- Collaborative Crop Research Program

Transcription

I. OVERVIEW
Perennial food insecurity in the East and Horn of Africa (EHAf) has greatly contributed to the
poor livelihoods of over 100 million people in the region. Sorghum, which is an important staple
food to a majority of these people, generally yields low due to several factors including, lack of
suitable varieties tolerant to the prevailing stresses such as Al toxicity, low P, Striga, drought and
diseases mainly (anthracnose and Turcicum leaf blight (TLB). The overall project strategy is to
improve food security and livelihoods of rural communities in the EHAf through deployment of
new sorghum cultivars, enhancement of seed supply, diversification of sorghum use and training
stakeholders (farmers, seed merchants and students) to build useful synergies that can improve
sorghum production. The strategy seeks to enhance sorghum yields to enable farmers feed their
families and generate surplus for sale, avail elite materials for further breeding work and enhance
capacity of stakeholders to utilize research. Diversification of sorghum use and value addition is
expected not only to lead to improved nutritional status of households but also to industrialize the
region. The long term impacts will be indicated by improved food security and livelihood of the
vulnerable communities in this region.
The project’s objectives included: deploying high yielding sorghum varieties tolerant to Striga,
drought, sorghum anthracnose and soil acidity in terms of aluminium toxicity and low soil
available phosphorous; promoting access and utilization of appropriate sorghum based
technology packages to enhance production and handling of sorghum at the household level;
expanding the niche and diversifying the use of sorghum products; and strengthening human and
institutional capacity of the sorghum community of practice (CoP) in the EHAf region. In the first year (2010/11), the project attained several milestones. Over 300 farmers were
selected to participate in the project and a total of 930 diverse germplasm was assembled for the
project work. In addition, soils from the identified sites in Uganda and Kenya were sampled,
FKDUDFWHUL]HG DQGFRQILUPHGWKDWPRVWZHUHDFLGLFS+KDGKLJK $OVDWXUDWLRQ-30%)
and low in available P (P (<6 mg/kg soil). Field and socio-economic surveys confirmed that soil
acidity, drought, and lack of improved sorghum seed supply indeed hamper sorghum
productivity. Benefits of using P to improve yields and also use of sorghum in fish feed were
established. In the 2011-2012 period, several activities were planned and undertaken to
accomplish the project objectives. These included: testing performance of identified sorghum
lines in selected areas of Uganda and Kenya, participatory variety development and selection
with farmers, selecting new sorghum technologies/cultivars for tolerance to striga, drought, and
Al toxicity and low available P and hence soil acidity. Twenty (20) outstanding lines out of a
total of 125 selected in Round1 were selected by farmers in Uganda and Kenya and undergone
Round 2 of selection. These cultivars/lines are truly outstanding and preferred by farmers based
on their grain yield, plant height, seed colour and tolerance to bird damage. The farmers placed
comparatively low emphasis on issues such as tolerance to disease and grain size. In selecting the
twenty outstanding lines/cultivars, over 200 farmers participated both in Uganda and Kenya. The
selection was based on replicated yield trials in various sites and most of the twenty
Page 6 of 69 cultivars/lines were selected in thirteen sites in Kenya and Uganda, confirming that the use of
these lines could improve sorghum yields. These lines out-performed local checks grown in each
of the sites under striga, drought, anthracnose and high Al saturation and low available
phosphorous stresses, confirming their potential superiority in the management of the prevalent
stresses. In terms of enhancing access to improved seed supply for the sorghum technologies now
at our disposal, we characterized the sorghum growing regions of western Kenya and eastern
Uganda based on the availability of sorghum markets, type of seed grown, source of seed and
willingness to purchase improved seed by conducting socio-economic surveys. The results
indicated that only a small number of farmers use improved seeds owing to unavailability of the
technology. Many farmers indicted willingness to purchase improved seed if they are available
and at reasonable prices.
In the 2012-2013 reporting period further participatory variety selection was undertaken in Kenya
and Uganda. In western Kenya, most of the value added sorghum based food products made
from sorghum such as cakes, “zimbare” a fermented local product eaten as snack, buns, scones,
doughnuts, biscuits and “chapatti, were highly acceptable (DFFHSWDELOLW\ VFRUH RI 7KHVH
products can truly bring food diversity to families in the study regions that currently make only
ugali and porridge out of sorghum. It was also apparent that none of the improved varieties
presented to farmers was totally rejected. Results from western Kenya and Eastern Uganda
showed that grain yield and grain colour were the most important attributes considered by
farmers as well as consumers in choosing sorghum grain for consumption and use in value added
food products. Overall, both preferred the red and brown coloured sorghum owing to low damage
by birds compared to the white ones.
In the final year of the project, a final PVS was undertaken in Kenya and Uganda using 37
sorghum lines and involving a total of two hundred and twenty nine farmers. The farmers from
the region preferred red coloured sorghum over any other colour. These finding on farmer
preference are consistent with those reported in the previous McKnight sorghum Technical
reports. This indicates that farmers’ preference in this region may not change fast in the future
and this might allow the newly developed sorghum lines to have significant impact in these
regions. The project also successfully trained a total of two hundred and twenty nine farmers on
divergent sorghum production related issues. In western and Eastern Kenya, the training focussed
on sorghum agronomy, use of alternative technologies to increase sorghum productivity,
nutritional aspects of sorghum and the role of value addition in enhancing food security,
utilization of improved sorghum and their availability to all farmers and including the role of
farmers in PVS. Farmers were also trained post-harvest handling of sorghum and on how to use
an improvised energy saving Jiko to bake sorghum based value added products. The Jiko was
constructed at each of the farmers’ homes and the farmers were able to make some value added
products. In Eastern Uganda the training focussed on farmer research networks (FRN), their role
in METs and in enhancing technology adoption. In both cases a participatory delivery method
was used and participants were engaged throughout the training by brainstorming, free opinion
expression and sharing experiences. Training aids used included flip charts, flyers of pests and
Page 7 of 69 diseases (colour printed) and pictures of sorghum products, training manual, questionnaires,
printed and demonstration materials, constructed improvised Jikos. Under replicated MET trials
in various farmers’ fields, most of the newly introduced sorghum lines outperformed both
commercial and local checks and over 12 lines were selected. Some of the selected sorghum lines
(E95a, E97, E117b, and T53b ) were entered into Kenyan National performance Trial (NPT) and
distinctiveness, uniformity and stable (DUS) testing and are on the last stages of being released.
From the preliminary NPT results, the sorghum lines are truly outstanding and will be released in
Kenya. Further on capacity building, Four MSc students trained, two have graduated, and one
awaits 2014 December graduation while one will submit his within this year. The project also
made an attempt and successfully engaged six new stakeholders: AFOSEN-Action for Food
Security Network, C-MAD- Community Mobilization against Desertification, Catholic Diocese
of Homa Bay, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS), CARD- Community Action
for Rural Development and REFSO-Rural Energy Food Security Organization) who have
pledged to work with the sorghum team in helping with distribution, multiplication and in the
adoption process of the new sorghum lines. Nutritional analysis was done for four selected
sorghum lines (E117b, Nyadundo1, T53b and E95a) and results compared with USDA proposed
values for an ideal sorghum. Some of the improved lines exhibited improved nutritional values
(higher protein, ash, fat and fibre contents) hence the possibility that they will be useful in
improving livelihoods of sorghum growing communities in western Kenya if adopted. Generally
the project achieved the planned activities and milestones and we are confident that the project
outputs and impacts have been realised. This is based on the observation that many farmers now
in western Kenya and Eastern Uganda are already growing the improved varieties instead of the
local and the released checks, and also making some of the value added sorghum products on
their own for use in their families.
Page 8 of 69 II. NARRATIVE.
Objective 1: To deploy high yielding superior sorghum cultivars tolerant to drought, soil
acidity and/or Striga weed in marginal areas of the EHAf for improved sorghum
productivity.
A.
Activities
1.1 Germplasm collection and introductions.
A total of 930 sorghum accessions were collected from Moi University, KARI Katumani and
Makerere University. Details on these accessions were reported in the October 2011 Technical
report.
1.2 Site Selection, Characterization and GIS Mapping.
A total of 10 sites from Western Kenya, Eastern Kenya and Eastern Uganda were selected. The
sites in Western Kenya and Eastern Uganda were characterized and the findings presented in the
October 2011 Technical report.
1.3 Selection of Farmers from Various Agro Ecological Zones (AEZs).
Farmers were selected to participate in variety selection and in participatory plant breeding. This
activity was accomplished and reported in the October 2011 Technical report.
1.4 Participatory breeding and multiplication of multiple stress tolerant sorghum cultivars.
Participatory variety selection (PVS) method was used by the project partners in identifying
preferred cultivars among the diverse elite sorghum lines at all the sites.
For the Moi University component, a joint PVS was conducted at Matayos site in July 2014 by
100 farmers which were from Sega, Koyonzo and Matayos sites using 11 elite lines previously
selected in round 3 (from Kenya and Uganda). The selection was based on field performance and
other attributes (Appendix G1). Replicated on-farm sorghum trials were set up on farmer fields at
each of the specific stress factor identified site (Sega, Matayos, Koyonzo, Karungu, and Kibos).
Some of these preferred lines (E95a, E97, E117b, and T53b etc.) are currently undergoing
National Performance Trial (NPT) and DUS testing and from the NPT results, the new sorghum
lines are superior to the checks in Eastern and Western Kenya and are likely to be released in
these regions. For Makerere University, 8 elite lines were evaluated through PVS with three
farmer research networks at four agro-ecologies of sorghum growing. For Eastern Kenya (KARI
– Katumani), 6 preferred lines were selected in the final round and multiplied in farmer fields.
Challenges
A lot of rains was experienced during maturity and harvesting periods leading to seed rotting in
some of farmers’ fields ruining the sorghum trials. This was addressed by early harvesting at all
the fields which also posed challenge with drying due to wet conditions. There was also serious
outbreak of shoot fly in some fields especially in Sega and Matayos. This was addressed by
Page 9 of 69 frequent spraying although some farms did not recover from the damage were not included in the
final analysis to minimise error.
1.5. Further Breeding Via Crossing and selection
The Moi University team further developed 10 F1 hybrid sorghum lines between selected elite
lines and male sterile lines (introductions) from Brazil, KALRO/Katumani and Icrisat. These
lines will be evaluated for heterosis and suitability as hybrid sorghum lines. The project also
proceeded with the conversion of some of the elite lines to male sterile lines for ease of hybrid
production. Two of the crosses that had earlier segregated for male sterility were further
backcrossed to A11 to develop BC 4 F 1 . This activity will continue to BC 8 F 1. Some of these are
still undergoing selection.
Challenges: Most of the resultant F1 hybrid sorghum seeds are white and despite guarding and
head covering were still seriously attacked by birds in Kibos site.
B.
Insights and Lessons Learnt
It would have been better to bring on board other stake holders like NGOS, CBOs and seed
companies at the beginning of the project to encourage fast adoption. Our initial focus was to use
the farmers first to reduce the bulk of the materials that we had started and we thought bringing
NGOs and many stakeholders early into the breeding program could pose challenge lead to too
many materials selected. Now we have learnt that teaming with them at the beginning of the
project would have provided adequate time since we now see that partnering with other stake
holders require more time than we had anticipated. However over the years, we have been able to
form strong partnership with the farmers through continuation of research activities on their
fields. PVS and seed increase were successfully accomplished as planned by the project team for
most of the target sorghum cultivars. Due to large variations in sorghum performance as observed
within farmers’ fields in western Kenya, we opted to replicate trials within each field unlike in
the first year where the individual farms were treated as experimental replicates. The wide
environmental differences were not anticipated as the experimental sites lie within the same agro
ecological zone (LM 3).
Page 10 of 69 Objective 2: Promote access and utilization of appropriate sorghum based technology
packages to enhance production and handling of sorghum at the household level
A.
Activities
2.2. Technology validation
Moi University engaged thirty farmers and 10 semi-trained panellists in determining the sensory
characteristics and testing for the acceptability of the sorghum products developed. Details were
reported in the October 2013 Technical report.
2.3. Create awareness among farmers and critical stakeholders on benefits of technologies
to their life challenges
Moi University further held field days in July 2014 where farmers and agricultural extension
workers from the experimental sites participated in training activities and discussions related to
the new sorghum based technologies developed during this project. Some of the key areas of
sensitization and training included: Soil depletion/acidity and the need for alternative
technologies, Nutritional aspects of sorghum and the role of value addition in enhancing food
security, Utilization of improved sorghum and their availability to all farmers and the role of
farmers in PVS. A total of 100 farmers were trained. Makerere University held field days and
trained 93 farmers at Awii Community Centre in May, 2014 on their role in management of
METS. At KARI-Katumani, a total of thirty six farmers in Tharaka North districts were trained
on sorghum agronomy including planting, fertilizer application, crop protection and post-harvest
handling of sorghum. The farmers were also sensitised on the new metal grain silos and candle
