




































 

 

 
68 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

ADOPTION AND PERCEPTION OF FARMERS TOWARDS ATTRIBUTES OF 
IMPROVED TEFF (Quncho) VARIETIES: EVIDENCE FROM BENISHANGUL-GUMUZ 
REGION OF ETHIOPIA   

 

 

Regasa Dibaba 
Wake1+ 
Afework Hagos 
Mesfin2 
Chilot Yirga3 
Endeshaw Habte4 

 

1,2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research 
Center, Assosa, Ethiopia. 

 
3,4Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 24 January 2019 
Revised: 7 March 2019 
Accepted: 10 April 2019 
Published: 1 July 2019 
 
 
 

Keywords 
Improved Teff varieties small-
holder farmers 
Preference 
Varietal attributes. 
 

 
Adoption and wider diffusion of improved Teff varieties (Quncho) are playing a vital role 
overriding present situation of food insecurity in many parts of Ethiopia. However, the 
use of improved teff varieties are constrained by various factors. Hence, in this study, an 
attempt was made to examine factors affecting the adoption and use of improved teff 
varieties (Quncho) regarding attributes of varietal preferences of small-holder farmers. A 
multi-stage random sampling technique was employed to select 249 sample households 
from Assosa district and Mao-Komo special district. Descriptive statistical tools like 
mean, percentage, frequency distribution and t-test were used to summarize the 
characteristics of the sampled households. Both descriptive and inferential statistics 
were used to analyze the data collected during 2015/16 production season. About 
58.23% of the sampled household were adopters while 41.77% of them didn’t adopt 
improved Teff varieties (Quncho) in the study area. The finding of this study suggest 
that farmers in the area seek specific varietal attributes, such as yield potential, 
tolerance to disease and lodging, better Teff grain price and color, etc. The farmers’ 
preferences with improved Teff varieties-specific characteristics significantly determine 
adoption decisions, which suggests the need to go beyond the commonly considered 
socio-economic, demographic and institutional factors in the adoption process. There is 
a need to target small-holder farmers’ characteristics, priorities and production 
constraints while improved Teff varietal developments considering users preferences. 
Therefore, the research centers and extension system has to give more attention to 
participatory research which considers farmers’ priorities and needs.   
 

Contribution/Originality: The contribution of this paper is to analyze the preferences and perception of small-holder 

farmers towards attributes of improved teff varieties adoption and infer farmers’ perception of the new agricultural technology 

packages. Thus, the paper's primary contribution is finding that investigating the farmers’ varietal trait preference and 

characteristics of varieties required by farmers that would enhance the acceptance of the technologies in the farming community. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Background and Justification 

Eragrostis Teff (Zucc.) is a small cereal grain indigenous to Ethiopia. Teff grains are milled into flour and 

mixed with water in order to form a slurry and fermented for two or three days and bake into a flat soft bread –

just like a pancake, which is locally known as “Injera” [1]. It is predominantly grown in Ethiopia as a cereal grain 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 68-82 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.68.82 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.68.82


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
69 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

and widely grown in both high potential and marginal production areas [2] . The energy content is only 

surpassed by maize.  

Compared to other cereals, Teff is a relatively low risk crop as it can withstand adverse weather conditions. In 

addition, the crop suffers from fewer disease and pest problems and can grow under water logged conditions and 

mainly produced for the market because the price is less variable than for other crops [3]. Teff grows on various 

soil types ranging from very light sandy to very heavy clay soils and under mildly acidic to slightly alkaline soil 

conditions. It can also be grown in low rainfall and drought prone areas characterized by protracted growing 

seasons and frequent terminal moisture stress; that tolerates reasonable levels of both drought and water logging 

better than most other cereals and cultivation of Teff in Ethiopia has partly been motivated by its relative merits 

over other cereals in the use of both the grain and straw [4].  

Besides, it has been given little attention in research, development and public support [5]. This is due of its 

localized importance in Ethiopia [3]. However, recently improved technologies are increasingly promoted to 

farmers in sub-Saharan-African countries to address low agricultural productivity in their staple crops [6]. In 

Ethiopia, the Government has significantly invested in helping farmers to increase crop production and 

productivity by providing yield-enhancing inputs and benefit farmers from economies of scale [7].   

Teff is among a major cereal crop produced in Benishangul-Gumuz region for consumption and market. To 

increase Teff production and productivity different technologies have been introduced by different stakeholders 

along the Teff value chain. Part of it Teff improved varieties like Quncho and Tsedey were promoted by research 

and development organizations. 

According to Fufa, et al. [3] previously released varieties have not been widely accepted by farmers because of 

their varietal attributes like color, despite high yield levels. However, because of its color and yield, Quncho (DZ-

Cr-387) variety has become popular. It is one of the new crop varieties which are rapidly expanding to the most Teff 

growing areas of the country with the genetic capacity of the crop’s production more than 30 quintals per hectares 

of land, which is three times more than the local Teff but faces the adoption bottle neck [8].  

