FACTORS INFLUENCING ON FARMER’S ADOPTION OF

CHEMICAL FERTILIZER FOR CROP PRODUCTION: Kalu

WAREDA, AMHARA REGION

Senior Research Report

By; Abdu Mohammed

College: Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Department: Rural development and Agricultural Extension

June, 2019
HARAMAYA, ETHIOPIA
Contents
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................ vii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ viii

1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.Back ground of the Study ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2.Statement of the problems .................................................................................................... 3

1.3.The Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................. 4

1.3.1.General objective............................................................................................................ 4

1.3.2.Specific objectives.......................................................................................................... 4

1.4.The Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4

1.5.The Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 5

1.6.Scope and Limitation of the Study ....................................................................................... 5

2.LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1.Definition of Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2.The role of Agriculture in Ethiopia....................................................................................... 7

2.3.Importance of fertilizer in agriculture .................................................................................. 9

2 . 4 . Fertilizer Use and Crop Production in Ethiopia: ................................................................. 9

2.5.Adoption theories ................................................................................................................ 10

2.6.Factors influencing Adoption of Chemical fertilizer in Ethiopia ....................................... 11

2.7.Conceptual framework of adoption of chemical fertilizer technology ............................... 12

Hypnotized the variables........................................................................................................... 13

3.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 15

ii
 3.1.Description of the Study area .............................................................................................. 15

3.2.Research Design and Methodology .....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2.1.Sample size and Sampling techniques .......................................................................... 15

3.2.2.Data Source and Data Collection techniques ............................................................... 17

3.2.3.Methods of Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 17

4.RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................... 18

4.1.Determinants of adoption of inorganic fertilizers technology........................................... 18

4.1.1.Demographic Characteristics of the Farmers .............................................................. 18

4.1.2.Socio-economic characteristics of the farmers ............................................................. 20

4.1.3.Institutional factors influence on adoption of chemical fertilizer................................. 21

4.2.The Attitude of Farmers towards Using Inorganic Fertilizer for Crop production in the
Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 25

5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS ...................................................................... 27

6.REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 29

7.APPENDEX .............................................................................................................................. 32

iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Hypothesized the role of variables on the use of inorganic fertilizer in the study area .
...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of the Farmers ................................................................ 18
Table 3, Socio-economic characteristics of the farmers .............................................................. 20
Table 4, Institutional factors influence on adoption of chemical fertilizer .................................. 21
Table 5: The Attitude of Farmers towards Using Inorganic Fertilizer for Cereal Crop ............. 25
Table 6: Agreement of farmers on the important of fertilizers for their cereal crop production 25

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Conceptual framework of adoption of chemical fertilizer technology…………………….13

v
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADLI Agriculture Development led Industrialization
AFAP African Fertilizer and Agribusiness partnership
AU African Union
EAC East African Community
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GDP Growth Domestic product
GOs Governmental Organizations
GTP Growth Transformation Plan
IBC Institute of Biodiversity and Conservation
IFDC International Fertilizer development Center
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
UNDP United Nations development Programmme
USD United State Dollar
WB World Bank

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to forward my grateful thanks to Almighty Allah for giving me
health and courage to conduct the study. I would also like to heartily thank my advisor, for his
good guidance, valuable suggestions, cooperation and inspiration throughout the preparation of
the research report. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my family who always
provided me suitable environment and inspired me to do healthier study. My special thanks go to
agricultural office and respondents for giving different secondary documents and their time to
respond respectively. I am also indebted to my friends those who support to do the research in
effective manner and support me as enumerator from data collection so far. Finally, I would like
to thank all of respondents in the study for their cooperation and provision of real information.

vii
 ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to investigate on factors influencing on adoption of chemical
fertilizer specifically for crop production: The main objective of the study is to examine
determinants of chemical fertilizer adoption on crop production in Kalu woreda. Specifically,
to identify the general status of adoption of chemical fertilizer for crop production and
identify the attitude of farmers towards fertilizer adoption for crop production in the study
area. In this study, the researcher was used different methodology to investigate appropriate
data among this both primary and secondary data were used to collect and analyze for the sake
of reliable data and hypothesized outcome from literature respectively. In this study different
combination of data collection methods were used to collect first-hand information such as: -
interview, questionnaire, observation and focus group discussion and both published and
unpublished, journal articles, magazines, office annual report and books were used to analyze
the gap and get more it. The data were analyzed through both quantitative and qualitative data
analyzed method in appropriate way. Both random and non-random sampling techniques were
used to list out the samples from the population. The researcher was used both dependent
variables which was adopter and non-adopter and explanatory variables such as demographic
characteristics, land size, socio-economic and political factors, access to market, and
institutional. The study found access and availability of extension service to be more powerful
than other factors in explaining adoption and intensity of inorganic fertilizer technology
adoption. The study also found distance from credit sources and input supply negatively affect
fertilizer adoption and based on the result recommended that, Given the critical role of
proximity of farmers to better roads for promoting adoption and productivity gains, the effort
of investment in improved roads infrastructure should be expanded to achieve increased
production. Moreover, improving technology delivery mechanism, mainly fertilizer
production and distribution system, should be expanded. As the result of the study indicates,
the attitude of most of farmers in the study area towards fertilizer adoption was positive.

Key words: Adoption, Cereal Crop, Determinant, Fertilizer, Production

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Back ground of the Study

Agriculture is the supplier of basic human need, nutrition is the world’s largest user of land,
occupying more than one third of Earth’s terrestrial surface and using vast amounts of water.
It affects our daily life in many ways, both directly and indirectly. Humans expect
agriculture to supply sufficient nutrients, economically and culturally valued foods, and
other products. Agriculture is essential for inclusive development because it produces food
as well as economic wealth for many of the world's poorest people that allows for improved
livelihoods through better health care, education and infrastructure improvements and
greater investment in environmentally sound practices. For Sub Saharan Africa, growth
generated by agriculture is eleven times more effective in reducing poverty than GDP
growth in any other sectors (IFDC, 2013).

Ethiopia is a landlocked country in the Horn of Africa, which has experienced a strong
economic growth over the past decades. The majority of this growth originated from
Ethiopia’s dominating agriculture- based economy; the agricultural sector accounts for 37
percent to GDP, one of the highest shares in sub- Saharan Africa, as well as to 83.9 percent
of exports. Moreover, the sector employs around 72 percent of the total population. Among
them, 80 percent live in rural areas, making Ethiopia one of the least urbanized countries in
sub-Saharan Africa. The country’s topographic diversity results in varied farming systems,
enabling crop and livestock production in the highlands and lowlands. The main staple
crops that are grown to meet subsistence needs are teff, maize, wheat, barley and sorghum.
About 74 percent of the countries’ farmers are small family farmers as the country’s
population is rapidly increasing, farm sizes are becoming smaller, making it challenging for
family farmers to sustain their subsistence agriculture (FAO,2017).

