Boosting rice yields by introducing Good Agricultural Practices: Lessons learnt from

Kilombero, Tanzania

Mghase1* J., Senthilkumar2† K., Rodenburg2 J., Tesha2 B.J., and Kiepe2 P.

1 Kilombero Agricultural Research and Training Institute (KATRIN),

Private Bag, Ifakara, Tanzania

2 Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), East and Southern Africa, P.O.Box

33581, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Background Information

• Rice is the second cereal food crop in Tanzania• Production does not meet demand - about 12% imports• Big potential of suitable land for rice especially the wetland • The Kilombero valley:

o 7,969 km2 with a catchment area of about 40,000 km2

o Rice Sector Development Hub o One of the national rice baskets as >30% of all national rice

production is producedo Rainfed and irrigated lowlands ecosystemso Annual rainfall of 1200-1400 mm o Temperature vary from 20-30ºC.

• Proper utilization of this valley coupled with adoption of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) will optimize rice production

Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)

• Farmer managed and research supported on-farm trials were conducted in February – June 2013 six villages in Kilombero district

• Objectives: 1) To compare a set of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) against the

farmers’ conventional practices (FP) to quantify the possible yield advantages with GAP;

2) To understand the farmers' capacities in implementing the GAPs in their farms and to get their opinion in adopting GAP component technologies over conventional practices

Materials and Methods

On-farm trials• Training workshop on GAP to farmers and extension staff• 18 on-farm trails were conducted comparing GAP with FP in six villages

8 plots had access to irrigation water (“irrigated group”) and 10 with rainfed fields (“rainfed group”)

• Two plots of equal sizes were set for GAP testing and conventional or farmer practice (FP)

• The plot size ranged from a minimum of 358 m2 to a maximum of 2173 m2

• Soil sampling and analysis• Inputs supplied: certified seeds, inorganic fertilizers and mechanical

weeders • Crop management practices - diseases and pest management were

done by farmers. • Regular monitoring of the fields

Land preparation and soil sampling

Farm surveys

1. Survey on adoption of GAP component technologies - if used how? if not used, why?

2. Survey at the end of the trials – what are farmers’ opinion on GAP component technologies such as their preference, importance , workability and possible use in the future.

Farmer field days

• At crop maturity stage• 15 farmers from each village

visited the trial plots• Aim: to create awareness on

GAP among the neighboring farmers

• The visiting farmers were sensitized on benefits of GAP component technologies

• Farmers are guided by research assistants to assess the GAP and Farmer practices at Mkula village

Interviewing farmers after harvest

RESULTS

GAP makes a difference

GAP plot (Dibbled at Ichonde)Farmer Practice plot (Broadcasted at Ichonde)

GAP makes a difference

GAP plot (Dibbled at Namwawala) FP plot (Broadcasted at Namwawala)

Soil fertility status

• Soils in the study area are of low fertility due to non/inadequate use of fertilizers by majority of farmers coupled with repeated removal of nutrients through crop uptake

• Low soil fertility status of these areas poses challenges to get the benefit of any GAP being tested in these soils

Nutrient Soil analytical results (n = 36) Very low Low Optimum High Very high

N 28% (10) 61% (22)

11% (4)

P 53% (19)

47% (17)

K 94% (34) 6% (2) B 100% (36) Fe 56% (19) 44% (7) Mg 14% (5) 14% (5) 72% (26)

Weed control options

• Use of Herbicides 78% of farmers preferred herbicides but 83% did not use due to

cost• Use of Rotary weeders

75% of farmers liked the rotary weeders 25% finds it difficult to operate 50% of the farmers are not sure of using them in the future Need to conduct more research to perfect weeders to improve

adoption (Senthilkumar et. al., 2008)

Problems in adopting GAP component technologies

• Use of rotary weeders 1) Lack of sufficient water in the field limit its operation 2) Farmers’ anxiety that the weeder may damage the crop

• Price and limited availability of inorganic fertilizers

• Failure to manage water in the fields due to insufficient rainfall in rainfed system and lack of drainage channels in irrigated system.

• Generally, limited knowledge and capacity of farmers were blockages to implement all the GAP technologies

Conclusion

• GAP >> FP yield (2.6 - 9.7 vs 0.6 - 4.9 t/ha)• Poor irrigation infrastructure limit adoption of some of the

GAP technologies such as puddling and transplanting• Use of locally available organic fertilizers and inorganic

fertilizers is limited by knowledge and financial position of the farmers

• Low soil fertility calls for Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) options in order to realize the benefits accrued from adoption of GAP

• More capacity building is required to enhance GAP adoption hence rice productivity for the better livelihood

Acknowledgement

• USAID funded this research through the Africa RISING project which is part of the Feed the Future Initiative

• Researchers and research assistants from Kilombero

Agricultural Training and Research Institute (KATRIN) and AfricaRice

• Extension staff and farmers from Kilombero district

THE END

Thank you for listening

Asanteni sana!