Journal of Agriculture and Crops

ISSN(e): 2412-6381, ISSN(p): 2413-886X

Vol. 5, Issue. 4, pp: 48-56, 2019 Academic Research Publishing
URL: https://arpgweb.com/journal/journal/14 Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32861/jac.54.48.56

Original Research Open Access

Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Seed Among Wheat Producing

Smallholder Farmers’ In West Gojjam Zone of Amahara Region, Ethiopia
Gedefaw Abebe*
College of Business and Economics, Arba Minch University, P.O. Box: 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia

Sisay Debebe
College of Business and Economics, Arba Minch University, P.O. Box: 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia

Abstract
Lower and/or inappropriate usages of improved agricultural technologies are among the major of causes for decline
of production and productivity of wheat as compared to the potential in Ethiopia. This study aims to measure the
status and extent of improved wheat technology adoption and identify its determinants among wheat producing
smallholder farmers’ in Sekela district of West Gojjam zone of Ethiopia. Multi-stage sampling techniques used to
select 204wheat producing farmers. The study primarily used collected primary data for 2017/18 production year
using structured questionnaire. In order to analyze the data, both descriptive statistics and econometrics techniques
such as double hurdle model are applied. The result shows that family size, availability of oxen and attitude towards
risk affected positively adoption status of wheat production. While, farming experience, and off-farm income
affected the extent of improved wheat variety adoption. On the other hand, farm size and cultivated farm land
affected negatively the extent of improved wheat varieties adoption. Based on the result, the study recommended that
the above factors should be considered both at stages in evaluating strategies aimed at promoting wheat production
and productivity of the study area.
Keywords: Improved wheat adoption; Double hurdle model; West gojjam zone and Ethiopia.
CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

1. Introduction
The major challenges facing wheat productivity in Ethiopia is lower productivity as compared to its potentials.
The national wheat productivity is during 2013/14 cropping season was 25.43Qt/ha. While, in 2015/16declined to
25.35 Qt/ha which shows 0.825.35 Qt/ha production lag as compare to the previous years .More recently, In 2016/17
copping season the average national yield of wheat is 26.75 Qt/ha which shows slight improvement to the previous
years [1-3]. However, is the lowest yield as compared to the world average of 40 Qt/ha which is by far lower [4].
The low yield has made the country unable to meet the high demand, and the country remains net importer despite
its good potential for wheat production. As a result, food insecurity and poverty are prevalent throughout the country
over the last years.
Wheat is 2ndimportant cereal crop with annual production of about 3.43 million tons cultivated on area of 1.63
million hectares. It occupied about 13.49% of the total cereal area [4]. Moreover, Wheat is staple food crop for most
households in rural and urban areas of Ethiopia especially in urban areas is wheat. It provides about 15% of the
caloric intake for the country’s over 90 million population [5], placing it second after maize. After South Africa,
Ethiopia is the second largest wheat producer in Sub-Saharan Africa , yet the country is not self-sufficient in its
wheat production and imports an average more than one million tons of wheat for the years 2006-2015 [6, 7]. In
addition, wheat supplies about 40 percent of the total domestic production of the county [8]. Based on the estimates
from [9] the country imported 1.39 million metric ton which is about 34 percent of the domestic production. On the
other hand, the domestic consumption of wheat also increases by 2.1 million tons to 4.2 million tons over the last
years. This implies there is huge demand and supply gap of wheat which is estimated about 60% yield gap [10].
Yield gap is the difference between potential farm yield (maximum yield) and actual farm yield (average farm
yield), this gap results mainly from management practices, such as low input usage and lack of improved seed.
Empirically, the highest smallholder farmers’ wheat yield was 4,140 kg/ha, while the regional average was only
2,020 kg/ha. The difference is 2120kg/ha, to fill this gap improved technology play significant rule [3] wheat
technologies use still remains very low as compared with maize i.e. total areas under improved seeds are 80%
covered by maize, 12.1% covered by wheat seeds [3]. This shows wheat yield is low and unstable due to technical
and socioeconomic constraints like weed competition, low soil fertility, rust, inappropriate use of improved varieties,
high price of fertilizer and herbicides in required quantity and at the required time, and in adequate cash or credit to
purchase inputs are the major constraints [11].Some scholars suggested such as Ahmed, et al. [12],the gap could be
reduced through improving farm productivity which can be obtained through adopting productivity-enhancing
technologies. Previous studies done on different parts of Ethiopia such as Mengistu [13] attempted to analyze the
impact of agricultural technology adoption on wheat production and its effect on income of farmers such as Tesfaye,
et al. [14], Birhanu [15], and Berihun, et al. [16]. However, specific particular studies in the study area are limited
and hence this study aims
*Corresponding Author

48
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

To measure the status and extent and identify factors influencing the adoption of improved wheat varieties
among wheat producing farmers in Sekela district of West Gojjam zone of Amahara region, Ethiopia.

2. Research Methodology
2.1. Description of Study Area
The study area is located in Amahara state, the north western Ethiopia. This study was under taken in Sekela
district. This district is located between 10°59.25′N latitude and 36°55.30′E longitude .The District is bounded with
the Mecha District in the north, Yilmana Densa District in the northeast, Burie District in the south, Jabi Tehinan
District in the southeast, Awi zone in the west and the Quarit District in the east, at 460 km from Addis Ababa and
178 km from Bihar Dar. The area is the origin of River Abay. Based on Ethiopian [1] national census the district has
a total population of 138,691of whom 69,018 are men and 69,673 women;A total of 29,908 households were
counted in this district, resulting in an average of 4.64 persons in a household, and 29,093 housing units for thirty-
two kebeles.

2.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Multi-stage sampling techniques used to select 204 sample wheat producing smallholder farmers. In the first
stage, stratified sampling techniques were used to stratify thirty-two kebeles into two that is two urban kebeles and
thirty rural-kebeles. In this study thirty rural kebeles had been purposively selected due to the fact that wheat
producer kebeles which were target of population of the study. In second stage simple random Sampling techniques
were used to select five representative kebeles among thirty kebeles. The selected five kebeles were: Gindatemem,
Gumbila, Durashale, Gule and Abesken with total household of 3874 from total 27,456 housing units of thirty wheat
producer kebeles of the district. In third stage, simple random sampling proportion to their total population size used
to select household head from sample frame. A total of 204 sample wheat producing farmers determined based on
Yamane [17] sample size estimation formula.

2.3. Methods of Analysis

I. Descriptive Statistics: to analyze the data various both simple descriptive statistics techniques such as mean,
standard deviation, frequency and inferential statistics techniques such as t-test, F-test and chi-square test were
applied.
II. Econometrics Model: the double hurdle model (DHM) was used for the analysis with the assumption that
the status of adoption and the intensity adoptions are independently determined. In order to justify the use of this
model, a restriction test was carried out where the log likelihood values are obtained from a separate estimation of
Tobit, Probity and Truncated regression models. Based on the values obtained, the following likelihood ratio statistic
had been computed using the formula below ( )::
The test statistic (λ) has a chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the number of independent
variables. The Tobit model would be rejected in favour of the double hurdle model if exceeds the appropriate chi-
square critical value [18]. If this is true DHM would be used in case it can control the reciprocal relationship
between the two factors: adoption decision and use intensity [19].
Hurdle adoption decision model:
The individual’s adoption of technology is dichotomous, involving two mutually exclusive alternatives [20].
The study was adopted the Probit regression model to quantify the factors influencing the adoption decision of
improved wheat varieties. The Probit model was ideal because of its ability to constrain the utility value of the
decision to adopt variable to lie within zero and one, and its ability to resolve the problem of heteroscedasticity
[21].The model specifically allows the factors that determine the adoption decision and intensity of adoption to be
differ in independently [22].
First hurdle adoption equation (Di):
……………………………………………. (A)
{ …………………………………………… (B)
Where; is latent choice of the adoption by the smallholder farmers, αi is vector of unknown parameters,
xi is a vector of explanatory variables which affect adoption decision, ℰi is normally distributed error term with zero
mean and constant variance (σ2), i = 1, 2, … n (n is the number of observation) and represents observable
farmers status to adopt improved wheat varieties, 1 if adopt 0, other-wise
Hurdle out- come model (intensity of adoption)
The second hurdle involves an outcome equation, which uses a truncated model to determine the level of
adoption of improved wheat varieties in question. This model excludes part of sampled observation based on the
value of the dependent variable. That is, the truncated regression uses observations only from farming households
who reported positive and greater zero. The intensity of adoption is modeled as a regression truncated at zero that is
lower limit zero, upper limit positive infinity [23]
A dependent variable that has a zero value for a significant fraction of the observation requires a truncated
regression model because standard OLS results in a biased and inconsistent parameter estimates. The bias arises
from the fact that if one considers only the observable observations and omits the others, there is no guarantee that
the expected value of the error term would be zero [24].
Truncated model is expressed as follows:

49
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

……………………………………………… (D)
{ ……………………… ………….... (E)
Where; latent variable Yi* which is base for number of observation (i),β is a vector of parameters, Xi is a vector
of explanatory variables hypothesized to affect intensity of technology adoption, μ representing threshold; minimum
use of IWVS in the study area whereas i implies number of observation. Represents observed use intensity of
(IWVs) among small holder farmers. The decision of adoption of IWVs and how much of IWVs use can be jointly
modeled if they are made simultaneously by small holder farmers, independently modeled if they are made
separately, or sequentially modeled if one is made first and affects the other one as in the dominance model [25].
The independent double hurdle model assumes that the two error terms from the two hurdles are normally
distributed and uncorrelated. This suggests that the two stage IWVs adoption decision and the intensity of adoption
are done independently by the SHFs. Under the assumption of independency between the error terms ℰ𝐢 and μ𝐢 the
model as originally proposed by Cragg [26] is equivalent to a combination of a truncated regression model and a
univariate Probit model.
The double-hurdle model relies on the assumption of normality of the errors μi and ℰi .If this assumption is not
tenable, the ML estimates would be inconsistent. One way to accommodate the assumption of normality is by
transforming the dependent and latent variables [27].The error terms, are distributed as follows:
͂ ( )
{ }
( )
The model is said to be dependent model if there is a relationship between, the status of adoption and the
intensity of adoption. This relationship can be expressed as follow
: ( )
√ )
If ρ=0 and there is dominance (the zeros are only associated to non-adoption, not standard corner solutions) then
the model decomposes into a Probit for adoption decision and truncated for the intensity of adoption of technology
[25].
A simple test for the double hurdle modal against the Tobit model was examined. That is Tobit log- likelihood is
the sum of the log-likelihood of the truncated as well as the probit models. Therefore, one simply has to estimate the
truncated regression models; the Tobit model and the Probit model separately and use a likelihood ratio (LR) test.
The LR statistic can be computed using [28]:
( )
Where, Γ: test statics, LT =likelihood for the Tobit model; Lp =likelihood for the Probit model; LTR=likelihood
for the truncated regression model; and k is the number of independent variables in the equations. If the test
hypothesis is written as, H0: = and H1: Then, H0: was rejected on a prespecified significance level, if Γ
k. and then DHM was used.

2.4. Definitions of Variables and Working Hypothesis

In the study area: different variables such as demographic, socio-economic, institutional and psychological
variables were expected to influence the status and intensity of adoption.

Table-1. Description of variables, measurement and working hypothesis

Variables Unit Measurement Expected Descriptions
Sign
Dependent The status and intensity of adoption of
variables: Di improved wheat varieties
& ADIWVs
Di 1 or 0 Dummy 1 for adopter, 0 for non-adopter small
ADIWVs Kg per ha Continuous holder farmers in the study area, Area
Independent devoted for improved wheat varieties
that is kg per hectare
1.Sex 1 or 0 Dummy -/+ 1for male,0 for female house hold head
2.Off income Birr Dummy + 1 for off-farm, 0 other sources
3. Fedu. Number Continuous + year of formal education for household
of year head in year
4.Excota 1 or 0 Dummy + 1 for use of extension service, 0
otherwise
5.Useofcredit 1or 0 Dummy + use of credit 1,0 otherwise in Ethiopian
birr
6.Farmsize Hectare Continous +/- Total land own by smallholder farmers.
7.participation 1or 0 Dummy + 1 for Participation in technology
tech- evaluation ,0 otherwise
evaluation
8. Family size adult Continous ⁺⁄⁻ Family size availability in small holder
equivalent farmers in number.

50
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

9.tropical TLU Continous + Number of livestock unit owned in the

livestock house hold.
10. HHexperi Year Continous + number of year house hold head use
improved wheat varieties
11. Km Continous - distance to impute market from small
DISTOMRT holder farmers residence
12. FPIWVS Index Perception Favorable Smallholder farmers’ perception to the
specific attributes of Recommended
Agronomic practices and improved
wheat varieties (IWVs).
13. Access 1or 0 Dummy + 1 for SHFs owns oxen ,0 other wise
oxen
14. AccessSM 1or 0 Dummy + 1 for access to social media, 0
otherwise.
15. wclaoship 1 or 0 Dummy +/- 1 for well cultivated land ,0 otherwise
16. Risk 1 or 0 Dummy +/- 1 if early adopter, 0 otherwise
17. Useche- Kilogram Continous + User of chemical fertilizer by
ferti smallholder farmers.
18. Soil 1 or 0 Dummy + 1 for fertile soil, 0 other wise
fertility status

3. Result and Discussions

3.1. Descriptive Statistic Results
The average education level of non-adopters and adopters of improved wheat varieties are found to be 1.89 and
2.03 years with standard deviation 3.48 and 3.22 respectively. The average education level is 2.01 with standard
deviation of 3.25. The average Farming experience in years of the farmers is 23.40with standard deviation 11.70.
The non-adopters and adopters mean farming. The average family size is 3.78with standard deviation of 1.57. Non-
adopters and adopters mean is found to be 3.19 and 3.87 with standard deviation 1.57 and 1.56. The mean difference
is statistically significant at 5%, meaning, there is mean difference between non-adopters and adopters of family
size. The mean livestock in TLU is 3.73with 1.53. The non-adopters and adopters mean TLU is found to be 3.49 and
3.77 with standard deviation 1.20 and 1.57, respectively. The average Farm size in hectare is 1.35 with a standard
deviation of 1.04. The non-adopters and adopters mean are found to be 1.94 and 1.38 with standard deviation 0.90
and 1.06, respectively. The mean distance from farmer home to input market in kilometer is 8.13 with standard
deviation of 6.Standard deviation and mean distance of both non-adopters and adopters are found to be 6.38, 6.00,
8.80, and 8.03 respectively. The average use of chemical fertilizer is 171.45 with standard deviation of 104.85.
While, the mean for non-adopters are 124.82, and adopters are 178.56, with standard deviation of 60.06, 108.46
respectively. The mean differences are statistically significant at 1% which indicates that the mean difference of use
of chemical fertilizers between non-adopters and adopters of impede wheat verities as shown in (Table 2).

Table-2. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables

Characteristics None adopter Adopter of IWVs Total sample
Continous variables Mean st.dev Mean st.dev Mean st.dev
Education in (year) 1.889 3.479 2.028 3.220 2.009 3.246
Farming experience(year) 22.444 12.201 23.542 11.649 23.397 11.698
Family size(AE) 3.194 1.574 3.867 1.557 3.777** 1.571
Total livestock unit(TLU) 3.494 1.198 3.769 1.570 3.732 1.526
Farm size in(hectare) 1.194 .902 1.378 1.055 1.353 1.036
Distance to input market(km) 8.806 6.381 8.027 6.001 8.130 6.042
Use of fertilizers(kg) 124.815 60.056 178.559 108.458 171.45*** 104.851
Note: ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.
Source: Own survey result, 2018

From total 27 non-adopters 18.8% were female and 11.5% are male. In the case of 177 adopters of improved
seed 81.2% are female and that of 88.5 % were male. The proportion (%) of female adopters and non-adopters as
well as that of male adopters and non-adopters were not equal. 27 non-adopters17.6% hadn’t off-farm income,
whereas 10.1% had off-farm income. Among 177 adopters 82.4% had no off farm income and 89.9% had off-farm
income. Regarding to non-adopters and adopters 25.6% and 74.4 % of sample respondents had no oxen, whereas
9.9%, 90.1% had oxen respectively. Availability of oxen had significant effect (relationship) on status of adoption
in case the chi-square sign-value of this variable is significant at 1% level. In case of non-adopters18.3% had no
extension contact whereas 11.1% had extension contact, in case of adopters 81.7% had no this access , whereas
88.9% had. Use of credit by household head in 9.9% non-adopters and 15% of adopters, the 1st did not use credit
while the later use credit. Among adopters 90.1% of respondents did not use credit and 85% use credit. Regarding to
this evaluation 14.8% of non-adopters and 85.2% of adopters did not participate in technology evaluation. In the
same way 12.7% of non-adopters and 87.3% of adopters had participated in technology evaluation. Access of social

51
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

media are 17.8% for non-adopters and 82.2% adopters, both parts did not access social media whereas 9.6% of non-
adopters and 90.4% of adopters are used access of social media. This access was statistically significant at 10% level
of significant which implies that access of social media had significant relationship with status of adoption.
Cultivated land ownership within 19.6% non-adopters and 80.4% adopters both did not have own cultivated land but
11.4% non-adopters and 88.6% adopters had their own cultivated land. Attitude towards risk among 22.8% non-
users and 77.2% users all did not have attitude towards risk while 7.2% non-users and 92.8% of users had attitude
towards risk. The chi-square sign-value of this variable was statistically significant which implies that attitude
towards risk has significant relationship with adoption decision at 1% significant level. Soil fertility status within
14.9% of non-users and 85.1% of users both had infertile land. In otherwise 12.3% of non-adopters and 87.7% of
adopters have fertile land for cultivation.

