NEWLY INTRODUCED AVRDC VEGETABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN 
REDUCTION OF INCOME POVERTY:  BABATI DISTRICT, TANZANIA 
 
 
 
 
 
VICTOR LAZARO PALLANGYO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE 
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART IN 
RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, 
MOROGORO, TANZANIA 
 
 
 
2015 
ii 
 
 
ABSTRACT 
The use of traditional technologies is one of the reasons for the poor income generation in 
Tanzania for vegetable growers: The Tanzanian Government has prioritized agriculture 
sector as a major means to fight poverty, but little emphasis has been put on the 
cultivation of vegetables. Hence no technological advancement in vegetables, this 
situation leads to small amount of yield and consequently low supply of the product hence 
low income generation.  However, the government has done less, but, some non-
governmental organizations such as AVRDC, TAHA and others have helped to innovate, 
facilitate and also monitor vegetable activities (introduction of new technologies). 
Although, non-governmental organizations have tried to introduce new technologies to 
farmers the problem remained cost effectiveness of technology towards income poverty 
reduction.  
The present study was conducted in Babati District, Manyara Region, Tanzania; 
specifically the study was designed to assess the profitability of the newly introduced 
technologies towards income poverty reduction. A total of 77 farmers were investigated 
by interview method, purposive sampling technique was applied and Paired sample T-test 
was used to assess the effectiveness of technologies and the results of the study revealed 
that newly introduced technologies were significant at p-value = 0.028 and 0.028 for cost 
and revenue, respectively. 
In conclusion, the study findings show that, newly introduced technologies can be 
adopted by vegetable producers because profit gained by using newly introduced 
technologies can dramatically reduce income poverty of vegetable producers. 
iii 
 
 
DECLARATION 
 
I, Victor Lazaro Pallangyo, do hereby declare to the Senate of Sokoine University of 
Agriculture that this dissertation is my own original work done within the period of 
registration and that it has neither been submitted nor being concurrently submitted in any 
other institution.  
 
 
_____________________                                                                   ________________ 
Victor LazaroPallangyoDate 
(MARD Candidate) 
 
 
 
The above declaration is confirmed: 
 
 
 
____________________                                                                   _______________ 
Dr. B. KazuzuruDate 
(Supervisor) 
 
iv 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
I thank God the Almighty for providing me with health, courage, strength, guidance, and 
patience for, I understand, without Him I could not have be able to accomplish this study. 
I wish to take the privilege to acknowledge a number of people who have greatly 
contributed to the final production of this thesis. 
 
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Dr B. Kazuzuru, for his 
wise advice, constructive criticism, tireless guidance, time, encouragement and awesome 
commitment. Without him my academic dreams would not have become a reality, may 
the Almighty God grant you with his glory, peace and blessings. 
 
I am profoundly grateful and indebted to Dr Victor Afari-Sefa, Agricultural Economist 
and Global Theme Leader-Consumption AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center Eastern 
and Southern Africa for his unwavering support, for financing this study through AVRDC 
and other support to make sure my career is nourished. I particularly thank Dr Srinivasulu 
Rajendran, a post doctoral scientist (Agricultural Economics) Eastern and Southern Africa 
AVRDC-The World Vegetable Centre, Philip Lukumay and Inviolate for their assistance 
particularly during data collection. 
 
I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all academic members of staff of the Development 
Studies Institute and my colleagues for their moral support, advice, and for creating a 
harmonious environment during my stay at the University. I am also grateful to Mr. 
Eliaza Mkuna, Nina Tofte Hansen (Copenhagen University), Bria Giera(California 
University), Godson Justine and Gerald Kinisa for their encouragements. I am also 
v 
 
extending my gratitude to Jolenta, Zuena, Salome and Ziggy who assisted during data 
collection in Babati District.  
 
Last but not least, I wish express my sincere appreciation to my lovely family, my father 
Rev. Lazaro Gamaliel, My mother Eliafile Lazaro, Emanuel Lazaro, Amasia Lazaro, 
Evaline Lazaro, and Tulo Lazaro. I thank all for their moral and material support, patience 
and encouragement which in one way or another made my study successful. Outstanding 
thanks are extended to my respondents, who were ready to listen and responded to my 
questions.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
vi 
 
 
COPYRIGHT 
 
No part of this dissertation may be produced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted 
in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, photocopying, recording or 
otherwise, without prior written permission of the author or Sokoine University of 
Agriculture in that behalf. 
 
 
 
 
vii 
 
 
DEDICATION 
 
I dedicate this piece of work to my mother Eliafile Lazaro and my father, Rev Lazaro G 
Pallangyo, my best friend Miss Suzana Samson Swila, to all my brothers and sisters for 
all their contributions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
viii 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii 
DECLARATION............................................................................................................... iii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iv 
COPYRIGHT .................................................................................................................... vi 
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... viii 
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xi 
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii 
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................ xiii 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ xiv 
 
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1 
1.0  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  Background Information ............................................................................................ 1 
1.2  Problem Statement...................................................................................................... 4 
1.3  Significance of the Study............................................................................................ 4 
1.4  Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 5 
1.4.1 General objectives ............................................................................................... 5 
1.4.2  Specific objectives ............................................................................................... 5 
1.5   Hypothesis  ................................................................................................................. 5 
1.6  Research Questions .................................................................................................... 6 
 
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................... 7 
2.0  LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7 
ix 
 
2.1  Theory of the study ..................................................................................................... 7 
2.2  Understanding of New Technology............................................................................ 7 
2.3  Assessment of Costs and Revenues in Vegetable Production .................................... 8 
2.4  The Importance of Improved Farming Technologies ................................................. 9 
2.5  AVRDC Technologies and Vegetable Productivity ................................................. 10 
2.6  New Introduced Technologies From AVRDC ......................................................... 13 
2.6.1  Planting materials .............................................................................................. 13 
2.6.1.1  Nursery preparation ................................................................... 13 
2.6.1.2  Use of quality seeds and healthy seedlings free pathogens ....... 13 
2.6.1.3  Choice of site ............................................................................. 13 
2.6.1.4  Land preparation ........................................................................ 13 
2.6.1.5  Crop field management .............................................................. 13 
2.6.1.6  Plant Protection – Pest and Diseases ......................................... 13 
2.6.1.7  Harvesting .................................................................................. 13 
2.6.1.8  Records keeping ......................................................................... 13 
2.6.1.9  Reviewing results ....................................................................... 13 
2.6.1.10   Field hygiene ............................................................................. 13 
2.7  Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 13 
 
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 16 
3.0  METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 16 
3.1  Description of the study area .................................................................................... 16 
3.2  Research Design ....................................................................................................... 17 
3.3  Sampling procedure and sample size ....................................................................... 17 
3.4  Methods of Data Collection...................................................................................... 18 
3.5  Data Processing and Analysis .................................................................................. 18 
x 
 
 
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................ 20 
4.0  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS........................................................................... 20 
4.1  Social-economic Characteristics of the Respondents ................................................. 1 
4.2   Contribution of Newly Introduced Technologies to Vegetable Yield ...................... 24 
4.3   Cost and Benefits of AVRDC Technologies as compared to traditional Farming... 25 
4.4  Assessment of farmers’ perception on the quality of the vegetables produced under 
the new technologies compared to those produced under the traditional farming ... 26 
 
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 30 
5.0  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 30 
5.1  Summary................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 
5.2  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 30 
5.3  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 31 
 
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 33 
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 37 
 
 
xi 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 1:  Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents ........................................ 21 
Table 2:   Overall perceptions of farmers towards newly introduced technologies  ....... 27 
Table 3:  Farmers’ perceptions on quality of newly introduced technologies ............... 27 
 
 
 
 
xii 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 1:  Conceptual framework .................................................................................... 14 
Figure 2: A map showing villages where a research was conducted ............................. 16 
 
 
xiii 
 
 
LIST OF APPENDICES 
 
Appendix 1:     Yield Paired Samples Statistics................................................................. 37 
Appendix 2:     Yield Paired Samples Test ........................................................................ 37 
Appendix 3:     Costs of production Paired Samples Statistics .......................................... 37 
Appendix 4:      Costs of production Paired Samples Test ................................................ 38 
Appendix 5:      Revenue Paired Samples Statistics .......................................................... 38 
Appendix 6:      Revenue Paired Samples Test .................................................................. 38 
Appendix 7:     Costs in percentage before and after intervention ..................................... 39 
 
 
xiv 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
 
AVRDC Asian Vegetable Research Development Centre 
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis 
CIAT Central International for Agricultural Tropical 
COMTRADE Commodity Trade 
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
HODECT Horticultural Development Tanzania 
IPM Integrated Pest Management 
NBS National Bureau of Statistics 
NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty 
TAHA Tanzania Horticultural Association 
URT United Republic of Tanzania 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
CHAPTER ONE 
 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Background Information 
For many decades, agriculture has been recognized as an important tool for the reduction 
of income poverty (Janvry and Sadoulet, 2009). According to URT (2010), agriculture 
deserves special consideration because of its importance in poverty reduction. Evidence 
from different studies (Anderson and Gugerty, 2011, Guyen, 2010, Godoy and Dewbre, 
2010, Alexander et al., 2006) suggests that an increase in agricultural productivity can 
increase real income which will finally lead to poverty reduction. In Tanzania, agriculture 
remains the predominant sector and instrumental in poverty reduction (HODECT, 2010). 
The sector contributes 17.8% of the country GDP (URT, 2010). 
 
The Tanzanian government has prioritized agricultural sector as a major means to fight 
poverty; most emphasis has been on the food crops such as maize and rice as well as cash 
crops such as cashew nuts, coffee and tea. Little emphasis has been put on the cultivation 
of vegetables (HODECT, 2005). With the use of improved technologies, vegetable crops 
can provide more income than cereal crops (Mubarik and Binch, 2001). 
 
Although, the Government has given less emphasis in vegetable cultivation, some Non-
Governmental Organizations such as AVRDC (Asian Vegetable Research Development 
Centre), TAHA (Tanzania Horticultural Association) and others have helped to innovate, 
facilitate and also monitor vegetable activities. For instance AVRDC Center, mobilizes 
resources from the public and private sectors to disseminate AVRDC’s improved varieties 
and production methods in developing countries. The center helps farmers increase 
2 
 
vegetable harvests, raise incomes in poor rural and urban households, create jobs, and 
provide healthier more nutritious diets for families and communities (AVRDC, 2014).  
 
AVRDC was founded in 1971 in Shanhua southern Taiwan, by the Asian Development 
Bank, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam. Its 
operations expanded into sub-Sahara African countries in 1992, including Tanzania, 
where the central office of central and southern Africa is located. AVRDC deals with 
research and conservation of Germplasm at the Regional Center for Africa in Arusha 
Tanzania. The focus of AVRDC is on vegetable species that are strategically important in 
the major regions of Africa with an aim of helping farmers to adopt new high yielding 
and high value varieties (Ojiewo et al., 2010). AVRDC works with vegetable producers 
in different places in Tanzania including Babati District in Manyara Region, whereby 
AVRDC deals with the dissemination of newly improved technologies to farmers and 
farm management, specifically in vegetable production.  
 
It is estimated that, globally horticulture annual average growth was 13% between 2001 
and 2008 (HODECT, 2010) and worldwide annual growth rate of total horticultural 
components from 2001-2008 was 15.5 %, 14.3%, 12.3% and 20.8% in fruits, vegetable, 
cuts flowers, and spices respectively (COMTRADE, 2010). In spite of that, the failure of 
technological advancement is the major factor and has not allowed the Tanzanian 
horticultural industry to become established in high value international retail market 
channels, hence only poor returns (income) have been observed (HODECT 2010). 
 
