CADU CHILAL-O AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT UNIT CADU EVALUATION STUDIES CROP SAMPLING I97I PLANNING & EVALUATION SECTION t JULY 1972 CADU PUBLICATION NO, 77 %

Table of contents Pa,p?e

Introduction ]_ Purpose of the study ]_ Statistical design of the study 2 The field work of the study ^ The result of the study 4 Appendix ]_0 - 12 List 'of Tables

Table 1 Sample sizes obtained 4 Table 2 Yield per hectare of wheat 5 Table 3 Yield per hectare of barley 7 Table 4 Yield per hectare of flax 7 Table 5 Comparisons of yields 1968, 1969# 1970 and 1971 8 Table 6 Yield with model farmers and other farmers respectively 9 Introduction

The present crop sampling s t u d y is the sixth conducted in Chilalo Awraja.

The crop sampling studies have been extended and grown in pace with the expansion of C:\DU. The statistical design has been developed continuously and randomised sampling was introduced in 1968. Elaborated variance analysis was undertaken in the 1570 crop sampling study.

The cost for the crop sampling studies has accelerated from year to year and has been realized to take a disproportionate share of the resources of the Planning & Evaluation oection,

The present study has therefore in view of experience gained got a somewhat modified design. The sampling procedure is not longer strictly randomized but connected with the model farmer system which has got a better and better coverage of Chilalo and presently is well built up in the project area.

The field work has partly been transferred to the Extension & Training Department to ensure a better co-ordination of sampling activities and better in­ formation about areas concerned and harvest-times.

The design employed has been discussed in CADU publica­ tion H o . 6 4 .

It is believed that the present design will more than compensate a certain loss in statistical validity by increased reliability and lower costs.

The purpose of the study

The purpose of the crop sampling is to give a statisti­ cally unbiased estimate of the yield of some major crops - 2 -

in the Project area. The study is concentrated on model farmers and farmers in the immediate neighbourhood of the model farmers Since there are no model farmers in remote areas, few model farmers are tenants and model farmers usually are a bit more progressive than ordinary farmers, the model farmers are not fully representative for the whole farming population.

However, the model farmers have been elected in areas were there are concentrations of farmers and thus con­ centration of farming* There does not seem to be much difference in yields between landowners and tenants or

between model farmers and other farmers when same varie­ ties and r tes of fertilization are compared. The sampling of one ordinary farmer from the same gasha as the model farmer will show if there is any difference in the yields between model farmers and ordinary farmers.

The crops sampled for the study are all varities of wheat with and without fertiliser, all varities of barley with and without fertilizer, all varities of flax with and without fertilizer.

The improved varities of wheat are Laketch, Kentana Front ana, Yaktana, 3uprir:o, Romany, Kenya, and Salemayo; of barley, Atlas 57 and Unitan; of flax Dakota.

3. Statistical design of the study

The sample size has been discussed in detail in the 1970 report. The design of the present study in much influenced by the increased knowledge of variance within different strata from this study.

All model farmers have been included in the study. One other farmer from the same gasha as the mod&l farmer has been sampled. - 3 -

On the farms one field has been sampled from all fields with the same variety, fertilized and not fertilized, of wheat b a r l e y and flax. i-rom each field three plots have been sampled and put in one bag. "TCach plot has comprised 2m ^

The number of model farmers by the time of this study was 210 and a total of 42 0 farmers were included in the study which covered the development districts Asella, and Ivoffale comprising the following extension areas .

D .D .Asella D.D. Tieko 2 i D.D. Koffele

Sire Sagure A s a s s a H uru.ta .. . Dighellu Ligaba Ti j o Koffale T^thaya Gol ja Kore Gond e Egu Shire Asella 3outh Lol e Degaga •Ysella North Kersa Lemu Iunessa Beko j i

All extension areas except Sir e and Shire, which so far have very few model farmers, have been included in the st udy. The statistical design is not further elaborated on in this study. Some varianc e analyses have been included in the pres entation of results.

4. The field work of the study

The field work of the study was conducted from mid October 1971 to mid January 1972. It started in the Ethaya area and was finalized in the Kersa-Meraro area. The .Extension agents were responsible for the field work and entitled to ej'.nloy one assistant each L ! "* 0 to*help in the sampling# Three staff members of the Planning & Evaluation Section supervised the work, gave instructions, distributed materials and collected the samp les. The staff had, during the peak season three four-wheel drive vehicles at their disposal.

