Exploring forgotten opportunity: White Lupin development for food, feed, cash, health, and soil fertility management in Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Geographic location of the study districts.

Table 1. Farmers’ experience on lupin cropping explained as percentage or mean value depending on the type of measurement employed

Values/measurement	Percentage (mean)
Experience in growing lupin (years)	15.9
Purpose of growing lupin
Food only	0.99
Fertility restoring only	1.65
Cash	0.66
Food and fertility restoring	8.25
Food, fertility and cash	54.5
Food, fertility, cash, medicinal, and feed	34
Growing different lupin cultivars
Yes	3.3
No	96.7
Seed saved to next planting
Yes	98
No	2
Ratio of land allocated for lupin to own land (%)	22.33

Figure 2. Comparisons of common legumes grown in the study area usually done by the farmers to choose among the legumes to put into the rotation scheme. Parameters considered are: N2 = Nitrogen fixation capacity; Input = Input requirement; Drought = Drought adaptation/resilience; Disease = Disease resistance; Insect = Insect pest resistance; Weed = Weed tolerance; GY = Grain yield; SY = Stubble yield; and RU = Residue utilization.

Table 2. Farmers’ experience and evaluation of lupin as feed expressed as percentage

Parameters	Unit	District				Sig.
		Dera	Fageta	Machakel	SA
Which animals prefer lupin	Cattle	4.05	4.00	5.81	9.89	0.66
	Sheep	13.51	10.00	6.98	8.79
	Goats	14.86	4.00	27.91	19.78
	Equines	2.70	42.00	4.65	0.00
	Not preferred by animals	17.57	4.00	16.28	26.37
	Sheep and goat	47.30	30.00	37.21	35.16
	Cattle and equines	0.00	6.00	1.16	0.00
Lupin feeding potential	Very poor	14.86	18.00	27.91	23.91	0.01
	Poor	39.19	32.00	48.84	36.96
	Fair/average	36.49	38.00	23.26	33.70
	Good	9.46	12.00	0.00	5.43
	Very good	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Lupin palatability	Very poor	8.11	0.00	18.39	14.13	0.001
	Poor	31.08	30.00	54.02	53.26
	Fair/average	50.00	46.00	24.14	25.00
	Good	9.46	24.00	3.45	7.61
	Very good	1.35	0.00	0.00	0.00
Lupin crop residue utilization	Very poor	1.35	0.00	0.00	1.09	0.03
	Poor	14.86	6.00	17.24	22.83
	Fair/average	60.81	54.00	55.17	55.43
	Good	18.92	40.00	26.44	19.57
	Very good	4.05	0.00	1.15	1.09

Sig. = Significant test and was performed based on Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis one-way ANOVA test.

Table 3. Sources and access of agricultural and market information for farmers, expressed as percentage or mean value depending on the type of measurement employed

Parameter	Unit	District				Combined	Sig.
		Dera	Fageta	Mkl	SA
Sources of output market (price of lupin grain)	Gov’t	9.46	12.00	1.16	6.53	6.60	0.476
	Traders	31.08	24.00	33.72	29.35	30.13
	Farmers	40.54	32.00	32.56	41.30	37.09
	Radio/TV	1.35	8.00	12.79	5.43	6.95
	Others	17.57	24.00	19.77	17.39	19.21
Sources of input market (price of pesticides)	Gov’t	75.68	95.83	90.80	85.87	86.38	0.004
	Traders	8.11	2.08	8.05	6.52	6.64
	Farmers	2.70	0.00	0.00	1.09	1.00
	Others	13.51	2.08	1.15	6.52	5.98
Buyer type	Consumers	77.08	71.43	81.36	79.17	77.63	0.466
	Assembler	8.33	0.00	6.78	5.56	5.26
	Outside trader	8.33	24.49	11.86	15.28	14.91
	Wholesaler	6.25	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.32
	Farmers’ coop.	0.00	4.08	0.00	0.00	0.88
Availability of reliable market	yes	53.42	34.00	32.56	50.00	43.19	0.015
	no	46.58	66.00	67.44	50.00	56.81
Lupin market value	Low	45.95	20.00	28.74	33.70	33.00	0.445
	Not fair	16.22	56.00	51.72	26.09	35.97
	Fair	35.14	20.00	16.09	33.70	26.73
	Good	2.70	4.00	3.45	6.52	4.29
Walking time*	minutes	63.57	65.83	66.25	39.33	58.28	0.006
Walking time**	minutes	128.77	78.67	86.09	56.30	86.13	0.000
Price of lupin	ETB per kg	2.5115	2.5918	3.4220	2.8542	2.8726	0.000

Mkl = Machakel; SA = South Achefer; Gov’t = Government; Ext. material = Extension material; Interaction* = Interaction with an extension agent in the past 12 months; walking time* = Minutes of walking time to the nearest village market; Walking time** = Minutes of walking time to district/main market; and Sig. = Significant test and was performed based on Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis one-way ANOVA test.