24
Oxen ownership is an important wealth measuring attribute in

the rural part of Ethiopia. The result of this study showed that
31% of farmers on average owned only one ox. A few farmers
(6%) also owned three and more than three oxen, which is an
indication that these farmers are well-to-do and they can
cultivate large size of land [Figure 8].
58
Figure 8: Oxen ownership status along the study regions in %
Farmers' adoption of crossbreed cows/heifers was also
assessed across study regions. The findings indicate that only
6% of the farmers have adopted crossbreed cows/heifers
[Table 34]. A relatively high adoption level was seen in the
SNNP region (11%) compared to Oromia (3%). The farmers
in the SNNP region have a greater number of crossbreed cows
than those in Oromia.
Table 34: Crossbreed livestock adoption and ownership along study
regions
Crossbreed Oromia SNNP Overall

livestock types
% Own Mean SD % Own Mean SD % Own Mean SD
Oxen 2 1.80 0.84 4 1.20 0.84 3 1.50 0.85
Cows 3 0.90 0.32 11 1.74 1.51 6 1.48 1.33
Heifers/calves 3 2.01 0.11 11 2.25 0.71 6 1.00 0.63
Bulls 1 1.00 0.00 3 1.25 0.50 2 1.14 0.38
Chickens 47 4.57 4.05 60 4.28 9.92 53 4.43 7.47
59
As illustrated in Figure 9, 40% of those adopters sourced
crossbred cows through supports of extension services, which
often provide on an in-kind credit basis. Some farmers (37%)
also sourced crossbred cows from other fellow farmers despite
their exotic blood levels and, the reproductive and productive
status of the cows are little known.
Figure 9: Source of crossbreed cows/heifers in the study regions (%)
Farmers' preference and access to breeding services also

showed that 80% of farmers use local bulls. Only 8% of
farmers use AI technology for breeding [Figure 10]. The
result implies that there is still a gap in accessing AI services
in the coffee-based farming system of the country.
60
4 2 8 6
80
AI service Improved bull

Figure 10: Cattle breeding practices (%)
In Ethiopia, there are no formal sources or breeding ranches

of crossbred heifers except a few private companies. Because
of this, there is high demand and consequently unaffordable
price of crossbred cows and heifers. This is the major reason
why crossbred cow’s adoption is still meager as reported by
35% of the adopters [Figure 11]. The second important
constraint for the adoption of the improved breeds was the
feed problem followed by complicated management, lack of
awareness, and unavailability of crossbreed cattle breeding
centers.
61
Figure 11: Constraints to crossbreed cattle adoption in %
Farmers' breeding mechanism showed that most farmers

(>80%) at both Oromia and SNNP used local bulls for
breeding. On average across farming systems, AI and
improved bull are used by 8 and 6% of respondents,
respectively. AI inefficiency is the main reason for not using
the service [Figure 12]. The situation seems to change
positively as 37% of respondents have seen improvement in
AI efficiency. However, 28% of respondents do not see any
improvement. Moreover, the mean repeated AI service was
1.93 which is high at Oromia (2.25) and low at SNNP (1.57).
AI use dynamism also showed that 97% of respondents
started to use the service in the last decade [Figure 13].
62
Figure 12: Livestock breeding mechanism in %
Figure 13: Farmer's perception for AI efficiency in %
63
The fattening practice among the respondents showed that
only 7% of respondents regularly fatten which is equal across
the study regions. Fattening is not common among 63% of
respondents, and 30% of respondents occasionally fatten
[Figure 14]. The majority of farmers (28%) used to fatten
oxen and bulls. The fattening of oxen and bulls is high at
SNNP (36%) and low at Oromia (21%). Few numbers farmers
also fatten male sheep, male goats, and infertile cows and
heifers [Figure 15]. Dynamics of fattening showed that 55%
of respondents have started fattening in the last decade and the
rest before ten years.
Figure 14: Fattening frequency in %
64
Figure 15: Livestock used for fattening in %
Regarding cattle feed, the result of the study showed that most
farmers used field grazing at both SNNP and Oromia
followed by the cut and carry method. Crop residue is
intensively used at Oromia than SNNP. Few proportions of
farmers used hay as a feeding regime on the farming system
[Figure 16].
65
Figure 16: Livestock feeding regime along the study regions in %
Different improved forage was known among farmers of the

system. The most commonly known was elephant grass (36%)
followed by Sesbania (17%) and vetch (8%). However, when
we come to the utilization of the forages, few numbers
farmers used the forages. Elephant grass is still used by 20%
of farmers [Figure 17].
Figure 17: Awareness and use of improved forage in %
66
The source for the improved forages was government
extension (91%) followed by NGOs and research centers
[Figure 18]. Farmers have also raised different reasons for not
using the improved forages. No or poor supply of the forages
was the main reason among 16% of farmers followed by
shortage of land (5%) and availability of other adequate feeds
(3%) [Figure 19]. The dynamism of the use of improved
forage showed that 83% of farmers started to use improved
forage in the last decade and the rest before ten years.
Figure 18: Source of improved forage in %
Figure 19: Constraints of use of improved forage in %
67
The survey also assessed livestock disease intensity on the
farming systems. According to the survey result, livestock
disease was not a problem among 23% of respondents. On
other hand, 70% of farmers at SNNP responded that livestock
disease occurs sometimes which implies that livestock disease
is not a serious problem in the area [Figure 20]. The most
commonly used farmers’ disease curing mechanism was
modern veterinary service (veterinary clinic) followed by
home treatment. The use of veterinary clinic is high at Oromia
(90%) and low at SNNP (76%) with an overall mean of 76%
[Figure 21].
Figure 20: Livestock disease intensity in %
68
Figure 21: Livestock curing methods in %
Beekeeping is also a prominent source of income for coffee-

based farming systems. The reason is that most of the areas in
the study farming systems are known for their forests and
trees as coffee shades and natural vegetation. Moreover, 39
and 27% of respondents in Oromia and SNNP regions,
respectively, used beekeeping as one of the means of
livelihood and income generation. The survey results also
revealed that, out of the total farmers engaged in beekeeping,
37% of them have adopted improved modern beehives, which
is higher in the Oromia region (41%) than SNNP (33%).
Farmers in the Sheka zone are better adopters of modern box
hives (25%) followed by Jimma (23%) and Ilubabor (17%)
zones. Ilubabor zone farmers are also better adopters of
transitional beehives than the other study zones [Table 35].
69
Table 35: Beehives ownership by zones
Zone Type of beehive

Local Transitional Modern
N % N % N %
Gedeo 56 19 13 20 22 11
Sidama 37 13 6 9 15 7
Ilubabor 42 15 23 36 21 17
Jimma 38 13 3 5 25 23
West Wollega 35 12 1 2 4 4
Kellem Wollega 10 4 - - 1 3
Kefa 33 12 9 14 10 9
Sheka 39 14 9 14 19 24
Overall 288 30 64 7 117 12
X2 29.238 47.530 39.984
Sig 0.000 0.000 0.000
Regarding the dynamism of modern hive adoption, the

majority of farmers (51%) adopted box hives in the last five
years. Only 8% of farmers had adopted modern beehives
before 15 years [Figure 22]. This implies that the adoption of
modern beehives is the recent history due to intensive effort
done by BoA.
70
Figure 22: The dynamism of modern beehive adoption in %
Government extension was the main source of the modern

beehive (48%) followed by rural technology [Figure 23]. The
contribution of local markets and research centers in
supplying modern beehives was also substantial.
Figure 23: Source of modern beehives in %
71
3.15. Factors affecting adoption of
different agricultural technologies
With significant Wald Chi-square statistic (chi2(39) = 117.20,
p < 0.001) and Chi-square statistic for the log-likelihood ratio
test (chi2(3) = 32.51, P < 0.001), the results of the multivariate
probit model for adoption decisions show that the decisions
whether or not to adopt a modern technology are dependent
on the adoption decision of the other technologies. The result,
thus, supports the use of the multivariate probit model.
All of the pairwise coefficients are revealed to be positively

