Medicinal trees in smallholder agroforestry systems:  Assessing some factors influencing cultivation by farmers East of Mt...
Presentation summary<br />The research problem<br />Research concept and objectives<br />Study area and methods<br />Resul...
The problem<br />Majority of Africa population is poor and ravaged by treatable diseases but can’t afford modern medicine<...
An example of malaria – quick facts<br />Source: World Malaria Report 2008<br />
Who offers treatment in Africa?<br />
Traditional medicine,  mainly herbal, has been  substantially managing  African health but is under threat<br />Medicine<b...
Herbal medicine relying on wild plants collection is not viable because biodiversity in Africa is threatened by agricultur...
With increasing trade and TM use, medicinal plant resource depletion is abundant and cultivation has been recommended as a...
9<br />Conservation through use under cultivation - What would be the ideal trend of growth in material supply as knowledg...
Research questions<br /><ul><li>How do socio-economic factors influence the decisions by farmers to cultivate or conserve ...
How does ecology influence use and cultivation of medicinal tree species?</li></ul>10<br />Main hypothesis<br />The level ...
Conceptual framework<br />11<br />General Conceptual Frame on farmer adoption of an agricultural practice<br />Adapted fro...
Motivates especially if not extractive harvesting<br />Seedling quality as well as access and cost may demotivate<br />Oth...
Objectives<br />13<br />To collate the perspectives of farmers and herbalists on the factors influencing their preference ...
The study area<br />14<br /><ul><li>3 districts (Embu, Mbeere and Meru central)
Population density 100-500 persons / sq km
Nine agroecological zones (LM5 to LH1)
Rainfall – 500 -2600mm;
Altitude 500 -2500masl
Soils – varying from nitisols to ferrasols
Mixed-crop and livestock agric systems
Good tree planting culture</li></li></ul><li>Data collection methods<br /><ul><li>Farmer group meetings - cultural domain ...
Individual interviews - analysis with SPSS
200 farmers
60 herbalists
60 nursery operators
55 market players in 3 cities
Species abundance surveys in farms, forests and herbalist gardens - analysis with BiodiversityR
Personal observations
Triangulations - interview responses tested with empirical measurements</li></ul>15<br />
Interview survey results<br />Medicinal species present in farms and herbalist gardens<br /><ul><li>Farms – 295 total spec...
Herbalists’ gardens – 203 total species (trees – 40%,  shrubs – 27% and herbs – 33%)
60 species known as medicinal by farmers but not recorded in any farm (22 trees, 26 shrubs and 12 herbs)
Do farmers know more species than herbalists?????</li></ul>16<br />
Factors influencing cultivation<br />Herbalists knowledge issue was only a species treating many diseases<br />17<br />
Species highly preferred for cultivation <br />18<br />
Summary on farmers and herbalists’ perceptions<br /><ul><li>Herbalists preferred trees that treat more diseases and are sc...
Farmers in Mbeere influenced by germplasm availability than markets
Multiple use of species not very important to influence both farmers and herbalists
Cultivation technology rated low – but factors such as appropriate niches and farm sizes important
Women farmers rated knowledge, markets and multiple use higher than men
Trees on farm correlated loosely with the frequency of species preference
Usually one tree per household is enough for self treatment and neighbours can use</li></ul>19<br />
Most socio-economically important diseases<br />20<br />
Disease effect management by farmers<br />21<br />
Number of species used in treating important diseases<br />22<br />
Highly ranked species in treatment of most important diseases<br />23<br />
Farmers’ sources of knowledge on use of medicinal plants for disease treatment<br />24<br />Most information passed throug...
Who speaks about importance of medicinal tree cultivation to farmers?<br />25<br />
So knowledge of medicinal tree species varies with socio-demographic categories<br />26<br />Number of species known incre...
