Napier Stunt and Smut Resistance Project:  Key Achievements and Outputs- Uganda Presented at the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on ...
Project Research Team - Uganda *NaLIRRI: National Livestock Resources Research Institute **NaCRRI: National Crops Resource...
Introduction <ul><li>Napier grass fodder is recommended as a basal forage in smallholder dairy systems (SHD) systems in Ug...
Figure 1: Spread and level of infection of NSD in    Uganda (Kabirizi  and Alicai,  2010) Low High Medium Water  bodies In...
<ul><li>Highlights of surveys results  </li></ul><ul><li>Study districts: Kabalore (highlands), Masaka (districts around L...
Highlights of results of survey results (cont) <ul><li>Over 80% (n=171) of respondents in Kabalore & Soroti were not aware...
Fig. 2: NSD incidence (%) and severity (1-3) in study areas 1= no stunting, 2 = moderate stunting and 3 = severe stunting
Mean herbage DM  yield (t/ha/yr) Fig. 3: Effect of NSD on herbage yield  Districts
2. Current situation: Case of Masaka district <ul><ul><li>Field visits & reports from farmers show a decline (20-40%) in N...
Effect of manure application on fodder yield & NSD incidence <ul><li>Farmer reports & on-station trials have shown manure ...
Fig. 4: Effect of manure application on fodder  yield and NSD incidence  2008 2009
NaLIRRI Media Private Sector Other researchers working on NSD Schools,  DATICs NARS  (Universities & Research Institutes) ...
Behavioural  changes in  boundary   partners *Boundary Partners are those individuals, groups, or organisations with whom ...
Behavioural  changes in partners (cont.)  Boundary partner Indicators achieved Evidence & related indicators Extension age...
Behavioural  changes in partners (cont.)  Boundary partner Indicators achieved Evidence and related indicators Researchers...
Packaging & disseminating information Dissemination pathway (2007-2010) Number <ul><li>NaLIRRI Quarterly Reports </li></ul...
Stakeholders’  workshop Agricultural shows
Scientific exhibitions: UNCST- Science Week Exhibition (2009)
Workshops, field days & on-station trials
4. Linkages and collaboration   Organization(s) Role NAADS, HPI, Send-a-Cow; District extension staff; CBOs & farmer group...
5. Project outcomes  <ul><li>Farmers’ knowledge on NSD improved----farmers disseminate information in farmer & scientific ...
Project outcomes (cont.) Approved research projects <ul><li>Contributing to the basic understanding & control of  NSD in U...
Approved research projects (cont.) <ul><li>4. Evaluation and utilisation of sorghum varieties and  Tithonia diversifolia  ...
6. Lessons learned  <ul><li>NSD is still a threat to the dairy sector in Uganda---no tolerant variety—need to continue scr...
Lessons learned (cont.) <ul><li>Good collaboration among research team members is a key to successful implementation  of p...
Lessons learned (3) <ul><li>Media is a key stakeholder in technology development & dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Regular...
<ul><li>The Research Perspective  </li></ul>7. Proposed policy briefs “ Quarantines and movement restrictions of diseased ...
2. The Perspective of the Ministry of  Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries- --Directorate of Animal Resource, Ugand...
8. Proposed activities, June 2010 <ul><li>Feedback workshops in 2 districts </li></ul><ul><li>Produce reports </li></ul><u...
9. Critical Research Areas <ul><li>Screen introduced varieties ( Kakamega?)   </li></ul><ul><li>Breeding Napier grass vari...
Acknowledgements <ul><li>Financial and technical support from:  </li></ul><ul><li>Uganda Government </li></ul><ul><li>ASAR...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Napier Stunt and Smut Resistance Project: key achievements and outputs in Uganda

1,793 views

Published on

A presentation prepared by Jolly Kabirizi for the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on Mitigating the Impact of Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Diseases, Addis Ababa, June 2-3, 2010.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,793
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Napier Stunt and Smut Resistance Project: key achievements and outputs in Uganda

  1. 1. Napier Stunt and Smut Resistance Project: Key Achievements and Outputs- Uganda Presented at the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on Mitigating the Impact of Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Diseases, Addis Ababa, June 2-3, 2010 Dr. J. Kabirizi, Country Coordinator, National Livestock Resources Research Institute, Uganda
  2. 2. Project Research Team - Uganda *NaLIRRI: National Livestock Resources Research Institute **NaCRRI: National Crops Resources Research Institute Name Institute Responsibility Dr. Jolly Kabirizi *NaLIRRI Coordinate project activities Ms. Clementine Namazzi NaLIRRI Evaluate nutritive quality of Napier grass clones Dr. Titus Alicai **NaCRRI Plant Virologist/Advisor Mr. Erasmus Mukiibi (MSc student) NaCRRI Evaluate biomass yield of Napier grass clones
  3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>Napier grass fodder is recommended as a basal forage in smallholder dairy systems (SHD) systems in Uganda. </li></ul><ul><li>Napier stunt disease (NSD) reported in >60% of the districts in Uganda (Fig.1), is a threat to the SHD industry. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Figure 1: Spread and level of infection of NSD in Uganda (Kabirizi and Alicai, 2010) Low High Medium Water bodies Infection levels No disease G U L U K O T I D O L I R A M U K O N O K I T G U M A P A C M A S I N D I P A D E R A R U A M O R O T O H O I M A B U G I R I R A K A I K A L A N G A L A M P I G I M U B E N D E K A M U L I K U M I M A S A K A K A T A K W I M A Y U G E K I B O G A K I B A A L E N E B B I S O R O T I K A S E S E B U S H E N Y I N A K A P I R I P I R I T K Y E N J O J O W A K I S O Y U M B E I B A N D A N A K A S E K E I G A N G A M O Y O A D J U M A N I I S I N G I R O K I R U H U R A L U W E R O P A L L I S A N A K A S O N G O L A K A B A L E T O R O R O M B A L E K A M W E N G E S E M B A B U L E M B A R A R A N T U N G A M O K A Y U N G A K A B A R O L E B U N D I B U G Y O R U K U N G I R I J I N J A K A P C H O R W A K A N U N G U B U S I A S I R O N K O K A B E R A M A I D O K I S O R O K A M P A L A N 9 0 0 9 0 1 8 0 K i l o m e t e r s o w i u v e e r b Unsurveyed districts u r v e
  5. 5. <ul><li>Highlights of surveys results </li></ul><ul><li>Study districts: Kabalore (highlands), Masaka (districts around Lake Victoria Crescent zone); Soroti (lowlands) & Busia (near Kenya boarder) </li></ul><ul><li>Constraints to Napier grass production were: land shortage, low yielding varieties & NSD. </li></ul><ul><li>Over 80% (n=120) of sampled Napier grass fields in Masaka district were affected by NSD . </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers had a mixture of improved and local varieties in the same field—all varieties affected. </li></ul><ul><li>Most widely grown cultivar was Pennisetum 99) ( Kawanda 4 x P. Typhoides hybrid). </li></ul>Key Achievements and Outputs
  6. 6. Highlights of results of survey results (cont) <ul><li>Over 80% (n=171) of respondents in Kabalore & Soroti were not aware of NSD. </li></ul><ul><li>NSD incidence & severity were highest in Masaka & lowest in Busia (Fig. 2). </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers in Busia had acquired a new variety from Kenyan farmers. </li></ul><ul><li>NSD reduced fodder yield by >60% (Fig. 3). </li></ul><ul><li>Rouging was major method of disease control. </li></ul><ul><li>No reports of smut in study areas </li></ul><ul><li>Studies on biomass yield & nutritive quality conducted (to be presented by Erasmus & Clementine, respectively) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Fig. 2: NSD incidence (%) and severity (1-3) in study areas 1= no stunting, 2 = moderate stunting and 3 = severe stunting
  8. 8. Mean herbage DM yield (t/ha/yr) Fig. 3: Effect of NSD on herbage yield Districts
  9. 9. 2. Current situation: Case of Masaka district <ul><ul><li>Field visits & reports from farmers show a decline (20-40%) in NSD incidence due to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing importance of SHD as a source of income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awareness creation by NaLIRRI through: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Media, local newspapers & farmer-talk-shows </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Farmers participate in NARO/NaLIRRI scientific meetings, field days/workshops </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Publications (leaflets, posters etc---) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>On-station trials----demonstrations on NSD symptoms & control measures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Farmers use recommended agronomic practices </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rouging and manure application </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recommended harvesting techniques, weeding--- </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Effect of manure application on fodder yield & NSD incidence <ul><li>Farmer reports & on-station trials have shown manure application most effective control measure----reduces (> 30%) NSD incidence & improves (>40%) fodder yield (Fig. 4). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manure improves soil fertility----enhances plant growth-----plants become less susceptible to disease stress. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manure interferes with multiplication & survival of disease organisms (Mugerwa, 2010). through: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Modification of the micro-environment or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enhancement of natural enemies to disease causing organisms </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Fig. 4: Effect of manure application on fodder yield and NSD incidence 2008 2009
