THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (IN

CASE OF SEBETA TOWN)

RIFT VELLAY
UNIVERSITY

RIFT VALLEY UNIVERSITY SEBETA CAMPUS BUSINESS

AND ECONOMICS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A SENIOR ESSAY IN PARTIAL FULFLIMENT OF THE REQUIRMENT

FOR DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ART IN ECONOMICS, SUBMITED TO
DEPRTMENT OF ECONOMICS

PREPARED BY:_ YOBSAN ZAWUDE

ERENA DESO
KIYA WORKNEH
HIRPHE MOKONEN

ADVISOR:- YOBSAN TESFAYE

2
3
ACRONOMYS
EEA……………..Ethiopian Economic Associationn

FAO……………..Food and Agricultural Organization

FTC……………... Farmers Training Center

GDP……………..Gross Domestic product

MFP……………..Multi factor Productivity

OECD……………The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PADETES……….Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System

PASDEP………...Plan For Accelerated and Sustained To End Poverty

SLM…………….Small Land Management

TFP……………..Total Factor Productivity

4
Contents
I
Abstract..................................................................................................................................... II
ACRONOMYS.......................................................................................................................... III
List of table............................................................................................................................... IV
CHAPTER ONE.......................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1

5
1.1 Background of the study........................................................................................................ 1
1.2. The Statement of the Problem............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research question................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1Objective of the study......................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 General objective................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Specific of the study.............................................................................................................. 3
1.4.1 Significance of the study.................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Scope of the study................................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Limitation of the Study
1.7 Organization of the study.................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review on agricultural productivity.....................................................................5
2.1 Theoretical review literature................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Levels of agricultural productivity...................................................................................... 5
2.3 Agricultural Practice and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia......................................6
2.4 Agricultural Productivity For environmental development in Ethiopia..........................7
2.5 International studies............................................................................................................ 8
2.5.1_ Developed Countries....................................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Developing Countries....................................................................................................... 9
2.6Empirical Review Literature................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER THERE..................................................................................................................... 11
3. Methodology of study........................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Description of the study area…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

3.2 type and Source of data....................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Method of data collection................................................................................................... 11
3.4Sampling size and technique............................................................................................... 11
3.5 Data analysis method......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER FOUR...................................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Data presentation and analysis.......................................................................................... 13
4.2 characteristics of the respondent...................................................................................... 13

6
4.3 The role of technology in agricultural production...........................................................14
4.4 Utilization of improved seeds in Doha kebele..................................................................15
4.5 Utilization of pesticides..................................................................................................... 16
4.6 Utilization of fertilizer (hectares)..................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................................ 18
5. Findings, Conclusions and recommendation....................................................................18
5.1 Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Recommendation............................................................................................................... 19
Reference.................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix................................................................................................................................... 21

7
CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

Agriculture is the world most important industry which has many contributions in the economy.
It provides food, supplies raw materials for human basic need and industrial inputs of world
economy in Africa than does any other economy (world book, 1992).

According to Gibbon and Schroeder’s (1983) most of the time the numerous small scale farming
families of rural areas are seriously affected by low agricultural productivity and consequently
suffer from food shortage. As many research findings revered that the promise to improve life
condition of rural people of subsistence farm families is by increasing productivity through
modern agricultural technological innovations.

High agricultural productivity is essential to induce a sustainable and accelerated growth of the
agricultural sector. It plays a central role in the transformation of agrarian based economy to
urban based economy. Evidence from countries that had successful experiences of the green
revolution indicates, the important role played by new technology in increasing agricultural
productivity. This is through promoting pro-poor growth, especially in the early stages of
development and when productivity growth results in lower food prices (EEA, 2007/08).

According to EEA in 2009/10, Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy. It accounts

for half of the national GDP, almost 83.9 percent of foreign exchange from export and provides
employment to 80 percent of the population. Thus, the agricultural sector is crucial for the
country’s food security and is the major contributor to the overall economic growth and poverty
reduction endeavors. The agricultural sector is dominated by small scale subsistence farming
characterized by traditional farming practices. Thus it provides a significant employment to most
of labor force (internet).

Farming mainly depends on human and animal labor and farmers have few backward tools that
cannot increase production. However, nearly all the specific and scientific improvements in
agriculture had occurred in the industrialized nations (Todaro, 2001).

Before the invention and development of agriculture people were hunter and gatherers. But for
many centuries improvement of agriculture does not show the required levels (Todaro, 2001).

8
In many non-industrialized countries there is use of old fashioned farming methods which has
great difficult. Helping non industrialized nations by moderating their agriculture is one of the
major challenges of the industrialized nations (Brhanu Nega and Befkadu Degefa, 2000).

Ethiopian Agriculture production is predominantly characterized with very little changes in

farming practices over the past centuries. The continuous use of such farming practices over long
period of time with little or no soil conservation methods have significantly eroded fertility of the
soil and have made agricultural output highly susceptible to minor climate changes. This very
process of imprudent use of natural resources, particularly the continuous loss of forest owning
to the cutting of trees for the purpose of domestic energy and constructions as well as the
agricultural land, droughts at any time usually leads to severe food shortage and famine to a large
segment of the apart of the agricultural population whose survival now increasingly dependent
on food aid received from international donors (Befkadu Degefa and Brehanu Nega, 2000).