Given the above mentioned facts, it is imperative to describe the existing adoption level and identify varietal 

attributes that determine the preferences of small-holder farmers the adoption of improved Teff varieties. Moreover, 

investigating the perception and preferences of the farmers’ towards adoption of Teff improved varieties is also 

crucial. Hence, systematic research on specific varietal attributes and farmers’ preferences is useful to provide useful 

information, bridge the existing knowledge gap and helps to enhance the success of Teff crop production. The study 

was conducted in Benishangul-Gumuz Regional state, Assosa zone and Mao-Komo special district where there is 

mixed farming systems. The research result could be applicable for different non-traditional Teff growing areas 

especially on intermediate and humid low land agro-ecologies which are characterized by ample arable lands both at 

smallholder farmers and commercial ones. By pointing characteristics which determines adoption of Teff improved 

varieties,  the study would provide important input to the research and development for enhancing adoption of 

agricultural technologies effectively in general and Teff improved varieties in particular.   

Hence, this study has aimed to identify small-holders improved Teff varieties preferences and attributes that 

affect adoption of Teff improved varieties in the study area. The objective of this study is to identify farmers’ 

preferences and varietal attributes that determine farmers’ adoption of improved Teff varieties in the study area.  

 

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

2.1. Description of the Study Area 

The study area is located in the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State at the Western parts of Ethiopia. 

Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State is found 661 km away from the capital city of the country, Addis Ababa, in the 

west. It is located at 9030′- 11030′ latitude and 34020′- 36030′ longitude. Plain undulating slopes and mountains 

characterize the topography of the region. The altitude of the region ranges mainly between 580 and 2731 meters 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
70 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

above sea level. The research was conducted in Benishangul-Gumuz Regional state, Assosa zone and Mao-Komo 

special district where there is mixed farming systems. Major crops grown include: sorghum, maize, Teff, soybean, 

groundnut, finger-millet, wheat, rice and sesame.   

 

2.2. Sampling Procedures 

The districts were selected purposively as potential Teff growing area, where improved Teff varieties have been 

introduced. In this study a two stage sampling technique was employed.  The first stage was random selection of 

Teff growing Kebeles from the study area, followed by selection of sample households randomly. The Kebele 

identification was made through reviewing secondary data on production and area coverage of Teff. Hence, 

representative Teff growing Kebeles were randomly selected from the study area. In the second stage, 

representative number of household heads was selected for data collection from identified Teff growers using 

random sampling technique taking into account proportional to size(number) of Teff growers in each selected rural 

kebeles. 

 Hence, a total of 9 kebeles/villages (6 from Assosa and 3 from Mao-Komo districts) Teff growing were 

selected. Before selecting household heads to be included in the sample, Teff grower household heads of each rural 

kebele was identified in collaboration with kebele leaders, key informants and development agents of the respective 

rural kebele. Finally, 249 sample households were selected using probability proportional to size considering from 

each kebeles.  

 

2.3. Method of Data Collection 

The study used both primary and secondary data sources that are consistent, available, adequate and reliable 

for the objective intended to be addressed. Independent questionnaires were designed for farmers to collect 

necessary data from the study area. During the course of field visits, the questionnaire was tailored to all sample 

farmers conditions in the study areas. Semi-structured formal interview guidelines were prepared in the form of 

questionnaires. Before data collection, the questionnaires were pre-tested. This led to further revision of these lists 

to make sure that important issues had not been left out. The survey made formal interviews with randomly 

selected farmers using the pre-tested semi-structured questionnaires. In addition to the questionnaire survey, an 

informal survey in the form of focus group discussion technique was employed using checklists for farmers to obtain 

additional supporting information for the study. The discussions were made with key informant farmers, and 

agricultural and relevant experts. To fill gaps observed during personal interviews, secondary data were obtained 

from various sources such as reports of bureau of agriculture at different levels, CSA, previous research findings, 

and other published and unpublished materials, which are found to be relevant to the study. 

 

2.4. Method of Data Analysis 

To change the raw data of the study into fact, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Descriptive 

statistics such as frequency, mean, percentage, and standard deviation were used in the process of comparing socio-

economic, demographic and institutional characteristics of households. Inferential statistics such as t-test and chi-

square test, were used to test the statistical significance of variations among the sample households.   

 

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

3.1. Sample Households from Each District 

The simple respondents were selected from 9 rural villages or farming communities (6 from Assosa and 3 for 

Mao-Komo districts) that were considered for the study. Moreover, study employed random selection of sample 

households from each community, giving a total sample size of 249 (170 for Assosa and 79 for Mao-Komo districts 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
71 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

in Table 1). The number of rural communities and farmers chosen from Assosa district was more because of its 

large potential of Teff producers and well experienced in cultivating Teff crop relative to Mao-Komo special district. 

 
Table-1. Sample households from each district. 