Out of the total crops produced in the country, grain crops took the lion share both in terms
of the total area of land coverage and output production. From the total area of land 89.5%
of it was covered by grains crops (cereals, pulses and oilseeds) which not only constituted
the major food crops for the majority of the country’s population but also served as a source

1
of income at household level and a contributor for the country’s foreign currency earnings,
among others. Out of the total grain crop area, 79.88% hectare of land was covered by
cereals where Teff, maize, sorghum and wheat took up 22.95%, 16.91%, 14.85 % and
13.33% of the grain crop area respectively. In terms of production, cereals constituted
86.68% grain production in which Maize, teff, wheat and sorghum 26.80%,16.76%, 15.81%
and 16.20% of the grain production respectively (CSA, 2017).

Since more than 80% of the population lives in the rural area where agriculture is the source
of their livelihood, its growth is a major driver of poverty reduction in rural Ethiopia. As a
result, the government of Ethiopia has planned to increase agricultural productivity through
the adoption of agricultural technologies among other strategies. Even though the supply of
improved seeds and fertilizer that help increase agricultural production and productivity has
increased over time, but still falls short of the target set in order to transform smallholder
agriculture (MoFED, 2016).

Chemical fertilizer is a substance added to soil to enhance health, improve plants’ growth
and yield. First used by ancient farmers, fertilizer technology developed significantly as
the chemical needs of growing plants were discovered. Modern synthetic fertilizers are
composed mainly of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium compounds with secondary
nutrients added. The use of synthetic fertilizers has significantly improved the quality and
quantity of the food available today, although their long-term use is debated by
environmentalists. Like all living organisms, plants are made up of cells. Within these cells
occur numerous metabolic chemical reactions that are responsible for growth and
reproduction. Since plants do not eat food like animals, they depend on nutrients in the soil
to provide the basic chemicals for these metabolic reactions. The supply of these
components in soil is limited, however, and as plants are harvested, it dwindles, causing a
reduction in the quality and yield of plants (Brevik and Burgess, 2016).

In Amhara region especially, in Gonder zuriya woreda crop production is characterized by

the small holder agriculture and limited use of input such as fertilizer and improved seed,

2
and low agricultural production. Farmers are characterized by subsistent producer and more
dependent on rainfall.

1.2.Statement of the problems

The problems of low soil fertility resulting from continuous monocropping, crop residue
removal and limited fertilizer use represent key challenges to produce surplus food for the
ever-increasing population of Ethiopia. However, the practices of crop rotation and
integrated sources of fertilizer uses could potentially improve soil fertility and productivity.
Food and income insecurity have been attributed to limited access to production inputs such
as seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. Other constraints are poor access to production inputs,
finance, a well-structured, reliable and timely market information; small volumes of
products of varied quality offered by individual smallholder farmers; and poorly structured
and inefficient markets (Nyende, 2011)

The major challenge confronting most of developing countries like Ethiopia is low
agricultural production and food insecurity especially for rural people. Especially in the
study area the above problem is common due to different factors. To achieve sustainable
agricultural growth the farmers recommended to use improved technologies, mainly
chemical fertilizer. It is usually accepted that fertilizer use is crucial for raising crop
production so as to keep up with the demand from rapidly growth population. Farmers
perception for adoption of chemical fertilizer is low due to cultural and economic aspect.
In Ethiopia context agricultural production is very low but the population is rapidly
increase year to year. So that to make a sustainable livelihood or to build quality of life the
farmers enable to use chemical fertilizer to increase their production, the same is true in
the study area. Due to low agricultural production both rural and urban community is
suffering for food insecurity, illness, illiteracy and poverty. Most farmers in the study area
are not using fertilizer for their production due to various institutional, social, economic,
political and physical factors.

In the study area farmers are vulnerable for different shocks, seasons and trends like market
depression, flood, soil erosion, low production and displace from their area. So that they
have to produce and accumulate more production by using modern production mechanism

3
such as fertilizer application to escape from this vulnerability. But the problem is they are
not using chemical fertilizer effectively. In addition to this, farmers in the study area have
not willing and negative attitude towards adoption of chemical fertilizer for their production.
Because they relate diffusion of chemical fertilizer and extension agent consultant with
politics of the government. Farmers in the study area are become more deprived in living
standard, education and health. Although the total consumption of chemical fertilizers has
shown an increasing trend, farmers in Ethiopia are still using very little, this study was
initiated to factors influencing farmer’s adoption of chemical fertilizer for crop production.
An attempt was to assess problems associated with adoption of chemical fertilizer for
crop production in Kalu woreda and to examine the problems.

1.3.The Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General objective

The general objective of this study is to examine factors influencing farmer’s adoption of
chemical fertilizer for crop production in Kalu woreda.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

➢ To identify factors affecting adoption of chemical fertilizer for crop production in the
Kalu woreda
➢ To identify the attitude of farmers towards fertilizer adoption for crop production in
the study area.
➢ To observe the general status of adoption of chemical fertilizer on crop production

1.4. The Research Questions

1) What are the factors affecting the adoption of chemical fertilizer for crop production
in the study area?
2) What is the attitude of farmers towards chemical fertilizer adoption for crop
production?
3) How is the status of inorganic fertilizer adoption in the study area?

4
1.5.The Significance of the Study

This research may useful to the federal government, local government, tertiary institutions,
students, NGO s, development workers and researcher. In addition to this, it may use as a
source of information for further agricultural studies of the area. It may use as a source of
knowledge for academic staffs to compare the status of adoption with other areas. Beside
this, it gives clue for research with empirical evidence and theories for different
terminologies. It is important for investors, entrepreneur, and institution, who works on
agricultural aspects. It provides information about the role of chemical fertilizer on crop
production to reduce poverty and food insecurity. In general, the result of these studies
would benefit policymakers, ultimately farmers and encouraging farmer use of fertilizer.
Furthermore, it could inspire other researchers to conduct further research on the issue.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The researcher tried to limit the scope of the study by both methodological and geographical
aspects. The methodological aspects, the researcher was used realism foundation. In this
study both qualitative and quantitative research were used to investigate and fill the gap of
the previous researcher. Geographical aspects, the study was conducted in Amhara region,
Kalu woreda at household level and other areas were not included in the study because
there was a limitation of Finance, time, politics, low willingness to respond, environmental
factors, and recent politics. The data were collected through cross-sectional data type
therefore, it may affect the reliability of research or not enough to make a decision.

5
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.Definition of Agriculture
Agriculture is one of East Africa's most important sectors, with about 80percent of the
population living in rural areas and depending on agriculture for their livelihoods (East
African Community (EAC), 2015). Despite this, the region is categorized amongst the
poorest in the world with more than 60% of the population living below the poverty line
(EAC, 2015). Poverty here is defined according to the human rights approach, in terms of
a range of interrelated and mutually reinforcing deprivations, and drawing attention to the
insecurity, stigma, discrimination, and social exclusion. The manifestation of poverty
includes: low income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods;
hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic
services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate
housing; unsafe environments; social discrimination and exclusion; characterized by lack
of participation in decision making and in civil, social and cultural rights (EAC, 2015).

