Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPIER SMUT AND STUNT RESISTANCE PROJECT IN TANZANIA Pallangyo B 1 , Maeda ...
<ul><li>PURPOSE </li></ul><ul><li>To mitigate the effects of smut and stunt on Napier grass through the use of available g...
1. ACTIVITIES <ul><li>Survey distribution, incidences and severity of NSD  </li></ul><ul><li>Assemble collections of diver...
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Survey disease incidence & severity <ul><li>Disease incidence & severity (1- 4) </li></ul><u...
2.2. Assembling of Napier clones Collection of Napier materials from wild and farmers fields Assembling of Napier material...
2.3. Morphological characterization <ul><li>Based on growth habit (growth form, tiller number) </li></ul><ul><li>Leaf char...
2.4. Biomass & nutritive quality <ul><li>30 clones in 3 reps </li></ul><ul><li>Spreader row of diseased plants </li></ul><...
2.5. Screen for disease resistance <ul><li>7 clones in 3 reps </li></ul><ul><li>Spreader row </li></ul><ul><li>Leaf hopper...
2.6. Synthesize information for wider dissemination <ul><li>scientific reports </li></ul><ul><li>posters  </li></ul><ul><l...
2.7.Information sharing <ul><li>Meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Visits </li></ul><ul><li>Media </li...
2.8. M & E <ul><li>Meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Visits </li></ul>
Baseline survey area Fig 1. Napier stunt distribution in Tanzania.2008  NSD Infected areas   3. RESULTS 3.1.1. Disease inc...
3.1.2. Disease incidences Fig 2: Preliminary findings on diseases and pests existing
3.2.Assemble collections of Napier <ul><li>Plant characteristics </li></ul>210 collections assembled in a nursery at Kibah...
3.3. Morphological characterization *(1=None; 3=Dense/Roughest) Table 1. Hairiness and Roughness in Napier clones
3. 4. Biomass ** and *** are  p =0.05 and 0.001 respectively Table 2. Average performance of biomass parameters across the...
3 . 5 .Disease incidence & severity Table 3. Disease  incidence & severity across seasons
3.6.  Tolerance to NSD Fig 3. Disease tolerance among clones in different seasons
3.7. Synthesis of information <ul><li>2 scientific papers  </li></ul><ul><li>2 field reports </li></ul><ul><li>3 posters (...
3.8. Information sharing <ul><li>Farmers exhibitions (30,000 stakeholders)  </li></ul><ul><li>World Food Day (5,000) </li>...
3.8.2 Information sharing 500 500 TOTAL 50 50 Muleba 100 100 Tarime 100 100 Meru 30 30 Moshi 30 40 Rombo 50 50 Lushoto 40 ...
3.8.3. Information sharing
3.9.Monitoring & Evaluation <ul><li>> 90 % of farmers in NSD infected areas were aware of NSD symptoms and recommended man...
3.9.2. Previous vs  current NSD status
3.9.3. Previous vs current NSD status NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2008 NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2010
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS <ul><li>Napier smut disease was not observed in Napier grass materials that originated from Meru ...
4.2.Discussion of Results <ul><li>Most of the tolerant clones were hairy and rough, which is not an attractive attribute i...
5. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>There is no evidence of Napier smut disease occurrence in Tanzania </li></ul><ul><li...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT <ul><li>ASARECA </li></ul><ul><li>ILRI </li></ul><ul><li>MAFSC </li></ul><ul><li>LGAs </li></ul><ul><li>FA...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Achievements and outcomes in implementation of Napier smut and stunt resistance project in Tanzania

1,247 views

Published on

A presentation prepared by Pallangyo B., Maeda C., Nsami E., Proud J., Hanson J. and Katagira F. 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, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Achievements and outcomes in implementation of Napier smut and stunt resistance project in Tanzania

