The project operated in Kenya's two main sorghum producing areas, semi-arid Eastern Kenya and drier (sub-humid) Western Kenya1.
Implementation was through multi-institutional collaboration. In both Eastern and Western Kenya local leadership was provided by KARI scientists. In Eastern Kenya KARI staff undertook the on- station technical research while extension agents undertook the major part of the on-farm research activities. In Western Kenya KARI staff undertook the major part of both the on-station and the on- farm research.2 ICRISAT provided pest resistant planting materials for both sites and entomology
1 While these are the principal sorghum growing, areas smaller quantities of sorghum are also grown in the
dry highlands and the wet upland and coastal areas.
2 This was mainly for logistical reasons. In Eastern Kenya the main sorghum growing area was four hours away
from the research centre, and the on-station activities could be conducted at the main sorghum research sites (Kiboko and Katumani). In Western Kenya the on-station activities could not be conducted at Kisii Research Centre and had to be undertaken at a sub-centre (Homa Bay). Reaching the sub-centre involved the KARI researcher travelling though the sorghum growing areas which were used for the on-farm trials.
support for Western Kenya, while NRI provided overall leadership and technical support for on- station and on-farm activities in both sites in terms of crop protection, socio-economics and participatory research methods.
A similar research approach and activities were used in both Eastern and Western Kenya, but with some variations tailored to the different circumstances and situations in each site (see Figures 1 and 2). In both sites, stakeholder workshops were held in the first year to refine research priorities and build ownership of the project. End of project workshops were held to share the results and agree on the way forward3. In both sites on-station and on-farm experimentation was undertaken in parallel, with one informing the other; the more complex experimentation being done on-station. Both sites used a mother-baby design for participatory on-farm screening of sorghum varieties.
In Eastern Kenya, two growing seasons (one very short but reliable, one longer but unreliable) for sorghum enabled the on-farm and on-station trials to be repeated three times, while the one (long and reliable) growing season in Western Kenya only allowed for trials to be done twice within the three years. In Eastern Kenya the long distance (4-6 hours drive) from the on-farm sites from the on-station site resulted in many more on-farm sites (6) and farmers (50-60) being involved due to the devolution of research activities to local extension staff working with farmers. In Western Kenya the close proximity of on-station and on-farm sites (15 minutes drive) enabled closer interaction between the main local researcher and a much smaller number of farmers (10-15). To compensate for the narrower geographical focus of trials in Western Kenya, more resources were invested into surveying the context. Focused PRAs were undertaken in three locations prior to the design of on- farm trials. In order to provide a stronger basis for extrapolation of the results a formal survey was conducted over two districts covering 4 divisions and 8 locations mid-way through the trials. A focused study on panicle management was undertaken following foiled attempts to characterise the process of sorghum midge carry over through on-station trials in Western Kenya. In Eastern Kenya, additional focused socio-economic studies were undertaken in 5 of the 6 sites in order to provide the livelihoods and crop management context for the technologies being developed. These studies were used to inform the review of crop protection issues in semi-arid Eastern Kenya which was based mainly on a review of published and grey literature and key informant interviews.
Research Methods/Tools
3 The way forward involved consideration of the wider context for crop protection research outputs, including the
demand for crop protection information among the main stakeholder groups and a review of what was currently available in terms of research products to meet this demand. This is reported in summary for in the workshop reports (Annex ).
A wide range of methods and tools were used to produce project outputs. While there was some sequencing of activities, the research approach was not a linear one (for example starting with on-station trials before moving to on-farm ones, or starting with diagnostic surveys before doing on-farm trials). Due to the limited time available, and to enable read- across of results to modify research activities for the subsequent seasons, on-farm and on-station research activities were followed in parallel. Table 1 outlines the main research tools used, and the main purposes of each.
Table 1: Research Methods used and Purpose of these
METHOD/TOOL MAIN PURPOSES
Focused PRAs with sorghum growers at start of project and later on
Understand systems context for sorghum, Document farmer knowledge of pests and management strategies,
Formal questionnaire survey of sorghum growers
Quantify key facts on sorghum management and pests, and validate them over a wider area
Field observations through farm visits at different stages of the season
Verify important pests
Understand systems context for sorghum, Document farmer knowledge of pests and management strategies,
Workshops/meetings at start,
Middle and End of project
Confirm key pests, location/s and priorities for research
Share interim results and realign research Share findings and decide way forward On-station experiments – Randomized
Compete Block Designs
To develop/validate pest management strategies under controlled conditions On-farm trials - mother-baby design for
varietal tolerance and with/without observation plots for other strategies.
Validate technology on-farm,
Involve farmers and extension staff and build their research capability,
Farmer panels – meeting every season and using scoring, voting, ranking and discussion.
Collectively learn about and evaluate pest management technologies,
Benchmark results across sites On-farm pest monitoring- based on the trials –
visual observation and stem-borer damage scoring.
Quantify damaging insect pests in each season and stem borer damage levels
Calendar of research activities
A pre-project advance enabled an initial visit by NRI staff to Kenya in March 2000 which included a rapid appraisal of sorghum pests with farmers in Western Kenya. The project effectively started in Eastern Kenya October 2000, after issue of the contract. The main activities undertaken are indicated in the Table 2a and 2b in relation to the sorghum growing seasons for Western and Eastern Kenya.The planned field surveys of pest damage on sorghum
in the two sites were not undertaken due to resource limitations (transport, expertise and finance). A more cost-effective approach was used instead, which involved monitoring of pest damage through the on-farm trials and capturing farmers' knowledge of damage through the PRAs, formal surveys and end of season meetings and farmer filled questionnaires. This approach provided information at key growth stages over at least two seasons, which was considered more useful than the snapshot picture at a particular growth stage that a field survey would have given. Further details on the various methods used are described in documents listed under section 7
Table 2a Sorghum Pest Project - Eastern Kenya, Calendar of Activities
START 2000/01 2001 2001/02 2002 2003 END
Oct 2000 Nov Season April Season Nov Season April Season
PRA/Surveys Focus groups
Focused PRA Farm visits Farm visits Formal survey
Meetings 1st Stakeholder workshop Mid-project Review Final workshop Farmer panels Farmer panels Farmer panels Farmer panels
Started 2nd meeting 3rd meeting 4th meeting
On-farm trials and monitoring
Mwingi 1st variety obs. Mother baby variety trails Mother baby varieties Mother baby varieties
Stover management Inter-cropping & Buldock effect Pest monitoring Pest monitoring Pest monitoring
On-station trials
Kiboko Varieties, intercrop Varieties, intercrop Intercrop
Figure 2b Sorghum Pest Project – Western Kenya, Calendar of Activities
A
C
T
IV
IT
IE
S
&
A
ss
o
ci
a
te
d
O
u
tp
u
ts
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3
Lit review (2) Lit review (2)
Focused PRAs (1) 1st Stake- holder wkshop (1&4)
Final Stake- holder wkshop (4&5) Mid-project review
wkshop (2&4) Farmer panel
formed (4) Farmer panel evaluation meetings - 2seasons (2& 4)
On-station trials: Varietal resistance, planting date, stover management, Homa Bay FTC 2 cropping seasons (2)
On-farm variety screening and pest monitoring mother-baby trials, Homa Bay District -2 seasons (2&3)
Formal survey in Homa Bay and Busia (1)