1

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE OF TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF AGROFORESTRY

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION ABOUT THE INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF

SHADE TREES IN COCOA FARM (Theobroma cacao L) AT EJISU-JUABEN DISTRICT

BY

SAMUEL ANNANI YAKAH

MAY, 2012

2

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE OF TECHNOLOG, KUMASI

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF AGROFORESTRY

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION ABOUT THE INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF

SHADE TREES IN COCOA FARM (Theobroma cacao L) AT EJISU-JUABEN DISTRICT

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL

RESOURCES, KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN NATURAL

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.

BY

SAMUEL ANNANI YAKAH

MAY, 2012

3

ABSTRACT

Shade trees are very important in cocoa cultivation in maintaining soil fertility especially for

resource poor cocoa farmers in West Africa who are known to deliberately retain desirable trees

to provide shade for young cocoa during land preparation. To assess the current status of this

practice and find out the farmers’ most preferred shade tree species, three villages including

Juaben, Dumakwai and Ofoase in the Ejisu-Juaben District were purposively selected on the

basis of their long-term history in cocoa production in the district. To categorize farmers, a

stratified random sampling from the farmers was done. Farmers were grouped on the basis of

number of years of experience in cocoa farming. A total of 102 farmers were sampled and

interviewed. The result indicated that majority of the cocoa farms (49%) were having shade trees

from 1-4 per acre of cocoa whiles 12% had no shade trees on cocoa. The most important shade

tree characteristic considered by farmers was shade quality which includes crown size, crown

shape, deciduousness (evergreen during the dry season) and crown density. Majority of the cocoa

farms (55%) were established by cutting down the forest and selectively leaving some trees as

shade for cocoa planted beneath the canopy to take advantage of the soil fertility build up. The

others were replanted old cocoa farms and abandoned cocoa farms where shade trees were

integrated through natural regeneration (29%) and planted seedlings (15%) respectively. The

yield of cocoa was found to be higher in farms that were established in the forest by cutting

down some trees and leaving selected ones as shade for cocoa. In conclusion the study

recommends among others that there should be socio-economic studies that will help develop

full range incentives for farmers who retain shade trees in cocoa farms.

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Is not by my power nor by my knowledge O lord, but unto you I do give all the glory and honor

for your ceaseless divine protection without which this work would not have been a reality.

First and foremost, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Victor Rex

Barnes for constructive criticism, guidance and patience. When the next step is not clear, you are

always there for me. It has being a great experience working with you, sir.

To lecturers’ especially my academic tutor Mr. Jonny Osei Kofi, national service personnel and

all members of the F.R. N. R. who in one way or the other assisted me during my stay in the

university. I owe you all a depth of gratitude.

My sincere appreciation goes to the District Manager of the produce buying company at

Effiduase for his immense contribution and assistance extended to me during the inception of

this work. To the key informant at CRIG, Mr. Seth Amankwah for his valuable thoughts and

time shared during the interview. Special thanks to my colleague Mr. Charles Atakora for

introducing me to my study area and the various farmers and chief farmers at the study area.

To the chief farmers and the farmers who accepted to take part, and participated actively, in my

on-farm observation and inspections and other farmers who welcomed me and participated with

great enthusiasm in the interviews to share their indigenous knowledge, I convey my special

gratitude.

My profound appreciation goes to my beloved and wonderful family especially Mr. and Mrs.

Opoku to whom this thesis is dedicated for their support and enormous contribution throughout

my education.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

TOPIC…………………………………………………………………………..…………….…..ii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….…….……iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………....……………..…..……...…iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………….…………....……....….…v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background……………..………………………………………….……………..…...……..1

1.2 Research Aim…………..………...…………………………………………….…..…..…….2

1.3 Research Objectives……………..…...………………………………………..……..………2

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Cocoa…………………………………………………………………………...……………..3

2.2 Cocoa Production in the Globe…………………………………...………….……...………4

2.3 Cocoa Production and Economic Importance in Ghana…………..………..……...……..4

2.4 Cocoa Cultivation………......……………………………………………………………..….5

2.5 Trees on Cocoa……………...…………...………………………………………………..….7

2.5.1 NTFPs and food production………………………………………...…….…..……….8

2.5.2 Timber production…………………….……………………………………..………10

2.5.3 Environmental benefits-biodiversity conservation…..……..……………..…………11

2.6 Tree-Crop Interactions………...…….………………………………………….………….11

6

2.6.1 Physiological benefits from shade trees………………………………………………12

2.6.1.1 Light availability……………………………………...………………………13

2.6.1.2 Temperature, wind speed and humidity……….……………..……………….13

2.6.1.3 Soil conditions……….……..…………………………….…………...………14

2.6.1.3.1 Organic matter and nutrient cycle..………….…………………………14

2.6.1.3.2 Erosion, runoff and soil structure……………………………......…15

2.6.1.3.3 Competition……………………………..…………………..………15

2.7 The Role of Shade in Pests and Diseases Control………………………………………...16

2.8 Provision of Shade………………….....……………………………………………………17

2.8.1 Temporal shade in cocoa………..……………………..………………………………17

2.8.2 Permanent shade in cocoa…………………………………………….……………….18

2.8.3 Shade canopy management………………………………………….…………...……19

2.9 The role of MoFA and COCOBOD in the Management of Cocoa Cultivation……..….21

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Descriptions of the Study Area…..………………………………………………………...22

3.2 Climate and Vegetation……………….....…………………………………………………24

3.3 Geology and Soils…………………...…...………………………………………………….24

3.4 Sample Selection and Data Collection……..…………………………………….……...…25

3.5 Field Transect Walk………..……………….…………………………...…….……….…..25

3.6 Data Handling and Analysis………….……………………………………….….………..26

3.7 Limitation…………………………………………………………………….……………..26

7

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

4.1 Background Information of the Respondents…………..………………………..……….27

4.1.1 Sex of the respondents…………………………………………………………..……..27

4.1.2 Ages of the respondents…………………………...……………………………..…….27

4.1.3 Educational background of the respondents……….……………………………….….28

4.2 Ages of the Cocoa Farms……………..……………………………………………….……28

4.3 Farm Sizes…………………………………………….……………………………………..29

4.4 Shade Trees and Crops Associated with Cocoa…...….……….………………………….30

4.5 Density (quantity) of Timber Trees in Cocoa Farms…...………..……………………….31

4.6 Characteristics Considered for the Selection of Shade Trees by Farmers...……...…….32

4.7 Farmers Preferred Shade Trees on Cocoa………………..………………………………33

4.7.1 Farmers reasons for retaining shade trees in cocoa farms…..….………………………34

4.8 Methods of Integrating Shade Trees in Cocoa……………………….…………..……….35

4.9 Comparison of Yield under Different Methods of Shade Tree Integration……...……..36

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Background Information of the Respondents……..……………………….……………..37

5.1.1 Sex of the respondents……………………………………………………...….……….37

5.1.2 Ages of the respondents………………………………………….…………….………37

5.1.3 Educational background………………………….……………………………….……37

5.2 Farm Sizes………………………………...………………………………………………....38

5.3 Shade Trees and Crops Associated with Cocoa…………………………………………..38

5.4 Density of Timber Trees in Cocoa Farms………..…………………………….…………39

8

5.5 Characteristics of Shade Tree Considered for Selection by Farmers……………….…..39

5.6 Farmers Preferred Shade Trees on Cocoa…………………………………….………….40

5.6.1 Description of most preferred shade trees by farmers………………………….………41

5.6.1.1 Milicia excelsa………………...…………………………………….….……….41

5.6.1.2 Terminalia ivorensis …………………………….…….………………………..41

5.6.1.3 Terminalia superba………………………………………....…………………..………42

5.6.2 Farmers reason for retaining trees in cocoa……………………..……………………..42

5.6.3 Farmers reasons for not retaining trees in cocoa…………………….…………………43

5.7 Methods of Integrating Shade Tree in Cocoa…………………………………………….44

5.8 Management of Shade Trees in Cocoa…….....……………………………………………45

5.9 Cocoa Productivity under the Different Methods of Shade Tree Integration……...…..46

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions…………...…..…………………………………………………………………49

6.2 Recommendations…………...…………..………………………………………………….50

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...……..……51

APPENDICES....................................................................................................................…......65

9

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES PAGE

4.1 Educational background of the respondents…………………...……………………..….…28

4.2 Ages of cocoa farms estimated by respondents………………………………………….…28

4.3 Farmers estimate of farm size (in acres)……………………………………………………29

4.4 Shade trees and crops associated with cocoa………………….……………………………30

4.5 Tree characteristics considered for selection………………….……………...……….....…32

4.6 Farmers preferred timber trees as shade for cocoa….…………………..………………….33

4.7 Reasons for retaining shade trees on cocoa……………………………………………..….34

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES PAGE

4.1 Ages of the respondents…………………………………………………………………...…27

4.2 The number of shade trees per acre of cocoa farms………………………………………….31

4.3 Methods of integrating shade trees in cocoa farms…………………………………………..35

4.4 Yield of cocoa per acre……………………………………………………………………....36

LIST OF PLATES

PLATES PAGE

Plate 1 Structure of cocoa agroforestry………………………………………….…………..…….7

Plate 2 Regular arrangement of cocoa with timber trees…………………………..……...……..19

Plate 3 Map of Ghana showing Ejisu-Juaben District…………………….………....….……….23

10

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my personal work. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for a BSc. Degree at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology Kumasi, Ghana.

…………………………………………..

Samuel Annani Yakah

(samuelannani@yahoo.com)

I declare that I have supervised Samuel Annani Yakah in undertaking the study submitted herein

and I confirm that he has my permission to present it for assessment.

…………………………………………….

Dr. Victor Rex Barnes

(Supervisor)

11

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Cocoa agroforest is a shade grown cocoa farm in which other plants, including timber trees, fruit

trees and food crops, are grown together with cocoa. Cocoa agroforests are not forests but they

look like forests in structure and can therefore complement forest functions in the landscape

(Asare et al., 2009). In Ghana, cocoa farmers also actively nurture and manage the regeneration

of forest species in their farms for their ecological, economic, or cultural value (Amanor, 1996).

As indicated by Asare et al., (2010), farmers integrate food crops such as banana, plantain and

cassava during the initial establishment of cocoa for food income generation. Planting of high

value timber tree to provide permanent shade alongside food crops is crucial. In situations where

farmers cannot afford to plant permanent timber trees, they usually thin the existing vegetation

before planting cocoa. However, this has some limitations. Firstly, shade provided by existing

forest is not uniform and is more difficult to control and adjust than planted shade. Secondly,

existing forest trees do not fall into planting lines and this causes problems if one wants to move

between rows with a spraying machine (Asare et al., 2010).

Tree integration is more as a result of random, uncoordinated decisions over a long period rather

than advanced planning. This greatly limits farmers’ ability to select desirable species and their

arrangement as they occurred on cocoa farms (Asare, 1999). In addition, there exists wide

variation in farmers’ knowledge of the dynamics of different tree species as they occur in

managed cocoa landscapes. This can be due to limited availability and/or a lack of dissemination

of indigenous farmer and scientific knowledge, which adequately describe the characteristics and

12

interactions of native and naturalized trees in cocoa farms. As a result, some farmers are not able

to select compatible species for regeneration on cocoa farms, nor their spatial arrangements

within the farm. Even if compatible trees do germinate farmers sometimes cannot differentiate

between species during their seedling phase, and as a result weed them out in the management

practices. (Asare, 1999; Osei-Bonsu et al., 2003).