Vegetable production is among a strong source of income poverty reduction (Gari 2003, 
Weinberger and Msuya 2004, Weinberger and Lumpkin 2005; 2007, Afari- Sefa et al., 
2012). In Tanzania, vegetable production faces two main challenges; (a) small-scale 
3 
 
farming and (b) use of traditional technologies which lead to poor income generation, 
hence producers cannot supply large buyers with sufficient quantities to make them 
attractive suppliers and sustain the market hence will generating enough income 
(HODECT, 2010).  
 
Technological assistance seems to be so helpful, particularly through the adoption of new 
technologies; farmers can improve their productivity even if farmers are challenged by a 
shortage of land for cultivation (Uddin et al., 2006). In addition, CIAT (2004) suggested 
that when the transformations are done in the agricultural sector from traditional form into 
modern, it contributes to communities’ and nation’s income development. 
 
In Tanzania, specifically Babati, AVRDC through pilot study discovered that there are 
two groups of farmers, farmers who practice inter-cropping between vegetable and other 
crops (vegetable intervention) and another group of farmers who cultivate single crops, 
e.g. maize only (one crop producers), according to the baseline survey conducted by 
AVRDC in 2013, there was no significant income differences between one crop 
producers and vegetable intervention producers and this is the reason as to why AVRDC 
introduced new technologies to vegetable producers. Technological improvements from 
AVRDC include those on, land preparation, seeding, weed control, stacking, chemical 
fertilizer applications, manuring/composting, pesticide application, watering, harvesting, 
and packing. In addition, a study by Hallman at el. (2003) argues that the introduction of 
new technologies has an impact on female empowerment and nutritional status. The 
above argument indicates that the improvement of technologies on vegetable cultivation 
can increase indirect (income and dietary pattern) and direct profit.  
4 
 
This study’s main objective was to assess the costs and benefits of production between 
traditional farm practices (old) compared to newly introduced farming technologies in 
Babati District, Tanzania.  
1.2 Problem Statement 
Vegetable farming can offer opportunities for income poverty reduction, because its 
production can be done with little capital investment, nonetheless, technological problem 
remains as a major hindrance (Tijani et al., 2014). Despite several efforts done by 
development programmes to ensure an increase in vegetable production as a good source 
of income, technologies are still a problem. According to NSGRP (2005), Tanzania can 
improve agriculture through promotion of modern technologies, especially in rural areas. 
Improvement in the use of technologies could help even the farmers’ raise productivity of 
the neglected crops (vegetable) i.e. those which have not been given much emphasis by 
the government. AVRDC has introduced new technologies to farmers in Babati District 
but, the introduction of technologies is not enough unless they are economically effective 
for farmers; therefore, this study was designed to assess profitability of AVRDC newly 
introduced technologies towards income poverty reduction. 
 
1.3 Significance of the Study 
Efforts made by AVRDC to introduce new technologies for vegetable production in 
Babati District  were yet to be verified among  the farmers as to whether they are 
economically viable or not. However, very few technological profitability studies have so 
far been conducted in Tanzania particularly Manyara Region as a whole, so the findings 
of this study will help farmers to understand the economic effectiveness of newly 
introduced vegetable technologies compared to the traditional farming practices of the 
farmers in Babati District. To that effect recommendations would be made for a wider 
adoption of the technologies across the country in case the technologies are found to be 
5 
 
economically beneficial. The findings of this study will be shared with different 
stakeholders such as smallholder farmers, policy makers and development partners,in 
order to help with quick eradication of extreme poverty and hunger as well as to meet 
Millennium Development Goal 1. 
 
1.4 Objectives of the Study 
1.4.1 General objectives 
To assess the economic benefits of AVRDC vegetable technologies compared to 
traditional farming practice in Babati District. 
 
1.4.2 Specific objectives 
I. To examine how newly introduced technologies have contributed to vegetable 
yield. 
II. To compare cost and benefit between vegetable interventions basing on newly 
introduced technologies against traditional farming practices. 
III. To assess farmers' perception on the quality of the vegetables produced under the 
new technologies. 
 
1.5 Hypothesis (H0) 
I. Vegetable yields produced under AVRDC technologies do not differ from 
vegetable yield produced under traditional farming practices.  
II. AVRDC introduced technologies are not more economically viable for vegetable 
production compared to traditional farming practices. 
 
6 
 
1.6 Research Question 
What is the farmers’ perception on the quality of vegetables produced under AVDRC 
technologies compared with that of vegetables produced under traditional farming 
practices? 
 
 
7 
 
 
CHAPTER TWO 
 
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 definitions of key concepts 
Vegetables are plants with edible parts, especially leaves or fleshy parts that are used 
mainly for soup or salad, or to accompany main courses, (Encarta 2008). According to 
Akter et al., (2011), vegetables are herbaceous plants whose fruits, seeds, roots, tubers, 
leaves, etc., are used as food. Both exotic and indigenous vegetables are cultivated in 
Tanzania but there is no emphasis from the government which results into low motivation 
and uses of the poor technologies 
2.2 Theory of the study 
The study was guided by the theory of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) which is a theory and 
also a tool. The theory emerged from the field of welfare economics, and the principal of 
CBA is projects would only be undertaken if accrued benefits exceeded accrued costs 
(Musgrave, 1969). This theory has been used by other authors such as Bayefsky (2014) in 
dignity as a value in agency cost-benefit analysis, also Del Bo and Florio (2011) Public 
enterprises, policy adoption and planning. So this study will use the social Cost Benefit 
Analysis (CBA) theory to explore the profitability of technologies. 
 
2.3 Understanding of New Technology 
The evidence suggests that there are multiple pathways through which income poverty 
reduction can be handled to vegetable producers; firstly, increases in agricultural 
productivity can reduce poverty through improving real income and employment 
generation. But this is not a simple task if improved technologies will not be used by 
8 
 
farmers. Several studies (NSGRP, 2005, HODECT, 2010, Tijaniet al., 2014,) suggest 
that, income poverty can be reduced by using improved technologies. Rogers (1983) 
stated that, technology is a design for instrumental action that reduced the uncertainty in 
the cause and effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome, while Ingold 
(2002), argued that technology intent is to embrace the totality of human works, in all 
societies and during all epochs. Improved technology is the fundamental determinant of 
agricultural productivity and profitability. Technology plays a vital role in agricultural 
activities towards human welfare; by understanding that attention has been given by the 
AVRDC organization through the introduction of new improved technologies to 
vegetable producers. For AVRDC, new technologies were on land preparation, seeding, 
weed control, stacking, applications of chemical fertilizer, manuring/composting, 
pesticide application, watering, harvesting, and packing. 
 
2.4 Assessment of Costs and Revenues in Vegetable Production 
Cost benefit analysis of Several good studies, by other scholars also conducted to assess 
costs and revenues of different vegetables, (Chowdhury, 1996a; Hossain, 1997; Mowla, 
1998; Naher, 1998; Islam, 2000; Ahmed, 2001a, Sultana, 2005; Akhter, 2006;) However, 
very few technological profitability studies have so far been conducted in Tanzania 
particularly in Babati Manyara. However, few studies conducted on technological 
profitability, but, Akter et al., (2011), argues that, vegetables are generally crops which 
offer considerable promise for generating increased rural employment opportunities. In 
addition, Weinberger and Lumpkin (2007) vegetable production provides an employment 
and generation of income more than most starchy staple crop productions, and AVRDC 
(2001), vegetable cultivation is not the only source of nutrients, but it also creates more 
employment opportunities than that of growing other crops such as cereals.  
9 
 
Although, some NGOs try to support vegetable production by introducing modern 
technologies, the main challenge is that not every technology adopted can be useful 
because of different barriers like expensiveness of inputs, climatic change and farmer 
characteristics (perception and practices). Subsequently, it is more economical when costs 
of production are less than the revenue, and action should be taken towards modern ways 
against the traditional practice if the cost of production is less than or equal to the revenue 
generated. Factors, such climatic change and traditional farming systems (difficult to 
control climatic change and transfer from their daily practice i.e. traditional farming) 
might be an obstacle of using new technologies (Enete and Amusa 2010). Technologies 
which are less expensive have higher chance of being adopted by smallholder farmers 
(Muzari et al, 2012). This implies that, because most new technologies are expensive, 
large farmers adopt new technologies and small farmers do not. Finally introduction of 
new technologies leaves small farmers worse off than before (Shaner et al., 1982). 
Therefore, assessment of cost and revenue in vegetable production should be highly 
considered for the farmers to generate more income towards poverty income reduction.  
 
2.5 The Importance of Improved Farming Technologies 
Ilemona (2012) in Nigeria examined the adoption of improved agricultural technologies 
before and after and results show that the revenue of farmers after the adoption of 
innovations is better than that before adoption. Additionally, the same results attest to the 
importance of increasing agricultural productivity to farmers from 2009-2010 and finally 
it is clearly seen that the improvement in agricultural technology development has a great 
economic impact.  
 
According to Pena and Hughes (2007) good management practices have the potential to 
raise the yield of vegetables grown under hot and wet conditions to ensure appropriate 
10 
 
availability of nutrients to plants. Moreover, Cechura (2012) assessed the contribution of 
technological change to technical efficiency and total productivity in Czech Republic. 
The results show that the technological change did not contribute significantly to the 
development of efficiency in production. Likewise, Makurira et al. (2010) conducted a 
study in the Makanya catchment in northern Tanzania to assess the effectiveness of newly 
introduced technologies and findings show that crops grown under the new improved 
farming system are more profitable compared to the traditional farming system.  
 
The above, cited literature proves that new introduced technologies to farmers can either 
be profitable or not. In that case, assessment of new adopted technologies should be 
examined so that technologies may help a farmer to generate more income and finally the 
income poverty reduction. For instance, new technologies were introduced in Bangladesh 
to vegetable farmers (about 60,000 tons) and after a short period of time there was a 
remarkable increase in quantity, whereby the quantity increased by 258 tons. As a result 
farmers generated more revenue after selling their produce (revenue exceeded cost used 
in production). Finally newly introduced technologies lead to a reduction in income 
poverty because technologies were profitable to farmers (Uddin et al., 2006).  
 
2.6 AVRDC Technologies and Vegetable Productivity 
Empirical literature (Afari-Sefa et al, (2012), Genova et al. (2013) proves that, the 
introduction of new technologies has helped vegetable producers in productivity and 
income generation; the World Vegetable Center has developed technologies to alleviate 
production challenges in different places in order to enhance nutrient availability to plants 
and improvement of income to farmers.  
 
11 
 
Afari-Sefa et al, (2012) combination of integrated community-based innovative tools and 
approaches in Mali helped to raise awareness of successful technology on vegetable 
cultivation based on variety and technology dissemination from 2008-2010 and 
agronomic trials of the hot pepper varieties in the seven countries suggested marketable 
yield range. Finally farmers requested seeds of the three new pepper varieties for planting, 
this intervention proved that it is possible; sometimes people are reluctant to use a 
technology because they don’t have awareness about the ability of the technology to 
improve their livelihoods. Newly introduced technologies may help farmers to change 
their attitude and objective because of good results. 
 
According to Genova et al. (2013), AVRDC introduced tomato grafting in Vietnam in 
2002 through training and extension activities that facilitated the adoption process. 
Because of these efforts as well as the profitability of the technique to farmers, the 
adoption of tomato grafting by farmers in Vietnam rapidly increased since its introduction 
in 2002 to 100% in 2012. Furthermore, introduction by AVRDC and adoption of new 
improved seed and varieties in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand 
resulted significant in the reduction of pesticide use that drastically reduced the cost of 
production and enhanced environmental health (Srinivasan, 2001). 
 
Tomato production and its importance to household’s income  
How about numbering this sub-topic? 
Tanzania’s level of production of fresh vegetables is increasing and there is still huge 
production potential; however, Tanzania does not contribute much in the vegetable export 
market despite the fact that she is among the top 20 producers. Nonetheless, foreign 
exchange generated by the horticultural industry has increased from USD 46.7 million per 
annum in 2006/07 to USD 112.6 million in 2008/09 and USD 127.7 million in 2010/11 
12 
 
(MAFSC 2012). Tomatoes are among those fresh vegetables produced in Tanzania. 
Tomato is a very important vegetable crop in Tanzania. It has been said that tomatoes 
contribute a large part of the income to vegetable producers compared to other types of 
vegetables. 
 