The costs for the study are:

Transport 18,000 kms. & 0.30 5400 Field workers 2000 Three ? & E employees in the field for three months: 3 x 3 x 250 2250 One P & S employee at the office for one month: 1 x 1 x 250 250 Ov er-time 500 Mat erials 800 Sum 1 1 c 2 00

To this sum should be added costs for services from the Experimentation Department and for one ex­ patriate working for one month.

The result of the study Table 1 «. Sample cizes obtained

N o . o f E x t e n s i o n . C -1 U 1 "! 1 T ' o d e l L o c a l I m p r o v e d L o c a l I m p r o v e d A r e a Flax Sum P a r s e r s ' / h e a t ^ h e a t B a r l e y ‘ B a r l e y

L i g a b a 5 3 1 2 9 24 H u r u t a _ 15 11 4 6 1 9 76 E t h a y a 1 3 1 41 1 7 4 63 G o n d e 1 5 3 4 7 2 0 73 K , A s e 1 1 a 15 1 4 4 6 1 6 ' 1 3 80 S . A s e l l a 1 6 5 5 9 2 9 1 1 1 04 S a g u r e 1 0 3 2 3 2 2 5 1 1 64 D i g h e l u 1 2 2 1 6 1 3 1 4 . 4 49 T i j o 2 9 2 0 2 9 1 5 57 G o l j a 6 1 0 1 5 1 0 35 E g u 1 0 4 1 3 1 8 11 6 52 L o l e 1 2 4 3 3 1 9 8 1 0 74 S e r s a 1 0 5 1 1 2 0 7 43 O L e m u 1 0 c . 2 8 31 4 2 67 : i u n e s s a 1 1 9 1 2 2 3 1 4 49 K o r e —— 5 8 8 B o k o j i 12 5 1 3 3 0 2 13 63 T H e r a r o 5 7 8 7 4 29 A s a s s a 6 1 3 8 1 2 r\ I C o f f a l e 4 - 4 O 15 D e g a g a 6 ______1 2 _____7 __ 8 27

2 1 0 9 9 9 5 6 3 6 5 6 5 79 1064 1

- 5 -

The total number of accepted samples obtained is IO64 (3192 plots). The rate of fertilization has increased rapidly and it has turned out to be very difficult to find fields of improved wheat varieties not fertilized^ only 28 samples out of 456 this year. Instead the number of fields of local wheat fertilized as compared to local wheat not fertilized are increasingly frequent in the sample. The result of the present crop sampling, is accounted for in detail in appendix 1* The analysis in this chapter is based, on this appendix* which has been included mainly to facilitate the analysis in 'Coming- crop-sampling studies. The low number of samples in some extension areas and the very uneven distribution of samples in combination with large difference in yields between areas make comparis .ons between extension areas extremely unsafe. There must be at least 7 observations in each group for any comparison to be meaningful. The yields are shown below for &roups of extension areas known to have fairly equal conditions for cultivation. The variance does not vary very much within these areas. An accepted error margin of 10$ will generally require about 25 observations. At 7 observations the error margin is about 20/6.

Table 2 Yield per hectare of wheat

Gol ja Asassa Quintals Lole Kofele per Ligaba Gonde Sagure Egu n; Lemu Kore ** -rT hectare Huruta F,Asella Dighellu’Karsa Bekoji Degaga Etaya S. Asella Tijo Munessa Meraro n TV in 7n Local vheat 19.4© 10 16.85 8.99 5 9.80 8 10.47 5 16.62 5 not fertilized