There is therefore an urgent need for research to tap knowledge from the experience of

successful farmers on the establishment and management of desirable shade tree for

incorporation into the cocoa growing system. This information will be available to other farmers

and scientific community for use in cocoa farm establishment.

1.2 Research Aim

This research aimed at exploring and understanding farmers’ knowledge and skills about the

various means and methods through which shade trees were integrated and managed in terms of

their characteristics and compatibilities with cocoa.

1.3 Research Objectives

To assess farmers knowledge on the quantity and quality of specific shade trees used in

cocoa farm,

To identify the methods of integration and management of shade trees used in cocoa

farms.

To compare the yield of cocoa under different methods of tree integration.

13

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Cocoa

Cocoa (Theobroma cocoa L.) is a tropical woody species, from the Sterculiaceae family and a

geographical origin from South America (Motamayor et al., 2002). Regarding ecological

requirements, cocoa grows well with temperatures between 19°C and 30°C, precipitations among

1,200 and 3,000 mm per year and a relative humidity over 70 % (Alvim and Kozlowski, 1997).

Ideal soils should be well drained, with depth of 50 to 100 cm and good water retention capacity

(Silva, 2001). In the wilderness the tree can reach heights up to 25 m in height, but when in

cultivation, it is managed until heights of 3 to 5 m (Motamayor et al., 2002).

It is commercially exploited for seed out mainly destined for chocolate manufacturing. The most

important dominant parameters of cocoa yield are related to (1) light interception, photosynthesis

and capacity of distribution photoassimilate, (2) maintenance respiration and (3) pod morphology

(Zuidemah et al., 2005). Comprehensibly, these three parameters are crucial for seed yield and

have been examined by Yapp and Hadley, (1994) who show that seed production is light limited.

Heavy shade not only reduces seed yield, because of low photosynthate production (Ng, 1982),

but also increases the incidence of disease. On the other hand, cocoa is shade tolerant species in

which appropriate shading could lead to adequate photosynthetic rate, growth and seed yield (de

Almeida and Vally, 2007).

14

2.2 Cocoa Production in the Globe

Cocoa is a world economic crop cultivated in the humid tropics of Africa, Southeast Asia, South

America and the Caribbean. World annual cocoa production from these continents stands at

about 3 million tonnes with a market value of US$6 billion and 68–70% of this production

coming from West Africa. In West Africa cocoa is essentially a smallholder crop, cultivated on

1.2–1.5 million farms ranging in size from 3 to 7 ha and employing 10 million people. In the

2002/3 crop-year, Ghana was the second largest cocoa producer following Cote D’Ivoire, with a

share of 16% of world production. The crop is a major cash crop and foreign exchange earner to

the Ghanaian economy, contributing about 29% to the GDP of the country (ICCO 2004).

2.3 Cocoa Production and Economic Importance in Ghana

Cocoa is perhaps the most important export crop for countries in the forest zone of West Africa

and is the main source of foreign exchange for some of them, including Ghana (Padi and Owusu,

1998). In Ghana cocoa occupies a key position in terms of foreign exchange revenues and

domestic incomes, as well as being the major source of revenue for the provision of socio-

economic infrastructure (Cocoa Board, 1995). Production is dominated by smallholder farmers

with average farm holdings ranging from 0.4 ha to 4.0 ha (Cocoa Board, 1998).

For sixty six years (i.e. from 1910 – 1977), Ghana retained world leadership in cocoa production

with market share ranging from 30-40% of the world’s total production (Bateman, 1988). This

production peaked at 566,000 tonnes in 1964/65 but dropped to 159,000 tonnes in 1983/84 and

has since then fluctuated over the past years between 150,000 and 350,000 tonnes per annum,

with Ghana losing her first position to Côte d’Ivoire (Gill and Duffus, 1989; Jaeger, 1999).

15

A survey carried out by a Government of Ghana Task Force in 1995 showed that majority of

farmers were producing less than 250 kg dry beans of cocoa annually, with productivity of land

estimated at about 390 kg per hectare (Cocoa Board, 1995).

This yield rate was found to be less compared to countries like Côte d’Ivoire and Malaysia, with

their yields of 600 kg and 800 kg per hectare respectively. The total area under cultivation to

cocoa in Ghana is estimated at 1.2 million hectares (Cocoa Board, 1998). This value represents a

decline of 0.6 million hectares compared to the area of productive land in the sixties. In addition

to this, production of dry cocoa beans has declined from an average of 400,000 tonnes in the

1960s and 1970s to a stagnated average of 370,000 tonnes from 1995 to 2000, even though there

are reports that output is increasing (Cocoa Board, 2000). Currently Ghana, producing about

700,000 tons of cocoa beans annually, is ranked second in the world, after her western neighbor

Cote d’Ivoire. In terms of quality however, Ghana is recognized as the world leader in premium

quality cocoa beans production. Cocoa serves as the major source of revenue for the provision of

socio-economic infrastructure in the country. In terms of employment, the industry employs

about 60% of the national agricultural labour force in the country (Cocoa Board, 2000).

2.4 Cocoa Cultivation

Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) is an understorey tree that is traditionally cultivated under the

canopy of shade trees that may be remnants of the original forest or may have been deliberately

planted (Klein, et al., 2002; Anim-Kwarpong, 2003). It has been cultivated by smallholders in

the shade of primary or secondary forest trees for generations throughout the tropics (Purseglove,

16

1968). The dominant cultural practice of cocoa cultivation in the humid west and central Africa

involves planting cocoa trees in secondary forest or forest fallow, selectively cleared and planted

to various food crops for one or two seasons (Duguma et al., 1990; Duguma and Franzel, 1996).

When land is cleared, indigenous fruit, medicinal and timber tree species are deliberately

retained both for their economic value and to provide shade for the cocoa plant.

Clearing is done manually (with the exception of the use of chain saw to fell big trees) which,

together with the no-tillage method used when planting, causes minimum or no disturbance to

the fragile soils (Duguma, et al., 2001). The system may be enriched by planting additional tree

crops such as mango (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea Americana), coconut (Cocos

nucifera), orange (Citrus sinensis), cola (Cola nitida) mandarin (Citrus reticula) and oil palm

(Elaeis guineensis), depending on the density of the retained natural tree species and the

mortality of the cocoa seedlings (Amoah, et al., 1995; Duguma et al., 2001).

As the cocoa tree and the other components grow to maturity, the agroforest becomes a more

diverse and structurally complex, closed-canopy multi-strata system that resembles natural forest

(Duguma et al., 2001). Such systems exhibit a high degree of habitat heterogeneity, and they

appear to serve as good surrogates of natural forest for many faunal species (Terborgh, 1989;

Perfecto, et al., 1996). These systems are long-lived, remaining productive for many decades

(Power and Flecker, 1998). According to Wessel (1987) the major management requirements for

cocoa agroforests are shade control, weeding, pest and disease control, harvesting of pods and

processing of beans.

17

The level of shade required for cocoa may vary significantly, depending on the age of the cocoa

tree, the location of the farm or even the provenance of the cocoa trees (Duguma, et al., 2001).

However, it has been suggested, in the past, that optimal growth and productivity is promoted by

a level of shading that allows 20 to 30% of full sunlight to reach the cocoa (Okali and Owusu,

1975), though this position has changed over the years.

Vertical, horizontal and temporal stratification of a typical cocoa agroforestry

Plat 1. Structure of cocoa agroforestry. Adapted from E. Somarriba, 2007.

2.5 Trees on Cocoa Farm

Agroforestry systems are complex systems in which trees interact with other trees, crops,

animals or shrubs, to provide a greater output of goods and services that are provided by either

agriculture or forestry alone. Thus trees used in these systems differ from those used in

agriculture or forestry in the sense that they are required to provide both products and services

18

(Wood, 1990). According to Asare (2006), more often than not farmers disagree with researchers

about the desirable traits for selecting trees for their cocoa farms, especially when undesired

physiological or technical aspects of the management of a tree occur in species with high social,

economical or traditional value for the farmer. The same author provides a descriptive list of

multipurpose tree species adequate for use on cocoa farms in western Africa.

Diverse attributes has been mentioned as desirable for shade trees by the literature. Among these

we can find crown architecture, phenology, and compatibility with crops, growth rate, root

architecture, leaf size and deciduousness as the most mentioned (Muschler, 2000; Bellow Nair

2003). Medina (1950), also mentioned adaptability, easiness of propagation and reproduction

method.

When farm activities are divided, for example when men are dealing with productivity of crops

and woman with household subsistence, this may lead to different interactions with the products

and services of agroforestry systems and may affect the importance that each group gives to

specific species (Barretand Brown, 1995; Gausset, et al., 2005). Gender is therefore an important

point to take into consideration when working with perception of tree attributes on farms.

A description of the most important tree products and services is given below.

2.5.1 NTFPS and food production

Local communities around the world depend on trees and plants for a variety of goods and

services such as provisioning services (food, medicine, fuelwood, fodder, construction,

19

handicraft), regulating services (shade), supporting services (soil fertilization) and cultural

services (ornamentation, rituals) among others. To have a quantitative and qualitative

understanding of the uses to which local people have of these services can be useful not only to

identify potential conservation issues (i.e. overharvesting of some species), but also to recover

and promote knowledge that could otherwise disappear from communities (Belem et al., 2007).

One of the main direct concerns of women is the health of the family and especially of the

children. This often results in a strong interest and knowledge on the medicinal properties of

plants and trees and with products related to diet and cooking activities, such a firewood, leaves,

flowers, oil and fruits which act as a supplement to cultivated staple crops and contribute to food

security and the daily needs of vitamins and minerals (Gausset et al., 2005; Herzog, 2004).

In rural areas fuelwood is often the main (or only) source of energy and timber with high

calorific value is often highly appreciated by farmers (Herzog, 2004). In an ethnobotany study on

Burkina Faso, communities highlighted the extent to which tree species contribute to farmers’

livelihood, and cited a number of examples where trees have traditional medicinal veterinary

values, such as branches, barks, leaves and fruits of different local species being used to cure

wounds, snake bites, diminish tooth pain, combat diarrhea, intestine parasites and increase milk

production (Belem et al., 2007).

The significance of diverse shade vegetation in providing secondary products such as fruits,

medicine, spices timber/building material, animals (protein), root crops, firewood and other

materials, and thereby providing a diversified diet and income for small-holder cocoa and coffee

farmers has been noted by a number of people (Whinney, 1998; Peters et al., 2003). For instance,

20

Herzog (1994) points out that in Côte d’Ivoire cocoa producers make use of some 27 mostly wild

forest species as shade, 13 of which provide fuelwood and medicine, 11 provide food products

and 6 are used in construction.

The advantage of these economic shade trees is that they have a low maintenance cost and are

considered a ‘saving account’ that can be realized at times of low prices or failure of the

underlying crop (Somarriba, 1992; Beer et al., 1998). Also, it has been pointed out that income

from fruit trees, timber and fuelwood, and other perennial crops used as shade for cocoa can be

significant, and may result in better financial performance than would occur in plantations using

conventional, leguminous, shade trees (O’ktin’ati and Mongi, 1986).

2.5.2 Timber products

The wood taken from trees in agroforestry systems is a valuable asset for the construction of

houses and fences and the production of tools and domestic utensils and farmers are often ready

to accept a reduction in the crop yield if they value the tree products (Herzog, 2004).

Nonetheless, damage of cocoa plants during harvest of timber trees should not be

underestimated, given that the physical characteristics of the cocoa plant, which makes them

susceptible to structural damage (Beer et al., 1998). When selecting timber trees for cocoa fields,

farmers do not only look for the traditional desirable traits such as rapid growth, good form, high

wood density and resistance to diseases and pests, but also place an emphasis on lowering

competition and antagonism in cocoa by selecting trees that promotes complimentary or neutral

interactions, for example considering traits including crown size and shape, root structure, leaf

size, shedding rhythm and nitrogen fixation properties (Asare, 2006).

21

2.5.3 Environmental services-biodiversity conservation

Growing cocoa in agroforestry systems is gaining attention as a means of improving biodiversity

conservation in otherwise pure agricultural systems by acting as a buffer zone between protected

areas and more intensive agricultural land, by providing a variety of trees that act as wildlife

corridors in fragmented landscapes and by providing a habitat for mammals, birds and other

wildlife species of the region where they occur (Schroth et al, 2004; Sonwa et al, 2007). A study

done in Costa Rica (Reitsma et al., 2001) showed little difference in the number and diversity of

species between natural forests and cocoa agroforestry farms. Although this shows that cocoa

farms provides a suitable habitat for bird species, and stop-over points for migratory birds (Wille,

1994; Beer et al, 1998) the conservation importance of some specialist birds could be higher for

those found in the forest, suggesting that although shaded cocoa can support more diversity than

other tropical crops it cannot substitute natural forests (Bentley, 2004).

Besides biodiversity, the highest services priorities that trees have on agroforestry systems are

maintenance (or improvement) of soil fertility and microclimate amelioration (Wood, 1990) and

an important reduction in the amount of fertilizers and pesticides use in comparison with shade

less plantations (Muschler, 2000).

2.6 Tree-Crop Interactions

Interactions between shade trees and crops in agroforestry systems have been widely reported in

the scientific literature (Beer et al, 1998; Araya, 1994). Although competition is inevitable when

more than one species are sharing the same resources, it is believed that the system as a whole

can benefit from their interactions (Somarriba et al, 2001).

22

In the next section a review of the main benefits and drawbacks of tree-crop interactions in

agroforestry systems is presented.

2.6.1 Physiological benefits from shade trees

From a physiological point of view, the main benefit that crops such as cocoa receive from shade

trees is a reduction of the biotic stress placed on the plant due to an amelioration of climatic

extremes, altered soil conditions and a reduction in light transmitted to the understory (Beer et

al., 1998). By regulating microclimatic conditions, shade trees are known to stabilize and even

out cocoa yields throughout the seasons, making planning and harvesting more efficient for the

farmer and prolonging the life span of the crop. As a result of the reduced stress, crops can

withstand physical conditions of lower quality or lower external inputs, such as fertilizer, and

become a more suitable option for small scale farmers in tropical countries (Beer, 1987;

Purseglove, 1968).

The major physiological benefits that cocoa receives from shade trees can be grouped into two

main categories both associated with reduced plant stress namely;

1. Amelioration of climatic and site conditions through:

(i) Reduction of air and soil temperature extremes;

(ii) Reduction of wind speed;

(iii) Buffering of humidity and soil moisture availability;

(iv) Improvement or maintenance of soil fertility including erosion reduction; and

23

2. Reduction in the quantity and quality of transmitted light and hence avoidance of overbearing

and/or excessive vegetative growth (e.g. flushing in cocoa). Shade also reduces nutritional

imbalances and die-back. The main physiological drawback with shade trees however is

competition for light, water and nutrients (Beer et al., 1998).

The main microclimatic conditions influenced by shade trees are presented below.

2.6.1.1 Light Availability

According to Beer (1987) under a tree canopy there is a reduction of net radiation during the day,

because less solar radiation reaches that surface, and according to Brenner (1996) this is

particularly beneficial at the beginning of the season when soil can reach high temperatures

causing crop damage. The need for some degree of shade level is also supported by the fact that

cocoa growth and pod yield decrease with high radiation intensity (Zuidema et al., 2005; Isaac et

al., 2007).

2.6.1.2 Temperature, Wind speed and Humidity

Trees can affect both the speed and turbulent structure of wind pattern in a field, reducing the

susceptibility of crops to desiccation and damage (Beer et al., 1998). Wind changes together with

the changes that trees produce on radiation will have considerable effects on the energy balance

of the plant, because shade trees affect all of the environmental variables to which stomata

respond. They reduce vapor pressure deficit, leaf temperature and photosynthetic quantum flux

density (Brenner, 1996). Competition for water between overstorey and understorey also

influences stomata response by changing leaf water status and microclimate. Therefore plants

24

growing under trees may have different total conductance from those grown in monoculture,

changing both their evapotranspiration and photosynthetic rates (Brenner, 1996).

2.6.1.3 Soil Conditions

2.6.1.3.1 Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling

The content of organic matter in the soil tends to increase over time in cocoa agroforestry

systems with material added by leaf fall and pruning residues. In a study done in Costa Rica with

cocoa (Beer et al., 1998), soil organic matter increased by 21% in a system including pruned

leguminous trees. According to Araya, (1994), cocoa agroforestry can also increase the number

of bacteria and fungi in the rhizosphere and help stabilize nematodes populations below critical

levels. At the same time, reduction of stress of the tree crop to environmental factors improves

crop tolerance to infestation and diseases from these nematodes (Araya, 1994; Beer et al., 1998).

Nutrient cycling and nitrogen fixation in cocoa agroforestry system will be strongly affected by

the choice of the shade species, since different species have different production of below and

above ground biomass and decomposition rates (Palm, 1995).

The management of the shade trees is another point to take into consideration, with practices as

pruning, fertilization and residue management being tools for the control of nutrient transfer

from trees to soil (Beer et al., 1998). Isaac et al., (2007) showed in an 8 years old cocoa

plantation with neighbor trees that closeness to these trees increased cocoa biomass production

mainly because of shading and nutrient manipulation. In particular the authors found that nutrient

25

uptakes were higher closer to the trees, and that close to the trees, soil exchangeable K increased

while available P decreased and N stocks were unaffected.

2.6.1.3.2 Erosion, Runoff and Soil Structure

Runoff and soil erosion are lower when using shade tree systems, because accumulation of litter

fall and pruning residues maintained as a mulch layer reduces the impact of raindrops on the soil,

particularly during storm events (Beer et al, 1998; Ong et al, 1996). The mulch will also improve

the retention of soil moisture during the dry season and improve infiltration rates, bulk density

and water storage capacity (Ong et al., 1996). Root systems are involved in some of the major

favorable effects on soil and crops resulting from the application of agroforestry techniques,

especially if trees use soil resources not available to crops. According to Rigui et al., (2008)

these include carbon enrichment of the soil through root turnover, interception of nutrients and

improvement of physical properties such as aeration and structure.

2.6.1.3.3 Competition

Although it is suggested that competition may be more severe between similar species than

between species with contrasting growth habits, the opportunity for complimentarity of resource

use between various species in cocoa agroforestry is restricted by the fact that all plants are

competing for the same, usually finite, resources (light, CO2, water, nutrients); Thus there is

extensive is the primary limitation when water and nutrient are freely available. However in

many tropical systems, water (e.g. Semi arid regions) or nutrient availability (acidic, leached or

degraded soils) rather than light is the major limiting factor (Ong et al., 1996), and roots from

26

shade trees compete for moisture in the dry season and oxygen in the wet season (Vernon, 1967;

Beer, 1987)

2.7 The Role of Shade in Pest and Disease Control

According to the ‘natural enemies hypothesis’ agro-ecosystems with high floristic and structural

diversity have low abundance of phytophagous species. Alternative food resources in such

systems may support higher populations of entomophagous arthropods, and a shade canopy may

enhance predator populations that would not survive in unshaded plantations

(Greenberg et al., 2000). Genetically uniform monocultures are often more vulnerable to pest

and diseases and therefore require higher inputs of pesticides (Power and Flecker, 1998).

Agrochemicals are commonly used to control pests, diseases and weeds in cocoa holdings (Soule

et al., 1990 cited by Rice and Greenberg, 2000).

In addition to the health and environmental problems this may engender, the chemicals

themselves often induce resistance in target species. On the other hand excessive shade has been

found to have negative effects on the disease and pest status of cocoa farms. Phytophthora

palmivora (black pod disease of cocoa) and other pests and diseases are reported to be favored by

increased humidity due to increased shading (Ahenkorah et al., 1994; Akrofi et al., 2003).

In Brazil and Ghana, a reduction in the fungal black pod disease of cocoa was also recorded

under low shade conditions (Smith, 1981). Excessive shade increases the incidence of other

economically important fungal diseases, especially in very moist situations such as river side’s or

valley bottoms (Beer et al., 1998). However, the positive aspects of reduced shade can be offset

27

by several deleterious effects, the most prominent of which are the increases in mirid, psyllids

and leafhopper damage, and increases in mealybug (Homoptera) infestations (Campbell, 1984;

Entwistle, 1985). These are the reasons why cocoa monocultures are not economically justified

despite the initial production advantage (Ahenkorah et al., 1974).

Increasing crop diversity through the use of polycultures can supplement the resources available

to pollinators and to pest natural enemies such as parasitic wasps, resulting in higher populations

of these beneficial organisms (Andow, 1991). The use of shade can lessen a farmer’s dependence

on chemicals, and is thought to affect the physiology of the cocoa plant and the physical

environment as well (Rice and Greenberg, 2000).

Several authorities have suggested that the removal of shade and the spraying of insecticides are

two major contributing factors in the development of pest species in cocoa (Wood and Lass,

1985). Beer et al (1998) however suggest that the provision of more or less shade to help control

these diseases must seek a balance since they occur together in many plantations, while Rice and

Greenberg (2000) also suggest that the manipulation of the cocoa habitat in order to retain the

co-evolved ecological relationships characteristic of natural forest should be the first approach to

be taken to prevent disease or pest problems.

2.8 Provision of Shade in Cocoa

2.8.1 Temporal shade in cocoa

In the initial stages of cocoa establishment (from year 1 to 3), the appropriate combination of

food crops like plantain, cassava, maize, etc. may provide cocoa seedlings with the much needed

28

temporary shade and reduce competition from weeds since food crops grow faster than trees. It

also provides farmers with income and food for the household until the main cash crop is ready

for harvest (Asare, 2006).

Food crops may also be incorporated in mature cocoa fields during enrichment planting. Gaps

created as a result of dead trees may be filled with new cocoa seedlings while food crops provide

shade for the seedlings (Asare, 2006).

