Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Practices by Small Holder Farmers in Abuna Gindeberat, Ethiopia

Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Practices by Small Holder Farmers in Abuna Gindeberat, Ethiopia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Practices by Small Holder Farmers in Abuna Gindeberat, Ethiopia Adunaa Amante Beyene This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background of study: Improving agricultural performance is one of the essential issues that must be addressed in order to improve the food security of the majority of farmers. The adoption of improved high yielding maize varieties is not extensively implemented among small holder farmers, despite the fact that maize is one of the most stable foods populated and its production is widely practiced by farmers in all agro-ecological conditions of the district. The purpose of this study was to examine adoption practices of improved maize varieties in order to generate data that might be used to improve adoption practices. Methodology: A three-stage sample strategy was used in this study, which comprised a purposeful selection of districts and Kebeles, as well as random sampling. Stratified sampling was used to identify adopters and non-adopters, while simple random sampling was used to choose respondents. The study is based on primary data collected from a sample of 143 respondents. Results: The study discovered that adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties differ in their land preparation, fertilizer application, topdressing, weeding and protection practices, as well as seed preparation and seedling assessment. Conclusion: adoption decision and practices of adoption of improved maize varieties were driven by a host of institutional, demographic, psychological and socio-economic factors. Abuna Gindeberat Adoption practices Improved varieties Maize Smallholder farmers Figures Figure 1 Introduction As mentioned in FAO, 2017, 2018a, 2009, global population increases necessitate further measures to keep food production at levels consistent with population expansion and environmental imperatives (UNCTAD, 2020 ). Food security has become a priority for countries of all economic development levels, with the agricultural sector playing a critical role in increasing food availability (Pawlak, 2020 ). Access to better conventional technology is difficult for some underdeveloped countries, while emerging technologies pose much greater difficulties (Asia et al., 2020 ). Agriculture is one of Ethiopia's economic foundations, and the country's total economic growth is greatly dependent on its agricultural sector's performance. Ethiopia's government has shown a significant commitment to agricultural and rural development by allocating more than 10% of the national budget to provide improved production technologies and support services (“Minist. Agric. Nat. Resour.,” 2017). Implying that overall economy of the country and food security of majority of the population depends on small holder agriculture. Grain crops, which account for 80% of the acreage and 87 percent of the productivity of small-holder farmers, are therefore critical to their food security. Maize ranks 16.79 percent (approximately 2,128,948.91 hectares) in area and 27.43 percent (83,958,872.44 quintals) in production among cereal crops (CSA, 2018). Despite government efforts to encourage the adoption of modern, intensive agriculture practices, the usage of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds is still fairly limited. Smallholder farmers' limited access to agricultural inputs, financial services, improved production technologies, irrigation, and agricultural markets, as well as poor land management practices that have resulted in severe land degradation, are all factors contributing to low agricultural productivity. Improving agricultural performance is one of the essential issues that must be addressed in order to improve the food security of the majority of farmers. Technology is an essential core element in any national strategy that aims to increase maize productivity. Improved seeds have the potential to transform the maize and wheat value chains (Grote et al., 2021 ). Maize is the second most widely cultivated crop in Ethiopia and is grown under diverse agro-ecologies and socio-economic conditions typically under rain-fed production (Abate et al., 2015 ). Ethiopia's National Maize Research Project has recommended a variety of enhanced maize varieties that are suited to the country's various maize agro-ecologies (Teklewold et al., 2013 ). Improving maize production is believed to one of the most crucial strategies for food security in Ethiopia. This could be done through the dissemination of improved maize varieties and open pollinated varieties that can greatly increase maize yield per unit of land. Small-holder farmers must adopt improved maize production practices in order to boost maize production and, as a result, food security, poverty alleviation, and economic growth in the district. The adoption of improved maize varieties has aided in the decrease of poverty among Ethiopia's rural population (Zeng et al., 2014 ). Maize production is one of the most important ways for combating poverty and improving the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. Maize is used as human food and livestock feed to make local tella and araqe in the study locations. The adoption of enhanced high yielding maize varieties is not extensively implemented among small holder farmers, despite the fact that maize is one of the most stable foods populated and its production is widely practiced by farmers in all agro-ecological conditions of the district. Although maize production in Ethiopia has increased in recent years, it remains low in the Abuna Gindeberat district, at 28 quintal/ha, compared to the national average of 36.75 quintal/ha and Oromia's 40.78 quintal/ha (AGAO, 2020). In general, as the district practices maize cultivation, improved maize variety adoption decisions are uncommon in the area. Adopters of enhanced maize varieties had enough production and harvest from their farm gates, according to the Abuna Gindeberat agricultural and natural resource office of (2020). The majority of farmers have yet to embrace improved maize cultivars. As a result, this study is proposed with the goal of assessing improved maize variety adoption practices with the aim of generating information that will help to understand and examine key challenges to improved maize variety adoption practices, thereby enhancing informed decision making to improve maize production practices. Methods And Materials Location The research was carried out in Ethiopia's Abuna Gindeberat area, in the western Shoa zone of Oromia Region. The district is one of twenty-two (22) rural districts in the western Shoa zone, and is roughly 138 kilometers from Ambo, the zonal town's seat. Bake-Qalaxe, the district town, is 178 kilometers from Addis Ababa. The district is bordered on the north by the Amhara Region, on the west by Gindeberat Districts, on the east by Meta Robi District, and on the south by Jaldu District. Along the boundary with Gindeberat, the District's altitude ranges from 1000 masl to 2640 masl (Abuna Gindeberet district administration office, 2020). Sampling procedures A three-stage (Multi-stage) sampling process was used to choose both the study Kebeles and the respondents in order to conduct the study in a representative manner and to increase its reliability and validity. The steps of the sampling technique were as follows: In the first stage , Abuna Gindeberat from the west Shoa Zone was purposefully chosen based on the district's maize variety production practices. Maize is a high-yielding cereal crop that plays an essential role in the district's food security, but a variety of issues prevents the district from adopting improved maize varieties. As a result, the region is well-known for its food insecurity issues. Therefore this research at the micro level provides insight at the macro level. Farmers were chosen through a process that included numerous steps. The district is divided into 44 Kebeles for administrative purposes. According to the district Agricultural Office's report for 2020/2021, out of 44 Kebeles, 28 were low adopters and 16 were high adopters of improved maize varieties (Personal communication, 2020). In the second stage , two Kebeles from each group were chosen at random. Then one Kebele was chosen at random from the district's high adopters, and the second Kebele was chosen at random from the district's low adopters. There were 49 adopters and 94% non-adopters in the entire sample of (143) household heads. Then, in accordance to their population size, households from each Kebeles were chosen. Out of the (143) sample houses, 77 were chosen from Gute-Andode Kebele, while the remaining (66) were chosen from Oborra Kebele. Finally, a random sampling technique was used to choose a sample of adopters and non-adopters in each Kebeles. Sample size determination Yamane (1967:886) offers a simple formula for determining sample sizes (Israel, 1992). At a 95% confidence level, the required sample size was calculated. The following formula was used to calculate sample size for the investigation. n = \(\frac{\left(N\right)}{1+N\left(e\right)2}\) = \(\frac{\left(621\right)}{1+621\left(0.05\right)2}\) =143 Data collection methods The researcher employed both secondary and primary data collection approaches to gather information from all relevant sources, find answers to the study problem, test the hypothesis, and assess the results. Secondary Data Collection Methods To gather the requisite data, the researcher used secondary data from a variety of sources. Both published and unpublished data are included in secondary data. The researcher assessed the data's trustworthiness, applicability, and adequacy before using it. Primary Data Collection Methods Primary Data collection methods employed in the study include: household survey questionnaire, focus group discussion, Key Informant Interviews (KII), and field observation. 1. Questionaries’ The main data gathering approach in this study was an interviewer-administered questionnaire. For this study, well-trained and experienced enumerators with understanding of the farming system and the local language conducted one-on-one interviews using a standardized survey instrument that had been pre-tested. 143 household heads were given questionnaires to fill out as part of a household survey. The interview was written in English and then translated into Afan Oromo to eliminate ambiguity in the meaning and concepts of the questions for both interviewers and interviewees. 