correlated indicating complementarity among these
technologies. The pairwise coefficients of ICV (Improved
Coffee Varieties) and IMV (Improved Maize Varieties) and,
IMC (Improved Maize Varieties) and CBC (Crossbreed
Cows) are statistically significant. ICV is positively and
significantly correlated with IMV, indicating that farmers who
adopted Improved Coffee Varieties (ICV) have also adopted
Improved Maize Verities (IMV). The reason could be that
farmers who adopted improved coffee varieties can generate
more income from coffee sales which helps to afford the
required inputs for the adoption of other technologies, such as
improved varieties of maize along with fertilizer and other
agronomic packages. The same applies to the adoption of
Improved Maize Varieties (IMV) and Crossbreed Cows
(CBC). Even though the adoption rate of crossbred cows is
minimal in the study areas, those adopters have demonstrated
that the income obtained from sales of especially crossbred
heifers born and raised in their stock have driven them to use
improved maize technologies.
72
Adoption of Improved Coffee varieties (ICV)
Both TV and radio ownership has affected the adoption of
improved coffee varieties positively and significantly.
Information is required for farmers to know about technical
details, such as type of technology, its benefits, and its
management practices to decide on adopting it. One of the
sources for such information is mass-media, such as TV and
radio. Farmers will only adopt the technology which they are
aware of or have adequate information about it. Access to
information reduces the uncertainty about the performance of
technology and may change an individual's assessment from
purely subjective to objective over time. Thus, radio and TV
immensely contribute to the adoption of agricultural
technologies. The result is consistent with the findings of
Karki (2004) and Samuel and Beza (2019).
Distance to all-weather roads has a negative and significant

relation to the adoption of improved coffee varieties. This
implies that the adoption of coffee varieties declines as the
farmers are located farther away from an all-weather road.
This could be due to difficulty in transporting coffee seedlings
from roadside nursery sites which are usually established near
the all-weather road to their farms. The result is in line with
Abreham and Tewodros (2014) and Musba (2018) who
reported similar findings.
The size of farm-land owned has also positive and significant

relation to the adoption of improved coffee varieties, which is
expected and logical as the farmers have plenty of options to
try different technologies when land size increases. The result
is consistent with Abreham and Tewodros (2014) but in
contrast with Musba (2018).
73
Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties
A significant number of farmers in the Oromia Region have
adopted improved maize varieties compared to that of SNNP.
Education has a positive and significant effect on the adoption

of improved maize varieties for it helps to evaluate details of
the technologies. Farmers who have been in formal schools
are relatively better aware of the means to increase production
and productivity. Apart from this, they are better aware of the
mechanisms to manage improved technologies. The result
corroborates with Alene et al., (2000), Nkonya et al., (2008),
Gideon et al., (2017), and Gishu et al., (2018).
Distance to the woreda market has a negative and significant

effect on the adoption of improved maize varieties. This
implies that the probability of adoption of improved maize
varieties reduces as the distance from the district market
increases. This is because proximity to towns increases
market participation and the production of crops mainly for
sale rather than for consumption. This in turn drives the
farmers to use improved technologies to produce more and
supply more marketable surplus for better incomes. The result
is consistent with Abadi et al., (2015) and Gishu et al.,
(2018).
The total land owned had a positive and significant impact on

the adoption of improved maize varieties. The more the
farmland, the better the farmers are driven to decide on
adopting maize technologies. It helps the farmers to allocate
more land for maize and produce more for better incomes.
The result is in line with Nkonya et al., (2008) and contrasts
with Mwakatwila, (2016).
Adoption of Crossbreed Cows and Heifers

A significant number of farmers in SNNP have adopted
crossbreed cows than the Oromia counterparts. From the
74
perspective of gender, male-headed households are less likely
to adopt crossbreed cows than female-headed households. The
reason could be that female-headed households are less likely
to engage in crop production. They opt to make dairy as a
source of income. Education has a positive and significant
effect on the adoption of both improved maize varieties and
crossbred cows. The reason could be because of the strong
link between education and knowledge and the ability to read
technical materials. The result is in line with Cicek et al.,
(2007), Quddus, (2012), Lemma et al., (2012), and Tesfaye et
al., (2016).
Family size has a positive and significant relation to the

adoption of crossbreed cows. Dairying is a labor-intensive
business and producing a marketable surplus of dairy products
is a function of labor. Accordingly, households with more
family members have more labor to help them adopt dairy
technology than households with fewer family members. The
result is consistent with Howley et al., (2012), Dehinenet et
al., (2014), and Habtamu et al., (2018).
Radio ownership also affects the adoption of improved

crossbreed cows. This is directly related to the impact of
information on the household adoption decision. Distance to
the woreda market has a negative and significant relation to
the adoption of crossbreed cows. This implies that the farther
the distance from the woreda market, the lower the probability
to adopt crossbreed cows. The logic behind this could be the
negative effect of market access to the adoption of dairy cows.
Total land ownership has a positive and significant
relationship with the adoption of crossbreed cows. The
implication is that larger land holdings are associated with
greater wealth and increased availability of capital. Farmers
with larger landholdings are more likely to invest in
technologies that increase agricultural productivity and
75
income. The result corroborates with Staal et al., (2002),
Jayne et al., (2010), Quddus, (2012), and Tesfaye et al.,
(2016).
Table 36: Result of multivariate probit model
Variables Improved Coffee Improved Maize Crossbreed

Verities (ICV) Verities (IMV)Cows/heifers
(CBC)
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Region [OROMIA] 0.092 0.1111 0.373*** 0.1304 -0.482** 0.1919
Sex [MALE] -0.019 0.2130 0.173 0.2314 -0.583* 0.3025
Education Level of 0.009 0.0152 0.041** 0.0179 0.044* 0.0242
the Head
Family Size 0.022 0.0225 0.014 0.0258 0.070** 0.0348
Radio Ownership 0.367*** 0.1062 0.079 0.1228 0.340* 0.1751
[YES]
TV Ownership 0.333* 0.2004 -0.308 0.2064 0.274 0.2402
[YES]
Extension Service -0.054 0.1843 0.240 0.2037 -0.131 0.2837
[YES]
Credit service 0.068 0.1058 0.204 0.1261 -0.087 0.1698
[YES]
Distance to -0.005 0.0070 -0.017** 0.0077 -0.053*** 0.0160
Woreda Market
Distance to all- -0.025* 0.0150 0.015 0.0181 0.025 0.0196
weather Road
Head Participation -0.072 0.1235 -0.143 0.1427 -0.102 0.1935
on off-farm IGA
[YES]
Tropical Livestock -0.002 0.0139 -0.131** 0.0653 -0.012 0.0219
Unit (TLU)
Total Land Owned 0.148*** 0.0389 0.080** 0.0407 0.062* 0.0465
Constant 1.102 0.6342 1.420 0.6949 -2.766 0.9498
Overall estimated model test
Wald chi2(39) = 117.20; Prob > chi2 = 0.000; Number of observations = 675
rho Likelihood ratio test
rhoICVIMV= rhoICVCBC = rhoIMVCBC = 0; chi2(3) = 32.51; Prob > chi2 = 0.000
76
Estimated covariance of the correlation matrix
rhoICVIMV = 0.311 (0.067) ***; rhoIMVCBC = 0.047(0.097); rhoIMVCBC =
0.436(0.103) ***
3.16. Soil and water management and its

adoption constraints
Slowing or stopping soil and land degradation is a core
challenge for sustainable development. The degradation of
soil and land has adverse impacts on food security, water
quality and availability, human health, and social and
economic activities (FAO and ITPS, 2015). Addressing soil
and land degradation through sustainable management of soil
and land and building up of soil organic matter offers
tremendous potential for climate change adaptation and
mitigation as well as to increase and sustain production and
land productivity.
This study has assessed the extent of the use of different soil
and water conservation structures in coffee-based farming
systems. The result exhibited that 61% of overall households
have adopted some type of soil and water conservation
structures. The practice is closely similar in the two study
regions despite the Oromia region (63%) has slightly better
experiences than SNNP (59%). The Oromia region is
characterized by undulling topography and high soil acidity.
Termite is also the main production constraint in the Oromia
region. Conservation structures are recommended to combat
the termites and reduce soil acidity. This has derived the
farmers to adopt conservation structures compared to the
farmers in the SNNP region. A large proportion of the
farmers (45%) practiced soil bunds followed by terracing
(30%) [Figure 24].
77
Figure 24: Types structures used in %
Farmers who do not use conservation structures on their land

were asked the reason for not practicing the structures. The
majority of the respondents listed non-applicability (level
land) (70%), lack of awareness (19%), and shortage of labor
(13%) as a reason.
Regarding the practice of conservation tillage, 35% of the

farmers commonly practiced manure application followed by
minimum tillage (17%) [Figure 25]. Among the regions,
conservation tillage has been commonly practiced in SNNP
than Oromia Region. This was because of land shortage in the
SNNP region where they make all efforts to maintain the
fertility of the already available limited land. The farming is
stunning with a greenery view covered with trees and fruits.
The conservation practice of the SNNP region is exemplary to
others where soil loss due to erosion has been kept at a
minimum because of extensive vegetation coverage.
78
Figure 25: The practice of conservation tillage in %
3.17. Irrigation access