Assosa district Mao-Komo special district 

Kebele Number Percent Kebele Number Percents 

Belmele 13 5.22 Shoshor butuji 26 10.44 
Megelle_37 33 13.25 Teja jalisi 36 14.46 

Selga_19 23 9.24 Wetse wedessa 17 6.83 
Selga_22 31 12.45    
Selga_23 41 16.47    
Selga_24 29 11.65    

Total 170 68.27  79 31.73 
Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

3.2. Educational Level of the Sample Households 

Education and use of improved Teff varieties are positively related. Educational status of a farmer may directly 

affect adoption and application of new agricultural technologies. Figure 1 below, shows that the majority of 

respondents did not attended any kind of education among the sample households, about 38.55 % were illiterates 

who cannot read and write, since the majority of respondents did not have any access to education the adoption 

process of new improved Teff varieties (Quncho) may be affected.  

 

 
Figure-1. Education level of the respondents. 

                             Source: Survey results, 2015/6. 

 

About 34.54 % of the respondents were attend elementary (1-4) while 19.68 % were second cycle (5-8), 4.42 % 

informal (religious and adult education) and  only 2.81% attend high school. This implies that the education level of 

households was highly skewed towards illiterate and elementary Figure 1. 

As indicated from Figure 2 below, increased use of improved Teff varieties that enhance the productivity of 

Teff in the country. This because of more advance farming practices and knowledge and experience share between 

farmers themselves that may also have contributed to increase over years. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
72 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
Figure-2. Teff productivity trends in Ethiopia. 

                     Source: Taken from Cochrane [9]. 

 

The share of area allocated for all crops and productivity indicated in the Table 2.  When we look at the 

average productivity of all crops in general were below the national averages. The main reason is there were 

natural disasters like insect pests’ infestation, heavy rainfall and other biotic and abiotic stresses during the survey 

season in the study areas.  

 
Table-2. Area under production and productivity of all crops cultivated in 2015/16 cropping season. 

Variable Obs. % 
Mean area 

allocated (ha) 
Area share of 
all crops (%) 

Adjusted-area share 
to sample (%) 

Productivity 
(kg/ha) 

Teff Area 249 100.00 0.36 25.01 36.00 552.4 

Maize area 227 91.16 0.24 15.20 21.88 1905.13 

Sorghum 200 80.32 0.39 21.77 31.33 1467.45 
Millet 90 36.14 0.30 7.53 10.84 626.04 

Soybean 50 20.08 0.25 3.49 5.02 858.21 
Niger seed 58 23.29 0.34 5.50 7.92 458.00 

Haricot bean 33 13.25 0.25 2.30 3.31 1013.1 
Faba bean 6 2.41 0.32 0.54 0.77 1224.0 
Groundnut 42 16.87 0.23 2.70 3.88 1921.42 

Wheat 39 15.66 0.37 4.03 5.80 1202.22 

Barley 4 1.61 0.15 0.17 0.24 583.14 
Coffee 37 14.86 0.32 3.30 4.76 1196.54 
Banana 3 1.20 0.25 0.21 0.30 5288.24 

Red pepper 64 25.70 0.23 4.11 5.91 3982.62 

Chat 45 18.07 0.33 4.14 5.96 4674.83 

Total 100.00%   
     Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

3.3. Institutional and Social Networks of the Households 

The Ethiopian extension system has engaged development experts to serve farmers in various disciplines 

mainly in the areas of crop production, livestock health and production and natural resources management. Farmers 

had contact with extension agents in different ways and times.  The survey result confirmed that the adopters had 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
73 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

high and significant frequency of contact with development experts than non-adopter counterparts regarding new 

varieties of Teff at 1% probability level.  Moreover, extension agents are the major sources of information and 

training for farmers regarding improved agricultural technologies. The result of this study is in agreement with the 

study of adoption of Tsibuk [10]. The survey results indicates farmers whose friends, neighbors and relatives 

cultivated improved  Teff varieties have adopted improved Teff varieties. This implies that peer farmers exchange 

information regarding Teff farming and share knowledge and skills regarding newly introduced agricultural 

technologies like Teff improved varieties and this had high and significant effect on adoption of Teff varieties.  As 

indicated in the below table farmers who have friends and families in leadership position had also higher adoption 

level than their counterparts.  

Other factors like engagement in community leadership, being a model farmer, access to media (radio-

ownership), and beehive ownership had an influence on adoption of improved Teff varieties as indicated below.  

As Table 3 displayed that majority of the total respondents acquire knowledge about improved Teff varieties 

for production of Quncho varieties through exposures of family members, friends and others by sharing their 

experiences and play vital role in adopting new technologies. Moreover, about 73.09 % of the total sample 

respondents are exposed to the knowledge of improved Teff varieties through contact with colleagues, this had 

created knowledge share that contribute to adoption. Sample respondents having leadership position in the village, 

radio and community leadership acquire more information and knowledge about improved Teff varieties and had a 

significant effect on the process of adoption of the technology. Therefore it can be concluded that farmers’ social 

contacts, membership to affiliations, leadership role and ownership of communication resources affect farmers’ 

adoption of the technology.   