2. Focus group discussion Small groups of respondents (typically 6–10) are questioned together in a shared place during a focus group discussion. The interviewer's role is simply that of a facilitator, ensuring that everyone gets an opportunity to reply and research other facts that were not covered by the other survey methods. The conversation was held amongst farmers with extensive farming experience and agricultural professionals from the district. In group formation, both male and female heads have a same proportion. It took place in two Kebeles and at the district level (with Agricultural experts). Each focus group had eight (8) volunteers from the target population, for a total of sixteen (14) participants. To avoid bias, the volunteers were chosen on the basis of their equal social, intellectual, and educational backgrounds. The researcher asked a series of open-ended questions about improved maize adoption techniques. The participants are free to express themselves and respond in a fair manner. This method allowed the researcher to investigate what they already knew or believed about the study problem that the questions would address, and then to check, confirm, and add depth to the results of the household survey questionnaires. 3. Key informant interviews The researcher employed key informant interviews to gather data from a wide range of persons, including community leaders, professionals, and residents who have direct knowledge of maize variety adoption practices. They have provided insight into the nature of the issues as well as remedies recommendations. A key informant interview was done with a Individual farmers with direct knowledge, Kebeles chairperson, one Kebele manager, and three development agents; at the district level, mostly an agronomist team leader from the Agricultural and Natural Resources agencies. 4. Observation Personal observation is a qualitative data collecting method, as are systematic data collection methods. The Kebele chairperson, voluntary farmers, enumerator, development agents (DAs), and the researcher guided field observations of adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties at the farm level. The researcher was able to take notes on certain observations ahead of time. During the observation period, the researcher took notes on the yield circumstances of adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties, as well as practical considerations. During the observation period, the researcher took notes on the yield conditions of improved maize varieties adopters and non-adopters, as well as maize production practices. Data analysis To evaluate the primary data, the researcher employed a descriptive statistical method. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data analysis because the data collected was both qualitative and quantitative. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods was used. For the investigation, the researcher used cross-sectional data. Farmers who planted at least one of the improved maize varieties at least for the 2020/21 cropping season were classified as adopters, whereas farmers who did not plant the improved maize varieties in the given cropping season were classified as non-adopters. Results And Discussion To achieve the study's goal, 143 respondents were chosen from two rural Kebeles in the Abuna Gindeberat area (Oborra and Gute Andode) and questioned by enumerators who were hired for the job. This section describes some of the demographic and socioeconomic features of the sampled respondents, such as age, sex, level of education, family size, animal ownership, and farm size. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Age and Family Size of Sampled Household Head Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean S.D Age of house hold head 143 24 69 52.34 12.219 Family size 143 3 12 6.86 1.864 Source: Field Survey, 2020 The minimum and maximum ages of the sampled respondents were 24 and 69, respectively, according to the survey results. The average age was 52.34 years, with a standard deviation of 12.219 years. The average family size of those who responded to the survey was determined to be 7.36 individuals. With a standard deviation of 2.348, this is greater than the national average of 4.6 (UN, 2017). The sampled respondents' minimum and maximum family sizes were 3 and 12, respectively (see Table 1 ). According to the survey, 16.1 percent of families are headed by women, while 83.9 percent are headed by men. This shows that males are more involved in maize production than females. This also implies that there is a gender division of labor based on socio-cultural factors. According to survey results, 54.5 percent of sampled household heads are illiterate, while 45.5 percent are literate (see Table 1 ). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Farm Size and Livestock Ownership N Minimum Maximum Mean S.D Farm size 143 .50 5.00 1.7010 .89170 Livestock ownership 143 .75 26.87 8.2061 4.73408 Source: Field Survey, 2020 The sampled respondents' average farm size is 1.7010, with a standard deviation of.89170. Respondents' lowest and maximum land holding sizes are 0.50 hectares and 5.00 hectares, respectively (see Table 2 ). The sampled respondents' minimum and highest livestock ownership was 0.75 and 26.87, respectively, with an average TLU of 8.2061 and a standard deviation of 4.73408. Practices of Farmers toward Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties If a farmer utilized at least one of the improved maize types, he or she is considered an adopter; otherwise, he or she is considered a non-adopter during the cropping season of 2020/2021. Smallholder farmers in the research area favor improved maize varieties that have higher production potential, disease resistance, and marketability under normal conditions. Subsistence and small-scale agriculture are directly or indirectly important to small-holder farmers in the studied areas. Agriculture progress is considered as critical for long-term pro-poor economic development, food security, and poverty reduction. However, the agricultural sector's performance has been dismal, and its expansion has lagged behind population growth. The extension of cultivated land and the application of chemical fertilizers result in a rise in agricultural production. Smallholder farmers do not pay attention to soil nutrient loss during this production process. This has an impact on the agricultural seed technology production process. As a result, the government provided lime stone (nora) to manage soil acidity for several crop kinds in the 2018/2019 production year. Table 3 Types of Maize Seed Varieties Planted in Sampled Kebeles Seed types Frequency Percent Local seed 94 65.7 Bh-661 15 10.5 Bh-540 11 7.7 Bh-546 5 3.5 Bh-547 3 2.1 Jibat 2 1.4 Limu 2 1.4 Shone 11 7.7 Total 143 100.0 Source: Survey Result, 2020 It is critical to boost the adoption of production-enhancing technology in order to address the production limitation that occurs in the research region. Despite the fact that maize is a basic crop in the study areas, production per hectare of land is only 28 quintal (AGAO, 2020). This low yield is attributed to a lack of adoption of improved maize cultivars. Maize is grown in all of the district's agro-ecological zones. BH-661, BH-546, BH-540, BH-547, Jibat are the modified maize varieties used for production in the district. These are grown in the woina-dega (32%), and limu, shone kinds are grown in the kola (68%) of the district (AGAO, 2020). Both local seed and improved seed are now used for production in the sampled locations. The sorts of maize seed varieties utilized for seedling by farmers are described in percentages and frequencies in Table (3). Farmers employ recycled improved seed, Mirxi Zari, Fesho, Jimma, Ji-Sade, Limat, Kambata. Bh-661 (10.5%), Bh-540 (7.7%), Bh-546 (3.5%), Bh-547 (2.1%), Jibat (1.4%), Limu (1.4%), and Shone (7.7%) are all certified seeds. In the district's woina dega areas, Bh-661 is the most densely populated among small-scale farmers. Shone is largely performed and populated in the district's kolla locations. According to the same survey, of the improved maize varieties promoted, BH660 was grown by 27% of households on approximately 21% of the maize area, whereas BH54 was grown by about 6% of farmers on about 9% of the maize area during the same season and BH543, BHQP542, Morka, Melkassa-1, Melkassa-4, and AMH800 are some of the less popular maize types among sample farmers (Awoke, 2017 ). 1. Land preparation Farmers choose farm area for maize production based on a variety of characteristics, both consciously and unconsciously. Soil productivity, soil type, and the preceding crop in the rotation are all important factors in site selection, and maize is assigned to the most fertile fields among the studied areas. Only 41.6 percent of the respondents had embraced land preparation measures, despite the fact that 46.4 percent of the respondents were aware of them (Pickson, 2021 ). Farmers prepare ground for maize production by plowing it with oxen. Farmers who lack oxen make various arrangements such as renting, borrowing, and walitti hidhachu (two farmers each owing one ox joined together and used them turn by turn). In the research region, land preparation for maize production takes 1–2, 3 or 3–5 times, depending on the soil. A good effective depth, desirable morphological qualities, efficient internal drainage, and an ideal moisture regime, as well as sufficient and balanced amounts of plant nutrients, are all characteristics of a healthy maize soil. According to the survey, adopters of improved maize varieties in the study areas are ploughed 1–2 times (1.4 percent), 3 times (1.4 percent), and 4 times (1.4 percent) (23.1 percent). shows that adopters plough 3–5 times (9.8%), 3 times (23.1%), 3–5 times (9.8%) while non-adopters plough 1–2 times (23.1%), 3 times (39.9%), and 3–5 times (2.8%). In comparison to users of certified seed, non-adopters of improved maize varieties did not fully embrace packaging practices of maize production. Around (79.2%) of those polled had embraced seed-based techniques, with 91.9 percent of those polled being aware of them (Pickson, 2021 ). 