DNA Finger Printing of Maize and Wheat in Ethiopia


Published on

Preliminary results of tracking diffusion of improved wheat and maize varieties with DNA finger printing in Ethiopia:

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
1 Comment
1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

DNA Finger Printing of Maize and Wheat in Ethiopia

  1. 1. Tracking Diffusion of Improved Wheat and Maize Varieties with DNA Finger Printing in Ethiopia: Pilot Project Preliminary results Regional Dialogue on Strengthening African Seed System July 14 – 25 2014
  2. 2. Outline Introduction Some facts about wheat and maize production in Ethiopia Wheat and maize varieties released to date Farmer knowledge of wheat and maize varieties Need for DNA finger printing assisted adoption study Methodology Survey instruments DNA data application Results Perceived adoption of wheat and maize varieties Varietal adoption estimates based on DNA finger printing techniques Comparison of adoption estimates from farmer recalls and DNA finger printing estimates Implications
  3. 3. Introduction Maize and Wheat has been recognized as a strategic food security crop in the country’s attempt to bridge the persistent food gap Compared to other cereal crops grown: Maize is first in terms of volume of production- 6.1 million tons (CSA, 2012) Second in terms of area – 2.1 million ha (CSA, 2012) The highest in productivity – 2.9 tons/ha (CSA, 2012) Produced in all regions of the country (but relatively less in Afar and Somali Regional States) Wheat is the fourth important cereal crop in terms of area and volume of production – 1.4 million ha and 2.9 million tons
  4. 4. Introduction (cont…) In view of the importance of maize and wheat on the country’s food security a lot of resources has been invested to generate and make available improved varieties and complementary technologies Both maize and wheat research programs are relatively successful Both have strong collaboration with CGIAR centers (CIMMYT, ICARDA)
  5. 5. Maize varieties released in Ethiopia, by decade 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 Numberofmaizevarieties release Decade OPV Hybrid Source: MoA, 2012 Introduction (cont…)
  6. 6. Number of improved wheat varieties released by year of release, Ethiopia Year Released Improved Wheat varieties (Number) Bread wheat Durum wheat Total Before 1981 3 - 3 1981-1990 3 1 4 1991-2000 15 8 23 2001-2010 25 20 45 Total 46 39 85 Source: MoA, 2012 Introduction (cont…)
  7. 7. Introduction (cont…) These improved varieties with associated crop management practices have been made available to farmers Sasakawa Global (SG 2000) initiative the participatory demonstration and training extension system- PADETES Scaling up efforts of EIAR and RARIs Hence, uptake of the improved varieties by farmers and their impact on HH welfare remained a concern to all involved in the generation and transfer of wheat technologies
  8. 8. Adoption studies before 1990 the first technology adoption studies conducted in the 1970s to assess the successes of the Comprehensive Integrated Rural Development Projects and the Minimum Package Program Most of the early adoption studies reported rather low awareness and limited adoption of improved varieties weak research-extension linkage were identified as a major bottleneck for the low awareness and adoption of improved agricultural technologies Introduction (cont…)
  9. 9. Adoption studies 1990 to 2010 The studies reported quite variable adoption rates ranging from zero as high as 74% for improved maize varieties Most of the adopting farmers relied on recycled seeds, and came from old varieties Major drawback of the studies were • Highly location specific • Around research centers • Project intervention areas Fail to allow generalizations indispensable for policy making at national and regional levels Introduction (cont…)
  10. 10. Farmer knowledge of improved varieties is limited casting doubt on the level of precision of adoption estimates based on farmer recalls The challenges inherent in identifying individual varieties by the farmers demanded exploring better approaches Introduction (cont…)