 
Table-3. Institutional and social networks of the households. 

Characteristics 

Adoption status 
Total χ2 

 
Non-adopters Adopters 

No Yes No Yes No Yes 

Friend and families planted improved  Teff 48 56 19 126 67 182 33.63*** 

Friend and families leadership position 48 56 48 97 96 153 4.354** 
Coop membership 44 60 76 69 120 129 2.477 
Radio ownership 60 44 68 77 128 121 2.82* 
Mobile ownership 50 71 54 74 121 128 0.02 
Model farmer 71 33 83 62 154 95 3.12* 
Community leadership 62 42 71 74 133 116 2.76* 
Coop membership 44 76 66 69 120 129 2.477 

Beehive ownership 76 28 123 22 199 50 5.210** 
Knowledge on recommended rate of fertilizer 73 31 80 65 153 96 5.76** 
Applied the recommended rate of fertilizer 93 11 104 41 197 52 11.48*** 

Participation in field visit  of Teff varieties 65 39 74 71 139 110 3.23* 

Hosted field day or variety selection 102 2 132 13 234 15 5.31** 
    Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

Exchange visits, field days and demonstration activities are very important to create awareness and share 

knowledge and skills on new agricultural technologies. For this reason the national extension system has engaged 

in promoting and popularization of agricultural technologies at National, regional and even kebele levels for wider 

dissemination of newly released improved varieties. Hence, the survey results revealed that participation in field 

visit of Teff varieties had significant effect on adoption. 

 

3.4. Access, Sources and Utilization of Inputs for Teff  

According to the survey results, about 5.85 kg non-bought and 8.6 kg of bought Teff seeds were used during 

the survey time. The mean non-bought seed of the adopters and non-adopters was highly and significantly different 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
74 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

at 1% probability level. Thus, implies that the seed rate of adopters was higher than non-adopters as the area 

covered by adopters is higher than non-adopters as indicated in the table below.  

 
Table-4. Quantity of bought and non-bought seeds and cost incurred for seeds by sample households. 

Characteristics Non-adopters Adopters Total Difference t-test 

Quantity of non-bought seed(in kg) 5.85 8.58 7.44 -2.73 -3.08*** 
Quantity of bought seed (in kg) 1.928 2.438 2.22 -0.51 -0.81 
Total seed cost incurred 19.04 30.80 25.89 -11.76 -1.34* 

Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

Moreover, on average about 2.4 kg of bought seed was used by the adopters while 1.9 kg for non-adopters. The 

mean seed cost incurred during the survey season was about 19 Ethiopian birr for non-adopters and about 31 

Ethiopian Birr for adopters Table 4. The implication is that most of the time Teff grower farmers utilize stored 

seeds in the study areas.  

 
Table-5. Source of Seeds and Method of payment for seeds. 

Main source of seed Frequency Percent 

Own saved seeds 114 45.78 
Government extension 33 13.25 

Gift from family 3 1.20 
Farmer to farmer seed exchange 31 12.45 
Purchased from local market 33 13.25 
Extension demo plots 6 2.41 
Farmer groups/coop 9 3.61 
Local seed producers 3 1.20 
Free from gov’t/NGOs 4 1.61 
Research center 13 5.22 

Total 249 100.00 

Main method of payment for seeds Frequency Percent 
Own cash 77 30.92 

Remittance 2 0.80 
Credit from seed relatives, neighbors and friends 2 0.80 
Credit from micro finance 2 0.80 
Government extension 54 21.69 
Stored seed 112 44.98 
Total 249 100.00 

Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

The main sources of seeds were own saved seeds 45.37% followed by government extension and purchased 

from local markets accounted for a total of 26.5%. Farmer to farmers’ seed exchange and research centers have also 

provided improved Teff seeds accounted for 12.45 and 5.22%, respectively. About 31% and 21.7% of the respondents 

replied that the methods of payment for Teff seeds was own cash and government extension services, respectively 

while 45% of them used saved/stored seeds by recycling as indicated in the Table 5 above. 

 

3.5. Adoption of Teff Improved Varieties  

The survey data revealed that in 2015/2016 production year, about 58.23 % of the sampled household adopts 

Teff improved varieties, while 41.77 % of them didn’t adopt Teff improved varieties in the study areas Table 6. 

However, the rate of adoption varies across the districts.  About 64.56 % of the households were non-adopters while 

only 35.44% had adopted improved Teff varieties at Mao-Komo special district. The rate of adoption in Assosa 

district is much higher compared to that of Mao-Komo district. Hence, about 68.82 % of the households adopts 

improved Teff varieties whereas the remaining 31.18% of them were non-adopters.  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
75 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-6. Adoption of Teff improved varieties by districts. 