Different scholars such as Blum et al. (2005),Blum and Karem (2006), Barceloux  et al. 
(2009), Freeman and Reimers (2010), Polívková et al.(2010), Shidfar et al. (2011),  
through different studies it has been discovered that tomatoes are very important to 
humans, for instance, tomatoes contain large amount of vitamin C, one of the most well-
known tomato eating benefit is its' Lycopene content. Lycopene is a vital anti-oxidant that 
helps in the fight against cancerous cell formation as well as other kinds of health 
complications and diseases. Tomatoes also contain vitamins, A, B and C - tomatoes are 
the third source of vitamin C in our diet and the fourth for vitamin A, through its content 
in beta-carotene or pro vitamin A; - phytosterols, compounds that help to keep cholesterol 
under control - folic acid, which helps eliminate homocysteine, an amino acid whose 
metabolism is dependent on the metabolism of vitamins B complex, especially that of 
folic acid. Findings revealed the importance of tomatoes in many ways, and scholars 
suggested that, the uses of tomatoes can insure more health and income generation for 
producers. 
 
The above arguments prove that, the introduction of new technologies can lead to high 
productivity and sustainable agriculture, particularly for vegetables. It is very important to 
inspire farmers with new technology and frequent training will direct them toward higher 
productivity and income.  
 
13 
 
2.7 Newly Introduced Technologies from AVRDC 
During training by AVRDC on good practices to farmers, supervision was extended from 
the very early stage to the last stage. Observation and regulations were on four types of 
vegetables i.e. Tomatoes, African eggplant, Amaranth and sweet pepper. Basically, 
AVRDC taught farmers new technologies based on the following activities:-  
 
2.6.1 Planting materials 
2.6.1.1 Nursery preparation 
2.6.1.2 Use of quality seeds and healthy seedlings free pathogens 
 Sowing methods 
 Direct sowing   
 Transplanting and crop management   
 Spacing 
2.6.1.3 Choice of site 
2.6.1.4 Land preparation 
2.6.1.5 Crop field management 
2.6.1.6 Plant Protection – Pest and Diseases 
2.6.1.7 Harvesting 
2.6.1.8 Records Keeping 
2.6.1.9 Reviewing Results 
2.6.1.10 Field Hygiene 
 
2.7 Conceptual Framework 
Technologies used in vegetable farming can be profitable if the cost of the input is less 
than the cost of the output, so farmers will make choices towards adoption of profitable 
technologies either traditional or modern farming. The newly introduced technologies 
14 
 
such as pest management, fertilizers application, quality seeds, nutrient management, and 
water management may influence profitability of vegetable production. Profitability of 
technologies will result into high yield and high quality which will lead to better price and 
expansion of markets, hence income generations and finally poverty reduction.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Conceptual framework 
 
Farmer’s characteristics, such as education, age, sex, income, distance from town, attitude and 
skills helps to understand the nature of farmers who participate in vegetables cultivation 
FARMERS 
CHARACTERI
STICS 
Education 
Age 
Sex 
Income 
Distance from 
town 
Attitude 
Skills 
 
Effect on vegetable 
production 
 
- Yield 
- Quality 
Agronomic 
practices 
Pest 
management 
Fertilizers 
extension 
Quality seeds 
Nutrient 
management 
Water 
management 
 
 INCOME 
 
NON-FARM 
ACTIVITIES, 
e.g. a driver, 
teacher, etc. 
Traditional 
farming 
practices 
 
Newly 
introduced 
technologi
es 
 
Farming practices 
 
15 
 
and how (characteristics) they associate with income and if in one way or another might 
contribute to lower or higher their productivity and income. 
 
Farming practices 
These are two practices, one from AVRDC and another one is traditional farming, 
traditional practice is farming which does not involve technical procedure or in other 
words, we can say this is a farming system which does not have good agricultural 
practices. Basically, new introduced practices, involve, Pest management, Fertilizers 
extension, Quality seeds, Nutrient management and Water management.  
 
Effect on vegetable production 
Both traditional and newly introduced practices can lead to vegetable production, but this 
study was intended to assess the impact of new introduced technologies towards 
vegetable production in comparison to traditional by measuring yields and quality. Under 
this section, newly introduced technologies are expected to bring positive change by 
increasing yields and quality of vegetables.  
 
Income 
This study intended to assess income and change in income, but it depends on yield 
produced and its quality, whereby high yield and quality will make assurances of market 
availability. The most important thing is the cost of production versus revenue for both 
traditional and new introduced technologies by AVRDC.  
 
16 
 
 
CHAPTER THREE 
 
3.0 METHODOLOGY 
3.1 Area of the Study 
This study was conducted in Babati District, Tanzania. Babati is among the five districts 
in Manyara Region with a total population of 312 392 whereby rural dwellers are 296 203 
and urban dwellers are 16 189 (NBS, 2013). It is located in the North East of Tanzania 
and lies between the Latitude 30- 50 south of the Equator and Longitude 350 – 370 East 
of Greenwich. It borders the following districts; Monduli to the North, Karatu to the 
North-West, Mbulu to the West, Hanang to the South-West, Kondoa to the South and 
Simanjiro to the East.  
 
 
 
  
          Seloto                  Bermi  Matufa              Galapo        
Figure 2:a map showing villages where research was conducted 
 
17 
 
Babati District has a land area of 5 608.14 square kilometres, which is equal to 92.4 % of 
the total area of the District. It has been estimated that, more than 95 % of Babati District 
inhabitants depend primarily on agriculture (crop and livestock production) for their 
livelihood. Agricultural activities are both crop production and livestock keeping. As a 
result large numbers of dwellers are farmers and pastoralists; the climate is favourable for 
farming, especially for maize and they have two up to three seasons of harvest. Vegetable 
production reaches a total average of 4 723 tons per annum. Babati also has farmers 
involved in some vegetable interventions and these farmers are closely monitored by the 
AVRDC project, as they have adopted new technologies from AVRDC. The villages 
involved in the project are Matufa, Seloto, Bermi, and Galapo. 
 
3.2 Research Design 
Research design, is a plan that specifies how data should be collected and analysed. The 
study employed a panel research design whereby farmers who were once surveyed by 
AVRDC in previous survey were visited again and data collected from them by the 
researcher with the aid of structured questionnaires and information obtained was used for 
comparison of farmers’ performances between traditional farming and after  the newly 
AVRDC introduced technologies.   
 
3.3 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size 
According to Bailey (1994) total number of 30 is enough for any social science research. 
For this study data from 77 sample size was collected, purposive sampling was used to 
select 77 respondents, during follow up survey sample selection was based on previous 
selection of AVRDC but also in order for data to be useful from respondents, first a 
farmer was supposed to be one of trained farmers and also availability of respondent’s 
data before intervention. Previously, AVRDC sample was selected through simple 
18 
 
random sampling, from Matufa, Seloto. But it is important to note that, only 45 
respondents were used in the analysis (qualified for comparison analysis) 
 
3.4 Methods of Data Collection 
Primary data were collected through surveys by using a pre-structured questionnaire and 
observations. In addition, secondary information (data from previous AVRDC surveys) 
on vegetable inputs costs collected was used (secondary data for comparison). In addition, 
before official data collection adesigned questionnaire was also used to conduct a pilot 
study to a fewer number (about 10) of farmers to measure the data which was collected in 
Babati District, Manyara Region, Tanzania. 
 
3.5 Data Processing and Analysis 
Both objective number one and two, natural transformation were carried out to ensure 
data are normal distributed as one of the most important criteria for sample paired T-test. 
Objective 1: 
To examine how newly introduced technology has contributed to vegetable yield   
production, analysis was done by using sample paired T-test to compare yield under 
traditional farming practices and after use AVRDC technologies. 
Objective 2: 
To compare costs and benefits between vegetable interventions based on introduced 
technologies against the traditional farming system. The objective was intended to assess 
profitability of newly introduced technologies against traditional farming system, and 
sample paired T-test was used. 
 
 
 
19 
 
Objective 3 
A Likert scale was used to assess farmers’ perception on the quality of the vegetables 
produced under the new technologies compared to those produced under the traditional 
farming and final data were descriptively analysed.  
 
Study limitation 
During the study, one of the major challenges was to find respondents, because the study 
required the same respondents in order to allow comparison of the performance of 
farmers before and after intervention (respondents’ alteration). The study found other 
respondents have died, others have moved (shifted) to other places. Hence, less 
respondent were interviewed compared to a first interview. The solution from the above 
challenges was solved by analysing only found data. 
 
20 
 
 
CHAPTER FOUR 
4.0 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 
The analysis of this study was based on both, follow up surveys and panel data (collected 
by AVRDC before intervention) from four villages (Matufa, Seloto, Galapo, and Bermi) 
from three wards in Babati District. Initially, 120 respondents were surveyed by AVRDC 
but not all respondents were trained, nevertheless, follow up survey used only 77 
respondents.  
Trained farmers 
Farmers in Babati, received training from AVRDC in different ways, includes, regular 
training through visiting their farms by AVRDC specialist, sensitization meeting, also in a 
field day, and preparation of trial plots in their areas. The newly introduced technologies 
from AVRDC, were introduced to farmers in four above mentioned villages in Babati 
Tanzania, previously, before newly introduced technologies farmers were using 
traditional way of cultivation, but AVRDC replaced by introducing new ones. 
 
Basically, this study focused on aspects of profitability of improved technologies (good 
agricultural practices) including hybrid varieties of vegetable crops from AVRDC. The 
study assessed the effects of new technologies on household income, which may result in 
more income earning and finally the income poverty reduction. In addition, the study 
studied about farmers’ opinions/perceptions of a new product after intervention in 
different vegetable production under AVRDC supervision. 
 
4.1 Social-economic Characteristics of the Respondents 
The study starts with socio-economic characteristics which direct or indirect effects on 
the three main objectives of the study. In this first section, analysisdeals with the gender, 
21 
 
experiences, education, occupation, head of the families also family sizes. The summary 
of the analysis is shown in Table 1. 
 
Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents 
 Characteristic  Frequency Percentage 
% 
Gender of 
the 
respondents 
Male 
Female 
39 
6 
86.7 
13.3 
    
 Age of the 
respondents 
<19 
20-40 
40-60 
61> 
2 
23 
19 
1 
4.4 
51.1 
42.2 
2.2 
    
Education 
Level 
Non-educated 
Primary  
Secondary 
Advance  
College 
0 
41 
2 
1 
1 
0.0 
91.1 
4.4 
2.2 
2.2 
    
Occupation 
of 
respondents 
Agriculture  
Non-agriculture 
Both   
45 
0 
0 
100.0 
0 
0 
    
Farmers' 
experience 
in vegetable 
production 
1 
2 
3 
Above 3 
24 
16 
4 
1 
53.3 
35.6 
8.9 
2.2 
    
Household 
size 
1-3 
4-6 
7-9 
10-above 
15 
17 
12 
1 
33.3 
37.8 
26.7 
2.2 
    
Household 
decision 
making 
Male 
Female 
Both 
30 
7 
8 
66.7 
15.6 
17.6 
Source: AVRDC, 2013. 
Table 1, presents the socio-economic distribution of the respondents (farmers). The 
findings in Table 1 show that 86.7% of farmers were males and the remaining 13.3% 
were females. According to these results, males dominated vegetable production in the 
villages. These findings comply with that of Stephens (1992) who argued that though 
22 
 
most technologies are considered gender neutral, they are often gender biased during their 
introduction and use by societies/producers. In addition, based on the results above, men 
are more employed in vegetable cultivation and at the same time the decision maker of 
the families, and this is presented by 66.7% decision making of the family are males, this 
is clear indication that, most of the families depend more on this type of agriculture for 
their family prosperity by income growth and final reduction of poverty. 
 
