Progress Report for 2000
November 2000
1. Introduction:
Maize is an important food crop for millions of people in
eastern Africa, where many farmers practice mixed
crop-livestock farming systems. Small- scale farmers who
account for the largest share of agricultural production face
several constraints including unreliable rainfall, low soil
fertility, weeds, diseases, pest infestation and pre- and
post-harvest losses.
Pests are responsible for enormous losses in crop
production worldwide.
Stemborers and striga weed are the two most important
biotic constraints to maize production in eastern Africa.
Losses of 20-40% and 30-100% due to stem borer and striga
weed, respectively, of potential maize yield have been
recorded.
 |
 |
| Figure 1. Maize field infested with Striga
hermonthica in Lambwe Valley, Kenya |
Figure 2. Stemborer damage to a maize
plant |
Synthetic pesticides, potentially harmful to human, animal
and environmental health, are very costly for small scale
farmers in developing countries. IPM is a strategy which
manages pests through the integration of a number of
environmentally sustainable control techniques. There is need
to promote IPM as a crop protection measures among small-scale
farmers in developing countries. The CGIAR, through the
System-Wide Programme for Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM)
has initiated a pilot site project to enhance interaction on
IPM between International Agricultural Research Centres
(IARC'S), National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems
(NARES), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) involved in
agricultural extension, and farmers. The basic concept of
SP-IPM is for two or more IARCs, working with NARES to bring
together their best-bet IPM technologies at selected sites in
Africa in a participatory process with farmers. Lambwe valley
(Lambwe Division), Suba District in southwestern Kenya was
chosen to be one of the pilot sites for the project during an
initial planning meeting held in Nairobi in January 2000.
2. The Pilot Site Project.
2.1. What is SP-IPM?
An interdisciplinary approach to develop and disseminate
environmentally and economically sustainable pest management
strategies for farmers adoption/use. It aims to stimulate
interaction on IPM between International Agricultural Research
Centres, (IARCs), NARES, NGOs and Farmers.
2.2 Key Issue addressed by
SP-IPM.
The following criteria were considered to assure that
'best-bet' technologies used in the project fit farmers' pest
management requirements:
- Are our technologies appropriate and relevant to
farmers?
- Are our methodologies of meeting with and showing to
farmers of new technologies the right way?
- Have we really changed our approach to technologies
development and transfer sufficiently?
- Do we really give consideration to farmers constraints
when designing new technologies?
- Is there a stressing need for new opportunities in
achieving impact and importance of alleviating constrains
for adoption?
2.3. SP-IPM: Purpose, Hope and
Expectations.
- To develop, test, apply and publicize, more effective
models for introducing novel IPM options to farming
communities.
- To be based on establishing closer partnership between
stakeholders
- To use participatory approaches to enhance cooperation
among farmers, researchers and extensionists.
- To be tested at selected sites representing major
cropping systems or agro-ecologies where pest are important
constraints.
3. Location of the Pilot site and its
characteristics
The western Kenya pilot site is located in Lambwe on the
Lake Victoria Basin which is a moist (550mm) mid-altitude
(1110-1500m) agroecological zone (figure 3). This zone is the
largest maize growing area in Kenya, and represents 44% of the
total land devoted to maize. It also represents a large part
of the maize growing area in other countries in east and
southern Africa. Other areas in Kenya which have a similar
climate as Lambwe (based on precipitation, evapotranpiration,
and tempature) are shown in figure 4.
 |
| Figure 3. Location of Lambwe Valley and annual
precipitation |
 |
Figure 4. Areas in Kenya similar to Lambwe,
based on precipitation and
evapotranspiration
indicated in dark
green. |
In the drier areas of the zone, maize is often replaced
with sorghum. In addition to cereals, many farmers grow beans,
groundnuts and cassava and maintain livestock. Major biotic
constraints to maize and sorghum production in the area
include striga, stemborer and diseases. Farmers have
identified striga as the most important constraint to maize
production in the region. The two most economically important
stemborers in eastern and southern Africa, Chilo
partellus and Busseola fusca, attack maize and
sorghum in Lambwe Valley. Several IARCs (CIMMYT, ICRAF, and
ICIPE), working in partnership with KARI, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development (MOARD) and NGO'S, are
presently active in the Lake Victoria Basin.
4. Planned activities and Implementation
schedules Long Rainy Season: Feb-August 2000.
The following activities formed the implementation steps of
the SP-IPM Pilot Site Initiative. The steps are considered
critical in the process of executing Collaborative Adoptive
Research & Extension (CARE) activities.
