Row Planting in TefExperiences of the MoA & ATA Roll-Out

Oct 9th, 2013

By: Zewdie G/Tsadik

Tef, “from plant to plate”

1. Introduction to tef2. Current state of tef production3. Development of tef technology package4. Results of tef technology package5. Plans moving forward

2

Outline

Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter]

3

By many measurements tef is Ethiopia’s most important crop

Proudly Ethiopian• Cultivated since

4,000 – 1,000 BC• Traditional ingredient

of national bread (injira)

• Accounts for largest area covered by any crop in the country

Physically Unique• 1000 seeds = 0.3-0.4g• Adaptable to range of

soil types and climates• Draught resistant

Nutritious Food• High in protein• Rich in minerals (iron,

calcium, zinc and magnesium)

• Minute in size, but packed with a giant nutritional content.

• Gluten free• Straw is preferred

livestock fodder

Introduction

Farmer Livelihood• Grown by over 6 million

farmer households• Greatest production

value of any crop in Ethiopia

4

Relative to its comparatively large area coverage, compared with other cereal crops, tef production is very low

Tef Barley Wheat Maize Sorghum Others

Production 20 11 19 28 18 4

Area coverage 28 13 17 19 18 5

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

20

11

19

28

18

4

28

13 17

19

18

5

Average % share of production and area coverage of Tef against other cereals in Ethiopia (2004-2008)

Per

cent

sha

re o

f cro

ps

Source: ECEA Understanding Tef: A Review of Supply & Marketing Issues, 2012; CSA 2012.

• Despite having the highest area coverage in the country, tef production yields is low

• Average national yield is just 12q/ha

• Lodging & high plant populations are major tef yield inhibitors

Current State

5

Technologies were developed to address prevalent tef yield inhibitors including high seed rates and soil nutrient deficiencies

High Seed Rates

Row Planting Transplanting

Soil Nutrient Deficiencies

Blended Fertilizer

Yield Inhibitors

Tef Technology Solutions

Increased grain yields

Increased straw yields

Reduced cost of seed

Increased grain yields

Increased straw yields

Reduced cost of seed

Increased grain yields

Increased straw yields

• High seeding rates increase plant density causing plants to compete for water, soil nutrients and sunlight. Under these conditions tef plants have no chance to show their potential.

• The shift from broadcasting the seed to row planting can reduce seeding rates to 3-5kg/ha & improve grain & straw yields.

Plant development is limited by deficient essential nutrients

Tef Technology Package

Examples of how two tef technologies are addressing yield inhibitors

6

Over three years tef technologies have experienced aggressive scale up in response to promising results

2011

2012

2013

1,500 farmers90 FTCs

167,000 farmers1,100 FTCs ~1.1 million farmers

Highlights of tef technology package:• Reduced seed rate (via transplanting or

row planting)• Improved seed• Proper fertilizer application• 2-3cm seed sowing depth

• ATA founded with emphasis on tef

• 180 DAs from MoA and 6 MSc students work with ATA and farmers to test technology package

• Scale up of technology with MoA, ATA, RBoAs, EIAR, RARIs, RSEs, ESE

• 15,800 farmers and 1,100 FTCs monitored to assess yield impact

• Intensive scale up is underway in 160 woredas implemented by RBoAs and MoA

• Impact assessment using random sampling & crop cutting.

Tef Technology Package

Scope:

Description:

Year:

7

20.118.3

15.514.913.912.012.6

+10%+18%

+4%+7%+16%

Average yields by experimental plot across regionsQuintal/hectare

Planting type

National Average for

2012

Broadcast by hand

Broadcast by hand

Broadcast by hand

Broadcast by machine

Row plant Transplant

Seed rate (kg/ha)

30-50 30-50 5-10 5-10 5-10 0.5-0.7

Fertilizer type

DAP + Urea DAP +Urea

DAP + Urea

DAP +Urea

DAP +Urea

DAP +Urea

Seed type Local Quncho Quncho Quncho Quncho Quncho

Source: 2012 Data from Regional, Zonal and Woreda administration staff (collected Feb-April 2013); CSA 2012