Findings in Table 1 also, present education level of the respondents whereby 91.1% of 
farmers had primary education, 4.4% had secondary education, 2.2% had advance 
secondary education, and 2.2 % had a college education. These findings indicate that the 
majority (91.1%) of the vegetable producers have primary education. The findings are in 
agreement with that of CIMMYT (1993) where it was reported that in Tanzania, most 
farmers have primary education and rely on traditional farming practices. It must be noted 
that, the above characteristics of farmers were collected during the first survey, education 
can be an obstacle on the uses of newly introduced technologies because newly 
introduced technologies involves some mathematical procedures. So it is possible that, 
producers in Babati could have produced more, but education level contributed to what 
they have harvested after introduction of new technologies. Apart from that, at least they 
have primary education compared with non-educated farmers.  
 
Findings in Table 1 show respondents’ occupations whereby 100% were practicing 
farming as their only occupation; these results indicate that 100% farmers in the villages 
had no other means of sustaining their livelihoods apart from farming. Not only in 
agriculture but also, specifically vegetable because AVRDC works with only vegetable 
producers. 
23 
 
Findings in Table 1 show that most of the families have 4-6 (37.8%) members followed 
by 1-3 members (33.3%), these findings reveal that, most of the families had more than 
three members, this enabled farmers to engage more in agricultural production, many 
times it is farmers with more labour that are able to take advantage of high production in 
agriculture but with less productivity. Based on the above results, family labour is not 
very big, so, newly introduced technologies will be so helpful to them. PADEP (2010), 
argued that, agriculture is the source of food and provides employment opportunities to 
about 80% of Tanzanians, but there is no logic of employing a huge population with less 
returns to extent that it takes years to change their lives. So, even if family labour is big or 
medium as findings shows, but, their labour will be more profitable when they have 
improved technologies. 
 
However, there is a change in the area of cultivation, but still they all depend on 
agriculture; data show that, the previously average area cultivated was 0.874545 acres, 
but in this follow up survey the study finds that total average of the area of cultivation 
was 0.6644064 acres. Interestingly, the producers are still young and energetic; this is 
well shown in the table 1, whereby more than 51% are of 20-40 age. These findings are 
similar to those of Adesina and Forson, (1995), ages of the farmers allow them to adopt 
decisions and quickly use of new techniques of agriculture and this is more appropriate, 
especially when technologies are cost effective, and therefore more profit generation and 
finally income growth. If a little more emphasize will be on vegetable, particularly 
tomatoes, household’s life will change dramatically specifically when technologies are 
cost effective.  
 
24 
 
4.2 Contribution of Newly Introduced Technologies to Vegetable Yield 
To examine how newly introduced technologies have contributed to vegetable 
productivity, t-test was used to assess the difference in yields between traditional farming 
and farming using the AVRDC technologies. 
The results from the findings show that, mean yield per farmer using traditional farming 
is 3 122.5 Kg, while the mean yield per framer using the new technology is 4279.2 Kg 
and the difference in the mean yields between the two types of farming was significant (p-
value = 0.006), this suggests that, there is positive change after AVRDC intervention. 
Generally, the study revealed that there was a significant difference in respect to the use 
of improved technologies, particularly for tomato production despite a reduction in the 
area cultivated by farmers. According to Richard at el. (1998), technological 
improvement contributes to a dramatic growth in global agricultural productivity. This 
indicates that, the traditional farming system was substituted by efficiency of new 
technologies introduced to farmers in Babati, Tanzania, hence more productivity. 
 
There were some changes in the area cultivated, land which was used previously was 48.1 
acres, and during follow up only 28.75 acres were cultivated. Regardless of the difference 
in area cultivated quantity produced was more than previous quantity, if the same size of 
land was used productivity could have been even higher than this (4279.2kg), total area 
cultivated before intervention was 48.1 acres and after new technologies were 28.75 
acres, and this is the proof of how new technologies are beneficial to farmers in vegetable 
production. Basically, the results based on the comparison of the performances of the two 
production systems (yield), between traditional farming and new introduced technologies 
and it is clearly indicated that, the new introduced technologies by AVRDC performs 
better than the traditional farming. Data show that, (only for surveyed farmers) there are 
significant changes in yields in a short period of time. Regardless of the reduction of area, 
25 
 
farmers by using newly introduced technologies can make the difference of 1156.7 Kg 
per acre which is more than one tonne per season.  
 
4.3Cost and Benefit of AVRDC Technologies As Compared To Traditional Farming 
This objective focused on the profitability of tomato farming, in the real sense, not 
necessarily increase in productivity may lead to increase in income so the study went 
beyond productivity and assess profitability in monetary form. Paired sample t-test was 
used to assess the profitability by taking revenue and costs involved in production (under 
traditional farming against newly introduced technologies).  
 
The results, show that, mean costs per farmer under traditional farming is 139930 shs, 
while the mean costs per farmer using the new technology is 180790shs and the 
difference in the mean costs between the two types of farming was significant (p-value =. 
028), this implies that, the cost per acre under traditional farming is less than the cost per 
acre under the new introduced AVRDC technologies.  
 
Apart from the cost of production, the findings show that, mean revenue per farmer under 
the traditional farming is 886360 TShs, while the mean revenue per farmer using the new 
technology is 1212400 TShs and the difference in the mean revenue between the two 
types of farming was also significant at (p-value =. 028). 
 
The results have shown that, traditional farming has lower cost of production than newly 
introduced technologies from AVRDC. But also the study has shown farming with new 
introduced technologies leads to higher revenue than traditional farming, which leads to 
higher profit of 1031610(1212400 – 180790) compared to profit earned from traditional 
farming(886360 - 139930) = 746430. Jumo et al,.(2013), argued that, in the society where 
26 
 
farmers are using poor traditional cultural practices, high yield and high income can be 
achieved by adopting modern technologies like use of certified seeds, application of 
recommended doses of fertilizers, etc. AVRDC technologies can be recommended 
towards income poverty reduction because the results indicate that, AVRDC technologies 
could lead to higher revenue.  
 
4.4 Assessment of farmers’ perception on the quality of the vegetables produced 
under the new technologies compared to those produced under the traditional 
farming 
Objective 3 was purposely designed to assess farmers' perception on the quality of the 
vegetables produced under the new technologies compared to vegetables produced under 
the traditional farming. Farmers’ perceptions on the quality of the vegetables produced 
under the new technologies were measured using a 5 point Likert scale which had 8 
statements. Every respondent was asked to specify if he/she strongly disagrees (1), agree 
(2), neither agree or disagree (neutral) (3), disagree (4) and Strong agree (5) for each of 
the 8 statements. Later on in the analysis, the responses were categorized into three 
categories, strongly agree and agree into agree, neutral remained as it is, and strongly 
disagree and disagree into disagree. In order to understand the general responses whether 
respondents had favourable views, unfavourable views or indifferent views the cut-off 
point were created. The highest likely score was 40 points (i.e. 8×5), the lowest score was 
8 (i.e. 1×8) while 24 (i.e. 8×3) was the mid score. In this case, the range of scores for 
favourable was from 25 to 40; the range of score for unfavourable was from 8 to 23 while 
24 signified indifferent (neutral) views. 
 
 
27 
 
Table 2: Farmers’ perceptions towards newly introduced technologies (n=45) 
Statements  Agree Neutral Disagree 
 no    % no   %    no     % 
Vegetable size is better for market suitability 40  (89.0)   2   (4.4)    3     (6.6) 
Vegetable color is more attractive 42  (93.4)   1   (2.2)    2     (4.4) 
Vegetable taste is better than before 38 (84.5)   4   (8.9      3      ( 6.6 
Vegetable Weight differs from of previous  
productions 
40 (88.9)   4   (8.9)       1     (2.2) 
For your own experience of AVRDC technologies do 
you prefer than previous one 
38  (84.5)   1   (2.2)       6    (13.3 
Other farmers, such as opinion leaders, think AVRDC 
technologies are good  
41  (91.1)   0     (0)       4     (8.9) 
It is easy to adopt AVRDC technologies 38(84.4)   3(6.7) 4  (8.9) 
New seed varieties were available before planting 
period 
5(11.2)   2(4.4) 39   (84.4) 
Source: field 2014 
Table 3: Overall perceptions of farmers towards newly introduced technologies 
(n=45) 
 Frequencies  Percentage (%)  
Favourable  42 94 
Indifferent  1 2 
Unfavourable 2 4 
Source: field 2014 
Farmers were supposed to provide their opinion on the quality of the vegetables produced 
under the new technologies. Principally, perceptions of the farmers were very important 
in order to understand the preference of farmers. Because technologies can be profitable 
but doesn’t give quality vegetable for the better market. Basically opinions such as size, 
colour, taste and weight of vegetable produced can verify weather technologies are 
quality or not. Under this objective, quality of vegetable produced was used to prove 
effectiveness of technologies through farmer’s opinions. 
 
Table 2, shows that majority (89.0%) of the farmers, viewed that, vegetable size as better 
for market suitability; because they are bigger than those of traditional. Based on colour, 
93.4 percent of the farmers agreed that, colour of vegetables produced under new 
28 
 
technologies is more attractive. For the taste of vegetables, most farmers, (84.5 percent) 
viewed it as better compared to vegetables under traditional farming. Similarly, 88.9 
percent of the respondents indicated that, weight differs from of previous (for instance 4 
tomatoes of newly introduced technologies is equivalent to 7 tomatoes of traditional 
farming in terms of Kg) productions and this proves that vegetable yield is much better.  
 
Also majority of the respondents indicated that they prefer more new introduced 
technique, this proved by 84.5 percent of farmers who responded that they prefer more 
new technologies compared to traditional farming, however the response above on 
introduced technologies, results show that, technologies were not available or easy 
accessed by every farmer (probably farmers wanted everything for free). 84.4 percent of 
the farmers responded that, there was difficult for every farmer to access new improved 
seed varieties before planting. Additionally, not every farmer received the training 
directly from AVRDC, because trained farmers were also expected to train others so after 
harvesting other farmers out of the project asked farmers inside the project why training 
was only for a few farmers? Possibly, this could be the main reason why many farmers 
replied that way.  
 
The results in Table 3 show the overall perception of farmers towards newly introduced 
technologies. Out of all the respondents interviewed, 42 (94%) had favourable 
perceptions; 1 (2%) had an indifferent perception while 2 (4%) had unfavourable 
perceptions towards newly introduced technologies. The overall mean score of farmer’s 
perception towards newly introduced technologies was 32.4out of 40 which implies that 
the perception was positive towards newly introduced technologies, this suggest that 
technologies are of quality for the better market.  
 
29 
 
Based on the above results, there is positive agreement on quality of vegetables produced 
by newly introduced technologies from AVRDC. The statements above proved that 
vegetables produced under AVRDC are of quality for market suitability and finally 
income generation. Moustafa, (2007) argued that, vegetable producers can make profit 
and win the market only when technologies are cost effective and produced vegetables 
have required quality in the market. By using these technologies introduced by AVRDC 
farmers are encouraged to use them for more profit. 
 
 
30 
 
 
CHAPTER FIVE 
 
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1 Conclusions 
There are multiple, complex pathways linking to real income changes. Agricultural 
productivity and returns after harvests are among the most important pathways towards 
income growth. The analysis of the study comes up with some important conclusions; 
first of all, productivity and cost effectiveness of technologies are the most important 
components for income poverty reduction and by using the newly introduced technologies 
there is a strong evidence for direct poverty reduction through more income generation in 
vegetable cultivation. The study found that there is a significant change between 
traditional farming and newly introduced technologies, whereby, the newly introduced 
technologies proved to be more efficient by providing more yield and more income to 
producers than traditional farming. The available evidence (findings) supports the theories 
that projects/activity would only be undertaken if accrued benefits exceeded accrued 
costs.  
Although, the area of vegetable cultivation under newly introduced technologies in Babati 
is small compared to the previous area under traditional farming, but the importance of 
improved technologies towards more yields cannot be overstated. The study revealed that, 
there is a huge change of yield compared to previous one; the study suggests that, 
vegetable farmers can adopt newly introduced technologies for the increase of their 
yields.  
 