  11. 11. Objective Validate the application of DNA fingerprinting techniques in tracking varietal adoption for maize and wheat in Ethiopia Technical feasibility Logistical feasibility
  12. 12. Methodology Conducted in three zones of Oromiya: East Wollega, West Shewa and West Arsi; The pilot research had three main areas of data generation The first is related with the collection of seed samples from CSA crop cuts The second involved the collection of samples of reference materials from breeders and seed enterprises The third is questionnaire based data collection from sample HHs from whom crop cut samples were taken
  13. 13. Completed questionnaires, collected reference materials and crop cuts (seed samples) Wheat Maize Total Reference library 75 39 114 Collected Samples 393 472 865 Questionnaires 393 (368) 469 Methodology (cont…)
  14. 14. Survey Instrument DNA data application Correlation of sample DNA with reference material greater than 70% was considered as threshold for identification of varieties Methodology (cont…)
  15. 15. Results: Wheat
  16. 16. Main findings - Wheat Farmer response(recalls): 62% of the farmers adopted improved wheat varieties DNA Finger Printing: 96% of the farmers used improved wheat Only 9.3% of the farmers were able to correctly indentify the improved wheat varieties culitvated
  17. 17. Comparison of estimates of improved wheat variety adoption based on from farmer recalls and DNA finger printing Name of wheat variety grown Farmer Response Correctly Predicted (N=368) % N=33 % from farmer responses % from DNA results Digelu (SHA 7/KAUZ ) 85 23.10 18 21.18 18.8 Kubsa (HAR-1685) 44 11.96 12 27.27 10.9 Dashen (HAR 408) 25 6.79 0 0.00 0.0 Pavon-76 20 5.43 3 15.00 14.3 Kakaba 8 2.17 0 0.00 0.0 Tusie (HAR-1407) 5 1.36 0 0.00 0.0 Gasay (HAR-3730) 3 0.82 0 0.00 0.0 Danda’a 3 0.82 0 0.00 0.0 Galema (HAR-604) 2 0.54 0 0.00 0.0 Mada-Walabu (HAR-1480) 2 0.54 0 0.00 0.0 Dereselign 1 0.27 0 0.00 0.0 Mitike (HAR-1709) 1 0.27 0 0.00 0.0 Hawii (HAR-2501) 1 0.27 0 0.00 0.0 Improved but unknown 28 7.61 0 0.00 0.0 Total 228 61.96 33 14.47 9.3
  18. 18. Results: Maize
  19. 19. Main findings - Maize Farmer response (recalls): 56% HHs used improved maize varieties DNA results: 64% of the farmers used improved maize varieties Only 47% of the farmers were able to correctly indentify the improved maize varieties they cultivated (all for hybrid users)
  20. 20. Implications - technical Farmers report underestimate the use of improved varieties compared to DNA results: 62%  96% for wheat 56%  64% for maize Very few farmers correctly know what type of varieties they grow 9.3% for wheat 47% for maize (all for hybrids)
  21. 21. Implications - Technical The observed difference between farmer response and DNA fingerprinting results in reported/identified varieties suggest further investigation of agro-ecological targeting of varieties High potential for wider application of the DNA fingerprinting technique for estimating more accurately varietal adoption rates, assessing seed demand, estimate impact of crop improvement programs by linking with Agricultural Sample Survey (AgSS) including GIS information, respondents socioeconomic data etc., Ethiopian Soil Information System (EthioSIS) The DNA capacity could also help in resolving seed quality disputes that has become common recently
  22. 22. Implications – Logistics The logistical arrangement for DNA sample and data collection was found to be relatively efficient Linking the data collection efforts with CSA AgSS made the approach cost effective and nationally representative The National Biotechnology Lab demonstrated commendable professional performance
  23. 23. Implications – Improvement Areas Better alignment with CSA AgSS in terms of timing, adjustment of questionnaire contents, logistic of sample exchange, etc Need further strengthen the capacity of the National Biotechnology Lab both in terms of physical facilities and human resources Develop scaling strategy to guide the application of the approach How to mainstream in the national programs (CSA, EIAR, partners etc) How frequently to undertake Crops to be included