Agriculture plays a key role in food security and economic development. However, most
of the world’s population in rural areas depends directly or indirectly on agriculture for
their livelihoods. Yet as the world’s population increases and migration to towns and cities
intensifies, so the proportion of people not producing food will grow (Cardno, 2017). The
East Africa Region is characterized by low agricultural productivity and thus food
insecurity. The reasons for this are high populations, small land sizes, environmental
degradation; poor marketing structures; inadequate access to information, poor physical and
institutional infrastructure and inappropriate government policies, there-by hindering
sustainable development of rural areas. The region also has diversity of farming systems,
from the humid highlands of Uganda, the coastal areas of Tanzania and Kenya to the dry
lands of Sudan and Ethiopia.

Agricultural development according to Nwachukwu (2016), is a multi-sectional activity

that support and promote positive change in the rural and urban areas. However, the main
objectives of agricultural development are the improvement of material and social welfare
of the people. Therefore, agricultural development is seen as synonymous with rural
6
development, the two terms are different but intrinsically related. Agricultural
development is a part of rural development; rural areas cannot develop without its
agriculture being developed because about 90% of the rural dwellers are engaged in
agricultural practices as their major source of income.

2.2.The role of Agriculture in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is still among the poorest countries in the world with the second populous
nation in Africa next Nigeria; and is one of the fastest growth economies in the world
(IFDC, 2015). Besides, it is one of the most biological and culturally diverse country in
sub-Saharan Africa. Despite being one of the poorest countries with a per capita income
of USD 454 (significantly lower than regional average) (FAO, 2014), Ethiopian economy
has registered remarkable economic and development performance with an average
growth of 10.9% per year from 2000-2010 WB, (2012). This is double growth compared
to sub-Saharan African countries and triples the average growth rate of the world over this
period and has led to the country being rated as one of the fastest growing economies in
the world.

The Ethiopian highlands are situated (>2000 m a s l), which cover 37% of the total
geographical area and are inhabited by about 77% of the population with very sparse
in lowlands UNDP, (2016). This uneven human population distribution situation has
been exacerbated by the cultivation on very steep slopes and over grazing leading to
severe degradation of natural resources. Because of the above facts, very low soil fertility
remains a problem in most production areas but particularly those with poor traditional
land management practices (IBC, 2013).

To feed this ever-increasing population, agricultural production has to be boosted up via

improving the agricultural productivity per unit area of the most degraded cropping
land that were under cultivation for centuries. The nature of Ethiopia agriculture by itself is
challenging, since it is characterized by smallholder based with very small fragment plots
of less than two hectare and requires a lot of endeavors to boost up productivity (AFAP,
2012). It is a very tough task to the people and government of Ethiopia to bring significant
change on status of crop production since the country is a victim of both natural and
7
manmade hazards for subsequent years. It was also more likely aggravated by poor
infrastructure, lack of access to capital, inputs and extension to the farming households.

Addressing of the interwoven productivity problems and improving the livelihood of the
rural poor were the core agendas of Ethiopian government for the last two decades
Samuel G (2012). Ethiopia put agriculture at the heart of its economic development by
launching its Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy two
decades ago in 1991 to utilize labor extensively and land intensively. This strategy puts
agriculture at the forefront of Ethiopia’s development process. The government designed
different phases of programs and right policy formulations based on realizing proper
image of the country. The implemented policies and programs so far to brought dramatic
changes in the sector of agriculture were ADLI, Plan for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) and more recently, the growth transformation
plan (GTP) MoFED, (2006). These plans were very comprehensive to foster economic
development on the basis of agricultural transformation for increased productivity,
production product qualities and marketability.

To Ethiopia, increasing total production and productivity is not an option rather it is

mandatory and given first priorities previously in formulation of its agriculture related
policies, strategies and programs. Production and productivity can be basically enhanced
through implementing the following two alternatives. The first alternative is boosting up
productivity through extensive utilization of inputs and/or improvement of technologies
with applying limited level of inputs. The second option is enhancing efficiency of
production and productivity of farming households with utilization of few levels of inputs
and technologies. Ethiopia was implementing the first option so far this paper is mainly
focused on the determinates of adoption of chemical fertilizer on crop production in Gondar
zuria woreda.

Substantial increase in food production from the existing cultivated land is desirable to
meet the demand of rapidly increasing Ethiopian population and contribute to poverty
alleviation. Increasing yields involves higher demand of plant nutrient that cannot be

8
fully supplied from natural sources alone. The production capacity of a soil is determined
largely by its chemical and physical properties and soil moisture content, which help in
the full utilization of the essential elements in the soil by plant roots FAO (2006).

2.3. Importance of fertilizer in agriculture

Today fertilizer has become essential to modern agriculture to feed the growing population
but continuous chemical amendments adversely impacts soil environment Nidhi.R et al.
2014. Uses of fertilizers, especially, the chemical one has brought in blessings on
humanity, which helped to avert wider spread starvation and deter death across the globe
Asia.N et al.2014. Soil is an important ecological niche for different microbial communities
in the crop rhizosphere. Soil quality is the capacity o f a certain type of soil to normally
function within natural or managed biodiversity boundaries, to maintain plant and animal
productivity, preserve or enhance water and air quality and support human health and
habitation FDRE, (2012). The excessive and continuous use of chemical fertilizers on
agricultural lands not only affects the soil health and soil physicochemical properties but
also pollutes the biodiversity in addition to the depleting resources and high cost.

2 . 4 . Fertilizer Use and Crop Production in Ethiopia:

There are two general foreseeable options for increasing agricultural output to hasten
economic development. The first is increasing net cropped area by clearing uncultivated
lands while the second is increasing productivity per unit area through intensive utilization
of inputs and effective management of plots under cultivation. The feasibility of the first
option to boost up production is not compromised due to shortsightedness in term of long-
term benefit and its likely consequences on ecological disruption and political unrest.
Giving the current federal system of administrative where regions are autonomous in
administration of their own lands across their geographical location and most of the
bare land that may be brought into cultivation is also only found in low land plain of few
regional states. Therefore, it is not easy to exploit this alternative for resettlement of
small holders from high to sparsely populated regional states due to environmental,
ecological and ownership reasons. Hence, the second option is economically and
ecologically more feasible, if it is carried out under economically viable and
9
environmentally sustainable manner. Consumption of fertilizer is one of the vital inputs
in crop production. Without utilization of fertilizer, world food production could be
reduced from 40-60% annually AU, (2006). No one region in the world has increased crop
production and adequately deal with food insecurity without enhancing fertilizer use.

Agricultural new technologies constitute the introduction and use of hybrids, the
greenhouse technology, genetically modified food, chemical fertilizers, insecticides,
tractors and the application of other scientific knowledge. Agricultural new technologies
are the factors of production which have undergone some form of amendment from their
original state with the intent of enhancing their performance (Matunhu J, 2011).