Furthermore, the study shows that, newly introduced technologies are cost effective, 
although, was expected that, technologies will be very expensive, but the analysis proved 
31 
 
differently by showing a slight difference (Appendix 7) between the two technologies. 
However, newly introduced technologies are more costfull compared to traditional 
farming, but also, give higher net revenue than traditional farming system. 
 
Through the quality of vegetable produced under newly introduced technologies, 
vegetable growers can win the better market and increase their income by using new 
quality varieties and appropriate technique of vegetable cultivation, which will result in 
higher yields under affordable costs, and finally this will result in more income earning 
because of high returns to producers. 
 
5.3 Recommendations 
Based on the findings and conclusions the following are the recommendations: 
 Farming Technologies should be affordable to farmers based on farmers’ scarce 
resources, so as to enhance income growth, consequently, income poverty 
reduction. 
 
 It is very important to develop a well accessible, simple means of getting inputs 
(technologies) to encourage the growers. The effectiveness of newly introduced 
technologies and promotion of vegetable cultivation toward income poverty 
reduction is inevitable. Furthermore, through newly introduced technologies 
vegetable cultivation can be an important instrument to increase the income of 
small farmers and to generate additional jobs only if market accessibility will be 
improved.  
 
 The study recommends that, NGOs like AVRDC should work with other 
institutions, especially health institutions to insure farmers are also provided with 
32 
 
dietary diversity knowledge, not only to assess changes on dietary diversity  
without knowing if farmers have clear knowledge on that. As we know not 
necessarily increases in productivity may guarantee the improvement of dietary 
diversity to farmers until they have enough knowledge about dietary, by doing so 
the farmer’s health will insure a strong future manpower (society with good 
health) 
 
 Lastly, it should be noted that, in Tanzania the main source of income comes from 
agricultural sector and 75% of the population is engaged in agricultural activities, 
and vegetable production as a part of agriculture is potential for income poverty 
reduction, through the use of newly introduced technologies farmers canshift from 
the level of low productivity and little income returns. So government, institutions 
and other stakeholders should motivate and enforce the use of improved 
technologies in vegetable production in order to reduce farmer’s income poverty 
through vegetable cultivation.  
 
33 
 
 
REFERENCES 
Adesina, A., Baidu-Forson, J., 1995. Farmers’ perception of new agricultural technology- 
evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural 
Economics 13, 1-9. 
Adofu, I., Shaibu, S. O. and Yakubu, S. (2012). The economic impact of improved 
agricultural technology on cassava productivity. Kogi State of Nigeria. 
International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics 1(1): 6 – 74. 
Afari-Sefa, S. D., Theresa, E., Abdou, T., Sanjeet, K. and Paul, A. G. (2012). tools and 
approaches for vegetable cultivar and technology transfer in west africa: A case 
study of new hot pepper variety dissemination in Mali. Journal of agriculture 
Extension and Rural Development 4(15): 410 – 416. 
Afari-Sefa, V.,  Tenkouano, A., Ojiewo, C. O.,  Keatinge, J. D. H. and Hughes,  J. D. A. 
(2012). Vegetable breeding in Africa: constraints, complexity and contributions 
toward achieving food and nutritional security. Food Security 4:115-127. 
Afari-Sefa, V., Dagnoko, S., Endres, T., Tenkouano, A., Kumar, S. and Gniffke, P. A. 
(2012). Tools and approaches for vegetable cultivar and technology transfer in 
West Africa: a case study of new hot pepper variety dissemination in Mali. 
Journal of Agriculture Extension Rural Development 4(15):  3 – 6. 
Ahmed, J. U. (2001). A comparative economic study of potato and cauliflower production 
in a selected area of Comilla district. Dissertaion for Award of MSc Degree at 
Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 
Akhter, F. (2006). Economic of selected winter vegetable production in a selected area of 
Trishal upazila In Mymensingh district. Dissertaion for Award of MSc Degree at  
Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 
Akter, S., Islam, M. S. and Rahman, M. S. (2011). An economic analysis of winter 
vegetables production in some selected areas of Narsingdi district. Journalof 
Bangladesh Agriculture University 9(2): 241–246. 
Alain de, J. and Elizabeth, S. (2009). Agricultural Growth and Poverty 
ReductionAdditional Evidence. Published by Oxford University Press, Oxford. 
Alexander, S., Sara, S. and Luc, C. (2006). The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Povertyin 
Tanzania:A Household Perspective From Rural, Kilimanjaro And Ruvuma. 
International Association of Agricultural Economists. St Catherine's College, 
Oxford, England. 36pp. 
Ali, M. and Hau, V. T. B. (2001). Economic and  Nutritional Impact of New Varieties and 
Technologies. Technical Bulletin No. 25. Asian Vegetable Research and  
Development Center, 55pp. 
Anderson, L. and Gugerty, M. K . (2011). Agricultural productivity and poverty 
reduction: Linkages and Pathways. Spring 1(1): 56 – 74. 
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center  (2001). Vegetables in Bangladesh: 
Economics and Nutritional Impact of New Varieties and Technologies, Tainan, 
Taiwan. 
Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Science Research. (4
th
 Edition). The Free Press, 
New York. 345pp. 
Barceloux, D. and Potatoes, G. (2009), Tomatoes, and solanine toxicity (Solanum 
tuberosum L., Solanum lycopersicum L.). Disease‐a‐Month 55(6): 391– 402. 
Bayefsky, R. (2014) Dignity as a Value in Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis. Yale Law 
Journal, Vol. 123 (6) 14-18    
34 
 
Blum, A., Merei, M. and Karem, A. (2006). Effects of tomatoes on the lipid profile. 
Clinical Investment Medical 29: 298 –  300. 
Blum, A., Monir, M. and Wirsansky, I. (2005). The beneficial effects of tomatoes. 
European Journal  International Medicine 16: 402– 404. 
Čechura, L. (2012). Technological change in the Czech food processing industry: What 
Did We Experience In The Last Decade? European Association Of Agricultural 
Economists 131
st
  Seminar, September 18 - 19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic. 
Cervantes, G. D. and Dewbre, J. (2010). Economic Importance of Agriculture for Poverty 
Reduction. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers No. 23. OECD 
Chiara Del Bo, Carlo Fiorio, Massimo Florio (2011) Shadow Wages for the EU regions, 
journal of  fiscal study vol 32(1) 109-143 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 
Chowdhury, S. (1996). Growth and instability of area and production of some selected  
winter crop in Bangladesh. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at 
Mymensingh, Bangladesh. 
CIAT (2004). Increasing the Competitiveness of Market Chains for Smallholder 
Producers. Manual No. 3. Territorial Approach to Rural Agro-Enterprise 
Development Project. 
 CIMMYT Economic Program, (1993). The Adoption of Agricultural technology: A 
De la Peña, R. and Hughes, J.  (2007). Improving vegetable productivity in a variable and 
changing climate.  Journal of SAT. Agricultural Research 4(1): 1 – 22.  
Encarta Dictionaries (2008), Encarta World English Dictionary 
Enete, A.A.; Amusa, T.A.(2010), Contribution of Men and Women to Farming Decisions 
in Cocoa Based Agroforestry Households of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Tropicultura, 
vol. 28, p. 77-83. 
Freeman, B. B. and Reimers. K (2010). Tomato consumption and health emerging 
benefits. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 13: 23 – 25. 
Gari, J. A. (2003). Agrobiodiversity Strategies to Combat Food Insecurity and HIV/AIDS 
Impact in Rural Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.154pp. 
Genova, C., Schreinemachers, P. and Afari-Sefa, V. (2013). An impact assessment of 
AVRDC’s tomato grafting in Vietnam. World Vegetable Center 13: 752 – 773. 
guide for survey design. D. F., Mexico. 88pp. 
Guyen, V. C. (2010). Does agriculture help poverty and inequality reduction? evidence 
from Vietnam.  Agricultural Economics Review 11(1): 44 – 56 . 
HODECT (2010). Tanzania Horticultural Development Strategy 2012- 2021. 
Horticultural Development Council of Tanzania 2005. 
Hossain, M. M. (1997). A comparative economic analysis of some selected high yielding 
varieties of winter vegetable in an area of Bangladesh. Dissertationfor Award of   
MSc Degree at  Mymensingh, Bangladesh. 
Ingold T. (2002). The Perception of the Environment, Essays in livelihood, dwelling and 
skill. Published by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York.. p. 
294-322. 
Islam, M.R. (2000) an economic analysis of winter vegetable in an area of Mymensgh 
District. Dissertationfor Award of   MSc Degree at  Mymensingh, Bangladesh. 
Jumo K. B., Khalil A., Muhammad A, Nadeem S, and Muhammad N I., (2013)Economic 
Analysis “Cost of Production of Major Vegetables” In Balochistan, Pakistan, 
Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 6(1)12-19 
35 
 
MAFSC (2012). Tanzania Variety Catalogue. Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and 
Cooperatives,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 
Makurira, H., Savenije, H. H. G. Uhlenbrook, S.  (2010). Modelling field scale water 
partitioning using on-site observations in sub-Saharan rainfed 
agriculture. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14: 627 – 638. 
Moustafa, A, 2007, Protected Agriculture: A Different Greenhouse Effect, Coordinator of 
ICARDA's Arabian Peninsula Regional Program, based in Dubai, UAE. Issue 
No.24  
Mowla, M. G. (1998). An economic analysis of some selected Winter Vegetable in a 
Selected Area of Narsingdi District. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at  
Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 
Muzari, W., Gatsi, W. and Muvhunzi, S. (2012). The impact of technology adoption on 
small holder agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of 
Sustainable Development  5(8): 69 – 77. 
Naher, S. (1998). An economic analysis of vegetables Production in Selected Area of 
Mymensigh District. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at  Mymensingh, 
Bangladesh, 
NBS (2013) National Bureau of Statistics- Tanzania.  
Ojiewo, C., Tenkouano, A., Oluoch, M. and Yang, R. Y. (2010) The role of AVRDC - 
The World Vegetable Center in vegetable value chains. African Journla of  
Horticulture Science 3:1 – 23. 
Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP) (2010). 
Environmental and Social Framework Report 
 
Polívková, Z., Šmerák, P., Demová, H. and Houška, M. (2010). Antimutagenic effects of 
lycopene and tomato purée. Journal of Medicinal Food 13 (6): 1443 –1450. 
 
Robert S. G. G. and Geoffrey W.,  (1974) Investment Decisions and Institutional 
Constraints on Income Redistribution journal of public economics vol 3,171-180. 
Rogers, EM 1983. Diffusion of innovations (3rd edition). The Free Press. A Division of 
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. Collier Macmillan Publishers, London. 
Shaner,W. W., Philipp, P. F. and Schmehl, W. R. (1982). Farming Systems Research and 
Development Guidelines for Developing Countries. Westview Press, 
Boulder,Colorado. 
Shidfar, F., Froghifar, N., Vafa, M., Rajab, A., Hosseini, S. and Shidfar, S. (2011). The 
effects of tomato consumption on serum glucose, apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein 
A‐I, homocysteine and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients. International 
Journal of  Food Science Nutrition  62(3): 289 – 294. 
Srinivasan, R., Shelton, A. M. and Collins, H. L.  (2011). Proceedings of the Sixth 
International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and Other 
Crucifer Insect Pests, 21‐25 March 2011, AVRDC  The World Vegetable Center, 
Taiwan. 321pp. 
Stephens, A. (1992). Yes, technology is gender neutral but women in Asia might not 
Agree, Ceres Journal 108: 32 – 35. 
Sultana, M. S. (2005). Economic study on commercially Produced Winter Vegetables in 
some selected Areas of Comilla District. Dissertaion forAward of  MSc Degree at 
Mymensingh, Bangladesh 
36 
 
United Republic of Tanzania (2005). National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of 
Poverty. Government Printer,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.156pp. 
URT (2012b). National Agriculture Policy Draft. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, 
Tanzania. 49pp. 
Weinberger, K. and J. Msuya, (2004). Indigenous vegetables in Tanzania: Significance 
and prospects. Technical Bulletin No. 31. AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center, 
Shanhua, Taiwan. 
Weinberger, K. And Lumpkin, T. A. (2007).  Diversification into horticulture and poverty 
reduction:  Research Agenda World Development 
Weinberger, K. and T. A. Lumpkin. 2005. Horticulture for Poverty Alleviation: The 
Unfunded Revolution. Taiwan: The World Vegetable Center. 
Websites  
http://comtrade.un.org/. 
 