Step 1. Planning workshop
An initial planning workshop was held in Kisumu 21/22
February to bring researchers who design technologies, closer
to their extension colleagues and farmers to discuss/compare
research options versus farmers practices, constraints and
dissemination approaches to ensure a high adoption rate/level.
During this workshop, 'best-bet' research options for farmer
validation were discussed.
| Figure 5. Planning Workshop held at the Imperial
Hotel in February, 2000. |
 |
Step 2. Participatory Adaptive Research
and Extension Needs Assessment (PARENA).
At an initial meeting with farmers (Baraza) was held in
Lambwe on 23 February immediately after the planning workshop.
A catalogue of useful existing traditional technologies on
striga and stemborer control technologies were listed and
compared with the developed research 'best-bet' technologies
so as to arrive at workable and practical technologies for
further development and validation by farmers. Participating
farmers were selected by the larger farmer group. A baseline
survey was conducted using a questionnaire to help understand
farmers' knowledge and practices in integrated crop and pest
management.
| Figure 6. Baraza held in Lambwe Valley, February
2000 |
|
Step 3. Planning of the project work and
Training of Adaptive Research Extension
Workers.
Planning of field activities to be undertaken, and training
of the front line field staff and other extension staff at the
site on concepts and aspects of IPM, concepts of CARE, and
their role in the research process.
Step 4. Training of Adaptive Research
Extension Farmers.
Farmers were introduced to the concept of Collaborative
Adoptive Research & Extension (CARE) and their central
role in the research process.
 |
 |
| Figure 7. Farmer training sessions held in
Lambwe Valley in May,
2000. |
Step 5. Design and plot
layout
Technologies were selected and plot layouts conducted for
adaptive research by selected farmers using a farmers' field
school approach.
Step 6. Establishment and management of
Trials
Sites were prepared by farmers, and they did the planting
an plot management (weeding, fencing, fertilization, pest
control)
Step 7. Data acquisition, Analysis, Interpretation and
presentation
Conducted by adaptive research extension farmers and
extension workers. Training was provided on data collection
and data collection forms were developed.
Step 8. Development and dissemination of
extension messages:
Information about the project was disseminated through
demonstrations, field days, farm visits and posters.
5. 'BEST BET' TECHNOLOGICAL
OPTIONS
Researcher developed technologies were presented during the
planning workshop, and the group adopted a number of
tactics/strategies for combating striga weed and stemborers in
maize.
5.1 Strategy 1: -Push Pull
Technology
ICIPE developed technology where napier grass is planted as
a border around maize to trap stemborers, and desmodium is
intercropped with maize to repel stemborers and suppress
striga. A KARI Striga-tolerant maize variety, KSTP94, is being
used.
5.2 Strategy 2: Tolerant maize
varieties.
Varietal selection in which farmers are screen different
maize varieties for striga weed tolerance, drought resistance,
early maturation, stemborer susceptibility, yield and
performance under different micro-ecozones.
The KARI developed variety, KSTP94, is included along with
several other improved varieties and local 'land-races'.
5.3 Strategy 3: Adapted Cultural
Practices.
Farmers are validating various combinations of different
cultural practices, and soil fertility management practices
for striga weed control, including:
Tolerant varieties
Planting with farm yard manuer (FYM)
Intercropping with legumes
Hand-pulling of striga
KEY QUESTIONS BEING ADDRESSED BY DIFFERENT
strategies.
- Which are the improved agronomic practices for increased
production?
- Is the tolerant variety being introduced superior to
local cultivars and acceptable to farmers?
- Are the strategies problem-focused and farmer-focused?
- Which is the most cost effective management strategies
for striga weed/stemborer control?
- Are effective and economical pest control method being
developed through an IPM approach in collaboration with
farmers?
- Are regenerative, bio-intensive agricultural systems for
sustainable maize production being designed?
All the above questions will have been answered by the 3rd
and 4th seasons of trials monitoring and evaluation. This
calls for upscaling of trials/activities and continous
participatory monitoring and evaluation of results up to the
4th season (2 LRS and 2 SRS).
IMPLEMENTATION - SP-IPM ACTIVITIES Long
Rainy Season 2000.
SP-IPM steering committee
meetings
| DATE |
LOCATION |
OBJECTIVES |
No.
participants |
| 31/1/2000 |
NAIROBI |
Pre- Planning review of pilot
site document and Logframe. |
24 |
| 21-22 /2/2000 |
IMPERIAL HOTEL KISUMU |
Input in the planning process
for pilot site project |
21 |
| 23/2/2000 |
OGONGO CHIEF'S CAMP |
Parena, farmers selection and
proposal for action |
15 |
| 24/2/2000 |
ICIPE MPFS |
Wayforward for the long
rains/site management strategy |
15 |
| 25-26 /2/2000 |
NAIROBI |
NGOs collaborative network |
21 |
| 31/3/2000 |
HIPPOBUCK HOTEL HOMA BAY |
Field progress review and
activity planning |
13 |
6.2 SP-IPM project trainings
/demonstrations/tours/field days
| DATE |
TYPE/ TITTLE |
OBJECTIVES |
NO. PARTICIPANTS |
| |
|
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
TOTAL |
| 7/3/2000 |
Staff
orientation |
To introduce
the SP-IPM concepts to field staffs and to arrange for
its implementation |
11 |
3 |
14 |
| 8/3/2000 |
Farmers
orientation |
To introduce
the SP-IPM concepts to participating farmers and to
develop implementation strategies |
14 |
8 |
22 |
| 20-23/3/2000 |
Participatory
and methodology training workshop |
To introduce
field staffs, SMS, lead farmers, local leaders on
participatory methodology in agricultural research and
extension |
10 |
3 |
13 |
| 14,15,17,28
March 2000 |
Demos on plot
design, layout and treatments |
To give farmers
practical orientation on plot design, layout and
treatment. |
68 |
32 |
100 |
| 30/3/2000 |
SP-IPM Steering
Committee tour |
To assess the
implementation status in the fields. |
10 |
2 |
12 |
| 16/4/2000 |
Demo on data
collection |
To train field
staffs on data collection and recording
methods. |
4 |
0 |
4 |
| 9/5/2000 |
Data collection
and recording training |
To train
participating farmers on data collection and recording
practices/methods. |
11 |
7 |
18 |
| 15/6/2000 |
Farmers
tour |
For
participating farmers to compare notes and to give them
opportunity to see the effort of other
farmers/strategies. |
9 |
6 |
15 |
| 16,20,22,27
June 2000 |
Field
Days-FFS |
To permit
target farmers to observe personally, ask about
successful striga and stem borer control strategies and
to create a situation in which an informal learning can
take place. |
84 |
78 |
162 |
| 5/7/2000 |
Provincial
Farmers Field Day |
To share SP-IPM
project experiences with other Districts Extension
staffs and farmers. |
171 |
263 |
434 |
6.3 Extension/Routine farm
visits
| Routine Farm
visits by |
Numbers |
Remarks |
| Extension
staff |
87 |
|
| ICIPE
Rep |
99 |
|
| Lead
Farmers |
79 |
|
| Care |
25 |
|
| Kari |
5 |
|
| Coordinator |
16 |
|
| Catholic
diocese |
4 |
|
| Others |
2 |
|
| TOTAL
Rfv |
317 |
|
6.4. SP-IPM Stake holders and their roles
during implementation
| |
Activity |
Lead |
Remark |
| 1. |
Community
mobilization/Sensitization |
ERF |
Done |
| 2. |
Need
Assessment |
ERC |
" |
| 3. |
Farmers
selection |
FER |
" |
| 4. |
Planning |
REF |
" |
| 5. |
Training |
ERF |
" |
| 6. |
Research Agenda
formulation |
REF |
" |
| 7. |
Trial
Design |
RFE |
" |
| 8. |
Trial Layout
and Treatment |
FER |
" |
| 9. |
Input-materials
Supply |
RFE |
" |
| 10 |
Trial
management |
FER |
" |
| 11 |
Data
collection |
FRE |
" |
| 12 |
Trial
monitoring 4 evaluation |
FER |
" |
| 13 |
Data
Analysis |
FRE |
" |
| 14 |
Result
presentation |
FER |
Not
yet |
| 15 |
Extension
message Development |
ERG |
" |
| 16 |
Extension
message Dissemination |
EFR |
" |
* F- Farmer, E-Extension, R
-Research.
At the pilot site, the following stakeholders were directly
involved in the implementation during phase 1 long rainy
season [Feb-August 2000]
-KARI - manage the overall coordination of the project in
western Kenya (research/training).
-ICIPE - Assist KARI in managing the overall coordination
of the project in western Kenya (research/rinancial
management/training).
-Ministry Of Agriculture and Rural Development (operational
management of the activities at the pilot site)
-CARE (extension backup)
-Catholic Diocese - AEP (training)
-CABI (training)
7.5 SP-IPM -Pilot Site Initiative -
Expected impact /Beneficiaries.
- Farmers and farming communities will benefit from new
options, empowerment and better crop yield/better quality of
life.
- Research/Extension will benefit from empowerment and
more effective work through closer links and collaboration
with clientile/farmers.
- Development community/Decision makers will benefit from
availability of better model to guide a variety of research,
extension, and other implementation efforts.
- Link between the researchers, extension agents and
farmers will be strengthened in developing stem borer and
striga weed management technologies.
8. RESULTS
8.1. Averages for Strategy 1.
Push-Pull
|
Treatment |
Parameters |
Ranking |
| |
No. of
farmers |
%
Stemborer damaged Plants |
Striga
Count/
80plants |
Yield
(t/ha) |
Stemborer
preference |
Striga
Suppression |
Yield |
| KS+
DES+NAP |
6 |
8 |
45.4 |
2.5 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
| KS
+BN |
1 |
10 |
291 |
3.5 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
| JOWI
MONO |
2 |
5 |
73 |
2.25 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
| JOWI +
BN |
1 |
25 |
18 |
1.8 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
| NYAMULA
MONO |
1 |
5 |
112 |
3.1 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
| RACHAR
MONO |
1 |
10 |
408 |
1.6 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
KEY: KS= KSTP94, DES= DESMODIUM, NAP=
NAPIER,
BN= BEANS.
8.2. Summary averages for Strategy 2.
Tolerant Maize Variety
|
Treatment |
Parameters |
Ranking |
| |
No. of
farmers |
%
Stemborer damaged Plants |
Striga
Count/
80plants |
Yield
(t/ha) |
Stemborer
preference |
Striga Tolerancy
Y/10 S/P |
Yield |
|
KSTP
94 MONO |
9 |
3.7 |
1018 |
2.0 |
4 |
0.020
(2) |
3 |
| H513
MONO |
5 |
9.7 |
1461 |
2.1 |
1 |
0.015
(4) |
2 |
| PH4
MONO |
4 |
2.5 |
1086 |
1.1 |
5 |
0.010
(6) |
6 |
| JOWI
MONO |
5 |
9.4 |
834 |
1.54 |
2 |
0.018
(3) |
4 |
| NYAMULA
MONO |
3 |
5 |
429 |
1.5 |
3 |
0.035
(1) |
5 |
| RACHAR
MONO |
1 |
1.3 |
2624 |
3.8 |
6 |
0.014
(5) |
1 |
KEY: Y/10S/P= Yield (t/ha)/10 striga/maize
plant, 1= High, 6= Low
8.3. Summary averages for Strategy 3.
Adopted Cultural Practices
|
Treatment |
Parameters |
Ranking |
| |
No. of
farmers |
%
Stemborer damaged
Plants |
Striga
Count/
80plants |
Yield
(t/ha) |
Stemborer
preference |
Striga Tolerance
Y/10 S/P |
Yield |
| KSTP94+BEANS |
12 |
4.8 |
507 |
2.17 |
1 |
0.042
(3) |
3 |
| KSTP94+G/NUT |
1 |
1.6 |
1621 |
1.6 |
5 |
0.009
(8) |
5 |
|
KSTP94+FYM+
BEANS |
6 |
3.1 |
459.3 |
2.23 |
3 |
0.049
(2) |
2 |
|
JOWI +
BEANS |
6 |
2.2 |
427.5 |
1.48 |
4 |
0.035
(4) |
7 |
| NYAMULA +
BEANS |
2 |
3.35 |
223.5 |
1.8 |
2 |
0.080
(1) |
4 |
| RACHAR+
BEANS |
1 |
0 |
791 |
3 |
6 |
0.004
(9) |
1 |
|
JOWI+
FYM + BEANS |
1 |
0 |
450 |
1.5 |
6 |
0.033
(5) |
6 |
|
JOWI+
G/NUT |
1 |
0 |
1305 |
1.8 |
6 |
0.014
(7) |
4 |
| MOROGORO +
BEANS |
1 |
0 |
350 |
1.1 |
6 |
0.031
(6) |
8 |
KEY: Y/10S/P= Yield (t/ha)/10 striga/maize
plant, 1= High, 8= Low
9. FARMERS PERCEPTION
/EVALUATION
The farmers were involved in the planning of the pilot site
initiative. They were also involved in the implementation and
training sessions. This provided them with a better
understanding of the whole project, and hence the ability to
evaluate the outcome. Most farmers showed preference for
Push-Pull Strategy (1). They agreed it was good for
suppressing stem borers and striga weed, apart from helping to
conserve soil and moisture. The push-pull option also provide
extra fodder for their livestock.