1.2. The Statement of the Problem

Although farming methods in Ethiopia are still traditional. Farms in many areas do have an
option of using new, higher yielding crop varieties and some modern inputs, primarily chemical
fertilizer. Rates of such innovations vary widely from one part of country to another allowing us
to compare sites at different stages with the adoption and diffusion process. An understanding of
agricultural productivity growth and role played by education is particularly important to the
country like Ethiopia where food security is extremely low.
Agriculture in Ethiopia is increasingly characterized by new policy actors and relationship that
influence the way in which information and knowledge are accessed and used by small holder’s
farmer, too little is known about how these opportunities can effectively be leveraged to promote
process of rural innovation (Geda and Nega, 1998).
Agriculture has many contributions to the economy, like product contribution, market
contribution and factor contribution. But, in Ethiopia those contributions are less. Farmers do not
go far from hand to mouth. Small scale farmers produce manly for subsistence. They are to some
extent unable to fulfill their family basic needs. The farmers are not elastic to change price and
technology. They are mostly found to be conservation in their nature. The Ethiopian farmers
continued to practice essentially the farming methods with very little improvements for so long
and highly depend upon seasonal rainfall (EEA, 2008).

Ethiopia is predominantly an agrarian economy. The agricultural sector accounts for about half
of the national GDP. Although 80 percent of the population is engaged in agriculture as a
dominant activity, economic development of Ethiopia is very low. There are several
consequences of low agricultural development and productivity and as well as socio-economic
advancement it includes food insecurity, growing foreign debt and vulnerability, continuous
poverty wealth and income inequality, traditional method of farming, prevalent disguised
unemployment and lack technological accessibility, uncertainty, and high population growth,

9
division of agricultural land in to small pieces, lQUES productivity, low income and subsistence
nature (Todaro, 2001).
The research proposal is geared toward understanding of the role of technology adoption in
agricultural productivity. An analysis based on an innovation system frame work can contribute
to closing the technological knowledge gap.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

1. What is the impact of technology adoption on agricultural productivity in sebeta ?

2.How to assess the trend of agricultural productivity in the study area ?
3.How to analyze the result and reach at a conclusion and give possible remedies for the problem
that have been specified ?

1.3.1 Objective of the Study

1.3.2 General Objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the role of technology in agricultural production
in case of sebeta

1.4 Specific Objectives

The following are the specific objectives of this study.

 To assess the impact of0 technology adoption on agricultural productivity the study area.
 To assess trend of agricultural productivity in the study area.
 To analyze the result and reach at a conclusion and give possible remedies for the
problem that have been specified.

1.4.1 Significance of the Study

The outcome of the study is used to assess extent of modern agricultural innovations and its goal
in productivity. The study would serve as an informational input to farmer as adoption of
technology leads to agricultural production and productivity increased as witnessed from parts of
the world where technology has been adopted. The research may act as a mirror to the policy
makers especially putting in to account the contribution of agriculture at the macro-economic
level. It is expected to initiate government bodies to deal with the problem of innovation in
agriculture and by setting appropriate policies that can work toward showing the problems of the
sector. The research may act as base for further investigation to be undertaken in this area. In
addition the researcher's suggestion may help to take corrective actions for the problem.
10
1.5 The Scope of the Study

The scope of these studies is limited Sebeta town in identifying the role of technology related to
agricultural productivity. It covers the period Starts 2013/2021.

1.6 Limitation of the Study

There were different limitations faced the researcher when conducting this paper like,
Financial constraint such as shortage of money so as to conduct the research in a well
manner, Lack of experience to conduct a research in a big scope and Lack of important
source of data. the other limitation will series problem was lack of access computer.

1.7 Organization of the Study

The paper contains four chapters. Chapter one gives the introduction to the study which
contains, background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study,
significance of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study, and organization of
the study by itself. Chapter two gives the theoretical and empirical review of literature
related to agriculture prod productivity. Chapter three of the study contains research
design and methodology. Chapter four is time and budget constraint

11
CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature review on agricultural productivity

2.1 Theoretical review literature

Agricultural productivity: is measured as the ratio of agricultural outputs to agricultural inputs.