Agenda World Development, Elsevier 35: 1464 – 1480. 
 
37 
 
APPENDICES 
 
Appendix 1: Yield Paired Samples Statistics 
  Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error 
Mean 
Pair 1 before 3.1501 45 .48748 .07267 
after intervention 3.3743 45 .40241 .05999 
Source: panel 2013 and field 2014 
 
Appendix 2: Yield Paired Samples Test 
  Paired Differences 
t df Sig. (2-tailed) 
  
Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Std. 
Error 
Mean 
95% 
Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference 
  Lower Upper 
Pair 
1 
Before 
intervetion - 
afterintervetion 
22421 .51915 .07739 .38018 .06824 2.897 44 .006 
Source: panel 2013 and field 2014 
 
Appendix 3: Costs of production Paired Samples Statistics 
   Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 
Pair 1 Costs_before 4.9544 45 .43003 .06411 
Costs_after 5.1170 45 .32415 .04832 
Source: panel 2013 and field 2014 
 
 
 
 
38 
 
Appendix 4: Costs of production Paired Samples Test 
  Paired Differences 
t df 
Sig. (2-
tailed) 
  
Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Std. Error 
Mean 
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference 
  Lower Upper 
Pair 1 Costs_befor
e – 
costs_after 
16256 .48081 .07167 30701 01811 -2.268 44 .028 
Source: Panel 2013 and field 2014 
 
Appendix 5: Revenue Paired Samples Statistics 
  
Mean N Std. Deviation 
Std. Error 
Mean 
Pair 1 Incomebefore- 5.6828 45 .50853 .07581 
Incomeafter 5.8980 45 .43080 .06422 
 
Appendix 6: Revenue Paired Samples Test 
  Paired Differences 
t df 
Sig. 
(2-
tailed) 
  
Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Std. Error 
Mean 
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference 
  Lower Upper 
Pair 1 incomebefore - 
incomeafter 
-.21522 .63392 .09450 -.40567 -.02477 -2.278 44 .028 
 
 
 
 
39 
 
Appendix 7: Costs in percentage before and after intervention 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40 
 
Farm Household Questionnaire 
Survey Starting Time:                                                  Survey End Time:                          
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)_______________       
Type of Sample: Baseline Survey (2013) =1; Follow-up Survey (2014) =2 [______]   
Regional Profile 
1. Country: ____________ 2. Region: ………..….. 3. District: ……….….…4. Ward: 
…….…….  5.  Village: …………… 
 
SECTION A: RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION & HOUSEHOLD SOCIO-
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 
A1. The person in the household managing vegetable production 
1.1 HH ID. [________________] 1.2 Main Vegetable Crop 
cultivated__________________ 
1.3 Name of Respondent     [_______________________________________]    1.4 Cell 
phone/Mobile No. [____________________] 
1.5 Name of the Household Head (if not respondent)    
[__________________________________________] 
1.6 Age of Respondent (No. of years)  [_____]    1.7 Gender of Respondent (Male-1; 
Female-2)[____]  1.8 Marital Status (1=Married; 2=Single 3= Widow/Widowed 
4=Divorced 5=Separated) [_______] 1.9 Educational level of Respondent (No. of years) 
[_____] 1.10 Total household size [____]     1.11 Occupation (code) [_____] 1.12 Type of 
farming? 1 = Contract only; 2 = non-contract only; 3=Both [___]  1.13 No. of Female & 
Male in the HH (Age group 15-50 yr) (______ Male _____Female) 1.14 Household Head 
Farming Experience (No. of Years) [___]   1.15 Decision Making 1=head alone, 2=entire 
family  [      ]   
1.16 Categories of Households 1. Male-headed household 2.Female-headed household 3. 
Female co-head; the primary female decision maker in male-headed household _______ 
 
Enumerator Name: ____________________   Survey checked by: _____________ 
 
41 
 
To be read by the enumerator: 
Recommendation to policy makers and rural community as to how farmers can gain 
knowledge on production, markets, consumption and  nutritional benefits from African 
traditional vegetables and also understand adoption and diffusion process in order to 
improve income of farmers who grow vegetables in Tanzania. The information will not 
be reported as individual, and thus will be fully anonymous, without identity revealed. Do 
you wish to continue with the interview?____ 1=Yes 2=No” 
Definitions:  
Household: A household is a group of people who live together and eattogether. In our 
survey, a household member is someone who has lived in the household at least 6 months 
and at least half of the week in each week in those months. Even those persons who are 
not blood relations (such as servants, lodgers, or agricultural laborers) are members of the 
household if they have stayed in the household at least 3 months of the past 6 months and 
take food together. Generally, if one person stays more than 3 months out of the last 6 
months outside the household, they are not considered household members. We do not 
include them even if other household members consider them as household members.  
 
Reference period. The reference period that will be used for the survey is DURING 
CROP YEAR 
Dry season –December, 2013 to May, 2014; Rainy season – June, 2013 to November, 
2013) 
Currency: The type of currency unit might varies from country to country 
 
 
 
 
42 
 
SECTION B: LAND AND IRRIGATION SOURCES 
B1. Description of land holdings and irrigation practices 
Description 
 
Land 
Size 
(inKer
et) 
(a) 
Irrigat
ed 
(inKer
et) 
(b) 
Irriga
tion 
Sour
ce 
Distance of 
the water 
source from 
the field 
where 
vegetables 
are grown 
(In km) 
Type 
of 
Irrigat
ion 
Rent in Birr  
perKerert 
Remar
k 
Code 
(c) 
(d) Code 
(e) 
Birr/
Keret 
(f) 
Share 
(%) 
(g) 
(h) 
1. Own 
Area (farm 
and non-
farm area)  
       
2. Own 
Area (Farm 
Land)   
      
3. Own 
Area 
(Cultivated 
Land) from 
(2) Own 
Area (Farm 
Land)   
      
4. Leased-
out from (2) 
Own Area 
(Farm 
Land)    
     
5. Leased-in         
6. Net 
Operated 
Area=Own 
Farm 
Land+(lease
d in-leased 
out)    
 
 
   
7. No of 
plots 
 
  
 
 
   
Local unit code: * Source of irrigation code (c)– (1) Canal (2) pond/tank (3) surface (4) 
ground water (5) Others   
 
43 
 
Type of irrigation code (e): 1=Furrow without ridges, 2=Furrow with ridges, 3=Manual 
from tube well 4=Manual from tank/lake 5=sprinkler 6= drip 7=pump with siphons, 
8=Others (specify) 
 
SECTION C: CROPPING PATTERN, INPUT, FARM MANAGEMENT AND 
MARKETING 
C1. Cropping (all crops) pattern during LAST SEASON in reference period  
Activities Unit 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Crop. 
Code 
____ 
Sowing
. 
month: 
_____ 
Sowing. 
month: 
 _____ 
Sowing 
month: 
 _____ 
Sowing 
month: 
 _____ 
Sowing. 
month: 
 _____ 
Sowing 
month:  
_____ 
Sowing. 
month:  
_____ 
Sowing 
month: 
 _____ 
Sowing 
month:  
_____ 
Sowing 
month: 
 _____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
____ 
Harv.mo
nth 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
_____ 
Harv.mo
nth 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
_____ 
Harv.mo
nth: 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
_____ 
Harv.m
onth: 
_____ 
Cropping 
pattern 
1=mono; 
2=intercr
op  
         
Contract 
Crop 
Yes=1; 
No=2  
                  
Area Acres                    
Variety Name                    
 
C2.1 Crop (major vegetable crop (note: it should be a major crop under Seed 
category) OUTPUT during LAST SEASON in reference period  
SNo Activities Unit Crop. Code 
Output: Seed 
1 Do you produce seeds? (If yes, go to 2 and C3) 1=Yes; 2=No  
2 Area  (Keret)  
3 If Yes, Seed Production Qty  
4 Name of the Unit Name  
5 Unit Conversion Gram/Unit  
6 Seed Production Qty in Gram  
7 Qty (seeds) given as gift (Gram) Qty in Gram  
8 for seed storage (Gram) Qty in Gram  
9 Qty by- product (kg)(Only if by-product is sold) Qty in Kg  
10 Value for by- product(Only if by-product is sold) Val in Birr  
11 Loss before Harvest Qty in Kg  
12 Qty Wastage after harvest (Kg) Qty in Kg  
 
44 
 
C2.2 Crop (major vegetable crop (note: it should be a major crop under Vegetable 
category) OUTPUT during LAST SEASON in reference period  
S/No Activities Unit Crop. Code  
Output: Vegetable 
1 
Do you produce vegetables? (If yes, go to 2 and 
C3) 
1=Yes; 2=No 
 
2 Area  (Acres)  
3 Vegetable Production (Unit) Qty  
4 Name of the Unit Name  
5 Unit Conversion Kg/Unit  
6 Vegetable Production (Kg) Qty in Kg  
7 Home Consumption (only vegetables) Qty in Kg  
8 Qty (Vegetable) given as gift (Kg) Qty in Kg  
9 Qty by- product (kg)(Only if by-product is sold) Qty in Kg  
10 Value for by- product(Only if by-product is sold) Val in Birr  
11 Loss before Harvest Qty in Kg  
12 Qty Wastage after harvest (Kg) Qty in Kg  
 
 
C3. Crop marketing during LAST SEASON in reference period  
Marketing  
SNo Activities Unit 
Vegetable seeds        
 Crop. Code 
Vegetables only  Crop.Code  
1 Qty Sold (Kg) Qty in Kg   
2 No. of Transaction No.   
3 Amount Received Birr   
4 Source of Buyers Code   
5 Reasons- buyers Code   
6 Mode of payment Code   
7 Time of Payment Code   
8 Any input advance? Yes=1; No=2   
9 If yes, how much? Birr   
10 Sales location Code   
11 
Distance from home to 
sales location 
KM 
  
12 
Time btn. home to sales 
location 
Hrs 
  
13 Transport mean Code   
14 
Transaction time on the 
sales location 
Hrs 
  
15 Source of Price info Code   
16 Packaging Cost Birr   
17 Transportation Cost Birr   
18 Loading and Off loading Birr   
19 
Payments at checkpoint or 
road-block 
Birr 
  
20 
Entry license fee at the 
market 
Birr 
  
21 Weighing fees Birr   
22 Grading  Birr   
23 Other expens:_____ Birr  
45 
 
C4. Details on Inputs used for the main crop during LAST SEASON in reference 
period  
Input Details 
SNo Activities Unit 
Vegetable seeds 
Crop. 
Code______ 
Vegetables only 
Crop. Code______ 
1 
Did you purchase any seeds in last 
12 months 
1=Yes; 2=No 
  
2 Total Seeds used– Qty Grams   
3 Own Seed used – Qty Grams   
4 If no, why code   
5 Purchased Seeds– Qty Grams   
6 Purchased Seeds cost – value Birr   
7 When did you buy seeds Months   
8 Source of Seeds Code   
9 
Major reason for choice of this 
vendor 
Code 
  