It is important to note that to obtain optimum output per unit area, cocoa seedlings should be

planted in lines according to recommended planting distances (e.g. 3m x 3m). Food crops should

then be planted in between the cocoa seedlings in an arrangement such that the shade effect is

prominent while reducing initial competition (Asare, 2006).

2.8.2 Permanent shade in cocoa

Timber trees have been recorded as the major source of permanent shade in cocoa. All across

West Africa, timber tree species like Milicia excelsa, Ceiba pentandra, Terminalia ivorensis, T.

superba, Alstonia boonei, Khaya ivorensis, Triplochiton scleroxylon etc, have been used by

farmers as shade for cocoa. In addition species like Gliricidia sepium, Albizia and Acacia spp.

with their nitrogen fixing ability have been planted for both temporary and permanent shade

(Asare, 2006).

Mature timber trees may be left during initial establishment of cocoa or planted after the cocoa is

established. Together, timber and nitrogen fixing tree species ameliorate the soil and provide

29

good microclimate for cocoa growth. Timber trees planted at a distance of 12m x 12m initially

(this may be thinned to a spacing of 24 x 24m after sometime), in association with cocoa planted

3m x 3m will ensure good growth conditions for cocoa (Richard Asare, 2006).

Plate 2. Regular arrangement of cocoa with timber trees. Adopted from Richard Asare, 2006.

2.8.3 Shade canopy management

Understanding traditional techniques, management and use of trees on cocoa farms is essential if

researchers and extension agents want to inform or promote agroforestry as a feasible way of

production (Garen et al., 2009) and has been pointed out by Lok and Sandino (1999) that

farmers’ tree management strategies include a thoughtful selection of shade tree species and a

conscious approach to planting locations. This corresponds with recommendations given by

(CATIE, 2007), on the improvement of cocoa production by choosing an appropriate botanical

composition, spatial distribution and adequate management of the shade trees in the farm. Shade

trees in many plantations are allowed to grow freely while in more intensively managed areas

several pollarding per year may be carried out. Pruning residues may be left around the trees,

chopped and spread around the ground, or exported for fodder and firewood.

30

All of these practices will affect levels of N2 fixation and N availability in plantations (Beer et

al., 1998). According to Wessel, (1987) the major management requirements for cocoa

agroforests are shade control, weeding, pest and disease control, harvesting of pods and

processing of beans. He points out that the role of shade in the management of cocoa agroforests

is rather complex as it bears an impact on several other growth factors, such as reduction in light

intensity, temperature, air movement and relative humidity, and these all indirectly affect

photosynthesis and the incidence of pest and diseases.

At a practical level, it is important to enrich natural shade tree diversity by planting legume trees,

which should be pruned gradually as the cocoa trees age. When rejuvenation of cocoa is needed

after 25–30 years, farmer should stop pruning the trees, allowing the shade to increase to levels

appropriate for seedling establishment, reinitiating the cocoa cycle in the same plot and thereby

avoiding the need to thin new areas of forest to establish new cocoa plantations. Although

appropriate management and pruning methods for planted legume trees are well known for many

species, little is known about the management of native forest trees; therefore, more detailed

information on pruning sensitivity is urgently needed for these species. Shade quality, i.e. crown

size, crown density and compactness of the crown, requires well-informed management

decisions. However, despite the long history of cocoa cultivation, with companion trees

throughout the world, the shade strata of cocoa plantations are often sub-optimally designed and

managed (Somarriba, 2006)

31

2.9 The Role of MoFA and COCOBOD in the Management of Cocoa Cultivation

Public sector of seedling supply has been the center of forestry, agroforestry and agricultural

development initiative in West and Central Africa during the 1970 and 1980 period. To support

forestry programs and perennial expansion initiatives, the state through parastatal was involved

in the provision of seedlings to farmers. In the cocoa sector, parastatals such as Adventist

Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) in Ghana were in charge of supplying improved cocoa

seedlings (generally hybrids) to farmers. The ADRA succeeded in 10 years in producing 4

million assorted tree seedlings including fruit trees (like mangoes, cashew, guava and Sweet) and

woody tree species (Teak, Eucalyptus spp, Neem and Albizia lebbeck) (Asare, 2005). With the

structural adjustment program the states’ involvement in the production and distribution of

seedlings and planting materials has decreased (Sonwa et al., 2001).

During this initial phase attempts were also made by COCOBOD to restructure production by

providing farmers with seedlings to replace old trees, promoting transport and sales by

constructing and upgrading roads and putting greater emphasis on extension services and the use

of fertilisers and pesticides in production. Moreover, COCOBOD finances a cocoa research

institute, distributes subsidized inputs and hands out scholarships to farmers’ children

(COCOBOD, 1998).

32

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of Study Area

Ejisu- Juaben Municipal is Located 20 km from Kumasi on the Kumasi-Accra highway. It is one

of the 27 administrative and political Districts in the Ashanti Region with Ejisu as its capital.

Currently, the population of the Municipality stands at 144,272. The average household size in

the country is about 4.2% for urban areas and 5.24 for rural areas, giving an average of 4.89% for

the total country. In Ejisu-Juaben municipal, the average is 3.96 (EJDA, 2002).

The Municipality is located in the central part of the Ashanti Region and shares boundaries with

six (6) other Districts in the Region namely Kumasi, Kwabre, Afigya Sekyere, Asante Akim

north, Asante Akim South and Bosomtwi Kwanwoma Districts. It lies within latitude 1.15˚N and

1.45˚N and longitude 6.15˚W and 7.00˚w. Plate 3 is the map of the Ejisu-Juaben Municipal

(EJDA, 2002).

The Municipality stretches over an area of 637.2 km2 constituting about 10% of the entire

Ashanti Region. This region is underlain by the pre-cambrian rocks of the Birimian and

Tarkwaian formations. It rises from about 240 metres to 300 metres above sea level. The area is

generally undulating and is drained by a number of rivers, notable among them being Oda,

Anum, Bankro, Hwere and Baffoe. In the rainy season, occasional flooding is experienced in the

inland valleys along the river basins. The construction of a dam on the Anum River at Nobewam

for irrigation offers a great potential for agricultural development in the Municipality (EJDA,

2002).

33

Plate 3. Map of Ghana showing Ejisu-Juaben Municipality. Source: EJDA, 2002.

The major crops cultivated include food crops (maize, plantain, cassava, rice, cocoyam and

vegetables), tree crops (cocoa, oil palm and citrus). In spite of agriculture not being done on

commercial basis, most of the food crops grown are mainly to be sold for income and the rest to

be consumed by the family. Tree crops such as cocoa citrus and oil palm are also grown mainly

for commercial purposes (EJDA, 2002).

Animal Husbandry activities range from large through small to domestic keeping of poultry,

goats, sheep, cattle and pigs. About 80% of animals are kept under the semi-intensive system

where the animals are allowed to forage out of their keeping places and return indoors later. All

commercial poultry keepers however use the intensive system of animal rearing (EJDA, 2002).

The major farming practice in the district is mixed farming (90.1% of the farmers). This implies

that, whilst the farmers cultivate the food and tree crops, livestock and poultry are also kept in

ACCRA

KUMASI

34

the backyard as a supplementary source of food and income. The remaining 9.9% of the farmers

practice mono cropping (EJDA, 2002).

3.2 Climate and Vegetation

As in the case of most of the middle belt in Ghana, the municipality experiences tropical rainfall

that is bi-modal rainfall pattern and wet semi-equatorial climate. It is characterized by double

maxima rainfall lasting from March to July and again from September and normally ends in the

later part of November. The mean annual rainfall is 1200mm which is ideal for minor season

cropping. Temperatures range between 20˚C in August and 32˚C in March. Relative humidity is

fairly moderate but quite high during rainy seasons and early mornings. The fair distribution of

temperature and rainfall patterns enhances the cultivation of many food and cash crops

throughout the Municipality thus making the Municipality a food sufficiency case in Ghana. The

Municipality lies within the semi deciduous forest zone, which does not differ much in

appearance from the rain forest. Most of the trees shed their leaves during the dry season, but not

at the same time for all the trees of the same species (EJDA, 2002).

3.3 Geology and Soils

The geology and soils types in the Municipality offer vast opportunity for the cultivation of

traditional and nontraditional cash crops and other staple food stuff and thus present the

municipality as one of food basket case in Ghana. The geology and soil types found in the

Municipality include the Kumasi-Offin Compound Association, Bomso-Offin Compound

Association, Swedru-Nsuba Simple Association, Boamang-Suko simple Association. Bekwai-

35

Oda Compound Association, Kobeda-Eschiem-Sobenso-Oda Compound Association,

Atunkrom-Asikuma Association (EJDA, 2002).

3.4 Sample Selection and Data Collection

Three villages such as Juabeng, Dumakwai, and Ofuase were purposively selected based on their

long-term history in cocoa production in the district. The total number of cocoa farmers in each

of these villages selected includes Juaben 152 cocoa farmers, Dumakwai 180 cocoa farmers and

Ofoase 140 cocoa farmers. Using the formula of sample selection

(Israel, 2009) at a

15% precision level, 34, 35 and 33 cocoa farmers were selected respectively from each village,

giving a total of 102 cocoa farmers sample and interviewed in the study area.

To categorized farmers, a stratified random sampling from the farmers was done. Farmers were

group on the basis of number of years of involvement (experience) in cocoa farming including

those with 20-30 years, 15-20 years, 10-15 years and those who with less than 10 years of

working experience in cocoa farms.

3.5 Field Transect Walk.

In order to determine the number of shade tree species per acre of individual cocoa farm, about 5

paces walk was taking into the farm at a randomly selected entry point on the perimeter of the

farm. At this point, a 50 meter string was attach to a stake driven into the ground, stretched out to

its full length as straight line as possible. A straight measured stick of exactly 2.67 meters was

hold perpendicular to the line so that one end was just over the line. Keeping the stick

perpendicular and the end over the line, all the non cocoa shade trees that come into contact with

the stick were counted. The same procedure was repeated on the other side of the string resulting

36

in a total 125m2 counted. The total number of shade trees per acre was subsequently

extrapolated.

Average distances between shade tree species were also determined. General baseline

information on shade status and evaluation of cocoa farms conditions and farm practices were

noted. In all a total of 19 farms were visited.

3.6 Data Handling and Analysis

The raw data obtained was cleaned and analyzed using SPSS. Data was presented in the form of

bar charts and tables where appropriate.

3.7 Limitation

Out of the 102 farms, only 19 farms were visited. This was due to the inability on the part of the

respondents to cooperate due to the long distance to their farms. This was attributed to the timing

of the interviews usually after farm work.

37

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Background Information of Respondents

4.1.1 Sex of Respondents

Out of the total number of cocoa farmers interviewed 64% were made up of males whilst 36%

were made up of females (fig. 4.1).

4.1.2 Age of Respondents

Majority of the respondents (42%) interviewed were within the age category of 56 and above

while only 1% of the respondent fall between the age category of 15-25 (Fig. 4.2).

Fig. 4.2: The age categories of respondents at the study area

4.1.3 Educational background of respondents

38

The educational background of the respondents showed that most of the respondents (42%) had

no formal education while only 1% had up to tertiary level (Table 4.1).

