[ { "text": "[TIMP: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1]\n\n2.2.1 Coastal Lowlands \nCoast composite maize \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWSQ104 (OPV) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500Q \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nShukran-16 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nPH4 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nPH1 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE2111 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nMTPEH0701 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nMTPEH0702 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nMTPEH0703 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nMTPEH200804 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nMTPEH200805 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coastal Lowlands", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium Altitude - Dry]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2]\n\n2.2.2 Medium Altitude - Dry \nKCB (Katumani \nComposite B) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKDH6 SBR \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH414-03 SBR \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKDH414-11 (Ukamez 6) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKDH414-12 (Ukamez 7) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE2109 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium Altitude - Dry", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium Altitude - Moist]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3]\n\n2.2.3 Medium Altitude - Moist \nWE2101 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE2104 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE2107 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE2108 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5206 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5230 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nEMB225 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nEMB226 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-40E \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-39E \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-56A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-Q \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium Altitude - Moist", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium Altitude Transitional]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4]\n\n2.2.4 Medium Altitude Transitional \nWE2106 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE3104 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE3106 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5107 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5113 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5138 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5205 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5210 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5213 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n\n4 \n \nWE5218 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5227 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-13E \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-51A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-52A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-53A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-54A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH500-55A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium Altitude Transitional", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Highlands]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5]\n\n2.2.5 Highlands \nKH600-11D \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-23A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nHigh Altitude Composite \n(HAC) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-14E \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-15A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-16A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-17A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-18A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-19A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-20A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-21A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-22A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-23A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-25A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-26A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKH600-27A \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH614D \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH626 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH625 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH6213 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH6218 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH6210 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH629 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH628 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nH624 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Highlands", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Special Kit - MLN]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: MLN-Tolerant (Special Kit)]\n[Section: 2.2.6]\n\n2.2.6 Special Kit - MLN \nWE5135 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5139 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nWE5140 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKATEH16-02 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \nKATEH16-03 \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.3 Maize seed \nsystem", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Special Kit - MLN", "aez": "MLN-Tolerant (Special Kit)", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.6", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved Farmer]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\n2.3.1 Improved Farmer \nSaved Seed-System \nInnovation \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved Farmer", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\n2.3.2 Quality Declared \nSeed system \nInnovation \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize Formal Seed]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\n2.3.3 Maize Formal Seed \nSystem \nInnovation \nReady for upscaling \n2.4 Good \nAgricultural \nPractices and", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize Formal Seed", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\n2.4.1 Good Agricultural \nPractices (GAP) for \nmaize \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling \n\n5 \n \nFood Safety \nManagement \nSystems", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\n2.4.2 Food Safety \nManagement System: \nHazard Analysis Critical \nControl Points (HACCP) \nPlan for maize Value \nChain in Kenya \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\n2.4.3 Aflasafe KE01TM \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.5 Agronomic \nmanagement \npractices", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\n2.5.1 land preparation \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\n2.5.2 Maize variety \n(seed) selection \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Planting Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\n2.5.3 Planting Spacing \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Planting Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\n2.5.4 Intercropping \nManagement \npractice \nReady for up-scaling \nwith some aspects \nrequiring further \nresearch", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\n2.5.5 Weeding \nManagement practice Ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal Fertilizer]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.6]\n\n2.5.6 Basal Fertilizer \napplication \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal Fertilizer", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.6", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top dressing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.7]\n\n2.5.7 Top dressing \nfertilizer \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top dressing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.7", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\n2.5.8 Timely harvesting \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\n2.5.9 Crop rotation \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling \n2.6 Soil fertility \nmanagement", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated soil]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\n2.6.1 Integrated soil \nfertility management \nManagement \npractice \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated soil", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated manure]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\n2.6.2 Integrated manure \nmanagement \nManagement \npractice \nFurther research", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated manure", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\n2.6.3 Rapid soil testing \nservices \nInnovation \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low cost]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\n2.6.4 Low cost \ncomposting technology \nManagement \npractice \nRequires validation \n2.7 Soil and \nwater \nmanagement", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low cost", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Conservation]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.1]\n\n2.7.1 Conservation \nagriculture \nManagement \npractice \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Conservation", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Zai pits]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.2]\n\n2.7.2 Zai pits \nTechnology \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Zai pits", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Contour bunds]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.3]\n\n2.7.3 Contour bunds \nTechnology \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Contour bunds", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Bench terraces]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.4]\n\n2.7.4 Bench terraces \nTechnology \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Bench terraces", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Fanya Juu terraces]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.5]\n\n2.7.5 Fanya Juu terraces \nTechnology \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Fanya Juu terraces", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.5", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Grass strips]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.6]\n\n2.7.6 Grass strips \nTechnology \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Grass strips", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.6", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Stone lines]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.7]\n\n2.7.7 Stone lines \nTechnology \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Stone lines", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.7", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Tied ridges]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.8]\n\n2.7.8 Tied ridges \nTechnology \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Tied ridges", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.8", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Retention Ridges]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.9]\n\n2.7.9 Retention Ridges \nTechnology \nReady for up-scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Retention Ridges", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.9", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Mulching]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.10]\n\n2.7.10 Mulching \nTechnology \nFurther research", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Mulching", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.10", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Water Harvesting Technology]\n[AEZ/Theme: Water Harvesting Technologies]\n[Section: 2.7.11]\n\n2.7.11 Intercropping \nManagement \npractice \nFurther research \n2.8 Irrigation and \ndrainage \nmanagement", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Water Harvesting Technologies", "category": "Water Harvesting Technology", "section_code": "2.7.11", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Furrow irrigation]\n[Category: Pest/Disease Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Pest and Disease Management]\n[Section: 2.8.1]\n\n2.8.1 Furrow irrigation \nsystem \nTechnology \nReady for up scaling \n\n6 \n \n2.9 Agroforestry \nsystems", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Furrow irrigation", "aez": "Pest and Disease Management", "category": "Pest/Disease Management", "section_code": "2.8.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Agroforestry for]\n[Category: Post-Harvest Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Post-Harvest Management]\n[Section: 2.9.1]\n\n2.9.1 Agroforestry for \nsoil fertility \nManagement \npractice \nRequires validation \n2.10 Maize Crop \nHealth \n2.10.1Integrated \nmanagement of Fall \nArmy Worm \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Agroforestry for", "aez": "Post-Harvest Management", "category": "Post-Harvest Management", "section_code": "2.9.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.2]\n\n2.10.2 Integrated \nmanagement of \nBollworm (Heliothis \narmigera) \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.3]\n\n2.10.3 Integrated \nmanagement of \nStem Borer \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.4]\n\n2.10.4 Integrated \nmanagement of Aphids \n(Rhopalosiphum maydis) \nManagement \npractice \nRequire validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Pest]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.5]\n\n2.10.5 Integrated Pest \nManagement of African \nArmy worm \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Pest", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.5", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.6]\n\n2.10.6 Integrated \nManagement of soil pests \nCut worms (Agrotis spp) \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.6", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.7]\n\n2.10.7 Integrated \nmanagement of Maize \nweevils \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.7", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.8]\n\n2.10.8 Integrated \nmanagement of larger \ngrain borer \nTechnology \nRequire validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.8", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.9]\n\n2.10.9 Integrated \nmanagement of thrips \n(Frankliniella spp.) in \nmaize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.9", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.10]\n\n2.10.10 Integrated \nManagement of maize \nLethal Necrosis disease \n(MLND) affecting maize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.10", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.11]\n\n2.10.11 Integrated \nManagement \nReady for upscaling \nmanagement of maize \nCommon Rust (Puccinia \nsorgi) \nPractice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.11", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.12]\n\n2.10.12 Integrated \nmanagement of maize \nCommon Smut disease \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.12", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.13]\n\n2.10.13 Integrated \nManagement of \ncommon maize head \nsmut diseas \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling \n\n7", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.13", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.14]\n\n2.10.14 Integrated \nManagement of Downy \nmildew \n(Perenosclerospora sp.) \ndisease of maize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.14", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.15]\n\n2.10.15 Integrated \nManagement of Gray \nleaf spot (Cercospora \nspp) of mize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.15", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.16]\n\n2.10.16 Integrated \nManagement of maize \nStreak Virus (MSV) \ndisease affecting mize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.16", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.17]\n\n2.10.17 Integrated \nManagement of \nAspergillus Ear rot \n(Aspergillus spp) in mize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.17", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.18]\n\n2.10.18 Integrated \nManagement of \nFusarium Ear Rot \n(Fusarium spp.) in mize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling \nScouting for pests in \nmaize fields \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling \n2.11 Weed \nManagement \n2.11.1 Maize Integrated \nWeed Management \nManagement \nPractice \nRequires Validation \n2.11.2 Integrated \nmanagement of striga in \nmaize \nManagement \nPractice \nRequires Validation \n2.11.3 Cover cropping \nfor mize weed \nmanagement \nManagement Practice Requires Validation \n2.11.4 Mulching for weed \nmanagement in maize \nManag \n \nement \nPractice \nRequires Validation \n2.11.5 Herbicide \n(Chemical) Weed \nControl \nTechnology \nRequires Validation \n2.11.6 Herbicide resistant \nmaize \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.11.7 Solarisation Bed \nWeed Control \nManagement \nPractice \nRequires Validation \n2.11.8 Mechanical \nWeed control in maize \nInnovation \nReady for upscaling \n2.11.8 Stale seed bed for \nWeed Control \nManagement \nPractice \nRequires Validation \n2.11.9 Crop Rotationto \ncontrol weeds in \nmize \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling \n\n8 \n \n2.11.9 Use of herbicides \nManagement \nPractice \nReady for upscaling \n2.12 Harvesting \nand \nPostharvesting \n2.12.1 Maturity indices \nManagement \npractice \nRequires validation \n2.12.2. Stooking maize \nduring arvesting \nManagement \npractice \nReady for upscaling \n2.12.3 Drying of maize \ncobs (the mize cib) \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.12.4 Drying of maize \ncobs (tarpaulins) \nTechnology \nValidation \n2.12.5 Threshing/shelling \nof maize \nHand threshers \nMotorised threshers \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.12.6 Drying of grain \nafter threshing \nSun drying \nSolar rump drying \nGreenhouse solar driers \nElectric driers \nDehyTray \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.12.7 Hygrometers for \nmoisture content \ndetermination in maize \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.18", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.18]\n\nGreenhouse solar driers \nElectric driers \nDehyTray \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.12.7 Hygrometers for \nmoisture content \ndetermination in maize \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.12.8 Subjective methods \nfor Grain moisture content \ndetermination in maize \nManagement practice Ready for upscaling \n2.12.9 Winnowing \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.12.10 Hermetic storage \nbags \nPurdue Improved Crop \nStorage (PICS) bags \nAgro-Z \nGrainPro \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.12.11 Metal silo \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.12.12 Maize stores \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.13 Value \nAddition \n2.13.1 Corn Starch \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.2 Tortillas \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.3 Ogi \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.4 Popcorn \nInnovation \nReady for Upscaling \n2.13.5 Maize beer \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.13.6 Maize oil \nTechnology \nRequires validation \n2.13.7 Maize candy \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.8 Corn sauce \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.9 Corn Syrup \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.10 Maize Crackies \nInnovation \nReady for Upscaling \n2.13.11 Maize Sausages \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.12 Maize Kebab \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.13 Maize Mandazi \nInnovation \nReady for Upscaling \n2.13.14 Maize Cake \nInnovation \nReady for Upscaling \n\n9 \n \n2.13.15 Maize Cookies \nInnovation \nReady for Upscaling \n2.13.16 Masa \nInnovation \nRequires validation \n2.13.17 Nixtamalization \nTechnoloy \nRequires validation \n2.14 \nMechanization of \nmaize production \nactivities \n2.14.1 Power tiller \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.2 Four Wheeled \nTractor 50Hp \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.3 Mouldboard \nplough \nTechnology \n", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.18", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.18]\n\n14.1 Power tiller \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.2 Four Wheeled \nTractor 50Hp \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.3 Mouldboard \nplough \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.13.4 Harrow \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.5 Planter \nTechnology \nRequires Further \nResearch \n2.14.6 Motorized sprayer \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.7 Power Weeder \nTechnology \nRequires Further \nResearch \n2.14.8 Maize harvester \nTechnology \nReady for upscaling \n2.14.9 Maize Sheller \nInnovation \nReady for upscaling \n2.15 Maize \nFarming Business \nand marketing \n2.14.1 Models for \nmarket-oriented \nproduction of maize \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.15.2 Building a \nbusiness plan \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.15.3 Marketing as a \ngroup - collective \nmarketing \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.15.4 Profitability \nanalysis – performance \nof maize agro-enterprise \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.15.5 Scaling up plan \nManagement \npractices \nRequires validation; \n2.15.6 Contracted \nproduction model \nManagement \npractices \nRequires validation; \n2.15.7 Maize \nentrepreneurship model \nManagement \npractices \nRequires validation; \n2.15.8 Internet/mobile \nmarketing \nManagement \npractices \nRequires validation; \n2.16. Elements of \nAgricultural \n2.16.1. National \nAgricultural Framework \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \nPolicies \nrelated to maize \n2.16.2 Policy options and \nobjectives related to \nMaize farming \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.16.3 Instruments of \npolicy related to maize \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.16.4 Policy cycle for \npolicy issues and \nimplementation \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.16.5 Policy validation \ncycle for policy \ncustomization \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n\n10 \n \n2 \nDETAILED MAIZE VALUE CHAIN TIM", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.18", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated]\n[Category: Market Linkage]\n[AEZ/Theme: Market Linkages]\n[Section: 2.10.18]\n\nimplementation \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n2.16.5 Policy validation \ncycle for policy \ncustomization \nManagement \npractices \nReady for upscaling \n\n10 \n \n2 \nDETAILED MAIZE VALUE CHAIN TIMPS \n \n2.1 \nSUITABILITY MAP FOR MAIZE GROWING IN KENYA \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure 1: Suitability map of Kenya \n\n11 \n \n \n2.2 \nIMPROVED MAIZE VARIETIES", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated", "aez": "Market Linkages", "category": "Market Linkage", "section_code": "2.10.18", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1]\n\n2.2.1 Coastal Lowlands", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coastal Lowlands", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.1 Coast Composite Maize \nTIMP Name \nCoast composite maize (CCM) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed Low yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, high \ntemperature (heat wave) stress during pollination stage of maize plant \ncausing up to 100% yield loss and yield losses in the range of 10% to \n75% due to common leaf rust (Puccinia sorghi). \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nCoast composite maize is an open pollinated heat tolerant variety\nwith yield potential of 16-21 bags of 90 kg, per acre that has\nresistance to common leaf rust. The medium maturity (110-120 days) \nvariety has shiny flint kernels, a good husk cover and is suitable for \ncultivation under rainfed and irrigated conditions. \nCoast composite maize crop and ears \n \nJustification \nSeventy percent of small-scale farmers in the coastal lowlands of \nKenya cultivate unimproved low yielding maize varieties that are \nsusceptible to common rust resulting to yield losses especially during \noutbreaks. Being a heat tolerant variety of medium maturity that is \nresistant to common leaf rust make CCM a good bet for growing in\nthe coastal lowlands where it is well adapted to, even with climate\nvariability. The variety’s good husk cover and suitability for rainfed \nand irrigated conditions enables it to be promoted for growing with\nsupplemental irrigation where rains may be irregular with climate\nchange.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Agricultural \nservice providers. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation \nPlatforms (AIP), on farm and on station research trails and \ndemonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \n\n12 \n \nexhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension services, Mass \nmedia – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials (posters, \nbrochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and \nSMS, Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather information \nApps), Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and \nNewspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors \nfor successful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform in \ncoastal Kenya; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seeds, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of maize food \nproducts through value addition, \n Strong partnership linkages, good marketing models and path \nways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO Seeds for production of early generation and certified \nseeds; \n Seed companies for certified seed production and distribution; \n Agro dealers selling of certified seed; \n Agricultural extension service providers (Public and private) to\nparticipate in dissemination; \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nTana River \nChallenges in \ndissemination \n High cost of seeds, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Limited information on CCM by agricultural extension service \nproviders (Public and private), \n Limited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for \naddressing the \nchallenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, national \nand county governments, seed merchants, NGOs, marketers \nand processors, information dissemination on good agronomic \npractices for maize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, promote marketing \nmodels that encourage collective production and marketing, \npromote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed by \nKALRO breeders, licensed seed merchants to produce \ncertified seed, \n Initiate community-based maize seed production, \n\n13 \n \n Avail information on CCM to agricultural service provides for \ndissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in \nupscaling if any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, organized \nproduction and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, accessibility and affordability of \ncertified seed and other inputs during and after promotion is \nkey to adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary for \ndevelopment and \nupscaling \n CCM is an already “a climate change ready crop” due to its heat \nstress tolerance adaptation ability. \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe KE01 a \npre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, consumption and \nmarketing, it is cultivated mainly by women in coast region \nhence the need to capacity build them, enabling policy and policy \nreview from time to time.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of production per acre KES 23,000 \nEstimated returns \nGross returns per acre KES 40,000; Profits per acre KES 17,000 \nGender issues and \nconcerns in development, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land to \nengage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers lack \nfunds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due to \nlow academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings due to \ntheir domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not be \nfavorable to women farmers \nGender related \nopportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on PH4 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication, Target women and youth groups during \nFFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing system, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \n\n14 \n \nResearch gaps \n1. Being an open pollinated variety recurrent selection needs to be done to improved the \npopulation \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and youth \nfarmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for promotion \nof CCM, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms \nVMG issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always easy \nto understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related \nopportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire the \nrequired credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nCoast composite commands high adoption in coastal region of Kenya. \nFarmers prefer it to other maize varieties due \nits ability to produce higher yields even with minimal inputs. The cob \nsize for the variety is long hence preferred for green maize marketing \nsince it takes fewer cobs to fill the sack than other varieties grown in \nthe region \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Maize: What variety do I grow in coastal Kenya. Leaflet \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension Manual. \nKALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; \n2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Coast composite maize (CCM)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.1]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead \norganizations/scientists \nKALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nCounty governments, CBOs \n\n15", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Coast composite maize (CCM)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.2 WSQ104 \nTIMP Name \nWSQ104 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nUnavailability of maize varieties improved for high protein \ncontent to address the problem of high protein deficiency in \ninfants and school going children. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription \nWSQ104 is a QPM maize variety that contains nearly twice as \nmuch lysine and tryptophan, amino acids that are essential for \nhumans \nand monogastric animals but are limiting amino acids in \nnormal maize grains. QPM is a product of conventional plant \nbreeding, a good example of biofortification and not \ngenetically modified. The variety WSQ104 is an open \npollinated variety of extra early maturity (90 -105 days) with a \nyield potential of 15 bags of 90kgs per acre and has tolerance \nto drought. Kernels are white flint type. It is suitable for areas \nfrom 0 to 1200 m above sea level. \n \nWSQ104 (Source: Musila R.) \nJustification \nMaize is a staple food and a major source of protein in the \ncoastal lowlands of Kenya where protein related malnutrition \ndeficiency are high especially among infants, school going \nchildren's and pregnant women. WS104Q is a quality protein \nimproved maize variety that is early maturing and drought \ntolerant and therefore make it a variety of choice in the coastal \nlowlands of Kenya which experiences frequent droughts during \nthe maize growing seasons and also as a source of protein for \ninfants, school going children, pregnant women and people \nliving with HIV/AIDS.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, \nAgricultural service providers. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural \n\n16 \n \nshows and exhibitions, Public and private agricultural \nextension services, Mass media – Agricultural programs, \nPromotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital \nplatforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather information \nApps), Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and \nNewspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform \nin coastal Kenya, \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Strong partnership linkages, \n Good marketing models and path ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Western seed company for certified seed production and \ndistribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, market players \nto create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, agricultural \n Extension service providers (Public and private) to \nparticipate in dissemination, financial institutions (banks, \ndonors, credit facilitators) for financial solution.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKirinyanga and Embu. \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed for WS104Q in the market, \n High cost of seeds, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Limited information on WS104Q by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value added products at household level, \n Labour intensity in planting, weeding, harvesting, limited \nuse of recommended agronomic practices, \n Limited access to rural finance for maize production \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Encourage Western Seed Company to produce certified seed for \nWS104, \n \nResearch to develop heat tolerant QPM high yielding \nsuperior varieties, \n Establish qpm innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \n\n17 \n \nmarketers and processors, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices for\nmaize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value added \nQPM products for increased QPM production, \n \nFacilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed, \ninitiate community-based production of QPM since it is an OPV,\navail information on QPM to agricultural service provides for\ndissemination to farmers, \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \norganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key \nto adoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary for \ndevelopment and upscaling \n Creation of awareness on nutritional value of QPM, \n Need a policy to enforce production of QPM varieties in\norder to address related malnutrition issues in Kenya, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre- harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n Maize is cultivated mainly by women in coast region \nhence the need to capacity build them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time, \nenabling policy and policy review from time to time such\nas implementation of mandatory cultivation of biofortified\nmaize.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of production per acre KES 23,000 \nEstimated returns \nGross returns per acre KES 40,500; Profits per acre KES 17,500 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \n\n18 \n \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on WSQ104 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, Target women and youth groups \nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of PH4, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nThrough the DONATA project WSQ104 was successfully \npromoted in Kilifi County in 2010. However, \nunavailability of seed has been a major drawback to adoption of \nthis technology in the coast region of Kenya, \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n Musila et al., Quality Protein maize (QPM). Leaflet \n Kimenye L. and McEwan M. (eds). 2014. Scaling up, \nDissemination and Adoption of Agricultural \nTechnologies using Innovation Platforms—Lessons from \nEastern and Central Africa. ASARECA (Association for \nStrengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and \n\n19 \n \nCentral Africa), Entebbe", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nreadiness (1-ready for \nupscaling, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-\nrequires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WSQ104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.2]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director, KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists CIMMYT Kenya \nPartner organizations \nWestern Seed Company, NGOs, County governments, CBOs \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. \nImprove the variety for storability.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WSQ104", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.3 KH500Q \nTIMP Name \nKH500Q \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nUnavailability of maize varieties improved for high protein \ncontent to address the problem of high protein deficiency in \ninfants and school going children, malnutrition disorders in \nregions where maize is a major staple food. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nKH500Q is a QPM maize variety that contains nearly twice as \nmuch lysine and tryptophan, amino acids that are essential for \nhumans and monogastric animals but are limiting amino acids in \nnormal maize grains. QPM is a product of conventional plant \nbreeding, a good example of biofortification and not genetically \nmodified. The variety KH500Q is a three-way cross maize hybrid \nwith yield potential of 36 bags of 90 kgs per acre, drought\ntolerant, resistant to grey leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus (MSV). It has a good husk cover and a white dent\ngrain texture. Matures in about 90 – 120 days. \nJustification \nKH500Q is a quality protein maize advantageous over normal \nmaize in that it contains twice the amount of essential amino \nacids (lysine and tryptophan) required for growth but usually \ninsufficient in humans and mono-gastric animals such as poultry \nand pigs. Under smallholder farmer conditions, increasing \ndietary protein in maize is similar to raising income, because \nfamilies benefit from enhanced nutrition without additional field \nwork or spending scarce money on animal sources of protein \nsuch as meat and milk. Cultivation of KH500Q by smallholder \nfarmers in the mid altitude and coastal lowlands of Kenya will \nresult to a yield increase of 20% more than the non –drought \ntolerant maize varieties grown in the region. It will also deliver \nco –benefits for resistance to MSV and enhanced nutrition in \n\n20 \n \nterms of protein.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research trails \nand demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \nexhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension services, \nMass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials \n(posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, \nMobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, \nDigifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media Radio/TV \nprogrammes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart Farmer and Seeds \nof Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform \nin coastal Kenya, \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability, good seed \nsystem to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, strong partnership linkages, \n Good marketing models and path ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO Seeds- Embu and other seed companies for certified \nseed production and distribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n Agricultural extension service providers (Public and private) \nto participate in dissemination, financial institutions (banks, \ndonors, credit facilitators) for financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKirinyanga, Embu \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nAll KCSAP counties where KH500Q is adapted including Tana \nRiver \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed for WS104Q in the market, \n High cost of seeds, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Limited information on WS104Q by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value added products at household level, \n Labour intensity in planting, weeding, harvesting, \n Limited use of recommended agronomic practices, \n Limited access to rural finance for maize production. \nSuggestions for addressing \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed \n\n21 \n \nthe challenges \nfor KH500Q by KALRO – Embu breeders, \n KALRO Seeds – Embu to produce certified seed, \n License private seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Establish QPM innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n National and county governments, seed merchants, \n NGOs, marketers and processors, information dissemination \non good agronomic practices for maize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, promote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production and \nmarketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value added \nQPM products for increased QPM production, \n Initiate community-based maize seed production, \n Avail information on KH500Q to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Creation of awareness on nutritional value of QPM, \n Need a policy to enforce production of QPM varieties in order \nto address related malnutrition issues in Kenya, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre- harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \n Consumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in coast region hence the need to capacity build them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time such as \nimplementation of mandatory cultivation of biofortified maize.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of production per acre KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nGross returns per acre KES 90,000; profits per acre KES 65,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n\n22 \n \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not be \nfavorable to women farmers’ \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on PH4 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication, target women and youth groups during \nFFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of KH500Q, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for improved maize demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nThrough the DONATA project KH500Q was successfully \npromoted in Embu, Kirinyanga and Murang’a counties in 2010, \nHowever, unavailability of seed has been a major drawback to \nadoption of this technology in the coast region and other counties \nwhere it is suitable. Success stories of adoption of QPM maize \nand its impacts can be \nfound in Ethiopia and Ghana \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Musila et al., Quality Protein maize (QPM). Leaflet \n- Kimenye L. and McEwan M. (eds). 2014. Scaling up, \nDissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies \nusing Innovation Platforms—Lessons from Eastern and Central \nAfrica. ASARECA (Association for Strengthening \n\n23 \n \nAgricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa), Entebbe", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.3]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \n1. Deputy Institute Director, KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box \n16-80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \n2. Centre Director, KALRO - FCRI- Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu, \nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, Email: kalro.embu@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO Embu \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT Kenya, MOALF, County governments \nResearch gaps \n1. \nImprove KH500Q for storability.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500Q", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.4 Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4) \nTIMP Name \nPwani Hybrid 4 (PH4) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, high\ntemperature (heat wave) stress during pollination stage of maize \nplant causing up to 100% yield loss. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA maize hybrid of medium maturity (120-150 days) with average\nyield potential of 24 bags of 90 kgs per acre, tolerant to heat\nstress and partial resistance to maize streak virus. May be grown\nunder rainfed and irrigation conditions. \n \nJustification \nThe heat tolerance and medium maturity traits in PH4 make it \nideal for cultivation in the coastal lowlands of Kenya. Under \nheat stress and terminal drought conditions the variety gives a \nyield increase of 20% more than the other commercial maize \nvarieties grown in the region. It also delivers co –benefits for \nresistance to most of the leaf and ear diseases prevalent in the \nregion. The variety also does well under irrigated areas \nespecially in Tana River. This translates to increased food \n\n24 \n \nsecurity and improved livelihoods of small-scale farmers in the \ncoast region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural\nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research trails \nand demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \nexhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension services, \nMass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials\n(posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, \nMobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, \nDigifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media Radio/TV \nprogrammes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart Farmer and Seeds \nof Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seeds, \ngood seed system to ensure quality, Diversification of maize \nfood products through value addition, \n Strong partnership linkages, \n Good marketing models and path ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Kenya seed company for certified seed production and \ndistribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n Agricultural extension service providers (Public and private) \nto participate in dissemination, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n Inadequate certified seed for PH4, \n High cost of seeds, lack of maize innovation platforms to \nfacilitate interaction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, limited information on \nPH4 by agricultural extension service providers (Public and \nprivate), \n Limited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation and \ncertified seed by Kenya seed company, \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n national and county governments, \n\n25 \n \n seed merchants, NGOs, marketers and processors, \ninformation on good agronomic practices for maize \nproduction, \n mechanize small-scale maize production, \n promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, promote value addition and \nconsumption of value-added products for increased maize \nproduction, \n Provide information on PH4 to agricultural service provides \nfor dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in \nupscaling if any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of the \ntechnology \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary for \ndevelopment and upscaling \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, consumption \nand marketing, \n Maize is cultivated mainly by women in coast region hence \nthe need to capacity build them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time such as \nimplementation of mandatory cultivation of biofortified \nmaize.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 25,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nGross returns KES 90,000 per acre. Benefits KES 65,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic rolesTraining materials and strategies on \nmaize varieties may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n\n26 \n \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on PH4 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication, target women and youth groups during \nFFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of PH4, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and \nscaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nPH4 has successfully been adopted in the coastal regions of \nKenya. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n Maize: What variety do I grow in coastal Kenya. Leaflet \n Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.4]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nThe Deputy Institute Director, KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box \n16, 80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, \nEmail: kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nKenya Seed Company, MOALF, County governments \nResearch Gaps \n1. Improve the variety for resistance to fall armyworm \n\n27", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 4 (PH4)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.5 Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1) \nTIMP Name \nPwani Hybrid 1 (PH1) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and \nyield losses due to drought resulting from erratic and unreliable \nrainfall. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA maize hybrid with medium maturity (90 – 120 days), an \naverage yield potential of 18 bags of 90 kgs per acre, tolerant to \ndrought and resistant to most leaf and ear diseases, excellent husk \ncover and tolerant to lodging. May be grown under rainfed and \nirrigation conditions. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJustification \nThe earliness and drought tolerant traits in PH1 make it a variety \nof choice for cultivation in coastal lowlands of Kenya where it is \nwell adapted. Under terminal drought conditions the variety \ngives a yield increase of 10% more than the other commercial \nmaize varieties grown in the region. It also delivers co –benefits \nfor resistance to most of the leaf and ear diseases prevalent in the \nregion. The variety also does well under irrigated areas \nespecially in Tana River. This translates to increased food \nsecurity and improved livelihoods of small-scale farmers in the \ncoast region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural\nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research trails \nand demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \nexhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension services, \nMass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials\n(posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, \nMobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, \nDigifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media Radio/TV \nprogrammes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart Farmer and Seeds \nof Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseeds, \n\n28 \n \n good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Strong partnership linkages, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Kenya seed company for certified seed production and \ndistribution, \n agro dealers for certified seed distribution, market players to \ncreate a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, agricultural \nextension \n Service providers (public and private) to participate in \ndissemination, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \nInadequate certified seed for PH1, high cost of seeds, lack of \nmaize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of farmers \nwith relevant stakeholders, unorganized marketing channels, \nlimited information on PH4 by agricultural extension service \nproviders (Public and private), limited maize value added \nproducts. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation and \ncertified seed by Kenya seed company, \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \n Marketers and processors, information on good agronomic \npractices for maize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n Prividel information on PH1 to agricultural service provides \nfor dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \n\n29 \n \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of \n Certified seed and other inputs during and after promotion is \nkey to adoption of the technology \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \nconsumption and marketing, \n Maize is cultivated mainly by women in coast region hence \nthe need to capacity build them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time such \nas implementation of mandatory cultivation of biofortified \nmaize.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of production per acre KES 23,000 \nEstimated returns \nGross returns per KES 45,000; Profits per acre KES 22,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women and youth may be disadvantaged through lack of \naccess to land to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on PH1 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective training \nof farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of PH1 \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \n\n30 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for improved maize demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nPH1 has successfully been adopted in the coastal regions of \nKenya. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Maize: What variety do I grow in coastal Kenya. Leaflet \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.5]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nKenya Seed Company, MOALF, County governments \nResearch Gaps \n1. \nApplied research to develop, validate and promote improved climate smart maize \nvarieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Pwani Hybrid 1 (PH1)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.6 Shukran-16 (CKH08069) \nTIMP Name \nShukran-16 (CKH08069) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and yield \nlosses of up to 100% due to drought at reproductive stage and at the \nend of the season resulting from erratic and unreliable rainfall. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nIt is a three-way cross hybrid with yield potential of 25 – 30 \nbags of 90 kg per acre, tolerant to drought and foliar diseases, \nmedium maturity (120 days). Suitable for coastal lowlands (CL) \n2, 3 and 4. Year of release 2017. \n \n\n31 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJustification \nDrought is important factor limiting maize production in the \ncoastal region of Kenya. The drought tolerance traits in \nShukran 16 make it a variety of choice for cultivation in \ncoastal lowlands of Kenya where it is well adapted. Under \nreproductive drought conditions the variety gives a yield \nincrease of 20% more than the other commercial maize \nvarieties grown in the region. Continued wide adoption of the \navailable drought tolerant varieties has the potential to boost \nmaize productivity thus reducing poverty and food insecurity \nin the region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows \nand exhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension \nservices, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g \nKALRO, Digifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media \nRadio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart \nFarmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder \nplatform in coastal Kenya; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseeds, \n good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n strong partnership linkages, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n CIMMYT provision of nuclear seed, \n KALRO Seeds Mtwapa for production of breeder and \nbasic seed, \n Licensed seed companies and KALRO Seeds Mtwapa \nfor seed production and distribution, \n\n32 \n \n Agro \ndealers \nfor \ncertified \nseed \ndistribution, \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n Agricultural extension service providers (Public and \nprivate) to participate in dissemination, \n National and county governments for policy, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of early generation and certified seed of \nShukran16 for promotion and dissemination, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n unorganized marketing channels, limited information on \nKH500Q by agricultural extension service providers \n(Public and private), \n limited maizevalue added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed \nfor Shukran16 by KALRO – Mtwapa breeders, \n KALRO Seeds Mtwapa to produce certified seed, license \nprivate seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \nmarketers and processors, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, promote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value added \nmaize products for increased maize production, , initiate \ncommunity-based maize seed production, Provide \ninformation on Shukran-16 to agricultural service provides \nfor dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key \n\n33 \n \nto adoption of the technology. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n It is an already “a climate change ready crop” due to \ndrought stress tolerance. \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, harmonious gender consideration in \nresearch, \n Consumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly \nby women in coast region hence the need to capacity \nbuild them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time, \nenabling policy and policy review from time to time such \nas implementation of mandatory. \n Cultivation of climate smart maize varieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 23,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nGross cost of production KES 45,000 per acre; Profits KES \n22,000 per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on Shukran-16 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value \naddition channels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of Shukran-16 \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \n\n34 \n \n SMEs for production of Shrukran-16 value added products \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for QPM maize demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms, \n empower the VMGs by connecting them to financial \nsources, \n SMEs for production of QPM confectionary products", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nNone \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Shukran-16 (CKH08069)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.6]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-ICRI-Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT-Kenya, MOALF, County governments. \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved climate smart maize \nhybrids and composites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Shukran-16 (CKH08069)", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.7 WE2111 \nTIMP Name \nWE2111 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nYield loss of up to 100% resulting from drought at reproductive\nstage and at the end of the season, and yield loss due to major\nmaize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus\n\n35 \n \nand grey leaf spot. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nWE2111 is a three-way hybrid with yield potential of 4.7 to 8.7\nt/ha, matures in 4.5 to 5 months. It is tolerant drought and\nresistant to major leaf diseases such as northern corn leaf blight,\ngray leaf spot, maize streak virus. It has white grains with dent \nlike texture. Year of release 2015. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJustification \nBeing a drought tolerant variety of medium maturity that is \nresistant to northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and grey leaf \nspot make WE2111 a good bet for growing in the coastal \nlowlands. Under reproductive drought conditions the variety \ngives a yield increase of 20 % more than the other commercial \nmaize varieties grown in the region. Wide adoption of WE2111 \nwill enhance maize productivity thus reducing poverty and food \ninsecurity in coastal lowlands of Kenya.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, seed companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service, consumers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research trails \nand demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \nexhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension services, \nMass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials \n(posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, \nMobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, \nDigifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media Radio/TV \nprogrammes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart Farmer and Seeds \nof Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform in \ncoastal Kenya; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seeds, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Strong partnership linkages, \n Good marketing models and path ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders.’ \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO Seeds for production of early generation and \ncertified seeds; \n\n36 \n \n Seed companies for certified seed production and \ndistribution; \n Agro dealers selling of certified seed; agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private) to \nparticipate in dissemination; \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all the \nmaize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and it \nrequires seed multiplication for two seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract \nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n The technology is environmentally friendly and conforms to \nthe market requirement, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nworkshops helps in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market is important. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Creation of awareness on nutritional and livestock \nimportance of the variety, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \n Consumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen hence the need to capacity build them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time, \nimplementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 25,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nGross returns KES 65,000 per acre; Profits KES 40,000 per acre \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \n\n37 \n \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth employment during pre and post-harvest \nactivities, \n Reach more women groups with information on WE2111 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, target women and youth groups \nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of WE2111, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \n Sell of green maize by men, women and youth, \n Men can use the maize stovers as animal feed for livestock, \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2111]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.7]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMachakos. Mob: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nCenter Director: KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, 80109, \nMtwapa. Mob: 020 2024751, Email: \n\n38 \n \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT - Kenya, AATF, MOALF, County governments \n \nResearch gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved climate smart maize \nhybrids and composites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2111", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.7", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.8 MTPEH0701 \nTIMP Name \nMTPEH0701 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and \nmaize postharvest losses as a result of large grain borer and \nmaize weevils \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross hybrid of medium maturity (120-150 days) \nand a yield potential of 26 bags per acre, resistant to large grain \nborer and maize weevil. Suitable for coastal lowlands (CL) 2, 3 \nand 4. Year of release 2012. \nJustification \nMaize post-harvest losses due to storage pests such as large grain \nborer and maize weevil account for 20 to 30 %. MTPEH0701 is \nalresistant to large grain borer and maize weevil and therefore \nideal variety for cultivation in the coastal lowlands where these \nstorage pests are prevalent.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seeds companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and \nexhibitions, Training workshops and seminars, Public and \nprivate agricultural extension services, Farmer to farmer \nextension, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholder, \n seed availability and accessibility, \n good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nmarketing models and path ways, \n active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT \ntrainings. \n\n39 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n CIMMYT provision of nuclear seed, \n KALRO Seed Unit – Mtwapa for production of breeder \nand basic seed, \n Licensed seed companies and KALRO Seed Unit – \nMtwapa for certified seed production and distribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n agricultural extension service providers (Public and \nprivate) to participate in dissemination, \n National and county governments for policy, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of early generation and certified seed of \nMTPEH0701 by KALRO Seeds Mtwapa due to financial \nconstraints, \n no seed company has been licensed to produce certified \nseed, high cost of seeds, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n unorganized marketing channels, limited information on \nMTPEH0701 by agricultural extension service providers \n(Public and private), \n limited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation \nseed for MTPEH0701 by KALRO – Mtwapa breeders, \n KALRO Seeds Mtwapa to produce certified seed, \n License private seed merchants to produce certified \nseed, Establish innovation platforms that involves \nfarmers, \n National and county governments, seed merchants, \nngos, marketers and processors, information \ndissemination on good agronomic practices for maize \nproduction, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nmaize products for increased maize production, \n Avail information on MTPEH0701 to agricultural \nservice provides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n\n40 \n \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key \nto adoption of the technology’ \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \n Consumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly \nby women in coast region hence the need to capacity \nbuild them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time, \nsuch as implementation of mandatory cultivation of \nclimate smart maize varieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 25,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nKES 65,000 per acre. Benefits KES 40,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on MTPEH0701 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, target women and youth groups \nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value \naddition channels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n\n41 \n \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of MTPEH0701, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms, \n SMEs for production of maize value-added products", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nNone \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0701]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.8]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT, MOALF, County governments, \n \nResearch gaps \n1. \nFunding to research, validation and promotion of improved climate smart maize \nhybrids and composites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0701", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.8", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.9 MTPEH0702 \nTIMP Name \nMTPEH0702 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \nTechnology \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and\nmaize postharvest losses as a result of large grain borer and\nmaize weevils. \n\n42 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross hybrid with a yield potential of 26 bags of 90 \nkgs per acre, of medium maturity (120-150 days) and resistant to \nlarge grain borer and maize weevil. Suitable for coastal lowlands \n(CL) 2, 3 and 4. Year of release 2012. \nJustification \nMaize post harvest losses due to storage pests such as large grain \nborer and maize weevil account for 20 to 30 %. MTPEH0702 \nis A gr icu ltu r alresistant to large grain borer and maize weevil and therefore \nideal variety for cultivation in the coastal lowlands where these \nstorage pests (large grain borer and maize weevils) are prevalent.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows \nand exhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension \nservices, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g \nKALRO, Digifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media \nRadio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart \nFarmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder \nplatform; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseeds, \n good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n strong partnership linkages, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n CIMMYT provision of nuclear seed, KALRO Seeds \nMtwapa for production of breeder and basic seed, \n Licensed seed companies and KALRO Seeds Mtwapa for \ncertified seed production and distribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n agricultural extension service providers (Public and \nprivate) to participate in dissemination, \n National and county governments for policy, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \n\n43 \n \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nUnavailability of early generation and certified seed of \nMTPEH0702 by KALRO Seeds Mtwapa due to financial \nconstraints, \n \nNo seed company has been licensed to produce certified seed. \nHigh cost of seeds, \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, \n \nUnorganized marketing channels, \n \nLimited information on MTPEH0702 by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n \nLimited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nFacilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed for \nMTPEH0702 by KALRO-Mtwapa breeders, \n \nKALRO Seed Unit –Mtwapa to produce certified seed, license \nprivate seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n \nEstablish innovation platforms \n \nMechanize small-scale maize production, \n \nPromote marketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, promote value \n \nAddition and consumption of value added mazieproducts for \nincreased maize production, avail information on MTPEH0702 \nto agricultural service provides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other iinputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the technology. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n \nHarmonious gender consideration in research, \n \nConsumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in coast region hence the need to capacity build them, \nenabling policy and policy review from time to time such as \nimplementation of mandatory cultivation of climate smart \nmaize varieties. \n \nHarmonious gender consideration in research, consumption \nand marketing. \n \nIt is cultivated mainly by women in coast region hence the \nneed to capacity build them.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 25,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nKES 65,000 per acre. Benefits KES 40,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \n Labour intensity in planting, weeding, threshing which \n\n44 \n \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \nare mostly done by women and youth, \n Land ownership mainly by men who have no interest in \nmaize, \n Financial empowerment where majority of small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire inputs, \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to academic levels, \n Women and youth may not be able to reach far way \nmarkets or have bargaining power, \n Lack of youth opportunities in maize value chain, \n Training materials and strategies are not favourable to \nwomen farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such \nas small-scale mechanization of maize production \noperations, \n Empower women and youth to acquire land and other \nsupplies of production, \n Reach more women groups with information on \nMTPEH0702, \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value \naddition channels for the youth, \n Make gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, \n Train women and youth to be part of the tot team for \npromotion of MTPEH0702, conduct demonstrations in \ntheir maize farms, \n Smes for production of MTPEH0702 value added \nproducts \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization for small-scale farmers, \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access, \n Low bargaining power for their maize produce because it \nis sold at farm gate price, \n Limited access to markets, \n Financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Affordable small-scale mechanized equipments for maize \ncultivation, \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication, \n Train VMG to be part of the tot team for promotion of \nmaize, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms, empower \nthe vmgs by connecting them to financial sources, \n Smes for production of maize value-added products.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \n\n45 \n \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nNone \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0702]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.9]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, 80109, \nMtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO twapa \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT, MOALF, County governments \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved improved climate smart \nmaize hybrids and composites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0702", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.9", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.10 MTPEH0703 \nTIMP Name \nMTPEH0703 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and \nyield losses caused by spotted stem borers C. partellus in the \ncoastal lowlands of Kenya. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross hybrid with a yield potential of 26 bags of 90 \nkgs per acre, of medium maturity (4-5 months) and resistant to \nspotted stem borers. Suitable for coastal lowlands (CL) 2, 3 and\n4. Year of release 2012. \nJustification \nStemborers are one of the most important pests of maize. \nmaize yield losses due stem borers in the coastal lowlands of \nKenya are estimated at 15–21%. MTPEH0703 is Ag r icu ltu r alresistant to \nspotted stem borers and therefore ideal variety for cultivation \nin the coastal lowlands where these spotted stem borers are \nprevalent. \n\n46", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural \nshows and exhibitions, Public and private agricultural \nextension services, Mass media – Agricultural programs, \nPromotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital \nplatforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather information \nApps), Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Formation of a maize value chain multistakeholder \nplatform; \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseeds, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Strong partnership linkages, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n CIMMYT provision of nuclear seed, KALRO Seeds \nMtwapa for production of breeder and basic seed, \n Licensed seed companies and KALRO Seeds Mtwapa for \ncertified seed production and distribution, \n Agro dealers for certified seed distribution, \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n Agricultural extension service providers (Public and \nprivate) to participate in dissemination, \n National and county governments for policy, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nKilifi, Kwale, Lamu and Tana River \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of early generation and certified seed of \nMTPEH0703 by KALRO Seed Unit Mtwapa due to \nfinancial constraints, \n no seed company has been licenced to produce certified \nseed. \n High cost of seeds, lack of maize innovation platforms to \nfacilitate interaction of farmers with relevant \n\n47 \n \nstakeholders, \n unorganized marketing channels, limited information on \nMTPEH0703 by agricultural extension service providers \n(Public and private), limited maize \n value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Facilitate continuous maintenance of early generation seed \nfor MTPEH0703 by KALRO-Mtwapa breeders, \n KALRO Seeds Mtwapa to produce certified seed, license \nprivate seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \nmarketers and processors, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, mechanize small-scale maize \nproduction, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, promote value \n Addition and consumption of value added mazieproducts \nfor increased maize production, \n Avail information on MTPEH0703 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers, \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms, availability, accessibility \n Affordability of certified seed and other iinputs during \nand after promotion is key to adoption of the \ntechnology’, \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Food safety/health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest biocontrol agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \nconsumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly \nby women in coast region hence the need to capacity \nbuild them, \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time such \nas implementation of mandatory cultivation of climate \nsmart maize varieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 25,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nKES 65,000 per acre. Benefits KES 40,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \n\n48 \n \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on MTPEH0703 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, target women and youth groups \nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value \naddition channels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of MTPEH0703, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nNone \nApplication guidelines for \nReference \nusers \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n\n49", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH0703]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.10]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Mtwapa \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT, MOALF, County governments \nResearch gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved improved climate smart \nmaize hybrids and composites \n-", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH0703", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.10", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.11 MTPEH200804 (KH125 -02- MDR) \nTIMP Name \nMTPEH200804 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties and \nyield losses resulting from maize streak virus and grey leaf spot \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA 3-way cross hybrid with average yield potential of26 bags of \n90 kgs per acre, of medium maturity (120 days), resistant to \nmaize streak virus and gray leaf spot. It has a white cob. \nSuitable for coastal lowlands (CL) 2, 3 and 4Year of release \n2012. \nJustification \nDue to climatic change maize streak virus is a becoming a \nmajor constraint to maize production and can cause upto 100% \nyield losses in the coastal lowlands of Kenya. Being medium \nmaturing variety that is resistant maize streak virus make \nMTPEH200804 a good bet for growing in the coastal lowlands \nzones where it is well adapted to, even with climate variability. \nWide adoption of the MTPEH200804 will enhance maize \nproductivity in the coastal lowlands thus reducing food \ninsecurity in the region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed companies, Seed dealers, \nResearchers, Extension service, consumers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows \nand exhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension \nservices, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g \nKALRO, Digifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media \nRadio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart \n\n50 \n \nFarmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nFormation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform; \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified\nseeds, good seed system to ensure quality, \n \nDiversification of maize food products through value \naddition, strong partnership linkages, good marketing \nmodels and path ways, \n \nActive involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, market \nplayers to create a demand and pull production, \n \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n \nNgos to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n \nSeed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial \nsolutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nUnavailability of certified seed for MTPEH200804, high \ncost of seeds, \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \nunorganized marketing channels, \n \nLow adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on MTPEH200804 by agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private), \n \nLimited maize value-added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos,\nmarketers and processors, \n \nFacilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of MTPEH200804 by KALRO breeders,\nlicense seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n \nInformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for\nmaize \nproduction, \nmechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize\nproduction, promote marketing models that encourage\ncollective production and marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value added \n\n51 \n \n \nProducts for increased maize production, avail information\non MTPEH200804 \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n \nMTPEH200804 is environmentally friendly and conforms \nto the market requirement, \n \nchances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of new \ntechnologies, organized production and market aids in \nwide adoption, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n \nAccessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of \nthe timp. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe\nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin\ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in\nstorage, \n \nHarmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n \nMaize is cultivated mainly by women in coast region hence \nthe need to capacity build them, enabling policy and policy\nreview from time to time, \n \nEnabling policy and policy review from time to time such\nas implementation of mandatory cultivation of climate \nsmart improved maize varieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 70,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 45,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding, \nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the\nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on MTPEH20080, \n\n52 \n \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, Target women and youth groups\nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and\nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of MTPEH20080, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Train VMG to be part of the FFBS ToT team for promotion \nof MTPEH200804, \n conduct demonstrations in their maize farms.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-\nready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200804]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.11]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMachakos. Mob: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO, c/o Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja and \nTende R. \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \n \n \n\n53", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200804", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.11", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.1.12 MTPEH200805 (KH125-03-SG) \nTIMP Name \nMTPEH200805 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow maize yields, frequent droughts, stem borers and gray leaf \nspot. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA stay green three-way cross hybrid of medium maturity (120\ndays) with yield potential of 5 - 6.4 t/ha, tolerant to drought and\nresistant to stem borers and gray leaf spot. Year of release 2012. \nJustification \nStemborers are one of the most important pests of maize in the \ncoast lowlands of Kenya. Maize yield losses due stem borers in \nthe region are estimated at 15–21 %. Being a stemborer \nresistant variety of medium maturity that is tolerant to drought \nand resistant to gray leaf make MTPEH200805 a good bet for \ngrowing in the dry mid altitude zones where it is well adapted \nto, even with climate variability. Wide adoption of the \nMTPEH200805 will enhance maize productivity in the coast \nlowlands thus reducing food insecurity in the region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and on station research \ntrails and demonstrations, Farmer field days, Agricultural shows \nand exhibitions, Public and private agricultural extension \nservices, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital platforms (e.g \nKALRO, Digifarm, Weather information Apps), Mass Media \nRadio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima programme, Smart \nFarmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines and Newspapers articles \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nFormation of a maize value chain multistakeholder platform\nin coastal Kenya; \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseeds, \n \nGood seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n \nStrong partnership linkages, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n \nActive involvement of public and private agricultural\nservice providers. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(naris) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n \nMarket players to create a demand and pull production, \n \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n\n54 \n \n \nCounty governments, central government e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n \nNgos to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n \nSeed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n \nFinancial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nUnavailability of certified seed for MTPEH200805, \n \nHigh cost of seeds, \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n \nUnorganized marketing channels, low adoption of \nRecommended agronomic practices, \n \nLimited information on MTP200805 by agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private), \nlimited maize value added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers,\nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos,\nmarketers and processors, \n \nFacilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of seed, \n \nInformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n \nMechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \npromote\nmarketing models that encourage collective production\nand marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value-added\nproducts for increased maize production, avail information\non MTPEH200805 to agricultural service provides for \ndissemination to farmers, \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n \nMTPEH200805 \nis \nenvironmentally \nfriendly \nand \nconforms to the market requirement, \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms, \n\n55 \n \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key \nto adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe\nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces\naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest\nand in storage, \n \nHarmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, maize is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in coast region hence the need to capacity build\nthem, \n \nEnabling policy and policy review from time to time, \n \nEnabling policy and policy review from time to time such\nas implementation of mandatory cultivation of climate \nsmart improved maize varieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre ranged between KES \n25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 35,000. \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, weeding,\nshelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination meetings \ndue to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may not \nbe favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Women and youth will get employment at various nodes of the \nvalue chain \n Reach more women groups with information on MTPEH200805 \n Develop gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication, target women and youth groups \nduring FFBS for effective training of farmers on maize production \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem, \n Apply enterprising mechanized, marketing and value addition \nchannels for the youth, \n Use the FFBS strategy for effective training of women and \nyouth farmer groups on maize production, \n Train women and youth to be part of the ToT team for \npromotion of MTPEH200805, \n Conduct demonstrations in their maize farms. \n\n56 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Train VMG to be part of the FFBS ToT team for promotion \nof MTPEH200805, \n conduct demonstrations in their maize farms.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: MTPEH200805]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Coastal Lowlands]\n[Section: 2.2.1.12]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director: KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16, \n80109, Mtwapa. Phone: 020 2024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMachakos. Mob: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani and KALRO Mtwapa. \nPartner organizations \nCIMMYT Kenya, MOALF, County governments", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "MTPEH200805", "aez": "Coastal Lowlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.1.12", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium altitude – Dry]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2]\n\n2.2.2 Medium altitude – Dry", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium altitude – Dry", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.1 KCB (Katumani Composite B) \nTIMP Name \nKCB (Katumani Composite B) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains \nWhat is it? (TIMP \nAn open pollinated variety with yield potential of 16 to 21 (90kg) \n\n57 \n \ndescription) \nbags per acre, drought escaping and early maturity (85-95 days) \nJustification \nKatumani Composite B(KB) is an early maturing variety that is \nresistant to stem borers and this makes it a good bet for growing \nin the dryland mid altitude zones of Kenya where it is well \nadapted to, even with climate variability. Wide adoption of the \nKatumani Composite B will enhance maize productivity in the \ndryland mid altitude zones of Kenya thus reducing food \ninsecurity in the region.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, field days, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension \nofficers, farmer research networks, farmer to farmer, mass media \n– \nagricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web material’s, Mobile \nphones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n \nApplied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n \nSeed availability and accessibility, \n \nGood seed system to ensure quality, \n \nDiversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n \nWell organized farmer groups and networks, good marketing \nmodels and path ways, \n \nCounty and central government support, funding to research, \nvalidate and promote new maize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand International Research Organizations e.g. CIMMYT, \nto provide variety, seed and production information, \n \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n \nCounty government, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy \nawareness and dissemination, \n \n Ngos to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), \n \nCereal Growers Association, Farm Africa for farmer \norganizing and mobilization, \n \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial \nsolutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \n\n58 \n \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \n-Challenges in dissemination \n \nSeed companies disinterest in maize OPVs, financial \nconstraints for seed bulking, \n \n seed processing, packaging and storage, and maintenance of \nearly generation seed by KALRO Seed Unit at KALRO \nKatumani, \n \nlack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with other maize value chain stakeholders, \n \nlow adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nunorganized marketing channels, high cost of seeds. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \nmarketers and processors, \n \nInformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, mechanize small-scale maize \nproduction, \n \nPromote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n \nFacilitate continuous maintenance of early generation \nseed by KALRO breeders, license seed merchants to \nproduce certified seed, \n \nInitiate community-based maize seed production, avail \ninformation on KCB to agricultural service provides for \ndissemination to farmers, \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n \nKatumani Composite B (KCB conforms to the market \nrequirements, in the dryland mid altitude zones, \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \n", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\n \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n \nNeed to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n \nHarmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n\n59 \n \n \nNeed to build their capacity and create an enabling \npolicy, and policy review from time to time. \n \nTo improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, \n \nField days, radio and TV advertisements to enable \nawareness on the benefits of the TIMP, and the \nimplementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 40,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 15,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Katumani Composite B (KCB) maize variety is labour \nintensive mainly in planting, weeding, shelling which are \nmostly carried out by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on Katumani Composite B \n(KCB) maize variety may not be favorable to women \nfarmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nKatumani Composite B (KCB) maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the Katumani \nComposite B (KCB) maize variety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKatumani Composite B (KCB) maize variety \n\n60 \n \n Target ToT farms for KCB maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased Katumani Composite B (KCB) maize production \nwill lead to enhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nRequires validation; 3-requires\nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KCB (Katumani Composite B)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.1]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KCB (Katumani Composite B)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.2 KDH6 SBR \nTIMP Name \nKDH6 SBR \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains, and that the unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to stem borers and low nitrogen in the soil. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross hybrid of medium maturity (90-120 days) \nwith yield potential of 5 t ha-1, tolerant to drought and low \nnitrogen in the soil and resistant maize stem borers. Year of \nrelease 2008. \nJustification \nKDH6 SBR is a drought tolerant variety of medium maturity \nthat is resistant to maize stem borers make it a good bet for \ngrowing in the dryland mid altitude zones of Kenya where it is \nwell adapted to, even with climate variability. The variety’s \n\n61 \n \ntolerance to low soil nitrogen enables it to be promoted for \ngrowing in soil with low soil fertility and where farmers do not \napply fertilizer to their maize crop. Wide adoption of KDH6 \nSBR will enhance maize productivity in the dryland mid \naltitude zones of Kenya thus reducing food insecurity in the \nregion.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining workshops, seminars, meetings, field days, agricultural \nshows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer research networks, \nfarmer to farmer, mass media – Agricultural programs, \npromotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), \nweb material’s, mobile phones –SMS, farmer field and business \nSchools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs). \nCritical/essential factors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Development of good and implementation of good \nagronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, good \nseed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good marketing models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination. \n Ngos to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, \n Farm Africa for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, No seed company has been \nlicensed to produce certified seed, unavailability of early \n\n62 \n \ngeneration seed, low adoption of recommended agronomic \npractices, unorganized marketing channels, high cost of seeds, \nlimited information on KDH6S SBR by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), limited maize value added \nproducts. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, \nNGOs, marketers and processors, \n \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n \nmechanize small-scale maize production, promote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, promote value addition and consumption \nof value-added products for increased maize production, \n \nfacilitate continuous maintenance of early generation \nseed by KALRO breeders, \n \nlicense seed merchants to produce certified seed, avail \ninformation on KDH6S SBR to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KDH6S SBR conforms to the market requirements, in the \ndryland mid altitude zones, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n KDH6S SBR is an already “a climate change ready \ncrop” due drought stress tolerance adaptation ability. \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the KDH6S SBR maize seed by farmers \nunder minimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need \nto build their capacity and create an enabling policy, \n policy review from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \n\n63 \n \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, and the implementation of the flour blending \npolicy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 20,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, dissemination,\nadoption and scaling up \n KDH6-SBR maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KDH6-SBR maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers. \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KDH6-SBR maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KDH6-SBR \nmaize variety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KDH6-\nSBR maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KDH6-SBR maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n\n64 \n \n Increased KDH6-SBR maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH6 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.2]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH6 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.3 KH414-03 SBR \nTIMP Name \nKH414-03 SBR \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved stem borer \nsusceptible maize varieties, and grain yield losses upto 100% \nbecause of infestation by these pests in the dry mid altitude zones \nof Kenya \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA three - way cross hybrid with of medium maturity (90-120 \ndays) with yield potential of 4 tons/ha, tolerant to stem \nborers. Year of release 2008. \nJustification \nStemborers are one of the most important pests of maize in the \ndry mid altitude zones of Kenya. Maize yield losses due stem \nborers in the region are estimated at 15–21 %. KH414-03 SBR \nis Agriculturalresistant to stem borers and therefore ideal variety for \ncultivation in the dry mid altitude zones of Kenya where stem \nborers are prevalent.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \n\n65 \n \nMeetings, field days, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension \nofficers, farmer research networks, farmer to farmer, mass media \n– \nagricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web material’s, Mobile \nphones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors \nfor\nsuccessful promotion \n \nApplied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n \nSeed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n \nDiversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n \nWell organized farmer groups and networks, good\nmarketing models and path ways, \n \nCounty and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n \nValidate and promote new maize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n \nMarket players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n \nCounty governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n \nNgos to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n \nSeed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial \nsolutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed for KH414-03 SBR, \n High cost of seeds, lack of maize innovation platforms\ntofacilitate \ninteraction \nof \nfarmers \nwith \nrelevant\nstakeholders, unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices,\nlimited information on kh414-03 sbr by agricultural\nextension serviceproviders (public and private), limited\nmaize value added products. \n\n66 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, \n Ngos, marketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of KH414-03 SBR by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n Mechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \npromote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, avail information \non KH414-03 SBR to agricultural service provides for \ndissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH414-03 SBR conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, organized \nproduction and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated \n Through innovation platforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed\nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\n in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated \n Through innovation platforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed\nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the KH414-03 SBR maize seed by \nfarmers under minimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need \nto build their capacity and create an enabling policy, and \npolicy review from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, and the implementation of the flour blending \npolicy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 20,000 \n\n67 \n \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH414-03-SBR maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH414-03-SBR maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH414-03-SBR maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH414-03-SBR \nmaize variety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KH414-\n03-SBR maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH414-03-SBR maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH414-03-SBR maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n\n68", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH414-03 SBR]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.3]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH414-03 SBR", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.4 KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6) \nTIMP Name \nKDH414-11 (Ukamez 6) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting \nfro erratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA early maturing (90 – 100 days) three-way cross hybrid with \nyield potential of 4.6 - 7.5 t ha-1, drought tolerant and resistant \nto major leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nFrequent droughts occurring at reproductive stage and at the \nend of the season is a major constraint to maize production in \nthe mid altitude dry areas of Kenya. In some instances, it results \nto 100% crop failure. Being a drought tolerant variety of early \nmaturity that is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as \ngray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize streak virus make \nUkamez 6 a good bet for growing in the mid altitude dry areas \nwhere it is well adapted to, even with climate variability.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies. \nApproaches to be used in Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural \n\n69 \n \ndissemination \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, field days, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension \nofficers, farmer research networks, farmer to farmer, mass \nmedia \n– \nagricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web material’s, Mobile \nphones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, good seed system to ensure quality, \ndiversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \ngood marketing models and path ways, involvement of \npublic and private agricultural service providers for \nsustainability \nof \nthe \nTIMP, \ncounty \nand \ncentralgovernment support, funding to research, validate \nand promote new maize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed for Ukamez 6, \n High cost of seeds, lack of maize innovation platforms to \nfacilitate \ninteraction \nof \nfarmers \nwith \nrelevant \nstakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on Ukamez 6 by agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private), limited \nmaize value added products \n\n70 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n national and county governments, seed merchants, NGOs, \nmarketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of Ukamez 6 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n \nMechanize small-scale maize production, promote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, \n \nPromote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n \nProvide information on KH414-11 SBR (Ukamez 6) to \nagricultural service provides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n Ukamez 6 conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the KH414-11 SBR (Ukamez 6) maize seed \nby farmers under minimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n it is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude \nmoist region hence the need to build their capacity and \ncreate an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits \nof the TIMP, and the implementation of the flour \nblending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit \n\n71 \n \nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nKDH414-11-SBR (Ukamez 6) maize variety is labour \nintensive mainly in planting, weeding, shelling which are \nmostly carried out by women and youth \n \nWomen may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n \nHigh costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n \nSlow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n \nWomen suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n \nTraining materials and strategies on KDH414-11-SBR \n(Ukamez 6) maize variety may not be favorable to women \nfarmers. \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n \nEmployment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n \nReach more women and youth groups with information on \nKDH414-11-SBR (Ukamez 6) maize variety \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n \nAdoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nLaborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n \nChallenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n \nVMGs have limited finances to buy the KDH414-11-SBR \n(Ukamez 6) maize variety. \nVMG related opportunities \n \nProvide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n \nMake friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n \nTarget VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKDH414-11-SBR (Ukamez 6) maize variety \n \nTarget ToT farms for Ukamez 6 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n \nAffirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n \nIncreased KDH414-11-SBR (Ukamez 6) maize production \nwill lead to enhanced food security.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \n\n72 \n \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.4]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J \nKaranja and Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-11 (Ukamez 6)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.5 KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7) \nTIMP Name \nKDH414-12 (Ukamez 7) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology \n \nUkamez 7", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA stay green, drought tolerant, early maturing (90-100 days) \nthree-way cross hybrid with yield potential of 4.3 - 7.8 t ha-1, \nresistant to major leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern \nleaf blight and maize streak virus. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nFrequent droughts occurring at reproductive stage and at the end \nof the season is a major constraint to maize production in the \nmid altitude dry areas of Kenya. In some instances, it results to \n\n73 \n \n100% crop failure. Being a drought tolerant variety of early \nmaturity that is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as \ngray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize streak virus make \nUkamez 7 a good bet for growing in the mid altitude dry areas \nwhere it is well adapted to, even with climate variability. Good \nfor livestock feed due to its stay green trait.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media –Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones – SMS, Farmer field \nand \nbusiness \nSchools \n(FFBS), \nAgricultural \nInnovation \nPlatforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive Research to test, \n Validate and release improved varieties, \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders, \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, \n County and central government \n Support, funding to research, validate and promote new \nmaize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand \ninternational \nresearch \norganizations \ne.g. \nThe \nInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \n(chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension [Formal and informal] for policy, \n Awareness and dissemination, \n Ngos (Africa Harvest, Farm Africa) to take up maize for \nfarmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial \nsolutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \nNone \n\n74 \n \npromoted if any \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the \nWEMA hybrids series, \n promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder \nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons. \nSuggestions for addressing the\nchallenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeders \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH414-11 SBR (Ukamez 6) conforms to the market \nrequirements, in the dryland mid altitude zones, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the KH414-11 SBR (Ukamez 6) maize seed \nby farmers under minimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, \n There is a need to carry out field demonstrations, field \ndays, radio and TV advertisements to enable awareness on \nthe benefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit \n\n75 \n \nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KDH414-12-SBR (Ukamez 7) maize variety is labour \nintensive mainly in planting, weeding, shelling which are \nmostly carried out by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KDH414-12-SBR \n(Ukamez 7) maize variety may not be favorable to women \nfarmers. \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KDH414-12-SBR (Ukamez 7) maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KDH414-12-SBR \n(Ukamez 7) maize variety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKDH414-12-SBR (Ukamez 7) maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KDH414-12-SBR (Ukamez 7) maize \nbreeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KDH414-12-SBR (Ukamez 7) maize production \nwill lead to enhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland \nmid altitude zones of Kenya \n\n76 \n \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.5]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nc/o FCRI, Center Director KALRO-Kabete, Kabete, P.O. Box \n14733-00800; \nTel: 020-2024644635, Email cd.narl@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-Kabete, Kabete, Centre Director, James Karanja \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nnamely Agri-seedCo, Ultravetis, KSU, QBS e.t.c. \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KDH414-12 (Ukamez 7)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.2.6 WE2109 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE2109 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob drought tolerant, medium maturing (4.5 – 5 months) \nthree-way cross hybrid with yield potential of 4.8 to 9.2 t ha-1, \nresistant to major leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray \n\n77 \n \nleaf spot and maize streak virus. Has a good husk cover and \ngrains are white with dent-like texture. It is aldo recommended \nfor growing in the coastal lowlands kilifi, Kwale and Lamu \nregions. Year of release 2015. \nJustification \nWE2109 is drought tolerant and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak \nvirus. These attributes make WE2109 best bet variety for \ngrowing in mid altitude dry areas and parts of the coastal \nlowlands where frequent droughts and the aforementioned maize \ndiseases cause yield losses in range of trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, field days, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension \nofficers, farmer research networks, farmer to farmer, mass media \n– \nagricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web material’s, Mobile \nphones –SMS. \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nmarketing models and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n Ngos e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders Association \n(STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm Africa for \nfarmer organizing, mobilization and to take up maize, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, creditfacilitators) for \nfinancial solutions. \n\n78", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2109, \n High cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of \nWE2109, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE2109 by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), limited maize value \nadded products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n National and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \nmarketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of WE2109 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n Mechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \npromote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE2109 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2109 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, accessibility and affordability of \ncertified seed and other inputs during and after promotion \nis key to adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the WE2109 maize seed by farmers under \nminimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \n\n79 \n \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude moist \nregion hence the need to build their capacity and create an \nenabling policy, \n Policy review from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 65,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 40,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE2109 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2109 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \n \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE2109 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination,\nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2109 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \n\n80 \n \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2109 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2109 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2109 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- WEMA Annual reports 2014-2018. \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids \nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2109]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Dry]\n[Section: 2.2.2.6]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J \nKaranja and Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO \nSeeds, \nNGOs, \nCounty \nGovernments, \nAATF, \nCIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n• Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n \n\n81", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2109", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Dry", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.2.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3]\n\n2.2.3 Medium Altitude – Moist", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.1 WE2101 \nTIMP Name \nWE2101 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize \nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob three-way cross hybrid with average yield potential of \n6.9 t ha-1, matures in 4.5 months, resistant to major leaf diseases \nsuch as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and gray leaf spot. It \nalso has good husk cover and good plant and ear aspect. Year of \nrelease 2015. \nJustification \nWE2101 is drought tolerant and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak \nvirus. These attributes make WE2101 best bet variety for \ngrowing in \nmid altitude regions \nof Kenyawhere the \naforementioned maize diseases cause yield losses in range of \ntrace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in\ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation \nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \n\n82 \n \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, well organized \nfarmer groups and networks, good marketing models and \npath ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor\nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT to provide early generation seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \n Agricultural extension (formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa harvest, seed traders \nassociation (stak), cereal growers association, farm africa \nfor farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial \nsolution.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP willbe\nup scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower \nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2101, \n High cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of \nWE2101, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE2101 by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value-added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, NGOs, \nmarketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early \ngeneration seed of WE2101 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize production, \n\n83 \n \n Mechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \npromote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production and \nmarketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE2101 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2101 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need \nto build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time \nto time. \n Improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE2101 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n\n84 \n \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n \nTraining materials and strategies on WE2101 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers. \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE2101 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in\ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2101 maize \nvariety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2101 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2101 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2101 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of \nKenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor\nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids \nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires\nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2101]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.1]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \n\n85 \n \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2101", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.2 WE2104 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE2104 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to\nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob three-way cross hybrid with average yield potential \nof 7.16 t ha-1, matures in 4.5 months. Resistant to major leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and gray \nleaf spot. It also has good husk cover and good plant and ear \naspect. Year of release 2015. \nJustification \nWE2104 is drought tolerant and resistant to major maize leaf\ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak\nvirus. These attributes make WE2104 best bet variety for growing\nin mid altitude regions of Kenya where the aforementioned maize \ndiseases cause yield losses in range of trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies. \n\n86 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets,\nmanuals), web materials, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, diversification of maize food products\nthrough value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good\nmarketing models and path ways, involvement of public \nand private agricultural service providers for sustainability \nof the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris)\nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to\nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county\ngovernments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, Agricultural \nExtension (Formal and informal) for policy, \n Awareness and dissemination, ngos to take up maize e.g. \nAfrica Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal\nGrowers Association, Farm Africa for farmer organizing\nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2104, \n high cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of \nWE2104, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n unorganized marketing channels, \n low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE2104 by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n limited maize value added products. \n\n87 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, \nNGOs, marketers and processors, facilitate continuous \nmaintenance and production of early generation seed of \nWE2104 by KALRO breeders, \n license seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n information dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n mechanize small-scale maize production, promote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production \nand marketing, \n promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, provide \ninformation on WE2104 to agricultural service provides \nfor dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2104 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \norganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need \nto build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\n\n88 \n \nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, dissemination,\nadoption and scaling up \n WE2104 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2104 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE2104 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2104 maize \nvariety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2104 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2104 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2104 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \n\n89 \n \nApplication guidelines for users Reference: \nEsilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL \nMaize Extension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, \nKenya Water Efficient Maize for Africa \n(WEMA) project Hybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.2]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \n Research Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.3 WE2107 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE2107 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \n \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand suffer grain yield losses of upto 100% because they are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob three-way cross hybrid with average yield \npotential of 7 t ha-1, matures in 4.5 months. Resistant to major \nleaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and \ngray leaf spot. It also has good husk cover and good plant and \near aspect. Year of release 2015. \nJustification \nWE2107 is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as \nnorthern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak virus. These \nattributes make WE2107 best bet variety for growing in mid \naltitude regions of Kenya where the aforementioned maize \n\n90 \n \ndiseases cause yield losses in range of trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, field days, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension \nofficers, farmer research networks, farmer to farmer, mass media \n– \nagricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web material’s, Mobile \nphones –SMS. \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n \nApplied research to release improved maize varieties, \n \nIdentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n \nSeed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n \nDiversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n \nWell organized farmer groups and networks, good \nmarketing models and path ways, \n \nInvolvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n \nCounty and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (naris) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n \nMarket players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n \nCounty governments, central government e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \n \nAwareness and dissemination, ngos to take up maize e.g. \nAfrica Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal \nGrowers Association, \n \nFarm Africa for farmer organizing and mobilization, seed \ncompanies for quality seed multiplication, \n \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \n\n91 \n \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2107, \n High cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of\nWE2107, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, unorganized \nmarketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \n Limited information on WE2107 by agricultural extension\nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, ngos, \nmarketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early\ngeneration seed of WE2107 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize \nproduction, \nmechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective\nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added\nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE2107 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2107 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \norganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude \nmoist region hence the need to build their capacity \n\n92 \n \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time \nto time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE2107 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2107 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers. \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE2107 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2107 maize \nvariety \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n\n93 \n \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2107 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2107 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2107 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security \nVMG related opportunities \n WE2107 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2107 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- WEMA Annual reports 2014-2018. \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.3]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \n Research Gaps \n• Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n\n94", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.4 WE2108 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE2108 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \nsuffer grain yield losses of upto 100% because they are susceptible \nto leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and\nmaize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross hybrid with average yield potential of 6.9 t ha-1,\nmatures in 4.5 months. Resistant to major leafdiseases such as\nnorthern leaf blight, maize streak virus and gray leaf spot. It also\nhas good husk cover and good plant and ear aspect. Year of \nrelease 2015. \nJustification \nWE2108 is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as \nnorthern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak virus. These \nattributes make WE2108 best bet variety for growing in mid \naltitude regions of Kenya where the aforementioned maize \ndiseases cause yield losses in range of trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets,\nmanuals), web materials, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n\n95 \n \n Diversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good\nmarketing models and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, county and \ncentral government support, \n Funding to research, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes\n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g.\nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n county governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders\nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm\nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for\nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2108, \n high cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of\nWE2108, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, unorganized \nmarketing channels, \n low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE2108 by agricultural extension\nservice providers (Public and private), \n limited maize value added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, \n Seed merchants, ngos, marketers and processors, facilitate \ncontinuous maintenance and production of early generation \nseed of WE2108 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n\n96 \n \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective\nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value added\nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE2108 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2108 conforms to the market requirements, chances \nof successful scaling are higher when diverse value chain \nstakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n Accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of \nthe TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude \nmoist region hence the need to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time \nto time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, \n Field days, radio and TV advertisements to enable \nawareness on the benefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 30,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE2108 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \n\n97 \n \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2108 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE2108 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2108 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2101 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2108 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2108 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- WEMA Annual reports 2014-2018. \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017. \n\n98", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2108]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.4]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \n Research Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2108", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.5 WE5206 \nTIMP Name \nWE5206 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These varieties also suffer grain yield losses \nof upto 100% because they are susceptible to leaf diseases such as \ngray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA drought tolerant medium maturing (105 to 130 days) three-way \ncross hybrid with average yield potential of 9 t ha-1. It is resistant \nto major leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak \nvirus and gray leaf spot. It also has goodhusk cover and good \nplant and ear aspect. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nBeing a drought tolerant white cob maize hybrid that is resistant to\nmajor maize leaf diseases such as northern leafblight, gray leaf\nspot and maize streak virus make WE5206 best bet variety for\ngrowing in mid altitude moist areas of kenya where the freguent\ndroughts and the aforementioned diseases cause yield losses that\nrange from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training \nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer \nto farmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional\nmaterials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s,\nMobile phones –SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS),\nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \n\n99 \n \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \n Development of agronomic practices for maize, \n identification of agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nmarketing models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nagricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nbe up scaled \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \nmaintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the\nWEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, licensing \nissues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the\nbreeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5206 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n\n100 \n \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n Accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of \nthe TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow\nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal\ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude moist \nregion hence the need to build their capacity \n create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \ntv advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \ntimp, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 70,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 45,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE5206 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5206 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n\n101 \n \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5206 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5206 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5206 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5206 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5206 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \nprevious similar projects \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5206]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.5]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \n\n102 \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5206", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.6 WE5230 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5230 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These varieties also suffer grain yield losses \nof upto 100% because they are susceptible to leaf diseases such as \ngray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA drought tolerant medium maturing (105 to 130 days) three-way \ncross hybrid with average yield potential of 8 t ha-1. It is resistant \nto major leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak \nvirus and gray leaf spot. It also has good husk cover and good \nplant and ear aspect. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nBeing a drought tolerant white cob maize hybrid that is resistant to\nmajor maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf\nspot and maize streak virus make WE5230 best bet variety for\ngrowing in mid altitude moist areas of kenya where the freguent\ndroughts and the aforementioned diseases cause yield losses that\nrange from trace to 100%", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in\ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training\nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows,\nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer\nto farmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional\nmaterials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s,\nMobile phones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs). \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties’ \n\n103 \n \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments (e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \n Awareness and dissemination, NGOs to take up maize \ne.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), \nCereal Growers Association, Farm Africa for farmer \norganizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the\nWEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder\nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5230 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption,\npartnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation\nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow\nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal\ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \n\n104 \n \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude moist \nregion hence the need to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \ntv advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \ntimp, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 70,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 45,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE5230 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5230 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5230 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n\n105 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5230 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5230 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2530 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5230 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in dryland mid altitude zones of\nKenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; \n2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5230]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.6]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5230", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.7 EMB225 – KBEST \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nEMB225 - KBEST \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \nTechnology \n\n106 \n \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because these varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf\nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nAn early maturing (90 to 120 days) three-way cross hybrid with \naverage yield potential of 4.6 t ha-1. It is resistant to major leaf\ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and leaf\nrust. It also has good husk cover and good plant and ear aspect. \nAltitude:1000-1800 m. Suitable in Embu, Kirinyaga, Nyeri, \nKakamega, Homabay, Kisii, Kiambu, Vihiga, Kwale, Meru. Year\nof release 2015. \nJustification \nMajor leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, maize streak virus\nand leaf rust cause yield losses that range from trace to 100%.\nBeing a resistant maize hybrid to the aforementioned diseases\nmake EMB225 best bet variety for growing in moist mid altitude \nareas of Kenya where the aforementioned diseases are prevalent.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training \nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer \nto farmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional\nmaterials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s,\nMobile phones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS),\nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \n Development \nof \nagronomic \npractices \nfor \nmaize, \nidentification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties’. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \n Central governments e.g. Chiefs, Agricultural Extension \n(Formal and informal) for policy, awareness and \ndissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \n\n107 \n \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will be\nup scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-\ndry lowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \nmaintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the\nWEMA hybrids series, promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, licensing \nissues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n EMB225 (KBEST) conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days helps in adoption of new technologies, \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption,\npartnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation\nplatforms, availability, \n accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other\ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of the \nTIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow\nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal\ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, harmonious gender consideration in research, \n Consumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \ntv advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \ntimp, \n\n108 \n \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 20,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n EMB 225 (K BEST) maize variety is labour intensive \nmainly in planting, weeding, shelling which are mostly \ncarried out by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on EMB 225 (K BEST) \nmaize variety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non EMB 225 (K BEST) maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the EMB 225 (K \nBEST) maize variety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the EMB \n225 (K BEST) maize variety \n Target ToT farms for EMB 225 (K BEST) maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n\n109 \n \n Increased EMB 225 (K BEST) maize production will lead \nto enhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB225 - KBEST]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.7]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \n Research Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB225 - KBEST", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.7", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.8 EMB 226 – EMBU POA \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nEMB 226 – EMBU POA \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because these varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight and \nmaize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA stay green, early maturing (90 to 120 days) three-way cross \nhybrid with average yield potential of 6.5 t ha-1. It is \nresistant to northern leaf blight. It also has good husk cover and \ngood plant and ear aspect. Altitude:1200-1800 m. Suitable in \nEmbu, Kirinyaga, Nyeri, Kakamega, Homabay, Kisii, Kiambu. \nYear of release 2015. \nJustification \nMajor leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight cause yield \nlosses that range from trace to 100%. Being a reistant maize \nhybrid to the aforementioned diseases make EMB226 best bet \nvariety for growing in moist mid altitude areas of Kenya where \nthe aforementioned disease are prevalent.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \n\n110 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media –, \nAgricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile \nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and \n Networks, good Marketing Models and path ways, county \nand central government support, funding to research, \nvalidate and promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and International research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central government e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-\ndry lowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nLinkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n \nMaintenance of breeder seed \n \nIdentify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n \nPromote the varieties, \n \nContinuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, licensing \nissues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nSeed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, continuous maintenance of breeder seed \n\n111 \n \nby the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n \nEMB226 (EMBU POA) conforms to the market \nrequirements, chances of successful scaling are higher \nwhen diverse value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n \nAvailability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n \nNeed to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n \nharmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n \nIt is cultivated mainly by women in medium altitude \nmoist region hence the need to build their capacity \n \nCreate an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n \nTo improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits \nof the TIMP, \n \nImplementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 50,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 25,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n EMB226 (EMBU POA) maize variety is labour intensive \nmainly in planting, weeding, shelling which are mostly \ncarried out by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on EMB226 (EMBU\n\n112 \n \nPOA) maize variety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non EMB226 (EMBU POA) maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the EMB226 (EMBU \nPOA) maize variety. \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nEMB226 (EMBU POA) maize variety \n Target ToT farms for EMB226 (EMBU POA) maize \nbreeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased EMB226 (EMBU POA) maize production will \nlead to enhanced food security.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor \nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: EMB 226 – EMBU POA]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.8]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27 - 60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638 \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \n\n113 \n \n Research Gaps \n• Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "EMB 226 – EMBU POA", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.8", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.9 KH500-40E \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-40E \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nlow Nitrogen in the soil \nWhat is it? (TIMP \nA medium maturing (120 to 130 days) three-way cross hybrid with \nyield potential of 7 t ha-1, tolerant to drought and \ndescription) \nlow nitrogen in the soil. Year of release 2008. \nJustification \nBeing a drought tolerant white cob maize hybrid that is also tolerant \nto low nitrogen in the soil make KH500-40E best bet variety for \ngrowing in mid altitude moist areas of kenya where the freguent \ndroughts and the aforementioned diseases cause yield losses that \nrange from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in\ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training \nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer to \nfarmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile \nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors\nfor successful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties’ \n\n114 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for\nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n county governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, NGOs to take up maize e.g. \nAfrica Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal \nGrowers Association, Farm Africa for farmer organizing \nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-dry \nlowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges \nin\ndissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all the \nmaize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder seed of \nthe varieties and it requires seed multiplication for two \nseasons, licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions \nfor\naddressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract \nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in up \nscaling if any \n KH500-40E conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to adoption \nof the TIMP \n\n115 \n \nSocial, \nenvironmental,\npolicy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \nfor \ndevelopment \nand \nup \nscaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal inspection \nby KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \n consumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by women \nin medium altitude moist region hence the need to build their \ncapacity \n create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a need \nto carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and TV \nadvertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \nTIMP, implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit KES\n35,000 \nGender \nissues \nand \nconcerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n KH500-40E maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land to \nengage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most female \nfamers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and miss \nout on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-40E maize variety\nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender \nrelated\nopportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth along \nthe maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nKH500-40E maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members. \nVMG issues and concerns\nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-40E maize \nvariety \n \n\n116 \n \nVMG \nrelated\nopportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KH500-40E \nmaize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-40E maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire the \nrequired farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-40E maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland mid\naltitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for\nusers \nReference \nEsilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension Manual.\nKALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nreadiness (1-ready for \nupscaling; 2-requires \nvalidation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-40E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.9]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27 - 60100 Embu, Phone:\n+254 727444608 / 727444638 \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead \norganizations/scientists \nKALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-40E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.9", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.10 KH500-39E \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-39E \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible \nto leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and \n\n117 \n \nmaize streak virus, and are low in protein quality. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA three-way cross may hybrid with yield potential of 8-10 t ha-1, \ntolerant to drought and foliar diseases, medium maturity (120 \ndays). Suitable for Mt Kenya region and adjacent mid-moist \nareas. Year of release 2017/18 \nJustification \nThe hybrid is a white cob, with high yield 8-10 t ha-1, drought \ntolerant, tolerant to foliar diseases, medium maturity (120 days). \nDrought is serious threat in the region to maize production and so \nhigh yielding varieties are required to enhance food security in \nthe region. Also, quality protein maize will be a boost to food \nquality in the area.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in\ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones – SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, good \nseed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nMarketing Models and path ways, county and central \ngovernment support, \n Funding to research, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor\nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \n Central governments e.g. Chiefs, agricultural extension \n(formal and informal) for policy, awareness and \ndissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \n\n118 \n \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties \nwhere \nalready\npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-dry \nlowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the \nWEMA hybrids series, \n promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder \nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons, \n licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract \nfarmers, continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the \nbreeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-39E conforms to the market requirements, chances \nof successful scaling are higher when diverse value chain \nstakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in medium altitude moist region hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, \n Field days, radio and TV advertisements to enable \nawareness on the benefits of the TIMP, and the \nimplementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \n\n119 \n \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 70,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 45,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n KH500-39E maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-39E maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nKH500-39E maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-39E maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KH500-\n39E maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-39E maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-39E maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland \nmid altitude zones of Kenya \n\n120 \n \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor\nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize \nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling: 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-39E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.10]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27 - 60100 Embu, \nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638 \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-39E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.10", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.11 KH500-56A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-56A (KM1101) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because these varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize\nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob flint to intermediate like, three-way cross hybrid with\nyield potential of 6.5 t ha-1, matures in 5 to 6 months and resistant to\nmaize streak virus and gray leaf spot. Has good husk cover and ear\naspects. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nKH500-56A is resistant to maize streak virus and gray leaf spot and\nthese attributes make it a variety of choice for growing in mid altitude\nareas of kenya where the aforementioned diseases cause yield losses\nthat range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \n\n121 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training \nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer to \nfarmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials\n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones\n– SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to research, \nvalidate and promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central government e.g. Chiefs, \nagricultural extension (formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to\nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under these\nKH500 hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and it \nrequires seed multiplication for two seasons. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, \n Demo seed production by KALRO breeders, joint \ndemonstration (farmers/seed companies) of the new \nvarieties in the target AEZ and disease prone areas for \n\n122 \n \nMSV, \n Production seed research for all KALRO released varieties, \npromotion of the new varieties using small packs (<250g), \n JumpStart certified seed production through KSU, \ncontinuous maintenance of breeder seed, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons \nlearned \nin \nup \nscaling if any \n KH500-56A conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, organized\nproduction and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation\nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to adoption \nof the TIMP \nSocial, \nenvironmental,\npolicy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow\nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal inspection \nby KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, consumption \nand marketing, it is cultivated mainly by women in medium \naltitude moist region hence the need to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a need \nto carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and TV \nadvertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \nTIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit KES\n35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption \nand scaling up \n KH500-56A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and miss \nout on dissemination meetings \n\n123 \n \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-56A maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nKH500-56A maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption \nand scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-56A maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KH500-\n56A maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-56A maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-56A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for\nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, \n2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-56A (KM1101)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.11]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu, Phone:\n+254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \n\n124 \n \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds Company, \nLeldet Seeds Company seed Co, Faida seed Co, Olerai seed Co, EA\nseed Co, Sacred Africa and Crop Africa \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-56A (KM1101)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.11", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.3.12 KH500-Q \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-Q \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus, and are low in protein quality. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA three way cross may hybrid with yield potential of 8-10 t ha-1, \ntolerant to drought and foliar diseases, medium maturity (120 \ndays). Suitable for Mt Kenya region and adjacent mid-moist \nareas. Year of release 2017/18 \nJustification \nThe hybrid is a white cob, with high yield 8-10 t ha-1, drought \ntolerant, tolerant to foliar diseases, medium maturity (120 days). \nDrought is serious threat in the region to maize production and so \nhigh yielding varieties are required to enhance food security in \nthe region. Also, quality protein maize will be a boost to food \nquality in the area.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, training \nworkshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, Farmer to \nfarmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials\n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile\nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS),\nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs). \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n well organized farmer groups and networks, \n good Marketing Models and path ways, county and central \n\n125 \n \ngovernment support, funding to research, \n validate and promote new maize varieties’. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, central government e.g. Chiefs, agricultural \nextension (formal and informal) for policy, awareness and \ndissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-dry\nlowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \nmaintenance of breeder seed, \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed, \n Promote the variety, continuous maintenance breeder seed\nand it requires seed multiplication for two seasons. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-Q conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \ncreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption,\npartnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation\nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \n\n126 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow\nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal inspection \nby KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, consumption \nand marketing, it is cultivated mainly by women in medium \naltitude moist region hence the need to build their capacity \n create an enabling policy, and policy review from time to \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \nTIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n KH500-Q maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-Q maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nKH500-Q maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-Q maize \nvariety \n\n127 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the KH500-\nQ maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-Q maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-Q maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines \nfor \nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-Q]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Moist]\n[Section: 2.2.3.12]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27 - 60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638 \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-Q", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Moist", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.3.12", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Medium Altitude -Transitional]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4]\n\n2.2.4 Medium Altitude -Transitional", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Medium Altitude -Transitional", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.1 WE2106 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE2106 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob dent type, drought tolerant three-way cross hybrid\nwith yield potential of 4.7 to 9.1 t ha-1, matures in 4.5-5 months. \nResistant to northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak \n\n128 \n \nvirus. Has a good husk cover. Year of release 2015. \nJustification \nWE2106 is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern\nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. These attributes\nmake WE2106 best bet variety for growing in mid altitude\ntransitional areas of Kenya where maize leaf diseases and frequent\ndroughts cause yield losses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer\nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural\nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n Organized farmer groups and networks, good marketing\nmodels and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service\nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties \n\n129 \n \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo, Lower\nMeru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE2106, high cost of\nseeds, \n Inadequate funds for promotion of WE2106, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, low adoption of \nrecommended agronomic practices, \n Limited information on WE2101 by agricultural \n Extension service providers (Public and private), limited\nmaize value added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involve farmers, \nnational and county governments, \n Seed merchants, NGOs, marketers and processors, \nfacilitate continuous maintenance and production of early\ngeneration seed of WE2106 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize \nproduction, \nmechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective\nproduction and marketing, promote value addition and\nconsumption of value-added products for increased maize\nproduction, \n Provide information on WE2106 to agricultural service\nprovides for dissemination to farmers \n\n130 \n \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE2106 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of new \ntechnologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen farmers in moist transitional areas therefore, the \nneed to build their capacity, \n Create an enabling policy environment and possible \nreview over time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV shows to enable awareness on the benefits of the \nTIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE2106 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE2106 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \n\n131 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE2106 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE2106 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE2106 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE2106 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE2106 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous\nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by smallsclae farmers in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor\nusers \nReference: Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project\nHybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE2106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.1]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J. Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding for research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved hybrid maize varieties \n\n132", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE2106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.2 WE3104 \nTIMP Name \nWE3104 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \nthat suffer grain yield losses of upto 100% because they are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf\nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob three-way cross hybrid with average yield potential of\n5.6 t ha-1, matures in 4 months. Resistant to majorleaf diseases such\nas northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and gray leaf spot. It also\nhas good husk cover and good plant and ear aspect. Year of release \n2015 \nJustification \nWE3104 is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern\nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. These attributes \nmake WE3104 one of the best variety for growing in mid altitude \ntransitional areas of Kenya where these leaf diseases cause yield\nlosses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets,\nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agroecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n good seed system to ensure quality, \n diversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n well organized farmer groups and networks, \n good marketing models and path ways, \n\n133 \n \n involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n county and central government support, funding to research,\nvalidate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKakamega, Kitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo,\nLower Meru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE3104, high cost of\nseeds, inadequate funds for promotion of WE3104, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \n Limited information on WE3104 by agricultural extension\nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value-added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n National and county governments, seed merchants, \n Ngos, marketers and processors, \n Facilitate continuous maintenance and production of early\ngeneration seed of WE3104 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \n Information dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective\nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added\nproducts for increased maize production, Provdeinformation\non \nWE3104 \nto \nagricultural \nservice \nprovides \nfor\ndissemination to farmers \n\n134 \n \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE3104 conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of the \nTIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transitional region therefore the \nneed to build their capacity, \n Create an enabling policy environment and review over \ntime. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits \nof the TIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 50,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 25,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE3104 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE3104 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n\n135 \n \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE3104 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE3104 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the WE3104 \nmaize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE3104 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE3104 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully adopted by farmers as a drought \ntolerant hybrid maize variety dryland mid altitude zone of Kenya \nApplication guidelines \nfor \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Murenga M. et al. 2015. Water Efficient Maize for Africa\n(WEMA) project Hybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3104]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.2]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \n \n\n136 \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3104", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.3 WE3106 \nTIMP Name \nWE3106 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \n \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic and \nunreliable rains. These improved varieties are susceptible to leaf\ndiseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize streak\nvirus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob three-way cross hybrid with average yield potential of\n3.28 t ha-1, matures in 4 months. Resistant to major leaf diseases such\nas northern leaf blight, maize streak virus and gray leaf spot. It also\nhas good husk cover and good plant and ear aspect. Year of release \n2015. \nJustification \nWE3106 is resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern\nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. These attributes \nmake WE3106 best bet variety for growing in mid altitude \ntransitional areas of Kenya where the leaf diseases cause yield losses\nthat range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches used in \nDissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research. Trials and\ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field days,\nagricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer research\nnetworks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural programs, \nPromotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), web \nmaterial’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \n\n137 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n organized farmer groups and networks, good marketing\nmodels and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to research, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central government e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKakamega, Kitui, Machakos, West Pokot, Makueni, Kajiado, Isiolo,\nLower Meru and Embu, Siaya, and Kisumu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE3106, \n High cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of\nWE3106, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, unorganized marketing \nchannels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \n limited information on WE3106 by agricultural extension\nservice providers (public and private), \n Limited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \n national and county governments, \n Seed merchants, NGOs, \n marketers and processors, facilitate continuous maintenance \nand production of early generation seed of WE3106 by \nKALRO breeders, \n\n138 \n \n License \nseed \nmerchants \nto \nproduce \ncertified \nseed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective\nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value added\nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE3106 to agricultural service\nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons \nlearned \nin \nup \nscaling if any \n WE3106 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, \nenvironmental, \npolicy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary \nfor \ndevelopment and up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal inspection \nby KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces aflatoxin \ncontamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n harmonious gender consideration in research, consumption \nand marketing, it is cultivated mainly by women in the mid \naltitude transitional region hence the need to build their \ncapacity, \n create an enabling policy and review over time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of the \nTIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000. \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 40,000 and thus net benefit KES\n17,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption \nand scaling up \n WE3106 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by women \nand youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \n\n139 \n \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and miss \nout on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE3106 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE3106 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE3106 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the WE3106 \nmaize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE3106 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE3106 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by farmers leading to increased incomes \nin dryland mid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for\nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Murenga et al., 2017. WEMA Hybrids booklet.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE3106]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.3]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \n\n140 \n \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists KALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE3106", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.4 WE5107 \nTIMP Name \nWE5107 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize \nstreak viru \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with \nyield potential of 3.7 to 7.2 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 130 \ndays), resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern \nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Year of \nrelease 2017. Has added advantage of a good husk cover, plant \nand ear aspects. \nJustification \nIt is a drought tolerant, and resistant to major maize leaf diseases \nsuch as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak virus \nmakes WE5107 a best bet maize hybrid to grow in mid altitude \ntransitional regions of Kenya where drought and maize diseases \ncause yield losses in range of trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \n\n141 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation \nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nTIMP Name \nWE5107 \nCritical/essential factors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, diversification of maize food products \nthrough value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nmarketing models and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n county governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \n awareness and dissemination, NGOs to take up maize e.g. \nAfrica Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal \nGrowers Association, Farm Africa for farmer organizing \nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKakamega, Kitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE5107, high cost of \nseeds, inadequate funds for promotion of WE5107, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n unorganized marketing channels, low adoption of \nrecommended agronomic practices, limited information \non WE5107 by agricultural extension service providers \n(Public and private), limited maize value added products \n\n142 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, \n NGOs, marketers and processors, facilitate continuous \nmaintenance and production of early generation seed of \nWE5107 by KALRO breeders, \n license seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices \nfor maize production, \n mechanize small-scale maize production, \n promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n promote value addition and consumption of value added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE5107 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5107 conforms to the current market requirementss, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform. \n The creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \nand \npartnerships \nare \nimportant \nin \ntechnology \ndissemination and adoption. \n This can be facilitated through innovation platforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, Food safety/Health concerns: \nrecommend use of Aflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-\ncontrol agent that reduces aflatoxin contamination in \nmaize by 80-99% at harvest and in storage, harmonious \ngender consideration in \n Research, consumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in coast region hence the \nneed to build their capacity and create an enabling policy \nenvironment and review policies over time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, \n Field days, radio and tv advertisements to enable awareness \non the benefits of the timp.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 35,000 \n\n143 \n \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE5107 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out \nby women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5107 maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE5107 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for \neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5107 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5107 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5107 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5107 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted by many smallscale farmers successfully in \ndryland mid altitude zones of Kenya \n\n144 \n \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids \nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5107]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.4]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5107", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.5 WE5113 \nTIMP Name \nWE5113 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic\nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with \nyield potential of 3.7 to 7.3 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 130 \ndays), resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern \nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Year of \nrelease 2017. Has added advantage of a good husk cover, plant \n\n145 \n \nand ear aspects. \nJustification \nWE5113 is a drought tolerant maize hybrid that is resistant to \nmajor maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray \nleaf spot, maize streak virus. These attributes make WE5113 a \nvariety of choice for growing mid altitude transitional regions \nof Kenya where these leaf diseases and recurrent droughts \ncause yield losses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer\nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural\nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements\nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food \n Products through value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good\nmarketing models and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service\nproviders for sustainability of the timp, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \n\n146 \n \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay, and Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE5113, \n High cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of\nWE5113, \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, unorganized \nmarketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE5113 by agricultural extension\nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value-added products \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, \n Seed merchants, NGOs, marketers and processors, \nfacilitate continuous maintenance and production of early\ngeneration seed of WE5113 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize production, \n Mechanize \nsmall-scale \nmaize \nproduction, \npromote \nmarketing models that encourage collective production and\nmarketing, \n promote value addition and consumption of value-added\nproducts for increased maize production, \n Provide information on WE5113 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5113 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \n\n147 \n \nwomen in coast region hence the need to build their \ncapacity a \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy \nreview from time to time. \n to improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE5113 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5113 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5113 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5113 maize \nvariety \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n\n148 \n \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5113 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5113 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5113 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted by smallscale farmers successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5113]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.5]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5113", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.6 WE5138 \nTIMP Name \nWE5138 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize \nstreak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob drought tolerant white cob three-way cross hybrid \nwith yield potential of 4 to 6.5 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 130 \ndays), resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf \n\n149 \n \nblight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Year of release \n2017. \nJustification \nWE5138 is drought tolerant and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot, maize streak \nvirus. The attributes make WE5138 a variety of choice for growing \nmid \naltitude \ntransitional \nregions \nof \nKenya \nwhere \nthe \naforementioned diseases and frequent drought cause yield losses \nthat range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation \nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good marketing models and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n county and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nagricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \n\n150 \n \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Unavailability of certified seed of WE5138, high cost of \nseeds, \n Inadequate funds for promotion of WE5138, \n lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Unorganized marketing channels, \n Low adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \nlimited information on WE5138 by agricultural extension \nservice providers (Public and private), \n Limited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, seed merchants, \n NGOs, marketers and processors, facilitate continuous \nmaintenance and production of early generation seed of \nWE5138 by KALRO breeders, \n License seed merchants to produce certified seed, \ninformation dissemination on good agronomic practices for \nmaize production, \n Mechanize small-scale maize production, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n Promote value addition and consumption of value-added \nproducts for increased maize production, \n provide information on we5138 to agricultural service \nprovides for dissemination to farmers. \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5138 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \n\n151 \n \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transitional region hence the \nneed to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy \nreview from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit \nKES 20,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE5138 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5138 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as \nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5138 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective \ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5138 maize \nvariety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n\n152 \n \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5138 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5138 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5138 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by smallscale farmers in dryland mid \naltitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids \nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5138]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.6]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5138", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.7 WE5205 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5205 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and \ngrain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at the \nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erratic \nand unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to \nleaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nstreak virus \n\n153 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob drought tolerant three-way cross hyrwith yield\npotential of 7.4-9.6 t ha-1, early maturity (105-130 days), resistant\nto main leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot\nand maize streak virus. Released in 2017 \nJustification \nIt is resistant to leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf\nspot and maize streak virus. These attributes make WE5205 best \nbet variety for growing in mid altitude transitional areas of Kenya \nwhere the aforementioned diseases and frequent drought cause\nyield losses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), agricultural Innovation\nPlatforms (AIPs), On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, Meetings, field \ndays, agricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers, farmer \nresearch networks, farmer to farmer, mass media – agricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets,\nmanuals), web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied research to release improved maize varieties, \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value\naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good marketing\nmodels and path ways, \n Involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders for sustainability of the TIMP, \n County and central government support, funding to research,\nvalidate and promote new maize varieties \n\n154 \n \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, central government e.g. Chiefs, Agricultural \nExtension (Formal and informal) for policy, awareness and \ndissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nUnavailability of certified seed of WE5205, \n \nhigh cost of seeds, inadequate funds for promotion of\nWE5205, \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n \nUnorganized marketing channels, \n \nLow adoption of recommended agronomic practices, \n \nLimited information on we5205 by agriculturalextension\nservice providers (public and private), \n \nLimited maize value added products. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nSeed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n \nContinuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n \nWE5205 conforms to the market requirements, \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n \nOrganized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n \nAccessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after \n \nPromotion is key to adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nAnd up scaling \n \nNeed to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n \nFood safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \n\n155 \n \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n \nHarmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transition region hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n \n create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n \nTo improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE5205 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to land \nto engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most female \nfamers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and miss \nout on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5205 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE5205 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5205 maize \nvariety \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMG \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize and \nhence improved health of VMGs. \n\n156 \n \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to enhance \ncommunication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the WE5205 \nmaize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5205 maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire the \nrequired farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5205 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by smallscale farmers in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project Hybrids\nBooklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5205]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.7]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5205", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.7", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.8 WE5210 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5210 \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \n\n157 \n \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with yield \npotential of 7.6 to 10.0 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 130 days), \nresistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf \nblight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Has good husk \ncover, plant and ear aspect. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nWE5210 is tolerant to drought and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize \nstreak virus. These attributes make WE5210 best bet variety for \ngrowing in mid altitude transitional areas of kenya where the \naforementioned diseases and frequent drought cause yield losses \nthat range from trace to 100", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones – SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \n Development of agronomic practices for maize, \n identification of agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, good \nseed system to ensure quality, \n diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, validate \nand promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \n\n158 \n \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n maintenance of breeder seed identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the \nWEMA hybrids series, promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5210 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of new \ntechnologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n Accessibility and affordability of certified seed and other \ninputs during and after promotion is key to adoption of the \nTIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transition region hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n\n159 \n \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations and up \nscaling \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n WE5210 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5210 maize variety \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5210 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5210 maize \nvariety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5210 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5210 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n\n160 \n \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5210 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by smallscale farmers in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Murenga M. et al., 2015. Water Efficient Maize for Africa\n(WEMA) project Hybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.8]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5210", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.8", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.9 WE5213 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5213 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be \naddressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting \nfro erratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \n\n161 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) A white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with \nyield potential of 7.5 to 9.6 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 120 \ndays), resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern \nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Has good \nhusk cover, plant and ear aspect. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nWE5213 is tolerant to drought and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize \nstreak virus. These attributes make WE5213 best bet variety for \ngrowing in mid altitude transitional areas of Kenya where the \naforementioned diseases and frequent drought cause yield \nlosses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining workshops, Seminars, Meetings, Field days, Agricultural \nshows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer research networks, \nFarmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural programs, \nPromotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), \nWeb material’s, Mobile phones SMS, Farmer field and business \nSchools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification of agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, seed availability and accessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, well \norganized farmer groups and networks, \n good marketing models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize varieties’ \n\n162 \n \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \n Awareness and dissemination, NGOs (Africa Harvest) to \ntake up maize, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal \nGrowers Association, Farm Africa for farmer organizing \nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP \nwill be up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the\nWEMA hybrids series, \n promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder seed\nof the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for two\nseasons, licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions \nfor \naddressing the \nchallenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling if \nany \n WE5213 conforms to the market requirements, chances of \nsuccessful scaling are higher when diverse value chain \nstakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation\nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is key to\nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development and\nup scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \n\n163 \n \nharvest and in storage, to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, and the implementation of the \nflour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE5213 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5213 maize variety\nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender \nrelated \nopportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non WE5213 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption \nand scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5213 maize \nvariety \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \nVMG \nrelated \nopportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5213 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5213 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n\n164 \n \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5213 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by smallscale farmers in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Murenga M. et al., 2015. Water Efficient Maize for Africa\n(WEMA) project Hybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2-\nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.9]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead \norganizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja \nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5213", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.9", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.10 WE5218 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5218 \nCategory (i.e. technology, innovation or\nmanagement practice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize \nvarieties, and grain yield losses upto 100% because of \nrecurrent droughts at the reproductive stage and at the \nend of the season resulting fro erratic and unreliable \nrains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible to leaf \ndiseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and \nmaize streak virus. \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid \nwith yield potential of 7.3 to 9.1 t ha-1, early maturity \n(105 to 125 days), resistant to major maize leaf diseases \nsuch as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize \n\n165 \n \nstreak virus. Has good husk cover, plant and ear aspect. \nYear of release 2017. \n \nJustification \nWE5218 is tolerant to drought and resistant to major \nmaize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray \nleaf spot and maize streak virus. These attributes make \nWE5218 best bet variety for growing in mid altitude \ntransitional areas of where these leaf diseases and \nfrequent drought cause yield losses that range from \ntrace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, \nExtension service, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches used in \ndissemination \nOn \nfarm \nand \non \nstation \nresearch \ntrials \nand \ndemonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, Field days, \nAgricultural shows, \nMoALFC/Extension \nofficers’ \nFarmer research networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass \nmedia – Agricultural programs, Promotional materials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, \nMobile phones – \nSMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs). \nCritical/essential factors for successful \npromotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize \nvarieties, development of agronomic practices for \nmaize, \n Identification of Agro ecological and climate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, \n Good \nseed \nsystem \nto \nensure \nquality, \ndiversification of maize food products through \nvalue addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county \nand central government support, funding to \nresearch, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties’ \n\n166 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling up and\ntheir roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes (NARIs) and International research \norganizations e.g. CIMMYT, to provide variety, \nseed and production information, \n Market players to create a demand and pull \nproduction, farmers/farmer groups to adopt and \nproduce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. \nChiefs, Agricultural Extension (Formal and \ninformal) \nfor \npolicy, \nawareness \nand \ndissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed \nTraders Association (STAK), Cereal Growers \nAssociation, Farm Africa for farmer organizing \nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit \nfacilitators) for financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified \nseed, maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed \ncompany to produce certified seed for all the \nmaize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \npromote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the \nvarieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be \naddressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted \nby contract farmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the \nBreeder \nLessons learned in up scaling if any \n WE5218 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when \ndiverse value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of new \ntechnologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide \nadoption, \n Partnership \nis \nimportant \nin \ntechnology \ndissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated \nthrough \ninnovation \nplatforms, \n\n167 \n \navailability, \n Accessibility and affordability of certified seed \nand other inputs during and after promotion is \nkey to adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy and \nmarket conditions necessary for \ndevelopment and up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to \nallow production of the seed by farmers under \nminimal inspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent \nthat reduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by \n80-99% at harvest and in storage, \n Harmonious gender consideration in research, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated \nmainly by women in mid altitude transition \nregion hence the need to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy \nreview from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, \nthere is a need to carry out field demonstrations, \nfield days, radio and TV advertisements to enable \nawareness on the benefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net\nbenefit KES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin developmen, dissemination, adoption\nand scaling uptake \n WE5218 maize variety is labour intensive mainly \nin planting, weeding, shelling which are mostly \ncarried out by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of \naccess to land to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs \nfor most smallscale farmers who lack finances to \nsupport access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for \nmost female famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic \nroles, and miss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5218 \nmaize variety may not be favorable to women \nfarmers \n\n168 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques\nsuch as mechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and \nthe youth along the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with \ninformation on WE5218 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering \nfood and nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to \nlimited mechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5218 \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also \ninaccessible by VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of \nthe WE5218 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5218 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs \nto acquire the required farm inputs on favourable \ncredit terms \n Increased WE5218 maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by farmers in dryland mid\naltitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL \nMaize Extension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \nMurenga M. et al., 2015. Water Efficient Maize for \nAfrica (WEMA) project Hybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready\nfor upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-requires\nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.10]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-\n90100 MACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \n\n169 \n \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J\nKaranja and Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, \nCIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5218", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.10", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.11 WE5227 \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nWE5227 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with yield \npotential of 7.5 to 9.5 t ha-1, early maturity (105 to 130 days), \nresistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf \nblight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Has good husk \ncover, plant and ear aspect. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nWE5227 is tolerant to drought and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize \nstreak virus. These attributes make WE5227 best bet variety for \ngrowing in dryland mid altitude zones of Kenya where these leaf \ndiseases and frequent drought cause yield losses that range from \ntrace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones – SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n \nApplied Research to release improved maize varieties, \n \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize , \nidentification of Agro ecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n \nseed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \n\n170 \n \nensure quality, \n \ndiversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n \nwell organized farmer groups and networks, \n \ngood Marketing Models and path ways, county and central \ngovernment support, \n \nfunding to research, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n \nKALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) \nand international research organizations e.g. CIMMYT, to \nprovide variety, seed and production information, \n \nMarket players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n \nCounty governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, seed \ncompanies for quality seed multiplication, \n \nFinancial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nKitui, Machakos, Kiambu, Homa Bay, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous Maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract \nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n WE5227 conforms to the market requirements, \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n\n171 \n \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and \nin storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in dryland mid altitude zones hence the need to \nbuild their capacity \n create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 60,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 35,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n WE5227 maize variety is labour intensive mainly in \nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on WE5227 maize variety\nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information on \nWE5227 maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \n\n172 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the WE5227 maize \nvariety \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nWE5227 maize variety \n Target ToT farms for WE5227 maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased WE5227 maize production will lead to enhanced \nfood security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully by farmers in dryland mid altitude\nzones of Kenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor \nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize \nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya Murenga M. et \nal., 2015. Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project \nHybrids Booklet, 2017.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires\nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: WE5227]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.11]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100\nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600 \nEmail: kalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Katumani, Centre Director, Murenga Mwimali, J Karanja\nand Tende R. \nPartner organizations \nKALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, AATF, CIMMYT, \nLocal Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds Company, Leldet \nSeeds Company \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties. \n\n173", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "WE5227", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.11", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.12 KH500-13E \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-13E \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts \nat the reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus and ear rots \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob, drought tolerant, three-way cross hybrid with \naverage yield potential of 4.5 to 5.3 t ha-1. It is of medium \nmaturity (120 days), resistant to ear rots and major leaf diseases \nsuch as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak \nvirus. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nBeing a drought tolerant maize hybrid that is resistant to ear rots \nand major maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray \nleaf spot and maize streak virus make KH500-13E best bet \nvariety for growing in mid altitude transitional areas of kenya \nwhere freguent droughts and the aforementioned diseases cause \nyield losses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – \nAgricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile \nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n identification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, \n seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, \n diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, well organized farmer groups and networks, \n good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, validate \nand promote new maize varieties’ \n\n174 \n \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nagricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Isiolo, Machakos, Kitui and other mid-\ndry lowlands zones in Kenya \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the\nWEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder \nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract\nfarmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-13E conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer\nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and\nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \n\n175 \n \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in dryland mid altitude \nzones hence the need to build their capacity \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy \nreview from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 55,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 30,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH500-13E maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-13E maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-13E maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-13E \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible by \nVMGs \n\n176 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-13E maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-13E maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-13E maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-13E]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.12]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27 - 60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638 \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO-Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nNGOs, County governments, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-13E", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.12", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.13 KH500-51A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-51A (MU07-018) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand that suffer grain yield losses upto 100% because they are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \n\n177 \n \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob flint like, three-way cross hybrid with yield \npotential of 6.0 to 6.5 t ha-1, matures in 150-170 days, resistant to \nmajor maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf \nspot and maize streak virus. -Year of release 2015 \nJustification \nBeing resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern \nleaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus make KH500-\n51A best bet variety for growing in mid altitude transitional \nareas of Kenya where these leaf diseases cause yield losses that \nrange from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential factors for\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, funding to research, validate \nand promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \n\n178 \n \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder \nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication for \ntwo seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the Breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-51A conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of new \ntechnologies, \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transitional zones therefore the \nneed to build their capacity \n\n179 \n \n Create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 55,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 30,000 \nGender issues and concerns \nin \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n KH500-151A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for most \nsmallscale farmers who lack finances to support access \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-51A maize\nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-51A maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination,\nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-51A \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-13E maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-51A maize breeding \n\n180 \n \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-51A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication \nguidelines \nfor \nusers \nReference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-51A (MU07-018)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.13]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company \nseed Co, Faida seed Co, Olerai seed Co, EA seed Co, Sacred\nAfrica and Crop Africa \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-51A (MU07-018)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.13", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.14 KH500-52A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-52A (MU08-005) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand grain yield losses upto 100% because of recurrent droughts at \nthe reproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro \nerratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob flint like, three-way cross hybrid with yield \npotential of 4.39 t ha-1, matures in 4 to 5 months, drought tolerant \nand resistant to major maize leaf diseases such as northern leaf \nblight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. Year of release \n2015 \n\n181 \n \nJustification \nBeing tolerant to drought and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize \nstreak virus make KH500-52A best bet variety for growing in \nmid altitude transitional areas of kenya where frequent droughts \nand aforementioned diseases cause yield losses that range from \ntrace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment \nof \nagronomic \npractices \nfor \nmaize, \nidentification of Agroecological and climate requirements \nfor cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, good seed system to \nensure quality, diversification of maize food products \nthrough value addition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nMarketing Models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nInstitutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n county governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, NGOs to take up maize e.g. \nAfrica Harvest, Seed Traders Association (STAK), Cereal \nGrowers Association, Farm Africa for farmer organizing \nand mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \n\n182 \n \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed Identify a seed company to \nproduce certified seed for all the maize varieties under the \nWEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by contract \nfarmers, continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the \nbreeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-52A conforms to the market requirements, chances \nof successful scaling are higher when diverse value chain \nstakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n Availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and \nin storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transitional zones therefore the need \nto build their capacity \n create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio and \nTV advertisements to enable awareness on the benefits of \nthe TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 20,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH500-52A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \n\n183 \n \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-52A maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-52A maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-52A \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-52A maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-52A maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-52A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling \n\n184", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-52A (MU08-005)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.14]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company seed Co, Faida seed Co, Olerai\nseed Co, EA seed Co, Sacred Africa and Crop Africa \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-52A (MU08-005)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.14", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.15 KH500-53A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-53A (MU10-010) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand suffer grain yield losses of upto 100% because of recurrent \ndroughts at the reproductive stage and at the end of the season \nresulting fro erratic and unreliable rains. These unimproved \nvarieties are susceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, \nnorthern leaf blight and maize streak virus. \nWhat \nis \nit? \n(TIMP \ndescription) \nA white cob flint like, three-way cross hybrid with yield \npotential of 4.9 to 5.0 t ha-1, matures in 150 to 170 days, \ndrought tolerant and resistant to major maize leaf diseases such \nas northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot and maize streak virus. \nYear of release 2015 \nJustification \nBeing tolerant to drought and resistant to major maize leaf \ndiseases such as northern leaf blight, gray leaf spot andmaize \nstreak virus make KH500-53A best bet variety for growing in \nmid altitude transitional areas of Kenya where frequent \ndroughts and aforementioned diseases cause yield losses that \nrange from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, \nTraders, \nMillers, \nSeed \ndealers, \nResearchers, \nExtension service, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – \nAgricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile \nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \n\n185 \n \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \n development \nof \nagronomic \npractices \nfor \nmaize, \nidentification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, \n good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, well \norganized farmer groups and networks, \n good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, \n funding to research, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under the WEMA hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, continuous maintenance breeder \nseed of the varieties and it requires seed multiplication \nfor two seasons, \n Licensing issues via AATF needs to be addressed. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, continuous maintenance of breeder seed \nby the breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling \nif any \n KH500-53A conforms to the market requirements, \n chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of new technologies, \n\n186 \n \n organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, \n availability, accessibility and affordability of certified \nseed and other inputs during and after promotion is key \nto adoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development and \nup scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of Aflasafe \nKE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest \nand in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, it is cultivated mainly by \nwomen in mid altitude transitional zones therefore the \nneed to build their capacity \n create an enabling policy environment and policy review \nfrom time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, \n Field days, radio and TV advertisements to enable \nawareness on the benefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 45,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 20,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH500-53A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out by \nwomen and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-53A maize \nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-53A maize variety \n\n187 \n \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-53A \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and incomprehensible \ndocuments that are also inaccessible by VMGs \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation and utilization of maize \nand hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-53A maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-53A maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required farm inputs on favourable credit terms \n Increased KH500-53A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in dryland\nmid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-53A (MU10-010)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.15]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Embu, Centre Director, Chares Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company, seed Co, Faida seed Co, Olerai\nseed Co, EA seed Co, Sacred Africa and Crop Africa \n Research Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n\n188", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-53A (MU10-010)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.15", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.16 KH500-54A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-54A (CKH10778) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, \nand suffer grain yield losses of upto 100% because they are \nsusceptible to leaf diseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf \nblight and maize streak virus. \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nA white cob flint to intermediate like, three-way cross hybrid \nwith yield potential of 8.5 t ha-1, matures in 5 to 6 Months and \nresistant to maize streak virus and gray leaf spot. Has good \nhusk cover and ear aspects. Year of release 2017. \nJustification \nKH500-54A is resistant to maize streak virus and gray leaf \nspot and these attributes make it a variety of choice for \ngrowing in mid altitude transitional areas of kenya where the \naforementioned diseases cause yield losses that range from \ntrace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, \nExtension service, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches \nto \nbe \nused \nin \ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – \nAgricultural \nprograms, \nPromotional \nmaterials \n(posters/brochures/leaflets, manuals), Web material’s, Mobile \nphones – SMS, Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification \nof \nAgroecological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, \n Seed availability and accessibility, \n\n189 \n \n Good seed system to ensure quality, \n Diversification of maize food products through value \naddition, \n Well organized farmer groups and networks, good \nMarketing Models and path ways, \n County and central government support, funding to \nresearch, \n Validate and promote new maize varieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling\nup and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, county \ngovernments, \ncentral \ngovernments \ne.g. \nChiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed \nTraders \nAssociation \n(STAK), \nCereal \nGrowers \nAssociation, Farm Africa for farmer organizing and \nmobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under these KH500 hybrids series, \npromote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties \nand it requires seed multiplication for two seasons \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, demo seed production by KALRO \nbreeders, \n Joint demonstration (farmers/seed companies) of the \nnew varieties in the target AEZ and disease prone areas \nfor MSV, \n Production seed research for all KALRO released \nvarieties, \n Promotion of the new varieties using small packs \n(<250g), jumpstart certified seed production through \nKSU, continuous maintenance of breeder seed, \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \n\n190 \n \nLessons learned in up scaling if \nany \n KH500-54A conforms to the market requirements, \nchances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of new technologies, \n Organized production and market aids in wide adoption, \npartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms, availability, \n Accessibility and affordability of certified seed and \nother inputs during and after promotion is key to \nadoption of the TIMP \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions necessary \nfor development \nand up scaling \n Need to have a policy on quality declared seed to allow \nproduction of the seed by farmers under minimal \ninspection by KEPHIS, \n Food safety/Health concerns: recommend use of \nAflasafe KE01 a pre-harvest bio-control agent that \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at \nharvest and in storage, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women in mid altitude \ntransitional zones therefore the need to build their \ncapacity and create an enabling policy environment and \npolicy review from time to time. \n To improve on marketing and demand creation, there is a \nneed to carry out field demonstrations, field days, radio \nand TV advertisements to enable awareness on the \nbenefits of the TIMP, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 55,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 30,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH500-54A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out \nby women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-54A maize\nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \n\n191 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-54A maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-54A \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-54A maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-54A maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required farm inputs on favourable credit \nterms \n Increased KH500-54A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in\ndryland mid altitude zones of Kenya \nApplication guidelines for users Reference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension\nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires\nfurther research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-54A (CKH10778)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.16]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria \n\n192 \n \nSeeds Company, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company, seed Co, Faida seed Co,\nOlerai seed Co, EA seed Co, Sacred Africa and Crop Africa \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-54A (CKH10778)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.16", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.4.17 KH500-55A \n2.1.1 TIMP Name \nKH500-55A (MU10-233) \nCategory \n(i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation \nor \nmanagement \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow yields due to cultivation of unimproved maize varieties, and\ngrain yield losses of upto 100% because of recurrent droughts\nreproductive stage and at the end of the season resulting fro erra\nunreliable rains. These unimproved varieties are susceptible \ndiseases such as gray leaf spot, northern leaf blight and maize\nvirus. \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nA white cob flint to intermediate like, three-way cross hybrid \nwith yield potential of 6.5 t ha-1, matures in 120- to 160 days, \ntolerant to drought, and resistant to maize streak virus and gray \nleaf spot. Has good husk cover and ear aspects. Year of release \n2016. \nJustification \nKH500-55A is tolerant to drought and resistant to maize streak \nvirus and gray leaf spot and these attributes make it a variety of \nchoice for growing in mid altitude transitional areas of kenya \nwhere frequent drought and the aforementioned diseases cause \nyield losses that range from trace to 100%.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Traders, Millers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension \nservice, consumers, and Seed companies \nApproaches to be used in\ndissemination \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations, \ntraining \nworkshops, \nSeminars, \nMeetings, \nField \ndays, \nAgricultural shows, MoALFC/Extension officers’ Farmer \nresearch networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters/brochures/leaflets, \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile phones –SMS, Farmer field \nand business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n(AIPs) \nCritical/essential \nfactors \nfor\nsuccessful promotion \n Applied Research to release improved maize varieties, \ndevelopment of agronomic practices for maize, \n Identification \nof \nAgro \necological \nand \nclimate \nrequirements for cultivation, seed availability and \naccessibility, \n Good seed system to ensure quality, diversification of \nmaize food products through value addition, well \norganized farmer groups and networks, \n\n193 \n \n Good Marketing Models and path ways, county and \ncentral government support, \n Funding to research, validate and promote new maize \nvarieties’ \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor\nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes \n(NARIs) and international research organizations e.g. \nCIMMYT, to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation, \n Market players to create a demand and pull production, \nfarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce, \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, \nAgricultural Extension (Formal and informal) for policy, \nawareness and dissemination, \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Seed Traders \nAssociation (STAK), Cereal Growers Association, Farm \nAfrica for farmer organizing and mobilization, \n Seed companies for quality seed multiplication, \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) \nfor financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nEmbu, Meru, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Siaya, Busia, Kakamega \nChallenges in dissemination \n Linkage with seed companies to produce certified seed, \n Maintenance of breeder seed \n Identify a seed company to produce certified seed for all \nthe maize varieties under these kh500 hybrids series, \n Promote the varieties, \n Continuous maintenance breeder seed of the varieties and \nit requires seed multiplication for two seasons \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Seed production by KALRO Seed Unit assisted by \ncontract farmers, \n Demo seed production by KALRO breeders, \n Joint demonstration (farmers/seed companies) of the new \nvarieties in the target AEZ and disease prone areas for \nMSV, \n Production seed research for all KALRO released \nvarieties, \n Promotion of the new varieties using small packs (<250g) \n, \n JumpStart \ncertified \nseed \nproduction \nthrough \nKSU,continuous \nmaintenance \nof \nbreeder \nseed, \ncontinuous maintenance of breeder seed by the breeder \nLessons learned in up scaling if \nany \n The technology conforms to the market requirements, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer workshops helps in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market is key \n\n194 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand \nmarket \nconditions \nnecessary for development \nand up scaling \n Creation of awareness on nutritional and livestock \nimportance of the variety, \n Harmonious \ngender \nconsideration \nin \nresearch, \nconsumption and marketing, \n It is cultivated mainly by women hence the need to \ncapacity build them, enabling policy and policy review \nfrom time to time, \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThe average total production cost per acre is KES 25,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns approximately KES 50,000 and thus net benefit\nKES 25,000 \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n KH500-55A maize variety is labour intensive mainly in\nplanting, weeding, shelling which are mostly carried out \nby women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High costs of improved seed and other farm inputs for \nmost smallscale farmers who lack finances to support \naccess \n Slow information flow, and lack of awareness for most \nfemale famers with low education levels \n Women suffer time constraints due to domestic roles, and \nmiss out on dissemination meetings \n Training materials and strategies on KH500-55A maize\nvariety may not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization \n Employment opportunities for both women and the youth \nalong the maize value chain \n Reach more women and youth groups with information \non KH500-55A maize variety \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMG \n VMGs have limited finances to buy the KH500-55A \nmaize variety \n Challenging dissemination methods and \nincomprehensible documents that are also inaccessible \nby VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n\n195 \n \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion of the \nKH500-55A maize variety \n Target ToT farms for KH500-55A maize breeding \ndemonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required farm inputs on favourable credit \nterms \n Increased KH500-55A maize production will lead to \nenhanced food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nTolerant maize varieties have been adopted successfully in\ndryland mid altitude zones of Kenya \nprevious similar projects \nApplication guidelines for users Reference: Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize\nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness\n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires \nvalidation; \n3-\nrequires further research) \n1-ready for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH500-55A (MU10-233)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Medium Altitude – Transitional]\n[Section: 2.2.4.17]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu,\nPhone: +254 727444608 / 727444638, \nE-mail: kalro.embu@kalro.org: \nLead organizations/scientists \nKALRO Embu, Centre Director, Charles Mutinda \nPartner organizations \nKALRO SeedS, KALRO Seeds, NGOs, County Governments, \nAATF, CIMMYT, Local Seed Companies namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company namely; Victoria Seeds \nCompany, Leldet Seeds Company, seed Co, Faida seed Co, Olerai\nseed Co, EA seed Co, Sacred Africa and Crop Africa \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of more superior drought tolerant \nimproved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH500-55A (MU10-233)", "aez": "Medium Altitude – Transitional", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.4.17", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: 2Highlands]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5]\n\n2.2.5 2Highlands", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "2Highlands", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.1 KH600-11D \nTechnology name \nKH600-11D \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss. \n\n196 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-11D \nThis is a varietal cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800-\n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000 mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 140–160 days giving a \nyield of 32-42 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong \nstalks, good standability, resistance to Gray Leaf Spot and good \nhusk cover \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-11D was released in Kenya for\nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 1999. It is highly adapted to\nthe region and preferred by farmers due to high yields and its\nresistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Maize value chain actors –producers \nto market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \n\n197 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination \n C: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin \nGishu, Elgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin \nGishu, Elgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\n, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin \nGishu, Elgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n -Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n -Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n -Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful upscaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days helps in adoption of the varieties, availability \nof market, \n partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n \n-Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n -Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n -Availability of market \n -Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n\n198 \n \n -Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 73,600/= (32 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 45,600/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nMaize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and youth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n \nWomen may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n- Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \n\n199 \n \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n- Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n- Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories if any \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nResearch Gaps \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D. B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, agronomists, postharvest and crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G.A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Postharvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-11D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.1]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide extension services, \nKEPHIS- Seed Inspection, Seed Companies – Seed \nProduction, CIMMYT- Technical back stopping \nResearch Gaps \n1. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties especially \ncomposites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-11D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.2 KH600-23A \nTechnology name \nKH600-23A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \n Low maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow \ngenetic base and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to \n20% yield loss. \n\n200 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-23A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000 mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 145–175 days \ngiving a yield of 43-68 bags/acre. The special attributes \ninclude Strong stalks, good standability, resistance to rust, \nresistance to Gray Leaf Spot and good husk cover. \n \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance is a good solution \nto this problem. A high yielding variety KH600-23A was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in \n2008. It is highly adapted to the region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. \nBreeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is \nneed to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \n\n201 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nScarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n \nDwindling numbers of government extension workers \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n \nUnorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n \nEstablish a working seed system \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n \nDissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n \ncontinuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n \nThe government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n \nAvailability of market, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \n\n202 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n \nFarmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n \nFavourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n \nAvailability of market \n \nFavourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n \nImplementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 98,900/= (43 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 70,900/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nMaize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n \nWomen may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n \nHigh cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n \nSlow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n \nWomen may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n \nTraining materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n \nReach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \n \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n \nLaborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n \nDissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n \nVMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n \nDissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n \nLow access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n \nProvide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation \n \nand utilization of maize and hence improved health of \n\n203 \n \nVMGs \n \nMake friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n \nTarget VMG for ToT training and promotion \n \nTarget ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n \n-Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n \nIncreased production will lead to enhanced food security \n \n-Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nResearch Gaps \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D. B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, agronomists, postharvest and crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G.A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Postharvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-\nready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-23A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.2]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide extension services, \nKEPHIS- Seed Inspection, Seed Companies – Seed \nProduction, CIMMYT- Technical back stopping \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties especially \ncomposites", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-23A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.3 High Altitude Composite (HAC) \nTechnology name \nHAC \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLength of maturity of maize in the cold highlands is up to 13 \nmonths instead of 6 to 8 months under normal conditions \n\n204 \n \nmaking the land to be unavailable for planting other crops, this \ncoupled with frost and Gray Leaf Spot which leads to yield \nlosses of up to 50% is of a great effect on the yield of maize \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) HAC \nThis is an open pollinated variety (composite) and grows at an \naltitude of 2200- 3000 m above sea level with a rainfall of \n1000 -2000 mm. It has white semi–flint grains and matures in \n140–160 days giving a yield of 20-34 bags/acre. The special \nattributes include early maturity, frost tolerance, resistance to \nGray Leaf Spot. \n \nJustification \nLate maturity, frost and foliar diseases is a major problem in \nthe cold highlands of Kenya. Commercial highland varieties \ntake upto 13 months to mature in the very cold highlands \nhence the need for early maturing frost tolerant varieties like \nHAC which was released in 2006 takes and 7-8 months. It is \nhighly adapted to the cold highlands and preferred by farmers \ndue to earliness and frost tolerance and its resistance to gray \nleaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \n\n205 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Nyandarua, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet \npromoted. if any \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Nyandarua, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet \nChallenges in dissemination \n \n-Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n \nDwindling numbers of government extension workers \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n \nUnorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n \nEstablish a working seed system \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n \nDissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n \nContinuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n \nThe government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n \ncreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days helps in adoption of the varieties, \n \nAvailability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \n\n206 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n \nFarmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n \nFavourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n \nAvailability of market \n \nFavourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n \nImplementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 57,500/= (25 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 29,500/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food and \nnutrition security to household members \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \n\n207 \n \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n -Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \nWell organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nTechnology name \nHAC \nSuccess stories in the past if \nany \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D. B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-\nready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide extension services, \nKEPHIS- Seed Inspection, Seed Companies – Seed \nProduction, CIMMYT- Technical back stopping \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties especially \ncomposites \n \nKH600-14E \nTechnology name \nKH600-14E \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nDue to climate change development of varieties which are \ndrought tolerant is of paramount importance as this will \nensure that the farmer gets some yield even under \n\n208 \n \nunfavorable climatic conditions. \nTechnology name \nKH600-14E \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-14E \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 150–165 days \ngiving a yield of 38-48 bags/acre. The special attributes \ninclude drought tolerance, resistance to rust, resistance to \nGray Leaf Spot and Turcicum leaf blight. \n \nJustification \nDrought is a problem in some regions in the highland agro-\necological zones of Kenya. A variey which can survive under \nlow input and low rainfall conditions is therefore essential. \nKH600-14E which is a top cross hybrid with similar \ncharesteristics, but slightly high yielding than the famous \nH614D was developed in 2004. It is highly adapted to the \nregion and preferred by farmers due to its adaptation to dry \nconditions and low yielding environments and is also good \nfor roasting. However, seed availability has been a major \nchallenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, \nbut there is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n\n209 \n \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors \n–producers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical \nback stopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for \npolicy, awareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, reation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \n\n210 \n \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 78,200= (34 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 50,200/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n Target women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \n\n211 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n .Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \n- References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch 2018 \nTechnology name \nKH600-14E \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and \nCrop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural service \nproviders, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n \n\n212 \n \nKH600-15A \nTechnology name \nKH600-15A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% \nyield loss. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-15A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 145–180 days \ngiving a yield of 33-47 bags/acre. The special attributes \ninclude Strong stalks, resistance to rust, resistance to blight, \nresistance to Gray Leaf Spot and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance is a good solution \nto this problem. A high yielding variety KH600-15A was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in \n2001. It is highly adapted to the region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. \nBreeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is \nneed to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n\n213 \n \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain \nactors –producers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical \nback stopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for \npolicy, awareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n\n214 \n \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 75,900/= (33 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 47,900/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \n\n215 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health \nscientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: High Altitude Composite (HAC)]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural service \nproviders, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch Gaps \n\n216 \n \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "High Altitude Composite (HAC)", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.4 KH600-16A \nTechnology name \nKH600-16A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow \ngenetic base and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to \n20% yield loss. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-16A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 140–180 days \ngiving a yield of 35-48 bags/acre. The special attributes \ninclude, resistance to MSV, resistance to blight, resistance to \nrust, resistance to Gray Leaf Spot \n \n \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance is a good solution \nto this problem. A high yielding variety KH600-16A was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in \n2001. It is highly adapted to the region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. \nBreeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is \nneed to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \n\n217 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \n\n218 \n \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n \nAvailability of market, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n \n-Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n \n-Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n \nAvailability of market \n \nFavourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n \nImplementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 80,500/= (35 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 52,500/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties \nmay not be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \n\n219 \n \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n - Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n - Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n - Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nworkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, post harvest \nand crop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, \n2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-16A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.4]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural service \nproviders, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n\n220", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-16A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.5 KH600-17A \nTechnology name \nKH600-17A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% \nyield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-17A \nThis is a varietal cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000 mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 140–160 days \ngiving a yield of 37-51 bags/acre. The special attributes \ninclude good standability, resistance to blight, resistance to \nGray Leaf Spot and less rots. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance is a good solution \nto this problem. A high yielding variety KH600-17A was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in \n2002. It is highly adapted to the region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. \nBreeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is \nneed to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n\n221 \n \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n -Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n -Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n -Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \n\n222 \n \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n \nAvailability of market, \n \nPartnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition- \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 85,100/= (37 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 57,100/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \n\n223 \n \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n - Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n - Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n - Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and \nCrop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, \n2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-17A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.5]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural service \nproviders, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n\n224", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-17A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.6 KH600-18A \nTechnology name \nKH600-18A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nTechnology name \nKH600-18A \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-18A \nThis is a varietal hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 m \nabove sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 155–170 days giving a yield of \n36-50 bags/acre. The special attributes include good standability, \nresistance to blight, resistance to Gray Leaf Spot and less rots. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-18A was released in Kenya for \nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2004. It is highly adapted to \nthe region and preferred by farmers due to high yields and its \nresistance to gray leaf spot. However, seed availability has been a \nmajor challenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, \nbut there is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n\n225 \n \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n -Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n -Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n -Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \n\n226 \n \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n -Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 82,800/= (36 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 54,800/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \n\n227 \n \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n - Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n - Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n - Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nUasin Gishu counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-18A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.6]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale, \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org, \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural service \nproviders, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n \n\n228", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-18A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.7 KH600-19A \nTechnology name \nKH600-19A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-19A \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 160 –175 days giving a \nyield of 38-53 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong \nstalks, resistance to blight, resistance to Gray Leaf Spot and less \nrots. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-19A was released in Kenya for \nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2005. It is highly adapted to \nthe region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. Breeder \nseed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to \nincrease pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \n\n229 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling \nup and their roles \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production of \nseed for demonstrations \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \navailability of market, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation \n\n230 \n \n The government to employ more extension officers \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 87,400/= (38 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 59,400/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n Well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for vmgs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by vmgs \n Vmgs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \n\n231 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide vmgs with affordable and easy to use mechanized \nequipment for maize cultivation \n And utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nvmgs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with vmgs \n Target VMG for tot training and promotion \n Target tot farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for vmgs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for \nmaize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest and \ncrop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, \n2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-19A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.7]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extention \nservice providers, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-19A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.7", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.8 KH600-20A \nTechnology name \nKH600-20A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \n \n\n232", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase, weak stalks and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to \n20% yield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-20A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 160 - 180 days giving a yield of \n38 -55 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong stalks, \nresistance to rust, resistance to blight, resistance to Gray Leaf \nSpot and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields, lodging and gray leaf spot hamper maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating stalk strength and GLS resistance is a good solution \nto this problem. A high yielding variety KH600-20A was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in 2005. \nIt is highly adapted to the region and preferred by farmers due to \nhigh yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. However, seed \navailability has been a major challenge. Breeder seed stocks \navailable at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to increase pre-\nbasic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n\n233 \n \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \n\n234 \n \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 87,400/= (38 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 59,400/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n\n235 \n \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March \n2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-20A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.8]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties \n \n\n236", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-20A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.8", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.9 KH600-21A \nTechnology name \nKH600-21A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-21A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800-2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 140–180 days giving a yield of \n38-62 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong stalks, \nresistance to rust, resistance to blight, resistance to Gray Leaf \nSpot and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-21A was released in Kenya for\nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2006. It is highly adapted to\nthe region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot.\nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. Breeder \nseed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to\nincrease pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n• Farmers \n• Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n• Traders/Exporters, \n• Research organizations and universities \n• Agro-processors \n• Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n• Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n• Agricultural Innovation platforms \n• On-farm demonstration \n• Field days \n• Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n• Farmer to farmer visits \n• Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \n\n237 \n \ninformation Apps) \n• Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n• Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n• Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n• Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n• Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n• Strong partnership linkages \n• Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n• KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n• CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n• Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n• CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n• County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n• Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n• Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n• Financial institutions – Provide credit \n• Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n• Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n• Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n• Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n• Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n• Establish a working seed system \n• Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n• Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n• Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production of \nseed for demonstrations \n• The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n• Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n\n238 \n \n• Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n• Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n• Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n• Availability of market \n• Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n• Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 87,400/= (38 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 59,400/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n• Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n• Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n• VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n• Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n• Low access to markets and financial constraints \n\n239 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n• Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n• and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n• .Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n• Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n• Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n• Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n• Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n• Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D., B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nworkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest \nand crop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, \n2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-21A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.9]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \n \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-21A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.9", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.10 KH600-22A \nTechnology name \nKH600-22A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \n \n\n240", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase, poor husk cover and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot \nleads to 20% yield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-22A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 140–180 days giving a yield of \n40-66 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong stalks, \nresistance to Gray Leaf Spot and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields, ear rots and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance and good husk cover \nis a good solution to this problem. A high yielding variety \nKH600-22A was released in Kenya for the highland agro-\necological zones in 2006. It is highly adapted to the region and \npreferred by farmers due to high yields, less ear rots and its \nresistance to gray leaf spot. However, seed availability has been a \nmajor challenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, \nbut there is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n\n241 \n \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all \nhighland counties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension \nworkers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves \nfarmers, national and county governments, NGOs, \nmarketers and processors. \n Dissemination of information on production \npractices and promotion of the variety in the \nsuitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production \nof seed for demonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when \ndiverse value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \n\n242 \n \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \navailability of market, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n -Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n -Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n -Availability of market \n -Favourable policies to support seed/production, \nmarketing and value addition \n -Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 92,000/= (40 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 64,000/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \n\n243 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \no and utilization of maize and hence improved \nhealth of VMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D., B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize Research \nin Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nworkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest and crop \nhealth scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-22A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.10]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding to research, validation and promotion of improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-22A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.10", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.11 KH600-24A \nTechnology name \nKH600-24A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology \n\n244", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-24A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 140–160 days giving a yield of \n47-69 bags/acre. The special attributes include well established \nroots and strong stalks, resistance to gray leaf spot, rust, blight., \nand good husk cover \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-24A was released in Kenya for \nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2001. It is highly adapted to \nthe region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. Breeder \nseed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to \nincrease pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \n\n245 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions necessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n\n246 \n \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 108,100/= (47 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 80,100/=.. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n\n247 \n \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D., B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Postharvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-24A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.11]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding for research to develop climate smart improved maize varieties \n3. Funding for validation and promotion of released improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-24A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.11", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.12 KH600-25A \nTechnology name \nKH600-25A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \n\n248 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-25A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 140–165 days giving a yield of \n49-70 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance to gray \nleaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-25A was released in Kenya for \nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2015. It is highly adapted to \nthe region and preferred byfarmers due to high yields and its \nresistance to gray leaf spot. However, seed availability has been a \nmajor challenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, \nbut there is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \n\n249 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n \nScarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n \nDwindling numbers of government extension workers \n \nLack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n \nUnorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n \nEstablish a working seed system \n \nEstablish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n \nDissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n \nContinuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n \nThe government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \navailability of \n \nMarket, partnership is important in technology \ndissemination and adoption and this can be facilitated \nthrough innovation platforms \n\n250 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n \nFarmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n \nFavourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n \nAvailability of market \n \nFavourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n \nImplementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 112,700/= (49 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 84,700/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nMaize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n \nWomen may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n \nHigh cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n \nSlow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n \nWomen may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n \nTraining materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n \nReach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n \nLaborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n \nDissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n \nVMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n \nDissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n \nLow access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n \nProvide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n \nand utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n\n251 \n \n \nMake friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n \nTarget VMG for ToT training and promotion \n \nTarget ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n \nAffirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n \nIncreased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n \nWell organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D., B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nworkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest \nand crop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 \nMarch,2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-25A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.12]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding for research to develop climate smart improved maize varieties \n3. Funding for validation and promotion of released improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-25A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.12", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.13 KH600-26A \nTechnology name \nKH600-26A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \n\n252 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-26A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 \nm above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 142–170 days giving a \nyield of 51 - 70 bags/acre. The special attributes include \nresistance to gray leaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover , strong \nstalks. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety KH600-26A was released in Kenya for \nthe highland agro-ecological zones in 2015. It is highly adapted to \nthe region and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. Breeder \nseed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to \nincrease pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \n\n253 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \n\n254 \n \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 117,300/= (51 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 89,300/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n\n255 \n \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G., D. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize Research \nin Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nworkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest and crop \nhealth scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires \nfurther research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-26A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.13]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding for research to develop climate smart improved maize varieties \n3. Funding for validation and promotion of released improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-26A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.13", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.14 KH600-27A \nTechnology name \nKH600-27A \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \n\n256 \n \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-27A \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 145–175 days giving a \nyield of 53-71 bags/acre. The special attributes include \nresistance to gray leaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover white \nsemi- flint kernels, strong stalks . \n \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per \nunit area and incorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to \nthis problem. A high yielding variety KH600-27A was released \nin Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in 2015. It is \nhighly adapted to the region and preferred by farmers due to \nhigh yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot. However, seed \navailability has been a major challenge. Breeder seed stocks \navailable at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to increase pre-\nbasic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n\n257 \n \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all \nhighland counties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension \nworkers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves \nfarmers, national and county governments, NGOs, \nmarketers and processors. \n Dissemination of information on production \npractices and promotion of the variety in the \nsuitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production \nof seed for demonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when \ndiverse value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, creation of awareness through \ndemonstrations and farmer field days help in \nadoption of the varieties, availability of market, \n\n258 \n \npartnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, \nmarketing and value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 121,900/= (53 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 93,900/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \n\n259 \n \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n \nEsilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n \nLigeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \n \nbreeders, Agronomists, Postharvest and Crop health \nscientists. Dairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March \n2018 \n \nOmbakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, agronomists, postharvest and \ncrop health scientists. DTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March, 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: KH600-27A]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.14]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, Seed \nCompanies – Seed production \nResearch gaps \n1. Unavailability of adequate early generation seed. KALRO Seed Unit to produce early \ngeneration seed \n2. Funding for research to develop climate smart improved maize varieties \n3. Funding for validation and promotion of released improved maize varieties", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "KH600-27A", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.14", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.15 H614D \nTechnology name \nH614D \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \n\n260 \n \nProblem addressed \nDue to climate change varieties are giving low yields as a result of \ndrought and this coupled with susceptibility to Gray Leaf Spot \nleads to yield losses of more than 20% \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) KH600-H614D \nThis is a top cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 m \nabove sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has white \nsemi–flint grains and matures in 145–175 days giving a yield of \n30-35 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong stalks, \ndrought tolerance, resistance to blight, resistance to rust, resistance \nto Gray Leaf Spot and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields due to drought and gray leaf spot are a problem to \nmaize production in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield \nper unit area, drought tolerance and incorporating GLS resistance \nis a good solution to this problem. A high yielding variety H614D \nwas released in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in \n1986. It is highly adapted to the region and preferred by farmers \ndue to high yields, tolerance to drought and its resistance to gray \nleaf spot and good performance in low yielding envirronments. \nHowever, seed availability has been a major challenge. Breeder \nseed stocks are available at KALRO-Kitale, but there is need to \nincrease pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n\n261 \n \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction\nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse\nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation\nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \n\n262 \n \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 69,000/= (30 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 41,000/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \n\n263 \n \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D., B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H614D]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.15]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCenter Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nKenya Seed Company, NGOs – Extension, County governments – \nExtension, KEPHIS – Seed inspection, Seed companies- Seed \nproduction \nNote: The variety is licensed to Kenya Seed Company and they are producing basic and \ncommercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H614D", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.15", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.16 H626 \nTechnology name \nH626 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase, poor husk cover and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot \nleads to 20% yield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H626 \nThis is adouble cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 160–180 days giving a \nyield of 38-42 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong \nstalks, resistance to rust, resistance to blight and good husk cover. \n\n264 \n \nJustification \nLow yields and ear rots are a problem to maize production in the \nhighlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nminimizing ear rots is a good solution to this problem. A high \nyielding variety H626 was released in Kenya for the highland\nagro-ecological zones in 1989. It is highly adapted to the region\nand preferred by farmers due to high yields, strong stalks and\ndrooping ears. However, seed availability has been a major\nchallenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-Kitale, but\nthere is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \n\n265 \n \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices and \npromotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \ncreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, availability of \nmarket, partnership is important in technology \ndissemination and adoption and this can be facilitated \nthrough innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 87,400/= (38 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 59,400/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n\n266 \n \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \n\n267 \n \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H626]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.16]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director KALRO-Kitale, P.O. Box 450-30200, Kitale. \nPhone: 020 3509161, Email: kalrokitale@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Centre Director, D. O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina \nPartner organizations \nNGOs – Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: The variety is licensed to Kenya Seed Company and they are producing basic and \ncommercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H626", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.16", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.17 H625 \nTechnology name \nH625 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase, poor husk cover and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot \nleads to 20% yield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H625 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 155–180 days giving a \nyield of 37-40 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong \nstalks, resistance to rust, resistance to blight and good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields, ear rots and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize \nproduction in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit \narea and developing varieties with good husk cover is a good \nsolution to this problem. A high yielding variety H625 was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in 1981. \nIt is highly adapted to the region and preferred by farmers due to \n\n268 \n \nhigh yields and good husk cover. However, seed availability has \nbeen a major challenge. Breeder seed stocks available at KALRO-\nKitale, but there is need to increase pre-basic and basic seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n\n269 \n \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices and \npromotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \n Maintenance of breeder seed and production of pre-basic \nand basic seed, \n Production of seed for demonstrations \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, availability of \nmarket, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 85,100/= (37 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 57,100/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \n\n270 \n \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling \n\n271", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H625]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.17]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs – Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \n \nNote: The variety is licensed to Kenya Seed Company and they are producing basic and \ncommercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H625", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.17", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.18 H6213 \nTechnology name \nH6213 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H6213 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800-\n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 160–180 days giving a \nyield of 52-56 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance\nto gray leaf spot, rust, blight, strong stalks, good husk cover. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. A \nhigh yielding variety H6213 was released in Kenya for the\nhighland agro-ecological zones in 2002. It is highly adapted to the\nregion and preferred byfarmers due to high yields and its\nresistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n\n272 \n \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n -Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \n\n273 \n \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated throughinnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n -Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n -Availability of market \n -Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n -Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 119,600/= (52 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 91,600/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n\n274 \n \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for vmgs to acquire \nthe required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6213]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.18]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company is producing basic and commercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6213", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.18", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.19 H6218 \nTechnology name \nH6218 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H6218 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 145–175 days giving a \nyield of 56-71 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance \nto gray leaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover white semi- flint \n\n275 \n \nkernels, strong stalks. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. A \nhigh yielding variety H6218 was released in Kenya for the \nhighland agro-ecological zones in 2004. It is highly adapted to the \nregion and preferred by \nfarmers due to high yields and its resistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination \n\n276", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n -Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all \nhighland counties \n -Dwindling numbers of government extension \nworkers \n -Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n -Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves \nfarmers, national and county governments, NGOs, \nmarketers and processors. \n Dissemination of information on production \npractices and promotion of the variety in the \nsuitable areas. \n Continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production \nof seed for demonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \navailability of market, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, \nmarketing and value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 128,800/= (56 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 100,800/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \n\n277 \n \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n -Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \n\n278 \n \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDTI, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6218]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.19]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co., Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company is producing basic and commercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6218", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.19", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.20 H6210 \nTechnology name \nH6210 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H6210 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800-\n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 160–185 days giving a \nyield of 50-53 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance\nto gray leaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover white semi- flint \nkernels, strong stalks \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. A \nhigh yielding variety H6210 was released in Kenya for the\nhighland agro-ecological zones in 2004. It is highly adapted to the\nregion and preferred by farmers due to high yields and its\nresistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n\n279 \n \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will be \nupscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all \nhighland counties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \n\n280 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers \nand processors. \n Dissemination of information on production \npractices and promotion of the variety in the suitable \nareas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and \nproduction of pre-basic and basic seed, production of \nseed for demonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days help in adoption of the varieties, \n availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through \n innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-\necology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, \nmarketing and value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 115,000/= (50 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 87,000/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \n\n281 \n \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H6210]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.20]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \n\n282 \n \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company is producing basic and commercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H6210", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.20", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.21 H629 \nTechnology name \nH629 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H629 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- \n2500 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 –2000mm. It has \nwhite semi–flint grains and matures in 160–175 days giving a \nyield of 48-52 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance \nto gray leaf spot, rust, blight, good husk cover, strong stalks \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production \nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. A \nhigh yielding variety H629 was released in Kenya for the highland \nagro-ecological zones in 2000. It is highly adapted to the region \nand preferred by farmers due to high yields and its resistance to \ngray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n \nFarmers \n \nSeed companies/Agro-dealers \n \nTraders/Exporters, \n \nResearch organizations and universities \n \nAgro-processors \n \nExtension Agents (Public and Private) \n \nStockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n \nAgricultural Innovation platforms \n \nOn-farm demonstration \n \nField days \n \nAgricultural shows and exhibitions \n \nFarmer to farmer visits \n \nDigital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n \nMass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), Magazines \nand Newspapers articles \n \nExtension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n \nPartners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability \n \nStrong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors –\nproducers to market \n \nStrong partnership linkages \n \nAwareness campaigns \n\n283 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n \nKALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical back \nstopping \n \nCIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n \nAgrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n \nCBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n \nCounty governments, central governments - for policy, \nawareness and dissemination \n \nSeed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n \nFarmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the varieties \n \nFinancial institutions – Provide credit \n \nDonors – To provide funds for research and dissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \nof farmers with other maize value chain stakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, availability of \nmarket, \n partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy. \n\n284", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 110,400/= (48 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 82,4000/= \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for effective\ntraining of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food security \n Well organized friendly trading conditions \n\n285", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H629]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.21]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company i producing basic and commercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H629", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.21", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.22 H628 \nTechnology name \nH628 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nTechnology name \nH628 \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf Spot leads to 20% yield \nloss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H628 \nThis is a double hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1800- 2500 m\nabove sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It has white\nsemi–flint grains and matures in 155–175 days giving a yield of \n46-50 bags/acre. The special attributes include resistance to rust,\nblight, strong stalks, resistance to Gray Leaf Spot and good husk \ncover. \nJustification \nLow yields and gray leaf spot are a problem to maize production\nin the highlands. Breeding for increased yield per unit area and \nincorporating GLS resistance is a good solution to this problem. \nA high yielding variety H628 was released in Kenya for the\nhighland agro-ecological zones in 1999. It is highly adapted to the\nregion and preferred by farmers due to high yields and its\nresistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \n\n286 \n \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors \n–producers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical \nback stopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for \npolicy, awareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \n\n287 \n \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 105,800/= (46 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 77,800/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \n\n288 \n \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation \n and utilization of maize and hence improved health of \nVMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users - References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n\n289", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nRaedy for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H628]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.22]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company i producing basic and commercial seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H628", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.22", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection header:\n2.2.5.23 H624 \nTechnology name \nH624 \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize yields caused by use of varieties with narrow genetic \nbase, late maturing varieties and varieties susceptibile to Gray Leaf \nSpot leads to 20% yield loss \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) H624 \nThis is a double cross hybrid and grows at an altitude of 1600- \n2300 m above sea level with a rainfall of 1000 – 2000mm. It \nhas white semi–flint grains and matures in 135–150 days giving a \nyield of 30-32 bags/acre. The special attributes include Strong \nstalks, resistance to blight, resistance to rust, resistance to Gray \nLeaf Spot. \nJustification \nLow yields, late maturity and gray leaf spot are a problem to \nmaize production in the highlands. Breeding for increased yield \nper unit area and incorporating earliness and GLS resistance is a \ngood solution to this problem. A high yielding variety H624 was \nreleased in Kenya for the highland agro-ecological zones in 2004. \nIt is highly adapted to the region and preferred by farmers due to \nhigh yields, earliness and its resistance to gray leaf spot.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Seed companies/Agro-dealers \n Traders/Exporters, \n Research organizations and universities \n Agro-processors \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Stockists \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n On-farm demonstration \n Field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n Farmer to farmer visits \n Digital platforms (e.g KALRO, Digifarm, Weather \ninformation Apps) \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima \n\n290 \n \nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold), \nMagazines and Newspapers articles \n Extension publications (posters/ brochures/leaflets) \n Partners –NGOs \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability \n Strong linkage among Green Gram value chain actors \n–producers to market \n Strong partnership linkages \n Awareness campaigns \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n KALRO - to provide breeder seed and technical \nback stopping \n CIMMYT- to provide variety, seed and production \ninformation and technical back stopping \n Agrovets and seed stockists – to stock the varieties \n CBOs, NGO’s- Technology dissemination \n County governments, central governments - for \npolicy, awareness and dissemination \n Seed companies - for quality seed multiplication \n Farmers/farmer groups - to adopt and produce the \nvarieties \n Financial institutions – Provide credit \n Donors – To provide funds for research and \ndissemination", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted. if any \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTransnzoia, West Pokot, Bungoma, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, \nElgeyo Marakwet, Nandi \nChallenges in dissemination \n Scarcity of seed for setting up demo plots in all highland \ncounties \n Dwindling numbers of government extension workers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with other maize value chain \nstakeholders \n Unorganized marketing channels \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish a working seed system \n Establish innovation platforms that involves farmers, \nnational and county governments, NGOs, marketers and \nprocessors. \n Dissemination of information on production practices \nand promotion of the variety in the suitable areas. \n continuous maintenance of breeder seed and production \nof pre-basic and basic seed, production of seed for \ndemonstrations \n The government to employ more extension officers \n\n291 \n \nLessons learned in upscaling if \nany \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days help in adoption of the varieties, \n Availability of market, partnership is important in \ntechnology dissemination and adoption and this can be \nfacilitated through \n innovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Farmers’ willingness to adopt new variety \n Favourable weather conditions in the desired agro-ecology \n Availability of market \n Favourable policies to support seed/production, marketing \nand value addition \n Implementation of the flour blending policy.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPer acre production cost KES 28,000 \nEstimated returns \nPer acre returns KES 69,000/= (30 bags x 2300) and thus net \nbenefit KES 41,000/= \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize varieties are labour intensive mainly in planting, \nweeding, shelling which are mostly done by women and \nyouth \n Women may be disadvantaged through lack of access to \nland to engage in maize cultivation \n High cost of seed and other inputs where small-scale \nfarmers lack funds to acquire \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Women may not have time to attend dissemination \nmeetings due to their domestic roles \n Training materials and strategies on maize varieties may \nnot be favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n \nWomen and youth friendly production techniques such as\nmechanization Women and youth will get employment at \nvarious nodes of the value chain \n Reach more women groups with information on maize \nvarieties \n \nTarget women and youth groups during FFBS for\neffective training of farmers on maize production \n Adoption of the TIMP has the potential of offering food \nand nutrition security to household members \n well organized gender friendly markets and marketing \nsystem \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Laborious maize production practices due to limited \nmechanization not favourable for VMGs \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not \nalways easy to understand or access by VMGs \n VMGs have limited finances to buy inputs especially the \nexpensive varieties \n\n292 \n \n Dissemination methods and documents that are not always \neasy to understand or access \n Low access to markets and financial constraints \nVMG related opportunities \n Provide VMGs with affordable and easy to use \nmechanized equipment for maize cultivation and \nutilization of maize and hence improved health of VMGs \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication with VMGs \n Target VMG for ToT training and promotion \n Target ToT farms for maize breeding demonstrations \n Affirmative action opportunities exist for VMGs to \nacquire the required credit expensive inputs \n Increased production will lead to enhanced food \nsecurity \n Well organized friendly trading conditions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHas been adopted successfully in Transnzoia, West Pokot and \nBungoma counties \nApplication guidelines for users References \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Ligeyo D.O, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Achievements of highland \nmaize improvement sub-program. Workshop for maize \nbreeders, Agronomists, Post harvest and Crop health scientists. \nDairy Training Institute, Naivasha. 25-29 March 2018 \n- Ombakho G. A, D.O. Ligeyo, B. Awalla, E. Saina. Maize \nResearch in Kenya: Achievements and future prospects. \nWorkshop for maize breeders, Agronomists, Post harvest \nand Crop health scientists. Dairy Training Institute, \nNaivasha. 25-29 March 2018", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for \nupscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further \nresearch) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: H624]\n[Category: Improved Maize Variety]\n[AEZ/Theme: Highlands]\n[Section: 2.2.5.23]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nKenya Seed Company, P.O. Box 553-30200, Kitale. Phone: 020 \n3509161, Email: alphonse.laboso@kenyaseed.co.ke \nLead organization/scientists \nKenya Seed Co, Alphonse Laboso, Joseph Kamau \nPartner organizations \nNGOs - Extension, County governments – Extension, KEPHIS – \nSeed inspection, Seed companies- Seed production \nNote: Kenya Seed Company is producing basic and commercial seed. \n \n2.3 \nMAIZE SEED SYSTEM", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "H624", "aez": "Highlands", "category": "Improved Maize Variety", "section_code": "2.2.5.23", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.3.1 Improved Farmer-Saved-Seed-System \nTIMP Name \nImproved farmer-saved-seed-system \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nInnovation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \n\n293 \n \nProblem to be addressed \nAlthough formal seed system for maize is well established, \nabout 70% small-scale farmers especially in the coastal and mid \naltidute zones grow traditional maize varieties which they \nprefer because of good attributes such as pest and disease \nresistance, palatability and adaptability. These traditional \nvarieties also make significant contributions during research \nprocesses. The sourcre of seed is usually from the traditional \nfarm saved seed which in most cases has admixtures resulting \nto genetic deterioration and low yields. In addition, under \ntraditional farmer-saved-seed-system, selection of seed is done \nafter harvesting and is based on external characteristics such as \nsize and colour and does not consider such parameters as \ngermination, purity and moisture content. This results to \ndecrease of yields in every subsequent growing season and loss \nof quality and originality of the variety. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nImproved farmer-saved-seed system is a process of selecting \nquality seed from the farm before harvesting of the entire crop. \nImproved farmer-saved-seed-system involves observation, \nselection and tagging of health, true to type plants in the \nmiddle of the farm where pollen from other farms cannot \nreach. The selected plants are then harvested early and dried \nwell. The cobs are shelled, dried at 13% moisture content and \nstored in a dry, clean well-ventilated place or in hermetic \ncontainers to be planted the next season. Before planting \ngermination tests are done to determine the seed rate. \nImproved farmer-saved-seed selection should only be practiced \non one variety for a maximum of three seasons then the farmer \nshould get certified seed. \nJustification \nFarm saved maize seed produced under improved farmer-saved-\nseed system is usually of high quality and purity. The cultivation\nof traditional and improved open pollinated maize varieties \nusing farm saved seed produced under improved farmer-saved-\nseed system will contribute to increased yields, maintain genetic \npurity and conserve biodiversity of farmer preferred traditional\nmaize varieties with good attributes such as pest and disease\nresistance, palatability and adaptability. Collections from these\nlandraces is likely to make significant contributions during the\nresearch processes.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and business Schools (FFBS), \n Agricultural Innovation Platforms (AIP), on farm and\non station research trails and demonstrations, \n Farmer \nfield \ndays, \nAgricultural \nshows \nand \nexhibitions, \n Public and private agricultural extension services, \nMass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional\nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals),\nWeb material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS, Digital\nplatforms \n(e.g \nKALRO, \nDigifarm, \nWeather \n\n294 \n \ninformation Apps), \n Mass Media Radio/TV programmes (e.g. Mkulima\nprogramme, Smart Farmer and Seeds of Gold),\nMagazines and Newspapers articles. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Development, validation, promotion and \ndocumentation of improved farmer-saved-seed-\nsystem. \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \n Well organized farmer groups and networks. Couty \ngovernment support in sensitizing farmers. \n Applied research to develop, validate and promote \nimproved climate smart open pollinated maize \nvarieties where quality seed can be produced under \nimproved farmer-saves-seed-system thus making \nquality seed of improved open pollinated maize \nvarieties accessible. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO to develop, validate and promote improved \nclimate smart open pollinated maize varieties where \nquality seed can be provided through improved \nfarmer-saved-seed-system. \n KALRO in collaboration County MoALFC extension \nofficers to validate and document improved farmer-\nsaved-seed-system. KALRO Seed Unit to provide \ncertified seed for selected OPVs. \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt improved farmer-\nsaved-seed-system to produce seed and probably sell \nto other farmers. \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit \nfacilitators) for financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Improved farmer-saved-seed-system is not well \ndocumented and therefore needs to be documented. \n Unorganised farmer groups to ease trainings. \n Agricultural extension officers lack of knowledge and \nskills to disseminate improved farmer-saved-seed-\nsystem. \n Unwillingness of farmers to embrace improved farmer-\nsaved-seed-system. \n Farmers with small maize farms each growing different \nmaize varieties making it difficult to maintain purity. \n Low awareness of importance of quality maize seed in \nmost parts of Kenya \n\n295 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Validate and document improved farmer-saved-seed-\nsystem. Develop manuals for training. \n Organise farmer groups/CIGs/VMGs at community level \nfor ease of training and follow up. \n Identify and train public and private agricultural extension \nofficers, and lead farmers to be ToTs on improved farmer-\nsaved-seed-system for ease ofdissemination. \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for\nfinancial solution. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations, \n farmer workshops and media helps in adoption of \ntechnologies and innovations. \n Availability of market is key \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Establish innovation platformsthat involves farmers, \n national and county governments and NGOs to promote\nused of quality maize seed. Creation of awareness on \nimportance of practicing improved farmer-saved-seed-\nsytem instead of using traditional farmer-saved-seed-\nsystem. \n Registraion of CIGs/VMGs will ease in dissemination and\nfollow up. \n Harmonious gender and social consideration in research, \nconsumption and marketing. \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to time.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nNegligible \nEstimated returns \nIncreased yields by 15 to 20% \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Land ownership is mainly by men who may have no \ninterest in production of quality seed \n \nWomen have limited access to agricultural and extension \nservices hence they might not have adequate knowledge on \nfarmer-saved-seed-system \n Women and youth lack funds to buy seed storage \nmaterials \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers \ndue to their low academic levels \n Improved training materials and strategies for farmer-\nsaved-seed-system are not favorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth to be trained on quality seed under \nimproved farmer-saved-seed-system which they can sell \nto their fellow farmers and relatives \n Empower women and youth to acquire land \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe ToT team for training on improved farmer-saved-\nseed-system \n Empower the women and youth who want to produce \nmaize seed by connecting them to financial sources \n \nThe TIMP has the potential of increasing production, hence \nimproved household food security \n\n296 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nVMGs have limited access to productive resources such as \nland, credit, and quality seeds \n Majority of VMGs are food insecure and therefore may \nnot be interested in farm saved seed because they \ndepend on seed subsidies \n Slow information and awareness flow to VMGs farmers \ndue to low academic levels \n Training materials and strategies for maize seed may not \nbe favorable for VMGs \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded \nfrom \ndecision \nmaking \nin \ndevelopment \nand \ndissemination activities. \nVMG related opportunities \n Empower VMGs to acquire land and train them on how \nto produce quality farm saved maize under improved \nfarmer- saved-seed for their use and to sell to other \nfarmers and relatives \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the ToT team \nfor training on production of quality maize seed under \nimproved farmer-saved-seed-system \n Target VMGs farms for demonstration of improved \nfarmer-saved-seed-system \n Empower the VMGs who want to produce quality farm \nsaved maize seed by connecting them to financial source \n \nThe TIMP has the potential of increasing production, hence \nimproved household food security", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nNo documentation \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Chivatsi W.S et al. 2004. Community-based maize seed \nproduction in coastal lowland kenya. In Friesen D.K. and A. \nF. E. Palmer (eds.). Integrated Approaches to Higher Maize \nProductivity in the New Millenium. Proceedings of the \n7th Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, \nNairobi, Kenya, 11 - 15 February 2002. Mexico, D. F.: \nCIMMYT, pp. 446-451 \n- Mapendekezo ya kukuza mahindi \n- Muli M.B. et.al. (2017). Evaluation of Released Maize Hybrids \nto Hasten Their Commercialization in Coastal \nLowland Kenya. Journal of Environmental Sustainability \nAdvancement Research. Vol 3 No.3 pp 12-16", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nRequires research and validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Improved farmer-saved-seed-system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.1]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Phone: 0202024751, Email: kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600, Email: \nkalro.katumani@kalro.org \n\n297 \n \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO Mtwapa, KALRO Katumani \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS. \n \nResearch gaps \n1. \nResearch, testing and validation of improved farmer-saved-seed needs to be done \n2. \nIdentification of local and improved varieties to be subjected to own seed \nselection", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Improved farmer-saved-seed-system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.3.2 Quality Declared Seed system \nTIMP Name \nQuality Declared Seed system \nCategory (i.e. technology, innovation \nor management \npractice) \nInnovation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nThe use of recycled maize seed results to low yields. On \nthe other hand use of maize hybrid seeds is the best \noption for achieving high yields, However, maize hybrid \nseeds are relatively expensive to the resource-limited \nfarmer and in short supply. They are also unavailable at \nthe right time hindering the adoption of improved maize \nvarieties especially in the coastal region and the medium \naltitude - dry areas. The quality declared seed system is \ncomplementary systems that can be used increase the \nsupply of quality maize seed thus sustainably increasing \nmaize yields. . \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nQuality Declared Seed (QDS) system is community based\nsemi-commercial but informal seed supply system.\nSelected farmers or farmer groups are given basic seed \nfrom research stations or formal seed companies and they \nmultiply the seed under the guidance of agricultural staff \nand KEPHIS seed inspector. The seed does not undergo \nthe full scale of government rigorous certification \nprocesses. Only simple standards on crop health and \nhygiene are adhered to by the seed producers, provided \nthe source of the basic seed is known and therefore \ntraceable. Only 10% of the seed crop by the farmer group\nis inspected once, at the critical stage such as flowering. \nJustification \nIn the coastal lowlands of Kenya and medium altitude – \ndry \nregions, \nsmall-scale \nfarmers \ncomplain \nthat \ncommercial maize seed is highly priced and many times \nout of their reach. Adoption of quality declared seed \nsystem for production of maize seed for selected climate \nsmart maize varieties will ensure high yields which are \nsustainable since quality maize seed will be available at \naffordable prices by the small-scale farmers.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Seed companies, Seed dealers, Researchers, \nExtension service. \n\n298 \n \nApproaches used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS). Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP) targeting, small-scale farmers, \nbreeders and seed companies. Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters, brochures, \nleaflets \nand manuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for successful \npromotion \n \nAmendment of the seed and plant variety act to \nallow quality declared seed system for maize. \n \nDevelopment of ToT manuals for quality decalred \nseed system in Kenya. \n \nSeed availability, accessibility and affordability. \n \nGood marketing models and path ways. Train public \nand private agricultural service providers on quality \ndeclared seed production. \n \nFarmer producer groups for production of quality \ndeclared seed. \n \nFunding to support production of basic seed to be \nused under quality declared seed system. \n \nFunding for research, validation and promotion of \nnew climate smart maize varieties to be produced \nunder quality declared seed system. \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling up \nand their roles \n \nKEPHIS to spearhead amendment of Seed and \nPlant Act Cap 326 to include guidelines for \nquality declared seed system. \n \nKALRO Seed Unit and interested seed companies \nfor provision of basic seed of climate smart maize \nvarieties that can be produced under quality \ndeclared seed. \n \nWell orgarnised community-based maize seed \nproducer groups. \n \nMarket players to create a demand and pull \nproduction. \n \nFarmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce. \n \nPublic and private agricultural extension officers \nfor supervion of production of quality declared \nseed, awareness and dissemination. \n \nNGOs to organize and mobilize farmer groups \nand assist them to take up production of quality \ndecalred maize seed as a business. Financial \ninstitutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nNone \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu \n\n299 \n \nChallenges in dissemination \n Quality declared seed system not yet authorized \nin Kenya. Unorganised farmer producer groups \nfor seed production. \n The agricultural extension officers lack of \nknowledge and skills to conduct seed inspection. \n Climate smart maizevarieties that can be \nproduced under the quality declared seed system \nnot identified. \n Low awareness of importance of quality maize \nseed in most parts of Kenya \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Amendment of Seed and Plant Varieties Act Cap \n326 to include guidelines for quality declared \nseed system. \n KALRO Seed Unit and interested seed \ncompanies to identify climate smart maize \nvarieties that can be produced under quality \ndeclared seed and provide their basic seed. \n Organise farmer groups/CIGs/VMGs at \ncommunity level into produce groups for \nproduction of quality declared maize seed and to \nencourage them to take up production of quality \ndecalred maize seed as a business. \n Market players to create a demand and pull \nproduction. Identify and train public and private \nagricultural extension officers for supervion of \nproduction of quality declared seed, awareness \nand dissemination. \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit \nfacilitators) for financial solution. \nLessons learned in upscaling if any \n Quality declared seed allows many farmers to \naccess quality seed of improved maize varieties \nefficiently and at a cheaper cost than the formal \nseed sector. \n Well organized farmer producer groups can \neffectively take up the task of producing quality \ndeclared maize seed. \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations, \nfarmer workshops and media helps in adoption of \ntechnologies and innovations. \n Availability of market is key \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions necessary for \ndevelopment \nand upscaling \n Amendment of Seed and Plant Varieties Act Cap \n326 to include guidelines for quality declared seed \nsystem. \n Creation of awareness on importance of quality \nseed compared to farmer saved seeds. \n Registraion of CIGs/VMGs producergroups for \nproduction of quality declared maize seeds. \n Harmonious gender and social consideration in \nresearch, consumption and marketing. \n\n300 \n \n Enabling policy and policy review from time to \ntime", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nEstimated returns \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Land ownership mainly by men who may have no \ninterest in production of quality declared seed \n Women and youth lack funds to engage in seed \nproduction \n Slow information and awareness flow to female \nfarmers due to low academic levels \n Training materials and strategies for the quality \ndeclared maize seed systems are not favorable to \nwomen farmer. \nGender related opportunities \n maize seed production \n Empower women and youth to acquire land and \nconnect them to seed companies to became \nsustainable seed businesses \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part \nof the ToT team for training quality declared maize \nseed production \n Train women and youth agricultural extension \nofficers as supervisors to supervise production of \nthe quality declared seed \n Empower the women and youth who want to \nproduce maize seed by connecting them to financial \ninstitutions \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Labour intensity and high input use involved in \ncontract maize seed production \n Most VMGs do not own land and therefore difficult \nto be involved in quality declared maize seed \nproduction \n VMGs have inadequate funds to engage in quality \ndeclared seed production Slow information and \nawareness flow to VMGs farmers due to low \nacademic levels \n The maize seed training materials and strategies \nmay not be favorable to VMGs \nVMG related opportunities \n \nVMGs can be organized into producer groups to \nproduce quality declare maize seed \n \nEmpower VMGs to acquire land and connect them \nto seed companies for sustainable seed businesses \n \nTrain VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the ToT \nteam to train in quality declared maize seed \nproduction \n \nTrain agricultural extension officers from VMG \ncommunities as supervisors for production of the \nquality declared seed \n \nLink VMGs interested in maize seed production with \n\n301 \n \nfinancial institutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nApplication guidelines for users \nReferences \n- Kimenye L. and McEwan M. (eds). 2014. Scaling \nup, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural \nTechnologies using Innovation Platforms—Lessons \nfrom Eastern and Central Africa. ASARECA \n(Association for Strengthening \nAgricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa), \nEntebbe \n- Chivatsi W.S et al. 2004. Community-based maize seed \nproduction in coastal lowland Kenya. In Friesen D.K. \nand A. \nF. E. Palmer (eds.). Integrated Approaches to Higher \nmaize Productivity in the New Millenium. Proceedings \nof the \n7th Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize \nConference, Nairobi, Kenya, 11 - 15 February 2002. \nMexico, D. F.: CIMMYT, pp. 446-451 \n- Esilaba, A. O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize \nExtension Manual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling;, 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nRequires research and \nvalidation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Quality Declared Seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.2]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box \n16-80109. Mtwapa, Phone: 0202024751, Email: \nkalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-\n90100 MACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600, Email: \nkalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO Mtwapa, KALRO Katumani \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural \nextension services, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, \nResearch gaps \n1. Enabling policy for quality declared seed \n2. Identification of climate smart maize varieties that can be subjected to seed production \nunder quality declared seed.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Quality Declared Seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.3.3 Maize formal seed system \nTIMP Name \nMaize formal seed system \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nInnovation \n\n302", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nUnavailability of of some released high yielding climate smart \nvarieties for commercial production due to lack of early\ngeneration seed and weak public private maize seed value chain\nresulting to lack of accessibility of improved maize varieties and\npoor accessibility to quality seeds for the smallholder farmers. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nFormal seed system is the process of producing seed starting \nfrom release of varieties, production of early generation seed, and\ncertified seed up to the stage where the farmers can access it\nthrough seed merchants for planting. The main stakeholders in \nformal seed systems include breeders, seed companies and \nretailers among others. \nJustification \nThe KALRO has released many improved climate smart maize\nvarieties which are not yet commercialized. Strengthening the\npublic-private seed value chain in Kenya is the best option to \nensure that majority of the seed companies and merchants are\nlicensed to produce certified seed of these improved varieties.\nSupporting KALRO Seeds to produce the early generation seed \nensures that there is availability and timely production of the\ncertified seed which will result to increased productivity and \nproduction of maize in Kenya.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Seed dealers, Researchers, Extension service. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIP) targeting breeders and\nseed companies, on farm and on station demonstrations of new\nmaize varieties, Agricultural shows and exhibitions, Mass media\n– Agricultural programs, Promotional materials (posters, \nbrochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps \nand SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Innovation platform for interaction of maize seed value \nchain stakeholders. \n A strong public – private maize seed value chain. \n License seed merchants for production of certified seeds. \n Seed availability, accessibility and affordability. \n Good seed system to ensure quality. Good marketing \nmodels and path ways. Public and private agricultural \nservice providers. \n Funding for production of early generation seed and \ncertified seed for promotion. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n KALRO Seed Unit for production of early generation seed. \n KALRO legal office to licence more seed companies and \nmerchants. \n Seed companies and merchants for certified seed \nproduction. Market players to create a demand and pull \nproduction. \n Farmers/farmer groups to adopt and produce. Involvement \nof public and private agricultural service providers in \npromotion and dissemination. \n NGOs to take up maize e.g. Africa Harvest, Farm Africa \n\n303 \n \nfor farmer organizing and mobilization. \n Financial institutions (banks, donors, credit facilitators) for \nfinancial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Lack of innovation platforms to facilitate interaction \namong maize seed value chain stakeholders. \n Unwillingness of seed companies to take up KALRO \nvarieties. Delayed MoU between KALRO and seed \ncompanies. \n Farmers’ unwillingness of to buy certified seed. \n Low awareness of importance of improved maize in \nsome parts of Kenya \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Establish innovation platforms for maize seed value chain \nstakeholders. \n Establish demonstration to showcase new improved \nvarieties for seed companies to select from. \n Strengthen public – private maize seed value chain. \nLicense seed companies and merchants to produce certified \nseed of released varieties by KALRO. \n Strengthen KALRO Seed Unit to produce early generation \nseed. \n Ensure certified seed affodarbilty, availability and \naccessibility for commercial production. \n Well organized farmer maize seed producer groups and \nnetworks. \n County and central government support. \n Develop good policies for the maize seed production and \nmarketing. \n Funding for research, validation and promotion of new \nmaize varieties and seed production \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations helps seed \ncompanies identify and pick best climate smart maize \nvarieties for production of certified seed. \n Availability of market is key \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n A strong innovation platform for maize seed value chain \nstakeholdes is key. MOU between KALRO and willing \nseed companies/merchants for production of certified seed. \n Harmonious gender and social consideration in maize seed \nproduction and marketing. \n Farmer producer organizations for maize seed production", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of Seed \nEstimated returns \nNot determined \n\n304 \n \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n Labour intensity in contractual maize seed production not \nfavourable for women who are already overburdened \n Land ownership mainly by men who may have no interest \ncontract maize seed production \n Women and youth may not have the required finances for\ncontact maize seed production \n Slow information and awareness flow to female farmers due \nto low academic levels \n The maize seed training materials and strategies are not\nfavorable to women farmers \nGender related opportunities \n Women and youth can be organized into producer groups for\nformal seed production \n Empower women and youth to acquire land and connect them\nto seed companies to become sustainable seed businesses \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers part of the ToT\nteam for training maize seed contract farmers \n Empower the women and youth who want to produce maize \nseed by connecting them to financial institutions \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Labour intensity and high input use involved in contract maize \nseed production \n Most VMGs do not own land and therefore difficult to be \ninvolved in contact maize seed production \n VMGs lack funds for contact maize seed production \n Slow information and awareness flow to VMGs farmers due to\nlow academic levels \n The maize seed training materials and strategies may not be \nfavorable to VMGs farmers \nVMG related opportunities \n VMGs can be organized into producer groups for maize seed \nproduction \n Empower VMGs to acquire land and connect them to seed \ncompanies to became sustainable seed businesses \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the ToT team for \ntraining contract farmers for maize seed production \n Empower the VMGs who want to produce maize seed by \nconnecting them to financial source", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nHybrid maize seed production in Kenya \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- MacRobert, J.F., P.S. Setimela, J. Gethi, and M. Worku. \n(2014) Hybrid Seed Production Manual. Mexico, D.F.: \nCIMMYT. \n- Muli, M.B., J.G. Gethi and G.M. Kamau. 2000. The response of \nmaize (Zea mays L.) varieties to fertilizer, \nprocessing and storage methods in coastal Kenya. Proceedings \nof the 7th KARI Scientific Conference, Nairobi. 13-17 \nNovember 2000. Pp179-187.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling; \n\n305", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize formal seed system]\n[Category: Seed System Innovation]\n[AEZ/Theme: Maize Seed System]\n[Section: 2.3.3]\n\nSection G:\nG. Contacts \nContacts \nDeputy Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Phone: 0202024751, Email: kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, \nInstitute Director, KALRO-Katumani, P.O. Box 340-90100 \nMACHAKOS. Phone: 0710-906600, Email: \nkalro.katumani@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO Mtwapa, KALRO Katumani \nPartner organizations \nSeed Companies, Agro dealers, KEPHIS - Seed Inspection, \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural extension \nservices. \nResearch Gaps \n1. Unavailability of early generation seed of KALRO released climate smart maize \nvarieties. \n2. Inadequate promotion of the released varieties \n \n2.4 \nGood Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Management Systems", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize formal seed system", "aez": "Maize Seed System", "category": "Seed System Innovation", "section_code": "2.3.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.4.1 Food Safety Management System \nTMP Name \nFood Safety Management System: Hazard Analysis Critical Control \nPoints (HACCP) Plan for Maize Chain in Kenya \nCategory (i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or \nmanagement \npractice) \nManagement Practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nThe presence of chemical, biological and physical hazards within the \nMaize value chain in Kenya have a direct effect on consumer’s health. \nThere is increasing demand for high quality of the crop and other products \nwhere it is incorporated, from consumers and public health departments in \ncounties. \nThe biological contaminations previously reported on this value chain \ninclude presence of Escherichia coli (E. coli), Salmonella spp., \nAspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. The chemical hazards are \nmainly due to heavy metal presence such as lead/mercury/cadmium; while \nexceedance of MRLs been reported. These hazards are suspected to cause \nneurological disorders, cancer and birth defects. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nFood safety management system (FSMS) through Hazard Analysis and \nCritical Control Point (HACCP) in Maize value chain is a system of food \nsafety monitoring and control based on the systematic identification and \nassessment of various hazards. It is a preventive, rather than a reactive, \ntool that places the protection of the Maize supply from biological, \nchemical and physical hazards into the hands of food management \nsystems. The system is designed to minimize the risk of food safety \n\n306 \n \nhazards by identifying the hazards, establishing controls and monitoring \nthese controls. \nJustification \nThere is increasing demand for high quality of the crop and other products \nwhere it is incorporated, from consumers and public health departments in \ncounties. The chemical hazards are mainly due to heavy metal presence \nsuch as lead/mercury/cadmium; while exceedance of MRLs been reported.\nThese hazards are suspected to cause neurological disorders, cancer and \nbirth defects. There is need to put in place risk analysis and hazard \nmonitoring and management system to ensure that food contaminants are \nkept at bay along the Maize value chain. Presence of these contaminants \nnot only poses serious risks to human health and trade. Such tools are used \nglobally and even adapted by Codex Alimentarius as a global acceptable \nFSMS. This will set limitation values for monitoring so that action can be \ntaken if the set point values of hazards are out of the defined range as \nrequired. Parameters will be quantified for production, harvesting, \nprocessing, distribution and value addition", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nMaize value chain actors from farmers, traders, processors, food vendors \nand consumers. \nApproaches to be used \nin dissemination \nTraining of stakeholders on GAP, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) \nand Good Hygiene Practice (GHP) \nMaize innovation platforms \nFFBS sessions \nThrough common interest groups discussions, field days, exhibitions, \nradio, TV and social media (Whats App, Facebook, Twitter). \nCritical/essential \nfactors for successful \npromotion \n Formation of “experts” team composed of HACCP specialists, \nfood scientists, microbiologists, representative of the Maize (and \nother similar crops) value chain players, public health officers, and \na quality control and safety specialists from the competent \nauthorities to guide the process \n Local and National governments support \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor scaling up and \ntheir respective roles. \n KALRO, National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and \ninternational research organizations \n Market players \n Farmers/farmer groups \n County governments, central governments e.g. Chiefs, Agricultural \nExtension (Formal and informal) for policy, awareness and \ndissemination \n NGOs for farmer organizing and mobilization e.g. SACDEP \n National competent authorities \n Analytical testing services \n Processors and local traders", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where \nalready promoted if \nany \nNot promoted in any county of Kenya \n\n307 \n \nCounties where \nTIMPs will be up \nscaled \nAll counties growing and consuming Maize in Kenya. \nChallenges in \ndevelopment and \ndissemination \n Inadequate funds to reach value chain actors \n New concept not very well known among the primary stakeholders \nand market outlets \nSuggestions for \naddressing the \nchallenges \n Funding of dissemination platforms \n Training of all stakeholders on food safety \nLessons learned in up \nscaling, if any \n None since scaling up has not been done \nSocial, \nenvironmental, policy \nand market \nconditions necessary \nfor development and \nup-scaling \n Maize being observed by stakeholders as a food and commercial \ncrop that requires protection from contamination \n Use of less toxic crop protection methods in handling crop health \nissues \n Establishment of practical and acceptable food handling protocols \nat both county and National levels", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nTo be determined \nEstimated returns \nTo be determined \nGender issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling \nup \n Women and youth might not be aware of the existing hazards, \ntheir preventive measures and control \n Women and youth might to be aware of the impact identified \nhazards could have to their health \n In harvesting and processing Maize to meet the acceptable national \nstandards, women and youth play critical roles. \n Therefore, there is need to build the capacity of women and youth \nin the identifications of food safety hazards/risks and the control \nmeasures along Maize value chain \n Women and youth lack finances \nGender related \nopportunities \n Opportunities exist for women and youth in the marketing and use \nof Maize and it’s by products as an entrepreneurship. \nVMG issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling \nup \n VMGs have limited access to production resources such as land, \nknowledge, information, extension training, and credit and quality \nseed. \n VMGs have limited participation in decision making at community \nand County level \n Require strategies that target the VMG during scaling up of the \nMaize value chain. \nVMG related \nopportunities \n Identification of critical limits to be defined \n Control measures to be identified \n Criteria for compliance already clearly defined for adoption", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Food Safety Management System]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nN/A \nApplication \nguidelines for users \nHACCP general guidelines - https://www.fao.org/fao-who-\ncodexalimentarius/codex-texts/codes-of-practice/en/ \nGeneral principles of food hygiene - https://www.fao.org/fao-who-\n\n308", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Food Safety Management System", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.4.2 Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize \ncodexalimentarius/sh-\nproxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%25253A%25252F%25252Fworkspace.fao.or\ng", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nReadiness (1. Ready \nfor up scaling; 2. \nRequires validation; \n3. Requires further \nresearch) \nReady for up scaling;", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, FCRI Njoro; Email director.fcrinjoro@kalro.org \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-HRI Thika; E-mail: \ndirector.hri@kalro.org \nDirector, KALRO Seeds, E-mail: info.ptc@kalro.org \nThe Centre director, KALRO-Muguga Email: kalro.FCRC@kalro.org \nThe Centre director, KALRO-Kabete; E-mail: cd.narl@kalro.org \nThe Institute director, KALRO-FCRI Kitale; E-mail: \ndirector.fcri@kalro.org \nLead organization \nand scientists \n Mr. John N. Ndung’u, FCRI - KALRO Njoro \nAntony Nyaga, KALRO Seeds Thika \nDr. Francis Wayua, KALRO Kakamega \nDr. Lusike Wasilwa, Crops Director, KALRO Headquarters \nMrs. Violet Kirigua, KALRO Headquarters \nBeatrice Wanjiku, KALRO Njoro \nPartner organizations MoA, AFA, FPEAK, PCPB, AAK, KEPHIS, KEBS, County \ngovernments, NGO’s and Universities. \nTIMPs name \nGood Agricultural Practices (GAPs) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nDetection of food contaminants in both fresh produce and cereals, \nincluding Maize, has been rampant. The detection has been in both \nwhole grain and processed products. This results in declining food \nsafety and quality, therefore frustrating sustainable farming of these \ncrops for both food and income generation. Most market continue to \nimpose more stringent measures (to ensure safety of consumers) for \nthose wishing to access the said markets. These contaminants also \nimpact negatively on the environment, worker safety and health, and \nconsequently making it difficult to implement traceability as most \nproducers do not give accurate information on inputs and processes \nused during production, to avoid commercial losses and even \nprosecution \n\n309 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nIt is a systematic process of implementing a standardized production \nsystem globally designed to reassure consumers about how food is \nproduced on the farm, pre-farm gate or on-farm standards (It is not \nabout a specific crop production but the process through which \nproduction takes). The four 'pillars' of GAP (economic viability, \nenvironmental sustainability, social acceptability and food safety and \nquality) are included in most private and public sector standards, but \nthe \nscope \nwhich \nthey \nactually \ncover \nvaries \nwidely. \nCommercialization of Maize on the domestic and the future export \nlevel highly depends on compliance to these market standards \nJustification \nThere is need to arrest the rampant detection of food contaminants in \nMaize. Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) is based on the principals\nof risk prevention, risk analysis, sustainable agriculture [by means of \nIntegrated \nPest \nManagement \n(IPM) \nand \nIntegrated \nCrop \nManagement (ICM)] to continuously improve farming systems. \nGAP is of utmost importance in protecting consumer health by \nensuring safety throughout the food chain. It needs to be enforced \nand transparent not only from the table but also upstream to include \nsuppliers (e.g. quality of fertilizers and plant protection products) \nand all the value chain players including providers of logistics and \nfarm equipment.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n All value chain players including producers, extension staff, \n Processors, transporters and market outlet operators \nincluding wholesale and retail chains, \n Domestic markets and farm gate handlers. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n FFBS, On-farm experimentation and dissemination, field \ndays, shows, farmer to farmer communication, leaflets, and \nlarger plot demonstrations. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Policy support from government particularly the enforcement \nof KS1758 (a domestic scope standard that has been passed \nafter undergoing the public participation stage). \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Producer organizations (FPEAK, FPC, KFC, AGAK etc), \nNCPB, Seed Companies, Transporters, NGO’s, MOALID, \nPrivate extension providers, CoG, and other value chain \nplayers.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nIt has not been adapted my most cereal growers other than \nprevention of afratoxin. For other fresh produce crops, already \npromoted in Meru, Embu, Nyeri, Nyandarua, Muranaga, Embu, \nKirinyaga, Kisii, Uasingishu, Nakuru, Kericho, Bomet and other \nhorticultural hot spots \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe up scaled \nAll counties in Kenya particularly where Maize is grown \nChallenges in \ndissemination \n Lack/inadequate knowledge on the benefits GAPs \n Lack of legislative mechanisms to support the GAP, in \nparticular the domestic scope \n The perception that GAP is oppressive rather than supportive \n\n310 \n \nRecommendations for \naddressing the challenges \n Continuous training of farmers, extension staff and other \nvalue chain players \nLessons learned in up \nscaling, if any \n The low number of stakeholders aware of GAP \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary \n Supportive policy of national and county governments to \npromote adaption of GAP’s.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nDifficult to put monetary gains figures as most involves social and \nwelfare issues in addition to markets lost due to non-compliance \nEstimated returns \nBenefits are mostly social welfare issues in addition to additional \nmarkets accessed \nGender issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination adoption and \nscaling up, \n Women and youth have less access to factors of production \nlike land and credit In most households, it is the men who \nmake decision on what to do and how it is done \n Women may not have time and mobility to attend trainings \nand other extension activities far from home or held at times \nwhen they are performing other domestic roles \n Women have limited access to markets as they sometimes \ncannot travel to far markets due to their domestic roles \n Women might not be aware of GAPs due to their low level of \neducation and the social economic status \n There is need for all the stakeholders to be sensitized in \nGAPs to achieve good profits from their Maize products \nGender related \nopportunities \n Agro-enterprise development by youth, females and males \nbased on GAPs \n Increased income due to improved income as a result of \nusing GAPs by the youth, females and males \nVMG issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n VMGs have less access to GAPs as they are not given \nchances to participate in agricultural trainings and workshops \n VMGs have less access to farmer organization \n VMGs have less access to farm implements VMGs have \nlimited access credit to purchase the required GAPs \n VMGs have limited access to training on GAPs and \nextension services \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded from \ndecision making in development and dissemination of GAPs \n There is low adoption by VMGs due lack of awareness \nVMG related opportunities \n Agro-enterprise development by VMGs based on GAPs \n Increased income due to improved yield because of using \nGAPs, market access for the VMGs \n Increased employment for VMGs and improved food \nsecurity", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nThis has not been done for Maize. However, Small, holders in \ngroups in the counties of Kirinyaga, Nyeri, Meru, Nakuru and other \ncounties have been able to produce and export produce that is \n\n311", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for maize", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.4.3 Aflasafe KE01TM \nTIMP Name \nAflasafe KE01TM \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nTechnology", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nAflatoxin contamination of maize before harvesting \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nAflasafe KE01 is a pre-harvest bio-control agent that reduces \naflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and in \nstorage. It is applied preharvest but has postharvest benefits. \nAflasafe is mainly roasted sterile sorghum (99.7% of the \nproduct), coated with four atoxigenic (i.e. non-poisonous \nproducing) types of A. flavus native in Kenya. To avoid \nconfusion with sorghum for food, Aflasafe is dyed blue using \nfood colour. Aflasafe is broadcast by hand 2-3 weeks before \nflowering at the rate of 10 kg/ha (4 kg/acre). The friendly \nAflasafe fungi grow out and eliminate the aflatoxin producing \ntypes of A. flavus. Hence, maize at harvest will have reduced \nlevels of aflatoxins. \ncertified after adopting and complying with GAP’s. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nGlobal GAP Version 6 (Code Ref: IFA V5.2_Feb19; English \nVersion Versionn /Edition Update Register Page: 45 of 45) -\nhttps://www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents \nKALRO-USAID Training And Extension Manual On Good \nAgricultural Practices (Gap) - Nov. 2017", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nreadiness (1. Ready for \nupselling; 2. Requires \nvalidation; 3. Requires \nfurther research \nReady for up scaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nDirector, KALRO Seed –Thika; info.ptc@kalro.org \nCentre Director KALRO Njoro, \nCentre Directors; KALRO Kandara, \nKALRO NSRC; \nDirector General KALRO \nLead organization and \nscientists \nKALRO: Nyaga A., Ndungu J., Gatambia E., Kambo C., Kuria, S \nMusyoki R. Wasilwa, L., Kirigua, V., Muriuki SJN. \nPartner organizations and \ntheir roles \nMoALF&I, AFA, FPEAK, FPC, PCPB, AAK, KEPHIS, \nCounty governments, NGO’s, Universities \n\n312 \n \n \nJustification \nAflatoxin contamination in maize is a serious food safety concern\nand with dire public health consequences, including death if\ncontaminated maize is consumed. Aflasafe is a natural pre-harvest\nbiocontrol product that reduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by \n80-99% at harvest and in storage.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and Business School (FFBS), Agricultural \ninnovation platforms (AIP), Extension publications, On-farm \ndemonstrations, Farmer field days, Farmer training, Agricultural \nshows and exhibitions as well as farmer to farmer training, On \nfarm and on station research trails and demonstrations, Training \nworkshops and seminars, Public and private agricultural service \nproviders, Farmer to farmer extension, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors \nfor successful promotion \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders, \n Prior to broadcasting Aflasafe, the farm should be weeded, \nfertilizer applied, and all other agricultural practices carried \nout. Also follow good harvest and postharvest practices, \n Participatory implementation, stakeholder capacity \nbuilding and networks, \n Availability of Aflasafe closer to farmers by enhancing \ndistribution networks, e.g. using agro-dealers. \n\n313 \n \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Farmers – for activity implementation and promotion, \nExtension service (public and private) – technology transfer \nand dissemination, \n Researchers (KALRO) – for manufacturing Aflasafe KE01 at \nthe KALRO-Katumani factory; establishment of \ndemonstration plots, capacity building of county \nstakeholders, extension workers and farmers, \n International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) – \nbackstopping KALRO during upscaling the aflasafe to other \nmaize growing areas. \n Also testing efficacy of aflasfe in other crops which are prone \nto contamination with aflatoxin. \n Private sector – Koppert Biological Systems, for distributing \naflasafe to farmers. \n Agro-dealers – working with Koppert Biological Systems to \nensure Aflasafe is available at farmers’ reach, especially in \nrural areas. \n CIGs play the role of adoption of the technologies through \ntheir various groups. \n VMGs are recipients of the technologies and will benefit \nfrom the grants as they adopt the technologies.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nMajor maize growing areas in Eastern Kenya (Machakos, Kitui, \nEmbu, Galana Kulalu Scheme) \nCounties where TIMP will \nbe upscaled \nUasin Gishu and Tana River \nChallenges in \ndissemination \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders. \n Lack of knowledge on the public health consequences of \naflatoxin contamination in maize. \n Lack of knowledge on use of Aflasafe to control aflatoxins in \nmaize. Availability of Aflasafe KE01 close to farmers \nSuggestions for \naddressing the \nchallenges \n Eastablish maize innovation platforms. \n Adopting public-private-partnerships, so that the private \nsector (e.g. NGOs and agrovets) can provide aflasafe closer \nto farmers; KALRO is partnering with Koppert Biological \nSystems for distribution of Aflasafe to farmers. Koppert \nBiological Systems, on the other hand, is partnering with \nagro-dealers to ensure \n Aflasafe is available close to farmers. Availing data on the\neconomics and the gains to be made through adoption of\naflasafe (e.g. reduction of aflatoxin contamination and the \nassociated health costs for treatment and management) \nLessons learned in \nupscaling if any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform. \n Involvement of stakeholders and private sector such as \nCIG, CBOs and agrovets enhances adoption Continuous \ncapacity building is key to attitude change. \n\n314 \n \n Consistent trainings, demonstrations and sensitisations \nwould motivate farmers to adopt the technology. \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination and \nadoption and this can be facilitated through innovation \nplatforms \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary for \ndevelopment \nand upscaling \n Adopting public-private-partnerships, so that the private \nsector (e.g. NGOs and agrovets) can provide the aflasafe \ncloser to farmers; Capacity building of farmers on use of \naflasafe", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nKES 201 per kg \nEstimated returns \nAflasafe KE01TM reduces aflatoxin contamination of maize by 80-\n99% at harvest and storage. \nThis also means reduced health costs for treating aflatoxin \npoisoning in the population. The savings in the health sector can be \nused in other sectors of the economy. \nGender issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand \nscaling up \n \nFinancial empowerment where majority of small-scale farmers \nlack funds to acquire inputs including Aflasafe. \n \nSlow information and awareness flow to female farmers due to \nacademic levels. \n \nTraining materials and strategies are not favorable to women \nfarmers. \n \nThe TIMP is easily adoptable after training and many farmers \ncan use the TIMP since it reduces aflatoxin at harvesting and \nduring storage \nGender related \nopportunities \n \nUse of Aflasafe increases farm income through reduction of \nharvest losses, by reducing aflatoxin contamination. \n \nWomen can capitalize on this aspect of maize production to \nreduce harvest losses. \n \nOpportunity for youth and women to venture into business of \ndistributing Aflasafe to farmers (as stockists and agro-dealers). \nTrain women and youth to be part of lead farmers and ToT \nteam for promotion of Aflasafe. \n \nConduct demonstrations in their maize farms, empower the \nwomen and youths by connecting them to financial source \nVMG issues and concerns \nin development, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \nVMGs will need continuous and consistent capacity building to \nlearn the skill. Lack of resources to buy Aflasafe \nVMG related opportunities  \nAdoption of the Aflasafe means reduced losses, hence more \nmaize available for consumption and sale. \n \nThis will enable VMGs to have enough maize to consume, \nhence get macro- and micro-nutrients (especially minerals). \nThere will be more income for the farmers (VMGs). \n \nTrain VMGs to be part of lead farmers and ToT team for \npromotion of Aflasafe. \n \nConduct demonstrations in their maize farms. Empower the \nVMGs by connecting them to financial source", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \n\n315 \n \nSuccess stories from \nprevious similar projects \nSuccess stories from maize producing regions of Eastern Kenya \n(Galana Kulalu scheme, Machakos, Embu and \nTharaka Nithi Counties). Aflasafe reduced afalatoxin contamination \nof maize by 80-99% at harvest and storage. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Aflasafe KE01 leaflets and manuals \n- IITA. 2018. Atehnkeng, J., Mutegi, C., Ortega-Beltran, A., \nAugusto, J., Akande, A. Senghor, L.A. Falade, T. Akello, \nJ., Cotty, P.J. Bandyopadhyay, R. (2018). Management of \nAflatoxins in maize and Groundnuts in Kenya: A Farmers’ \nTraining Manual. IITA.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (Ready for upscaling; \nRequires validation; Requires further research) \nRequire validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Aflasafe KE01TM]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Centre Director, KALRO-Kakamega; P.O. Box 169-50100, \nKakamega \nEmail: francis.wayua@gmail.com, Tel. 0710629683 \nLead \norganization/scientists \nKALRO, F. Wayua, J. Ndambuki, Musila R.N., Ligeyo D.O., \nMurenga M., Nekesa C., Esilaba A.O., Muli B.M., Bett \nC., Nasirembe ., Mwangi H.W., Momanyi V.N., Otipa M., Ndubi J., \nKirigua, V. O. Karanja and Wasilwa, L.A. \nPartner organizations \nIITA, Koppert Biological Systems, Agro-dealers, MoALFC, NGOs, \nCBOs \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Validation to test the use of non-food materials as carriers for \nAflasafe (to replace sterile sorghum, which sometimes is eaten by \npoultry and birds) \n2. Research on use of Aflasafe in other cereal crops such as rice \n \n2.5 \nAgronomic Management Practices", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Aflasafe KE01TM", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.1 Land preparation \nTIMP Name \nLand preparation \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement Practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \n Low yields due to improper land preparation practices \nWhat is it (TIMP description) Maize seeds requires a fine seedbed and conventionally, one \ntractor ploughing followed by one harrowing is adequate. When \nusing animal draft plough, two ploughs are adequate. Proper \nseedbed preparation is prerequisite in controlling weeds, pests \nand diseases and enhancement of O2 and CO2 circulation so as \nto optimize maize plant growth. \n\n316 \n \n \n Land preparation by use of oxen \nJustification \nImproper land preparation leads to low yields. Proper land \npreparation allows weeds to dry and decompose before \nplanting, ensures increased water infiltration, controls pest and \ndiseases and prevent competition from weeds that results in \nsignificant yield loses thus early ploughing/harrowing prior to \nplanting is also crop protection measure.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Farmers \n Research organizations and universities \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \n Seed producers and traders \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n On-farm demonstrations, \n Farmer field schools \n Farmer to farmer \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n Digital platforms \n Media \n Trainings \n Shows/Exhibitions/Field days \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Validates small-scale mechanized land preparation \nmethods. \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \npromotion. \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT trainings. \n Capacity building on the importance of GAPs \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their respective \nroles \n County Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and \nIrrigation: Link to farmers and offer extension services \n Extension services providers mobilise farmers and facilitate \nengagement with farmers \n Farmer platforms (farmer groups, AIPs, FFBS, etc): \nmobilise farmers and facilitate engagement with farmers \n Farmers will test/validate the practice \n KALRO-offer technical backstopping \n NGOs, CBOs for dissemination of management practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and \nfuture scaling up \n \n\n317 \n \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMPs will \nbe upscaled \nTana River, Machakos, Makueni and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Lack of organized farmer groups \n Inadequate farm household labour \n Unavailability of proper farm implements for small-scale \nfarmers \n Limited knowledge on importance of correct land \npreparation practices \nSuggestion for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish farmer groups, \n Enhancing capacity of the farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and training in workshops \n Partnerships with County extension services staff to\nenhance dissemination of information and provide the\nrequired farm implements during dissemination \nLessons learned in upscaling \n Limited knowledge by farmers on land preparation \n Need to create awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days to help farmers gain skills and knowledge \nand increases adoption of new management practices \n Availability of information and land preparation \nimplements that can be used by small-scale farmers is key \nto adoption of the TIMP. \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up and \ntraining for sustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand scaling \n Socially, farming is a way of life though field operations \ndiffer from one community to another due to historical \nexistence. \n For most communities in Kenya, maize is food. \n Existence of different bio-physical environments in target \ncounties which will require innovations in small-scale \nimplements for land preparation e.g the walking tractor. \n Increased productivity will ensure food security and surplus\nfor the market", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of one ploughing and harrowing is KES. 4,500 \nEstimated returns \nReturn of grain KES72,000/- to the total profit of KES 67,500/- \nper acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Maize farmers, majority of whom are women have been \nhaving low yield due to improper land preparation \n Land preparation is a laborious activity for women and also \nincrease labour for women who are usually burdened by \ntheir domestic roles \n Women maize farmers are hesitant in carrying out proper \nland preparation because of the perceived high cost which \nthey are not able to meet \n\n318 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Land preparation techniques in maize such as small-scale \nmechanization will encourage women and youth to \nengage in land preparation activities \n Mechanization of land preparation operation will result to \nyouth employment \n There is need to reach more women groups with \ninformation on site selection and land preparation for \nmaize production \n Make gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of the \nToT team for dissemination of information on site \nselection and land preparation \n Need to target women by conducting demonstrations on \ntheir maize farms \n Adoption of improved Maize production will lead to \nincreased household food and security \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up; \n Land preparation is a labour intensive and laborious for \nVMGs to under take \n The labour cost of adopting this technology might be out of \nreach for the VMGs thus affecting adoption and scaling up. \n The technology demands proper training and access to \ninformation to enable proper implementation, which might \nbe lacking among the VMGs \n Lack of access to information will limit the VMG accessing \nand adopting the technology \n There might be low attendance by VMGs during awareness \nand sensitization campaigns due to physical disabilities, \ncultural norms or insecurity challenges \nVMG related opportunities \n VMGs friendly land preparation techniques such as \nsmall-scale mechanization of maize land preparation \noperations \n Reach more VMGs with information on site selection \nand land preparation for maize production \n Make VMGs friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the ToT team \nfor dissemination of information on site selection and \nland preparation \n Target VMGs by conducting demonstrations on their \nmaize farms \n Adoption of improved maize production will lead to \nincreased food and nutrition security for VMGs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar project \nIn Kaloleni sub-county of Kilifi County, 30 farmers were \ntrained on proper maize crop husbandry and each was \nfacilitated with inputs (for land preparation, seed, basal \nfertilizer) enough to establish one acre of maize crop. The \n\n319 \n \nyields increased from three bags per acres to between 12 and 18 \nbags per acre. This showed that the low yields at farm level \nwere due to inadequate knowledge and the necessary resources \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- What variety do I grow in coastal Kenya - Leaflet \n- Mapendekezo ya kukuza mahindi – Leaflet \n- Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \nStatus of TIMP readiness .1) \nReady for upscaling; 2. \nRequire validation; 3) Require \nfurther research R \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Land preparation]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.1]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B., A. O. Esilaba, R. N Musila \nPartner organizations \nNGOs and County governments to provide agricultural \nextension services, \n \nResearch Gaps \n1. Inadequate promotion of demonstration of proper land preparation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Land preparation", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.2 Maize variety selection \nTIMP Name \nMaize variety selection \nCategory (i.e. \ntechnology, \ninnovation or \nmanagement \npractice) \nManagement Practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow yields due to mismatch of maize varieties in agro ecological \nzones of Kenya \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nVariety selection is choosing the appropriate/recommended maize \nvariety for a given agro ecological zone because it matches the \nclimatic conditions, soil type, tolerance/resistance to pest and diseases \nprevalent in that region and its maturity period fits well in the growing \nseason for the region. Two types of maize varieties exist; open \npollinated variety (OPV) and hybrid. Open pollinated varieties are in \nwhich farmers do not need new seed each season. If farmers follow \nproper selection procedures, they can use farm saved seeds selected \nfrom their harvests up to three seasons after which, they can buy fresh \nseeds from seed stockists. Yields of OPV are lower than hybrids. \nHybrids are high yielding and are liable to segregation. \n\n320 \n \nJustification \nPlanting the recommended maize varieties for a given location is very \nimportant because every variety has extensively been tested and \nrecommended based on climatic conditions, soil type, yield potential, \ntolerance/resistance to pest and diseases or maturity period among\nothers. Planting of recommended improved maize varieties for each \nregion result to high yields and reduces crop failure. Farmers are advised\nto use certified seeds that are available from authorized agents.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, Researchers, Extension service providers, Seed producers, \nNGOs, CBOs \nApproaches to be used \nin dissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n Farmer field days \n On farm and on station research trials and demonstrations \n Farmer training \n workshops and seminars \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs \n Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential \nfactors for successful \npromotion \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain stakeholders \nespecially researchers’ seed companies, agricultural service \nproviders and farmers \n Availability and accessibility of seed of recommended \nvarieties for each agro ecological zone at the right time and at \nan affordable price \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Good marketing models and path ways \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural service \nproviders during dissemination and ToT trainings. \nPartners/stakeholders \nfor scaling up and \ntheir roles \n Farmers will test/validate the practice \n KALRO-Provide management practice and technical \nbackstopping \n County Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries & Irrigation, \nPrivate service providers, -Extension services \n NGOs, CBOs for dissemination of practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounty where TIMP \nhas been promoted (if \nany) \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui, Makueni \nand Tharaka Nithi \nCounty where TIMP \nwill be upscaled \nTana River, Machakos, Makueni and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in \ndissemination \n Limited awareness and poor access to information on matching \nrecommended maize varieties to the right agroecological zones \nto support decision-making \n\n321 \n \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders \n Inorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of information \n Limited information on recommended maize varieties to \nspecific agro ecological zones by agricultural extension service \nproviders (Public and private) \n Limited access to certified maize seeds since most farmers is \nresource-poor. \nSuggestions for \naddressing the \nchallenges \n Constitute a maize innovation platform to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders for information sharing \nthrough field days, workshops and trainings \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and sensitization \ncampaigns and workshops \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension service \nprovides with information on recommended Maize varieties and \ntheir agro ecological zones \n Form Maize CIGs ease dissemination of information \n KALRO Seed Unit and seed companies to ensure timely delivery \nof recommended maize varieties in the right agro- ecological \nzones. \nLessons learned \n Successful scaling up are higher when diverse maize value chain \nstakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform, creation of \nawareness through demonstrations and farmer field days helps \nfarmers to gain skills and knowledge and increases adoption of \nnew technologies \n Capacity building public and private agricultural extension \nservice with information on recommended maize varieties and \ntheir agro- ecological zones is key to successful adoption of the \nTIMP \n Availability of information on - which maize variety to grow \nwhere - is key in making the right choice of variety \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up and \ntraining for sustainability. \nSocial, \nenvironmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions \nnecessary \n Socially, farming is a way of life though field operations differ \nfrom one community to another due to historical existence. \n Different agro ecological zones in Kenya necessitates use of \nimproved maize varieties in these zones failure to which it \nresults to low yields and frequent crop failures. \n For most communities in Kenya, maize is the staple food.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nOne acre requires 8 kg @ KES 300.00 amounting to 2400/- \nEstimated returns \nSeeds contributes KES 28,600/- to the total profit of KES 31,000/- per \nacre \nGender issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling \n Men own land and dominate most decisions at the household \nand community levels yet have no interest in maize production. \nThis may demoralize the women and limit their uptake of \nimproved maize varieties \n Women and youth have limited access to productive resources \n\n322 \n \nup \nsuch as land, credit, and other inputs and therefore may not be \nin a position to make the right choice on recommended varieties \nsince it attracts a cost \n Women and youth have limited access to training on extension \n Women have less access to agricultural information, technology \nand knowledge than men \nGender related \nopportunities \n Empower women and youth to acquire land \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS \n Involve the young people in ToT teams for training on the \nimportance of matching recommended maize varieties with the \nright agro ecological zone \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers to be part \nof FFBS ToT team \nVMG issues and \nconcerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, \nadoption and scaling \nup \n VMGs have limited access to productive resources such as land \nand credit. \n VMGs have limited access to training and extension services. \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded from decision \nmaking in development and dissemination activities. \n There is low adoption by VMGs due lack of awareness \nVMG related \nopportunities \n Empower VMGs to acquire land. \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS ToT team \nfor training on the importance of matching recommended maize \nvarieties with the right agro ecological zones. \n Train VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part of FFBS \nToT team. \n Empower the VMGs who want to buy seed of improved maize \nvarieties and other inputs by connecting them to financial source. \nMake friendly training materials with illustrations to \n enhance communication.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nNone \nApplication \nguidelines for users \nReferences \n- Maize: What variety do I grow in coastal Kenya. Leaflet \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension Manual. \nKALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nReadiness (1. \nReady for \nupscaling; 2. \nRequires validation; \n3. Requires further \nresearch) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Maize variety selection]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.2]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. Mtwapa, \nKalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead \norganization/scientists\nKALRO, Muli M.B., A. O. Esilaba, R. N. Musila \nPartner organizations County government and local NGOS \n\n323", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Maize variety selection", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.3 Planting Spacing \nTIMP Name \nPlant Spacing \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement Practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow grain yields due to less or more plant population than \noptimum \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nPlant spacing is the distance within and between rows at which \nseeds are planted. One plant is maintained plant per station. \nOver seeding reduces yield and lowers quality of grains \nbecause of competition for light and nutrients. Optimum maize \nplant population is attained by planting maize in rows at \nrecommended spacing. The recommended spacing and \nplanting density for different areas is as shown in table below \nRegion \nSpacing Density (plants per \nha) Plant population \nHighland 75x25cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n 33,333 \n 75 x 50 cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n 33,333 \nMedium 75 x 30 cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n 44,444 \n 75 x 60 cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n 44,444 \nDry land and coastal 90 x 30 cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n 37,850 \n 90x 60 cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n 37,850 \nJustification \nLow grain yields due to less or more plant population than \noptimum Planting maize in rows and at recommended \nspacing ensures optimum plant population per unit area \nhence reducing intra- and inter- plant competition for \nnutrients, water and sunlight. Row planting ensures uniform \nplant distribution and permits routine farm operations to be \ncarried out with ease due to good spacing between plants \nwhich translates into increased yield and quality.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, extension service providers, researchers, CBOs, \nNGOs \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n On-farm demonstrations, \n Farmer field schools \n Agricultural Innovation platforms \n Digital platforms \n Media \n Trainings \n\n324 \n \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Capacity building on the importance of GAPs \n Active \ninvolvement \nof \npublic \nand \nprivate \nagricultural service providers during dissemination \nand ToT trainings. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n County government: Link to farmers \n Extension services Providers mobilise farmers and \nfacilitate engagement with farmers \n Farmer platforms (farmer groups, AIPs, FFBS, etc): \nmobilise farmers and facilitate engagement with farmers", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounty where TIMP has been \npromoted (if any) \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounty where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nTana River, Machakos and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in dissemination \n Limited knowledge on importance of correct crop spacing \n Manual planting of maize in rows is slow and takes quite a \nlot of time; it is also labour intensive and expensive for \nmajority of small holder farmers \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate interaction\nof farmers with relevant stakeholders \n Unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation \n Limited information on the recommended spacing and\nplanting density for different areas by farmers and\nagricultural extension service providers (Public and\nprivate) \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Promotion of simple and cheap planters for use by small-\nscale farmers and innovate the same for different maize \ngrowing areas \n Government to subsidize price of farm equipment’s \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension \nservice with information on recommended spacing and \nplanting density for different areas. \n Form maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information. \nLessons learned \n Successful scaling up are higher when diverse maize \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, creation of awareness through demonstrations \nand farmer field days helps farmers to gain skills and \nknowledge and increases adoption of new technologies \n Capacity building public and private agricultural \nextension service with information on recommended \nspacing and planting density for different areas is key to \n\n325 \n \nsuccessful adoption of the TIMP \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up \nand training for sustainability \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \nExistence of different maize agro ecological zones in Kenya \nnecessitates availing information on recommended spacing \nand planting density of maize for each agro ecological zone. \nSocially, farming is a way of life though field operations \ndiffer from one community to another due to historical \nexistence. For most communities in Kenya, maize is the \nstaple food. Availability of simple and cheap planters in the \nmarket.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nLabour cost for planting: 6 people x 400/- = 2400.00 \nEstimated returns \nRow planting contributes KES 28,600/- to the total profit of \nKES 31,000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Women perform most of the activities within the maize \nproduction, hence planting in rows will lead to increased \nworkload for women in addition to their domestic role \n Women and youth have limited access to productive \nresources such as land, credit, and other inputs \n Women and youth have limited access to education, \ntraining and extension services, hence might not be aware \nof row planting of maize \n Lack of awareness of the benefits of planting maize in \nrows may lead to low adoption of the technology by \nwomen \n Women and youth have limited access to production \nresources such as land, capital to purchase equipment \nused for making rows in maize production \nGender related opportunities \n Empower women and youth to acquire land \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on the importance of \nusing recommended spacing and planting density for \nincreased maize yields \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers \nto be part of FFBS ToT team \n Empower women and youth who want to buy planters \nand other inputs by connecting them to financial source \n Make \ngender \nfriendly \ntraining \nmaterials \nwith \nillustrations to enhance communication. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs have limited access to production resources such as\nland and credit. \n VMGs have limited access to training and extension \nservices. \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded from \ndecision making in development and dissemination\nactivities. \n There is low adoption by VMGs due lack of awareness \n\n326 \n \nVMG related opportunities \nEmpower VMGs to acquire land for maize production. \nTrain VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS ToT \nteam for training on the importance of using recommended \nspacing and planting density for increased maize yields. \nTrain VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part of \nFFBS ToT team. Empower the VMGs who want to buy \nplanters and other inputs by connecting them to financial \nsource. Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication. Train VMGs to be artisans of \nrecommended small-scale planters.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP \nReadiness (1. Ready for \nupscaling; 2. Requires \nvalidation; 3. Requires further \nresearch) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Plant Spacing]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B, A. O. Esilaba and R. N. Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS to provide agricultural \nextension services. \nResearch Gap \n1. Mechanizing row planting of maize", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Plant Spacing", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.4 Intercropping \nTIMP Name \nIntercropping \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow yields due to continuous monocropping of maize resulting \nto depletion of soil fertility \n\n327 \n \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nIntercropping is growing two or more crops in proximity and \nin various combinations. The most common goal of \nintercropping is to produce a greater yield on a given piece of \nland by making use of resources or ecological processes that \nwould otherwise not be utilized by a single crop. The \npractice allows different crops in terms of rooting, shapes, \nweed suppression, pest repulsion etc. co-exist on the same \npiece of land. \nMaize intercropped with legume \nJustification \nMaize and pulse crop intercropping ensures optimum\nexploitation of the environmental resources, better land use\nefficiency, reduces weed problems through non-chemical\nmethods and increased maize yields with limited resources.