Local wheat fertilized 20.32 5 16.26’ 19 10.67 4 15.21 24 25.24 5 18.22 8

Laketch fertilized 24.9 . 23 22.53 32 9.95 2 15.23 10 24.17 5 46.62 1 ttrfri

Kentana Front- ana fertilized 27.19 5 16.48 14 21.23 5 15.21 4 19.97 1

Yaktana fertilized 25.40 1 14.21 21 10.64 14 15.15 15 20.55 8 - 0 Suprimo 20.78 28 16.59 54 *fertilized 12.66 14 15.22 22 22.03 3 19.1 0 7 Romany fertilized 19.48 25 18.95 24 13.62 20 12.80 55 17*84 27 24.84 5 t S (Romany)qts. 4.75 6.00 ( 5.86 5.27 6.00 5.85 Error margin (Romany) qts. 1.9 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.5 6.6

i j. - 6 -

As for fertilization the figures are compiled from information obtained from the farmers themselves. Nothing is known about the reliability of the farmers information. Errors might have come about due to the farmers1 wish to please the interviewer; i.e. to say that he has used fertilizer but actually not done so. Also nothing is known about the rate of fertilization. It is however, believed that the information is fairly accurate and assumed that the farmers apply approximately the same amount of fertilizer per unit of area cultivated according to the recommendation of the Ex­ tension and Training Department; 1 quintal per hectare. Concerning the verities it is believed and experienced that the farmers are very conscious of variety. Mixes of varieties might therefore be regarded as unlikely, especially for the lately introduced varieties.

Of course "local wheat" is a highly undefined concept and own seed is likely to be mixed with all kinds of new grain even only two years since its introduction. The problem of "local wheat" will be commented upon below in this report.

The varieties included in this report were introduced as followst

Variety Year

Laketch 1971 Kentana Frontana 1969 Yaktana 1969 Suprimo 1969 Romany 1970

The following characteristics of these varieties arel'known to the Crop & Pasture Section.

Yaktanas Susceptible to rust Laketchs High yield potential, susceptible to Septcria, should be sown two weeks later than Romany. Kentana Frontanas Susceptible to rust, Romany; Lately attacked by rust, must be sown early. Suprimos Low field potential, hard wheat, preferred by mills which pay a higher price for this variety.

From table 2 it appears that Yaktana yielded no better than local wheat during the 197*1 crop se. son, Kentana Frontana, Romany and - 6 -

Suprimo did only slightly better than local wheat. Romany did relatively better in the northern project area than in the Golja - Munessa area.

Suprimo did relatively better in the Golja - Munessa area than in the northern project area.

The best variety during the 1971 crop season was by far Laketch which yielded 2 - 6 quintals more than local wheat in all areas with reliable sample sizes.

Concerning the effect of fertilization it is difficult to draw re­ liable conclusions for the present crop sampling because of the very small sample sizes of unfertilized varieties. The only area with an almost reliable sample size (Golja-Munessa) indicates an increase in yield of local wheat of 3'g' quintals per ha. due to fertilizer. There are also slight inaica.tions that there is a decreasing marginal effect of fertilizer going north through the project area, which would correlate with the length of time ferti­ lizer has been used in the different areas, i.e* one might expect a certain residual effect of fertilizer and fertilizer has been used for a longer time in the northern i^arts of the project area.

To sum up the results of table 2 the following effects appear to be due to fertilizer and improved wheat varieties respectively in the project area (in comparison with local wheat not fertilized)

Local wheat not fertilized o < ts. per ha. > Local wheat fertilized +3 qts. per ha. f ■ Yc,ktana fertilized iv>' +3 qts. per ha. (worse in the north) Romany fertilized \ ’ +3 qts. per ha. (better in the north) Suprimo fertilized +3 qts„ per ha. (better in the south) Laketch fertilized +6 qts, per ha.

The above summary does not pretend to any degree of accuracy. However, it might be justified to conclude that the selection cf the best possible variety is equally as important as the use of fertilizer. Table 3 Yield per hectare of barley

Quintals per ha Local Error barley Local Atlas -7 not barley Kar­ fertilize: fertilized 'ertilizer gin n n n

Ligaba, Huruta, Ethaya 16.85 20 21.47 25 5-43 2.1 14.08 Gonde, N.Asella, S.Asella 20.87 20 19.52 45 6.53 1.9 °,5 x Sagure, Dighellu, Tijo 17 o 6 c f 24 15.23 40 4<. 84 1.5 16.35 12 Cc Golja, Lole, Egu, Kersa, Munessa 14.12 25 17.05 OJ 5.28 1.3 16.91 18 Lemu, Bekoji, Meraro 19.89 52 22.29 37 5.03 1.6 24.72 11 Asassa, Koffele, Kore Degaga 12.86 20 1 6 9 46 12 7.17 4.1 0

The Sagure figures would indicate that it does not pay to use ferti­ lizer on barley. An investigation in Sagure and Dighellu gave the following explanations to the strange findingsD

1c The farmers tended to use less fertilizer for barley then recommended* 2C Farmers tended to substitute fertilizer for soil preparation which mainly concerned barley productions 3. Farmers started to cultivate swampy land believing that fertilizer would compensate for the poor land conditions. Also this factor mainly concerned barley„ 4. In addition to this early frost happened to damage fertilized barley to a higher extent than unfertilized, since the former grows faster. 5. Increasing use of manure for barley is likely to distort the result.