Does farmer’s knowledge influence cultivation<br />27<br />
Summary on farmers knowledge on TM and its influence on med tree planting<br /><ul><li>No difference in rating of disease ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Medicinal Trees in Smallholder Agroforestry Systems by Jonathan Muriuki 25 january 2011

2,073 views

Published on

Medicinal Trees in Smallholder Agroforestry Systems

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,073
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Medicinal Trees in Smallholder Agroforestry Systems by Jonathan Muriuki 25 january 2011

  1. 1. Medicinal trees in smallholder agroforestry systems: Assessing some factors influencing cultivation by farmers East of Mt. Kenya<br />Jonathan Muriuki Kiura<br />
  2. 2. Presentation summary<br />The research problem<br />Research concept and objectives<br />Study area and methods<br />Results and discussions<br />Conclusions and recommendations<br />2<br />
  3. 3. The problem<br />Majority of Africa population is poor and ravaged by treatable diseases but can’t afford modern medicine<br />
  4. 4. An example of malaria – quick facts<br />Source: World Malaria Report 2008<br />
  5. 5. Who offers treatment in Africa?<br />
  6. 6. Traditional medicine, mainly herbal, has been substantially managing African health but is under threat<br />Medicine<br />Plant<br />Knowledge<br />Phyto-medicines rely on two elements, plants(of which over 60% are perennial trees and shrubs) and theknowledgeassociated with their use. Either alone is useless. <br />6<br />
  7. 7. Herbal medicine relying on wild plants collection is not viable because biodiversity in Africa is threatened by agriculture, urbanization etc and forests lost to below 10% in many countries (e.g. 1.7% in Kenya at present)<br />7<br />Extent of forest and other wooded land in Eastern Africa compared to Austria by 2005<br />
  8. 8. With increasing trade and TM use, medicinal plant resource depletion is abundant and cultivation has been recommended as a possible solution<br />But that is very easy for herbs (annuals) if appropriate germplasm and products markets are accessible. For trees and other long rotation woody perennials that poses a big challenge due to having to wait long and as long as wild resources are available and perceived to be a common good<br />8<br />
  9. 9. 9<br />Conservation through use under cultivation - What would be the ideal trend of growth in material supply as knowledge of use improves?<br />
  10. 10. Research questions<br /><ul><li>How do socio-economic factors influence the decisions by farmers to cultivate or conserve medicinal plants?
  11. 11. How does ecology influence use and cultivation of medicinal tree species?</li></ul>10<br />Main hypothesis<br />The level of medicinal tree cultivation (Mc) is a factor of germplasm availability (g), species ecology (e – climate, soil and competition), local disease burden perception with appropriate knowledge on use of medicinal trees (k), and availability of market for medicinal tree products (m).<br />Mc = f(g, e, k, m, α)<br />
  12. 12. Conceptual framework<br />11<br />General Conceptual Frame on farmer adoption of an agricultural practice<br />Adapted from FAO (2001)<br />
  13. 13. Motivates especially if not extractive harvesting<br />Seedling quality as well as access and cost may demotivate<br />Other Products<br />Timber, food, ethno veterinary, etc<br />Access to inputs<br />Household Consumption<br />Germplasm (g)<br />Self treatment knowledge (k)<br />Smallholder production sub-system<br />Wild sources<br />Medicinal trees (C)<br />Alternatives<br />Clinical Medicine<br />Production Technology<br />Income<br />If alternative perceived better then only this path taken<br />Cultivation ecology (e)<br />Sold to Markets <br />(m)<br />Niche defines quality and interaction with crops (opportunity cost to land and labour<br />Human Capital<br />Demotivates depending on access and abundance<br />Motivation to plant<br />Fig. Conceptual framework showing some factors expected to influence cultivation of medicinal trees by smallholder farmers<br />12<br />