Amongst global concerns over rising food prices, expanding
populations, changing diets, a deepening water crisis, and
climate change, irrigated agriculture has appeared back on the
development agenda. Irrigated agriculture, particularly, is
thought to have an important role to play in increasing the
production of food in an uncertain and resource-constrained
world (Oates et al., 2015). According to the survey results,
15% of the overall households had access to irrigation. The
Oromia region farmers (18%) had relatively higher access to
irrigation than SNNP (13%). Dynamics of irrigation use also
revealed that the majority of farmers had started to use
irrigation in the last five years (46%) and the rest before five
years [Figure 26]. Since the implementation of the Growth
and Transformation Plan (GTP) in the last decades, the
government has provided due focus to the expansion of
irrigation infrastructure. This study has witnessed that the new
economic strategy has contributed to the expansion of
79
irrigation facilities in the regions, despite there is still more
that needs to be done to expand the facilities further.
Figure 26: Dynamics of irrigation access in %
3.18. Agricultural mechanization

Though Ethiopia has a long history of agricultural practices,
the development of agricultural mechanization is still
minimal. Farm power is mainly dependent on oxen-draft and
human muscle operating using traditional farm implements.
Oxen-pulled "maresha" is the dominant farm implement in
cereal-based systems whereas hand-hoe is the main farm
implement used in agroforestry systems. The level of tractor-
based agricultural machinery use is relatively better in wheat-
dominated cropping systems where harvesting and threshing
are done using combiners (FACASI, 2015).
In this study, the farmers' extent of awareness and use of

agricultural machines was assessed in the study regions. The
result indicated that both awareness and use of agricultural
machines are very low in the study zones. This could be due
80
to undulling topography of the areas and lack of awareness for
small machines. For instance, only 6% of the farmers were
aware of tie ridges farm tools followed by enset decorticator
(4%) and Thrasher/Sheller (3%) [Table 37]. The farmers of
the SNNP region had relatively better awareness of the
machines. According to the findings, however, the use of the
machines was almost none in the study areas, still not more
than 1% of the farmers who have adopted some of the
machines. Limited promotion on the use and unavailability of
the machines at affordable prices were identified to be the two
major reasons for the limited use.
Table 37: Farmers’ awareness and use of agricultural machines in %
Agricultural machines Awareness in % Use in %

Oromia SNNP Overall Oromia SNNP Overall
[n=473] [n=480] [n=953] [n=473] [n=480] [n=953]
Tie ridge tool 1 9 6 0 2 1
Enset decorticator 0 7 4 0 1 1
Thrasher/Sheller 1 4 3 0 1 1
Metal garner 3 1 2 1 0 0
Hand/animal driven harvester 2 2 2 0 0 0
Moldboard plow 2 0 1 0 0 0
BBM 1 1 1 0 0 0
Weedier 1 0 1 0 0 0
Feed chopper 0 1 1 0 0 0
Row planter 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.19. Credit services

Agriculture is a capital-intensive and potentially volatile
industry. The commodity prices, farmland values, and
production costs are highly sensitive and susceptible to market
81
swings that can negatively affect farmers' production, income,
and productivity. The investment capacity of the majority of
our farmers is low as they are poor and cannot afford to meet
increased demand for the purchase of inputs, such as
improved seeds, fertilizer, hiring farm machinery, and others.
Thus, lack of finance is one of the main reasons for low
productivity and less adoption of technologies in the
agriculture sector. Several studies show that credit is one of
the important inputs to adoption, intensification,
diversification, commercialization, and meeting the cash
requirements of the farmers (Shiferaw and Tesfaye, 2006;
Motuma et al., 2010; Agwu et al., 2012).
The survey results of this study showed that 36% of farmers

had credit access which is high in the Oromia region (38%)
than the SNNP (34%). On the other hand, male-headed
households had better access to credit (37%) than female-
headed households (32%) [Figure 27].
Figure 27: Farmers’ access to credit in %
The farmers require credit for various purposes, mainly for

productive activities. More than 40% of the respondents took
credit to purchase agricultural inputs (fertilizer and seed)
followed by the purchase of oxen (29%) [Figure 28]. A
82
considerable proportion of farmers also used the credit for
dairy cattle purchases, food purchases, and other social
problems.
Figure 28: Purposes for which framers used credit services in %
3.20. Extension services

While the population is growing and demand food is
increasing, feeding the growing population depends on
securing and advancing the use of modern technology.
Numerous farmers in Ethiopia, however, continue to cultivate
crops and raise livestock in the same ways that have been
used in their communities for generations. These farmers are
often either unfamiliar with new technologies and practices or
have no access to inputs and markets. As noted by Suvedi and
Kaplowitz (2016), these farmers need education on the use of
these technologies as well as access to inputs, materials, and
markets – this is essentially the role of agricultural extension.
The findings of this study revealed that 86%, 78%, and 85%
of the respondents have received extension services on crop
production, livestock production, and natural resource
management, respectively, but not on mechanization. As
illustrated in Figure 14, more than 80% of the farmers
received intensive extension services in the last decade. This
83
might be associated with the growth and transformation
programs (GTP) of the government which provided a due
focus for agricultural extension services [Figure 29].
60
51
47
Extension services (%)
50
41 42 40
40 37
30
20
10 9
10 7 7 5
4
0
1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years >15 years
Crop management
Livestock management
Natural resource management
Figure 29: Dynamics of extension service in the study areas (%)
The findings also indicate that 60% of the respondents on

average have received training on crop production followed
by livestock production (44%), and natural resource
management (43%) [Figure 30]. On the other hand, 20% of
the respondents have participated in demonstrations or field
days in both regions. It was noticed that extent of extension
services provision was closely similar in both Oromia and
SNNP regions which is an indication of focus given by the
government to extension service provision in the country.
However, the quality of the extension service should be
evaluated to observe the impact of the extension services on
84
the uptake and adoption of improved agricultural technologies
and packages.
Figure 30: Farmers’ participation in extension services along the

study regions in %
Government extension which is led by the Bureau of

Agriculture (BoA) is the main training provider for farmers
followed by cooperatives, and research centers. Cooperatives
usually give training for members on new crop varieties and
input utilization. Research centers also provide training on
new and improved agricultural technologies and practices
[Figure 31].
85
Figure 31: Organization that provides training on agricultural
technologies (%)
Regarding gender participation in training and field days, both

male-headed households (MHH) and female-headed
counterparts (FHH) had similar exposure to extension
services. For instance, while the proportion of households
who participated in training on crop management was 67% for
MHH, it was 58% for FHH. However, this difference was not
statistically significant. The same is true for other extension
services. This indicates the commitment of the government in
strengthening access to extension services to women farmers.
86
Figure 32: Male and female farmers participation in training and
field days in %
Training on the crop, livestock, and natural resource

management is usually provided to male household heads.
Only a few wives participate in training. The result implies
that women have no or limited access to training.
Figure 33: Household member got training on agricultural

technologies (%)
87
Farmers' extent of satisfaction to extension services showed
that the majority of farmers are moderately satisfied. About
37% of farmers in the coffee-based farming system are
satisfied and 5% said the extension service provided is poor
[Figure 34].
Figure 34: Extent of satisfaction on extension service received (%)
3.21. Food security status

Food security exists when all people at all times have physical
and economic access to enough, safe and nutritious food in
order to cover their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life. Within the context of this definition,
food security has three primary components: food availability,
food access, and food utilization. Food access is determined in
part by availability, while utilization is determined in part by
access. Food stability is the fourth component of food security
that cuts across the other three components (USAID, 1992).
This study has explored farmers' perception of their food

security status mainly grounding the availability of food in the
year. The result indicated that 39% of the households in
88
coffee-growing areas are food insecure [Figure 35].
Especially, 58 and 54% of the households in Kellem Wollega
and Sidama zones, respectively, faced relatively high food
shortages, because of which they purchase additional grain to
bridge-up the deficit. On the other hand, the proportion of
food-insecure households was less than 20% for households
in Kafa and Sheka zones. The extent of food insecurity was
similar in both male-headed and female-headed households.
Even though all these zones are coffee growers, which is the
major crop in the area, and generate substantial incomes at the
time of sale, the practice of saving their earnings is meager. In
most cases, households spend the incomes extravagantly at
the time of coffee sales but then face the extent of food
shortages in later seasons. At the time of making incomes,
most of the households do not purchase and stock grain that is
adequate for their annual food needs. Moreover, the practice
of saving the incomes either in cash informal financial
institutions or in-kind is not that common for most of the
households in coffee-growing areas.
Figure 35: Proportion of farmers who faced food shortages in a year

along the study zones in %
89
The result exhibited that on average most of the farmers in the
Oromia region are food self-sufficient compared to SNNP.
This is because, while 70% of the households in the Oromia
Region are food secured, more than half of the households in
SNNP have faced food shortages in a year [Figure 36]. The
high population density in the SNNP region could have
exacerbated the food crisis which drives to land shortage in
addition to the saving problems described in the preceding
sections.
Figure 36: Farmers’ perception of food security across the study

regions (%)
Households faced food shortages in various ranges of

frequency. Some of the households (16%) faced mild food
shortages for three or fewer months [Figure 37] while 20% of
the households faced high food shortages in the range of 4 – 6
months. A few of them (3%) faced severe food shortages for
more than half of a year. Most of the households purchase
grain from their meager savings while some of them solicit
credit services from traders to whom they will be forced to
sell coffee at the time of harvest. This is a forced forward
contract which often tends traders to be advantageous as they
can purchase coffee at low prices.
90
Figure 37: Intensity of food shortage along study regions in %
As to the seasoning of food shortages, the study revealed that

most of the farmers can have adequate food in the months
between December and February since it is harvesting time.
However, nearly 30% of the households start running out of
food in later months ranging from June, the time of planting,
to November, the month before harvesting season commences
[Figure 38].
Figure 38: Months of food shortage along the study regions in %
91
The study has also identified various factors that have been
responsible for food insecurity in households. Land shortage
and drought were the major reasons that drove 22 and 15% of
the households, respectively, to food insecurity in both
regions [Figure 39]. The land shortage is prominent especially
in the SNNP region (33%) compared to Oromia (12%). This
was the reason why population density was acute in the SNNP
region, which further contributed to the inability to meet food
demands for the family. Disease outbreaks, shortage, and lack
of oxen were also the other drivers to food insecurity in the
area. The contribution of frost to food insecurity was also
substantial.
Figure 39: Reasons of food shortages along study regions in %
3.22. Farmers' perception of climate change

Ethiopia’s low level of economic development combined with
its heavy dependence on agriculture and high population
92
growth rate made the country particularly susceptible to the
adverse effects of climate change. Negative climatic impacts
on crop and livestock production could result in a nationwide
food shortage and greatly hinder the economy (Admassie et
al., 2006). Conversely, farmers are not aware of climate
change and its effect on the farming system.
According to the findings, more than 85% of the overall
sample farmers perceived occurrence of some type of climatic
condition in the study regions [Figure 40]. Climate change
does not occur at household levels, but it covers the whole
region or the continent. A few proportions of farmers (13%)
who responded that there was no climate change or those who
said “I don’t know” should be because they might have
misunderstood what climate change is all about. This implies
that some of the farmers were not oriented on what climate
change is and especially on early warning mechanisms.
Farmers also perceived the extent of occurrence of climate
change over time. It was noted that the majority of the farmers
(75%) observed increased occurrence of climate change over
time especially in the last decade [Figure 41]. They described
that climate change mainly occurs in the form of drought or
rainfall failure in their locality. The farmers noted that the
drought which used to occur once in a decade in earlier days
is now becoming more frequent, almost once in three years
and this was the reason why they responded that it has
occurred more frequently in the last decade.
93
Figure 40: Farmers’ perception of occurrence of climate
change in %
Figure 41: Dynamism of climate change in %
Farmers' perception of change in the farming systems because

of any factors was also assessed. Accordingly, it was noted
that more than 92% of the respondents perceived some type of
94
change in the farming systems. Different factors that are
perceived to be responsible for the change in the farming
systems were also ranked in this study. The most important
factors that are perceived to have brought changes to the
farming systems were identified to be the use of improved
technologies and expansion of public infrastructure. As
provided in Table 38, 80% of the farmers reported that the
replacement of local crop varieties with improved ones was
the noticeable change in the farming systems of their
localities. Apart from this, the farming systems which was
devoid of public infrastructures so far has now witnessed
beneficiary of these services, such as the expansion of schools
to the extent of village levels (74%), expansion of rural roads,
and increased access to transportation services (73%) and
expansion of health service centers (71%). These and many
other factors have contributed to changes in the way the
farming systems are operating.
Out of the other factors, the expansion of telecommunication

networks has largely contributed to the increased access of
rural households to mobile phones (69%). Farmers' demand
for information has increased following the creation of better
access to mobile phones. Through mobile phones, farmers can
get advice on improved farming and technology use practices.
Because of these and other factors, the farming systems
feature increased growth of improved crop varieties, better
management of natural resources, installation of public
infrastructures, and others, most of which have not been
observed for decades.
95
Table 38: Farmers' perception of drivers to changes in farming
systems
No. Factors %
1 Use of improved crop varieties 80
2 Increased access to education 74
3 Expansion and easy access to roads 73
4 Increased access to extension services 72
5 Increased use of natural resource management 71
6 Increased access to health services 71
7 Increased use of inorganic fertilizers 70
8 Increased access to market and other information 69
9 Introduction of mobile phone 69
10 Expansion and easy access to transport services 69
11 Expansion of markets 61
12 Increased government support for the 58
development
13 Increased access to potable water 54
14 Increasing crop mix over time 53
15 Attractive prices of agricultural products 53
16 Expansion of towns 52
17 Increased access to credit services 51
18 Increased human population 49
19 Increased diversification of income sources 48
20 Expansion of cooperatives 48
96
3.23. Farmers’ mitigation and adaptation
strategies to climate change
Farmers in coffee-based farming systems use different
strategies to cope up with the adverse effect of climate
change. The majority of farmers in Oromia used to buy food
items followed by a sale of livestock, take less meal per day
and store food items. In SNNP, farmers used to buy food
items, reduce the meal taken per day, and sell livestock.
Table 39: Farmers’ climate change coping mechanism (%)
S.N. Lists of strategies Oromia SNNP Overall

[n=473] [n=480] [n=953]
1 Do nothing 14 16 15
2 Sale livestock 26 35 31
3 Share/rent land 10 10 10
4 Borrow from friends 14 30 22
5 Borrow from microfinance 12 15 14
6 Credit from traders 7 15 11
7 Receive food aid 4 32 18
8 Buy food 29 53 41
9 Take less meal/day 25 44 35
10 Find off-farm employment 17 26 22
11 Save/store food 18 26 22
12 Migrate to towns 4 10 7
13 Send children for maid or others 2 3 3
14 Early marriage 3 1 2
15 Give children for adoption 3 1 2
Though the use of climate change adaptation mechanisms

used is different along the coffee-based farming system, the
majority of farmers used to change crop type to be planted
97
(annual crops), try another variety of the crop they used to
plant before, and adjust planting date. Tree plantation and
engagement on off-farm income-generating activities also
follow the major adaptation strategies.
Table 40: Farmers’ adaptation strategies along study regions (%)
SN Lists of strategies Oromia SNNP Overall