Table-3. Socio-economic, institutional and psychological trait for dummy variables

Dummy variables Non-adopters Adopters Total sample chi 2-value Sign –value
N % N % N %
Sex Female Male 9 18.8 39 81.2 48 100 1.66 0.197
18 11.5 138 88.5 156 100
Off-farm income 12 17.6 70 82.4 82 100 2.47 0.116
No 15 10.1 107 89.9 122 100
Yes
Availability of oxen 11 25.6 32 74.4 43 100 7.23 0.007***
No 16 9.9 145 90.1 161 100
Yes
Extension contact 11 18.3 49 81.7 60 100 1.924 0.165
No 16 11.1 128 88.9 144 100
Yes
Use of credit 7 9.9 64 90.1 71 100 1.081 0.298
No 20 15 113 85 133 100
Yes
Participation 8 14.8 46 85.2 54 100 0.160 0.690
technology evaluation 19 12.7 131 87.3 150 100
No
Yes
Access of social media 16 17.8 74 82.2 90 100 2.894 0.089*
No 11 9.6 103 90.4 114 100
Yes
Cultivated land owner 9 19.6 37 80.4 46 100 2.072 0.150
ship 18 11.4 140 88.6 158 100
No
Yes
Attitude towards risk 18 22.8 61 79 100 10.238 0.001***
No 9 7.2 77.2 125 100
Yes 116
92.8
Soil fertility status 11 14.9 16 63 74 100 0.269 0.604
No 12.3 85.1 130 100
Yes 114
87.7
Note: ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.
Source: Own survey, 2018

Before running double hurdle model, tests were carried out against competing models;
Test of Hackman two stage model: Two step Heckman selection model was rejected in case: waldchi2 (18)
=14.88, Pro>chi2 = 0.6701 .The pro>chi2 value was not significant as the regression output indicated, this indicates
the model was not fit for status and intensity of adoption of improved wheat varieties among small holder farmers in
the study area. As a result the data that were included in this model were not explained well. So, for status (adoption
decision) and intensity of adoption analysis double hurdle model was employed after Tobit model test.
Test of Tobit model: The first step to analyze double hurdle model was Tobit model test through separate
estimation of probit, truncation and Tobit itself. That is: Tobit model test
( ) ( )Γ: test statics, LT =likelihood for the Tobit model; LP =likelihood
for the Probit model; LTR=likelihood for the truncated regression model; and k is the number of independent
variables in the equations. LLTobit = -821.23, LLProbit = -62.66, LLTruncation = -725.75, this value was taken
from separate estimation of each models.
( ) ( )
( )
& ( )