2.5.Adoption theories

Adoption: According to Feder and Zilberman 1985, adoption may be as the integration of
an Innovation into farmers’ normal farming activities over an extended period. Adoption,
however, is not a permanent behavior. Dasgupta 1989, noted that an individual may decide
to discontinue the use of an innovation for a variety of personal, institutional, and social
reasons one of which might be the availability of another practice that is better in satisfying
farmers’ needs. Feder et al. 1985, adoption as an individual (farm level) adoption and
aggregate adoption. Adoption at the individual farmers’ level is defined as the degree of use
of new technology in long run equilibrium when the farmer has full information about the
new technology and its potential. In the context of aggregate adoption behavior, diffusion
is defined as the spread of new technology within a region. This implies that aggregate
adoption is measured by the aggregate level of specific new technology with a given
geographical area or within the given population.

Overall, to explain adoption behavior and factors affecting technology adoption, three
paradigms are commonly used. The paradigms are: the innovation-diffusion model,
adoption perception and the economic constraints models. The underlying assumption of
the innovation diffusion model is that the technology is technically and culturally
appropriate, but the problem of adoption is one of asymmetric information and very high
search cost. The second paradigm, the adopters’ perception paradigm, on the other hand,
suggests that the perceived attributes of the technology condition adoption behavior of
10
farmers. This means that, even with full farm household information, farmers may
subjectively evaluate the technology differently than scientists (Feder and Zilberman 1985).

Thus, understanding farmers’ perceptions of a given technology is crucial in the generation

and diffusion of new technologies and farm household information dissemination. The
economic constraint model contends that input fixity in the short run, such as access to
credit, land, labor or other critical inputs limits production flexibility and conditions
technology adoption decisions (Aikens MT and Havens AE 1975). Recent studies have
shown that using the three paradigms in modeling technology adoption improves the
explanatory power of the model relative to a single paradigm.

2.6. Factors influencing Adoption of Chemical fertilizer in Ethiopia

Empirical review of the literature on technology adoption in developing countries reveals

that the various factors that influence chemical fertilizer adoption can be grouped in to the
following three broad categories (1) factors related to the characteristics of producers i.e.,
the farmers; performance of the technology and (3) program and institutional factors
Teklewold H et al. (2013). The factors related to the characteristics of producers include
education level, experience with the activity, age, gender, level of wealth, farm size, plot
characteristics, labor availability, resource endowment, risk aversion, etc. The factors
related to the characteristics and performance of the technology and practices include food
and cash generation functions of the product, the perception by individuals of the
characteristics, complexity and performance of the innovation, its availability and that of
complementary inputs, the relative profitability of its adoption compared to substitute
technologies, the period of recovery of investment, local adoption patterns of the
technology, the susceptibility of the technology to environmental hazards, etc.

The institutional factors include availability of credit, the availability and quality of
information on the technologies, accessibility of markets for products and inputs factors,
the land tenure system, and the availability of adequate infrastructure, extension support,
etc. Enabling policies and programs, market linkages, access to institutional support and
credit were found to play a positive role in stimulating farmer investment in and adoption
of sustainable technologies Shiferaw BA et.al. (2009).
11
2.7. Conceptual framework of adoption of chemical fertilizer technology

Adoption of chemical fertilizer technologies is influenced by several interrelated

components within the decision environment in which farmers operate. For instance, Feder
et al. (1985) while Beshir et al. (2012), identified lack of credit, limited access to
information, inadequate farm size, tenure arrangements, chaotic supply of complementary
inputs and inappropriate transportation infrastructure as key constraints to rapid adoption
of innovations in less developed countries. However, not all factors are equally important
in different areas and for farmers with different socio-economic situations. Socio economic
conditions of farmers are the most cited factors influencing technology adoption. The
variables most Commonly included in this category are age, education, household size,
landholding size, and other factors that indicate the wealth status of farmers. Farmers with
bigger land holding size are assumed to have the ability to purchase improve technologies
and the capacity to bear risk if the technology fails. Some new technologies are relatively
labor saving and others are labor using. For those labor- using technologies, like improved
varieties of seeds and fertilizer labor availability plays significant role in adoption (Figure
1).

12
 Socio-economic factors
Demographic factors Income
Education level culture
Sex Farm size
Age Motivation
Family labor

Adoption of
chemical
fertilizer

Institutional factors
Access to infrastructure
Access to credit
Lack of information
Corruption
Wrong perception
Extension services

Conceptual framework of adoption of chemical fertilizer technology by Feder et al. (1985)

while Beshir et al. (2012)

Hypnotized the variables

Dependent variable

Adoption of chemical fertilizer (adopter and Non-Adopter)

Independent variable Dependent variable

Education +
Age +-
Sex +-
Family labor force +
Farm size +-

13
 Access to infrastructure +
Access to credit +
Lack of information -
Corruption -
Wrong perception -
Extension services +
Access to market +

Distance of the input suppliers _

Distance of the credit providers _

Cultural influence +

Motivation +

Table1: Hypothesized the role of variables on the use of inorganic fertilizer in Gondar zuria
woreda

14
 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1.Description of the Study area

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1.Description of the Study area

2.1.1. Geographical location or physical location
Kalu is one of the districts found in the Amhara region in Ethiopia parts of the South wollo
zone. Kalu is bordered South by kemissa, on the west by werebabo, on the east by argoba, on
the north by dessie zuria zone. Townes in Kalu include Harbu, Degan, Ancharo, geban land
mark is Harbu. The elevation ranges from about 1700 meters about sea level to about 3200
meters on its northern beards.
2.1.2. Demography
Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central statistical agency of Ethiopia in
Kalu district has total population of 223,838 an areas of 9.15 % our the 1994 census of whom
116,774 are men and 107,064 women 11.432 or 10.47% are urban inhabitants with an area of
851.54 square kilometers .Kalu has a population density of 147.44 which roughly equal than
the zone a verge 147.58 percent per square kilometer it has the most populous district from
the other zone resulting in an average of 4.33 present to house holed and 24.216 housing
unties. The majority of the inhabitants were Muslim, with 98.73% reporting that as their
religion, while 1.17% of the population said they practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity.
The 2004 national census reported total population for this wereda of 120, 193 in 76.59 house
holed of whom 58.542are men and 1.65 are women 71% of population are urbane dwellers.
The largest ethnic gropes reported in Kalu were the Amhara 99.9% Amharic were spoken as
first language by 99% the majority of the inhabitants are Muslim. With 80.04%of the
population reported as prating that while 19.83%of population and protestant Ethiopia
Orthodox Christianity.
The agro-ecological condition of the district in most of dega and some parts of winadega .The
majority of population in district engaged in agricultural activates which includes cropping
system and livestock system .Kalu report 2008/2009 sorghum is the major one in winadega
parts and also wheat, barely, teff, and maize are in both dega and winadega parts .The cropping

15
system and live-stoke system under taken by use of traditional farming system and resultant
low product.

