Four Seasons of Learning and Engaging Smallholder Farmers - icrisat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chickpea seed access The first major source of seed for Arerti and Shasho varieties was own saved seed followed by producers’ groups. About 47% of those who planted Arerti and 50% of those who planted Shasho used their own saved seed for 2006/07 cropping season whereas about 33% and 26% of those who planted the same variety sourced seed from producer marketing groups or cooperatives. Own saved seed again was a vital source of seed for Chefe (77%), Worku (71%) and local desi (84%) varieties while producer marketing groups also contribute for Ejere type (33%). The third and fourth important sources of seed during the 2006/07 planting season were local seed producers and local traders and/or agro-dealers, respectively. The first and second major reason why some farmers never adopted the improved varieties was lack of access to seed and fear of theft during the green stage, respectively. The third and fourth major reasons are related to shortage of land and lack of cash to buy seed and/or lack of credit. Use of purchased seed and other inputs Only 48% of sampled households use at least some purchased seed, perhaps due to use of recycled seeds. The share of seed purchased for kabuli is about 48.9%, which was significantly higher compared to desi (3.1%). The average total labor used in person days is about 97 per ha for kabuli and 83 per ha for desi chickpea. Chickpea utilization Over 70% of kabuli chickpea and 55% of desi chickpea produced are sold in the market, suggesting the relevance of chickpea as a cash crop in the study area. Kabuli chickpea is the first crop primarily produced for the market compared to all other crops grown in the study regions. Desi chickpea takes the third rank in terms of share of produce sold in the market. Crop-livestock interactions About 10.5% of the sample respondents use crop residue as source of animal feed whereas about 5.5% use green fodder or grazing land. Preferred traits for chickpea The overall score for Chefe variety was the highest for both men and women chickpea farmers, followed by Ejere types. When we examine based on specific traits, female chickpea farmers prefer Arerti variety for their taste and high price in the market whereas male farmers prefer the same variety for high price and grain yield. Shasho variety is highly preferred for its high price in the market, grain size and grain color both by male and female farmers. Male farmers prefer Chefe for their grain color and size while female farmers prefer them for their high price in the market, grain size and low cost of production. The preferred traits for Ejere variety by both male and female farmers are high price in the market, grain size and grain color. Generally, kabuli varieties are highly preferred for their high economic return in addition to their grain color and size. Characteristics of Worku variety favored by male farmers include good taste and uniformity in maturity while female farmers prefer them for good taste, grain color and high price in the market. Production pattern and productivity The most widely grown kabuli variety among chickpea farmers remains Shasho (20.6%), followed by Ejere (11.7%) and Arerti (10%), respectively. Local desi remains the most widely grown variety among chickpea farmers while only 4.3% grow improved desi. Of the total chickpea area in the survey regions, about 54.5% is allocated to local desi followed by Shasho (21%) and Ejere (11.9%). 180 Engaging Smallholder Farmers | Tropical Legumes II Project
Net-return of chickpea Generally kabuli varieties perform superior in terms of yield, compared to the desi types. Among all chickpea varieties Arerti and Shasho varieties have the highest gross margin in terms of returns to land and management. The average return for Arerti and Shasho is about ETB 10,283 and ETB 9,496 per ha, respectively, whereas improved desi has a net-return of about ETB 2,481 per ha. Constraints to chickpea production and marketing in Ethiopia The available high-yielding varieties with market-preferred traits have not reached farmers on a large scale. The local landraces grown by farmers do not meet the quality and quantity requirements preferred to some extent by domestic but especially international markets. Poor and inadequate seed systems, shortage of quality seed and lack of timely delivery is another major limiting factor for adopting new varieties, especially the kabuli types, and insufficient access to production credit to farmers. The supply originates in small quantities from several highly dispersed small producers that supply non-homogenous desi types to local markets. There is lack of a