2. Seed Preparation and Plantation Table 4 Seed Preparation Seed Preparation Frequency Percent Certified seed 49 34.3 Local seed from neighbors 16 11.2 Local seed from local market 26 18.2 Own seed from previous harvest 52 36.4 Total 143 100.0 Source: Survey Result, 2020 Farmers prepare seed that is either locally grown or certified. The results of the survey revealed that adopters of improved maize varieties used certified seed (34.3 percent), whereas non-adopters used local seed obtained through various mechanisms. Local seed from neighbors (11.2%), local seed from a local market (18.2%), and own seed from a previous harvest (36.4%) were found in the survey results (see Table 4 ). On average, 35.3 percent of the sample households sourced their improved seed from BOANR, indicating the important role of government agencies in provision of agricultural inputs while 24.1 percent and 21.8 percent of the households obtained their improved seed from neighboring farmers and farmers’ cooperatives, respectively, which is an indication of the augmenting roles that farmers can play in organizing themselves to avoid over dependence on government (Semahegn et al., 2021 ). The usage of recycled improved maize varieties reduces output depending on the variety. The disadvantages of hybrid maize include higher seed costs (high production costs), a scarcity of supplies, a lack of finance, and the need to buy seeds every year (Sime, 2018 ). Hybrid seeds are essentially not recycled due to genetic segregation, which increases farmers' seasonal reliance on institutional seed supply (Sime, 2018 ). Early planting in the season, as recommended by the extension package, has been found to be the most important element in enhancing yield and avoiding insect assault. The depth at which maize seed is planted is critical for keeping it moist and protected from rats, birds, and drying. According to the district's agricultural extension package, the recommended planting depth is usually 5–12 cm, depending on the type of soil. Germination is slowed by deep planting. Maize can be planted in moisture-stressed locations by planting the seed deeper than usual and covering the planting hole with a little amount of soil. Agro-ecological conditions and the types of certified seed planted affect the spacing between rows and between seeds. Seeds produced in the district's woina dega areas, for example, are planted with 0.75m x 0.25m (one maize seed per hole) or 0.80m x 0.40 (two seeds per hole) spacing between rows, and 0.75m x 0.25m (one seed per hole) spacing for kolla areas (AGAO, 2020). More over half of the respondents (54.4%) were aware of sowing methods, however only 49.1% had implemented them (Sime, 2018 ). 3. Fertilizer application rate The rate of fertilizer application is determined by the types of soil nutrients. The district agricultural office recommends applying 150 kg of NPS + B/NPS and 200 urea per hectare of farm-land in low-nutrient farmlands and 100 kg NPS + B/NPS and 100 kg urea application rate in less likely affected soil nutrients' areas of farm lands. The results of the survey demonstrate that there is a significant difference in fertilizer application rate between adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties (chi-square = 16.315, DF = 1, p0.005). 33.5 percent of non-adopters used less than minimum recommended package, 18.2% of non-adopters used minimum recommended package, and 14% of non-adopters used larger than minimum recommended package (see Table 6 ). According to (Pickson, 2021 ) only 72.2 percent of respondents were aware of the usage of chemical fertilizers, whereas 77.9% had used them. Table 5 Fertilizer Application Rate Variable Adopter(n = 49) No-adopter(n = 94) Total Fertilizer application rate ˂ 200 kg/ha 200k g/ha ˃ 200 kg/ha Total No 8 23 18 49 % 5.6 16.1 12.6 34.3 No 48 26 20 94 % 33.5 18.2 14.0 65.7 No 49 37 57 143 % 34.3 25.8 39.9 100 Chi-square 16.315 Df = 2 p-value 0.000 Source: Survey Result, 2020 Fertilizer application differs from farm land to farm land in the studied sites as It is determined by the soil's nutrient concentration. Farmers admit that small-scale irrigation involves a significant input of technical and physical resources, is knowledge heavy, and is reliant on marketing facilities, despite the use of fertilizers and improved seeds (Jha et al., n.d.). The results of the survey revealed that fertilizer use is imbalanced in terms of soil fertility, as measured by the suggested extension package and type of fertilizer application rate. The application of fertilizer in the research regions is thought to boost yields and replace lost soil nutrients required for maize cultivation. As a result, the government is currently giving blended fertilizers such as NPS, NPS + B, and NPS + Zn based on the sorts of leached soil nutrients found in the different Kebeles within the district (AGAO, 2020). The availability of a blanket (identical fertilizer rate regardless of soil type and fertility status) national application rate of 100 kg of DAP and 100 kg of urea for a hectare of maize crop is another constraint of the banding approach. 4. Top dressing According to the survey, adopters applied top dressing one time (21.7%), two times (9.8%), and 2.8 percent did not apply top dressing at all. Non-adopters applied top dressing once (21.7%), twice (0.0%), and 41 percent of non-adopters did not apply top dressing at all (see Table 6 ). Top dressing is one of the methods for applying urea to maize plants. The row plantation provides a pleasant environment for top dressing. According to the poll, 34.3 percent of adopters planted in row, 0.0 percent did not plant in row, and 53.1 percent of non-adopters planted in row, 12.6 percent in broad casting. Table 6 Top Dressing of Maize Varieties Variable Adopter(n = 49) Non-Adopter(n = 94) Total Top Dressing One Times Two Times Not Top Dressed Total No 31 14 4 49 % 21.7 9.8 2.8 34.3 No 31 0 63 94 % 21.7 0.0 41.0 65.7 No 49 37 57 143 % 34.3 25.8 39.9 100 Source: Survey Result, 2020 The recommended package of urea is split in three parts, and half of the urea is administered during plantation by combining with NPS/NPS + B. The remaining urea is used as a top dressing after 35–40 days after planting, and a third top dressing is administered once the weeds have been controlled and first flowering has begun (AGAO, 2020). During plantation, NPS/NPS + B is applied completely using korki (one korki weighs 4g) and 3-5g of fertilizer is administered with a spacing of 3-5cm between seed and fertilizer. When it comes to applying top dressing, there is a distinction between adopters and non-adopters among the sampled respondents. Non-adopters did not use urea in the same way that adopters did. This could be because they assume that local seed doesn't require as many practices as certified seed. Due to a lack of access, tardy supply, and unaffordability of fertilizers, most maize farmers utilize less than half of the required fertilizer rate for maize production in the area. However, even though organic fertilizer has the potential to minimize the demand for mineral fertilizers, which raise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, its use is limited (Teshome et al., 2021 ). The yield advantage of synchronized row-sowing and banding fertilizer systems, in addition to other advantages like as better agronomic management, are the main reasons for the rising interest in fertilizer application (Sime, 2018 ). 5. Weeding and protection of maize The results of the survey revealed that there is a difference in maize weeding techniques between adopters and non-adopters. 17.5 percent of adopters weed three times or more, while 13.3 percent of farmers weed four or more times. Weeding was practiced by non-adopters 3.5 percent once, 34.3 percent twice, 27.2 percent three times, and 0.7 percent four or more times (see Table 7). This finding suggests that there are variations in maize weeding between adopters and non-adopters. In a similar vein, the vast majority of respondents (93.3 percent) were well-informed on illness control, but only 81.3 percent put it into practice (Pickson, 2021 ). One of the most important aspects of maize production is weeding. In some circumstances, manpower alone is insufficient to weed maize. This is because weeding operations for other crops compete for scarce labor during important maize weeding seasons. They employed chemical herbicide to control weeds during the manpower shortage. Table 7 Weeding of Maize Varieties Variable Adopter(n = 49) No-adopter(n = 94) Total Weeding One times Two times Three times Four and above times Total No 0 5 25 19 49 % 0.0 3.5 17.5 13.3 34.3 No 5 49 39 1 94 % 3.5 34.3 27.2 0.7 65.7 No 5 54 64 20 143 % 3.5 37.8 44.7 14.0 100.0 Source: Survey Result, 2020 Farmers mentioned the issue of pests and diseases hurting their production during the focus group discussion. Pests and diseases are a severe problem in maize production, but their severity varies from season to season and location to location (Benti and Joel K, 1993). Maize stem borer is a field pest that feeds on maize after it has matured. In research regions, worm and insect pests have a significant role in preventing seedling establishment. Maize was occasionally affected by leaf blight and smut diseases. Gerri America (American worm) has been introduced into the study locations and is wreaking havoc on maize plantations (see Fig. 1 ). The high value of maize as a food crop, as well as the expanding demand for the Stover as animal fodder and a source of fuel for rural families, have contributed to its popularity in Ethiopia. Approximately 88 percent of Ethiopian maize is consumed as food, in both green and dry grain form. Industrial maize has also helped to meet rising demand. Currently, only a small amount of maize is utilized as feed, but this is increasing to sustain a quickly growing urbanization and poultry industry (Abate et al., 2015 ). In Ethiopia, smallholder farms account for more than 95% of total corn area and production. Animal traction is used by farmers for soil preparation and cultivation; nearly all production is rain-fed, with irrigated regions accounting for only around 1% of the total (Abate et al., 2015 ). Smallholder farmers confront price limits on both inputs and outputs, thus imported cereals are offered at subsidized prices to ‘stabilize local grain prices,' and food aid deliveries depress local grain prices. Ethiopian agriculture in the twenty-first century is characterized by delayed agricultural input delivery, a lack of credit markets, and a lack of access to agricultural technologies (Diriba, 2020 ). The second-largest area allocated to maize production is 20.8 percent of total cereal area, with production accounting for 31.4 percent of total cereal output; maize accounts for over one-third of all cereal production in Ethiopia (Diriba, 2020 ). Maize has the greatest impact on the national food equation in terms of volume of output, at least among the general population. The area under maize cultivation has increased by 2.76 percent each year, production by 5.0 percent, and yield by 2.19 percent over the years (Diriba, 2020 ). Conclusion The research was carried out in Ethiopia's Abuna Gindeberat area, in the western Shoa zone of Oromia Region. The district is one of twenty-two (22) rural districts in the western Shoa zone, and is roughly 138 kilometers from Ambo, the zonal town's seat. Maize is an important crop in this area, as it provides a source of income and is consumed at home. Government agencies such as district agricultural offices, agricultural research centers, and other nongovernmental organizations have introduced new technologies that include improved varieties. In the research area, however, adoption of improved maize seed varieties was not adequately studied. Even while farmers in the research area adopted more maize varieties, they did not fully apply suggested packaging procedures on their fields. Site selection and land preparation, seedling system and fertilizer application, top dressing, weeding, and protection Land preparation for maize cultivation takes place on a regular basis, rather than as part of an extension package. Farmers prepare seed for seedlings that have been obtained through various sources, either certified or locally. All adopters and roughly 53.1 percent of non-adopters planted in the row, with the remaining 12.6 percent planting in broad casting. Between adopters and non-adopters, there is a difference in weeding and maize variety protection techniques. In comparison to non-adopters, Adopters used more fertilizers, applied urea as a top dressing, and looked for inspections from time to time for insects and weeds. Declarations Authors’ contribution: Adunaa Amante Beyene: Conceptualization, Data collection, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Ambo University and Abuna Gindeberat district for their support . Competing interests: The author declares no Competing interests. Funding: Abuna Gindeberat district and Author Consent for publication: ‘’Not applicable’’ Availability of data and materials : ‘’Not applicable’’ Ethics approval and consent to participate: ‘’Not applicable’’ References Abate, T., Shiferaw, B., Menkir, A., Wegary, D., & Kebede, Y. (2015). Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia . 965–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0488-z Asia, E., Asia, S., & Asia, E. (2020). K 1997 2020 . Awoke, B. G. (2017). Agricultural Research for Ethiopian Renaissance 50th Year Anniversary of EIAR: Agricultural Mechanization Research in Ethiopia : Challenges and the Way Forward (Issue October). Booklet, D. (2017). World Population Prospects . Demese, C., Adenew, B., & Mellor, J. (2020). Ethiopia’s agricultural sector policy and investment framework (pif) 2010–2020 (Issue September 2010). Diriba, G. (2020). Agricultural and Rural Transformation in Ethiopia Obstacles, Triggers and Reform Considerations Policy Working Paper 01 / 2020 (Issue January). Grote, U., Fasse, A., Nguyen, T. T., & Erenstein, O. (2021). Food Security and the Dynamics of Wheat and Maize Value Chains in Africa and Asia . 4 (February), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009 Jha, S., Kaechele, H., & Lana, M. (n.d.). Exploring Farmers ’ Perceptions of Agricultural Technologies: A Case Study from Tanzania . 1–21. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (2017). In Agricultural Extension Strategy of Ethiopia Agricultural Extension Strategy of Ethiopia (p. 59). Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Pawlak, K. (2020). The Role of Agriculture in Ensuring Food Security in Developing Countries: Considerations in the Context of the Problem of Sustainable Food Production . Pickson, R. B. (2021). Smallholder Farmers ’ Perceptions, Adaptation Constraints, and Determinants of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Chengdu . https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032638 Semahegn, Y., Shimelis, H., Laing, M., & Mathew, I. (2021). Farmers ’ preferred traits and perceived production constraints of bread wheat under drought – prone agro – ecologies of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00290-0 Sime, G. (2018). Sustainability of Improved Crop Varieties and Agricultural Practices: A Case Study in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia . https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110177 Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., & Shiferaw, B. (2013). Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia . 64 (3), 597–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12011 Teshome, H., Tesfaye, K., Dechassa, N., Tana, T., & Huber, M. (2021). Smallholder Farmers ’ Perceptions of Climate Change and Adaptation Practices for Maize Production in Eastern Ethiopia . 1–21. UNCTAD, 2020. (2020). The least developed countries report 2020 productive capacities for the new decade . united nation puplicationns. un.org/puplications Zeng, D., Mills, B. F., Norton, G. W., & Zeng, D. (2014). Three Essays on Adoption and Impacts of Improved Maize Varieties in Ethiopia . Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-1458428","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":105611271,"identity":"40caab1b-0100-4747-9a4d-9965d2960df8","order_by":0,"name":"Adunaa Amante Beyene","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3504-1326","institution":"Arsi University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adunaa","middleName":"Amante","lastName":"Beyene","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-03-16 13:45:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":21531470,"identity":"ff619f63-2971-45e7-8d79-7c3dd6b145d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-05-16 20:09:16","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":216761,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerican fall army worm (Gerri America), in the Oborra\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Source: Field Observation, 2020]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1458428/v1/c9ed54fca211cc6171696ccc.jpeg"},{"id":21531471,"identity":"5bd6aa8e-a4ea-4e9d-8fb9-d65932b65762","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-05-16 20:09:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":512106,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1458428/v1/5303f879-3d76-4d30-a6d6-a5f0b343574a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Practices by Small Holder Farmers in Abuna Gindeberat, Ethiopia","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned in FAO, 2017, 2018a, 2009, global population increases necessitate further measures to keep food production at levels consistent with population expansion and environmental imperatives (UNCTAD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Food security has become a priority for countries of all economic development levels, with the agricultural sector playing a critical role in increasing food availability (Pawlak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Access to better conventional technology is difficult for some underdeveloped countries, while emerging technologies pose much greater difficulties (Asia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Agriculture is one of Ethiopia's economic foundations, and the country's total economic growth is greatly dependent on its agricultural sector's performance. Ethiopia's government has shown a significant commitment to agricultural and rural development by allocating more than 10% of the national budget to provide improved production technologies and support services (\u0026ldquo;Minist. Agric. Nat. Resour.,\u0026rdquo; 2017). Implying that overall economy of the country and food security of majority of the population depends on small holder agriculture. Grain crops, which account for 80% of the acreage and 87 percent of the productivity of small-holder farmers, are therefore critical to their food security. Maize ranks 16.79 percent (approximately 2,128,948.91 hectares) in area and 27.43 percent (83,958,872.44 quintals) in production among cereal crops (CSA, 2018). Despite government efforts to encourage the adoption of modern, intensive agriculture practices, the usage of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds is still fairly limited. Smallholder farmers' limited access to agricultural inputs, financial services, improved production technologies, irrigation, and agricultural markets, as well as poor land management practices that have resulted in severe land degradation, are all factors contributing to low agricultural productivity. Improving agricultural performance is one of the essential issues that must be addressed in order to improve the food security of the majority of farmers. Technology is an essential core element in any national strategy that aims to increase maize productivity. Improved seeds have the potential to transform the maize and wheat value chains (Grote et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Maize is the second most widely cultivated crop in Ethiopia and is grown under diverse agro-ecologies and socio-economic conditions typically under rain-fed production (Abate et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Ethiopia's National Maize Research Project has recommended a variety of enhanced maize varieties that are suited to the country's various maize agro-ecologies (Teklewold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Improving maize production is believed to one of the most crucial strategies for food security in Ethiopia. This could be done through the dissemination of improved maize varieties and open pollinated varieties that can greatly increase maize yield per unit of land. Small-holder farmers must adopt improved maize production practices in order to boost maize production and, as a result, food security, poverty alleviation, and economic growth in the district. The adoption of improved maize varieties has aided in the decrease of poverty among Ethiopia's rural population (Zeng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Maize production is one of the most important ways for combating poverty and improving the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. Maize is used as human food and livestock feed to make local tella and araqe in the study locations. The adoption of enhanced high yielding maize varieties is not extensively implemented among small holder farmers, despite the fact that maize is one of the most stable foods populated and its production is widely practiced by farmers in all agro-ecological conditions of the district. Although maize production in Ethiopia has increased in recent years, it remains low in the Abuna Gindeberat district, at 28 quintal/ha, compared to the national average of 36.75 quintal/ha and Oromia's 40.78 quintal/ha (AGAO, 2020). In general, as the district practices maize cultivation, improved maize variety adoption decisions are uncommon in the area. Adopters of enhanced maize varieties had enough production and harvest from their farm gates, according to the Abuna Gindeberat agricultural and natural resource office of (2020). The majority of farmers have yet to embrace improved maize cultivars. As a result, this study is proposed with the goal of assessing improved maize variety adoption practices with the aim of generating information that will help to understand and examine key challenges to improved maize variety adoption practices, thereby enhancing informed decision making to improve maize production practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods And Materials","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec2\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eLocation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe research was carried out in Ethiopia\u0026apos;s Abuna Gindeberat area, in the western Shoa zone of Oromia Region. The district is one of twenty-two (22) rural districts in the western Shoa zone, and is roughly 138 kilometers from Ambo, the zonal town\u0026apos;s seat. Bake-Qalaxe, the district town, is 178 kilometers from Addis Ababa. The district is bordered on the north by the Amhara Region, on the west by Gindeberat Districts, on the east by Meta Robi District, and on the south by Jaldu District. Along the boundary with Gindeberat, the District\u0026apos;s altitude ranges from 1000 masl to 2640 masl (Abuna Gindeberet district administration office, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec4\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSampling procedures\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA three-stage (Multi-stage) sampling process was used to choose both the study Kebeles and the respondents in order to conduct the study in a representative manner and to increase its reliability and validity. The steps of the sampling technique were as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn the first stage\u003c/strong\u003e, Abuna Gindeberat from the west Shoa Zone was purposefully chosen based on the district\u0026apos;s maize variety production practices. Maize is a high-yielding cereal crop that plays an essential role in the district\u0026apos;s food security, but a variety of issues prevents the district from adopting improved maize varieties. As a result, the region is well-known for its food insecurity issues. Therefore this research at the micro level provides insight at the macro level. Farmers were chosen through a process that included numerous steps. The district is divided into 44 Kebeles for administrative purposes. According to the district Agricultural Office\u0026apos;s report for 2020/2021, out of 44 Kebeles, 28 were low adopters and 16 were high adopters of improved maize varieties (Personal communication, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn the second stage\u003c/strong\u003e, two Kebeles from each group were chosen at random. Then one Kebele was chosen at random from the district\u0026apos;s high adopters, and the second Kebele was chosen at random from the district\u0026apos;s low adopters. There were 49 adopters and 94% non-adopters in the entire sample of (143) household heads. Then, in accordance to their population size, households from each Kebeles were chosen. Out of the (143) sample houses, 77 were chosen from Gute-Andode Kebele, while the remaining (66) were chosen from Oborra Kebele. Finally, a random sampling technique was used to choose a sample of adopters and non-adopters in each Kebeles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec5\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSample size determination\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYamane (1967:886) offers a simple formula for determining sample sizes (Israel, 1992). At a 95% confidence level, the required sample size was calculated. The following formula was used to calculate sample size for the investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en = \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\frac{\\left(N\\right)}{1+N\\left(e\\right)2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e =\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\frac{\\left(621\\right)}{1+621\\left(0.05\\right)2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e =143\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec6\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData collection methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe researcher employed both secondary and primary data collection approaches to gather information from all relevant sources, find answers to the study problem, test the hypothesis, and assess the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec7\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSecondary Data Collection Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo gather the requisite data, the researcher used secondary data from a variety of sources. Both published and unpublished data are included in secondary data. The researcher assessed the data\u0026apos;s trustworthiness, applicability, and adequacy before using it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePrimary Data Collection Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary Data collection methods employed in the study include: household survey questionnaire, focus group discussion, Key Informant Interviews (KII), and field observation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1. Questionaries\u0026rsquo;\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe main data gathering approach in this study was an interviewer-administered questionnaire. For this study, well-trained and experienced enumerators with understanding of the farming system and the local language conducted one-on-one interviews using a standardized survey instrument that had been pre-tested. 143 household heads were given questionnaires to fill out as part of a household survey. The interview was written in English and then translated into Afan Oromo to eliminate ambiguity in the meaning and concepts of the questions for both interviewers and interviewees.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec10\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2. Focus group discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall groups of respondents (typically 6\u0026ndash;10) are questioned together in a shared place during a focus group discussion. The interviewer\u0026apos;s role is simply that of a facilitator, ensuring that everyone gets an opportunity to reply and research other facts that were not covered by the other survey methods. The conversation was held amongst farmers with extensive farming experience and agricultural professionals from the district. In group formation, both male and female heads have a same proportion. It took place in two Kebeles and at the district level (with Agricultural experts). Each focus group had eight (8) volunteers from the target population, for a total of sixteen (14) participants. To avoid bias, the volunteers were chosen on the basis of their equal social, intellectual, and educational backgrounds. The researcher asked a series of open-ended questions about improved maize adoption techniques. The participants are free to express themselves and respond in a fair manner. This method allowed the researcher to investigate what they already knew or believed about the study problem that the questions would address, and then to check, confirm, and add depth to the results of the household survey questionnaires.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec11\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3. Key informant interviews\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe researcher employed key informant interviews to gather data from a wide range of persons, including community leaders, professionals, and residents who have direct knowledge of maize variety adoption practices. They have provided insight into the nature of the issues as well as remedies recommendations. A key informant interview was done with a Individual farmers with direct knowledge, Kebeles chairperson, one Kebele manager, and three development agents; at the district level, mostly an agronomist team leader from the Agricultural and Natural Resources agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec12\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4. Observation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal observation is a qualitative data collecting method, as are systematic data collection methods. The Kebele chairperson, voluntary farmers, enumerator, development agents (DAs), and the researcher guided field observations of adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties at the farm level. The researcher was able to take notes on certain observations ahead of time. During the observation period, the researcher took notes on the yield circumstances of adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties, as well as practical considerations. During the observation period, the researcher took notes on the yield conditions of improved maize varieties adopters and non-adopters, as well as maize production practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec13\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the primary data, the researcher employed a descriptive statistical method. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data analysis because the data collected was both qualitative and quantitative. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods was used. For the investigation, the researcher used cross-sectional data. Farmers who planted at least one of the improved maize varieties at least for the 2020/21 cropping season were classified as adopters, whereas farmers who did not plant the improved maize varieties in the given cropping season were classified as non-adopters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results And Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec14\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo achieve the study\u0026apos;s goal, 143 respondents were chosen from two rural Kebeles in the Abuna Gindeberat area (Oborra and Gute Andode) and questioned by enumerators who were hired for the job. This section describes some of the demographic and socioeconomic features of the sampled respondents, such as age, sex, level of education, family size, animal ownership, and farm size.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Age and Family Size of Sampled Household Head\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge of house hold head\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec15\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Field Survey, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe minimum and maximum ages of the sampled respondents were 24 and 69, respectively, according to the survey results. The average age was 52.34 years, with a standard deviation of 12.219 years. The average family size of those who responded to the survey was determined to be 7.36 individuals. With a standard deviation of 2.348, this is greater than the national average of 4.6 (UN, 2017). The sampled respondents\u0026apos; minimum and maximum family sizes were 3 and 12, respectively (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). According to the survey, 16.1 percent of families are headed by women, while 83.9 percent are headed by men. This shows that males are more involved in maize production than females. This also implies that there is a gender division of labor based on socio-cultural factors. According to survey results, 54.5 percent of sampled household heads are illiterate, while 45.5 percent are literate (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab2\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Farm Size and Livestock Ownership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarm size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.89170\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLivestock ownership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.73408\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Field Survey, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec16\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe sampled respondents\u0026apos; average farm size is 1.7010, with a standard deviation of.89170. Respondents\u0026apos; lowest and maximum land holding sizes are 0.50 hectares and 5.00 hectares, respectively (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The sampled respondents\u0026apos; minimum and highest livestock ownership was 0.75 and 26.87, respectively, with an average TLU of 8.2061 and a standard deviation of 4.73408.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Section2\" id=\"Sec17\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePractices of Farmers toward Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIf a farmer utilized at least one of the improved maize types, he or she is considered an adopter; otherwise, he or she is considered a non-adopter during the cropping season of 2020/2021. Smallholder farmers in the research area favor improved maize varieties that have higher production potential, disease resistance, and marketability under normal conditions. Subsistence and small-scale agriculture are directly or indirectly important to small-holder farmers in the studied areas. Agriculture progress is considered as critical for long-term pro-poor economic development, food security, and poverty reduction. However, the agricultural sector\u0026apos;s performance has been dismal, and its expansion has lagged behind population growth. The extension of cultivated land and the application of chemical fertilizers result in a rise in agricultural production. Smallholder farmers do not pay attention to soil nutrient loss during this production process. This has an impact on the agricultural seed technology production process. As a result, the government provided lime stone (nora) to manage soil acidity for several crop kinds in the 2018/2019 production year.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab3\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypes of Maize Seed Varieties Planted in Sampled Kebeles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeed types\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal seed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBh-661\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBh-540\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBh-546\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBh-547\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJibat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec18\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Survey Result, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt is critical to boost the adoption of production-enhancing technology in order to address the production limitation that occurs in the research region. Despite the fact that maize is a basic crop in the study areas, production per hectare of land is only 28 quintal (AGAO, 2020). This low yield is attributed to a lack of adoption of improved maize cultivars. Maize is grown in all of the district\u0026apos;s agro-ecological zones. BH-661, BH-546, BH-540, BH-547, Jibat are the modified maize varieties used for production in the district. These are grown in the woina-dega (32%), and limu, shone kinds are grown in the kola (68%) of the district (AGAO, 2020). Both local seed and improved seed are now used for production in the sampled locations. The sorts of maize seed varieties utilized for seedling by farmers are described in percentages and frequencies in Table (3). Farmers employ recycled improved seed, Mirxi Zari, Fesho, Jimma, Ji-Sade, Limat, Kambata. Bh-661 (10.5%), Bh-540 (7.7%), Bh-546 (3.5%), Bh-547 (2.1%), Jibat (1.4%), Limu (1.4%), and Shone (7.7%) are all certified seeds. In the district\u0026apos;s woina dega areas, Bh-661 is the most densely populated among small-scale farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShone is largely performed and populated in the district\u0026apos;s kolla locations. According to the same survey, of the improved maize varieties promoted, BH660 was grown by 27% of households on approximately 21% of the maize area, whereas BH54 was grown by about 6% of farmers on about 9% of the maize area during the same season and BH543, BHQP542, Morka, Melkassa-1, Melkassa-4, and AMH800 are some of the less popular maize types among sample farmers (Awoke, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec19\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1. Land preparation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarmers choose farm area for maize production based on a variety of characteristics, both consciously and unconsciously. Soil productivity, soil type, and the preceding crop in the rotation are all important factors in site selection, and maize is assigned to the most fertile fields among the studied areas. Only 41.6 percent of the respondents had embraced land preparation measures, despite the fact that 46.4 percent of the respondents were aware of them (Pickson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Farmers prepare ground for maize production by plowing it with oxen. Farmers who lack oxen make various arrangements such as renting, borrowing, and walitti hidhachu (two farmers each owing one ox joined together and used them turn by turn). In the research region, land preparation for maize production takes 1\u0026ndash;2, 3 or 3\u0026ndash;5 times, depending on the soil. A good effective depth, desirable morphological qualities, efficient internal drainage, and an ideal moisture regime, as well as sufficient and balanced amounts of plant nutrients, are all characteristics of a healthy maize soil. According to the survey, adopters of improved maize varieties in the study areas are ploughed 1\u0026ndash;2 times (1.4 percent), 3 times (1.4 percent), and 4 times (1.4 percent) (23.1 percent). shows that adopters plough 3\u0026ndash;5 times (9.8%), 3 times (23.1%), 3\u0026ndash;5 times (9.8%) while non-adopters plough 1\u0026ndash;2 times (23.1%), 3 times (39.9%), and 3\u0026ndash;5 times (2.8%). In comparison to users of certified seed, non-adopters of improved maize varieties did not fully embrace packaging practices of maize production. Around (79.2%) of those polled had embraced seed-based techniques, with 91.9 percent of those polled being aware of them (Pickson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec20\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2. Seed Preparation and Plantation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab4\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeed Preparation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeed Preparation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCertified seed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal seed from neighbors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal seed from local market\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOwn seed from previous harvest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section4\" id=\"Sec21\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Survey Result, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarmers prepare seed that is either locally grown or certified. The results of the survey revealed that adopters of improved maize varieties used certified seed (34.3 percent), whereas non-adopters used local seed obtained through various mechanisms. Local seed from neighbors (11.2%), local seed from a local market (18.2%), and own seed from a previous harvest (36.4%) were found in the survey results (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). On average, 35.3 percent of the sample households sourced their improved seed from BOANR, indicating the important role of government agencies in provision of agricultural inputs while 24.1 percent and 21.8 percent of the households obtained their improved seed from neighboring farmers and farmers\u0026rsquo; cooperatives, respectively, which is an indication of the augmenting roles that farmers can play in organizing themselves to avoid over dependence on government (Semahegn et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The usage of recycled improved maize varieties reduces output depending on the variety. The disadvantages of hybrid maize include higher seed costs (high production costs), a scarcity of supplies, a lack of finance, and the need to buy seeds every year (Sime, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Hybrid seeds are essentially not recycled due to genetic segregation, which increases farmers\u0026apos; seasonal reliance on institutional seed supply (Sime, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Early planting in the season, as recommended by the extension package, has been found to be the most important element in enhancing yield and avoiding insect assault. The depth at which maize seed is planted is critical for keeping it moist and protected from rats, birds, and drying. According to the district\u0026apos;s agricultural extension package, the recommended planting depth is usually 5\u0026ndash;12 cm, depending on the type of soil. Germination is slowed by deep planting. Maize can be planted in moisture-stressed locations by planting the seed deeper than usual and covering the planting hole with a little amount of soil. Agro-ecological conditions and the types of certified seed planted affect the spacing between rows and between seeds. Seeds produced in the district\u0026apos;s woina dega areas, for example, are planted with 0.75m x 0.25m (one maize seed per hole) or 0.80m x 0.40 (two seeds per hole) spacing between rows, and 0.75m x 0.25m (one seed per hole) spacing for kolla areas (AGAO, 2020). More over half of the respondents (54.4%) were aware of sowing methods, however only 49.1% had implemented them (Sime, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec22\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3. Fertilizer application rate\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe rate of fertilizer application is determined by the types of soil nutrients. The district agricultural office recommends applying 150 kg of NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B/NPS and 200 urea per hectare of farm-land in low-nutrient farmlands and 100 kg NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B/NPS and 100 kg urea application rate in less likely affected soil nutrients\u0026apos; areas of farm lands. The results of the survey demonstrate that there is a significant difference in fertilizer application rate between adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties (chi-square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.315, DF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, p0.005). 33.5 percent of non-adopters used less than minimum recommended package, 18.2% of non-adopters used minimum recommended package, and 14% of non-adopters used larger than minimum recommended package (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). According to (Pickson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) only 72.2 percent of respondents were aware of the usage of chemical fertilizers, whereas 77.9% had used them.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab5\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertilizer Application Rate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"9\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo-adopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94) Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertilizer application rate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e˂ 200 kg/ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200k g/ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e˃ 200 kg/ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.2 14.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.315\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"13\"\u003eSource: Survey Result, 2020\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertilizer application differs from farm land to farm land in the studied sites as It is determined by the soil\u0026apos;s nutrient concentration. Farmers admit that small-scale irrigation involves a significant input of technical and physical resources, is knowledge heavy, and is reliant on marketing facilities, despite the use of fertilizers and improved seeds (Jha et al., n.d.). The results of the survey revealed that fertilizer use is imbalanced in terms of soil fertility, as measured by the suggested extension package and type of fertilizer application rate. The application of fertilizer in the research regions is thought to boost yields and replace lost soil nutrients required for maize cultivation. As a result, the government is currently giving blended fertilizers such as NPS, NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B, and NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Zn based on the sorts of leached soil nutrients found in the different Kebeles within the district (AGAO, 2020). The availability of a blanket (identical fertilizer rate regardless of soil type and fertility status) national application rate of 100 kg of DAP and 100 kg of urea for a hectare of maize crop is another constraint of the banding approach.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec23\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4. Top dressing\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccording to the survey, adopters applied top dressing one time (21.7%), two times (9.8%), and 2.8 percent did not apply top dressing at all. Non-adopters applied top dressing once (21.7%), twice (0.0%), and 41 percent of non-adopters did not apply top dressing at all (see Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Top dressing is one of the methods for applying urea to maize plants. The row plantation provides a pleasant environment for top dressing. According to the poll, 34.3 percent of adopters planted in row, 0.0 percent did not plant in row, and 53.1 percent of non-adopters planted in row, 12.6 percent in broad casting.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab6\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTop Dressing of Maize Varieties\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Adopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94) Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTop Dressing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne Times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo Times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot Top Dressed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0 41.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Survey Result, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec24\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe recommended package of urea is split in three parts, and half of the urea is administered during plantation by combining with NPS/NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B. The remaining urea is used as a top dressing after 35\u0026ndash;40 days after planting, and a third top dressing is administered once the weeds have been controlled and first flowering has begun (AGAO, 2020). During plantation, NPS/NPS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B is applied completely using korki (one korki weighs 4g) and 3-5g of fertilizer is administered with a spacing of 3-5cm between seed and fertilizer. When it comes to applying top dressing, there is a distinction between adopters and non-adopters among the sampled respondents. Non-adopters did not use urea in the same way that adopters did. This could be because they assume that local seed doesn\u0026apos;t require as many practices as certified seed. Due to a lack of access, tardy supply, and unaffordability of fertilizers, most maize farmers utilize less than half of the required fertilizer rate for maize production in the area. However, even though organic fertilizer has the potential to minimize the demand for mineral fertilizers, which raise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, its use is limited (Teshome et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The yield advantage of synchronized row-sowing and banding fertilizer systems, in addition to other advantages like as better agronomic management, are the main reasons for the rising interest in fertilizer application (Sime, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec25\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5. Weeding and protection of maize\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results of the survey revealed that there is a difference in maize weeding techniques between adopters and non-adopters. 17.5 percent of adopters weed three times or more, while 13.3 percent of farmers weed four or more times. Weeding was practiced by non-adopters 3.5 percent once, 34.3 percent twice, 27.2 percent three times, and 0.7 percent four or more times (see Table 7). This finding suggests that there are variations in maize weeding between adopters and non-adopters. In a similar vein, the vast majority of respondents (93.3 percent) were well-informed on illness control, but only 81.3 percent put it into practice (Pickson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). One of the most important aspects of maize production is weeding. In some circumstances, manpower alone is insufficient to weed maize. This is because weeding operations for other crops compete for scarce labor during important maize weeding seasons. They employed chemical herbicide to control weeds during the manpower shortage.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab7\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeeding of Maize Varieties\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"9\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo-adopter(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94) Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThree times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFour and above times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.3 27.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"13\"\u003eSource: Survey Result, 2020\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarmers mentioned the issue of pests and diseases hurting their production during the focus group discussion. Pests and diseases are a severe problem in maize production, but their severity varies from season to season and location to location (Benti and Joel K, 1993). Maize stem borer is a field pest that feeds on maize after it has matured. In research regions, worm and insect pests have a significant role in preventing seedling establishment. Maize was occasionally affected by leaf blight and smut diseases. Gerri America (American worm) has been introduced into the study locations and is wreaking havoc on maize plantations (see Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"Section3\" id=\"Sec26\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe high value of maize as a food crop, as well as the expanding demand for the Stover as animal fodder and a source of fuel for rural families, have contributed to its popularity in Ethiopia. Approximately 88 percent of Ethiopian maize is consumed as food, in both green and dry grain form. Industrial maize has also helped to meet rising demand. Currently, only a small amount of maize is utilized as feed, but this is increasing to sustain a quickly growing urbanization and poultry industry (Abate et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In Ethiopia, smallholder farms account for more than 95% of total corn area and production. Animal traction is used by farmers for soil preparation and cultivation; nearly all production is rain-fed, with irrigated regions accounting for only around 1% of the total (Abate et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Smallholder farmers confront price limits on both inputs and outputs, thus imported cereals are offered at subsidized prices to \u0026lsquo;stabilize local grain prices,\u0026apos; and food aid deliveries depress local grain prices. Ethiopian agriculture in the twenty-first century is characterized by delayed agricultural input delivery, a lack of credit markets, and a lack of access to agricultural technologies (Diriba, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The second-largest area allocated to maize production is 20.8 percent of total cereal area, with production accounting for 31.4 percent of total cereal output; maize accounts for over one-third of all cereal production in Ethiopia (Diriba, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Maize has the greatest impact on the national food equation in terms of volume of output, at least among the general population. The area under maize cultivation has increased by 2.76 percent each year, production by 5.0 percent, and yield by 2.19 percent over the years (Diriba, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research was carried out in Ethiopia's Abuna Gindeberat area, in the western Shoa zone of Oromia Region. The district is one of twenty-two (22) rural districts in the western Shoa zone, and is roughly 138 kilometers from Ambo, the zonal town's seat. Maize is an important crop in this area, as it provides a source of income and is consumed at home. Government agencies such as district agricultural offices, agricultural research centers, and other nongovernmental organizations have introduced new technologies that include improved varieties. In the research area, however, adoption of improved maize seed varieties was not adequately studied. Even while farmers in the research area adopted more maize varieties, they did not fully apply suggested packaging procedures on their fields. Site selection and land preparation, seedling system and fertilizer application, top dressing, weeding, and protection Land preparation for maize cultivation takes place on a regular basis, rather than as part of an extension package. Farmers prepare seed for seedlings that have been obtained through various sources, either certified or locally. All adopters and roughly 53.1 percent of non-adopters planted in the row, with the remaining 12.6 percent planting in broad casting. Between adopters and non-adopters, there is a difference in weeding and maize variety protection techniques. In comparison to non-adopters, Adopters used more fertilizers, applied urea as a top dressing, and looked for inspections from time to time for insects and weeds.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contribution: Adunaa Amante Beyene:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConceptualization, Data collection, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors would like to thank Ambo University and Abuna Gindeberat district for their support\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe author declares no Competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e Abuna Gindeberat district and Author\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026lsquo;\u0026rsquo;Not applicable\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;\u0026rsquo;Not applicable\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026lsquo;\u0026rsquo;Not applicable\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbate, T., Shiferaw, B., Menkir, A., Wegary, D., \u0026amp; Kebede, Y. (2015). \u003cem\u003eFactors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e. 965\u0026ndash;981. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0488-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12571-015-0488-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsia, E., Asia, S., \u0026amp; Asia, E. (2020). \u003cem\u003eK 1997 2020\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAwoke, B. G. (2017). \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Research for Ethiopian Renaissance 50th Year Anniversary of EIAR: Agricultural Mechanization Research in Ethiopia : Challenges and the Way Forward\u003c/em\u003e (Issue October).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBooklet, D. (2017). \u003cem\u003eWorld Population Prospects\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemese, C., Adenew, B., \u0026amp; Mellor, J. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s agricultural sector policy and investment framework (pif) 2010\u0026ndash;2020\u003c/em\u003e (Issue September 2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiriba, G. (2020). \u003cem\u003eAgricultural and Rural Transformation in Ethiopia Obstacles, Triggers and Reform Considerations Policy Working Paper 01 / 2020\u003c/em\u003e (Issue January).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrote, U., Fasse, A., Nguyen, T. T., \u0026amp; Erenstein, O. (2021). \u003cem\u003eFood Security and the Dynamics of Wheat and Maize Value Chains in Africa and Asia\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(February), 1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJha, S., Kaechele, H., \u0026amp; Lana, M. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eExploring Farmers \u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Agricultural Technologies: A Case Study from Tanzania\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (2017). In \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Extension Strategy of Ethiopia Agricultural Extension Strategy of Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e (p.\u0026nbsp;59). Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePawlak, K. (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe Role of Agriculture in Ensuring Food Security in Developing Countries: Considerations in the Context of the Problem of Sustainable Food Production\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePickson, R. B. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSmallholder Farmers \u0026rsquo; Perceptions, Adaptation Constraints, and Determinants of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Chengdu\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032638\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440211032638\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSemahegn, Y., Shimelis, H., Laing, M., \u0026amp; Mathew, I. (2021). Farmers \u0026rsquo; preferred traits and perceived production constraints of bread wheat under drought \u0026ndash; prone agro \u0026ndash; ecologies of Ethiopia. Agriculture \u0026amp; Food Security, 1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00290-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40066-021-00290-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSime, G. (2018). \u003cem\u003eSustainability of Improved Crop Varieties and Agricultural Practices: A Case Study in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agriculture8110177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeklewold, H., Kassie, M., \u0026amp; Shiferaw, B. (2013). \u003cem\u003eAdoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(3), 597\u0026ndash;623. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1477-9552.12011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeshome, H., Tesfaye, K., Dechassa, N., Tana, T., \u0026amp; Huber, M. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSmallholder Farmers \u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Climate Change and Adaptation Practices for Maize Production in Eastern Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNCTAD, 2020. (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe least developed countries report 2020 productive capacities for the new decade\u003c/em\u003e. united nation puplicationns. un.org/puplications\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeng, D., Mills, B. F., Norton, G. W., \u0026amp; Zeng, D. (2014). \u003cem\u003eThree Essays on Adoption and Impacts of Improved Maize Varieties in Ethiopia\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Abuna Gindeberat, Adoption practices, Improved varieties, Maize, Smallholder farmers","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground of study:\u003c/strong\u003e Improving agricultural performance is one of the essential issues that must be addressed in order to improve the food security of the majority of farmers. The adoption of improved high yielding maize varieties is not extensively implemented among small holder farmers, despite the fact that maize is one of the most stable foods populated and its production is widely practiced by farmers in all agro-ecological conditions of the district. The purpose of this study was to examine adoption practices of improved maize varieties in order to generate data that might be used to improve adoption practices. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethodology:\u003c/strong\u003e A three-stage sample strategy was used in this study, which comprised a purposeful selection of districts and Kebeles, as well as random sampling. Stratified sampling was used to identify adopters and non-adopters, while simple random sampling was used to choose respondents. The study is based on primary data collected from a sample of 143 respondents. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e The study discovered that adopters and non-adopters of improved maize varieties differ in their land preparation, fertilizer application, topdressing, weeding and protection practices, as well as seed preparation and seedling assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e adoption decision and practices of adoption of improved maize varieties were driven by a host of institutional, demographic, psychological and socio-economic factors.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Practices by Small Holder Farmers in Abuna Gindeberat, Ethiopia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-05-16 20:09:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458428/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a8f1137b-d42d-4412-b01b-1a80558af665","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 16th, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2022-05-16T20:09:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2022-05-16 20:09:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-1458428","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-1458428","identity":"rs-1458428","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"WrCJVZZCHTDjtuVLN7oU0","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}