Research Article - Global Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development ( 2025) Volume 13, Issue 1

Pre-extension demonstration of improved small pod hot pepper varieties in selected districts of Wayu Tuqa and Chewaqa of Western Oromia, Ethiopia

E Wolteji^* and G Abebe Department of Agricultural Science, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bako Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
^*Corresponding Author:
E Wolteji, Department of Agricultural Science, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bako Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia, Email: galmee2015@gmail.com

Received: 11-Aug-2023, Manuscript No. GJAEERD-23-110195; Editor assigned: 14-Aug-2023, Pre QC No. GJAEERD-23-110195 (PQ); Reviewed: 28-Aug-2023, QC No. GJAEERD-23-110195; Revised: 02-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. GJAEERD-23-110195 (R); Published: 07-Jan-2025, DOI: 10.15651/2408-5480.25.13.012

Introduction

Background and Justification

Pepper has its roots in Mexico and Central America before spreading to Africa and Asia. It stands as a vital spice globally, not only adding flavor and color to food but also offering nutritional benefits like vitamins A and E (Boseland and Votava, 2000). The leading pepper-producing nations include Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia, and China, with Vietnam topping the list. In Africa, Madagascar leads in pepper production, followed by Ethiopia, Ghana, Rwanda, and Uganda (Alemayehu et al., 2012).

Ethiopia boasts a rich diversity of spices, cultivating over 14 types, including various peppers, paprika, turmeric, fenugreek, garlic, korarima, coriander, ginger, cardamom, black and white cumin, and basil (Girma et al., 2008). Pepper holds significant historical importance in Ethiopia, with its production surpassing that of other vegetables like lettuce, tomatoes, and cabbage (CSA, 2016). Hot pepper cultivation is widespread across different agroecologies in the country, particularly in regions like Oromia, Amhara, and SNNPRS, where the Ethiopian export promotion agency conducted a market study (Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency, 2014). Pepper cultivation is prevalent in areas with altitudes ranging from 1100 to 1800 m.s.l. (MoARD, 2015).

The total pepper production in Ethiopia during the 2008/09 cropping season was estimated at 2,627,908.26 quintals, with Oromia contributing significantly, accounting for 48% of the total production. In specific zones like East Wollega and Iluababor, pepper cultivation area and productivity were notable, with average yields surpassing the regional average.

To address the issue of limited availability of improved pepper varieties and associated challenges, BARC recently introduced two new small pod hot pepper varieties named Kume and Dinsire. These varieties have shown promising potential yields both in research settings and on farmers' fields. The aim is to mitigate the problem of low supply of improved varieties sustainably. Moreover, utilizing these disease-resistant or tolerant varieties, along with improved management practices, has the potential to expand small pod hot pepper production at farmers' fields. The project focuses on demonstrating and evaluating these technologies and varieties directly at farmers' fields, with the goal of scaling up the adoption of selected technologies based on farmers' preferences. This is expected to increase household income and meet the high market demand for peppers. Recognizing this need, the BARC extension team initiated this activity with these core objectives in mind.

Objectives

• Assessing the productivity and profitability of the technology in farmers' settings.

• Raising awareness about the significance and accessibility of the technology.

• Strengthening connections among various stakeholders.

• Gathering feedback from participants to inform future research design and implementation.

Materials and Methods

Site and Farmer’s Selection

The project took place in specific districts within East Wollega and the former Iluababora zones of Western Oromia. Districts were chosen based on their suitability for small pod hot pepper cultivation and ease of supervision. As a result, Wayu Tuqa and Ilu-Harar districts were selected for meeting these criteria. In each district, one potential Producer Association (PA) was identified, with each PA hosting a Farmer Research Group (FRG) unit comprising 15 farmers. Additionally, three hosting farmers from each district participated in the initiative, in collaboration with the respective district agriculture and natural resource offices and their designated agricultural Development Agents (DA).

Provision of Training

Following the selection of sites and farmers, comprehensive training sessions were conducted for farmers, development agents, and district experts. The training encompassed various aspects including small pod hot pepper production management, breeding techniques, and post-harvesting practices, particularly focusing on seed quality. The primary objective of these training sessions was to raise awareness among farmers, development agents, and district experts regarding small pod hot pepper technology.

Input Distribution and Planting

Once the plots were prepared with thorough plowing before the planting date, farmers received all essential inputs such as seeds and fertilizers. Planting operations were carried out collaboratively by BARC researchers, Technical Assistants (TAs), and farmers.

Design of the Activity

Adjacent plots measuring 10 m × 10 m each were designated for planting three small pod hot pepper varieties. These included two newly released varieties, Kume and Dinsire, from Bako Agricultural Research Center (BARC), along with a commercial check. Hosting farmers replicated the demo plots. Standard agronomic practices were uniformly implemented across all plots, including a spacing of 70 cm between rows and 30 cm between plants. The recommended seed rate of 5 kg/ha and fertilizer rates of 207 kg/ha NPS and 137 kg/ha UREA were adhered to. Ongoing field supervision ensured the plots' progress and identified any potential issues. Researchers, extension workers, and hosting farmers jointly managed the plots (Berhanu et al., 2011). Upon reaching maturity, a participatory variety evaluation session was conducted, engaging experimenting farmers, neighboring farmers, BARC researchers, and other stakeholders.

Data Collected

Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered, encompassing yield information, the types and numbers of stakeholders involved in training and field visits, farmers' perceptions of the technology's attributes, as well as costs and income generated.

Data Analysis

The collected data underwent analysis employing various statistical methods such as mean calculation, frequency distribution, tabulation, and percentage calculation. Quantitative data were further analyzed using SPSS software, facilitating mean, standard deviation, t-test, and ANOVA table calculations. Pair ranking techniques were also utilized to assess and prioritize the best varieties or technologies, aligning with the area's specific conditions. Moreover, gross margin analysis was conducted, which involves determining the difference between gross income and total variable costs (Mohammed et al., 2016). Additionally, the technology gap and index were computed using specific formulas.

Technology gap=Potential yield (qt/ha)-Demonstration yield (qt/ha)

Technology index=((Potential yield–Demonstration yield) × 100)/Potential yield

Results and Discussion

Participatory Variety Evaluation and Selection

Upon reaching maturity, farmers were encouraged to assess the pepper varieties according to their own preferences. Initially, they were assisted in outlining their selection criteria in a spontaneous manner. Subsequently, farmers evaluated the varieties based on these predetermined criteria. The pair-wise ranking method was employed to establish the priority of criteria based on their perceived importance. Among the criteria, attributes such as yield estimation, color, disease resistance/tolerance, number of pods per plant, early maturity, and pod size emerged as the most significant traits for selection (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Pair-wise ranking of small pod hot pepper varieties.

Table 2. Varietal ranking based on farmers’ selection criteria.

On-farm Yield Performance

Despite the inherent variability in performance across different locations, the overall yield performance of the varieties remained encouraging. The combined mean analysis of the yield performance is presented below in Table 3. Consequently, an average yield of 6.44 ± 0.09 qt/ha, 6.04 ± 0.15 qt/ha, and 3.68 ± 0.12 qt/ha was obtained for Kume, Dinsire, and the control variety, respectively.

Table 3. Mean yield of small pod hot pepper varieties across the districts.

ANOVA table result summarized below Table 4 shows that there is a highly significant difference among the varieties; Kume, Dinsire, and commercial check at (p<0.05). Further; there is a significant difference among the farmers on mean yield performances at (p<0.05).

Table 4. Analysis of variance table for yield across districts.

Furthermore; the varieties mean yield comparison (t-test) result summarized below Table 5 also verified that a highly significant difference exists among the varieties demonstrated and even between the newly released;Kume and Dinsiri, varieties across the districts at (p<0.05).

Table 5. Mean comparison (t-test) for yield across the districts.

Yield Advantage

Assessing the yield advantage of the varieties serves two main purposes: It illustrates the additional percentage benefit farmers gain from cultivating improved varieties, and it aids in recommending varieties based on their relative yield advantages. The results, summarized in Table 6 below, indicate that Kume demonstrated a higher yield advantage of 75% compared to Dinsire's 64.13%, calculated using the following formula.

Yield advantage (%)=((Yield of a new variety-Yield of standard check) × 100)/The yield of standard check

Table 6. Yield advantage of demonstrated small pod hot pepper varieties over the commercial check.

Technology Gap and Technology Index

The technology gap represents the disparity between the yield achieved through demonstration and the potential yield. Variations in soil fertility, acidity, precipitation, and other environmental factors contribute to the observed technology gap (Dhaka et al., 2010). Its significance lies in bridging the yield discrepancies among different varieties and providing site-specific recommendations. These yield gaps are further classified into technology indices, indicating the practicality of the variety at the farmer's level. Lower values of the technology index suggest greater feasibility of the varieties. Consequently, the technology gap and index for the demonstrated varieties (Kume and Dinsire) were computed using the relevant formulas and are presented in Table 7.

Technology gap=Potential yield (qt/ha)-Demonstration yield

Technology index=((Potential yield-Demonstration yield) × 100)/Potential yield

Table 7. Technology gap and index for Kume and Dinsire varieties across the districts.

According to the findings presented in Table 7, the yield gaps for Kume and Dinsire varieties were 1.21 qt/ha and 1.41 qt/ha, respectively. Both varieties exhibited minimal yield gaps, indicating that the demonstration yields closely approached the potential yields. Additionally, the technology indexes for Kume and Dinsire varieties were 15.82% and 18.93%, respectively, resulting in an average technology index of 17.37%. This suggests that both varieties are practical choices for farmers in the study area and similar agro-ecological settings.

Financial Analysis

The financial analysis results, summarized in Table 8, reveal the profitability and returns associated with each variety. Kume, Dinsire, and the commercial check yielded profits of 41,543.80 Birr, 38,343.80 Birr, and 19,463.80 Birr per hectare, respectively. Notably, Kume generated the highest profit, followed by Dinsire and then the Commercial check per production season in the study area. This indicates that investing in Kume variety can yield a substantial profit per hectare, as well as for the other varieties (Rosli et al., 2013). Moreover, the study demonstrated that Kume provided the highest returns on investment at 416%, followed by Dinsire at 384%, and finally the Commercial check at 195%. Therefore, it can be concluded that Kume and Dinsire varieties, being high yielders and more profitable than the commercial check, offer economically viable options.

Table 8. Financial (gross margin) analysis of small pod hot pepper varieties demonstration across districts.

Training

Below Table 9 summarizes the gender-disaggregated number of stakeholders who participated in training across the districts.

Table 9: Gender disaggregated number of stakeholders participated in the training.

Table 9. Gender disaggregated number of stakeholders participated in the training.

Field Visit

The field visit was also arranged across the districts so as to evaluate/select best-performing varieties, enhance farmers’ knowledge on small pod hot pepper production and management, and collect feedback from all relevant stakeholders for further ways forward (Table 10).

Table 10. Gender-disaggregated number of stakeholders participated in the field visit.

Farmers’ Perception of the Technology

During the participatory variety evaluation and selection process, farmers established their own criteria based on their specific circumstances. Consequently, farmers assessed, ranked, and favored Kume as their primary choice, followed by Dinsire, against the criteria they defined. Farmers preferred both Kume and Dinsire varieties due to their high yields, superior pod size, increased number of pods per plant, and tolerance to diseases compared to the commercial varieties they typically cultivate. Although Kume and Dinsire were ranked consecutively, they outperformed other varieties in all evaluated traits chosen by the majority of farmers. Consequently, given that farmers evaluated and selected these varieties based on their unique attributes, it is anticipated that they will be widely disseminated across the study area and similar agro-ecological regions (Samui et al., 2000).

Conclusion

This pre-extension demonstration of improved small pod hot pepper technologies was conducted in two selected districts, Wayu Tuqa and Ilu-Harar, within East Wollega and the former Iluababora zones of Western Oromia. Two newly released small pod hot pepper varieties, Kume and Dinsire, were cultivated alongside commercial checks on adjacent 10 m × 10 m plots of land, with three hosting farmers from each district participating. At the maturity stage, a participatory variety evaluation and selection process was conducted to assess, rank, and select the most suitable variety/ies based on the farmers' actual conditions. As a result, Kume was chosen for its superior traits, except for its relatively late maturation, followed by Dinsire, which had a medium maturation period. Both demonstrated varieties exhibited significantly better yield performance than the varieties currently cultivated by farmers.

Furthermore, the demonstrated varieties displayed superior financial profitability, yield advantages, and alignment with farmers preferences. Additionally, the combined mean yield performance analysis revealed a highly significant difference (p<0.05) among the varieties. However, there was an issue of varietal mix-up that needs to be addressed through purification in the upcoming seasons. Nonetheless, considering the promising performance of these varieties, scaling up/out activities are recommended to be carried out after the purification process at the research station in the following years.

References

1. Alemayehu S, Dorosh P, Sinafikeh A (2012). Crop production in Ethiopia: Regional patterns and trends. Food and agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and policy challenges. 53-83.

   [Google Scholar]

2. Berhanu Y, Derbew B, Wosene G, Fekadu M (2011). Variability, heritability, and genetic advance in hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) genotypes in West Shoa, Ethiopia. Am-Euras J Agric Environ Sci. 10(4): 587-592.
3. Bosland PW, Votava EJ (2000). Pepper: Vegetable and spice capsicums. CABI Publishing, New York, pp. 1-6.
4. Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2016). Agricultural sample survey report on crop and livestock product utilization. 2015/2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
5. Dhaka BL, Meena BS, Suwalka RL (2010). Popularization of improved maize production technology through frontline demonstrations in South-Eastern Rajasthan. J Agric Sci. 1(1): 39-42.

   [Crossref]

6. Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency (EEPA) (2014). Export performance of Agricultural products. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
7. Girma H, Digafe T, Edossa E, Belay Y, Weyessa G (2008). Spices research achievements. Ethiopian institute of agricultural research annual report, Ethiopia.
8. Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MoARD) (2015). Crop Variety Register. Issue No 18. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
9. Mohammed AB, Wudil AH, Daneji MI, Jibrin JM, Hussaini MA, Mohammed IB (2016). Economics of on-farm sorghum-legume strip cropping system in Kano state, Nigeria. J Agric Sustain. 7(1).

   [Google Scholar]

10. Rosli A, Rahim KA, Radam A, Abdullah AM (2013). Determinants of cost efficiency of smallholders’ pepper in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asian J Soc Sci Humanit. 2: 78-86.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Samui SK, Maitra S, Roy DK, Mondal AK, Saha D (2000). Evaluation of front-line demonstration of groundnut (Arachis hypogeal L.) in Sundarbans. J Indian Soc Coastal Agric Res. 18(2): 180-183.