[n=473] [n=480] [n=953]
1 Do nothing 24 16 21
2 Change crop type 37 47 42
3 Change crop variety 36 47 41
4 Adjust planting date 38 31 34
5 Decrease number of livestock 17 26 22
6 Engaged in beekeeping 15 21 18
7 Plant trees 22 39 31
8 Increase land cultivated 17 16 17
9 Off-farm employment 17 32 24
10 Engaged in irrigation 11 15 13
11 Remittance 3 8 5
12 Diversification 6 8 7
3.24. Farmers’ production and marketing

constraints
Many constraints hinder farmers’ production and productivity
in crop and livestock production in the study regions. The
major ones are described as follows:
Shortage of farmland
While the rural population is growing every time, farmlands
are often fixed resources with no room for expansion with
population growth. As unemployment is roaring in rural areas,
the local administration decided to redistribute the already
98
available land to unemployed youths. This has further
exacerbated household level land shortages and farmland per
household is getting smaller and smaller, unable to support
the family members. The land shortage problem is very
serious, especially in the SNNP region which suggests for
intensive farming.
The limited supply of agricultural technologies
Farmers raised a limited supply of improved coffee varieties,
crossbreed cattle, and modern beehives. They also lack
adequate knowledge and awareness on the improved crop,
natural resource management, and livestock technologies.
Farmers' exposure to agricultural technologies through
training, field demonstrations, and other means of extension
strategies are also inadequate. Despite farmers’ good access to
extension services, they raised the problem on the services
which questions the quality of extension services provided.
Expensive input price

An increase in input price inflates the cost of production.
However, the price of agricultural products is stagnantly
growing and the price of inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides,
seeds, and farm tools are increasing steeply. The other highly
inflating input cost, according to farmers, was labor cost. The
area is a cash crop area and laborers' costs for coffee
harvesting and other activities are very expensive which
increases coffee cost of production.
Market problems
The price of agricultural products such as coffee is very low
and fluctuating. Red cherry coffee price in eight consecutive
years was ETB 5-7 per kg which is very low as compared to
food items and input costs. The price and demand for coffee
were also fluctuating.
99
Declining fertility of the land
South, west and southwest part of the country is characterized
by high annual rainfall intensity and undulating topography.
These two factors are the main causes of erosion and
depletion of soil macro and micronutrients. The intensity of
soil acidity is becoming a major problem for these areas. This
problem is one of the major reasons for declining production
and productivity in both regions.
Crop and livestock diseases

Change and variability in the climatic condition is a favorable
condition for diseases and pests. A different new disease is
emerging nowadays including Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease
(MLND) and fall armyworm. The intensity of coffee diseases
such as coffee wilt disease and coffee berry diseases and
livestock diseases are also increasing.
Damage by wild animals
Since the farming system is a prominent coffee producer,
there is high forest coverage in the area. This caused wild
animals to make the forest their habitat. These wild animals
in the forest damage crops on the field and even the backyard
field. This has become a serious problem where forest coffee
is common especially in Jimma, Ilubabor, Kafa, Bench Maji,
West Wollega, and Kellem Wollega zones.
Poor credit access and high-interest rate

Many farmers have an interest to improve production and
productivity by investing more capital in crop and livestock
production. However, it needs some capital and farmers lack
this to invest at a family level. The high-interest rate,
inappropriate amount of money given as a credit, collateral,
100
and other related issues in credit association discouraged
farmers to use credit. The amount of money given by credit
associations is very low which is too few to invest due to
inflation and increasing investment cost on agriculture.
Chapter Four: Conclusions and

Recommendations
The study was conducted in the major coffee-growing regions

of Oromia and SNNP, where 89% of coffee growers, 97% of
the coffee area, and 99% of coffee production comes from the
country. Coffee is one of the strategic commodities and the
mainstay of Ethiopian foreign exchange earnings. Because of
this, the government and the development actors are making
efforts to raise the production and productivity of coffee and
ensure adequate supplies to world markets in the required
quality standards. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
(EIAR) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) have been
making ranges of development efforts since decades ago in
generating, promoting, and disseminating the production
technologies of coffee and other crops. With particular
emphasis, Agricultural Research Institutes of the country have
generated tens of improved coffee varieties along with
associated recommended packages decades ago. Even though
the focus was on coffee, improved varieties of cereals, pulses,
oilseeds, and root crops were also generated and disseminated
to the farmers.
The findings have disclosed that the coffee-based farming
systems in Oromia and SNNP Regions are evolving over the
last two decades. Since the last two decades, changes from
traditional to technology-based coffee production was one of
the noticeable evidences of the evolvement of farming
systems in the regions. Apart from this, the transition from
traditional systems of cereals and pulse crops production to
101
improved technology-based production is becoming a
common practice in the coffee-based farming systems of
Oromia and SNNP regions. Expansion of public
infrastructures, such as roads and transportation services,
health service centers, schools, and telecommunication
networks have also contributed for farming systems to evolve
over time.
Availability of coffee, cereals, pulses, and oilseeds

technologies is improving and farmers' awareness and use of
these technologies are also increasing over time. Before two
decades, only a few farmers have been using improved coffee
varieties. Since the last two decades, with special emphasis
from the government and intensive extension services, the
proportion of farmers who started using improved coffee
varieties has nearly reached two-thirds. The productivity,
supplies, and quality of coffee are improving from time to
time though the coffee sector is highly constrained by
shortage of improved coffee varieties, resistance of coffee
farmers to uproot the old coffees and plant the new ones, and
coffee diseases. Almost all of the farmers of the Oromia and
SNNP regions produce organic coffee, because of which it is
highly demanded on world markets. But still, there are gaps in
coffee technology use practices, such as limited application of
recommended coffee technologies, which attracts the attention
of extension services, seedling producers, financial institutes,
research institutes, and other development partners.
Some of the key issues drawn from the study with particular
emphasis on coffee have been provided in subsequent
sections:
• It is an encouraging achievement to note that 60% of the

farmers have started using improved coffee varieties in
both Oromia and SNNP Regions. The strong agricultural
extension services, technology promotion, and
102
dissemination efforts made during the two rounds of GTP
periods have substantially contributed to more use of
coffee technologies. The problem, however, was noted that
nearly half of the improved coffee variety adopters did not
yet properly use recommended management practices. For
instance, they plant improved coffee seedlings in irregular
rows without keeping the recommended spacing between
rows and plants. Planting improved varieties alone without
associated improved management practices did not help
farmers to obtain the maximum attainable yield of coffee.
While it would have been possible to obtain 18 quintals of
coffee yield per hectare from using improved varieties and
associated packages of improved management, farmers
actually obtained only 7.7 quintals per hectare from using
improved variety alone. This means farmers have missed
57% of the yield from failure to use improved management
practices, such as row planting, organic fertilizers,
appropriate cultivation, and others as recommended by
research. In monetary terms, this is equivalent to a
minimum of ETB5 60,000, which is adequate to purchase
20 quintals of tef or 60 quintals of maize. This is believed
to be a big loss that could drive household’s food
insecurity. This was confirmed by the findings that 40% of
the households have reported being food insecure in
coffee-growing areas. The income they generated was not
adequate to purchase the required quantity of food items
for the family in a year.
• Despite relentless efforts made by the government and
development partners, a quite substantial proportion (40%)
of the farmers did not yet have access to improved coffee
production technologies. Inadequate availability of coffee
production technologies especially improved coffee
seedlings and limited promotion and supports of associated
5
ETB = Ethiopian Birr
103
management practices were identified to be major reasons
reported by non-adopters.
• The study has also disclosed that almost all of the
Ethiopian farmers (98%) grow organic coffee with no use
of inorganic fertilizers. Even the other 2% used only a
limited quantity of inorganic fertilizers with advice from
extension agents at special conditions after making sure
that it does not affect the organic content of coffee. Coffee
growers are well aware that they have to produce only
organic coffee to maintain world quality standards and
increase export demand.
Farmers have also listed ranges of production constraints that
limited their production and productivity. The major ones
included shortage of farmland, limited supply of agricultural
technologies, expensive input price, market problems,
declining fertility of the land, crop and livestock diseases,
damage by wild animals, and poor credit access. Inadequate
adoption rates of agricultural technologies, the high yield gap
between potential productivity and actual yields of improved
varieties, and limited saving culture among coffee grower
rural households.
Based on the finding of the above-listed issues, the study has