Tab. 4.1: Educational level of respondents

Frequency Percentage

Primary 20 19.6

JHS 28 27.5

SHS 10 9.8

Tertiary 1 1.0

None 43 42.2

4.2 Ages of Cocoa Farms

The various ages of the cocoa farms as estimated by farmers indicated that most of the cocoa

farms (26%) were within the age category of 31-40 with only 1% of the farm fall within the

category of 51-60 years as shown in table 4.2.

Tab. 4.2: Ages of the cocoa farms estimated by the respondents.

Farm age category

(years)

Frequency Percentage (%)

1-10 17 16

11-20 8 7

21-30 20 19

31-40 27 26

39

41-50 25 24

51-60 2 1

61-70 3 2

Total 102 100

4.3 Farm Sizes

Majority of the farms (48%) were within the size of 0 – 5 acres while 2% of the farms fall within

the size category of 21 and above acres (Table 4.3).

Tab. 4.3: Farmers estimate of farm size (in acres).

Farm size

Frequency Percent

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21 and above

Total

49

43

4

4

2

102

48.0

42.2

3.9

3.9

2.0

100.0

40

4.4 Shade Trees and Crops Associated with Cocoa

The various types of shade trees and crops associated with cocoa showed that timber species

(48%) formed the highest associated shade tree with cocoa while fruit trees form the least (1%)

associated with the crop (Table 4.4).

Tab. 4.4: Shade Trees and Crops Associated with Cocoa

Shade trees and food

crops

Frequency Percent

Food crops 15 14.7

Fruit crops 1 1.0

Timber species 49 48.0

Timber species and

Food crops

37 36.3

Total 102 100.0

4.5 Density (quantity) of Timber Trees on Cocoa Farm

The total number of shade trees (timber trees) per acre of cocoa indicated that majority of farms

(49%) had from 1-4 trees/acre and only 1% had 9-12 trees/acre (Fig. 4.3)

41

Fig. 4.3: The number of shade trees per acre of cocoa farm at the study area

4.6 Characteristic Considered for Selection of Shade Trees (timber trees) by Farmers

The most characteristics considered by farmers for the selection of shade trees for cocoa was the

crown size (26%) while the least considered was life size (11%) (Table 4.5).

Tab. 4.5: Tree characteristics considered for selection

Shade trees characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

Crown size 98 26.6

Crown shape 56 15.2

42

Crown density 83 22.6

Life size 11 2.9

Tree height 79 21.4

Root distribution 41 11.1

Total 368 100

4.7 Farmers Preferred Shade Trees on Cocoa

The most preferred shade trees considered by farmers as “good” for cocoa was Terminalia

ivorensis (14.3%) while the least preferred was Rouvolfia vomittoria (1.0%) as shown in table

4.6 below.

Tab. 4.6: Farmers preferred timber trees as shade for cocoa

Shade trees Scientific name Frequency Percentage

(%)

Nyamedua Alstonia boonei 21 3.1

Okoro Albizia zygia 19 2.8

Akonkodie Bombax buonopozense 8 1.1

Nyankyereni Ficus exasperata 56* 8.3

Fruntum Funtumia elastica 71* 10.6

Fotie Hannoa klainniana 47 7.0

Ofram Terminalia superba 83** 12.4

Odum/Iroko Milicia excelsa 64* 9.5

Konkroma Morinda lucida 36 5.3

43

Kokrodua Pericosis elata 13 1.9

Esia Petersianthus macrocarpus 76* 11.3

Otie Pycnanthus angolensis 58* 8.6

Emire Terminalia ivorensis 96** 14.3

Prekese Tetrapleura tetraptera 14 2.0

Kakapenpen Rouvolfia vomittoria 7 1.0

Total 669 100

* preferred shade trees

** most preferred shade tree as ʽgood’ for cocoa

4.7.1 Farmers reason for retaining timber trees in cocoa farm

The most factors (reasons) considered by farmers for retaining trees in cocoa farm was the

protection from light (100%) and the least is weed control (18%)(Table 4.7).

Tab. 4.7: Reasons for retaining shade trees on cocoa

Advantages Frequency Percentage (%)

Protection from sunlight 102 100

Fertility improvement 82 80

Erosion control 98 96

windbreak 76 74

Weed control 19 18

Reduction in raindrop impact 54 53

Total 431

44

4.8 Methods of Integrating Shade Trees in Cocoa Farm

The different ways in which shade trees (timber species) were integrated with cocoa showed that

55% of the farmers thinned the forest trees to plant cocoa while 14% were planted seedlings as

shown in figure 4.4

Fig.4.4: Methods of integrating shade trees in cocoa.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Thinning of

forest trees

Natural

regeneration

Planted seedlings

Per

cen

tage

(%)

of

resp

on

den

ts

Method of tree integration

45

4.9 Comparison of Yield under Different Methods of Shade Tree Integration.

The yield of cocoa within a four year production period under the different methods of

integrating shade trees was determined, with the thinning of the forest trees method recording the

highest productivity of cocoa followed by the planted seedlings method, recording the least

production among them (figure 4.5).

Fig. 4.5: Yield of cocoa per hectare based on the information

34588.34

32520.04

31024.5

28383.44

29783.52

25201.44

25169.62

20014.73

21605.78

19728.4

16991.88

14936.31

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011

Thinning of forest trees in new farms

Natural regeneration in replanted old cocoa farms

Planted seedlings in abandoned cocoa farms

Pro

duct

ion y

ear

Yield/ha of cocoa (Kg)

46

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Background Information of Respondents

5.1.2 Sex of respondents

A total of one hundred and two (102) cocoa farmers were interviewed and out of this 64% were

males whilst 36% were females. This implies that it is mostly men that were actively involved in

the production of cocoa and owned the greater proportion of cocoa farms in the study area as

compared to women. All the respondents were native of the area (Fig.4.1).

5.1.3 Age of respondents

Majority of the respondents (42%) interviewed were within the age category of 56 and above.

This indicates that they were inactive in the cocoa farming and will not be able to carry out tree

planting. This was largely supported by Amos, (2007) who asserted that the age of the farmers

and age of farms reduce the efficiency level of cocoa farmers. However, this enabled farmers to

share their experiences due to long period of working with cocoa. Interestingly, only 1% of the

farmers fall between the age categories of 15-25. This was due to the fact that, most of the cocoa

farms were owned by the older people in the study area (Fig. 4.1).

5.1.4 Educational background

Out of the 102 farmers’ interviewed, 42% of the respondents had no formal education whiles

only 1% had up to tertiary education. Over 50% of the respondents had some form of education

and this indicated that most of the respondent could easily adopt technologies transferred to them

47

which will increase their income by diversifying their cocoa farms with shade trees This was

observed by Agbenyega and Gockowski, (2001) who indicated that, Ghanaian cocoa farmers

were themselves literate and saw to the education of the children. (Table 4.1).

5.2 Farm Size

Table 4.3 revealed that most of the farmers were smallholders as majority (48%) of the farmers

had up to 5 acres of cocoa farms. Farm sizes as categorized by Sustainable Tree Crop Programs

(STCP) Nigeria Baseline Survey in 2001 were; Small 0.4-6 acres, Medium 6.1-12 acres and

Large 12.1 + acres categories. Cocoa is important to the livelihoods of most farmers sampled in

the study. The period of time that the farmers have been working with cocoa was in the range of

7 to 65 years, with an average of 27 years. The mean size of cocoa farm was 1.70 acres with

farmers managing between 1 and 4 farms.

5.3 Shade Trees and Crops Associated with Cocoa

Different shade species were found to be associated with cocoa. The research revealed that 48%

farmers associate only timber trees with their cocoa while 36% left their cocoa with timber trees

in combination with food crops. These farmers have small patches of food crops such as

plantain, banana and cocoyam either within the cocoa or close in proximity. According to (Baah

et al., 2011), beside the cocoa, the food crops were critical to farmers’ survival (Table 4.4).

48

5.4 Density (quantity) of Timber Trees in Cocoa Farm

The survey revealed that majority (49%) of the cocoa farmers had from 1- 4 timber trees per acre

of cocoa and only 1% had from 9 - 12 timber trees/acre on the cocoa farms (Figure 4.2). Twelve

percent of the farmers had no shade tree species on their field with the cocoa exposed to the full

mercy of the Sun. The average distance between shade trees determined on farmers’ field during

the field survey and observation includes 26.33x26.33 m at Juaben, 29.12x29.12 m at Dumakwai

and 31.96x31.96 m at Ofoase. Respectively, the quantity of shade trees per acre of cocoa varies

greatly between the three communities. Juaben tend to have quite high appreciable number of

trees (from 5-8) compared to Dumakwai and Ofoase (from 0-4).

A key informant at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), Mr. Seth Amankwah, (2012)

indicated that farmers were recommended to maintain up to 5 well spaced mature forest trees

per acres on a cocoa farm with the cocoa trees spaced at 3.0 m apart. However, different view

was expressed by Padi and Owusu (1998) who indicated that, the recommendation in Ghana is to

reduce overhead shade down to a maximum of 4 trees per acre.

5.5 Characteristic of Shade Trees Considered by Farmers

The most important characteristics considered by the farmers for the selection of timber species

was shade quality. Specifically they considered the crown size, crown shape, deciduousness

(evergreen during the dry season) and crown density. Farmers indicated that whiles small and

well spaced leaves allows enough sunlight to go through the cocoa beneath the canopy, broad

and closely spaced leaf usually block most of the sun light causing a closed canopy which is bad

for cocoa by increasing disease incident.

49

Farmers also showed their preference for medium to high shade (tall trees) to excessive shade

(short trees) since this increases humidity of the farm. This observation is confirmed by Akrofi et

al., (2003) who found out that excessive shade have negative effects on the disease and pest

status of cocoa farms. Phytophthora palmivora (black pod disease of cocoa) and other pests and

diseases were reported to be favored by increased humidity due to increased shading.

Other preferences on characteristics considered by farmers included the tree height for its timber

value, wood and fuel wood quality considered by the female as energy source for the household.

From the table 4.5, the highest tree characteristics preferred by farmers was crown size and the

lowest was life size. According to Musshler, (2000) diverse attributes has been mentioned as

desirable for shade trees among which include crown architecture, phenology, and compatibility

with crops, growth rate, root architecture, leaf size and deciduousness as the most mentioned

other attribute also mentioned include adaptability, easiness of propagation and reproduction

method.

5.6 Farmers Preferred Shade Trees on Cocoa

The most common trees used for shade in the three communities were Ofram (Terminalia

superba), Onyina (Ceiba pentandra), Nyankyereni (Ficus exasperata), Otie (Pycnanthus

angolensis), Foto (Glyphaea brevis) and Fruntum (Funtumia elastica). Among these shade trees,

farmers showed their preferences for those that were compatible with cocoa on their field. Table

4.6 showed the most preferred shade trees by farmers.

50

5.6.1 Characteristics of the most preferred shade trees in cocoa

5.6.1.1 Milicia excelsa

It is widespread in tropical Africa and it is found in lowland rainforests and wetter savannah

woodland areas. It can grow with about 700 mm rain/year provided it has access to a

supplementary source of water and it tolerates a wide range of soil types but not soils that are

prone to water logging or have impeded drainage. It is a deciduous tree up to 50 m tall and with a

diameter up to 10 m. The bole is straight and cylindrical, branchless up to 20 m or more. The

bark is dark, fairly rough and flaking off in small scales but rarely fissured. The crown is

umbrella-shaped and fairly flat at the top. Leaves are simple and alternate, 10-20 cm long. The

species is dioeciously and male and female trees are slightly different in appearance. Male trees

have longer and more slender trunk and crown. Forking is more common in male than in female

trees. The regeneration may be natural or artificial (Asare, 2006).

5.6.1.2 Terminalia ivorensis

It occurs in evergreen forest, moist semi-deciduous forest, secondary forest and it has been listed

as a vulnerable species in West Africa. It is a large tree with maximum height of about 45m and

a diameter of 124 cm. It has black bark and a graceful, spreading crown of whorled boughs and

clustered leaves. Lower branches are self-pruning giving a clear bole even in open conditions.

The base of older trees has high but small buttresses. It prefers moist conditions, but does not

show any preference for wet or dry forest soils and is not drought sensitive. Its performance

increases with altitude and decreases with poor soil fertility. Regeneration may be natural or

artificial. It is a pioneer species and a strong light demander (Asare, 2006).

5.6.1.3 Terminalia superba

51

It occurs in moist evergreen forest, moist semi-deciduous forest, dry semi deciduous forest,

farmlands, along roads, and in secondary forest. It is a large tree with a maximum height of about

45m and a diameter of 150cm. It has strong whorled boughs and clustered leaves due to its

marked rhythmic growth. It has steep buttresses, up to 3.5m when fully grown. It is deciduous. It

performs well at altitudes between 200-300m and intermediate soil fertility but shows no

preference for wet or dry soils, especially in Ghana. Optimum growth occurs at a pH of 5.9-6.1.

Its performance declines with decrease in rainfall. It is a pioneer species and a strong light

demander. Regeneration may be natural or artificial (Asare, 2006).

5.6.2 Farmers reason for retaining trees in cocoa farm

The most important benefit of the shade trees, mentioned by 100% of the respondents, was the

protection of the cocoa crop from the sun. This is due to temperatures which are high throughout

the year, especially in the dry period, and according to the farmers, the heat and direct sunlight

damages young leaves, flowers and cocoa pods. Young cocoa trees are the ones which suffer the

most from the sun. Improved weed control was mentioned by 18 % of the farmers, although all

the farmers who had cocoa plots under the age of 10 mentioned this benefit; one of the farmers

said that when cocoa is matured, weeds are suppressed more by the cocoa trees and litter than by

the shade trees. According to Beer et al., ( 1998) from a physiological point of view, the main

benefit that crops such as cocoa receive from shade trees is a reduction of the biotic stress placed

on the plant due to an amelioration of climatic extremes and a reduction in light transmitted to

the understory. (Table 4.7).

52

5.6.3 Farmers reasons for not retaining trees in farms

The respondents with few shades and/or unshaded cocoa farms explained that some of the trees

which names were giving as Onyina (Ceiba pentandra), Ofram (Terminalia superba), Otie

(Pycnanthus angolensis) and Watapuo (Cola gigantean) serve as a hiding places for rodents such

as squirrels and causes farm damage due to self pruning and branch fall. Others such as Wawa

(Triplochiton scleroxylon), Esa (Celtis mildbreadii) and Watapuo (Cola nitida) according to

farmers take too much water from the soil and Esakoko (Celtis zenkeri) in addition to the above

mentioned provide too much shade for the cocoa and hence less favorite for selection as shade

trees for cocoa. Thus there is a gradual but sure removal of shade trees in cocoa fields.

Farmers also attributed the absence of shade trees in their farm to illegal loggers and chainsaw

operators causing damage to farms. This observation was affirmed by Ruf and Konan (2001)

who indicated that the widespread availability of chainsaw operators facilitate the removal of

matures forest trees in cocoa farms.

About 7 out 13 farmers stated that hybrids (improved cocoa seedlings) do not like shade as

compared to the Amazonia (Tetteh Quarshie) which needs a lot of shade to survive the scotching

Sun. This was observed by Ruf, (2011) who indicated that the introduction of the hybrids was

clearly perceived as the primary determining factor for abandoning shade by eliminating large

forest trees in cocoa. Padi and Owusu (1998) also observed that technology has also contributed

to an overall reduction in shade cover for cocoa over time through the promotion of hybrid

varieties which favor lower densities of shade.

53

5.7 Methods of Integrating Shade Trees in Cocoa Farm

The integration of shade trees in cocoa differs from one community to another. The result

showed that, the method of tree integration in cocoa farm was determined by the nature and type

of vegetation, and the previous land use prior to planting in each area. Majority of the cocoa

farms (55%) were established by cutting down the forest vegetation and selectively leaving some

trees as shade for cocoa planted beneath the canopy to take advantage of the soil fertility build

up. The clearing is normally done manually by using cutlass and axe. In exception where the

trees are big only few farmers were able to employ the services of chainsaw operators. This

method of shade tree integration in cocoa was largely found at Juaben due to vegetative nature

(forests) of this area.

The other methods of tree integration in cocoa are largely found in replanted old cocoa farms and

abandoned cocoa farms in which 29% of the shade trees were integrated through natural

regeneration and 15% were planted seedlings obtained from neighbors’ farms and FORIG,

nurtured along side with the naturally regenerated species. These replanted old cocoa farms and

abandoned cocoa farms were mostly found at Dumakwai and Ofoase which are usually long

bush fallow system. This observation largely agreed with Anim-Kwarpong, (2003) who asserted

that cocoa is an understorey tree that is traditionally cultivated under the canopy of shade trees

that may be remnants of the original forest or may have been deliberately planted. This assertion

was further explained by Purseglove, (1968) that cocoa has been cultivated by smallholders in

the shade of primary or secondary forest trees for generations throughout the tropics.

54

5.8 Management of Shade Trees in Cocoa Farm

Depending on the nature in which these farmers’ integrate trees in cocoa, different management

decisions were taking as the trees matured. Majority of the respondents (55%) who thinned the

forest to plant their cocoa indicated that due to the tree height (estimated between 15 to 18m),

they limit the tree management to killing and felling of these trees among the cocoa. They do this

either by making a deep ring around the tree (ring-barking) or setting fire at the base of the trees,

farmers ensure that shade trees die slowly without any destruction to their cocoa. Generally, the

study revealed that, the cocoa farmers were more concerned about the crop component (cocoa)

than the shade trees in the farm due to the difficulties in management. This was pointed out by

Wessel, (1987) that, the role of shade in the management of cocoa agroforests is rather complex

as it bears an impact on several other growth factors, such as reduction in light intensity,

temperature, air movement and relative humidity.

The newly planted shade trees and those that regenerated naturally according to the respondents

were best managed at height ≤ 5m after establishment and at maturity. The respondents (45%)

indicated that at this height, it’s easier to prune and thin the tree canopy to the required form that

would allow enough sunlight to the cocoa beneath. This was usually done by labourers and the

farm family in every quarter (3 months) of the year. The labourers do this alongside with other

management options such as weeding, pod harvesting and breaking, on daily (by-day) basis and

depending on the community, they charged from 6.0 – 7.0 Ghana cedis which is subjected to

change every year.

55

5.9 Cocoa Productivity under the Different Methods of Shade Tree Integration.

The yield of cocoa within a four year production interval (period) was determined to compare the

productivity of cocoa under the different methods of integrating shade tree. (Figure 4.5). The

productivity of cocoa varied greatly within the different methods of integrating trees in cocoa

with a decline from 2007/2008 - 2010/2011 production years. For instance, farmers who planted

their cocoa by thinning the forest trees were noted from the result to produce the highest

(34588.34 kg/ht) in 2007/2008 production year but this decreased in the subsequent years with

an average yield of 31501.8 kg/ht/production year. This is followed by an average yield of

25042.34 kg/ht and 18315.59 kg/ht in the naturally regenerated trees and planted seedlings

respectively. According to Ruf and Zadi, (1998), production can only be sustained over the long

term if cultivation methods that incorporate rehabilitation and recycling of land through the use

of forest tree species are adopted.

Respondents attributed this initial increased in yield (2007/08) to the free inputs (fertilizer and

chemical spray for pests and diseases) provided by previous government during which time they

were having little or no decrease in yield. This decline in yield according to the respondents was

due to soil fertility problem and pests and diseases which they were unable to afford and erratic

rainfall. This observation was largely supported by Franzen and Monique, (2007) who indicated

that dependence on inputs may ultimately cause a decline in yield if the inputs cannot be

purchased. The same actors explain that full-sun cocoa tends to produce for a shorter amount of

time than shaded cocoa. Shaded cocoa may provide fewer economic benefits in the short-term

but it will continue producing into the future without the need for chemical inputs.

56

The study showed that the diversity of shade trees in cocoa farms differs within the various

methods in which trees were integrated in cocoa. For example, Cocoa farms at Juaben (81%)

where farmers thinned the forest tree to plant the cocoa, were more divers with shade trees (5-8

trees/ac) compared to the cocoa farms with naturally regenerated trees and planted seedlings at

Dumakwai and Ofoase having the least number of shade trees (0-4 trees/ac) in cocoa farms

respectively. Therefore, the higher yield observed at Juaben according to Whinny, (2001) is due

to increased biodiversity which is associated with better pest control and pollination and more

efficient nutrient cycling.

This was also observed by Rice and Greenberg, (2000) who said that, although shade trees may

compete with cocoa, they provide multiple benefits including inhibiting weed growth, reducing

soil erosion, buffering the cocoa against adverse climatic conditions and pests and increasing the

efficiency of nutrient use by the cocoa trees hence the increase and/ or maintenance in

productivity.

Another problem due to the decline in yield in the study area was that majority (77%) of the

cocoa farms were in their old age (40 years and above) and this was affecting the productivity of

the cocoa trees. These farms need to be rejuvenated by planting new cocoa trees to replace the

old trees in order to breathe new life into the existing cocoa farms. Asare, (2010) indicated that

farmers can improve productivity of unproductive cocoa trees through the various options such

as under-planting which involve planting new cocoa trees in an existing farm by removing some

but not all cocoa trees that are old (over 30 years) (Table 4.2).

57

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 CONCLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

The result indicated that majority of the cocoa farms (63.8%) were having shade trees from 0 - 4

per 0.4 acre of cocoa. This is less than the recommend number of trees 16 - 18 per hectare of

cocoa proposed for cocoa agroforestry by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG).

The most important shade tree characteristic considered by farmers was shade quality which

includes crown size, crown shape, deciduousness (evergreen during the dry season) and crown

density. Others include the tree height and also fuelwood which was most considered by the

female as energy source for the household.

Majority of the cocoa farms (55%) were established by cutting down the forest and selectively

leaving some trees as shade for cocoa planted beneath the canopy to take advantage of the soil

fertility build up. The others were replanted old cocoa farms and abandoned cocoa farms where

shade trees were integrated through natural regeneration (29%) and planted seedlings (14%)

respectively.