technic to deprive weevils of oxygen and the availability of the new developed grain storage
treated bags developed by USAID.
Challenges
Bad weather conditions partly interfered with the field day making movement from one farm to
the next difficult. We were therefore only able to visit only two farms in western Kenya. The
rains were not expected in July when the field day was planned. However the training seasons
was not interrupted since it was conducted under shelter. Similar challenges were experienced in
Eastern Uganda where the training took more than the allocated time and continued the next day.
Budgetary constraint was generally a problem in implementation of objective 2 due to high
expectations of participants especially the other stakeholders who expected financial and other
logistical support. It was also noted that the farmers required more time than we had allocated
and anticipated because of the overwhelming positive response and participation in the
discussions. Hence due to time constraints, we could not address all the issues raised by farmers
especially those that were outside the deployment of the newly developed sorghum and those that
relate to value addition for enhance food security.
Page 11 of 69 B.
The team having recognised the need to reach out to a larger audience in an effort to disseminate
the new technologies widely, therefore successfully engaged six new stakeholders: AFOSENAction for Food Security Network, C-MAD- Community Mobilization against Desertification,
Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay, Kephis-Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services, CARDCommunity Action for Rural Development and REFSO-Rural Energy Food Security
Organization) who have pledged to work with the sorghum team in helping with distribution,
multiplication and adoption of the new sorghum cultivars.
Objective 3: Expand the niche and diversify the use of sorghum products.
A.
Activities
3.3: Proximate analysis of selected sorghum lines with emphasis on tannins.
The project conducted nutritional component analysis of 4 elite sorghum lines (T53b, Nyadundo
1, E95a and E117b) in determining the varieties which are suitable for a wide range of products.
The results were compared with USDA proposed values for an ideal sorghum. Some of the
improved lines exhibited improved nutritional values (higher protein, ash, fat and fibre contents)
hence the possibility that they will be useful in improving livelihoods of sorghum growing
communities in western Kenya if adopted.
3.4: Promotion of alternative uses of sorghum with emphasis on human nutrition, and
animal feeds
Moi University made 7 new sorghum products (bread, Chapati, doughnuts, biscuits, buns,
scones, cake and ‘zimbare’- a fermented product eaten as a snack). These were presented to
farmers for sensory evaluation and acceptability testing during a field day. Makerere University
evaluated 3 sorghum varieties for use as an alternative source of energy to maize in poultry feed
formulation. The three were tested against a commercial feed. Details were reported in October
2013 report. For Moi University farmers were trained on how to use the energy saving Jiko/oven
to make some of the value added products of their choice in order to scale up, promote and
diversify the utilization of sorghum for food (Appendix G12).
B.
Details on the insights and lessons learnt were reported in the October 2013 Technical report.
Objective 4. Strengthen human and institutional capacity of the sorghum CoP in the EHAf
A.
Activities
4.1: Farmer training on agronomic packages
All the 3 institutions continued training farmers on agronomic practices related to sorghum
production.
Page 12 of 69 This year, Moi University trained 100 farmers on sorghum agronomy and crop management,
harvesting and seed preparation. These are in addition to the areas mentioned in section 2.3
above. They were also trained on the use of energy conserving Jiko for baking sorghum based
value added products and fuel conservation. The Jiko was constructed at each of the farmers’
homes and the farmers were able to make some value added products (Appendix G2 and G4). In
Eastern Uganda a total of 93 farmers were trained on the role of farmers in METS while at
KARI-Katumani, 36 farmers were trained on sorghum agronomy and post-harvest handling.
Challenges
Farmers were overwhelmed with the energy saving Jiko and each wanted the project to construct
one at their homes but this was not possible due to time and budgetary constraints. The
participant’s turn-up was overwhelming hence exhausting some of the training materials that had
been prepared hence more materials had to be added as the training progressed.
Recruitment of 4 Masters Students for training
Already accomplished by all the partnering institutions and reported in the October 2013
Technical report.
4.3: Designing of a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) for exchange of sorghum
lines/germplasm
A Material Transfer Agreement is already in place and is being used for germplasm exchange
among the three institutions
Challenges
There was no challenge experienced in this activity
B. Insights and Lessons Learnt
Already reported in the October 2013 Technical report.
III. ANNUAL WORKPLAN FOR FOURTH YEAR
There is no work plan given because this is a final Report. IV. ANNUAL BUDGET
There is no annual budget because this project is completed.
Page 13 of 69 V. APPENDICES
A. Appendix A -Research Report (s)
i. Statement of the problem
East and Horn of Africa (EHAf) is home to more than 160 million people who derive their
livelihoods from agriculture. It is estimated that up to 100 million people in the EHAf experience
serious food and nutritional insecurity, largely due to fragile agricultural production systems
conditioned by drought, low soil fertility, soil acidity, pests and diseases (FEWSNET, 2009). In
these fragile agricultural systems, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is a major staple food
cereal and cornerstone of livelihoods. Sorghum production is mainly by small-scale farmers and
characteristically carried out under low agro input (improved seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides),
limited access to new technologies. Consequently, sorghum grain yields are normally less than
1.0 t/ha/year (FAOSTAT, 2006). The marginal areas also support significant population of
livestock (http://eastafrica.usaid.gov/en/Article.1264.aspx) that suffer immensely in time of
drought.
The marginal nature of agro-ecologies where a vast majority of populations reside, coupled with
increasing weather changes occasioned by climate change increase the vulnerability of these
communities. Yet the region and global actors seek to meet Millennium Development Goal
(MDG) 1 of reducing food insecurity by 50 % by 2015. Accordingly, strengthening the resilience
of these communities is critical to meet the MDGs and also support equitable development and
opportunities. Delivering Science and Technology options packaged as improved and robust
sorghum varieties form part of the major solutions in addressing the above development
challenge.
Sorghum as a crop is well adapted for cultivation in Arid and Semi-Arid lands (ASALs) as well
as marginal agricultural lands since it is tolerant to drought, performs well under low soil fertility
and can withstand witch weed (Striga) infestation (Norman et al., 1995). It has been identified as
a crop that can improve livelihoods of the vulnerable communities (World Bank, 2005, Omamo
et al., 2006) and is widely cultivated in the EHAf (Wotmann et al., 2006). Development impact
of sorghum in the ASALs and marginal areas, especially to address food and income insecurity,
is attributed among others factors to limited superior cultivars arising from poor access and
availability that forces farmers to grow low potential cultivars (on farm yield is 800 kg per
hectare compared to 2.0 – 3.0 tons/ha world average) (ECARSAM, 2005). Moreover, the
common cultivars such as Seredo and Serena are susceptible to late season (post-anthesis) water
stress, low phosphorus availability, aluminium stress (Gudu et al., 2004) and/or high Striga
infestation (Ejeta, 2007). These abiotic constraints coupled with nutrient imbalances account for
yield reduction of 50 - 100% (Bray et al., 2000), which translates into loss of over 40,300 metric
tonnes per year.
Page 14 of 69 In terms of the “development reach” of sorghum technologies especially to vulnerable
communities of EHAf, the crop is generally produced by small-scale, resource-limited farmers
estimated at about 100 million. Most sorghum produced in the region is consumed locally, and
only minimal quantities get into the international markets. Recent commercial developments
include the use of sorghum as livestock feeds, bio-energy and industrial raw material for bottled
beer production, providing opportunity for improved incomes if well integrated with these
communities (EABL, 2010; Pari, et al. 2008; Scurrah-Ehrhart, 2006). The crop also has potential
to contribute to addressing MDG3 on promoting gender equality and empowering women if
technologies are designed and delivered appropriately (CPHP, 2002). The crop is mainly
managed by women and children, who spend long hours to plough, sow, weed and thresh. In this
project, we intend to exploit opportunities to strengthen long term adaptation of vulnerable
communities by integrating approaches which harness science and technology within the context
of landscape and social adaptation. Our strategy is to deploy new sorghum cultivars that are
adapted to prevailing stresses, low cost inputs; enhance seed supply systems and diversify
alternative utilization of sorghum.
ii. Review of relevant literature.
Sorghum is a globally cultivated cereal, unique due to its tolerance to drought, waterlogging,
saline -alkali, infertile soil and high temperatures (Grain report, 2005). According to the grain
report, the pest that affects sorghum mostly is the sorghum midge, which is one of the most
damaging and widely distributed in all sorghum growing regions of Africa. The report is rather
general and has mentioned only one problem in sorghum production in Africa. However, several
stresses (drought, Striga, low P, Al toxicity, anthracnose & TLB) have been shown to reduce
sorghum productivity in the EHAf (Okuthe et al., 2007, Kakuru et al., 2004; Siera et al., 2003;
Too, 2011). Sorghum is important especially in the Arid and Semi-Arid Agro-ecological zones
(ASALs), which receive less than 750 mm of rainfall per year and have high evapo-transpiration
(Dagg et al.,, 1970). In the EHAF, the ASALs cover 85% of Kenya, 71 % of Ethiopia (Earth
trends, 2003), and 40% of Uganda (Kakuru, et al. 2004). Crop production in these ASALs is
today threatened by the imminent climate change whose negative impact will largely be felt as
reduced precipitation. It has been predicted that SSA is likely to experience an increase in ASAL
area by between 5-8% by 2080 (Lobell et al., 2008); a 5 % chance that yields of the major food
crops could drop by about 27 % and bring an even greater risk to food production (FAO, 2009) in
many areas including the EHAf.
An estimated 29% of the world’s acid soils are distributed across the SSA (Eswaran et al., 1997)
where food insecurity is tenuous. Acid soils are widespread in Eastern Africa especially in the
highlands and mid-altitude areas of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia characterized by high
rainfall (Wortmann et al., 2006). They comprise 13% of the total arable land in Kenya
(Kanyanjua et al., 2002) with large coverage in western Kenya, where more than 70% of the
sorghum cultivation in the country is undertaken. Soil acidity is therefore an important factor in
sorghum production and it reduces yield by about 18% (Siera et al., 2003; USAID, 2006). Most
Page 15 of 69 of these soils have high Al saturation (4-55%) and/or low available P (2-5 mg/Kg soil)
(Wortmann et al 2006; Obura et al., 2008) which contribute to low yields. Soil acidity is often
associated with Al toxicity which is widely recognized as a major constraint to crop production
because it inhibits root growth and development, overall plant vigour and consequently yield
(Kochian et al., 2004). Most soils in SSA are deficient in available P (Bekunda et al., 1997).
Moreover, P is being depleted at the rate of 2.5 kg P/ha/year from the soils (Smaling et al., 1997;
Sanchez et al. 1997). Insufficient P-fertilization (Obura, 2008) and high P-fixation by aluminium
and iron oxides in the soil (Buresh et al., 1997) have been identified as the key causes of P
deficiency. In P deficient soils, sorghum tends to have delayed maturity, which under low
moisture stress causes further decrease in grain yields.
Striga infestation is widespread and may cause between 40 – 100 % yield losses on non-resistant
cultivars (ECASARM 2005; Ejeta, 2007; Watson et al., 2007) in SSA and an estimated crop yield
loss averaged at 40% yearly (Watson et al. 2007). Intensive land use and increasing cereal
monoculture, coupled with little or no use of external inputs, have worsened the Striga problem
in Africa (Nekesa, 2007). In the western Nile region of Uganda high Striga infestation - with
incidence of up to 88% and a soil seed-bank of 80-328 seeds per kg soil and 14 Striga plants/m2
has been reported (Olupot et al., 2005). In Kenya, Striga infestation is most severe in Nyanza and
Western provinces. The parasitic weed is found in about 75,000 hectares of farmland and results
in crop losses estimated at about US$ 10–38 million per annum (Woomer et al, 2004). Farmers in
Kenya respond to the problem of Striga through various traditional control methods. These
methods include use of manure, hand weeding, uprooting and burning of affected fields.
However, research findings show that these methods are insufficient to eradicate Striga once it is
well established on a field (Woomer et al, 2004). In many parts of Kenya; sorghum remains an
important crop for rural food security. Since much sorghum producing areas still experience
periodic food deficits, production must be increased in order to ensure food security (Okuthe et
al., 2007). The growing of improved sorghum varieties across SSA has been promoted by
agricultural extension services as one of the ways to achieve this. However, the adoption of
technologies associated with these varieties by small scale farmers is still low resulting, probably,
in the low production of the crop. In their study in western Kenya, Okuthe, et al. (2007) found
that resource constraints limit many farmers in adoption of improved sorghum varieties and
technologies. The household size, household income, the size of farm owned by a household,
age, the education attainment and gender of the household head all had a significant positive
effect on the likelihood of adoption. There is therefore great need for the smallholder sorghum
farmers in western Kenya to adopt cultivars that are stress resistant in order to realize increased
yields of sorghum.
The use of sorghum in poultry feed in Uganda has been investigated before, with a local high
tannin variety from Western Uganda and the Kenyan Serena variety (Kyarisiima et al., 2004;
Okot and Mujabi, 2001). In both cases different alternatives of a process to reduce tannin using
alkali treatment were used. The tannin levels were effectively reduced using wood ash extract
Page 16 of 69 and the nutritional value of the sorghum preserved and even enhanced following germination.
Feed intake between the control (maize) and sorghum diets obtained were not different, and a
significant improvement in growth was observed in diets of broiler chicks fed treated sorghum
(Kyarisiima et al., 2004). Salissou (2009) reported gain to feed ratios in broilers 0 to 42 days