In 2012 FTC plots Quncho and Row Planting were reported as the largest drivers of yield increase

Results

8

Distribution of yield data for 2012 shows that 30% of all validating farmers surveyed experienced yield increase between 20 and 80% over the national average

Source: 2012 Data from Regional, Zonal and Woreda administration staff (collected Feb-April 2013)Note: Includes data from 14,605 farmers (omitted error/outlier data from 15,790 total collected)

Distribution of Validating Farmers’ yieldsFrequency of yield increase (as % of total data set)

47

68

108

1311

7

150 - 200%

125 - 150%

100 - 125%

80 - 100%

60 - 80%40 - 60% Over 200%

20 - 40% 10 - 20%Less than 10%

27~30% of farmers saw a 20 – 80% yield increase

Farmers who broadcasted, used high seed rates, or may have experienced challenges

with new technologies

~20% of farmers saw a 100 – 200% yield increase (~60% of this

group row planted)

Results

9

CheckDAP

DAP+Urea

DAP+Zn

Suc+Urea

DAP+Zn+Cu

DAP+Bust ext.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2000

29273540

4250 4526

62606631

Grain yield (kg/ha) using transplanting, micro & macronutrient fertil-izers

Results

Source: Tareke & Zewdie, SG2000 (2010) unpublished

Different combinations of fertilizers have significant yield impacts on transplanted tef

10

Check

DAP+Zn

DAP+UreaDAP

Suc+Urea

DAP+Zn+Cu

DAP+Bust ext.

0

9

1315

18 18

2426

Straw yield (kg/ha) using transplanting, micro & macronutrient fertil-izers

Stra

w y

ield

ton

/ha

Results

Fertilizer also has significant yield impact on tef straw, which has value for farmers as animal fodder

Source: Tareke & Zewdie, SG2000 (2010) unpublished

11

Properly implemented technologies produce visual results that farmers can see

Transplanted in row High tillering capacity Panicles heavy with seedHigh seed rate & lodging

Results

Field day visitResults of technology are visualTef planted in rows

12

Next Steps

Tef stakeholders should continue to refine and promote tef technology package beyond the targets of 2013.

Planned vs Achieved number of row planting farmers in ATA targeted woreda clusters

On-going 2013 ATA activities related to tef technologies

Number of tef row planting farmers is increasing reaching 1,158,000 participant farmers

and covering 365,000 hectares of land

MoA & ATA promoted the technologies to farmers via

trainings, manuals, flyers etc.

The 2013 TC deliverable is to achieve 50% productivity

increase for 1.6 M technology adopting farmers

13

Next Steps

a

Performance of transplanted tef in the field:

a) 28 day-old seedlings ready for transplant; b) waterlogged field ready for transplant; c) ten days after transplanting @ 10X20cm inter and intra-rows; d) three weeks after t/p e) Panicles at grain filling stage

b c d e

Farmers perceive transplanting to be labour intensive, thus more research should be conducted around simplifying the planting method. Transplanting in its current form is best suited for geographies with:• short main season rainfall is short• waterlogged soils • high weed infestation

More research is needed on transplanting to assess the economic trade-offs of the labour intensive technology

Need to refine transplanting method:

14

Conclusion

The recommended tef technologies of 2012 increased average yields across regions for

validating farmers by 70% compared to national yield averages reported by the CSA.

These yield increases were similar to those demonstrated in 2011 with a narrower

group of targeted farmers. It thus appears that the technology package used in 2012 is

scalable to larger targeted farmer numbers.

Furthermore, there was high yield variance among validating farmers with some

farmers experiencing yields of more than 400%, indicating potential productivity to be

tapped.

The highest validating farmers after cleaning the data was 59 quintals/ha. This suggests

that with more consistent plot management there is further potential for yield

increases from the average achieved in 2012.

Field visits through the large-scale demonstration revealed farmers’ hesitancy to reduce

seed rates from their regular practices. Reducing seed rates was perceived as a risky

practice that may not result in improved yields.

15

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTHANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION