International Food Policy Research Institute/ Ethiopia Strategy Support Program (IFPRI/ ESSP)and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Coordinated a conference with Agriculutral Transformation Agency (ATA) and Ministry of Agriculutrue (MoA) on Teff Value Chain at Hilton Hotel Addis Ababa on October 10, 2013.
The Future Roadmap for the Composable Data Stack - Wes McKinney - Data Counci...
The impact of scaling up row planting on farmer's teff yield
1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The impact of scaling up row planting on
farmers’ teff yield
Joachim Vandercasteelen, LICOS, University of Leuven
Mekdim Dereje, Bart Minten, Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse,
IFPRI ESSP-II / EDRI
Conference on “Improved evidence towards better policies
for the teff value chain”
10 October 2013
Addis Ababa
1
2. 2
Why?
• Teff is important
– Produced by 6 million farmers
– 2 out of 3 Ethiopians consume teff daily
• Low agricultural productivity
– 1.4 ton/ha
• Sowing technology
– Row planting
– Promising on-station results
– Widespread promotion campaigns
3. 3
Program evaluation
• Row planting package was promoted to farmers
– Row planting technique
– Reduced seed rate
– Quncho variety
– Fertilizer
• Effect of promotion campaign on teff production
• Measured direct effect of row planting on farmers yield
Row planting has a positive effect on teff yield
5. 5
Teff in Ethiopia
• Agricultural sector
– 46% of GDP (World Bank, 2011)
– Growing 6%
• Teff: major staple food
– 22 % of grain area
– 11-15 % of all calories consumed
• Low agricultural productivity
– Limited research
– Low input use
– Lodging, reduced fertility, post-harvesting losses
6. 6
Sowing technology
• Low yield related to sowing practice
– Broadcasting at high seed rate
– Uneven distribution
• New technologies increase yield
– Planting seeds in rows
– Lower seed rate
– Reduced competition
7. Reduced seed rate technologies
7
• Reduced seed rate technologies
– Promising on-station results
– High expectations by farmers
– Nation wide roll-out at large scale
• Program evaluation
– Provide objective data at farm level
– Provide evidence on the impact of campaign on teff yield
9. Design
9
• Roll-out in line with government program
– Pre-scale-up phase in 2012
– Both broadcasters and row planters are included
– Selection and extension done by DA (Development Agent)
– Free improved seed and fertilizer to all farmers
• Experimental plot of 300 m²
• Quncho: 150 gr (row planters) vs. 900 gr (controls)
• 3kg of urea and DAP
• Randomization
• Control group
– Same package but traditional broadcasting
10. 10
Randomization
• Randomization
– 2 stage randomization approach
• 4 Farmer Training Centers (FTC) in 10 Woreda’s of Oromia
• 10 farmers row planting/ traditional broadcasting
• Model farmers
– Farmers are balanced in characteristics
• Similar in terms of
– Education
– Age
– Distance to FTC
– Asset value
– Non-farm income
12. 12
Balancedness of farmers
Variable Controls treatment
Mean se Coeff. t value
Household head
characteristics
Age (years) 43.6 (0.94) -0.44 -0.37
Gender (male=1) 99.4 (1.23) -2.90** -1.85
Literacy (yes=1) 69.9 (3.56) 4.93 -1.09
Primary education (yes=1) 66.7 (3.68) 4.99 1.07
Household
characteristics
Distance to FTC (minutes) 33.7 (2.04) 0.13 -0.05
Total household assets value (ln of Birr) 7.2 (0.16) 0.15 0.73
Total agricultural assets value (ln of Birr) 6.8 (0.08) -0.07 -0.72
Income from other activities (yes=1) 79.5 (6.98) -11.0 -1.24
Area (m²) 572.5 (28.5) -199.8*** - 3.70
Experimental
plot
Red colored soil (yes=1) 31.4 (3.69) -1.88 -0.40
Brown colored soil (yes=1) 9.6 (2.24) -1.74 -0.61
Black colored soil (yes=1) 57.7 (3.96) 0.18 0.04
Tan colored soil (yes=1) 1.3 (1.45) 3.44** 1.87
Sloped plot (yes=1) 16.7 (2.81) -3.67 -1.03
Improved Quncho seed used (yes=1) 99.4 (0.68) -0.15 -0.17
Distance to plot from house (minutes) 10.8 (0.80) -0.25 -0.24
Number of tilling (number) 4.9 (0.13) 0.09 0.60
Organic input used (yes=1) 12.8 (2.56) -2.19 -0.68
Inorganic fertilizer used (yes=1) 99.4 (0.40) 0.64 1.28
Number of weedings (number) 2.0 (8.14) 0.12 1.19
Amount of UREA used (g/m²) 9.1 (0.34) 1.22*** 2.43
Amount of DAP used (g/m²) 11.4 (0.51) 0.4 0.57
Value of herbicide used (birr/ha) 196 (17.7) 17.3 0.51
13. Surveys
13
• Quantitative: 3 surveys
– Baseline before harvest
– Crop-cut at harvest
– Impact after harvest
• Qualitative
– Focus groups
– Community questionnaires
– Farmers’ opinion, perceptions, planning
14. Data collected
14
• Area measure
– By compass and rope (crop-cut)
• Output measures
– At harvest
– After harvest
• 3 yield measures
– Assessed yield before harvest
– Measured yield at harvest (crop-cut)
– Reported yield after harvest
15. Methodology
15
• Farm level
– Randomized control trial
– 410 farmers
– Mean difference in yield is due to sowing only
– Direct row planting effect
• Village level
– 10 trials at each FTC (331 plots)
16. Effect of row planting
16
Farm: 2-22% FTC: 26%
22% before harvest
2% measured at harvest
16% after harvest
18. 18
Conclusions
• Low teff yield asks for adoption of new technologies
• Promising on-station results of row planting
• Large scale promotion campaign
• On-farm effect of the promotion campaign
• Look at direct effect of row planting
– Teff yield increased by 2-22% at farm level
– Teff yield increased by 26% at village level
• Yield increase of more than 20% is already strong
– Value of several million $
19. 19
Implications
• Effect is likely to be even higher
– On- farm constraints
– First year of adoption
– Farmers need to learn
– Implementation issues of promotion program
• Row planting is offered as a package
– Effect of whole package is stronger
• Assess on-farm constraints to adoption
• Research on different components of technology
package and their interactions