higher (P < 0.09) for birds fed on a maize-based diet compared to birds fed on sorghum, however
the ratios were similar (P > 0.11) for birds fed on the landrace verses the improved sorghum. In
other studies, Blaha et al., (1984) reported that sorghum (Var. technicum) could be used
successfully as the only cereal component of diets for broilers.
Generation and transfer of appropriate cost reduction and productivity enhancing technologies is
a key strategy towards reducing local production costs and increased agricultural productivity to
sorghum competitiveness in SSA regions. Part of the current study aims to check the adoption
status of sorghum cultivars that are tolerant to various stresses (Striga, drought, low P and Al
toxicity). It will analyse adoption of technologies in sorghum growing regions in western Kenya,
eastern Kenya and in northern Uganda. It will also asses the food security and nutritional status
of the communities in the study area, and current uses of sorghum and sorghum products by the
communities in these regions.
iii. Research design and methods
Field Experimentation
At each site, the principle of Participatory Plant breeding (PPB) and selection was employed
jointly by farmers and researchers as described by Ashby (2009), Soleri and Cleveland (2009).
On-farm sorghum trials were set up at farmers’ fields at each of the specific stress factor sites.
Six sorghum farmers were engaged in the growing of the elite sorghum at each experimental site
in western Kenya, and 3 farmer Research Networks in Eastern Uganda.
For the Moi University component, a joint participatory variety selection was conducted at
Matayos site where a total of 11 elite lines that had previously been selected by different farmers
in round 3 (from Kenya and Uganda) were subjected to PVS. One hundred (100) farmers from
western Kenya (Sega, Koyonzo, and Matayos sites) were invited during a field day at Matayos
site to select their preferred sorghum lines based on the field performance and other attributes of
the respective lines (Appendix G 1). Questionnaires were administered to the farmers in order to:
(i) rank the various factors that influence farmers’ decision in selection of particular sorghum
lines; and (ii) determine the most preferred sorghum lines among the farmers in western Kenya.
The preference factors were: grain colour, plant height, grain yield, panicle size, grain size, early
maturity, resistance to bird damage and resistance to logging. The sample questionnaire is
provided in Table 1. The farmer score was based on a Scale of 1-3 where: - 1- like most, 2- like
but not very much and 3- Don’t like.
Page 17 of 69 Field experimental layout, general management and Data Analysis
At Moi University, 11 elite sorghum cultivars previously selected by farmers were tested under
field conditions in the farmers’ fields for tolerance to Al toxicity, tolerance to low P, tolerance to
drought and tolerance to striga infestation. Field screening for tolerance to Al toxicity and low P
Was undertaken at Matayos (0o 19’N & 34o 12’E) and Sega (00 15’ 21”N & 340 13’ 33”E) sites
to assess yield performance in low pH soils. Matayos soil is acidic (pH 4.9) with high aluminium
(saturation of 29 %) and low available P (5 mg/kg) (Kisinyo, 2011). Matayos receives a mean
annual rainfall of 1200-2200 mm (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983; Jama et al., 1997). Sega is
located at an altitude of 1340 m a.s.l. with a mean annual rainfall of 800-2000 mm (Jaetzold and
Schmidt, 1983; Jama et al., 1997) soil is acidic (pH 4.5) with high aluminium (saturation of
43.1%) and low available P (2.2 mg/kg) (Kisinyo, 2011.) Planting was done during the long rains
(April-September 2014). The experimental design used was RCBD replicated 3 times. Planting
was done at a spacing of 0.75 X 0.2 m in 3x 4 m plots. Eleven acid tolerant sorghum lines were
evaluated on-farm at six farmers’ fields per site; replications were done at each farmer’s field
because of the wide soil heterogeneity that has been observed among the sorghum farms. Data
was collected on plant height, panicle length, panicle width, days to 50% flowering and grain
yield (t/ha). Phosphorus was supplied as DAP at 36 kg P/ha. Plants were top dressed with 75 kg
N/ha as CAN, six weeks after planting. Standard agronomic practices were undertaken as
required. The crop was also protected from anthracnose disease by spraying with Folicur
fungicide at all the sites. Genotype by environment (farm) interaction was partitioned using
Finlay and Wilkinson Model 1963. GXE was also visualised using GGE biplots. Genotype
stability and Superiority analysis was also done across the sorghum farms in western Kenya. Data
was analysed using Genstat version 18. All means were separated using LSD.
Trial for Striga was conducted during the long rains (April -Sept, 2014) at Karungu site (which is
known for very high Striga infestation) under natural Striga infestation. At Karungu site, 9 elite
sorghum lines which had previously been selected by farmers at this site were planted in a 3 x 4
m plots at a spacing of 0.75 X 0.2 m in RCBD replicated 3 times. One local check and one
commercial variety were included in the trial. No fertilizer was applied as is the farmers’ practice.
Data was collected on grain yield, plant height, panicle characteristics and days to 50%
flowering. Effects of Striga on shoots was based on measuring plant height from the ground up
to the flag leaf (cm), head weight (t/ha), days to 50% flowering and panicle characteristics (cm).
All data was subjected to ANOVA. Data was analysed using Genstat version 18. All means were
separated using LSD.
At Kari-Katumani, the trials was planted in Kiboko (020 12’ 48.3” S and 0370 42’ 58.6”E) on 8th
November 2013.It was planted in Randomized Complete Block Design with two replications and
comprised of eighteen (18) genotypes. Plots comprised of four rows, 5 m long per genotype in a
replication. A basal fertilizer: NPK 18:46:0 was applied and mixed with soil at the rate of 37.5 g
row-1 (5m x 0.75m) equivalent to 100 kg ha-1. Seed were placed by hand in pairs at 20 cm
intervals along farrows 75 cm apart and thinned to one seedling at 3-leaf stage to yield an
Page 18 of 69 approximate plant population of 66,000 plants ha-1. The field layout design was computer
generated (Genstat software) along with data recording field book. At flowering, time to
flowering was recorded as period in days from first rains to when 50% of the anthers extruded
from 50% of the panicles in each plot. Similarly, time to physiological maturity was recorded as
period in days from first rains to when basal grains in 50% of the tagged main stem panicles
showed black layer at grain attachment to panicle. Other data was recorded on: (1) number of
tillers per plant (2) height to the flag leaf (main stem) (3) height to base of panicle (main stem)
(4) height to the tip of panicle (main stem), (5) net plot (2 mid rows) grain yield. Panicle length
was derived as difference between height to tip and height to base of the panicle. Similarly
panicle exertion was derived as difference between height to the base of the panicle and height to
the flag leaf. Height to the tip of panicle (main stem) was considered the plant height. Other data
were recorded on the following traits: plant stand after thinning (no.), stem borer attack (score),
shoot-fly attack (score), exertion of the panicle above the flag leaf (cm), harvested plot head and
grain weight (g), days to half bloom (DT50% bloom). At maturity, panicles with grain were
harvested from middle two rows and dried. The stover was cut and bundled up with twine and
left to dry in the plot. Panicles were dried weighed and threshed grain weighed. The rationing
stumps were only top dresses with C.A.N fertilizer at similar rate as the seed trial. Stem borers
were control with insecticides. Ratoon data was recorded as for the main crop. Data was
statistically summarized following analysis of variance procedure, Genstat 15 statistic software
(Anon, 2013).
Screening for Al tolerance and Al toxicity in nutrient culture solution
Screening for Al tolerance and Al toxicity was done in the laboratory using nutrient culture
solution as described by Magnavaca et al., (1987b).
Disinfection and germination of seeds
Seeds were disinfected against surface fungi by washing with 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
for 5 minutes under agitation on a shaker set at 150 rotations per minute (rpm). The seeds were
then rinsed 8 times with sterile distilled water to remove traces of NaOCl before they were
germinated. Germination was done by placing the seeds in small tins moistened with sterile
distilled water and placed in an incubator set at 25oC for 3 days.
The nutrient solution was prepared as described by Magnavaca et al., (1987), adjusted to pH 4
using dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl). Aluminum was added to the treatment solution from the
compound, AlK (SO4)2 at a concentration of 148µM. This concentration gives an Al3+ activity
of 27 µM (Parker et al., 1995). The control solution had aluminum excluded. The nutrient
solution was supplied to the seedlings in 8 liter trays under continuous aeration. Each tray carried
7 genotypes with 7 seedlings each. Seedlings were placed on the nutrient solution in plastic cups
with predrilled holes at the bottom held by flat tops with holes that held cups, so that only the
roots were in contact with the nutrient solution, while the shoots were supported by black beads
that also prevented ultra violet light from reaching the nutrient solution and decomposing the iron
chelate. The experiment was laid in a completely randomized design (CRD) replicated 3 times.
Page 19 of 69 The seedlings were then grown in a growth chamber at a photoperiod of 14 hours of light and 10
hours of darkness. The day length growth room conditions were approximately 340µmoles m-2S1 of light intensity, 30±2oC and 70% relative humidity; the dark conditions were 22±2oC and
90% relative air humidity.
The seedlings were first set to acclimatize to low pH in a nutrient solution without aluminum for
24 hours after which initial seminal root lengths (IRL) were measured. Nutrient solution was
immediately replaced with a similar solution so that Al stress was imposed on the treatment trays.
Final root lengths (FRL) were measured 6 days after entry of stress. Assessment of Al tolerance
was computed using IRL and FRL in the following equations;
(i) NSRL = FRL - IRL
(ii) RNRG = ʌNSRL (Al)/ ʌ165/
Where:
The RNRG data was subjected to 1-way analysis of variance using the General Linear Models
procedure of SAS and means compared using Tukey’s range test using the following model:
X ijk Į i ‫ گ‬ij where: X ijk ----- plot observation, µ-- RYHUDOOPHDQĮL----WUHDWPHQWHIIHFW‫گ‬L--experimental error due to treatments (Payne et al., 2009, Tukey, 1953)
Nutritional Analysis
Sample Preparation: The samples were placed in an electric drier to a moisture content of 12% then milled using a
grinder as recommended by CTA, 2007. 100g of each of the samples were then analyzed to
determine the Crude Protein (CP), Ether Extract (EE) or fat, Ash and Nitrogen Free Extract
(NFE) using the method of A.O.A.C. (2000). The mineral element level was determined using
Atomic Absorption method. The results are as outlined below:
In Uganda, a participatory delivery method was used and participants were engaged throughout
the training by brainstorming, free opinion expression and sharing experiences. As the training
was taken to the farmer’s localities, the training aid we could use were flip charts, flyers of pests
and diseases (colour printed), training manual (pre-printed) and demonstration materials. A field
visit followed the training in each case
Page 20 of 69 Appendix A1: DETAILS OF MOI UNIVERSITY REPORT
Objective 1: To deploy high yielding superior sorghum cultivars tolerant to drought, soil
acidity and/or Striga weed in marginal areas of EHAf for improved sorghum productivity.
1.5 Germplasm collection and introductions.
A total of 930 sorghum accessions were collected from Moi University, KARI Katumani and
Makerere University. Details on these accessions were reported in the October 2011 Technical
report.
1.6 Site Selection, Characterization and GIS Mapping.
A total of 10 sites from Western Kenya, KARI Katumani and Eastern Uganda were selected,
characterized and the findings presented in the October 2011 Technical report except for Eastern
Kenya where characterization is yet to be undertaken. The soil samples were collected and await
analysis.
1.7 Selection of Farmers from Various Agro Ecological Zones (AEZs).
This is already accomplished as presented in the October 2011 Technical report.
1.8 Participatory breeding and multiplication of multiple stress tolerant sorghum cultivars.
A.
Activities
Participatory variety selection (PVS) method was used by the project partners in identifying
preferred cultivars among the diverse elite sorghum lines at all sites. For the Moi University
component, a joint participatory variety selection was conducted at Matayos site where a total of
11 elite lines that had previously been selected by different farmers in round 3 (from Kenya and
Uganda) were subjected to PVS. One hundred (100) farmers from western Kenya (Sega,
Koyonzo, Karungu and Matayos sites) were invited during a field day at Kibos site to select their
preferred sorghum lines based on the field performance and other attributes of the respective lines
(Appendix G 1). Questionnaires were administered to the farmers in order to (i) rank the various
factors that influence farmers’ decision in selection of particular sorghum lines; and (ii)
determine the most preferred sorghum lines among the farmers in western Kenya. The preference
factors were: grain colour, plant height, grain yield, panicle size, grain size, and early maturity,
resistance to bird damage and resistance to logging. The sample questionnaire is provided in
Table 1. The same group of farmers were used to compare the performance of the sorghum
cultivars in two different farms within the same site. Farmers were also trained on how to use an
improvised energy saving Jiko to conserve energy which they can use to bake some of the
sorghum value added food products. See picture of the improvised Jiko on appendix G2.
Replicated on-farm sorghum trials were also set up on farmer fields at each of the specific stress
factor identified sites (Sega, Matayos, Koyonzo, Karungu and Kibos). Six farmers engaged in
growing of the elite sorghum were given an opportunity to rank the lines that were grown on their
farms. The farmer score was based on a Scale of 1-3 where: - 1- like most, 2- like but not very
Page 21 of 69 much and 3- Don’t like. At Karungu site, a replicated on-farm trial was conducted to select for
drought and striga tolerance under natural stress conditions. See the details in Table 15.
B.
RESULTS
PARTICIPATORY VARIETY SELECTION
Table 1 shows samples of questionnaires used by Moi University.
Name ……………………………… Gender: ………Site……………. ………………………Date: ___ /____/____ Kindly rank the given sorghum varieties based on your preference. (Scale; 1-3 (1 is the highest
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Reason for or
against
preference
Resistance to
bird damage
Early
maturity
Logging
Pest/disease
tolerant
Plant height
Panicle size
Grain size
Colour
Grain yield
Sorghum
variety name
/rank
score and 3 is the lowest score).1: like most 2: like but not very much. 3: Don’t like
E1-2
E5- 2)
E97-2
E95 a
E117b
T53b
IS 3098
MUK 60
N4
C26
Seredo
Factors influencing farmer preference of sorghum lines
Table 2 shows factors influencing farmer’s selection of preferred sorghum lines across 2 farms in
Matyos site. At farm 1 grain colour (score of 1.40) and resistant to bird damage (score of 1.510)
were the most influential attributes, while the least influential factor was tolerance to logging and
panicle size. However at firm 2, grain yield and grain colour (score of 1.27 and 1.32 respectively)
were the most influential attributes, while the least influential factor was tolerance to logging and
resistance to bird damage. The variation in selection criteria by the same farmers across the two
farms could be attributed to the variation in overall performance of the sorghum cultivars which
made the farmers to probably change their criteria. However grain colour seems to stand out
irrespective of the different management practices. Resistance to bird damage was not a concern
in the second farm because the sorghum field was located next to the farmers’ home and he
Page 22 of 69 guarded against bird damage. In general there was better performance in Farm 2 compared to
farm 1 (Table 2)
Table 2: Sorghum attributes influencing farmers’ selection of sorghum cultivars across 2 farms in
Matayos site
ATTRIBUTES
UNDER
INVESTIGATION
RANKING IN
FARM 1
RANKING IN
FARM 2
GRAIN
YIELD
COLOUR
GRAIN
SIZE
PANICLE
SIZE
PLANT
HEIGHT
LOGGING
RESISTAN
T TO
BIRD
DAMAGE
OVERALL
PERFORMA
NCE
1.6014
1.4067
1.5324
1.6272
1.5309
1.626
1.5181
1.561919
1.2711
1.3243
1.3489
1.3361
1.5234
1.6127
1.6190
1.433726
Concerning farmers’ ranking of the various sorghum lines in Farm 1 at Matayos site, the most
preferred sorghum line was C26 followed by MUK 60 while the least preferred at this farm was
seredo. However at firm 2 the most preferred sorghum line was N4 followed by IS 3098 while
the least preferred line was E95a (Table 3). Based on the different sorghum characteristics used
by farmers for selection, the most preferred sorghum lines for grain yield in farm 1 was C26
(score of 1.039) followed by T53b (score of 1.086) lines while the least preferred line was E1-2
(score 1.43). For grain colour, the line IS 3098 (red) was ranked the best (score 1.1) in colour
followed by T53b (score 1.2) while the least preferred line was SEREDO (score 1.50).
Table 3a: Ranking of various sorghum elite lines by sorghum Farmers at Farm 1 in Matayos site
Grain
yield
colour
Grain size
Panicle
size
Plant
height
Resistant
to bird
damage
logging
Overall
variety
score
Sorghum
cultivar
1.0392
1.1764
1.098
1.1961
1.3137
1.3268
1.2941
1.2063
C26
1.2244
1.4286
1.4285
1.4879
1.2292
1.2449
1.2708
1.3306
MUK 60
1.4313
1.5098
1.3725
1.5359
1.3725
1.2
1.6078
1.4328
E1-2
1.2157
1.4314
1.372
1.3137
1.7843
1.5686
2.0784
1.5377
E95a
139078
1.4509
1.5294
1.4117
1.2549
1.2745
1.24
1.3956
E117b
1.2941
1.1373
1.2157
1.2745
1.3529
1.4509
1.2353
1.2801
E5-2
1.2857
1.3946
1.3678
1.2245
1.8979
1.9456
2.2245
1.62
1.2448
1.5306
1.3878
1.4286
1.4879
1.7347
2.5306
1.6207
SEREDO
1.0867
1.2
1.2
1.26
1.84
2.1
1.62
1.4724
T53b
1.3333
1.4082
1.3673
1.2041
1.4489
1.9932
1.3876
1.4484
N4
E97-2
Farmer scoring was based on scale of 1-3 (1: most like, 2: like but not very much and 3:don’t like) Page 23 of 69 In farm 2 the most preferred sorghum lines for grain yield in farm 1 was T53b (score of 1.027)
followed by N4 (score of 1.22) lines while the least preferred line was E95a (score 1.97). For
grain colour, the line N4 (red) was ranked the best (score 1.30) in colour followed by T53b (score
1.36) while the least preferred line was E95a (score 1.97) (Table 3b)
Table 3b: Ranking of various sorghum elite lines by sorghum Farmers at Farm 2 in Matayos site
Grain yield
Colour
Grain size
Panicle
size
Plant
height
Logging
Resistant
to bird
damage
Overall
variety
score
Variety
name
1.2894
1.3947
1.2368
1.502
1.7027
1.6842
1.2105
1.4315
IS3098
1.7948
1.5727
1.6923
1.8718
1.4211
1.2564
1.6068
1.6023
MUK60
1.7297
1.8559
1.6576
1.6737
1.3783
1.1712
1.0811
1.5068
E117b
1.7387
1.5135
1.5235
1.7501
1.376
1.2613
1.5315
1.5278
E1-2
1.6667
1.5263
1.4763
1.6842
1.4474
1.2368
1.3546
1.4846
E5-2
1.2315
1.3056
1.3426
1.2407
1.3333
1.4722
1.2593
1.3122
N4
1.7838
1.5946
1.5945
1.6406
1.6216
1.8648
1.5841
1.6691
C26
1.0278
1.3611
1.2511
1.4537
2.0833
2.2222
1.3611
1.5372
T53b
1.7315
1.5001
1.4444
1.4537
1.3333
1.5833
2.0834
1.5899
SEREDO
1.9729
1.7837
1.6757
1.8919
1.4324
2.0271
1.7842
1.7954
E95a
1.6491
1.6053
1.6316
1.7368
1.7105
1.8947
1.8421
1.7243
E97-2
Farmer scoring was based on scale of 1-3 (1: most like, 2: like but not very much and 3:don’t like) Seredo and E95a are is cremish in colour while T53b and N4 are reddish. It’s therefore apparent
from this study that the farmers’ preference for red colour over any other colour has not changed
over the 3 rounds of selection in western Kenya. These findings on farmer preference are
consistent with those reported in the previous McKnight sorghum Technical reports No. 1 and 2
and 3 of 2011, 2012 and 2013 where the red seeded cultivars were preferred over white cultivars
and medium height over tall heights because of cultural reasons. These are indications that
farmers preference in this region may not change fast in the future and this might allow the newly
developed sorghum lines to have significant impact in these regions.
Page 24 of 69 Evaluation of elite sorghum lines for soil acidity
On-farm Evaluation and Screening for tolerance to soil Acidity
This study was carried out at Sega and Matayos sites in western Kenya from April to September
2014. A total of 10 elite sorghum lines together with one local and one commercial sorghum
variety (Seredo) were planted in six farmers’ fields to evaluate yield performance in acid soils.
At Matayos site, there was significant variation (p=0.05) among the 4 farmers’ fields for all the
traits measured. Grain yield was highest at Makohas firm (2.58 t/ha) and lowest at Adams
(1.23t/ha).Broad sense heritability for grain yield ranged from 0.34 at Otukos firm to 0.75 at
Opemis farm. The sorghum lines took the shortest time to flower at Opemis firm (69 days) and
the longest time at Adams and Otukos firms (74 days) (Table 4).
Table 4: Overal Mean grain yield, heritability’s and other yield components of sorghum lines
tested for tolerance to soil acidity across four farmers’ fields in Matayos site in 2014.
Farm
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
Trait
Grain yield ( t/ha) Plant height ( cm)
Panicle Length cm)
Panicle width ( cm)
days to flowering ( days)
Panicle Length cm)
Panicle width ( cm)
Panicle Length cm)
Panicle width ( cm)
Panicle Length cm)
Panicle width ( cm)
Mean
1.78
162.52
19.55
11.33
72.88
2.62
173.82
20.91
12.06
73.27
2.68
185.06
21.42
11.64
74.97
2.11
161.88
17.85
11.39
71.06
SD
0.42
32.52
3.15
1.96
7.03
0.30
34.73
2.80
1.34
4.70
0.45
37.12
3.33
1.78
4.24
0.45
34.77
3.09
1.62
4.38
SED
0.20
11.91
1.95
1.32
2.40
0.29
33.30
2.75
1.27
4.51
0.23
24.04
2.24
1.32
2.22
0.26
9.47
2.12
0.91
1.01
LSD
0.41
24.69
4.04
2.73
4.98
0.60
69.46
5.73
2.65
9.41
0.48
49.99
4.66
2.74
4.62
0.54
19.69
4.42
1.89
2.11
CV
13.91
9.18
12.48
14.58
4.13
11.79
20.74
14.22
11.39
6.63
9.91
14.98
12.00
12.99
3.42
14.22
6.72
13.72
9.15
1.65
Heritability WaldStatistic
0.82
54.30
0.93
137.13
0.68
31.01
0.61
25.33
0.94
159.37
0.00
10.48
0.00
11.27
0.00
9.85
0.14
12.30
0.00
10.07
0.83
71.78
0.71
39.25
0.65
32.31
0.52
22.94
0.83
71.05
0.79
54.75
0.96
320.36
0.65
32.39
0.78
53.38
0.97
450.64
Table 5 shows the performance of the various sorghum lines at four farms in Matayos site. The
line E117b gave the highest grain yield across 2 farms ( Agnes and Chami) although it was out
yielded in the remaining two farms by the lines E95a, C26 and T53b. Across all the four farms
reported at Matayos site, at least eight out of the ten improved lines outperformed the commercial
check (Seredo). The Line E1-2 consistently gave the lowest yield across all the farms except at
farm Chami where Line N4 exhibited the lowest grain yield (Table 5).
Page 25 of 69 Table 5: Mean values of grain yield and yield components of sorghum lines tested for tolerance
to soil acidity across four farmers’ fields at Matayos site in 2014.
Farm
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
AGNES
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
CHAMI
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
HENRY
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
NOAH
Panicle
Panicle Days to 50% Genotypes Grain yield Plant height (cm) Length (cm) width (cm) flowering (t/ha)
162.0
18.7
12.7
84.3
C26
2.1
E117b
2.1
160.7
19.3
13.0
74.3
E97-‐2
2.1
186.7
23.3
12.0
72.0
226.0
20.7
12.0
79.3
T53b
2.1
E95a
1.9
156.3
23.7
11.3
69.7
N4
1.8
150.7
16.7
13.3
81.3
MUK 60
1.7
150.0
19.3
10.0
67.7
E5-‐2
1.6
115.3
18.7
10.0
65.7
IS3098
1.6
199.3
16.0
11.7
76.3
Seredo
1.4
150.3
20.7
10.0
64.7
E1-‐2
1.2
130.3
18.0
8.7
66.3
E97-‐2
2.8
174.3
21.0
12.7
76.7
74.5
2.8
200.0
21.0
12.7
E117b
E5-‐2
2.7
148.7
19.7
12.3
72.0
22.7
13.0
74.0
MUK 60
2.7
167.7
2.7
154.7
18.7
12.7
72.3
E95a
70.3
T53b
2.6
173.0
20.0
11.3
E1-‐2
22.3
10.7
75.3
2.6
194.7
IS3098
2.6
245.0
22.0
12.0
77.1
185.3
20.3
13.0
75.7
C26
2.5
Seredo
2.5
163.7
23.0
12.0
74.7
N4
2.4
149.7
21.3
11.0
68.0
E95a
3.5
182.3
26.0
13.7
76.0
T53b
3.0
255.3
20.0
12.0
76.3
19.0
13.5
75.5
E117b
2.9
171.0
E97-‐2
2.9
204.7
23.0
11.0
75.0
C26
2.7
188.3
21.3
13.0
79.3
E5-‐2
2.7
161.3
23.7
10.7
75.7
N4
2.6
156.0
17.7
11.7
79.7
IS3098
2.5
211.3
17.7
11.3
77.0
Seredo
2.4
195.7
23.3
11.0
73.3
MUK 60
2.2
161.3
22.3
9.3
70.3
E1-‐2
2.1
150.7
21.3
11.0
66.3
E97-‐2
2.8
194.7
23.7
12.7
68.3
C26
2.6
151.7
16.7
12.7
75.7
E117b
2.4
152.3
15.3
13.3
77.3
E95a
2.3
176.0
20.0
11.7
68.0
E5-‐2
2.1
123.7
18.3
11.3
67.7
10.4
72.0
IS 3098
2.1
192.0
16.0
T53b
2.0
236.7
17.0
10.3
74.7
MUK 60
2.0
151.3
18.7
9.3
68.7
14.7
12.0
78.0
N4
1.8
133.3
Seredo
1.8
147.3
17.7
9.7
67.3
E1-‐2
1.6
122.7
18.3
10.3
66.7 Page 26 of 69 At Sega site, there was significant variation (p=0.05) among the 5 farmers’ fields for all the traits
measured. Grain yield was highest at Onayo’s farm (2.58 t/ha) followed by Patricia’s farm (2.13
t/ha) and lowest at Alice’s (1.61t/ha). There was serious bird damage at Alice farm which
affected the yield significantly. Broad sense heritability for grain yield ranged from 0.35 at
Alfred’s firm to 0.86 at Colleta’s farm. The sorghum lines took the shortest time to flower at
Alice firm (73 days) and the longest time at Patricia’s farms (77days) (Table 6).
Table 6: Overall Mean grain yield, heritability’s and other yield components of sorghum lines
tested for tolerance to soil acidity across five farmers’ fields in Sega site in 2014.
Site
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
Trait
Mean
SD
Grain yield ( t/ha) 1.79
Plant height ( cm)
160.42
Panicle Length cm)
19.03
Panicle width ( cm)
10.06
75.24
Plant height ( cm)
161.91
Panicle Length cm)
20.94
Panicle width ( cm)
11.06
73.27
Plant height ( cm)
148.76
Panicle Length cm)
18.67
Panicle width ( cm)
11.27
75.97
Plant height ( cm)
162.67
Panicle Length cm)
20.64
Panicle width ( cm)
12.39
74.61
Plant height ( cm)
160.12
Panicle Length cm)
20.45
Panicle width ( cm)
11.52
77.58
SED
0.44
33.22
3.17
2.52
4.18
0.25
33.54
2.77
1.82
3.98
0.59
35.37
2.64
2.17
4.28
0.26
31.39
2.64
1.82
4.76
0.42
27.44
2.53
1.62
3.74
LSD
0.35
27.36
2.63
1.81
2.43
0.16
13.38
1.85
1.02
1.79
0.29
15.31
2.13
1.16
2.37
0.14
16.50
2.07
0.98
3.07
0.26
14.29
1.88
1.29
2.07
CV
0.73
56.73
5.46
3.76
5.05
0.34
27.83
3.86
2.13
3.73
0.61
31.93
4.44
2.42
4.94
0.29
34.32
4.30
2.04
6.39
0.55
29.81
3.93
2.68
4.31
24.55
21.38
17.34
22.61
4.06
11.39
9.39
10.13
10.50
2.78
18.69
11.03
12.31
11.15
3.36
6.28
11.67
11.50
9.14
4.73
13.35
9.66
9.92
12.05
2.88
0.35
11.08
0.24
9.45
0.30
8.88
0.48
19.28
0.76
40.96
0.68
35.96
0.90
135.76
0.69
36.37
0.80
56.88
0.88
101.63
0.86
95.43
0.89
130.39
0.49
23.82
0.83
80.36
0.81
73.73
0.83
65.76
0.83
69.84
0.27
17.15
0.82
65.46
0.69
37.04
0.74
50.58
0.84
85.99
0.60
31.17
0.52
25.15
0.81
74.16 Table 7 shows the performance of the various sorghum lines at five farms in Sega site. The line
E117b gave the highest grain yield across 3 farms (Patricia, Alice and Onayo) although it was out
yielded in the remaining three farms by the lines E95a, which was best at Alfred’s farm and line
C26 which was best at Colleta’s farm. It was apparent that the 3 sorghum lines (E117b, C26 and
E95a). Across all the five farms reported at Matayos site, at least eight out of the ten improved
lines outperformed the commercial check (Seredo) except at Alfred and Colleta’s farm where at
least 3 new improved lines were better than the check. The Line E1-2 gave the lowest yield at
Patricia and Colleta’s farms (Table 7).
Page 27 of 69 Table 7: Mean values for grain yield and yield components of sorghum lines tested for tolerance
to soil acidity across five farmers’ fields at Sega site in 2014
Farm
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALFRED
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
ALICE
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
COLETA
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
ONAYO
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
PATRICIA
Genotype Grain yield Plant Panicle
Panicle Days to 50% (t/ha)
height (cm Length (cm) width (cm) flowering E95a
2.2
169.0
21.0
10.3
77.7
E5-‐2
2.1
197.3
20.3
12.0
78.7
E1-‐2
2.0
163.7
20.0
11.7
79.3
Seredo
1.9
163.3
19.7
12.0
77.7
MUK 60
1.8
150.3
18.0
10.7
74.3
C26
1.8
158.3
16.3
8.0
72.7
E117b
1.8
166.7
20.0
11.7
74.7
E97-‐2
1.8
170.0
18.7
8.3
78.0
N4
1.7
156.0
17.7
8.7
71.0
IS3098
1.5
151.3
21.3
10.3
75.3
T53b
1.3
118.7
16.3
7.0
68.3
E1171b
1.9
135.1
21.0
12.9
77.2
C26
1.9
174.5
23.0
12.5
75.0
IS3098
1.8
189.7
20.7
11.7
76.3
T53b
1.8
222.3
22.0
11.7
74.9
E95a
1.7
168.7
22.7
12.3
76.3
E97-‐2
1.7
180.7
24.0
10.7
73.0
N4
1.6
129.7
19.7
12.3
77.3
E5-‐2
1.6
127.3
19.0
9.8
68.5
Seredo
1.5
140.3
23.3
10.7
67.7
E1-‐2
1.3
135.7
19.7
9.7
70.3
MUK 60
1.2
159.0
16.3
7.7
69.3
C26
2.6
152.0
21.0
13.0
77.7
E117b
2.5
141.3
17.1
13.0
78.2
IS 3098
2.3
198.1
21.9
13.0
75.0
T53b
2.0
211.7
20.3
12.7
79.7
Seredo
1.9
155.7
21.3
9.3
69.7
E97-‐2
1.7
170.7
19.3
12.7
74.3
E5-‐2
1.6
120.0
19.7
10.0
73.3
E95a
1.6
176.7
17.7
12.0
77.0
MUK 60
1.2
127.0
16.7
11.0
74.3
N4
1.0
103.3
16.0
10.0
83.7
E1-‐2
0.8
108.0
16.3
7.0
71.7
E117b
3.0
161.8
24.5
14.0
76.0
E95a
2.9
170.3
23.3
14.3
73.7
C26
2.7
143.3
21.0
13.3
77.7
T53b
2.7
220.0
20.0
13.0
79.0
E97-‐2
2.7
192.3
22.7
13.0
76.3
N4
2.7
132.7
21.3
13.7
79.3
IS3098
2.6
187.3
18.3
13.0
76.0
E5-‐2
2.4
132.0
20.0
12.0
69.3
E1-‐2
2.3
132.7
19.0
9.0
69.7
MUK 60
2.3
159.0
20.7
10.7
75.0
Seredo
2.3
161.3
20.7
10.7
68.7
E1171b
2.6
143.0
19.2
13.0
76.0
E97-‐2
2.5
179.0
21.3
12.3
76.7
C26
2.4
173.0
21.0
12.7
82.3
IS 3098
2.4
194.0
18.1
12.1
76.0
E95a
2.3
174.7
23.7
11.7
74.7
MUK 60
2.2
141.7
19.7
11.7
78.0
T53b
2.2
194.3
19.0
11.3
80.7
E5-‐2
2.0
134.3
21.7
10.0
75.0
N4
1.7
120.3
18.3
12.0
83.7
Seredo
1.7
159.7
23.3
10.0
73.3
E1-‐2
1.5
131.3
17.7
9.3
74.7
Page 28 of 69 On-farm Evaluation and Screening for tolerance to low available soil P
Ten elite sorghum lines together with one commercial sorghum variety (Seredo) were planted in
six farmers’ fields at Koyonzo to evaluate yield performance under low soil available P conditions. At Koyonzo site, there was significant variation (p=0.05) among the 6 farmers’ fields
for all the traits measured. Grain yield was highest at Makoha’s firm (2.58 t/ha) and lowest at
Adams (1.230) Broad sense heritability for grain yield ranged from 0.34 at Otuko’s firm to 0.75
at Opemis farm The sorghum lines took the shortest time to flower at Opemi’s firm (69 days)
and the longest time at Adams and Otuko’s firms (74 days) (Table 8).
Table 8: Overall Mean grain yield, heritability’s and other yield components of sorghum lines
tested for tolerance to low available P across six farmers’ fields in Koyonzo site in 2014
Farm
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
Trait
Mean
SD
0.50
Plant height ( cm)
141.82
26.38
18.06
Panicle Length cm)
2.69
Panicle width ( cm)
8.24
1.60
74.39
4.72
1.82
Plant height ( cm)
156.55
26.64
Panicle Length cm)
21.30
2.13
Panicle width ( cm)
10.27
1.89
72.12
4.58
0.61
Plant height ( cm)
161.48
28.29
Panicle Length cm)
22.24
2.57
Panicle width ( cm)
11.52
2.06
71.48
5.31
0.35
Plant height ( cm)
152.88
28.93
Panicle Length cm)
21.18
2.81
Panicle width ( cm)
10.82
2.26
69.58
4.05
0.25
Plant height ( cm)
154.79
30.79
2.80
Panicle Length cm)
21.33
Panicle width ( cm)
12.30
1.29
74.52
4.91
0.46
Plant height ( cm)
151.18
26.38
Panicle Length cm)
20.52
2.24
Panicle width ( cm)
11.00
2.05
72.82
4.94
SED
0.29
13.98
1.81
1.04
1.93
0.26
14.78
1.68
1.42
2.99
0.31
7.17
1.31
1.22
2.33
0.23
10.76
1.90
1.35
2.14
0.20
12.47
1.63
0.69
2.22
0.32
10.06
2.00
1.23
2.98
LSD
0.61
28.99
3.75
2.17
4.01
0.54
30.73
3.50
2.94
6.21
0.65
14.87
2.72
2.52
4.84
0.47
22.45
3.95
2.82
4.46
0.42
25.94
3.38
1.43
4.61
0.66
20.91
4.16
2.56
6.20
CV
14.00
12.36
12.56
15.88
3.26
16.60
10.89
9.07
15.90
4.78
15.30
5.57
7.40
13.24
4.09
12.25
7.57
9.69
13.52
3.31
12.20
9.29
8.72
6.39
3.40
23.77
7.63
11.26
12.82
4.72
0.72
36.31
0.81
53.97
0.60
25.23
0.64
28.15
0.91
105.34
0.34
15.65
61.09
0.81
0.42
18.30
0.52
24.10
38.42
0.70
0.74
38.69
306.27
0.97
0.83
57.99
0.68
31.07
0.89
87.72
0.75
49.99
0.92
188.42
0.71
43.23
0.78
60.12
0.83
83.26
0.34
16.09
0.91
132.95
0.77
50.57
0.81
62.63
0.88
97.54
0.60
29.07
0.91
149.30
0.07
10.55
0.75
45.47
0.76
48.34
Page 29 of 69 Table 9 shows the performance of the various sorghum lines at five farms in Sega site. The line
E117b gave the highest grain yield across 3 farms (Salome, James and Adams). The line also
gave the highest grain yield across 2 farms (Otuko and Opemi) while T53b was the best line in
Makohas farm. Across all the six farms reported at Koyonzo site, at least four out of the ten
improved lines outperformed the commercial check (Seredo) (Table 7).
Page 30 of 69 Table 9: Mean values for grain yield and yield components of sorghum lines tested for low available P across six farmers’ fields at
Koyonzo site in 2014.
Farm
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
ADAMS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
MAKOHA
Days to 50% Panicle GenotypesGrain yield Plant Panicle
height (cm) Length (cm) width ( cm) flowering (t/ha)
75.3
17.3
9.7
2.0
138.7
E1171b
10.0
76.7
168.7
20.3
1.6
E97-‐2
71.7
9.7
1.4
134.0
21.3
C26
18.0
7.7
75.3
152.0
MUK 60
1.4
75.3
9.0
1.4
172.3
20.0
E95a
20.0
8.0
68.0
142.3
Seredo
1.2
78.7
8.7
159.3
15.7
IS3098
1.1
16.3
7.0
69.7
108.0
E1-‐2
1.0
7.7
79.7
0.9
127.7
17.7
N4
7.0
80.0
155.3
16.0
T53b
0.9
68.0
0.6
101.7
16.0
6.3
E5-‐2
76.0
20.0
11.3
E117b
2.2
167.3
11.3
72.3
2.0
177.7
23.3
E97-‐2
12.0
77.3
20.0
N4
2.0
140.0
75.0
19.8
10.0
1.9
185.0
IS3098
20.3
13.0
75.0
1S3098
1.9
185.0
9.0
68.7
1.8
143.7
23.0
MUK 60
11.0
76.3
1.8
204.7
20.0
T53b
69.3
1.7
141.7
20.7
8.3
E1-‐2
147.0
22.3
10.7
72.0
E95a
1.6
9.3
72.7
C26
1.6
149.0
20.7
129.3
20.7
8.0
66.3
E5-‐2
1.6
67.3
1.6
136.7
23.7
11.0
Seredo
23.3
13.0
78.3
T53b
3.4
223.3
76.0
2.9
160.7
22.0
13.0
E117b
23.0
12.7
68.7
E97-‐2
2.9
175.0
12.3
72.3
2.9
160.0
24.0
E95a
159.0
23.3
11.7
76.0
C26
2.8
2.6
138.0
19.3
13.7
74.3
N4
2.3
198.7
18.7
10.7
76.0
IS 3098
147.3
26.3
9.7
65.7
Seredo
2.2
144.3
21.7
9.3
66.7
MUK 60
2.2
131.3
23.0
10.0
66.3
E5-‐2
2.1
66.0
E1-‐2
2.1
138.7
20.0
10.7
Farm
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OPEMI
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
OTUKO
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
SALOME
GenotypesGrain yield Plant Panicle
Panicle Days to 50% (t/ha)
height (cm) Length (cm) width ( cm) flowering E97-‐2
2.6
175.0
24.7
13.7
69.3
E117b
2.6
139.8
19.0
13.0
73.1
IS 3098
2.2
189.1
18.0
12.0
72.7
E95a
2.1
157.3
23.7
12.3
67.7
Seredo
2.0
145.0
23.3
10.0
65.7
MUK 60
1.9
134.3
21.7
8.7
67.0
T53b
1.8
222.0
19.0
10.3
76.7
C26
1.8
133.0
24.0
10.0
67.3
N4
1.8
131.7
18.7
12.7
73.7
E1-‐2
1.7
133.3
20.7
7.7
66.0
E5-‐2
1.6
132.0
20.0
8.7
67.0
E97-‐2
2.2
169.7
23.3
13.3
77.0
E117b
2.1
146.3
20.0
13.3
78.9
E95a
2.1
174.7
22.7
13.7
73.3
T53b
2.0
222.7
19.7
11.7
82.0
MUK 60
1.9
146.7
21.7
11.0
70.3
IS 3098
1.9
192.0
18.0
12.6
79.6
E1-‐2
1.8
124.7
22.3
11.0
72.7
E5-‐2
1.8
130.0
19.7
10.7
68.7
N4
1.8
126.3
18.7
13.0
77.7
Seredo
1.8
139.3
22.0
11.7
70.1
C26
1.7
143.3
26.3
13.0
70.3
E117b
2.3
151.8
20.0
13.7
75.5
C26
1.8
157.0
22.0
12.0
75.7
IS3098
1.7
174.3
19.0
12.0
73.3
N4
1.7
132.3
21.7
13.3
78.0
E97-‐2
1.6
165.3
21.7
11.7
76.3
Seredo
1.5
144.0
21.0
10.3
67.0
E95a
1.5
150.0
21.7
10.0
72.3
T53b
1.4
208.0
19.3
11.3
78.0
MUK 60
1.4
134.7
21.7
9.3
67.7
E1-‐2
1.1
127.3
19.3
8.0
66.7
E5-‐2
1.0
118.7
18.3
9.7
71.0
Page 31 of 69 GENOTYPE BY ENVIRONMENT (FARM) INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY
IMPROVED SORGHUM LINES ACROSS 15 FARMS IN WESTERN KENYA.
OF
The GXE interaction was partitioned using the Finlay and Wilkinson model (Table 10) which
measures variation in adaptability (Sensitivity/stability/plasticity). In this model Trait are
explained by genotypic effect, environmental effect, plus an effect of the combination of
genotype and environment given by a genotypic-specific sensitivity parameter. According to
Finlay and Wilkinson model (1963), genotype and environment main effects and their sensitivity
parameters were highly significantly different for both grain yield and panicle length implying
that the changes in the environmental quality (index) affected these traits (Table 10). For grain
yield, the Finlay and Wilkinson model revealed that differences between the environments accounted for more than half (76 %) of the total sum of squares. The genotypes were significantly
different and accounted for 9.6 % of the total sum of squares and the sensitivity parameter was
also significant but only accounted for 2 % of the total sum of squares. The rest of the sum of
squares was accounted for by the residual. For panicle length, the Finlay and Wilkinson model
revealed that differences between the environments accounted for 51.1% of the total sum of
squares. The genotypes were significantly different and accounted for 21 % of the total sum of
squares and the sensitivity parameter was also significant but only accounted for 2 % of the total
sum of squares. The rest of the sum of squares was accounted for by the residual.
Table 10: Partitioning of the GE interaction for grain yield (t/ha) and panicle Length of improved
sorghum cultivars tested for soil acidity across 16 farmers’ fields in western Kenya according to
the Finlay and Wilkinson model 1963
Source
Genotypes
Environments
Sensitivities
Residual
Total
d.f.
s.s.
m.s.
Grain yield (t/ha)
10
3.82 0.38
15 30.16 2.01
10
0.67 0.07
129 5.01 0.04
164 39.67 0.24
F pr.
<0.001
<0.001
0.081
s.s.
m.s.
F pr.
Panicle Lenth (cm)
111.86 11.19 <0.001
273.72 18.25 <0.001
9.69
0.97
0.525
137.18 1.06
532.44 3.25
Page 32 of 69 Table 11 shows estimated sensitivity parameters from Finlay and Wilkinson model for grain
yield and panicle Length. For grain yield, 41% of the improved cultivars showed below average
sensitivity (bi < 1) which represents above average stability for these genotypes. This is an
indication that these genotypes were well adapted to all the 16 sorghum farms where they were
grown. The results also showed that 21% of the tested sorghum cultivars expressed average
sensitivity (Average slope bi =1) which shows average stability and well adaptation to both poor
and good environments. The remaining hybrids (37%) exhibited above average sensitivity (bi >
1) which represents below average stability and shows that these genotypes were only well
adapted the good and favourable environments. The most adapted genotypes to both good and
good and poor environment were E1-2 and E97-2 (Average slope bi =1.009 and 1.013) while the
least adapted to both environments was genotype E95a (bi =1.251). However the best adapted
genotype to poor environments was genotype E117b (bi =0.805) which was also the most stable
and superior genotype (Table 12). A total of 6 improved cultivars were more superior than the
commercial check (Seredo).These results show the great potential of the newly developed
sorghum cultivars to the low P acid soil regions of western Kenya.
Table 12: Sensitivity indices (stability) and superiority estimates of improved sorghum cultivars
tested for soil acidity across 16 farmers’ fields in western Kenya (Finlay and Wilkinson model
1963)
Genotype Sensitivity
estimate
E117b
0.805
Seredo
0.823
MUK 60
0.854
IS3098
0.888
C26
0.922
E1-2
1.009
E97-2
1.013
N4
1.080
E5-2
1.112
T53b
1.238
E95a
1.251
s.e.
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.120
0.120
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
stability
ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Superiority Superiority
estimate
Ranking
0.019
1
0.160
7
0.185
9
0.128
6
0.042
2
0.262
11
0.044
3
0.179
8
0.187
10
0.076
5
0.061
4
Mean
2.31
1.92
1.91
2.01
2.19
1.81
2.21
1.95
1.90
2.13
2.16
Mean
square
deviation
0.034
0.021
0.028
0.021
0.055
0.070
0.032
0.041
0.025
0.032
0.026
Page 33 of 69 VISUALIZATION OF GXE USING GGE BIPLOTS
For the GGE biplots, the length of the vectors shows the amount of the genetic variance in an
environment. For both grain yields , and Panicle Length the farmer field (Colleta) exhibited the
largest genetic variance while farm Onayo and James the lowest genetic variance (Fig 1).
The Angle between the vectors is propotional to the correlation between environments. For grain
yield, there was high correlation Farms Onayo, Alice, salome and Opemi. Interestingly two of
these farms Onayo and Alice are located at Sega while the other 2 at Koyonzo. However the
correlation between these fatms could be attributed to similar farmer management practices. The
low correlation between farm Makoha and Colleta could be because the farms are located at
different sites ( Colleta ia at Sega while Makoha is at Koyonzo sites). The cultivar C26 was the
best performer at farms Makoha, Patricia and Colletta while Cultivar N4 AND Seredo the worst
performers at these farms. Majority of the genotypes showed average performance in all the
environments (found at the origin of the biplot). For grain yield, there were 3 mega environments
(COLLETA,MAKO,PATRICIA,ADAMS,andNOAH),SALOME,OPEMI,ONAYO,AGNES,ALI
CE,ALFRED etc.) (MAKOHA, HENRY,ALFRED etc.) (Fig 2). While for panicle length, there
wer two mega environments (NOAH, OPEMI, HENRY, JAMES etc) and (MAKOHA,
COLLETA, OTUKO, ONAYO etc.
Page 34 of 69 Fig 13: Biplots for GGE for Grain yield and Panicle Length of improved sorghum cultivars tested for soil acidity across 16 farmers
fields in western Kenya.
Genotypes are represented by multiplication sign (x). Environments are shown with addition sign (+). MAKOHA, OTUKO, OPEMI JAMES and
SALOME are farmers’ fields from Koyonzo site, PATRICIA, ONAYO, ALICE, ALFRED and COLETA are farmers’ fields from Sega site while
CHAMI, AGNES, HENRY and NOAH are farmer fields at Matayos site. GYLD-grain yield and Pan L-panicle Length.
Page 35 of 69 Fig 14: Biplots for GGE for panicle width and days to 50% flowering of improved sorghum cultivars tested for soil acidity across 16
farmers fields in western Kenya.
Genotypes are represented by multiplication sign (x). Environments are shown with addition sign (+). MAKOHA, OTUKO, OPEMI JAMES and
SALOME are farmers’ fields from Koyonzo site, PATRICIA, ONAYO, ALICE, ALFRED and COLETA are farmers’ fields from Sega site while
CHAMI, AGNES, HENRY and NOAH are farmer fields at Matayos site. PANW-panicle width and DFL-DAYS TO 50% flowering.
Page 36 of 69 Screening for Al toxicity in nutrient culture solution
This activity was accomplished and findings presented in the 2012 Technical Report.
Screening for tolerance to drought and striga infestation
Table 13 shows the mean yield components of sorghum lines tested for tolerance to drought and
striga at Karungu site. At Karungu, all the elite lines and the local check (Jowi) outperformed the
commercial check (Seredo) in terms of grain yield. The highest yielding line was N68 (1.33 t/ha)
followed by T53b (1.28 t/ha) while lowest yielding line was Seredo (0.73 t/ha). Plant height had
the highest heritability (0.90) while panicle with the lowest (0.25).
Table 13: Mean values for grain yield and yield components of sorghum lines tested for tolerance
to striga at Karungu site.
Genotypes
E1-2
E117b
E5-1
E5-2
Jowi
MUK51-3
N4
N68
Seredo
T30b
T53b
Mean SED
Mean LSD
Heritability
CV
p-value
Grain yield
(t/ha)
0.97
1.08
1.06
0.90
0.83
0.78
0.88
1.33
0.73
0.80
1.28
0.25
0.52
0.40
18.1
0.19
Plant height
(cm)
135.59
148.33
125.82
146.67
220.33
208.67
144.33
236.00
139.33
195.67
253.67
20.86
43.66
0.90
22.8
0.00
Panicle Length
(cm)
19.48
21.67
24.04
19.67
22.00
22.00
17.00
21.33
22.67
16.67
18.67
2.57
5.37
0.41
16.8
0.15
Panicle width
(cm)
10.64
11.67
12.73
7.00
11.33
11.00
10.67
12.00
9.33
9.00
9.67
2.04
4.28
0.25
20.2
0.30
SEED MULTIPLICATION
The fifth round of seed multiplication of the elite lines was done at Kibos site in MarchSeptember 2014 season. The Table below gives the names of the lines multiplied and the amount
of seed obtained (Table 16, Appendix 3).
Page 37 of 69 Table 16: Sorghum germplasm multiplication data for March-September 2012
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sorghum Identity T30B-‐1 Nyadundo 2 T30B E93-‐1 E117B IS 3098 E94-‐1 E88-‐1 E95a E97-‐1 E18B-‐2 T30B-‐3 E97-‐4 E17B-‐1 E90 MUK 60 E16 E95a-‐1 T53b E15 Nyadundo 1 N57 N68-‐1 C26 N13 Seed Colour Brown Red Brown Light brown Brown Red Light brown Light brown Light brown Light brown Light brown Brown Light brown Light brown Light brown Red Light brown light brown spackled Brown Brown Red Brown Red light brown Brown Seed shape 4E 4E 4E 4E 3E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 6 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E Grain weight (kg) 18.2 25 32.7 17.7 15.7 11.9 10 5.6 7.2 10.5 10.1 7.6 11.2 9.9 7.2 7.2 8.2 9.4 10.2 7.5 7.9 12.9 15.7 10.2 10.5 Page 38 of 69 1.5. Further Breeding Via Crossing and selection.
The project is still going on with converting some of the elite lines to male sterile lines for ease of
hybrid production. Two of the crosses that had earlier segregated for male sterility were further
backcrossed to A11 to develop BC 4 F 1 . Backcrossing will continue till BC8. New F1s were
developed between selected male sterile lines and improved germplasm. These results are
summarized in Table 17.
Table 17: List of sorghum backcrosses and single crosses generated at Kibos site in AprilSeptember 2013
Successful Backcrosses
(BC4F1)
ICSA686 X A11 X A11 X A11XA11XA11
B4R13- X A11 X A11 X A11X11XA11
Panicle
length
(cm)
33
28
Panicle
Seed
Panicle
width (cm)
13
7
colour
CR
L.BR
shape
4E
4E
RD
CR
L.BR
RD
WH
4E
4E
4E
4E
4E
New FI Crosses developed
Red land A X E1
22
2
ICSA686 X E5
21
2
PU932242A X N4
23
3
WHEATLAND A X T53b
25
2
P9509A X C26
24
3
Note: WH-White, CR-Cream, RD-Red, L.BR-Light brown, BR-Brown
Grain
weight
(g)/panicle
20
16
80
105
80
90
120
1.6. Harmonization of Experimental Methods.
This was accomplished and reported in the October 2011 Technical report.
1.7 Screening for disease resistance in sorghum
A. Activity:
Work done by Moi University was completed and reported in the October 2011 Technical report.
Page 39 of 69 Objective 2: Promote access and utilization of appropriate sorghum based technology
packages to enhance production and handling of sorghum at the household level
2.1. Baseline surveys for seed systems and sorghum utilization
Results and Discussions
Work done by Moi University was completed and presented in the October 2011 Technical
report.
2.2. Technology validation:
Work done by Moi University was completed and presented in the October 2013 Technical report
2.3. Create awareness among farmers and critical stakeholders on benefits of technologies
to their life challenges:
The project planted demonstration plots at Sega, Matayos and Koyonzo of the few selected
materials between April-August 2014. Farmers from the project sites were invited and
transported to Matayos site for sensitization (Appendix G 4 to G 6).The project also invited five
new stakeholders who were very positive about partnering with the sorghum project in order to
enhance creating awareness and adoption of the newly introduced sorghum lines. These included:
C-MAD- Community Mobilization against Desertification, Catholic Diocese of Homabay,
Kephis-Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services, CARD- Community Action for Rural
Development and REFSO-Rural Energy Food Security Organization (Kenya seed, Kephis,
Western seed). The farmers were trained on how to use an energy conserving jiko as an oven to
make value added sorghum products. The farmers made several of these products on their own in
their homes. See the attached pdf.
Objective 3: Expand the niche and diversify the use of sorghum products.
3.1 Baseline survey for food security status and uses of sorghum
Already accomplished and presented in the October 2011 Technical report
3.2: Baseline survey for sorghum seed systems and markets
A. Activity
Baseline survey for western Kenya was accomplished and presented in the October 2011
Technical report
3.3: Proximate analysis of selected sorghum lines with emphasis on tannins.
The project conducted nutritional component analysis of 4 elite sorghum lines (T53b, Nyadundo
1, E95a and E117b) in determining the varieties which are suitable for a wide range of products.
Page 40 of 69 From the results, moisture content of the sorghum lines ranged from a high of 12.74%/100g (line
T53b) to a low of 12.35% (Nyadundo 1-1). Ash content ranged from a high of 2.58%/100g (line
T53b) to a low of 1.71%/100g (line 02xC1 (E95a-3) whereas the Nyadundo 1-1 line had the
highest levels of fat (4.60%/100g) and line 02xC1 (E95a-3) had the lowest level (4.19%/100g).
The protein content in the four varieties ranged from a high of 12.130%/100g (Nyadundo 1-1) to
a low of 6.563%/100g (3way cross (E117b-2). The carbohydrate content of 3way cross (E117b2) was the highest (72.1 %/100g) among all the lines whereas Nyadundo 1-1 had the lowest
amount (66.12%/100g) (Table 18). Table 18: Proximate Composition of selected Sorghum elite lines grown Kibos Station, in 2014
Nutrient (%/100g) Moisture Ash Fats Protein CHO Dietary Fibre E117b 12.41 2.19 4.30 6.563 72.10 2.00 E95a 12.70 1.71 4.19 9.178 68.15 2.14 Nyadundo 1 12.35 2.28 4.60 12.130 66.12 2.12 T53b 12.74 2.58 4.49 8.831 68.20 2.11 USDA 9.00 1.30 3.30 11.30 70.00 4.10 The mineral element composition of the sorghum lines are shown in the Table 19. Fe ranged
from 1.797% to 0.679% per 100g with E117b-2 leading in the values. Mn values ranged from a
low of 0.192 % to a high of 0.617% per 100g with E117b-2 in the lead with 0.617%/100g. Na
values were found in trace amounts ranging from 0.032 % to 0.012%. Values of P were also in
trace amounts ranging from 0.040% to 0.029%. The content of K in the sorghum lines ranged
from 0.417%/100g in T53b line to 0.260%/100g in Nyadundo 1-1 line. Zn levels ranged from a
high of 0.429%/100g in 3way cross (E117b-2) line to a low of 0.144%/100g in Nyadundo 1-1
line. The observed values for proteins and other mineral contents suggest that the newly
developed sorghum varieties have improved nutritional values that will be useful in improving
livelihoods of sorghum growing communities in western Kenya if adopted.
Table 19: Mineral composition of sorghum lines grown at Kibos Station in 2014.
Nutrient K (%/100g) Na P Fe Mn Zn E117b 0.286 0.019 0.035 1.797 0.62 0.429 E95a 0.286 0.018 0.029 0.716 0.19 0.194 0.26 0.012 0.04 0.803 0.2 0.144 T53b 0.417 0.032 0.03 0.679 0.26 0.207 USDA(mg) 0.305 0.04 0.285 0.281 0.12 0.147 Nyadundo 1 Page 41 of 69 3.4: Promotion of alternative uses of sorghum with emphasis on human nutrition, and
animal feeds
A. Activity
Moi University has been focussing on developing alternative sorghum products for human
consumptions. This was accomplished and presented in the October 2013 Technical report. This
year the farmers developed some of value added sorghum products on their own using an
improvised oven constructed by for them by Moi University Research Team (Appendix G12.)
Objective 4. Strengthen human and institutional capacity of the sorghum CoP in the EHAf
4.1: Farmer training on agronomic packages
A and B. Activity and Results
This activity was undertaken at Matayos site in July, 2014. One hundred farmers were trained on
agronomy and crop management, harvesting and seed preparation. They were also trained on how
to use the energy conserving Jiko as oven for baking sorghum based value added products and
fuel conservation. The Jiko was constructed at each of the farmers’ homes (Appendix G 2 and
G7).
4.2: Recruitment of 4 Masters Students for training
A. Activity
Recruitment of students, training of farmers and other stakeholders on sorghum production in all
regions.
B. Results
Moi University: Two MSc students are completing their studies soon. They include. Julius
Rajula (Plant Pathology) and Sam Nkomo (Soil science). Sam Nkomo’s Msc thesis has defended
his thesis and awaits the December 2014 graduation while Julius Rajula is under supervision and
will submit before the end of this year.
4.3: Designing of a material transfer agreement (MTA) for exchange of sorghum
lines/germplasm
Already accomplished and presented in the October 2011 Technical report
Page 42 of 69 Appendix A2: MAKERERE UNIVERSITY REPORT
TRAINING OF FARMER RESEARCH NETS ON GROWING SORGHUM FOR SEEDS
Introduction
Since 2005, Makerere University has been carrying out research on developing sorghum with
multiple stress tolerance. The research has been mostly supported by funding from the McKnight
Collaborative Crop Research Programme (CCRP) and Bio-Innovate. The research initiative has
developed elite sorghum lines which are undergoing Multi-Environment Trials (METs). The
MET started in 2013 and it has been carried out in partnership with Farmer Research Networks
(FRN). The purpose of using Farmer Research Network (FRN) is to involve the farmers in
research and tap thier indigenous technology as well as accelerate adoption of the elite lines. In
2013, we worked with the FRN of Popular Knowledge Women’s Initiative (P’KWI) and selected
three elite lines through a participatory variety selection (PVS). We have developed more
advance lines and this year we are evaluating 8 elite lines with three farmer research networks at
four agro-ecologies of sorghum growing in Uganda. Four METs were set in April, 2014 in the
districts of Arua, Apach, Bukedea and Wakiso to evaluate the elite sorghum lines for various
stresses. The major stresses under consideration are drought, striga weeds, foliar diseases,
arthropod pests and birds.
The purpose of the recently concluded training was to engage the FRNs in conducting on-farm
trials and impart on them skills of managing sorghum on-farm trials as well as growing seed
sorghum.
Objectives
i) Explain to the FRNs their roles in managing the METs.
ii) Tap indigenous technologies which can be used to improve knowledge base and research.
iii) Impart knowledge and skills of managing on-farm sorghum trials to the FRNs.
iv) Impart knowledge and skills of growing sorghum for seeds to participants.
v) Forge a working relation with FRNs for continued research efforts.
Resource persons
The training was conducted by a team of scientists from Makerere University (2 persons-Liri
Charles and Aboyo Regina) and National Crops Resources Research Institute (1person-Omara
Jacobs).
Methods
A participatory delivery method was used and participants were engaged throughout the training
by brainstorming, free opinion expression and sharing experiences. As the training was taken to
the farmer’s localities, the training aid we could use were flip charts, flyers of pests and diseases
(colour printed), training manual (pre-printed) and demonstration materials. A field visit followed
the training in each case.
Activities
The training in Apach district for Action for Food Security Network (AFOSEN) took place on
16th May, 2014 at Awii Community Centre. The one in Arua for Rural Producer Organisation
(RPO) took place on 19th May, 2014 at Ayivu centre. Each training was preceded by an opening
prayer and introduction of participants. The role of the FRNs in the METs was explained. The
Page 43 of 69 attributes of an ideal sorghum farmers wanted were sought. The various uses of sorghum that
farmers knew were explored through brain storming. The agronomy of sorghum was detailed to
the farmers. Constraints of sorghum growing and remedy were explored. At the end, a field visit
to the trial sites followed.
Key achievements
i) The training targeted sixty farmers but the turn-up was overwhelming. Ninety three farmers
fully attended the training.
ii) The materials for selfing sorghum (Pollination bags, staplers and staple pins, markers) were
delivered at the same time.
iii) Method demonstration on selfing sorghum was conducted during the training.
iv) Field visit to the trial sites to identify some of the pests and diseases and remedies were
suggested.
Farmers view expressed
When asked what attributes farmers would want in an ideal sorghum, they had these to say:
i) A fast maturing sorghum so that they would not go hungry.
ii) A big headed sorghum with oval shape.
iii) A short sorghum which does not lodge.
iv) A sorghum whose bread is sweet to their taste.
v) A sorghum that has multiple purpose (use).
vi) A sorghum that is tolerant to local conditions (pests and diseases, drought and poor soils).
vii) A sorghum that can ratoon after harvest.
viii)
A sorghum that is red seeded (for bread) or white seeded (for beer).
Indigenous technologies to control pests and birds
Participants said they use the following indigenous technologies to solve the following problems:
i) Dropping sand in the leaf funnel of sorghum when the crop is knee high to control stalk
borers and shoot flies.
ii) Tying rotten offal at the edges of field so that the smell repels birds.
iii) Beating metal pieces to produce sound to scare birds.
Challenges
i) The training was planned for 16th-17th May but the one of 17th dragged to 19th May because
we finished the training at Apach very late and we could not make to Arua the same night.
We travelled the following day on 17th and 18th was a Sunday. More days were spent in field.
ii) The participant’s turn-up was overwhelming and the books, pens and training manuals that
we took were insufficient. However, we bought additional books and pens from a shop.
Page 44 of 69 Way forward
i) Action research to validate the farmer’s indigenous knowledge
Plan for contingency for future trainings
TRAINING MANUAL FOR FARMER RESEARCH NETWORKS (FRN) IN UGANDA SEE ATTACHEMENT OF THE MANUAL
Page 45 of 69 Appendix A3: KARI-REPORT
IMPROVING FOOD AND LIVELIHOOD SECURITY IN THE EAST AND HORN OF AFRICA
USING MULTIPLE STRESS TOLERANT SORGHUM CULTIVARS
Narrative Progress Report on Eastern Kenya Component Grant Identity Number 10-585
C.K. Kamau and Julius Mutisya
Introduction
The McKnight supported sorghum project “Improving Food and Livelihood Security in the
East and Horn of Africa Using Multiple Stress Tolerant Sorghum Cultivars” was conceived
to uplift livelihoods in low income households in the drought prone eastern Africa region. The
project singled out sorghum as the vehicle towards its goal because of inherent resilience to
drought and wide adaptation in the region. The project was conceived and is being implemented
by three institutions: Moi University and Kenya agricultural research institute in Kenya and
Makerere University in Uganda. The lead institution is Moi University. The objectives of the
project are to (1) identify and deploy high yielding farmer acceptable sorghum cultivars adaptable
to major stresses in target areas in the region (2) promote access and application of technologies
that enhance productivity and storability of the produce (3) expand the niche and diversity of
sorghum uses and products (4) strengthen human and institutional capacity for further
development of the sorghum crop. Activities of the project are aligned with the principles of
ecological intensification, natural resource sustainability and overall environmental conservation
and address the prevailing climate change. Since inception the project has identified and pursued
drought, declining soil fertility, acidity soils associated aluminium toxicity, and low available
phosphorus and low human capacity as the biggest threats limiting the role of sorghum in
improved livelihoods. It is basically a development project aimed at integrating broad scientific
principle for synergy and positive impact in a short time span.
Project implementation
The Project implementation is guided by “theory of change” which is anchored on key
assumptions that are modified from time to time in tandem with evolution of the project as
opposed to the rigid logic frame approach. The focal point in the theory is explicitly the project
outcome or interest. Lower down are spheres of influencing the outcome and below that of
control or project objectives. To achieve the desired outcome actor and action platforms and
target communities are required and they collectively form the sphere of action. The outcome of
the project remain the same as the project title. The assumptions of project have remained
relatively the same: (1) sorghum can make a positive impact in livelihoods in semi-arid areas of
the eastern Africa region (2) sorghum value chain involving many actors can enhance benefits to
players and evolve into a vehicle for development (3) Innovation, knowledge and technology can
convert sorghum into the development stimulus envisaged in the project (4) involvement of target
communities and provision of technology options is key to the desired outcome (5) Communities
that enhance environmental, biological and input efficiency have improved livelihood
Page 46 of 69 Progress by objectives
Elsewhere in this report project objectives have been highlighted as to: (1) identify and deploy
high yielding farmer acceptable sorghum cultivars adaptable to major stresses in target areas in
the region (2) promote access and application of technologies that enhance productivity and
storability of the produce (3) expand the niche and diversity of sorghum uses and products (4)
strengthen human and institutional capacity for further development of the sorghum crop.
(1) Identify And Deploy High Yielding Farmer Acceptable Sorghum Varieties
Introduction
Earlier project reports have demonstrated progress towards high yielding farmer acceptable
sorghum varieties. In these reports eighteen varieties were identified through participatory
methods. In Kenya formal commercialization has many obstacles if official releases that required
national performance trial (NPT) and distinctiveness uniformity and stability (DUS) tests have
not been conducted. The two tests are costly processes requiring US$ 3000 per variety. At
eighteen variety level, the problem remained as to which of the eighteen varieties are most
eligible for entry into this extra processes. This called for development of additional
discriminants. Much as farmers in eastern Kenya grow sorghum for grain, forage (stover) is an
important component because of the synergy between livestock and crop sectors at farm level. In
a region prone to crop failure, livestock utilize stubble from the failing crop and give some return.
In successful seasons stover is stored for bad days. Land tillage is by animals and at land
preparation time there is little pasture and plough oxen have lost body condition. The plough
oxen are fed on preserved stubble or stover. Hence varieties with more forage would add value to
the farming system. The period between the end of the short rains and start of long rains season is
very short (15th February- 15th March). For inadequate farm operation time, farmer ratoon
