1) A study was conducted in Kilombero, Tanzania to compare yields from Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) versus traditional farmer practices for rice production. 2) On-farm trials were set up in six villages comparing GAP techniques like certified seeds, inorganic fertilizers, and mechanical weeding to traditional practices. 3) GAP techniques significantly increased yields, with a range of 2.6-9.7 tons/hectare for GAP compared to 0.6-4.9 tons/hectare for traditional practices. 4) However, adoption of all GAP techniques faces challenges including low soil fertility, lack of irrigation infrastructure, and limited farmer knowledge and resources.

1. 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

2. 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 produced
o Rainfed and irrigated lowlands ecosystems
o 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Land preparation and soil sampling

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Interviewing farmers after harvest

9. RESULTS

10. GAP makes a difference
GAP plot (Dibbled at Ichonde)
Farmer Practice plot (Broadcasted at
Ichonde)

11. GAP makes a difference
GAP plot (Dibbled at Namwawala)
FP plot (Broadcasted at Namwawala)

12. Soil fertility status
• Soils in the study area Nutrient
are of low fertility due
Very low
to non/inadequate
use of fertilizers by
N
28% (10)
majority of farmers
coupled with
P
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
K
B
Fe
Mg
Soil analytical results (n = 36)
Low
Optimum High
Very high
61%
11% (4)
(22)
53%
47% (17)
(19)
94% (34) 6% (2)
100% (36)
56% (19) 44% (7)
14% (5) 14% (5) 72% (26)

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. THE END
Thank you for listening
Asanteni sana!