High yields was the most important factor in farmers
preference in KSTP94 and Jowi, followed by striga and
stemborer infestation and drought resistance. Farmers were
more interested in the profit they make when they intercrop
maize with beans. Intercropping helped to reduce striga and
stem borer infestation. It also acted as security in case the
main crop (maize) failed.
9.1. Farmers reporting various criteria
for preferring strategy 1.
| Treatments |
Strategy 1
(Push-Pull) |
| Treatments |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
| Criteria for
preference |
No. |
No. |
No. |
| suppresses
Striga weed |
6 |
3 |
1 |
| Good cob
formation / high yield |
4 |
5 |
2 |
| Increased
fodder for livestock |
4 |
1 |
1 |
| Tolerate
general weeds |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Controls Stem
borers |
5 |
2 |
1 |
| Retain moisture
in the soil |
2 |
0 |
0 |
| Good
germination |
1 |
3 |
2 |
| Drought
tolerant |
1 |
2 |
4 |
| Early
maturing |
1 |
1 |
3 |
| controls soil
erosion |
2 |
0 |
0 |
| No.= |
6 |
6 |
6 |
KEY: T1 = KSTP94 Maize + Napier grass
+Desmodium
T2 = Local Maize (Jowi Jamuomo)
T3 = Local Maize ( Nyamula)
9.2. Farmers reporting various criteria
for preferring strategy 2.
| Criteria for
preference |
Strategy 2 (Maize Varietal
Trials) |
|
Treatments |
| T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
| Good cob
Formation / high yielding |
8 |
5 |
6 |
| Tolerant to
striga weed |
5 |
2 |
5 |
| Early
maturing |
7 |
3 |
2 |
| Drought
tolerant |
6 |
5 |
6 |
| Good
germination |
5 |
4 |
3 |
| High plant
vigour |
3 |
2 |
3 |
| Tolerate
general weeds |
2 |
3 |
3 |
| Attractive
(nice) seeds |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| N = |
9 |
9 |
9 |
KEY: T1 = KSTP94 Maize
T2= PH4- ( Pwani Hybrid 4)
T3= Local Maize - ( Jowi Jamuomo)
8.3. Farmers reporting various criteria
for preferring strategy 3
|
Criteria for
preference |
Strategy 3
(Agronomic Cultural
Practices) |
|
Treatments |
| T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
| |
No. |
No. |
No. |
| Good cob
formation / high yield |
9 |
8 |
6 |
| Tolerant to
striga weed |
6 |
5 |
7 |
| Early
maturing |
4 |
4 |
6 |
| Drought
tolerant |
5 |
5 |
3 |
| Good
germination |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| High plant
vigour |
4 |
4 |
4 |
| Good
spacing |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Attractive (
seeds ) |
2 |
4 |
4 |
| Stem borer
controlled |
5 |
2 |
3 |
| N = |
12 |
12 |
12 |
KEY: T1 = KSTP94 +Intercrop
-(Beans)
T2 = KSTP94 Maize + FYM+ Inercrop -
(Beans)
T3 = Local Maize (Nyamula)+ Intercrop -
(Beans)
10. Conclusion &
Recommendation
In their overall perception of SP-IPM project, all farmers
said they had benefited immensely from their participation in
the educational activities and practical applications of
improved striga and stem borer control measures. Most of the
farmers were extremely keen to continue with farmers field
schools sessions and were already sharing their new
experiences with family members and neighbours. The need to
establish other farmers field schools was also stressed.
Farmers, researchers and extension staff gained not only
skills and knowledge, but also the confidence to take
decisions and set up small experiments.
Farmers suggestions for improving the project activities
included Push-Pull to be offered to more farmers, increase the
number of participating farmers, increase plot sizes etc.
Table 9.1.
10.1. Percent Farmers reporting various
suggestions to improve the project activities
| Suggestions |
Number |
% |
| Pull-Push
should be offered to all farmers |
14 |
73.7 |
| Increase number
of farmers |
12 |
63.2 |
| Form farmer
field schools for the strategies |
6 |
31.6 |
| Increase plot
size |
11 |
57.9 |
| Provide more
farmers with desmodium |
11 |
57.9 |
| Increase
extension services |
7 |
36.8 |
| Farmers should
get access to credit facilities |
5 |
26.3 |
| N =
19 |
- |
- |
| 
