የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Et
hiopi
anI
nst
it
uteof
Agr
icul
tur
alRe
sea
rch

Fent
ahunMengist
u
AbebeKir
ub
Fi
ssehaZegeye
Retrospects and Prospects
of Ethiopian Agricultural
Research

Fentahun Mengistu
Abebe Kirub
Fisseha Zegeye

የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Retrospects and Prospects
of Ethiopian Agricultural
Research

© EIAR, 2017
www.eiar.gov.et

ISBN: 9789994466412
Contents
Contents ....................................................................................................................iii
Preface .....................................................................................................................v
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1. The Agricultural Research System....................................................................... 3
1.1 Before 1940....................................................................................................... 3
1.2 1940s-early 1950s........................................................................................... 4
1.3 From late 1950s to early 1960s.................................................................... 4
1.4 From 1966 to 1993........................................................................................... 4
1.5 From 1994 to 2014........................................................................................... 5
1.6 From 2014 to 2016........................................................................................... 6
2 Research Priority During Different Government Regimes............................ 7
2.1 The imperial Period (1930-1974)................................................................. 7
2.2 The Derg Regime (1974-1991)..................................................................... 7
2.3 The EPRDF Regime (1991 todate)............................................................... 8
3 Evolvement of Institutional Set up and Research Scope............................... 9
4. Achievements........................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Crops................................................................................................................. 13
4.2. Livestock.......................................................................................................... 16
4.3. Natural Resources........................................................................................ 18
4.4. Agricultural Mechanization......................................................................... 19
4.5. Socio-economics........................................................................................... 20
5. Outreach .................................................................................................................. 21
5.1. IAR/EPID and IAR/ADD Joint Technology Testing and ......................
Transfer Program.......................................................................................... 21
5.2. Institutionalizing a separate department in IAR................................... 21
6. Adoption and Impact of Agricultural Technologies...................................... 23
7. Source Technology Provision.............................................................................. 25
8. Research Institutions Recognitions................................................................... 27
9. Research and Extension Linkage........................................................................ 29
9.1. Research and Extension Liaison Committee (RELC)........................... 29
9.2. Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council (REFAC).................... 30
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

9.3. Agriculture and Rural Development Partner Linkage Advisory .........

Council (ARDPLAC)...................................................................................... 30
10. Systemizing Agricultural Research................................................................... 31
10.1. Research Coordination................................................................................ 31
10.2. Teamwork........................................................................................................ 31
10.3. Research Planning and Appraisal............................................................ 31
10.4. Technology evaluation and registration................................................. 32
10.5. Research Governance................................................................................. 32
10.6. Researchers Promotion system................................................................ 32
10.7. Knowledge Management and Human Capacity Building.................. 32
10.8. Research Ethics............................................................................................. 33
11. Research Capacity Building................................................................................. 35
11.1 Physical capacity development................................................................. 35
11.2 Financial resources capacity..................................................................... 35
11.3 Human Resources Development............................................................... 37
12. What is next for Agricultural Research?........................................................... 40
12.1 Global development trends........................................................................ 39
12.2 Country trends............................................................................................... 39
12.3 Future orientation of agricultural research........................................... 40
12.4 Responding to Agricultural Development Needs................................. 41
12.4.1 Research in sustainable agriculture................................................................ 41
12.4.2 Systems approach........................................................................................ 43
12.4.3 Leveraging cuttingedge sciences................................................................... 43
12.4.4 Emphasis on climate change research........................................................... 45
12.4.5 Focus on social science research.................................................................. 45
12.4.6 Balancing between technology generation and adaptation................................ 46
12.4.7 Maintaining equilibrium between applied and basic research............................ 46
12.5 Institutional innovation.......................................................................................... 47
12.5.1 Propelling research by a long-term strategy.............................................................. 47
12.5.2 Fostering research through Monitoring Learning and Evaluation................................. 48
12.5.3 Strengthening research coordination........................................................................ 49
12.5.4 Strengthening research partnership......................................................................... 50
12.5.5 Improving rresearch governance............................................................................. 50
12.5.6 Building research capacity...................................................................................... 51
13 Conclusion................................................................................................................ 53
14. References................................................................................................................ 55
15. Annexes .................................................................................................................. 57
iv
Preface
The year 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the
establishment of Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR); supposedly, the formal agricultural
research system in the country. To celebrate the
anniversary, EIAR as apex federal research institute had
organized different events that generally presented the
research achievements; challenges faced and expected
roles, targeting policy makers, researchers, development
practitioners, and farmers/pastoralists.

Among these events, a national conference under the

theme “Agricultural Research for Ethiopian Renaissance”
and four symposia on crops, livestock, natural resources,
and social science research were the major events that
played crucial role in creating the opportunity to share the
achievements with the wider audiences and to get feedback
on what should be the future focus and direction in the
respective fields of agricultural research. The proceedings
of these papers were published as anniversary papers in
proceedings and a few selected ones in the Ethiopian
Journal of Agricultural Sciences (EJAS) anniversary
journal.

An extended Amharic book on the history of Ethiopian

Agricultural Research System has also been published
for the 50th Anniversary. This English concise version
of the publication— with some more new information
and thoughtss meant for non-Amharic readers. The
publication includes formation, evolution, achievement
and future of EIAR and the entire agricultural research
system of the country.

The authors are very much enthusiastic to acknowledge all

those who provided relevant information or their previous
work is used reference for this publication.
Introduction
Agriculture in Ethiopia is accorded high priority and
significant investments have been made to modernize the
sector. The sector is set to play a pivotal role for ensuring
food and nutrition security, providing raw materials for
industry, generating foreign exchange revenue, and
providing employment opportunities for the vast majority
of the population. As a result, there have been encouraging
changes in production and productivity growth in recent
times.

Should the country fully meet food and nutrition security

goals, compete, and thrive in the global market, however,
transforming agriculture to the future date of high impact
is essential. Future agriculture is expected to consistently
increase productivity and revenue, employing fewer
resources (land, water, and energy) per unit output
produced while lessening environmental, economic, and
social costs, reducing vulnerability to Climate Change
effects, and improving resilience.

In this regard, scientific research has a lot to offer

for agriculture to realize its sustainable development
objectives through provision of innovations that help
improving productivity and production efficiency, climate
smartness of landscapes, etc. Science is in deed a lever for
agricultural transformation and that Science contributes
towards making agriculture more productive, competitive,
resilient, sustainable, and inclusive (FARA 2014).

Over 50 years now, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research

system has been playing an enabling role in ushering
developments in agriculture sector through scientific
research and technology development. As the Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research (and the NARS)
celebrates its Gold Jubilee Anniversary in 2016,
therefore, this book attempts to provide a brief account of
the Agricultural Research System, its achievements and
suggest future research directions.
1. The Agricultural Research System

The agricultural research system in Ethiopia did not take off at once; rather its
organizational capacity and processes evolved over time. Most authorities agree
that rudimentary form of agricultural research activities in Ethiopia are traced
back to early 1930s where some exploratory activities were started by the Italian
colonizers, expeditionists and others. However, agricultural research took roots
later in 1950s with the establishment of agricultural high schools and in real terms
when a semi-autonomous independent institution established in mid 1960s.

Consistent with global practices the evolvement of agricultural research system

in Ethiopia can coarsely be categorized under six governance models. As such,
the research system has generally evolved through University model in the early
1950s; Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture model in late 1950s;
the National Research Institute (NRI) model between 1966 and 1993; and bearing
a resemblance to ARC model between 1994 and 2014 and perhaps a truly ARC
model since 2014 (Fentahun Mengistu 2015). A brief account of the different
models is given as below.

1.1 Before 1940

The inception of modern agriculture dates back to the 17th century when European
missionaries brought few crops and started to be cultivated in some parts of the
country. Before that Father Francisco Alvares who came to Ethiopia as part of
the first official delegation from a European state in 1520 (Edwards 1992) had
documented the growing of different fruit crops in monastery gardens in northern
Ethiopia (Westphal 1975). Grapes (Vitis vinifera) were already introduced to the
Gondar region of Ethiopia in the 16th century (Halland 2004). Jesuit Jerome
Lobo in 1626 and Henry Salt in 1816 are the other expeditionists who were
able to describe Ethiopia and its Agriculture. In 1887, the Italian Società
Geografica had established a 90 hectare experimental field at a place called
Let Marefia near Ankober. Italians had by that time a body of excellent
crop research, catalogues, local studies, and national surveys. For instance,
Raffaele Ciferri and his colleagues compiled volumes of careful crop research
on the speciation of highland cereals and a comprehensive national survey of
cropping for 1938 (McCain, J.C, 1995).Later the introduction of Eucalyptus
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

tree by King Minilik II from Australia in 1895 marked the first seedling plots
at Mount Entoto around Addis Ababa. The Italians also commenced commercial-
like farms in some places; especially in the Chercher Highlands in the mid 1930s.
However, before 1940s, there were generally only very few notable studies as
expedition, germplasm collection and introduction, characterization and testing.
This period also coincides with the expedition of the famous Russian scientist
Nicolach Vavilov to Ethiopia from December 1926 to April l927.

1.2 1940s-early 1950s

Up until 1950s neither there was a higher education in agriculture nor agricultural
research facilities in the country. Rather between 1940s and early 1950s agricultural
schools: Ambo (1947), Jimma (1952) and the then Alemaya College of Agriculture
(now Haramaya University) (1953) established with triple functions of education,
research and extension based on the USA Land Grant University Model. Later
Haramaya University established the Debre Zeit research station in 1953, which
makes it the oldest agricultural research station in the country.

1.3 From late 1950s to early 1960s

This episode signifies the foundation for the introduction of agricultural research
in the country. The historical moment between late 1950s and early 1960s were
witness of various agricultural research facilities in the country (Adams, 1970)
by way of establishing commercial agriculture. In the early 60s a small unit of
agricultural research was established under the Ministry of Agriculture. During
the initial period of this unit in the Ministry, Melko Coffee Nursery, Holetta
Ranch, and Melka Werer cottonseed multiplication stations were established
and preliminary studies were conducted. In a bid to conduct oil crops research,
Bako research station was established in early 1960s with the support of the
Federal Republic Government of Germany. This period is also known for the
development and dissemination of a wheat variety by Debre Zeit Research Center
known as Lakech, which was the Ethiopian version of a Mexican semi-dwarf
breadwheat cultivar aimed at making thEthioia a net exporter of wheat. Ofcourse
this period—early 1960s—was also marked by the disctibution of Kenya 1 and
Kenya 5 breadwheat vatieties brought from Eritrean Paradiso Research center and
multiplied around Simba in Wellega. . Research governance of this period can be
categorized as a Ministry of Agriculture model.

1.4 From 1966 to 1993

A formalized and structured research in agriculture with a national coverage was
commenced with the establishment of the former Institute of Agricultural Research
(IAR) in February 1966 as a semi-autonmous public organization with the financial
support from UNDP and FAO (Beintema and Menelik Solomon, 2003). As stated
earlier, some experimentes were undertaken at the Ambo and Jimma agricultural
high schools in the late 1940s and at the former Imperial College of Agriculture
and Mechanical Arts in the early 1950s. IAR was mandated not only to undertake
4
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

research in its research centers but also coordinate agricultural research carried
out by other national agricultural research institutions and formulate a national
policy for agricultural research.

In its evolutionary trend, the Instirute grew by adding more and more centers.
Holetta was established at the same time as IAR. Bako that was established in
1964 by Germans transferred to IAR. Likewise, other centers transferred to IAR
were Werer and Awassa stations in 1967, Jimma (Melko) in 1966, Nazareth (now
Melkassa) in 1970, Gode in 1971, and Mekelle and Kobo in 1973 (Desta Hamito,
2004) and Kulumsa that was under CADU/ARDU. There were also a number
of other national research centers established outside of IAR during 1970s such
as the USSR formed Scientific Phytopathological Laboratory at Ambo (now
Plant Protection Research Center), Plant Genetic Resources Center, Forestry
Research Center, Wood Utilization Research Center, National Soils Laboratory
and the Institute of Animal Health Research. Research in support of extension
efforts was also carried out by CADU’s Crop Production and Animal Production
Departments, units consolidated as sections into an Experimentation Division in
1971 (Cohen 19687). In mid 1980s, in line with the Ten years Perspective Plan
(1977-1986) that recognizes 11 main AEZs, IAR was restructured to emphasize
AEZ based research that culminated in the establishment of new research centers:
Abobo, Adet, Sinana, Pawe, Assosa, and Gode. The establishment of IAR has
undoubtedly heralded the start of coordinated agricultural research in the country,
which the research has been led centrally with geographical decentralization that
can accurately be called a National Research Institute (NRI) model.

1.5 From 1994 to 2014

In the early 1990s, the Ethiopian NARS underwent administrative decentralization
that culminated in the creation of federal and regional research institutions. As
a result, a number of IAR centers were transferred to regional States leaving
Holetta, Melkassa, Jima, Bako, Werer, Ambo, Kulumsa and Pawe research centers
to the federal research institute, IAR. Later IAR subsumed other new institutions:
Debre Zeit research station, Biodiversity Institute, Forestry Research Center,
Wood Utilization Research Center, Institute of Animal Health Research, National
Fisheries Research Center, National Soils Laboratory, and Wondo Genet Research
Center, and the institute renamed as EARO in 1997. In 2004, with the institute’s
proclamation amendment EARO fell under the administrative responsibility of
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development (MoARD) from that of Prime
Minister’s Office. Further, with federal executive organ revision amendment
in 2007, EARO was renamed as EIAR and made answerable to Ministry of
Agriculture (MoA). Generally, research during 1994- 2014 period can loosely be
categorized as Agricultural Research Council model. EIAR today is on a more
profound position than its predecessor is in several ways. These differences could
be viewed from structural/organizational; programmatic; human resources; and
financial standpoints.

5
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

1.6 From 2014 to 2016

After research decentralization, EIAR was mandated to both conduct research
in its own federal centers and provide a national research coordination role.
Nonetheless, there was no clear implementation modality for EIAR to play a
national research coordination role under decentralized research system. This
has put the Institute in a situation where there is no administrative control of
the regional research institutions. As a result, the national research system
remained in loose coordination that in effect resulted in research redundancies and
ineffective use of resources. Because of this, in 2014, steps were taken to establish
the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Council, which was ratified by Council of
Ministers later in March 2016, poised to provide a national coordination role to
the country’s NARS.

The Council constitute members drawn from federal and regional agriculture and
research and other relevant institutions, and is assisted by a secretariat office to run
its day-to-day activities. While this entity is rightly a coordination council with a
possible role of assuming a funding council, unlike other federated countries like
research councils of India, it is a coordinating than managing council. This means
that it lacks strong power to exercise over and authority for enforcement on its
constituents and this remains a source of some concern. Indeed, if succeeded this
arrangement may take up a truly Agricultural Research Council model.

6
2. Research Priority During Different Government
Regimes

Agricultural research in Ethiopia is seen an instrument in bringing

about agricultural transformation and poverty alleviation at all times.
Consequently, agricultural research in Ethiopia has always been
following and shaped up by the agricultural development policies of
respective regimes as shown below under the three regimes.

2.1 The imperial Period (1930-1974)

During the imperial period there were four 5-year national plans of
which 3 of them were implemented: 1st (1957-62), 2nd (1963-68), 3rd
(1968-73) and 4th (1974- ). During this period national development
plans gave insufficient emphasis to agriculture in general and the large
peasant sector until the importance of the small-farm sector to national
economic growth was recognized and a strategy proposed in the third 5
year Plan. Hence, focus was given to agriculture especially large scale
farming (irrigated cotton farms, export crops as coffee and horticultural
crops) (Cohen, 1987). Therefore, by that time the research focus was to
serve large-scale irrigated cotton farms, horticultural farms, etc. very
minimally though. Besides, despite attempts to address small scale
farmers it was difficult to fulfill their needs because of the influence of
landlords.

2.2 The Derg Regime (1974-1991)

During the Derg Regime Six Annual Development Campaign Programs, popularly
known as Zemechas and the popular Ten-Year Perspective Plan (1984/85-1993/94)
have been executed (Tesfaye Asfaw 1991). By this period, in line with the popular
Ten-Years Perspective Plan the focus of agricultural research was used to be on
resettlement areas, state farms, and surplus producing districts.
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

2.3 The EPRDF Regime (1991 todate)

In the incumbent regime under the Agriculture Development-Led Industrialization
(ADLI) strategy, successive development plans have been set up: Sustainable
Development and Poverty Reduction Program, SDPRP (2002/03-04/05), Plan for
Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty, PASDEP (2005/06-
09/10), Growth and Transformation Plan I (2010/11-14/15) and Growth and
Transformation Plan II (2015/16-19/20). Under ADLI, agriculture especially
small-scale agriculture is taken a cornerstone of agricultural sector growth without
losing focus to private mechanized agriculture in the lowlands and labor-intensive
high value agriculture in the peri-urban areas of the highlands. Consequently,
at present the major focus of the agricultural research system are small-scale
farmers, herders and fish-folks while due attention is also given to private large-
scale farmers.

Figure 1: Country’s leaders visited research centers

8
3. Evolvement of Institutional Set up and Research
Scope

Generally, the 1960s were the formative stage where the necessary
capacity and system creation undertaken. The research institute has
started with three research centers (Holetta, Melka Werer and Jima/
Melko) addressing limited agro-ecologies and focus areas, and ramified
with time. In 1986, IAR had seven main centers: Awassa, Bako, Holetta,
Jimma, Mekelle, Werer, and Nazreth. In 1977, research programs
were restructured as departments according to subject areas and
multidisciplinary commodity teams and national coordinating centers
identified. The research departments were also evolved gradually. In
mid 1980s, in response to and consistent with the Ten years Perspective
Plan (1977-1986) that identified 11 main AEZs, IAR was restructured
to emphasize AEZ based research that culminated in the establishment
of new research centers in each regional zone including resettlement
program areas. These include Abobo, Adet, Sinana, Pawe, Assosa,
Gode, and Kulumsa (transferred from ARDU) to EIAR. The research
center envisaged in 1988 at Omorate was materialized later in 2011 at
Jinka and transferred to SARI.
IAR’s research areas and scope were also evolved over time. Right from
its establishment IAR started researching on important crops (coffee,
cereals, fruits, oil crops, and for irrigated areas cotton, maize, sorghum,
groundnut, and crop protection), livestock (feeds, animal husbandry
especially Horo breeds), forests, soils and water (soil fertility). As a
result, technology/germplasm introduction and technology release
activities were intensified in 1970s. Two years after its establishment,
IAR established the agricultural economics division at Holetta
Agricultural Research Station. It added agricultural engineering in 1977,
food science in 1978, climate change research in 1989. In addition,
Agricultural products quality research has been instituted in 2012, and
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

biotechnology research that was initiated and institutionalized as one

area of research as of 1994 at Ambo, and as department in 1987 became
a fully-fledged research center since 2015.
To strengthen Research and Extension Linkage, IAR established a Research-
Extension Liaison Officer in 1987. In addition, in a bid to enhance transfer of
developed technologies IAR and MOA’s Agricultural Development Department
established a joint IAR/ADD project in early 1980s. In late 1970s, IAR
strengthened partnerships with national and IARCs.

At present, the Ethiopian NARS comprises the federal and regional

research centers and universities with agricultural departments.
Accordingly, the constituents of NARS include the 17 federal agricultural
research centers under EIAR, 7 regional agricultural research institutes
with more than 60 centers and 25 Higher Learning Institutes located
at different agro-ecological zones (Figure 2). This figure does not
include forestry research, sugarcane research, and other public research
institutions. In broader sense, NARS also include international research
centers operating in Ethiopia, some non-governmental organizations,
private companies, etc. The agricultural research system generally
identifies triple functions as its mandate: generate technologies
addressing: Food and nutrition security, Agro-industrial needs/
import substitution, markets (Export/Domestic) and Natural Resource
Management; Demand Creation through Demonstration, Popularization
and Capacity-building of users and agricultural experts; Source
technology provision via maintenance and multiplication of breeder
and pre-basic seeds of improved technologies.
With little variations among the constituents the major areas of research include
• Crops—cereals, pulses, oils, fibers, horticulture, aromatic and medicine,
biofuels, coffee and spices;
• Livestock—cattle, sheep, goats, equines, apiary, poultry, fishery,
silk, pastoral;
• Natural Resources—soil fertility, acidity, alkalinity, aridity,
Vertisols, salinity, irrigation, integrated watershed management;
• Biotechnology—plant, animal, microbial, molecular;
• Agricultural Engineering—pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest;
• Climate—climate, geo-spatial, agro-meteorology; and
• Agricultural and Nutrition Laboratories—nutrition, chemistry,
biological agents.
10
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Figure 2: Geographical distribution of federal and regional agricultural research centers

The research system follows largely a commodity approach where currently there
are more than 60 commodities. The federal research system is mandated to address
national agricultural issues while the regional research system addresses problems
specific to that particular region. In a bid to develop nationwide technologies;
however, the research system undertakes networked and coordinated trials. Subject
to revision and refinement in the future, currently national centers of commodity
coordination are identified; most of these centers falling under the federal system
while some others are under regional or University system to which EIAR provide
the necessary resources and overall coordination.

11
4. Achievements

During the past half - century, Ethiopian Agricultural Research System through
the effective leadership of EIAR has been able to become an equal to the task
institution and served a main driving force of the country to achieve agricultural
development goals through provision of improved technologies that has matured
especially in the last three decades. Accordingly, the research system produced
about 3000 technologies. These include more than 1200 crop varieties, more
than 40 forage species, agro-techniques in crop and animal husbandry, pest and
disease management techniques, animal feeds, farm implements, soil and water
management technologies, etc. as well as socio-economic and policy study
recommendations, which some of these glorious achievements are discussed as
below.

4.1 Crops
Most notable achievements of the Ethiopian agricultural research system are
unquestionably in crop research. Until 2016, the research systemhas been able to
develop more than 1223 crop and forage varieties in close 100 crop species along
with production packages (Figures 3, and Annex 1). Higher numbers of varieties
have been developed in cereals (480) followed by pulses (222), and vegetables,
root & tuber crops (215).

Figure 3: Improved crop varieties released by crop category

Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Maize
More than 60 improved maize varieties including most popular hybrids as BH660
& BH661 and BH540, 6 QPM and 10 drought tolerant varieties were availed
by the research system. As a result, maize is grown by 8.7m HHS over 2.1m ha
and 7.2Mmt is produced with an average productivity of 3.4t/ha (CSA 2014).
As a result, maize has now been tamed to diverse agro-ecological zones ranging
from the cool highlands to moisture deficit hot lowlands to irrigated lands. Before
1993, hybrid varieties were hardly produced on farmers’ fields. But today perhaps
no crop is as widely adopted with its full packages (variety, fertilizer, seed,
agronomy, mechanization etc.) as maize. In fact, in much of central and north
western Ethiopia maize has migrated from the once a homestead crop to the outer
fields turning these areas to a major production zone. In addition, once which used
to be a mid-elevation crop, for the development of suitable varieties maize has
now been tamed to diverse agro-ecological zones ranging from the highlands to
lowlands. Moreover, with the expansion of irrigated agriculture maize has made
its way to irrigated lands mainly for green cob production. Maize is perhaps the
only crop that appealed the private and parastatal public seed enterprises alike.

Wheat
Agricultural research has been able to make more than 100 high yielding, high
quality, and rust-resistant bread and durum wheat varieties available along with
their production packages suitable for different agro-ecologies. Today wheat is
grown on over 1.7m hectares with a total production of 4.2Mmt and a national
average yield of 2.5t / ha against 0.6t in 1960s. As a result, Ethiopia has become
the largest producer of wheat of any country in Sub-Saharan Africa. Historically,
the country suffered from rust disease epidemics and recurrence over the last
4 decades that forced it to abandon one or more of its improved varieties in
each decade or less. For instance, Lakech variety was wiped out by stem rust
in 1974, Dashen by yellow rust (1988), Enkoy by stem rust (1993), two most
popular varieties Kubsa and Galema by yellow rust (2010), Danda’a and Kakaba
by yellow rust and Digelo by stem rust (2013). Moreover, in 2014 and 15, both
yellow and stem rust had occurred and in response to which Kingbird and other
varieties have been released for replacement. This shows that the research system
has always been grappling with rusts, but has also been able to made replacement
varieties timely available to save the wheat industry.

Tef
Tef is perhaps a good example of a crop that domestic research can best showcase
its research capability. Some 36 improved tef varieties along with production
packages have been developed addressing various growing agro-ecologies.
Especially, spectacular success has been achieved with the release of the most
popular variety “Quncho”, that elevated tef yield to as high as 3 t/ha. Consequently,
in 2014 a total of 6,5m households grew tef on a total area of 3.0M ha and 4.4Mmt
produced with a national average productivity level of 1.58 t/ha.

14
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Barley
Research in barley both food and malting started in 1950s and more than 50
varieties have been released of which the majority is food types; Beka was
the oldest malting variety released in 1976 and remains important until date.
Holker released in 2011 is the most popular and widely grown variety to date.
Introduction of malt barley varieties helped the local breweries save significant
foreign currency and raised farmers’ income. In 2014, 4m households grew barley
on an area of close to one million ha and produced 1.95Mmt with a national
average yield of 1.97t/ha.

Sorghum
Sorghum research was underway for over 4 decades and more than 44 varieties
suitable for various agro-ecologies have been released. Notable achievements are
development of striga resistant varieties, bird resistant varieties, early maturing
varieties, malting types and hybrid varieties. Sorghum is the 2nd crop after maize
in cereals that hybrid varieties (ESH-1 and ESH-2) have been developed. To date
sorghum is grown by 4.8 HHs on a total area of 1.68 mha and production of
3.82Mmt with a national average productivity of 2.28t/ha.

Industrial crops
Apart from durum wheat and malt barley for agro-industries, the research
system has also developed 29 open-pollinated and hybrid cotton varieties that
fed the textile industry. Especially, introduction of “Acala” type cotton in 1960s,
accompanied with the “Closed Season” technique contributed to minimizing
pesticide spray against pests and enabled sustained production. Since 2004, EIAR
also released wine grape varieties which some of them are serving the local wine
industry.

Export crops
Most notable contribution of the research system in its early years was the
development of CBD resistant varieties in 1970s that rescued the coffee industry.
To date 37 improved coffee varieties have been developed that includes 3 hybrids
and 11 specialty coffee varieties. In 2014, coffee is grown by 4.7m HHs on a total
area of 0.57 mha and 0.42Mmt harvested with a national average productivity of
0.76t/ha. In addition, the research system released 21 sesame varieties with a yield
potential of as high as 1.2t/ha. In 2014, sesame is grown by 0.87m HHs on a total
area of 0.42m ha and 0.29Mmt production and a national average productivity
of 0.69 t/ha. The research system by introducing improved white haricot bean
varieties as early as 1970s helped the crop to be one of the major export crops.
To date 58 varieties have been developed. In 2014, common bean was grown by
3.2m HHs on 0.32m ha with a total production of 0.5Mmt and a national average
yield of 1.59t/ha.

15
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Horticultural crops
The research system laid the foundation for horticulture production in the
country by introducing and adapting various fruits—citrus, mango, avocado, and
banana; vegetables, and root and tuber varieties—onion, tomato, and potato. For
instance, the popular pepper variety-Marekofana, onion varieties, and their seed
production techniques were made possible because of the research system. The
most significant achievement in tuber crops research is that of potato where more
than 35 high yielding varieties with productivity level reaching up to 50t/ha and
tolerant to late blight are developed. In 2014, potato was grown on an area of
0.18m ha and 1.6Mmt was produced, and the average productivity according to
2015 data was 13.7 t/ha.

Agro-techniques
The research system has also been able to establish several production technologies
and agronomic recommendations: fertilizer rates, planting time, spacing, row
planting, and harvesting; insect pest, disease and weed and abiotic stresses
management technologies, post-harvest technologies, utilization technologies,
etc.

4.2 Livestock
Feed
One of the major success areas in livestock research is that of feed. The research
system identified feed technologies sourced from cultivated forage crops, natural
pasture/grazing lands, crop residues, agro-industrial byproducts, and multi-
nutrient blocks or urea molasses bocks. It has also developed more than 40
forages and pasture varieties (16 grass, 12 herbaceous legume, and 5 browse trees,
shrubs species, etc) and a number of unrecorded adapted ones. Besides, integrated
production practice, seed production technologies and different forage crops
has been demonstrated in the different agro-ecologies and production systems.
Natural pasture / grazing lands productivity has increased from less than a ton
to more than 10 tons dry matter per hectare. Conservation, quality improvement
techniques, and concentrate supplementing strategies were developed for crop
residues. The national available agro-industrial feed resources are estimated, their
quality profile worked out, efficient utilization methods are established, Multi-
nutrient blocks are formulated with locally available feed resources.

Cattle
The research system has been able to introduce and adapt exotic breeds such as
Jersey and Holstein Friesian and crossed them with local breeds as Boran. The
average milk yield (lt) per lactation of Arsi, Barka, Borena, Fogera and Horro
cattle improved to 589,713, 592, 595, and 429lt in that order. Lactation milk
yield (Lt) for Friesian x Boran Crosses (F1) and high-grade (75 % Frisian x 25%
Boran) crosses using locally produced semen appeared to be 2556 and 2566lts,
16
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

respectively. In addition, information on dairy production system, feeds, nutrition,

health, and processing were released for use.

In beef research, studies were made on management of local breeds for fattening
mainly on feeding strategies based on available feed resources and animal health
management especially on internal parasites. Feeding packages for selected
breeds targeting the export market, beef value-chains, information on basic
carcass parameters have been generated. Consequently, average body weight (kg)
of local breeds of male cattle fattened with locally available feeds for 3 - 6 months
reached 411 for Fogera, 382 for Horro, 355 for Arsi and 338 for Boran.

Sheep and Goats

In Shoats research, performance characterization of indigenous breeds,
identification of on-farm production constraints, performance evaluation of
crossbreeding programs designed to increase meat, wool and milk production
were undertaken. Productivity has been enhanced by introducing exotic breeds
and crossing with local ones.

Poultry
Improved management packages including improved feeding, housing and health
management packages have been developed. Some exotic breeds (Fayoumi,
Koekoek, Hubbard classic, Hubbard JV, Lohmann Silver, and Dominant D102)
have been tested and adapted. An indigenous breed “Horro” has been developed
through mass selection and its egg productivity increased form 40 - 60 to 150-
170 eggs. A white feather synthetic line, a breed suitable for semi-intensive
commercial production system is also at its final stage of development. Feed
formulation based on local sources has also been achieved for different chicken
breeds.

Fishery
Water bodies have been characterized for their limnological, physical, and
chemical features and their suitability and potential for fish production, fish
productivity estimated, suitable fish strains identified; fishing gears recommended
and fish preservation practice established. In addition, marketing and fish value
chain for the major producing areas has been documented. Besides, information
on aquaculture management practice generated.

Apiculture
Information on characteristics of honey from Apis species, management
practices, feed, and feeding options, low cost hives and identification and control
of major bee pests generated. Introduction of movable frame hive technology
increased the national average honey yield from 7 to 25 kg. Different Queen
rearing technologies were developed and promoted. Quality standard for honey
and beeswax was established. Some 9 especially honey of its own characteristic
17
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

identified. In addition, 20 different pests and predators identified and their control
measures recommended. Entrance feeding technology was also developed.

Sericulture
Better performing silkworm strains identified, their management practices
established, economic feasibility as well as feed studied.

Camel
Information has been generated on camel diseases and parasites, traditional
production practices, feeds and nutrition, meat and milk handling as well as
marketing of camels and their products and socio-economic aspects of these areas.
Besides, rangelands’ biophysical characteristics, management and utilization
practices, as well as socio-economic aspects of associated communities studied.

4.3 Natural Resources

Fertilizer type and rate
As of early 1970s blanket rate of 100 kg ha-1 DAP or 50 kg ha-1 Urea + 100
kg DAP ha-1 was recommended irrespective of crop and soil types. Since then
refinement was made and crop and soil type and agro-ecology based nutrient
recommendations drawn up for major crops in the major growing areas. Likewise,
via P-calibration studies, critical P concentrations and P requirement factors have
been determined for major crops and soil types of various agro-ecologies of the
country.

Bio-fertilizers
Extensive study has been conducted on microbial fertilizers. Accordingly,
response of different legumes to rhizobial inoculation has been established and
effective strains recommended. This has triggered establishment of a bio-fertilizer
factory.

Integrated soil fertility management

Incorporation of the green manure plant species such as Dolichos lablab, Mucuna
prureins, lupine, crotolaria have been identified as effective to improve soil
fertility and enhance the efficiency of applied fertilizer and increase crop yield. It
was also found out that rotations of wheat after faba bean, rapeseed, and barley is
the best rotation system in wheat-dominated areas like Arsi.

Acid soil management

It was found out that barely yield can increase from 2.5 ton/ha to 4.5 ton/ha by
applying 1.5 to 3.5 ton/ha lime (according to the exchangeable acidity level of
the soil) and 46 kg/ha P2O5. On the other hand, the yield of the same crop has
increased to 3.7 ton/ha by applying compost and lime altogether. In addition,
18
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

split application of liming i.e. 1/3 of the recommended rate for the crop (maize,
soybean, and barley) has been found effective as compared to the application of
the full rate once. This also gives an opportunity for the resource poor farmers.

Vertisols management
Impeded drainage is the major constraint affecting productivity of cereals and
pulses on Vertisols. Therefore, using BBM has been found effective to drain
excess water from the field and boosting productivity. Besides, several agronomic
techniques have been recommended.

Saline soil management

Upon tree species screening as an option of tackling the salinity problem, Sesbania
sesban, Albizia lebbeck, Acacia nilotica, and Acacia tortilis have been found to be
tolerant to soil salinity with potential of ameliorating both physical and chemical
properties of the soil and lowering the level of ground water table as bio-drainage
agents. In addition, four forage grass species, namely Chloris gayana, Cinchrus
spp, Panicum antidotale, Sorghum sudaness, and two legume forage species
(Medica sativa and Sesbania sesban) have been identified as adaptable and
tolerant to and high biomass yielding in saline soil areas, and have remarkably
reduced the soil salinity content.

Irrigation technologies

Amount, frequency, and method of application has been established for various
crops as cotton, sesame, wheat, maize, groundnut, onion, tomato, and several
other crops.

4.4 Agricultural Mechanization

Agricultural mechanization research began at Jimma College in 1950s and at
CADU in 1960s. However, since 1976 the IAR has taken up organized testing and
modification of farm implements that later culminated in the establishment of a
national coordinating center, AIRIC in 1985. Although, animal drawn moldboard
plough was for the first time introduced to Ethiopia by Italians in 1939 (Kaumbutho
et al., 2000) and the BBM technology through Vertisols project, EIAR had a
valuable contribution in evolving and development of these technologies. As a
result, EIAR innovations that are popular and widely known include Mould board
plows and Tie ridgers. In addition, in collaboration with other institutions: IITA
multi-crop gasoline engine driven thresher popularly known as tef thresher first
introduced and modified together with SG2000 from Benin and Nigeria, metal
silo storage first introduced together with CIMMYT and SG2000 from Kenya.