Its measures are subdivided into partial, multifactor and total. Partial factor productivity is the
amount of output per unit of a particular input. It only considers a single input in the ratio. For
example, it uses yields of crops to determine the productivity of field crops. Literature indicates
that it is easy to compute as it requires limited data, but it can be hard to identify factors that
cause productivity of field crops to change. Both Multi factor productivity (MFP) and Total
factor productivity (TFP) are defined as the ratio of total agricultural output to a subset of
agricultural inputs. They utilize more than a single factor. Their measures reflect the joint effects
of many factors including new technologies, economies of scale, managerial skill, and changes in
the organization of production to agricultural production. TFP is preferred to MFP due to that
fact that it captures the full extent of input use and output production. But due to the fact that, it
has been proved to be a difficult method to use (OECD productivity manual, 2009).
MFP is thus used as an approximation of TFP. Although the definitions of both these
methodologies reflect the use of output and input quantity, in reality using general total amounts
is not an option. This is mainly because it is hard to aggregate different quantities of different
measurements (mass vs. volume). And even if the output and inputs can be aggregated with the
hope of deflating them, this will lead to a situation where relative price ratios to that of the base
year are distorted. As a result the use of indices in these methodologies are highly encouraged
and preferred. There are various types of indices. This includes the Laspeyres, Tornqvist-Theil,
Paasche, Malmquist and Fisher indexing methods. Laspeyres indexing method is a weighted base
index and cannot be used in productivity analysis as it distorts the relative price ratios. It is
usually used for computing the consumer price index. Tornqvist-Theil indexing method is a
chained divisia index and uses spliced price and quantity indices of Laspeyres type as a proxy for
prices. But it is seen as not an ideal method as it involves use of logs, which is impossible when
the values turn negative as is the case with inventory changes and requires aggregation of data
when commodities/inputs come into use at a later stage than the base year. The Fisher indexing
method is the most preferred by many OECD countries, as it does not require the taking of logs

12
and aggregation of the underlying data when inputs/commodities come into use at the later stage
than the base year (Liebenberg et al, 2009).

2.2 Levels of agricultural productivity

Levels of agricultural productivity are subsistence level, mixed farming level and commercial
farming level
A. Subsistence level: - most outputs produced for family consumption, land and labor are the
main factors of production. While capital investment is minimum, it is threatened by the failure
of the rains, and the potential appropriation of the land by the money lender. Labor is under
employed most of the year, but highly occupied for planting, and harvesting. Farmers are often
resistant to technological innovation due to the limited access to credit insurance and
information; here is a lot of uncertainty and risk involved in subsistence farming (Productivity
manual, 2009).
B. Mixed Farming: - this is the second stage or level of farming and transition from subsistence
to mixed type of farming and it transit to commercial farming. A successful transition from
subsistence to diversified farming depends on availability of credit, fertilizers, crop information
and marketing facilities. Farmers need to feel secure that his family will benefit from the change
in order to guarantee successful transition (IBID, 2009).
C. Commercial Farming: - this is specialized and modern farming activity that used to produce
the demand of the market and is helped by highly technological and modernized tools. Transition
to specialize; modern commercial farming can achieve highest level of agricultural
transformation. This type of farming usually emerges when other sectors of the economy such as
the industrial sector have already developed. It usually involves capital incentive and labor
saving techniques of production (IBID, 2009).

2.3 Agricultural Practice and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian economy is supported by its agricultural sector, which is also a fundamental
instrument for poverty alleviation, food security, and economic growth. However, the sector
continues to be undermined by land degradation of soil organic matter, soil erosion, and lack of
adequate plant-nutrient supply (Grepperud 1996; Pender et al. 2006).
There is, unfortunately, plenty of evidence that these problems are getting worse in many parts of
the country, particularly in the highlands (Pender et al. 2001). Furthermore, climate change is
anticipated to accelerate the land degradation in Ethiopia. As a cumulative effect of land
degradation, increasing population pressure, and low agricultural productivity, Ethiopia has
become increasingly dependent on food aid.
In most parts of the densely populated highlands, cereal yields average less than 1 metric ton per
hectare (Pender and Gebremedhin 2007). Such low agricultural productivity, compounded by
recurrent famine, contributes to extreme poverty and food insecurity. Over the last three decades,
the government of Ethiopia and a consortium of donors have undertaken a massive program of
natural resource conservation to reduce environmental degradation, poverty, and increase
agricultural productivity and food security. However, the adoption and adaptation rate of

13
sustainable land management (SLM) practices is low. In some cases, giving up or reducing the
use of technologies has been reported (Kassa 2003).

A number of factors may explain the low technology adoption rate in the face of significant
efforts to promote SLM practices: poor extension service system, blanket promotion of
technology to very diverse environments, top-down approach to technology promotion, late
delivery of inputs, low return on investments, escalation of fertilizer prices, lack of access to
seasonal credit, production and consumption risks (Bonger, 2003).

2.4 Agricultural Productivity For environmental development in Ethiopia

Participatory demonstration and training extension system (PADETES), is mainly financed and
provided by the public sector, and has emphasized the development and distribution of standard
packages to farmers. These packages typically include seeds and commercial fertilizer, credit to
buy inputs, soil and water conservation, livestock training and demonstration plots intended to
facilitate adoption and use of the inputs. While the promotion of commercial fertilizers and
improved seeds often includes extension workers demonstrating their use to farmers, this is not
the case with natural resource management technologies, such as soil and water conservation
technologies. Additionally, efforts promoting other small land management (SLM) practices
have tended to focus on arresting soil erosion without considering the underlying socioeconomic
causes of low soil productivity. As a result there has been promotion of practices which are
unprofitable, risky, or ill-suited to Farmers’ resource constraints (pender et al. 2006).