Districts 

Adoption status 

Yes No 

N % N % 

Mao-Komo 28 11.24 51 20.48 
Assosa 117 46.99 53 21.29 
Total 145 58.23 104 41.77 

Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

3.6. Adoption and Non-Adoption of Improved Teff Varieties in the Study Areas 

The survey results showed that Quncho is the most preferred Teff improved variety by about 70.28 % of the 

sample households. While about 12.85% and 1.2% preferred local and Tsedey varieties, respectively. The remaining 

sample households which 15.66% households do not respond to the varietal preference for Teff crop. Some of non-

adopters had an experience of practicing use of improved Teff varieties and then stopped adopting the new 

improved varieties.  

 
Table-7. Reasons for non-adoption and stopping Adoption of improved Teff varieties. 

No. Reasons for  non-adoption Frequency Percent 

1 Un availability of seeds 34 62.96 
2 High price of seeds 7 12.95 
3 Lack of access to credit 2 3.7 
4 Diseases and pests susceptibility 1 1.85 
5 Low grain yield 1 1.85 
7 Shortage of farm land, draught power etc 6 14.81 

                     Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

Accordingly, about 62.96%, 14.81%, and 12.95% were due to unavailability of improved seeds in the area, 

shortage of farm land and oxen power for draught, high price required for purchasing seeds, respectively. 

Furthermore, due to unavailability of improved seeds, shortage of farmland, traction power, high price of improved 

seeds the households did not adopt and stopped adoption of improved varieties as indicated on the Table 7.  

 

3.7. Production and Productivity gaps of Teff Crop 

The study revealed that there is huge productivity gap among the on-farm productivity of improved Teff 

varieties, national, regional and zonal yield of Teff and improved and land races varieties as indicated in the Figure 

3.  

 

 
Figure-3. Productivity of Teff at national, regional, zonal, on-farm and households’ level during 2015/16 cropping 
season. 

                        Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
76 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Actually the yield gap is mainly due to stresses like insect pests, frost (occurred at Mao-Komo), water lodging, 

diseases and hailstorm as indicated in the Table 8 below. As shown on Table 9, the stress level were 41.89 % and 

29.43 which indicate moderate and sever that decreasing yield up to 50 %. Thus, in addition to these factors other 

factors like low soil fertility and input usage attributes to low production and productivity of Teff crop in the study 

areas. 

 
Table-8. Types of Teff stresses occurred and rank during 2015/16 cropping season. 

Type of stress 
Frequency Rank 

Total Index 
First Second Rank 1 Rank 2 

Insect pests 86 14 172 14 186 0.6764 
Disease 12 21 24 21 45 0.1636 

Water lodging 20 21 40 21 61 0.2218 
Drought 11 13 22 13 35 0.1273 

Frost 28 22 56 22 78 0.2836 
Hail storm 12 13 24 13 37 0.1345 

Animal trampling 6 6 12 6 18 0.0655 
Others 6 3 12 3 15 0.0545 

 
Total 475 

                  Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 
Table-9. Stress level of improved Teff varieties in the study area. 

Level of stress at plot levels Frequency Percent 

No stress 64 24.15 
Moderate 111 41.89 

Sever 78 29.43 

Catastrophic 12 4.53 

Total 265 100.00 
                         Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

3.8. Households Varietal Attributes and Preferences of Improved Teff Varieties 

Technologies are viable only when farmers use them. No matter how well the new technologies work on 

research stations, if farmers do not have them for use, their development would be in vain. Farmers have their own 

preference criteria for adoption among the available improved Teff varieties. With regard to the perception of 

farmers towards certain attributes of improved Teff variety (Quncho) meet farmers’ preference over the local variety 

was considered. Perception of farmers towards improved Teff varieties is one of the factors that could speed up the 

change process and adoption of new crop varieties. The finding of this study suggest that farmers in the area seek 

specific varietal attributes, such as yield potential, tolerance to disease and lodging, better Teff grain price and color, 

etc. The farmers’ perceptions of improved Teff varieties-specific characteristics significantly determine adoption 

decisions, which suggests the need to go beyond the commonly considered socio-economic, demographic and 

institutional factors in adoption process. Information about the benefits of improved Teff varieties should be given 

for farmers to increase farmer’s awareness about the preferences and develop farmer’s attitude towards improved 

Teff varieties. Therefore, the research centers and extension system has to give more attention to participatory 

research which considers farmers’ priorities and needs.  

The overall varietal attributes and preference of improved Teff varieties (Quncho-Dz-X-387) and landraces 

index was about 0.63 and 0.37, respectively. This implies that over all Quncho variety is preferred than the land 

race varieties. Moreover, Quncho is the most preferred improved Teff variety compared to landraces in terms of 

grain color, grain yield, yield stability, marketability, grain price etc as indicated in the Appendix Table 2. The 

varietal attributes, marketability, food making quality, resistant traits preference etc are described at the same 

appendix. The finding of farmer perceptions of high yielding wheat varieties-specific characteristics significantly 

determine adoption decisions and is consistent with evidences in literature, which suggests the need to go beyond 

the commonly considered socio-economic, demographic and institutional factors in adoption modeling by Feder, et 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
77 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

al. [11]; Feder and Umali [12]. Similar to this, adoption studies by Wubeneh [13] and Bayissa [14] considering 

farmers’ perception of technology attributes have found that attributes condition the adoption choices of farmers. In 

addition, studies by Adensina and Zinnah [15] revealed that farmers have subjective preferences for technology 

characteristics and this could play major roles in adoption. 