well-coordinated supply chain that links producers and buyers. There is no efficient mechanism for delivering market information to the producers and traders at local markets on issues related to seasonal prices, demand, and quality requirements in different markets across the country. There is lack of a well-established system of grades and standards in the chickpea marketing system. The desi chickpea varieties currently grown by farmers in the country are not able to satisfy the quality attributes required by diverse markets. Post-harvest handling and consumption About 86.4% of farmers who ever planted chickpea thresh their produce with animals on dung cemented surface and/or grass whereas about 13% thresh with animals on dirt surface. About 74% of Shasho andEjere varieties produced are sold in the market ranking first among chickpea varieties in terms of market share. Arerti and local desi take the second and third rank in terms of share of produce sold in the market. The proportion of improved and local desi sold in the market is about 20% and 55%, respectively. About 10% of all kabuli varieties produced are saved as seed for next cropping seasons while the share is a bit higher of desi types. Among the kabuli varieties, the share of produce used for home consumption is highest for Chefe (39%) followed by Arerti (25%). On the other hand, about 68% of improved desi and 32% of local desi produced by sampled households are used for home consumption. Chickpea marketing About37% and 64% of kabuli and desi chickpea farmers are involved in marketing, indicating its role as a source of cash. Within the kabuli category, the proportion of chickpea farmers involved in marketing of Shasho variety is the highest, followed by Ejere type. The marketed surplus for kabuli chickpea is a bit higher than desi types. About 74% of the chickpea are sold in the main market. Urban grain traders are the first major buyers of chickpea in all the three districts, followed by rural traders and rural assemblers. Chickpea price trend in Ethiopia Both producer and retail price are higher for kabuli chickpea than for desi types. The annual average rate of growth (ROG) of kabuli retail price (4.5%) is more than double the desi retail price (2.3%). On the contrary, the ROG of desi producer price (3.68%) is much higher than kabuli producer price (0.37%). Progress of Phase 1 181
Page 1 and 2:
Tropical Legumes II Project TROPICA
Page 3:
TROPICAL LEGUMES II Tropical Legume
Page 6 and 7:
Seed Production and Delivery System
Page 8 and 9:
Enhancing Pigeonpea Productivity an
Page 10 and 11:
NARES NASFAM NASSPA NPT NSC NSO NSS
Page 12 and 13:
TL II was implemented in 10 target
Page 14 and 15:
country governments in agricultural
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1-2: continued Variety code (
Page 18 and 19:
Table 1-3: Seed production and deli
Page 20 and 21:
As stated earlier in this chapter,
Page 22 and 23:
Table 1-5: Graduate degree students
Page 24 and 25:
Ndjeunga J, Ibro A, Cisse Y, Ben Ah
Page 26 and 27:
Project background Groundnut is one
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2-2: Performance of ICGV 0035
Page 30 and 31:
Table 2-6: Performance of ICGV 9111
Page 32 and 33:
Table 2-11: Results of 255 paired c
Page 34 and 35:
Table 2-16: Groundnut seed of vario
Page 36 and 37:
Infrastructure facilities For effic
Page 38 and 39:
Project sites Tamil Nadu The presen
Page 40 and 41:
In Karnataka, the PDKV model was pr
Page 42 and 43:
Training course A total of four tra
Page 44 and 45:
Background The yield of groundnut i
Page 46 and 47:
Table 3-2: Groundnut production tre
Page 48 and 49:
In order of importance, the largest
Page 50 and 51:
Table 3-5: Results of pair-wise com
Page 52 and 53:
Finally, the variety choices are co
Page 54 and 55:
hybridization techniques, design of
Page 56 and 57:
Figure 3-2: The Malawi model of the
Page 58 and 59:
Tanzania TL II has contributed to t
Page 60 and 61:
Annex 3-2: Performance of Virginia
Page 62 and 63:
Annex 3-4: Regional elite groundnut
Page 64 and 65:
54 Engaging Smallholder Farmers | T
Page 66 and 67:
The European Union still remains th
Page 68 and 69:
Table 4-2: Proportion of households
Page 70 and 71:
Table 4-4: Amount requested, amount
Page 72 and 73:
Table 4-6. Comparison of groundnut
Page 74 and 75:
The use of other inputs (credit, in
Page 76 and 77:
A PVS evaluation was launched in pi
Page 78 and 79:
Table 4-10: Locations and contact f
Page 80 and 81:
Table 4-11: Mean pod yield (kg per
Page 82 and 83:
99511 (Table 4-12). Most important
Page 84 and 85:
Table 4-15: Evaluation of groundnut
Page 86 and 87:
A 10-day intensive training worksho
Page 88 and 89:
Seed production of all classes A to
Page 90 and 91:
Testing seed marketing strategies A
