napier stunt and smut resistance project in kenya: achievements and outcomes

NAPIER STUNT AND SMUT RESISTANCE PROJECT IN KENYA

Achievements and OutcomesM. Mulaa1, C. Lusweti1, B. Awalla1, C. Kute, D. Asena1 S.

Rono 1 , F. Muyekho2 , J. Hanson 3 and J. Proud 3

1KARI Kitale, 2KARI Kakamega, 3ILRI Ethiopia

Presented at the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on Mitigating the Impact of Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Diseases, Addis

Ababa, June 2-3, 2010

IntroductionKARI Vision

KARI envisions “a vibrant commercially-oriented and competitive agricultural sector propelled by science, technology and innovation”.

Introduction

KARI Mission

To contribute to increased productivity, commercialization and competitiveness of the agricultural sector through generation and promotion of knowledge, information and technologies that respond to clients’ demands and opportunities.

Opportunities

Napier is a major livestock feed in Kenya with several uses

-Stem borer and Striga control (Push-pull)

-Augementation of natural enemies

-Soil conservation

-Sold for cash

Introduction

Introduction …….

Napier potential yields 50-100 tons green matter per hectare

Margaret Mulaa CRAC Presentation 7- April- 2009

6

Stunt and Smut major diseases of Napier

Napier Stunt and Smut Resistant Clones and effective Napier Stunt and Smut Resistant Clones and effective Management strategies demanded by farmersManagement strategies demanded by farmers

Problem statementMost Napier varieties are susceptible to stunt and smut

Decline in biomass due to stunt leads to Loss of farmer income from sale of milk

High prices of Napier

Farmers selling their diary cows

Graze dairy cattle on sparse communal pastures

East Coast Fever

High costs of livestock production

Launch of the project

11 July 2008 at KARI Kakamega

150 stakeholders attended the Launch

KARI Director, ILRI Director Partnerships, Director Livestock Development, CD’s KARI Kitale&KARI Kakamega

PROJECT VISION

Farmers adoption of superior (resistant) clones and crop management practices that will mitigate the spread of smut and stunt, leading to increases in system productivity and sustainability

PROJECT MISSION

Sharing new information and knowledge to support practices that will prevent the diseases spread and allow farmers to make informed choices

AchievementsStunt and Smut Disease Incidence and Severity

mapped in Bungoma Mumias Butere Busia Kiambu Muranga

Global positioning system reading were takenfrom all house holds surveyed

Stunt and Smut incidence in Western Kenya mapped

Other Baseline Data on Napier Production Practices from survey• Area covered by Napier Grass per

household

• Number of Improved Diary Cattle

• Feeding systems practiced

• Alternative feeds

Baselines on disease incidence in Western and Central Kenya in 2008

District Stunt District

Stunt on farmers own fields

Smut District

Smut on farmers own fields

Bungoma 89.7 27.3 5.2 7.7

Mumias 96.4 21.0 4.8 5.1

Butere 98.0 26.0 1.0 1.3

Busia 87.3 18.1 2.5 2.6

Kiambu 20.7 4.7 37.9 42.3

Muranga 12.9 2.9 37.6 41.0

Biomass Studies

Morphological Characterization of 120 clones

Screening 120 clones for tolerance to StuntData on Incidence and Severity of stunt on Clones

available

1-Nil (No symptoms at all in stool)2- Mild (less than 25 % of tillers with symptoms)3- Moderate (25-50 tillers with symptoms)4- Severe- more than 50 tillers with symptoms)

Stunt Severity

Screen house trials under artificial Challenge

High yielding Clones tolerant to stunting Disease identified

Clone (Detail of clones with author)

Dry Matter Yields tons/Ha

1 12.76

2 12.43

3 11.04

4 10.06

5 8.09

6 7.64

7 7.55

8 6.03

•Collected 600 Clones•20 Clones tolerant•28 clones yielding more than Bana

Farmer evaluating and Ranking Napier Clones at Alupe

Clones Ranked a among the best by both farmers and Researchers

• Farmers preferred clones which were high yielding, disease tolerant, fast growing with more tillers, big stems, smooth and broad leaves.

MMS 2A5 (11.04 tons/ha)

MMS 3A5 (8.56 tons/ha)

BGM 3A5 (8.09 tons/ha)

Information and Monitoring & Evaluation activities

• Assessing and responding to stakeholders information needs

• Documenting processes• Packaging and disseminating information• Maintaining relevance• Assessing lessons learnt• Monitoring impact against indicators

Stakeholder Identification

KARI

MediaPrivate Sector

Other Researchers

Schools

Universities

CBO’sLocal Leaders

NGO’s

Farmers

Extension System

Assessing and responding to stakeholders information needs

Focus group discussions (6)

Key informant meetings (6)

Stakeholder workshops (8)

Field days and Agricultural Shows (4)

Dissemination materials

- Posters (3)

- Leaflets(2)

Number of Farmers ReachedDistricts Field days Workshops

BungomaChoisianaKanduyi

5001060

10050

MumiasEast WangaMatungu

600260

8776

Kiambu

Kiamba

1500

870

195

400

Muranga 243 55

KitaleTotal

10536086

401003 (7089)

Reduction in Disease Incidence

• Bungoma 45% Management (Clinics)