2.2. Research Design and Methodology

The quantitative research method enabled to collect all quantified data. Whereas,
Qualitative research method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data which were used
to strengthen the gap in quantitative research method.

2.2.1.Sample size and Sampling techniques

The researcher was used different sampling procedures to choose respondents from population
such as, multistage random sampling, purposive, systematic sampling, and simple random
sampling. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select Kalu woreda from Amhara
region. Purposive sampling and convenience sampling technique was used to choose Harbu
and Addis Mender kebeles, with their association with crop production, and readily and easily
available for response respectively. From these two kebeles the researcher was used simple
random sampling to choose two farmers’ association from Harbu kebele and one farmers’
association from Addis Mender kebele purposively among the total of six farmer association
and three farmers’ association from Harbu and Addis Mender kebeles respectively.
See below,

Appropriate sample size is depending on various factors related to the subject under
investigation like the time aspect, the cost aspect, and the degree of accuracy desired
(Rangaswamy, 2007). In this study to determine sample size, different factors such as research
cost, time and the degree of accuracy desired will be taken in to consideration. The sample
size will be determined using the formula adapted from Israel (2013) with 95% confidence
interval, 5% level of precision (Sampling error) and 10% Maximum degree of variability
between the populations.
𝒛𝟐 𝒑𝒒
𝒏=
𝒆𝟐
Where,
n= Sample size of respondents
z= (1.96) level of alpha risk expressed in z-score
16
 e= 5% is the desire level of precision (margin of error)
p= (10%) is the estimated proportion (degree of variability present in population), and q is
1-10%, q=90%.
The above formula was employed to identify the total number of sample respondents
which was 94 farmers from two kebeles.

Finally, 3 cooperatives with purposive sampling and 50 farmers from Harbu kebele and 44
farmers from Addis mender kebele for FDG and in-depth interview respectively, was
selected using probability proportional to sample size sampling technique.

2.2.2. Data Source and Data Collection techniques

Questionnaires, in-depth interview, focus group discussion and field observation were
used as the primary data collection techniques. Closed and open-ended questions were
prepared and distributed to the respondents. The questionnaire enabled to collect data from
representative sample household farmers. In-depth interview was also conducted with key
informants who were considered knowledgeable about the general situation of fertilizer
application practices. Furthermore, the secondary data were collected from the Gondar
zuria woreda agricultural office, agricultural offices of each kebele, written documents,
publications, magazines, articles, books and records of published and unpublished
documents, annual reports about the physical and socio- economic conditions of the
study area.

2.2.3. Methods of Data Analysis

The researcher was employed quantitative and qualitative data analysis method.
Quantitative data was analyzed by using SPSS 25 latest version software to present in an
organized manner from the information collected from informants. The researcher used
descriptive statistics to analyze the quantitative data through: - percentage, frequency and
mean. These were used for variable screening at the existing performance of farmer.
Whereas, qualitative data were analyzed through narrating, summarizing, categorization,
conceptual generalization, interpretation, explanation, description and elaboration.

17
 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter consists of the overall findings of the study to be presented under different
sections. The influence of different demographic, social, economic, and institutional
determinants on adoption and intensity of adoption of inorganic fertilizer were discussed
briefly.

3.1. Determinants of adoption of inorganic fertilizers technology

Improved technologies such as improved seed and breed, fertilizers and herbicides have
played a significant role in enabling farmers to increase the production and hence improve
the standard of living of smallholder farmers. The process of adoption of improved
agricultural technologies is the interest of many agricultural economists. The majority of
smallholder farmers in Ethiopia are producing crops. Yield of these activities are very low
due to low adoption and application of improved agricultural technologies mainly
improved seed and fertilizer (Hassenet al, 2012).

3.1.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Farmers

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of the Farmers

Variable Respondent Adopters Non- adopters Total

s
characteristi Frequen Percent Frequen Perce Frequen Percent
cs cy (%) cy nt cy (%)
(%)
Sex male 48 51.1 26 27.6 74 78.7

female
21.3
12 12.8 8 8.5 20
Educational literate 35 37.2 18 19.1 53 56.4
Status of
HH head Illiterate 15 16.0 10 10.6 25 26.6
Trained 11 11.7 5 5.3 16 17.0

Age Adolescenc 20 21.3 14 14.9 34 36.2

e (youth)

Adult 30 31.9 16 17.0 46 48.9

Old 10 10.6 4 4.3 14 14.9

18
Family 1-4 (low) 10 10.6 15 16.0 25 26.6
labor 5-8 24 25.6 10 10.6 34 36.2
(medium)
>8 (high) 27 28.7 8 8.5 35 37.2

Source; own survey (2018)

Table 2 shows that, there were 51.1% and 27.6% of the respondents are male adopter and
non- adopter respectively, while 12.8% and 8.5% were female adopter and none adopters
respectively. The table indicates that, there was significant difference b e t w e e n male
headed households and female headed households to adopt fertilizer and other improved
technology. That means, sex had an effect on fertilizer adoption. The result of this study is
supported by findings or studies such as, Hassen et al (2012) in which sex was positively
and significantly related to the intensity of use of inorganic fertilizer. This means that
male farmers use more inorganic fertilizer, compared to their female counterparts.

Besides, this 17.1% and 26.6 % of the respondents were illiterate adopter and illiterate
none adopter respectively and 37.2% literate adopter and 19.1%literate non-adopters
respectively. This implies that large numbers of farmers in the study area are adopted
fertilizer because they are literate. Education was hypothesized to affect fertilizer
adoption positively since it increases the capacity of farm households to acquire
information and knowledge of improved technologies and promote the decision to use it
on his/her farm. Trained role model farmers respondents were accounts 11.7% adopter and
5.3% non- adopter. This result implies training is highly influence extension method for
adoption of technology. This indicates that education and training have significant
difference between adopter’s and non- adopters in terms of educational status. In this
study, in conformity with the hypothesis, education significantly and positively affected
the intensity of use of inorganic fertilizer. The result of this study is similar with many
of the previously conducted studies. For example, Itana, 1985; Chilot et al., 1996; Kansana,
1996; Asfaw et al., 1997; Mwanga et al., 1998 and Tesfaye et al., 2001 have reported
positive and significant relationship of education with adoption. Similarly, Nkonya et al.,
1997 reported positive relationship of education with adoption and intensity of adoption
of improved maize seed indicating that each additional year of education increases the
probability and intensity of adoption by 5%.
19
The above table 2, indicated that 21.3% and 14.9 % respondents were youth adopter and
non-adopter respectively, 31.9% and 17.0% were adult adopter and non-adopter and 10.6%
and 4.3% were old adopter and non-adopter respectively. Therefore, from the result adults
were weighted for adoption of chemical fertilizer. These indicated that adults were high
significance for adoption of chemical fertilizer than youth or old HHs. In addition to this,
10.6% and 16.0% of the respondents had been low family labor force adopter and non-
adopter respectively, it consists from 1-4 family labor force per family, 25.6% and 10.6%
respondents had been medium family labor force adopter and non-adopter respectively,
and 28.7% and 8.5% respondents had been high or more than 8 family labor force adopter
and non-adopter respectively. Therefore, from the above result the mode or high labor
force in the family has significance or positively influence on the adoption of fertilizer in
the study area.