  14. 14. Objectives<br />13<br />To collate the perspectives of farmers and herbalists on the factors influencing their preference and cultivation of tree species with medicinal value <br />To assess the influence of local disease burden perception and knowledge of herbal treatment on the efforts by farmers and herbalists to cultivate medicinal trees <br />To explore the contribution of farm grown herbal material to medicinal tree product markets and its effect on medicinal tree cultivation <br />To explore how germplasm access by farmers and on-farm tree nurseries influence medicinal tree cultivation <br />To explore motivational drivers of cultivation and the scope for herbalists’ and traders’ utilization of farm produced medicinal tree products<br />
  15. 15. The study area<br />14<br /><ul><li>3 districts (Embu, Mbeere and Meru central)
  16. 16. Population density 100-500 persons / sq km
  17. 17. Nine agroecological zones (LM5 to LH1)
  18. 18. Rainfall – 500 -2600mm;
  19. 19. Altitude 500 -2500masl
  20. 20. Soils – varying from nitisols to ferrasols
  21. 21. Mixed-crop and livestock agric systems
  22. 22. Good tree planting culture</li></li></ul><li>Data collection methods<br /><ul><li>Farmer group meetings - cultural domain analysis - 13 groups
  23. 23. Individual interviews - analysis with SPSS
  24. 24. 200 farmers
  25. 25. 60 herbalists
  26. 26. 60 nursery operators
  27. 27. 55 market players in 3 cities
  28. 28. Species abundance surveys in farms, forests and herbalist gardens - analysis with BiodiversityR
  29. 29. Personal observations
  30. 30. Triangulations - interview responses tested with empirical measurements</li></ul>15<br />
  31. 31. Interview survey results<br />Medicinal species present in farms and herbalist gardens<br /><ul><li>Farms – 295 total species (trees – 45%, shrubs – 27% and herbs – 28%)
  32. 32. Herbalists’ gardens – 203 total species (trees – 40%, shrubs – 27% and herbs – 33%)
  33. 33. 60 species known as medicinal by farmers but not recorded in any farm (22 trees, 26 shrubs and 12 herbs)
  34. 34. Do farmers know more species than herbalists?????</li></ul>16<br />
  35. 35. Factors influencing cultivation<br />Herbalists knowledge issue was only a species treating many diseases<br />17<br />
  36. 36. Species highly preferred for cultivation <br />18<br />
  37. 37. Summary on farmers and herbalists’ perceptions<br /><ul><li>Herbalists preferred trees that treat more diseases and are scarce – farmers knowledge then markets
  38. 38. Farmers in Mbeere influenced by germplasm availability than markets
  39. 39. Multiple use of species not very important to influence both farmers and herbalists
  40. 40. Cultivation technology rated low – but factors such as appropriate niches and farm sizes important
  41. 41. Women farmers rated knowledge, markets and multiple use higher than men
  42. 42. Trees on farm correlated loosely with the frequency of species preference
  43. 43. Usually one tree per household is enough for self treatment and neighbours can use</li></ul>19<br />
  44. 44. Most socio-economically important diseases<br />20<br />
  45. 45. Disease effect management by farmers<br />21<br />
  46. 46. Number of species used in treating important diseases<br />22<br />
  47. 47. Highly ranked species in treatment of most important diseases<br />23<br />
  48. 48. Farmers’ sources of knowledge on use of medicinal plants for disease treatment<br />24<br />Most information passed through genealogy and herbalists contribution is low!<br />
  49. 49. Who speaks about importance of medicinal tree cultivation to farmers?<br />25<br />
  50. 50. So knowledge of medicinal tree species varies with socio-demographic categories<br />26<br />Number of species known increased with age, district harshness, and use but decreased with education level attained by respondent<br />Key: Gender -1(Female), 2 (Male); Age in years – 1 (<25), 2 (25-35), 3 (35-45), 4 (55-65), 5 (>65); Level of education attained – 1 (not schooled), 2 (primary level), 3 (village polytechnic), 4 (secondary), 5 (post secondary); District – 1 (Embu), 2 (Mbeere), 3 (Meru Central); First responseto ailment - 1 (find a medicinal plant), 2 (buy an over the counter drug), 3(consult a medical clinic or hospital), 4 (consult a herbalist) <br />
