Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three Project Areas in Ethiopia

Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three Project Areas in Ethiopia

By Wondimu Bayu, Merga Bayissa, Kebede Manjur, Asmamaw Yeshanew, Enyew Agdo, Getachew Sime,

Adugna Tolera, Tesfay Belay, Kiros Meles, Jens B. Aune and Abiye Alemu Ayele

October 2010

DCG Report No. 59

Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in

Three Project Areas in Ethiopia

Wondimu Bayu, Merga Bayissa, Kebede Manjur,

Asmamaw Yeshanew, Enyew Agdo, Getachew Sime, Adugna Tolera, Tesfay Belay, Kiros Meles, Jens B. Aune and Abiye

Alemu Ayele

DCG Report No. 59 October 2010

The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical experiences and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. DCG facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policy-making institutions. The DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and sustainable natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian People's Aid, The Stromme Foundation and The Development Fund. Noragric, the Centre for International Environment and Development Studies at the Agricultural University of Norway, provides the secretariat as a facilitating and implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation). This study was organized and executed by TARI (Tigray Agricultural Research Institute), ARARI (Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute) and Hawassa University on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG secretariat. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author(s) and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.

© By Wondimu Bayu, Merga Bayissa, Kebede Manjur, Asmamaw Yeshanew, Enyew Agdo, Getachew Sime, Adugna Tolera, Tesfay Belay, Kiros Meles, Jens B. Aune and Abiye Alemu Ayele Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 59, 10, 2010. Drylands Coordination Group c/o Miljøhuset G9 Grensen 9B N-0159 Oslo Norway Tel.: +47 23 10 94 10 Fax: +47 23 10 94 94 Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org ISSN: 1503-0601 Photo credits: cover: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg, Photo credit report: Abiye Alemu Ayele and Asmamaw Yeshanew Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås. Printed at: Mail Boxes ETC.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ix

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 3

2.1 HOW THE ACTION RESEARCH WAS STARTED ..................................................... 3

2.2 PROJECT AREAS ........................................................................................................... 3

2.3 MODE OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS ........................................ 4

2.4 NUMBER OF EXPERIMENTS EXECUTED & NUMBER OF FARMERS INVOLVED ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED ................................................................. 5

2.6 MODE OF FARMERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT ..................................... 5

2.7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND DATA COLLECTION ............................ 5

2.8 FARMER-TO-FARMER EXTENSION.......................................................................... 6

3.1 CROP VARIETY & MULTIPURPOSE TREES ADAPTATION STUDIES ................ 7

3.1.1 Maize variety adaptation ........................................................................................... 7

3.1.2 Finger millet variety adaptation ................................................................................ 7

3.1.3 Rice variety adaptation .............................................................................................. 9

3.1.4 Lowland pulse crops adaptation .............................................................................. 11

3.1.5 Striga resistant sorghum variety adaptation ............................................................ 13

3.1.6 Adaptation of fruit trees .......................................................................................... 15

3.1.7 Adaptation of multipurpose tree species ................................................................. 15

3.1.8 Green manure crops adaptation ............................................................................... 17

3.2 CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT STUDIES........................................................... 19

3.2.1 Harvesting at physiological maturity ...................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Micro dosing/Micro fertilization study ................................................................... 20

3.2.3 Conservation tillage ................................................................................................. 22

3.2.4 Intercropping ........................................................................................................... 25

3.2.5 Seed priming ........................................................................................................... 26

3.2.6 Sowing date study on sorghum ............................................................................... 27

3.2.7 Yield losses assessment due to sorghum stalk borer & stalk borer management ... 28

3.2.8 Integrated management of striga on sorghum ......................................................... 29

3.3 DEMONSTRATION ON ALTERNATIVE ASSET CREATING ACTIVITIES ........ 30

3.3.2 Demonstration on breeding and dairy goats rearing ............................................... 31

3.4 BEST PERFORMING TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................... 32

3.5 TECHNOLOGIES THAT NEED FURTHER INVESTIGATION ............................... 33

3.6 CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................................................ 33

3.6.1 Trainings .................................................................................................................. 33

3.6.2 Advocacy ................................................................................................................. 34

3.6.3 Preparation of production manuals ......................................................................... 34

3.7 FARMERS’ VIEWS AND REACTIONS ..................................................................... 34

3.8 STAKEHOLDERS REACTION TO THE RESEARCH RESULTS & UPSCALING ACTIVITIES DURING THE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS ............................................... 35

3.9 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................ 35

3.9.1 EFFECT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION & HEALTH ..... 35

ii

3.9.2 Effect on household income improvement .............................................................. 36

3.9.3 Effects on environmental protection ....................................................................... 36

3.9.4 Contribution to climate change adaptation .............................................................. 36

3.10 RELEVANCE OF THE ECOFARM PROJECT TO ETHIOPIAS POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 36

3.11 POLITICAL SUPPORT TO THE PROJECT .............................................................. 37

3.12 CONSTRAINTS TO WIDE SCALE ADOPTION ..................................................... 37

3.13 CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THE ECOFARM PROJECT ........................ 37

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 38

ANNEX 1. RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS IN THE 3 VILLAGES IN TACH ARMACHIHO ...................... 40

ANNEX 2. LIST OF ACTION RESRACH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN ATJK ............ 41

ANNEX 3. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN TIGRAY .... 42

ANNEX 4. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN TACH ARMACHIHO ......................................................................................................................... 43

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Germination percentage, days to heading, and grain and stover yields (q ha-1) of maize varieties in ATJK in 2006-2008 ...................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Germination percentage, days to heading, and grain and straw yields (q ha-1) of finger millet varieties in ATJK in 2007-2008 ............................................................................ 8 Table 3. Grain yield (q ha-1) of finger millet varieties at the three villages in Tach Armachiho .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Yield of finger millet varieties in a scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008 ... 8 Table 5. Yield (q ha-1) of rice varieties at Tach Armachiho in 2006 ........................................ 9 Table 6. Yield of NERICA-4 and Superica-1 rice varieties in a scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 7. Seed yield (kg ha-1) of cow pea, haricot bean and pigeon pea varieties in the 2006 cropping season at the three villages in Tigray ........................................................................ 11 Table 8. Yield performance (q ha-1) of lowland pulses at Tach Armachiho in 2006 ............... 11 Table 9. Days to maturity, yield and yield components of groundnut (var. Shulamith) (Mean ± SD) in a scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008 ......................................................... 12 Table 10. Performance of Striga resistant sorghum varieties at the three testing sites of Tigray .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 11. Performance of striga resistant sorghum varieties at Tach Armachiho in 2006 ..... 13 Table 12. Performance of Hormat sorghum variety in a demonstration-cum-scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008 (Mean± SD) ................................................................................. 14 Table 13. Establishment of different multipurpose tree species in Tigray in 2006 ................. 16 Table 14. Percent establishment of Gliricida sepium as fodder banks in Tigray..................... 17 Table 15. Productivity and nutrient content of green manure crops at Tach Armachiho in 2007 .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 16. Effect of harvesting stage on the grain and stover yield of maize in ATJK in 2007-2008 .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 17. Effect of harvesting stage on the grain and stover yield of sorghum in Tigray in 2006 .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 18. Effect of micro dosing on the germination, days to heading and Grain and Straw yields of maize (ACV6) at ATJK in 2006-2008 ..................................................................... 20 Table 19. Cost distribution, gross income and Marginal revenue (Birr/ha) for the Micro dosing treatments ...................................................................................................................... 21 Table 20. Effect of fertilizer microdosing on stand count, days to maturity and grain/seed yields of haricot bean and sorghum in Tigray in 2006 ............................................................. 21 Table 21. Effect of fertilizer micro dosing on the yield (kg/30 m2 plot) of sorghum in Tigray in 2007 ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 22. Grain yield of sorghum in a micro dosing experiment at Filwuha, Tach Armachiho in 2007 ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 23. Effect of zero-, reduced- and conventional-tillage on the germination, heading and grain and stover yields of maize and sorghum in ATJK in 2006-2008 .................................... 23 Table 24. Cost distribution, gross income and Marginal revenue (Birr/ha) for different tillage systems 2006-2008 ................................................................................................................... 23 Table 25. Yield (q ha-1) of haricot bean and sorghum under different tillage practices in Tigray ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 26. Partial budget analysis for tillage practices for haricot bean in Tigray ................... 24 Table 27. Partial budget analysis for tillage practices for sorghum in Tigray ......................... 25 Table 28. Productivity of maize/haricot bean intercropping at ATJK in 2006-2008 .............. 26 Table 29. Productivity of sorghum/haricot bean intercropping at Genete and Tulebo in Tigray .................................................................................................................................................. 26

iv

Table 30. Effect of seed priming on the performances and yields of maize and sorghum in ATJK in 2006-2007 .................................................................................................................. 27 Table 31. Effect of seed priming on the grain yields of sorghum and haricot bean in Tigray 27 Table 32. Grain yield (q ha-1) of sorghum (var. Gobiye & Teshale) under different sowing dates at Tach Armachiho in 2007 ............................................................................................. 28 Table 33. Yield loss estimate due to sorghum stalk borer on local sorghum variety at Tach Armachiho in 2007 ................................................................................................................... 28 Table 34. Effect of stalk placement on the survival of stalk borer larvae in Tigray ................ 29 Table 35. Striga count and plant height of sorghum in an integrated management of striga at Sanja and Filwuha, Tach Armachiho in 2008 .......................................................................... 30 Table 36. Biomass yield (q ha-1) of sorghum in an integrated management of striga at Sanja and Filwuha, Tach Armachiho in 2008 .................................................................................... 30 Table 37. Current state of goat rearing in Filwuha and Sanja, Tach Armachiho ..................... 32

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Performance of finger millet varieties at ATJK .......................................................... 9 Figure 2. Performance of NERICA-4 and Superical-1 rice varieties in Tach Armachiho ....... 10 Figure 3. Rice dehuller installed at Sanja ................................................................................. 10 Figure 4. Performance of groundnut (var. Shulamith) at Filwuha & Sanja in 2008 ................ 12 Figure 5. Healthy and striga free resistant variety (left) and local variety devastated by striga (right) ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 6. Performance of Hormat at Sanja (left) and Filwuha (right) ...................................... 15 Figure 7. Establishment of Moringa stenopetala and Morus spp. at Genete (Left) and .......... 17 Figure 8. Performance of green manure crops at Tach Armachiho in 2007 ............................ 18 Figure 9. Sorghum field harvested at physiological maturity (left) (note greenness) and sorghum harvested at farmers’ practice (right) in Tigray. ....................................................... 20 Figure 10. Maize/haricot bean intercropping at ATJK ............................................................ 26 Figure 11. Women feeding and milking their dairy goat in ATJK & Tigray .......................... 32

vi

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1. RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS IN THE 3 VILLAGES IN TACH ARMACHIHO ...................... 40 ANNEX 2. LIST OF ACTION RESRACH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN ATJK ............ 41 ANNEX 3. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN TIGRAY .... 42 ANNEX 4. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN TACH ARMACHIHO ......................................................................................................................... 43

vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

ARARI Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute

ATJK Adami Tulu Jiddo Kombolcha

DAs Development Agents

DAP Diammonium phosphate

DCG Drylands Coordination Group

ISM Integrated Striga Management

LER Land Equivalent Ratio

m.a.s.l. meters above sea level

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MPTs Multipurpose tree species

MU Mekele University

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

PAs Peasant Associations

PASDEP Plan for Accelerated & Sustainable Development & Eradicating Poverty

REST Relief Society of Tigray

SD Standard Deviation

SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State

TARI Tigray Agricultural Research Institute

WoARD Wereda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of the efforts of a number of people participating in the Ecofarm project. Both research institutions in Ethiopia and Norway, NGOs, and farmers in the three regions covered by the Ecofarm project have together worked hard to test the different techniques and to document the results. In each region, Oromiya, Tigray, and Amhara National Regional States, project reports, manuals and fact sheets have been produced. There are many people who have contributed to each annual report in the project, but the main authors of the three years regional material are Merga Bayissa, Kebede Manjur and Asmamaw Yeshanew.

This report is a compilation of three regional project reports and the compilation has been done by Dr. Wondimu Bayu. There have also been other contributors to the report and we would like to mention in particular Tesfay Belay, Enyew Agdo, Getachew Sime, Kiros Meles and Adugna Tolera. They have contributed either at the start up of the project, all the way through, or have been important in the reporting at the end of the project. In addition to the individual researchers and farmers, DCG acknowledges the commitment from the research institutions in the three regions, TARI, ARARI and Hawassa University, who have had the formal responsibility for the implementation of the project. The work of DCG Ethiopia must also be acknowledged, and particularly the coordinator, Abiye Alemu Ayele, who played a crucial role in the coordination of the project and the editing of the report.

The Ecofarm approach was first developed and implemented in Mali by the DCG network, and has since been implemented in both Ethiopia and Sudan. The results from this work are convincing throughout the study areas. Jens B. Aune at Noragric has been instrumental in providing technical backstopping of the Ecofarm project in all three countries.

On behalf of DCG Norway – Astrid Tveteraas

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ecofarm project, financially and technically supported by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) and NORAGRIC respectively, was launched in Ethiopia with the objectives to increase farmers’ income, to reduce farmers’ vulnerability to climate change, to improve human nutrition, and preserve the environment. This was done through introduction of improved technologies.

Ecofarm action research activities were conducted for three years starting in 2006 in Oromiya, Tigray, and Amhara National Regional States. The research was conducted in three Peasant Asssociations (Ellelan Ababo, Leliso Dambe and Ciitu Getto) in Adami Tulu Jiddo Kombolacha (ATJK) Wereda of Oromiya, four PAs (Genete, Tsegea, Tsehafti, and Tulebo) in Raya Azebo and Hintallo Wejerat Weredas of Tigray, and two PAs (Sanja and Filwuha) in Tach Armachiho Wereda of Amhara region. In the 2006 and 2007 cropping seasons different action research activities were conducted at all project areas. Six promising activities in ATJK and 4 activities in Tach Armachiho were up scaled during 2008, while activities in Tigray failed due to severe moisture deficit. During the project period, a total of 27 action research activities at ATJK, 10 action research activities at Tigray and 24 action research activities at Tach Armachiho were conducted. On average 3-10 research activities were executed at each village each year with the participation of a total of 238 farmers. Adaptation research activities were conducted on finger millet, maize and sorghum varieties and on fruit and fodder trees such as Moringa, Avocado, Papaya, Mango and Lucanea spps in ATJK. In Tigray, adaptation trials were conducted on striga resistant sorghum varieties, haricot bean varieties and on multipurpose trees like Moringa, Mulberry, and Gliricida. At Tach Armachiho, adaptation experiments were conducted on rice, groundnut, soybean, finger millet, sorghum, and maize varieties and on Moringa, Jatropha, and Green Manure species. Furthermore, crop and soil management experiments like conservation tillage, seed priming, micro fertilization, intercropping, sowing date and harvesting of maize at physiological maturity in ATJK; conservation tillage, seed priming, fertilizer microdosing, intercropping, stalk borer management, trench compost, and harvesting sorghum at physiological maturity in Tigray; and conservation tillage, seed priming, fertilizer micro dozing, intercropping, sowing date, and yield loss assessment due to sorghum stalk borer in Tach Armachiho were conducted. Additionally, to raise the income of poor female headed households’, activities like silk worm rearing and dairy goat production in Tigray and honey bee and dairy goat production in ATJK and Tach Armachiho were executed as components to the action research activities. From these activities, at ATJK, maize varieties (BH-540 & ACV-6), finger millet varieties (Tadesse and Padet), fruit crops (mango, papaya, & avocado), multipurpose trees (Moringa & Leucaena), harvesting maize at physiological maturity, fertilizer micro dosing, reduced tillage, maize/haricot bean intercropping, maize seed priming, dairy goat production, and beekeeping were found to be promising technologies that the WoARD can encourage the farmers to use. In Tigray, striga resistant sorghum varieties (Gobiye & Abshir), haricot bean varieties (NSPT#2 and Bayo Rata), cowpea varieties (TVU-1922-0D-01 & white wonder trailing), dairy goat production, fodder banks (Gliricida sepium) and multipurpose trees (Moringa and Mulberry), sorghum seed priming, harvesting sorghum at physiological maturity, stalk placement for stalk borer control, micro dosing 0.5gm and 1gm at first

x

weeding, and zero/reduced tillage need to be scaled up. In Tach Armachiho rice, finger millet and groundnut varieties are the most important technologies selected and adopted. Moringa species and Jatropha are also promising. C.juncea and C. grahaminis are important green manure crops in terms of adaptation and biomass production and the Wereda can encourage the farmers to use these technologies either as green manure crops or biomass for compost preparation. If the time of planting could be adjusted to last week of July, striga resistant sorghum varieties could partly solve the striga problem. Soybean could do well in the area and it deserves further evaluation. Micro dosing fertilizer application could be an alternative fertilizer application method for cash constrained farmers who are not capable of applying the recommended amount as less amount of fertilizer is required to increase production in micro dosing. Trainings were also given to farmers, DAs, and WoARD experts. At ATJK, trainings were delivered to farmers, DAs and WoARD experts on the use of crop residues for animal feed, on treatment and management of crop residues, on on-farm research techniques, and on management of fruit and fodder trees. In Tigray, training was given on recipe preparation from Gobiye, Moringa, and haricot bean. In Tach Armachiho trainings were given on rice recipe preparation and on rice dehuller operation. At Tach Armachiho, a 21 pages production manual containing rice, finger millet, groundnut, and sorghum was prepared in “Amharic” language and produced in 100 copies and distributed to farmers, Development Agents, experts, supervisors, and Wereda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Drylands Coordination Group

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Dryland areas are mostly exposed to the different vagaries of nature like drought and flooding. In the drylands, rainfall is the major factor that affects agriculture determining the net primary productivity, the crops grown, the farming systems followed, and the sequence and timing of farm operations. Temperatures in these areas are high, often more than 35 0C. Drylands also often have problems with soil productivity by nutrient exhaustion and inefficient soil management techniques.

Owing to these facts, farming in dryland areas is a challenging venture. Farmers are confronted with multiple problems related to the environment and socio-economic conditions. The environmental factors that greatly constrain the livelihood improvement efforts of farmers are recurrent droughts and flood, exacerbated by the effects of climate change, poor soil fertility, weed and pest problems, and degradation of rangelands and forests. The socio-economic constraints are related to limited income generating opportunities, lack of access to credit, poor infrastructure, nutritional problems (lack of vitamin A and C, iron, and iodine), and limited access to improved agricultural technologies. Small scale dryland farmers are facing the challenges of climate change. Consequently, farmers do not produce sufficient to cover their own needs and no surplus production is generated that can be used to create assets. At the same time, farmers and particularly women and children are affected by malnutrition.

Despite the multidimensional challenges facing dryland farmers, dryland areas have not got sufficient research and development attention, mainly due to the limited capacities of both the national and regional research system to address the challenges. Until very recently, research and development efforts in the country have been biased towards high potential areas. Thus, efforts to improve the livelihood of dryland farmers calls for availing improved agricultural technologies including drought and pest resistant, high value and productive crop varieties, improved soil fertility management technologies, and improved livestock technologies. This includes identifying crop varieties that could adapt to moisture shortage, high temperature and poor soil fertility. Improved agricultural technologies which could substantially improve production and productivity in dryland areas are available, but these technologies have never been evaluated and made available to the dryland farmers in the country. Consequently, the majorities of the dryland farmers are exposed to year round food aid.

Cognizant of this reality, a 3 years ecofarm project, supported by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), has been launched with the objectives of availing best agricultural technologies to increase farmers’ income, to reduce farmers’ vulnerability to climate change, to improve human nutrition, and to preserve the environment so that the community could become food secure. Ecofarm is an integrated farm that aims at increasing agricultural productivity in an environmental friendly way by combining different low input technologies. These technologies are a combination of farmers’ best technologies and research developed technologies. The ecofarm approach also focuses on strengthening the interaction between crop and livestock production and development of a farm that can produce healthy food for the household. A particular emphasis is given to use of technologies that can improve resource use efficiency and preserve the environment. The technologies in the ecofarm are presented as a basket of options and farmers use the technologies that are most appropriate to them.

Results of Ecofarm Action Research in Ethiopia

2

In Ethiopia, the ecofarm research project was initiated in March 2006 and implemented at three sites namely Adami-Tulu Jiddo Kombolcha (Oromiya Region), Hintalo Wajerat and Raya Azebo (Tigray Region), and Tach Armachiho (Amhara Region) with a joint effort between research institutes, NGOs, Offices of Agriculture and Rural Development, and farmers. The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) and Hawassa University run the Adami-Tulu Jiddo Kombolcha (ATJK) project and Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI) in collaboration with the Relief Society of Tigray (REST) and Mekelle University ran the Tigray project. The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences gave technical support to the project while financial support was provided by Drylands Coordination Group.


3

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 HOW THE ACTION RESEARCH WAS STARTED

Before initiating the research activities at each project area, preliminary field assessment reports, quick opinion survey of farmers and Development Agents, and literature review on availability of potential technologies was done in addition to the physical observation made in the project Weredas and the villages. In the course of executing experiments, site selection was followed by several visits and discussions with the local communities and the Wereda agriculture and rural development offices.

2.2 PROJECT AREAS

In Ethiopia, the action research activities were conducted in Oromiya, Tigray and Amhara National Regional States with three PAs (Ellelan Ababo, Leliso Dambe and Ciitu Getto) in ATJK Wereda of Oromiya, four PAs (Genete, Tsegea, Tsehafti and Tulebo) in Raya Azebo and Hintallo Wejerat Weredas of Tigray, and two PAs (Sanja and Filwuha) in Tach Armachiho Wereda of Amhara. In Tach Armachiho activities were started with three villages in 2006 (Sanja, Yayira and Filwuha), but later in 2007 and 2008 activities were conducted only at Sanja and Filwuha as farmers in Yayira could not show interest in the action research. In Oromiya, the project sites are situated at an altitude ranging from 1700 to 1800 m.a.s.l. The Wereda receives an average rainfall of 400-600 mm per annum. The rainfall distribution is erratic with high evapotranspiration rates during most of the year. The soils of ATJK Wereda are mainly sandy loam with degraded vegetation cover. In Tigray, the two project Weredas, Raya Azebo and Hintalo Wajerat, are situated at an altitude ranging from 930 to 1800 and 450 to 2400 m.a.s.l., respectively. The Weredas receive an average rainfall of 400-700 mm per annum. The rainfall in Tigray as well has an erratic distribution with high evapo-transpiration rates which often exceeds rainfall in most of the year. The soils of Raya Azebo Wereda are mainly sandy loam. In Amhara, the project Wereda, Tach Armachiho, is situated at an altitude ranging between 950 and 1050 m.a.s.l. The area receives an annual rainfall ranging between 800 and 1800 mm. The average temperature is 25-42 OC. Vertisols are the dominant soil type. The physical and chemical properties of the soils of experimental plots in ATJK and Tach Armachiho were analyzed in 2006. The results of the analysis of the soils in Tach Armachiho indicated that the soil pH is neutral which shows that the soil is suitable to grow most crops. The electrical conductivity of the soil is below the critical value of 0.2%. Soils are dark in color and clay in texture. The organic matter content ranges between 2 to 5.5% which is within the range of medium to high for cultivated land. Nitrogen and phosphorus are found in the range of low to high while the concentration of potassium is above the required critical concentration. Based on the analyzed soil parameters, the soils of the experimental plots are more or less suitable for the production of pulses and cereals which were the focus of the experimentation in the Wereda (Annex 1).


4

2.3 MODE OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS

The ecofarm project has given special attention to building partnership between stakeholders in the selected areas. In Oromyia, the project was implemented by a concerted effort of Hawassa University, the Wereda office of Agriculture and Rural Development, ADRA, farmers and village leaders. The mode of operation was that the village leaders and development agents made the selection of willing and interested participating farmers. Researchers from Hawassa University discussed the objectives of the project with development agents and farmers. The modalities of operation, the responsibilities of the farmers and the researchers as well as that of the DA were decided. Discussions were held at each village as well as at a central place where the participants from each village came together in the presence of DAs working in each village. Similarly in Tigray, the project was executed as a collaboration between the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, REST, TARI, Mekele University (MU), and farmers. TARI in collaboration with the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development was the frontline implementers of the project and development agents and experts were actively involved. Especially, the involvement of veterinarians in the dairy goat intervention, agronomists in the crop related interventions and foresters in the multipurpose tree related activities were crucial. The Tach Armachiho project was also implemented with a joint effort between the Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI), the Wereda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (WoARD), farmers, and village Administrators. The mode of operation was that researchers from ARARI, in discussion with the community, selected action research agendas and developed the action research to be implemented. Village Administrators, Wereda experts and Development Agents (DAs) with researchers from ARARI have played an important role in mobilizing interested and willing farmers to be involved in the action research. In all the project areas, DAs have played a great role in guiding and assisting farmers in the day to day management and evaluation of the action research experimental plots. They have also played an important role in organizing field days to non-participating farmers. Farmers’ active participation is one of the most important points that led this project to success. Each year researchers gave orientations to farmers, DAs, and experts about the objectives of each of the research activities and the results expected from the activities.

2.4 NUMBER OF EXPERIMENTS EXECUTED & NUMBER OF FARMERS

INVOLVED

During the project period a total of 27 action research activities in ATJK, 10 action research activities in Tigray and 24 action research activities in Tach Armachiho were conducted. In all the three project areas, on average 3-10 research activities were executed at each village each year with the participation of a total of 238 farmers. In ATJK 9-10 experiments were conducted in each year in 2006, 2007 and 2008 cropping seasons. Similarly, in Tigray 11 experiments in 2006 and 10 experiments in 2007 were conducted. In Tach Armachiho as well, 8 experiments were conducted each year in the 2006 and 2007 cropping seasons. In the 2008 cropping season, scaling up activities were conducted on 6 activities at ATJK and 4 activities in Tach Armachiho. While in Tigray, research activities conducted in the 2008 cropping season failed due to severe moisture deficit.


5

2.5 TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED

With the objectives of preserving biodiversity, adaptating to climate change, and improving human nutrition; action oriented development research activities were conducted on adapting finger millet, maize, sorghum, and haricot bean varieties and on fruit and fodder trees such as moringa, avocado, papaya, mango and Leucanea spps in ATJK (Annex 2). In Tigray also, adaption activities were conducted on haricot bean, cowpea, pigeon pea, and striga resistant sorghum varieties and multipurpose trees like moringa, mulberry and gliricida (Annex 3). At Tach Armachiho, adaptation experiments were conducted on rice, groundnut, finger millet, sorghum, maize, haricot bean, pigeon pea, cowpea, and soy bean varieties and on moringa, jatropha, and green manure spp (Annex 4). Besides, crop and soil management experiments like conservation tillage, seed priming, fertilizer microdosing, intercropping, sowing date and harvesting of maize at physiological maturity in ATJK (Annex 2); conservation tillage, seed priming, fertilizer microdosing, intercropping, stalk borer management, trench compost, and harvesting at physiological maturity in Tigray (Annex 3); and conservation tillage, seed priming, fertilizer microdosing, intercropping, sowing date, and yield loss assessment due to sorghum stalk borer in Tach Armachiho (Annex 4) were conducted. Furthermore, to raise the income of poor female headed households’ activities like silk worm rearing and dairy goat production in Tigray and honey bee and dairy goat production in ATJK and Tach Armachiho were executed as a component of the action research activities.

2.6 MODE OF FARMERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT

Farmers in each village were first contacted and explained about the identified research agendas. Besides, they also pointed problems that should be addressed by the project. After approving the action research types, roles and responsibilities were determined. After such discussions, willing and responsible farmers were selected. The selected farmers were also willing to let other farmers see what was going on in the experimental plots. Participating farmers also assured their willingness to organize field days. All the labor demanded for the implementation of experiments was covered by the host farmer. Field management was also conducted by farmers with backstopping by DAs and researcher assistant. Based on the knowledge gained in each season, a number of farmers were able to follow the test farmers, as a result of this the number of farmers who were engaged in this project increased spontaneously. Moreover, the social networking was the major tool in promoting farmer to farmer exchange of knowledge and experience. In ATJK, the action research plots were used by the WoARD as actual demonstration sites for farmers in ten peasant associations.

2.7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND DATA COLLECTION

At each project area frequent and close monitoring and evaluation was made by researchers, research assistants, site manager & WoARD experts, DAs and farmers. The day to day follow up was made by the DAs of each village and the farmers themselves. In ATJK, project activities were visited and evaluated by a team of people from the WoARD and ADRA-Ziway at every cropping season and action research results were presented to the policy makers of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR) in the third year. In Tigray, the TARI management did field level monitoring and evaluation. Each year DCG Ethiopia, DCG Norway, and Noragric had field visit to the three project areas and made assessment on the implementation and performance of the action research activities. Quarterly


6

and annual reports were also made to DCG Ethiopia as one way of monitoring the activities. Data collection was made by the researchers and DAs with the participation of farmers in ATJK and Tigray and by the site manager and DAs in Tach Armachiho.

2.8 FARMER-TO-FARMER EXTENSION

Field days were used as the main avenue to disseminate the best performing technologies. Each season field days were organized in each village to demonstrate the performance of the research activities to non participating farmers. There were a total of 360-370 farmers and DAs in ATJK and 299 farmers in Tach Armachiho who have attended the field days during the three years. This has facilitated the farmer-to-farmer dissemination of technologies. Farmers which were not involved in the action research activities have adopted some of the technologies through farmer-to-farmer extension. Most of the adoption processes of the technologies were informally integrated in the activities of the farmers by the farmer to farmer extension during their social gatherings. In ATJK, technologies like row planting, intercropping, and reduced tillage were adopted by the non participating farmers through the farmer-to-farmer communication. Planting of fruit and fodder tree seedlings was adopted by 22 farmers. Reduced tillage of haricot beans was adopted by 120 farmers. Row planting of maize and haricot beans was adopted at large. In Tigray, the dairy goat production activity is found to be the most promising where many non participating farmers have adopted the technology. In one of the pilot sites in Tigray i.e Tsehafti, about 20 farmers have adopted the action research activities. In Tach Armachiho too, about 40 copy farmers have grown rice in the 2008 cropping season outside the project support by getting seeds from farmers who grew rice in the 2007 season. Many farmers have also showed interest to adopt groundnut production; however shortage of groundnut seed has limited farmer-to-farmer dissemination of this technology.


7

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 CROP VARIETY & MULTIPURPOSE TREES ADAPTATION STUDIES

3.1.1 Maize variety adaptation

Adaptation studies on maize were conducted in ATJK and Tach Armachiho. In ATJK, the study was conducted in the 2006 and 2007 cropping seasons on four maize varieties (BH-540, Katumani, Melkassa-1, and ACV-6). The results indicated that the varieties BH-540 and ACV-6 have better agronomic performance and yield. BH-540 gave the highest grain yield (57 q ha-1) followed by ACV-6 (31 q ha-1) (Table 1). The maize variety ACV-6 is an early maturing variety suitable for moisture stressed areas. However, BH-540 is a relatively late maturing variety whose yield could be compromised when the rainy season becomes shorter. Katumani and Melkassa-1 gave the lowest yield. The low yield of Katumani is attributed to dogs feeding on the cob due to the very short height of the plants. In the 2008 season scaling out activities were conducted using the two best varieties. In Tach Armachiho too, an adaptation trial on three maize varieties (BH540, Awassa 511, & Melkassa-1) was conducted at Sanja in the 2007 cropping season, however data was not collected properly. Table 1. Germination percentage, days to heading, and grain and stover yields (q ha-1) of maize varieties in

ATJK in 2006-2008

Variable

Variety (Mean +SD)

ACV6 BH 540 Katumani Melkassa-1

Germination % 96.80± 1.15 98.75± 1.00 52.00 ±4.58 91.25± 4.35

Days to heading 55.00±0.00 75.00±0.00 40.00±0.00 43.50±0.00

Grain yield (q/ha) 31.17 ±7.023 56.66± 2.083 12.66± 13.01 23.00± 7.44

Straw yield (q/ha) 36.42 ±6.11 54.50 ± 5.21 16.37± 4.42 19.73± 6.34

3.1.2 Finger millet variety adaptation

Finger millet is a new crop in ATJK, but in Tach Armachiho it is one of the major crops being grown in the area. In Tach Armachiho, farmers grow local varieties which are low yielding and not easily threshable. To avail improved high yielding and threshable finger millet varieties, adaptation studies were carried out on two varieties (Tadesse and Padet) in ATJK in 2007 and 2008 and three varieties (Tadesse, Padet and Degu) in Tach Armachiho 2007. At ATJK, the two varieties performed well with a yield range of 14 to 17 q ha-1 (Table 2 and Figure 1). The two varieties also gave very high straw yield. The finger millet straw is a very palatable feed which made the crop attractive as a dual purpose crop. Furthermore, the varieties were disease and pest free. As a new crop, farmers in ATJK were very much attracted by the adaptability and productivity of the varieties in that specific harsh environment. Farmers have appreciated the high yield and drought and weed tolerance of the varieties. Introducing finger millet in ATJK has resulted in crop diversification which increased income generation and food security. Results in Tach Armachiho indicated that the two improved varieties (Tadesse and Padet) have given good yields. Farmers have selected these two varieties because of their white seeds, high biomass yield and ease in threshing (Table 3).


8

Table 2. Germination percentage, days to heading, and grain and straw yields (q ha-1) of finger millet varieties in ATJK in 2007-2008

Variable

Variety (Mean ±SD) Tadesse Padet

Germination Percentage 100.00±0.00 100.00±0.00 Days to heading 49.20± 0.60 48.88±0.40 Grain yield (q/ha) 14.25±1.42 17.23± 4.22 Straw yield (q/ha) 46.23 ±2.67 62.00± 4.76 Table 3. Grain yield (q ha-1) of finger millet varieties at the three villages in Tach Armachiho in 2007

Variety Sanja Yayira Filwuha Average yield (Mean +SD)

Local 17 20.0 9.84 15.6±5.22 Tadesse 15 22.5 9.12 15.8±6.77 Degu 10.3 6 4.8 6.3±2.89 Padet 20 18 13.4 17.1±3.38 Considering farmers interest on Tadesse and Padet, scaling up activities were conducted in the 2008 cropping season both in ATJK and Tach Armachiho. In Tach Armachiho scaling up activity was done on a total of 500 m2 for each variety. The production of Padet and Tadesse was implemented on three farmers’ plots at Sanja and 2 farmers’ plots at Filwuha. Had it not been for shortage of seeds, the scaling up work would have been done at a scale larger than this. During the scaling up activity, farmers have appreciated the varieties for their high grain and biomass yields, ease in threshing, and palatability of the biomass by cattle. However, they preferred Padet to Tadesse which gave high biomass and grain yield and has good seed colour for Injera making (Table 4). A certain level occurrence of head blast disease was observed on some plots which need future research attention. Furthermore, severe striga infestation was observed on most plots. Thus, cultivation of Padet and Tadesse should concentrate on less striga infested fields. Table 4. Yield of finger millet varieties in a scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008

Village n Variety

Days to maturity

Biomass yield (q ha-1)

Grain yield (q ha-1)

Farmers reaction

Sanja 3 Padet 104±0.00 91±4.04 12.3±1.75 accepted 3 Tadesse 97±0.00 67±5.77 10.8±1.44 accepted

Filwuha 2 Padet 104±0.00 95±9.8 13.3±0.35 accepted 2 Tadesse 97±0.00 80±0.00 12.3±0.35 accepted

n = number of fields or farmers


9

Figure 1. Performance of finger millet varieties at ATJK

3.1.3 Rice variety adaptation

A rice variety adaptation study was conducted at Tach Armachiho on four upland rice varieties in the 2006 cropping season. Rice is a new crop to the area. Results indicates that rice is a promising crop for Tach Armachiho Wereda providing a yield of up to 58 q ha-1 (Table 5 & Figure 2). Table 5. Yield (q ha-1) of rice varieties at Tach Armachiho in 2006

Variety Sanja Yayira Filwuha Average yield (Mean±SD)

Kokit 30 31 38 33±4.35 Tigabe 24 25 31 27±3.78 NERICA-3 41 44 58 48±9.07 NERICA-4 36 38 56 43±11.01

Based on the superb performance of rice in 2006 and the immense interest of farmers to adopt rice varieties, scaling up activities were carried out at Sanja and Filwuha villages in the 2008 cropping season using NERICA-4 and Superica-1 varieties. The scaling up activity was conducted on a total of 5.25 ha of land in the two villages by 20 farmers, each farmer planted a quarter of a hectare of either NERICA-4 or Superica-1. NERICA-4 was grown on a total land area of 2.75 ha by 5 farmers at Sanja and 6 farmers at Filwuha, while Superica-1 was grown on a total land area of 2.5 ha by 5 farmers at each village. NERICA-4 gave a mean yield of 24-29 q ha-1 and Superica-1 gave a mean yield of 23-26 q ha-1 (Table 6).

Table 6. Yield of NERICA-4 and Superica-1 rice varieties in a scaling up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008

Village

N

Variety Days to maturity


Mean gross income

Sanja 5 NERICA-4 120 24.0±10.19 14400 5 Superica-1 102 26.4±6.69 15840

Filwuha 6 NERICA-4 29.3±8.64 17400 5 Superica-1 23.2±9.12 13920


Padet

Tadesse


10

The prime objective of introducing rice in the project area was to diversify crops being grown in the area. Thus, rice has become a very successful crop both in terms of productivity and farmers acceptance. In the 2008 cropping season farmers have sold their rice for Birr 600 per quintal and got a gross income in the range of Birr 1800 to 5400 from a land size of a quarter of a hectare. Farmers are interested in up scaling rice cultivation in their area. After realizing the adaptability of the crop and farmers’ interest, the ecofarm project has installed a rice dehuller at Sanja (Fig 3) which motivated farmers to grow the crop. The dehuller was jointly financed by DCG and the Norwegian Church Aid, with the intention of being used for demonstration purposes. Wereda officials have visited rice fields and emphasized that these varieties need to be scaled out. Thus, in 2008 the farmers Union (Selam union) at the Wereda have purchased 10 quintals of NERICA-4 and Superica-1 seeds from farmers to sell it as a seed in the 2009 season. With sufficient extension support rice can have tremendous impact on food security and in improving farmers’ income in Tach Armachiho. However, research needs to address problems in terms of termite damage and fertilizer rate determination.

NERICA 4 at Filwuha (2006) Superica-1 at Filwuha (2008)

Figure 2. Performance of NERICA-4 and Superical-1 rice varieties in Tach Armachiho

Figure 3. Rice dehuller installed at Sanja


11

3.1.4 Lowland pulse crops adaptation

Leguminous crops are very important for soil fertility restoration and human nutrition improvement. Monocropping of non leguminous crops could lead to soil nutrient depletion and disease and pest development. Thus, to diversify crop choice and to improve the nutrition of the people, the ecofarm project have introduced and evaluated the adaptability of different pulse crops in Tigray and Tach Armachiho at three villages in each area. In Tigray, adaptation trial was conducted on cowpea, haricot bean, and pigeon pea at the three PAs (Genete, Tsegea, and Tsehafti) in the 2006 to 2008 cropping seasons. However, reliable data were obtained only in the 2006 cropping season, due to crop failure in the rest of the years for many reasons like damage by cattle and flood and also due to moisture deficit stress. The results indicated that at Tsegea and Tsehafti haricot bean varieties performed better than the cowpea and pigeon pea varieties, where the variety Bayo rata gave the highest yield (12.7 q ha-1 at Tsegea and 11.8 q ha-1 Tsahafti), although farmers preferred the lower yielder variety Nasir (11.8 q ha-1 at Tsegea and 9.7 q ha-1 at Tsehafti) (Table 7). Bayo rata and Nasir were earlier maturing. At Genete, yield was obtained only from the cowpea varieties which gave a yield of 17.6 q ha-1. The advantage of the cowpea varieties is that they produced large amounts of biomass that could be used as animal feed. Considering the potential of haricot bean in improving soil fertility and as cash source, the varieties can be scaled out to the area preferably as an intercrop with sorghum or maize. Table 7. Seed yield (kg ha-1) of cow pea, haricot bean and pigeon pea varieties in the 2006 cropping season at the

three villages in Tigray

Treatment Genete Tsegea Tsehafti Cowpea (var. White Wonder) 1758 542 926 Cowpea (var. TVU-1922-OD-01) 1762 430 200 Haricot bean (var. Bayo Rata) NR 1270 1184 Haricot bean (var. Nasir) NR 898 974 Haricot bean (var. NSPT#2) no data no data no data Pigeon pea Late harvest 360.89gm Damaged At Tach Armachiho adaptation trial was conducted on five leguminous crops (groundnut, soybean, haricot bean, pigeon pea, and cowpea) in the 2006 cropping season (Table 8). Results indicated that although yield data were not available to make objective evaluation on the adaptation of these crops, field observation indicated that some of these crops were very promising. Cowpea and haricot bean were highly affected by insect pests and were not preferred by farmers. Similarly, farmers did not show interest to pigeon pea due to its perennial growth habit and was not found to be feasible for the free grazing livestock production system. Table 8. Yield performance (q ha-1) of lowland pulses at Tach Armachiho in 2006

Pulse crops Sanja Yayira Filwuha Average yield

Groundnut 10 na 10 10 Haricot bean na 6 6 6 Soybean 10 12 11 11 Pigeon pea na na 9 - Pigeon pea intercropped na 6 8 7 Cowpea na na 4 - na = data not available


12

Among the lowland pulse crops evaluated, farmers showed greater interest to groundnut and soybean crops. Thus, in the 2008 cropping season scaling up of the production of groundnut (var. Shulamith) was conducted at Sanja and Filwuha villages. The scaling up activity was done on 3 farmers’ fields each at Sanja and Filwuha. Groundnut had outstanding performance at Tach Armachiho, especially on light sandy soils, which gave a seed yield of up to 49 q ha-1 which is higher than the yield (29 q ha-1) reported on production manuals (Table 9). Both the seed and biomass yield obtained is encouraging for its wide scale dissemination. The crop had very good and vigorous growth at both locations (Figure 4). It is an important crop for crop rotation and as cash crop. However, from the observation in the 2008 cropping season adjustment on row spacing is essential as the recommended spacing (75 cm) was found to be too narrow. Increasing the coverage of groundnut production, especially by intercropping with sorghum should be given due emphasis. In 2008, groundnut was sold at Tach Armachiho at the rate of Birr 12 per kg of seed. At this market price, a farmer who could grow a hectare of groundnut could get a gross income ranging between Birr 42360 and 59160. However, the continuity of groundnut production will be determined by seed availability. Groundnut is identified as a potential cash crop and can also be used locally by groundnut tea makers. Table 9. Days to maturity, yield and yield components of groundnut (var. Shulamith) (Mean ± SD) in a scaling

up activity at Tach Armachiho in 2008

Village

Days to maturity

No of seeds per pod

100 seed weight (g)

Biomass yield

(q ha-1)

Seed yield (q ha-1)

Farmers reaction

Sanja (n = 3) 150±0.00 2±0.00 9.1±0.75 80.7±12.09 49.3±15.30 Spacing is too narrow Filwuha (n = 3) 150±0.00 2±0.00 8.3±1.00 65.3±6.11 35.3±11.01


Figure 4. Performance of groundnut (var. Shulamith) at Filwuha & Sanja in 2008


13

3.1.5 Striga resistant sorghum variety adaptation

Striga is one of the major weeds that have an immense debilitating effect on sorghum production. The infestation of the weed is extremely severe at the project areas of both Tigray and Tach Armachiho. However, despite the severity of the problem farmers are growing susceptible local sorghum varieties. With the objective of introducing striga resistant sorghum varieties (Gobiye and Abshir), adaptation trials were conducted at Tigray (3 sites) and Tach Armachiho (5 sites) in the 2006 and 2007 cropping season in Tigray and in the 2006 cropping season in Tach Armachiho. In Tigray, data were obtained only at Tsegea village. The reason for this was that crops failed due to severe drought in the other sites. The result from Tsegea indicates that the varieties gave extremely low yield compared to the national average (Table 10). The interesting finding in this study is that the number of striga counts was very low (0.68-1.74 shoots plant-1) for the striga resistant varieties compared to the local variety (14.4 shoots plant-1). Farmers have preferred Gobiye to Abshir for its earliness and striga resistance. Besides, the variety was very early maturing and adaptable to the area. The performance of the variety on striga infested plots and its tolerance for moisture deficit stress have stimulated many farmers to grow the variety. In an effort made to popularize the variety, the seed of Gobiye was given to six farmers at the two villages. In addition, Gobiye was demonstrated by planting on 5 farmers’ fields both in Mohoni and Tsehafti in the 2008 cropping season.

Table 10. Performance of Striga resistant sorghum varieties at the three testing sites of Tigray

in 2006-2007

Variety Stand count

Mean Striga count plant-1

Yield (q ha-1)

Remark

Gobiye 261 1.74 3.76 There was considerable bird damage on Codon. Abshir 206 0.68 5.71

Codon 259 14.37 5.01

In Tach Armachiho, data on striga infestation and yield of the improved striga resistant varieties were not collected. Total yield loss due to bird damage was observed in the improved varieties due to their early heading as compared to the local variety (Table 11). Nevertheless, the results of the field observation and farmers assessment revealed that these varieties had very good adaptation and supported very low striga population as compared to the local varieties (Figure 5). Farmers have suggested that with planting date adjustment (at late July) these varieties could be very good alternative varieties especially on striga infested plots. These varieties have the potential to yield as high as 30-40 q ha-1. Taking this yield levels in to account, the local sorghum variety in Tach Armachiho could give the same yield levels or even higher in striga free fields, but under high striga infestation the local variety can be totally devastated. Thus, adopting these varieties with planting date adjustments would enable farmers to grow sorghum on striga affected fields. Table 11. Performance of striga resistant sorghum varieties at Tach Armachiho in 2006 Variety Days to heading Days to maturity Average yield (q ha-1) Abshir 67 99 na Gobiye 69 105 na Local 191 >130 22 na = not available


14

Figure 5. Healthy and striga free resistant variety (left) and local variety devastated by striga (right)

In the 2008 cropping season, as a follow up of the 2006 adaptation activity, a sort of demonstration-cum-scaling up activity was conducted at the two villages in Tach Armachiho. However, the variety used was not either Abshir or Gobiye, it was Hormat. It was deliberately done that this variety is a recently released striga resistant variety with better grain yield than the two varieties but has the same ecological adaptation. The variety was demonstrated on three farmers’ fields at Sanja and 2 farmers’ plots at Filwuha, each plot with a plot size of 100 m2. Despite the huge bird damage on the variety, the recorded yield is encouraging (Table 12). Although efforts were made to make planting date arrangements to synchronize heading time of Hormat with the local varieties, it was not possible to protect Hormat from bird damage. The variety has very vigorous growth with large head sizes at both locations (Figure 6). Farmers stated that the variety is an important variety to grow on black clay soil. Farmers showed a positive attitude to the variety and suggested that if all farmers plant his/her plot to Hormat it would be possible to successfully grow Hormat without bird damage. Table 12. Performance of Hormat sorghum variety in a demonstration-cum-scaling up activity at Tach

Armachiho in 2008 (Mean±±±± SD)

Village

No of striga shoots m-2

Plant height (m)

Days to maturity

Biomass yield (q ha-1)


Farmers’ reaction

Sanja (n = 3) 4±3.21 2±0.19 77±0.57 114.7±17.47 21±5.29 Accepted

Filwuha (n = 2) 17±12.02 1.8±0.28 76±0.00 89.5±34.64 19±7.07 Accepted n = number of fields or farmers.