Generally it will be increasingly difficult to assess the effect of fertilization since this effect cannot be isolated from the many other factors commented upon. The comparisons in time show a very rapid increase of the general yields of both wheat and barley. Table 4 yield per hectare of flax Quintals per hectare Local f lax n ot f ertilized n ] Ligaba, Huruta, Ethaya - 0 Gonde, N.Asella, S.Asella 6.23 10 Sagure, Dighellu, Tijo 4* 63 14 Golja, Lole, Figu, Kersa, Munessa 4.82 14 Lemu, Bekoji, Meraro 5.68 15 As ass a., Koffele, Kore? Degaga 3.13 ?

16.21 (22) if two fields where manure was used are excluded,, - 8 -

V Table 5 Comparisons of yields 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971

Quintals per ha. Local wheat iq^p 1970 not fertilized 1969 1971 Huruta, Ethaya, Gonde, N.Asella 10.1 12.9 14.8 17.8 c S.Asella, Sagure, Dighellu 9.1 10.3 9.7 15.1S Improved wheat fertilized 0. ,Romany Huruta, Ethaya, Gonde, N.Asella - 20.9 {■**>) 1 19.7 buprimo 17.7 Laketch 24.3 Romany 15.2 S.Asella, Sagure, Dighellu 17.8 13.5 Suprimo 14.5 Laketch 20.^

Loca,l barley I not fertilized

Huruta, Ethaya, Gonde, N.Asella 11 .8 16.4 17.4 17.5 S.Asella, Sagure, Dighellu 13.4 14.9 15.3 19.0 * Local flax not fertilized Huruta, Ethaya,Gonde, N.Asella 4.1 6.9 6.7 2.5X S.Asella, Sagure, Dighellu 3.3 4.2 5.8 5.4

The most remarkable thing in the comparisons is the very high yield increase for local wheat. The yield increases cannot be explained by a continuous improvement of weather conditions up to 1971* Some factors of importance might be; 1. Increasingly better farm management due to CADU extension service implying;- a. earlier planting date b. better weeding c. better seed cleaning d. better soil preparation e. better seed covering f. increasing use of manner.

"very unreliable result due to small sample size. xx A'" " only S.Asella is included w ich most likely has exaggerated the result. 2. In the old project areas fertilizer had been used for four years by the end of the 1971 crop season. Residual effects of ferti­ lizer are likely to affect yields for 1971 even if fertilizer was not used this year. A reported practice is to use fertilizer on improved wheat varieties and the next year to sow local wheat /;■ without fertilizer.

3. Farmers increase their areas under cultivation and under wheat and are likely to put the most fertile areas under wheat.

4* The heavy weight of model farmers in the 1971 sample might have biased the figures upwards although only to a minor degree according to the analysis below.

5, Local wheat and barley are likely to become less and less "local" i.e. more and more mixed up with improved varieties. •,

Table 6 Y'ields with model farmers and other farmers respectively.

quintals Ligaba Gonde Sagure Golja !iisassa Huruta N.Asella Dighellu Lole [of f ele per hectare Bekoji. I Ethaya S • Asella, Tijo Egu [ore Merarb ' L Kersa )egaga Munessa Fi n n n n n n

Local barley mf 22.0 18 19.6 32 15.1 22 17.0 35 21.6 17.1 11 fertilized of 20.0 7 19.4 13 15.3 17 17.1 30 23.1 i®i C Diff. mf of 2.0 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -1.5 -