10 Distance to vendor KM   
11 Method of pay Code   
12 Tagged product Code   
13 If yes, tagged product price Birr   
14 Branded Code   
15 Package Code   
16 Hybrid 1=Yes; 2=No   
17 Satisfied purchase 1=Yes; 2=No   
18 If No, why? Code   
19 Manure-quantity Kgs   
20 manure–value Birr   
21 Inorganic fertilizer– quantity Kgs   
22 Inorganic fertilizer– cost Birr   
23 Inorganic Sellers Code   
24 
Pesticide (fungicides,insect, 
pactricaletc) - Qty 
Kg 
  
25 
No of times applied per 
season/crop cycle 
Numbers  
  
26 At what growth stage Code   
27 
Pesticide (fungicides,insect, 
pactricaletc)  – cost 
Birr 
  
28 
Pesticide (fungicides,insect, 
pactricaletc)  Sellers 
Code 
  
29 Herbicides - Qty Kg   
30 No of times applied per season Numbers    
31 At what growth stage Code   
32 Herbicides – cost Birr   
33 Herbicides Sellers Code   
34 
Source of info. on 
pesticides/harbicides 
Code 
  
35 Cost of Irrigation Birr   
36 Frequency of irrigation 
No. of times 
/season 
  
37 Hired labor– quantity Man-days   
38 Hired labor– value Birr   
39 Family labor– quantity Man-days   
40 Machine rental – value Birr   
41 Other input costs – value Birr   
 
46 
 
C5. Pesticide and Insecticides Management for Main Vegetable Crop 
5.1. What kind of precaution do you take before/during application of agricultural 
pesticides or insecticides? Please circle multiple correct responses. 
a. Wearing all protection gear like gloves, mask, Overall, gumboots    =1 
b. Wear of few protection gear e.g. only nose/mouth protection =2 
c. Protection gear and wind direction =3 
d. Washing hand with soap after chemical application =4 
e. Milk taking before and after pesticide application  =5 
f. Milk taking only after chemical application =6 
g. Wind direction =7 
h. No precaution taken, I just apply =8 
5.2.How long do you usually wait after a pesticide or insecticides application on 
vegetable before harvest? 
1. < 1 week    2. 1 – 2 weeks     3. > 2 weeks  
5.3. Do you use the same source of water for pesticide mixing on vegetables as for 
irrigation? Tick the right response 
1. Yes 2. No Please specify the source(s):     
5.4. How do you decide when to use the pesticides on vegetables?Please circle  one 
correct response 
a. At regular intervals throughout the season (calendar)  
b. When we see pests and /or  diseases symptoms in the field (control)  
c. After field sampling and finding a certain number of pests or a certain level of 
damage (thresholds) 
d. When told by someone to apply a pesticide  
e. Other (please specify) 
47 
 
5.5 If someone told to apply pesticide, who is that? 1. extension agent, 2. trader, 3. 
Stockist 4. Commission agent, 5.Wife, 6.Husband     7. Others (specify) (multiple 
answers possible) 
 
C6. Soil testing 
6.1. Did you ever get soil of your plots tested?  ____ 1=Yes 2=No>>next section 
6.2. When was the last time that you got your soil tested? _____ year 
6.3. What was the purpose of soil testing?  ____1=To find out about mocro-nutrients; 
2=To find out about pesticides residue; 3=To find out what the soil is good for; 
4=Other:_____ 
6.4. do you receive soil test? Yes=1; No=2 
6.5. if Yes, how long they took time? _______ days 
6.6. Who did the soil testing?  ____ 1=Government unit; 2=University; 3=NGO;  
4=NNARES; 5=International organization; 6=Private company; 7=Other:_____ 
6.7. Were you satisfied with the service delivered? _____1=Yes 2=No 
6.8. If no, what could be improved? ___________________________________ 
 
C7. Access to market and price information for main vegetable crop 
7.1In General, before choosing which crop/varieties to grow, do you seek market 
information (for example what to grow and where to sell to maximize product price) 
_____1=Yes 2=No 
7.2 Source of Information__________________ 
7.3 Before growing the main crop, do you seek information on potential demand? 
_____1=Yes 2=No 
7.4 Before harvesting, do you seek information on market prices for your main crop? 
_____1=Yes 2=No 
48 
 
7.5 If Yes, what are the most important sources of market prices information for your 
crops (Circule all that applies)? 1=radio; 2=TV; 3=news paper; 4=government’s 
agricultural marketing information center; 5=any trader at the local market; 6=collector 
who comes to the farm; 7=other farmers; 8=extension officers; 9=internet; 
10=cooperative/farmers’ association; 11=contract company; 12=NGOs; 13=mobile; 
14=others (specify)________ 
7.6 How often do you obtain this information? 1=Daily; 2=once a week; 3=more than 
once a week; 4=once a month; 5=2-3 times a month; 6=once in 3 months; 7=once in a 
season 
7.7 Are you satisfied with the accuracy of this information?_____1=Yes 2=No 
7.8 If you no, what is the main reason? 1= info. is not frequently available; 2=info. is 
inaccurate; 3=info. provided does not meet my interest; 4=info is too complex to 
understand; 5=others (specify)_______ 
 
D. INFORMATION NEEDED 
D1. Information Needed 
 Which information you need most ((Note: Capture information on major crops 
FARMERS is occupied with) Use codes (1-29 for filling this table) 
S.n Crop Information need (code*)  
  A B C D E F G 
1          
Code *= A. Pre sowing  B. Inputs availability  
1. Soil 
quality  
2. Land 
Preparation/ 
farm practices  
3. seed 
variety  
4. crop 
choice  
5. 
Seed 
6.Fertiliser 7. 
Machinery 
8 
Labo
ur 
9 
Pesticid
es 
10Weedi
cides/ 
herbicide
s 
C. Inputs prices D. Sowing   
11. 
Seed 
prices  
12. 
Fertili
zer 
price  
13. 
Pestici
de 
price  
14. 
Herbici
des 
price  
15. 
Imple
ments 
price  
16. 
applic
ation 
of 
inputs  
17. 
irrigation  
18. 
Rainfall 
forecast  
19.Te
mpera
ture  
20. 
electric
ity 
timings  
 
E. Intermediary  
21. agronomic information  22. 
Weeds  
23. 
Pest  
24. machinery  25. best practices   
49 
 
F. Harvesting 26.Packaging 27. Storing 
G. Marketing  28. more 
profitable 
Markets 
opportunities 
29. Prices  
 
 
E: HOUSEHOLD VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION AND DIETARY DIVERSITY 
E1. Food diversity and consumption  
 Please describe the foods (meals and snacks) that you ate or drank yesterday (recall 
period 24 hours) during the day and night, whether at home or outside the home. Start 
with the first food or drink of the morning. Write down all foods and drinks mentioned. 
When composite dishes are mentioned, ask for the list of ingredients.  When the 
respondent has finished, probe for meals and snacks not mentioned. 
Breakfast Snack Lunch Snack Dinner Snack 
      
            
            
[Households: include foods eaten by any members of the household, and exclude foods 
purchased and eaten outside the home 
 
E2. When the respondent recall is complete, fill in the food groups based on the 
information recorded above: For any food groups not mentioned, ask the respondent if a 
food item from this group was consumed. Food Frequency – all the different foods that 
you’re household has eaten in the last 30 days. 
Qn. No. Food Group (mention code from Qn.no) Examples 
Recall 
period: 
24 
hours 
Yes=1; 
No=2 
Food 
Frequency 
Recall 
period 30 
days  
(Code) 
1 Cereals 
corn/maize, rice, wheat, 
sorghum, millet, tef or 
any other grains or food 
made from these (e.g. 
bread, noodles, porridge 
or other grain 
products)+insert local 
foods i.e. ugali, porridge 
or paste 
 
 
2 White Roots & Tubers white potatoes, white 
yam, white cassava, 
Enset, or other foods 
made from roots 
  
 
 
 
3 
 
 
Vitamin A Rich Veg & Tubers 
 
 
pumpkin, carrot, squash, 
or sweet potato, that are 
orange inside + other 
 
 
50 
 
4 Dark Green Leafy Veg 
dark green leafy veg, 
including wild forms + 
locally available vitamin 
A rich leaves such as 
amaranth, cassava leaves, 
kale, spinach 
 
 
5 Other Veg other veg. (e.g. tom to, 
onion, eggplant)+other 
loc lly available veg 
  
6 Vitamin A Rich Fruits 
ripe mango, cantaloupe, 
apricot (fresh or dried), 
ripe papaya, dried peach, 
and 100% fruit juice 
made from these + other 
locally available vitamin 
A rich fruits 
 
 
7 Other Fruits other fruits, including 
wild fruits and 100% fruit 
juice made from these 
  
8 Organ Meat liver, kidney, heart or 
other organ meats or 
blood-based foods 
  
9 Flesh Meats beef, pork, lamb, g at, 
rabbit, game, chicken, 
duck, other birds, insects 
  
10 Eggs eggs from chi ken, duck, 
g inea fowl o  any other 
egg 
  
11 Fish & Seafood fresh or dried fi h or 
shellfish 
  
12 Legumes, Nuts & Seeds dried beans, dried peas, 
lentils, nuts, seeds, or 
foods made from these 
(eg hummus, peanut 
butter) 
 
 
13 Milk & Milk Product milk, cheese, yogurt or 
other ilk products 
  
14 Oils & Fats il, fats or butter added to 
food or used for cooking 
  
15 Sweets 
s gar, hon y, sweetened 
soda or sweetened juice 
drinks, sugary foods such 
as chocolates, candies, 
cookies and cakes 
 
 
16 Spices, Condiments, Beverages 
spices (black pepper, 
salt), condiments (soy 
sauce, hot sauce), coffee, 
tea, alcoholic beverages  
 
HH level 
only 
Did you or anyone in your HH eat anything (meal or snack) 
OUTSIDE the home yesterday? 
 
 
Individual 
level 
Did you eat anything (meal or snack) OUTSIDE the home 
yesterday?  
 
Code for food frequency: 16 to 30 days/months (at least every other day); 2=4-15 
days/month (1-2 times/week); 3=1-3 days; 4=Not at all 
 
F. FOOD SECURITY COPING STRATEGIES 
F.1 Please answer the following and encircle the answer 
S.No Activities Code 
1 
In the past four weeks, did you worry that your household would not have enough 
food?   
2 
IN the past four weeks, were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds 
of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources?   
3 
In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a limited 
variety of foods due to a lack of resources?   
4 
In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat some foods 
that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other 
type of food?   
5 
In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal 
than you felt you needed because there was not enough food?   
6 
In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in 
a day because there was not enough food?   
7 
In the past four weeks, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household 
because of lack of resources to get food?   
8. 
In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go to sleep at night 
hungry because there was not enough food?   
9 In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go a whole day and night   
51 
 
without eating anything because there was not enough food? 
10 
In the past 12 months, were there months in which you did not have enough food 
to meet your family's needs?   
11 
If yes, which were the months in which you did not have enough food to meet your 
family's need   
Code: 1=No; 2= Rarely (1-2 times in the past four weeks); 3=Sometimes (3-10 times in 
the past four weeks); 4=Often (>10 times in the past four weeks) 
 
G. GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR IN THE HOUSEHOLD 
G1. Labour force for the main vegetable crop cultivation 
a.   Wage rate for hired labour/day__________________ Male  ____________________ Female 
b. Crop codes (crop_code) 
______________ 
Household Labour (person days) Hired Labour  (person days) 
Mal
e 
Da
ys 
 
(2) 
ho
ur
s 
Fem
ale  
Da
ys 
(4) 
hour
s 
Tota
l 
Hrs 
(5) 
M
ale 
(6) 
Day
s (7) 
hour
s 
Fem
ale 
(8) 
Day
s (9) 
ho
ur
s 
Total 
Hrs 
(10)  Adu
lt 
(1) 
Adu
lt 
(3)  
1. Land preparation                
2. Direct Seeding 
/transplanting 
              
3. Mulching               
4. Weed control               
5. Staking               
6. Chemical fertilizer 
application 
              
7. Manuring/composting               
8. Pesticide application               
9. Watering/irrigation               
10.Harvesting               
11.Packing/Transportation               
12.Other (specify)               
 
G2. Gender role 
S.N
o Activities 
Code (Yes=1; 
No=2) 
1 Production & domestic activities done by women    
2 Production done jointly; domestic activities done by women   
3 Production and domestic activities done jointly   
4 Production done by men; domestic activities done by women  
5 Selling of the crop done by women?  
6 Does female at home have access to income from agricultural activities?  
7 If yes, does she have full control of crop income?  
8 Does female at home have access to income from non-farm activities?  
9 If yes, does she can control of non-farm income fully?  
10 
Does any of your female family members are member of female association or 
group?   
 