52
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

( ) ( )
The test statistic ( ) is greater than a chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the number of
independent variables (k=18). Therefore Tobit model was rejected in favour of the double hurdle model. The double
hurdle model was carried out using a probit model to estimate the first hurdle and a truncated regression for the
second hurdle. The best model for this analysis was Craggit model i.e the first tier: for adoption decisions while the
second tier: for extent of adoption. As double hurdle model maximum likelihood estimates result show, Chi square
overall = 49.055107, P overall = .0720544 is significant at 10% level. This indicates both stage taken together
significantly explain the data and the joint significance of the explanatory variables that were used in two Double
Hurdle model Results.
Household head experience: the experience of the respondent is positively and significantly influences the
extent of improved wheat varieties (IWVs) adoption at 10% level of significant. For example, as the farmers
experience increased by one year, the level of IWVs adoption increases by 0.209 kg/ha, being other variables
constant. Moreover farmers with longer farming experiences in the production have gotten more knowledge and skill
in the intensive production of the crop itself. So farmers who have more farming experience in the production adopt
more than farmer with shorter farming experience. This may be due to relatively farmers who have Longer years of
experience may develop the confidence in handling the risk lovers, skills in technology application and this variable
consistent with the prior expectation, and in line with [11, 29-31] reports.
Family size: family size has positive contribution to the status of adoption at 10% probability level of
significant. As the family size increase by one individual, the probabilities of IWVs adoption increase by 0.1784 see
(Table 4) while keep constant other variables. In case family size refers to a total number of family members and the
main sources of farm labor. Since technology adoption is labor intensive, farmers with large family size are expected
to adopt more. So, larger family size is expected to increase the probability of adoption positively. This result agree
with [31, 32] and go with the prior expectation.
Farm size in hectare: Regarding farm size, the results indicate that an increase in the farm size by a unit
hectare decrease use intensity of improved wheat varieties by 3.169quintal per hectare, hold constant other
variables. The negative impact of farm size on use intensity of IWVs can be justified in case of cost of inputs
associated to cover larger farm size. The farmers with larger farm size encouraged to plant eucalypts tree (bair zaf in
Amharic) which is less cost initially and lead to profit later for owners as compare IWVs and further, the farm size is
a significant determinant of level of adoption at 5% probability level of significant.
Off-farm income: during winter season many smallholder farmers earn additional income by engaging in
various off-farm activities. This is believed to raise their financial position to acquire new inputs such as improved
wheat varieties’ seeds, fertilizers and other input which is essential for production. If off- farm income increase from
zero to one birr lead to increase the level of IWVs adoption by 5.010 amount, ceteris paribus other variables
.Therefore, in this study, it is hypothesized that there was a positive correlation between the amount of off-farm
income and adoption of IWVs at 5% probability level of significant, this relationship in line with [16, 33, 34], results
and same with prior expectation below.
Availability of oxen: oxen positively influence the decision to participate in the status of adoption at 1%
significance level. This implies that as the number of oxen owned by the respondent increased from zero to one, the
probability of participating in the status of adoption increase by 0.896 being constant other variables. This is due to
the fact that as oxen are the main source of traction power for the farmers, and the availability and increment in the
number of oxen will increase the intensive and extensive production of improved wheat varieties. This result is the
same as with [35] reports and the sign was same with previous expectation.
Well cultivated land ownership: Regarding to cultivated farm size, as the results indicate an increase well
cultivated farm size from zero to one hectare, use intensity of improved wheat varieties decrease by 6.536quintal per
hectare, being constant other variables. The negative impact of cultivated farm size on use intensity of IWVs could
be in case of cost of inputs associated to cover larger cultivated farm size with improved technology rather farmers
take as alternative local seeds to cover their cultivated land because local seed is less cost initially and familiars for
users as compare IWVs ones. Further, the cultivated farm size is negatively determining the extent of adoption at 5%
probability level of significant in the study district. This relationship was not go with prior expect see (Table 4).
Attitude towards risk: this variable has positive contribution to the status of adoption of improved wheat
varieties at 5% probability level of significant see. If attitude towards risk change from laggards to early adopter,
(risk averse to risk lover i.e from zero to one), the probability of adoption change by 0.6279, this contribution is
similar with previous expectation, and this result agree with [36] reports. Smallholder farmers produce under very
high levels of uncertainty induced by natural hazards as a result technology adoption also usually comes with
uncertainties. Innovators and early adopters are perceived to be risk lovers while late adopters and laggards tend to
be risk averse.

53
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops
Table-4. Conditional independence double hurdle model results
st
1 hurdle(probit) tier1 2nd hurdle(truncation)tier2
Variables Marginal Effect P>|z| Marginal Effects P>|z|
FEDUINYE .0124122 0.760 -.6341306 0.108
HHEXPERI .0041015 0.757 0.2092401 0.080*
FAMISI .1784923 0.089* -.7208549 0.392
SEXHH .2174163 0.488 -.7303279 0.804
TLU -.0000348 1.000 -.3749661 0.680
FARMSI~A -.0606639 . 0.709 -3.169333 0.031**
OFFFAIN .3172805 0.242 5.010053 0.041**
AVAOXEN .8969459 0.003*** -2.184691 0.496
EXCONTA .2185756 0.441 -1.390667 0.601
DMRTKM -.0172819 0.460 -.2386781 0.270
USECHFKG .0019159 0.267 .0096735 0.417
USCREDIT -.1547908 0.595 2.444012 0.335
PARTEVA -.140861 0.650 -.8025235 0.771
ACCESM .2685711 0.350 1.750151 0.496
LANOSHIP .3144475 0.316 -6.536246 0.033**
ATITOWR .6279606 0.018** .4334294 0.866
PHHIWV .1445217 0.287 .2477076 0.836
SFS .0443236 0.875 .2081276 0.940
Note: ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.
Source: Model result based on own survey, 2018