There are also several EIAR’s innovations that are not widely disseminated due to
different reasons (economic and extension) but could have an impact like manual
milk churner, donkey cart, chain and washer pump, Animal drawn tef and wheat
planters, conservation tillage implement (ripper), etc. recommendations.
19
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Mechanization department in EIAR was instrumental in testing 22 tractor attached

(Bulagria made) ancillary equipment. It has also provided recommendations
to Ministry of Industry to decide on the establishment of factory. Testing and
recommendation on Chinese made 18 and 20 hp riding type tractors with ancillary
equipment were made for the then Nazreth Tractor Factory to make a decision on
assembling the parts. Two wheel tractors (6.5 hp Czech republic, 12 and 15 hp
Chinese made 2WT) have been tested and recommendations given.

4.5 Socio-economics
The agricultural research system has made many surveys and characterized
agro-ecologies and farming systems, identified constraints and opportunities and
suggested alternative solutions. It has also made adoption studies and identified
factors influencing adoption; assessed the impact of technological change, studied
utilization, productivity, profitability and efficiency of resources, risk and risk
management, enterprise choice and farm decision-making; performance of input
and output market; gender roles and rural labor structures; consumer preferences
and consumption pattern, and value chains. It was also extensively demonstrated
and popularized technologies and helped to enhance their uptake.

20
5. Outreach

The agricultural research system has evolved an efficient mechanism of showcasing

and marketing its technologies. Accordingly, it has disseminated knowledge,
and technology through various approaches as demonstrations, popularization,
Farmers Research Groups, pre-scaling up, organizing and or participating in
various agricultural technology fairs and exhibits, etc. that are evolved over time.
While serving outreach functions such activities are on the otherhand important
mechanisms to leverage research-extension-farmer linkage.

5.1 IAR/EPID and IAR/ADD Joint Technology Testing and

Transfer Program
Institutionalized in in 1974, the Institute of Agricultural Research/ Extension
Project Implementation Department (IAR/EPID) model was the first attempt to
address formal research, extension, and farmer linkage on-farm research program.
The program was designed to jointly test agricultural technology packages and
formulate research recommendations for specific areas. The IAR/EPID program
was reportedly withdrawn in 1977 due to budget problems. A second collaboration
attempt was that of the Institute of Agricultural Research/ Agriculture Development
Department (IAR/ADD) program set up in 1980/81. Again, this program faied for
the poor planning of the program; i.e., lack of close monitoring of trial sites by
researchers, lack of knowhow of the trials by extension personnel, and lack of
feedback coming to the researchers. Consequently, the program was unable to
identify and transfer technologies for farmers (Gatzweiler, F.W and Braun, J.V.,
2016).

5.2 Institutionalizing a separate department in IAR

Initially, IAR instituted extension research under the Agricultural Economics
Division to undertake on-farm technology evaluation. Later in 1971, IAR
established a Research and Extension Division in the research centers to undertake
a pre-extension demonstration and popularization on farm plots, training farmers
and agricultural experts, documenting agricultural technologies and conveying
feedback to researchers. This has continued until this day evolving to wider pre-
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

scale demonstrations, cluster-based demonstrations, farmers research groups,

etc. Following Business Process Re-engineering iof the Institute, Extension
research was again subsumed under the Agricultural Economics Directorate until
it was restored as a standalone directorate in 2016 as technology Transfer and
Commercialization Directorate. Generally, the outreach programs in the research
system helped creating technology demand by users and enhanced speedy
technology transfer, adoption, and uptake.

22
6. Adoption and Impact of Agricultural Technologies

The success of the Ethiopian agricultural research could be gauged by the

progress made in agriculture development. According to the country’s statistics,
agriculture has registered remarkable growth (7.6%) for over two decades now.
Between 2004-14, cereal crops output has increased by 115% and the yield rose
by 81% which is partly explained by doubling of agricultural input use (fertilizer
and seed) (Fantu et. al., 2015). This has been substantiated by Mellor (2014) as
cited by Demese Chanyalew (2015) who reported that in the 12 years’ time until
2013, 60% of cereal production increase has come from productivity change
while area expansion contributed to 40%.

While improved technologies proved to offer immense benefits, its effectiveness

has been constrained by socio-economic, culture and institutions of the local
community within which they are applied resulting in most of the benefits from
investing in research come only from few best discoveries at any one time.
Therefore, despite a number of improved technologies developed by the research
system they were not satisfactorily taken up in the right time and circumstances.
Rather quite a number of technologies remained shelved and went out out-of-date
before they are used. Consequently, the research system’s technology potential has
remained unleashed until the recent past to the extent that it created an impression
of belittling its efforts.

Consequently, agricultural technology uptake has not been to the desired level to
the effect that the productivity gap among the farming community itself (between
lead and follower farmers) reaching as high as 50% and between the average
farmer and the research recommendation as high as 70%. Even then, there are
several showcases that the research system has made visible impact on the nation’s
agricultural production. A study made to track wheat and maize adoption levels
using DNA fingerprinting in 2013 showed that about 96% of the respondents
cultivated improved wheat varieties and 61.4% of them improved maize varieties.
Generally, wheat and maize have the highest adoption rate of 62-96% and 56-
64%, respectively. Likewise, tef has has been adopted 76%, lentil 40%, chickpea
26% and malt barley 100%.
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Indeed, the enormous progress made on agricultural research and technology

development over the last half-century has played a pivotal role in agricultural
growth. Nevertheless, it is apparent that, unless teamed up with other areas of
endeavor, the research system alone provides no magic bullet for all agricultural
development challenges. On the contrary, with no momentous scientific headway,
under no circumstances can any intervention in other areas lead to a significant
gain in agriculture development. This can be demonstrated by the fact that when
the research is accompanied by an aggressive countrywide extension intervention
the speed of technology uptake significantly enhanced resulting in a substantial
yield increase. Generally, researches outputs together with interventions in other
areas helped modernization of the country’s agriculture and perform better to the
extent they are adopted.

24
7. Source Technology Provision

One of the three major functions of the research system is source technology
provision. Accordingly, the research system has been maintaining and multiplying
nucleus, breeder, and pre-basic seeds of crops and forage, chicken, fish fingerlings,
bio-fertilizers, etc. This activiti began in the early 1960; for instance, the Debre Zeit
Research center reportedly muntiplied and distributed 250 q of improved white tef
(magna), 70 q of improved Kenya wheat, and 30q of chickpeain 1063. Besides, in
1957 Debre Zeit Reserch center imported 1000 day-old Newhampshire hatchings
(Rhode Island Longhorn crosses) from New York and later white leghorns for
breeding and distribution. To increase the volume of source technologies in recent
years the research system employs rapid multiplication techniques as tissue
culture, hydro-and aero-ponics, pre-release multiplication, etc. It has indeed
served the only source of early generation seed for seed companies. Also, the
multiplication and dissemination of several horticulture crops seeds through an
informal seed system entirely rests on the research system until today.
8. Research Institutions Recognitions

In recognition of its valuable contributions and impact the research, system has
been bestowed with various awards. In 1970s, it received a Gold Mercury award
from the Government of Ethiopia for developing and transfer of Coffee Berry
Disease (CBD) resistant coffee varieties. It has also won several national Scince,
Technology, and Innovation awards of the Ministry of Science and Technology in
different years for wheat, tef, potato, chickpea, common bean, sorghum, maize,
lentil, sesame, barley, spices, poultry, bio-pesticide delivery, and its valuable
contribution to ushering in agricultural revolution in the country. In addition to
this, the Institute has been awarded by Regional States for its contribution to
the agricultural transformation efforts of the regions. The Institute is also been
endowed with awards for its ourstanding support to the teaching and curriculum
development efforts of agricultural faculities of different universities.
9 Research and Extension Linkage

Existence of a strong linkage between research and extension is very important

for assuring demand-driven research. After research, extension and education
divorced in the 1950s and establishment of a separate semi-autonomous research
institute, IAR, in mid 1960s, the issue surfaced out by then was how to link
research and extension and farmers for an effective flow of technology and
information so that research will be demand-driven and technology dissemination
and adoption process will be speeded up. Indeed, lack of strong linkage between
research and extension has been cited repeatedly as one of the major causes of
underdevelopment in the country. In response to this, various attempts have
been made to create a strong Research-Extension Linkage. Early on, joint efforts
were made between the Ministry of Agriculture and Institute of Agricultural
Research through different initiatives like IAR/EPID and IAR/ ADD with aim
of forging strong linkage and transfer of technologies to users. Later a platform
was formalized to link research and extension, which is briefly outlined as below.

9.1 Research and Extension Liaison Committee (RELC)

In 1986, Research and Extension Liaison Committee (RELC) was formed
at national and zonal level to enhance horizontal and vertical integration of
Research- Extension-Farmer linkage. Zonal RELC was established in Peasant
Agricultural Development and Extension (PADEP) zones, which later in 1989
Research Center-based RELC were established in IAR centers. The Zonal
RELC was mandated to review and approve research proposals and extension
recommendations, identify training needs for SMSs of MOA and oversee the
operation of REF linkages in the respective zones. This has resulted in demand
driven research agenda and high uptake of agricultural technologies while it
brought the researchers and extensionists more closely and broke a large part of
institutional boundary. However, RELC was constrained by the lack of common
understanding, irregular meeting, weak accountability, inadequate decision-
making power, frequent reorganization of MOA, passive participation of farmers,
lack of clear responsibilities of each party, inadequate financial resources for
monitoring field activities and covering the cost of regular meetings, etc. This has
necessitated for conceiving a better mechanism, known as REFAC.
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

9.2 Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council (REFAC)

In 1998, RELC was reformed and Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council
(REFAC) came into being at three levels, federal, region and zones although it
was only the Zonal REFAC active. REFAC was mandated to review, set priorities
and approve researchable problems, review performance of the executed
Research and Extension programs, provide recommendations, plans collaborative
programs for joint work, and undertake field evaluations. The head of Zonal
Department of Agriculture chairs the meeting while the close-by Research Center
Director assumes co-chairman position. The council holds two meetings per
annum: before cropping season to review research plans and formulate extension
recommendations, and after cropping season to make joint field evaluations of
ongoing research and extension programs and assess feedback.

REFAC was not also without problem. It had experienced serious financial
constraints. When IFAD stops funding, it had ceased functioning. Another
problem was that though all collaborates are responsible for the running up of
the council, it was only the research system shouldered to organize, facilitate and
liaison the council activities. It was also difficult to convene all stakeholders of all
districts in the council’s meetings for the wider area coverage covered by research
centers. REFAC had also no power to discharge its responsibility.

9.3 Agriculture and Rural Development Partner Linkage

Advisory Council (ARDPLAC)
In 2008, came Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory
Council (ARDPLAC) that survived to date. This structure, unlike its predecessors
focusing only on linking REF, envisages a strong linkage among the wider
Agriculture and Rural development partners at Federal, Region, Zone, and
Woreda level councils. The council at different levels is entrusted with
undertaking participatory planning based on assessment of community problems
and needs, identify and prioritize agricultural development activities and evaluate
and monitor development activities. The members of the council are extension,
research, farmer, GOs, NGOs, input supplies, credit institutions, private investors,
and different levels of ARD offices. The Council is led by Agricultural Department
offices at different levels. With the new reform of Research and extension interface
MOA took up the problem identification part of the research. Later, when MOARD
renamed as MOA, ARDPLAC changed to ADPLAC to reflect the missing Rural
Development in the naming of the Ministry. Despite great improvement, this
linkage mechanism is still not free of criticism for not yet able to create a strong
linkage to the level desired. Strengthening the platform with ICT medium would
probably help improve its functionality.

30
10. Systemizing Agricultural Research

Over the years, the Ethiopian agricultural research system through learning and
practice has developed a unique institutional culture, discipline, and system,
which its legacy will be left to the present and future generation. Some of these
include:

10.1 Research Coordination

The research system has a good tradition of research coordination whereby a
replicated multi-locational nationally coordinated research trials are undertaken
in selected representative agro-ecologies especially in crop breeding. This has
led to the establishment of several research centers with specific research focus
distributed across diverse agro-ecologies and catering for identified national
priority commodities of interest.

10.2 Teamwork
The agricultural research system has a long tradition of distinctive teamwork
approach organized around a commodity whereby a multi-disciplinary,
interdisciplinary, intra-disciplinary commodity teams; i.e., breeder, pathologist,
entomologist, weed scientist, agronomist, economist, food scientist,
biotechnologist, etc work together. This has begun in 1973 when the then IAR
began officially assigning commodity coordinators and further strengthened later
in 1979.

10.3 Research Planning and Appraisal

IAR/EIAR has also developed an exceptional research project planning,
reviewing, and appraising system. Initially, it strategically moved from a piece-
meal research trials approach to a comprehensive project-based research planning
and implementation. As such, research project proposals are subjected to critical
evaluations to a wider audience at different levels: at commodity/project forum,
center level and national forum level and only those projects that pass the different
levels of rigorous scrutiny become eligible for funding. At each level of review
platform, new projects are evaluated for their relevance, technical soundness,
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

and financial feasibility. Besides, highlights of on-going and completed projects

are presented and evaluated. Recently, a mechanism also established to evaluate
completed projects in a separate forum. At present the evaluation process is
conducted both top-bottom (to address national strategic issues) and bottom-up
(to reflect users real specific demand) for which a guiding document has been
developed.

10.4 Technology evaluation and registration

The National Variety Release Committee (NVRC) was established in 1982 by the
National Seed Industry Agency (NSIA) and currently led by MoNAR. Every year
an independent technical committee is established to evaluate candidate varieties
of various crops and forage species submitted by researchers and submit its
evaluations to the National Variety Release Committee, which the latter give its
verdict for release, or not to release. What is appreciated is that each year varieties
released are documented in a Variety Release Register with no interruption since
the 1978s.

10.5 Research Governance

What is more, a unique culture in the research system is that research leadership
excepting sometimes the DG and DDG, all other Directorship and lower rank
positions at both Head Quarter and Centers is a temporary term position. The
above said positions are held on turn basis, alongside of research positions, with
a defined term usually 3 years. A researcher who concludes his/her term gets back
to its full research position. In most cases, leaders of each term are elected in a
participatory manner.

10.6 Researchers Promotion system

The research system also developed a distinct researcher’s promotion ladder and
evaluation system. Researchers are promoted evaluated by a committee using
the result-oriented career structure that is in use since its establishement and
refined over time. Rigorous evaluation is made based on year of service, scientific
publications, and research achievements submitted by the applicant in writing
along with a standardized Curriculum Vita.

10.7 Knowledge Management and Human Capacity

Building
For the NARS’s, much as technology generation, productions of scientific
publications are important. Apart informing science and development these
products also form a major part of professional career advancement mechanism
for researchers. In this regard, Ethiopian NARS has a tradition of publishing in
and or producing scientific products in the form of progress and annual reports,

32
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

directories, newsletters, research manuals and guides, research reports, working

documents, proceedings, journals, books etc. For instance, between 2010 and
2015 alone EIAR produced 700 different publications that are available online.
The research system also has a registration system for theses and dissertations.
Between 2010 and 2015 alone 1641 theses and dissertations are kept in databases.
In terms of human resources management, the research system is no less than a
university by way of producing high caliber scientists, skilling and reskilling them
through providing and /or sending for short- and long-term trainings.

10.8 Research Ethics

The research system has always been adapting itself to the changing landscape
by modifying its approaches, listening to criticism, and subjecting itself for self-
evaluation and guided by its values to live up to its customers in delivering its
value proposition. To support this, some institutes like EIAR have also a research
ethics guide.

33
11. Research Capacity Building

The differences in accumulation of research results over the long hau;l accounts
for a sizable share of the differences in agricultural productivity. For instance,
the sub-Saharan Africa account for about 6% or an average of 0.14% per country
of global productive agricultural knowledge stock that contributed to its poor
productivity. Evidently, agricultural challenges of the future are much more
difficult to deal than today as demand for food is increasing and supply sources are
dwindling. Agricultural research requires large amounts of investment in capital,
educated labor, and sophisticated equipment. The state of capacity building of the
NARS is briefly discussed as below.

11.1 Physical capacity development

Over the years, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research System has substantially
grown in terms of building physical capacities. For instance, in institution building
it has started with a few centers and sub-centers and grown substantially to more
than 60 research centers. Agricultural biotechnology, spice, rice, aromatic, and
herbs research centers are for instance progressive formed and are recent additions.
Field and laboratory facilities, green, screen and lath houses, irrigation facilities,
mobility, etc. have also considerably developed. Nonetheless, its research facilities
have yet to be strengthened. As it stands now, laboratory and field equipment
are insufficient, outdated and poorly maintained. There is a dire shortage and
obsolescence of laboratory facilities, vehicles and farm machineries, reference
materials, and poor ICT connectivity. Therefore, the research system requires
first rate field, greenhouse facilities, farm machineries, laboratory equipment,
irrigation facilities, and seed processing machines, laboratories, biotechnology
and bioinformatics facilities, geospatial technologies, and ICT. In the world of
Information Technology era, new methods of scientific data collection, analysis,
and knowledge dissemination are needed. Hence, embracing digital technology
and IT perceptive and digital native researchers are paramount importance.

11.2 Financial resources capacity

In Ethiopia, major fund for agricultural research comes from government sources
and it is on an increasing trend. In its year of establishment, EIAR started with
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

a total cash investment of only 2.3m ETB (1.4m from Donor support) Abebe
Kirub and Fentahun Mengistu (2015). In 1983, EIAR received a total of 11m Birr
and it was raised to 27m Birr in 1986, and 81m in 2005. Especially, the research
budget has radically increased since 2007 where EIAR had received 109m Birr.
During the GTPI period (2011 and 2015) the budget has more than doubled from
164.2 to 353.4m Birr. In 2015/16, EIAR’s government sourced budget reached
half a million Birr though most of the money goes for pay roll expenses leaving
little money for operational expenses (Figure 4). In addition, through partnerships
and collaborative research EIAR receives on average 50m Birr a year and some
10m Birr from internal revenue. The same trend was followed for the country’s
overall research system. For instance, the national agricultural research spending
had increased by a modest 8% during 2008-11 (ASTI, 2014).

Apart from government, different donors including the World Bank that has been
instrumental in laying the basic infrastructure and building human capacity have
also financed the agricultural research system. The coming into being of IAR
itself was funded by UNDP and FAO. This has continued till date in different
forms and modalities. In the year 1977, UNDP funded 4.7m USD (with 35 m
ETB matching fund). Between 1985-1994 World Bank (IDA) funded agricultural
research via Agricultural Research Project (21m USD), the Agricultural Research
and Training Project - Ethiopia (1999- 2005), the Rural Capacity Building Project
(2007-12), and the East African Agricultural Productivity Project, 30m USD
(2010-14). Upon forging international partnership with International Agricultural
Research Institutes, universities, and donor organizations there has been also
attempt to solicit some fund for commodities of global importance. Nonetheless,
indigenous commodities as coffee, tef, durum wheat, noug, indigenous animal
breeds, etc. have always received little interest or support from international
research partners and donors. If at all they show interest, concern of germplasm
from our side often stifles the process.

Figure 4. Government budget allocation for IAR/EIAR by year

36
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Despite these positive trends, the intensity of the country’s agricultural

research investment effort remains far below the sub-Saharan African
average (Beintema and Menelik Solomon, 2003) and is one of the lowest
in Africa standing just at 0.19% in 2011 as against 1.22%, 1.22%, and
0.54% for Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania in that order, and against a
CAADP target of 1%. Besides, budget appropriation is skewed towards
Crop research (55%) compared to livestock (18%) and forestry (6%),
and within crop sector grain crops as wheat and maize dominate the
allocation (Table 2). Another problem is that research budget allocation
does not take into account the need for research to comply with seasonal
agricultural cycles affecting the timely running of research projects.
Table 2. Comparison of Ethiopia and East African countries in agricultural research spending
Total spending, 2011 Overall spending growth Spending as a share of
Country
(million 2005 USD) (%), 2008-2001 AgGDP (%), 2011
Ethiopia 69.6 8 0.19
Kenya 188.1 11 1.22
Uganda 106.8 15 1.22
Tanzania 81.4 5 0.54

11.3 Human Resources Development

Our scientific research endeavors require outstanding scientists that are the
lifeblood of scientific work. Scientists of diverse disciplines are the gold nuggets
of our Institute, which the institute draws on them for its technology development
pursuits that laid the basis for agricultural revolution in this country. Over the
years, imbued with good institutional culture and enduring hardship, Ethiopian
agricultural researchers assigned at the far corners of the country devoted
themselves heart and soul to their work and made truly successful contributions.

Starting with a few researchers the research work force has indeed grown
tremendously both in number and disciplinary ramification. If we look back in
history of EIAR, in 1986, EIAR had only 210 researchers at degree level and it had
1323 staff (Seme Debela 1986, unpublished). After two decades, its researchers
rose to 629 as at 2006 (Tsedeke Abate, 2007) which is a 200% increase. After a
decade today, EIAR alone has more than 1000 researchers and over 4000 total
staff, which is a more than 50% rise.

Nonetheless, as regards work force we should admit that we are yet largely in
the kingdom of necessity. As regards work force development, the research
system generally faces two major bottlenecks; lack of seasoned researchers and
researchers attrition.

37
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Ethiopia has one of the fastest growing, but youngest and least-qualified pools of
agricultural researchers in Africa which is both a challenge and opportunity. The
NARS researchers with BScs (57%) compares with 15% in South Africa, 1% in
Brazil and nil in India. Likewise, while our PhD holder researchers stand at 8%,
it is 37%, 75% and 86% in South Africa, Brazil and India, respectively (EARS,
2014).

Although the total number of researchers as at 2006/7 rose to 3215 the education
profile did not change much; 8% PhD, 35% MSc and 57% BSc. In terms of
institutional distribution, 32.9% were in EIAR, 43.3% in RARIs and 23.8% in
universities. Share of female researchers was only 10.6% (Figure 5). In the same
year, the Brazil NARS had consisted of 5375.5 researchers of which 2215 of them
were that of EMBRAPA.

On the other hand, EARS suffered heavy staff attrition of trained staff; for instance
of those 385 who have been sent for training between 1995 and 2000, 68(18%)
have not returned (Tsedeke Abate, 2007). Especially, in early 2010 the research
system lost 640 researchers of which EIAR alone lost 195 researchers and few
support staff (EARS 2014). Survey results by Agricultural Transformation Agency
showed that 52% of the researchers served for less than five years and only 11%
served for more than 20 years. Furthermore, while the number of research staff
has grown in the order of 30% over the past five years, attrition has been higher,
accounting for 33% of total researchers (ATA 2013).

Happily, however, for the recent rise in salary and incentives there is a sign of
reversal. Some researchers who had left the system in hunt of better pay showed
interest for a return. To tackle the lack of seasoned researchers at EIAR, some
retired staff are re-instated on short term contracts to provide mentoring services.
In addition, contingent their physical and intellectual fitness, in most instances
researchers’ pension terms are extended up to 5 years.

Figure 5. NARS work force status, 2014 (Source: EARC Roadmap)

38
12. What is next for Agricultural Research?

12.1 Global development trends

By the turn of 20th century, public investments in modern scientific research for
agriculture led to dramatic yield breakthroughs resulting in most countries achieve
sustained food surpluses. Despite these accomplishments, on the other hand, there
is a growing concern of environmental problems associated with agriculture,
which if not checked, threaten future levels of agricultural productivity, as well
as impose serious health risks and loss of ecosystem services (Hazell and Wood,
2014).

Global predictions indicate that agriculture in the 21st century will likely face
multiple challenges. Demand for agricultural production worldwide will be
increasing for the global population growth, changes in consumption patterns as
well as growing demands for new non-food uses as bio-energy and bio-products.
Agricultural land resources are finite and productivity gains for major agricultural
commodities, which were achieved in the past decades, are slowing down partly
due to lower investments in research or the adverse impact of climate change.
Natural resources, such as soils and water, that underpin agricultural production,
face strong pressures due to inappropriate practices and overuse (EU 2015).

Therefore, agriculture has to produce more food and fibre to feed a growing
population with tightening resources and under the influence of climate change
(FAO, 2011). This calls for a new wave of productivity increases to sustainably
meet this demand (Pardey and Beddow, 2013). These emerging trends will have
far-reaching implications for Ethiopia’s agricultural and economic development
and competitiveness.

12.2 Country trends

In Ethiopia too, the socio-economic and environmental landscapes have
undergone profound changes in the last few decades and agriculture is witnessing
fundamental changes and challenges. The population has increased from 22.5m in
1960 to 65.6m in 2000 to 84.3m in 2012, which is more than 4 fold in 5 decades
(Demis Chanyalew, 2015) and is projected to reach 188m in 2050.
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

The natural resource base that is the basis of agricultural development and source
of ecosystem services has been degrading for over the centuries, which now show
a sign of recuperation and restoration. Agriculture input use and management
are significantly increased over the last years. Certainly, technological /technical
changes are taking place within every nooks and cranny of the country. Agricultural
production and productivity are at increase; beyond sustenance, agriculture
is becoming a lucrative business than ever. It is also evident that the goal of
agricultural development is changing a lot from just a mere food production and
achieving food security to broader areas of nutrition, agro-industry, and export
market development.

There is a demonstrable record of an impressive feat in rural infrastructure like road

network, transportation, water, electricity, telephone, etc. Social development is
on the rise as can be seen by the mushrooming of education and health institutions.
Capacity has improved at all level that knowledge, skill, awareness, planning
and analytical capacity of farmers’, extensionists, policy makers, etc. improved.
Social capital is improving and social experimentation and learning from own
experiences are snowballing and setting off technical progress. Urbanization is at
increase both in sub-urban and peri-urban areas and even in rural areas.

To unleash the true production potential of agriculture, production is being

guided in an agro-ecological zone based production, and specialization with
diversification. To facilitate input-output market and exploit the advantage of
aggregation agricultural production clusters and integrated agro-industry parks
are being established. Farmers are oriented towards commercial production. In
a rapidly changing global environment therefore, the country needs to seize the
opportunity and take advantage of these emerging situations.

12.3 Future orientation of agricultural research

There are yet several challenges impeding our agricultural development. Our
agricultural productivity remains quite low and millions remain undernourished
and their remains a specter of poverty yet. Confounded with climate change,
for the burgeoning population, and dwindling natural resources the demands on
agriculture to become more efficient and productive are greater than ever.

Without modern science and technology, it is impossible to build a modern

agriculture and in turn without rapid development of agriculture, there can be
no rapid development of the economy. There is no doubt that in the last 50
years, Ethiopian Agricultural Research has helped to increase agricultural
production and productivity and improved food security and poverty reduction.
Agricultural research in Science and Technology will continue to be the main
engine of development in the near future. There is, therefore, an increasing need
for agricultural knowledge and technology both for prevailing and emerging
challenges. High yielding crop varieties than that exist at present, improved
animal breeds, technologies for industrial and export commodities, irrigation,
40
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

technologies addressing biotic and abiotic constraints, farm implements and

structures, high quality products, high nutritive value, post-harvest technologies,
technologies for climate change adaptation and mitigation, non-food application
of the bio-economy (bioenergy, biochemical, biomaterials), etc.. Generally,
there is a need to address several areas from crop and commodity productivity
maximization to research on food and nutrition security, poverty alleviation,
policy, ecological sustainability and equity issues.

In Ethiopia, for the AEZ complexity, there are several unaddressed or less
addressed AEZs that require a variety of customized solutions adapted to a variety
of contexts. Therefore, while aiming at increasing production of high value
commercial crops grown in high potential areas, there is also an increasing need
for improving the competitiveness of traditional food crops grown in less marginal
environments. This include as high and low moisture stressed areas, dry lands,
frost prone highlands, pastoral, semi-pastoral areas, western humid-hot lowlands,
urban/ suburbs, and flood plains. Also, in terms of addressing stakeholder and
customer demand, the research system would need to focus on youth, women,
people with disabilities or socially vulnerable, commercial farmers, herders,
urbanites, etc. which are either unaddressed or less addressed.

12.4 Responding to Agricultural Development Needs

The agricultural research system should be in the lookout for evolving national
and global opportunities and envisaged challenges that agriculture sector
will face in delivering high yielding crops, improved animal breeds, pest and
disease management techniques, post-harvest technologies, and climate smart
technologies. The research system in order to adapt and respond to the evolving
technology demands it needs, among others, to ensure that it follows a sustainable
development trajectory and address issues holistically, has a clear strategy,
innovative research approach, capacity and capability, and embrace frontier
sciences. These points are briefly discussed as below.
12.4.1 Research in sustainable agriculture
New prototypes of agricultural research in the 21st century require creating a
more efficient and productive agriculture without further endangering ecosystem
services; i.e. sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture is agricultural
production using techniques that protect the environment, public health, human
communities, and animal welfare. This is a kind of farming system, which can
sustain without degrading land, the environment, or people. Put another way, it is
about an agriculture archetype that meets the needs of the present generation while
conserving resources for the use of future generations. Therefore, agriculture
needs to be economically viable, socially supportive, and acceptable, and
ecologically and environmentally sound. This implies that agricultural research
should achieve a doubly green revolution that ensures productivity increases
while providing adequate responses to environmental concerns, and within the
context of sustainable development; i.e. it should achieve smarter solutions.
41
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

This takes us to a concept dubbed sustainable intensification, which is about

producing more output from the same area of land while reducing the negative
environmental impacts and at the same time increasing contributions to natural
capital and the flow of environmental services. Sustainable intensification is in
stark contrast to Green Revolution intensification, which the latter ‘s intensification
has been guided by the improvement of genetic potentials of crop and animal
genotypes but with greater application of external inputs of agrochemicals for
plant nutrition and pest control and increased mechanical disturbance of exposed
soil and terrain with tillage for crop establishment and other farming operations.
Therefore, sustainable intensification requires agricultural research to consider
ecological and genetic intensification within enabling environments created by
processes of socio-economic intensification.

In terms of genetic intensification, application of genetics using techniques of

cell and tissue culture and Marker Assisted Selection, genetic engineering, etc.
can help bring biology-based green revolution through improving productivity
gains, enabling crops to be adapted in response to climate change, to be custom
engineered for varying ecosystems, and to introduce resistance to biotic stresses
(ADB, 2011).

Ecological intensification is, on the otherhand, about agricultural practices and

systems, which optimize the use of ecosystem services to produce while saving
on fossil resources, reducing mineral fertilizer and pesticide use and water and
minimizing threats to habitats and biodiversity (EU, 2015). Of course, maintaining
biodiversity and various ecosystems provide many different services to both
agricultural production and humanity; production, protection and regulation
services. Ecological intensification can be achieved through efficient farming
systems as composite farming, integrated crop management, integrated nutrient
management, integrated pest management, and integrated water management.
This is about the application of ecology-based interventions as intercropping,
climate smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, precision agriculture, micro-
irrigation, targeted irrigation, use of drones for insect and disease monitoring,
irrigation needs, and Integrated Pest management.

Besides, innovative and sustainable institutions on the farm, in the community,

and regions can bring about socio-economic intensification, which include
elements of sustainable livelihoods: building social and human and the physical
capital on land.

Knowing that sustainable intensification is a possible trajectory of the future

of agriculture serving as a global framework for agricultural production, due
emphasis needs to be given for the linkages and interdependency between the
economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development
and their balanced integration in future agricultural research and development
in the country. This also implies that innovations need to take specificities of
local conditions into consideration and provide tailor-made solutions which

42
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

require mobilizing all available knowledge sources; not only formal but also tacit
knowledge at farm and business level in the process of knowledge co-creation and
appropriation.
12.4.2 Systems approach
In the past, agricultural systems developed based on simplifying natural
resources. Hence, advances in agriculture have often resulted from innovations on
single components (such as breeding, chemical inputs, irrigation technologies),
EU, 2015. In the context of changing socio-economic, cultural, and political
environment and a higher speed of change and shorter reaction time to prepare
for unexpected developments, however, effective approaches of today will be
insufficient for the future. Strong feedbacks between environmental, social, and
economic systems increase changes, uncertainty, and risks making targeting
a single problem inadequate. Therefore, future solutions are expected to arise
from the optimization of systems, i.e. the optimization of the interplay between
their components demanding a shift from the current approach towards taking
advantage of the complexity of nature.

A system is a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent or interacting

elements forming a collective entity and capable of reacting as a whole to external
stimuli (Mettrick, 1993). System consists of processes (input-throughput-output),
hierarchies, sub-systems, boundaries, feedback, emergent properties and interacts
with its environment.

Our farmers’ profile and agricultural portfolios are so diverse and complex that
providing solutions for one or a few enterprises cannot positively change the
entire system; rather it creates a kind of disequilibrium analogue to the concept
of the law of the minimum. Therefore, a-dab-of-this and a-bit of-that approaches
cannot profoundly solve farmers’ complex problems. Rather, acknowledging the
increased complexity of agricultural systems it is important to approach in systems
perspective and a more complex process of systemic innovation by having a better
literacy of agro-ecosystems, socio-cultural and economic situations.

Overall, a much wider research agenda is required that is well beyond the
traditional agricultural disciplines (Ritter, 2012) to intervene at the levels of
landscapes, ecosystems, value chains, etc.. This in turn requires casting a wide
net to involve as many stakeholders and far more inter- and trans-disciplinary
research. Hence, acknowledging the increased complexity of agricultural systems
future agricultural research need to shift from simplicity to complex multi-
stakeholder R & D processes, multi-disciplinarily and multiple value chains.
12.4.3 Leveraging cuttingedge sciences
In countries that are undergone a successful green revolution in agriculture like
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Philippines and Mexico, technological inputs
had played key role that were sourced from agricultural research undertaken in

43
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

genetics, crop and animal husbandry, weed, pest, and disease control through
chemical inputs and Integrated Pest management (IPM), modern farm machinery,
post-harvest, and value addition. Nevertheless, productivity increases have often
came at significant environmental costs.

Nevertheless, as has been discussed in previous chapters the agriculture of today

needs to follow a sustainable production trajectory. The challenge with such
kind of growth path is that given the scale of the increases in production and
productivity required whether the technologies associated with the new approach
can bring significant inroads into yield gaps, and if at all we can do that, can we
achieve socially supportive and environmentally sound agricultural development
goals?

Fortunately, we are now on the cusp of a new era where developments in

modern biosciences are providing significant new opportunities for productivity
enhancement in a sustainable way (ICAR, 2011). Biology-based green revolution
as genetic engineering help us achieve productivity gains that would enable
crops, livestock, fish and trees to be adapted in response to climate change, to be
custom engineered for varying ecosystems, and to introduce resistance to biotic
stresses (ADB, 2011). It can, for instance, help decreasing the water requirement
of crops by selection for traits that increase the rate of photosynthesis, depth of
root structure, and decrease the rate at which water is lost through transpiration.