Finally, Sex differential between household heads is a very important explanatory variable
in studying factors of adoption. The prevailing social set up of rural households placed a
varying responsibility among male and female members. In most parts of rural Ethiopia
women are disfavored groups of the society who couldn’t easily access technology
information. Thus, numerous adoption studies had come up with results showing being a
female headed negatively influencing technology adoption decisions. Due to the prevailing
socio-cultural values and norms males have freedom of mobility, participate in meetings
and trainings. Consequently, those male headed households who have more access to
information to use innovation than female-headed households, which have a capacity to
influence by the cultural norms and traditions. The existence of wealth difference among
female headed and male headed households could be also the possible reason forwarded for
the difference in adoption of chemical fertilizer. Those male headed households who do
have more wealth can easily afford the price of agricultural new technologies.

3.1.2. Socio-economic characteristics of the farmers

Table 3, socio-economic characteristics of the farmers

Adopter Non-Adopter Total

20
Independe Respondent frequ % frequ % freque %
nt characterist ency ency ncy
variables ics
Income Low 8 8.5 20 21.3 28 29.7
Medium 15 16.0 15 16.0 30 32.0
High 30 31.9 6 6.4 36 38.3
Motivatio Low 10 10.6 14 14.9 24 25.5
n to adopt Medium 20 21.3 14 14.9 34 36.2
High 30 31.9 6 6.4 36 38.3

Source; own survey (2018)

As indicated in the above table 3, 8.5% and 21.3% of the respondents were low income

level adopters and non-adopters respectively and 31.9% and 6.4% of the respondents were

categorized in high income adopters and non- adopters respectively. This result shows,

income has positively influence for adoption and intensity of chemical fertilizer. Most of

the respondents were found in category of high-income level. The result indicated that,

income is significant for adoption of chemical fertilizer. In addition to this, high motivation

to adopt new technology or willingness to accept new technology is a significant variable

for adoption. In order to understand 31.9% of the respondents had high motivation to

accept new technology and they were adopter while 6.4% were non- adopter which means

they have high willingness to adopt but due to different reason they cannot adopt it.

Besides, 10.6 % of the respondents were adopted without willingness by forcing them with

different stalk holders by relating the issue with politics.

3.1.3. Institutional factors influence on adoption of chemical fertilizer

Table 4, Institutional factors influence on adoption of chemical fertilizer

Variable Adopters Non adopter

frequency Mean frequency Mean t-value

21
 Frequency DA/ 60 2.683 34 1.231 3.905***
month
Farm size/ hectare 60 1.56 34 1.38 1.881**

farming 60 20.28 34 18.72 2.030**

experience/year
Distance of the input 60 4.6341 34 7.577 -4.761***
suppliers
Distance of the credit 60 7.8659 34 11.4615 -4.992***
providers

***=significant at1%; ** = significant at 5%; * = significant at 10%; NS= non-significant

Source: own survey (2018)

Access to extension service had expected positive effect on adoption and intensity of its
use due to access to information for these technologies. Agricultural extension services are
the major sources of information for improved agricultural technologies. One means of
which, farmers’ access information about improved technologies is by contacting the
extension agent. The above table 4, shows that, the average frequency of adopters contact
with the DA was 2.683 and 1.231 for non-adopters. So; the result of this study indicates
that, large number of the farmers in the study area had adopted fertilizer because of their
contacting with DAs. That means, DAs support more frequently adopters of fertilizer than
none adopters. This might be because of adopters take DAs support and as result adopt
fertilizer disseminated by them. Due to DAs and adopters have good relationship, they
frequently serve adopters. The finding of this study has 1% significant difference was
found in the access to extension service between farmers who adopt inorganic fertilizers
and those who did not adopt. This result is similar with the finding of (Nkonya et al.,
1997), that extension contact has an influence on farm households’ adoption of new
technology and influence farmers’ decision to adopt inorganic fertilizer significantly and
positively.

Farm size was thought to be a good proxy indicator of wealth status the farmers in the
study area. It was critical in adoption of technology. It is a constraining resource in the
study area. Farmers with large farm size could increase their production by using inorganic
fertilizer. As the land size increase the producing capacity of the farmer could increase by
increasing the quantity of fertilizer use. That means the practices to cover the cost of

22
fertilizer increase the producing ability of farmers. Farmers with small size of land cannot
be increase the amount of fertilizer because of the income shortage that they got from small
size of land. So, the adoption of fertilizer depends on the size of land. As shown in table
3the average size of the farmland was 1.56 ha for adopters and 1.38 ha for non-adopters.
As the result of this study indicates 5% significant variation was found between adopters
and non-adopters in terms of farm size. Farm size was hypothesized to affect fertilizer
adoption positively. Similarly, with the hypothesized one the result of this study indicates
that, farm size affected fertilizer adoption significantly and positively. The result of this
study is similar with the earlier findings of Getahun (2004) and Mesfin (2005), in which
farm size was positively and significantly related to the intensity of use of inorganic
fertilizer.

Farmers with many years of farming experience most likely know the benefits of using
fertilizer and will tend to use more if available. As shown in table 3, the average farming
experience of adopters was 20.28 and 18.72 for non-adopters. The result indicates that,
the farmers those who had long year farming experience adopted fertilizer more than the
others. Therefore, accumulated years of experience help farmers in fertilizer selection and
enable them evolve the farming practices that are most suitable to their environment. As
the study indicates farming experience significantly and positively affected the intensity
of use of fertilizer. From the result of the tablet- value indicates that there is 5% significant
variation between adopters and none adopters in terms of farming experience. The result
of this study is similar with the finding of Abadi et al (1999) and Chilot et al, (1996)
in which farmers with higher experience appear to have often full information and better
knowledge and were able to evaluate the advantage of the technology and so, it was
affected adoption positively.