suggested the following recommendations.
Intensive extension systems

Farmers' awareness of improved technologies and practices
for the crop, livestock, and natural resource management is
still poor. The adoption rate of some of the major crops and
livestock technologies was either meager or nil. This has
caused low productivity and high yield deviation from
improved technologies at farmers' fields. Thus, intensive work
should be done by concerned bodies to diffuse knowledge and
improved agricultural technologies to farmers.
104
Addressing food unsecured months
The majority of farmers especially in the SNNP region are
food unsecured during Ethiopian summer when the crop is in
the vegetative stage. Therefore, researchers and other
concerning bodies should look the way to supply food crops
that need a short maturity date such as potatoes.
Supply of livestock technologies

The adoption rate of improved livestock technologies
especially dairy cattle and related machines is very low. Only
very few numbers of farmers in peri-urban areas owned
improved dairy cattle. Thus, extension and research should
make a lot of effort on availing and diffusing improved
livestock technologies.
Supply of crop technologies

The use of improved varieties of crops and recommended
packages is poor in the farming system. The relatively high
adoption rate was seen for maize and coffee crops only. The
per hectare base fertilizer use for crops is also very low as
compared to the recommended rate. Hence, the extension
should do more on improved crop varieties and improved
agronomic practices awareness creation, diffusion, and scaling
out.
Soil and water conservation

The area is known for undulling topography and high rainfall.
High intensity of soil acidity is also the main feature of the
area which is primarily caused by erosion. The use of soil and
water conservation structures in the area is still insufficient.
105
Thus, high effort is expected from concerning bodies in this
regard.
Mechanization
The area is characterized by a labor shortage and expensive
labor wage as it is a cash crop area. Coffee weeding and
harvesting are labor-intensive activities. The study results also
showed that farmers' knowledge and utilization of different
labor and time-saving machines such as milk churning
machines, enset decorticator, thresher, Sheller, metal garner,
etc. was nil. Therefore, extension, research, NGOs, and
Universities should collaborate to create knowledge and
expose farmers for the adoption of the machines.
Credit services
The main problem in credit service is the high-interest rate by
regional credit association and poor governance. Thus, it is
needed to consider these problems while thinking of credit
services for poor smallholder farmers.
Market and market information

Price fluctuation and lack of market information are also other
problems raised by farmers, especially for coffee. The
provision of market information and bonding farmers and
cooperatives is needed.
Other suggestions to address the farmers’ constraints included
the following:
• Except for coffee and maize, adoption rates of other