Genome sequencing and marker-assisted breeding could help tailoring plants and
animals to respond rapidly to climate change and nutrient deficiencies. Especially,
the emergence of an important new approach, the clustered, regularly interspaced,
short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) technology will give us the opportunity to
perform targeted, highly efficient alterations of genome sequence and gene
expression and spur the development and use of our rich genetic resources.

Ethiopian NARS will need to embrace contemporary science and technology

tools like modern biotechnology, bioinformatics, genomics, nanotechnology, ICT,
and remote sensing to develop the country’s natural resources through agriculture
and related land uses to compete on the world markets. Should the country
make a speedy catch up, the research system should not restrict itself to only
widely known and applied bio-techniques; rather it should also target exploring
opportunities of cutting age sciences and technology products as genetically
engineered commodities (Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs). GMOs can,
for instance, help farmers fight climate change through improving water use
efficiency, less fuel consumption on farms via reduced need to spray crops, better
C sequestration via a less tillage or ploughing and more crop residue can be left on
the fields, less carbon in the soil released into the atmosphere, reduced fertilizer
use and N2O emissions, etc.

To scale the heights of modern science and technology EIAR had started
agricultural biotechnology research activities a decade ago, and it pioneered to

44
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

establish a fully-fledged national agricultural biotechnology research center on

the eve of its 50th year anniversary. This should take us forward in our endeavor
and advance towards the mastery of modern science and technology to improve
our research efficiency, better targeting of technologies and also identifying
production and marketing environments.
12.4.4 Emphasis on climate change research
Climate change is already having an impact on the country’s agriculture as seen
forcefully in the 2015 drought in several parts of the country just as we celebrate
the Golden Jubilee. Other manifestations include extreme weather events,
shrinkage of water bodies, floods, and increased incidence of pests and diseases.
The capacity of agriculture to deliver food and public goods is directly dependent
on climatic conditions. Besides contributing to and being affected by climatic
changes, agriculture can play a key role in providing solutions for mitigation in
particular by sequestering carbon and reducing net GHG emissions (EU 2015).

Thus, considerable efforts are necessary to better understand the impacts of

climate change and to strengthen the adaptive capacity and resilience of farming.
Especially, understanding the positive and negative feedback loops whereby
climate change affects agriculture and agricultural practices, in turn affect climate
change, and the status of resource inputs is key to design mitigation and adaptation
solutions and ultimately ensure long-term productivity of the sector. Research is
also necessary to unfold the capacity of the sector to mitigate GHG emissions
without undermining its productive potential and overall competitiveness.

In Ethiopia, the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation, and green
economy path is guided by CRGE strategy that also guides and influences the
agricultural research agenda. Research on climate change effects on agriculture
is under way since in 1989 at EIAR, yet great efforts appear required at various
temporal and spatial scales. Climate Smart Research Strategy has been considered
as limelight in guiding the research process as a whole. Hence, strengthening
climate change research needs to be accorded higher focus in the NARS.
12.4.5 Focus on social science research
Customarily the NARS instituted the Agricultural economics Department to
address issues as problem diagnosis, technology verification, profitability studies,
adoption and impact studies, market studies, etc. As the socio-economic and agro-
ecological landscape is fast changing, farmers are guided towards market oriented
agricultural production, the dire need for efficient agriculture building on and
strengthening social sciences research is imperative. Social science research can
also play a crucial role to underpin the design and implementation of efficient and
effective policies, which affect rural areas and food systems. This further requires
diversifying the existing staff mix from dominantly economists to sociologists,
anthropologists, etc.

45
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

12.4.6 Balancing between technology generation and adaptation

The fact that agricultural research is a venture with long gestation period on
one hand and public expectation and wish for short-term benefits on the other,
presents a tough challenge to the research system. Therefore, to continue to
win public support the research system should devise a strategy of a research
portfolio capable of providing short-term outputs while keeping long-term
objectives of significant outcomes on track. In this regard, it is well known that
research findings have the potential to spill both into and out of local areas, and
that spillovers have been a pivotal part of the history of agricultural innovation.
The agriculture and STI policies of Ethiopia speak emphatically of technology
adaptation. Literature also tells us that many developing countries have made
progresses through investments that focused first on the entry stage of technical
imitation before moving onto innovation.

The research system in Ethiopia has been adapting technologies since 1970s that
continued intensified to the present day. While building a national research capacity
and capability, technology-shopping needs to continue strengthened to the extent
that some technologies would be purchased on a royalty fee basis. NARS should
therefore take full advantage of the vast stocks of knowledge that exist elsewhere
in the world and tap it to spur innovations in the country. And it needs to do it
so, not only just today when we are laggards but also after we catch up to learn
from others’ unique competences. Nonetheless, a word of caution is in order in
adapting technologies. Technology adaptation is not a simple technological fix;
rather it needs a “system approach” which systems are much harder to export than
a simple fix (The Economist 2010). Therefore, besides a better understanding of
the background of the spill in technology, applying interventions in an integrated
way is needed.

While such exploitation of proven technologies will provide the greatest gain in
the short time and help us live up to the expectations of beneficiaries, however,
this will diminish in time. Of course, no country can grow sustainably relying
only on technology adaptation and by becoming a copycat indefinitely. Of course,
technology for agriculture is too important to be outsourced for life. Therefore,
NARS has to build domestic research capacity to develop adequate homegrown
technologies and ensure technology security. The bottom line is that the research
system needs to balance between exploitation of proven technologies elsewhere
and exploration of new knowledge and technologies within the system. This
means that NARS should have capability to generate new knowledge as well as
the capacity for smart borrowing of scientific findings elsewhere for adaptation to
local situations.
12.4.7 Maintaining equilibrium between applied and basic research
For the last 50 years now our research system has been focusing on applied
research, and that was indeed a right direction and needs to continue strengthened.
Indeed, for science to serve as a powerful tool for development a very strong

46
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

applied research is required. Nevertheless, since new products do not appear

full-grown new stimulus is required for basic research as it is a leading light of
technological progress. Basic research is a kingpin of technological progress.
Several of the most vital findings of the world have come because of research
undertaken with different purposes in mind. As Edward Teller quoted it “Today’s
science is tomorrow’s technology”. Hence, going forward without losing sight of
applied research Ethiopian NARS need to gradually shift to and make use of basic
research as pacemaker of technological progress in the research system. This will
enable us rely on our own efforts, develop our own imagination and endure in
freedom and self-sufficiency while protecting our sovereignty.

12.5 Institutional innovation

The three most important factors influencing change and innovative capabilities
are human resources, organizational cultures, and governance structures (Ekboir,
et al., 2009). In light of this, the following issues need to be addressed in Ethiopian
NARS.
12.5.1 Propelling research by a long-term strategy
The future is veiled with uncertainty; hence, it would be difficult to precisely
draw a clear portrait of a long-term trajectory for agricultural research. To avoid
surprising developments in the uncertain world, however, leading the agricultural
research with foresight and anticipatory governance would be crucial. Most
importantly, in view of the changing and complex reality and given the nature
of the societal challenges ahead, having strategic and long-term orientation of
research agenda is very important. In this vein, agricultural research is expected
to not only address immediate problems but also at the same time anticipate
future needs to guide farming solutions and approaches of the future. A long-
term sight on research demands and investment is particularly important given
the time lag between the initiation of research and the delivery of results and their
uptake by users and ultimate translation into development. A long-term strategy
will generally help improving the research system’s consistency, sequencing, and
impact in undertaking priority research.

Apart from the tasks and responsibilities indicated in its proclamations, IAR has
not had clear long-term strategies at the beginning. Because of this, in much of
its trail especially in its formative and early stages the research system has been
mainly relying on its proclamations and proceeds of the different scientific forums
of the then time, for instance, the National Crop Improvement Conference (NCIC)
to guide its directions and priorities.

The first attempt to formulate an agricultural research policy was in 1979 by the
Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission. The next was in July 1984 when
a 10 years Agricultural Development Plan, on which research debossed in, was
developed in alignment with the 10 years Perspective Plan. Again, in 1994 there
has been an attempt to develop agricultural research policy, though it lacks legal

47
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

framework and was not implemented. The first systematic effort to formulate a
well-organized plan was during that of Strategic Plan Management, SPM in 1997.

In the year 2009, EARO developed a robust 15 years National Agricultural

Research Strategy that later reframed in alignment with the countrywide
institutional reform BPR in 2009. In 2015, a comprehensive far-sighted National
Agricultural Research Roadmap has been developed by the Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Council, which articulates the trajectory of the research system for a
catch up through harnessing the power of science. In line with this roadmap and as
a continuation of the concluded strategic plan, EIAR prepared a 15 years National
Agricultural Research Strategy (2016-30) for all research programs that its short-
term objective is aligned with its GTPII plan. The strategy is developed within the
context and in conformity with new and evolving global and national emerging
trends while taking advantage of the current and emerging opportunities. It is
however heavy on the primary sector though it establishes relevant links to the
value chain. Hence, it needs to serve a live document and refined based on the
responses from downstream in value chains.
12.5.2 Fostering research through Monitoring Learning and Evaluation
Both the systematic collection and analysis of data on specific indicators to
generate information on progress and achievements of research projects (known
as Monitoring) and a periodic assessment of their significance (known as
Evaluation) are critically important in the research system. A strong MLE system
is important to check if implementation is going on as planned and iteratively
and timely take corrective action when needed, assess the impact of research,
and draw lessons for better performance and accountability. Institutionalizing
a strong MLE system generally helps to track effectiveness and efficiency of
the implementation process, relevance of outputs generated and outcomes and
impacts of results on users. In fact, in the NARS M&E is usually embedded in
research project proposals very little follow up is made to it though, and if at all
follow up is made it is via the classic bean counting fashion. Despite such efforts,
however, the Ethiopian NARS generally lacks a strong institutional MLE system.
Consequently, there appear instances of overrun projects, discontinued projects,
underperformed projects, etc. that significantly affect resource utilization, and
ultimately impact of the research.

The MLE strategy needs to be developed in such a way that it will provide
management with timely information and advice for improving performance of
research activities; aid learning and accountability both within the institution and
partners engaged in implementing collaborative projects. This could be effected
by conducting ex ante evaluation through project appraisal, tracking and reporting
progress on implementation of various initiatives. The MLE system should also
be designed in a way it facilitates organizational lessons learning for performance
improvement.

48
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

The MLE system needs to be supported by efficient ICT infrastructure, and

information management systems. Especially, creating and populating a
searchable database on approved research projects and outputs would be
paramount importance. It is therefore imperative to institutionalize a well built
Monitoring Learning and Evaluation System. EIAR has started developing such a
strategy that could be used by the entire NARS.
12.5.3 Strengthening research coordination
Ethiopia being a big country with diverse agro-ecological zone and socio-
economic settings, it requires varied research services and solutions through a
more attuned locally relevant research agenda. In addition, it being a federated
country where agricultural development agenda is more of regional, research
decentralization is expedient for addressing specific needs of local community and
making agricultural research more outward looking, client oriented, and impact
driven by bringing agricultural researchers closer to their clients- the farmers. As
agricultural is vividly delinated by agricultural ecologies than political boundaries,
research decentralization would have been better served if it had been based on
agro-ecologies than by administrative classification.

Cognizant of the above the agricultural research system in Ethiopia has been
administratively decentralized in early 1990s following the country’s federal
structure. Following this, there had to be a mechanism whereby decentralized
research and innovation but a central learning process and coordination system
put in place; which unfortunately was not. Consequently, as seen over the years
the decentralized research system has had several weaknesses of which lack of
seamless coordination among the constituents being a serious one. Therefore,
the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Council (EARC) came into picture in 2014
poised to provide overall facilitation and coordination role for the agricultural
research system.

The overall mandate of the newly formed EARC is to provide leadership and
facilitation of strategy and priority setting; take a leadership position in brokering,
nurturing, and coordinating effective research partnerships at national and global
levels, and enhance knowledge management. It is clear that, EARC is not a
replacement of handling technical/research level national coordination Otherwise;
iy would be bogged in micromanagement that brings conflict of interest with
EIAR. At the core of the technical coordination is a national commodity team
instituted in a research center designated as center of coordination, in which
EARC’s role will be expediting the identification of such centers leaving the
technical coordination to research institutions.. In this exercise of organizing
national commodities, it is advisable that Ethiopian NARS follows suit the
EMBRAPA experience that combines product, resources, and theme approaches.
Besides, given the difficulty of manageing financial resources sourced from the
federal government in the incumbent federal administration arrangement of the
country, it is recommended that national coordination role is given to the federal
research institution, EIAR, which it can delegate some of the responsibilities to

49
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

universities and regional research institutes as necessary. As science is a collective

action NARS constituents need to mobilize all their scientific professionals to
collaborate in vigorous spirit with one heart and mind to storm strongholds of
science.
12.5.4 Strengthening research partnership
The agenda for agricultural research has dramatically changed, as have the
role and contribution as well as the demand for agriculture. Today, agricultural
development is not the automatic outcome of a linear process of knowledge and
technology creation, application, adaptation, and transfer; rather it is a far more
complex, less predictable process that is integrated with research but subject to
forces beyond the control of any one institution. This goes far beyond merely
technological innovations to all dimensions of innovation mobilization by way of
interactive innovation model to foster knowledge exchange between all relevant
actors.

On the other hand, science is cumulative with a snowball effect which much of
today’s agricultural production uses genetic material and knowledge that had
its source thousands of miles away. Today, most fresh challenges like climate
change demand a worldwide coordinated effort to tackle the problems. Hence,
in today’s globalized world it is crucial for the research system’s very existence
to improve the mechanisms of interaction with other countries, universities,
research institutions, development agencies, funding bodies, etc. For this,
improved engagement modalities with a wider-set of stakeholders and new types
of institutional capacities are required. In this regard, EIAR has been serving a
gateway for IARs especially CGIARs. Going forward, therefore, the research
system needs to cast a wider net and foster linkage and collaborations with public
and private, national and international organizations. The newly formed EARC is
expected to stretch the existing attempts further.
12.5.5 Improving rresearch governance
Governance is a space for collective action and it includes dimensions of operating
processes. Research institutions should ensure that there exist an atmosphere
relatively free from the adverse pressure and excessive bureaucracy, and a
substantial degree of personal scholarly liberty for scientists work. Currently,
research institutions are managed under policies and practices used for managing
staff in other public sector institutions. However, the agricultural research system
varies considerably in various ways from other public service institutions. For
instance, the planning time for the subsequent fiscal year is concluded far ahead
in the prevailing fiscal year; the final outputs are hardly gotten in the same year of
planning; research is a team work which is difficult to evaluate individual efforts,
its complex network makes timely financial transaction and report flow difficult.
With such idiosyncrasies, it is often difficult to strictely apply public service rules
and regulations in the research governance.

50
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Taking a leaf from other country’s experiences like EMBRAPA (Brazil) and ARC
(Sudan), therefore, one option that could be considered in Ethiopian NARS is
to institute the research system as a public Agricultural Research Corporation.
This would release it from the bureaucratic rules used in the public Service
administration, and thus give it the flexibility to administer resources and personnel,
while the relationship with the outside world and with the private initiative would
be much easier. The research system especially EIAR’s status needs also to be
equated to the Universities which can be done through promoting it to a deemed
university status. Complemented by a contractual employment and strong staff
performance appraisal system tied to the tenure structure, this arrangement would
indeed substantially enhance accountability, effectiveness, and organizational
impact. We understand, however, that these unfamiliar suggestions would be an
uphill struggle on the part of policy makers, which we believe much effort is
needed to convince.
12.5.6 Building research capacity
Research investment in science and technology requires large amounts of capital,
educated labor, and sophisticated equipment. History indicates that countries that
succeeded in catching up have indeed dedicated substantially more resources to
the acquisition, assimilation, and adaptation of imported technologies than those
devoted fewer resources (Ekboir et al., 2009).

Of all, for transformation of Science and Technology we must have an enormous

scientific force with adequate competitive intellect and inner drive. Hence, the
research system needs to develop and nurture first-rate competitive scientists of
up to the highest global standard and befitting global competition. Nonetheless,
the research system is still to a great extent in the kingdom of necessity. Indeed,
Ethiopia has one of the fastest growing but youngest and least-qualified pools of
agricultural researchers in Africa. On the other hand, EARS suffered heavy staff
attrition of trained staff, which has resulted in generation gap, which makes the
recruitment, and nurturing of younger generation even more urgent. Therefore,
there should be a comprehensive long-term work force development and retention
strategy. This could include recruiting unique talents; re-engagement of old-
handed retirees, joint-appointment, temporary transfer of research scientists,
aggressive long-term training at home and abroad, instituting short-term skill
development centers, etc.

Institution building wise, undoubtedly the NARS research capacity to service

agriculture has been substantially improved over the years that it has grown to
a full-bodied institution capable of running a nationally coordinated research.
Nonetheless, the science today is changing rapidly with the emergence of new tools,
methods, techniques, and approaches that promise technological breakthroughs
(ICAR, 2011). While revitalizing the existing facilities, based on the concept of
center of excellence, there needs to be also a strong investment on modern line
facilities such as avant-grade laboratories, first-rate field and greenhouse facilities,

51
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

bioinformatics, geospatial technology, new equipment models and softwares,

and digital technologies. Rekindling of knowledge management also deserves a
profound position in the research processes.

In Ethiopia, major fund for agricultural research comes from government sources
and it is on an increasing trend. In its year of establishment EIAR started with
a total cash investment of only 2.3m Birr (1.4m from Donor) Abebe Kirub and
Fentahun Mengistu (2015) while in 2016/17 EFY it reached over 0.5 billion Birr.
Despite these positive trends, however, the intensity of the country’s agricultural
research investment effort remains far below the Sub-Saharan African average
(Beintema and Menelik Solomon, 2003) and is one of the lowest in Africa standing
just at 0.19% in 2011as against 1.22%, 1.22% and 0.54% for Kenya, Uganda and
Tanzania in that order, and CAADP target of 1%.

To respond to the emerging complex challenges a reliable and adequate funding

addressing a much broader research agenda would be crucial. Thus, research
financing and intensity need to increase, and consistent with the CAADP target
commitment the government needs to allocate 1% of the agricultural GDP for
research. G55

Indigenous commodities such as coffee, tef, durum wheat, noug, animal breeds are
not capturing the attention of international research partners and donors interest;
hence, we are not ready to collaborate in fear of unfair exchange of germplasm.
This calls for the diligence of the government to give more attention in prioritizing
adequate domestic funding for these commodities. The research institutions
need to be privileged to use internal revenues flexibly for staff motivation and
reinforce minor capacity loopholes. Income could be generated from research
byproducts, training, royalty, consultancy, government levies, and trust funds.
Domestic philanthropic organizations need to be encouraged to establish research
foundations to fund research. Contractual research bidding with or commissioned
by private firms and cooperatives, strengthening capacity for competitive grants,
etc. might also need to be resorted to. In addition, occasionally loan/donor
support may need to be solicited especially for capacity building. Besides, forging
international partnership including Ethiopian Diaspora employed at S&T and
other institutions abroad and crowd funding is necessary. Commercialization of
technologies through organized intellectual property rights and benefit-sharing
system can generate funds. Creating parastatal business entities like seed and milk
processing, TC and other laboratory services within the research system can also
help. Overall, research institutions need to be provided with adequate, timely,
reliable access to modern facilities, finance, and inputs that are needed to conduct
quality research.

52
13. Conclusion

The Ethiopian agricultural research has been instrumental in contributing to

the improvement of agriculture and economic development. As the research
system enters into another half century, therefore, the lessons learnt from the
past efforts, need to continue to inform the work of new generations of scientists,
farmers, public, and policy makers of this great nation. These hard-won gains
by yesteryear’s efforts need to be sustained in the future changing environment
suggesting the need for backing up by a strong scientific research.

It is obvious that going forward, agriculture challenges will likely be more difficult
to deal than today as demand for food, feed, fiber and energy is increasing while
resource base is dwindling, entailing intensive scientific intervention. Evidently,
without modern science and technology, it is impossible to build a modern
agriculture; eventually no rapid and sustained development of the economy. It
is the difference in the accumulation of research results over the long haul that
accounts for a sizable share of the differences in agricultural productivity observed
around the world.

Agricultural research to respond to evolving needs there needs to be a paradigm

shift in the approaches, capacities, and speed of agricultural research. Accordingly,
in terms of research approach and focus there needs to be a system perspective
and pursuance of sustainable intensification while leveraging innovative sciences.
Given the scale of the problem, climate change needs to be given greater attention
than ever before. To understand the increasingly complex social and economic
dynamics social science research needs also to be given proper place. In addition,
a fair balance needs to be struck between technology adaptation and generation,
and applied and basic researches. It is needless to state that clear and functional
research strategy, seamless coordination, strong monitoring, evaluation and
learning systems, partnership, institutional innovation, and capacity building are
assuming a preponderance position in all research undertakings.

The essence of research lies in the adequacy and competence of researchers.

This equates researchers as lifeblood of scientific research. Therefore, research
system needs to create and nurture competent scientists of the balm of scientific
talent. At present, NARS does not have all the required staff with the right skills
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

and competencies needed for effective and efficient conduct and management of
agricultural research. For modernization of Science and Technology, therefore
we must have a mighty scientific and technical force with adequate competitive
intellect and inner drive for which it is very critical that the young people develop
interest and become eager in science and research as the future of science lies with
youth. Hence, putting appropriate succession plan in place, the research system
needs to develop and nurture first-rate competitive scientists of up to the highest
global standard and that could reach the pinnacle of science and befitting global
competition. For this, there needs to be a comprehensive long-term work force
development and retention strategy. This could include tapping into the unique
talents and passions of fresh graduates right from universities, re-engagement of
old-handed retires, joint-appointment, seconding, etc. While aggressively training
in domestic institutions, there is also a need to train the research workforce abroad
to Center of Excellence institutions so that they can learn and adapt external
knowledge and skills. This helps us ensure that we are not resting only on our
predecessors achievements but rather such achievements buttress our resolve
to catch up with and outdo countries that made advancement in science and
technology and conquer the heights of global science.

Since the flow of new scientific knowledge must be both incessant and substantial,
there is a need for a sustained financial support to strengthen the research
institutions especially in modern sciences though various innovative funding
mechanisms.

Modern line research infrastructure and facilities including functional laboratories

with adequate equipment and supply of chemicals and other consumables, ICT
connectivity and reliable electricity and water supply are deliberately essential
elements of the future agricultural research in Ethiopia. In this respect, investment-
based development is a prerequisite.

54
14 References

Abebe Kirub and Fentahun Mengistu. 2015. Ethiopian Agricultural Research:

from inception to Golden Jubilee (Amharic). Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research. ISBN: 978-99944-66-15-3, ETH-CANA P. PLc 338 pages.
Adams DW. 1970. Agricultural Development Strategies in Ethiopia. 1950-1970.The
Ohio State University
African Development bank (ADB). 2011. Africa in 50 years’ time. Thr road towards
inclusive growth. Tunis, Tunisia, September 2011
Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA). 2013. National Agriculture Research
System Diagnostic study. Addis Ababa
Beintema, N.M. and and Menelik Solomon. 2003. Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators. ASTI Country Brief No. 9, October 2003; IFPRI/ISNAR/EIAR
Beintema N, Mekonnen Hailu, Tesfaye Haregewoin, M Rahija, and Eyob Bezabeh.
2014. Agricultural R&D Indicators Factsheet | February 2014, Ethiopia
Central Statistical Authority (CSA). 2014. Area and production of major crops (private
peasant holdings, meher season). Statistical bulletin.
Cohen JM. 1987.Integrated Rural Development. The Ethiopian Experience and
debate.The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Motala Grafiska, Motala
1987
Demese Chanyalew. 2015. Ethiopia’s Indigenous policy and growth: agriculture,
pastoral and rural development. Addis Ababa, 867pages
Desta Hamito. 2004. Reflections on the contributions made by Ethiopian Agricultural
professionals, limitations experienced and ways forward, a keynote speech at the
inaugural conference of the Ethiopian Association of Agricultural professionals,
EARO, Addis Ababa.
EARS 2014. Ethiopan Agricultural Research Council Roadmap. Ethiopan Agricultural
Research Council (Amharic).
Edwards SB. 1992. Traditional tree crops in Ethiopia. Historical records and economic
importance. In: Natural Resources Management for conservation and development.
Proceedings of the second Natural Resources conservation conference.10-13 May
1990. Addis Ababa: Institute of Agricultural Research, 159-168.
Ekboir JM, G Dutrenit, VG Martin, AT Vargas, and AO Vera-Cruz. 2009.Successful
organizational learning in the management of agricultural research and innovation.
The Mexican Produce Foundations, Research Report, 162. IFPRI
EU 2015.Towards a long-term strategy for European agricultural research and
innovation by 2020 and beyond; June 19, 2015, EU Pavilion at Expo Milan
Fantu Nisrane, Guush Berhane, Bart Minten and Alemayehu Seyoum. 2015.
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Agricultural Growth in Ethiopia: Evidence and Drivers. ESSP, EDRI/IFPRI.

Working paper 81
FAO 2011. Looking ahead in world food and agriculture: Perspectives to 2050
FARA 2014. Science agenda for agriculture in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science”
to transform agriculture in Africa. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
(FARA), Accra, Ghana.
Fentahun Mengistu. 2015. Thoughts on Governance and Future Orientation of
Agricultural Research in Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci.: 25 17-30
Gatzweiler FW and JV Braun (eds). 2016. Technological and Institutional Innovations
for Marginalized Smallholders in Agricultural Development. Springer Cham
Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Halland H. 2004. Increased food security by utilizing wild edible fruits
in dry land Ethiopia. Online:http://internet.fredskorpset.no/templates/
FredskorpsDagbok19642.aspx. Last accessed on 10.07.2008.
Hazell P and S Wood. 2008. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B (2008) 363, 495–515
ICAR 2011. Vision 2030 of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New Delhi
Kaumbutho PG, RA Pearson, and TE Simalenga (eds), 2000. Empowering Farmers
with Animal Traction. Proceedings of the workshop of the Animal Traction
Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) held 20-24 September 1999,
Mpumalanga, South Africa. 344p. ISBN 0-907146-10-4
Mettrick H. 1993. Development oriented research in Agriculture. An ICRA text book,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Pardey PG and JM Beddow. 2013. Agricultural Innovation: The United States in a
Changing Global Reality. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, USA
Ritter W. 2012.The future orientation of agricultural research policy in times of
increasing uncertainty. Conference on Enhancing Innovation and Delivery of
Research in European Agriculture; 7th of March 2012, Brussels
Seme Debela.1986. A note on Research (unpublished), Institute of Agricultural
Research.
Tesfaye Asfaw.1991. An Overview of Ethiopia’s Planning Experience. The Ethiopian
Economy: Structure, Problems and Policy Issues. 27 pages
Tsedeke Abate. 2007. Focusing agricultural research to address development needs.
Direction for Agricultural research in Ethiopia. EIAR, 2007
Westphal E. 1975. Agricultural systems in Ethiopia. Agricultural research reports 826.
Wageningen Center for Agricultural Publishing and documentation

56
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

15. Annexes
Annex I. Technologies
Cereals

Table 1.1. Bread wheat

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
1 Kenya 1 1953 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
2 Kenya 5 1953 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
3 Frocor (Y+X+K+) 1967 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
4 Kenya Frontana-xomega48 1967 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
5 Penjamo 1967 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
6 Super HD Kenya Yaqui 48 1967 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
7 Yaktana 1967 IAR 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
8 Yskysns 1967 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
9 Kenya (FW-68) 1971 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
10 Mamba 1973 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
11 Salmayo 1973 Kulumsa 1800-2200 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
12 Dereselegn 1974 Kulumsa 1800-2200 35-40 23-28 resistant to stripe rust

57
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
13 Enkoy/K-4500/6A4 1974 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
14 Romany BC 1974 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
15 C1 14393 1975 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
16 Son 63 1975 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust

17 K6290 Bulk 1977 Kulumsa - - - - -

moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately

18 K6295-4A 1980 Kulumsa 1800-2400 - 35-40 5.4-5 resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
19 ET-13 A2 1981 Kulumsa 1900-2900 50-55 35-42 resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
20 Genet 1982 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
21 KKBB 1982 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
22 Pavon 76 1982 Kulumsa - 125-150 40-45 35-40 resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
23 Batu 1984 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
24 Dashen 1984 Kulumsa 2200-2900 125-150 42-47 30-42 resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
25 Gara 1984 Hawassa 2000-2900 - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
26 HAR 416 1987 Holetta 2000-2900 36-61 - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
27 ET-13D4 1990 Kulumsa - - - - resistant to stripe rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
28 Mitike /HAR-1709/ 1994 Kulumsa 1850-2900 150-175 55-60 35-42 resistant to stripe rust

58
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
moderately susceptible to yellow rust and stem
29 Galema /HAR-604/ 1995 Kulumsa - - 40-47 - rust, moderately resistant to leaf rust
moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately
30 Kubsa (HAR-1685) 1995 Kulumsa 1850-2800 58-63 40-45 resistant to stripe rust

31 Wabe (HAR-710) 1995 Kulumsa - - -

32 Abola /HAR-1522/ 1997 Kulumsa - - 42 - resistant to major wheat diseases

moderately resistant to the three rust with low %

33 Megala /HAR-1595/ 1997 Kulumsa - - 42 - of infection
resistance to stem rust septoria, leaf blotch and
34 Tuse /HAR-1407/ 1997 Kulumsa 2250-2980 43-85 40-47 - lodging ms to stripe and leaf rust

35 Hawi (HAR-2501) 1999 Kulumsa 1600-2400 150-175 20-45 22-41 YR=10MS,SR=10MR,LR=0

36 Katar /HAR-1899/ 1999 Kulumsa - - 50.3 34.03 -

37 Madda Walabu ( HAR-1480) 1999 Sinana 2200-2600 150 42.71 31.35 YR=5 MS, SR=TR

38 Shina /HAR-1868/ 1999 Adet 2000-2700 150 42.09 40 -

39 Sofumar (HAR-1889) 1999 Sinana 2200-2600 150 37.95 - -

40 Tura /HAR-1775/ 1999 Kulumsa - - 42.92 31.35 -

41 Simba (HAR-2536) 2000 Kulumsa 1800-2700 150-175 40-65 20-55 -

42 Wetera ( HAR-1920) 2000 Kulumsa 2000-2500 150-175 35-50 15-28 YR=;TMS,SR=5MR,LR=TR;

59
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)

43 Doddota ( HAR-2508) 2001 Kulumsa 1650-220 150-175 16.15-61.98 12.1-50.5 YR=10S/MS,SR=5MRS,LR=20MS,Septoria=87

44 Dure ( HAR-1008) 2001 Sinana 2000-2800 150 35.25 29.7 YR=TR,SR=TMS,LR=TMS Septoria (00-99)=71

45 Guna ( HAR-2029) 2001 Adet 1900-2700 150 34-57 29-42 moderately resistant to major wheat diseases

46 Hawi/FH-1-7a or line 8.3.8/ 2001 Kulumsa - - - - -

47 KBG-01 (FH-1-7A or Line 8.3.8) 2001 Kulumsa 2000-2400 150-175 23.8-66.6 11.6-50.5 YR=15S/MS,SR=5MRS, LR=0MS, Septoria=87

48 Sirbo (HAR-2192) 2001 Kulumsa 2200-2800 150-175 32.5-61.8 13.04-39

YR=5S/
49 Bobicho ( HAR-2419) 2002 Kulumsa 1800-2800 150-175 13.6-53.7 13-42 MS,SR=TMS/10MS,LR=10MS,septoria(00-99)=93

50 Densa (HAR-2562) 2002 Adet 1900-2700 150 29-48 21-34 moderately resistant to major diseases

51 Tossa (HAR 3123) 2004 Sirinka 2400-3000 150 36.5 33 resistance for yellow rust and other major disease

Digalu ( SHA 7/KUAZ /Edigree/ moderately resistant to yellow rust, moderately

52 2005 Kulumsa 2000-2900 150-175 40 31 susceptible to stem rust and septoria
Cross HAR 3116)
moderately susceptible to yellow rust, moderately
53 Meraro (11-6-24) 2005 Kulumsa 2200-2900 150-175 25.1-64.5 24.8-51.5 susceptible to stem rust and septoria,

54 Senkegna (HAR 3646) 2005 Adet 1900-2800 150-175 25-62 32-54 tolerant to rusts/steam, leaf and yellow/

55 TAY (ET-12D4/HAR 604(1)) 2005 Adet 1900-2800 150-175 25-61 34-58 tolerant to rusts/steam, leaf &yellow

Debre
56 Jiru (HAR2896) 2006 2600-3100 175 18-44 18-20 -
Brehan

60
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
57 Warkaye (HAR3820) 2006 Sirinka 2400-3000 150 33 26-30 resistant to yellow rust

58 ALIDORO (HK-14-R251) 2007 Holetta 2200-2900 150-175 26.8-52.5 22.4-42 YR=5(MS), Septoria=63(resistant)

59 DINKNESH (HAR-3919) 2007 Sirinka 2400-3000 150 29 21 resistant to yellow rust,

60 Gasay(HAR-3730) 2007 Adet 1890-2800 150-175 44-50 35-44 moderately resistant to yellow rust

Debre-
61 MENZE (HAR-3008) 2007 2800-3100 175 33 15-25 -
Birhan
62 MILLENNIUM(ETBW-4921) 2007 Kulumsa 2000-2600 150-175 44.24 32 YR=MR,SR=MR, SEP=52

63 SULLA(710/RBC) 2007 Hawassa 1800-2600 150 30-60 22-50 -

Debre
64 Bolo (HAR-3816) 2009 2580-3100 175 28-35 22.8-32.6 moderately resistant to yellow rust
Brehan
65 Inseno-1(BWPRAW 03/36) 2009 hawassa 1600-2000 150 25-30 20-25 -

Haramaya
66 Qulqulluu (ETBW-4621) 2009 1790-2500 70 25-44 35-43 -
University
67 Danda’a (Danphe #1) 2010 Kulumsa 2000-2600 150-175 35-55 25-50 moderately resistant to stem rust
Hazera
68 Galil 2010 Genetics 1800-2400 175 35-52 31 SR=30SMS,LR=R,YR=20S,SEP=88
ltd
69 Kakaba (Picaflor #1) 2010 Kulumsa 1500-2200 150-175 33-52 25-47 moderately resistant to stem rust

70 Gambo=Quaiu #2 2011 Kulumsa 750 80-100 35-57 45 moderately resistant to stem rust

resistant to yellow rust, stem rust, septoria and

71 Hoggana ( ETBW 5780) 2011 Kulumsa 220-2800 150 43.29-68.89 28.25-53.78 leaf rust

61
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
72 Mekelle-01/HUW-468 2011 Kulumsa 1980-2500 150 30-35 22-27 resistant to stem rust