  51. 51. Does farmer’s knowledge influence cultivation<br />27<br />
  52. 52. Summary on farmers knowledge on TM and its influence on med tree planting<br /><ul><li>No difference in rating of disease economic importance between farmers and herbalists rate -same as hospitals
  53. 53. Medicinal trees play role in household health
  54. 54. Herbalists use more of wild species while farmers use agroforestry species more
  55. 55. Farmers learn about medicinal trees from relatives and cultivation mainly own initiative
  56. 56. The medicinal species present in farms influenced more by the species known little by the perception of the socioeconomic importance of diseases</li></ul>28<br />
  57. 57. Medicinal plant markets and cultivation of medicinal trees<br />29<br />Final products<br />Herbal clinics<br />Pre-processors<br />
  58. 58. Sources of herbal materials in markets<br />The numbers show the average per trader for each parameter; n=55<br />30<br />
  59. 59. Traders’ preference for source of medicinal plant materials<br />31<br />
  60. 60. But farmers reported little connection to markets<br />32<br /><ul><li>Trade in medicinal trees was rising but farmers were not participating in any significant manner
  61. 61. Most of indigenous tree species were traded collected from the wild – threats
  62. 62. Two thirds of traders who purchased materials preferred farm sourced materials – mostly in the final products category
  63. 63. Getting materials at little or no costs contributes to more wild collection – distance may discourage but not tested in this study</li></ul>Summary on trade<br />
  64. 64. Focus on tree seedling sources <br />33<br />Herbalists with nurseries <br />(numbers are % n = 60)<br />
  65. 65. Presence of highly preferred species in nurseries<br />34<br />
  66. 66. Sources of medicinal trees in farms<br />35<br />
  67. 67. Summary on seedling sources<br /><ul><li>Farmers were mainly planting medicinal trees from wildlings
  68. 68. Demand for medicinal species lower than timber and higher than fruits and fodder in Meru; lower than fruits and fodder in Mbeere and fruits in Embu
  69. 69. Demand for medicinal seedlings higher than supply in nurseries – but not all species
  70. 70. Need investment in diversifying germplasm in both private and herbalist nurseries</li></ul>36<br />
  71. 71. Key species abundance surveys (focus on 30 most preferred) <br />Forests and woodlands (herbalist in team)<br /><ul><li>Species abundance
  72. 72. Age/size distributions
  73. 73. Evidence of harvesting method damage</li></ul>37<br />Farms<br /><ul><li>In twenty farms and ten herbalist gardens in each district
  74. 74. Key species abundance
  75. 75. Age/size class distributions relating to regeneration method
  76. 76. Niche in the farm
  77. 77. Other competing household or market uses of the species</li></li></ul><li>38<br />
  78. 78. Species abundance survey results<br />39<br />
  79. 79. General abundance of species in surveyed farms, forests and herbalists’ gardens<br />40<br />
  80. 80. 30 top species accumulation curves<br />41<br />25<br />20<br />Species richness<br />Species richness<br />Herbalist gardens/farms<br />Mbeere Embu Meru<br />Forest and woodlands<br />MbeereEmbuMeru<br />10<br />20<br />Sites<br /><ul><li>More abundance in forests and woodlands in Mbeere than Embu and Meru
  81. 81. Herbalists in Embu and Meru plant more – response to scarcity
  82. 82. Not much difference in abundance in smallholder farms in the three districts but smallholders generally plant less</li></ul>20<br />Species richness<br />Smallholder farms<br />Mbeere Embu Meru<br />20<br />Sites<br />
  83. 83. 30 top species Renyi profiles<br />42<br />Mbeere<br />Embu<br />Meru<br />H-alpha<br />H-alpha<br />H-alpha<br />Forests and districts<br />Herbalists and districts<br />Farms and districts<br />25<br />Mbeere<br />Embu<br />Meru<br />Species richness<br />H-alpha<br />H-alpha<br />Forests and distance RP<br />Forests and distance SAC<br />Combined<br />>5 km from village <5 km from village <br />
  84. 84. Age and Dbh class comparisons<br />43<br /><ul><li>More planting by herbalists in the lower age classes than farmers
  85. 85. More lower size classes in farms than forests