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

As double hurdle model result shows: family size, availability of oxen and attitude towards risk affect the status
of adoption positively, under 1st stage independent double hurdle model while experience of farming, and off-farm
income affect the level of improved wheat variety adoption positively 2 nd stage independent double hurdle model as
well as farm size in hectare and well cultivated farm land influence the extent of improved wheat varieties adoption
negatively. Generally factors which influence farming households’ decision to adopt improved wheat were
unassociated with the decision variables in the second hurdle involving extent of improved wheat varieties. This
result confirmed the relevance of the double hurdle model in this study. This implies that the two-stage decision of
adoption and use intensity were done independently by respondents. Independent double hurdle model estimation
assumes that the two error terms from the two hurdles are normally distributed and uncorrelated. The result of the
model revealed that the error terms were uncorrelated.
Double hurdle model result shows that factors influencing adoption decision of improved wheat varieties are
different from determinants of intensity of improved wheat varieties. This implies that addressing these core
determinants with appropriate policy options could enable farmers to have the opportunity to adopt and intensify the
use of improved wheat varieties. Therefore, it is important to consider both stages in evaluating strategies aimed at
promoting the adoption and use of improved wheat verities. Moreover as double hurdle model result shows: family
size, availability of oxen and attitude towards risk affect the status of adoption improved wheat varieties positively
from 1st stage independent double hurdle model: therefore strengthening the existing: health services, skill of human
power, livestock production system by providing better livestock feed (forage), and delivering target training will
have to change small holder’s attitude for technology adoption. And also household head experience in farming and
off-farm income affect the level of improved wheat variety adoption positively from 2 nd stage double hurdle model:
So, it is better to develop experiences exchange: the lower experienced farmer with highly experience one through
field visits to share idea for each other and developing in formal education for smallholder farmers about off-income
activities will help to scale up their livelihood by branching out income sources.

References
[1] CSA, 2007. "Ethiopian population sensus during this year."
[2] CSA, 2014/15. "The federal democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistical agency of, agricultural
sample survey. Report on area and production of major crops ((private peasant holdings, meher season),
Addis Ababa." Statistical Bulletin, vol. 1, p. 578.
[3] CSA, 2016/17. "The federal democratic republic of ethiopia central statistical agency agricultural sample
survey, volume i report on area and production of major crops, Private peasant holdings, Meher season."
Statistical Bulletin, vol. 1, p. 584.
[4] Worku, A. A., 2014. Assessing the roles of farmer’s research group in potato technology adoption: a case
study of welmera wereda, Oromiya special zone. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.
[5] FAOSTAT, 2015. Available: http://Faostat.fao.org
[6] CSA, 2010. The federal democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistical agency agricultural sample
survey. Report crop and livestock product utilization. Addis Ababa.
[7] Samuel, 2017. "The wheat sector in Ethiopia: Current status and key challenges for future value chain
development, University Bonn, Working paper 160. ZEF Working Paper Series." pp. 1864-6638.