• Mumias 60 % awareness Workshops/FD

• Butere 30% Tolerant Land Races

• Busia 70% No serious Management

• Central 15% More Aware of Tolerant Varieties KK1& KK2

Key Informant Meetings

Leaders of Community Based Organizations in Bungoma District

Documenting processes/ Synthesizing information for the Web

• Quarterly reports (4)

• Project Annual Reports (2)

• Project Semi-Annual Reports (6)

• Reports of stakeholders meetings (8)

• Centre Advisory Committee meetings reports (1)

• Back to office reports on field visits (30)

Packaging and disseminating Information

Awareness creation on management of the disease

– 3 Posters and 2 Leaflets

– 2 video’s ( Project launch & Field day)

– 5 news paper articles (Nation, Standard, Kenya times)

– TV news (KTN, Nation and KBC)

Packaging and disseminating information

• Production of good leaflets and posters• Collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock• Collaboration with projects dealing with

Livestock Technologies- IFAD- SNV Swedish Project- Small holders giving credit- USAID Kenya Dairy Sector project- Land O’Lakes International Development

Maintaining Relevance

• Farmer Group discussions (4)• Project Annual planning meeting (3)• Farmer to Farmer visits (3)• Farmer Field days in collaboration with

other stakeholders (4)

Stakeholder field day at Alupe

Stakeholder Workshops and meetings

Information Sharing Meeting with Policy makers

Assessing Lessons Learnt• Farmer Group discussions• Monitoring meetings held with farmers

- Munanda-ini - Thindigna- Kiamba settlement- Njiku development focal area- Kimoroni

- East Wanga - Matungu - Choisiana• Demonstrations (Bulking sites)

Assessing Lessons Learnt

Monitoring Meetings Demonstrations

Behavioral changes in partners

Key Boundary

Partner

Expected Key changes Actual changes observed during project implementation

Extension Staff -participatory extension methods-More technology demonstrations-More linkages

•Involved farmers in planning and information gathering•Used funds from other sources for field days•Stunting/smut disease made priority•Involved in participatory training

Farmers -Updated information on disease

-Demanding to technologies

-Participating in collection of resistant Germplasm

-Farmer-to-farmer technology transfer

-Adoption of improved disease free Napier clones

-Several farmers were interested and demanded for tolerant materials

-Made effort to gather information

-Demanded for leaflets and Posters-Very keen to attend field days- Adoption of Management of management technologies and reduction of incidence of stunting disease

Behavioral changes in partners (Contd.)Key Boundary

Partner

Expected Key changes Actual changes observed during project implementation

Researchers -Hold workshops/field days to disseminate information

-Provide guidelines on management of disease

-Develop more proposals

-More team work

-More collections of Clones

-Created networks

-Preparing posters

-Writing Papers

-Persuaded bosses to fund

KARI HQ -Promote and Coordinate linkages between related projects

-Director KARI attended the launch and field days

-Supported project with additional funding

-Participated in monitoring

Behavioral changes in partners (Contd.)

Key Boundary

Partner

Expected Key changes

Actual changes observed during project implementation

Media -Disseminating the correct information

•Project launch in the nation newspaper and on 3 T.V. channels•Radio interested in hosting the farmers

Policy makers

-Support the transformations

-Minister of Agriculture and other policy makers attended field days and supported the project

-Chiefs and village elders helped create awareness among communities

Linkages and collaboration

Collaborators/Donor Activities/Comments

•Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock Extension (NALEP/Dutch Government

Covers over 20 districts in disseminating information and helping groups bulk clean planting materials

•East African Small holder Dairy Project (ASARECA/World bank)

Extending Technologies that will empower small holder farmers e.g. clean seed production, Conservation of fodders, crop/livestock integration

ICIPE Push Pull Project (Kilimo Trust)

Dissemination of Push Pull Habitat Management Strategies, disseminate information on management of stunting disease and smut.

Lessons learnt• Involvement of various stakeholders

increased awareness on disease and technology dissemination

• Linking with existing projects related to Napier production made the project sustainable

• Team work at KARI and at regional level improved performance and project implementation

Lessons learnt Cont.• Farmer workshops, Farmer visits and

field-days were the most effective means of disseminating information

• Media played a very big role in Awareness creation and dissemination of the technologies

• Farmers and other stakeholders should be trained in information gathering to help monitor impacts of the project

The way Forwards

• Evaluate identified tolerant clones in more sites and recommend to farmers

• Need to conduct further research to standardize screening methodologies using artificial Challenge

• Further evaluation of identified clones to develop resistant varieties to Napier Stunting disease

The way Forwards

• Introduction of resistant genes into the existing germplasm with desirable traits

• Identify partners who would assist in the sensitization and dissemination of management strategies

• Establishment of bulking sites to produce Clean planting materials for farmers

• Scale up other stunt and smut management practices such as use of Botanical extracts

AcknowledgementAcknowledgementDirector KARI and ASARECADirector KARI and ASARECA

C D’s KARI-Kitale and KARI- KakamegaC D’s KARI-Kitale and KARI- Kakamega

ILRIILRI

Plant Global Clinic, UKPlant Global Clinic, UK

Rothamsted Research InstituteRothamsted Research Institute

Ministry of Agriculture & Ministry of livestockMinistry of Agriculture & Ministry of livestock

Farmers and Other stakeholdersFarmers and Other stakeholders

Project PartnersProject Partners

Partners in Napier stunting Disease Research