cereals and pulses are still far below 50%. Even, 40% of
coffee growers and 30% of maize growers did not yet
have access to improved varieties and associated
technologies. Agricultural extension services need to be
106
strengthened further in both regions through creating
better access to improved seeds, timely supply, and close
advice.
• Even though tens of improved crop varieties have been
developed and generated through research, the farmers
still had no more than two varieties under production. The
problem is associated with inadequate improved seed
production, limited seed supplies, and inadequate
awareness, which need to be given due focus in the
upcoming extension service programs.
• Only 43% of the farmers had access to formal seed
sources. The other 57% of the farmers were exposed to
informal sources of improved seeds and seedlings, out of
which 45% accounts for farmer-to-farmer seed exchange.
Once the technologies are generated, the issue of seed
multiplication and distribution needs to receive priority
attention from policymakers, development partners, seed
growers, and extension services. Regional bureaus of
agriculture need to make demand assessments and provide
factual information for formal seed growers in the
country. Seed grower companies, on the other hand, need
to be supported in building their capacities, such as land
for growing seeds, credit to meet their financial
constraints, and training to enhance their management
capacities and build technical skills of growing quality
seeds.
• Chemical fertilizer use was also observed to be selective
by farmers, giving focus mainly on maize, tef, and wheat.
More than half of the farmers still were not using
fertilizers on other cereal crops and pulses. Even 35% of
tef growers and 43% of wheat farmers have refrained
from using fertilizers. This is a burning issue that should
receive the attention of extension services, policymakers,
and development partners. This is because improved
107
varieties will not provide potential yields unless
recommended packages including fertilizer are properly
applied as advised. Even though research continues to
invest millions to generate high-yielding improved
varieties, it will remain a futile exercise unless the
required inputs, such as fertilizers, are applied by the
farmers. Therefore, fertilizer credit, timely supply, and
aware creation of recommended rates need to be
considered as some of the options to address the problem.
The farmers should also be advised on options and
improved preparation methods of organic fertilizers to
help them produce organic coffee.
• A substantial proportion (41%) of the farmers are still
planting coffee seedlings in irregular rows without
consideration of recommended spacing between plants
and rows. This has contributed to the low productivity of
coffee and limited supplies to the world and domestic
markets. This is not a simple issue and deserves to receive
priority attention as it is the strategic commodity for
export earnings. These farmers should be advised to use
appropriate row planting and spacing mechanisms to
maximize coffee productivity. Apart from advice by
extension services, the Bureau of Agriculture or Research
Institutes need to prepare an easy-to-understand manual in
local languages, so that farm households can have a better
awareness of the practices.
• The farmers are missing as high as three-fourths of the
yield not only for not adopting improved varieties but also
for not using recommended packages of agronomic
practices along with improved varieties. Agricultural
Extension services need to be strengthened on promoting
the use of recommended agronomic practices along with
improved varieties. Seeds of improved varieties of
cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and other crops need also be
108
made available to farmers on time and as demanded.
Clustering and other extension approaches could also be
scaled-up to enhance technology use and raise
productivity. Seed grower companies in the country need
also be supported both technically and financially to help
them meet the seed demands of the farmers.
• Limited adoption of crossbred cows was due to the
unavailability of formal breeding centers and consequent
unaffordable price. Policy intervention is required by the
government to establish heifer breeding ranches in the
regions and meet the growing demands of crossbred
heifers.
• Coffee growers faced the extent of inability to meet food
demands and falling into starvation. This is because of the
poor saving culture of the households and the
extravaganza lifestyle at the time of coffee sale. Saving
culture is not common and knowledge on how to manage
incomes is minimal. This has also limited the practice of
making re-investments in the coffee sector for more
production and better incomes. Therefore, there should be
strong intervention in introducing and strengthening the
saving culture of the community in coffee-growing areas.
Apart from aware creation and saving promotion, the
establishment of community-based saving institutes, such
as Saving and Credit Associations.
109
Reference
Abadi Teferi, Damas Philip, Moti Jaleta. 2015. Factors that affect
the adoption of improved maize varieties by
smallholder farmers in Central Oromia, Ethiopia.
Developing Country Studies; 5(15): 50-58.
Abreham K and Tewodros A. 2014. Analyzing Adoption and
Intensity of Use of Coffee Technology Package in
Yirgacheffe District, Gedeo Zone, SNNP Regional State,
Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Research;
3(10): 1945-1951.
Admassie A, Adenew B, and Tadege A. 2008. Stakeholders’
Perceptions of Climate Change and Adaptation
Strategies in Ethiopia. IFPRI and EEA Research Report,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopian.
Agwu NM, CI Anyanwu, Andand EI Mendie. 2012. Socio-
Economic Determinants of
Commercialization among Small Holder Farmers in Abia State,
Nigeria. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences; 2(8):
392-397.
Alene AD, D Poonyth and RM. Hassan. 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.
Andualem GG. 2017. Determinants of smallholders’ wheat
commercialization: the case of Gololcha district of Bale
zone, Ethiopia. A thesis submitted to the department of
agricultural economics in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
agriculture (agricultural economics); Gondar, Ethiopia.
Anil L, Park J, Phipps RH, Miller FA. 1998. Temperate
intercropping of cereals for forage: A review of the
potential for growth and utilization with particular
reference to the UK. Grass Forage Sci; 53:301-
317.
Aman Tufa, Adam Bekele and Lemma Zemedu. 2014.
Determinants of smallholder commercialization of
horticultural crops in Gemechis District, West Hararghe
110
Zone, Ethiopia; African Journal of Agricultural Research,
9(3): 310-319.
Belderbos R, Carree M, Diederen B, Lokshin B, and Veugelers R
2004. Heterogeneity in R & D cooperation strategies.
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (1):
1237–1263.
Berhanu G, Fernandez-Rivera S, Mohammed H, Mwangi W, and
Seid A. 2007. Maize and livestock: Their inter-linked
roles in meeting human needs in Ethiopia (SNNPR,
Oromia and Amhara Regions) Research Report 6. ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya. 103 pp.
Bibi KBM, Hassan G, and Noor MK. 2008. Effect of herbicides and
wheat population on control of weeds in wheat.
Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research; 14: 111-119.
Brand G. 2011. Towards increased adoption of grain legumes
among Malawian farmers – Exploring opportunities and
constraints through detailed farm characterization.
Unpublished MSc thesis Plant Production Systems and
Sustainable Development. Universiteit Utrecht,
Wageningen UR.
Brasesco F, Asgedom D, Sommacal V. 2019. Strategic analysis
and intervention plan for cow milk and dairy products
in the Agro-Commodities Procurement Zone of the pilot
Integrated Agro-Industrial Park in Central-Eastern
Oromia, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, FAO. 116 pp. License: CC
BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Chanyalew Seyoum, Tesfaye Lemma, Ranjan S. Karippai. 2011.
Factors Determining the Degree of Commercialization
of Smallholder Agriculture: The Case of Potato Growers
in Kombolcha District, East Hararghe, Ethiopia; JAD,
2(1): 19-36.
Chelkeba SD, Ayele SA, Erge BE. 2016. Trends and determinants
of coffee commercialization among smallholder farmers
in southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Development, 3(2): 112-121.
Cicek H, Tandogon M, Terzi Y, and Yardimci M. 2007. Effects of
some technical and socioeconomic factors on milk
111
production costs in dairy enterprise in Western Turkey.
World J. Dairy and F. S. 2(2): 69-73.
CSA. 2018. The federal democratic republic of Ethiopia: Central
Statistical Agency; agricultural sample survey2017/18
(2010 E.C.) Report on area and production of major
crops. (Private peasant holdings, meher season);
Volume 1; statistical bulletin 586, Addis Ababa April,
2018.
Danso-Abbeam G and Baiyegunhi LJ. 2017. Adoption of
agrochemical management practices among
smallholder cocoa farmers in Ghana. African Journal of
Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 9 (6):
717-728.
Dehinenet G, Makonnen H, Kidoido M, Ashenafi M, and Guerne
Bleich E. 2014. Factors influencing adoption of dairy
technology on small holder dairy farmers in selected
zones of Amhara and Oromia National Regional States,
Ethiopia. Discourse Journal of Agriculture and Food
Sciences 2(5): 126-135.
Dorfman JH. 1996. Modelling multiple adoption decisions in a
joint framework. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 78: 547-557.
EIAR. 2007. Coffee diversity and knowledge. Proceedings of
national workshop. Four decades of coffee research and
development in Ethiopia, August 2007; Addis Ababa
Ethiopia.
Emilola C. O., Adenegan Kemisola O., O. O. Alawode. 2016.
Assessment of Crop Commercialization among
Smallholder Farming Households in Southwest Nigeria;
International Journal of Scientific Research in Science
and Technology; 2(6): 478-486.
FACASI. 2015. Development of Agricultural Mechanization in
Ethiopia and the Role of National Policies. First Draft
Version, FACASI Project; Activity 3.1.2.
FAO. 2017. Postharvest loss assessment of maize, wheat,
sorghum and haricot bean. A study conducted in
fourteen selected woredas of Ethiopia under the project
-GCP/ETH/084/SWI, Rome, Italy.
112
FAO. 2019. The future of livestock in Ethiopia. Opportunities and
challenges in the face of uncertainty. Rome. 48 pp.
License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
FAO and ITPS. 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources
(SWSR) - Technical Summary. Rome, Italy.
Fininsa C. 1997. Effect of planting pattern, relative planting date
and intra-row spacing on a haricot bean/maize
intercrop. African Crop Science Journal, 5: 15 – 22.
Getachew L, M. Jaleta, A Langyintuo, W Mwangi, and R La
Rovere. 2010. Characterization of maize producing
households in Adami Tulu - Gido Kombolcha and Adama
districts in Ethiopia. Country Report – Ethiopia. Nairobi:
CIMMYT.
Gideon Danso-Abbeam, Joshua Antwi Bosiako, Dennis Sedem
Ehiakpor and Franklin Nantui Mabe. 2017. Adoption of
improved maize variety among farm households in the
northern region of Ghana. Cogent Economics and
Finance, 5:1-14.
Gishu Nigatu, Yohannes Mare, Agidew Abebe. 2018.
Determinants of Adoption of Improved (BH-140) Maize
Variety and Management Practice, in the Case of South
Ari, Woreda, South Omo Zone, SNNPRS, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Research Studies in Biosciences;
6(9): 35-43.
Greene WH. 2008. The econometric approach to efficiency
analysis. In Fried, H.O., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt S.S.
(Ed). The measurement of productive efficiency and
productivity growth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habtamu LD, Ashenafi MW, Tadesse KW. And Berhanu K.S.
2018. Factors influencing intensification of dairy
production systems in Ethiopia. Outlook on Agriculture;
47(2): 133–140.
Habtemariam K. 2004. The Comparative Influence of
Intervening Variable in the Adoption Decision Behavior
of Maize and Dairy Farmers in Shashemane and
Debrezeit, Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria,
South Africa.
113
Hengsdijk H., de Boer W.J. 2017. Post-harvest management and
post-harvest losses of cereals in Ethiopia. Food
Security. 9, 945–958.
Howley P, Donoghue Cathal O, and Heanue K. 2012. Factors
Affecting Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural
Innovations: A Panel Data Analysis of the Use of
Artificial Insemination among Dairy Farmers in Ireland.
Journal of Agricultural Science, 4:171-179.
IFPRI. 2016. Changes in Ghanaian Farming Systems: Stagnation
or a Quiet Transformation? Discussion Paper 01504.
Jayne TS, Mather, D. and Mghenyi, E. 2010. Principal Challenges
Confronting Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan
Africa. World Development, 38, 1384-1398.
Kabiti HM, NE Raidimi, TK Pfumayaramba, and PK Chauke.
2016. Determinants of Agricultural Commercialization
among Smallholder Farmers in Munyati Resettlement
Area, Chikomba District, Zimbabwe Journal of Hum
Ecology, 53(1): 10-19.
Karki BS. 2004. Technology Adoption and Household Food
Security; analyzing factors determining technology
adoption and impact of project intervention: A case of
smallholder peasants in Nepal: Conference Paper in The
Deutscher Tropentag held on 5-7 October, 2004.
Humboldt-University, Berlin.
Khanna M. 2001. Sequential adoption of site-specific
technologies and its implications for nitrogen
productivity: A double selectivity model. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83 (1): 35–51.
Lemma F, Trivedi MM, Bekele T. 2012. Adoption of improved
dairy husbandry practices and its relationship with the
socio-economic characteristics of dairy farmers in Ada’a
district of Oromia State, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development; 4(14): 392-395.
Martey E, Al-Hassan RM, Kuwornu J. 2012. Commercialization of
smallholder agriculture in Ghana: A Tobit regression
analysis. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(14):
2131-2141.
114
McDonald J and R Moffitt. 1980. The uses of Tobit analysis.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 318-321.
Motuma T, Dejene A, Wondwossen T, Roberto LR., Girma T,
Wilfred M. and Germano M. 2010. Adoption and
continued use of improved maize seeds: Case study of
Central Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural
Research; 5(17): 2350-2358.
Musba KM. 2018. Analysis of Adoption of Improved Coffee
Technologies in Major Coffee Growing Areas of
Southern Ethiopia. Innovative Systems Design and
Engineering; 9(5): 9-17.
Mwakatwila A. 2016. Adoption of improved maize varieties in
northern and eastern zones of Tanzania. A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science in agricultural and
applied economics of Sokoine University of agriculture.
Morogoro, Tanzania.
NAPC/National Agriculture Policy Center. 2006. Farming
Systems of the Syrian Arab Republic; Technical Report
by Horst Wattenbach, March, 2006.
Nchuchuwe FF and Adejuwon KD. 2012. The Challenges of
Agriculture and Rural Development in Africa: the case
of Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development; 1(3): 45-61.
Nkonya E, Schroeder T. and Norman D. 2008. Factors affecting
adoption of improved maize seed and fertilizer in
northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics;
48 (1): 1-12.
Oates N, Jobbins G, Mosello B, and Arnold J. 2015. Pathways for
irrigation development in Africa: insights from Ethiopia,
Morocco and Mozambique. Working paper 119; June
2015.
Ojiem JO, Ridder N de, Vanlauwe B, Giller KE. 2006. Socio-
ecological niche: A conceptual framework for
integration of legumes in smallholder farming systems.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 4:
79-93.
115
Oliver K. Kirui and Georgina W. Njiraini. 2013. Determinants of
agricultural commercialization among the rural poor:
Role of ICT and Collective Action Initiatives and gender
perspective in Kenya. Paper prepared for the 4th
Conference of AAAE. Diar Lemdina Hotel-Ham Mamet,
Tunisia September 22-25, 2013.
Onyebinama UA. U. 20012. Economics Incentive and strategies
for commercialization of agriculture in Nigeria. African
Journal of Business and Economic Research, 1(2):182 –
184.
Quddus MA. 2012. Adoption of dairy farming technologies by
small farm holders: practices and constraints. Bang. J.
Anim. Sci. 41 (2): 124-135.
Samuel D, Beza E. 2019. Impacts of Adoption of Improved Coffee
Varieties on Farmers’ Coffee Yield and Income in Jimma
Zone. Agri Res and Tech: Open Access Journal; 21(4): 1-9.
Shiferaw F and Tesfaye Z. 2006. Adoption of improved maize
varieties in Southern Ethiopia: Factors and strategy
options. Food Policy, 31 (2006) 442–457.
Staal SJ, Baltenweck I, Waithaka MM, deWolff T, and Njoroge L.
(2002). Location and uptake: integrated household and
GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with
application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya. Journal
of Agricultural Economics; 27: 295-315.
Stephen K, Patience M. and Eliud B. 2017. Factors Influencing
Commercialization of Beans among Smallholder
Farmers in Rwanda; Journal of Agriculture and
Veterinary Science; 10(8): 30-34.
Suvedi M. and Kaplowitz M. 2016. What every extension worker
should know? - Core competency handbook; East
Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Tamado T. and M. Eshetu. 2000. Evaluation of sorghum, maize
and common bean intercropping systems in eastern
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science, 17:
33 - 46.
Temesgen GB. 2017. Poverty, peasantry and agriculture in
Ethiopia. Annals of Agrarian Science; 15(2017): 420-
430.
116
Tesfay A, Sharma JJ, and Kassahun Z. 2014. Effect of Weed
Control Methods on Weeds and Wheat Yield. World
Journal of Agricultural Research; 2: 124-128.
Tesfaye A, Mamo T, Solomon T, Deribe Y, Getahun W, Alemu T,
Hunde D, Fikadu T, and Bediye S. 2016. Adoption
Analysis of Smallholder Dairy Production Technologies
in Oromia Region. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR), Addis Ababa.
Tesfaye Z, Bedassa T, and Shiferaw T. 2001. Determinants of
Adoption of Improved Maize Technologies in Major
Maize Growing Regions of Ethiopia, Second National
Maize Workshop of Ethiopia. 12-16 November, 2001.
Tilahun T. 1998. Weed competition Study on haricot bean in the
sub-humid zone of Jimma. Arem; 4: 61- 68.
Tittonell P, Muriuki A, Shepherd KD Mugendi D, Kaizzi KC,
Okeyo J, Verchot L, Coe R, and Vanlauwe B. 2009. The
diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil
fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa – a
typology of smallholder farms. Agricultural systems,
103: 83-97.
Tobin J. 1958. Estimation of Relationships for Limited
Dependent Variables, Econometrica. 31: 24-36.
Tolno E, Kobayashi H, Ichizen M, Esham M, and Balde BS. 2015.
Economic analysis of the role of farmer organizations in
enhancing smallholder potato farmers’ income in
Middle Guinea. Journal of Agricultural Science, 7(3):
123-127.
USAID/United States Agency for International Development.
1992. Definition of Food Security. Policy Determination
19; Washington, DC.
117
View publication stats