  86. 86. But farmers only 30% of the species were said to be primarily for medicinal use by farmers compared to 66% by herbalists</li></li></ul><li>Is there potential for herbalists and traders to use farm-grown herbal material in future?<br />44<br />Cluster analysis based on ecological preferences for herbal medicine raw material sources by herbalists and traders<br />Options for ideotype improvement preference:- 1. Least important; 2. A bit important; 3. Important; 4. Most important<br />
  87. 87. Summary findings on species abundance<br /><ul><li>Highly preferred medicinal trees were more abundant and even in herbalist gardens than farms and forests
  88. 88. There were more lower age and size classes in herbalist gardens hence diversity may increase in future
  89. 89. Herbalists planted more in areas where diversity was less in forests
  90. 90. There were no specific niches that mimicked forests that herbalists preferred to plant medicinal trees
  91. 91. More herbalists and traders preferred medicinal trees sourced from forests but not necessarily farm niches that mimicked forest situations
  92. 92. Upto 67% of the current traders and herbalists can switch preference to farm grown herbal material if forest trees were not very accessible</li></ul>45<br />
  93. 93. General conclusions<br />Farmers maintain medicinal tree species on farms for household health insurance – only one tree is enough per household<br />The more trees known the more conserved <br />Herbalists not engaged in conservation advocacy and young and educated farmers least informed<br />Herbalists cultivation is increasing as a response to scarcity – good entry to ensure diversity in farms<br />Trade in medicinal trees’ products is growing and could stimulate cultivation<br />Strategies needed to support nurseries in dry areas as current abundance will disappear fast<br />Empirical measurements supported survey responses<br />46<br />
  94. 94. Recommendations - actions<br />Involve herbalists and tree nursery operators in extension on medicinal trees information<br />Further development of markets and link to farmers<br />Policy incentives to promote cultivation and discourage wild collection<br />Germplasm conservation and production linking herbalists and nursery operators<br />Policies to develop arid areas as future sources of medicinal tree material<br />Further research on influence of various cultivation approaches on medicinal tree active component concentration<br />47<br />
  95. 95. 48<br />Multi-stakeholder approach needed to collate and share information with farmers on<br /><ul><li>Useful medicinal species for what diseases
  96. 96. Markets needs (MIS)
  97. 97. High quality germplasm sources
  98. 98. Appropriate cultivation technologies</li></li></ul><li>Recommendations - top species for domestication priority – matrix ranked<br />Azadirachtaindica<br />Aloe sp<br />Warburgiaugandensis<br />Caesalpiniavolkensii<br />Prunusafricana<br />Zanthoxylumchalybeum<br />Strychnoshenningsii<br />Sennadidymobotrya<br />Moringaoleifera<br />Dalbergiamelanoxylon<br />49<br /><ul><li>Leonotismollissima
  99. 99. Croton macrostachyus
  100. 100. Croton megalocarpus
  101. 101. Oleaeuropaeasspafricana
  102. 102. Psidiumguajava
  103. 103. Osyrislanceolata
  104. 104. Plectranthusbarbatus
  105. 105. Erythrinaabyssinica
  106. 106. Rhamnusprinoides
  107. 107. Fagaropsisangolensis</li></li></ul><li>50<br />Olea europaea ssp africana<br />Senna didymobotrya<br />Azadirachta indica<br />Dalbergia melanoxylon<br />Zanthoxylum chalybeum<br />Aloe sp<br />Warburgia ugandensis<br />Moringa oleifera<br />
  108. 108. Acknowledgements<br /><ul><li>Prof. Gerhard Glatzel
  109. 109. Prof. Christian Vogl
  110. 110. Profs. From IFE : Gratzer, Hager and others
  111. 111. ICRAF senior staff: Drs. T. Simons, S. Franzel, R. Jamnadass
  112. 112. OEAD
  113. 113. ICRAF administration and GRP1 colleagues
  114. 114. Fellow students and IFS staff
  115. 115. My family (Esther, Grace, Victor)
  116. 116. Extended family and friends
  117. 117. et al</li></li></ul><li>52<br />And many thanks to you all for attending and listening<br />‘If many little people, in many little places, do many little things, they can change the face of the earth.’<br />

×