15

Figure 6. Performance of Hormat at Sanja (left) and Filwuha (right)

3.1.6 Adaptation of fruit trees

Fruit trees are important vitamin and mineral sources as well as a cash source. With the objective of diversifying farmers’ source of nutrition and income, different fruit trees were introduced into the project areas in ATJK. In the 2007 cropping season, a total of 300 mango (var. Kent), 100 papaya, and 120 avocado seedlings were planted in the backyards of 15 farmers in three villages (Ellellan Abaabo, Ciitu Geto and Lelisso Dambe). Results of the 2007 intervention indicated that 92% of the mango, 60% of the papaya, and 89% of the avocado were established. Similarly in the 2008 cropping season, a total of 100 mango (var. Kent), 100 papaya, and 120 avocado seedlings were planted at backyards of 12 farmers. Although the economic impact of the fruit crops is difficult to analyze at this early stage, the potential impact in the future on food security can be high.

3.1.7 Adaptation of multipurpose tree species

The ecofarm project at the three project areas have tried to introduce multipurpose trees with the objectives of the farmers benefiting from their feed, food, medicinal, and environmental rehabilitation properties. Moringa and Leucaena in ATJK; Mulberry, Moringa stenopetala and Gliricida spp in Tigray; and Moringa and Jatropha in Tach Armachiho were introduced to be grown at backyards. Moringa spp (especially M. olifeira) is an important horticultural and medicinal crop widely used in Africa. Similarly, Jatropha has become an important economic plant grown for biofuel production, while mulberry is an important species for silkworm rearing. Leucaena is also an important source of livestock feed. In ATJK, in the 2007 cropping season, a total of 360 Moringa and 80 Leucaena seedlings were planted in backyards of 15 farmers from three PAs (Ellellan Abaabo, Ciitu Geto and Lelisso Dambe). Of these, about 60% of the Moringa and 66% of the Leucaena seedlings were established well. In the 2008 cropping season too, about 12 farmers have planted a total of 160 Moringa and 250 Leucaena seedlings. Observations were made that farmers have started benefiting from the fodder trees especially during the dry season. In Tigray as well; Mulberry, Moringa stenopetala, and Gliricida sepium seedlings were evaluated for their adaptation at three PAs (Genete, Tsegea and Tsehafti). The results indicated that the species showed encouraging seedling establishment, although the performance of


16

each species varies between the sites (Table 13). The multipurpose trees established better in Genete than in Tsegea and Tsehafti. The difference in percent establishment is attributed to the care given to the seedlings by the host farmers. The species have produced large amounts of biomass under this harsh environment (Figure 7). From this study it was also learnt that although all the species are new to the area, they were found to be adaptable to the localities and can be promoted to be included in the WoARD extension package.

Furthermore, demonstration on fodder bank establishment using Gliricida sepium was carried out at three PAs (Tsehafti, Tsegea, & Genete), where close to 248 seedlings of Gliricida sepium were planted on 8 selected farmers’ fields. The establishment result indicated significantly higher establishment ranging from 61 to 94% under farmers’ management (Table 14). This indicates that Gliricida sepium is a potential and important feed source in the area. In Tach Armachiho, adaptation trials were conducted on two species of Moringa (M.

stenopatela & M. oleifera) and on two local collections of Jatropha spp in the 2006 cropping season. Thirty seedlings were planted at each of the three villages. The results indicated that initially almost all the Jatropha seedlings and more than 90% of the Moringa seedlings have survived and had vigorous growth. However, late in the season, Moringa seedlings were browsed by goats and Jatropha seedlings damaged by cattle. Furthermore, the attention given to the seedlings was lower where growth of seedlings was severely affected by heavy weed infestation. This indicates that if the plots were properly managed, these spp would have performed well. Thus, it would be worth to suggest that if these species could be grown with proper protection from cattle and with proper field management, they could be good sources of cash and nutritious food. Table 13. Establishment of different multipurpose tree species in Tigray in 2006

Location MPTs No. of seedlings or cuttings provided

No of seedlings established

% established

Wajerat Moringa stenopetala 42 28 67 Morus species 50 38 76 Gliricida sepium 80 50 63

Tsegea Moringa stenopetala 24 9 38 Morus species 44 17 39 Gliricida sepium 54 51 94

Genete Moringa stenopetala 27 23 85 Morus species 25 23 92 Gliricida sepium 18 11 61


17

Figure 7. Establishment of Moringa stenopetala and Morus spp. at Genete (Left) and

Gliricida sepium at Tsehafti (Right), Tigray

Table 14. Percent establishment of Gliricida sepium as fodder banks in Tigray

Location No. of seedlings or cuttings provided

Established Percent establishment

Remark

Tsehafti 80 50 62.5 Poor

Tsegea 54 51 94.4 Fair

Genete 18 11 61.1 Best perfoming

3.1.8 Green manure crops adaptation

In Tach Armachiho, farmers usually exercise long periods of fallowing to restore the fertility of their soils. However, because of the prevailing severe land shortage it is essential that long period of fallowing should be substituted by short improved fallowing. In Tach Armachiho a green manure crops adaptation study was conducted with the objective of introducing fast growing green manure crops to replace the existing long fallow system with short fallowing. In the 2007 cropping season, the performance of four green manure species namely Crotolaria grahaminis, Crotolaria juncea, Tephrosia vogeli, and Lab lab was assessed at Sanja and Filwuha villages with the subsequent evaluation of the effect of incorporating the biomass on the yield of sorghum. The results showed that on the heavy black cotton soils of Tach Armachiho, C. juncea is the most suitable species while on the light and well drained soils both C. grahaminis and C. juncea are performing well. Green manure species should be promoted in the Wereda (Table 15 and Figure 8). The total amount of nutrients incorporated into the soil along with the plant biomass are high where, for instance the incorporation of 11 t/ha biomass of Crotolaria spp could add about 300 kg of N and P per hectare each (Table 15). Furthermore, other micronutrients and organic matter are also added into the soil. Farmers have appreciated the performance of the green manure crops and their effect on suppressing grass weeds which is a serious problem in the area. In October to November 2007, biomass of these species was incorporated into the soil to evaluate their contribution to sorghum productivity in the 2008 season.


18

In the 2008 scaling out of green manure crops was planned, however it was not executed as planned as farmers from Sanja and Filwuha did not show much interest on green manure crops. However, green manure crops (lablab and C. junicea) were given to two farmers in Walya village. These farmers planted a quarter of a hectare of the crops. Table 15. Productivity and nutrient content of green manure crops at Tach Armachiho in 2007

Treatments Dry matter (t/ha) Total N (%) P (%) K (%)

Sanja Filwuha Sanja Filwuha Sanja Filwuha Sanja Filwuha C. grahaminis 11 3 2.77 2.3 3.15 4.61 0.83 0.92 C. juncea 11.5 6 2.81 1.8 2.9 2.02 1.12 0.8 Lab lab 5.3 0.9 3.33 2.15 1.28 5.83 1.08 1.08 Tephrosia vogeli 3.6 0.9 3.39 2.19 1.2 1.11 0.95 0.77

A. Lab lab green manure at Sanja B. Crotolaria grahaminis at Sanja

C. Crotolaria juncea D. Tephrosia vogile

Figure 8. Performance of green manure crops at Tach Armachiho in 2007


19

3.2 CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT STUDIES

3.2.1 Harvesting at physiological maturity

Studies on harvesting stages of maize (var. BH-540) at ATJK and sorghum at Tigray were conducted with the objective of evaluating the effect of harvesting at physiological maturity on the grain and stover yields of each crop. Harvesting either at physiological maturity (when grains turn hard) or at dead ripe stages was compared from 2006-2008 in ATJK and in 2006 in Tigray. The hypothesis for doing this experiment was that harvesting maize and sorghum after attaining physiological maturity could result in a better grain yield and higher quality of stover. The grains harvested at physiological maturity needs to be sun dried to reduce the moisture content to a level that is safe for storage. The results of the study on maize indicated that harvesting at physiological maturity gave higher grain and stover yields as compared to harvesting at dead ripe stage (Table 16). Harvesting at physiological maturity is also beneficial in order to produce good quality stover for livestock feed. Inversely, harvesting at dead ripe stage reduces the stover yield and quality due to shattering of leaves and lignification of the stover. This technology was scaled up in the 2008 cropping season. However, the technology should be used with precautions in that the grain harvested at physiological maturity should be dried to the standard moisture content level before storage.

The results of the study on sorghum showed that harvesting at either of the two stages did not show any significant difference in yield, although harvesting at physiological maturity tend to give higher yield at some sites (Table 17). Thus, as it did not incur any yield penalty harvesting at physiological maturity can be recommended as it can help to harvest green sorghum stover for livestock feed (Figure 9). Table 16. Effect of harvesting stage on the grain and stover yield of maize in ATJK in 2007-2008

Variable

Harvesting stage (Mean +SD) Physiological Maturity Dead ripe

Germination Percentage 100 ±1.00 100 ±1.00 Days to heading 73.75±1.00 73.00±0.00 Grain yield (q/ha) 50.00± 2.42 43.00± 2.40 Straw yield (q/ha) 71.00 ±2.47 57.25 ±3.45

Table 17. Effect of harvesting stage on the grain and stover yield of sorghum in Tigray in 2006

Location Yield at Physiological maturity (kg/ha)

Yield at farmers practice (Kg/ha)

Tsehafti 2430 2017 Tsegea 5670 4841 Genete 2593 2987


20

Figure 9. Sorghum field harvested at physiological maturity (left) (note greenness) and sorghum harvested at farmers’ practice (right) in Tigray.

3.2.2 Micro dosing/Micro fertilization study

In Ethiopia seed and fertilizer are generally applied by broadcasting, consequently the response to fertilizer applications is often low. Thus, to develop a more cost effective method for fertilizer application for dryland areas, micro dosing fertilizer application studies were conducted at ATJK in 2006 to 2008, at Tigray in 2006 and 2007, and at Tach Armachiho in 2006. However, the experiment at Tach Armachiho was conducted at only one place and not replicated, hence no valid data was obtained. Micro dosing is the application of small amounts of fertilizer to the planting pocket. The treatments at ATJK include broadcasting of seeds, sowing of maize or sorghum in pockets without fertilizer, sowing of maize in pockets with fertilizer at the rate of 0.5, 1.0, & 1.5 g per pocket. The result in ATJK showed that there is little variation in both grain and stover yield among the treatments. However, the best treatment in terms of grain and stover yields was micro dosing, applying 28 kg/ha DAP at first weeding (Table 18). This treatment increased yield from 35 q/ha in the control to 60 q/ha. Cost distribution, gross income and marginal revenue (Birr/ha) was also calculated for the treatments to analyze the economic return from these technologies (Table 19). The results of the economic analysis indicated that micro dose fertilization at the rate of 28 kg DAP ha-1 at first weeding with row planting is economically profitable, followed by applying 56 kg DAP ha-1 at first weeding and broadcasting at 100 kg DAP ha-1. Table 18. Effect of micro dosing on the germination, days to heading and Grain and Straw yields of maize

(ACV6) at ATJK in 2006-2008

Treatments

Parameters (Mean +SD) Germination Percentage

Days to heading

Grain yield (q/ha)

Straw yield (q/ha)

Broadcasting without DAP 95.86±0.00 70.67±0.00 35.97 ±4.33 47.44 ±4.53 Broadcasting with 100 kg/ha DAP 93.71±4.43 68.77± 1.00 42.76± 6.00 55.89 ±7.21 Row planting without DAP 95.02 ±3.00 69.33±1.22 37.00 ±5.31 49.90± 5.27 Row planting with 100 kg/ha DAP 100.00 ±0.00 69.00 ±0.00 39.54±6.93 55.70± 3.21 Row planting with 28 kg/ha DAP 98.67± 1.00 63.33±0.00 40.12± 5.34 55.55 ±11.44 Row planting with 28 kg/ha DAP at first weeding

97.33 ±1.00 63.33±0.00 60.21 ± 6.21 68.66 ±6.11

Row planting with 56 kg/ha DAP at first weeding

98.00± 4.23 70.00±0.00 32.43±4.56 54.34± 9.21


21

Table 19. Cost distribution, gross income and Marginal revenue (Birr/ha) for the Micro dosing treatments

at ATJK in 2006-2008

Variable

Treatments BC without

DAP

BC with 100 kg/ha

DAP

RP with out DAP

RP with 100 kg/ha

DAP

RP with 28 kg/ha

DAP

RP with 28 kg/ha

DAP at first weeding

RP with 56 kg/ha

DAP at first weeding

Oxen plowing 1700.00 1700.00 1700.00 1700.00 1700.00 1700.00 1700.00 Planting 300.00 320.00 450.00 500.00 550.00 550.00 550.00 Weeding 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Harvesting 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 Fixed cost 300.00 1020 300.00 1020.00 501.00 501.00 703.00 Total cost 3200.00 3940.00 3350.00 4120.00 3651.00 3651.00 3853.00 Gross income 5000.00 8080.00 7102.00 7500.00 7003.00 9000.00 8107.00 Marginal revenue

1800.00 4140.00 3752.00 3752.00 3349.00 5349.00 4254.00

Value cost ratio

1.00 57.70 24.53 34.72 22.89 88.89 53.65

BC = Broadcasting, RP = Row planting

In Tigray micro dosing fertilizer application study was conducted on haricot bean in Tsehafti and on sorghum in Genete and Tsegea in the 2006 cropping season. In the 2007 cropping season, a similar study was conducted on sorghum in Genete and Tulebo. The results in the 2006 cropping season in Tigray showed that both in haricot bean and sorghum microdosing did not show yield advantage over the conventional method (Table 20). However, during the 2007 cropping season, micro dosing with 0.5 and 1 g DAP at first weeding showed yield advantage over the other treatments (Table 21), thus these treatments can be promoted for wider use. However, although fertilizer microdosing could bring yield advantages by minimizing fertilizer cost, farmers have complained that it is labour intensive as it requires a lot of labour to apply the fertiliser. Micro dosing with 0.5 and 1 g DAP at sowing gave very low yield compared to the other treatments probably due to a burning effect of the fertiliser. Micro dosing of DAP should therefore be applied at first weeding. Table 20. Effect of fertilizer microdosing on stand count, days to maturity and grain/seed yields of haricot bean

and sorghum in Tigray in 2006

Location Treatment Stand

count Days to Maturity

Yield (kg/ha)

Farmers rating

Tsehafti (haricot bean) Rows, 2gm/pocket 58 76 230 5 Rows, 1 gm/pocket 147 76 463 4 Rows, 0.5 gm/pocket 252 75 537 3 Rows + no fertilizer 405 73 653 2

Boadcast + recommended fertilizer rate 344 72

990 1

Tsegea (sorghum) 2gm/pocket 85 47 816

1gm/pocket 225 54 840

0.5 gm/pocket 173 73 1042

500gm/plot, broadcast 368 168 2377

No fertilizer 127 63 1072

Genete (Sorghum) 1gm/pocket 26 0 -

2gm/pocket 7 0 - 0.5 gm/pocket 30 4 30

No fertilizer 145 7 187

500gm/plot, broadcast 53 2 57


22

Table 21. Effect of fertilizer micro dosing on the yield (kg/30 m2 plot) of sorghum in Tigray in 2007 Treatments Genete Tulebo

0.5 g at sowing 2.35 6.5

0.5 g DAP at first weeding 14.95 13.90 1 g DAP at sowing 2.75 9.0

1 g DAP at first weeding 15.8 15.5 Broadcasting + Recommended fertilizer 11.4 12.8

Row sowing + Recommended fertilizer 5.85 11.0 Row planting + without fertilizer 12.2 10.8

Broadcasting + without fertilizer 12.5 13.0

The data at Tach Armachiho is based on data from one year from a non replicated observation which makes it difficult to draw conclusions. However, the data available from Filwuha showed that although sorghum yields from the micro dosing plots is much less than the conventional method of fertilizer application, the method has 11-67% yield advantage over the no fertilizer control (Table 22). This highlights that micro dosing could be an interesting alternative for cash constrained farmers who are not capable of applying the recommended amount as less fertilizer is required in micro dosing. Nevertheless, the method needs further evaluation to reach to a recommendation. Table 22. Grain yield of sorghum in a micro dosing experiment at Filwuha, Tach Armachiho in 2007

Treatments

Crop yield (q ha-1) % yield increase over the no

fertilizer control Control- without fertilizer & sorghum broadcasted 10.5

Control- with fertilizer & seed broadcasted- recommended rates

20

90 Row planting- without fertilizer 12.6 20 Row planting & recommended rates 23.8

127 0.5 g DAP at planting 11.7 11 1.0 g DAP at planting 15.1 44 0.5 g at first weeding 15.7 50 1.0 g DAP at first weeding 17.5 67

3.2.3 Conservation tillage

The effect of conservation tillage methods have been studied at ATJK, Tigray and Tach Armachiho, but data from Tach Armachiho is not reliable. In all sites, plowing was done by traditional plow (maresha) using oxen. Minimum or reduced tillage plots were plowed only once at sowing in Tigray but twice in ATJK. The land for seed placement was stirred at planting with zero tillage plots. Mulching was made by applying tef straw on the plots. Conventional tillage in Tigray refers to two times oxen plowing. The results at ATJK showed that reduced tillage gave the highest grain and stover yields of maize and sorghum compared to the other tillage methods, although the difference is not statistically significant. The lowest grain and stover yields were recorded in the zero tillage with no mulch application (Table 23). The result reveals that reduced tillage is a promising tillage practice. Exercising reduced tillage, unlike conventional tillage, would reduce the need for owning many oxen thereby also reducing the need for producing and conserving large amount of feed. Soil moisture conservation was also improved by using this technology.


23

Cost distribution, gross income and marginal revenue (Birr/ha) for the different tillage systems has been calculated (Table 24). The result of the analysis showed that reduced tillage is economically feasible followed by zero tillage with mulch. Besides yield advantage and impact on moisture conservation, the economic study justifies the use of reduced tillage to the area. However, the limitation is that grass and broad leaf weed infestation is high both in the zero tillage and reduced tillage, while it was low in the conventional tillage. The effect of tillage on weed infestation was most clearly observed on grass weeds as compared to broad leaf weeds. The weed infestation intensity was higher on zero tillage followed by reduced tillage. This indicates that both reduced tillage and zero tillage practices need to be applied along with the use of pre-emergence herbicides, as it is one component of the conservation tillage package.

Table 23. Effect of zero-, reduced- and conventional-tillage on the germination, heading and grain and stover

yields of maize and sorghum in ATJK in 2006-2008

Variable

Treatments (Mean +SD) Conventional

tillage

Reduced tillage

Zero tillage with mulch

Zero tillage with no mulch

Maize (Var. BH 540) Germination Percent 94.33± 2.21 92.80± 2.30 90.00 ±5.00 91.67± 5.56 Days to heading 73.00±0.00 72.00±0.00 71.00±0.00 71.2.00±0.00 Grain yield (q/ha) 32.52±5.02 33.23±4.43 24.00±3.42 22±5.33 Straw yield (q/ha) 40.33±7.86 42.71±4.32 41.3±5.32 34.67±3.52

Sorghum (Var. Seredo) Germination Percent 96.33± 3.20 93.50± 2.30 92.50 ±2.00 90.67± 4.00 Days to heading 58.00±0.00 61.00±0.00 60.00±0.00 62.00±0.00 Grain yield (q/ha) 27.2± 2.21 31.2±2.32 24.00± 3.2 22.2 ±2.10 Straw yield (q/ha) 43.52 ±3.50 43.55±3.42 36.00± 3.33 34.33± 2.31

Table 24. Cost distribution, gross income and Marginal revenue (Birr/ha) for different tillage systems 2006-2008

Variable

Tillage systems Conventional tillage

Reduced tillage

Zero tillage with mulch

Zero tillage with no mulch

Oxen plowing 732.00 440.00 0.00 0.00 Planting 346.67 436.00 250.00 290.00 Weeding 280.00 530.00 670.00 683.00 Harvesting 470.00 420.00 250.00 246.00 Fixed cost 1300.00 1300.00 1300.00 1300.00 Total cost 3328.67 3126.00 2470.00 2519.00 Gross income 5802.50 6200.00 5362.50 5000.00 Marginal revenue 2673.83 3074.00 2892.50 2481.00

In Tigray in the 2006 cropping season, differences between tillage treatments were not observed on the yield of haricot bean (Table 25). While on sorghum, there were big differences in yield among the tillage treatments where zero tillage with mulch gave the highest yields at Tsegea (Table 25). At Tsegea, there were severe rain shortages early in the season and thus the mulched plots had better stand establishment and yield. At Genete, conservation tillage treatments gave better yield over the conventional tillage (Table 25). From the results in 2007, it is evident that the grain yield performance of sorghum at the two locations is generally poor. However, at Tulebo, zero tillage with mulch and Zai method gave superior yields (Table 25). The Zai method has helped plants to withstand the late season moisture deficit.


24

The result of the economic analysis for the different tillage methods in sorghum in 2006 showed that zero tillage + mulch at Tsigea and reduced tillage at Genete are economically feasible. For haricot bean, reduced tillage both at Tsehafti and Genete is economically viable (Tables 26 & 27). Zero tillage is an important technology because the farmers that have no oxen could use this technology as an option rather than share cropping the land with neighbors due to oxen shortage. Moreover, the cost of feeding oxen for plowing is also a challenge for farmers in drylands, therefore zero tillage could be an alternative tillage practice for areas like Raya Azebo and Hintalo Wajerat where there is erratic rainfall and recurrent droughts for which livestock are forced to migrate to areas where gazing land is available. Table 25. Yield (q ha-1) of haricot bean and sorghum under different tillage practices in Tigray

Treatment

2006 2007 Haricot bean Sorghum Sorghum

Genete Tsehafti Tsegea* Genete Genete Tulebo Conventional tillage 11.79 2.34 5.11 9.06 3.10 5.90 Reduced tillage 11.81 2.09 6.73 23.08 4.50 4.10 Zero tillage + Mulch 10.75 2.14 27.24 21.94 0.20 15.00 Zero tillage 8.92 1.54 2.43 19.92 2.90 8.60 Zai method 0 15.40

Table 26. Partial budget analysis for tillage practices for haricot bean in Tigray

Treatments Yield (kg/ha)

Economic value

Plowing frequency

Cost of paired oxen/day

Total plowing cost

Labor cost to mulch

Total variable cost

Net Benefits

MRR (%)

Genete

Zero Tillage 892 2676 0 60 0 160 160 2516 Reduce Tillage

1181 3543 1 60 240 0 240 3303 9.84

Zero Tillage + Mulch

1075 3225 0 60 0 320 320 2905 -4.97

Conventional Tillage

1179 3537 3 60 720 0 720 2817 -0.22

Tsehafti

Zero Tillage 154 462 0 60 0 160 160 302 Reduce Tillage

209 627 1 60 240 0 240 387 1.06


214 642 0 60 0 320 320 322 -0.81


234 702 3 60 720 0 720 -18 -0.85

Note: Price of haricot bean is 3 Birr/kg, Daily labour cost is 20 Birr/man-day.


25

Table 27. Partial budget analysis for tillage practices for sorghum in Tigray

Treatments Yield Economic value

Plowing frequency

Cost of paired oxen/day

Total plowing cost

Labor cost to mulch

Total variable cost

Net Benefits

MRR (%)

Tsegea Zero Tillage 243 486 0 60 160 160 326 Reduce Tillage

673 1346 1 60 240 0 240 1106 9.75


2724 5448 0 60 0 320 320 5128 50.275


511 1022 3 60 720 0 720 302 -12.065

Genete Zero Tillage 1992 3984 0 60 160 160 3824 Reduce Tillage

2308 4616 1 60 240 0 240 4376 6.90


2194 4388 0 60 0 320 320 4068 -3.85


906 1812 3 60 720 0 720 186 -9.70

Note: Average cost of paired oxen is 60 Birr/day, Average cost of labor is 20 Birr/man-day, Labor required for

1hectare is 8 man days.

3.2.4 Intercropping

Intercropping or mixed cropping is an important risk aversion mechanism in dryland areas where farmers grow two or more crops together for efficient use of the limited resources. By doing intercropping farmers would in most cases harvest at least one of the crops. With this advantages intercropping maize with haricot bean in ATJK and sorghum with haricot bean in Tigray and Tach Armachiho were conducted. The results at ATJK indicated that intercropping haricot bean with maize has given yield advantages over sole cropping. The LER values indicate that intercropping maize with haricot bean at the 2:1 row ratio has a 34% yield advantage over sole cropping. Intercropping maize with haricot bean at the 1:1 row ratio did not show any yield advantage (Table 28). Intercropping is believed to promote the physical and chemical properties of the soil due to the impact of the pulse crop component. It was also observed that weed infestation was reduced in the intercropped plots as compared to the sole maize crop. Similarly, in Tigray comparisons made using Land Equivalent Ratio showed that intercropping sorghum with haricot bean has a slight yield benefit only at Tulebo, but not at Genete and can be recommended for Tulebo only (Table 29).

At Tach Armachiho it is not possible to draw any conclusion from the intercropping experiment because the experiment was completely destroyed by insects on the haricot bean. It is worth mentioning that any future attempt of growing haricot bean in the Wereda should go along with pest control measures.


26

Table 28. Productivity of maize/haricot bean intercropping at ATJK in 2006-2008

Treatment

Maize (var. BH540) Haricot bean (var. Awash 1)

LER Grain yield

(q/ha) Stover yield

(q/ha) Grain yield

(q/ha) Stover yield

(q/ha) Sole Maize 69.3±14.30 69.2± 10.1 Sole Haricot bean 18.1±3.6 24.4±3.2 Maize:Haricot bean (2:1) 58.8±10.21 66.0±12.43 10.2±3.3 3.6±0.8 1.34 Maize:Haricot bean (1:1) 33.3±6.3 44.9±69 12.1±2.5 22.7±4.8 0.97

Table 29. Productivity of sorghum/haricot bean intercropping at Genete and Tulebo in Tigray

Treatments

Grain/Seed yield (Kg/ha) Genete Tulebo

Sorghum Haricot bean LER Sorghum Haricot bean LER Sole Sorghum 3800 4400 Sole Haricot bean 400 400 Haricot bean: Sorghum (1:2) 2780 80 0.93 3620 860 1.09 Haricot bean:Sorghum (1:1) 1416 100 0.62 2540 230 1.04

Figure 10. Maize/haricot bean intercropping at ATJK

3.2.5 Seed priming

Seed priming (soaking seeds in water prior to sowing) is an effective technology that reduces germination time, length of growing period, improves plant stand and yield of crops in dryland environments where moisture deficit is a production challenge. Seed priming studies were conducted on maize (var. BH540) and sorghum (var. Seredo) in ATJK, on sorghum and haricot bean in Tigray and on sorghum (var. Gobiye) in Tach Armachiho with the objective of evaluating the impact of seed priming on the establishment of these crops. Seed priming was done by soaking sorghum and haricot bean seeds in water for 8 hours and maize seeds for 14 hours.


27

The results in ATJK showed that primed maize and sorghum seeds emerged, headed and matured earlier than the non-primed seeds. Primed seeds emerged, headed and matured 2, 2-4 and 4 days earlier than the non-primed seeds, respectively. Consequently, primed maize and sorghum gave slightly higher grain and stover yields than the non-primed ones (Table 30). The results in Tigray showed that priming sorghum seeds increased grain yield. At Tsegea primed sorghum gave very high grain yield (1900 kg/ha) compared to the non-primed sorghum (972 kg/ha). At Genete too, a very good establishment and stand count was observed for the primed sorghum compared to the non-primed. Thus, the yield from the primed sorghum could have been higher had the crop not been damaged by birds, camels, and rodents. The primed sorghum established and headed earlier due to the treatment effect and thus, the crop was exposed to bird damage. In haricot bean, in all sites the non-primed treatment gave higher yields compared to priming (Table 31). Haricot bean did not respond to seed priming positively. Based on the results at ATJK and Tigray, it can be concluded that priming can be used in maize and sorghum for increasing yields in dryland areas. At Tach Armachiho the seed priming activity did not give conclusive result. The sorghum in the experimental plots was entirely damaged by birds due to early heading.

Table 30. Effect of seed priming on the performances and yields of maize and sorghum in ATJK in 2006-2007

Parameters

Maize Sorghum Primed Non primed Primed Non primed

Germination Percent 94.32±2.42 92.83±2.73 96.21±3.54 92.52±3.20 Days to heading 70.03±2.22 74.47±2.40 54.07±3.02 56.23±2.87 Grain yield (q/ha) 38.40±3.01 32.49±3.43 28.35±2.11 26.23±2.45 Stover yield (q/ha) 46.18±4.42 44.31±4.11 36.22±3.56 34.72±3.71 Table 31. Effect of seed priming on the grain yields of sorghum and haricot bean in Tigray

Location

Sorghum (kg/ha) Haricot bean (kg/ha) Primed Non primed Primed Non primed

Tsegea 1900 972 66 382 Genete 102 908 808 1956 Tsehafti - - 1544 1783

3.2.6 Sowing date study on sorghum

A sowing date study was conducted in the 2007 cropping season in Tach Armachiho to synchronize the heading period of improved early maturing and striga resistant varieties with that of the local varieties so as to protect them from bird damage. From the 2006 season observation, farmers have suggested to plant these varieties around mid to late July. Accordingly, a study was conducted using three planting dates; first sowing (farmers’ planting time), second sowing 15 days later and third sowing 15 days after the second planting. Sorghum varieties Gobiye and Teshale were used for the study. The results showed that there is a tendency of increase in yield as planting date delays, especially with Gobiye (Table 32). Therefore, improved striga resistant sorghum varieties could be protected from bird damage and they can give a good yield if they are planted from the third to the fourth week of July.