The distance to input supply institutions had the expected negative effect on the
intensity of adoption of inorganic fertilizer. This variable had influenced adoption of
improved agricultural technologies through proximity for farmers. Proximity of farmers
to such places is essential for timely input delivery and less transport cost of inputs. As
shown in table3, the mean distance of adopter travel to obtain inputs is 4.6341km while
most of non-adopters live at the mean distance of 7.5769km from the input sources which

23
is relatively far as compared to adopters of fertilizer. This can be one reason for not
adopting. Since as the farmer live far from the input providers the adoption intensity
decreased and distance from input supply affected fertilizer adoption negatively. The
finding of this study has 1% significant difference was found in the distance to input
supply between farmers who adopt inorganic fertilizers and those who didn’t adopt.
Distance between credit office and home of the household had influenced adoption of
improved agricultural technologies through proximity for farmers. The average distance to
credit office had the expected negative sign effect on the probability and intensity of
adoption of inorganic fertilizer. As shown in table3, the average distance adopters from
credit providers are 7.8659 km and 11.4615 km for none-adopters. The result of this
study indicates that, none adopters travel longer distance to get credit services than
adopters. As far as the result of the field survey, this is also one reason for not adopting
fertilizer even though there is a need to adopt. The t-value in the table above clearly
indicates distance from credit sources negatively affect fertilizer adoption

That means the result of t-value indicates that, there is 1% significant variation between
adopters and none adopters in terms of distance from the credit sources. In this study,
similar with the hypothesis, distance of the credit providers negatively affected the intensity
of use of inorganic fertilizer.

In general, Institutional factors deal with the extent or degree to which institutions on
technology adoption by smallholders’ institutions include all the services to agricultural
development, such as finance, infrastructure, insurance and information dissemination.
They also include facilities and mechanisms that enhance farmers’ access to productive
inputs and product markets. Extension service is a very crucial institutional factor that
differentiates adoption status among farmers. In the existing situation much of agricultural
technology delivery is undertaken by the extension system. Access to participate in training,
demonstration, field day and other extensions services therefore creates the platform for
acquisition of the relevant information that promotes technology adoption.

24
 3.2. The Attitude of Farmers towards Using Inorganic Fertilizer for Crop production
in the Study Area

Table 5: The Attitude of Farmers towards Using Inorganic Fertilizer for Cereal Crop

Variable Non-
adopters Total
adopters
Attitude of the
farmers towards Frequency Percen Frequen Percent Frequency Perce
using fertilizer t (%) cy (%) nt
(%)
Positive or good 60 63.8 20 21.3 80 85.1

Negative or not good

0 0 14 14.9 14 14.9

Total
60 63.8 34 36.2 94 100.0

Source; own survey (2018)

As shown in table 4, 85% the farmers have a positive attitude towards using fertilizer
for their crop production. From this total percent of farmers that have a positive or a good
attitude 63.8 % are adopters and the rest of 21.3% are from non- adopters. However, there
are farmers that have negative or bad attitude towards using fertilizer for cereal crop
production. As it is shown in the table14.9% non- adopters in the study area have a negative
attitude towards using of fertilizer for crop production. This result indicates that, most of
the farmers found in the study area have a positive or a good attitude towards using fertilizer
for cereal crop production and the reason why they have a good attitude is that their
production is increased rapidly and their living standard is also changed after they used
fertilizer. Furthermore, as it was observed crops grown on the study area, most of the crops
that sown by using fertilizer are more productive than the crops that sown without fertilizer.
So, it indicates that not only the adopters but also some non- adopters have a good
attitude because they observed the usefulness of fertilizer on the others farmers’ crop
production.

Table 6: Agreement of farmers on the important of fertilizers for their cereal crop production

25
Source; own survey (2018)
As shows in table 6, 24.5% of the farmers are agree that fertilizer is important for their crop
Do you agree that
fertilizer is important
for your cereal crop Frequency Percent (%)
production
Yes, agree 23 24.5

Yes, strongly agree 34 36.2

yes, slightly agree 23 24.5
no, disagree 7 7.4
No, strongly disagree 7 7.4
Total 94 100.0
production and about 36.2 % of the farmers in the study area are strongly agree. And 24.5% of
the farmers are slightly agreed and 7.4% and 7.4% of the farmers are disagreed and strongly
disagreed on its importance of fertilizer, they said that fertilizer is not important for our
production and even it is not better than organic fertilizer. Even though most of the farmers are
agree on the idea that fertilizer is important for crop production some of the farmers in the study
area are not agree on this idea because of their land is fertile, high cost of fertilizer, harmfulness
of fertilizer to the soil and the like. Shortly the above result indicates that the largest numbers
of farmers in the study area are agreed on the idea that fertilizer is important for crop production
because their production and productivity increased after they used fertilizer.

26
 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS

Ethiopia is the second populous nation in Africa next to Nigeria and is among the fastest
growing economy in the world. Staple food production has not yet kept up with its rapid
population growth. Addressing interwoven productivity problems and substantial increase in
food production from the existing cultivated land is desirable to meet the demand of rapidly
increasing Ethiopian population. Most crop lands have been under continuous cultivation for
thousands of years without soil replenishment programs. It is obvious that an application of
fertilizer enhances production, but simultaneously brought adverse impact on soil quality.
Therefore, the concerned body should work together to optimize soil fertility and to increase
crop production.

Agricultural technology development is an essential strategy for increasing agricultural

productivity, achieving food self-sufficiency and alleviating poverty and food insecurity
among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, farmers have been adopting and using
different agricultural technologies, the adoption of technologies has not completely optimal
yet. Therefore, it is needed to further promote agricultural new technologies especially
chemical fertilizer by designing based on farmer’s problem and need. The variables
significantly affect the adoption of chemical fertilizer technology by farmers are age,
education level, family size, farm size, extension service provision and credit access. To solve
problems of inadequate use of production technologies, decision makers have pursued a range
of policies and strategies to boost agricultural production and productivity.

The general objective of the study was to assess adoption of inorganic fertilizer in Gondar
zuria districts of north eastern Ethiopia. As part of the agricultural development-led
industrialization program, the Ethiopian government launched the new extension program.
The program was expected to result in abrupt changes in the production and productivity of
Ethiopian agriculture. In spite of intensive efforts to expand the use of improved agricultural
technologies, such as improved varieties and fertilizers, the yield of major crops and live
stocks, remained low. There has been a growing concern by researcher, extension personnel
and policy about the effectiveness of adoption improved agricultural technologies on the area

27
allocated and amount of use of these technologies and farmers learning process from the
program to alleviate the food shortage problem in the country.

The present chemical fertilizer-based intensive production in Ethiopia is believed to have

physically deteriorated and biologically deactivated the soil. There is misperception among
crop production experts, researchers and particularly political leaders on issue of fertilizer
consumption and crop productivity. They do believe that inorganic fertilizer alone can
increase yields and promotes its unwarranted utilization for alleviation of poverty. Therefore,
all stalk holders work together to promote agricultural technology especially, chemical
fertilizer for sustainable production and should create awareness on how to use and how much
is needed for specific area to farmers with appropriate extension methods.

Low agricultural production directly related with food insecurity situations of countries will
soon be threatened with scarcity of phosphorus. Without sustainable replacement of soil
carbon lost via decomposition, the quality of soil is gradually depleted and become
unfavorable for soil habitats. Gradually, it may reduce soil fertility and low agricultural
production. So that the researcher recommended that all concerned body should to participate
on soil replacement activities. Hence, it is advisable to take protection measures before we
completely lose soil biodiversity and follow a very sustainable approach in utilization of
chemical inputs in a farm. Ministry of agriculture, universities and research institutions should
promote strategies that enhance use of green manure, crop rotation and intercropping as
fertilizer to fully exploit existing potential in most part of the country. Promoting researchers
to conduct and generate local based technologies in sustainable approach with allocating
adequate budget is also mandatory from government.