Local barley mf 18.7 11 19.9 13 19.2 11 15.6 12 20.9 14 11.5 8 not fertilizedoi * 14.1 10 20.6 7 16.3 13 12.8 13 19.1 1$ ■13.8 12

diff. mi of 4.6 -0.7 2.9 2.8 1.8 j -2.3

Romany mf 20.1 19 20.1 17 15.4 13 13-5 23 17.2 16 - 2 fertilized of 16.6 4 16.1 7 10.2 7 11.1 10 18.8 11 1 Diff. mf - of I 3.5 4.0 5.2 2.4 -1.6 - — T” Suprimo mfj 20.6 18 16 * 6 35 14.3 10 14.9 14 - 6 I- fertilized ofj 21.2 10 15.9 19 8.7 4 15.8 8 - G - 1 Diff. mf - of -0.6 0.7 j 5.6 -0.9 I i .... L___ I - -10-

The results of comparisons between model farmers and other farmers are unsafe. For local barley fertilized and for Suprimo there are no traceable differences in yields between model farmers and other farmers. For unfertilized local barley there is a slight tendency towards higher yields for model farmers and for Romany there is a clear tendency towards higher yields for model farmers than other farmers. The reason for the difference concerning Romany might be the importance of early sowing of this particular variety. The model farmers might to a higher extent have adopted the recommendation made by the extension agents.

Appendix I, page I

Average yields , quintals per hectare No. of Model Local Local Kentana Extension Wheat not area farmers 'Wheat Laketch Frontana Yaktana selected fertilized "fertilized fertilized fertilized fertilized - ! n n n j n n~ i I i Ligaba 5 31 .80 1 16.35 . 2 27*37 | 1, 23.40 1 Huruta 15 17.65 8 22.97 3 26.83 i 12 28.92 | 2 Ethaya 13 21.52 1 22.85 ; 25.38 ! 2 11 Gonde 16 16.93 3 24.11 8 12*49 ; 5 7.70 2 N. ..sella 14 15.32 2 16.73 12 ’ 23.31 ’11 14.82 |' 1 13.99 10 S.Asella 16 19.90 1 14.37 4 20.40 19.18 ;8 15.90 13 ! i 9 Sagure 12 9-78 1 10.53 2 . 9.93 2 15.87 :2 5.68 ' 3 Dighellu 12 10.81 2 i 8.24 3 Tijo 10 8.60 2 31.95 1 13.40 8 Gol ja 6 12.83 3 13.84 7 19.22 3 15.24 3 Egu 11 5.93 2 10.98 2 5.40 1 Lole 12 12.30 4 16.08 5 ! 13.21 4 12.68 7 Kersa 10 9.35 3 17.93 2 7.13 1 13.35 1 Lemu 10 24.47 2 24.17 5 19.97 1 20.66 7 Munessa 10 12.58 17.42 9 7.07 1 Kore 5 Beko ji 12 11.85 3 27.98 2 18.20 ; 1 Meraro 5 ‘ 8.41 2 11.52 1 i Asassa 6 23.88 1 46.62 1 I Koffele 4 | Degaga 6 16.62 5 17.41 7 i i i I SUM 210 34 65 ! i 57 73 27 I ; i t > i I i I I

\ \ - 11 -

Appendix I, page 2

j | «r Average y:_elds, quint als uer hectare

I •r, Kenya 1 Local Romany , i, , . Local ! Local Extension j Suprimo 0 ,. not ferti- Barley Barley Plax not area fertilized ferti- . lized lized... - fertilized fertilized j fertilized n n n n n 1 n

Ligaba 25.01 5 13.20 4 26.71 2 23.07 7 Huruta 19.60 10 19.90 8 18.17 7 16.70 13 20.14 6 Ethaya 20.07 13 21.46 11 13.39 2 13.28 5 21 .21 12 • .Gonde 18.20 20 20.15 10 23.30 5 19.69 15 N.Asella 14.07 17 15.72 6 18.88 2 16.62 14 2.49 2 S.Asella 16.51 17 19.86 8 20.24 13 21 .94 16 7.16 8 Sagure 10.87 11 11 .97 4 18.46 10 13.13 12 4.21 7 Dighellu 20.55 1 11 .76 7 17.28 6 14.96 7 3.40 3 Tijo 18.63 2 15.79 9 16*75 8 16.52 21 6.28 4 Golja 16.23 4 16.02 4 10.10 3 16.43 7 Egu 12.88 3 8.88 8 7.02 4 16.60 ’14 2.54 3 Lole 14.80 13 14.45 4 16.42 2 17.72 17 5.62 9 Kersa 10.48 9 16.89 7 15.38 13 Lemu 24.57 2 20.52 11 17.53 14 21 .77 17 6.45 2 Munessa 19.41 2 16.91 8 15.95 9 18.54 14 4.63 2 Kore 10.18 7 22.52 1 Bekoji 16.52 10 21.19 15 22.00 15 5.77 12 Meraro 16.95 1 15.11 6 24.43 3 24.95 5 3.12 1 Asassa 21 .29 2 20.98 3 20.23 5 Koffele 24.84 3 13.94 5 14.87 3 3.13 2 Legaga j 18.22 5 10.67 5 9.76 3 OJ (M ! •"xt- SUM I 128 130 9 55 j1 141 J------J______I Appendix I, page 3

