RAKAI ON-FARM RESEARCH: ASSESSING MAIZE, BEAN AND CASSAVA VARIETIES FOR

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

2015/2016 GROWING SEASON

RESEARCH IMPLEMENTED IN PARTNERSHIP

WITH:

Research Update Report by :Paul ZaakeResearch Sites Supervisor

In Collaboration with:

AppreciationMuch appreciation to the farmers at both sites who made

the research possible.

Much appreciation to the entire research project team

including Mr. Ndegwa Michael (CIMMYT), Dr. Kyazze

Birungi Florence (Makerere University), Dr. Taulya

Godfrey (IITA), Mr. Misiko Michael (CGIAR), Dr. Hugo De

Groote (CGIAR), Mr. Zaake Paul(RECO), Dr. Omongole

Alfred (IITA), Mrs. Charity Nantume, Mr. Atibo Christopher

and others.

Much appreciation to CGIAR partner institutions.

IntroductionSince August 2015, I have supervised on-farm participatory

research in Rakai under the Consultative Group for

International Agricultural Research’s Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security project.

This community based participatory on-farm farmer

managed research on five maize, six bean and five

cassava varieties aims to assess the locally adapted

varieties.

LocationIn the remote areas of Southern Central Uganda, Rakai

District, Kooki County, rests multiple villages including

Gosoola village and Kijuna Village.

Gosoola village is a community with above 48 households

and Kijuna village with above 57 households. Just like the

most other villages in Rakai, they all depend mainly on

forestry and farming for their subsistence and income

source.

Location continued…

CCAFS site and villages Rakai-Uganda (Sijmons K., Kiplimo J. et al. 2013. CCAFS site-atlas-Kagera Basin/Rakai)

Background• Findings from the baseline household study by Kyazze, F.B.,

and Kristjanson P. (2011) revealed that Rakai farms are

diversified, with most households producing and consuming a

wide range of food crops.

• Two-thirds of households sell some of the food crops they

produce.

• Three-quarters of households also produce a cash crop

(typically coffee).

• Various fruits and vegetables are also produced.

• Eighty percent of households have small livestock (sheep,

goats, chickens or pigs), and one-fifth own cattle.

Background continued• Due to the extreme changes in climate, the villages have

been experiencing drought stress during dry season and

strong disastrous rainfall during rainy season.

• These climate challenges have been causing the decline

in cereal yield, high death rate of forestry seedlings and

fish, increased intensity of banana and coffee pests and

diseases, soil erosion and increased exploitation of

natural resources for survival, thus leading to poverty

and food insecurity.

Background continued• No wonder the villages were selected for the on-farm

participatory research by the Consultative Group for

International Agricultural Research’s program (CGIAR)

under the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food

Security (CCAFS) project.

• The partners were led by International Maize and Wheat

Improvement Center (CIMMYT)-Kenya and other

included CIAT (international center for tropical

agriculture) and International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (IITA) in collaboration with Makerere

University.

Background continuedWith supervision from RECO’s Coordinator, Paul Zaake,

the farmers managed two sites and would be testing and

demonstration sites for the varieties most suitable for

growing under the climate change conditions as

determined by the villagers themselves.

Collaboration

This was a typical collaborative research initiative with

various local, regional and international stakeholders,

putting premium on community involvement and

participation.

EstablishmentThe CGIAR partners led by CYMMT organized and facilitated theestablishment of the sites with the help of the project team and farmers.Each site had a group of farmers managing it. The average number ofactive group members was 12.

Crop varietiesC

rop

var

ieti

es

Bean varieties: BFS 32; NABE 15; CAL 96; NABE 21; SEN 56; NABE 14

Maize Varieties : PAN 67, Longe 9; Longe 5; Longe 7 and local variety

Cassava varieties: NASE 15; NASE 18; NASE 14; NASE 3 and local variety

Crop varieties continued…

• Remember comparing these varieties would do little

good if we could not tell how these varieties compare

with the varieties already grown.

• So we included one locally grown variety for maize and

cassava (these were the standard treatments) as a basis

for comparison (control).

Design• We used a randomized complete block design. In this design,

treatments were both replicated and blocked.

• The plots were arranged into blocks and then treatments were

assigned to plots within a block in a random manner.

• Blocking was based on patterns of gradient, soil type, drainage

patterns, obstacles present in the fields like tree, tree stumps and

shrubs. Below is an example of maize plot design at one of the

sites.

Sample plot layout

Participation:• The farmers were already organized in groups and each

group had a constitution.

• The farmers were already aware of the benefits of working

together as a group from different experiences.

• Farmers were interested/ committed in the trials so that they

can select better seeds.

