Participatory evaluation of sorghum technologies in the marginal dryland zones of Wag-lasta, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Duties and responsibilities of main stakeholders in the scale wide evaluation of sorghum technologies

Researcher	• Preparing manuals and provide training for farmers and DAs • Confirm clustered farms and provide the seed on time • Provide technical back up for farmers and experts • Organizing field days with district Agriculture Offices
Agricultural experts	SMSs	• Participate in workshops and trainings • Provide technical support in site and farmer selection • Monitor the activities and participate in field days
	DAs	• Selecting participant farmers and measure their farm using GPS • Provide technical support in technology application • Provide information to researchers on disease outbreaks
Farmers	• Prepare fertilizers and farmland to the required optimum level • Planting on time, managing weed and harvest on time • Keeping seed quality to give back to the source center • Exchange the seed to interested farmers in any arrangement

Table 2. Yield performance, technology gap and index of different sorghum technologies

Treatments	Mean yield(ton ha^−1)		Range yield index (ton ha^−1)		Technology Gap (ton ha^−1)	Extension Gap (ton ha^−1)	Technology Index (%)
	Grain	Biomass	Grain	Biomass
Misikir	2.9	3.2	2.3–4.0	2.7–4.8	1.4 0.1	1.3 2.5	33.3 2.4
Girana-1	1.6	2.7	1.3–2.6	2.2–3.4
Local	1.5	2.6	1.0–2.0	2.4–3.7

Note: Potential yield (PY) of Misikir and Girana-1 sorghum technologies = 4.2 and 4.1 ton ha⁻¹, respectively.

Table 3. ANOVA result on the differences in grain yield, stalk yield and maturity days

Parameters	Source of variation	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Grain yield (kg ha^−1)	Treatments	2485.6	3	124.3	24.63***	0.00
	Errors	756.9	447	50.5
	Total	3242.5	450
Stalk yield (kg ha^−1)	Treatments	6341.1	3	3170. 6	18.25***	0.00
	Errors	2605.7	447	173.7
	Total	8946.8	450
Days of maturity	Treatments	2.83	3	1.42	57.37***	0.00
	Errors	0.4	447	0.25
	Total	3.2	450

Note: *** imply that 1% significance level

Table 4. Tukey–HSD test to identify best performing technology in grain yield, biomass yield and days to maturity

Parameters	Pair of varieties	Mean Difference	Std. Error	Tukey-HSD Sig.
Grain yield (kg ha^−1)	Misikir—Girana-1	4.733***	1.297	0.006
	Misikir—Local	9.100***	1.297	0.000
	Girana-1—Local	4.367	1.297	0.211
Biomass yield (kg ha^−1)	Misikir—Girana-1	0.500	2.406	0.977
	Misikir—Local	12.83***	2.406	0.000
Days of maturity	Girana-1—Local	12.33**	2.406	0.020
	Misikir—Girana-1	−0.095***	0.091	0.003
	Misikir—Local	−0.650***	0.091	0.001
	Girana-1—Local	0.300	0.091	0.112

Note that: ** and *** imply significance levels at 5 and 1% respectively

Table 5. Partial budget and sensitivity analysis of different treatments

Cost/Benefit items	Misikir	Girana-1	Local
Adjusted mean grain yield (ton ha^−1)	2.61	1.44	1.35
Adjusted stalk yield (ton ha^−1)	2.88	2.43	2.34
Gross benefits (ETB/ha)	22,834.8	13,321.8	12,542.4
Costs of seed (ETB/ha)	150	150	250.0
Cost of fertilizer (ETB/ha)	1250	1250	0.00
Labor cost for the package (ETB/ha)	632	632	0.00
Total costs that vary (ETB/ha)	2032	2032	250.0
Net benefits (ETB/ha)	20,802.8	11,289.8	12,292.4
MRR	477.6	D
Sensitivity analysis (%)	1023.8
Price of fertilizer (NPS and Urea) in ETB/kg = 12.5	1USD = 27.94 ETB
Cost of improved [local] seed in ETB/kg = 15 [12.5]	ETB = Ethiopian birr
Price of grain yield in ETB/kg = 7.8	D = dominated
Average labour pay in man/day = 72
Price of stalk in ETB/kg = 0.86

Table 6. Summary of farmers’ preference ranking among sorghum technologies

Weighted parameters		Misikir	Girana-1	Local
Seed setting performance	Score	1.00	3.00	2.00
	Weight	3.00	3.00	3.00
	Score *weight	3.00	9.00	6.00
Earliness	Score	1.00	3.00	2.00
	Weight	2.00	2.00	2.00
	Score *weight	2.00	6.00	4.00
Grain yield	Score	1.00	2.00	3.00
	Weight	1.00	1.00	1.00
	Score *weight	1.00	2.00	3.00
Stalk yield	Score	1.00	2.00	3.00
	Weight	4.00	4.00	4.00
	Score*weight	4.00	8.00	12.0
Marketability	Score	2.00	3.00	1.00
	Weight	5.00	5.00	5.00
	Score*weight	10.0	15.0	5.00
$\sum \left(\mathrm{s}\ast \mathrm{w}\right)$		22.0	40.0	30.0
Rank		1.00	3.00	2.00

Ranks: 1 = Best; 2 = fair; 3 = worst.

The score multiplied by the weight to provide the overall preference of technologies.

Table 7. Correlation of farmers’ preference rank and the actual measured traits rank

Grain yield rank			Biomass yield rank			Earliness rank
	Actual	Farmers	d^2	Actual	Farmers	d^2	Actual	Farmers	d^2
Misikir	1	1	(1–1)^2	1	1	(1–1)^2	1	1	(1–1)^2
Girana-1	2	2	(2–2)^2	2	2	(2–2)^2	3	3	(3–3)^2
Local	3	3	(3–3)^2	3	3	(3–3)^2	2	2	(2–2)^2
	rs = 1 (100%)			rs = 1 (100%)			rs = 1 (100%)

Where r_s = correlation coefficient d= difference in the ranks assigned to the same phenomenon and n= number of phenomena ranked.