  1. 1. ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPIER SMUT AND STUNT RESISTANCE PROJECT IN TANZANIA Pallangyo B 1 , Maeda C 2 , Nsami E 1 , Proud J 3 , Hanson J 3, Katagira F 4 1 National Biological Control Programme BOX 30031, Kibaha, Tanzania 2 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture P.O.BOX 6224, Dar Es Salaam 3 International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 4 Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives, Dar es Salaam Presented at the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on Mitigating the Impact of Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Diseases, Addis Ababa, June 2-3, 2010
  2. 2. <ul><li>PURPOSE </li></ul><ul><li>To mitigate the effects of smut and stunt on Napier grass through the use of available genetic resources </li></ul>
  3. 3. 1. ACTIVITIES <ul><li>Survey distribution, incidences and severity of NSD </li></ul><ul><li>Assemble collections of diverse clones of Napier grass </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate new clones for biomass and nutritive quality </li></ul><ul><li>Screen ILRI and national collections of Napier grass for smut and stunt tolerance through artificial challenge </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesize information with project partners for wider dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Share and disseminate knowledge within the region </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring and evaluation </li></ul>
  4. 4. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Survey disease incidence & severity <ul><li>Disease incidence & severity (1- 4) </li></ul><ul><li>1 = Nil (no plants with symptoms) </li></ul><ul><li>2 = Mild (< 25% of plants with disease symptoms) </li></ul><ul><li>3 = Moderate (25 – 50% of plants with disease symptoms) </li></ul><ul><li>4 = severe (> 50% of plants with disease symptoms). </li></ul>Nil Moderate Severe Mild
  5. 5. 2.2. Assembling of Napier clones Collection of Napier materials from wild and farmers fields Assembling of Napier materials in nursery at ARI Kibaha Napier nursery at SRI Kibaha
  6. 6. 2.3. Morphological characterization <ul><li>Based on growth habit (growth form, tiller number) </li></ul><ul><li>Leaf characteristics (leaf hairiness, roughness, color, width) </li></ul><ul><li>Stem characteristics (stem thickness, inter node length) </li></ul>
  7. 7. 2.4. Biomass & nutritive quality <ul><li>30 clones in 3 reps </li></ul><ul><li>Spreader row of diseased plants </li></ul><ul><li>Disease scoring </li></ul><ul><li>Drying of samples </li></ul><ul><li>Data analysis </li></ul>
  8. 8. 2.5. Screen for disease resistance <ul><li>7 clones in 3 reps </li></ul><ul><li>Spreader row </li></ul><ul><li>Leaf hoppers </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling at 3wks interval </li></ul>
  9. 9. 2.6. Synthesize information for wider dissemination <ul><li>scientific reports </li></ul><ul><li>posters </li></ul><ul><li>leaflets </li></ul><ul><li>publicity report </li></ul>
  10. 10. 2.7.Information sharing <ul><li>Meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Visits </li></ul><ul><li>Media </li></ul>
  11. 11. 2.8. M & E <ul><li>Meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Visits </li></ul>
  12. 12. Baseline survey area Fig 1. Napier stunt distribution in Tanzania.2008 NSD Infected areas 3. RESULTS 3.1.1. Disease incidence and severity
  13. 13. 3.1.2. Disease incidences Fig 2: Preliminary findings on diseases and pests existing
  14. 14. 3.2.Assemble collections of Napier <ul><li>Plant characteristics </li></ul>210 collections assembled in a nursery at Kibaha 30 clones identified based on morphological characteristics
  15. 15. 3.3. Morphological characterization *(1=None; 3=Dense/Roughest) Table 1. Hairiness and Roughness in Napier clones
  16. 16. 3. 4. Biomass ** and *** are p =0.05 and 0.001 respectively Table 2. Average performance of biomass parameters across the seasons
  17. 17. 3 . 5 .Disease incidence & severity Table 3. Disease incidence & severity across seasons
  18. 18. 3.6. Tolerance to NSD Fig 3. Disease tolerance among clones in different seasons
  19. 19. 3.7. Synthesis of information <ul><li>2 scientific papers </li></ul><ul><li>2 field reports </li></ul><ul><li>3 posters (1100 copies) </li></ul><ul><li>1 leaflet (1000 copies) </li></ul><ul><li>1 publicity report </li></ul>
  20. 20. 3.8. Information sharing <ul><li>Farmers exhibitions (30,000 stakeholders) </li></ul><ul><li>World Food Day (5,000) </li></ul><ul><li>Civil Service exhibition (5,000) </li></ul><ul><li>Scientific workshops/meetings (100) </li></ul><ul><li>Media (TBC, Star TV, Radio Free Africa) >1M </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly meetings under LGAs (501) </li></ul><ul><li>2 field days (30) </li></ul><ul><li>Trainings under LGAs (160) </li></ul>
  21. 21. 3.8.2 Information sharing 500 500 TOTAL 50 50 Muleba 100 100 Tarime 100 100 Meru 30 30 Moshi 30 40 Rombo 50 50 Lushoto 40 30 Mkinga 100 100 Muheza Leaflets Posters District
  22. 22. 3.8.3. Information sharing
  23. 23. 3.9.Monitoring & Evaluation <ul><li>> 90 % of farmers in NSD infected areas were aware of NSD symptoms and recommended management practices </li></ul><ul><li>Most farmers with previously infected fields had applied the recommended NSD management practices </li></ul><ul><li>WAEOs were conducting regular visits and report feedback to DALDOs </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly meetings were conducted to share feedback with dairy sector stakeholders </li></ul>
  24. 24. 3.9.2. Previous vs current NSD status
  25. 25. 3.9.3. Previous vs current NSD status NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2008 NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2010
  26. 26. 4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS <ul><li>Napier smut disease was not observed in Napier grass materials that originated from Meru and Tarime districts </li></ul><ul><li>Napier Stunt Disease was observed in Napier grass materials that originated from Muheza, Meru and Tarime districts confirming occurrence of the disease in those areas. </li></ul><ul><li>There was significant difference in stool diameter, moisture content and fresh weights across seasons. </li></ul><ul><li>Fresh clump weight, dry matter content, leaf stem ratio and number of tillers were found to be higher in clone 1,2,6,8,11,25 and 30. </li></ul><ul><li>NSD incidence and severity increased with cutting frequency, </li></ul><ul><li>20%, 30% & >70% for first, second and third cutting respectively </li></ul><ul><li>Clone 4, 6, 11, 17, 24, 25 & 26 did not show NSD symptoms throughout the trial period therefore considered to be tolerant to the disease </li></ul>
  27. 27. 4.2.Discussion of Results <ul><li>Most of the tolerant clones were hairy and rough, which is not an attractive attribute in cut and carry system. </li></ul><ul><li>Clones 6,11 and 25 had superior overall agronomic parameter and did not show symptoms of stunt diseases throughout the three harvests </li></ul><ul><li>There was a decline of NSD incidence and severity following farmers adoption to recommended NSD management practices </li></ul>
  28. 28. 5. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>There is no evidence of Napier smut disease occurrence in Tanzania </li></ul><ul><li>Napier stunt disease occurs in Meru and Tarime districts </li></ul><ul><li>There is a need for public awareness creation to avoid spread of the disease in other Napier growing areas </li></ul><ul><li>There is a need for screening of the high yielding and tolerant clones to confirm resistance before distributing them to farmers </li></ul><ul><li>NSSP to be incorporated in LGAs action plan </li></ul>
  29. 29. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT <ul><li>ASARECA </li></ul><ul><li>ILRI </li></ul><ul><li>MAFSC </li></ul><ul><li>LGAs </li></ul><ul><li>FARMERS </li></ul>

×