28
 5. REFERENCES
AFAP (the African fertilizer and agribusiness partnership), 2012. Ethiopian fertilizer

assessment.www.ifdc.org.

African Union, 2006. Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer for an African Green Revolution.

Abuja, Nigeria. 13 June

Asfaw D, Neka M (2017) Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices:

The case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region,

Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5(4): 273-279.

Asia, N. and B. Asghari, 2014. Potential of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and

Chemical Fertilizers on soil enzymes and plant growth Bot., 46(4): 1521-1530.

Bewket W (2007) Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies

in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers.

Land use policy 24(2): 404-416.

Cardno (2017) Agricultural development as a key role in food security and economic

development in most of the world’s population in rural area.

Deininger K, Jin S (2006) Tenure security and land-related investment: Evidence from

Ethiopia. Eur Econ Rev 50(5): 1245-1277.

FAO (food and agricultural organization) 2006. Plant nutrition for food security; A guide for

integrated nutrient management. Fertilizer and plant nutrients bulletin 16. Rom,

Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 2014. Country fact Sheet on food and agriculture

policy trend.

29
FDRE (Federal Democratic republic of Ethiopia), 2012). Ethiopia’s progress towards

eradicating poverty: An interim report on poverty analysis study (2010/11).

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Gebremedhin B, Swinton SM (2003) Land Tenure Security and Public Programs. Agric

Econ 29: 69-84.

IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation), 2008. Ethiopia: Second Country Report on The

State of PGRFA to FAO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation), 2012. Ethiopia: Third Country Report on the

State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia 2012.

IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center),2012. Ethiopia Fertilizer Assessment.

Ifdc, USA., 1-46

Karidjo BY, Wang Z, Boubacar Y, Wei C (2018) Factors influencing farmers’ Adoption

of Soil and Water Control Technology (SWCT) in Keita valley, a semi-arid Area

of Niger. Sustain 10.

Mekuriaw A, Heinimann A, Zeleke G, Hurni H (2018) Factors influencing the adoption of

physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. Int

Soil Water Conserv Res 6(1): 23-30.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 20. EBI (Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute), 2014.

Development), 2010. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment

Framework (PIF)

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development), 2010. Federal Democratic

Republic of Ethiopia. Ethiopia: Building on progress: A plan for growth and

transformation plan. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

30
 Nigussie Z, Atsushi Tsunekawa, Nigussie Haregeweyn, Enyew Adgo, Logan Cochrane, et

al. (2018) Applying Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development

framework to soil and water conservation activities in north-western Ethiopia.

Land use policy 71: 1-10.

NwachukwuI (2016) Planning and evaluation of agricultural and rural development project.

Lambhouse publishers. p. 1-6.

Samuel, G., 2006. Intensification of smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia: options and

scenarios.

Teshome A, de Graaff J, Kassie M (2016) Household-Level Determinants of Soil and Water

Conservation Adoption Phases: Evidence from North- Western Ethiopian

Highlands. Environ Manage 57(3): 620-636.

UNDP (United Nations Development program) 2016. Overview of development in the

Ethiopian economy

Wolka K, Sterk G, Biazin B, Negash M (2018) Benefits, limitations and sustainability of soil

and water conservation structures in Omo-Gibe basin, Southwest Ethiopia.

Land use policy 73: 1-10.

Wondie M, Schneider W, Melesse AM, Teketay D (2011) Spatial and temporal land cover

changes in the simen mountains national park, a world heritage Site in

northwestern Ethiopia. Remote Sens 3: 752-766.

World Bank, 2012. Ethiopia at a Glance.

Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Tesfay G, Speelman S (2017) Smallholder farmers’

behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices. J Environ

Manage 187: 71-81.

31
 6. APPENDEX

Haramaya University College of Agriculture and Environmental

Sciences
Department of Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension

This questionnaire is prepared to undertake study under the title factors influencing on adoption

of chemical Fertilizer for crop production in Gondar zuria Woreda. This questionnaire is

prepared for only data collection the researcher wants to be honest and kind for each response.

Survey
Questionnaire

Instruction: choose of the following

question.

I. Geographic and administrative

information

Country----------- Region ------

----- Zone--------------

Woreda----------

Kebele/PA---------- Enumerator’s name-------

----- Agro-ecology-----------

II. Socio demographic/General characteristics of

households

1. Age of the household head

2. Sex of the household head

Male Female

3. Educational status of the household head

Illiterate 1-6 9-12

32
Read and write only 7-9 above 12

Orthodox Protestant Other

(specify)
Musli Catholic
m
Marital
status
divorced
Sing
le
Married widowed

6. Ethnicity

Oromo Tigre

Amhara Kafa Oth

er
Gurage

7. Family size by age

category

Table 1: Family size by age

category

Category Male Female Total

0-14 years
15-65 years
Above 65 years

Total

8. Experience in farming years

9. Experience in using fertilizer………………Years

III. Socio-economic information

33
1. Do you have your own land? a, yes b, no

1.1. If yes total land size in hectare

2. Do you use agricultural inputs during production period? A, yes b, no

2.1. If yes which type of input?

0 Improved seed variety

0 Fertilizers

0 others, specify

3. Do you use improved cereal crop verities; such as:-maize, sorghum, wheat, barley?

Yes No

4. Do you use fertilizer for cereal crop verities? Yes No

5. Do you use oxen for sloughing? A, yes B, No

6. How many oxen do you have for sloughing?

7. For which activity do you use oxen?

A, sloughing B, threshing c, for sale D, all

8. Did you face oxen shortage during the farming practice?

A, yes b, no

9. Do you have access to credit? A, yes B, No

Table 2: Type and source of input

No. Types of inputs Amount Price Sources of inputs

1 Seed
2 Fertilizer
3 Herbicide
4 Pesticide

34
Technical and financial services

35
1. On average, how frequently /how many times the DA and other agricultural professionals
visit

/support you in a month?

a. One time b. Two times c. Three times d. Four times

1.2. Do you have financial problems to purchase fertilizer?

Yes No

1.3. If yes, how can you solve your financial problem?

1. Credit from credit institutions

2. Credit from Cooperatives

3. Credit from Private money lenders

4. Depend on relatives support and aids 5.

5. If others, specify……

1.4. How far is your home from fertilizer providers? Km

1.5. How long does it take to reach to fertilizer providers from your home? hrs

2. What is your attitude towards using fertilizer for cereal crops?

Positive (Good) Negative (Not good)

3. Do you agree that fertilizers are important for your cereal crop production?

a. Yes I agree strongly b. I agree

slightly c. No

3.1. If your answer is no, why