Average yields, Quintals per hectare

Atlas 57 Local Improved Atlas 57 Unitan Flax not Sundry Extension not Flax fertilized ferti­ area fertilized fertil i- fertilized varieties < lized Dakota l zed n n h n n n I n -ja) Ligaba 20.17 Huruta ?g) Ethaya 14.08 4 2h) C-onde 5*92 1 6,28 2 21) * N.Asella 15*08 1 2.00 1 24.02 1b) S.Asella 3.91 2 7.25 1 4d) -| *-* Sagure 8.24 2 9*24 3 6.18 4.67 3 3.55 1°)

Dighellu 19.73 2 18.55 8 17.78 4 4.33 1 5 k ) Tijo 20.13 1 j 3.00 1 Gol ja 10.55 1 d > * -,a) Egu 1.95 1 17.43 3 17.22 1 j 6.13 .3 8.42 Lole 10.42 1 15.52 7 ! 3.72 1

Kersa 18.33 7 j 2a) Lemu 23.65 4 j 27.02

Munessa 15.20 1 j 7.61 2 | Kore Bekoji 25.70 1 21.37 1 2.70 1 21 ) * ** Meraro 15.15 1 25.99 6 j 4*00 3 Asassa I Koffele j‘3.72 1 13.87 I Degaga 14*70 SUM 9 45 1 ?. 12 J2 4 i

Marie, fertilized, Improved flax fertilized, Salemayo fertilized, ■^Laketch not fertilized, ""^Yaktana not fertilized, Kenya 1 fertilized Qj cSuprimo . not , fertilized. „ , . _ . f) Kenya 1 fertilized, s) Laketch not fertilized 16.17(1) h) Suprimo not fertilized 9*82(1) Suprimo not fertilized 14*62 (1) Romany not fertilized 16.99(2) Kenya 1 fertilized 22.18 (1) Kenya 1 fertilized 21.25(3) j) 1 ) Improved wheat fertil. 20.37(1) Kent. Front, not fert.17*90 (1) Salemayo fertilized 12.17(1) Yaktana not fertilizedl9*08 (2) Suprimo not fertilized31.53 (1) k) Yaktana not fertilized 3*31(2) Romany not fertilized 1.06(2) FW fertilized 10.08(1) Yaktana not fertilizedl9*68 (1) Romany not fertilized 8.93 (1) LIST OF Ca DU PUBLICATIONS A, Project Preparation Period 1* Report No. I on the establishment of Regional Development project in , October, 1966 Part I General Background Part II Project Outline Part III Appendices (A reprint of the Summary is also available)

2. Report No. II on the Establishment of Regional Development Programme in Ethiopia, May* 1967* (The building programme appears under separate cover) 3* Trials and Demonstration Plots at Kulumsa in 1966, July, 1966 4* Reconnoitering Survey of the Water Resources in Chilalc Awraja, March, 1967* 5* Creation of a Forestry Administration in Arussi Province, March, 1967 6, Crop Sampling in the Chilalo Awraja 1966, May 1967 7« Results of Trials and Observations Plots at Kulumsa 1966/67 May, 1967 8. Sagure, a Market Village, June 1967 9. Forest Nursery and Planning Techniques, June, 1967 10. Trials and Demonstration Plots at Kulumsa and Swedish Mission Asella in 1967? July? 1967 11. Grain Marketing Experiments 1967? August, 1967