The rural credit market has also been subject to extensive state intervention. To stimulate the
uptake of agricultural technology packages, all regional governments in Ethiopia initiated a100
percent credit guarantee scheme in 1994. For instance, under this system, about 90 percent of
fertilizer is delivered on credit at below-market interest rates. In order to finance the Technology
packages, credit is extended to farmers by the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (a state owned
bank) through cooperatives, local government offices, and more recently— microfinance
institutions. Because farmers cannot borrow from banks due to collateral security problems,
agricultural credit is guaranteed by the regional governments (Kassa 2003; Spielman et
al.2010 ,forthcoming).Although there are a few private-sector suppliers, the fertilizer
market(importation and distribution) in all regions is mainly controlled by regional holding
companies that have strong ties to regional governments (Spielman et al. 2010, forthcoming).
The government gave these holding companies preferential treatment with the allocation of
foreign exchange for The World Food Program (2005) also noted that there is a growing
agreement in the area of land rehabilitation and soil and water conservation that profitability and
cost effectiveness has in the past been largely neglected. Despite claims by the Plan for
Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) that all rural development
interventions should take into account the specificities of each agro ecosystem and area, the
package-driven extension approach offers recommendations that show little variation across
different environments (i.e., blanket recommendations). The packages are not site or household

14
specific and are introduced through a “quota” system. To date, a blanket recipe is the traditional
approach for applying commercial fertilizers and other natural resource management
technologies, irrespective of factors that limit agricultural Productivity. The availability of water,
soil types, and local socioeconomic and agro ecological variations, such as low- and high-
agricultural potential areas (Kassa et al.2010).For our knowledge, except for commercial
fertilizer, there are no technical recommendations (packages) for other natural resource
management technologies. The standardized package approach and inflexible input distribution
systems, which is currently used in Ethiopia, means that farmers have had little opportunity to
experiment, learn, and adapt technologies to their own needs (Spielman et al. 2010,
forthcoming). This approach could make the technologies inappropriate to local conditions and
eventually unacceptable to the farmers.
As Keeley and Scoones (2004) noted, the conservation interventions in the country have been
supported by simplistic, often unjustified, claims, and these have had potentially negative
impacts on poor people’s livelihoods through their blanket application. Research has also shown
that in Ethiopia the economic returns on physical soil and water conservation investments, as
well as their impacts on productivity, are greater in areas with low-moisture and low-agricultural
potential than in areas with high-moisture and high-agricultural potential (Gebremedhin et
al.2008). In wet areas, investment in soil and water conservation may not be profitable at the
farm level, although there are positive social benefits from controlling runoff and soil erosion
(Nyssen et al. 2004).

2.5 International studies

There exists quite good literature on the trends of agricultural productivity, factors affecting
agricultural productivity and ways to improve agricultural productivity in both developed and
developing countries. However, there is dearth of work on the level of agricultural productivity
at regional and enterprise level in these countries. Studies on enterprise level productivity
specifically are mostly limited to Asian and Central Asian countries. Literature reviewed showed
that agricultural productivity increases more in developed countries compared to less developed
countries. This is due to high investment in research and development, labor, land and capital
and improvement in the use of inputs such as fertilizer, machinery increases and others.

2.5.1_ Developed Countries

Grant (2002) estimated agricultural productivity from regional accounts for twenty one regions
in 1880/4, 1893/7 and 1905/9 in Germany. The estimates were derived from regional accounts
for agricultural production and costs. Results indicated that productivity in East-Elbian
agriculture was growing rapidly in the period, and tending to converge on the German average.
Productivity in Southern region was not growing so fast, which showed that yield improvements
were not limited to large farms and estates, but that smaller holdings also had access to new
technology and improved husbandry methods. The main conclusion to emerge from this analysis
was that there was a strong process of convergence which brought productivity up in the rural
east to level equal to or the national average. This convergence mechanism was associated with

15
the spread of more advance agricultural techniques. Changet al (2001) determined how to
promote agricultural productivity growth to achieve sustainable food security most efficiently in
Asia and the Pacific. The study looked at the role of investment, both in physical and human
capital, in maintaining and increasing agricultural productivity. In order to achieve the objectives
the study used TFP and partial factor productivity functions. Results indicate that agricultural
output growth has remained positive from 1961 to 1994 with only one exception, Japan,
compared to a slowdown during 1975-1987 in output and labor productivity growth in Australia
and the United States.

2.5.2 Developing Countries

Zepeda (2001) examined agricultural investment and productivity in the context of developing
countries. The study used number of models of production growth (index numbers or growth
accounting techniques) to measure the change in output, to identity the relative contribution of
different inputs to output growth and to identify the Solow residual or output growth not due to
increases in inputs. Results show a relatively weak relationship between physical capital and
growth, as compared to investment in technology and human capital. Other factors found to be
stimulants to growth included; the policy environment, political stability and natural resources
degradation. Various authors support the findings of Zepeda (2001). Fulginitiet al (1998)
examined changes in agricultural productivity in eighteen developing countries over the period
1961–1985. The study used the malmquist index and Cobb-Douglas production function to
examine, whether declining agricultural productivity in less developed countries was due to use
of inputs. Chaves (2001) analyzed international agricultural productivity using nonparametric
methods to estimate productivity indices. The analysis used FAO annual data on agricultural
inputs and outputs for twelve developing countries between 1960 and 1994. Technical efficiency
indices for time series analysis results suggested that in general the technology of the early 1990s
was similar to the one in the early 1960s. This showed that the improvement in agricultural
production was not because of technology but because of other inputs such as fertilizer and
pesticides. The general empirical results indicated only weak evidence of agricultural technical
change and productivity growth both over time and across countries. There was much evidence
of strong productivity growth in agriculture over the last few decades corresponding to changes
in inputs In Asia; Chang et al (2001) determined how to promote agricultural productivity
growth to achieve sustainable food security. The study looked at the role of investment, both in
physical and human capital, in maintaining and increasing agricultural productivity. In order to
achieve the objectives the study used TFP and partial factor productivity functions. Results
indicated that the only way to promote agricultural productivity was through improving labor
productivity.