73 Mekelle-02/HI-1418 2011 Mekelle 300-500 150 30-35 18-25 moderately resistant to stem rust

resistant to yellow rust, stem rust, septoria and

74 Shorima (ETBW5483) 2011 Kulumsa 2100-2700 150 28.92-70.98 22.65-43.36 leaf rust
Debre-
75 Tsehay/HAR3837/ 2011 2600-3100 175 38 28-35 resistant /tolerant to yellow rust disease
Birhan
76 Hidase (ETBW5795) 2012 Kulumsa 2200-2600 150-175 44-70 35-60 moderately resistant to stem rust

2200-
77 Hulluka (ETBW5496) 2012 Kulumsa 150-175 44-70 38-60 resistant to major rusts
22600
resistant to strip rust, moderate to resistance to
78 Jefferson 2012 Fedis 1200-1900 90-120 - 20-30 hessian fly susceptibility to leaf rust
Mekelle
moderately resistant to yellow rust and moderately
79 Mekelle-03 (M17SAWSN-79) 2012 and 2200-2500 125 40-45 33-37 susceptible to stem
Alamata
80 Ogolcho (ETBW5520) 2012 Kulumsa 1600-2100 - 28-40 22-35 resistant to major stem

81 ADEL-6 (SAMAR-13/Pastro-1) 2013 Werer 300-800 70-80 35-40 30 -

Mekelle
82 FRTI-1 (Mekel 4) 2013 and 2200-2400 150 32.23 48.58 moderately resistant to stem and leaf rust
Alamata
83 NEJMAH-14 (Lucy) 2013 Werer 300-800 70-80 35-40 30 -

84 Sekota-1 (ETBW4886) 2013 Sekota 1900-2400 150 30 23-30 moderately resistant to stem rust

Sorra
moderately susceptible stem rust, yellow rust and
85 (VOROBEYCMSS96Y02555- 2013 Sirinka 2200-2900 - 41.94 21-30 septoria resistance
040Y-020M)

62
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha)
(q/ha)
moderately resistant to rusts (stem rust, yellow
86 Biqa (ETBW 6095) 2014 Kulumsa 1600-2200 150 35-50 - rust, leaf rust) and septoria

87 HONQOLO (ETBW 5879) 2014 Kulumsa 2200-2600 150 50-60 - -

88 Mandoyu (Warrakatta/Pastor) 2014 Sinana 1600-2200 150 34-67 33-34 -

89 Sanate (14F/HAR 1685) 2014 Sinana 1600-2200 150 34-67 33-43

Amibara (DOUKKALA-4
90 2015 Werer 300-800 80-90 45-51 40 -
(SHUHA-8/DUCULA))
Bako tolerant to major wheat diseases(septoria, yellow,
91 Bulluq (ETBW5484) 2015 2300-2700 125 60-65 45-55 leaf and stem rust)
(OARI)
Dambal (AGUILAL/3/PYN/
92 2015 Sinana 2000-2401 150 56.3-63.7 33.8-41.9 resistant to stem rust
BAU//MILAN)
Fentale (MOONTIJ-3
93 2015 Werer 300-800 80-90 45-57 40-45 -
(FERROUG-2/FOW-2))
Kingbird (TAM200/TUI/6/PVN/
94 CAR422/ANA/5/BOW/CROW// 2015 Kulumsa 1500-2200 125-150 40-45 30-35 3-4 minor resistant genes for stem rust
BUC/PVN/3/YR/4/TRA#1)
Bako tolerant to major wheat diseases(septoria, yellow,
95 Liben (ETBW 5653) 2015 2300-2501 125 55-65 45-50 leaf and stem rust)
(OARI)
96 Obora (UTIQUE96/FLAG-1) 2015 Sinana 2000-2400 150 46.8-63.1 33-37.5 resistant to stem rust

97 ETBW6130 2016 Kulumesa

98 ETBW6861 2016 Kulumesa

63
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 1.2. Durum wheat, Emmer wheat, Buckwheat, Triticale

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate Crop diseases/pest reaction
release Maintainer I (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
Durum moderately susceptible (ms) to leaf-rust, moderately
1 Arendeto 1966 AUA 2200-2500 150-175 15-25 12-20 resistant (mr) to stripe rust
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately resistant
2 Marou 1967 AUA 2200-2500 150-175 15-25 12-25 to stripe rust
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately resistant
3 Concorit 71 1976 AUA 1900-2000 150-175 20-35 15-30 to stripe rust
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible leaf rust, moderately susceptible
4 Gerado 1976 AUA 2000-2500 150-175 20-35 - stem rust, susceptible bacterial strip.
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible stem rust, moderately resistant
5 CI 8155 1979 AUA 2000-2800 150-175 25-35 - bacterial strip
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible leaf rust, mr stem rust, moderately
6 Boohai 1982 Debrezeit 1800-2400 150-175 25-40 15-40 susceptible bacterial strip, mr yellow rust.
Wheat
Durum
7 Foka 1993 Debrezeit 1800-2600 150-175 30-40 20-40 ms leaf rust, mr stem rust ms bacterial strip
Wheat
Durum
8 Kilinto (DZ 918) 1994 Debrezeit 1600-2700 150-175 20-50 20-45 r stem rust, sr leaf rust, mr strip rust, mr bacterial strip
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately resistant
9 Bichena (DZ 393-4) 1995 Debrezeit 1900-2500 150-175 20-30 15-25 to stripe rust
Wheat
Durum
10 Arsi-Robe /TOB 66/ 1996 Debrezeit 2000-2500 150-175 30-50 20-35 -
Wheat
Durum resistant to logging moderately resistant-moderately
11 Quami (CD-75533-A/ 1996 Debrezeit 1600-2200 150-175 20-40 15-30 susceptible to leaf rust
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately resistant
12 TOB 60 1996 Debrezeit 2000-2500 150-175 30-50 20-35 to stripe rust
Wheat
Durum moderately susceptible to leaf-rust, moderately resistant
13 Asasa (DZ 2085) 1997 Debrezeit 1680-2400 150-175 25-40 20-30 to stripe rust
Wheat

64
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate Crop diseases/pest reaction
release Maintainer I (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
Durum
14 Ginchi /DZ-1050/ 1999 Debrezeit 2000-2300 175 30-40 20-30 -
Wheat
Durum
15 Robe /DZ-1640/ 1999 Adet 2000-2500 150-175 30-50 25-40 leaf rust: mr, stem rust: mr, stripe rust: ms
Wheat
Durum
16 Laste (Tob-2) 2002 Sirinka 2600-2900 150 27 - resistant to major wheat disease
Wheat
Durum
17 Lelisso (DZ-1605) 2002 Sinana 2300-2800 150 32 - moderately susceptible
Wheat
Durum
18 Ude (CD 95294-2Y) 2002 Debrezeit 2000-2300 150-175 35 - lr=tr, sr=tmr
Wheat
Durum
19 Yerer (CD 94026-4Y) 2002 Debrezeit 2000-2300 150-175 30-50 20-36 lr=tr,sr=tmr
Wheat
yellow rust 15 moderately susceptible, leaf rust 20
Durum
20 Ilani (DZ 2234) 2004 Sinana 2300-2600 150 35-55 36 moderately susceptible and stem rust 10 moderately
Wheat susceptible
Durum Megenagna (DZ-
21 2004 Adet 1900-2800 150 20-40 18-56 tolerant to rust
Wheat 2023)
Durum
22 Mettaya (DZ 2212) 2004 Adet 2000-2800 150 21-35 21-32 resistant to scald and moderately resistant to blotch
Wheat
Durum
23 Mosobo (DZ-2178) 2004 Adet 1900-2800 150 20-40 21-47 resistant to scald and moderately resistant to blotch
Wheat
Durum yellow rust 25 moderately susceptible, leaf rust 20
24 Oda (DZ 2227) 2004 Sinana 2300-2600 150 35-53 38 moderately susceptible and stem rust
Wheat
Durum
25 Selam (DZ-1666-2) 2004 Adet 1900-2800 150 22-36 19-40 resistant to scald and moderately resistant to blotch
Wheat
Bakalcha (980SN
Durum yellow, stem and leaf rusts, 10 moderately susceptible, 20
26 Gedirfa/Gwerou# 15 2005 Sinana 2300-2600 150 67 32 susceptible, 15 moderately susceptible, respectively
Wheat
Patho)

65
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate Crop diseases/pest reaction
release Maintainer I (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
EJERSA LABUD/ resistant to yellow, stem and leaf rusts, 10 moderately
Durum
27 NIGERIS 3//GAN 2005 Sinana 2300-2600 150 62 32 susceptible, 25 susceptible, 20 moderately susceptible,
Wheat respectively
(CD 98206)
Kokate (DZ-2016-
Durum moderately resistant to major disease i infestation rate
28 IBZR-10205-OAK- 2005 Awassa 1900-2800 150 30-50 25-40 was 11-25 % for yellow rust
Wheat
2AK(23)
Malefia CD 191-076
Durum moderately susceptible to yellow, stem and leaf rusts,
29 AR-3AP - OAP 2AP- 2005 Sirinka 2400-3000 150 27.12 26.3 resistant to yellow & leaf rust
Wheat
OAP-AL TAR 84/Stn/
Durum OBSA (ALTAR 84 the candidate variety is relatively tolerant to major wheat
30 2006 Sinana 2300-2600 150 68 40 disease
Wheat ALTO-1/AJAYA)
Durum
31 FLAKIT (EN -25) 2007 Sirinka 2400-3000 150 21.5 19-24 resistant to most diseases
Wheat
Durum Denbi (AJALA/
32 2009 Debrezeit 1800-2650 150-175 40-56 25-40 SR=15MS,LR=10MS, YR=10S,Septoria(45)resistant
Wheat BUASHEN)
Durum Hitosa (CHEN/
33 2009 Debrezeit 1800-2650 150-175 40-60 25-40 SR=10ms,YR=5s, Septoria (31) resistant
Wheat ALTAR-84)
Durum
34 Tate (CD94523) 2009 Sinana 2300-2600 150 42-59 28-40 moderately resistance/tolerant to rust (YR, SR & LR)
Wheat
Durum
35 Werer (Mamouri I) 2009 Debrezeit 450-1200 150 40-45 30-35 stem rust moderately resistance
Wheat
TOLTU (4/B/
Durum moderately resistant/tolerant to rust
36 R9096#21001(980SN 2010 Sinana 2300-2600 150 44-60 30-42 (YR=24MS,SR=10MR,IR=10MS)
Wheat
Patho)
Durum Mangudo (ICAJIHAN Moderately resistant to stem rust 910 MRMS), leaf and
37 2012 Debrezeit 1800-2700 150 45-50 29-40 yellow rust and tolerant to septoria (65)
Wheat 22)
Durum Mukiye (STJ3//BCR/ Moderately resistant to stem rust (15MRMS),Resistant to
38 2012 Debrezeit 1800-2700 150 40-56 25-44 leaf and yellow rust and tolerant to septoria(56)
Wheat LKS4/3/TER-3)

66
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate Crop diseases/pest reaction
release Maintainer I (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
Dire (CHEN/TE3/
Durum 33.4-
39 BUSHEN4/3AC- 2012 Sirinka 2300-2600 150 48.6-51.6 Moderately resistant to/tolerant to rust (SR,YR AND LR)
Wheat 60.3
089CDSS92B1ZOZ
Durum UTUBA (IDON-MD-
40 2015 Debrezeit 1800-2700 100-120 40-45 35-40 resistant to rust (steam, yellow and leaf) and septoria
Wheat 2009-Off/53/2009)
Emmer Sinana-01
41 2001 Sinana 2000-2400 100 22.7 18.78 YR=5 MS, SR=TR,lR=20MS, Septorial tritici (0-99)=82-95
wheat (Acc.216074-1)
Emmer Lammesso (ACC-
42 2005 Sinana 2300-2600 100 52.37 17.52 tolerant to leaf, yellow and stem rusts
wheat 224885-2)
Buck
43 Shashe (Japan) 2010 Debrezeit 1000-2500 - 1.4-2 0.8-1.2 No major pests
wheat
44 Triticale Minet (USGEN 19) 2002 Adet 2400 150 40 35 -
Snan (95T62-
45 Triticale 2002 Adet 2400 150 38 34 -
APL9-M)
TT14 (LOGAW
46 Triticale 2007 Kulumsa 1800-2600 150-175 44.24 23-64 YR%=TMR, YREAR= 1 SEP= -
SHIBO)
47 Triticale TT2 (DILFEKAR) 2007 Kulumsa 1800-2600 150-175 44.24 21-57 YR%=TMR, YREAR= 1 SEP= -
Derselign (ADTR- 27.6-
48 Triticale 2012 Adet >2400 150 31.6-58.8 -
085) 55.3
49 Triticale Abdissa (TCL-76) 2013 Bako 1800-2700 125-130 44-62 40-50 septoria, leaf and stem rust) tolerant

50 Triticale Moti (TCL-61) 2013 Bako 1800-2700 125-130 40-53 38-45 tolerant to septtorial, leaf and stem rusts
26.9-
51 Triticale Zenkatie(TCL59) 2013 Adet 2300-2700 150 37.5-63.9 -
46.9

67
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 1.3. Food and malt barley

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Food barely Egypt 20 1969 IAR - - 25 - -
2 Food barely Atlas 53 1970 Kulumsa - - - - -
3 Food barely C-63 1970 IAR - - 31 - -
4 Food barely Mari 1970 IAR - - 23 - -
5 Food barely Unitan 1970 IAR - - 27 - -
6 Food barely Atlas 57 1971 IAR - - 24 - -
7 Food barely Atlas kinderd 1971 Kulumsa - - 27 - -
8 Food barely Beecher 1971 Kulumsa - - 29 - -
9 Food barely BMC 1971 Kulumsa - - 29 - -
10 Food barely Chile common 1971 Kulumsa - - - - -
11 Food barely Comply 120 1971 Kulumsa - - - - -
12 Food barely DZ-02-72 1971 Debrezeit - - 27 - -
13 Food barely Peru 1971 Kulumsa - - - - -
14 Food barely Kenya research 1973 IAR - - - -
15 Food barely Proctor 1973 IAR 2200-2800 - 21-44 18-20 -
16 Food barely IAR 14/445 1975 IAR 2000 - 25-56 20-35 -
17 Food barely Barler 1979 IAR - - - - -
18 Food barely Ahor 880/61 1980 Kulumsa 2000 29-44 20-25 -
19 Food barely Composite 29 1980 Kulumsa - - - - -
20 Food barely HB-16 1982 Melkassa - - - - -

68
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
21 Food barely HB-28 1982 Kulumsa - - - - -
22 Food barely HB-42 1984 Holetta 2200-2800 100-120 32-55 23-33 -
23 Food barely EH 163/ F3 45.3H.3.3 1985 Hawassa 500-700 - - - -
24 Food barely Unknown 1986 IAR 2200-2800 100-125 36-63 18-30 -
25 Food barely Ardu 12 -60B 1986 Hawassa 500-700 - 36-63 18-30 -
26 Food barely Shege 1995 Holetta 700-1000 - 23-51 26-34 -
27 Food barely Abay /3357-10/ 1998 Adet 2200-2500 - 25-30 - -
Meserach (Kulumsa
28 food barely 1998 Debrebirhan 2800-3400 - 25-34 - moderately resistant to scald
1/88/)
29 Food barely Dimtu (3369-19) 2001 Holetta 2300-2800 20-40 15-22 -
30 Food barely Shedho (3381-01) 2003 Sirinka 2600-2900 125 19-33 15.26 resistant to major disease
Debre
31 Food barely Basso (4731-7) 2004 2800-3000 125 42.93 - highly-moderately tolerant to barley
Brehan
Debre
32 Food barely Mezezo (4748-16) 2004 2800 125 42.03 highly-moderately tolerant to barley
Brehan
33 Food barely Dinsho (Wadago-4) 2004 Sinana 2400-3000 - 19.52-37.44 24.83 -
resistant for leaf scald and other
34 Food barely Estayish (218963-4) 2004 Sirinka 2600-3000 120 22.3 19.6
major diseases
moderately susceptible to major
Harbu (Aruso Bale#
35 Food barely 2004 Sinana 2300-2600 125 17.08-44.49 15.49-44.88 diseases and highly tolerant to barley
10-1)
shoot fly.
Debre
36 Food barely Mezezo (4748-16) 2004 2800 125 42.03 - highly-moderately tolerant to barley
Brehan
37 Food barely Mulu (3371-03) 2004 Adet 2000-2700 125 23-35 19-26
resistant to scald and moderately
38 Food barely Setegn (3369-17) 2004 Adet 2400-3000 - 20-45 18-35
resistant to blotch.

69
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
resistant for leaf scald and other
39 Food barely Trit (215235-2) 2004 Sinana 900-1200 120 26.7 23
major diseases
BIFTU (SHASHO #22
40 Food barely 2005 Sinana - - - - -
GO-1)(SN 98B)
net bloch =91, leaf rust=40s, and
Dafo (Aruso (42) 4
41 Food barely 2005 Sinana 2300-2600 125 23 33 scald=0 tolerant/resistant to barley
(SN 99G)
shoot fly damage, which is the main
moderately resistant to net blotch
42 Food barely SHIRE (3297-06) 2005 Kulumsa 2400-2900 125 22.1-51.4 21.1-41.2
and scald
Yedogit–(BI 95 IN
43 Food barely 2005 Sirinka 2600-3000 120 - 26.5 resistant to net blotch and septoria
198)
Bentu (EMBSN 5th
44 Food barely 2006 Kulumsa 1700-2300 125 24-59 12-24 tolerant to scald and net blotch
2/95-3-3-3)
Desta (EMBSN 5th
45 Food barely 2006 Kulumsa 1700-2300 125 25-54 13-20.5 tolerant to scald and net blotch
46/95-9-9-5)
resistant to leaf rust & scaled, &
Hb-1307 (EH 1700 /
46 Food barely 2006 Holetta 2000-3000 48 35 moderately resistant to net & spot
F7 1.B1 .63.)
blotches.
AGEGNEHU
47 Food barely 2007 Sirinka 2600-3000 85-128 33 29 resistant to most diseases
(218950-08)
GABULA (Acc.
48 Food barely 2007 Hawassa 2200-3000 120 20-35 15-25
231222/MS)
susceptible to leaf rust, ner botch and
49 Food barely GUTA (Acc.3260-18) 2007 Sinana 2400-3000 - 24-49 20-43 scald diseases, but tolerant to barley
shoot fly.
resistant to scald and moderately
50 Food barely TILLA(EMBSN 14/98) 2007 Adet 2200-2700 85-125 22-40 21-31
resistant to blotch
Diribe( 7th EMBSN
51 Food barely 2010 Kulumsa 1700-2300 125 43 19-31 resistant to scald and net blotch
19/98)
Abdane (Aruso/
moderately susceptible to major
EH956/F2-
52 Food barely 2011 Sirinka 2300-2600 125 16-40 15-32 barley diseases. tolerant/resistant to
8H-6-4SNR
berley shoot fly
FBC99G003-21)
Mekelle moderately resistant for scald & other
53 Food barely Felamit 2011 700-1000 - 40 25-35
University disease
resistant to barley, loose smut,
54 Food barely Aquila 2012 Fedis 1500-1900 100 25-35 covered smut and moderate resistant
to powdery mildew

70
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
55 Food barely Cross # 41/98 2012 Holetta 2000-2500 125 25-56 - resistant to scaled and leaf blotches
56 Food barely EH 1493/F6.32H.3 2012 Holetta 2300-3000 125 25-61 - resistant to scald & leaf blotches
Mekelle moderately resistant for scald & other
57 Food barely Fetina (SXH, T182) 2012 2000 45 15-20
University disease
Gobe
58 Food barely (CBSS96M00487T-D- 2012 Kulumsa 1700-2300 125 42.11 17-28 resistant to scald and net blotch
1M-1Y-2M-OY)
resistant to barley, loose smut,
59 Food barely Golden eye 2012 Fedis 1500-1900 100 25-35
susceptible to strip rust
Mekelle high resistant for scaled and other
60 Food barely Hriti (SXH, S106) 2012 2400 40 15-20
University disease
resistant to barley, loose smut,
61 Food barely Walker 2012 Fedis 1500-1900 100 25-35 covered smut and moderate resistant
to powdery mildew
62 Food barely Frti-1 (Mekel 4) 2013 Mekelle 2200-2900 - - - -
ERETH07-51 (Tow-
63 Food barley 2016 Mekelle
row)
ERETH07-80 (Two-
64 Food barley 2016 Mekelle
row)
SXF-08-F4-S-143 Mekelle
65 Food barley 2016
(Six-row) University
SXF-08-F4-T-10 (Two Mekelle
66 Food barley 2016
row) University
67 Food barley ACC.21895#25 2016 Sinana
68 Malt barely Beka 1976 Holetta 2300-2800 75-100 24-48 20-25 -
69 Malt barely Holker 1979 Holetta 2300-2800 75-100 24-31 14-18 -
70 Malt barely HB 15 1980 Kulumsa - - - - -
71 Malt barely HB -7 1980 IAR - - - - -
72 Malt barely HB-26 1981 Kulumsa - - - - -
73 Malt barely HB-120 1994 Holetta 2300-2800 - 24-53 14-18 -

71
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
74 Malt barely HB-52 2001 Holetta 2300-2800 24-47 14-18 -
75 Malt barely HB-1533 2004 Holetta - 18-50 10-20 -
76 Malt barely CDC Select 2006 Holetta - - - -
77 Malt barely Haruna Nijo 2006 Kulumsa - - - - -
susceptible to scald at high land
78 Malt barely Kiflu -B (Miscal 21) 2006 Holetta 1550-2850 75 19-52 18-20
areas
Bekoji-1(EH1293/F2-
79 Malt barely 2010 Kulumsa 2300-2800 100 50 23.7-28.1 -
18B-11-1-14-18)
moderately resistance for blotches
80 Malt barely EH 1609 2010 Adet 2300-3000 75-125 28-42 20-25
and scald
Fregebis (EH1609- moderately resistant for blotches
81 Malt barely 2010 Adet 2300-3000 75 28-42 20-25
F5-B3-10) and scald
82 Malt barely Bahati 2011 Kulumsa 2300-2800 100 48 25-40 resistant to scald and net blotch
EH1847/F4.2P.5.2
83 Malt barely 2011 Holetta 2200-2800 100 44.23 34.97 -
(Bea/Ibon64/91)
susceptible to scald at high land
84 Malt barely Sabini 2011 Kulumsa 2300-2500 100 49 25-40
areas
tolerant to scald and resistant leaf
85 Malt barely IBON 174/03 2012 Holetta 2000-2800 100 30-57
blotch
resistant to net blotch, but shows
86 Malt barely Grace 2013 Holetta 2000-2400 150 20-40 18-39
some level of susceptibility to scald
resistant to net blotch, but shows
87 Malt barely Traveler 2013 Holetta 2000-2600 150 25-45 20-40
some level of susceptibility to scald
HKBL 1512-5
88 Malt barely 2015 Holetta 2000-2600 125 26-38 23-31 -
(Fanaka)
89 Malt barley IBON-MRA P#26 2016 Sinana
RECLA78//SHYRI/
90 Malt barley 2016 Holetta
GRIT/3/ATAH92/GOB
ENSMEX 1 CEB
91 Malt barley 2016 Holetta
09-607

72
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 1.4. Maize

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)

1 Bako Composite 1970 IAR - - - - -

2 H-511 1970 IAR - - - - -

3 H-611 1970 IAR - - - - -

4 H-613 1970 IAR - - - - -

5 H-632 1970 IAR - - - - -

6 SR-52 1970 IAR - - - - -

7 UCA 1970 IAR - - - -

8 KCB 1971 IAR - - - - -

9 KCC 1971 IAR - - - - -

10 UCB 1971 IAR 1700-2000 - 50-70 35-45 -

11 Alemaya 7655 1972 Bako 1650-1980 - 50-60 30-40 -

12 H-612 1972 IAR - - - - -

13 H-622 1972 IAR - - - - -

14 Jimma /Bako 1972 IAR - - - - -

15 A-511 1973 Hawassa 1000-1900 - 50-60 30-40 -

73
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)

16 Alemaya Composite 1973 Haramaya University 1600-2300 - 75-100 35-65 -

17 Katumani 1974 Bako 1600 - 35 25 -

18 CG4141 1984 Bako 1300-1900 - - - -

19 Alamura 1985 Hawassa 800-2000 - - - -

20 Abo Bako 1987 Bako 500 67 50-60 35-45 -

21 Beletech 1988 IAR - - - - -

22 BH 140 1988 Bako 1250-2000 68-87 70 60 -

23 Guto 1988 Bako 1650 49 30-50 25-30 -

24 BH 660 1993 Bako 1600-2200 - 90-120 60-80 -

25 BH 540 1995 Bako - - 85 70 -

26 Jabi (PBH 3253) 1995 Poineer Hybrid - - - - -

27 Kuleni 1995 Bako 1700-2200 - 60-70 40-45 -

28 Fetene(ACV3) 1996 AUA - - - - -

resistant to leaf blight, rust
29 Tesfa /ACV6/ 1996 ACA 1550-2000 - 35-55 25-30
and stalkborer
tolerant to GLS=gray leaf
spot, TLB=turcicum leaf
30 Rare-1 1997 Haramaya University 1650-2200 25 60-70 40-45
blight, CLR=common leaf
rust

74
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)

31 Ajab /30F19/ 1999 Poineer Hybrid 1500-2000 28 74.7 73.5 -

tolerant to GLS=gray leaf

spot, MT=moderately
tolerant to TLB=turcicum
32 BHQP-542 2001 Bako 1000-1800 80-90 50-60
leaf blight, MS= moderately
susceptible to CLR=common
leaf rust
tolerant to rust, blight,
33 Gibe Comp-1/MMRC-51/ 2001 Bako 100-1700 25 73.9 40-45 lodging and medium tolerant
to GLS
tolerant to leaf rolling & leaf
34 Melkassa -1 2001 Melkassa 500-1600 25-30 40-50 30-40
senescence
35 Shindi (PHB-30-G-97) 2001 Poineer Hybrid 1500-1900 25 86 69 tolerant to GLS,CR,NLB

36 Tabor (30-H83) 2001 Poineer Hybrid 1600-2000 25 98 76 -

tolerant to rust, blight,
BH 541 (NSCM-41-
37 2002 Bako 1000-1800 25 85-110 65-75 lodging; moderately tolerant
188/32/X CML -197)
to GLS
BH 670 (A-3033xF-
38 2002 Bako 1700-2400 25 95-120 60-80 tolerant to rust, blight, GLS
7215x144-7-b)
BH-QP 542 tolerant to GLS, blight,
39 (CML144XCML- 2002 Bako 1000-1800 25 70-90 50-60 rust; moderately tolerant to
159XCML-176) lodging
resistant to GLS, streak
Gambella Composite
40 2002 Bako 500-1000 25 60-75 40-50 virus moderately tolerant to
(Gusaw)
lodging
41 Melkassa -2 (ZM-521) 2004 Melkassa 1200-1700 25-30 45-55 30-40 resistant to rust and blight

42 Melkassa-3 (SADVE) 2004 Melkassa 1200-1700 25-30 45-55 30-40 resistant to rust and blight

75
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
resistant to rust & turcicum
43 Arganne (AMH-800) 2005 Ambo 1700-2400 25 70-80 55-65 leaf blight, streak virus and
GLS
Beles SC 713 Hybrid resistant to rust, blight, GLS
44 2005 Syngenta - - - -
(SP13WXSP51W) and lodging
resistant to rust, blight, GLS
45 Bereda SC 715 Hybrid 2005 Debrezeit 1000-2000 550000 80-110 55-70
and lodging
BH 543 (SC-22 x 124- resistant to gls rust, blight
46 2005 Bako 1000-2000 25 85-110 50-60
B(109) X CML-197) and tolerant to lodging
resistant to rust, turcicum
47 Hora (Ambo 2 SYN 1) 2005 Ambo 1700-2400 25 65-75 50-65 leaf blight, streak virus and
GLS
48 Maize (Zea May l) 2005 ESE 1200-1800 25 74.8 65-70 tolerant to GLS & rust

49 Toga (ESE-203 Hybrid) 2005 ESE 1200-1800 25 74.8 65-70 tolerant to GLS & rust
tolerant to rust blight, GLS
50 Aba Raya (SC 627) 2006 Melkassa 1000-2000 25 60-100 - and lodging as compare to
the checks
Bako-1 SC- 22XFH_625- tolerant to rust, blight and
51 2006 Bako 1000-2000 25 90-110 50-60
263 X CML -197(BH-544) GLS
52 Melkasa-4 (ECA-EE-36) 2006 Melkassa 1000-1600 25 35-45 30-35 tolerant to rust
tolerant to GLS, blight and
53 Shone (Phb30G19) 2006 Poineer Hybrid 1000-2000 25 70-110 65-80
rust
tolerant toGLS,blight and
54 Wolel (PHB30V53) 2006 Poineer Hybrid 1000-2000 25 70-110 65-80
rust
tolerant to GLS, blight and
55 Agar (30D79) 2008 Poineer 1000-2000 25 80-97 66-75
rust
resistant to rust, turcicum
56 AMH 850-”Wenchi” 2008 Ambo 1800-2600 25 80-100 60-80 leaf blight, streak virus.
resistant to lodging

76
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
resistant to rust, blight and
57 Kello-1 (BHQPY-545) 2008 Bako 1000-1800 25 80-95 55-65
GLS., resistant to lodging
resistant to rust and blight in
58 Melkasa- 5 (SADVIB#) 2008 Melkassa 1000-1700 25-30 35-45 30-35
the central rift valley
Melkasa-6Q (Pool 15 C7
59 2008 Melkassa 100-1750 25-30 45-55 30-40 resistant to rust and blight
QPM)
60 Melkasa-7 (Pop 147 C1) 2008 Melkassa 100-1750 25-30 45-55 30-40 resistant to rust and blight
tolerant to GLS, blight and
61 Morka (UCBS1C2) 2008 Jimma 1600-1800 25 80-110 50-60
rust
resistant to rust turcicum leaf
62 Jibat (AMH851) 2009 Ambo 1800-2600 25 8-12 7-9 blight, streak virus resistant
to lodging
tolerant to GLS,blight and
Red Speckled
63 ZAMA 2009 600-1700 25 90-130 50-80 rust; very good drought
Ethiopia Trading
tolerance
BH 661
resistant to GLS, TLB and
64 (CML395xCMl202x142- 2011 Bako 1600-2200 25 95-120 65-85
common leaf rust
1-E)
resistant to GLS, turcicum
65 GIBE 2 2011 Bako 1000-1800 25 45-50 65-70 leaf blight and common
leaf rust.
66 Shala (P2859W) 2011 Poineer 1000-1700 25 80-100 65-80 tolerant to GLS,turcicum,rust
tolerant to GLS, blight and
67 Anger (P3812W) 2012 Seed co 1000-2000 25 80-90 60-80
rust
tolerant to major foliar
68 Giba- Awash Fendisha 2012 Bako 1000-1800 20-25 36 30
diseases tlb gls & leaf rust
tolerant to GLS, blight and
69 Hawassa (ECE 237) 2012 ESE 1000-1800 25 85-110 60-80
rust

77
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
MHQ 138 {(CML 144/CML
70 159)//Pooll 5QPMFS538- 2012 Melkassa 1000-1800 25-30 75-80 55-65 tolerant to rust and blight
B-3-B- # -5-1-1-B}
MH 130 (CML440/
71 CML445//ZIMLINE/KAT 2012 Melkassa 1000-1700 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight
BC124#)
MHQ 138 {(CML 144/
CML159)// POOLL
72 2012 Melkassa 1000-1800 25-30 75-80 55-65 resistant to rust and blight
5QPMFS538-B-3-B-#-5-
1-1-B}
73 Webi (AMH760Q) 2012 Pawe 1650-2400 25 80-120 80-100 -

74 SC-403 2012 Seedco 1000-1750 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight
BH 546 (CML395 X
75 2013 Bako 1000-1750 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight
CML202 X BKL1)
BH 547 (BKL2/CML312/
76 2013 Bako 1000-1800 25-30 55-80 55-65 resistant to rust and blight
BKL3/)
77 CPS.10 2013 Ethio Flora 1000-1750 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight
tolerant to major leaf
78 CPS.6 2013 Ethio Flora 1000-2000 25 80-90 60-80
disease
79 Galaxy 2013 GCT Trading 1000-1750 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight
tolerant to TLB GLS & leaf
80 Melkasa-1Q 2013 Melkassa 1000-1750 30 30-45 25-35
rust
MH 140 (Melkasa tolerant to rust, turcicum
81 Hybrid 140) or 2013 Melkassa 1000-1800 25-30 85-95 65-75 leaf blight, streak virus
(CMl444czl0003CZl0814) resistance to lodging
82 PAC 781 2013 GCT Trading 100-1750 25-30 60-70 50-60 resistant to rust and blight

78
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Seed Co Zimbabwe tolerant to common foliar
83 SC 719 2014 1500-2000 25 85-120 65-85
plc diseases
BH-QP 548 Hybrid
(CML144/CML159//
84 2015 Bako 1000-2000 25 75-85 55-70 -
CML176 X KULENLI (F2)-
4-3-1-1)
DuPont Pioneer Hi- tolerant to common foliar
85 Damote (P3506W) 2015 800-1800 25 94 76
Bred Seeds Ethiopia diseases
Gibe 3 Open Pollinated
86 Variety (OPV) 2015 Bako 1000-1700 - 65-75 45-50 -
(BLWBAMNMSY2006F2)
87 SBRH1 Hybrid 2015 Bako 1000-1800 25 80-90 50-60 Tolerant to maize stalkborers
SPRH1 HYBRID (CUBA/
GUADC1 F27-4-3-3-B-1-
BX (KILIMAST94A)-30/ Tolerant storage pest (maize
88 2015 Bako 1000-1800 25 85-95 55-65
MSV-03-2-10-B-2B-B)- weevil)
306-1-B-2-B/CML-04//
CML-202)
AMH852Q – Huluka
89 2016 Ambo
(Open variety)
90 AMH854Q-Kolba 2016 Ambo

91 A-512 - IAR - - - - -

92 CA 11 - Bako 1650-1980 - 50-60 30-40 -

93 CA 4 - Bako 1650-1980 - 50-60 30-40 -

94 CA-12 - IAR 1650-1980 - 50-60 30-40

79
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)

95 CAS-M - IAR 1300-1980 - 35-70 30-40 -

96 EAH-75 - IAR 1600-2000 - 71 35-60 -

97 H-625 - IAR - - - - -

98 Maize Kenya - IAR - - - - -

99 BH 3253 - 80-100 50-80

100 ACV-3 - Awassa (College) 1600 40 25

101 ACV-6 - Awassa (College) 1600 40 25

Table 1.5. Tef

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 DZ-01-01 1970 AUA 1400-2400 25-30 22-28 17-22 -
2 DZ-01-99 1970 Debrezeit 2200-2500 - 18-22 17-22 -
3 Enatit /DZ-01-354/ 1970 Debrezeit 1600-2400 22-28 17-22 -
4 Magna /DZ-01-196/ 1978 AUA 1500-2400 25-30 18-22 14-16 -
5 DZ-01-787 1978 Debrezeit 1800-2500 25-30 22-28 17-22 -
6 DZ-Cr-44 1982 Debrezeit 1800-2500 25-30 22-28 17-22 -
7 DZ-Cr-82 1982 Debrezeit 1700-2000 25-30 22-28 17-22 -
8 DZ-Cr-99 1982 Debrezeit - - - - -

80
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
9 Tseday /DZ-Cr-37/ 1984 Debrezeit 1860-2700 25-30 18-28 14-19 -
10 Dukem /DZ-01-974/ 1987 Debrezeit 1600-2200 - 24-34 20-25 -
11 Gibe /DZ-Cr-255/ 1993 Debrezeit 1900-2600 - 20-30 16-22 -
12 Ziquala /DZ-CR-358/ 1995 Debrezeit 1400-2400 25-30 21-36 18-24 -
13 Holetta Key /DZ-01-2053/ 1998 Holetta - 25-30 20.9 -
14 Ambo Toke /DZ-01-1278/ 1999 Holetta 2200-2300 25 36 27 -
not important and thus not
15 Gerado (DZ-01-1281) 2002 Debrezeit 960 25-30 22.2 12-17
considered in the breeding program
not important and not considered in
16 Key Tena /DZ-01-1681/ 2002 Debrezeit 1600-1900 25-30 25.2 16-20
the breeding program
not important and thus not
17 Koye (DZ-01-1285) 2002 Debrezeit 1900-2200 25-30 24-26 19-24
considered in the breeding program
tolerant to rust & shoot fly (although
18 Gola (DZ-01-2054) 2003 Sirinka 1450-1850 25-30 10-22 16
not significant)
19 Ajora ([GRC/E 205396) 2004 Areka - 45-50 13.1 11.41
20 Dega-Tef /DZ-01-2675/ 2005 Debrezeit 1800-2500 25-30 18-28 16-20 no major disease
21 Dima- /DZ-01-2423/ 2005 Debrezeit 2000-2600 25-30 24.6 16.8 no major disease
22 Genete /DZ-01-146/ 2005 Sirinka 1450-1850 25-30 21.7 15.5 no major disease
not important in tef because of the
23 Gimbichu (DZ-01-889) 2005 Debrezeit 2000-2500 - 18 16
minute size of the seeds
24 Yilmana –(DZ-01-1868) 2005 Adet 2000-2600 25-30 23.2 16.3 no major disease
25 Zobel /DZ-01-1821/ 2005 Sirinka 1450-1850 25-30 20.07 15.1 no major disease
26 Amarech- (Ho-Cr-136) 2006 Debre Brehan 1600-1700 25-30 13 12 -
27 Guduru- /DZ-01-1880/ 2006 Bako 1850-2500 25-30 15-23 14-20 tolerant to pests & disease
28 Quncho- /DZ-Cr-387(RIL-355)/ 2006 Debrezeit 1800-2500 25-30 25-27 16-20

81
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
GEMECHIS/DZ-CR-387 (RIL-
29 2007 Melkassa 1450-1695 25-30 13-20 14
127)/
30 MECHARE /Acc. 205953/ 2007 Sirinka 1450-1850 25-30 20.6 17.9
31 Etsub (DZ-01-3186) 2008 Adet 1800-2600 25-30 19-27 16-22
32 Kena (23-Tafi-Adi-72) 2008 Bako 1850-2400 25-30 15-27 13-23 tolerant to disease and pest
33 Lakech (RIL 273) 2009 Sirinka 1450-1850 25-30 22.4 13.3 not significant
34 Simada /DZ-CR-385(RIL 295)/ 2009 Debrezeit 500-1700 25-30 16 10 no major disease
35 Boset [DZ-CR-409(RIL-50D)] 2012 Debrezeit 1500-1750 25-30 18-20 14-18 -
not important and not considered in
36 Kora [DZ-CR-438 (RIL NO. 133B)] 2014 Debrezeit 1700-2400 25 25-28 18-22
the breeding program
37 Worekiyu (214746A) 2014 Debrezeit 1450-2220 25-30 22.2 not significant
Abola (7 Quncho X Key Muri
38 2015 Adet 1700-2400 10 20.56-27.96 14.6-16.8 -
(Code1))
39 Bulluq (ETBW 5484) 2015 Bako 2300-2700 125 60-65 45-55 -
40 Liben (ETBW 5653) 2015 Bako 2300-2500 125 55-65 45-50 -
41 DZ-Cr-438 (RIL No. 91A 2016 Debrezeit

82
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 1.6. Rice

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Kokit (IRAT-209) 1999 Adet 600-1333 - 36.3 28.5 -
2 Pawe-1 (M-55) 1999 Pawe - - 20.08 - -
3 Gumara (IAC-164) 2000 Adet 1740-1900 34 30 -
4 Tigabe(IREM-194) 2000 Adet - - - - -
good resistance to pests and
5 NERICA-3 (WAB-450-IB-P-28-HB) 2006 Pawe - 60 45 29
insects
good resistance to pests and
6 NERICA-4 (WAB-450-IB-P-9/1) 2006 Pawe - 60 48 30
insects.
7 SUPARICA-1(WAB-450) 2006 Pawe - 60 51 23 -
moderately resistant to major
8 ANDASSA (AD-012) 2007 Adet 600-1850 80 25-38 20-31
diseases of rice
moderately resistant to major
9 GETACHEW (AD-01) 2007 Adet 600-1850 80 18-30 16-25
diseases of rice.
10 GODE-1(BG-90-2) 2007 SoRPARI 500 60 57.07 43 tolerant to major disease of rice
tolerant to major diseases of
11 HODEN (MTU-1001) 2007 SoRPARI 500 60 46.9 40
rice
tolerant to diseases and insect
12 NERICA-1 2007 SoRPARI 500 60 47 30
pest
tolerant to disease and insect
13 NERICA-2 2007 SoRPARI 500 60 50 35
pests
tolerant to major diseases of
14 SHEBELLE (IR 688059-76-3-3-3-2) 2007 SoRPARI 500 60 59.15 45
rice.
moderately resistant to major
15 TANA (AD-048) 2007 Adet 600-1850 80 24-40 21-32
disease of rice
tolerant to disease and insect
16 Kallafo-1/FOFIFA-3737/ 2010 SoRPARI 500 60 65.5 50
pests
17 NERICA-14 2010 SoRPARI - - - - -
better resistance to major
18 EDGET (WAB 189-B-B-B-8-HB) 2011 Adet 1150-1850 80-140 32.5 25-35
diseases of rice
tolerant to disease and insect
19 NERICA -15 2011 SoRPARI - 60 62.69 60.45
pests
tolerant to disease and insect
20 NERICA-6 2011 SoRPARI - 60 63.7 56.12
pests

83
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
better resistance to major
21 Hidasse (WAB 515-B-16A1-2) 2012 Adet 600-1850 - 30-42 22-32
diseases of rice
Vibha Seed
22 VRH 640 2013 - - - - -
Ethiopia plc
tolerant to disease and insect
23 Chewaqa (YIN LU 20) 2013 Bako 1650 80 42 33
pest
has better resistance to major
24 Hiber (IRGA370-38-1-1F-B1-1) 2013 Adet 1150-1850 80-120 34.17-47.28 26-36
diseases of rice
NERICA-12 (WAB880-1-38-20-17- has better resistance to major
25 2013 Adet 600-1850 80 3510-4062 2300-3400
P1-HB) disease of rice
Vibha Seed
26 VRH 606 2013 - - - - -
Ethiopia plc
Vibha Seed
27 VRH 654 2013 - - - - -
Ethiopia plc
resistance to major disease
28 ADET (WAB450-1-B-P-462-HB) 2014 Adet 600-1850 80 3983-4800 2600-3400
of rice
29 Maytsebri-1 (NERICA-13) 2014 Maitsebri 1200-1400 70 38 33 tolerant to major rice diseases
ARCCU15Bar-7-16-30-2-B-B Fogera N RR&
30 2016
(ART15-7-16-30-2-B-B) TC
ARCCU16Bar-4-14-2-2-B-1 Shire-Maitsebri
31 2016
Maitsebri-2 ARC
Fogera N RR&
32 KOMBOKA 2016
TC
Table 1.7. Sorghum
Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Alemaya (70) 1970 IAR 1900 30.6 15.3 -
2 Asfaw (White) 1973 Melkassa - - - - -
3 Didessa (1057) 1973 Melkassa 1900 - 30.5 10.3 -

84
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
4 Gambella 1107 1976 SARC 1600 5-10 30.5 20.3 -
5 Kobomash 76 1976 Melkassa 600 - 25.4 18.2 -
6 Melkamash 1976 Melkassa 1600 - 30.5 15.2 -
7 76 T NO.21 1978 Melkassa 1600 - - - -
8 Awash (1050) 1978 Melkassa 1900 - 30.6 15.2 -
9 ETS (2111) 1978 Melkassa 1900 - 30.5 15.3 -
10 ETS (2113) 1978 Melkassa 1900 - 30.5 15.3 -
11 ETS(2752) 1978 AUA 1900 - 30.6 20.3 -
12 ETS(3235) 1978 Melkassa 1900 - 30.5 15.3 -
13 ETS(4946) 1978 AUA - - - - -
14 ETS(601) 1978 Melkassa - - - - -
15 ETS(717) 1978 Melkassa - - - - -
16 76TI# 23 1979 Melkassa 1600 5-10 25.5 10.3 -
17 Bakomash 1981 Melkassa 1600-1900 - 30.5 15.2 -
18 IS 9302 1981 Melkassa 1600-1900 5-10 35 - -
19 IS 9323 1983 Melkassa 1600-1900 - 36 - -
20 Dinkimash 1986 Melkassa 1600 22-37 50 25 -
21 Seredo 1986 Melkassa 1000-1600 24-39 40 30 -
22 81 ESTP47 (Dinkmash 86) 1987 Melkassa 1000-1600 22-37 - - -
23 Birmash 1989 Melkassa 1600-1900 5-10 66 40 -
24 Baji /85 MW 5334/ 1996 Melkassa - - 4.2 - -

85
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
25 Chiro /COLL#4/ 1996 Melkassa - - 42-58 - -
tolerant to drought and lodging and
26 Meko-1 (M-36121) 1997 Melkassa 1600 - 33.2 -
resistant to major pests
27 Abshir (P-9403) 2000 Melkassa 1600 8-10 24 14 -
28 Gubiye (P-9401) 2000 Melkassa 1600 8-10 27 14 -
29 Muyra-1 (ETS-1005) 2000 Haramaya University 1900 5-8 83.4 50.6 -
30 Muyra-2 (ETS567) 2000 Haramaya University 1900 5-8 68.36 44.25 -
resistant to leaf & head disease
31 Aba-Melko (Sartu) 2001 Jimma 1600-1800 3-5 75 50
and birds
resistant to major diseases and
32 Birhan (Key#8566) 2002 Sirinka 1800-1850 5-10 40 -
stalkborer
resistant to major diseases and
33 Teshale (3443-2-0P) 2002 Sirinka and Melkassa 1800-1850 5-10 61 26.6
stalkborer
resistant to major diseases and
34 Yeju (ICSV 111 INC) 2002 Sirinka 1850 5-10 50 26
stalkborer
35 Abuare (90MW 5353) 2003 Sirinka 1850 8 26-57 26 tolerant to stalkborer
36 Chelenko ETS 1176 2005 Melkassa 1900-2700 8-10 29-63 - -
37 Hormat--(ICSV 1112 BF) 2005 Sirinka 1450-1850 - 23.3 16-22 resistant to striga
38 Dano (BRC-378) 2006 Bako 1500-1900 10 40-50 30-48 -
39 Lalo (BRC-245) 2006 Bako 1500-1900 10 40-52 35-48 tolerant to pests & disease
moderately resistant to leaf and
40 87 BK4122 (GEREMEW) 2007 Melkassa 1600-1800 8-10 49 40
panicle diseases
GEDO (Gambella 1107
41 2007 Sirinka 1450-1850 15-20 34 27-36.7 -
XP-9403)
GIRANA-1 tolerant to major diseases and
42 2007 Sirinka 1450-1850 - 40.86 38.7
(CR:35XDJ1195XN-13) stalkborers
43 MACIA (Malting type) 2007 Melkassa 500-1600 8-10 42-44 23-30 -
MISKIR(PGRC/
tolerant to kajor diseases &
44 E#69441XP-9401) (Early 2007 Sirinka 1450-1850 15-20 40.73 37
stalkborers
Maturing

86
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
RAYA (PGRC/
tolerant to major diseases and
45 EX222878XKAT369-1)/ 2007 Sirinka 1450-1850 15-20 37.68 22.77
stalkborers
Medium Maturing/
moderately resistant to leaf and
46 RED SWAZI (Malting Type) 2007 Melkassa 500-1600 8-10 30-33 20-21
panicle diseases
resistant to grain mold; tolerant
Sorghum EMAHOY (PW01-
47 2007 Pawe 700-1680 - 40-45 - to higher striga infestation and
092)
attacked less by birds
ESH-1 C=nL -1 (P-9501
48 2009 Melkassa 1600 - 50-55 35-45 tolerant to major leaf disease
AXICSR14)
ESH-2 C=nL-2 (ICSA 21
49 2009 Melkassa 1600 42-60 35-43 tolerant to major leaf disease
AX ICSR50)
50 Melkam (WSV 387) 2009 Melkassa 1600 37-58 35-43 -

51 Chare/PGRC/E#222880/ 2011 Debre-Birhan 1250-1600 8-20 42 33 resistant/tolerant to anthracnose

Dagem (97MW 6130(IS
resistant to grain mold and leaf
52 10892 XRS/R-20-8614- 2011 Melkassa 1600-1900 8-10 27-54 42
disease
2XIS 9379)
53 Mesay (Meko x Gobye-2) 2011 Sinana 1850 5-10 38-62 - resistance to major disease
resistant to major diseases and
54 Dekeba (ICSR 24004) 2012 Melkassa 1600 10-12 37-45 26-37
insect pests
55 Chemeda(ACC-BRC-18) 2013 Bako 1500-1900 - 32 25 tolerant to disease and insect pest

56 Gemedi (ACC-BCC-5) 2013 Debrezeit 1500-1900 - 33 28 tolerant

57 PAC537 2013 GCT/Melkassa 1600 37-45 26-37 -

87
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
ESH-3 (Ethiopian Sorghum
Hybrid-3)/ ዲቃላ-3 (ICSA-15 moderately tolerant to major insect
58 2014 Melkassa 1600 10-12 43-53 -
X M-5568) Seed Parent: pest of sorghum
ICSA-15 Pollen
59 Adukara 2015 Assosa 1500-1850 10 35.6-41.6 30.1-31.6 -
tolerant to major insect pest of
60 Assosa-1 (Bambasi NO-9) 2015 Assosa 1500-1850 10 31.5-41.3 27.6-33.3
sorghum
61 Fendisha-1 2015 Haramaya University >1900 10 63 -
tolerant to major insect pest of
62 Dibaba (ETS 639/SRN-39) 2015 Melkassa >1900 10-12 37-50 30-40
sorghum
63 07AN6013 2016 Melkasa

64 06AN6082 2016 Melkasa

65 9219 (Red type) 2016 Melkasa

Table 1.8. Millet

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Finger millet Padet /KNE #409/ 1999 Melkassa 1600-1900 - 24 - -

2 Finger millet Tadesse (kNR#1098) 1999 Melkassa 1600-1900 - 25 - -

tolerant to most important disease
3 Finger millet KNE#411 (Boneya) 2002 Bako 1400-1900 25-30 25-30 20-24
(head bluest)

88
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
4 Finger millet Degu (PGRC/E 215874) 2005 Adet 1900-2500 15-30 23-30 17-21 moderately resistant to blast
resistant to grain mold,and not
5 Finger millet BARUDA (PW01-075) 2007 Pawe 1000-1500 4-8 30-35 -
susceptible to ball worm
tolerant to major finger millet
6 Finger millet WAMA (KNE#392) 2007 Bako 1400-1900 15-25 17-35 16-30
disease
tolerant to major finger millet
7 Finger millet Bareda (BRC-356-1) 2009 Bako 1200-1900 15-25 20-28 15-20
diseases
tolerant to major finger millet
8 Finger millet GUTE (229373) 2009 Bako 1200-1900 15-25 20-35 20-32
diseases
tolerant to major finger millet
9 Finger millet Debatsi (Evi=) 2010 Pawe 1100-1600 15 20-25 15-20
diseases
tolerant to major diseases of finger
10 Finger millet Necho (PGRC/E203572) 2011 Adet 1900-2500 25-30 20-30 15-20
millet
moderately tolerant to major
11 Finger millet ACC # 229469: Tessema 2014 Melkassa 1600-1900 - 18-22 14-18
disease of finger millet
tolerant to major finger millet
12 Finger millet Gudetu (ACC.215990) 2014 Bako 1400-1900 - - -
disease (head and leaf blast)
Mecha (PGRC/E Acc # tolerant to blast disease and
13 Finger millet 2014 Adet 1900-2500 10-15 20-29 16-23
229371) lodging resistant
AAU and tolerant to major finger millet
14 Finger millet Addis-01(ACC.203544) 2015 1400-2200 15 26-42 25-31
Bako disease (blast)
tolerant to blast disease, tolerant to
15 Finger millet Kako-1(LR005) 2015 Jinka 1310-1700 10 26.41-29.45 16-20
drought and lodging resistant
16 Finger millet KNE#622 (Light brown) 2016 Axum

17 Finger millet Acc 216036 (Black seeded) 2016 Bako

18 Finger millet Acc 242617 (White seeded) 2016 Bako

89
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
GBK-011119A (Blast
19 Finger millet 2016 Melkasa
resistance)
Acc#229355 (Brown
20 Finger millet 2016 Melkasa
seeded, early type)
resistant to existing races of striga
21 Pearl Millet KOLA-1 (ICMV-221) 2007 Melkassa 500-1600 30-42 22-30
hermonthica
22 Foxtail Millet Fetan (E7 Bagu-214) 2011 Melkassa 1600 8-20 40 - -

23 Foxtail Millet Fetan 1(E10(Zhangzagu-1) 2011 Melkassa 1600 8-20 44 - -

Table 1.9. Quinoa

Dseases/
Breeder/ Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average
No Variety Year of release Attitude (m) pest
maintainer (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
reaction
1 Titicaca 2016 Dan Church/ Melkassa - - -

Pulses
Table 2.1. Chickpea
Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 DZ-10-11 1974 AUA 1600-2000 70-80 15-28 11-19 -

2 DZ-10-4 1974 AUA 1800-2300 65-75 16-22 10-14 -

3 Dubei 1978 AUA 1800-2300 80-90 17-29 16-17 -

90
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
4 JG-62 X Rodhy 1985 Debrezeit 1800-2300 - - - -

5 Mariye 1985 AUA 1800-2300 120-140 18-30 14-23 -

6 850- 3/27 XF378 1986 Debrezeit 1800-2300 - - - -

7 Worku /DZ-10-16.2/ 1994 AUA 1900-2600 100-120 19-40 19-29 -

8 Akaki /DZ-10-9-2/ 1995 AUA 1900-2600 90-120 18-40 14-26 -

9 ICC 14808 1995 AUA - - - - -

10 Arerti (FLIP 89-84C) 2000 Debrezeit 1800-2600 100-115 16-52 18-47 -

Shasho (ICCV-
11 2000 Debrezeit 1800-2600 110-125 16-46 20-42 -
93512)
12 Chefe (ICCV-92318) 2004 Debrezeit 1800-2600 110-140 19.97-28.58 18-36 wilt reaction (1-9): 5
Habru (FLIP-88-
13 2004 Debrezeit 1800-2600 110-140 23.99-32.29 - wilt reaction (1-9 scale):4
42C)
14 Ejeri (FLIP-97-263c) 2005 Debrezeit 1800-2600 120-140 15-35 12-15 wilt reaction (1-9): 4 moderately resistant
Kutaye- wilt reaction (1-9 scale): relatively resistant to
15 2005 Sirinka 1450-2300 75-80 16-25 14-18
(ICCV-92033) root rot and wilting
16 Teji (FLIP-97-266C) 2005 Debrezeit 1800-2700 120-140 20-35 12-15 wilt reaction(1-9 scale):4 moderately resistant
Fetenech (ICCV-
17 2006 Sirinka 1400-1750 65-70 13.2 11 -
92069)
Mastewal (ICCV-
18 2006 Debre Brehan 2000-2600 100-115 30 19 tolerant to wilt/root rot
92006)

91
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
Yelbey (ICCV-
19 2006 Sinana 1450-2300 - 18 14 relatively resistant to root rot and wilt
14808)
ICCX-910112-6
20 2007 Debrezeit 1800-2700 120-160 11-46 - -
(Naatolii)
ACOS DUIBIE
21 2009 Debrezeit 1800-2400 150-160 19-26 14-21 -
(Monino)
22 Minjar (ICCV-03107) 2010 Debrezeit 1800-2600 120-140 22-50 20.4 -

23 Akuri (ICCV-03402) 2011 Sirinka 1450-2000 110-120 21-26 17-20 -

KASECH (FLIP-95-
24 2011 Sirinka 1450-2000 110-120 20-25 16-20
31C)
25 Kobo (ICCV-01308) 2012 Sirinka 1450-2000 130-150 20-24 16-20 tolerant to asochyta blight

26 Dalota(ICCV-00104) 2013 Debrezeit 1800-2600 120-160 25-28 20-23 -

Teketay (ICCX-
27 940002-F5- 2013 Debrezeit 1800-2700 130-135 20-27 16-22 -
242P-1-1-1)
DZ-2012CK-009/
28 2016 Debrezeit - - - - -
FLIP 0163 (Dhera)
DZ-2012CK-001/
29 2016 Debrezeit - - - - -
FLIP04-9C (Hora)
DZ-2012CK-031/
30 2016 Debrezeit - - - - -
ICCV-10107 (Dimtu)

92
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 2.2. Faba bean

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield Average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 CS-20-DK 1977 Holetta - - - - -

2 NC-58 1978 Holetta 1900-2300 180-200 50-60 20-40 -

3 Kuse /2-27-33/ 1979 Holetta - - 20-35 15-25 -

4 Kassa 1980 Holetta - - 20-45 15-30 -

5 Bulga 70 1995 Holetta - - 20-45 15-35 -

6 Messay 1995 Holetta 1800-2400 180-200 25-50 20-45 -

7 Tesfa (75 TA 626-1-2-1) 1996 Holetta 1800-2400 - 20-40 15-35 -

8 Shallo /EH011-22-1/ 2000 Sinana 2300-2600 150 37.46 - -

Moderately tolerant/resistant to chocolate spot(1-
9 Holetta-2 (BP 1802-1-2) 2001 Holetta 2200-2800 200 25-40 20-25
9)=3.8
10 Dagm (Grargarso 89-8) 2002 Sheno 2600-3000 200 35 - High tolerant to black root rot and chocolate spot

11 Degaga (R-878-3) 2002 Holetta 1800-3000 200 25-50 20-45 Moderately tolerant

12 Lalo (Selale kasim 89-4) 2002 Sheno 2600-3000 200 36 - High tolerant to black root rot and chocolate spot
Selale (Selale Kasim
13 2002 Holetta 2000-2800 180-200 18-32 10-23 Moderately tolerant
91-13)
14 Wayu (wayu 89-5) 2002 Holetta 2000-2800 180-200 22-33 10-23 Moderately tolerant
Adet-Hanna (PGRC/E
15 2005 Adet 2240-2630 200 15-39.5 17.9-41.7 Moderately tolerant to chocolate spot
25041-2-2)

93
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield Average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
16 Gabelcho (EH96009-1) 2006 Holetta 1900-3000 350 25-44 20-30 Moderately resistant to chocolate spot and rust.

17 Moti (EH95078-6) 2006 Holetta 1900-2800 320 28-51 23-35 Moderately resistant to chocolate spot & rust

18 OBSE (EH95073-1) 2007 Holetta 1900-2800 320 25-61 21-35 Moderately resistant to chocolate spot and rust.
Gachena (ETH91001- Haramaya Moderately resistant to chocolate spot, rust and
19 2008 2000-3000 134 17-30 11-28
13-12) University ascochyta blight
20 Walki (EH96049-2) 2008 Holetta 1900-2800 270 24-52 20-42 Moderately resistance for chocolate spot and rust
Moderately resistance to chocolate spot, rust and
21 Angacha-1(TFB-097) 2009 Hawassa 2000-2800 140 30-40 24-36
ascochyta blight
Moderately resistant for ascpcjuta blight and
22 BURKITU (EH99004-2) 2009 Holetta 2050-2800 150 35-62 20-38
powdery mildew
DOSHA(COLL 155/00-
23 2009 Holetta 2050-2800 275 28-62 23-39 Moderately resistant for chocolate spot & rust
3)
24 Hachalu (EH00102-4-1) 2010 Holetta 1900-2800 275 32-45 24-35

25 Tumsa (EH99051-3) 2010 Holetta 2050-2800 275 25-69 20-38 -

Rust (1-9 scale scoring): 2.11 chocolate spot(1-9
26 Bule-04 (EH00102-5) 2012 Hawassa 2000-2800 220-270 37-43 20-30
scoring): 2.2
Chocolate spot (1-9 scoring)=4.9 rust 1-9
27 EH00099-1 2013 Hawassa 1900-2400 220-270 44.1 25-35
scoring)=3.5
Rust (1-9 scale scoring): 2.11 chocolate spot(1-9
28 Ek01001-5-1 2013 Kulumsa 2000-2800 220-270 37-43 20-30
scoring):2.2
29 GORA (EK 01024-1-2) 2013 Kulumsa 1900-2800 275 22-57 20-40 Moderately resistant to chocolate spot and rust.

94
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield Average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
Tolerant to chocolate spot, rust and aschochyta
30 Mosisaa (EH-99047-1) 2013 Sinana 1800-2600 200 40-48 32-40
blight
Tolerant to chocolate spot ,rust and aschochyta
31 Mosisaa(EH-99047-1) 2013 Sinana 1800-2600 200 40-48 32-40
blight
32 Dide ዲደዓ (EH1048-1) 2014 Kulumsa 1900-2800 225 23-50 20-44 Moderately resistant to chocolate spot and rust.
ASHEBEKA (EH01075-
33 2015 Kulumsa 1900-2800 225 30-54 28-47 -
4)
Moderately resistant to chocolate spot and
34 HASHENGE (ILB 4358) 2015 Alamata 2200-2800 200-225 21.24-50.5 - Ascochyta blight moderately susceptible to faba
bean Gall
35 EH06007-2 2016 Kulumsa

Table 2.3. Fenugreek

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed Rate Research average Farmers’ average
No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 Chala (FG-47-01) 2005 Debrezeit 1700-2600 35-45 9-18 8-15 -
2 Ebbisa (AC-TR-7) 1999 South/Oromia - - - - -
3 Hunda-01(FG-18) 2006 Sinana 1650-2004 20 12-22 5-6 Resistant to powdery mildew
4 Genotype 201606/2 2016 Sirinka
5 Genotype 202169/3 2016 Sirinka
6 201617Sno3-7 2016 Sinana

95
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 2.4. Field pea

Research
Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Seed rate average
No Variety Attitude (m) average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (kg) yield (q/
yield (q/ha)
ha)
1 FP DZ 1979 Holetta 2000-3000 180-200 25-30 10-15 -
2 Mohanderfer 1979 Holetta 1800-2300 180-200 25-30 10-15 -
3 G22763-2c 1981 IAR 2000-3000 180-200 25-35 15-20 -
4 NC-95 Haik 1981 Holetta 2300-3000 180-200 - - -
5 Tegegnech 1994 Holetta 2000-3000 - 30-35 15-20 -
6 Dadimos 1995 IAR 2300-2600 - - - -
7 Hassabe 1995 Holetta 1800-2300 - 30-35 - -
8 Markos 1995 Holetta 1800-2300 30-35 -
9 Tulu /PGRC/E32 21-181/ 1995 IAR 2300-2600 - 44 - -
resistant to aschochyta blight and susceptible
10 Adi 1996 IAR 2300-3000 - 40 -
for powdery mildew
11 Ep Ex-N2 1996 IAR 1900-2700 150 17-38 - -
12 Holetta 1996 Holetta 2300-3000 - 38 - -
resistant to aschochyta blight and susceptible
13 Milky 1996 IAR 2300-3000 - 40 -
for powdery mildew
14 Adet 1 1997 Adet - - 25.5 - -
15 Hursa/KFP-103(B) 1997 Sinana 2300-3800 - 42 - -
16 Sefinesh 1997 Adet - - 47.5 - -
17 EH 90-006-2(Weyitu) 1999 Sinana 1800-2600 75 - -
Tullu-dimtu (PGRC/E 32640-
18 1999 Holetta 2300-2600 75 37.91 - -
1)
Wolmera /
19 1999 Holetta 2300-2800 150 30 14 -
FPEXDZx305PS210822-1/

96
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

tolerant to important diseases: ascochyta blight

20 Arjo-1(EH 90025-1) 2005 Bako 2000-2600 150-200 25-39 20-25
and powdery mildew
the candidate variety is relatively tolerant to the
21 Bamo(Flagman) 2005 Bako 1800-2600 75 44 28
major field pea diseases
tolerant to important diseases: ascochyta blight
22 Bariso (EH 90011-1-2) 2005 Bako 2000-2600 150-200 25-39 20-25
and powdery mildew
23 Gume (EH96026 -1-4) 2006 Holetta 1800-3000 150 20-41 16-33 moderately resistant to aschochyta blight

24 Megeri (Helina) 2006 Holetta 1800-3000 150 21-41 15-34 moderately resistant for aschochyta blight
tolerant to powdery mildew, downy mildew, and
25 URJI( Acc.32615-1) 2007 Sinana 1800-2600 75 49-55 35-37
ascochyta blight
26 Ambericho (IG-51664) 2008 Areka 2300-2800 150 28-40 15-20 moderately tolerant to aschochyta blight
resistant to chocolate spot and moderately
Haramaya
27 Meti (NI-21) 2008 1800-3000 106 22-25 9-22 resistant to powdery mildew and aschochyta
University
blight
28 Agrit(IFP 308-4) 2009 SRARC 1850-2800 150 16-33 10-24 major disease was not observed
moderately resistant for ascochyta blight and
29 BURKITU (EH99004-2) 2009 Holetta 2000-2800 150 35-62 20-38
powdery mildew
30 Senk (GFP 233) 2009 Sirinka 1850-2800 150 15-36 12-25 major disease was not observed
31 Gedo-1 (EH99002-1) 2010 Bako 2000-2600 200 29.1 20.6 resistant to major diseases & insect pests
moderately resistant to aschochayta bight and
32 LATU (EH 02-036-2) 2010 Kulumsa 2300-3000 150 25-50 20-35
powdery mildew
moderately resistant to aschochayta bight and
33 BILALLO (EH 02-002-3) 2012 Kulumsa 1900-3000 150 26-56 20-35
powdery mildew
resistant to mildew, downey mildew and
34 Haranna(Cool 38/00-4) 2012 Sinana 1800-2600 75 50-55 30-34
aschochayta blight
35 Teshale (EH99005-7) 2012 Assosa 1800-2650 75 27-45 23-32 very good
ICN Bunsi xSx B405/IC- moderately resistant to aschochayta bight and
36 2013 Melkassa 1900-3000 150 26-56 20-35
Ci-C-87 powdery mildew
37 Bursa (ቡርሳ) (EH05027-2) 2015 Kulumsa 1900-3000 150 20-54 20-40 -

97
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 2.5. Grass Pea, Sweet Lupin and Snap bean

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average average yield
release maintainer (m) (kg) reaction
yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Grass Pea Wasie (ILAT-LS-LS-B2) 2005 Debrezeit 1700-2800 80-90 13-30 10-20 -
2 Sweet Lupin SWL-001 2016 Holeta - - - - -
3 Snap bean Plati 2016 Melkassa - - - - -
4 Adzuki bean Erimo (Adzuki bean) 2015 Melkassa and ACOS Ethiopia - 35 22-26 - -

Table 2.6. Haricot bean

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release Mmintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 Ethiopia -10 1970 Hawassa - - - - -
susceptible to bollworm and haricot
2 Mexican 142 1973 IAR 1500-1800 90-100 16-20 - bean flies; affected by storage
bruchids.
Ethiopia
3 Black Dessei 1974 - - - -
Wello
4 Red Wolaita 1974 IAR 1500-1800 90-100 10-14 - -
Susceptible to boll worm and
5 Awash 1990 IAR 1400-1800 90-100 20-24
haricot bean flies
6 Roba 1990 Melkassa 1400-1800 90-100 20-24 - -

7 Alemaya -1 1997 AUA 1500-2000 - 24.5 -

resistant to rust and anthraconse
and intermediate to common
8 Atndaba 1997 Melkassa 1400-1900 - 23 -
bacterial blight and angulas leaf
spot
9 Atndaba (A-262) 1997 AUA 1400-1900 - 22.5 - -

10 Ayenew 1997 AUA 1700-2000 60-100 20-35 15-25 -

98
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release Mmintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
11 Chirro - 1 1997 AUA 1500-2000 - 23.9 - -

12 Gofta 1997 AUA 1500-2000 60-100 20-35 15-25 -

13 Beshbesh/Melk 97 (originally cross 5) 1998 Melkassa - 45 32.1 - Resistant to BSM,ALS,CBB

14 Melke /Areka97 (originally cross14) 1998 Melkassa - 85 35.6 - Resistant to BSM,ALS,CBB

Resistant to Rust, anthracnose and
15 Gobe Rasha-1/ICA-15541/ 1999 IAR 1400-1900 - 22.49 -
CBB susceptible to ALS
resistant to rust & anthracnose
16 Melka Awash-98 (PAN-182) 1999 IAR 1400-1900 - 24.94 -
intermediate to CBB and ALS
17 Tabor /A-788/ 1999 Areka 1500-2000 - 20.31 - resistant to major diseases
resistant to anthracnose and CBB
18 Zebra 98/GX-1175-3/ 1999 Melkassa 1400-1900 - 27.34 -
and intermediate to rust & ALS
tolerant for web blight,
19 Dicta-105 (Nasir) 2003 IAR 1200-1800 90-100 20.3 23
anthracnose, rust and haloblight
tolerant for web blight,
20 DOR-554 (Dimtu) 2003 IAR 1200-1800 90-100 21.4 22
anthracnose, rust and haloblight
moderate resistant to ALS, CBB,
21 Ibbado (AFR-722) 2003 Hawassa 1400-2500 110-125 20-29 15-20
anthracnose and rust
resistance to CBB, anthracnose &
22 MAM-41(Wedo) 2003 Sirinka 1450-1850 90 12-22 9-14
foliage beetle larvae
resistant to fusarium wilt and
23 RWR-719 (Omo-95) 2003 Hawassa 1400-2250 60-70 17.27-32.11 19.26 moderately resistant to ALS, CBB,
anthracnose and rust
24 Afr-722 (Ibbado) 2003 Hawassa 1400-2250 110-125 - -
tolerant to important diseases
25 Tibe (812-BRC-28) 2004 Bako 1300-1900 60 22-28 21-27 bacterial blight and bacterial
postule
tolerant to bacterial blight and
26 Anger (EMP-376) 2005 Bako 1300-1900 41-52 23-30 20-24 bacterial pustule and resistant to
anthracnose