• These crops (maize, beans and cassava) were again the

major food and income security crops.

• Farmers had funding and used the money for the actual

activity.

• Group members offered land due to commitment and group

members proposed the farmer and selected.

Participation Continued..• The farmers made a committee of two persons to monitor

some of the activities including; weeding, buying inputs, and mobilizing farmers for activities.

• They made a work plan that had that had to be adhered to.

• Each person was allocated a specific task to accomplish during the life time of the trials.

• Farmers brought their own equipment (hoes, slashers, pangas, and sprayers) to work on the trials.

• There was acceptance of visitors on the trials and this led to generation of more knowledge.

• The monitoring and supervision was done by an expert (Paul Zaake- RECO coordinator).

Other external inputs applied

Fertilizer

DAP

Super-Gro-green [EthoxyylatedAlkylphenol, Polysiloxane]

Pesticide

Tafgor 40 EC [Dimethoate 40%

EC]

Dudu Cyper [Cypermethrine]

Weeding Weeding was

scheduled

and done by

farmers.

Monitoring, observing and recording

• The plots were monitored for growth differences, unique

characteristics like pest and disease resistance or

susceptibility.

• These were recorded

• Meanwhile different stakeholders were visiting the sites

Various national and international

visitors came at the sites

Bean Harvest data collection:

• Beans were harvested before the general evaluation activity.

• Farmers were mobilized and the harvest date scheduled.

• Briefing of the daily activity was done.

• Beans for each plot were properly uprooted and bundled separately.

• Each bundle of beans remained in the respective plot. At this moment, one member started preparing lunch.

• Labeled papers indicating the identity of each plot was place at each bundle of uprooted beans.

• Allocation was done such that each participant takes care of the activities of one plot.

• Weighing and data entry was done by the facilitator. Each participant had to confirm the entered data for his or her unit plot for verification such that errors are reduced.

• The bean plants for each bundle were counted to find the number of plants for each unit plot.

Bean harvest continued…..

• This number of plants per unit plot was recorded. The pods for each unit plot were separated from the husks. The pods were put in the black polythene bag and weighed (On a Kg Unit scale).

• The total fresh weight of the pods was recorded. Randomly about five pods from the black polythene bag containing pods of a particular unit plot were picked.

• These picked pods were each weighed (On a g unit scale). The average weight of the sampled pods was recorded as the sample fresh weight of the pods.

• Each participant started separating the grains from the pods in the respective unit plots.

Bean harvest continued…..

• Meanwhile, I (Paul Zaake) was packing and weighing the haulms for each unit plot.

• The total dry weight of haulms for each plot was recorded. Then about five haulms were randomly picked from the bag containing the haulms of the unit plot.

• These picked haulms were each weighed (on a g unit scale). The average weight of haulms was recorded as the sample dry weight of haulms. Then we had lunch.

• The separation of the grains from pods continued. The grains for each unit plot was weighed and recorded as the dry weight of the grains.

• The husks (which remained after removing the grains from pods) were weighed for each unit plot.

• This was recorded as the dry weight of husks. Brief closing discussion was done and the packed beans in the bags with labels for each unit plot were carried to the household of one member for storage and for regular sun drying.

After harvest assessment of bean varieties

Farmers fully

participated in the

harvest, weighing

and recording of

bean harvest data.

They were in

control and

together gave

views about their

favorite bean

varieties basing on

the various

indicators

Pre evaluation meeting of maize and cassava

To track indicators which are not regularly collected by other researchers in similar research projects, a pre evaluation meeting was done.

During the process, we categorized the farmers into two groups (each five farmers/ participants) basing on the two pilot sites.

Pre evaluation meeting continued….

The pre evaluation meeting involved the evaluation team from Kenya and Uganda, and five representatives of farmers from each site of Gosola and Kijuna.

Management difference at the research site

and typical village farms• Used plots with different crops and varieties, there was one type of

crop planted especially for maize and beans and yet in farm gardens they usually intercropped, Spacing was different (was closer in plots),

• Trials planted two seeds while farmers usually plant four seeds to cater for the wide spacing- and also in anticipation of better yields,

• They weeded 3 times for maize and beans yet on their farms they usually weed once,

• No trials to evaluate the attributes of the crops at village farms,

• Used fertilizers and pesticides which are not common at typical village farms, Planted the crops in line using a rope,

• All plots were harvested alone and products weighed unlike in village farms, and Protected the garden.

Gender role differences at the research site

and typical village farms

At the research site, all activities from land

preparation to harvesting (and later marketing)

equitably involved both men and women with

exception of spraying activity which strictly involved

men.

Gender role differences continued…..

However in typical village farms/ community, land is fully owned by male, 99% of decisions made by male, 70% of weeding by female, 80% of drying by male. Both male and female tend to equitably share the land clearing, land preparation, decision on what to plant, and harvesting activities. The spraying, selling and finance decision making are 100% done by male.

Pre-harvest evaluation Indicators

Cassava indicators

Appearance, low branching height, Number of branches, stem thickness, seed formation, time to mature, height of the plant, drought resistance, pest resistance, disease resistance, soil cracking, germination and overall.

Maize indicators

Crop stand, height, number of cobs per plant, cob size, early maturing, yield, grain filling, good cover of the tip, drooping of the cob, resistance to foliar diseases, drought resistance, grain colour, overall evaluation.

Through our participatory approach, we generated indicators. These were to be for ranking from 1 to 5 (1=like very much, 5=dislike very much).

Evaluation

• Due to increasing publicity about the ongoing research,

many neighboring village people and farmers from

neighboring villages and international people started to

visit the sites.

• They engaged with the research managers (farmers),

interacting, learning and giving feedback.

• The Evaluation team implemented a site based survey

with key aggregate indicators across the crops with

exception of beans which had already been harvested.

Evaluation continued…..• At each site, about 80 people were invited. Village level targeted

mobilization ensured so that no one could be common at both sites.

• The invited people were briefed on the objective of the evaluation. All varieties were maintained anonymous and only identified with a number just like it was from the start during the designing.

• People were randomly categorized into three groups corresponding to the three replications, such that each group was to evaluate only one of the replications.

• Three sub groups of people were randomly made for each of the three major groups to correspond to the number of the available trained local data collectors.

• The data collectors enumerated the survey participants for the first part of livelihood and social economic profile questions.

Evaluation continued…..• Later each individual under the group did the scoring and

ranking. Each major group did the activity on particular replication.

• Each sub group started the activity from a particular plot within a particular replication.

• Each individual under the sub group was given a pencil, questionnaire, book and pencil so that he or she does the writing by him or herself.

• Each trained data collector was responsible to give general guidance for a particular sub group while paying particular attention not to influence the participants’ scoring and ranking.

• For the part of scoring and ranking, writing for was done only for those who could not read and or write.

Villagers that evaluated one of the site (Gosoola)

Harvesting of maize• Maize was harvested by the farmers with supervision

from Paul Zaake. Harvest data was collected and

recorded almost in similar as it was done for beans

Meanwhile cassava at both sites

is still in garden growing

Farmers plan not to adopt:

• Some farmers plan not to adopt the black beans that

though high yielding, they do not have market.

Planned partial adoption with modification:

• Farmers hope to adopt the bean varieties but they may not plant in lines or rows because of the kind of intercrop on their farms of banana and coffee. Others hope to asses again and compare the yield of beans inline and those not in lines.

• They hope to count and collect harvest data but will only count a few crops (sample) but not for the whole plot as they did on the trial sites

• They plan to adopt the good maize and cassava varieties but some planned to plant on the boarders of their farms due to shortage of land. E.g. cassava makes a canopy and takes a long time so they may not plant it in a particular plot where they plan to plant another crop type of crop in the next season.

Farmers plan to fully adopt:

• They hope to adopt some of the best performing maize,

cassava and bean varieties.o They hope to try out and test different crop varieties in their gardens. For beans they

hope to majorly consider: High yielding, Early maturing, variety which does not

discriminate soils, Have market potential, Disease and pest resistance. For Cassava

they plan to consider: Early maturing, when it is short and so can increase population

density. For Maize they hope to consider variety with big grain, has a small cob

implying high yields, early maturing and Drought resistant.

• They hope to adopt the better farming practices and

knowledge got from the project, multiple weeding, spraying to

control pests and diseases, use of fertilizers on their own

farms, the technique of regular monitoring of their farms, the

collection and recording of harvest data (yield) to assess the

performance of crops.

Conclusion• Initially, it was not common to find farmers managing an on-farm

research experiment. I am happy to be working with these farmers together we CGIAR teams striving to find suitable technologies to enable the food systems adapt to climate change.

• Participatory on-farm research is a useful approach and effective way of disseminating and developing technologies.

• It utilizes both the scientific and traditional knowledge. The process itself elicits active participation among the villagers and increases the likelihood that they would buy-in on current and future initiatives.

• The project provided the farmers with relevant information for the crop varieties such that they strengthen their decision making on what variety to plant.

About Paul Zaake• Paul Zaake is an agriculturalist

and climate change expert. He is the co-founder and coordinator at Rakai Environmental Conservation Programme (RECO).

• The views in this report may not represent the views of the partners and or the individuals, Please contact: zaakepaul@gmail.com and or +256779627992 for details.