Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparative assessment of key variables for fertilizer adopters and no adopters.

From: Does fertilizer adoption enhance smallholders’ commercialization? An endogenous switching regression model from northern Ethiopia

Explanatory variables

Total (626)

Adopters (N = 441)

Non-adopters (N = 185)

Sig diff

Gender of household head (female = 1)

0.283 (0.018)

0.234 (0.201)

0.397 (0.015)

***

Age of head (years)

57 (0.609)

58 (0.675)

55 (1.274)

**

Education level of head (illiterate = 1)

0.910 (0.011)

0.962 (0.013)

0.888 (0.015)

***

Family size (number)

5.52 (0.100)

6.00 (0.110)

4.38 (0.192)

***

Adult male (number)

1.93 (0.058)

2.18 (0.067)

1.346 (0.100)

***

Adult female (number)

1.544 (0.047)

1.69 (0.055)

1.204 (0.086)

***

Own land (ha)

1.024 (0.030)

0.990 (0.036)

1.103 (0.053)

*

Operational farm size (ha)

1.122 (0.034)

1.08 (0.038)

1.207 (0.074)

*

Non-ox total livestock (TLU)

3.56 (0.149)

3.94 (0.172)

2.674 (0.281)

***

Oxen owned (number)

1.08 (0.043)

1.202 (0.047)

0.790 (0.086)

***

Per capita crop income (Birr)

5400 (579)

4953 (591)

6139 (1357)

**

Per capita consumption (Birr)

2125 (123)

2155 (156)

1865 (192)

 

Marketed surplus (Birr/hh)

16,778 (1904)

16,814 (2240)

16,762 (3591)

 

Household is net seller of food crop (yes = 1)

0.659 (0.018)

0.665 (0.022)

0.645 (0.035)

 

Household is net buyer of food crop (1 = yes)

0.321 (0.018)

0.313 (0.022)

0.338 (0.034)

 

Plot distance from homestead (hour)

0.499 (0.016)

0.469 (0.018)

0.580 (0.031)

***

Average plot quality (1 = good)

0.334 (0.018)

0.295 (0.021)

0.424 (0.036)

***

Access to information (1 = yes)

0.246 (0.017)

0.270 (0.021)

0.188 (0.028)

**

Access to irrigation (1 = yes)

0.299 (0.018)

0 3 (0.021)

0.295 (0.033)

 

Household reside in high populated area (1 = yes)

0.56 (0.019)

0.561 (0.023)

0.559 (0.036)

 
  1. *, **, and ***, significance at 10. 5 and 1%, respectively. Numbers in parenthesis are standard errors