The yield of cocoa was found to be higher in farms that were established in the forest by cutting

down some trees and leaving selected ones as shade for cocoa. This was due to the higher

number of shade trees found in this system as compared to others where old cocoa farms were

rejuvenated with less number of shade trees.

58

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Based on the result obtained it is recommended that there should be socio-economic

studies that will help develop full range incentives for farmers who retain shade trees in

cocoa farms. This, to a large extent, will discourage farmers from eliminating trees in

cocoa farms (through ring-barking and setting fire) and also plant trees in order to ensure

diversification.

2. Further research should be carried out to identify native forest trees that are compatible

with cocoa and their recommendation to cocoa farmers.

3. It is recommended that farmers maintained the required number of trees per hectare in

order to increase the productivity of cocoa and also replace the old cocoa trees with new

ones.

4. It is also recommended that cocoa farmers should be educated through extension services

on the management options of the associated shade trees in the cocoa farms.

59

REFERENCES

1. Ahenkora, Y. Akrofi G. S. and Adri, K. K. 1974. The end of the cocoa shade and

manorial experiments at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana. Journal of Horticultural

Science 49: 43 – 51.

2. Alvim, P. and Kozlowski, T. 1977. Ecophysiology of Tropical Crops. ACADEMIC

PRESS. London, UK. p 279 –313.

3. Alvim, P. de T. 1977. Cacao. In: Alvim, P. de T. and Kozlowski T. T. (eds.),

Ecophysiology of Tropical Crops. Academic Press, New York, pp. 279 – 313.

4. Akrofi, A. Y., Appiah A. A. and Opoku, I. Y. 2003. Management of Phytophthora pod

rot disease on cocoa farms in Ghana. Crop Protection 22: 469 – 477.

5. Amanor, K.S., 1994. The new frontier: Farmers response to land degradation: A West

African case study. Zed Press, London and UNRISD, Geneva.

6. Amanor, K.S., 1996. Managing trees in the farming system: The perspective of farmers.

Forest Farming Series No. 1, Forestry Department, Ghana., Pp. 198.

60

7. Amoah, F. M., Muertey, B. N., Baidoo-Addo, Oppong, F. K., Osei-Bonsu, K. and

Asamoah, T. E. O. 1995. Underplanting oil palm with cacao in Ghana. Agroforestry

Systems 30: 289 – 299

8. Amos, T. T., 2007. Analysis of productivity and Technical Efficiency of the small holder

cocoa farmers in Nigeria J. Social Sci., 15(2): 127-133

9. Andow, D. A. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annual

Review of Entomology 36: 561 – 586.

10. Anim-Kwarpong, G. J. 2003. Potential of some Neotropical Albizia species as shade

trees when replanting cacao in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems 58: 185 – 193.

11. Appiah, M. R., ofori-Frimpong K., Afrifa A. A. and Ameyaw K. (2006). Sustainable

cocoa production in Ghana through soil fertility management. In. proceedings of the

International conference of the 17th and 18th Annual General Meeting of the Soil

Science Society of Ghana. Vol. 17/18.

12. Araya, M. 1994. Distribucion y niveles poblacionales de Meloidogyne spp. Y

Pratylenchus spp. En ocho cantones productores de café en Costa Rica. Agronomia

Costarricense, 18:183–187.

61

13. Asare, R., 2005. Cocoa Agroforests in West Africa: A Look at Activities On Preferred

Trees in the Farming Systems: A guide for participatory farmer training. The Danish

Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning • KVL Hørsholm Kongevej 11 DK-2970

Hørsholm.

14. Asare, R. 2006. Learning about neighbour trees in cocoa growing systems – a manual for

farmer trainers. Forest & Landscape Development and Environment Series 4-2006.

15. Asare, R., Sonii D. and Sonwa, D. 2009. Conservation and biodiversity in and around

cocoa farms. Learning about sustainable cocoa production: A guide for participatory

farmer training. The Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning • KVL Hørsholm

Kongevej 11 DK-2970 Hørsholm. Pg. 16-17.

16. Asare, R. and S. David 2010. Planting, replanting and tree diversification in cocoa

systems. Learning about sustainable cocoa production: a guide for participatory farmer

training. Manual No. 2. Forest & Landscape Denmark University of Copenhagen

Hørsholm Kongevej 11 DK-2970 Hørsholm.

17. Bateman, M. J. 1988. Ghana Cocoa Pricing Policy Study. Commodity information Inc.

1981: 77pp.

62

18. Beer, J.W. 1987. Advantages, disadvantages and desirable characteristics of shade trees

for coffee, cocoa and tea. Agroforestry Systems 5:3-13.

19. Beer, J., Muschler, R. Kass D. and Somarriba, E. 1998. Shade management in coffee

and cocoa plantations. Agroforestry Systems 38: 139-164.

20. Bellow, J.G., Nair, PKR. 2003. Comparing common methods for assessing understory

linght availability in shaded-perennial agroforestry systems. Agricultural and Forest

meteorology. 114: 197-211.

21. Benneh, G. 1987. Land tenure and agroforestry land use in Ghana. In: Raintree, J. B.

(ed.) Land, trees and tenure. Proceedings, International Workshop on Tenure Issues in

Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya, 27 – 31 May1985, pp. 163 – 168.

22. Bentley, J. W. 1992. Alternative to pesticides in Central America. Culture and

Agriculture. 44: 10-13.

23. Brenner, A.J. 1996. Microclimate modifications in agroforestry. In Tree Crop

Interactions – A Physiologycal Approach. Eds. Ong C K and Huxley P. Chapter 5,

pp.159–188. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

24. CATIE. 2007. Competitividad y ambiente en los territorios cocoateros de Centroamerica.

Proyecto Cocoa Centroamerica, Documento de proyecto, 166p. Turrialba, Costa Rica.

63

25. Campbell, C. A. M. 1984. The influence pf overhead shade and fertilizer on the

Homoptera of mature Upper-Amazon cocoa trees in Ghana. Bulletin of Entomological

Research, 74: 163 – 174.

26. Cocoa Board 1995. Report on causes of recent decline in cocoa production in Ghana and

measures to revamp the industry. Ghana Cocoa Board, Accra.

27. Cocoa Board 1998. Tree Stock Survey Project, Final Report, GCP/INT/COA. Ghana

Cocoa Board, Accra. 107pp.

28. Cocoa Board 2000. Ghana Cocoa Board Handbook. 8th edition. Ghana Cocoa Board,

Accra.

29. Duguma, B., Tonye, J. and Depommier, D. 1990. Diagnostic surveys on local

multipurpose tree/shrubs fallow systems, and livestock in southern Cameroon. ICRAF

Working Paper No. 60, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. 34 pp.

30. Duguma, B. and Franzel, S. 1996. Landuse analysis and constraint identification with

special reference to agroforestry. In GFID and FAO (eds.) International Seminar on Tools

for Analysis and Evaluation of Sustainable Land Use in Rural Areas. 2 – 16 December,

zschortau, Germany. Pp 1 – 16.

64

31. Duguma, B., Gockowski, J. and Bakala, J. 2001. Smallholder Cacao (Theobroma

cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: challenges

and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems 51: 177 – 188.

32. de Almeida A. F. and Valle R. R. 2007. Ecophysiology of the cocoa tree. Brazilian

Journal of plants physiology: 425-445.

33. Entwistle, P. F. 1985. Insects and cocoa. In: G. A. R. Wood and R. A. Lass (eds.) Cocoa.

4th ed., Longman, London and New York, pp 372 – 383.

34. EJDA., 2002. Relevant district data in Ejisu-Juaben.

www.ghanadistrict.com/district/?news8r=28_=21 (Accessed on 7th of October 2011)

35. Franzen, M. and Borgerhoff M. M., 2007. Ecological, economic and social

perspectives on cocoa production worldwide. Springer Science+Business Media. Pg.

3844-38445.

36. Garen, E., Saltonstall, K., Slusser, J., Mathias, S., Ashton, M. and Hall, J. 2009. An

evaluation of farmers’ experiences planting native trees in rural Panama: implications for

reforestation with native species in agricultural landscapes. Agroforestry Systems

76:219–236.

65

37. Gausset, Q. 2004. Ranking local tree needs and priorities through an interdisciplinary

action research approach. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 3(1):

1-17.

38. Gausset, Q., Yago-Ouattara, E.L. and Belem, B. 2005. Gender and trees in Péni,

south-western Burkina Faso. Women’s needs, strategies and challenges. Danish Journal

of Geography, 105 (1): 67-76.

39. Gill and Duffus 1989. Cocoa Statistics. Gill and Duffus Gp Ltd.: 29 pp.

40. Herzog, F. 1994. Multipurpose shade trees in coffee and cocoa plantations in Côte

d’Ivoire. Agroforestry Systems 27: 259 – 267.

41. Herzog, F. 2004. Multipurpose shade trees in coffee and cocoa plantations in

Côted'Ivoire. Agroforestry Systems, 27: 259–267.

42. ICCO, 2004. International cocoa organization’s quarterly bulletin of cocoa statistics,

London

43. Isaac, M.E., Timmer, V.R. and Quashie-Sam, S.J. 2007. Shade tree effects in an 8-

year-old cocoa agroforestry system: biomass and nutrient diagnosis of Theobroma cocoa

by vector analysis. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 78:155-165.

66

44. Jaeger, P. 1999. The market for cocoa and its relevance to African production.

http://www.treecrops.org/events/OctConf/cocorep.pdf. (Accessed on the 11th Jan. 2011)

45. Klein, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and Tscharntke, T. 2002. Predator-prey ratios on cocoa

along a land-use gradient in Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 683– 693.

46. Lok, R. and Sandino, D. 1999. Traditional cocoa agroforestry systems in Waslala,

Nicaragua: adoption of technology and adaption to local environment and priorities. In:

International Symposium on Multi-strata Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops,

CATIE, Turrialba, 22–27 Feb 1999, Extended Abstracts, pp 251–255. CATIE, Turrialba.

47. Ministry of Environment and Science 2002. National Biodiversity Strategy for Ghana.

Ministry Environment and Science, Accra.

48. Ministry of food and agriculture, 2003. Agriculture in Ghana. By statistics, Research

and Information Directorate. Accra.

49. Motamayor, J.C., Risterucci, A.M., Lopez, P.A., Ortiz, C.F., Moreno, A. and

Lanaud, C. 2002. Cacao domestication. I. The origin of the cacao cultivated by the

Mayas. Heredity 89:380-386.

67

50. Muschler, R.G. 2000. Arboles en Cafetales. Modulo de Ensenanza Agroforestal No. 5.,

Proyecto Agroforestal CATIE/GTZ, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.

51. Ng E. 1982. Potential cocoa photosynthetic productivity. In. proc. 8th International cocoa

research conference, Cartagena, Colombia, pp.235-244.

52. Okali, D. U. U. and Owusu, J. K. 1975. Growth analysis and photosynthetic rates of

Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) seedlings in relation to varying shade and nutrient regimes.

Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science 8: 51 – 67.

53. O’kting’ati, A. and Mongi H. O. 1986. Agroforestry and the small farmer: A case study

of Kilema and Kima, Vunjo in Kilimanjaro. International Tree Crops Journal 3: 257 –

265.

