Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:24:51.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of smallholder farmers’ decisions on fertilizer use for cereal crops in the Ethiopian highlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2020

Tewodros Tefera ,
Eyasu Elias Open the ORCID record for Eyasu Elias [Opens in a new window]  and
Christy van Beek Open the ORCID record for Christy van Beek [Opens in a new window]
Tewodros Tefera*
Affiliation:
School of Environment, Gender and Development Studies, Hawassa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Eyasu Elias
Affiliation:
Centre for Environmental Sciences, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Christy van Beek
Affiliation:
Wageniningen Environmental Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands Present address: AgroCares, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study identified decision variables influencing fertilizer adoption and optimal fertilizer rates among smallholder farmers in the Ethiopian highlands. The fertilizer adoption and fertilizer use were examined in four regional states using a questionnaire survey, which was administered to 2880 farm households. A double hurdle model was used to analyze factors influencing the two independent decisions of adoption of fertilizers and use of fertilizers. The model estimates of the first hurdle revealed that the probability of fertilizer adoption increased by 1.2% as household education status improved, by 1.4% for an increased number of active family members, by 5.6% with improved access to credit, by 3.4% with cooperative membership, by 3.3% with an increase in farm size, by 4.6% when soil and water conservation practices are employed, and by 3.4% when agroecology of the farm is located in the medium to highland zone. Conversely, the probability of fertilizer adoption reduced by 0.9% for an increase in family size, 0.6% with 1 km distance from all-weather road, 1.6% for a kilometer further to farm plots, and 0.9% for an increase in number of parcels. The intensity of use of fertilizers was influenced by education status of the household head, family size, access to credit, membership to cooperatives, use of crop rotation, annual income, number of farm plots owned, use of soil and water conservation, and agroecology. Therefore, a concerted effort is needed to encourage fertilizer adoption and optimum fertilizer use intensity by improving households’ resource endowment, institutional capacity to deliver services, and infrastructure development.