28

Table 32. Grain yield (q ha-1) of sorghum (var. Gobiye & Teshale) under different sowing dates at Tach

Armachiho in 2007

Villages

Gobiye Teshale 1st

sowing 2nd

Sowing 3rd

sowing 1st

Sowing 2nd

Sowing 3rd sowing

Sanja 14.2 14.5 16.6 23.2 24.5 22.1

Filwuha 16.0 20.7 23.05 26.3 25.0 19.4 Average 15.1±1.27 17.1±4.38 19.3±4.56 19.7±2.19 24.7±0.35 20.7±1.90

3.2.7 Yield losses assessment due to sorghum stalk borer & stalk borer management

Stalk borer is one of the major production bottlenecks for sorghum in Ethiopia. Studies on yield loss assessment due to stalk borer in Tach Armachiho and a stalk placement demonstration in Tigray were conducted. In Tach Armachiho a rapid yield loss assessment study was conducted in 2007 to quantify the damage and yield loss incurred by the pest. The assessment was conducted in such a way that plants attacked by stalk borer were counted from an area of 10 m2 from three representative plots in each of the three villages and then these data were directly translated in to yield losses. The result tells that most of the plants affected by stalk borer could not give yield. The method used to estimate the yield loss might exaggerate the level of yield loss at least by 2-3%, nevertheless, considering the limitation of the methodology, yield loss due to stalk borer in Tach Armachiho could reach as much as 19-20% (Table 33), which would mean a yield loss of about 4 q ha-1 assuming a sorghum productivity of 20 quintals per hectare. This is a very significant loss which shows that it is worth controlling the pest. Thus, it is clear that sorghum stalk bore management technologies available needs to be availed to farmers at Tach Armachiho. Table 33. Yield loss estimate due to sorghum stalk borer on local sorghum variety at Tach Armachiho in 2007

Parameters Sanja Yayira Filwuha Average Counted plants in 10 m2 65* 75 92 77 Damaged by stalk borer 17 12 20 16 Percent possible yield losses 26 16 21 22 * Figures are average of three samples

In Tigray, demonstration activities were conducted at three sites to show farmers the impact of flat placement of sorghum stalk on the mortality of stalk borer larvae. Flat placement of sorghum stalk after harvesting is a recommended practice because this method increases the mortality of the larvae in the stalk and thus reduces infestation level during the next season. The results indicated that flat placement of sorghum stalk has resulted in an increase of larval mortality (Table 34). Mortality figures were, however, below 50% which could be due to the heavy rainfall at harvest which might have prevented the drying of the stalks and hence decreased percent mortality.


29

Table 34. Effect of stalk placement on the survival of stalk borer larvae in Tigray

Location (Treatment) Number of stalks

Live larvae

Dead larvae

Percent mortality

Wajerat Flat placement 80 77 20 26 Erect placement 80 149 3 2

Tsegea Flat placement 80 72 10 14

Erect placement 80 91 0 0

Genete Flat placement 80 138 24 17

Erect placement 80 139 11 8

3.2.8 Integrated management of striga on sorghum

In Tach Armachiho, in the 2008 cropping season, an experiment on the integrated management of striga was superimposed on the green manure crops adaptation experimental plots conducted in the 2007. Each green manure plot from 2007 was divided into three after incorporating the biomass. The fertilizer rates used on the three plots were fertilizer at recommended rate, 50% of the recommended fertilizer rate, and no fertilizer. The plots were planted in 2008 with a striga resistant sorghum variety. This study was conducted on one farmer field each at Sanja and Filwuha villages. However, the plots were totally damaged by birds as plots were planted as early as the 8th of July 2008. Therefore, quantified data were not recorded except sorghum plant height and biomass yield and striga count. However, based on the field observation and the sorghum biomass data, it was observed that sorghum plants grown on plots to which C. juncea biomass was incorporated had more vigorous growth with thick stems, larger leaves, big heads, and fewer number of striga shoots (Tables 35 and 36). Sorghum plants grown on plots to which C. grahaminis biomass was incorporated showed the next best performance. Sorghum plants grown on plots to which Lab lab biomass was incorporated had less vigorous growth not much different from the control plot (Table 36). Significant differences between the synthetic fertilizer levels were not clearly observable (Tables 35 and 36). Generally, based on the field observation, the limited data available, and the experience from other places, it can be concluded that integrating green manure crops, synthetic fertilizers and resistant varieties could help in reducing the debilitating effect of striga on sorghum production.


30

Table 35. Striga count and plant height of sorghum in an integrated management of striga at Sanja and Filwuha,

Tach Armachiho in 2008

Green manure

Fertilizer treatment

Sanja Filwuha Striga count per 1m2 Plant

height (m)

Striga count per 1m2 Plant height (m)

1st count

2nd count

3rd count

1st count

2nd count

3rd count

Control No fertilizer - 3 - 1.50 10 4 3 1.60

50% fertilizer 3 2 4 1.84 7 3 8 1.72

100% fertilizer 2 5 7 1.9 2 8 7 1.75

Crotolaria grahaminis No fertilizer 2 4 7 1.82

50% fertilizer 3 6 - 1.9

100% fertilizer 7 4 1 2.04

Crotolaria juncea No fertilizer 4 2 4 1.9 12 7 4 1.94

50% fertilizer 2 - 2 2.06 6 2 4 2.01

100% fertilizer 8 4 5 2.09 4 5 0 2.04

Lab lab No fertilizer 7 2 8 1.74

50% fertilizer 4 3 - 1.51

100% fertilizer 3 4 2 1.7

Table 36. Biomass yield (q ha-1) of sorghum in an integrated management of striga at Sanja and Filwuha, Tach

Armachiho in 2008

Green manure treatments

Fertilizer treatment

Mean±SD No fertilizer 50% fertilizer 100% fertilizer Sanja

Control 62 100 110 91±25.32

Crotolaria grahaminis 108 110 140 119±17.92

Crotolaria juncea 110 140 140 130±17.32

Lab lab 100 60 100 87±23.09

Mean±SD 95±22.42 103±33.04 123±20.61 Filwuha

Control 92 99 104 98±6.02 Crotolaria juncea 114 124 130 123±8.08 Mean±SD 103±15.55 112±17.67 117±18.38

3.3 DEMONSTRATION ON ALTERNATIVE ASSET CREATING ACTIVITIES

With the objective of ensuring food security through engaging farmers in cash generating activities and to enable them to create assets, the ecofarm project has demonstrated breeding goats rearing to farmers in ATJK and Tach Armachiho and dairy goats to farmers in Tigray.


31

3.3.2 Demonstration on breeding and dairy goats rearing

The other asset creating intervention used by the project is demonstration on rearing and management of breeding goats in ATJK and Tach Armachiho and dairy goats in Tigray. In ATJK a total of 48 local female breeding goats were distributed to 18 women farmers in three villages in 2006. The data in the 2008 season showed that each woman owned 6 to 9 goats. By selling newborn goats the women have made other investments and created assets with an average value of 1289 Birr. In Tigray, 14 female headed households at three villages were each given 2 pregnant dairy goats and one male goat in 2006 and 2007. The purpose was to demonstrate to farmers how to improve the income and nutrition of farmers while introducing zero grazing to the farming community. Participating women have prepared feeds and shelters by planting Mulberry, Moringa, Sesbania and Luceanea species before receiving the pregnant goats. The dairy goats were provided to the women after the seedling reached foraging size. The women then entered into an agreement saying that they should keep the goats in their backyards and no let them graze freely in the field (Figure 11) so as to avoid the damage that could be posed by the goats on the vegetation in the surrounding ecology. This is to demonstrate to farmers and the surrounding community the possibility of encouraging environmental rehabilitation through adopting stall feeding. Except one farmer that hade lost the goats due to mismanagement and health problems, the 13 others are running the dairy goat production business. The number of goats at the hands of farmers has increased from 18 in 2006 to 71 in 2008. The herd size ranges from 1 to 12 with an average of 2.7 herds per farmer. It was observed that women farmers engaged in dairy goat production are creating wealth. They are getting milk for their children where one goat can give milk for about 2-4 months. The average amount is 0.5 liters per day from one single goat. The women are able to get an average of 152 liters of milk with a minimum of 80 and maximum of 365 litters per household per year. Furthermore, they are getting an average income of Birr 560 skimming butter from the milk. Moreover, they are benefiting from the ample amount of manure obtained from the goats which they can use as an organic fertiliser. The average manure production in 2006-2009 ranged from 19 to 50 quintals per household. Besides, some farmers were able to generate up to Birr 320 from selling some of their dairy goats to cope with drought and unfortunate conditions. Generally, the dairy goat intervention created positive social and economic impact for the women farmers. A spill-over effect of the intervention to the neighbouring female and male headed households was observed in the project areas, where many male and female farmers were observed engaged in dairy goat production. In Tach Armachiho a total of 18 goats were distributed in 2007 where 6 goats (2 goats/farmer for 3 farmers) were given to farmers at each village. The results from Sanja and Filwuha villages showed that by December 2008 the number of goats owned by each farmer has increased to more than double (Table 38) which shows that farmers were creating assets. Hopefully, this intervention will lead these households to ensuring better food security.


32

Table 37. Current state of goat rearing in Filwuha and Sanja, Tach Armachiho

Farmers’ name Village No of goats distributed in 2007

New born as of Dec 2008

Total

Awoke Ambaw Filwuha 3 4 7 Fanus Mesfin Filwuha 3 4 7 Abeje Goshe Filwuha 3 3 6 Melaku Mebratu Filwuha 1 2 3 Abuhay Dessie Sanja 3 3 6 Tassew Kenaw Sanja 2 4 6 Eyayu Abuhay Sanja 2 2 4

Figure 11. Women feeding and milking their dairy goat in ATJK & Tigray

3.4 BEST PERFORMING TECHNOLOGIES

In ATJK, technologies like Maize varieties (BH-540 & ACV-6), finger millet varieties (Tadesse and Padet), haricot bean variety (Awash 1), fruit trees (mango, papaya, & avocado), multipurpose trees (Moringa & Leucaena), harvesting maize at physiological maturity, fertilizer microdosing at 1g DAP per pocket (10-15 kg ha-1) at first weeding, reduced tillage, intercropping of maize with haricot bean at 2:1 row ratio, maize seed priming, breeding goat, and bee keeping are promising technologies that the WoARD can encourage farmers to use. In Tigray technologies like striga resistant sorghum varieties (Gobiye & Abshir), haricot bean varieties (NSPT#2 and Bayo Rata), cowpea varieties (TVU-1922-0D-01 & white wonder trailing), dairy goat, fodder banks and multi purpose trees (Morning and Mulberry), sorghum seed priming, harvesting sorghum at physiological maturity, stalk placement for stalk borer control, micro dosing 0.5gm and 1gm at first weeding and zero/reduced tillage need to be scaled up. Zero tillage is an important technology that farmers without oxen could use rather than practicing sharing cropping due to oxen shortage. Moreover, the cost of feeding oxen for plowing is also demanding for farmers in drylands, therefore zero tillage could be an alternative tillage practices for areas like Raya Azebo and Hintalo Wajerati where there is erratic rainfall and recurrent droughts. Livestock in this area are forced to migrate to areas where grazing land is available. Introducing fodder banks (Gliricida sepium) and multi purpose trees like Morning and Mulberry is also encouraging.


33

In Tach Armachiho rice, finger millet and groundnut varieties with the associated management technologies are the most important technologies selected and adopted. Moringa species and Jatropha are also promising. The Wereda should give due attention to these crops. C. juncea and C.grahaminis are important green manure crops in terms of adaptation and biomass production and the Wereda can encourage farmers to cultivate these crops either as green manure crops or biomass for compost preparation. If the time of planting could be adjusted to last week of July, striga resistant sorghum varieties could partly solve the striga problem. But, the best option of solving the striga problem would be implementing the Integrated Striga Management (ISM) package which is already developed and used elsewhere. Soybean could be a crop that can do well in the area and it deserves further evaluation, as in this project only one variety was evaluated only for one season. Micro dosing of fertilizer could be an alternative fertilizer application method for cash constrained farmers who are not capable of applying the recommended rate as less fertilizer is required in micro dosing.

3.5 TECHNOLOGIES THAT NEED FURTHER INVESTIGATION

In ATJK mango, avocado, papaya, Moringa, and Leucaena seedlings were demonstrated to farmers in 2007 and 2008. However, because getting the results of fruit and multipurpose trees would take many years no data were recorded on the yield and impacts of these technologies. Thus, these seedlings need further follow up to study their yield and impact on household nutrition and income. In Tigray, cattle feeding on Gliricida, demonstration of home gardening with trench composting, and silk worm rearing were not sufficiently studied and need further investigation. At Tach Armachiho further investigation needs to be conducted on seed and fertilizer rate and termite control for rice. Besides, fertilizer micro dosing, seed priming, conservation tillage, harvesting at physiological maturity, beehive demonstration and adaptation on Moringa and Jatropha were not sufficiently studied and need further investigation. In ATJK and Tach Armachiho, further work also needs to be conducted on demonstrating to farmers and training farmers on recipe preparation from Moringa.

3.6 CAPACITY BUILDING

3.6.1 Trainings

At ATJK, trainings were delivered to farmers, DAs and WoARD experts on different issues like the use of crop residues for animal feed, treatment and management of crop residues, on-farm research techniques, and management of fruit and fodder trees. At Tigray too, training was given on preparing different recipes from Gobiye, Moringa and haricot bean, as these crops are new to farmers. The training was given in collaboration with a home economist from Raya Azebo WoARD. Both theoretical and practical training on Moringa, Gobiye and haricot bean cultivation and recipe preparation was given for 60 farmers (20 from Tsehafti & 40 from Genete) for two days. It was observed that after the training farmers have showed increased interest to adopt those new crops.


34

Similarly, at Tach Armachiho trainings were given on rice recipe preparation and on rice dehuller operation. As rice is a new crop in Tach Armachiho area, farmers have little knowledge on the utilization of rice. On the other hand, farmers in Fogera area have rich experience in growing rice and preparing different recipes from rice. Therefore, an experience sharing tour was organized for the farmers from the two villages to Fogera area. A total of 17 farmers (10 men and 7 women) from the two villages were taken to Fogera to get experience on how to make Injera, local beer, bread, soup, rice with meat, rice with fish, local alcohol drink (Areke), and malt. Training was also given to a person operating the rice dehuller on how to operate the machine. The rice dehuller machine is already handed over to the Filwuha Farmers Association and the Association has already set the cost for dehulling rice, and the machine is now functional.

3.6.2 Advocacy

At ATJK an advocacy workshop was conducted in the College of Agriculture, Hawassa University in which participants from the Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Bureau of Health, National Veterinary Institute, various international NGOs and officers and research staff of the Hawassa University were involved. Fruitful discussions were made and comments received from the workshop. In addition, the workshop created awareness for the participants about the Ecofarm project. There were also suggestions, comments and appreciations to transfer the technologies to the SNNPR at the end of the workshop.

3.6.3 Preparation of production manuals

Farmers in Tach Armachiho are new to the agronomy and production of rice and groundnut. Even farmers’ production practices used in sorghum and finger millet production are traditional. To fill this gap, a production manual was prepared to avail improved production techniques. A 21 pages production manual containing rice, finger millet, groundnut, and sorghum was prepared in “Amharic” language and produced in 100 copies, where so far 51 copies were distributed to farmers, Development Agents, experts, supervisors, and Wereda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development. In ATJK there is a plan to prepare production manuals containing the application of improved varieties and technologies that are appropriate to the dryland environment for food security and income generation of the farming communities in combination with improvement of the degraded environments. The production manuals will include the best selected varieties and technologies that were tested for the last three years.

3.7 FARMERS’ VIEWS AND REACTIONS

The farming communities at the project areas have developed positive attitudes to the improved crop varieties and technologies. Often farmers have expressed how they have become able to grow and benefit from crops which they had never heard about earlier, such as rice, haricot bean, groundnut, finger millet, different fruit crops, Moringa, and different fodder trees. In field days it was observed that participating farmers tried to convince non-participating farmers about the benefit they got from the interventions. Consequently, farmers realized that there were changes in the livelihood of their families through these combined interventions of the project.


35

In Tigray, farmers appreciated the striga management practices, the dairy goat intervention and pulse crops. More importantly farmers have a positive perception to integrated striga management practices. Farmers have a negative attitude to zero tillage due to weed infestation and to Gliricida due to its poor palatability. Farmers in Tach Armachiho have expressed their interest to increase the production of rice, finger millet (var. Padet), and groundnut. These crops can diversify the cropping system in the area. Especially groundnut has a great potential to be produced as a cash crop. At this early stage, groundnut has large local market demand.

3.8 STAKEHOLDERS REACTION TO THE RESEARCH RESULTS & UPSCALING

ACTIVITIES DURING THE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS

From August to September 2009 regional workshops were conducted at Awassa, Alamata (Tigray), and Gonder (Amhara) to create awareness and to transfer ecofarm research results to stakeholders1. At Tach Armachiho a field visit was conducted as part of the workshop and stakeholders got the chance to listen to the opinion of farmers. In each of the workshops, the stakeholders expressed their appreciation of the achievements of the project. At all the workshops, the participants underlined that the ecofarm project has reached and benefited geographical areas which have not been addressed before. Representatives of Zonal and Wereda offices of Agriculture and Rural Development have promised to further scale up the achievements and to finalize those activities which require further fine tuning. In the end, in all the workshops the participants requested DCG to continue the intervention for some time.

3.9 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT

3.9.1 EFFECT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION & HEALTH

The project has changed the lives of farmers by diversifying the crop and livestock system. Introduction of improved drought resistant/tolerant varieties of crops reduces the risks of crop failure. Improved soil and crop management technologies have also helped farmers to increase yields while reducing environmental degradation.

The project has identified important crops, especially rice, haricot bean, groundnut, finger millet, different fruit crops, Moringa, and different fodder trees and other technologies which can help to ensure food security in each Wereda. The introduction of maize, sorghum, finger millet, rice, groundnut, and haricot bean, which are highly productive, play an important role in ensuring food security in the area. Besides increasing farmers’ income through improved productivity, the introduction of these crops guarantees diversification, which is one strategy of ensuring food security. Diversifying farmers’ activity by supplying dairy goats and beehives is another impact of the project in terms of ensuring food security. The introduction of leguminous crops like haricot bean, cowpea and groundnut, which are important protein sources, have improved the nutrition of farmers. In addition, introducing multipurpose trees such as Moringa, avocado, papaya and mango has improved nutrition by increasing supply of vitamins and minerals. In Tigray, for those households rearing dairy goats, women’s and children’s nutrition has been improved by consuming goat milk. Although the health status of farmers was not assessed, it can be assumed that the health situation of farmers has been improved due to improved nutrition.

1 Farmers; Regional, Zonal, and Wereda offices of Agriculture and Rural Development; Development agents; Universities (Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University); Research centers and institutions; Zonal, Wereda, and Village Administrators; NGOs.


36

3.9.2 Effect on household income improvement Project activities have increased income of farmers due to increased yield through introduction of drought resistant and high yielding crops. The adoption of some of the improved technologies seems so far to have reduced labor inputs in farming and improved income at house hold level. In addition, introducing breeding and dairy goats has changed the income generation capacity of farmers. For instance in ATJK each women has created asset with an average value of Birr 1280 from goat rearing2. Three farmers have constructed corrugated iron sheet houses and were exempted from safety net food aid programs due to the income improvement they got from the project. Farmers in Tigray too, got an average income of Birr 560 from selling butter. Some farmers were also able to generate up to Birr 320 from selling some of their goats’ offspring. In Tach Armachiho, rice and groundnut production have enabled farmers to obtain economic benefit from producing these crops. In 2008, farmers at Tach Armachiho sold their rice for Birr 600 per quintal and got a gross income in the range of Birr 1800 to 5400 from a land size of a quarter of a hectare. Similarly, farmers at Tach Armachiho sold groundnut at the rate of 12 Birr per kg of seed and obtained a gross income in the range of 42360 and 59160 Birr per hectare.

3.9.3 Effects on environmental protection

Although the impact is not estimated, introducing different fruit trees and different multipurpose trees in the project areas would contribute towards protecting the environment. In the harsh environments of the project areas, multipurpose trees and fruit crops would provide some shade and can contribute to rehabilitate degraded lands. Green manure crops would also play a pivotal role in improving the organic matter content of the soil. Activities like conservation tillage have also a positive impact in reducing soil erosion.

3.9.4 Contribution to climate change adaptation

Climate change is presenting a new and unprecedented challenge to the rural poor who are depending on climate sensitive activities and have low capacity to adapt. Especially drylands are more exposed to the most severe impacts of climate change, including flooding, drought and increased incidence of pest and diseases. The ecofarm project gives farmers a basket of options to cope with climate variability. Establishing multipurpose trees and fruit crops have contributed to the change of the micro climate of the farmers’ gardens and reduction in soil erosion which in turn reduce the intensity of environmental degradation and intensification of deserts. I addition, the soil and crop management activities improved the soil moisture holding capacity and improved plant stand and performance which reduced rate of environmental degradation. Further more, organic matter recycling to the environment has been increased by the farming activities of the project. All these factors contribute to increase farmers’ resilience to climate change.

3.10 RELEVANCE OF THE ECOFARM PROJECT TO ETHIOPIAS POVERTY

REDUCTION PROGRAM

The ecofarm action research activities fit in with the Poverty Reduction strategy (PASDEP) of Ethiopia and the Millennium Development Goals (specifically Goal 1 which aims at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger) as the project aims at increasing people’s income, improving nutrition and generating new employment. The overarching objective of the government’s poverty reduction strategy is to reduce poverty through enhancing rapid economic growth while at the same time maintaining macroeconomic stability. The ecofarm 2 By selling live animals (offspring)


37

action research project has increased the availability and utilization of knowledge and improved agricultural technologies whereby the project highlighted that the performance of the agricultural sector in smallholders’ could be enhanced by availing to farmers already available technologies.

3.11 POLITICAL SUPPORT TO THE PROJECT

Every year during the project, field days were organized to influence decision makers at village, Wereda and Zone level. Field visits contributed to build awareness about the possibilities for increasing productivity in drylands. Decision makers at village and Wereda level were mobilizing farmers in support of the project and have promised to proceed with scaling up some of the important technologies at each project area.

3.12 CONSTRAINTS TO WIDE SCALE ADOPTION

Farmers are enthusiastic to further widen the production of those technologies selected by farmers at each project area. However, there are cultural, environmental and economic factors which affect wide scale adoption of outputs from the project. For instance in Tigray, farmers are reluctant to adopt tillage and fertilizer technologies due to drought and economic reasons. Farmers feel that their environment is not responsive to fertilizer due to drought. Seed availability is also a problem in some areas for wide scale adoption. In Tach Armachiho, for instance, shortage in availability of seeds of groundnut and finger millet is very limiting. Nevertheless, tremendous efforts have been made by the project for the wide scale adoption of technologies and varieties by the farming communities.

3.13 CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THE ECOFARM PROJECT

Lack of exposure and experience of farmers to participatory on-farm research, sense of dependency by some farmers, seasonal shortage of labour especially at planting and harvesting time, extreme shortage of moisture, and lack of commitment by Wereda experts and Wereda and Village officials and some farmers were some of the constraints and challenges faced during implementing the project. Especially in Tigray, the occurrence of drought and the erratic distribution of the rainfall has been the major challenge in implementing the action research activities. Lack of strong integration between stakeholders in implementing the action research activities was the major challenge.


38

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ecofarm project has been implemented in three dryland areas in Ethiopia. To ensure food security and to overcome poverty and environmental degradation through introducing alternative food security strategies, the ecofarm project in Ethiopia has conducted several action research projects in the areas of diversifying crop choice, integrated resource management by introducing different multipurpose trees, alleviating soil fertility and crop pest problems, availing coping mechanisms to climate change, and enabling farmers creating assets. The limited diversification of crops in the drylands of the project areas has negative impacts on ecological sustainability, farmers' income, as well as on nutrition of the people. Continuous growing of limited crops has resulted in low soil fertility and development of serious crop pests, diseases and weeds. Furthermore, farmers do not have diversified sources of nutrition. Cognizant of these limitations, the ecofarm project during the three years has worked to diversify the cropping system by introducing rice, sorghum, finger millet, and maize among cereals; haricot bean, cowpea, pigeon pea, soybean, and groundnut among pulse and oil crops; mango, avocado, and papaya among fruit crops; and Moringa, Mulbery, Leucaena, Gliricida and Jatropha among multipurpose trees. Green manure crops were also introduced to contribute to solving the problem of soil fertility. Microfertilisation proved to be a very promising way to increase cereal productivity. Moringa species adaptation work was conducted to introduce the plant as source of human food and medicinal plant. Striga resistant sorghum varieties were also introduced to reduce the yield loss occurring due to the severe striga infestation in Tigray and Tach Armachiho. In addition, to help resource poor farmers to create asset and ensure food security, the project has demonstrated breeding and dairy goats and apiculture. In the three years, the most significant successes of the ecofarm action research project in the three project areas in Ethiopia are the empowerment of farmers in doing on-farm research and the introduction of new high yielding and cash generating crops which are important in diversifying the cropping systems. The ecofarm project has changed the attitude of the farming community in the project areas towards improved technologies. Farmers have realized the benefits of new technologies and many of them are showing interest to be involved in testing other promising technologies on their farms. From the three years of intervention, different promising technologies with potential for wider application have been identified for each project area. In ATJK, technologies like maize varieties (BH-540 & ACV-6), finger millet varieties (Tadesse and Padet), fruit crops (mango, papaya and avocado), multipurpose trees (Moringa & Leucaena), harvesting maize at physiological maturity, fertilizer micro dosing, reduced tillage, maize/haricot bean intercropping, maize seed priming, dairy goat, and bee keeping were technologies appreciated by farmers. In Tigray technologies like striga resistance sorghum varieties (Gobiye & Abshir), haricot bean varieties (NSPT#2 and Bayo RataNSPT#2), cowpea varieties (TVU-1922-0D-01 & white wonder trailing), dairy goat, fodder banks and multi purpose trees (Morning and Mulberry), sorghum seed priming, harvesting sorghum at physiological maturity, stalk placement for stalk borer control, micro dosing 0.5gm and 1gm at first weeding and zero/reduced tillage. Fodder banks and multi purpose trees like Morning and Mulberry are also interesting options.


39

In Tach Armachiho rice, finger millet and groundnut varieties, with the associated management technologies, are the most important technologies selected and adopted. Moringa species and Jatropha also have very good adaptation. Crotolaria juncea and Crotolaria

grahaminis are important green manure crops in terms of adaptation and biomass production. Introduction of striga resistant sorghum varieties is important in the area, but they should be sown late in the season in order to reduce damage by birds. Soybean could be a crop that can do well in the area and it deserves further evaluation. Micro dosing fertilizer application could be an alternative fertilizer application method for cash constrained farmers who are not capable of applying the recommended amount as less fertilizer is required in micro dosing. Close partnership between different stakeholders contributed to the success of this project. The ecofarm project established a close collaboration between the Universities, Research Institutes and farmers, Wereda Offices of Agriculture and Rural Development, Village administrators, as well as NGOs working in the project areas. Farmers’ participated with a genuine and active participation where farmers were left to decide on the fate of each and every intervention. Field days organized in each site were used as the main avenue for disseminating the best performing technologies at each project site. Regional workshops were also conducted at the three project areas so as to present results of the project for their wider application. In conclusion, the ecofarm project has been successful in introducing new technologies to farmers and improving food security. The results obtained within this short period have demonstrated that with concerted efforts and selection of appropriate technologies, farming can become more productive and farmers more food secure.


40

ANNEX 1. RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS IN

THE 3 VILLAGES IN TACH ARMACHIHO

Village (experimental plot)

PH H2O

/1:2.5

EC ms/cm

Texture Moisture Content at

field capacity %

Organic Matter

%

Total N %

Av. P in ppm

Exchangeable bases Cmol (+)/ kg

Sand %

Silt % Clay %

Class Fxch Ca

Exch Mg

Exch. Na

Exch. K

Yayira (rice) 6.85 0.09 43.49 4.87 0.15 6.57 24.84 7.56 0.40 0.98

Yahihra (priming) 6.86 0.09 43.67 2.16 0.12 7.12 23.76 9.72 0.13 1.08

Yahira (pulse) 6.55 0.09 46.48 2.65 0.10 2.81 23.22 12.96 0.22 0.68

Yahihra(mr. dosing) 6.50 0.09 39.23 2.63 0.12 18.28 25.92 14.58 0.40 0.89

Yahihra (striga) 6.67 0.14 27.44 20.56 52.00 C 58.72 5.45 0.10 3.81 38.88 22.14 0.22 1.23

Sanja (pulse) 6.30 0.15 44.66 4.07 0.13 13.53 25.92 17.28 0.49 1.13

Sanja (rice) 6.77 0.09 38.90 3.56 0.12 7.90 43.20 6.48 0.27 0.66

Sanja (priming) 6.76 0.07 50.97 3.85 0.09 7.84 32.94 16.74 0.40 0.91

Sanja (mr. dosing) 6.57 0.24 21.44 28.56 52.00 C 60.79 4.65 0.15 13.81 39.42 21.60 0.40 0.93

Filwuha (striga) 6.76 0.08 40.34 2.90 0.07 3.25 34.02 11.88 0.44 0.39

Filewuha (priming) 6.60 0.07 44.88 3.05 0.13 1.04 25.92 17.28 0.36 0.49

Filewuha (dosing) 6.58 0.07 70.40 3.05 0.07 2.09 43.20 8.64 0.18 0.95

Filwuha (pulse) 6.62 0.10 58.85 2.98 0.10 4.08 35.10 22.68 0.31 1.35

Filewuha (rice) 6.52 0.10 23.44 24.56 52.00 C 52.82 4.43 0.12 3.64 33.48 22.68 0.31 0.95

Filewuha (rice) 6.70 0.06 38.28 4.14 0.07 1.76 29.70 13.50 0.36 0.29


41

ANNEX 2. LIST OF ACTION RESRACH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN ATJK

No.

2006 cropping season 2007 cropping season 2008 cropping season 2009 cropping

season

Experimental activities Experimental activities Scaling up activities Experimental

activities

Scaling up activities Seed production

activities

1 Maize adaptation trials Maize adaptation trials BH 540 & ACV 6 Maize adaptation trial BH 540 & ACV 6 2 Sorghum adaptation trial Sorghum adaptation trial Requires verification Sorghum adaptation

trial Requires verification

3 Maize/haricot bean intercropping

Intercropping of maize and haricot beans

Maize: haricot bean at 2:1

Maize/haricot bean Intercropping

Maize: haricot bean at 2:1

4 Micro fertilization Micro fertilization Not yet Micro fertilization 28 kg fertilizer/ha in row planting

5 Tillage practices Tillage practices Not yet Tillage practices Reduced tillage 6 Raw planting of crops Row planting of crops Nearly all farmers

scaled up R0w planting Nearly all farmers

scaled up

7 Haricot bean adaptation trial

Haricot bean adaptation trial Awash 1 scaled up Haricot bean adaptation trials

Awash 1 scaled up Awash 1 seed distributed for seed production to 15 farmers

8 Seed priming Seed priming Required verification Seed priming Required verification 9 Fruit and fodder trees Harvest at physiological

maturity Not yet Harvest at

physiological maturity

Scaled up on few farmers

11 Finger millet adaptation trial Not yet Finger millet adaptation trials

Scaled up Seeds of Tadesse & Padet varieties distributed to 15 farmers for seed production

12 Fruit and fodder trees Scaled up Fruit and fodder trees Scaled up Follow up 13 Honey bee production and

management Scaled up Honey bee

production and management

Scaled up Follow up

14 Management of breeding goats Scaled up breeding goats Scaled up Follow up


42

ANNEX 3. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED

IN TIGRAY

No List of experiments Treatment Farmers Location

1 Pulse Adaptation Trial 1. White wonder 2. TUV 1922 -OD-D6(Cow pea) 3. Bayo rata (Haricot Bean) 4. Nasir (Haricot Bean) 5. Pigeon pea

3 Genetae Tsigae Tsehaft

2 Evaluating of striga resistant varieties

1. Abshir 2. Gobiye 3. Codon


3 Experiment with improved solving and fertilizer application

1. 1 row planting with micro fertilizer (1g/ pocket)

2. 2 row planting with micro fertilizing (0.5gm)


4. Tillage experiment 1. Reduced tillage

2. Zero with mulch 3. Conventional tillage 4. Row Planting only


5 Seed Priming Sorghum

1. Primed 2. Unprimed

Haricot bean 1. Primed 2. Unprimed


6 Harvest at physiological maturity

1. Sorghum harvest at physiological maturity 2. Sorghum harvest dried up


7 Home gardening with trench 1. Trench compost

2. No trench compost 3 Genetae

Tsigae Tsehaft

8 Adaptation Trial of Multipurpose tree

1. Moringa 2. Morus


9 Stalk borer control 1. Stalk left erect 2. Stalk laid horizontally after

harvest



43

ANNEX 4. LIST OF ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED

IN TACH ARMACHIHO

Table 1. Action research activities conducted in 2006

No Experiment Treatments Conducted at 1 Adaptation of Moringa olifera,

Moringa stenopatela and Jatropha sp.