54
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

[8] Rashid, S. H., 2010. Prepared for the COMESA policy seminar on Variation in staple food prices: Causes,
consequence, and policy options. Maputo, Mozambique: Under the African Agricultural Marketing Project
(AAMP).
[9] FAOSTAT, 2014. Available: http://Faostat.fao.org
[10] Mahmood, N., Ali, T., Bajwa, M. S., Shahbaz, M., and Chattha, M. B., 2013. "Analysis of the adoption of
wheat sowing recommendations among small farmers using water saving interventions." Journal of Animal
and Plant Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 309-312.
[11] Getahun, D., 2000. Assessment of factors affecting adoption of improved wheat technology and its impact.
Haramaya University: Agricultural Economics.
[12] Ahmed, K., Mamo, G., Aemro, T., Hiwot, M. M., and Musa, H., 2017. "Cropping systems diversifcation,
improved seed, manure and inorganic fertilizer adoption by maize producers of eastern Ethiopia." Journal
of Economic Structures, vol. 6, pp. 1-16.
[13] Mengistu, A. K., 2003. Impact of technology on wheat production in bale highlands: The case of
smallholder farmers. MSc thesis in Agricultural Economics in Haramiya university, Ethiopia.
[14] Tesfaye, Tanner, D., Verkuijl, H., Agidie, A., and Mwangi, W., 2001. Adoption of improved bread wheat
varieties and inorganic fertilizer by small scale farmers in yelmana densa and farta districts of
Northwestern Ethiopia. (CIMMYT) and Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization.
[15] Birhanu, B., 2010. Assessment of bread wheat production, marketing and selection of n-efficient bread
wheat (tritium aestivum l.) varieties for higher grain yield and quality in North Western Ethiopia. MSc
thesis in plant breeding, Bahir Dar University.
[16] Berihun, K. H., Bihon, K. A., and Kibrom, A. W., 2014. "Adoption and impact of agricultural technologies
on farm income: evidence from southern tigray, northern ethiopia, Samara University." International
Journal of Foodand Agricultural Economics, vol. 2, pp. 91-106.
[17] Yamane, 1967. Determination of appropriate sample size. Glenn D. Israel.
[18] Burke, W. J., 2009. "Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s Tobit alternative using Stata." The State Journal, vol.
9, pp. 584-592.
[19] Ketema, M. and Bauer, S., 2011. "Determinants of manure, and fertilizer applications in Eastern Highlands
of Ethiopia." Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, vol. 50, pp. 237-252.
[20] Hill, L. and Kau, P., 1981. "Analysis of purchasing decision with Multivariate Probit." Amer. J. Agric.
Econ., vol. 53, pp. 882-883.
[21] Asante, B. O., Afari-Sefa, V., and Sarpong, D. B., 2011. "Determinants of small-scale farmers’ decision to
join farmer based organizations in Ghana." Afr. J. Agric. Research, vol. 6, pp. 2273-2279.
[22] Temitayo, A. A. and Kabir, K. S., 2016. "Dynamics of observable use of family planning methods in rural
Nigeria: A double hurdle model approach." Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 21, pp. 33-43.
[23] Yassin, E., Adam, B., and Mengistu, K., 2016. "Determinants of level of Smallholder farmers participation
In potato sales in Kofele district, Oromia region Ethiopia." Journal of Agricultural Science and Research,
vol. 3, pp. 23-30.
[24] Terefe, T. and Ahmed, H., 2016. "Adoption and extent of use of organic fertilizer in Arsi Negelle District,
Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia." Advanced Journal of agricultural Research, vol. 1.
[25] John, T., 2009. "Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables." Journal of the Econometric
Society, vol. 26, pp. 24-36.
[26] Cragg, J., 1997. "Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for
durable goods." Econometrical, vol. 39, pp. 829- 844.
[27] Roberto Martínez-Espiñeira, 2004. A box-cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the Citizen’s
perspective. Department of Economics, St. Francis Xavier University.
[28] Dadi, L., Teklewold, H., Yami, A., and Dana, N., 2006. "Determinants of adoption of poultry technology: A
double-hurdle approach Debre Zeit, Ethiopia." Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 18, p. 40.
[29] Shemelis, 2004. Factors Influencing demand of Fertilizer in Ethiopia: A case study of in Oromia. UN:
Alemaya University, Agriculrure.
[30] Kidane, 2001. Factors influencing the adoption of new wheat and maize varieties in tigray, Ethiopia: the
case of hawzien wereda. Alemaya University.
[31] Njane, P. W., 2007. Determinants of adoption of improved wheat varieties and Fertilizer use by
smallholder farmers in njoro and kieni west, Division. MSc thesis in Agricultural Economics of Egerton
University.
[32] Haji, B., 2003. Adoption of crossbred dairy cows in Arsi zone: The case of Tiyo. Haramaya University:
Agricultural Economics.
[33] Tesfaye, 2014. "Adoption of improved wheat varieties in robe and digelu tijo districts of aris zone in oromia
region, Ethiopia: A double hurdle approach." African Journal of, Agricultural Research, vol. 9, pp. 3692-
3703.
[34] Mekuria, A., 2013. Factors influencing adoption of improved maize varieties: The case of Goro Gutu
Woreda of Eastern Hararghe, Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis, Haramaya University.
[35] Getaneh, 2006. Farmers participation in contract farming: the case of bread wheat (triticum aestivum l.e
m.thell) production in womberma woreda, amhara national regional state. MSc thesis Haramiya university.

55
 Journal of Agriculture and Crops

[36] Musah, A. R., 2017. Contract farming and adoption of improved technologies in maize production in the
Northern region Of Ghana. Master Of Philosophy Degree , University For Development Studies.,
Agricultural Economics.

56