B* Implementation Period 1* Government Agreement on Plan of Operation 2. Some Reflections on Water Erosion in Chilalo Awraja, October, 1967 3. The Taungya Afforestation Method, November, 1967 4 . Grow better Bahr-Zaaf in Ethiopia, January, 1968 5 . CADU Semi-annual Report 1967/68, January, 1968 6. Census in Sagure-Yeloma 1967? February, 1968 7* The Changing Rural Society in Arussi land: Some findings from a field study 1966- 67? March, 1968 8* CADU (Pamphlet in English and Amharic) 9. CADU Plan of Work and Budget I96C/69 (with preliminary estimates for 1969/70) 10. Cultivation Practices and the Weed, Pest and Disease Situation in Some Parts of the Chilalo Awraja, March, 1968 11. Introductory Agro-Botanical Investigations in Grazed Areas in the Chilalo Awraja, June, 1968 o

12; Results of Trials and Observations on Fields, Forage Crops at the Kulumsa Farm and ir. Asella 1967/ 68, June, 1968 13* Crop Sampling in the Chilalo Awraja, Arussi Province 196], June, 1956 14* General Agricultural Survey^ August, 1963 15* CADU Statistical Digest. I,T::y, 1968 16. Descriptions of Agricultural Demonstrations} 1963 17* Field Trials a:od Observations l^z'c/o^ 18. Feasibility Study on a Far."’ for Dreading of Grade Cattle at Gobc 5 Arussi Province, September, I96G 1 9 . Feasibility Study on the Electrification of Sagure Torn, I'' ptenibsr* 1968 20* CADU Annual Report 1967/685 September, 1968 21. Census in Dighelu Village, May, 1958 22. A Case Study of Peasant Farming in Dighelu ard Yelena Areas - Chilalo Awraja? Ethiopia, January, 1969<* 23* CADU Semi-annual Report 1960/69r February; 1969 24« Results of Demonstrations I96G/69 25# CADU Plan of Work and Budget 1969/70 26. Tentative CADU Programme 1970/737 Addis Ababa, March, 1969 27• Feasibility Study on Sunflower Protoin Concentrate and Fafa Mining Plant, May 1969 28. Results of Trials and Observations 1968/69 May, 1969 29. CADU Evaluation Studies, Health Education (Pase-line study) May, 1969 30. CADU Evaluation Studies, Crop Sampling 1968, May, 1969 31. CADU Evaluation Studies , Training of 11c del Farmers (Base-line Study) May, 1969 32. Progress Report Fo. 1- Implement Research Section, June, 1969 33. Feasibility Study on Lcoal Roads and Market Places in Chilalo Awraja, by Lars Leander August, 1969 34. CADU Annual Report 1968/69 35 • Census in Sagure - Yeloma, by Gunr.ar Arhammar, February, 1963 36. Census in Golja (Ketar Genet),, by Gunnar Arhconar, March, 196 c\ 37* Sanitary Survey in Golja (SC©+-ar Genet), >'•' C’innar Arliamnar. April, 1969 38. Kap Study of Mothers in rolja Cn.et), by Gumar Arrmmar April, 1969