Keywords

AdoptionFertilizer useDouble hurdle model
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 677 - 687
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abate, G.T., Bernard, T., de Brauw, A. and Minot, N. (2018). The impact of the use of new technologies on farmers’ wheat yield in Ethiopia: evidence from a randomized control trial. Agricultural economics (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 49(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12425 Google ScholarPubMed
Abebayehu, A., Misginaw, T., Abraham, B., Solomon, T., Alemayehu, R. and Bayu, D. (2014). Influences of mineral nitrogen and phosphorous fertilization on yield and yield contributing components in hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) African Journal of Agricultural Research 9: 670–675, 13 February, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adesina, A.A. and Forson, J.B. (1995). Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural Economics 13. pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adeyemo, T.A. and Salman, K. (2016). Dynamics of observable use of family planning methods in Rural Nigeria: a double hurdle model approach. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 21, Version. 2 (December. 2016): 33–43. e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845Google Scholar
Agbahey, J., Grethe, H. and Workneh, N. (2015). Fertilizer supply chain in Ethiopia: structure, performance and policy analysis. Afrika Focus 28: 81–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariga, J., Jayne, T.S., Kibaara, B. and Nyoro, J.K. (2008). Trends and Patterns in Fertilizer Use by Smallholder Farmers in Kenya, 1997–2007. Tegemeo Working Paper No.32: Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University. Nairobi.Google Scholar
Belachew, T. and Abera, Y. (2010). Assessment of soil fertility status with depth in wheat growing highlands of Southeast Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6: 525–531.Google Scholar
Belay, K. (2003). Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: The case of participatory demonstration and training extension system. Journal of Social Development in Africa 18: 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J. (1971). Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39: 829844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, E.W., Jayne, T.S. and Kelly, V.A. (2006). Alternative approaches for promoting fertilizer use in Africa. Agriculture & Rural Development Discussion Paper 22. Washington, DC: World Bank Press, p. 87.Google Scholar
Danso-Abbeam, G., Dagunga, G. and Sedem Ehiakpor, D. (2019). Adoption of Zai technology for soil fertility management: evidence from Upper East region, Ghana. Journal Economic Structures 8: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dercon, S. and Christiaensen, L. (2011). Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: evidence from Ethiopia. Journal on Development Economics 96, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, E. (2016). Soils of the Ethiopian Highlands: Geomorphology and Soils. 385 Pp. Altera, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Elias, E., Morse, S. and Belshaw, D.R.G. (1998). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Balances of Kindo Koisha Farms in Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 71, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endale, K. (2010). Fertilizer Consumption and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EDRIGoogle Scholar
Endrias, G., Ayalneh, B., Belay, K. and Elias, E. (2013). Determinants of farmers’ decision on soil fertility management options for Maize Production in Southern Ethiopia. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3 226–239.Google Scholar
Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA) (2006). Evaluation of the Ethiopian Agricultural Extension with Particular Emphasis on the Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES). Addis Ababa: EEAI.Google Scholar
FAO/Mega dataset (2017). Fertilizer trade, consumption and application. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gebremedhin, B., Hoekstra, D and Tegegne, A. (2006). Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture: Extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 1. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 36 pp.Google Scholar
Gebremedhin, B., Jaleta, M. and Hoekstra, D. (2009). Smallholders, institutional services, and commercial transformation in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 40: supplement 773–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebreselassie, L. and Sanders, J.H. (2006). Farm-level adoption of sorghum technologies in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 91: 122–134.Google Scholar
Hernandez, M.A. and Torero, M.T. (2011). Fertilizer Market Situation. Market Structure, consumption and trade patterns, and pricing behavior. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1058. International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Holden, S.T. and Quiggin, J. (2017). Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: shocks, drought tolerance and preferences. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44: 285–308.Google Scholar
IFPRI (2010). Fertilizer and Soil Fertility Potential in Ethiopia Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system, July 2010.Google Scholar
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) (2002). Managing Dryland Resources – An extension manual for Eastern and Southern Africa. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B. and Geoffrey, M. (2011). Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development 39, 1784–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katchova, A.L. and Miranda, M.J. (2004). Two-step econometric estimation of farm characteristics affecting marketing contract decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86, 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kefyalew, E. (2011). Fertilizer Consumption and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia, Working Papers 003, Ethiopian Development Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kelly, V.A. and Naseen, A. (2009). Fertilizer Use in Sub-Saharan Africa: Types and Amounts. Agricultural Sciences – Vol. II, Eolss Publishers Ltd. Oxford United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Kihara, J., Nziguheba, G., Zingore, S., Coulibaly, A., Esilaba, A., Kabambe, V., Njoroge, S., Palm, C. and Huising, J. (2016). Understanding variability in crop response to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 229, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, T. and Yamano, T. (2009). Soil fertility, fertilizer, and the maize green revolution in East Africa. World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper 5158, World Bank Press, p. 36.Google Scholar
Mutegi, J., Kabambe, V., Zingore, S., Harawa, R. and Wairegi, L. (2015). The Fertilizer Recommendation Issues in Malawi: Gaps, Challenges, Opportunities and Guidelines: Soil Health Consortium of Malawi.Google Scholar
Pender, J. and Gebremedhin, B. (2007). Determinants of agricultural and land management practices and impacts on crop production and household income in the highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies 17, 395–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoones, I. and Toulmin, C. (1999). Soil nutrient budgets and balances: What use for policy? Managing Africa’s Soils No. 6, February 1999.Google Scholar
Stoorvogel, J.J. and Smaling, E.M.A. (1990). Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in Sub Saharan Africa 1983–2000. Volume II Nutrient balances per crop and per Land Use System. Wageningen (The Netherlands), The Winand Staring Centre. Report 28, 4 Volumes, P.137.Google Scholar
van Beek, C.L., Elias, E., Selassie, Y.G., Heesmans, H., Segaye, A., Feyisa, H., Tolla, M., Melmuye, M., Gebremeskel, Y. and Mengist, S. (2016). Soil nutrient balances under diverse agro-ecological settings in Ethiopia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 106, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2011). Project performance assessment report on fertilizer support project (IDA-grant h4420-et, IDA–credit 4543-et), Report No.: 62834.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yamano, T. and Kijima, Y. (2010). The associations of soil fertility and market access with household income: Evidence from rural Uganda, Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 51–59, February.Google Scholar
Yu, B. and Nin-Pratt, A. (2014). Fertilizer adoption in cereal production. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics 6, 318–337, July, 2014.Google Scholar