 

3.9. Agronomic Practice of Teff Crop 

The agronomic practices of Teff crop like land preparation is mostly done by human and animal power. Land 

preparation is one of the most labor consuming tasks in Teff production. The frequency of plowing varies among 

households, and adopters and non-adopters with an average plowing frequency of 3times. Unlike other crops field, 

Teff plots are ploughed frequently to break up the soil in order to facilitate germination of the very small Teff seeds. 

The results are in line with Fufa, et al. [3]. The sowing method of Teff in the study areas is broadcasting.  

The rate of fertilizer applied for an average of 0.36 ha of Teff is 18.45 kg of Urea and 34.21kg of DAP. 

Meanwhile, the results showed that there is significance difference between adopters and non-adopters in fertilizer 

rate application in the study areas as indicated in table below. The result of this study is in agreement with the 

study of Alemitu [16]. 

 
Table-10. Teff Agronomic practices of the sample households. 

Characteristics Non-adopters Adopters Total Difference t-test 

Total Nitrogen Fertilizer (N2) (in kg) used 15.01 20.92 18.45 -5.91 -1.5* 
Total DAP (N2PO5) in kg Used 23.31 42.03 34.21 -18.72 -4.2*** 
Plowing frequency(No.) 3 3.23 3.13 -0.23 -2.06** 
Weeding frequency(No.) 1.87 1.92 1.90 -0.05 -0.5 

N.B:  ***, ** and * shows that significance level at 1%, 5% &10% respectively. 
Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

The weeding frequency of Teff field is up to two times Table 10. Weeding is done both manually (hand 

weeding) and chemicals herbicides (2-4-D and Roundup). However, there is no significant difference on weeding 

frequency between adopters and non-adopters in the study areas.   

 

3.10. Labor Availability 

Teff production in the study area a little bit labor intensive. The total labor used to produce Teff showed that 

on average 37.88 man-equivalents labor was engaged in ploughing, land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting 

and threshing of Teff production activities for 2015/16 cropping season. 

 
Table-11. Labor employed by the households in 2015/16 cropping season for Teff production. 

Variables Mean Std. Dev. Min Max. Labor share 

Child labor (men equivalent) 1.16 1.81 0 12.75 3.05 

Women labor(men equivalent) 8.54 7.64 0 44 22.50 
Men  labor 25.30 17.3 0 133 66.80 
Total hired labor(Men equivalent 2.82 7.34 0 40.8 7.45 

Total labor (men equivalent) 37.88 22.32 2.3 177 100.00 
             Source: Survey results, 2015/16. 

 

About 67% of the total labor used was men, while 22.5% and 3% was women and children. The total hired labor 

had 7.45% share of the total labor. This study finding is in line with ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency) 

[7] report and showed that smallholder agriculture is organized around households drawing labor primarily from 

household members, with very limited wage labor Table 11.  

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
78 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The adoption of new agricultural technologies is usually constrained by different factors. Hence, the main 

objective of this study is to identify attributes of improved Teff varieties and preferences of farmers for adoption of 

Teff improved varieties in the study area. Moreover, to assess the existing knowledge, perception and attitude of the 

farmers’ towards the adoption of improved Teff varieties. 

The process of developing and applying improved Teff varieties in farming communities needs close work and 

consultation with all concerned bodies; researchers, extension experts and mainly with farmers before doing much 

promotion work, campaign and try to scale up the technology without identifying the preferences of small-holder 

farmers. This intern helps to ensure the focus areas of work on addressing the most important needs and challenges. 

Hence, appropriate strategic interventions that consider the interest and varietal attributes of farmers are required 

to increase the technology adoption of improved Teff varieties in a sustainable manner. 

The demographic, resource ownership, socio-economic and institutional factors that affect the level of adoption 

includes sex of the household head, level of education of the households, family size, farming experience, off-farm 

income, contact with extension agents and attending field day influence on the probability of adoption of improved 

Teff varieties in the study area.  

Given the growing demand for Teff at international and domestic markets, due to population growth and 

consumption patterns, production and productivity of Teff should be increased to fill the demand and supply of the 

produce.  Furthermore, technologies and packages that enhance production and productivity of Teff like adopting 

improved Teff varieties are highly important. Hence based on the results of this study suggestions are drawn as 

follows: 

 Capacity building and awareness creation activities should be done to enhance the farmers’ education level 

through adult literacy programs and this would, in turn, improve the adoption of improved Teff varieties 

through increasing farmers’ level of understanding on the varietal attributes and farmers’ perceptions 

towards improved varieties. Government extension service should enhance farmers experience on 

improved Teff varieties practices by providing training, proper awareness creation to the technology with 

frequent farmers’ visit that could be convinced farmers toward attributes of improved Teff varieties.  