  12. 12. NaLIRRI Media Private Sector Other researchers working on NSD Schools, DATICs NARS (Universities & Research Institutes) Farmers, CBOs, NGOs Extension Agents & Dairy Development Agencies Policy makers Donors` 3. Communication and Dissemination Key boundary partners identified
  13. 13. Behavioural changes in boundary partners *Boundary Partners are those individuals, groups, or organisations with whom the project interacted directly and with whom we anticipated opportunities for influence. * Boundary partner Indicators achieved Evidence and related indicators Farmers & farmer groups <ul><li>Reported on NSD incidence </li></ul><ul><li>Adopted improved mgt techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Recorded a 20-40% improvement in fodder yield </li></ul><ul><li>Disseminated information to fellow farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers using improved practices increased by >50%. </li></ul><ul><li>Increased demand for information, clean planting material & </li></ul><ul><li>alternative forages. </li></ul><ul><li>Over 10,000 farmers </li></ul><ul><li>attended workshops & visited agric. shows & project stalls </li></ul>
  14. 14. Behavioural changes in partners (cont.) Boundary partner Indicators achieved Evidence & related indicators Extension agents & media <ul><li>Sensitized farmers & policy makers on NSD control measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Participated in workshops & agricultural shows </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers reported a reduction (40%) in NSD incidence </li></ul>Policy makers <ul><li>Same as above </li></ul><ul><li>More funding under “Emerging issues” </li></ul>Universities,DATICs & schools <ul><li>Trained students on control measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Participated in research on NSD & proposal development. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul><ul><li>> 1,000 students visited trials </li></ul><ul><li>100 youths trained </li></ul><ul><li>3 MSc + 1 PhD </li></ul><ul><li>1 project funded </li></ul>
  15. 15. Behavioural changes in partners (cont.) Boundary partner Indicators achieved Evidence and related indicators Researchers <ul><li>Documented spread, incidence & severity of NSD in Uganda </li></ul><ul><li>Screened Napier grass clones for tolerance to NSD. </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted feedback workshops. </li></ul><ul><li>Sourced for funds </li></ul><ul><li>Monitored incidence and severity of NSD in >30 districts </li></ul><ul><li>Trials established at NaCRRI, NaLIRRI, DATICS & ZARDIs </li></ul><ul><li>Published guidelines & policy briefs </li></ul><ul><li>Over US $ 0.8m received </li></ul>NaLIRRI Hqs <ul><li>Promoted & coordinated linkages </li></ul><ul><li>Monitored use of donor funds </li></ul><ul><li>Supported project with additional funding </li></ul>
  16. 16. Packaging & disseminating information Dissemination pathway (2007-2010) Number <ul><li>NaLIRRI Quarterly Reports </li></ul>12 <ul><li>NaLIRRI Annual Reports </li></ul>3 <ul><li>NARO Annual Reports </li></ul>3 <ul><li>Project Semi-Annual reports </li></ul>2 <ul><li>Project Annual reports </li></ul>2 <ul><li>Survey reports </li></ul>2 <ul><li>Posters </li></ul>6 <ul><li>Leaflets (3 leaflets) </li></ul>6000 <ul><li>Field days/workshops/Agric. shows </li></ul>15 <ul><li>News articles </li></ul>3 <ul><li>Scientific papers ( In press) </li></ul>2 <ul><li>Scientific conferences/workshops </li></ul>5 <ul><li>Stakeholders’ workshop reports </li></ul>4 <ul><li>Project Review & planning meetings </li></ul>3
  17. 17. Stakeholders’ workshop Agricultural shows
  18. 18. Scientific exhibitions: UNCST- Science Week Exhibition (2009)
  19. 19. Workshops, field days & on-station trials
  20. 20. 4. Linkages and collaboration Organization(s) Role NAADS, HPI, Send-a-Cow; District extension staff; CBOs & farmer groups <ul><li>Disseminate information </li></ul><ul><li>Sensitize farmers on NSD control methods </li></ul>DDA & MADDO <ul><li>Milk processing & marketing </li></ul>NaRL-Kawanda <ul><li>Post harvest handling of milk & milk products </li></ul>Makerere University <ul><li>Train/Supervise students </li></ul>Tropical Virus Unit, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, UK’ NaCRRI <ul><li>Identification of vectors </li></ul>East Africa Dairy Development Project <ul><li>Disseminate information </li></ul>KARI; ILRI; NBCP; NACRRI <ul><li>Collaboration on project activities </li></ul>ILRI-Addis Ababa <ul><li>Source Napier grass clones </li></ul>UNCST/MSI/World Bank/DANIDA <ul><li>Funded new NSD projects </li></ul>Government of Uganda <ul><li>Additional funding </li></ul>