1. Moringa stenopatela 2. Moringa olifera 3. Jatropha 1 4. Jatropha 2

Sanja, Filwuha, Yayira

2 Evaluation of striga resistance sorghum varieties

1. Abshir without fertilizer 2. Abshir with fertilizer 3. Gobiye without fertilizer 4. Gobiye with fertilizer 5. Local without fertilizer 6. Local with fertilizer


3 Integrating low land pulses in the farming system of Tach Armachiho

1. Groundnut pure stand 2. Soybean pure stand 3. Cow pea pure stand 4. Pigeon pea pure stand 5. Pigeon pea intercropped with sorghum 6. Haricot bean pure stand 7. Haricot bean intercropped with sorghum


4 Adaptation of rice varieties 1. Kokit 2. Tigabe 3. NERICA 3 4. NERICA 4


5 Effects of fertilizer microdosing on yield and profitability of sorghum (var. Abshir)

1. Without fertilizer 2. Broadcast application of the recommended rate 3. Micro dosing at the rate of 1g /pocket or seed of DAP 4. Micro dosing at the rate of 0.5g/pocket or seed of DAP 5. Micro dosing at the rate of 0.2g/pocket or seed of DAP


6 Effects of seed priming on the length of growing period and yield of sorghum (var. Abshir) and maize (var. BH 540)

1. Sorghum without priming 2. Sorghum with priming 3. Maize without priming 4. Maize with priming


7 Comparison of local and improved beehives on bee colony and honey production

1. Local beehive 2. Kenya top bar 3. Langstroth


8 Effects of minimum tillage on the yield of sorghum (var. Abshir)

1. Conventional tillage 2. One time tillage at planting 3. Zero tillage with mulching (20% land cover) 4. Zero tillage without mulching (apply roundup before sowing)

Sanja, Filwuha,


44


No Experiment Treatments Conducted at

1 Microdosing on sorghum (var. Teshale)

1. Control – without fertilizer, broadcasting 2. Control- fertilizer and seed

broadcasting- recommended rates 3. Row planting- without fertilizer 4. Row planting and recommended rates 5. 0.5 g DAP at sowing 6. 1.0 g DAP at sowing 7. 0.5 g at first weeding 8.1.0 g DAP at first weeding

Sanja, Filwuha

2 Conservation tillage trials, local sorghum variety

1. Conventional tillage 2. Reduced tillage (one passage) 3. Zero tillage without mulch 4. Zero tillage with mulch 5. Zero tillage with herbicides 6. Zero tillage with herbicide and mulch

Filwuha,

3 Intercropping haricot bean with local sorghum variety

1. Sorghum sole crop 2. Haricot bean sole crop 3. Intercropping, one row sorghum and one row haricot bean 4. Intercropping: 2 row sorghum and one row haricot bean

Sanja, Filwuha, Yeyihera

4 Sowing date for sorghum varieties.

Variety 1. Gobiye or Abshir 2. Teshale Sowing time: 1. 1 week of July 2. 15 days later 3. 30 days later


5 Yield losses assessment of stalk borer in the three kebeles


6 Improved fallow

1. Control 2. Crotolaria graminece 3. Crotolaria juncea 4. Lab-lab 5. Tephrosia vogeli

Sanja, Filwuha,

7 Finger millet variety adaptation trial

1. Local 2. Tadesse 3. Degu 4. Padet


8 Maize variety adaptation trials

1. Local 2. BH540 3. Awassa 511 4. Melkassa 1

Sanja


45


No

Action research activity

No. of

participated

farmers

Total

land area

planted

Varieties

used

Conducted at

1 Integrated management of striga on sorghum

2 600 m2 Hormat Sanja, Filwuha

2 Scaling up of rice 20 5.25 ha NERICA-4 & Superica-1

Sanja, Filwuha

3 Scaling out of groundnut 6 600 m2 Shulamith Sanja, Filwuha

4 Scaling out of finger millet varieties

5 500 m2 Padet & Tadesse

Sanja, Filwuha

5 Demonstration of striga resistant sorghum varieties

5 600 m2 Hormat Sanja, Filwuha

6 Scaling out of green manure crops

4 1 ha C. junicea & Lab lab

Sanja, Filwuha


46

List of publications

Reports:

1 A. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 1 B. Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 A. Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 B. Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 A. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 B. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999. “Rapport de synthèse et quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 4 A. Sydness, M. et Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de décentralisation, développement institutionnel et reorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 4 B. Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralization Process, Institution Development and Phasing out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 5. Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 6. Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 7. Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


47

8. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Semencière: Etude de la gestion et de l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 9. Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricultural Extension in the Drylands of Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 10. Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la décentralisation au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 11. N’Dior, P. A. et Traore, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’épargne et de crédit au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 12. Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 13. Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Integrated Plant Nutrition Management (IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 15. Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Société Civile aux Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la Désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 17. Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 18. Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 19. Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002. “Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


48

20. Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002. “Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW ‘Shemshemia’ Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 21. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé et J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne 2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 22. Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la désertification atelier organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (GCoZA) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 à Gossi (Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 23. Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions

through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?” Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 24. Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of the Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 25. Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. ”Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. ”Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs) Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 27. Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

28. Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 29. Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 30. Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National, Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 31. Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


49

32. Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 33. Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 34. Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 35. Meehan, F. 2004. “Female Headed Household in Tigray, Ethiopia. A Study Review”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 36. Doumbia, M. Berthe, A., Aune, J. B. 2005. “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Mali. Summary Report 1998-2004”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 37. Kaya, B., Traoré, C. O., Aune, J.B. 2005. “Etude d’identification des prototypes d’EcoFermes au Mali. Rapport diagnostic et plan d’action pour 2005“. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Maison de l’Environnement G9, Norvège. 38. Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I. 2005. ”Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management. A Case Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 39. Makenzi, P. 2005. “Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills. A Baseline Study from Budy County, South Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 40. Ogbazghi, W., Bein, E. 2006. “Assessment of Non-Wood Forest Products and their Role in the Livelihoods of Rural Communities in the Gash-Barka Region, Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 41. Kouyaté, S., Haidara, C. M. 2006. “Etude sur la Problématique des Périmètres Irrigués Villageois au Nord du Mali”. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Miljøhuset G9, Norvège. 42. Haile, A. 2006. “On-Farm Storage of Chickpea, Sorghum, and Wheat in Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 43. Ask, V. 2006. “UNCCD and Food Security for Pastoralists within a Human Rights Context”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 43B. Ask, V. 2006. « La CCD et la Sécurité Alimentaire des Pasteurs Dans le Contexte des Droits de l’Homme ». Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 44. Desta, M., Haddis, G., Ataklt, S. 2006. “Female-Headed Households and Livelihood Intervention in Four Selected Weredas in Tigray, Ethiopia.”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 45. Araia, W, Haile, A. 2006. “Baseline study on crop husbandry, in-situ conservation and informal seed supply system in Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 46. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H. 2007. “Constraints and Opportunities of Horticulture Production and Marketing in Eastern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.


50

47. Malifu, E., Tefera, H., and Mekiso, M. 2007. “Evaluation Report on Training of Trainers on UNCCD/NAP”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 48. Assefa, D., Belay, M., Tsegay, D., and Haile, M. 2007. “Transplanting Sorghum as a Means of Ensuring Food Security in Low Rainfall Sorghum Growing Areas of Northern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 49. Tsegaye, D., Balehegn, M, Gebrehiwot, K.,.Haile, M., Samuel, G.,Tilahun, M., and Aynekulu, E. 2007. “The Role of Dobera glabra for Household Food Security at Times of Food Shortage in Aba`ala Wereda, North Afar: Ecological Adaptation and Socio-economic Value. A Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 50. Teklehaimanot, G. and Haile, M. 2007. “Women in Backyards: Root Crop Production and Biodiversity Management in Backyards”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 51. Bengtsson, Frida. 2007. “Review of Information Available on Seed Security and Seed Aid Interventions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 52. Tesfay, Haile. 2007. “Assessment of Institutional Setup and Effect of Household Level Water Harvesting in Ensuring Sustainable Livelihood. A Case study of Kobo, Almata and Kilte Awlaelo Woredas in Amhara and Tigray Regions of Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 53. Elias, E. 2008. “Pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia: Dispossession, Access to Resources and Dialogue with Policy Makers”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 54. Meles, K., Nigussie, G., Belay, T., and Manjur K. 2009. “Seed System Impact on Farmers’ Income and Crop Biodiversity in the Drylands of Southern Tigray”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 55. Mengistu, E., Regassa, N and Yusufe, A., 2009, “The Levels, Determinants and Coping Mechanisms of Food Insecure Households in Southern Ethiopia: A Case study of Sidama, Wolaita and Guraghe Zones” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 56. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H., and Regassa, N., 2010. “Impacts of Improved Seeds and Agrochemicals on Food Security and Environment in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia: Implications for the Application of an African Green Revolution”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

57. Traoré, C. O., Aune, J. B., et Sidibé, M. M., 2010. “Rapport Final du Projet Ecoferme au Mali.

Synthèse des quatre années 2005-2008”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

58. Megersa, B., 2010. “An epidemiological study of major camel diseases in the Borana lowland, Southern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.


51

Proceedings:

1. Drylands Coordination Group. 2000. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan. Proceedings from a Seminar organised by the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 2. Drylands Coordination Group. 2001. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings from a Seminar Hosted by the National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara, Eritrea, March 26th-28th, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 3. Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST), on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 4. Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action Program to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit, September 13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 5. Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Société Civile dans la Mise en Oeuvre Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Désertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6 novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 6. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of the role of civil society in the implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar Arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 7. Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia, Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 8. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean Workers Conference Hall, Asmara, November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 9. Drylands Coordination Group. 2003. DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22nd November 2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 10. Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’échange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18 et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 11. Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 12. Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 13. Macina, M. 2004. Atelier National et Campagne d’Information et de Sensibilisation sur la CCD. Un Atelier Organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines au Mali (CAFO) en partenariat avec le Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) Les 29-30 novembre 2004 à Bamako, Mali. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.


52

14. Musnad, H.A. and Nasr N. K. 2004. Experience Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts and Fuel Wood Substitutes in Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 15. Gakou, M. 2005. Atelier d’information et de formation des ONG membres de GCoZA sur le montage des projets/ synergie entre les conventions de la génération de Rio et de la convention de Ramsar. Le 28 décembre 2004, à Bamako, Mali. GCoZA, Oslo. 16. Berkele, Y., Mossige, Anne. 2005. Awareness Promotion and Experience Sharing on the Implementation of UNCCD-NAP to Enhance Pastoralist Areas Development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia for the Pastoral Affairs Standing Committee and the Natural Resource Development and Environmental Protection Standing Committee, Members of Parliament - Ethiopia. December 17-19, 2004 in Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 17. Esheteu Bekele, E., Azerefegne, F., and Abate, T. 2006. Facilitating the Implementation and Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Ethiopia. Planning Workshop, 13-15 October 2003, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, EARO. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 18. Kodio, A. 2006. Atelier de Formation des Membres du GCoZA Mali à l’Approche Epargne Crédit Musow ka Jigiya Ton (MJT) au Mali. Atelier organisé par CARE Mali et le GCoZA Mali du 1er au 5 août 2005 au Centre Gabriel Cissé de Ségou au Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

19. Belal, A. A. and Hussein, F. S. 2006. Awareness Raising Workshop on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Workshop organized by DCG Sudan for the Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders. December 28th and 29th 2005 in the Green Hall of Sudan’s Parliament, Omdurman, Sudan. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

20. Dembelé, T., Berthé, A. et Yattara, M. 2006. Atelier de formation en matière du Guide Programme Communal d’Action Environnementale (PCAE) et des techniques Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV). Atelier Organisé par GCOZA Mali et le Consortium Synergie –AMAPROS ACD pour les membres de GCOZA et des trois communes (Saloba, Souley et Sana). Du 20 au 22 juin 2005 à la Maison du Partenariat à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

20B. Yattara, M. 2006. PCAE ani GINV baarakqfqqrqw dùnniyaw dqmqnan lajqkalan kùnùkow sqnsqnnen. Lajqkalan sigilen sen kan GCOZA Mali ani xùgùndqmqjqkulu AMAPROS ACD fq, ka xqsin GCOZA tùndenw ni Saloba, Suleyi ani Sana komini saba kùnùmùgùw ma. K’a ta san 2005 zuwqnkalo tile 20 ma, ka se a tile 22 ma Mali la, xùgùndqmqjqkuluw ka soba la Bamakù. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 21. Touré, B. 2006. Atelier de Renforcement des Capacités des Organisations de GCoZA Mali sur les Mécanismes de Financement des Projets et Programmes pour la Mise en Oeuvre de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la Lutte contre la Désertification (CCD). Atelier Organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines du Mali (CAFO) et GCoZA Mali pour les membres de GCoZA Mali. Du 11 au 13 septembre 2006 au Mémorial Modibo Keita à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 22. Negassi, A. and Beyene, Y. 2007. Bridging the Gap Between Research, Extension and the Farmer in Eritrea. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.


53

23. Anage, A. and Lulu, M. 2007. Awareness Raising Workshop on UNCCD/NAP and Experience Sharing Sessions on Drylands Development Issues in Ethiopia. Workshop organized for the Pastoral and Natural Resources and Environment Affairs Standing Committees of the Parliament of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. December 8th -10th 2006, Adama Mekonen Hotel, Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 24. Sterling, L., Nagoda, S., Tveteraas, A. 2008. Moving from emergency seed aid to seed security - linking relief with development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Norway and Caritas Norway, in collaboration with Norad and The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Oslo May 14th 2008. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 25. Anage, A. 2009. Capacity Building for Regional Council Members, Sector Offices & Academic Institutions & CSOs of Oromya, Gambella and Benshangul-Gumuz National Regional States on UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Workshop organized by EACD and the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia. July 3rd and 4th 2008 at Nekemte Municipality Hall, Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset. Oslo.


54

Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway: Secretariat of the Drylands Coordination Group

Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 94 90, Fax: + 47 23 10 94 94 E-mail: [email protected]

ADRA Norge

Postboks 124, 3529 Røyse, Norway Tel.: +47 32 16 16 90, Fax: +47 32 16 16 71 E-mail: [email protected] CARE Norge

Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36 E-mail: [email protected] Development Fund

Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: +47 23 10 96 01 E-mail: [email protected] Norwegian Church Aid

Postboks 7100, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 09 27 00, Fax: + 47 22 09 27 20 E-mail: [email protected] Norwegian People’s Aid

P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82 E-mail: [email protected] Noragric, Department for International Environment and Development Studies

University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 E-mail: [email protected]

Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three Project Areas in Ethiopia

Documents

Transcript of Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three Project Areas in Ethiopia