99
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release Mmintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
27 AR04GY 2005 Melkassa 1300-1800 90 19-22 - -
moderate level of resistance to
28 Batagonia (RVW-482) 2005 Hawassa 1500-2200 35 18 15 CBD, rust ALS & susceptible to
hallow blight
29 Nazareth-2 (TA04JI) 2005 Melkassa 1330-1800 90 22-25 - -
tolerant to anthracnose, common
30 Bobe red (XAN-310)-food type 2006 Melkassa 1400-1850 90 25 20 bacterial blight, and rust hallo blight
& angular leaf spot
Chercher (STTT-165-96)-canning Haramaya tolerant to bacterial blight and
31 2006 1300-1900 60 22-28 21-27
type University bacterial pustule
tolerant to anthracnose, common
32 Chore (STTT-165-92)-canning type 2006 Melkassa 1300-1950 90 23 19
bacterial blight
resistant to rust common bacterial
Haramaya
33 Haramaya (G-843) 2006 1650-2200 50-70 20-32 15-30 blight, anthracnose & angular leaf
University
spot
tolerant to anthracnose, common
34 Meka Dimma (RAB-484) 2006 Melkassa 1300-1850 80 23 18 bacterial blight, & rust hallo blight &
angular leaf spot
tolerant to common bacterial blight,
35 CRANSCOPE (Red Speckled) 2007 Melkassa 1300-1950 90 19.3-27 16
rust and hallo blight
tolerant to major haricot bean
36 GABISA (VAX-2) 2007 Bako 1200-1900 70-90 17-35 16-30
diseases
MONTCALM /ACOS RED (Red tolerant to common bacterial blight,
37 2007 Melkassa 1300-1950 90 19.8-22 16
Kidney) rust and hallo blight
relatively tolerant to CBB, rust
38 A197X OM NAZ Cr 02-11/Batu 2008 Melkassa 1300-1650 105 18-25 16-20
hallobBlight, anthracnose and ALS
resistant to CBB, Rust, ALS,
Haramaya
39 Dursitu (DOR-811) 2008 1500-2100 60-75 20-35 15-20 Anthracnose, Haloblight and web
University
blight.
resistant to CBB, Rust, ALS
Haramaya
40 Kufanzik (MX-8754-9M) 2008 1300-2100 90-100 25-40 19-35 Anthracnose, Hallo Blight and web
University
blight

100
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release Mmintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
moderate level of resistance
to common bacterial blight,
41 SNNPR-120 (Hawassa Dume) 2008 Hawassa 1100-1750 60 30.17 19.7
aschochyta blight, rust and angular
leaf spot under natural infestation
tolerant/resistant to Common
Bacterial Blight, Rust, Hallo Blight,
42 SUG-131 (Deme) 2008 Melkassa 1400-2000 110 20-30 18-22
Anthracnose, Floury leaf spot and
angular leaf spot
resistance to bacterial blight
anthraconose, angular leaf spot
43 Loko (AFR-716) 2009 Bako 1300-1900 30-40 14.27-20 13.32-18.33
and aschochyta blight) and insect
pests
tolerant to major common bean
44 LEHODE (DA-NAZCR-02-12) 2010 Sinana 1850 85-95 17-24 16-18
disease
resistant/tolerant to major disease
45 GLP-2 2011 Melkassa 100-1950 90 20-33 18-26 of common bean in the adaptation
area
resistant/tolerant to major diseases
46 Morka (ECAB-0056) 2011 Kulumsa 1300-2200 90 20-35 18-26
of common bean
resistant to CBB, ALS rust and
47 SARI-1 (CAW-02-04-11-4-1) 2011 Hawassa 1400-2250 70 30 20
anthracnose
Haramaya resistant to CBB,rust, anthracnose
48 Babile (ECAB 0247) 2012 1500-2200 101.75 24-35 15-30
University ALS and root rots
49 Dandesu (BRC-Acc. NO-4) 2012 Bako 1300-1850 32.5-35 24.71 20.93 -
resistant to CBB, rust, anthracnose
50 Fedis (ECAB0060) 2012 HAWASSA 1500-2200 118.3 23-36 22-Dec
ALS and root rots
Haramaya resistant to CBB, rust, anthracnose
51 Hirna (ECAB0203) 2012 1500-2200 114.23 23-34 16-30
University ALS and root rots
Haramaya resistant to CBB, rust, anthracnose
52 Hundane (K-132) 2012 1500-2200 101.75 22-30 15-20
University ALS and root rots
Haramaya resistant to CBB, rust, anthracnose
53 Tinike (RXR-10) 2012 1500-2200 105.25 20-30 15-25
University ALS and root rots
tolerant to CBB, HB and rust and
54 Ada (KAT B1) 2013 Melkassa 1300-1650 100 19-33 17-25
drought

101
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release Mmintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Awash-2 (ICN Bunsi x S x B tolerant to cbb,hb and rust and
55 2013 Melkassa 1300-1700 90-100 28-31 18-22
405/1C-C1-1C-87) drought
tolerant to CBB,HB and rust and
56 Dandesu (KAT B69) 2013 Melkassa 1300-1650 100 22-30 19-23
brought
moderately resistant to (ALS and
57 Remeda (AFR-702-1) 2014 Hawassa 1400-1800 85 23.16 20.12
CBB
moderately resistant to ALS and
58 Remeda(AFR-702-1) 2014 Hawassa 1400-1800 - 23.16 20.12
CBB
59 SER 119 2014 Melkassa 1000-2200 80-90 20-50 18-40 -
tolerant to CBB, Rust HB,
60 SER 125 2014 Melkassa 1000-1200 80-90 20-45 18-32
anthracnose and ALS
resistant to angular leaf spot and
61 Tatu (ETAW-01-L-7-6K) 2014 Hawassa 1400-1800 90 24.4 21.08
CBB
62 Tatu(ETAW-01-L-7-6K) 2014 Hawassa 1400-1800 - 24.4 21.08 resistant to ALS and CBB

63 Waju (ETAW-01-L-1-7A) 2014 Hawassa 1400-2800 75 23.37 20.08 resistant toALS and CBB

64 Waju(ETAW-01-L-1-7A) 2014 Hawassa 1400-1800 - 23.37 20.08 resistant to ALS and CBB

65 SAB 632 (Tafach) 2015 Melkassa 1000-1200 100 22-26 - -

66 SAB 736(Ado) 2015 Melkassa 1000-1200 100 20-25 - -

102
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 2.7. Lentil

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed Rate
No Variety Name average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 EL-142 1980 AUA 1600-2000 50-60 14-20 9 -

2 R-182 1980 AUA 1800-2400 60-70 17-25 16 -

3 Chalew /NEL 358/ 1984 AUA 1800-2400 70-75 20-30 14 -

4 Checole (ENAL-2704) 1984 Debrezeit 1600-2200 50-60 15-22 14-16 -

5 Awash 1990 Melkassa 1400-1800 90-100 20-24 - -

6 ADA (FLIP -86-14L) 1995 Debrezeit 1850-2450 80-90 19-26 15.6 -

7 Gudo (FLIP -84-78l) 1995 Debrezeit 1850-2450 100-120 18-25 17.6 -

8 Almaya 98/FLIP 89-63L) 1998 Debrezeit 1200-1600 75-80 13.9 - resistant to rust and wilt/root rot
moderately resistant to ascochyat
9 Assano (FLIP 88-46) 2003 Sinana 1800-2600 65 31.73 17.41
blight
resistant to rust and drought
10 Alem Tena (FLIP 96-49l) 2004 Debrezeit 1600-2000 90 17-23 -
tolerant
11 Teshale (FLIP 96-46l) 2004 Debrezeit 1800-2400 90 18-37 16-26 resistant to rust
Derso (Alemaya FLIP-88-411-02-
12 2012 Debrezeit 1600-2400 85-100 23-37 20-23 -
AK-14)
13 Dembi ( E1 - 142 x r-186-3) 2013 Debrezeit 1800-2400 60-65 17-25 12-20 -

14 Jiru(R-186 X FLIP 86-38L-2) 2015 Debre Brehan 2000-2700 70-80 26-33 18-28 Resistant to rust

103
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 2.8. Mung bean

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Moderate level of resistance to
1 MH-97-6 (Borda) 2008 Hawassa 1100-1750 40 13.5 10 powdery mildew and septoria leaf
spot under natural infestation)
Tolerant to major diseases of mung
2 Rasa (N-26) 2011 Melkassa 900-1670 25-30 8-15 5-10
bean in the adaptation area
3 Arkebe (SML-668) 2014 Humera 600-1000 19.55-25.26 14-20

4 Arkebe(SML-668) 2014 Humera 600-1000 - 19.55-25.26 - -

Resistant /Tolerant to major diseases
Nirmal plc and
5 NVL-1 2014 450-1670 20-40 750-1500 - of mung bean (MGMV.CLS ,PM, PM
Melkassa
,HB)

Table 2.9. Soybean

Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average yield
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) (q/ha)
(q/ha)
1 Crawford 1975 IAR 700-1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

2 Frost 1975 Adet - - - - -

3 Harden Menden 1975 Adet 1400 60 25-30 15-20 -

4 Hardi 1975 Adet - - 25-30 15-20 -

5 Hell 1975 Adet 1700 60 2.5-3 1.5-2 -

6 Jupiter 1975 Adet - - - - -

7 Kaland 1975 Adet 1400 60 25-30 15-20 -

8 Konrich 1975 Adet 1750 - - - -

104
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average yield
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) (q/ha)
(q/ha)
9 Scotch 1975 Adet 1700 - - - -

10 Teg x13.3-2644 1975 Adet 1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

11 Williams 1975 IAR 1000-1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

12 Clark 63K 1982 IAR 1000-1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

13 Coker 240 1982 IAR 700-1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

14 Davis 1982 IAR 1000-1700 60 25-30 15-20 -

tolerant to important disease,
15 AGS-217 (Jalale) 2003 Bako 1300-1850 60 22 15 bacterial blight and bacterial
postule
tolerant to important diseases,
16 IPB-81-EP7 (Cheri) 2003 Bako 1300-1850 60 22 15 bacterial blight and bacterial
postule
moderately resistant to bacterial
17 PR-149(Belesa-95) 2003 Areka 520-1800 60 17.24-29.8 20.85
pustule, blight and virus
moderate level of resistance to
18 Awassa-95 (G 2261) 2005 Hawassa 520-1800 60 18-26 16.6-25
bacterial purple, blight and virus
moderately resistant to
19 AFGAT (TGX-1892-10F) 2007 Hawassa 1800 80 14.8 13 anthracnose, rust and angular
leaf spot
tolerant to major soybean
20 ETHIO-YUGOSLAVIA 2007 Bako 1200-1900 60-75 17-35 16-30
disease
21 BOSHE ( IAC-13-1) 2008 Bako 1200-1900 60-70 16-30 14-28 tolerant to major disease
Dhidhessa (PR-149-81-
22 2008 Bako 1200-1900 60-75 20-33 14-28 tolerant to major diseases
EP-7-2)
23 Gishama (PR-143-(26)) 2010 Pawe 520-1800 60 17.96 15.21

105
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average yield
No Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) (q/ha)
(q/ha)
there was no occurrence of
24 Gizo (TGX-1885-33F) 2010 Pawe 520-1800 60 20.1 17.6 soybean diseases like bacterial
pustule, blight and viral diseases
there was no occurrence of
25 Wegayen (TGX-1998-29F) 2010 Pawe 520-1800 60 20.75 18.36 soybean diseases like bacterial
pustule, blight and viral diseases
tolerant to bacterial blight and
26 KATTA(PR-145-2) 2011 Bako 1200-1900 60-75 14-32 13-28
bacterial pustule
tolerant to bacterial blight and
27 KORME (AGS-129-2) 2011 Bako 1200-1900 60-75 12.26-37.59 12-32
bacterial pustule
28 Hawassa-04 (AGS-7-1) 2012 Hawassa 1200-1700 60-70 26.29 15-25
bacterial pustule (1-9 scale):1.5
29 Nova 2012 Hawassa 1200-1700 60-70 22.48 20-Dec
soybean mosaic virus (1-9):1
no occurrence of any bacterial.
30 Wello (TGX-1895-33F) 2012 Sinana 750-1850 40-45 19.2-32 17-22
viral disease
31 Pawe 01 (PARC-2013-2) 2013 Pawe 520-1800 60-80 24.43 18.36
resistant to soy-mosaic virus,
32 Pawe-02 (PARC-2013-3) 2013 Pawe 520-1800 60-80 25.58 17.63 moderately resistant to leaf
blotch
resistant to major soy bean
33 Nyala 2014 Pawe 800-1700 70-90 18-24 10-16
diseases
resistant to major soya bean
34 Gazale 2015 Holetta 800-1700 70-90 17.8-22.2 12-16
diseases
35 TGX-1987-62F 2016 Pawe 20

106
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

3. Fiber Crops
Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Cotton A-333-57 1970 Werer 1000 15-20 27-35 12-25 susceptible to bacterial blight

2 Cotton Acala 1517C 1970 Werer 1000 14-25 - - susceptible to bacterial blight

3 Cotton Acala 1517D 1970 Werer 300-1000 - - -

4 Cotton Acala 4.42 1970 Werer 300-1000 - - - susceptible to bacterial blight

5 Cotton Albar 637 1970 Werer 1000 15-20 3-4 1.5-2.5 susceptible to bacterial blight

6 Cotton Reba B.50 1970 Werer 1000 - 4 1.5-2.5 susceptible to bacterial blight

7 Cotton Acala 1517/70 1974 Werer 300-1000 14-25 30-40 15-25 resistant to bacterial blight

8 Cotton AMS 1.39-1 1984 Werer 1300 - - - -

9 Cotton Werer 1-84 1984 Werer 700 11-15 4-5 2.5-3 fully resistant to bacteria blight

10 Cotton Acala SJ 2 1986 Werer 800 11-15 4.5-5 2.5-3 resistant to bacterial blight

11 Cotton Arba 1987 Werer 1000 15-20 5 1.5-3 resistant to bacterial blight

12 Cotton LA Okra Leaf 2 1987 Werer 1300 - - 2.5-3.5 -

13 Cotton Bulk 202 1989 Werer 1000 15-20 4 2.0-2.5 -

14 Cotton Deltapine 90 1989 Werer 300-1000 11-15 4 4 resistant to bacterial blight

Enat /Caroline
15 Cotton 1995 Werer 750 11-14 4.8 2.8-4 -
Queen/
16 Cotton Tate /CU-Okra/ 1995 Werer 750 9-13 4.8 2.5-3.8 -

107
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Teysie /
17 Cotton 1995 Werer 750 11-14 5 2.8-4 -
Cucurova/ 1518/
Sille-1
18 Cotton (Stoneville 1998 Werer - - 37 -
1324)
NEBAH (Stam
19 Cotton 2007 Werer 700-800 12-16 14.3 -
-59A)
20 Cotton Lonia 2008 Werer - - 11.18 - -
Hazera
21 Cotton YD206 2011 400-1100 10-15 16 - -
genetics ltd
Hazera
22 Cotton YD211 2011 400-1100 10-15 15.1 - -
genetics ltd
Hazera
23 Cotton YD223 2011 400-1100 10-15 16.2 - -
genetics ltd
Vibha Seed
24 Cotton VBCH 1527 2013 400-1100 - 13.2 - -
Ethiopia
Vibha Seed
25 Cotton VBCHB 1203 2013 400-1100 - 11.6 - -
Ethiopia
Hazera
26 Cotton YD-195 2013 400-1100 10-15 13.08 - -
Genetics Itd
Hazera
27 Cotton YD-670 2013 400-1100 10-15 14.76 - -
Genetics Itd
Else Addis
28 Cotton Candia 2014 400-1100 10-15 18 - -
Ind plc
Else Addis
29 Cotton Claudia 2014 400-1100 10-15 17.6 - -
Ind plc
Else Addis
30 Cotton Gloria 2014 400-1100 10-15 18.5 - -
Ind plc
Else Addis
31 Cotton STG-14 2014 400-1100 10-15 16.6 - -
Ind plc
Sisikuk-02 /
32 Cotton 2015 Werer 300-1200 15-20 15.7-21.4 - -
CCRI 12/

108
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Werer-50/Arba
33 Cotton X cucurova 2015 Werer 300-1200 15-20 12.9-20.9 - -
1518f5#1-3/3/
Weyto-07 /Guru
34 Cotton 2015 Werer 300-1200 15-20 15.2-28.7 - -
F5#1-2/
35 Kenaf Dofan 1987 Werer 500-1650 - - - -

36 Kenaf SH/15r 326024 1987 Werer 500-1650 - - - -

Sojat-Dangur
37 Kenaf 2012 Pawe 400-1100 - - - -
(G2)

109
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

4. Oil crops
Table 4.1. Castor and Groundnut
Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate DCiseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
1 Castor Abaro 2007 IAR - 15 24 - moderately tolerant to rust

2 Castor Hiruy (Gk-SEL-1) 2011 Melkassa 700-2000 15 12 resistant to wilt and tolerant to rust

3 Groundnut Shulamit 1976 Werer 750-1650 100 35 - sensitive to bacterial blight and rust

4 Groundnut NC-4x 1986 Werer 750-1650 100 6 - sensitive to rust

5 Groundnut NC-343 1986 Werer 750-1650 100 6 - sensitive to rust

moderately tolerant bacterial blight but
6 Ground nut Roba (ICG-7794) 1989 Werer 550-1650 100 3-6 -
sensitive to rust
sensitive to rust but fairly tolerates
7 Groundnut Betisedi (ICG-273) 1993 Werer 750-1900 80 1.3-3 -
bacterial blight
moderately tolerant to major diseases
8 Groundnut ICGV-86330 (Lote-01) 2002 Werer 1000-1650 100 20.39 -
and insects
moderately tolerant to major diseases
9 Groundnut ICGV -88424 (Bulki -01) 2002 Werer 1000-1650 120 23.66 -
and insects
10 Groundnut Lotte 2002 Werer - - - - -

11 Groundnut Bulgi 2002 IAR - - - - -

moderately resistant to major diseases
12 Groundnut Werer-961 (ICGV-87108) 2004 Werer 750-1650 68 26.45 - ( leaf spot and rust) and insect pests
(espect bollworm and termite)

110
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate DCiseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
moderately resistant to major diseases
13 Groundnut Werer-963 (ICGV-86644) 2004 Werer 1400-1650 79 21.57 - ( leaf spot and rust) and insect pests
(espect bollworm and termite)
moderately resistant to major diseases
Werer-962 ( ICGV-
14 Groundnut 2004 Werer 750-1650 99 29.39 - ( leaf spot and rust) and insect pests
86928)
(espect bollworm and termite)
moderately resistant to major diseases
Werer- 964 (ICGV
15 Groundnut 2004 Werer 1400-1650 80 21.48 - ( leaf spot and rust) and insect pests
-86635)
(espect bollworm and termite)
16 Groundnut ICGV-93164 2008 Werer 740-1650 60-110 80 30 resistant

17 Groundnut ICGV -94222 2008 Werer 740-1650 60-110 80 29 resistant

18 Groundnut ICGV -(94205) 2008 Werer 740-1650 60-110 68 51 resistant

moderately resistant to major insect pests
19 Groundnut Fetene ( ICGV-93370) 2009 Werer 750-1650 60-110 60.72 - (leaf spot, rust, african bollworm and
termite
20 Groundnut Fenta (ICGV-96395) 2010 Sinana 1450-1850 80-100 21 18 tolerant to root disease

21 Groundnut Eta (ICGV -96395) 2010 Amhara 1450-1850 80-100 22 20 tolerant to root disease
moderately resistant to major diseases
BaHa jidu(NC-AC-2748 Haramaya
22 Groundnut 2012 1400-1650 84 20.79 - (leaf spot & rust)and insect pest (african
X CHICO) University
boll worm)
BaHa Haramaya
23 Groundnut 2012 1400-1650 123 19.65 - -
Gudo(ICGV-88357) University
Haramaya
24 Groundnut ICGV-98412(12) 2016
University
Haramaya
25 Groundnut ICGV-98404(11) 2016
University

111
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Seed
Year of Breeder/ Attitude average average
No Crop Variety rate DCiseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) yield (q/ yield (q/
(kg)
ha) ha)
Haramaya
26 Groundnut ICGV-94100(1) 2016
University
27 Groundnut ICGV-96346 2016 Werer

Table 4.2. Linseed, noug and rapeseed

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed Rate average average
No Crop Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release raintainer (m) (kg) yield(q/ yield (q/
ha) ha)
1 Linseed HB 95 - - 22-2600 - - - -

2 Linseed Victory 1978 IAR 2200-2600 - - - -

3 Linseed CI1652 1984 Holetta 2200-2600 - 1.36 0.88 -

4 Linseed Cl-1525 1984 IAR 2200-2600 - 1.43 0.81 -

5 Linseed Esete-1 1988 Holetta - - - - -

6 Linseed Chilalo 1992 Holetta 2200-2600 - 1.67 - -

7 Linseed IAR/LI 1997 IAR - - 1.64 - tolerant to wilt, powdery mildew

8 Linseed Belay-96 /IAR/LI/ 1997 Holetta - - - - -

tolerant/resistant to major disease
9 Linseed Geregera (R7-20D) 1999 Adet 2200-2800 25 9.06 -
(wilt & powdery mildew)
resistant to powdery mildew and
10 Linseed Berene (PGRC/E 01 3627) 2001 Holetta 1880-2800 25 13.77 9.1
pasmo disease
Tolle (C12698 X PGRC/E moderately tolerant to wilt ,pasmo
11 Linseed 2004 Holetta 2200-2800 25 16.9 8-12
13611/B) and powdery mildew
resistant to wilt, pasmo and powdery
12 Linseed Chilalo (Kulumsa-1) 2006 Kulumsa 2000-2800 25 13-17 12-16
mildew
Dibannee(CI-1525 resistant to powdery mildew, pasmo
13 Linseed 2009 Sinana 1800-2600 25-30 15-20 -
XCDC1747/21) and wilt

112
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Bakalcha (Chilalo X Omega/4B) resistant to linseed wilt, pasmo and

14 Linseed 2010 Kulumsa 2000-2800 25 17.39 14.5
UYM% powdery mildew disease
tolerant to wilt, pasmo and powdery
15 Linseed Ci-1652x Omega/23 (Jeldu) 2010 Holetta 1800-2800 25 15.14 11.23
mildew
resistant to powdery mildew pasmo
16 Linseed Jiituu(CI-1652xOmega/B/53) 2012 Sinana 1800-2600 25-30 19-20 16-18
and wilt
Kassa-2 (PGRC/E 10306x resistant to powdery mildew pasmo
17 Linseed 2012 Holetta 1800-2600 25-30 12.59
Chillalo/y/3) and wilt
resistant to powdery mildew pasmo
18 Linseed Biltstar 2013 SOLE 1800-2600 25-30 19-20 16-18
and wilt
Furtu (CI-1525 X PGRC/ resistant to linseed wilt, pasmo and
19 Linseed 2013 Kulumsa 2000-2800 25 17.61 15.55
E10011/13) powdery mildew disease
Bekoji-14 (Intra-Specific
20 Linseed Hybridization of R12-N 100 X 2014 Holetta 2200-2600 25 15.47 - resistant to powdery mildew and wilt
CI-1525/SPS 1)
Yadanno (H31 X Belay-96-208)
21 Linseed 2015 Kulumsa 2000-2800 25 17.5-21 14.5-18.5 -
ያደኖ
22 Linseed R734D x B-96/111 2016 Kulumssa

23 Noug Sendafa 1976 IAR 1600-2200 - - - -

24 Noug Fogera 1988 IAR 1600-2200 - 0.9 0.397 -

25 Noug Este-1 1988 IAR 1600-2200 - 0.59 0.41 -

26 Noug Kuyu 1994 IAR 1600-2200 - 1 - -

27 Noug Shambu-1 (PGRCc/e 228423) 2002 Holetta 2000-2400 10 9.45 5.6

28 Noug Ginchi-1(PGRC/E227187) 2010 Holetta 1600-2500 10 100 60-70 tolerant to blight and shot-hole

29 Rapeseed S - 71 1976 Holetta 2000-2600 - - - -

30 Rapeseed S-67 (Obsolete Variety) 1976 Holetta 2000-2600 - 3.03 1.78 -

31 Rapeseed Target 1976 IAR 2000-2600 - - - -

113
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

32 Rapeseed S- 115 1977 Holetta 2000-2600 - - - -

33 Rapeseed Awassa Population 1977 IAR 2000-2600 - - - -

34 Rapeseed Mixed Dodolla 1978 Holetta 2000-2600 - - - -

35 Rapeseed Tower 1984 IAR 2000-2600 - 1.85 0.74 -

36 Rapeseed Pura 1984 IAR 2000-2600 - 1.95 0.92 -

37 Rapeseed Yellow Dodolla 1986 IAR 2000-2600 - 3.02 1.68 -

38 Rapeseed Tower Sel-3 1986 IAR 2000-2600 - 2 - -

39 Rapeseed Shaya (s-67x zem-1)xs-672c6) 1993 Sinana - - - - -

less incidence in both white rust
40 Rapeseed PGRC/E 21163 (Tule) 2002 Adet 2000-2600 10 15.41 15.27 and alternaria than the standard
check(yellow dodola)
similar incidence in both white rust
41 Rapeseed Pgrc/e 20021 (Muger) 2002 Adet 2000-2600 10 15.3 3.35 and alternaria as to the standard
check(yellow dodola)
Ms-YD X Zem-1-bcr-5 downy mildew:1.3 on 0-5-
42 Rapeseed 2005 Holetta 2000-2600 20 30.3 -
(Holetta-1) measurement scale
tolerant to major disease and insect
43 Rapeseed Kokate-1 (PGRC/E/1/2/208507) 2006 Hawassa 1700-2700 10 10.6 -
pests
tolerant to major disease and insect
44 Rapeseed Awassa-1 (ACC.153) 2006 Sinana 1700-2400 10 9.4 -
pests
45 Rapeseed Belinda 2015 Holetta 2200-2800 2.5-4.5 20.5 - resistant to black leg

46 Rapeseed Axana 2015 Holetta 2200-2800 2.5-4.5 18 resistant to black leg

Bayer PLC
47 Rapeseed Swifter 2016
/Holetta

114
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 4.3. Sesame

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)

1 T.85 1976 Werer 600 5-10 0.5-1 - -

2 Kelafo 74 1976 Werer 500 5-10 0.3-1.2 - -

3 E 1978 Werer 300-750 5-10 0.4-1.2 - -

4 S 1978 Werer 300-750 5-10 0.4-1.2 - -

5 Tate (BSC-003) 1989 Werer 1650 5-10 9.14 7 -

6 Mehado 80 1989 Werer 300-750 5-10 0.7 - -

7 Abasena 1990 Werer 500-1200 5-10 0.4-1.4 - -

8 Sarkamo 1993 Werer 360-750 5-10 1.8 - -

9 Adi 1993 Werer 750 5-10 1.7 - -

10 Argane 1993 Werer 350-750 5-10 0.7-0.18 - -

Ahadu(Kelafo resistant to leaf blight and powdery
11 2007 Sirinka 1400-1600 7-10 8-13 7-8
74XC-22SELl4) mildew
Borkena (Pungun resistant to powdery mildew and
12 2007 Sirinka 750-950 7-10 8-12 6-10
yongae) leaf blight
Barsan /ACC-
13 2010 Somali 500 7 9.6 7-8 tolerant to disease and insect pests
00016(1)
resistant to bacterial leaf spot and
14 Obsa (EW004) 2010 Bako 1250-1650 5 1068.5 868.8
alternaria sesame
resistant to bacterial leaf spot &
15 Dicho (EW015) 2010 Bako 1250-1650 5 1062.5 810.6
alternaria sesame

115
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average

No Variety Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Lidan (ACC-
16 2010 Somali 500 7 10.8 7-8 tolerant to disease and insect pest
00044(2)
17 Setit-1(Col SELP#1) 2011 Humera 560-1130 2-4.5 6.2-10 5.5-9 -
Humera-1(ACC.038
18 2011 Humera 760-1130 - 5.9-9 5-8 moderately resistant to leaf blight
SEL.1)
19 ACC.00047 2013 Sirinka 1300-1600 7-8 7-8 5-6 resistant to wilt and powdery mildew

resistant to bacterial blight and

Dangur (E.W.013. moderately resistant to major
20 2015 Pawe 740-1200 5 6.3 5.2
(8)) disease(angular leaf spot,
cercospora leaf spot)

21 WW-001(6) 2016 Humera

22 J-03 2016 Humera

23 Acc.ba002 2016 Gonder

Haramaya
24 W-109/WSS/ 2016
university
Haramaya
25 W-109/WSM/ 2016
University

116
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 4.4. Safflower and Vernonia

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research Farmers’ average

No Crop Variety release maintainer (m) (kg) average yield yeld (q/ha) Diseases/pest reaction
(q/ha)
1 Safflower Turkana 2011 Holetta 1500-2000 20 11.3 - fairly tolerant
tolerant to major disease
9schelerotia & rust 1-5 scale) &
2 Sunflower Oissa (NSH-25) 2005 Hawassa 520-2200 20 18.1 - pests (cut worms, stem borer,
aphids). it performs best under
moisture stress condition
3 Sunflower KAZANOVA(Hybrid) 2011 Asharaf(AAI) >3000 4-5 45 20-30 in the case of stronger attack it
requires chemical protection
4 Sunflower NS-H-45 (Hybrid) 2011 Asharaf(AAI) >3000 4-5 55 25-35 in the case of stronger attack it
requires chemical protection
5 Sunflower NS-H-111 (Hybrid) 2011 Asharaf(AAI) >3000 4-5 50 25-35 in the case of stronger attack it
requires chemical protection
6 Sunflower VSFH-1006Hybrid) 2012 RSEGTE 1800-2600 7-10 19 - resistant to powdery mildew
7 Sunflower VSFH-2074(Hybid) 2012 RSEGTE 1200-2000 7-10 18.3 - resistant to powdery mildew
8 Sunflower Neoma(Hybrid) 2012 RSEGTE 1200-2000 7-10 19.5 - resistant to powdery mildew
9 Sunflower NK Delfi(Hybrid) 2012 RSEGTE 1200-2000 10-12 17.6 - -
10 Sunflower Hysun 33 2013 GCT 1200-2000 10-12 17.6 - -
11 Sunflower X6859 2014 Holetta 1200-2400 8-12 21-25 - -
12 Sunflower Camara II 2014 Holetta 1200-2400 8-12 20-25 -
13 Sunflower Vincenzo 2014 Holetta 1200-2400 8-12 18-22 - -
14 Sunflower NLN 11037 2014 Holetta 1200-2400 8-12 17-20 - -

Ayehu(PGRC/E tolerant to powdered mildew,

15 Sunflower ACC#208768) 2014 Assosa 600-2072 4-5 25-29 23-24 bacteria blight, alternaria stem
spot and downey mildew
16 Sunflower Pawi 2(P63LL06) 2015 Dupont poineer 800-2200 8-12 21.2 15.6 -
17 Sunflower Gimja(P63A98) 2015 Dupont poineer 1000-2200 8-12 21.9 19.9 -
18 Vernonia Boke Kuni AD-01- 2005 Adet 1800-1900 10 52.8-70.8 40-60 tolerant to powdery mildew, wilt
04(ACC # 7 ) and damping off

117
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

5. Vegetables, Tubers and Roots

Table 5.1. Broccoli, Cabbage, Garlic, Carrot, Beet, Green courgette and Lettuce
Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
not susceptible to
1 Broccoli FLAMENCO F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 0.3 280 264
riceyness
resistant to fusarium
2 Broccoli LUCKY F1 2013 Bejo Seed V.B Crop Grow Pro 1500-2200 0.3 280 220
oxysporum c.r1
3 Broccoli Agassi 2013 Crop Grow Plc - - - - -
GAWT international bussiness
4 Broccoli Novaria 2015 1200-2400 - 310 262 -
plc
resistant to fusarium
5 Cabbage THOMAS F1 2011 Bejo Seed V.B Crop Grow Pro 1500-2200 0.55 700 580 oxysporum strong
against insect(lowlands)
resistant to fusarium
oxysporum tolerant to
6 Cabbage ROTONDA F1 2011 Bejo Seed V.B Crop Grow Pro 1500-2200 0.55 750 600
fungal disease(rainy
season)
7 Cabbage VICTORIA F1 2011 Carl Scholton 830-1780 0.15 463 320 -
8 Cabbage OXYLUS F1 2011 Carl Scholton 750-1560 0.15 436 327 -
9 Cabbage K 500 2011 Hzpc Holland Bv-Sol Agro Plc 1300-2500 0.3 389 330 -
resistant to fusarium
10 Cabbage Gloria 2013 Syngenta 1000-2400 0.4 758 754
oxysporium 1
resistant to fusarium
11 Cabbage OPTIKO F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 0.3 487 439
oxysporum,heat tolerant
easily attackedby insect
12 Cabbage Landini F1 2013 Hazera Genetics Itd 1300-2500 0.3 400-976 - pests because of its
attractive tests
high resistance fusarium
oxysporum f.sp.
13 Cabbage Bandung F1 2015 MARKOS PLC 1200-2800 0.2 647 542
conglutinans race,black
rot
14 Cabbage Green boy 2016 Joytech PLC /Melkassa