2.6Empirical Review Literature

A number of empirical studies have examined the productivity impacts of different land.
Management practices, especially in Ethiopia and in developing countries in general. Most of
these studies, however, have tended to have a bias towards soil conservation as a productivity

16
enhancing technology. In the case of Ethiopia, Bekele’s (2008) research showed that plots with
soil conservation bunds produce higher yields than those without. Results from other countries
also support the importance of land management practices and specifically soil conservation
measures in enhancing land productivity. Zikhali (2008) found that contour ridges have a
positive impact on land productivity in Zimbabwe. Shively (1998; 1999) reported a positive and
statistically significant impact from contour hedgerows on yield in the Philippines. Results by
Kaliba and Rabele (2004) also supported a positive and statistically significant association
between wheat yield and short- and long-term soil conservation measures in Lesotho. Yet, as
argued in the preceding section, most existing analyses on technology adoption suffer from
overlooking variations in location-specific characteristics, such agro ecosystems, soil type, and
water availability, in determining the feasibility, profitability, and acceptability of different
technologies. Furthermore, some studies broadly generalize technologies without being specific
about their types. For instance, although, Byiringiro and Reardon (1996) demonstrated a positive
impact of soil conservation on farm-level productivity in Rwanda, the authors did not control for
the type of conservation. This weakens the policy relevance of their work, since it could be the
case that not all types of soil conversation enhance farm productivity; in other words, effective
policy formulation needs information about individual technologies and their specific impacts on
productivity. Policy recommendations resulting from such studies end up being characterized by
little variation across different agro ecologies. Further, the estimated productivity impacts of the
analyzed technologies will be biased if crucial factors, such as heterogeneity of environments,
are not controlled for. In this paper, we take into consideration the variations in the agricultural
potential of different areas when determining technology performance measured in terms of land
productivity. This makes it possible to craft well-informed policy recommendations that are not
based on generalizations. The importance of our analysis to the adoption literature is to highlight
the dangers of making blanket analyses and across-the-board policy recommendations that
disregard the heterogeneity of environments. As Keeley and Scoones (2004) argued, such
indiscriminate policy recommendations potentially have negative impacts on poor people’s
livelihoods.

17
CHAPTER THERE

3. Methodology of study

3.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in konso woreda Doha kebele. It located in south western part of
Ethiopia and 610 km away from Addis Ababa. The altitude of Doha kebele varies from 500meter
to 2000 meter above mean sea level. The kebele has population 7,125 and area of 544 Km. The
climate of Doha Kebele is characterized as Sami aired with irregular and seasonal varied rain
fall. The annual rain fall is 550 MM, the temperature of areas is mostly expressed hot and warm
also rain fall follows a bimodal pattern. There are two raining seasons, i.e. spring “Bilge" big
rain with the period starting mid-February and lost to April and the autumn "Maher" the small
rain period around October and lost to December.

3.2 type and Source of data

In order to achieve the stated objective the researcher used different data source. The study was
used both primary and secondary source of data to get the data of total cultivated land, improved
seed applied per hectare, pesticides applied per hectare, fertilizer applied per hectare and total
production per hectares in the study area for five consecutive years(2005-2009). The primary
sources of data were employed from the farmers and the secondary source data from Doha
kebele Farmers Training center (FTC) office and other published and unpublished materials.

3.3 Method of data collection

To conduct this study, both primary and secondary data sources is used. The primary data was
collected through interviewing the selected farmers from the kebele and by distributing the
questionnaire. The questionnaire contain the back ground information of the respondents,
agricultural usage of technology in production, and the data that show the total cultivated land,
improved seeds applied, pesticides applied, fertilizer applied and the total production of Doha
kebele from year 2012/13 to 2016/17. The secondary source data from Doha kebele farmers
training center (FTC) and other published and unpublished materials.

3.4Sampling size and technique

The researcher employed simple random sampling technique, because the household farmers of
the Kebele are homogeneous in many aspects and it avoids the probability of making personal
bias. There are about 7,125 population is living in Doha Kebele. Since the entire population
cannot be in the study due to its largeness, costy, and time consuming, the samples were taken.
Accordingly the total sampling size of 99 respondents were taken in this study by using the
following formula developed by Yaro Yamani (1967).
n=N/1+N(e)2
Where:
n=is the sample size

18
N=is the total population
e=is the error term
n=N/1+N(e)2
=7,125/1+7,125(0.01)
=98.6 ~99
Therefore, the sample size for this study is 99.
3.5 Data analysis method
The study used descriptive method of data analysis, because it is used to describe the state of
affairs as it exists at present, so as researcher wants to describe the role of technology in
agricultural production for the last five years as it is. In addition to this descriptive method is
easy to understand by the readers, because it uses tables, ratios, percentage, and averages that are
familiar for the society.

