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 variablesTotal (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
\