J 3

39. Food. Survey of Pre-school Children in C-olja (Ketar Genet), by Gunnar Arhammar, April 1969 40. Health Survey of Pre-school Children in Golja (Ketar Genet) by Gunnar Arhammar, April 1969 41. Report on a Combined Food and Health Survey in Yeloma Farming District, by Gunnar Arhammar, May I969 42. Census in Bekoji Village, Asella, by Gunnar Arhammar, September 1969 43. CADU Preliminary Final Repcrt for the Period 1967-70 44. CADU Semi-Annual Report 1969/70, February 1970 45. CADU Work Programme and Budget 1970/71 (With Preliminary Estimates for the Period 1971/72^1975/76) 4 6. Report on Surveys and Experiments, Crop Production Department, Asella, 1969 47 • CADU Work Programme and Budget for the Period 8.7 .70-31.12.70 48. Results of Demonstration, I969/7O 49. CADU Evaluation Studies, Crop Sampling 1969 50. Land Ownership, Tenancy and Social Organization in Wajji Area, by Arne Lexander, March 1970 51. CADU Annual Report 1969/70 52. Progress Report No. II, Implement Research Section, July 1970 53. A Master Plan for Water Resources and Supplies within CADU's First Project Area, Nov. 1970 Report for the Period 8,7.70-15,11,70 CADU Work Programme and Budget for the Period l^U?±-?r7.71 Animal Husbandry Activities 1968-1970, J2er£earch and Livestock Section, June 197- Survey of Health Facilities ©f'^Arussi I969-I970 CADU Evali^artion Studi^s'T*"^ Women’s Extension, Sept. 1970 CADU^fork Pr^gr^mme and Budget for the'Period 8.7 .71—7 »7*7 CADU Evaluation Studies:_^Praining of Model Farmers, Oct. 1970 Sanitation Su^re^t5^Beko ji, September 1970 Family>Ouidance in the CADU Programme 1970, April 1971 Report on Surveys and Experiments Carried out in 1970, June 1971. 4 5*. Animal Husbandry Activities 1968-1970, Research and Livestock Section, June 1910. 57. Survey of Health Facilities of Arussi 1969-1970 58. CADU Evaluation Studies: Women’s Extension, September 1970 59. CADU Work Programme and Budget for the Period 8«7*71-7*7.72 6C. CADU Evaluation Studies? Training of Model Farmers, October 1970 61. Sanitation Survey of Bekoji, September 197^ 62. Family Guidance in the CADU Programme 1970, April 1971 63. Report on Surveys and Experiments Carried Out in 1970, June 1971 64. CADU Evaluation Studies: Crop Sampling 1970, July 1971 65. CADU Annual Report 1970/71 66. An Analysis of the CADU Credit Programme 1968/69-1970/71 and Its Impact on Income Distribution, by Henock Kifle, August 1971 67. CADU Work Programme and Budget 1972/73, Asella, October 1971 68. Health Survey in Sagure Village and Yeloma Farming District, April 1968, "by Gunnar Arhammar and Roland Eksmyr 69. Assessment of Status of Health in an Ethiopian Rural Community (Experience of Two Years’ Public Health Work in Chilalo Awraja, Arussi), by Gunnar Arhammar, May 1970 70. Survey of the Consumption of Coffee, Tea, Tobacco and Alcohol in a Market (Sagure), Especially with Regard to Cost, by Stig Lundin, September 1971 71. CADU Evaluation Studiess General Agricultural Survey 1970 (Base-Line Study for Evaluation of Impact of the Project), Planning and Evaluation Section, Asella, July 1971 72. Feasibility Study ^n the Establishment of a Rural General Store in Kentere, by Mehari Tesfaye, Planning and Evaluation Section, September 1971 73. Feasibility Study on the Establishment of Saw—Mill in Asella and a Connected Workshop for Wood Processing, Planning and Evaluation Section, November 1971 74- Investigations on Mechanized Farming and Its Effects on Peasant Agriculture, March 1972. 75* Population Study in Dighellu & Tijo Woreda, Planning & Evaluation Section, December, 1971 - 5

7o<> CADI7 ^Valuation Studies Co-operative Activities Before Measurement "by Arne i1 lod.li, Planning & —Valuation Section December 1972*

77o CADU ^valuation Studies Crop Sampling 1971 Planning & Valuation Section Asella, July 1972 MINOR RESEARCH TASKS AT CADU

1« Farm Management Studies of Model Farmers in the CADU Project Area, by S* Bergholtz, July, 1969 2o The Munessa Forest,a Plant Ecological Study, by Lill & B. Lundgren June 1963 3? Credit Situation in Chilalo Awraja, by G. Bergman and H. Lindqvist July, 1969 4. Loca.1 Varieties of Wheat in the Chilalo Awraja,, by G® Niderstrom, November - December, 1968 5» An Inventory of Feeding System and Feed Stuff, Chilalo Awraja, Ethiopia, by Oscar Evaldsson 6 . Eomarative Study on the Possibilities for Jifferent Farm Produce

in the Chilalo Area in Ethiopia, by Bo Anselmsson, February, 1972 7

Special Studies

5.5.1 A Preliminary Survey of Soil Erosion in the Chilalo Awraja, by Kebede Tato, September 1970

5.5.2 Decision Making in the Family, by Pia Bergman, Asella, July 1971

5.3.3 T'he Innovation - Diffusion Process,Johan Toborn, Asella, March, 1971