Page 92 and 93:
as Nigeria that will face the great
Page 94 and 95:
100 Million hectares 80 60 40 20 0
Page 96 and 97:
70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00 03
Page 98 and 99:
In Niger, changes in cowpea product
Page 100 and 101:
irregular rainfall early in the cro
Page 102 and 103:
Table 5-4: Cowpea breeding lines se
Page 104 and 105:
Cowpea varieties released The proje
Page 106 and 107:
Table 5-8: Number of days to flower
Page 108 and 109:
Evaluation for phosphorus-use effic
Page 110 and 111:
Figure 5-8: Reactions of some culti
Page 112 and 113:
ASS6 ASS64 ASS110 ASS56 Figure 5-9:
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 5-10: Meeting of farmers’
Page 116 and 117:
The best approach to spread the imp
Page 118 and 119:
declining soil fertility, increasin
Page 120 and 121:
In Nigeria, the small seed pack app
Page 122 and 123:
112 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
Page 124 and 125:
Phase I Social Sciences research in
Page 126 and 127:
The consequences are that the impro
Page 128 and 129:
about half of area share of land al
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 6-3: Average area (ha) per h
Page 132 and 133:
single lingering bottleneck on whic
Page 134 and 135:
In Kenya, the small seed pack appro
Page 136 and 137:
Summary, process gains and people r
Page 138 and 139:
Fast-Tracking and Technology Genera
Page 140 and 141: Figure 6-6: Distribution of PVS sit
Page 142 and 143: Table 6-12: Yields of fast track bu
Page 144 and 145: Table 6-15: Farmer evaluation of in
Page 146 and 147: While the fast track entries were r
Page 148 and 149: Technology generation Mechanistic s
Page 150 and 151: 60 50 Rainfall Pan evaporation Maxi
Page 152 and 153: Table 6-22: Yield under drought ind
Page 154 and 155: Number of degree training students
Page 156 and 157: Number of NARS technicians trained
Page 158 and 159: Rain-out shelter in CIAT-Colombia T
Page 160 and 161: Impact assessment and enhancement P
Page 162 and 163: Annex 6-2: TL IIEthiopia: decentral
Page 164 and 165: 154 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
Page 166 and 167: farmers for enhancing their awarene
Page 168 and 169: • Designing, testing and implemen
Page 170 and 171: Andhra Pradesh The overall sample s
Page 172 and 173: Prakasam district: Crops grown in P
Page 174 and 175: Constraints in adoption of chickpea
Page 176 and 177: Cost-benefit analysis for chickpea
Page 178 and 179: Identification of farmer-and-market
Page 180 and 181: Table 7-6: Breeder Seed of differen
Page 182 and 183: Capacity building Knowledge empower
Page 184 and 185: Table 7-15: Training of local seed
Page 186 and 187: • In addition to yield, maturity
Page 188 and 189: Introduction Chickpea is grown in E
Page 192 and 193: Grades and standards About 75% of t
Page 194 and 195: Table 8-6: Varieties used in PVS tr
Page 196 and 197: private sector lacks the incentive
Page 198 and 199: • LZARDI-Ukiriguru: Land along wi
Page 200 and 201: • Establishing functional legume
Page 202 and 203: Table 9-1: Farmers’ preferred var
Page 204 and 205: Table 9-3: Baby trials conducted in
Page 206 and 207: Table 9-5: Reaction of pigeonpea li
Page 208 and 209: TL II focuses on farmer-participato
Page 210 and 211: Production of Breeder, Foundation,
Page 212 and 213: Mahaboobnagar and Ranga Reddy distr
Page 214 and 215: (Table 9-9 Continued) Particular To
Page 216 and 217: Chichewa) and Tanzania (Swahili). O
Page 218 and 219: Available technologies Although imp
Page 220 and 221: and Chitedze in Malawi showed that
Page 222 and 223: Table 10-6: Various classes of qual
Page 224 and 225: Awareness activities Farmers’ fie
Page 226 and 227: Annex 10-1: Target locations for pi
Page 228 and 229: Adoption studies Adoption studies f
Page 230 and 231: 3.5 Yields (Tonnes/hectare) 3.0 2.5
Page 232 and 233: Table 11-1: Preferred soybean trait
Page 234 and 235: The up-scaling program signals the
Page 236 and 237: Across districts, TGx 1740-2F out-y
Page 238 and 239: Table 11-9: Communities and famers
Page 240 and 241:
Table 11-14 Average performance of
Page 242 and 243:
Table 11-15: Release notes of the t
Page 244 and 245:
In Nigeria, across locations mean p
Page 246 and 247:
Table 11-21: Grain yield (kg per ha
Page 248 and 249:
Progress in selection of Bradyrhizo
Page 250 and 251:
the major soybean producing localit
Page 252 and 253:
Seed Production and Delivery System
Page 254 and 255:
Table 11-29: Quantity (MT) of Found
Page 256 and 257:
utilization and marketing. In Niger
Page 258 and 259:
Annex 11-2: Tobit Model estimate of
Page 260:
250 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
show all

Four Seasons of Learning and Engaging Smallholder Farmers - icrisat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?