118
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
huruta debrezeit and
Bishoftu Netch similar areas )applied as
15 Garlic 2000 Debrezeit 1900-2400 1200 - 79
(W-014) dap just before planting
(blanket recom)
huruta debrezeit and
Tsedey 92 similar areas )applied as
16 Garlic 2000 Debrezeit 1900-2400 1200 - 85
(G-493) dap just before planting
(blanket recom)
Qoricho (W- moderately susceptible
17 Garlic 2006 Sinana 1900-3350 400 61 15-20
027) to garlic rust.
Kuriftu (Acc.
18 Garlic 2010 Debrezeit 2100-2400 - - - -
no-G-59-2/94)
Chelenko I’(G- moderately susceptible
19 Garlic 2014 Haramaya University 2000-2400 0.8-1 13 -
147-2/94) to garlic rust.
resistant /tolerant to
Chefe (G-104-
20 Garlic 2015 Debrezeit 1800 8-12 65.9 - major garlic disease
1/94)
(rust,white rot)
moderately resistant /
21 Garlic Holeta (G-HL) 2015 Debrezeit 1800 8-12 66.5 - tolerant to major garlic
diseases (rust,white rot)
strong against alternaria
22 Carrot SAMSON 2011 Bejo Seed V.B Crop Grow Pro 1500-2200 3 300 250
and cercospora
Haramaya(AUA
23 Carrot 2014 Haramaya University 1600-2400 3.5-5 52.65 48.17 -
-108)
24 Red beet BORO F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 7-12 320 270 -
Green
25 Borja 2013 Crop Grow Plc - - - - -
courgette
26 Lettuce Tesfa/Maya 2012 Mekelle 1800-2100 280 446 172.8 -

119
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
high resistance to
downey mildew(bremia
27 Lettuce Mondai NZ F1 2013 RIJK 1500-2200 0.2 290 250 lectucea)and
intermediate resistance
to lettuce mosaic virus
high resistance to
downey mildew(bremia
28 Lettuce Kristine NZ F1 2013 RIJK 1500-2200 0.2 388 300 lectucea)and
intermediate resistance
to lettuce mosaic virus
high resistance to
Cartagenas downey mildew
29 Lettuce 2013 RIJK 1500-2200 0.2 710 500
NZ F1 (bremialectucea),current
lettuce aphid
30 Lettuce Barundi NZ F1 2013 RIJK 1500-2200 0.2 265 250 normal
Aviram F1
31 Lettuce 2013 Hazera Genetics Itd 800-2500 90000 129 106 good
(Type:Iceberg)
high resistance to
32 Lettuce Nation NZ F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 0.2 235 180 downey mildew (bremia
lactucea)
high resistance to
33 Lettuce Concorde Nz F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 0.2 220 180 downey mildew (bremia
lactucea)
high resistance to
downey mildew(bremia
34 Lettuce levistro RZ F1 2013 RIJK 1500-2200 0.3 265 200 lectucea)and
intermediate resistance
to lettuce mosaic virus

120
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
high resistance to
downey mildew (bremia
lactucea),lettuce root
35 Lettuce Rousso RZ F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 0.2 350 300
aphid (pemphigus
bersarius), current
lettuce aphid
GAWT international bussiness highly resistance to bi:
36 Lettuce Pedrola 2015
1500-2800 - 179.4 128.8
plc 1-27, 29/nr:0
GAWT international bussiness
37 Lettuce Botiola 2015 1500-2800 - 179.4 128.8 b1:16-27,29,3226
plc
38 Cauliflower Moneera 2016 Joytech PLC /Melkassa

Table 5.2. Hot pepper, chili, and sweet pepper

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
resistant to bacteria leaf
Melka Zala (PBC
1 Hot pepper 2004 Melkassa 1200-2200 800 17-27 - spot , fungal leaf disease,
972)
pythophtra and virus
Hzpc Holland Bv-Sol
2 Hot papper Serenade 2011 300-2000 - 144 94 -
Agro Plc
SUPREME (SCH
3 Hot papper 2012 Vibha Seed Ethiopia 300-2000 - - - tolerance to sucking pests
-942 F1)
4 Hot papper SCH-925 F1 2012 Vibha Seed Ethiopia 300-2000 - - - -
SPICY (SCH -922
5 Hot papper 2012 Vibha Seed Ethiopia 300-2000 - - - -
F1)
CAPSI (SCH - 902 tolerance to LCV and
6 Hot papper 2012 Vibha Seed Ethiopia 300-2000 - - -
F1) sucking pest complex
resistant to p/
7 Hot papper Saidah 2013 Syngenta 500-2500 - 529 290 mildew,potato virus Y and
mosaic virus

121
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average yield average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
(q/ha) yield (q/ha)
8 Hot papper Sahem 2013 Syngenta 1000-2500 - 442 289 resistant to potato virus Y
Hot Pepper Joytech PLC /
9 Mextizo (37-35RZ) 2016
(Hybrid) Melkassa
resistant to bacteria leaf
spot, fungal leaf disease,
10 Chili Oda Haro 2005 Bako 1400-2200 0.5-0.7 12.5 11
pythophtra and virus
disease
Melka Shote(PBC
11 Chili 2006 Melkassa 1000-2200 600-700 20-30 15-25 tolerant to foilar disease
223)
Mlka Awaze(PBC tolerant to soil born and
12 Chili 2006 Melkassa 1000-2200 600-700 20-28 15-20
600) foilar disease
PBC 586 (For green
13 Chili 2016 Melkassa
and dry purpose)
PBC142A (For dry
14 Chili 2016 Melkassa
pod)
resistant to bacteria leaf
Melka Dima (Papri
15 Sweet pepper 2004 Melkassa 500 - - - spot, fungal leaf disease,
King)
pythophtra
resistant to bacteria leaf
Melka Eshet (Papri
16 Sweet pepper 2004 Melkassa 1900 500 - - spot, fungal leaf disease,
Queen)
pythophtra
17 Sweet pepper Dame(244666) 2015 Bako 1200-1800 0.75 56.9-77.9 59-65.98 -

18 Sweet pepper Dinsire(224665) 2015 Bako 1200-1800 0.75 56-67 50-57 -

resistance to tobaco
19 Sweet pepper Vigro F1 2015 MARKOS PLC 500-2250 - 287 228
mosaic virus
20 Sweet pepper Serano 2015 Mekamba plc 300-2500 - 200-400 300-500 -

21 Sweet pepper Harbad F1 2015 MARKOS PLC 500-2250 - 243 200 -

22 Sweet pepper Kume (223662) 2015 Bako 1200-1800 0.75 64.8-80.84 50.82-58.91 -

122
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 5.3. Tomato and Onion

Farmers’
Seed Research
Year of Breeder/ average
No Crop Variety Attitude (m) rate average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer yield (q/
(kg) (q/ha)
ha)
1 Tomato Melka Salsa/Serio 1998 Melkassa 700-2000 250-300 5.56 3.5 Tolerant to disease
Melka Shola /Red
2 Tomato 1998 Melkassa 700-2000 250-300 6.2 3.82 More tolerant to disease complex
Pear/
3 Tomato Fetane (Picador) 2005 Melkassa 500-2000 - 454 - More tolerant to leaf disease
4 Tomato Metadel (Caraibo) 2005 Melkassa 700-2000 - 345 - Tolerant to bacterial wilt
5 Tomato Bishola (Floradado) 2005 Melkassa 500-2000 - 340 - More tolerant to leaf disease
6 Tomato Eshete (Calypso) 2005 Melkassa 700-2000 394 - Tolerant to bacterial wilt
Lakku (CLN-657-
7 Tomato 2006 Bako 1400-2200 0.5 337 295 Tolerant to powdery mildew
BC-F2--274-0-15)
8 Tomato Mersa (Carman) 2006 Sirinka 800-2000 - 276 159 Late blight Resistant
9 Tomato Sirinka-I (Cardinal) 2006 Sirinka 800-2000 - 382 204 -
10 Tomato Woyno (Fire ball) 2006 Sinana 800-2000 - 249 144 -
CHALI
11 Tomato 2007 Melkassa 500-2000 - 431 - -
(Riorgrande)
12 Tomato MIYA /Floralou/ 2007 Melkassa 500-2000 - 471 - -
COCHORO (Pace
13 Tomato 2007 Melkassa 500-2000 - 463 - -
setter)
Hazera
14 Tomato Shanty 2009 400-2000 650 604 -
Genetics Itd
Hazera Resistant to TMO virus and TSW
15 Tomato Irma 2009 700-2000 - 815 608
Genetics Itd virus
MARKOS
16 Tomato Barnum 2011 2100 - 357.03 285.7 -
PLC
Hazera
17 Tomato Galilea 2011 1000-2300 - 666 659 -
Genetics Ltd

123
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Farmers’
Seed Research
Year of Breeder/ average
No Crop Variety Attitude (m) rate average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer yield (q/
(kg) (q/ha)
ha)
18 Tomato Rainbow 2011 ERA 500-1500 - 436 - -
19 Tomato EDEN F1 2011 BECK 950-2300 - 599 485 -
20 Tomato Anna F1 2011 Mongo 850-2100 - 543 478 -
Resistant to fusarium oxysp.
lycopersici resistant to verticillum
21 Tomato TOPSPIN F1 2011 Bejo 1500-2200 0.15 750 550
albo-atrum multiple resistance to
virus disease
Hazera
22 Tomato Bridget 40 2011 300-2000 - 543 539 -
genetics ltd
STH-805(SYNO) Vibha Seed
23 Tomato 2012 300-2300 - 337 - -
(Hybrid) Ethiopia
STH-080(JEWEL) Vibha Seed
24 Tomato 2012 500-2300 - 514 - -
(Hybrid) Ethiopia
25 Tomato ARP tomato D2 2012 Melkassa 500-2000 435 355 -
resistant to verticillium wilt, fusarium
Hazera
26 Tomato shanty pm f1 2013 400-2000 - 609 373 t,bacterial speck. IR:TSWV,Gray
Gentics plc
leafspot,TYLCV
Gelilema (Oval
27 Tomato 2015 Melkassa 500-2000 - 500 446 tolerant to powdery mildew
Red)
271.5-
28 Tomato Sire(CLN 2400B) 2015 Bako 1200-1750 250-300 361.5-433.6 -
311.2
29 Tomato Ilu-Harar(CLN2498) 2015 Bako 1200-1750 250-300 337-456 240-300 -
30 Tomato Momtanz 2015 Syngenta - - 602 460 -
GREEN LIFE
31 Tomato Tesha 2015 - - 638 497 -
PLC
32 Tomato Chibli 2015 Syngenta - - 492 392 -
33 Tomato Monica 2015 DAWNT - - 614 574
Agro-34/AS-198/
34 Tomato 2015 Mekamba plc 250-2500 - 600-800 400-700
awassa

124
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Farmers’
Seed Research
Year of Breeder/ average
No Crop Variety Attitude (m) rate average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer yield (q/
(kg) (q/ha)
ha)
MARKOS
35 Tomato Venise F1 2015 400-2000 - 750 550 -
PLC
CLN-5915-93-
36 Tomato 2015 Humera - - 430.04 - -
D4(Tekeze-1)

Agro-359/AS-199/
37 Tomato 2015 Mekamba plc 250-2500 - 500-750 400-700 -
Awash river
272.4-
38 Tomato Komto(CLN2123E) 2015 Bako 1200-1750 250-300 407.9-433.6 -
323.5
Tomato Joytech PLC /
39 Emerald F1 2016
(Hybrid) Melkassa
40 Onion Adama Red 1998 Melkassa 700-2000 - 300-350 150-200 -
41 Onion Melkam /Pusa Red/ 1998 Melkassa 1100-1800 3-4 20.7 16.5 -
42 Onion Nasik Red 2004 Melkassa 500-1900 - 265 - -
Hazera
43 Onion Neptune 2009 500-2000 3 620 570
Genetics Itd
44 Onion Nafis /Franciscana/ 2010 Melkassa 500-2200 4-5 400 300
45 Onion JAMBER F1 2011 Jones rick 540-1750 2-3.5 750 560
MARKOS
46 Onion Red King 2011 750-2250 - 582 556.25 -
PLC
47 Onion RED PASSION F1 2011 Bejo 1500-2200 2-3 650 450 strong leaf, strong against purple leaf
Hazera
48 Onion Sivan 2011 400-2000 3 636 478
genetics ltd
Impact
49 Onion Caramelo F1 2012 Mundial Agri 500-2200 - 235 - -
Plc-
Impact
50 Onion Sweet Caroline 2012 Mundial Agri 500-2200 - 251 - -
Plc
Vibha Seed
51 Onion ROSY (SOV 111) 2012 500-2200 4-5 372 - -
Ethiopia

125
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research
Farmers’
Seed Research
Year of Breeder/ average
No Crop Variety Attitude (m) rate average yield Crop diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer yield (q/
(kg) (q/ha)
ha)

Hazera
52 Onion Ada F1 2013 500-2200 3 697 425
Genetics Itd
Hazera
53 Onion Russet F1 2013 500-2200 3 655 435
Genetics Itd

GAWT good levels of pink root

54 Onion Red Coach 2015 international 500-2200 - 504 500 tolerance,good and internal red
bussiness plc color,bolt tolerant
GAWT
good general intermediate
55 Onion Regent 2015 international 500-2200 - 588 440
resistances to foilar diseases
bussiness plc
GAWT
good partial resistance to foliar
56 Onion Malbec 2015 international 500-2200 - 561 498
disease
bussiness plc
GAWT
intermediate resistance to downy
57 Onion Sirius 2015 international 500-2200 - 581 469
mildew
bussiness plc

Table 5.4. Shallot, Snap bean and Snow pea

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average yield
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) reaction
(q/ha)
resistant to bulb rot
of shallots, purple
1 Shallot Huruta (DZ-SHT-91) 1998 Melkassa - - 84.08 -
blotch, downy mildew
and onion thrips
tolerant to purple
2 Shallot NEGELE-(DZ-SHT-50) 2004 Debrezeit 2000 - 304.9 432 blotch and downy
mildew
3 Shallot YHERA(Vethalam) 2005 Melkassa 500-2500 3-4 250 - -
4 Shallot Minjar (DZSHT-164-1B) 2009 Debrezeit 1600-2000 10 249.9 - -
5 Shallot Tropics (True seed) 2016 Melkassa 272
6 Shallot DZSHT-157-1B (True seed) 2016 Debrezeit 272

126
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average yield
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) reaction
(q/ha)
7 Shallot DZSHT-91-2B (True seed) 2016 Debrezeit 272
Snap
12 B.C4.4 2012 Melkassa 1100-1800 50 109 73 -
bean
intermediate
resistance to
13 Snap pea NORBU 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2400 100 20 18 powdery Mildew, pea
leaf rollvVirus and
fusarium
intermediate
resistance to
14 Snap pea QUARTZ 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2400 100 33 27 powdery Mildew, pea
Leaf roll virus and
fusarium
intermediate
resistance to
15 Snow pea ZIRKON 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2400 100 40 37 powdery mildew, pea
leaf rollvVirus and
Fusarium
intermediate
resistance to
16 Snow pea GARNET 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2400 100 45 41 powdery mildew, pea
leaf roll virus and
fusarium

127
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 5.5. Fine bush, okra, sweet corn and water melon
Farmers’
Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate average
No Crop Variety average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/
(q/ha)
ha)
resistant to pseudomonas and
1 Fine bush VOLTA 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 90 49 45 BCMV, very good tolerance
to rust
resistant pseudomonas and
BCMV,very good tolerant to
2 Fine bush BOSTON 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 90 40 32
rust and highly tolerant to hot
conditions
resistant pseudomonas and
BCMV,very good tolerant to
3 Fine bush LOMAMI 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 90 79 71
rust and highly tolerant to hot
conditions
resistant
4 Fine bush ADANTE 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 90 38 36 toaAnttracnose,pseudomonas
and BCMV,good heat tolerance
intermediate resistant to erwinia
5 Sweet corn NOA F1 2013 Crop Grow Plc 1500-2200 18 190 186
stewarti Northern
Slender (SOH-
6 Okra 2013 Vibha Seed Ethiopia - - 9.8 3.5 -
701)
7 Okra Acc≠23793 2016 Humera ARC
Candy (SWMH
8 Water melon 2013 Vibha Seed Ethiopia mid land - 270 232 -
123)
9 Water melon Ria (SWMH121) 2013 Vibha Seed Ethiopia mid land - 370 281 -

10 Water melon Augusta 2013 Syngenta 500-2000 - 87 78 -

11 Water melon Lahat F1 2013 Hazera Genetics Itd 400-1700 - 182 82 -
12 Water melon Polimore 2015 GREEN LIFE PLC - - 265 203
Joytech PLC /
13 Musk melon Glory (FH2473) 2016
Melkassa

128
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Table 5.6. Irish potato and Sweet potato

Seed Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 Irish potato Alemaya 560 - AUA 1500-2500 2000 25-30 15-20
moderately resistant to
2 Irish potato Alemaya 100 - AUA 1500-2500 - 30-40 15-25
late blight
low resistance to late
3 Irish potato Alemaya 148 - AUA 1500-2500 2000 25-30 15-20
blight
4 Irish potato Genet (K-59A12b) - - - 2000 - - -
moderately resistant to
5 Irish potato Alemaya 204 - AUA 1500-2500 2000 30-40 20-25
late blight
6 Irish potato Al 624 1987 Haramaya University 1600-2400 - - - -
7 Irish potato Alemaya 624 1987 Haramaya University 1500-2500 2000 30-40 20-25 -
8 Irish potato Sissay 1988 Holetta 1600-2400 - - - -
9 Irish potato Awash 1991 Holetta - - - - -
10 Irish potato Menagesha 1993 Holetta - - - - -
11 Irish potato Tolcha 1993 Holetta - - - - -
12 Irish potato Wechecha 1997 Holetta - - - - -
13 Irish potato Alemaya 1 1997 AUA 1500-2500 2000 8-10 10-15 -
14 Irish potato Chirro (AL-111) 1998 Haramaya University 1600-2000 15 32-40 25-35 -
in the blight hot spot
production areas it
15 Irish potato Bedasa (AL-114) 2001 Haramaya University 1700-2000 15-18 405.9 - must be supplmented
with fungicide spray for
battery yield.
in the blight hot spot
production areas it
16 Irish potato Zemen (AL-105) 2001 Haramaya University 1700-2000 15-18 371.8 - must be supplmented
with fungicide spray for
battery yield.

129
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
17 Irish potato Zengena (CIP-380479.6) 2001 Hawassa 2000-2800 20 300-350 225-250 late blight resistant
18 Irish potato CIP-384321.9(Guasa) 2002 Adet 2000-2800 2000 244-330 220-250 tolerant to late blight
19 Irish potato CIP-37792-5(Jalenie) 2002 Holetta 1600-2800 18-20 403.3 291.3 tolerant to late blight
20 Irish potato CIP-384321-19 (Degemegn) 2002 Holetta 1600-2800 18-20 429.4 356.3 tolerant to late blight
21 Irish potato CIP-382173.12 (Gorebela) 2002 Sheno 2700-3200 2000 300-520 260-300 tolerant to late blight
22 Irish potato Gera (KP-90134.2) 2003 Sheno 2700-3200 20 259.3 206.4-447.7 resistant to late blight
relative tolerant to potato
late blight, in late blight
hot spot production areas
23 Irish potato Gabbisa (Cip 3870-96-11) 2005 Harmaya University 1700-2000 15-18 400 310
it must be Supplemented
with fungicide spray for
better yield
tolerant to late blight
24 Irish potato Mara Charre (Cip 389701-3) 2005 Hawassa 1700-2700 45000 333 284
disease ( 5.9% severity)
relative tolerant to potato
late blight , in late blight
hot spot production areas
25 Irish potato Chala (Cip 387412-2) 2005 Haramaya University 1700-2000 15-18 420 350
it must be Suplemented
with fungicide spray for
better yield
tolerant to late blight
26 Irish potato Shonkolla (KP - 90134.5) 2005 Hawassa 1700-2700 44444 315 291
disease (7.3% severity)
tolerant to late blight
27 Irish potato Bulle (Cip 387224-25) 2005 Hawassa 1700-2700 45000 393 383
disease (5% serverity)
28 Irish potato Araarsaa (CIP-90138.12) 2006 Sinana 2400-3350 20 20.6-45.39 37.57-50.22 resistant to late blight
tolerant to the major
29 Irish potato Gudanie (CIP-386423.13) 2006 Holetta 1600-2800 18-20 29.17 21 potato disease i.e late
blight

130
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
30 Irish potato Hundee (CIP-90147.8) 2006 Sinana 2400-3350 20 21-51 28-54 resistant to late blight

31 Irish potato KULUMSA(KP-90143.5) 2007 Kulumsa 2200-2750 15-20 - - -

Hzpc Holland Bv-Sol slightly susceptible to

32 Irish potato CAESAR 2009 1900-2400 15-20 650 475
Agro Plc late blight
tolerant to late blight
33 Irish potato Dancha ( CIP - 392618.511) 2009 Hawassa 1700-2700 44.444 31.8 35.9 disease (6.4%L blight
incidence)
34 Irish potato Belete (CIP- 393371.58) 2009 Holetta 1600-2800 18-20 47.19 - -
Hzpc Holland Bv-Sol
35 Irish potato MONDIAL 2009 1900-2400 15-20 650 500 susceptible to late blight
Agro Plc
Hzpc Holland Bv-Sol
36 Irish potato RED SCARLETT 2010 1800-2400 15-20 50 40 susceptable to late blight
Agro Plc
relatively tolerant
to potato blight.
nevertheles, in late blight
37 Irish potato Bubu (CIP- 384321 -3) 2011 Haramaya University 1650-2330 15-18 195 - hot spot areas it must
be supplemented with
fungicide spray for better
yield
tolerant to major potato
38 Irish potato Moti (KP90147-41) 2012 Sinana 2350-3350 20 42.67-79.78 33.52-64.96
diseases
tolerant to major potato
39 Irish potato Mlki (CIP94640.539) 2012 Sinana 2350-3350 20 43.79-83.64 32.96-63.30
diseases
tolerant to major potato
40 Irish potato Dagim(CIP-3960004.337) 2013 Adet 2350-3350 20 43.79-83.64 32.96-63.30
diseases
41 Irish potato Horro(CIP384321.30) 2015 Bako 2000-2800 18-22 350-400 270-300 -

131
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Kartoffelzucht Bohm medium for late blight
42 Irish potato Rumba 2015 1800-2800 18-20 350-450 330-400
Gmbh reaction
Bohm-nordkartoffel good for late blight
43 Irish potato Jelly 2015 1800-3000 23-25 450-520 350-450
agra production reaction
44 Irish potato Laura 2015 Euro plant 1800-3000 23-25 45-52 35-45 -
Sweet
45 Ogan Sagan - MOA - - - - -
potato
Sweet
46 Damota (Guralowlow) 1997 Assosa 1500-2000 - 30.7 - -
potato
Sweet
47 Falaha /TIS-3017(2)/ 1997 Assosa - - - - -
potato
Sweet
48 Bereda/Var 375/ 1997 Hawassa 1500-2000 - 29.6 - -
potato
Sweet
49 TIS-444 1997 IAR 650-850 - 21.7 - -
potato
Sweet
50 Koka 6 1997 Hawassa - - - - -
potato
Sweet
51 Koka 12 1997 Hawassa - - - - -
potato
Sweet
52 Dubo /I-444/ 1997 Hawassa - - - - -
potato
Sweet
53 Guntutie /AJAC-1/ 1997 Hawassa - - - - -
potato
Sweet
54 Kudadie /TIS 1499/ 1997 Hawassa 1500-2000 - 24 - -
potato
Sweet
55 Awassa-83 1998 Hawassa 1500-2000 20.7 - -
potato
Sweet pest problem was not
56 192040 I (Belela) 2002 Hawassa 1000-1800 - 163-226 167-189
potato observed

132
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Sweet
57 Beletech (192026 II) 2004 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 184.4 169 not pest was observed
potato
Sweet
58 Temesgen (192009 VIII) 2004 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 174.3 150 no pest was observed
potato
Sweet
59 Kero (TIS 8250) 2005 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 354 266 no pest was observed
potato
Sweet
60 Dimitu 2005 Bako 1400-1800 33333 267 128 no pest was observed
potato
Sweet
61 Kulfo (Lo-323) 2005 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 270 256 no pest was observed
potato
Sweet
62 Tulla (CIP 420027) 2005 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 285 255 no pest was observed
potato
Sweet
63 Ordollo (192009 IX) 2005 Hawassa 1200-2200 55555 173 134 no pest was observed
potato
tolerant to sweet potato
Sweet
64 Balo (Koka 18) 2006 Bako 1400-1800 33333 294 166 weevil compared to the
potato
check
Sweet
65 Adu (Cuba-2) 2007 Haramaya University 1650-2000 - 160 - -
potato
Sweet
66 Berkume (TIS 8250-2) 2007 Haramaya University 1650-2000 - 195 - -
potato
Sweet
67 Birtukanie (Saluboro) 2008 Sirinka 1650-1850 33333 199 114 -
potato
Sweet
68 Jari(CN-2059-1) 2008 Sirinka 1650-1850 33333 192.2 165.2 Moderately sweet
potato
Sweet Resistant to heat and
69 Mae(tis 70357-5) 2010 Werer 500-750 - 366 334.6
potato drought
Sweet
70 Tola (TIS 844-40) 2012 Bako 1500-2010 33333 543.6 322 -
potato

133
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Table 5.7. Taro, yam, enset and cassava

Research
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Farmers’ average Crop diseases/pest
No Crop Variety Name average yield
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) reaction
(q/ha)
1 Taro Denu 33/79 2000 Jimma 1200-1800 18-20 640 389 No incidence of pests
2 Taro Boloso-1 (ARC/064/96) 2004 Areka 1550-2000 40000 290 250 No Fertilizer is required
3 Taro Kiyaqu 33/79 2005 Jimma 1200-1800 18-20 450 290 -
4 Yam Aw-004/00 2010 Hawassa 1500-1800 12500 37 25 Resistant to yam beetle
Resistant to heat and
5 Yam Lalo (BRC-7L) 2012 Bako 1500-1960 50000-53333 314.6 227
drought
Resistant to heat and
6 Yam Bulcha (BRC-8S) 2012 Bako 1500-1960 50000-53333 664.5 460
drought
7 Enset Yanbule (Digomerza) 2009 Areka 1200-3100 2222 33.8 - -
8 Enset Gewada (Henuwa) 2009 Areka 1200-3100 2222 17.5 - -
9 Enset Endale (Manduluka) 2009 Areka 1200-3100 2222 14.4 - -
10 Enset Kelisa (WELLANCHIE)) 2010 Areka 1200-3100 2222 21.8 - -
11 Enset Mesena (Eskuris) 2010 Areka 1200-3100 2222 21.8 - -
12 Enset Zerietta (Ashura) 2010 Areka 1200-3100 2222 - - -
No pest incidence was
13 Cassava Kello (44/72 Red) 2005 Hawassa 1200-1800 15625 28.1 27.1
observed
Qulle (104/72 Nigeria No pest incidence was
14 Cassava 2005 Hawassa 1200-1800 15625 27.2 24.1
Red) observed
15 Cassava TMS 191/0427 2016 Hawassa
16 Cassava MM96/7151 (AWC-1) 2016 Hawassa

134
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

6. Fruits
Seed Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) (q/ha) (q/ha)
1 Avocado Bacon 2008 Melkassa 1500-2500 228 -
2 Avocado Hass 2008 Melkassa 2000 - 223 - -
3 Avocado Nabal 2008 Melkassa 2000 - 154 - -
4 Avocado Pinkerton 2008 Melkassa 2000 - 138 - -
5 Avocado Ettinger 2008 Melkassa 1500-2500 342 - -
6 Avocado Fuerte 2008 Melkassa 1500-2700 - 257 - -
7 Avocado Yellow type 2012 World Vision 1500-2300 - 344.65 -
8 Avocado Brown Turkey 2012 World Vision 1500-2300 - 129.63 - -
9 Banana Cardaba 2006 Melkassa 1500 480 -
10 Banana Matoke 2006 Melkassa 1700 - 420.6 - -
11 Banana Giant Cavendish 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 372.3 - -
12 Banana Kitawira 2006 Melkassa 1700 - 463 - -
13 Banana Nijiru 2006 Melkassa 1700 - 481.8 - -
14 Banana Williams-1 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 556 - -
15 Banana Poyo 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 481.9 - -
16 Banana Robusta 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 395 - -
17 Banana Grand Nain 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 436 - -
18 Banana Butuzua 2006 Melkassa 1500 - 391 - -
19 Banana Ducasse Hybrid 2006 Melkassa 2000 - 260.5 - -
20 Banana Dwarf Cavendish 2006 Melkassa - - 531.2 - -
21 Mango Apple Mango 2007 Melkassa >1500 - 316.8 - -

135
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) (q/ha) (q/ha)
22 Mango Kent 2013 Melkassa 500-1700 - 139.82 - -
23 Mango Keitt 2013 Melkassa 500-1700 - 259.41 - -
24 Mango Tommy Atkins 2013 Melkassa 500-1700 - 274.58 -
use ridomil to control
25 Grapevine Cannonano 2004 Debrezeit 1950 2000 156.3 - powdery mildew
infestation
use ridomil to control
26 Grapevine Ugni Blanc 2004 Debrezeit 1950 2000 83.9 - powdery mildew
infestation
use ridomil to control
27 Grapevine Black Hamberg 2004 Debrezeit 1950 2000 27.8 - powdery mildew
infestation
use ridomil to control
28 Grapevine Dodom Alietico 2004 Debrezeit 1950 2000 26.8 - powdery mildew
infestation
use ridomil to control
29 Grapevine Grenache noir 2004 Debrezeit 1950 2000 110.7 - powdery mildew
infestation
use ridomil to control
30 Grapevine Grenache Blanch 2004 Debrezeit 1800 2000 86.7 -
powdery mildew
31 Grapevine Thompson 2013 Debrezeit 1200 2000 96.6 - -
32 Grapevine Black Corinth 2013 Debrezeit 1200 2000 82.9 - requires spray
33 Grapevine Muscat of Alexander 2013 Debrezeit 1200 2000 4.23 - requires spray
Meki-HL1 (MK 121-
34 Papaya 2015 Melkassa 750-1700 - 873 - -
l516)
Koka-HM1 (KK 103-l
35 Papaya 2015 Melkassa 750-1700 - 752 - -
446)

136
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Seed Research Farmers’

Year of Breeder/ Attitude
No Crop Variety rate average yield average yield Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m)
(kg) (q/ha) (q/ha)
Braz-HS1 (CMF 078-
36 Papaya 2015 Melkassa 750-1700 - 647 - -
L56)
37 Peach Tropic beauty 2015 Holetta 2200-2600 - 272.5 - -
38 Peach 90-19H 2015 Holetta 2200-2600 - 210 - -
Smooth cayenne
39 Pineapple 2008 Jimma 1200-1800 - 700 400
(ስሙዝካያኔ)
40 Ziziphus(kurkura) Kethely 2013 World vision 1700 - 259.41 - -
41 Ziziphus(kurkura) SEB 2013 World vision 500-1700 - 139.82 - -

137
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

6.1 Recommended fruit varieties in the 1970s by IAR (not registered)

Potential yield (q/

Crop Variety Unique character
ha)
Citrus
Hamlin 483 Early
Jaffa 461 Mid
Washington Naval 425 Early
Orange Campbell Valencia 517 Late
Olinda Valencia 559 Late
‘Pineapple’ sweet
559 Mid
orange
Ruby Blood 518 Mid
Clementine 412 Early
Dancy 652 Mid
Mandarin
Fairchild 626 Early
Nova 340 Early
Allen Eureka 345 Year round
Lemon UCR Improved 358 Nearly year round
Limonoria Lisbon 367 Seasonal
Bearss 373 Nearly year round
Lime
Mexican 64 Nearly year round
Red Blush 594 Mid
Reed 424 Early
Grapefruit
Shamber 345 Early
Star Ruby 496 Mid
Minneola 696 Late
Orlando 587 Early
Hybrids
Ortanique 366 Mid - Late
Temple 502 Mid - Late
Volkameriana - Vigorous
Macrophylla - Vigorous
Rough Lemon - Vigorous
Rangpur Lime - Vigorous
Rootstocks
Troyer Citrange - Intermediate
Carrizo Citrange - Intermediate
Sour Orange - Intermediate
Cleopatra mandarin - Intermediate
Mango ‘Sodere 11’ - High
Papaya Sunrise Solo -

138
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

7. Spices, condiments, aromatic and medicinal plants

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average average
release maintainer (m) (kg) reaction
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 Black cumin Darbera (229806) 2006 Sinana 1650-2004 5-7.5 15-19 11 no pest was observed
moderately resistant
2 Black cumin ADEN 2009 Kulumsa 1800-2500 15-20 9-16 8-11 to wilt and leaf spot
moderately resistant
3 Black cumin DERSHAYE (22071) 2009 Melkassa 1800-2500 15-20 9-16 8-12 to wilt & leaf spot
4 Black Pepper GACHEB (Pan. 4/80) 2007 Jimma 300-1500 - - - -

5 Black Pepper TATO (Sril. 3/80) 2007 Jimma 300-1500 - - -

6 Cardamom GENE (Tan.82/72) 2007 Jimma 900-1400 - - - -
no pest was observed
7 Coriander Walta-I (229710) 2006 Sinana 1650-2004 20-30 24-Oct 5 except gojjam red ant
8 Coriander INDIUM 01 2008 Sinana 1600-2300 30-35 12.5 9.5 -

9 Ginger BOZIAB (Mau.37/79) 2007 Jimma 1400 170-250 - - -

10 Ginger YALI (Miz.180/73) 2007 Jimma 1400 170-250 - - -

11 Turmeric DAMEY (Ind. 48/72) 2007 Jimma 2000 170-250 - - -

12 Vanilla Yeki (Van 1/1993) 2015 Tepi 500-1200 - - - no pest

13 Black cumin AC-BC-15 2016 Sinanna - - - - -

14 Black cumin MAB-018 2016 Sinanna - - - - -

15 Africa marigold AVT 540 2013 Wendogenet 1200-2300 33333 6.34-20.42 - -

16 Africa marigold AVT 7063 [HEWOYDE] 2013 Wendogenet 1200-2300 33333 5.35-16.45 - -
no serious disease
was observed some
17 Africa marigold AVT001 2013 Wendogenet 1200-2300 33,333 8.14-21.1 - cut warm problem was
observed

139
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average average
release maintainer (m) (kg) reaction
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
18 Chamomile Chamomile-I [American type] 2013 Wendogenet 1200-2300 27777 4.69-5.85 - -
Chamomile-II
19 Chamomile 2013 Wendogenet 1200-2300 27777 4.25-6.77 - -
(German type)
resistant/tolerant
20 Citronella Citronella 2007 IAR - - - - against rust infection
no disease and pest
Zeytee-1 incidences were
21 Camelina sativa 2014 Debrezeit/ORDA 1575-3300 2-4 12-16 10-12 observed expect very
(Camelina america)
mild powdery
no disease and pest
Zeytee-2 incidences were
22 Camelina sativa 2014 Debrezeit/ORDA 1575-3300 2-4 11-14 9-12 observed expect very
(Camelina syria)
mild powdery
no serious disease
was observed.some
70000-
23 Geranium SHITO [ሽቶ] 2013 Wendogenet 1600-3000 18.52-29.51 - wilting incidence were
100000 observed caused by
fusarium
no serious disease
was observed .some
cotton stainer bug
24 Hibiscus WG-HIBISCUTS-JAMICA 2014 Wendogenet 2000 27,777 - - are seen on the crop
when moisture is
higher then normal
no serious disease
was observed .some
cotton stainer bug
25 Hibiscus WG-Hibiscut-Sudan 2014 Wendogenet 2000 27777 - - are seen on the crop
when moisture is
higher then normal
leaf rust when
26 Japanese Mint Wondo-1 2011 Wondogenet 1100-1900 95,238 34-256 - harvesting is late
powdery mildews are
27 Lavender WG-Lavander-I 2014 Wendogenet 1200-2300 27,777 10.44-46.39 - observed though they
are not damaging