existing sorghum crops. Further, ratoon crops have advantage of escaping the cold weather in the
months of June and July to perform better than seed (freshly) planted sorghum crops. Hence
varieties that ratoon well would add additional value to the farming system. Finally of the
eighteen identified varieties which few would deliver highest benefits to the farming system?,
Thus the eighteen varieties were subjected to these tests as detailed.
Materials and Methods
Eighteen sorghum genotypes, previously preselected in participatory variety selection for farmer
preferences were evaluated for grain and biomass yield in Kiboko. Released varieties were not
included as they had been rejected by farmers in past two rounds of participatory variety
selection. A list of the genotypes used in the trials and some of their attributes are detailed (Table
1).
Page 47 of 69 1.99
3.73
2.14
4.10
2.28
3.82
2.49
2.02
3.79
3.92
2.90
2.62
3.80
3.15
2.65
2.00
1.90
3.28
Grain colour
KAT 137
KAT 52
KAT 62
KAT 100
MSRVE 97 Tall
KAT 75
KAT 135
KAT 127
KAT 11
KAT 166
MSRVE 90-2
MSRVE 94
KAT 161
KAT 13
KAT 87
KAT 40
KAT 46
KAT 26
Glume colour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Farmer assigned score
Code
Genotype
Table 1: Genotypes used the freshly planted and ratoon trials at Kiboko
Black
Brown
Cream/White
Cream
White
Cream with red
White
Cream/White
Cream/White
Cream/White
Cream/White
Cream/with red specks
Cream with Red specks
White
Red
Brown
Cream/White
Cream/White
Cream/White
Brown
Cream
Brown
Cream
Cream
Brown
Black
Brown
Black
The trials was planted in Kiboko (020 12’ 48.3” S and 0370 42’ 58.6”E) on 8th November 2013
It was planted in Randomized Complete Block Design with two replications and comprised of
eighteen (18) genotypes. Plots comprised of four rows, 5 m long per genotype in a replication.
A basal fertilizer: NPK 18:46:0 was applied and mixed with soil at the rate of 37.5 g row-1 (5m x
0.75m) equivalent to 100 kg ha-1. Seed were placed by hand in pairs at 20 cm intervals along
farrows 75 cm apart and thinned to one seedling at 3-leaf stage to yield an approximate plant
population of 66,000 plants ha-1 . The field layout design was computer generated (Genstat
software) along with data recording field book. At flowering, time to flowering was recorded as
period in days from first rains to when 50% of the anthers extruded from 50% of the panicles in
each plot. Similarly, time to physiological maturity was recorded as as period in days from first
rains to when basal grains in 50% of the tagged main stem panicles showed black layer at grain
attachment to panicle. Other data was recorded on: (1) number of tillers per plant (2) height to the
flag leaf (main stem) (3) height to base of panicle (main stem) (4) height to the tip of panicle
(main stem), (5) net plot (2 mid rows) grain yield. Panicle length was derived as difference
between height to tip and height to base of the panicle. Similarly panicle exertion was derived as
difference between height to the base of the panicle and height to the flag leaf. Height to the tip
of panicle (main stem) was considered the plant height. Other data were recorded on the
following traits: plant stand after thinning (no.), stem borer attack (score), shoot-fly attack
Page 48 of 69 (score), exertion of the panicle above the flag leaf (cm), harvested plot head and grain weight (g),
days to half bloom (DT50% bloom). At maturity, panicles with grain were harvested from middle
two rows and dried. The stover was cut and bundled up with twine and left to dry in the plot.
Panicles were dried weighed and threshed grain weighed. The rationing stumps were only top
dresses with C.A.N fertilizer at similar rate as the seed trial. Stem borers were control with
insecticides. Ratoon data was recorded as for the main crop.
Data was statistically summarized following analysis of variance procedure, Genstat 15 statistic
software (Anon, 2013).
Results
A Comparison of fleshly planted and ratoon crops revealed that the two treatments in general
differed significantly. The fleshly planted and ratoon crops trials differed significantly in plant
stand, shootfly damage, height to flag leaf, no of ears, grain and stover yield (p<0.5). The two
treatments were similar in stem borer damage, duration to 50% flowering and to maturity. This
analysis revealed significant genotype × trial interaction. Generally the differences were in favour
of the fleshly planted crop. The results are detailed (Table 1).
Stem borer Damage (15) score
Shootfly Damage (1-5)
score
Days to 50% Flowering
Days to Maturity
Height to flag leaf
No of ears
Grain yield (t ha-1)
Stover yield (t ha-1)
Fresh crop
Ratoon
crop
Mean
S.E.D
Probability
Plant Stand
Trial
Table 1: Performance of 18 Farmer Preferred Sorghum Genotypes Under Fleshly Planted and
Ratoon Crops
56.94
2.11
1.83
64.67
88.03
140.80
64.53
2.56
5.77
34.78
45.86
1.81
**
1.92
2.01
0.13
ns
2.58
2.21
0.29
*
62.53
63.60
1.15
ns
90.06
89.04
1.62
ns
116.00
128.40
9.22
**
40.50
52.50
3.47
**
0.47
1.51
0.11
**
0.79
3.28
0.28
**
Analysis of variance revealed that under seed planted crop condition, genotypes differed
significantly (p< 0.05) in the all the traits: plant stand, height to flag leaf, number of ears, grain
weight and dry stover weight except in shootfly damage. The performance is detailed (Table 2).
Page 49 of 69 Stover yield (t ha-1)
No of ears
Shoot fly Damage (1-5) score
Stem borer Damage (1-5) score
Height to flag leaf
Mean
S.E.D
Days to Maturity
Kat 137
Kat 52
Kat 62
Kat100
MSRVE 97 Tall
Kat 75
Kat 135
Kat 127
Kat 11
Kat 166
MSRVE 90-2
MSRVE 94
Kat 161
Kat 13
Kat 87
Kat 40
Kat 46
Kat 26
56.7
53.2
59.5
52.1
56.1
60.4
55.3
55.1
56.7
59.5
56.0
62.6
51.5
53.3
57.5
58.2
61.6
59.7
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
79.0
61.0
64.5
61.0
67.0
61.5
70.0
75.0
62.0
57.0
64.5
64.5
60.0
59.5
58.0
67.5
65.5
66.5
105.5
82.0
89.0
85.5
90.0
82.0
97.5
101.0
85.0
78.5
87.5
91.0
82.0
80.0
78.0
91.5
89.5
89.0
284.0
130.0
87.0
154.0
149.0
131.5
114.0
177.0
150.5
131.5
145.0
148.0
145.5
147.5
116.5
76.5
84.0
162.5
65.5
48.0
93.0
57.5
61.5
59.0
53.5
55.0
55.5
53.5
63.5
64.0
62.0
64.0
115.0
63.5
64.0
63.5
1.4
2.9
2.1
2.6
3.2
2.4
3.1
2.5
2.4
1.9
3.4
3.0
2.7
3.0
1.4
2.5
2.3
3.2
8.2
5.6
4.3
5.3
6.3
4.9
5.8
9.9
4.4
4.0
6.4
7.4
4.8
4.8
5.6
4.4
4.3
7.7
56.94
4.28
2.11
0.38
1.83
0.89
64.67
1.19
88.03
1.92
140.8
6.58
64.53
6
2.56
0.19
5.77
0.33
Plant Stand
Variety
Table 2: Performance of 18 Farmer Preferred Sorghum Genotypes under Fleshly Planted Crop
Condition
Under ratoon crop condition, genotypes differed significantly (p< 0.05) in the all the traits:
plant stand, stem borer damage, shootfly damage, days to 50% flowering, days to maturity,
height to flag leaf, no of ears, grain yield, and stover yield, The performance is detailed (Table
3).
Shoot fly Damage (1-5) score
50.2
23.2
43.0
35.6
39.1
24.4
47.3
41.6
29.2
19.5
34.5
30.1
22.0
30.3
32.0
42.7
44.6
36.7
2.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
7.0
2.0
68.0
60.0
63.5
59.5
65.0
59.0
67.5
66.0
57.0
61.0
64.5
65.5
61.5
60.0
56.0
66.0
65.0
60.5
104.0
86.5
92.5
87.0
87.5
86.5
95.5
94.5
83.0
87.0
91.5
93.5
86.5
90.0
80.0
95.5
92.5
87.5
208.5
106.0
68.5
109.5
131.5
108.0
97.5
118.5
131.0
119.5
125.0
143.5
121.5
118.0
107.0
68.0
78.0
128.0
62.0
28.0
52.0
43.0
49.0
32.5
52.0
37.0
33.0
23.0
40.5
31.5
24.0
38.5
38.0
49.0
55.5
40.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
34.78
4.28
1.92
0.38
2.58
0.89
62.53
1.19
90.06
1.92
116
6.58
40.5
6
0.47
0.19
0.79
0.33
No of ears
Height to flag leaf
Mean
S.E.D
Days to Maturity
Kat 137
Kat 52
Kat 62
Kat100
MSRVE 97 Tall
Kat 75
Kat 135
Kat 127
Kat 11
Kat 166
MSRVE 90-2
MSRVE 94
Kat 161
Kat 13
Kat 87
Kat 40
Kat 46
Kat 26
Plant Stand
Variety
Table 3: Performance of 18 Farmer Preferred Sorghum Genotypes under Ratoon Crop Condition
Combined analysis of ratoon and seed crop condition revealed significant (p< 0.05) genotypic
differences in all the traits: plant stand, stem borer damage, shootfly damage, days to 50%
flowering, days to maturity, height to flag leaf, no of ears, grain yield, and stover yield, The
performance is detailed (Table 4).
Shootfly Damage (1-5) score
53.5
38.2
51.3
43.8
47.6
42.4
51.3
48.4
42.9
39.5
45.3
46.4
36.8
41.8
44.8
50.5
53.1
48.2
2.3
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.3
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.8
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.5
1.8
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.3
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.8
4.5
2.0
73.5
60.5
64.0
60.3
66.0
60.3
68.8
70.5
59.5
59.0
64.5
65.0
60.8
59.8
57.0
66.8
65.3
63.5
104.8
84.3
90.8
86.3
88.8
84.3
96.5
97.8
84.0
82.8
89.5
92.3
84.3
85.0
79.0
93.5
91.0
88.3
246.3
118.0
77.8
131.8
140.3
119.8
105.8
147.8
140.8
125.5
135.0
145.8
133.5
132.8
111.8
72.3
81.0
145.3
63.8
38.0
72.5
50.3
55.3
45.8
52.8
46.0
44.3
38.3
52.0
47.8
43.0
51.3
76.5
56.3
59.8
52.0
1.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.1
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.7
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.9
4.9
3.2
2.5
2.9
3.6
2.8
3.4
5.4
2.4
2.3
3.7
4.1
2.7
2.6
3.2
2.5
2.5
4.3
45.86
3.81
2.01
0.13
2.21
0.3
63.6
0.4
89.04
0.64
128.4
2.19
52.51
2
1.51
0.06
3.28
0.11
No of ears
Height to flag leaf
Mean
S.E.D
Days to Maturity
Kat 137
Kat 52
Kat 62
Kat100
MSRVE 97 Tall
Kat 75
Kat 135
Kat 127
Kat 11
Kat 166
MSRVE 90-2
MSRVE 94
Kat 161
Kat 13
Kat 87
Kat 40
Kat 46
Kat 26
Plant Stand
Variety
Table 4: Combined Performance of 18 Farmer Preferred Sorghum Genotypes Under Fleshly
Planted and Ratoon Crop Condition
Discussion and conclusions
This research has demonstrated a G × E in two important traits: seed planted and ratoon crops. In
order of importance seed based crop is most important followed by ratoon. But the ratoon is not
independent of the seed crop. The sphere of interest in this case is varieties that combine high
yield in seed and ratoon crops starting with grain and starting with freshly planted crop (Table 2),
Page 52 of 69 the most important farming system. Selecting 2 × S.E.D above mean grain weight identifies in
order of superiority the genotypes MSRVE 90-2, MSRVE 97 Tall, Kat 26, Kat 135, MSRVE 94,
Kat 13 and Kat 52. Similarly, selecting above mean by grain yield in ratoon identifies Kat 135,
Kat 137, MSRVE 97 Tall, MSRVE 90-2, Kat 26, Kat 62, Kat100, Kat 127, Kat 87, and Kat 46.
Selecting by combined performance in ratoon and seed crops identifies the genotypes MSRVE
90-2, MSRVE 97 Tall, Kat 135, Kat 26, MSRVE 94, Kat 13, and Kat 52. Selecting by both seed
and fresh crops identifies Kat 135, Kat 26, MSRVE 90-2, and MSRVE 97 Tall. Selecting by all
criteria: seed crop, fresh crops and combined analysis identifies Kat 135, Kat 26, MSRVE 90-2,
and MSRVE 97 Tall. Thus the varieties Kat 135, Kat 26, MSRVE 90-2, and MSRVE 97 Tall
would be eligible for NPT and DUS if yield and ratoonability were the only criteria. Working
from stover yield in the same process Kat 127, Kat 137, Kat 26, MSRVE 90-2, MSRVE 94,
MSRVE 97 Tall, and Kat 52 Kat 87 are selectable in that order. In conclusion stepwise selection
by grain yield in fresh crop followed by selection in ratoon was most effective selection criterion.
It selected for both grain and forage yield. It can also be concluded that grain and stover yield are
positively correlated. Overall Kat 26, Kat 135 MSRVE 90-2, MSRVE 97 Tall, are the selected
varieties for NPT and DUS. However farmers have adopted and are commercializing KAT
161and KAT 13, because of this aspect they add to the candidate NPT/DUS list
Objective 2 and 4: Promote Access and Application of Technologies / Strengthen Human
and Institutional Capacity for Further Development of the Sorghum Crop
Introduction
Genetic improvements made in past regional research initiatives in the east and horn of Africa
region are still inaccessible to farmers. If the elite germplasm developed is made accessible, which
of the new varieties could farmers choose? This activity aims to answer such questions. To provide
farmers with superior varieties from past sorghum breeding initiatives, eighteen sorghum varieties
identified as significantly more farmer preferred in participatory varieties selection earlier on in
this research, were evaluated on-farm under farmer managed and under research scientist managed
conditions. The objective were to (1) open access of the varieties to farmer (2) valuate
performance of 18 significantly more farmer preferred PVS selections (2) give the farmers hosting
the trials hands-on training on best bet sorghum production technologies to grow the varieties i.e.
plant population, plant arrangement, pest control and fertility management.
Page 53 of 69 Materials and Methods Evaluation Trial
The area of research is Tharaka north district of Kenya
On farm and in a common field (field school), the varieties were grown in randomized complete
block design having a factorial arrangement of treatments. The treatments were varieties and
fertilizer application in various ways as detailed (table 1). In the field school and under guidance
of researchers, thirty-six farmers in two groups of 18 farmers planted the trial and did the
fertilization. Each group planting a replication. The aim was to impart hand on experience to each
farmer before planting their choices in their farms. Thereafter each of the farmers was assigned
one of the 18 variety to grown on his/her farm as practiced in the field school and apply assigned
1.5 kg fertilizer as in the field school. Each groups formed a replications. Under research scientist
managed conditions, the varieties were grown on-station in plots of four rows five meters long in
randomized complete block design at Kiboko (proceeding report). The standard fertilizer rate of
100kg NPK 18:46:0 similar to on-station trial (Table 1) subplot-four (46 kg N and 20 kg P 2 O 5 ha1
) was used. The treatments are detailed (Table 1). Sorghum plants were spaced 0.75 m x 0.20 m
or approximately 66000 plant population ha-1. The participating farmer group members were
involved in planting and other agronomic crop management practices after establishment under
researcher guidance. Verbal training took place at followed by practice took place at the field
school. Thereafter farmers practiced on their farms with one of the 18 varieties they had chosen.
Kat 26
Kat 46
Kat 46
Kat 87
Kat 13
Kat 161
MSRVE 94
MSRVE 90-2
Kat 166
Kat 11
Kat 127
Kat 135
Kat 75
MSRVE 97 Tall
Kat100
Kat 62
Kat 52
Fertilizer and
fertilization Variety
levels
Kat 137
Treatments (on-farm)
Table 1: Detailed treatments structure applied to most farmer preferred sorghum varieties in the
on-farm sorghum varieties evaluation study
0 kg N + 0 kg P ha-1
26 kg N + 0 kg P ha-1
20 kg N + 20 kg P ha-1
46 kg N + 20 kg P ha-1
46 kg N + 20 kg P ha-1
Page 54 of 69 For the on farm trial farmers were trained during 2nd quarter on:
1) Land preparation, spacing of furrows and application of fertilizers
2) When to weed and importance Good weed management
3) Thinning plants and establishment of recommended sorghum plant populations
4) shootfly damage scouting and shoot-fly control and threshold for control
5) when and how to top-dressing a sorghum crop (avoiding fertilizer injury)
6) The farmers were trained on post-harvest pests control technologies
7) They were trained in drying grains grain for storage (11% moisture)
8) On treatment with grain protective dusts (actellic super and sumicombi) were recommended
9) On grain storage grain and store conditions suitable to avoid infestation by weevils and
larger borer
10) They were also informed of available and upcoming storage structure
(a) the new metal grain silos and candle technic to deprive weevils of oxygen
(b) The USAID developed grain storage treated bags
General Observations On the On-farm Activity
x
x
x
x
Farmers who planted assigned variety without delay got good harvest
Farmers who delayed planting assigned variety in general failed but the few extremely
drought tolerant varieties
Farmers identified “Entry KAT 75 and MSRVE-97 tall” as having juicy sweet stems
The fertilizer treatment effect was very clear:
o Zero-fertilizer plots performed very poorly
o Treatment C.A.N. + D.A.P. combination plots performed best as judged by
farmers
o The Sub-county Agricultural officer (SCAO) was very interested on the on-farm
activity
o He saw possibility of new sorghum varieties for the area likely from the varieties
Way Forward
x
The department of food research (food science) is in the process of organizing utilization
and processing groups. Recruitment and sensitization of farmers groups on value addition
are at an advanced stage. The varieties KAT 161 and KAT 13 are most popular with
farmer and deserve further attention. The farmer Velina Gatiitiria has been able to sell to
other farmers all that she produced.
Page 55 of 69 APPENDIX C: THEORY OF CHANGE
8
Improved livelihood strategies for communities living in arid
and semi arid zones of the region contributes to enhanced
food, nutrition and income security
Options, technologies, innovations and approaches for unlocking
the potential of sorghum productivity generated and promoted in
the region
9
6
4
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
Increased production and
Improved access and
Enhanced
productivity of sorghum in
application of
utilisation of
ASALs & marginal areas
knowledge by engaging
sorghums\; value
through improved
stakeholders in
addition for
varieties, production and
technology
improved food and
management strategies
development and
feed
evaluation
.
Objective 4
Strengthening
human and
institutional
capacity of
sorghum CoP in
5
EHAf
7
National and regional R4D institutions marshalled to engage with communities using new technologies and innovation platforms to learn, develop & promote utilization of sorghum along its values chain in semi arid lands of East Africa.
Sphere of interest Sphere of influence
1 Sphere of 2 control
3
Sphere of control
Increased production and productivity of sorghum in ASALs & marginal areas through improved varieties, production and management strategies
Objective 1 Page 58 of 69 APPENDIX D: INTEGRATED MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
M and E plan :
CCRP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Project:
Improving Food and Livelihood Security in the East and Horn of Africa Using Multiple Stress Tolerant Sorghum Cultivars.
Outcome: Improved production for markets and home consumption
Output 1. Improved superior varieties for drought, soil acidity and/or Striga weed and diseases in marginal areas of EHAf
Research Question
Have we characterised the test
environments?
Do we have the required
germplasm for breeding and
testing in the environments?
Have we appropriately selected
the farmers to be involved in
evaluations and Participatory
variety selection (PVS)
Do we have the appropriate
experimental designs and tools
and standards in place
How far have we undertaken
novel germplasm for those
environments
Research Strategy/Activities
-Sites selected for drought, acidity, phosphorus and
Striga experiments selected and characterised by June
2011
-GIS data acquired and analysed by June 2011
Germplasm for drought, aluminium, P, and Striga
collected and inventoried by April 2011
-At least five (5) farmers selected for each AEZ by May
2011
- Site standard (bio-physical) for Al and P/ Striga,
drought and diseases threshold for site testing
- Adoption assessment/socio economic aspects tools
and checklists for W. Kenya. E. Kenya and Uganda
- Statistics/Experimental designs (incomplete lattice
design was proposed) – to work with Richard Coe
- Standard
plant
variety
characteristic/description/ontology to be used in
project
- Thresholds for stress assessments (Striga, drought,
disease)
- Description of farming systems and AEZs
- Improved sorghum for resistance to Striga, drought,
Al, P and diseases
- Multiple stress tolerant sorghum lines selected in
Evaluation Question
- To what extent have the activities
been achieved?
- What have been the challenges and
lessons learnt and are these indicated
in your report?
in your report?
been achieved?
in your report?
been achieved?
been achieved
in your report?
Evaluation Strategy
- Reports submitted mid and yearly
report and corresponding corrective
actions
- Progress and evaluation meetings
twice a year
- Onsite visit by PI to project sites
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
- Assignment
reports
by
team
members
Page 59 of 69 various AEZs in Round 1 by March 2012
- Multiple stress tolerant sorghum lines selected at each
site in Round 2 by July 2012
- multiple stress tolerant sorghum lines selected at the
regional level in Round 3 by March 2013
- Release of multiple stress tolerant varieties by
August 2013.
Outcome: Utilization by farmers and other stakeholders of the novel sorghum varieties to improve their productivity
Output 2. Enhanced access to improved cultivars by farmers
What is the current situation with
regard to sorghum seed systems?
Baseline survey done by May 2011 for seed systems in
Kenya and Uganda
been achieved?
What are the current uses of
sorghum for food and feed in the
targeted areas?
Baseline survey done by May 2011 for uses in Kenya
and Uganda
in your report?
What is the level of awareness of
farmers and stakeholders for
improved sorghum technologies?
Have the technologies been
validated in terms of food and
variety preferences?
Conduct sensitization workshops and field days for the
technologies
1. Striga tolerance
2. Drought
3. Diseases
4. Al/P
5. Nutrition status
been achieved?
Conduct the under-listed experiments
1. Nutritional composition of new technologies
2. Develop and test feed and food products
3. Assess the volume of seed in the market (see
been achieved?
in your report?
in your report?
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
Outcome: Improved production for markets and home consumption
Output 3. Expand niche and diversify uses of sorghum
What is the source and
characteristics of sorghum seed
for planting in the selected
populations and markets?
Conduct baseline surveys to know the type and
characteristics of sorghum being used by the markets in
Kenya and Uganda
been achieved?
in your report?
actions
twice a year
Page 60 of 69 What markets exist for sorghum
grain in the selected populations
for food and feed?
Conduct baseline surveys to know the type and
characteristics of sorghum being used by the markets in
Kenya and Uganda by May 2011
been achieved?
in your report?
Have we created awareness for
the potential for the new
technologies for food and feed?
Conduct sensitization workshops and open days for the
technologies in Kenya and Uganda
actions
twice a year
been achieved?
actions
- What have been the challenges and - Progress and evaluation meetings
twice a year
in your report?
Outcome: Improved productivity of farmers and research processes based on knowledge accessed and utilized (i.e. high scientific quality)
Output 4: Capacity building to improve performance of sorghum agricultural research for development
What capacities do we need for
R&D
How best can we increase
knowledge and strength of the
sorghum formal seed system in
Kenya and Uganda?
How best can we increase
farmers knowledge and adoption
of technologies
How will research teams share
sorghum lines and other material
Recruit and train students and scientists in relevant
research areas related to sorghum
1. MSc
2. PhD
3. BSc
4. Technicians
5. Various research skills
Develop and use Material Transfer Agreements
been achieved?
in your report?
been achieved?
in your report?
been achieved?
in your report?
been achieved?
in your report?
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
actions
twice a year
Page 61 of 69 APPENDIX E: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
OBJECTIVE 1
1. Can multiple stress tolerant sorghum lines that perform well under farmer conditions be
developed?
Activities
Outputs
1.Variety development
Are farmers accessing
and using the multiple
stress tolerant
sorghum cultivars?
1.1.Participatory Breeding
1.2. Participatory
Selection and evaluation
1.3. Multiplication
1.4.Variety release
Evaluation question
Methods to
address the
evaluation
question
Survey,
Documentation
Crosses and
segregating
populations
1.Elite lines and
multiple stress
tolerance sorghum
Bulked seed of the
selected lines
NPT and variety
release
Objective 2
1. Can stakeholder engagement enhance access to and utilization of knowledge and improved
technology
Activities
Outputs
Evaluation question
Methods to
address the
evaluation
question
2.1.Identify and
mobilize sorghum
stakeholder platforms
Number of cohesive
action groups
identified and
mobilized
What are the significant
changes on productivity,
resulting from deployment
of multiple stress tolerant
sorghum cultivars
Collect information
on yields and
number of farmers
using the new
technology/adoption
rates/farm sizes
2.2.Exposure to and
participatory validation
of technologies
Stakeholder
preferred technology
options
Page 62 of 69 OBJECTIVE 3
1. What alternative uses of sorghum can enhance utilization of sorghum at household level?
Activities
Outputs
Evaluation
question
3.1.Identify and develop
alternative sorghum
products
Alternative sorghum
products identified and
developed
To what extent
are households
and processors
increasing their
use of sorghum
and sorghum
products?
3.2.Promotion of
alternative uses of
sorghum
Alternative products for
food and feed promoted
Methods to
address the
evaluation
question
Collect
information on
use of
sorghum and
its products
OBJECTIVE 4
1. What capacity is required to enhance sorghum production and utilization
Activities
Outputs
Evaluation
question
4.1.Training needs
assessment
Training gaps and
groups identified
What capacities
have been
developed and
how have these
influenced
research on
sorghum in the
East and horn of
africa region?
4.2. Organize training
Groups trained
Methods to
address the
evaluation
question
Training,
Changes after
training
Page 63 of 69 APPENDIX F: DATA AND DOCUMENT STORE
The data we have generated so far is stored in a local database
APPENDIX G: PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHS
Appendix G1: Farmers selecting preferred sorghum varieties at Matayos site in July 4
Appendix G2: An improvised Energy saving Jiko which can be used as an oven for baking Page 64 of 69 Appendix G 3: Sorghum multiplication in Kibos site during the long rains of 2013
Appendix G4: Sorghum field demonstration at Sega site (April-August) 2014.
Appendix G5: Sorghum field demonstration at Matayos site (April-August) 2014 Page 65 of 69 Appendix G 6: Sorghum field demonstration at Koyonzo site (April-August) 2014). Appendix G 7: Participants attending training at Arua
Page 66 of 69 Appendix G 8: Participants attending
training at Apach Appendix G 9: Participants at a
lunch break
Appendix G 10: Researcher
and host farmer in the trial field
Appendix G 11: A well manage trial field
in Arua
Appendix G 12: Farmers at Sega
preparing and eating sorghum cake
which they made using energy
conserving Jiko/oven
Page 67 of 69 REFERENCES.
Ajambo R. (2012) Producer preferences for attributes of maize and sorghum. MSC Agricultural
economics Makerere University
Dagg, M., Woodhead, T. and Rijks, D.A. (1970). Evaporation in East Africa. Bulletin of the
International Association of Scientific Hydrology XV: 61 – 67.
Beshir, M. M. (2011). Development of Molecular Markers for Introgression of Resistance to
Turcicum Leaf Blight in Sorghum (Masters Thesis ). Kampala.
Ejeta, G., A, Rich, A. M., Patrick, R., Admusu, M., Thomas, L. H., & Dale, E. H. (1999).
Selection for specific mechanisms of resistance to striga in sorghum. workshop on breeding
for Striga resistance in cereals (pp. 1-7). Ibadan: Purdue University, ICRISAT, IITA.
Elyanu. J. (2003). Assessment of factors affecting adoption of improved sorghum varieties in
eastern Uganda, Msc thesis, Makerere University.
Haris, K., Subudhi, P. K., Andrew, B., Jordan, D., Rosenow, D., Nguyen, H., et al. (2007).
Sorghum stay-green QTL individually reduce post-flowering drought-induced leaf
senescence. Journal of Experimental Botany 58 :327-338.
AOAC. (1995). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International. Virginia,
USA
Blaha J, Saleh-el Dis H. M, Christodoulou V, Mudrik Z (1984). The possibility of replacing
maize by sorghum in broiler chick feed mixtures. Agricultura-Tropica et-Subtropica 17: 175
– 187
James Payne, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Stan Daberkow,( 2003). Factors affecting the likelihood
of adoption of corn root worm Bt seed adoption. Economic Research service, United
States Department of Agriculture. AgBioForum, 6 (1&2):79-86.
Kayodé, A. P. P., Adegbidi, A., Hounhouigan, J. D., Linnemann, A. R., & Nout, M. J. R. (2005).
Quality of farmers’ varieties of sorghum and derived foods as perceived by consumers in
Benin. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 44(4), 271-294
Kyarisiima, C.C., Okot, M.W., and Svihus, B. (2004). Use of wood ash in the treatment of high
tannin sorghum for poultry feeding. South African Journal of Animal Science 34 111-115.
Price, M.L., Van Scoyoc, S. & Butler, L.G., (1978). A critical evaluation of the vanillin reaction
as an assay for tannin in sorghum grain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26: 1214-1218.
Okot, M.W. & Mujabi, S.N., (2001). The response of broiler chicks to dietary Serena sorghum.
Uganda Journal Agricultural Sciences 6:13-18.
Salissou, I. (2009). Nutritional value of sorghum for poultry feed in West Africa. PhD.
Dissertation, Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture,
Page 68 of 69 Earthtrends, (2003). http//earthtrends.wri.org
ECASARM (2005). Sorghum and Millet Research for Development in Eastern and Central
Africa 2005 – 2010: Regional priorities. 55pp.
Ejeta, G. (2007). Breeding for Striga resistance in sorghum: Exploitation of an intricate hostparasite Biology Crop Sc 47-S-216-S-227.
EABL (East African Breweries Limited). (2010). EABL Maltings’ shift to Sorghum production
set to improve Livelihoods in Eastern Province: Press release.
http://www.eabl.com/inner.asp?pcat=mediacentre&cat=newspressreleases&sid=402
Eswaran, H., Reich, P. and Beinroth, F. (1997) Global distribution of soils with Acidity.“In PlantSoil Interaction at Low PH” (A.C. Moniz, ed.). pp, 159-164. Brazilian soil science society.
FAO, Rome, (2009). Editors: Ceccarelli, S. I, Gumareas, E.P. and Weltzien, E. Pp323-367. Grain
report, (2005).
Fischler M, Wortmann C.S. (1999). Green manures for maize-bean systems in eastern Uganda:
Agronomic performance and farmers’ perceptions’. Agrof. Systems 47: 123–138.
Kakuru, W.; Okia, C. and Okorio, J. (2004). Strategy for Agroforestry Development in Uganda’s
Drylands. Paper presented at the Drylands Agroforestry Workshop 1st-3rd September 2004.
ICRAF Headquarters, Nairobi- Kenya.
Kanyanjua, S.M., Ireri, L., Wambua, S. and Nandwa, S.M. (2002) Acid soils in Kenya:
Constraints and remedial options. KARI Technical Note No. 11.
Kochian L.V, Hoekenga O.A, Pineros M.A. (2004). How do crop plants tolerate acid soils?
Mechanisms of aluminium tolerance and phosphorus efficiency. Annu. Review of plant
Biology 55:459-493.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy.
74(2): 132-157.
Page 69 of 69

- Collaborative Crop Research Program

Transcription

Similar documents

We`d like to express a sincere thank you to all of our sponsors – you

Russell

Market Plan

Berthold Farmers Elevator, LLC Pre

research report 11 - Water and Land Resources Centre (WLRC)

A Supplement of the DoDge City DAily globe

Saturn Bioponics

New Designs!

Field-Notes

accomplishments - City of Rock Island