19
CHAPTER FOUR

4.1. Data presentation and analysis

4.2 characteristics of the respondent

Table 4.2.1 about Sex composition, Age, Marital status and Educational status.
Variables Categories Number of Percentage (%)
respondents
Sex Male 67 68
Female 32 32
Total 99 100
Age Class interval
10- 20 10 10.5-19.5
21- 30 20 20.5-29.5
31 – 40 39 30.5-39.5
41 – 50 20 40.5-49.5
Above 50 10 >50.5
Total 99 100
Marital status Married 61 62
Single 10 10
Divorced 20 20
Widowed 8 8
Total 99 100
Educational status Illiterate 27 28
First cycle(1 – 4 20 20
Second cycle(5 – 8) 22 22
High school and preparatory(9 – 12) 20 20
Above 12 10 10
Total 99 100
Source, own survey 2018
From table 4.2.1 above 67(68%) of total respondents are male and 32(32%) of the respondents
are females. This indicates that the most of respondents were male. It is clear from table that 10
of the total respondents are within the 10.5-19.5 age interval, 20 of the respondents are in the age
interval (20.5-29.5), 39 are in the age interval of 30.5-39.5, 20 are in the age interval 40.5-49.5
and 10 are above 50 age. As shown in the above most of respondents are adults, 30.5-39.5 class
interval. The highest percentage (40%) of the respondents, are fall in the age interval 31-40

20
which is the active group that participates in agricultural production activities. The above table
4.2.1 also indicate that 61(62%) of the respondents are marred, 10(10%) are single, 20(20%) are
divorced and 8(8%) are widowed. Lastly the above table 4.2.1 shows that 27(28%) of repents
were illiterate, 20(20%) were in the education level interval (1-4), 22(22%) were in the interval
of 5-8, 20(20%) were in the interval of 9-12 and 10(10%) were above 12 education level. This
indicates that, most of the respondents were illiterate, so that they have no enough knowledge
about agricultural technology. So it leads to decrease in agricultural productivity.

Table 4.2.2: number of time cultivated per year and number of cultivation per one production
time.
Variables Categories No- of respondents Percentage (%)
1 28 28
No of cultivation per 2 61 62
year 3 10 10
4 - -
Total 99 100
No of cultivation 1 10 10
(preparation of land for 2 22 22
one harvest) per 3 39 40
one production time Above 3 28 28
Total 99 100
Source: own survey, 2018
It is evident that from table 4.2.2 that 28(28%) of the total respondents cultivated the land 1 time
per year for the crops like (Sorghum, Acha, Murisu, Peas), 61(62%) cultivate the land 2 times for
crops like (Mize, Teeff), 10(10%) cultivated 3 times for the crops like Beans, peanut, and no
respondents of cultivated land 4 times and above per year. It can there for be concluded that most
people or respondents are cultivated land 2 times per year. This might be due to the need for
more food as a result of an increase in population with mismatch in production. As above table
4.2.2 also show that 10(10%) of total respondents are cultivated land only one time per one
production time, 22(22%) are 2 times, 39(40%) are 3 times and 28(28%) of respondents are
cultivated land above 3 times in one production time. This indicate that from the agricultural
production the number of cultivation per one production time fall about 3 times mostly and it is
highest share of respondents indicated by 39(40%) .This indicates that number of cultivation per
one production time is very low and it leads to low agricultural production.

4.3 The role of technology in agricultural production

The current attempts at increasing agricultural productivity largely rest on introducing modern
inputs to the traditional agriculture of the economy. The most important and technology advised
to Ethiopian agriculture is green revolution, which makes many countries succeed. These include
fertilizers, pesticide, improved seeds etc. The adoption of this technology is to bring agricultural

21
productivity high and they are scale natural that equally applied for small and large farm holders
(EEA, 2008).

4.4 Utilization of improved seeds in Doha kebele.

Table 4.4.1 Improved seeds applied (hectare).
Year Total cultivated land Improved seeds Total production
(hectare) applied (hectare) (quintal)
2012/13 371 83.36 3833
2013/14 422 86 4792
2014/15 467 86.7 5931
2015/16 561 89 7489
2016/17 602 92.9 9361
Average 484.6 87.65 6281.2
Source, Doha Kebele FTC office, 2018
The table 4.4.1 above show that the amount of land cultivated by using improved seeds. The
average share of land cultivated by using improved seeds was only 87.65 hectares as indicated by
the Doha Kebele FTC office data for the past five years. In 2012/13, the amount of the cultivated
area by using improved seeds was about 83.36 hectares from the total cultivated land of 371
hectares. In 2012/13 from the total cultivated land by using with or without improved seeds, the
total production was only 3833 quintals. 83.36 hectares was cultivated by using improved seeds
and the remaining 287.64 hectares were without using improved seeds. In the year 2013/14 the
amount of cultivated area by using improved seed was about 86 hectares from the total cultivated
land of 422 hectares. The remaining 336 hectares was cultivated without improved seeds and the
total production was 4799 quintals.
In the year 2014/15 the amount of cultivated area by using improved seed was 86.7 hectares
from the total cultivated land of 467 hectares. The remaining 380.3 hectares was cultivated
without improved seeds and the total production was 5931quintales by using both of improved
seeds as well as local seeds. In the year 2015/16 and 2016/17the amount of cultivated area by
using improved seed were 89.3 and 92.9 hectares respectively from the total cultivated land of
561and 602 hectares respectively. The remaining 471.7, and 509.1, hectares were cultivated
without improved seeds respectively and the total production was 7489 and 9361quintals by
using both improved seeds and without improved seeds.
Generally it is evident from the table 4.4.1 that year 2012/13 to 2016/17the total cultivated land
by using improved seeds shows an increment from 83.36 to 92.9 and total production increase
from 3833 quintals to 9361 quintals. This indicates that the use of improved seeds is one of the
best mechanisms to increase production.

