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.