FinalCoffeebasedFSresearchreport Editedantu 3-1 AGT 23aug21 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FinalCoffeebasedFSresearchreport Editedantu 3-1 AGT 23aug21 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Agricultural Production and Technology Use Practices of Small-holders in

Technical Report · March 2022

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Samuel Diro, Agajie Tesfaye, Beza Erko, Tamirat Girma,

የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Samuel Diro Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holeta

Agajie Tesfaye Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis

Beza Erko Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Jimma

Tamirat Girma Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,

Muluken Philipos Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,

Correspondence: Agajie Tesfaye, EIAR, Addis Ababa

Research Report No. 132

Copy editing and design: Anteneh Yilma

Executive Summary ................................................................. I

Over decades, changes in farming systems have been noticed

A substantial proportion of farmers (69%) had access to

Overall, farmers are still facing the following problems: many

Farming systems in Ethiopia are highly diverse in terms of

The farming system is often in dynamic change over time.

Limited previous studies conducted are not only location

1. To characterize major socioeconomic and

This study will also be helpful for researchers and

Chapter Two: Methodology

2.2. Sampling procedure

SNNP Gedeo 199 21

2.3. Data collection and analysis

The Tobit model was also used to analyze factors affecting

The Tobit model was developed by Tobin (1958) to capture

Where yi is an observed variable and, yi*is a latent variable.

Where xi is the hypothesized independent variable, β is a

a) The marginal effect on the latent variable

b) The marginal effect on the expected value of

Where λ(c) is called the inverse mill’s ratio. It

Multivariate probit (MVP) regression was also used to

The observed outcome of agricultural technologies adoption

The farmer decides to adopt the Kth technology if Y*ik=U*k-

Y*ik = X’iβk+ui (K= ICV, IMV, CBC)

Using the indicator function, the unobserved preferences in

In the multivariate model, where the adoption of several

ρ is the pairwise correlation coefficient of the error terms with

As provided in Table 2, the study engaged a range of variables

Variable Description Observations Mean SD Min Max

Chapter Three: Results and Discussions

Age and number of family members affect the adoption of

The mean number of years of education of the whole family

Variables Oromia SNNP Overall P-

Zone Mean SD Min Max

In the study areas, 88% of the household heads were literate,

3.2. Asset ownership and dynamism

Assets Oromia SNNP Overall P-value

Nowadays, the mobile phone is a major tool for sources of

Figure 3: Dynamism of mobile phone ownership in the last decades %

3.3. Land ownership and its dynamism

Land size in ha per Oromia SNNP Overall P-value

Based on the land size category, most farmers (33%) in the

Table 7: Farmers’ land ownership status along the study

Category Oromia SNNP Overall

Table 8: Land allocated to crops across the study regions in

Crops Oromia (n=478) SNNP (n=480) Overall (n=953)

Adoption at the individual farmers' level is defined as the

According to the findings of this study, 60% of the farmers on

The other major crop highly adopted in both Oromia and

The farmer decides to adopt the Kth technology if Yik=Uk-