22
4.5 Utilization of pesticides
Table 4.5.1 pesticide applied (hectares)
Year Total cultivated land Pesticide applied Total production
(hectare) (hectare) (quintal)
2012/13 371 90 3833
2013/14 422 102 4792
2014/15 467 125 5931
2015/16 561 130 7489
2016/17 602 149 9361
Average 484.6 119.2 6281.2
Source, Doha Kebele FTC office, 2018
Table 4.5.1 shows use of pesticides applied to the cultivated land and total production of
cultivated land (2012/13-2016/17). From the year 2012/13to 2016/17 the total average share of
pesticide used land to cultivated land was only 119.2 and the total average cultivated land was
484.6 hectares. In 2012/13 from the total land cultivated of 371 hectares only 90 of hectares was
covered by pesticides and its total production was 3833 quintals. The remains of the total
cultivated land of 281 hectares were covered without pesticides. In the year 2013/14 the total
cultivated land was 422 hectares, out of which 102 hectares was covered by pesticides, the
remaining 320 hectares was cultivated without pesticides, and the total production was 4792
quintals. In2014/15, 2015/16and 2016/17 the total cultivated land was 467, 561 and 602hectares
respectively, out of which125,130 and149 hectares respectively was covered by pesticides, the
remaining 342,431and 453 hectares respectively was cultivated without pesticides and total
production was 5931, 7489 and 9361quintals respectively.

Generally it is evident from the table 4.5.1 from the year 2012/13 to 2016/17 the total cultivated
land using pesticide shows an increase from 90 to 149 hectares and total production increases
from 3833 quintals to 9361 quintals. This indicates that use of pesticide is one of the mechanisms
by which the production in agriculture can be increased.

4.6 Utilization of fertilizer (hectares)

Table 4.6.1 fertilizer applied (hectares)
Year Total cultivated land Fertilizer applied Total production
(hectare) (hectare) (quintal)
2012/13 371 150 3833
2013/14 422 161 4792
2014/15 467 172 5931
2015/16 561 180 7489
2016/17 602 189 9361
Average 484.6 170.4 6281.2
Sources, Doha Kebele FTC office, 2018

23
The table above shows total cultivated land and fertilizer applied (hectares) from 2012/13 to
2016/17 the total average share of fertilizer used to total cultivated land was only 170.4 and the
total average cultivated land was only 484.6 hectares. In 2012/13 from the total cultivated land of
371 hectares, only 150 hectares was covered by fertilizer, 221 hectares was not covered with
fertilizer. In 2013/14 the total cultivated land was 422 hectares, out of which 161 hectares of
land was covered with fertilizer and the reaming 261 hectares was cultivated without fertilizer
and production was 4792 quintals. In 2016/17 the total cultivated land was 602 hectares, out of
which 189 were covered by fertilizer, and remaining 413 hectares was not covered by fertilizer
and the total production was 9361.

It is evident therefore that as more land was brought under cultivation with more application of
fertilizer, there was a corresponding in areas in total production impaling that fertilizer and
production have positive correlation.
From study area, most of produced is meant subsistence. What is large share of their product is
for home consumption and nothing is left for sell. Therefore they cannot get enough income for
future consumption and buying improved seed, fertilizer, pest side and other technologies that
can improve their production and productivity.

Many of them are less educated or illiterate and so are less initiated for technological innovation.
Most of the farmers have not massively adopted. Most of them could not afford and get on time
and sufficient in amount due to different bureaucracy involved. The demand is more than supply.
However, there is good performance or increase in production for those who have adopted. The
agricultural office has taken the responsibility of disseminating information to some extent, and
it aims to provide loans to farmers.

24
CHAPTER FIVE

5. Findings, Conclusions and recommendation

5.1 Conclusions
Based on the information collected from the respondents, it shows the importance of technology
in agricultural production. This includes use and adoption of fertilizer, pesticide, and improved
seeds. The amount of land cultivated by using improved seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides has an
increasing trend but at very low rate. Creation of awareness can lead to increase in the adoption
of improved seeds.
It is evident from the study area that the application of pesticides plays an important role as it
improves the quality of production and also the amount of productivity. The total 602 hectares
of cultivated land totally covered149 hectares were covered with pesticides and the total
production increased from 3833 to 9361 quintals.

