ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The impact of scaling up row planting on farmers’ teff yield

Joachim Vandercasteelen, LICOS, University of LeuvenMekdim Dereje, Bart Minten, Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, IFPRI ESSP-II / EDRI

Conference on “Improved evidence towards better policies for the teff value chain”10 October 2013Addis Ababa

1

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

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

4

ETHIOPIA AND TEFF

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

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

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

8

RANDOM EXPERIMENT

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

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

11

Overview of Woreda’s

12

Balancedness of farmersVariable 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

Surveys

13

• Quantitative: 3 surveys– Baseline before harvest– Crop-cut at harvest– Impact after harvest

• Qualitative – Focus groups– Community questionnaires– Farmers’ opinion, perceptions, planning

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

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)

Effect of row planting

16

Farm: 2-22% FTC: 26%

22% before harvest2% measured at harvest16% after harvest

17

CONCLUSION

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

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

20

THANK YOU