54. Ong, C. K. Black C. R. Marshall F. M. and Corlett, J. E. 1996. Principles of resource

capture and utilization of light and water. In: Ong, C. K. and Huxley, P. A. (eds.). Tree-

Crop Interactions in Agroforestry Systems. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxford, UK.

Pp. 73 – 158.

55. Osei-Bonsu K., Ameyaw-Oduro and C. Tetteh J.P., 2003. Traditional cocoa

agroforestry: Species encountered in the cocoa ecosystem of a typical cocoa-growing

district in Ghana. Paper presented at the 14th International Cocoa Research Conference,

13-18 October, Accra Ghana

68

56. Padi, B. and Owusu, G.K. 1998. Towards an integrated pest management for

sustainable cocoa production in Ghana. Proceedings, 1st International Workshop on

Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Panama City, Panama. March 30 April 2, 1998.

http://www.si.edu/smbc. (Accessed on the 24th

Feb. 2012)

57. Palm, C. A. 1995. Contribution of agroforestry trees to nutrient requirements of

intercropped plants. Agroforestry Systems 30: 105 – 124

58. Peeters, L. Y. K., Soto-Pinto, L. Perales, H. Montoya, G. and Ishiki, M. 2003. Coffe

production, timber, and firewood in traditional and Inga-shaded plantations in Southern

Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95: 481 – 493.

59. Perfecto, I., Rice, R.A., Greenberg, R. and Van der Voort, M. E. 1996. Shade coffee:

disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598 – 608.

60. Power, A. and Fletcher, R. 1998. Agroecosystems and biodiversity. In Proceedings of

the First International Workshop of Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Panama City, Panama.

March 30 – April 2, 1998. http://www.si.edu/smbc. (Accessed on the 11th Jan., 2011)

61. Purseglove, J. W. 1968. Tropical Crops: Dicotyledons. Harlow. Longman. 719 pp.

69

62. Rice, R.A. and Greenberg, R. 2000. Cocoa cultivation and the conservation of

biological diversity. Ambio, 29: 167-173.

63. Reitsma, R., Parrish, J. D., McLarney, W., Muschler, R. and Beer, J. 2001. The role

of cocoa pantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica.

Agroforestry Systems, 53: 185–193.

64. Ruf, F. Olivier, 2011. The Myth of Complex Cocoa Agroforests: The Case of Ghana.

Springerlink.com. Pg. 377.

65. Ruf, F. and Konan, A. 2001. Les difficultes de la replantation. Quel avenir pour le cacao

en Côte d'Ivoire. Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides 8:593.

66. Ruf, F. and H. Zadi, 1998. Cocoa: from deforestation to reforestation. Paper from

workshop on Shade Grown Cocoa held in Panama, 3/30-4/2, 1998. Smithsonian

institution. Washington, D.C.

67. Schroth, G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A., Gaston, C., Vasconcelos, H.L. and

Izac, A.M. (eds) 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes.

Island Press, Washington, D.C, 523 pp.

68. Silva, Neto PJ. 2001. Sistema de produção de cacau para a Amazônia Brasileira. Belem.

CEPLAC, Brasil. 125p.

70

69. Smith, E. 1981. The interrelationships between shade types and cocoa pest and disease

problems in Papua New Guinea. In: Proceedings of the VII International Cocoa Research

Conference, Cameroun 1979, pp 37–43. Cocoa Producers Alliance, Lagos, Nigeria

70. Somarriba, E. 1992. Timber harvest, damage to crop plants and reduction in yield in two

Costa Rican coffee plantations with Cordia alliodora shade trees. Agroforestry systems

18: 69 – 82.

71. Somarriba, E. 2006. Statement at the 15th International Cocoa Research Conference; 9–

14 October, Costa Rica.

72. Somarriba, E. 2007. Cocoa Agroforestry. World Cocoa Foundation meeting CATIE,

Turrialba, Costa Rica Amsterdam, May 23, 2007

73. Somarriba, E., Beer, J. and Muschler, R.G. 2001. Research methods for multistrata

agroforestry systems with coVee and cocoa: Recommendations from two decades of

research at CATIE. Agroforestry Systems, 53: 195–203.

74. Sonwa, D. J., S. F. Weise, M. Tchatat, B. A. Nkongmeneck, A. A. Adesina, O. Ndoye,

and J. Gockowski, 2001. The role of cocoa agroforests in rural and community forestry

in Southern Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 25g. 10 pp.

71

75. Sonwa, D.J., Nkongmeneck, B.A., Weise, S.F., Tchatat, M., Adesina, A.A. and

Jansens, M.J.J. 2007. Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone

of Southern Cameroon. Biodiversty conservation, 16:2385–2400,

76. Soule, J., Carré, D. and Jackson, 1990. Ecological impact of modern agriculture. In:

Carrol, C. R., Vandermeer, J. H. and Rosset P. M. (eds.), Agroecology. McGraw Hill,

New York, U.S.A. pp. 165 – 188.

77. Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the Birds Gone? Princeton University Press, New

Jersey, USA.

78. Vernon, A.J. 1967. New developments in cocoa shade studies in Ghana. J Sci Food

Agric 18:44~48.

79. Wessel, M. 1987. Shade and nutrition. In: Wood, G. A. R. and Lass, R. A. (eds.) Cacao.

London and New York. Longman. Pp 166 – 194.

80. Wille, C. 1994. The birds and the beans. The coffee fields of Mexico and Central

America may be the last best habitat for migrating birds. Audubon Nov/Dec 94: 58–64,

72

81. Whinney, J. 1998. Considerations for the sustainable production of cocoa.

Proceedings1st International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Panama City,

Panama. March 30 – April 2, 1998. http://www.si.edu/smbc (Accessed on the 11th

Jan.

2011)

82. Wood, P. J. 1990. Principles of species selection for agroforestry in: Macdicken, K.G.;

Vergara, N.T., (Ed.) Agroforestry: Classification and Management. New York: John

Wiley. Pg. 290-309.

83. Wood G. A. and Lass R.A. 1985. Cocoa. 4th edition. Longman scientific and Technical

Tropical Agriculture Series, New York.

84. Yapp J.H.H. and Hadley P. 1994. Inter-relationships between canopy architecture light

interception vigor and yield in cocoa. Implication for improving production efficiency.

In. cocoa conf. challenges in the 90s, pp.332-350.

85. Zuidema, P.A. Leffelaar, P.A. Gerristsma, W. Mommer, L. and Anten, N.P.R. 2005.

A physiological production model for cocoa (Theobroma cocoa): Model presentation,

validation, application. Agricultural Systems, 84: 95–225.

73

APPENDICES

RESEARCH DATA COLLECTION SHEET: JAN-FEB 2012

(PART A (INTERVIEW)

Name of Enumerator……………..................................... Date of interview……………………..

PART A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS

Name of Village……………………………………………………………………………………

1. Name of respondent………………………………………………….. 2. Age of farmer [ ]

3. Marital status. married [ ] single [ ] divorce [ ]

4. Level of education JHS [ ] SHS [ ] other specify……………………………………

5. Family size……………………………………………………………………...……... [ ]

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE-ONE

To assess farmers knowledge on the quantity and quality of shade species for used in cocoa

farm

1. Farmer’s estimate of farm size (indicate acres or hectares)…………………………….… [ ]

2. Do you have shade trees in your cocoa farm? YES [ ] NO [ ]

If no why

….................................................................................................................................................. ......

............................................................................................................................................................

3. Number of shade species per acre of cocoa ………………………………………? [ ]

4. What type of shade trees do you associated with the cocoa? Food crops (plantain, banana)

[ ] Fruit crops (oranges, avocado) [ ] Timber species [ ]

74

5. If timber tree species, names of species associated with cocoa

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Characteristics of these species (5) considered for selection? Shade quality [ ] Host to

pest & disease [ ] others, specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Preferences on characteristics of shade trees [ ] Deciduousness (Evergreen, deciduous)[

] Growth rate [ ] Tree Height [ ] Crown shape [ ] Leaf size [ ]

If other(s) specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

OBJECTIVE-TWO

To identify the methods of integration and management of shade species used in cocoa

farms.

1. Previous land use prior to planting? Forest [ ] Long bush fallow [ ] short fallow-food

crop rotation [ ] Replanted old cocoa farm [ ] Abandoned cocoa farm [ ]

If other describe…………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. How were these species associated with cocoa (methods) Planted Seedlings [ ] Natural

regeneration and thinning forest vegetation [ ] If other(s), specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

75

3. If natural regeneration how is it done?

……………………………………………………………................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Source of planting material? Pods from own farm or neighbor’s farm [ ] Cocobod seed

production unit [ ] Both [ ] Unknown [ ]

other……………………………………………………………………………….

4. Majority of cocoa planted in rows? Yes [ ] No [ ]

5. Spacing interval between trees if majority planted in rows …………x………….ft

6. What is the average distance cocoa and tree species ………………..x……………ft

7. What are the benefits of using shade trees in cocoa farming? Light regulation for cocoa [ ]

Soil fertility improvement [ ] Enhance/maintain productivity [ ] Pests and diseases control [

] other………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. What are the changes in your farm due to the presence of the tree species?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9. If pests and diseases, which tree for which disease……………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. Do you manage the established trees YES [ ] NO [ ]

11. If yes how do you do it? Pruning [ ] killing [ ] felling [ ] others specify……………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you require labour for any of these YES [ ] NO [ ]

76

12. If yes, how many labors and how much per labor per year? Labors ………………… Amount

GHC………………………………………

13. Do you see any disadvantages of using shade trees on your cocoa? Loss of productivity [ ]

Water and nutrient loss [ ] Diseases and pests incidence [ ] Difficulties on management

practices [ ] other, specify……………………………………………………………………….

14. Do you receive any assistance for managing these trees YES [ ] NO [ ]

15. If yes from whom? Cocobod [ ] forestry commission [ ] MOFA [ ] other(s) specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

OBJECTIVE- THREE

To compare the yield of cocoa under a specific method of tree integration.

Y1 How many total bags (or kg if known) of

cocoa did you sell in 2007/2008 from all your

farms? This includes the portion given to

sharecroppers and caretakers.

Total bags sold 2007/2008 season_____

Total kg sold 2007/2008 season_______

Y2 How many total bags (or kg if known) did you

sell in 2008/2009 from all your farms?

Total bags sold 2008/2009 season_____

(or) Total kg sold 2008/2009 season____

Y3 How many total bags (or kg if known) did you

sell in 2009/2010 from all your farms?

Total bags sold 2008/2009 season_____

(or) Total kg sold 2009/2010 season____

Y4 How many total bags (or kg if known) did you

sell in 2010/2011 from all your farms?

Total bags sold 2008/2009 season_____

(or) Total kg sold 2010/2011 season____

Y5 Did you or any member of your household sell Yes 1

77

any other non cocoa agricultural product

produced on your cocoa farm in the last 12

months?

No 2

Y6 What was the most important non-cocoa

commodity sold?

Most important____________

Y7 What is the age of you cocoa farm?

PART B. FIELD OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION TO BE CONDUCTED AFTER

INTERVIEW