Inclusive Technology Performance Evaluation in the Production of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)

Table 2

The performance of yield and yield-related attributes of experimental treatments across districts.

Districts	Treatments	Days to maturity	Average yield (ton ha^−1)		Yield range index (ton ha^−1)		Varietal gap		Technological gap		Technology index (%)
			Grain	Biomass	Grain	Biomass	(ton ha^−1)	%	(ton ha^−1)	%
Sekota	IKIM	94	1.75	3.40	1.70–1.80	2.85–4.05	0.72	69.9	1.05	150	50.0
	IBIM	94	1.48	3.00	1.30–1.75	2.70–3.55	0.45	43.7	0.78	111.4	43.3
	LBIM	97	1.03	2.55	0.80–1.20	2.05–3.20
	LBFM	97	0.70	1.20	0.60–0.80	1.00–1.40
Dehana	IKIM	105	1.45	2.95	1.40–1.50	2.75–3.40	0.60	70.6	0.89	153.5	42.4
	IBIM	105	1.05	2.75	1.00–1.10	2.40–2.90	0.20	23.5	0.47	81.1	26.1
	LBIM	108	0.85	2.20	0.75–0.95	1.45–2.50
	LBFM	108	0.58	1.30	0.50–0.70	1.10–1.40
Lasta	IKIM	95	1.63	3.15	1.55–1.70	2.70–3.00	0.55	50.9	1.00	158.7	47.6
	IBIM	95	1.40	2.80	1.30–1.50	2.40–3.00	0.32	29.6	0.77	122.3	42.8
	LBIM	97	1.08	1.95	1.00–1.20	1.20–2.40
	LBFM	97	0.63	1.20	0.50–0.75	1.00–1.30

Note. The potential yield of Korra and Bosset teff technologies are 2.1 ton ha⁻¹ and 1.8 ton ha⁻¹, respectively [9]; IKIM (Improved “Korra” teff variety + improved management practices), IBIM (Improved “Bosset” teff variety + improved management practices), LBIM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + improved management practices), LBFM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + farmers’ existing management practices).