The study also assessed the performance or the use of fertilizer that has been increasing over the
time. As the result of using fertilizer total production increased from 3833 in 2012/13 to 9361 in
2016/17 quintals.
As concerns level of agricultural production, this study shows that agricultural productivity has
been very low and many factors have accounted for that. According to the findings of this study
the main factors for such a situation regarding to Doha kebele, agriculture are found to low use
of technology, like fertilizer, pesticide and improved seed.

25
5.2 Recommendation
To improve technology adoption at the study area, and to increase production and productivity it
is important to strengthen the FTC centre financially and infrastructurally in order to overcome
the problems related with access and diffusion of the inputs. To improve the low rate of
increase in agricultural productivity it is better to give farmers the awareness about the uses and
impacts of adopting new agricultural technologies in the Kebele. The FTC center and agricultural
extensions of the Kebele should have an important role to play in disseminating information in
relation to technology. Bring enlightenment to the farmers through extension work. There should
be the development of infrastructure. In general inaccessibility keeps farmers in touch to the
urban areas which are sources of inputs in agriculture. Since non educated farmers are reluctant
to accept modern technology, the expansion of education in the area is important. For
underemployed farmers there should be trading programs on nonfarm activities. As this will
make them to generate additional income that can help them purchase modern farm inputs.
The government should lay down good policies that can attract investment in the agricultural
sector creates improvement in the sector creates employment opportunities to motivate them.
Credit should be provided by the government on low rates of interests. Better farming methods
and practices should be practiced.

26
Reference

Bekele's (2008) research

Bonger, 2003
Chang, H. and Zepeda, L. (2008).Agricultural Productivity for Sustainable
Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: the Role of Investment. FAO
Corporate Document Repository, originated by: Economic and Social
Development Department, 2001.
Chaves, J. (2001). An International Analysis of Agricultural Productivity.
FAO Corporate Document Repository, Economic and Social development
Department, 2001.
Befakadu Dgefa and brehanu Nega(1999\2000),Annual Reaport of Ethiopan
Economy Vol 1 E.E.Ethiopia
Doha kebele FTC Office.
Gebremedhin et al 2007; 2008.
Gibon and Schroeder's(1983).
Grepperud 1996; Pender et al. 2006.
IBID, 2009, Internet.
Kasssa 2003; Spielman et al.2010, forth coming
Keeley and Scoones(2004).
Kaliba and Robel (2004).
Liebenberg, F. and Pardey, P.G. (2010).South Africa Agricultural Production
and Productivity Patterns. The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production
and Productivity Worldwide. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and
Information Center, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2010.
OECED productivity manual,2009.
Zepeda, L. (2008). Agricultural Investment, Production Capacity and
Productivity.FAO Corporate Document Repository.

27
 Appendix

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Research questionnaire to be filled by both Doha Kebele farmers and Doha kebele Farmers
Training Center (FTC).

Dear sir/madam

This questioner is designed to assess the role of technology in agricultural production in Doha
kebele. The objective of the study is purely academic and hence the questionnaire is prepared to
secure relevant data which is believed to come up with valuable recommendation for problems
observed/if any. Therefore, your valuable support in responding to the questions raised is of
paramount importance to the success of the study. Thus, you are kindly requested to fill the
questionnaire carefully and return at your earliest as convenient. Information provided will be
treated confidential.

NOTE

1. There is no need to write your name.

2. Please indicate your response by putting “x” mark where necessary for close ended question and
explanation for open ended questionnaire.

28
Section 1

Back ground information of the respondents

1. Sex A) Male B) Female

2. Age A) Below 20 B) 21-30

C) 31-40 D) 41-50 E) Above50

3. Marital status A) Marred B) Single C) Divorced D) Widowed

4. Educational background A) Illiterate B) 1-4 C) 5-8

D) 9-12 E) Above 12

29
Section two;

1) Questionnaire to be filled by farmers, it is related to land usage and cultivation.

I. How much hectares of productive land do you have?

II. Is what you produce enough? Yes no
Explain your answer above?
III. How many time do you cultivate you land within a year?
A, 1 B, 2 C, 3 D, 4
IV. How many times do you cultivate the land for one production time?
A, 1 B, 2 C, 3 D, Above 3
V. Which type of method do you apply for cultivation?

A, family labor B, animal labor C, tractor

2) Questionnaire related to agricultural usage of technology in production.

I. Are you aware of new technology? Yes, no,

II. Do you use improved seed, pesticides, fertilizer and irrigation?

A) Yes B) no,

III. If your response is no, explain why

IV. Do you get improved seeds, pesticides, fertilizer regular on time and sufficiently?
A) Yes B) no
V. If your response is no explain, why?

30
Section three:

Questionnaire to be filled by Doha kebele farmers training center (FTC) office, it is related to
agricultural usage of technology in production.
1, The following table show that the house holder of the total cultivated land, improved seeds
applied, pesticide applied, fertilizer applied, and the total production of Doha Kebele from year
(2012/13-2016/17).

Year Total cultivated Improved seeds Pesticides Fertilizer Total

land applied applied applied production
(hectares) (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) (hectares)

2012/1
3

2013/1
4

2014/1
5

2015/1
6

2016/1
7

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND COOPERATION!!

31