140
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Diseases/pest
No Crop Variety average average
release maintainer (m) (kg) reaction
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
leaf rust disease at
28 Lemmon Grass LOMISAR-1 2011 Wondogenet 1000-2000 27777 201-494 - late harvesting
free from disease and
29 Lemmon Grass WG-Lomisar-Java 2014 Wendogenet 1000-2000 27,777 29.43-103.28 - pests
leaf rust disease
30 Lemmon Grass WG-Lomisar-UA 2014 Wendogenet 1000-2000 27,777 24.8-57.4 - incidence of 1% and
severity of 5 %
Lemmon
31 scented WG-shito Bahirzaf-I 2015 Wendogenet 1300-2400 4444 8.34-13.65 - -
eucalptus
32 Lemon verbena LOMINAT-I(ሎሚናት) 2013 Wendogenet 1500-3000 27,777 1.3-5.56 -
Majoram /
33 WG-Oregano 2014 Wendogenet 1200-2000 55,555 5.88-12.01 -
oregano
leaf rust when
34 Pepper Mint Liyu 2011 Wondogenet 1100-1900 95,238 66-277 - harvesting is late
35 Pyrethrum Workyie (Clone Ku-73) 2007 Kulumsa 1500-3000 1 - - -

36 Pyrethrum Bekoji (Clone Ku-59) 2007 Kulumsa 1500-3000 1 - - -

WG-Rosemary-I [Rosem-Hopa/ resistant to disease
37 Rosemary 2015 Wendogenet 1500-3000 27,777 23.53 - and insect hazards
Tesfa]
WG-Rosemary-II [Rosem- resistant to disease
38 Rosemary 2015 Wendogenet 1500-3000 27,777 21.65 - and insects
Glossy]
WG-Rosemary-III [Rosm-
39 Rosemary 2015 Wendogenet 1500-3000 27,777 22.29 - -
Popular]
40 Sage WG-SAGE-I 2014 Wendogenet 964-2000 27,777 2.77-14.1 -
leaf rust when
41 Spear Mint WGSM-03 2011 Wendogenet 1500-2300 95,238 70-300 - harvesting is late
42 Spear Mint WG-SPM-FRAN 2014 Wendogenet 1500-2300 95238 11.5-14.57 - -
70000-
43 Stevia Sekwar [ስኳር) 2013 Wendogenet 1780-2700 - -
100000
44 Sweet Annie Wendo 2007 Wendogenet - - - -

141
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

8. Coffee
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average yield
No Variety­ Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
1 741 1986 Jimma 1300-1806
2 74110 1987 Jimma 1300-1800 - - - -
3 74112 1987 Jimma 1300-1802 - - - -
4 74140 1987 Jimma 1300-1801 - - - -
5 74158 1987 Jimma 1300-1804 - - - -
6 74165 1987 Jimma 1300-1803 - - - -
7 740 1988 Jimma 1300-1805 - - - -
8 744 1988 Jimma 1300-1806 - - - -
9 7440 1988 Jimma 1300-1807 - - - -
10 74148 1988 Jimma 1300-1808 - - - -
11 754 1989 Jimma 1300-1811 - - - -
12 7454 1989 Jimma 1300-1809 - - -
13 7487 1989 Jimma 1300-1810 - - - -
14 75227 1989 Jimma 1300-1812 - - - -
15 ABABUNA 1997 Jimma 1300-1815 - - - -
16 CATIMOR J-19 1997 Jimma 1300-1814 - - - -
17 CATIMOR J-21 1997 Jimma 1300-1813 - - - -
18 DESSU 1997 Jimma 1300-1816 - - - -
19 MELKO CH-2 1997 Jimma 1300-1817 - - - -
morphological character
from 2.7-2.10 were recorded
from 5 years old trees.,coffee
20 Gawe (74110xF-59) 2002 Jimma 1550-1750 1 26 24 berry disease (%severity
0.08-0.15, coffee leaf rust
(%severity) 3.03-4.66,ascochyta
(%severity)0.68

142
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate Research average Farmers’ average yield
No Variety­ Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg) yield (q/ha) (q/ha)
morphological characters from
2.7-2.10 were record from 5
21 Geisha 2002 Jimma 1000-1400 1 18-25.4 11.6
years old trees.,coffee leaf rust
(%f severity)0.47
morphological characters from
2.7-2.10 were record from 6
years old trees.,coffee berry
22 Me’oftu (F-35) 2002 Jimma 1550-1750 1 21.2 15.7-21 desease (%severity)0.28-
3.13,,coffee leaf (% serverity)
3.91-8.26, ascochyta (%
severity) 3.13
23 Angafa 5-05 (1377) 2006 Jimma 1700-1850 1 20 16 -
24 Buna-washi 2-05 (7416) 2006 Jimma 1800-2100 - 23.5 15.7 -
25 Merdacheriko (8136) 2006 Jimma 1800-2100 1 15.4 7 -
26 Wushwush 2-05 (7414) 2006 Jimma 1800-2100 1 16 16 -
27 Yachi-1-05 (7576) 2006 Jimma 1800-2100 - 19 15 -
28 Bultum (H-857/98) 2010 Jimma 1650-1850 - 17 9.3 -
29 Challa (W76/98) 2010 Jimma 1550-1950 - 15.5 8.4 -
30 Fayate (971) 2010 Jimma 1750-1950 - 19.5 9.6 -
31 Haru-1 (W66/98) 2010 Jimma 1550-1950 - 15.7 9 -
32 Harusa (H-674/98) 2010 Jimma 1550-1750 - 16 8.7 -
33 Koti (85257) 2010 Jimma 1750-1950 - 21.2 9.9 -
34 Menesibu (W78/84) 2010 Jimma 1200-1550 - 16.4 9.6 -
35 Mercha -1 (H-823/98) 2010 Jimma 1650-1850 - 11.9 8.2 -
34 Mocha (H-739/98) 2010 Jimma 1550-1750 - 13.5 7.2 -
35 Odicha (974) 2010 Jimma 1500-1750 - 20.2 10.2 -
36 Sende (W92/98) 2010 Jimma 1200-1550 - 16.1 9.2 -
37 7455*7530 2016 Jimma - - - - -
38 F-59*H13 2016 Jimma - - - - -
39 F-59*Dr1 2016 Jimma - - - - -

143
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

9. Forage and pasture crops

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
1 Alfalfa Alfalfa DZF-552 2014 Debrezeit 500-2400 10-20 3.883 - -
2 Alfalfa Alfalfa-1086 2016 Holetta
3 Alfalfa AlfalfaML-99 2016 Holetta
Dirki Ayifera
4 Andropogon 2009 Pawe 1000-1600 10 7.5 6.4 resistant to disease and pests
(Andropogon gayanus 12456)
5 Cow pea Alemaya 98/flip-89-63l/ 1998 Debrezeit - - - -
6 Cow pea Asrat (IT 92KD-279-3) 2001 Sirinka 1450-1850 20-40 20-22.5 16.6 -
7 Cow pea Bekur(838 689 4) 2001 Sirinka 1450-1850 20-40 19-21 19.6 -
tolerant to virus and other
8 Cow pea Bole (85D-3517-2) 2006 Melkassa 1300-1850 20-40 19 17
bactdral disease
resistant to aschochyta
blight,seportial leaf spot
9 Cow pea IT (98k-131-2) 2006 South 1100-1750 40 17.9 14
under natural infeststion and
susceptible to aphid
resistant/tolerant to virus and
10 Cow pea Asebot (82d-889) 2008 Melkassa 1300-1650 20-40 18-26 17-20
other bacteria diseases
tolerant to virus and other
11 Cow pea Keti (IT99K-1122) 2012 Melkassa 1000-1850 20-40 22-32 17-21
bacterial disease
12 Cow pea Temesgen(ተመስገን)()12668 2014 Humera 590-1200 30 11.4 - -
13 Dolicos lablab Lablab purpureus 1984 Holetta 1500-2000 30 0.8-1 - -
14 Dolicos lablab ILRI-Acc♯14417 2016 Bako
15 Dolicos lablab ILRI-Acc♯14455 2016 Bako
16 Elephant grass Elephant grass (ILCA -16984) 1984 IAR 1950-2400 - 0.8-1 - -

144
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
17 Elephant grass Massaba 1984 Holetta - - - - -
tolerant to fusarium and
18 Lupin Vitabor 2014 ARARI 1935-2610 80 38 23
anthrachnose
tolerant to fusarium and
19 Lupin Sanabor 2014 ARARI 1935-2610 80 37 31
anthrachnose
20 Oat CI-8237 1976 Holetta 1500-3000 85-100 0.7-0.12 0.6-0.9 -
21 Oat Bona-Bas (IAR-P1.1.1660) 2011 Sinana 2300-3000 60-80 21.2 19.6 resistant to disease and pests
22 Oat Bonsa(IAR-P1.79AB384) 2011 Sinana 2300-3000 60-80 29.1 27.6 resistant to disease and pests
23 Oat CI-8251 2013 Holetta 1500-3000 75-100 - - -
24 Oat SRCPX80Ab2291 2015 Holetta 1500-3000 75 115-160 - -
25 Oat SRCPX80Ab2806 2015 Holetta 1500-3000 75 - - -
Panicum
26 colloratum Colloratum 1984 Holetta 1500-2400 15 0.6-1 - -
Panicum
27 Degum geziya 2014 Pawe 900-1500 5-10 9.14 0.5-1
maximum
Pennisetum
28 Nechsare (Chefer bekoa) 2014 Pawe 900-1500 5-10 7.12 5-10 -
polystachion
Pennisetum 200,000-
29 Shebela sar 2014 Debrezeit 500-1000 - - -
polystachion 30,0000
DZF-265 (Cynodon 200,000-
30 Pernnial grass 2015 Debrezeit 500-1000 12.174 - -
aethiopicus Clayton & Harlan) 300,00
DZF-483 Brachiaria mutica 200,000-
31 Pernnial grass 2015 Debrezeit 500-1000 13.302 -
(Forsk.) stapf 30,0000
32 Phalaries Sirosa 1982 Holetta 2000-3000 15 0.6-0.8 - -
33 Pigeon pea DURSA (ICEAP 87091) 2009 Melkassa 1000-1650 40-60 10-15 - tolerant to major diseases
34 Pigeon pea Kibret (11555) 2014 Humera 967-1200 3-4 15.62 - -

145
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Research Farmers’
Year of Breeder/ Attitude Seed rate
No Crop Variety average average Diseases/pest reaction
release maintainer (m) (kg)
yield (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
35 Pigeon pea Tsigab (11566) 2014 Humera 590-100 3-4 14.29 - -
36 Rhodes Fassaba 1984 Holetta 1500-2400 15 0.7-1.2 - -
37 Sesbania DZF 092 2012 Debrezeit 400-2000 1-2 9 -
tolerant to bacteria blight,
38 Sesbania Chalasa-Ew023(2) 2013 Bako 1350-1650 5-10 10.5-14.8 9.75-12 cercospora, wilt and bacterial
spot
39 Tree lucerne Chamaecytius prolifer 1992 Holetta 2000-3000 - 0.7-0.9 - -
40 Trifolium Trifolium quartinianum 1976 Holetta 2000-3000 15 0.5-0.7 - -
41 Vetch Lana 1976 Holetta 1500-3000 25-30 0.5-0.7 0.6-0.8 -
42 Vetch Sewinet (IT 93 KD 596) 2009 Pawe 1000-1600 28 4.8 4.1
43 Vetch Abdeta (IG.NO 118) 2011 Sinana 2300-3000 30 18.6 17.7 resistant to disease and pests
44 Vetch Gebisa (IG. No 62632) 2011 Sinana 2300-3000 30 19.8 18.8 resistant to disease and pests
45 Vetch Lalisa (IG.No 6792DLot-2) 2011 Sinana 2300-3000 30 7.1 5.8 resistant to disease and pests
46 Vetch ICARDA-61509 2012 Holetta 2200-2400 25 45-63 - -

146
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Annex II: Research Setups

Directorate Division Program/ Commodity

Barley
Maize
Wheat
Rice
Tef
Field Crops Sorghum
Lowland pulses
Highland pulses
Lowland oil crops
Highland and mid land oil crops
Cotton and other industrial crops
Potato
Enset
Root crops
Cool season vegetables
Warm season vegetables
Crops Horticulture
Spices
Aromatic and medicinal plants
Sub-tropical fruits
Tropical fruits
Temperate and indigenous fruits
Western Ethiopia and non-traditional coffee growing
areas
Coffee and tea Southern and eastern Ethiopia coffee
Southern and western Ethiopia coffee
Tea
Post-harvest
Pesticides and quarantine
Plant pathology
Plant protection Agricultural entomology
Birds, rodents and wild animals (Vertebrate pests)
Diagnostics and biosystematics
Weed

147
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Feeds and nutrition and health

Animal feeds,
Animal health
nutrition and health
Rangeland management
Dairy
Beef
Ruminants and Sheep
Livestock equines Goat
Camel
Equines
Poultry
Poultry, fish, Fishery
apiculture and
sericulture Apiculture
Sericulture
Biological and organic soil fertility
Inorganic soil management
Integrated soil fertility
Acid soils management
and Health
Vertisols management
Natural resources
Testing new fertilizers
management
Irrigation and Irrigation and water conservation
drainage Soil salinity and drainage
Integrated watershed Physical land and water management
management Biological land management
Plan biotechnology
Agricultural
- Animal biotechnology
biotechnology
Microbial biotechnology
Chemical analysis and agricultural chemistry
Agricultural and Nutrition and food science
nutritional research -
laboratories Agricultural microbiology
Scientific equipment calibration and maintenance
Post-harvest technology and processing engineering
Agricultural
- Agricultural field machinery
engineering
Farm power and energy
Climate and geospatial - -
Crop and forage technology multiplication
Technology Technology Animal technology multiplication
multiplication and multiplication and
seed research farm management Agricultural mechanization technology multiplication
Bio-fertilizer and other technologies multiplication
Agricultural economics - -
Gender
Technology transfer Pastoral, agro- -
and commercialization pastoral and special
support

148
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Annex III. National Research Programs/Commodities/ and Coordinating

Centers
Institutional
Program/ Theme/ Commodity Coordinating Center
Affiliation
Tef Debre Zeit EIAR
Maize Bako EIAR
Wheat Kulumsa EIAR
Barley Sinana OARI
Sorghum Melkassa/Chiro EIAR
Rice Fogera EIAR
Chickpea and Lentil Debre Zeit EIAR
Soybean Pawe EIAR
Groundnut Haramaya University Haramaya University
Lowland Pulses Melkassa EIAR
Highland Pulses Kulumsa EIAR
Highland Oil Crops Holetta EIAR
Cotton Werer EIAR
Sesame Humera TARI
Potato Adet ARARI
Highland Fruits Holetta EIAR
Lowland Fruits Melkassa EIAR
Enset Areka SARI
Root crops Hawassa SARI
Vegetables Melkassa EIAR
Coffee Jimma EIAR
Spices Tepi EIAR
Tea Jimma University Jimma University
Plant Pathology Ambo EIAR
Entomology Ambo EIAR
Weed Ambo EIAR
Pesticide and Quarantine HQ EIAR
Aromatic and Medicinal Crops Wondogenet EIAR
Bioenergy Melkassa EIAR
Dairy Holetta EIAR
Beef Adami Tulu OARI
Sheep Debrebrhan ARARI
Goat Semera APARI

149
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Institutional
Program/ Theme/ Commodity Coordinating Center
Affiliation
Feed and Forage Seed Holetta EIAR
Layer Debrezeit EIAR
Broiler Debrezeit EIAR
Capture Fishery Sebeta EIAR
Aquaculture Sebeta EIAR
Apiculture Oromia OARI
Sericulture Melkassa EIAR
Inorganic Soil Fertility Management Wondogenet EIAR
Agronomic studies Debrezeit EIAR
Acid soils Management Holetta EIAR
Vertisols Management Debrezeit EIAR
Physical Land and Water Management Pawe EIAR
Irrigation and Water Harvesting Debrezeit EIAR
Saline Soils Management Debrezeit EIAR
New Fertilizer Testing Melkassa EIAR
Biological and Organic Fertilizer Holetta EIAR
Biological Land Management Holetta EIAR
Agricultural Economics HQ EIAR
Agricultural Extension and
HQ EIAR
Commercialization
Camel Gode/Dabfyed SoPARI
Rangeland Yabello OARI
Nutrition and Agricultural Products Protocol
HQ EIAR
Synthesis
Chemical Analysis and Agricultural Chemistry HQ EIAR
Agricultural Biological Agents HQ EIAR
Crop Biotechnology National Biotechnology EIAR
Animal Biotechnology National Biotechnology EIAR
Microbial Biotechnology National Biotechnology EIAR
Pre-harvest Agricultural Mechanization Melkassa EIAR
Harvest and Post-harvest Agricultural
Melkassa EIAR
Mechanization

150
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Annex IV: Research Centers

Ambo Plant Protection Research Center

The Center was established through a bilateral agreement entered between

the Ethiopian and the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
governments in 1977 by the name of Scientific Phytopathological
Laboratory (SPL). Currently, the research center is serving as a national
Plant Protection Research Center under EIAR administration.

Year of establishment: 1977

Total area: 149.215 ha.
· Ambo = 78.2ha (center)
· Awash Bole = 67ha (sub-center)
· Dire Inchini = 4ha (sub-center)
Location (Lat/long): 8° 57’ N; 38° 07’ E; 2.5km south of Ambo Town; 116 km west
of Addis Ababa
Altitude: 2175 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (10 years): 10.02▫C min, 26.89▫C Max (Mean= 18.44▫C)
Rainfall: 1018.19 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 120-150 days
Soil type and coverage (%): Vertisols ( 67% clay, 18% silt, 15 % sand)
Agro-ecology: Tepid moist mid highlands (M3)
Center of excellence: Plant Protection Research

Address:
Ambo Plant Protection Research Center
Tel: (+251) -112362204, (+251) -112362036
Fax: (+251) -112362325
www.eiar.gov.et
P. O. Box 37, Ambo, Ethiopia

151
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Assosa Agricultural Research Center

Major deriving force for the establishment of the center was the serious
famine incident in 1986. The center originally known as Assosa research
station has been carring out research activities under the close supervision of
Bako research center. The Center was put up on an area of 271.84 ha in village
12 with few research staff supporting the agricultural activities of the settlers
while research was the primary objective. After some years of operation, the
center was totally devastated during the civil unrest in 1990. After 15 years
of closing, the research center was re-instated on Nov 5, 2005 under the
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

Year of establishment: 1986

Location (Lat/long): 10° 03’ N, 34° 59’ E; 5 km at the northern outskirts of Assosa
Town; 683 km west of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Warm sub-humid lowlands (SH2)
Altitude: 1580 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 140C and 39oC (min., max)
Rainfall: 1275 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 120-210 days
Soil type: Dystric Nitosols
Research focus: Sorghum, maize, rice, cotton, tef, wheat, soyabean chickpea, lentil,
nuge groundnut, haricot bean, horticultural crops

Address:
Assosa Agricultural research Center
Tel: (+251) 577-752451/5777-524552
Fax: (+251) 557-752453
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 265, Assosa, Ethiopia

152
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Bako National Maize Research Center

Bako Research Center is one of the oldest research centers in the
country. Bako research station was established in 1955 in an agreement
signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government
of Ethiopia. Following research decentralization in early 1990s, the
main center the Center was transferred to Oromia Regional Government
while Maize Research was retained under the federal system (EIAR)
and named as Bako National Maize Research Center.
Year of establishment: 1964; as NMRC 1994
Total area: 40 ha
Location (Lat/long): 9° 06’ N; 37° 09’ E; 8 km SW of Bako Town; 250 km west of
Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Mid altitude sub humid (SH2)
Altitude: 1590 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 9°C min and 34.4°C max (Mean = 19°C)
Rainfall: 1245mm
Soil type: Nitosol
Research focus: Maize

Address:
Bako National Maize Research Center
Tel: (+251) 576-650465
Fax: (+251) 576650267
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 3, Bako, Ethiopia

153
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Chiro National Sorghum Research and Training

Center
The Center is a recently established center under EIAR in eastern Ethiopia
at the northern outskirts of Chiro Town, which is named after the Town. The
center commenced its work on May 2014 with an ultimate aim of transferring
the Sorghum research center of excellence from the present Melkassa research
center.

Year of establishment: 2014

Total area: 7.5 ha (only main campus); research area is to be established yet
Location (Lat/long): 9° 03’ 49” N, 40° 52’ 26” E; at outskirts of Chiro Town, 360km
East of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid moist mid highlands (M3)
AltitudeAltitude: 1855 m.a.s.l.
Rainfall: 980mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 175-240 days
Soil type:
Research focus: Sorghum

Address:
Chiro National Sorghum Research and Training Center
Tel: (+251) 255511507
Fax: +25125551445
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 190, Chiro, Ethiopia

154
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center

Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center was established in 1953 under the
then Alemaya College of Agriculture/now Harmaya University/. The Center
was transferred to Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization/now EIAR/
in 1998.

Year of establishment: 1953

Total area: 147 ha
Location (Lat/long): 08° 44’ N; 38° 58’ E; at Northern outskirts of Bishoftu Town;
47 km East of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid sub-humid mid highlands (SH3)
AltitudeAltitude: 1900 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 8.9°C min and 28.3°C max (Mean = 19°C)
Rainfall: (bimodal): Bimodal (Small Rains in February-April); Annual total (mm):
851 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 61-120 days
Soil type: Light Soils (Alfisols/Mollisols ≈ 20 ha or 14%; black soils (Vertisols ≈ 127
ha ≈ 86%)
Research focus: tef, durum wheat, chickpea, lentil, shallot, garlic, grapevine, and
poultry

Address:
Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 0114-33 85 55/33 87 65
Fax: (+251) 0114-33 80 61
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box- 32

155
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Fogera National Rice Research and Training

Center
Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center (FRRTC) is a recently
established center (August 7, 2013) under EIAR. Initially, Adet Agricultural
Research Center of Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute owned
the research station.

Year of establishment: 2013

Total area: 15 ha
Location: 2 km south of Woreta Town; 620 km northwest of Addis Ababa
Soil type: Nitosols; Vertisols
Temperature: 10.7°C min and 27.3°C max
Rainfall: 1216mm
Agro-ecology: Tepid moist mid highlands (M3)
Research focus: Rice

Address:
Fogera Rice Research and Training Center
Tel: (+251) 584460702
Fax: (+251) 584460709
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 190

156
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Holetta Agricultural Research Center

The Center is located at Holetta town and has two sub-centers and two testing
sites. Ginchi and Ada Berga sub centers are focusing on vertisol and dairy
research, respectively, while Adadi and Jeldu testing sites are for highland
crops research activities.

Year of establishment: 1966

Total area: 396 ha
Location (Lat/long): 9º 00’ N, 38º 30’ E; at the southern outskirts of Holetta town;
29km west of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid moist mid highlands (M3)
AltitudeAltitude: 2400 m.a.s.l
Temperature (min/max): 6ºC and 22ºC
Rainfall: 1144 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 120-190 days
Soil type and coverage: Nitosols; Vertisols
Research focus: Dairy and Forage crops, potato, temperate fruits, Acid soil
management, Vertisols management, Soil fertility, and Plant nutrient management,
Highland oilseeds, highland pulses

  Address:
Holetta Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 112370376
(+251) 112370006
Fax: (+251) 112370377
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 31

157
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Jimma Agricultural Research Center

Jimma Agricultural Research Center was established in 1967. Currently, the
center has two sub centers: Gera and Haru and three testing sites, Metu, Mugi
and Agaro. The center is mandated to coordinate Coffee research nationally.

Year of establishment: 1967

Total area: 183 ha
Location (Lat/long): 7º46’ N, 36º 00’ E; 12 km south west of Jimma Town; 365km
South west of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecologys): Tepid humid mid highlands (H3)
Altitude: 1753 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 9 º C and 28 º C
Rainfall: 1561 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 120-210 days
Soil type and coverage: Upland—Chromic Nitosols and Combisol; Bottomland—
Fluvisols
Research focus: Coffee

Address:
Jimma Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 471-128020
Fax: (+251) 471-111999
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 192, Jimma, Ethiopia

158
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center

The Centre was established in 1966 by the Government of Ethiopia and the
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). The research center is
mandated to coordinate wheat research nationally and serve as Wheat Center
of Excellence for East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania).

Year of establishment: 1966

Total area: 442.7 ha
Location (Lat/long): 8º2’ N, 39º10’E; 8 km North of Kulumsa Town; 167km
southeast of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid sub-moist mid highlands (SM3)
Altitude: 2200 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 10 ºC and 22 ºC
Rainfall: 840mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 120-135 days
Soil type: Clay
Research focus: bread wheat

Address:
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 223311509/223-311552
Fax: (+251) 223311508
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 489

159
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Mehoni Agricultural Research Center

Mehoni Agricultural Research Center is a newly established center (March
2004) to conduct research on Lowland high value tree crops and Horticulture
crops. The center conducts its research activities at Fachagama Research Site
located in Raya Azebo District of the Tigray Region.

Year of establishment: March 2004

Total area: 100 ha
Location (Lat/long): 16 km south east of Mehoni Town; 678 km North of Addis
Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid sub-moist mid highlands (SM3)
Altitude: 1574 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max):18ºc and 25ºc
Rainfall: 300mm - 750mm (for Raya Azebo Woreda)
Length of growing period (LGP): 7-8 months
Soil type: Vertisols, Aluvisols
Research Focus: Lowland high value tree crops and horticultural crops

Address:
Mehoni Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251)-347770059
Fax: (+251)-34777002
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 71

160
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Melkassa Agricultural Research Center

Melkassa Agricultural Research Center was established as a national
horticulture research center on a five hectares land. Over the years, other
important research programs have been included with a focus in the dry and
low land moisture stress and irrigable areas.

Year of establishment: 1969

Total Area: 275ha
Location (Lat/long): 8º24’N, 39º21’E; 17 km South of Adama Town; 117 km SE of
Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Warm sub-moist lowlands (SM2)
Altitude: 1550 m.a.s.l
Temperature (min/max): 14ºC and 28.4ºC
Rainfall: 763 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 90-180 months
Soil type: Andosol of volcanic origin with ph ranging 7 to 8.2
Research focus: sorghum, lowland pulses, lowland maize, vegetables, tropical fruits,
sericulture, climate, agricultural engineering

Address:
Melkassa Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) -222-2502121/222-250214
Fax: (+251)- 222-250213/20
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 436

161
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center

The Center conducts research in Plant Tissue Culture, and Plant, animal
and microbial biotechnology. It has branches at Debre Zeit, Melkassa
and Jimma research centers.

Year of establishment: 2015

Location (Lat/long): 9º4 N, 38º30’ E, within the compound of Holetta Research
Center; 29km near west of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid moist mid highlands (M3)
Altitude: 2400 m.a.s.l
Temperature (min/max): 6 ºC and 22 ºC
Rainfall: 1100 mm average
Length of growing period (LGP): 4-6 months
Soil type and coverage: Nitosols and Vertisols
Research focus: Agricultural biotechnology
  
Address:
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center
Tel: (+251) 112370376
Fax: (+251) 112370006
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 31

162
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Pawe Agricultural Research Center

The Center came into existence in 1986 a year after Ethiopia was smashed by
the worst famine in the living memories that claimed breathes of millions of
its citizens, succeeding the resettlement of the highly affected peoples from
the northern and southern part of the country. At the time of establishment, the
center was intended to provide support for the settlers.

Year of establishment: 1985

Total Area: 294.18ha
Location (Lat/long):11019’N, 036024’E; 1km south of Pawe Town; 575 km northwest
of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Warm moist lowlands (M2) SH1
Altitude: 1120 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 16.3°C and 32.6°C
Rainfall max: 1587mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 150-210 days
Major soil types: Nitosols, Vertisols, and Livesols
ReseArch focus: Soybean

Address:
Pawe Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 581-190084
Fax: (+251) 585-500270
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 27

163
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Sebeta Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Center

Research in fisheries and aquaculture has been recognized as one of the
research commodities by the Ethiopian agricultural research system in 1997
with the establishment of the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization,
now EIAR.

Year of establishment: 1997 (as research center)

Total area: 20 ha
Location (Lat/long):08°54’ N & 38°38’ E; at Sebeta Town; 25 km from Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid sub-humid mid highlands (SH3) M2
Altitude: 2225 m
Temperature (min/max): 12°C and 27°C
Rainfall: Max: 1800mm Min: 900 mm
Soil type: Clay
Center of Excellence: Fishery and Aquatic Life

Address:
Sebeta Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Center
Tel: (+251) 113-380023
Fax: (+251)113-380657
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 64

164
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Tepi National Spice Research Center

Tepi National Spice Research Center (TNSRC) used to be one of the testing
sites of Jimma Agricultural Research Center of EIAR since 1973. Today the
center coordinates the national spice research activities.

Year of establishment: 1973

Total area: 104 ha
Location (Lat/long): 7º 3’ N, 35º18’ E; at the southern outskirts of Tepi town; 611 km
SW of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Warm humid lowlands (H2)
Altitude: 1200 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 15ºC and 30ºC
Rainfall: 1522.1 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 170-270 days
Soil type: Nitosols, Red coffee soils, fertile loam soils
Research focus: Spices

Address:
Tepi National Spice Research Center
Tel: (+251) 475-560356
Fax: (+251) 475-560087
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 34

165
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Werer Agricultural Research Center

Werer Agricultural Research Center was established to conduct research on
cotton with the objective of giving support to the Cotton Farms established in
Awash Valley.

Year of establishment: 1964

Total area: 301 ha; 56 ha Research Farm: 200 ha Residence: 47 ha other purpose
Location (Lat/long): 9º16’N, 40º9’E; 270 kms East of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Warm arid lowland plains (A2) A1
Altitude: 750 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 26.7ºC and 40.8ºC
Rainfall: 590 mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 90-150 days
Soil type: Vertisols and Fluvisols
Center of Excellence: Cotton and Irrigated Agriculture

Address:
Werer Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 221-140276/221-140272
Fax: (+251) 221-140278
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 2003

166
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Wondo Genet Agricultural Research Center

Up until 1986, Wondo Genet Center was a Perfume Factory owned by Belgium
and France entreprenuers who were engaged in extracting and producing
perfumes and aromatic oils. Subsequently, the Center was operational under
the then Ethiopian Chemical Corporation and Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
(EBI) up to 2003. After that, the center had been serving a sub-center for
Aromatic Oils Research Center of EIAR up until 2008. In 2009, the center
was upgraded to a level of research center to conduct agricultural research on
Aromatic, Medicinal and Bio-fuel plants.
Altogether

Year of establishment: 2008

Land holding (ha): 113.5 ha Forest: 54.3 ha open woodland; 19 ha Field trial site;
31.9 ha field genetic bank; 3.1 ha built up area and 4.6 ha road
Location (Lat/long): 7º19’ N, 38º38’E; 270 km south of Addis Ababa
Agro-ecology: Tepid humid highland (H3)
Altitude: 1760-1920 m.a.s.l.
Temperature (min/max): 11.5ºC and 26.2ºC
Rainfall: 1372mm
Length of growing period (LGP): 210-239 days
Soil type and coverage: Luvisols
Research focus: Aromatic, Medicinal and Bio-energy plants

Address:
Wondo Genet Agricultural Research Center
Tel: (+251) 46-119-07-02
Fax: (+251) 46-119-12-45,
www.eiar.gov.et
P.O.Box: 198 Shashemene, Ethiopia

167
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Annex IV. EIAR Organogram

168
Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Annex V. Organogram of Research Centers

169
Retrospects and Prospects of Ethiopian Agricultural Research

Annex VI: Leaders (1966-2017)

The 50 years journey of NARS would not have been possible without its dedicated
leaders of IAR/EARO/EIAR. Over the last 50 years 13 Director Generals have
provided leadership to the NARS which some of them are not fortunate to live and
rejoice the anniversary with us.

Dr. Semu Nigus

K/Mariam
1967(EC)

170
 Fentahun M, Abebe K & Fisseha Z

Annex VII. Lyrics of EIAR Golden Jublee Anniversary Song

(in Amharic)

አዝማች
ምዕተዓመትን ያጋመሰው የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር
አለኝታና መኩሪያችን ነው የኛነታችን ምስክር
በብዙ ዘርፍ ተሰማርቶ ቀን ከለሊት እየሰራ
ለዘላቂው ልማት አጋዥ ተግባሪ ነው ባለአደራ
የሳይንስን ጉልህ ድርሻ በምርምር በማሳየት
አገራችንን አድርሷታል አለማችን ካለችበት
አዝማች
የአስተራረስ ዘዴን ጥበብ አሻሽሎ በመቀየስ
ምርታማነትን ጨምሯል ብክነትንም በመቀነስ
ከግብርናው ዘርፍ ባሻገር ለኢንዱስትሪው ፈጣን እድገት
ህዳሴውን አስቀጥሏል ታላቅ ሚናን በመጫወት
አዝማች
ከፍ አድርጎ በማሳደግ የአምራቹን ምርታማነት
ዕለት ከዕለት ቀይሯል የማህበረሰቡን ሕይወት
ያስተሳሰብ ለውጥ ፈጥሮ ከአድማስ አድማስ እየሰራ
በዘርፉ ላይ አሰማርቷል የአገር ልጅን ዲያስፖራ
የውጭ ገቢ ምንዛሪን በማስገባት ትርፋማነት
የድርሻውን አበርክቷል ለትራንስፎርሜሽን እድገት
አዝማች
ተፈጥሮን በመረዳት ምርምሩን አጠናክሮ
ምርታማነትን አጉልቷል ብዙ አማራጭ ዘዴ ፈጥሮ
አካባቢን በመጠበቅ የተፈጥሮን መልካም ምድሯን
አረንጓዴ ልምላሜን ማሳየት ነው አንዱ ተግባር
በባዮቴክኖሎጂ በማዳቀል በማራባት አርጓል ምርቱን ውጤታማ
በማሳደግ ዕለት ከዕለት
ከትርፋማነት ባሻገር ዘልቆ ሕዝቡን በማስተማር
አስተዋፅኦን አበርክቷል ለቤተሰብ መልካም ምግባር

171
 www.
eiar
.gov.
et
Tel
.:+251-11-
6462633
Fax:+251-11-
6461294
P.O.Box:2003
AddisAbeba
Ethi
opi
a

Desi
gn+Pr
int@ Ecl
ipse+251115572222/
23