This observational analysis highlights socioeconomic drivers of improved teff adoption and use intensity among farmers in Ethiopia, suggesting pathways for agrarian development.
This study investigates the key factors influencing both the decision to adopt and the level of use of improved teff seed technology among farmers in the Jabitehnan district, Northwest Ethiopia. Despite teff being a vital staple cereal crop extensively cultivated in Ethiopia, it shows inconsistent yields mainly due to a combination of demographic, socioeconomic, and institutional factors. A two‐stage random sampling method was used to gather data from a sample of 384 respondents, of whom 276 (71.87%) were adopters and 108 (28.13%) were nonadopters. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including t ‐tests and chi‐square tests, were employed to characterize the selected households. Furthermore, Cragg's double‐hurdle econometric model was utilized to analyze the determinants affecting household adoption and the intensity of improved teff seed use. The results from the first hurdle (adoption decision) indicate that farming experience, education level, farm size, participation in demonstration plots, attendance at field days, family size, frequency of extension contacts, and household income all have positive and significant effects on the likelihood of adoption. Conversely, the age of the household has a negative effect. The second hurdle (intensity of adoption) results suggest that the level of improved teff seed use is similarly positively influenced by education, farm size, participation in demonstrations and field days, extension contacts, and income, while age remains negatively associated. Based on these findings, researchers, policymakers, extension service providers, and development organizations focused on agriculture should prioritize these key factors to promote the adoption and intensive use of improved teff technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wosene et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: