AMBO UNIVERSITY

College of Agriculture and Veterinary Science

Department of Agribusiness and Value Chain Management

A Senior Research Requirement for Bachelor of Science Degree in Agribusiness

and Value Chain Management

Title:-Constraints of Agricultural Input Supply and Its Impact on Small

Scale Farming; the Case of Ambo District

By: - Gosa Deti

Bezabih Melaku

Advisor: - Fikadu

Submitted To: Department Of Agribusiness and Value Chain Management

April, 2015

Ambo, university
Table of Contents page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................II

LIST OFTABLE...............................................................................................................................................II

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION....................................................................................................1

ABSTRACTS..................................................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................1

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

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

1.2 Statement of the problem.................................................................................................................2

1.3. Objective of the Study......................................................................................................................3

1.4. Research questions:..........................................................................................................................3

1.5 Significance of the Study....................................................................................................................3

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study....................................................................................................4

CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................................................4

2. Literature review.....................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Characteristics of small scale farming: definition and concept..........................................................4

2.2. Main farm inputs required by farmers.............................................................................................5

2.3. Farm Input Constraint (Impacts) and the Need for Credit................................................................7

2.4. Conceptual Frame Work of the Study...............................................................................................7

CHAPTER THREE..........................................................................................................................................9

3. Methodology of the Study.......................................................................................................................9

3.1. Description of the Study Area...........................................................................................................9

II
 3.2. Ecological climate.............................................................................................................................9

3.3. Demographics of the study area.....................................................................................................10

3.4. Data required..................................................................................................................................10

3.5. Method of data collection..............................................................................................................10

3.5.1. Methods for primary data collection...........................................................................................10

3.5.2. Method of secondary data collection..........................................................................................11

3.6. Sampling size and Sampling Technique..........................................................................................11

3.7. Method of data analysis.................................................................................................................11

3.7.1. Dependent variable....................................................................................................................12

3.7.2. Independent variables................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................................16

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................16

4.1.1. Distribution of the respondents by sex........................................................................................16

4.1.2. Distribution of the respondents by educational status................................................................16

4.1.3. Distribution of the respondent’s b age........................................................................................17

4.1.4. Distribution of the respondents by marital status.......................................................................18

4.2. Distribution of the respondents by land size..................................................................................18

4.3. Total land per each category of land use type................................................................................19

4.4. Forms and trends of farming (2005-2009)......................................................................................19

4.5. Major farm input problems of farmers (2007-2011)......................................................................21

4.6. Input problems (2007-2011)...........................................................................................................21

4.7. The relationship between agricultural input supply and forms of farming.....................................22

III
 4.8. Uses of agricultural inputs by farmers............................................................................................23

4.9. Impact of agricultural inputs on small scale farming......................................................................23

4.10. Source of land for the ownership.................................................................................................24

4.11. Source of income for the farmers.................................................................................................25

CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................................26

5. Conclusion and Recommendation.........................................................................................................26

5.1. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................26

5.2. Recommendation...........................................................................................................................27

6. Reference..............................................................................................................................................28

7. Appendixes...........................................................................................................................................30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all we would like to thank the almighty God who made us successful to achieve the desired aim.
We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to our advisor, Mr. Fekadu Tadesse, for his
constrictive critics and advice on the preparation of this project by scarifying his precious time in reading
and correcting the paper. We would like to appreciate all the experts, for their cooperation in making our
study meaning full. Finally, we would also thanks to all ABVM workers; work in computer center for
their patience.

IV
V
1
List of Acronyms and abbreviation

CSA Central Statistical Authority

DA Development Agent

FAO Food and Agricultural Organizations

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HA Hectare

HHH House Hold Head

MOA Ministry Of Agriculture

NGO Non-governmental Organization

2
ABSTRACTS

Agriculture is a principal economic activity mainly for those developing contries. However,
developed countries whose agriculture’s relative share to gross domestic product is smallest, Stll
supports this sector through subsidies assigning effective farm land ownership rights, providing
inputs to their small scale farmers and facilitating agricultural markets. There exist institutional
and economic constraints such as poor credit supply, market imperfection, excessive farm land
fragmentation, etc and as a result agriculture remains less productive and most of the time at the
substance level ( Bhadur. 2000). This study is intended to analyze the impact of agricultural
input supply on small scale farming in the study area; to examine the trends and forms of
farming practiced by the farmers, to identify the farm input constraint existed in the study area,
to assess input supply and its link with forms of farming. In the survey three different forms of
farming were identified. These are farmers who cultivate their own lands, rent out their land and
rent in other’s land. A formal and informal survey was conducted to gather information in Ambo
district by using descriptive sampling techniques. The sampling technique used on the selected
number of 40 respondents. The major output of the study indicates that agricultural input supply
is poor in the study area. Moreover, input supply is influenced by different factors like input
price, credit constraint, farm size and annual income. Therefore, it is recommended that,
improving the efficiency of credit system, timely and sufficient amount of delivering credit to
farmers who engaged on crop production has to be considered, establishing efficient extension
service in the study area is mandatory.

Key words: Agriculture, GDP, Agricultural input supply, forms of farming, input constraint,
small scale farming ,formal and informal survey.

3
 CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

1.1. Back ground of the Study

Agriculture is a principal economic activity mainly for developing countries. However for
develop countries agriculture is relative share to gross domestic product (SDP) is smallest. But
still supports this sector through subsidies, assigning effective farm land ownership rights,
providing inputs to their small-scale farmers and facilitating agricultural markets (jack Thurston,
2008: Deininger, 2003). But, in developing countries the realities reside on the reverse one.
There exist institutional and economic constraints such as poor credit supply, market
imperfections, excessive farm land fragmentation, etc and as a result agriculture remains less
productive and most of the time at the subsistence level ((Bhaduri 2000).

In Ethiopia, around 94.4% of all farming is practiced by small scale rural peasant household
farmers (CSA, 2007) such small scale farmers primarily produce for their subsistence and the
size of their production unit is small (Abrar, 2004). Small scale rural household farmers are also
exposed to shortage of food and other basic needs. In addition to this , given the growing land
pressure and limit purchasing power of those small scale rural household farmers, acredit on
farm inputs, like fertilizer and improved seeds, for the benefit of the resource poor farmers is
critical to ensure the food security (Bekele 2003), but when credits and resources are insufficient
at all, small scale farmers may choose either to farm their land using less efficient method of
production, or may decide to rent out their land to share croppers , or even may sell it for cash in
partial or in total and finally will receive lower income from their land. This trade off occurs
most frequently in women headed households where resource constraints are greatest
(agriculture and economic developments).

Abrar (2004) also supports this argument, where he found that male headed farmers have more
access farm inputs capital better than female headed farmers. Indeed, some argues that land
farming in the form of share cropping is efficient, while some others against argument and said it

1
is inefficient and is not a rational decision for the leasers (a Land owner who leases the land he
possesses) and finally results in lower return to him. This is because the cultivator must repay
part of the output to the leaser (landowner) and hence employ less labor and other farm inputs
oriented in land (marshal, 1890: Jonson, 1950). In arguing for essentiality or credits, Bereket
(1995) said that thought it is likely to cultivate extra farm land for share cropping or others forms
by farmers who have access to more factors (oxen, labor, fertilizer, improved seed, etc), other
who faced this factor constraints decided to lease or even sold their farmland to others.

Specifically in Ambo most of small household have been faced input supply constraints for long
time. So this constraint or idea put interest or motive the research to conduct the constraints of
agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale farming.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Development of farmers as a whole is influenced to a great extent by the availability of

agricultural input supply. The full benefit of small scale agriculture development can’t be
realized unless government support systems are created that provide the necessary incentive,
economic opportunities and access to needed credits and farm input to enable small scale
cultivator expand (raise) their production and productivity.(kriffen,2003).

Farming is hardly possible without necessary inputs so farmer may decide not to farm his/her
land if they faced a constraint. In the Ambo Woreda small scale farmer didn’t have enough input
due to different constraint. Among the problem areas of small scale farmers in the Ambo woreda
related to inputs specifically that all concerned bodies including researchers believe to exist
includes; lack of focus of government for agricultural input supply, increased input price, credits
constraints’, farm size, annual income, farmers cultural and willingness of farmers to accept and
adopt new technologies.

A study of Ethiopian smallholders by Bonger et al. (2004) found that half of farmers surveyed
for the study reported that fertilizer arrived after planting, while 32 percent reported Underweight
bags, 25 percent complained of poor quality, and almost 40 percent reported that their planting
was delayed by fertilizer problems. Above mentioned problem areas were thoroughly studied
both at Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi peasant associations to clearly identify the real constraints of

2
agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale farming. So the aim of this paper was to
identify the constraints of agricultural input supply, roles and its impact on small scale farming in
the study area.

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General objective

The general objective of this study is assessing the constraint of agricultural inputs supply on
small scale farming in the Ambo Woreda.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

 To identify the farm inputs constraints existed in the study area
 To assess the supply of inputs and the link it has with forms of farming
 To identify influential factors for the smooth functioning of input supply

1.4. Research questions:

Main research question:

What is the role of agricultural input supply on small scale farming?
Sub-research questions:
1. What are the trends and forms of farming practiced by the farmers in the study area?
2. What are the farm input constraints existed in study area?
3. What is the status of input supply and the link it has with forms of farming?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study provides information on constraint of agricultural input supply and its impact on
small scale farming. The finding of the study may also serve as a base line data for further
research on the same area and for the districts.
Taken as a whole, this study assess the impact of input supply an small scale farming in order
to provide a meaning full; insight and contribute to effects aimed at ensuring increased food
availability through sustainable production.
Hence, this research proposal could be significant because it attempt to address input supply
and related problems the affect farming activity and hinder productivity. In addition, it could

3
 also enable to have some guide line on what type of inputs should the government give
emphasis to provide for farmers. The finding of this study could also use in guiding policy
makers and development planners who are concerned about input provision in the study area.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This research has been conducted in Ambo district, oromia regional sate of Ethiopia particularly
in Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi kebeles. It has focus on these two kebeles peasant association with
regard to the constraints of agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale farming.
During this study at these particular peasant associations the researchers encountered a lot of
problems of which some of them are, absence of well documented materials in the extension
office about the constraints of agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale farming,
lack of fund and shortage of time, lack of transportation (taxi), irrelevant information from both
extension workers and farmers.

CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature review

2.1 Characteristics of small scale farming: definition and concept

The phrase small scale farming can be defined in line with agriculture. Accordingly, agriculture,
in webs, internet and different texts can be defined as:The science or art of cultivating the soli
harvesting crops and raising livestock. The science or art of purposeful lend of crop and livestock
to men, and in varying degrees, the preparation of these products for men’s use and their

4
disposal. On the ground of the above definition of the agriculture, small scale farming can also
be defined as:- A family based nature of production, with the irrevocable commitment to family
labor force i.e the family head has to find employment to all family members, which is not also a
business and the size of production unit is small whether measured in terms of the volume of
resources employed or output produced (thoner et al, 2000). As a production unit, this small
scale farming is characterized by the smallness of size and high degree of production orienting
for self-sufficiency. In Ethiopia around 94.4% of all farming is practiced by small scale rural
peasant household farmers (CSA, 2007). Such types of small scale farmers may choose either to
farm land using less efficient method of production, or may decide to rent- out their land to share
–croppers, or even may sell it for cash in partial or in total and finally will receive lower income
from their land. This trade off occurs most frequently in women –headed households where
resource constraints are greatest (agriculture and economic development). Abrar (2004) also
supports this argument, where he found that male –headed farmers have more access to farm
inputs and capital better than female headed farmers

2.2. Main farm inputs required by farmers

2.2.1 Farm land

In the agrarian economies of rural sector land is a major input of production (Hussein, 2006).
Some says that having small acreage of farm land creates efficiency of production, while other
opposed this justifying on the basis of economies dependent on agriculture is important for two
reasons. First, since land tends to be scarcest factor of production in traditional agriculture, there
is a close and direct correlation between farm size and family income (agriculture and economic
development bearue, 2009). In other words the economic wellbeing of farm households depends
to a large extent on the amount of land to which it has access. Second, the concentration of land
in the hands of few, which still exists as latifundio of latin America, and rich land lords in Asia,
keeps land productivity in efficient (Morris 1998; Torado, 2000). Indeed; this in quality in the
distribution of agricultural land may have adverse effect particularly on masses of land less and
insufficient land holding peasants. First, the land they posses may not be sufficient and their
option is to rent –in land from others (Bhardan, 2000), and thus, they may acquire loans which
are to be obtained from legal financial institutions or rural lenders. Nevertheless, while there is
lower problem of borrowing from legal financial institutions, rate of borrowing from rural
5
lenders, on the other, may be distorted in favor of the lender (Bharduri, 2000). In addition,
returns of these poor farmers from their cultivation may be insufficient, as part of their yield is
taken away by land owners (FAO, 2008).

2.2.2 Fertilizer

The use of fertilizer is essential especially when there is population pressure and land problem
(Tegegn, 2002), because it increases the return from farming. However, the use of fertilizer is
influenced by the ratio of its nutrient price to output price, information and access through
extension, credit marketing service, etc. (Taye, 2000). In Ethiopia, the use of fertilizer to small
scale crop production is growing steadily from year to year. This is partly because of high
population pressure in different fertile Dega areas (Yibeltal, 1999; Berhanu, 2001) and partly
because of falling land fertility due to continuous cultivation as well as soil erosion.

2.2.3 Improved seeds

Even if improved seeds are believed to be increase productivity in Ethiopia, small scale farmers
rarely use improved seeds supplied to the by peasant’s cooperatives and input supply branches of
agricultural offices. For examples, in year 2007 cropping period, farmers use only 2.7% of
improved seeds on their land (FAO, 2000). This low demand for improved seeds is likely
because of low information, on the one hand, risk and uncertainty issues, on other hand,
(Todaro, 2000), i.e a farmer in Ethiopia usually choose seeds with high yield and high output
variability. In the same year, 97.3% of small scale farmers use local seeds obtain from previous
harvest either by farmers themselves following the traditional output-farm selection process
whereby the farmer identifies next year’s needs stock while it is maturing in the field and gives
special protection, or by buying from preferred seeds stock kept by other farmers in the same
locality (FAO, 2008).

2.2.4 Labor and Oxen

In least developed countries agriculture, labor is a major input as to land (Todaro, 2000), labor
utilized on farms may be either family labor or hired labor to which wage payment is made on

6
daily, weekly, monthly or etc basis according to the agreement between the labor and the
employer (house hold farmers).

Households with large working labor will be in a position to manage the labor-intensive
agricultural activity. Moreover, large working force in a family means the family may not need
to hire more additional labor and the money saved due to the use of labor force could be used for
purchasing other crop production inputs (Rahmeto, 2007).

2.3. Farm Input Constraint (Impacts) and the Need for Credit

Input constraints or unable to get inputs is a condition were the farmers is unable to obtain
necessary input required for farming. Thus, as farming is hardly possible without necessary
inputs, and a farmer may decide not to farm his/her land if faced such an input constraints. Farm
input constraint is aggravated if there is credit constraint. A farm house hold is said to be credit
constrained only when it would like to borrow is greater than lenders allow, or if its proffered
demand exceeds the amount the lenders are willing to supply (Ducker and Rosenthal, 1993).

Credit markets in developing countries are in efficient due to market imperfections such as high
ceilings imposed by the governments, monopoly power often exercised by informal lenders (bell
et,al1997). Indeed, lenders may not be allowed legally to charge above certain on loans (although
in formal sectors in practice may dos so, as for example, (Emaneet. al, 2005) noted in Ethiopia.
The source of farm input constraints are many, but in developing countries the structure of land
ownership across farmers is unequal and this is probably an important determinant of the existing
inequitable distribution of rural income, and wealth (Zeller et. Al, 1989; Banjee, 2001). To
negotiate such income inequality among such rural house hold farmers, the government should
create a support system that provide the necessary incentives, access to needed credit and inputs
so that small scale farmers could increase their output (Kriffen, 2003).

2.4. Conceptual Frame Work of the Study

Agricultural input supply has a great contribution in enhancing the productivity of agricultural
commodities. It also plays important roles in bridging modern agricultural technologies to the
peasant sector. According to different sources and the real world situations, the agricultural

7
 input supply is influenced by different factors like; credit constraint. Input price, farm size, and
annual income. In the survey three different forms of farming were identified. These are
farmers who cultivate their own lands, rent out their land and rent in others’ land. We have
identified those farmers who were marginalized by insufficient access/supply of farm inputs
decided to rent out their land. That means we identified those farmers that cannot provide
enough input for his /her land and then decided to rent out their land to others who can provide
necessary input for his/her land.

Lack of available agricultural input Age, Lack of access to

supply (fertilizer, chemicals Education credit
(insecticide, pesticide), improved
seed, labor and oxen, farm land,
etc..). Constraints of agricultural input Shortage of supply
supply

Annual income of
farmers
Time of supply

Increased input price Storage facility, extension Farm size, type of road
contact used, access to market

Figure 1: Conceptual frame work of input supply

8
CHAPTER THREE

3. Methodology of the Study

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study will be conducted in Oromia regional state west showa zone, Ambo district
particularly Ambo agricultural input supply office which are found 115km away from Addis
Ababa on the main road Nekemte. It is located between astronomical gride 80470N – 90210N
and 37020E- 38030E and is capital of west showa zone. . The total area hold by Ambo district is
estimated about 8167killometer square and the elevation varies from 3000 to 3200 meters above
sea levels (Ambo district, Agricultural office, 2007).

3.2. Ecological climate

The district has the mean annual temperature ranging between 15-29 c and the mean annual rain
fall 900-1000mm. The low land, middle land and high land cover 17%, 16% and 20%
respectively. The altitude range of agro climatic zone in the district fall between the 500 and
3200 meter above sea level respecting lowest point of low land and highest point of high land
agro climatic zone (West Shoa zone Agricultural office). The land position of the district is
generally Plato and mountain form.

9
The land in this woreda shows that (89.1%) arable, cultivable (86.1%), was annual crops (2.7%),
pasture (2.8%), forest the remaining (5.4%) considered swampy degraded or otherwise unusable.
teff and nug is important cash crop in this Woreda over 5000 hectares are planted with this crop.

3.3. Demographics of the study area

Ambo district has got 33 rural communities. The 2007 national census reported a total population
of this woreda 113087 (56527 male), and (56560 female), 3% of its population were urban
dwellers. Young, economically working and old age populations accounted for 43%, 54%and
3% respectively. Average family size for rural and urban areas was 5.3 and 4.4 persons
respectively. The woreda crud population density is estimated at 308 persons per kilometer
square. It is the most populated district compared to the other woredas in west showa zone. The
majority of population belongs to Oromo ethnic group. Majority of the population follow
Ethiopian orthodox Christianity with (80%), (2.6%) practiced Islamic religion and (17.4%) were
protestants (Ambo district agricultural office, 2007).

3.4. Data required

In gathering information to perform the research the researchers used both primary and
secondary data. The type of study employed was both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The
qualitative aspect is to analyze the non quantifiable aspects and quantitative data is to collect
quantifiable data. Most qualitative data were collected using observation, interview schedule, and
key informants and individuals’ information survey from DA professionals.

3.5. Method of data collection

3.5.1. Methods for primary data collection

Formal survey

Formal survey was first undertaken to contact the producers and to collect background
information about Agricultural input supply and impact on small scale farming associated with
it. The information generated by this way were useful for subsequent survey carried out by
using semi structured interview schedule and face to face interviews to get information from
each individual producer and processors.
10
 The interview schedule is consisted different types of questions or items, related to the topic of
the research and relevant variables to gather the needed information. Thus structured interview
schedule is developed and used in order to allow the respondents to freely express their opinion
on issues related to the research topic. Then, the researcher gathered data using interview
schedule that was filled out using face to face and direct interview of the respondents
(Cooperative, Agricultural office, research center).

Informal survey

Most qualitative data were collected using interview schedule, key informants, group
discussion, and individual information survey from DA professionals, community leaders and
concerned officials.

3.5.2. Method of secondary data collection

Secondary data was collected using reviewing and careful examination of documents, research
reports, published and unpublished writings, different journals and websites. It was also collected
from Agricultural and land use office, and governmental bodies concerned for the sectors.

3.6. Sampling size and Sampling Technique

A formal and informal survey will conducted to gather information in Ambo districts by using
multi stage proportional descriptive sampling techniques. Firstly the researcher will -select
purposely Ambo Woreda due to time and resource available. Then two kebele will selected
purposively because most of small scale farmers which use input are found in this kebeles such
kind of information can easily found from the woreda agricultural office. Finally a total of
40household respondents (proportionally from two kebele) are randomly select at which the
researcher will be considered as to collect information for questionnaire. This will due to the
select respondent to be more experienced and knowledgeable about the problem.

3.7. Method of data analysis

In this study, descriptive statically tools are used to analyze the quantities data like means,
percentages and frequencies qualitative, assessment mass carried out using key informants and

11
focused group discussion, input supplies survey, farmers, DA’s and government policy
documents content analysis. Dependent variable of the study is agricultural inputs supply. For
this study, independent variables will be identified to influence the dependent variable. These
independent variables that affect dependent variable include age, educational level, farm size
credit constraint and annual income and etc…

3.7.1. Dependent variable

Dependent variable of the study is agricultural inputs supply index. The
variable would operational zed as farmers’ response in terms of the quantity
of required and obtained inputs on the selected crops. It was measured using
demand-supply index of the respondents with structured list of items
selected.

ISI=SxA/DxA+SxB/DxB+SxC/DxC+SyA/DyA+SyB/DyB+SyC/DyC…………
N
Where:
IDSI = Input demand supply index
S= quantity of inputs supplied
D= quantity of inputs demanded/distributed/
A, B, C = Crops (teff, nug and lentil seed)
x, y ……..= are types of inputs
N = number of inputs applicable

3.7.2. Independent variables

For this study, 12 independent variables were hypothesized to influence the
dependent variable. Out of these variables; five, three and four were
continuous, discrete/categorical and dummy respectively.
Independent variables include the personal/demographic, socioeconomic,
situational, and organizational and institutional factors that may influence
the dependent variable. The selection of independent variables is based on
the past research and published literature related to the study .

12
1. Age- the age of the farmer has negative effect on using agricultural inputs
by contributing for risk aversion (Abadi and Pannel, 1999). It is hypothesized
that as the age of the farmer increases the demand for agricultural inputs
will be decrease. Thus it was expected to have negative effect on the
dependent variable. It was measured in year’s equivalent.

2. Educational level- the level of formal education of the farmer is important

variable affecting the probability of using improved agricultural inputs
(Nkonya et al.1997). The better the education level the farmer has the better
will be his understanding concerning the knowledge of improved agricultural
technologies. Thus educational level was assumed to have positive
association with dependent variable. It was measured using categorical
scale.

3. Family labor- a farmer with larger number of family size engaged on

agricultural activities is more likely to be in a position to try to continue using
a potentially profitable production enhancing inputs (Abadi and Pannel,
1999). Thus a farmer with high family labor will have a capacity to use labor
intensive agricultural inputs. The variable was expected to have positive
effect on the demand-supply of inputs. It was measured by man equivalent.

4. Access to credit - the existence of credit institution at a disposal of farmers

will enhance the use of improved agricultural inputs. A study conducted by
Getahun et al., (2000) revealed that access to credit, has a significant and
positive influence on the adoption of improved technology. Therefore, the
variable was expected to have positive effect on the dependent variable. It
was dummy variable with value of 1 for yes and 0 other wise.

5. Storage facility- the presence of storage for agricultural inputs at farmers’

disposal may encourage farmers to demand it timely. Thus it was assumed

13
to have positive relation to the dependent variable. It was dummy variable
with value of 1 for yes and 0 other wise.

6. Extension contact - the more contact the farmer has with extension service,
the more will be the information/knowledge s/he has and the better will be
the use of agricultural inputs (Haji, 2003). Packages developed by Board are
more or less composed of improved agricultural inputs. DAs are responsible
to transfer knowledge about the recommended packages prior
implementation through their regular contact program.

Therefore, it is assumed that farmers who have frequent contact with DAs
are more likely to demand agricultural inputs due to the increased
awareness, and it was expected to affect the dependent variable positively.
It was measured using different levels of frequency scales.

7. Type of road used- limited infrastructure development influences the

production and distribution of agricultural inputs, because of high
transportation and marketing cost (Tesfaye and Shiferaw, 2001). The type of
road used for agricultural inputs delivery may influence the availability of
inputs at farmers’ disposal. Therefore the variable expected to influence the
dependent variable negatively. It was discrete variable measured 0 for
absence, 1for all weathered and 2 for winter season road.

8. Distance from nearest input market- Distance to market is negatively associated

with the use of production enhancing inputs. Those who are far from the
market may not have a chance to get agricultural inputs comparing to the
nearby farmers (Legesse, 2001).
Therefore, the variable was expected to have negative association with the
dependent variable. It was measured in kms.

14
9. Farm size- the size of land holding to a limit of course provides sufficient
income and there by funds for investment on modern farm inputs (Roy et al.,
1999). Thus size of land holding assumed to have positive relation to
dependent variable. It was measured in ‘timad’ base and hectare equivalent
(4 timad= 1 ha).

10. Annual income - the status of the farmers in terms of their annual income
will matter in deciding to purchase improved agricultural inputs. Wealthy
farmers decide to take risk for using agricultural inputs (Getahun, 2004).
Therefore, annual income has assumed to have positive relation to
dependent variable. It was measured in Ethiopian birr.

11. Access to market- Market access is one of the variables that affect input
output marketing in rural areas. Presence of input/output marketing at
farmers’ disposal would increase the uptake of improved agricultural inputs
by farmers. Hence the variable was expected to have positive influence on
the dependent variable. It was dummy variable with value of 1 for yes and 0
other wise.

12. Input price- the price of agricultural inputs may encourage/discourage

farmers in order to use production enhancing inputs. Wolday (1999)
indicated that price of inputs is significantly related to use of improved
seeds. If the pricing regulation of inputs does not invite farmers, it will have
negative effect on improved agricultural inputs use. Therefore, this variable
was expected to have negative association with the dependent variable. It
was dummy variable with value of 1 for yes and 0 other wise.

15
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Background information of the respondents

4.1.1. Distribution of the respondents by sex

Table1: Distribution of the respondents by sex

Sex Frequency %

Male 29 72.5

Female 11 27.5

Total 40 100.0

Source: Own survey data, 2013

16
As shown from table 1, out of 40 respondent 29 are male and 11 are female. This corresponds to
72.5% are male and 27.5% are female respondents. As observed from the table, most male
farmers are empower and participate in productive activities through delivering agricultural input
so as to minimize vulnerability and improve their livelihood status.

4.1.2. Distribution of the respondents by educational status

Table 2: Educational status of the respondents.

Educational status Frequency Percent
Illiterate 13 32.5
Read and write 10 25.0
Primary school 8 20.0
Secondary school 8 20.0
Above secondary school 1 2.5
Total 40 100

Source: computed from own survey data, 2013

As shown from table 2, most of the respondents are illiterate. It can also be seen from the table
that the decrease in the number of respondents with the increase in the educational status of the
respondents. According to different sources and real world situations the researchers can
conclude that the educational status or education level of the farmers were an important factor
affecting the probability of using agricultural inputs. The better the education level the farmer
has the better will be his/her understanding concerning the knowledge of improved agricultural
technologies.

4.1.3. Distribution of the respondent’s b age

Table 3: Distribution of the respondents by age

Age Frequency Percent
20-30 6 15.0
31-40 17 42.5
41-50 10 25.0
51-60 5 12.5
>60 2 5.0
Total 40 100

Source: own survey data, 2013

17
As can be seen from table 3, above the largest and the smallest percentage of the respondents are
in the age categories between31-40 and >60 respectively. The corresponding largest and smallest
percentages of the respondents are 42.5% and 5% respectively. According to different sources
and the real world situation, the age of farmers has negative effect on using agricultural inputs by
contributing for risk aversion. As the age of the farmers increases the demand for agricultural
inputs will be decrease.

4.1.4. Distribution of the respondents by marital status

Table 4: Distribution of the respondents by marital status

Marital status Frequency Percent
Single 1 2.5
Married 26 65.0
Divorced 10 25.0
Widowed 3 7.5
Total 40 100

Source, own survey data, 2013

From the table 4, above the largest percentages of respondents are married and the smallest
percentages of the respondents are single. The remaining 23% and 7.5% of the respondents are
divorced and widowed respectively.

4.2. Distribution of the respondents by land size

Table. 5: Distribution of the respondents by land size

Land size (ha) Male Female
Frequency % Frequency %
<0.5ha 1 3.4 2 18.2

0.5-1ha 14 48.3 2 18.2

18
 1-2ha 12 41.4 6 54.5

>2ha 2 6.9 1 9.1

Total 29 100 11 100

Source: own survey data, 2013

As shown from table 5, 1% of total respondent of male and 2% of total respondent of female
have blow 0.5ha of farm land. From total respondents 48.3% of male and 2% of female are
between 0.5ha and 1ha, and 41.4% of male respondents and 6% female respondents belong
between 1ha and 2ha. The remaining 6.9% of male and 1% of female respondents have above
2ha land size. From this, researchers can understand that most male and female headed farmers
have between 0.5ha and 1ha of land. Therefore, the land size is an important factor in affecting
the demand for agricultural inputs because the increase size of land holding provides sufficient
income and there by funds for investment on modern farm inputs.

4.3. Total land per each category of land use type

Table 6: Total land per each category of land use type

Land per category Land size (ha) Frequency

Cultivated 34.82 62.77

Grazing 1.75 3.15

Perennial crop 18.9 34.07

Total 55.47 100

Source; own field survey, 2013

19
The table 6, above is intended to describe the cultivated land of all respondents together in Gosu
kora and Bayo kurbi Kebeles of Ambo Woreda. As observed from the 34.82% ha, 1.75%ha and
18.9% ha of land has cultivated, grazing and perennial crop respectively in all respondents
together. Therefore, it seems that land for cultivation is largest while grazing land is smallest.

4.4. Forms and trends of farming (2005-2009)

Forms and trends of farming in consecutive years imply farming through renting out of land,
renting in of land, and own cultivation. It shows by whom the peasants plot is cultivated. Under
renting in and renting out, both the owner and the share cropper obtained the portion of the yield,
whereas under own cultivation the whole yield accrues to the land owner him/ herself. This
implies that as far as getting the whole yield could be taken as better than getting the portion of
the yield, it is preferable to the land owner, if he or she cultivates his/her farm land rather than
renting out it. On the other hand, trend indicates change in extent of form of farming over
cropping seasons.

Table 7: forms and trends farming of all the respondents (2007-2011)

Cropping Forms and trends of farming (2007-2011)
seasons Cultivate own land Rent in Rent out
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

2007 26 65 6 15 8 20

2008 21 52.5 9 22.5 10 25

2009 18 45 10 25 12 30

2010 12 30 9 22.5 19 47.5

2011 11 27.5 7 17.5 22 55

Source: own field survey, 2013

Table 7 shows that, the trend and forms of farming were nearly stable over the whole cropping
years with smaller variation in percentage except 2009/2010. Where the lowest percentage of the
farmers cultivate their own land 30% and 27.5% respectively and the high percentage of the

20
farmers rent out their lands 47.5% and 55% than the preceding cropping years because of the
shortage of the supply of the agricultural inputs (fertilizers, improved seeds, chemicals and
others) to the farm house holds. However, the extent of rent in had been following different path
and shows larger difference when compared to own cultivation and renting out since the low
income of farm house hold from cultivation of his/her own lands, he/she cannot rent in other
lands or unable to pay for agricultural inputs supplied for that additional lands.

4.5. Major farm input problems of farmers (2007-2011)

When the respondents were asked, in order to know their response to input problems, 70% of the
respondents have indicated the presence of input problem and 30% indicated no problem.

Table 8: farmers or respondents response to input problem in consecutive five

years
Response Frequency %
Yes 28 70

No 12 30

Source: own field survey, 2013

As shown in the above table 8, most farmers have input problems in consecutive year which
corresponds 70%. But, those respondents that have no input problems (30%) use organic
fertilizers on their farms.

4.6. Input problems (2007-2011)

The result of this study obviously shows that, farmers have limited access to farm inputs in many
ways. The input problems identified in this research are fertilizer, improved seed and chemicals
(2007-2011) (table 9). These input problems are decisive and influence farmers decision to, or

21
not to cultivate their land. When farmers are actually with insufficient farm inputs or with no
inputs at all, they usually decide to rent out their own lands.

Table 9: Distribution of input problems from (2007-2011)

Input Input problems in consecutive years
problems
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fertilizer 12(25) 15(37.5) 17(53.1) 25(71.4) 28(77.8)

Improved 19(39.6) 15(37.5) 12(37.5) 10(28.6) 8(22.2)

seed

Chemicals 17(35.4) 10(25) 3(9.4) 0(0) 0(0)

NB: The number in the bracket shows the percentage of the respondents that have indicated the
problems in each cropping years.

Source: own field survey, 2013

From the table 9 above, researchers can summarize that fertilizer problems in consecutive five
years are increased at increasing rate as the respondent have indicated (this arises from price rise,
credit constraint, shortage in supply and lack of the resource by the farm HHs) and improved
seed problems are varied in small scales (since the farmers does not use it more, its problem is
nearly constant). While the chemical problems are decreased at decreasing rate and become Zero
in year 2010/2011. The related problems to this all input problems are shortage of supply, credit
constrain, increase in price of that inputs, post phone in time of supply( not supplied on time)
etc, throughout the consecutive cropping years. From this the researches can conclude that the
fertilizer problem is the serious problems to the farmers of the Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi kebeles
of Ambo woreda.

4.7. The relationship between agricultural input supply and forms of farming

The trends and form of farming practiced by the farmers are influenced by the supply of
agricultural inputs like, fertilizer, improved seed, Chemicals and others to the farms households.

22
As it is presented under section 4.4 above, there is variation in forms of farming over cropping
years. The larger difference in the extent of rent in when compared to own cultivation and rent
out since the low income of farm house hold from cultivation of his/her own lands, he/she
cannot rent-in other lands or unable to pay for agricultural input supplied for that additional
lands.

4.8. Uses of agricultural inputs by farmers

It is known that ownership ( access) of the a farm house hold to farm inputs like land, improved
seed, fertilizer, oxen, chemicals have significant and determining role in influencing productivity
and profitability of small scale farmers. Therefore, to determine whether the household heads or
respondents use agricultural inputs or not on their farming land, researchers have asked the
question of do you use farm input and the result of response to this question is presented in
tables 10 below.

Table 10: use of agricultural input by farmers

Response Male Female

Frequency % Frequency %

Yes 25 72.4 6 54.5

No 4 27.6 5 45.5
Total 29 100 11 100

Source: own field survey, 2013

As shown in table 10, most of male household heads use agricultural input on their lands while
some of them did not use farm input on field. It corresponds to 72.4% and 27.6% respectively.
On the side of women, it is also true that most female household heads use agricultural input on
their farm but, some of them did not use farm inputs on their farm land. It corresponds to 54.5%
and 45.5% respectively. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that most small scale farmers in the
Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi kebeles of Ambo woreda use agricultural (farm) inputs such as
chemical (pesticide, herbicide), fertilizer, improved seed, and others on their field.

23
4.9. Impact of agricultural inputs on small scale farming

As discussed in the above parts of the research, most of household head in Gosu kora and Bayo
kurbi kebeles are users of agricultural inputs on their farm land. As the farmers respondents
have indicated the impacts or results of farm inputs are good related with the availability of
natural rainfall. Before they started to use farm inputs the production, productivity and
profitability of their farm lands was very low. But, as soon as, they started to use agricultural
inputs, the production, productivity, efficiency and profitability of their farm lands increased
along with as responded by most farm households.

However, some HHHs responded that the use of agricultural inputs on grazing land is associated
with negative impacts. When chemicals are applied on grazing land, their cattle and oxen are
affected as responded by some of them.

4.10. Source of land for the ownership

The concept of this part in our research is related to either the land for the farmer is from gif, rent
in or rent out.

Table: 11. Response by farm household heads to source of land

Source of land Male Female
Frequency % Frequency %
Gift 22 75.9 8 72.7
Rent in 3 10.3 1 9.1
Rent out 4 13.8 2 18.2

Source: own field survey, 2013

As shown in the table 11 above, the source of land to male and female house hold is mostly from
gift. However, there is also rent in and rent out some extent. It corresponds to 75.9% gift, 10.3%
rent in and 13.8% rent out for male and 72.7% gift, 9.1%rent in and 18.2% rent out for female
household head respectively. Therefore, researches can conclude that the source of land owner
ship for household head in Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi kebeles of Ambo woreda is almost gift
from their family(from their ancestor).

24
4.11. Source of income for the farmers

This concept is related to whether income of the household heads is obtained from agricultural
activities or other nonfarm activities. To know the response of the respondent’s researchers have
asked the question what the sources of family income and the result are is shown in table 12
below.

Table :12 . Response to source of income from non farming activity

Response Male Female
Frequency % Frequency %
Yes 0 0
No 29 100 11 100

Source own field survey, 2013

As shown in the table 12, researcher concluded that the source of incomes to the scale farm
house hold heads in Gosu kora and Bayo kurbi kebeles of Ambo woreda is only from
agricultural activities. That means, there is no the habit of practicing non-farming activities as
source of income as responded by house heads.

25
CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1. Conclusion

Agriculture is a principal economic activity mainly for those developing countries. In Ethiopia
around 94.4% of all farming is practiced by small scale rural peasant household farmers (CSA,
2007). Small scale rural household farmers are also exposed to shortage of food and other basic
needs. In addition to this, give the growing land pressure and limit purchasing power of those
small scale rural household farmers, a credit on farm input, like fertilizer and improved seeds for
the benefit of the resource poor farmers is critical to ensure the food security ( Kriffen 2003).
Agricultural inputs like improved seed, fertilizer, pesticide, chemicals, improves farm tools, etc
supply in line with efficient extension services would lead to ensure enhanced production and
productivity provision of input timely and according as to the demand of beneficiaries is crucial
to boost up production of small holder farmers. However, the supply of these production
enhancing inputs and service were constrained it various factors. These factors are shortage of
supply, credit constraint, increased price of input, and time of supply etc greatly affected the
production of the farmers. The study was conducted in order to analyze the constraints of
agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale farming in the area. It also tried to
investigate, the forms of farming practiced by the farmers over cropping season, the farm input
constraints existed in the farmers, the supply of input and the link it has with form of farming.
For this purpose, primary data source that were obtained in 2015 from 40 farmers living Ambo
district and secondary data were used. In this study, descriptive statistical tools were used to
analyze the quantitative data like means, percentages and frequencies. Qualitative assessment
was carried out using key informants and focused group discussion with input suppliers, farmers,
DA’S and government policy document content analysis for secondary data. In the survey three
different form of farming are identified. These are farmers who cultivate their own lands, rent
out their land and rent in others’ land. The source of income for small scale farmers in the study
area were only from agricultural activities. That means there is no habit of practicing non
farming activity as a source of income.

26
5.2. Recommendation

Researchers who participate in this well organized research work are highly egger to
recommend different bodies that are engaged in constraint of agricultural input supply
and its impact on small scale farming sector particularly in Ambo district, based on
results and observed situation so:-
 An input problem, particularly fertilizer is a serious problem to the farmers of the Amob
woreda. Therefore, government, NGOs and other bodies should tackle these problems in
order to increase the agricultural productivity of farm house hold heads.
 Improving the efficiency of credit system, timely and sufficient amount of delivering
credit to farmers who engaged on crop production has to be considered.
 Attention has to given women farmers group to empower them and participate in
productive activities to minimize vulnerability and improve their livelihood status.
 Establishing efficient extension service in the study area is mandatory.
 Attention has to be given by local administration to rural development and agricultural
extension activates.
 As non-farm income was found to be the most important factor associated with owner
cultivation, motivation for farmers to engage in non-crop farm activities such as petty
trade, craft and cottages like pottery, weaving, simple metal work should be facilitated by
the concerned bodies so that they help reducing farmers farm input constraints.

27
6. Reference
 Abadi,A.K. and D. J., Pannell, 1999. A conceptual frame work of
adoption of an agricultural
Innovation. J. Agricultural Economics, University of Western Australia,
Perth. 2(9): 145-154
 Abar Suleiman (2004), Supply response and Gender in Ethiopia, Sheffield university,
Sheffield “Agriculture and economic development”
 Bereket K. (1995) “the nature of share –cropping in Ethiopia; some preliminary
observations Addis Ababa University
 FAO (2008), Global information and early warning system on food and agriculture world
food program January, 2008
 Getahun D. 2004. Assessment of Factors Affecting Adoption of Wheat
Technologies and Its Impact. The Case of Hula District, Ethiopia. M.Sc.
Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to School of
 Haji Bi u, 2003. Adoption of cross bred Dairy Cows in Arsi Zone. The
case of Tiyo and Lemu Bilbilo woredas. M.Sc. Thesis (Unpublished)
Presented to School of Graduate Studies of
 Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
 Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
 Getahun D., M. Mwangi, H. Verkuijil and Wondimu A. 2000. An
assesement of the adoption of seed and fertilizer packages and the
role of credit in smallholder maize production in Sidama and
 North Omo Zones, Ethiopia. EARO, CIMMYT, November 2000.p.24.
 GirmaTaye (1999), Adoption of improve bread wheat varieties and inorganic fertilizer
by small –scale farmers: in YelmanaDensa and Farta Districts of north Ethiopia
 Hussein (2008), ‘influence of credit constraints on production efficiency’: the case of
south eastern Ethiopia. Department of economics, Swedish university of agricultural
science
 Keith kriffen, Agrarian policy; the political and economic context, world development
November, 1973.
 Miemael P. Todaro (2000)’development economics’ seventh edition, new York university

28
 RahmetoNegash (2007), ‘determinants of adaptation of improved haricot bean
production packages in Alaba special Woreda in southern Ethiopia: Ambo university.
 Legesse Dadi,2001. Empirical analysis of duration of herbicide
adoption in tef- based farming system of West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia.
J. of Agricultural Economics. 5(142): 1-22, Feb.2001.
 Tesfaye Zegeye and Shiferaw Tesfaye, 2001. Determinants of
adoption of improved maize technologies and inorganic fertilizer in
Southern Ethiopia. Research Report No. 39. Ethiopia Agricultural
Research Organization(EARO).54p.
 Wolday Amha, 1999. “Improved seed marketing and adoption in
Ethiopia”. Ethiopian journal of Agricultural Economics, AESE, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia vol. 3 No 1 – pp 41-88.
 Roy, B.C., T.S. Bhogal and L. R. Singn, 1999. Tenancy and adoption of
new farm technology: A study in West Bengal, India. Bangladesh Journal
Economics. xxii 1(1999):39-49.
 Nkonya, E., T. Schroeder and D. Norman, 1997. Factors affecting
adoption of improved maize seed and fertilizer in Northern Tanzania,
48(1): 1-12.

29
7. Appendixes

Ambo University

School of Agriculture and Veterinary Science

Department of Agribusiness and Value Chain Management

This questionnaire is prepared to in order to conduct scientific research on the “constraints of

Agricultural input supply and its impact on small scale forming in Ambo district.” The purpose
of this study is in order to identify major constraints of Agricultural input supply and its impact
in Ambo districts.

The information given by you is used only for research purpose and highly determining
the quality of this research. Therefore please be honest and give your personal opinion
about each question. The secrecy of your information is kept. So, confidentiality for your
responses, comments and opinions are ensured. I thanks’ you in advance for your assistance by
devoting your golden time in order to fill the questionnaire.

Instruction:- please use this mark “ √” or “x” in the boxes for your closed ended questions
and give explanations briefly and precisely for open questions.

I. Back ground of the Report

1. Sex:- Male Female Age
2. Marital status of the respondents
A, Married
B, Single
C, Divorced
D, widowed
3. Locations: Ambo District Kebele______________________________________
4. Family size

30
5. Education level of the Respondent

A, illiterate B. 1-8 C. 9-12 D. above

Part II. Questionnaires for Respondent

6. Do you have arable or cultivation land? A, Yes B, No

7. If yes, mention the source and size of farm land?
A. Own farm size____________________________________
B. From share cropping________________________________
C. Rented from other source_______________________________
8. What are the sources of family income?

A. From farming activity

B. Non-farming activity

C. Other specify

9. What do you use to bring agricultural in puts from the source?

A. car B. By donkey

C. others

10. What type of inputs you purchased last year?

A. A. seed B. Fertilizer C. Pesticide D. Farm tools E. Others specify
11. What problem you are encountered related to input credit?
____________________________________________________________________
12. What is your suggestion for efficiency input credit service in the future?
___________________________________________________________________
13. Is there training contributed for the use of improved agricultural inputs? A. yes
B. No
14. If yes, what is the significant contribution of the training in using agricultural in puts?
A. Increased demand for fertilizer use?
31
 B. Increased demand for seed use?
C. increased the demand farm tools used
D. increased demand for pesticide use
E. Other specifies.
15. Who give you training specifically related with input?

A. agricultural office

B.NGO

C. Research center

D. university E. other specify

16. Do you have access for credit? A. Yes B. No

17. Who give you credit?
A. cooperative
B. Banks
C. other specify
18. Does your cooperative encourage users by giving incentives for better adoption of your
inputs?

A. Yes B. No

19. What are the possible agricultural inputs you use in your area and how you explain
agricultural inputs related to improved seed, fertilizer, pesticide farm tools?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

20. What are the actors involved in agricultural input provision? how is the status of link age
knowledge sharing with you?

32
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

21. What do you think or suggest to solve these constraints o f input supply and its impact on
small farming that you faced every year with respect to input supply?
A. by your self
B. by government
C. by all producers
D. by others specify
22. Do have access and utilization to agricultural inputs?

A. yes B. No

23. If your answer is yes, what are the possible agricultural inputs you use in your area and how
do you explain agricultural input related to improved seed, fertilizer, pesticide, insecticide?
24. If your answer is No what are the reasons?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

25. What are the major constraints that you faced ever year with respect to input supply?
Mention some of them

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

26. What type of input and crop you use in your area?
27. How much do you use per hectare?
28. How much yield you can get per hectare?
29. Do you have any ideas, information, suggestion and re commendations concerning
agricultural input supply at your area?

33
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

34