 New agricultural technology improvements should be made to convenient for practice and accessible by 

enhancing participation of smallholder farmers through participatory variety selection on farmers’ fields 

and enhance farmers’ innovation adoption. To increase adoption of improved Teff varieties and make it 

more sound with the farmers’ interest; it’s important for policy makers and technology developers to 

understand farmers’ preferences, release technology with considering farmers’ background and their 

perception toward varieties attributes to adopt new technologies.  

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the 
study. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] G. Haftamu, H. Mitiku, and C. F. Yamoah, "Tillage frequency, soil compaction and N-fertilizer rate effects on yield of 

Teff ( Eragrostis Teff (Zucc) Trotter) in Central Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia," Agronomy Journal, vol. 1, pp. 82 – 

94, 2009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v1i1.46043. 

[2] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural statistics abstract: Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA, 2010. 

[3] B. Fufa, B. Behute, R. Simons, and T. Berhe, "Teff diagnostic report: Strengthening the Teff value chain in Ethiopia. 

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," 2011. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
79 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[4] D. R. Miller, Teff grass crop overview and forage production guide, 2nd ed. Woodland, CA: Cal/ West Seed Company, 

2010. 

[5] CSA (Central Statistical Agency), Agricultural sample survey: Area and production of major crops, Meher season vol. 1. Addis 

Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA, 2013. 

[6] J. Vandercasteelen, M. Dereje, B. Minten, and A. S. Taffesse, Perceptions, impacts and rewards of row planting of teff, 

ESSP Research Note 33. Addis Ababa: IFPRI, 2014. 

[7] ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), "Transforming agriculture in Ethiopia", Annual Report 2015/20162016. 

[8] ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), "Annual Report: Transforming Agriculture in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, 

Ethiopia," 2012. 

[9] L. Cochrane, "Strengthening food security in rural Ethiopia," Doctoral Dissertation (Interdisciplinary Studies) 

Submitted to the University of British Columbia, 2017. 

[10] B. Tsibuk, "Factors affecting adoption of Quncho Teff variety: The case of Medebayazaza Woreda, North –Western 

admenstration zone of Tigary Redion Ethiopa," M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University, 2015. 

[11] G. Feder, R. E. Just, and D. Zilberman, "Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: A survey," 

Economic Development and Cutlural Change, vol. 32, pp. 252-257, 1985. 

[12] G. Feder and D. L. Umali, "The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social 

Change, vol. 43, pp. 215-239, 1993. 

[13] N. Wubeneh, "Farm-level adoption of new sorghum technologies in Tigray Region, Ethiopia," M Sc. Thesis. Purdue 

University. USA, 2003. 

[14] G. Bayissa, "Adoption of improved sesame varieties in Meisso District of West Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia," M.Sc Thesis 

Submitted to Haramaya University, 2010. 

[15] A. A. Adensina and M. M. Zinnah, "Technology characteristics, farmers’ perception and adoption decisions: A tobit 

model application in Siera-Leone," Agricultural Economics, vol. 13, pp. 1-9, 1993. 

[16] M. Alemitu, "Factors affecting adoption of improved haricot bean verities and associated agronomic practices in Dale 

Woreda, SNNPS Ethiopia," M.Sc.Thesis Hawassa University, 2011. 

[17] H. Storck, E. Bezabih, A. Birhanu, A. Borowiecki, and W. H. Shimeles, "Farming systems and farm management 

practices of small holders in the Hararghe Highlands," Farming Systems and Resources Economics in the Tropics, 1991. 

Wissenshafts Varlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany, vol. 11, pp. 41-48, 1991. 

 

APPENDIXES 

 

Appendix-1. Conversion factor used to compute Man- Equivalent (labor force). 

Category in years Male Female 

Less than /<10 0 0 
10-13 0.2 0.2 
14-16 0.5 0.4 
17-50 1 0.8 

Greater than />50 0.7 0.7 
                                             Source: Storck, et al. [17]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
80 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 Appendix-2. Teff Varietal attributes and preferences of households. 