  21. 21. 5. Project outcomes <ul><li>Farmers’ knowledge on NSD improved----farmers disseminate information in farmer & scientific workshops e.g. Mr. Ddaki </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction (20-40%) in NSD incidence--improved >40%) fodder yield. </li></ul><ul><li>Increased demand for clean planting materials & alternative feed resources </li></ul><ul><li>Increased funding </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity building </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 PhD + 4 MSc students ( includes other NSD projects) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technician trained at ILRI on NIRS (2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 technicians to be trained on Molecular diagnostics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management ----for scientists </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Project outcomes (cont.) Approved research projects <ul><li>Contributing to the basic understanding & control of NSD in Uganda (UNCST/MSI)-------1 PhD & 2 MSc students </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of Napier grass clones for genetic diversity, herbage dry matter yield and nutritive quality (MSc)- GoU/NaLIRRI </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of nutritive value and legume compatibility of Brachiaria mulato for fodder production in Uganda- DANIDA/World Bank/NaLIRRI---MSc </li></ul>
  23. 23. Approved research projects (cont.) <ul><li>4. Evaluation and utilisation of sorghum varieties and Tithonia diversifolia as alternative feed resources for smallholder cattle and goat farmers (GoU) </li></ul><ul><li>Development of Napier grass varieties tolerant to Napier stunt disease – EAAPP/World Bank New </li></ul><ul><li>On-farm evaluation of low value crop residues with improved diets – EAAPP/World Bank New (PhD) </li></ul>
  24. 24. 6. Lessons learned <ul><li>NSD is still a threat to the dairy sector in Uganda---no tolerant variety—need to continue screening local and introduced varieties & evaluate IPM technologies e.g manure application. </li></ul><ul><li>Demand for alternative forages/feed resources has increased---need for more research. </li></ul><ul><li>No Napier head smut reported in Uganda---need for more studies. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Lessons learned (cont.) <ul><li>Good collaboration among research team members is a key to successful implementation of project activities </li></ul><ul><li>Developing and managing effective partnership is difficult BUT very important in technology development & dissemination. </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers & local leaders play a key role in the control of NSD--- & in sourcing for research funds. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Lessons learned (3) <ul><li>Media is a key stakeholder in technology development & dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Regular monitoring and feedback is important in </li></ul><ul><li>improving stakeholders’ skills & knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Farmer workshops, leaflets, newspaper articles, radio programmes are the most effective tools in disseminating technologies. </li></ul><ul><li>Empowering farmer leaders with monitoring skills reduces research costs and increases research outputs </li></ul>
  27. 27. <ul><li>The Research Perspective </li></ul>7. Proposed policy briefs “ Quarantines and movement restrictions of diseased materials would be a good policy tool to supplement recommended control measures BUT lack of enforcement renders it impracticable. This leaves the options: propagation and distribution of clean planting materials”.---- Dr. W. N. Nannyenya (Socio-economist, NaLIRRI)
  28. 28. 2. The Perspective of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries- --Directorate of Animal Resource, Uganda “ Pasture and animal feed resources shall be improved through proper management and utilization of existing natural pastures and by introducing pasture and/or animal feeding interventions in existing natural pastures or crop-livestock farming systems while ensuring sustainable use of the feed resources”---- Mrs. (Rev.) S. Mwebaze, Assistant Commissioner, MAAIF)
  29. 29. 8. Proposed activities, June 2010 <ul><li>Feedback workshops in 2 districts </li></ul><ul><li>Produce reports </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Half-Yearly Project report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>End of project report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback reporrs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>MSc Student to submit Thesis by end of June </li></ul><ul><li>Disseminate research results (publications etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify partners e,g, NAADS to continue with dissemination of information </li></ul><ul><li>Source for funding to screen & breed for tolerance to NSD </li></ul>
  30. 30. 9. Critical Research Areas <ul><li>Screen introduced varieties ( Kakamega?) </li></ul><ul><li>Breeding Napier grass varieties for resistance to NSD </li></ul><ul><li>Develop IPM strategies for NSD management </li></ul><ul><li>Identify & evaluate alternative forages </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate effect of manure application & harvesting frequency on NSD incidence. </li></ul>Brachiaria mulato as alternative forage
  31. 31. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Financial and technical support from: </li></ul><ul><li>Uganda Government </li></ul><ul><li>ASARECA & ILRI; </li></ul><ul><li>Director of Research, NaLIRRI. </li></ul><ul><li>Excellent cooperation from: </li></ul><ul><li>Project staff </li></ul><ul><li>NSD related project research teams </li></ul><ul><li>District extension staff & farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers and local leaders. </li></ul>

×