 
52 
 
G3. Decision making by gender 
S/No Decision 
Code 
(Male=1; 
Female=2; 
Both=3) 
1 Buy land   
2 Buy food items   
3 Cooking Food   
4 Who collect fuel wood?   
5 who collect water?   
6 who maintain house?   
7 care of children   
8 Education of children   
9 Type of food items   
10 Planting crops   
  a)Stable crops   
  b)Vegetables   
  c)Others   
11 Who to sell crops to?   
  a)Stable crops   
  b)Vegetables   
  c)Others   
12 Receive/or control income from crop sales   
  a)Stable crops   
  b)Vegetables   
  c)Others   
13 Selection of planting site    
14 Buying inputs (seed, tools, fertilizer and pesticides)    
15 When and how to use fertilizer    
16 When and how to use pesticides    
17 Assist in funeral and local ceremonies   
18 Who interact with extension officers   
19 Who participate in community meeting or training program?   
20 Who decide to participate in the community meeting or training program?  
21 Who participate in agricultural training program conducted by NGO/Government etc?   
22 Who participate farming study tour?   
23 Who gets credit?   
24 Who decide spending plan from credit received?   
24 Who save money at home?   
25 Who maintain livestock at home?   
26 Who sells livestock?   
27 Who transport crop produced after harvest?   
 
53 
 
H: HOUSEHOLD FOOD & NON_FOOD EXPENDITURE PATTERNS 
H1. In the last 30 days, how much did your household spent on food and fuel? 
 
Food_item 
Did 
your 
househ
old 
purchas
e? 
(1) 
If yes, 
how much 
did your 
household 
spend in 
the past 30 
days? (2) 
If yes, 
number 
of times 
purchase
d in last 
30 days? 
(3) 
 
Did 
your 
househ
old 
purchas
e? 
If yes, how 
much did your 
household 
spend in the 
past 30 days? 
If yes, 
number of 
times 
purchased 
in last 30 
days? 
 
1=Yes 
2=No 
Birr Number  
1=Yes 
2=No 
Birr Number 
Wheat  (1)    Apples (15)    
Rice (2)    
Mangoes 
(16) 
   
Maize flour (3)    Banana (17)    
Tef (4)    Orange (18)    
Sorghum (5)    Melon (19)    
Cereal 
products* (6) 
   
Other fruits 
(20) 
   
Other cereals 
(7)tef 
   
Tubers 
(21)Enset 
   
Beans (specify 
type) (8) 
   Onion (22)    
Green 
gram/Mung 
bean (9) 
   Tomato (23)    
Sugarcane (10)    Okra (24)    
Meat, chicken, 
fish (11) 
   
Bell pepper 
(25) 
   
Eggs (12)    Radish (26)    
Liquid milk 
(13) 
   
Cucumber 
(27) 
   
Milk products 
** (14) 
   
Fresh beans 
(28) 
   
Kerosene (31)    
Other 
vegetable 
(29) 
   
    
Edible oils 
(30) 
   
Milk products** e.g. ghee, Yogurt, Cheese, milk powder, ice cream, sweets, etcCereal 
products* e.g. bread,  noodles 
 
H2. How much did your household spent on the following items? 
 In the past 30 days  In last 12 months 
Item_code 
Did your 
household 
purchase? 
If yes, how 
much did 
your 
household 
spend in 
the past 30 
days? 
If yes, 
numbers 
of times 
purchased 
in past 30 
days? 
 
Did your 
household 
purchase? 
If yes, how 
much did 
your 
household 
spend in the 
past year? 
If yes, 
number 
of times 
purchased 
in last 
year? 
 1=Yes Birr Number  1=Yes; Birr Number 
54 
 
2=No 2=No 
Salt and 
spices 
(includes dry 
spices, 
powder, 
oilseeds, etc.) 
(32) 
   
Medical (in-
patient) (47) 
   
Other food 
items like tea, 
coffee, 
processed 
food (such as 
biscuits, cake, 
pickles, 
sauce) (33) 
   
School/private 
tuition, School 
books & other 
educational 
articles (48) 
   
tobacco, 
intoxicants 
(34) 
   
Men’s wear 
(49) 
   
Nuts 
(coconut, 
dates, other 
dried fruits) 
(35) 
   
Ladies wear 
(50) 
   
Food at 
restaurants, 
eating out, 
etc. (36) 
   Kids wear (51)    
Fuel and light 
(LPG, 
electricity, 
firewood) 
(37) 
   
Home linen 
(52) 
   
Entertainment 
(includes 
cinema, 
picnic, sports, 
club fees, 
DVDs) (38) 
   
Footwear (53) 
 
   
Telephone, 
Cellphone, 
internet (39) 
   
Furniture and 
fixtures 
(including 
bedstead, 
suitcase, 
carpet, 
paintings, etc.) 
(54) 
   
Toilet articles 
(including 
toothpaste, 
hair oil, 
shaving 
blades, etc) 
(40) 
   
Crockery and 
utensils 
(includes 
casseroles, 
thermos, etc) 
(55) 
   
Household 
items 
(including 
electric bulb, 
tubelight , 
glassware, 
bucket, soap, 
   
Personal care 
(includes 
spectacles, 
torch, 
umbrella, etc) 
(56) 
   
55 
 
insecticides, 
etc.) (41) 
Conveyance 
(including 
railway, bus, 
taxi, auto, 
airfares, 
porter 
charges, 
diesel/petrol, 
school bus, 
dada dada…) 
(42) 
   
Therapeutic 
appliances 
(including 
hearing aids, 
glasses, 
orthopedic 
equipment) 
(57) 
   
House rent 
and rent other 
appliances 
(43) 
   
Repair and 
maintenance 
(of residential 
buildings, 
bathroom 
equipment) 
(58) 
   
Consumer 
taxes, fees 
(including 
water 
charges) (44) 
   
Insurance 
premiums (59) 
   
Non-
agricultural 
staff 
(domestic 
servants and 
others) (45) 
   Vacations (60)    
Medical 
expenses 
(out-patient 
services) (46) 
   
Social 
functions 
(marriage, 
funerals, gifts, 
etc) (61) 
   
 
 
56 
 
KNOWLEDGE TEST 
Code for scale measurement (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither agree or 
disagree; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree 
S.No Topics Indicators Questions 
Scale for 
survey (5-
point likert) 
 1 
 Farm 
Management 
Crop 
Management 
Skills 
vegetable seedling raising and transplanting 
serves production cost in terms of quantity of 
seeds required, management of soil borne pests 
and results into quality of seedlings   
   
Crop spacing and isolation distances are critical 
aspects in vegetables seeds  
   
Since fertilizer and manure are routinely 
applied, so there is a need bother about soil 
fertility status  
   
Root color can be a very good indicator of crop 
growth and development  
   
Vegetables damaged by pests are not safer than 
undamaged once  
   
Water Source can be a critical source of 
vegetable contamination  
  
Farm 
Management 
Skills I keep record about my input and output details  
      I am effective time manager   
      I am effective personal manager   
      I provide proper wages to labours   
      
I provide employees and others with a clear 
work schedule   
      
I manage my farm business in compliance with 
state local and federal  
regulations   
      My farm has a good safety record.    
      
If I rent or lease farmland, I have a good 
relationship with the owners   
      
The general appearance of my farm reflects 
good management   
   
I feel confident about my farm management 
skills  
2 
Market 
Knowledge 
Entrepreneurs 
skills 
I carry necessary crop insurance in sufficient 
amounts.    
   
Seeking for credit opportunities is important for 
farmers to expand their business  
      My income from farming is increasing annually   
      My farm does business based on fair contracts   
      
My farm serves a diversity (good risk 
management) of markets   
   My farm serves profitable markets  
      
I can effectively manage and/or am free from 
debt   
      
I feel confident about my knowledge of market 
opportunities   
      
I have a plan to increase my income from 
farming   
      I understand the characteristics of vegetables   
57 
 
that shoppers are looking for 
   
I cooperate with other farmers to improve our 
incomes  
   
I build relationships with the people I buy from 
and sell to help increase my income  
3 
Pre and 
Postharvest 
Handling 
knowledge   
Pre-harvest losses largely happen due to pests 
and diseases  
 
  
  
  
Vegetable grading should be done under the 
shade 
 
  
  
  
After harvest, sorting is important to get better 
prices 
 
  
  
  
After harvest, grading is important to get better 
prices 
 
 
 
 
Type of packaging is important for reducing 
postharvest losses  
 
 
 
Postharvest losses largely happen during 
transport  
 
 
 
After harvest, type of storage facilities plays an 
important role to maintain perishability  
 
 
 
After harvest, keeping produce under directly 
sun light reduces weight of produces  
 
 
 
After harvest, the way of handling crops much 
more important to reduces losses  
4 
Knowledge 
on pesticides 
usage and its 
impact on 
health  
 Pests and 
Diseases 
Aphids and white flies spread virus diseases in 
vegetables 
 
      
More usage of pesticides affect vegetable 
cultivation   
   pesticides affect environment  
      Thinks that duration of effect is less 24 hours   
      
chose the time of applications (during raining 
time) is important   
     Health Impact Pesticides affect human health   
      route of pesticides entry into body by inhalation   
      route of pesticides entry into body by skin   
      route of pesticides entry into body by mouth   
 
HB. Farmers' perception on vegetable quality based on new introduced technologies 
Please use the following scale to indicate your extent of agreement about how well each 
of the following statements is an accurate description of your vegetable quality 
characteristics. Code for scale measurement (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 
3=neither agree or disagree; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree 
NO Statements about the vegetable quality after AVRDC 
technologies 
Scale for survey (5-
point likert) 
Perception about vegetables after intervention  
1 Vegetable size is better for market suitability  
2 Vegetable color is more attractive  
3 Vegetable taste is better than before  
4 Vegetable Weight differs from of previous  productions  
58 
 
5 Vegetable yield is much better   
6 For your own experience of AVRDC technologies do you 
prefer than previous one 
 
7 Other farmers, such as opinion leaders, think AVRDC 
technologies are good  
 
8 It is easy to adopt AVRDC technologies  
9 New seed varieties were available before planting period  
10 I actively seek information from others  
11 I like new ideas  
 Social Norms  
1 Other farmers think I am a progressive farmer  
2 Other farmers ask my opinions about agricultural 
technologies or farming practices 
 
3 Other farmers will not object how I produce vegetable on 
my fields. 
 
 Behavioral Control  
1 It is easy for me to collect information about the new 
agricultural technologies and practices 
 
2 I have good contacts with extension workers  
3 I can adopt new agricultural technologies as long as they 
are profitable 
 
About Tengeru 2010 
4 Tengeru 2010 is a very good variety  
5 Other farmers, such as opinion leaders, think Tengeru 
2010 as a good variety 
 
6 It is easy to adopt Tengeru 2010 as compared to other 
tomato varieties 
 
7 Tengeru 2010 provides better size as compared to other 
tomato varieties 
 
8 Color of Tengeru 2010 is more attractive  
9 Taste of Tengeru 2010 is much better than other tomato 
varieties 
 
10 Weight of Tengeru 2010 is much better than other tomato 
varieties 
 
11 Tengeru 2010 seeds were available before planting