Description 
Score based on importance 

Total Within index Overall index 
Over 

all 
rank 

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 

Grain color 
of Quncho 

1010 333 112 861 6 10 0 6 0 4 2342 0.737 0.046 1 

Grain color 
of land races 

150 162 224 70 96 65 48 15 2 5 837 0.263 0.017 42 

Marketability 
of Quncho 

variety 
1030 351 152 14 36 0 4 0 0 3 1590 0.631 0.031 2 

Marketability 
of landraces 

110 171 248 119 204 45 20 9 0 3 929 0.369 0.018 34 

Grain yield 
of Quncho 

950 396 152 21 36 10 16 6 0 1 1588 0.623 0.031 3 

Grain yield 
of landraces 

260 189 192 49 144 80 28 18 0 2 962 0.377 0.019 25 

Better grain 
price of  
Quncho 

930 351 224 42 18 15 4 0 0 1 1585 0.63 0.031 4 

Better grain 
price of 

landraces 
120 171 216 126 180 105 8 3 0 2 931 0.37 0.018 32 

Enjera 
making 

quality of 
Quncho 

810 342 224 56 30 10 12 6 0 3 1493 0.617 0.029 5 

Enjera 
making 

quality of 
landraces 

120 270 160 161 126 60 28 0 0 2 927 0.383 0.018 34 

Flour making 
quality of 
Quncho 

750 315 288 28 30 5 20 3 0 7 1446 0.607 0.029 6 

Flour making 
quality of 
landraces 

140 207 248 140 120 60 20 0 0 3 938 0.394 0.019 30 

Threshability 
of Quncho 

750 180 232 133 84 20 28 3 0 4 1434 0.605 0.028 7 

Threshability 
of landraces 

250 144 240 126 78 45 24 18 6 6 937 0.395 0.019 30 

Tillering 
ability of 
Quncho 

630 333 248 84 66 35 0 18 0 7 1421 0.602 0.028 8 

Tillering 
ability of 
landraces 

210 198 184 147 108 60 20 6 0 8 941 0.398 0.019 28 

Early 
maturity of  

Quncho 
710 333 152 70 60 20 20 9 2 9 1385 0.600 0.027 9 

Early 
maturity of 
Landrace 

240 234 168 77 102 35 24 30 2 10 922 0.399 0.018 36 

Grain size of 
Quncho 

630 315 304 49 18 20 20 12 2 10 1380 0.611 0.027 10 

Grain size of 
Landraces 

120 153 192 147 168 55 28 6 2 9 880 0.389 0.017 39 

Grain yield 
stability of 

Quncho 
variety 

600 297 264 49 102 15 36 3 0 9 1375 0.594 0.027 11 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
81 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Grain yield 
stability of 
Land races 

320 117 192 77 120 60 48 3 2 1 940 0.406 0.019 28 

Straw yield 
of Quncho 

490 279 296 119 90 10 40 15 0 9 1348 0.581 0.027 12 

Straw yield 
of landraces 

360 108 112 168 156 30 28 3 2 5 972 0.419 0.019 24 

Straw 
palatability of 

Quncho 
630 198 240 112 102 35 8 12 4 9 1350 0.584 0.027 13 

Straw 
palatability of 

landraces 
320 153 144 119 156 25 20 15 2 6 960 0.416 0.019 25 

Other foods 
making 

quality of 
Quncho 

750 189 224 56 42 25 20 6 2 12 1326 0.608 0.026 14 

Other food 
making 

quality of 
landraces 

150 162 232 126 96 50 24 6 0 9 855 0.39 0.017 41 

Storability of 
Quncho 

880 180 136 28 30 0 40 0 8 21 1323 0.555 0.026 15 

Storability of 
landraces 

690 171 48 35 42 15 48 0 0 11 1060 0.445 0.021 22 

Insect 
tolerance of 

Quncho 
410 306 272 119 78 80 24 9 6 6 1310 0.584 0.026 16 

Insects 
tolerance of 
Landraces 

230 180 208 91 102 80 24 9 4 6 934 0.416 0.018 32 

Shattering 
tolerance of 

Quncho 
470 198 256 98 90 70 40 39 0 5 1266 0.572 0.025 17 

Shattering 
Tolerance of 
Landraces 

380 81 144 77 126 100 32 0 4 5 949 0.428 0.019 27 

Disease 
tolerance of 

Quncho 
430 216 240 168 102 30 40 27 2 9 1264 0.578 0.025 18 

Disease 
tolerance of 

local 
220 180 184 84 138 70 20 21 0 6 923 0.422 0.018 36 

Drought 
tolerance of 

Quncho 
variety 

470 198 176 98 108 50 64 12 4 18 1198 0.579 0.024 19 

Drought 
tolerance of 
landraces 

250 162 160 91 96 55 24 9 4 17 868 0.420 0.017 40 

Less demand 
to inputs 
Quncho 

470 153 176 56 108 35 92 27 2 10 1129 0.556 0.022 20 

Less demand 
to inputs 
landraces 

240 153 112 119 156 45 52 18 2 6 903 0.444 0.018 38 

Water 
Lodging 

tolerance of 
Quncho 

370 162 264 91 66 60 32 30 10 20 1105 0.603 0.022 21 

Water 
lodging 

240 135 96 49 78 65 36 12 0 17 728 0.397 0.014 43 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 68-82 

 

 
82 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

tolerance of 
landraces 

Frost 
tolerance of 

Quncho 
370 144 200 77 72 40 56 21 6 30 1016 0.598 0.020 22 

Frost 
tolerance of 
landraces 

220 108 112 49 96 30 36 9 2 20 682 0.402 0.014 44 

Overall rank 
of Quncho 

810 324 208 49 60 10 8 6 0 0 1475 0.631  1 

Overall rank 
of landraces 

80 225 120 119 246 60 12 0 0 2 864 0.369  2 

 
Total score 50652 

  
 

Source: Survey results, 2015/16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