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Producers (farmers), \n Research organizations and universities \n Extension Agents (Public and Private) \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n Farmer field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n On farm and on station research trails and demonstrations \n Farmer training, workshops and seminars \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs \n Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Form a platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’ agricultural service \nproviders and farmers \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT trainings. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \nAgricultural Extension: Farmer sensitization for on farm \ndemonstrations. Farmer leaders for group organization. \nNGOs dealing with maize – for dissemination of the practices. \n\n328", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMPs can be \nupscaled \nTana River, Machakos and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in development \nand dissemination \n Limited access to improved seed materials (intercrop \nvarieties) \n Inadequate access of technical materials on the \nestablishment, operations and management of intercrop \nmanagement practice by farmers \n The increased effects of climate change hindering \nadoption \n Farmer have high poverty levels coupled with illiteracy \nespecially in deep rural areas of Kenya \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders \n Unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation. \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Enhance access of certified seed especially for legumes to \nbe used in the intercrop system. \n Train and sensitize farmers on the basic principles of \nintercropping, their benefits and types suitable to their \ncontexts. \n Develop a comprehensive manual on the practice to guide \nfarmers during adoption. \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings. \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops. \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension \nservice providers with information on various \nintercropping system for their locations. \n Form maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information. \n Lessons learned in \nupscaling \n Farmers can use a trap crop to attract pests keeping them \naway from the main crop. Therefore, farmers can easily \nadopt this method to significantly cut down on pesticides \ninput costs. \n The number of ecological benefits provided by this \npractice can also accelerate upscaling. Intercropping \npromotes interactions between crops and pollinators, thus \nsupporting biodiversity. \n Chances of successful scaling up are higher when diverse \nmaize value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform. \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days helps farmers to gain skills and knowledge and \nincreases adoption of new technologies. \n\n329 \n \n Capacity building public and private agricultural extension \nservice providers with information on intercropping system \nis key to successful adoption of the TIMP. \nSocial, environmental, \npolicy and market \nconditions necessary \nSocially accepted by both male and female gender. The \npractice is environmentally friendly as it enhances \nbiodiversity, controls erosion and minimizes use of pesticides", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nLabour cost for planting: 6 people x 400/- = 2400.00 \nEstimated returns \nplanting contributes KES 28600/- to the total profit of KES \n31,000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nDecision making on land use is done by men, limiting \nwomen and youth participation in uptake of the \nmanagement practice \n \nPriorities on intercrops within the gender \n \nGender disparities in access to information may impact \non adoption decisions \nGender related opportunities \n \nIntercropping offers good opportunities to both men and \nwomen to grow diverse crops for economic gains and at \nthe same time offers enhanced biodiversity benefits \n \nTrain women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on the importance of \nusing maize – legume intercrop system for optimum \nexploitation of the environmental resources, better land \nuse efficiency, weed control and increased maize yields \nwith limited resources \n \nTrain women and youth agricultural extension officers to \nbe part of FFBS ToT team \n \nMake gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, \ndissemination, adoption \nand scaling up \n \nVMGs have limited access to inputs and quality seeds \ndue to their low status in society \n \nLimited technical knowhow \nVMG related opportunities \n \nEnhanced crop diversification will generate food and \nincome for VMGs \n \nThe practice is low cost and enhances adoption for VMGs \nAdoption", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nIn Wote, Makueni County, farmers cultivate maize, cowpeas \nand pigeon peas as their staple crops. Food insecurity \nresulting from frequent droughts is a major challenge and \ncrop failure is common, partly because of inadequate rainfall \nand poor soils that are deficient in phosphorous and nitrogen. \nA farmer reported ‘’ I started growing an intercrop of of \nmaize and cowpeas in 2010 and this has transformed my \nfamily’s life. I have been able to get income, build a house, \nhave food to eat and pay school fees for my two children’’ \n\n330 \n \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference: \n- Esilaba, A. O. et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Muli M.B (2019) Evaluation of New Cassava Varieties for \nCompatibility with maize and Cowpea under \nIntercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology \nB 9 (2019) 417-422 doi: 10.17265/2161- \n6264/2019.06.005", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection F:\nF. Status of TIMP \nreadiness: 1. Ready for \nupscaling; 2. Require \nvalidation; and 3. Require \nfurther research \nFurther research needed", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Intercropping]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.4]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M. B., A. O. Esilaba and R. N. Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \n \nResearch gaps \n1. Need to determine compatibility of various crops/varieties under intercropping system \n2. Need to determine the most suitable spatial arrangement of various crops under \nintercropping Fertilizer apportioning in companion crops under intercropping system \nshould be studied", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Intercropping", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.5 Weeding \nTIMP Name \nWeeding \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow yield of maize due to competition with weeds for \nnutrients \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nThe most common practice in weed management is hand \nweeding and use of herbicides. Hand weeding should be \ndone at least three weeks after emergence of the plants \nfollowed by a second weeding three weeks later. Herbicide \napplication for weed control is mostly done before or \nimmediately after planting for post-emergence herbicides \nJustification \nWeeds reduce maize yields by competing for moisture, \nnutrients, space and light. Weeds are also an alternative host \nto pests and diseases. The most critical stage of weed \ncompetition in the life of a maize plant is during the first four \nto six weeks after emergence of the crop. This implies that the \nmaize crop should be weed free within this period.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, extension service providers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n\n331 \n \n Farmer field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations \n Farmer training \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs \n Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive research to test, validate and \npromote methods and frequencies of weeding. \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’ agricultural \nextension service providers and farmers \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy for dissemination of the TIMP \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT \ntrainings Introduce, test and promote user friendly \nmechanical weeders for small-scale farmers \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \n Agricultural Extension for farmer sensitization \n Organized farmer Groups’ \n NGOs dealing with maize for dissemination of the \npractices", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMPs can be \nupscaled \nTana River, Machakos and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in development \nand dissemination \n Manual weeding takes quite a lot of time; it is also \nlabour intensive and expensive for majority of small \nholder farmers and therefore some farmers prefer to \nuse herbicides \n Lack of information on herbicide use \n Lack of user-friendly mechanized weeders for small \nmaize farms \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders \n Unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Introduce, test and adopt user friendly mechanized \nweeders \n Promote use of herbicides \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \n\n332 \n \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops \n Capacity build public agricultural extension service \nproviders with information on weed management in \nmaize production \n Form maize common interest groups (CIGs) to ease \ndissemination of information. \nLessons learned in upscaling \n Adoption of user-friendly mechanized weeders reduces \nthe cost of weeding thus increasing maize yields. \n Availability and proper use of herbicides assists farmers \nin timely management of weeds thus increasing maize \nyields. \n Chances of successful scaling up are higher when \ndiverse maize value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, creation of awareness through \ndemonstrations and farmer field days helps farmers to \ngain skills and knowledge and increases adoption of new \ntechnologies. \n Capacity building public and private agricultural \nextension service providers with information on weed \nmanagement in maize production is key to successful \nadoption of the TIMP. \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up \nand training for sustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \nHave an environmental and safety plan when using \nherbicides, social concerns related to use of agrochemicals, \naddress the environmental and, a functional agro- dealer \nnetwork to supply the products when required by the farmers.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of weeding one acre: 8 people x 400/- x 2 weeding = \n6400/- \nEstimated returns \nWeeding contributes 9400/- to the total profit of KES 31,000/- \nper acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Labour intensity in weeding which are mostly done \nby women and youth \n Financial disempowerment where by women and \nyouth have limited access to production resources \nsuch as land, credit, and other inputs and therefore \nmay not be in a position to purchase mechanical \nweeders and herbicides. \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men \nGender related opportunities \n Youth can be engaged in weed control activity by use \nof herbicide \n User friendly mechanization will create employment \nfor youth \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \n\n333 \n \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on the importance of \nweed management for increased maize yields \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers \nto be part of FFBS ToT team \n Empower women and youth who want to buy \nmechanical weeders, herbicides and other inputs by \nconnecting them to financial source \n Make \ngender \nfriendly \ntraining \nmaterials \nwith \nillustrations to enhance communication \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Weeding in maize is labor intensive for VMGs to \nundertake \n VMG groups could have limitations in accessing weed \ntechnologies due to limited access to agricultural \ninformation and extension \n VMGs have limited funds and resources to purchase \nherbicides due to limited access to credit facilities. \n VMGs might be able to unable to read and understand \nthe protocols and dissemination material written on \nIWM due to illiteracy \n Low attendance by VMGs during awareness and \nsensitization campaigns on agricultural activities \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded from \ndecision making. \nVMG related opportunities \n Train VMGs to be artisans of recommended small-scale \nmechanical weeders \n Empower VMGs who want to buy mechanical weeders, \nherbicides and other inputs by connecting them to \nfinancial source \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS \nToT team for training on importance of weed \nmanagement for increased maize yield \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication. \n Adoption of weeding technologies in maize will lead to \nincreased production of maize and enhanced food \nsecurity and nutrition among VMGs \n Adoption of weeding technologies will lead to increased \nsupply of maize hence increased incomes for VMGs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nIn Kaloleni sub-county of Kilifi County, 30 farmers were \ntrained on proper maize crop husbandry and each was \nfacilitated with inputs (for land preparation, seed, basal \nfertilizer) enough to establish one acre of maize crop. The \nyields increased from three bags per acres to between 12 \nand 18 bags per acre. This showed that the low yields at \nfarm level were due to inadequate knowledge and the \nnecessary resources \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nWhat variety do I grow in coastal Kenya – a leaflet \nMapendekezo ya kukuza mahindi – a leaflet \n\n334", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection F:\nF. Status of TIMP \nreadiness: 1. Ready for \nupscaling; 2. Require \nvalidation; and 3. Require \nfurther research \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Weeding]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.5]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B., A. O. Esilaba and R. N. Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \nResearch Gaps \n1. Capacity building farmers on herbicide use and safe use of herbicides in maize production \n2. Lack of mechanized weeders for small-scale maize farms", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Weeding", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.5", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.6]\n\n2.5.6 Basal fertilizer application", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.6", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.4.6 TIMP Name \nBasal fertilizer application \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow maize productivity as result of poor soil fertility \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nA method of applying small quantity of fertilizer in a hole \nmeant for either seed or seedling during planting of maize. \nSoil fertility management practice options that comprise the \nuse of inorganic fertilizers, locally available organic inputs \nand improved seed, which combined enhance maize yields. \nBasic fertilizer: The recommended basic fertilizers are NPK \nand DAP or organic fertilizers. The application of either \ndepends on the acidic condition of the soil. In acidic soils \nNPK is recommended while in none acidic soils DAP can be \napplied. Apply during planting at the rate of 50kg/acre for \nDAP or 100kg/acre for NPK 23:23:0. Apply the fertilizer in \nthe planting holes then mix with soil to protect the seed from \nscotching. Plant and cover the seed. \nJustification \nSoils in most maize growing areas have either been degraded \nor have low inherent fertility leading to low crop yields. Many \nfarmers in the maize growing regions apply below the \nrecommended fertilizer rates per unit area due to limited \nresources. This implies that farmers do not exploit the full \npotential of the maize variety they choose. Application of the \nrecommended inorganic fertilizers enriched with locally \navailable organic fertilizers significantly enhances maize \nyields by unlocking yield potential of recommended maize \nvarieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nMaize farmers, researchers, environmentalists, County \ngovernments extension workers, input stockists. \n\n335 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n On farm and on station research trails and \ndemonstrations \n Farmer training, workshops and seminars \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs \n Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive research to test, validate fertilizer \ntypes and application rates in different agro ecological \nzones \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’, agricultural \nservice providers, input stockists and farmers \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT \ntrainings \n Vailability of inputs (recommended variety seed) \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \nScientists: Fertilizer application recommendations. Extension \nagents (both private and public): Farmer mobilization, \nparticipatory training. County governments: Fertilizer \nawareness, policy and credit", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu counties \nChallenges in dissemination \n Resource poor farmers may not have the ability to invest \non inorganic fertilizers and improved seed because of \nhigh cost. \n The myth that inorganic fertilizers make the soil hard to \nmanage. \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders. \n Unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation. \n Limited information by farmers and agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private) on the \nimportance of inorganic and organic fertilizers in maize \nproduction \n\n336 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Provision of credit to purchase inorganic fertilizer and \nsubsidizing input prices by the County governments. \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings. \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops on merits of \nfertilizer use to maize yields and encourage them to use \nof organic fertilizers. \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension \nservice providers with information on recommended \ninorganic fertilizer rates for different areas. \n Form maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Chances of successful scaling up are higher when diverse \nmaize value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform. \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days helps farmers to gain skills and knowledge and \nincreases adoption of new technologies. \n Capacity building public and private agricultural extension \nservice with information on fertilizer use in maize \nproduction for increased yields is key to successful \nadoption of the TIMP. \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up \nand training for sustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Need for structured markets to enhance financial returns \nfor farmers in maize production. \n County NEMA officials to certify that the fertilizers have \nno adverse effect to the environment. \n Farmers to be trained on safe handling of the fertilizers.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of fertilizer: 4500/- Cost of labour: 2400/- Total: 6900/- \nEstimated returns \nFertilizer application contributes 12400/- to the total profit of \nKES 55000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nDecision making on land use is done by men, limiting \nwomen and youth participation in uptake of the \nmanagement practice \n \nThe high cost of fertilizers limit impact on women and \nyouth \n \nLand ownership by men limits women and youth access \nto land \n \nMen own land and dominate most decisions at the \nhousehold and community levels yet have no interest in \nmaize production which demoralizes women \n \nWomen perform most of the maize production activities \nsuch as planting, weeding and harvesting hence \nincreases their work burden and therefore do not see the \nneed of using fertilizer which is labour intensive \n\n337 \n \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to production \nresources such as land, credit, and other inputs and \ntherefore may not be in a position to purchase fertilizers \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to training on \nextension issues \n \nWomen have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men \nGender related opportunities \n \nTrain women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on the importance of \nfertilizer use for increased maize yields \n \nTrain women and youth agricultural extension officers \nto be part of FFBS ToT team \n \nEmpower women and youth who want to buy fertilizers \nand other inputs by connecting them to financial source \n \nMake gender friendly training materials with \nillustrations to enhance communication. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n \nVMGs have limited access to production resources such \nas land and credit \n \nVMGs have limited access to training and extension \nservices \n \nDue to their social status VMGs are often excluded from \ndecision making in development and \n \n dissemination activities \n \nThere is low adoption by VMGs due lack of awareness \nVMG related opportunities \n \nEmpower VMGs to acquire land for maize production \n \nTrain VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS \nToT team for training on the importance of using \nfertilizers for increased maize yields \n \nTrain VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part of \nFFBS ToT team \n \nEmpower the VMGs who want to buy fertilizer and other \ninputs by connecting them to financial sources \n \nMake friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nFertilizer use increases maize yield by more than 50% yields in \nmost maize growing areas \nApplication guideline for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Muli, M.B., J.G. Gethi and G.M. Kamau. 2000. The response \nof maize (Zea mays L.) varieties to fertilizer, \nprocessing and storage methods in coastal Kenya. \nProceedings of the 7th KARI Scientific Conference, Nairobi. \n13- \n17 November 2000. Pp179-187", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; 2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling \n\n338", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Basal fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B, A.O. Esilaba, R.N Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \nResearch Gaps \n1. Labour for inorganic fertilizer has become costly hence the need to \nexplore on organic fertilizer their effectiveness and the economics in \nmaize production", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Basal fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.7]\n\n2.5.7 Top-dressing fertilizer application", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.7", "section_label": "" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection header:\n2.4.6 TIMP Name \nTop-dressing fertilizer application \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem to be addressed \nLow soil fertility resulting in low maize productivity \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nCalcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) fertilizer is used for top \ndressing when the crop is 2-3 weeks after planting, when the \ncrop is about 45cm high). In most cases, the optimum is around \nthe 8-10 leaf stage for top dressing fertilizer for maize. Apply \nat the rate of 50 kg per acre if in a low rainfall area, while in \nareas with high rainfall, apply the fertilizer in two splits. The \nfertilizer is applied around the crop avoiding direct contact to \nprotect the crop from scotching. CAN contains 28% nitrogen \ntypically and is rapidly and efficiently taken up by plants. \nWeeding and thinning should be done before top dressing \nJustification \nSoils in most maize growing areas have either been degraded \nor have low inherent fertility leading to low crop yields. Many \nfarmers in the maize growing regions apply below the \nrecommended fertilizer rates per unit area due to limited \nresources. This implies that farmers do not exploit the full \npotential of the maize variety they choose. Application of the \nrecommended inorganic fertilizers enriched with locally \navailable organic fertilizers significantly enhances maize \nyields by unlocking yield potential of recommended maize \nvarieties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \n Maize farmers \n Researchers \n environmentalists \n County governments extension workers, \n Input stockists. \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n Farmer field days, Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n On farm and on station research trails and demonstrations \n Farmer training, workshops and seminars \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n\n339 \n \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs \n Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets and \nmanuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive research to test, validate fertilizer \ntypes and application rates in different agro ecological \nzones \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’, agricultural service \nproviders \n input stockists and farmers \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT trainings \n Availability of inputs (recommended variety seed). \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n Scientists: Fertilizer application recommendations. \n Extension agents (both private and public): Farmer \nmobilization, participatory training. \n County governments: Fertilizer awareness, policy and \ncredit", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu counties \nChallenges in dissemination \nResource poor farmers may not have the ability to invest on \ninorganic fertilizers and improved seed because of high cost. \nThe myth that inorganic fertilizers make the soil hard to \nmanage. Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders. \nUnorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation. Limited information by farmers and agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private) on the \nimportance of inorganic and organic fertilizers in maize \nproduction \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n \nProvision of credit to purchase inorganic fertilizer and \nsubsidizing input prices by the County governments. \n \nConstitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings. \n \nEnhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops on merits of \nfertilizer use to maize yields and encourage them to use \nof organic fertilizers. \n \nCapacity build public and private agricultural extension \n\n340 \n \nservice providers with information on recommended \ninorganic fertilizer rates for different areas. \n \nForm maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n \nChances of successful scaling up are higher when \ndiverse maize value chain stakeholders collaborate in \nan innovation platform. \n \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days helps farmers to gain skills and \nknowledge and increases adoption of new technologies. \n \nCapacity building public and private agricultural \nextension service with information on fertilizer use in \nmaize production for increased yields is key to \nsuccessful \n \nAdoption of the TIMP. Farmers need initial financial \nresources to start them up and training for sustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \nNeed for structured markets to enhance financial returns for \nfarmers in maize production. County NEMA officials to certify \nthat the fertilizers have no adverse effect to the environment. \nFarmers to be trained on safe handling of the fertilizers.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of fertilizer: 4000/- Cost of labour: 2400/- Total: 6400/- \nEstimated returns \nFertilizer application contributes 12400/- to the total profit of \nKES 31,000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Men own land and dominate most decisions at the \nhousehold and community levels yet have no interest in \nmaize production which demoralizes women \n \nDecision making on land use is done by men, limiting \nwomen and youth participation in uptake of the management \npractice \n Women perform most of the maize production activities \nsuch as planting, weeding and harvesting hence increases \ntheir work burden and therefore do not see the need of \nusing fertilizer which is labour intensive \n Women and youth have limited access to production \nresources such as land, credit, and other inputs and \ntherefore may not be in a position to purchase fertilizers \n Women and youth have limited access to training on \nextension issues \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men \n The high cost of fertilizers limit impact on women and youth \n\n341 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Empower women and youth to acquire land. \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of the \nFFBS ToT team for training on the importance of fertilizer \nuse for increased maize yields. \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers to \nbe part of FFBS ToT team. \n Empower women and youth who want to buy fertilizers \nand other inputs by connecting them to financial source. \n Make gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Capacity build women and youth to be lead farmers and \npart of the FFBS ToT team for training on the importance \nof fertilizer use for increased maize yields \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers to \nbe part of FFBS ToT team \n Empower women and youth who want to buy fertilizers \nand other inputs by connecting them to financial source \n Make gender friendly training materials with illustrations \nto enhance communication. \nVMG related opportunities \n Vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) to be \nempowered to acquire land for maize production. \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS ToT \nteam for training on the importance of using CAN fertilizers \nfor increased maize yields. \n Train VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part of \nFFBS ToT team. \n Empower the VMGs who want to buy fertilizer and other \ninputs by connecting them to financial source. \n Make friendly training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories from previous \nsimilar projects \nFertilizer use increases maize yield by more than 50% yields in \nmost maize growing areas \nApplication guideline for \nusers \nReferences \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya \n- Muli, M.B., J.G. Gethi and G.M. Kamau. 2000. The response \nof maize (Zea mays L.) varieties to fertilizer, \nprocessing and storage methods in coastal Kenya. \nProceedings of the 7th KARI Scientific Conference, Nairobi. \n13- \n17 November 2000. Pp179-187", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1-ready for upscaling; \n2- \nrequires validation; 3-requires further research) \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Top-dressing fertilizer application]\n[Category: Good Agricultural Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Good Agricultural Practices]\n[Section: 2.4.6]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B, A.O. Esilaba, R.N Musila \n\n342 \n \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \nResearch Gaps \n1. Labour for inorganic fertilizer has become costly hence the need to \nexplore on organic fertilizer their effectiveness and the economics \nin maize production", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Top-dressing fertilizer application", "aez": "Good Agricultural Practices", "category": "Good Agricultural Practice", "section_code": "2.4.6", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.8 Timely harvesting \nTIMP Name \nTimely harvesting \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow yield and poor quality of maize grain harvested due to \npoor timely harvesting of maize from the field. \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nMaize should be harvested at physiological maturity. Maize \nfor the green market is ready for harvest: When the grain \nhardens or when the silky flowering at the top of the maize \ncob turns black. Maize for dry grain should be harvested \nwhen: Most leaves have dried up, cob husks are no longer \ngreen, stalks turn yellow or brown, cobs begin to droop on the \nstalk, kernels show a black layer between the seed and point \nof attachment to the cob, grains are hard and not milky and \ncobs are no longer good for roasting. \n \n \nDry maize ready for harvesting \nJustification \nMaize should be harvested at physiological maturity to avoid \nlosses caused by delayed harvesting, left overs during stooking, \npoor supervision during de-husking and spillage during \ntransportation to the homestead stores.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nProducers (farmers), extension agencies \n\n343 \n \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and Business School (FFBS), Agricultural \ninnovation platforms (AIP), Farmer field days, Agricultural \nshows and exhibitions, On farm and on station research trails \nand demonstrations, Farmer training, workshops and seminars, \nPublic and private agricultural service providers, Farmer to \nfarmer extension, Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets \nand manuals), Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Introduce and adopt mechanical harvester and shellers \nfor small-scale farmers, \n Applied and adaptive research to test, validate \nharvesting options. \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’, engineers, \nagricultural service providers and farmers. \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy. \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination. \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT \ntrainings. \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \nCounty government – To provide extension services, farmer \nmobilization and policy formulation. KALRO Engineers \nto fabricate mechanical harvesters and shellers. NGOs– to \nprovide support on capacity building and micro-financing \nservices. Farmer leaders for group organization", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMPs can be \nupscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in development \nand dissemination \n Manual harvesting of maize is slow and takes quite a \nlot of time; it is also labour intensive and expensive \nfor majority of small holder farmers. \n Lack of user-friendly mechanized harvesters for small \nmaize farms. \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders. \n Unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation. \n Limited information by farmers and agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private) on \nhow to correctly assess maize physiological maturity \nfor timely harvesting. \n\n344 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Introduce, test and adopt user friendly mechanized \nharvesters and shellers for small-scale farmers. \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings. \n Enhance capacity of farmers through awareness and \nsensitization campaigns and workshops. \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension \nservice providers with information on maize \nphysiological maturity for timely harvesting to avoid \npost-harvest losses. \n Form maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nTimely harvesting of maize reduces postharvest losses. \nAdoption of user-friendly mechanical harvesters saves time \nand labour and reduces postharvest losses. Chances of \nsuccessful scaling up are higher when diverse maize value \nchain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation platform. \nCreation of awareness through demonstrations and farmer \nfield days helps farmers to gain skills and knowledge and \nincreases adoption of new technologies. Farmers need initial \nfinancial resources to start them up and training for \nsustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \nPolicies targeting the empowerment of women and youth as \nentrepreneurs in society. Subsidy in inputs and supply", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nCost of harvesting one acre: 10 people x 400/- = 4000/- \nEstimated returns \nHarvesting contributes KES 5900/- to the total profit of KES \n31,000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n Women have limited access to credit and may not in \nmechanical manage to buy harvesters and shellers which \nare costly \n Women and youth have limited access to production \nresources such as land, quality seed and credit \n Men own land and dominate most decisions at the \nhousehold and community levels yet have no interest in \nmaize production \n Women perform most of the maize production \nactivities such as planting, weeding and harvesting \nhence increasing their work load \n Women and youth have limited access to training and \nextension extension \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men \n\n345 \n \nGender related opportunities \n Mechanizing maize harvesting will reduce labour \nincurred during harvesting and reduce post-harvest loses \ndue to timely harvesting of maize \n Mechanical harvester and shellers for small-scale \nfarmers this will create employment for youth \n Youth may participate in transportation of harvested \nmaize produce to the homestead \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on importance of \nobserving maize physiological maturity for timely \nharvesting to avoid post-harvest losses \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers to \nbe part of FFBS ToT team. \n Empower women and youth who want to mechanical \nharvesters and shellers and other inputs by connecting \nthem to financial source. \n Make gender friendly training materials with \nillustrations to enhance communication. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs have limited access to maize production \nresources such as land and credit. \n VMGs have limited access to training and extension \nservices. \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded \nfrom decision making in development and \ndissemination activities. \n There is low adoption by VMGs due to lack of \nawareness \nVMG related opportunities \n Empower VMGs to acquire land for maize production \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS \nToT team for training on importance of observing \nmaize physiological maturity for timely harvesting to \navoid post-harvest losses \n Train VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part \nof FFBS ToT team \n Empower the VMGs who want to access mechanical \nharvesters and shellers plus other inputs by connecting \nthem to financial source \n Make simple training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nNone \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReference \n- Esilaba, A.O.et al. (2021). KCEP-CRAL Maize Extension \nManual. KALRO, Nairobi, Kenya. \nhttps://www.kalro.org/maize_post_harvesting \n\n346", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection F:\nF. Status of TIMP \nreadiness: 1. Ready for \nupscaling; 2. Require \nvalidation; and 3. Require \nfurther research \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Timely harvesting]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.8]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-ICRI Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-\n80109. Mtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: \n0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B, A.O. Esilaba, R.N Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \nResearch Gap \n1. Mechanization of maize harvesting for small-scale farmers", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Timely harvesting", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.8", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection header:\n2.5.9 Crop rotation \nTIMP Name \nCrop rotation for increased yield \nCategory (i.e., technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow yield of maize due to nutrient mining as a result of mono-\ncropping \nWhat is it? (TIMP \ndescription) \nCrop rotation is the practice of growing different crops in \nsuccession on the same land chiefly to preserve the \nproductive capacity of the soil. It’s a practice of growing \ndifferent types of crops (or none at all) in the same area over \na sequence of seasons. A basic principle of crop rotation is \nto avoid growing the same crop for consecutive years and \nprinciples of crop production is interchanging of tap root \ncrops with fibrous root crops, leguminous with non-\nleguminous, avoidance of crop of same family follows one \nanother to avoid pest and diseases build up. Different types \nof plants derive nutrients from different levels in the soil \nprofile \nJustification \nChanging crops routinely allows the land to remain fertile, \nsince not all of the same nutrients are being used each season. \nFor example, planting a legume such as cowpeas, helps to \nreplenish necessary nitrogen in the soil. Crop rotation can help\nto manage soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, improve soil health\nand increase nutrients availability to plants.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nProducers (farmers), extension agencies \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \n Farmer field and Business School (FFBS) \n Agricultural innovation platforms (AIP) \n Farmer field days \n Agricultural shows and exhibitions \n On farm and on station research trials and \ndemonstrations \n Farmer training, workshops and seminars \n\n347 \n \n Public and private agricultural service providers \n Farmer to farmer extension \n Mass media – Agricultural programs, Promotional \nmaterials (posters, brochures, leaflets and manuals), Web \nmaterial’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Easy access of crop varieties that are compatible with \nassociated crops planned for crop rotation \n Applied and adaptive research to test and validate \n Technical packages describing appropriate schedules of \ncrop rotation \n Package on fertilizer rates and regimes under the \npractice \n A platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders especially researchers’, agricultural service \nproviders, seed companies, input stockists and farmers \n Implementation of Farmer field and Business School \n(FFBS) strategy \n Well organized farmer groups and networks for ease of \ndissemination \n Active involvement of public and private agricultural \nservice providers during dissemination and ToT trainings \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up \nFarmers, farmer groups for capacity building and adoption. \nCounty government – to provide extension services, farmer \nmobilization and policy formulation. NGOs– to provide \nsupport on capacity building and micro-financing \nservices", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted, if any \nKwale, Kilifi, Lamu and Taita Taveta, Embu, Machakos, Kitui \nMakueni and Tharaka Nithi \nCounties where TIMPs can be \nupscaled \nTana River and Uasin Gishu \nChallenges in development \nand dissemination \n The increased effects of climate change hindering \nadoption. \n Limited access and narrow distribution of seed \nmaterials – appropriate varieties for crop rotation. \n Inadequate access of technical materials on the \nestablishment and management of crop rotation \npractices by farmers. \n Limited farmland sizes which limit the practice of crop \nrotation. \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders. \n unorganized farmer groups to ease dissemination of \ninformation. \n Limited information by farmers and agricultural \nextension service providers (Public and private) on the \nimportance of crop rotation in maize production. \n\n348 \n \nSuggestions for addressing \nthe challenges \n Enhance access of appropriate seed materials across \nthe counties - work closely with certified seed \nmerchants, research institutions \n Train and sensitize farmers on the basic principles of \ncrop rotation, the benefits and types suitable to their \ncontexts. \n Develop a comprehensive manual on the practice to \nguide the farmers during the adoption. Rotate with high \nvalue pulse crops to maximize on income from a small \narea. \n Constitute maize innovation platform to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders for \ninformation sharing through field days, workshops and \ntrainings. \n Capacity build public and private agricultural extension \nservice providers with principles of crop rotation in \nmaize. \n Form maize CIGs to ease dissemination of information \nLessons learned in upscaling \n The practice is very important in pest management and \nreplenishment of soil fertility in the soil. \n The number of ecological benefits provided by this \npractice accelerates upscaling. \n Chances of successful scaling up are higher when \ndiverse maize value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform. \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field days helps farmers to gain skills and \nknowledge and increases adoption of new technologies. \n Capacity building farmers and, public and private \nagricultural extension service with information on \nimportance of crop rotation in maize production for \nincreased yields is key to successful adoption of the \nTIMP. \n Farmers need initial financial resources to start them up \nand training for sustainability. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Crop rotation can help to manage soil fertility, reduce \nsoil erosion, improve soil health and increase nutrients \navailability to plants and therefore need to create \nawareness on the benefits of crop rotation. \n Crop rotation places emphasis on the importance of \nusing available land space to grow diverse food crops, \nincrease biodiversity, manage pests thus the practice is \neconomically viable.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \n Cost of one ploughing and harrowing is KES. 4,500 \nEstimated returns \n Seeds contributes 6650/- to the total profit of KES \n31,000/- per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \n Increased workload will burden women who perform \nmost of the activities within the maize chain \n\n349 \n \nadoption and scaling up \n Women and youth have limited access to productive \nresources such as land, credit, and other inputs so they \nmight not be able to adopt the TIMP \n Women and youth have limited access to education, \ntraining and extension services than men hence might \nnot be aware of the importance of crop rotation in maize \n Men dominate most decisions at the household and \ncommunity levels hence they determine whether crop \nrotation will for maize will be done \nGender related opportunities \n Crop rotation will be determined to a larger extent by \nhaving access and control of land especially by women \n Train women and youth to be lead farmers and part of \nthe FFBS ToT team for training on the importance of \ncrop rotation in maize production for sustainability of \nmaize yields \n Train women and youth agricultural extension officers to \nbe part of FFBS ToT team \n Empower women and youth who want to buy maize \ninputs by connecting them to financial source \n Make gender friendly training materials with \nillustrations to enhance communication \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs have limited access to production resources such \nas land, credit, and quality seed \n VMGs have limited access to training and extension \nservices \n Due to their social status VMGs are often excluded \nfrom decision making in development and dissemination \nactivities \n There is low adoption by VMGs due to lack of \nawareness \nVMG related opportunities \n Crop rotation places emphasis on the importance of \nusing available land space to grow diverse food crops, \nincrease biodiversity, manage pests, thus the practice is \neconomically viable and cost effective to the advantage \nof VMGs \n Train VMGs to be lead farmers and part of the FFBS \nToT team for training on the importance of crop rotation \nin maize production for sustainability of maize yields \n Train VMGs agricultural extension officers to be part of \nFFBS ToT team \n Empower VMGs who want to buy maize inputs by \nconnecting them to credit source \n Make simple training materials with illustrations to \nenhance communication", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nFarmers have reported improved soil conditions, reduced \nrunoff and nutrient loss, soil moisture retention in soil and \ngenerally increased crop production after application of this \nwidely used and readily available TIMP. \n\n350 \n \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nReferences \n- Charles L. Mohler and Sue Ellen Johnson (Eds) 2009. Crop \nrotation on organic farms: a planning manual \n- FAO 2015. Training manual for Organic Agriculture", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection F:\nF. Status of TIMP readiness: \n1. Ready for upscaling; 2. \nRequire validation; and 3. \nRequire further research \nReady for upscaling", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Crop rotation for increased yield]\n[Category: Agronomic Management Practice]\n[AEZ/Theme: Agronomic Management Practices]\n[Section: 2.5.9]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nThe Institute Director, KALRO-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109. \nMtwapa, Kalro.mtwapa@kalro.org, Phone: 0202024751 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, Muli M.B, A.O. Esilaba, R.N Musila \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and local NGOS \nResearch Gaps \n1. \nLimited crop rotation packages for maize crop rotation with othe crops \n2. \nCost benefit analysis for crop rotation farming system \n \n \n2.6 \nSOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT TIMPS", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Crop rotation for increased yield", "aez": "Agronomic Management Practices", "category": "Agronomic Management Practice", "section_code": "2.5.9", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection header:\n2.6.1 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) \nTIMP name \nIntegrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize productivity 4-8 bags per acre (1-2 tha-1) against a \npotential yield of 35-50 bags per acre ( 8-12 tha-1). The low \nyields are as a result of low and declining soil fertility, low soil \norganic matter, poor soil structure and poor water-holding \ncapacity of soils. \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nISFM is a set of soil fertility management practices that \ninclude the use of fertilizers, locally available organic inputs \nand improved seed combined to adapt practices to local \nconditions. The ISFM places emphasis on the importance of \nusing often scarce resources like fertilizer and organic inputs \nefficiently through techniques such as fertilizer banding (field \napplication of fertilizer directly in area of root-zone to increase \nthe potential for uptake) and micro dosing (applying small \nquantities of fertilizer with the seed at planting time and a few \nweeks after emergence) \nJustification \nSoils within the farming systems are heterogeneous due to \nspatial variability in soil fertility. These inherent differences \narise from the parent material from which the soil has evolved, \nand the position in the landscape that influences how soil \ndevelops. A large proportion of soils in the KCSAP target \nproject counties are derived from some of the oldest land \nsurfaces which, due to weathering and cropping, have low \nnutrients. Where younger, volcanic soils occur these are \ninherently richer in nutrients, but may have other soil fertility \n\n351 \n \nproblems such as fixation of some critical nutrients such as \nphosphorus. Past management of the soils also has a major \ninfluence on soil fertility which in turn influences productivity. \nThese challenges call for an integrated soil fertility \nmanagement (ISFM) approach that combines appropriate \ninterventions on soil management that include fertilizer use \nand crop agronomy. The aim of ISFM is therefore to optimize \nagronomic use efficiency of the applied nutrients for improved \ncrop productivity.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, extension workers, researchers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and Business School (FFBS), Agricultural \ninnovation platforms (AIP). Agricultural shows and exhibitions. \nOn farm and on station research trails and demonstrations. \nFarmer field days, training, workshops and seminars. Public and \nprivate agricultural service providers. Farmer to farmer \nextension. Mass media – Agricultural \nprograms, Promotional materials (posters, brochures, leaflets \nand manuals). Web material’s, Mobile Apps and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \nThese include applied and adaptive research to test, validate \nISFM practice; a platform for interaction of maize value chain \nstakeholders; development of ISFM practices for maize \nproduction; funding research to validate and promote ISFM \npractice in maize production; availability of affordable quality \nmanure and inorganic fertilizers; factors of production-land, \nmoney, labour, crop residues that different farming families are \nable to invest. \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling \nup and their roles \nCommunity farmer groups - play coordination role for ease in \nproblem identification and dissemination. Farmers/farmer \ngroups play a joint-learning role which promotes adoption \nCounty governments, National governments- mobilization and \ninformation dissemination as well as extension (Formal and \ninformal) for policy, awareness and dissemination, \nNGOs play a role in farmer organizing and mobilization, and \nlinking farmers to financial institutions (banks, donors, credit \nfacilitators) for financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nMachakos, Busia, Siaya, Kisumu, Kakamega, Tharaka Nithi, \nIsiolo, Nyeri, Uasin Gishu, Elgeyo Marakwet \nCounties where TIMP will be \npromoted \nBomet, Kericho, West Pokot, TaitaTaveta, Lamu, Nyandarua, \nTana River, Baringo, Marsabit, Garissa, Kajiado, \nLaikipia \nChallenges in dissemination \nLack of ISFM innovation platforms to facilitate interaction of \nfarmers with relevant stakeholders, change of mind-set \nin some regions/cultures that organic manures cannot be applied \non maize, misconceptions that chemical fertilizer damage the \nsoils \n\n352 \n \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Awareness trainings on role of organic manures in \ncrop cultivation, \n Training and awareness creation on the usefulness of \nfertilizer applications to clear the misconceptions about \nfertilizers, \n Establish integrated soil fertility innovation platforms, \nResearch to develop high yielding superior varieties, \nInformation dissemination on production practices, \nPromotion of the variety in the suitable areas, \n Promote marketing models that encourage collective \nproduction and marketing, \n Involve County governments, extension, marketers and \nprocessors to promote value addition and consumption \nin local food systems \nLessons learned if any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when \ndiverse value chain stakeholders collaborate in an \ninnovation platform, \n Creation of awareness through demonstrations and \nfarmer field and business schools help in adoption of \nthe ISFM practice, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development and \nupscaling \n Practice is socially acceptable to farmers and other \nstakeholders, \n Environmentally friendly since it improves soil health, \n Increased productivity will provide supply to the \nmarkets, \n Supporting frameworks/policies are available", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nThis is a technically demanding technology and high cost due to \nthe various ISFM components: certified seed, manure, mineral \nfertilizer, pests and disease control. The average total production \ncost is KES 50,000-60,000 per acre \nEstimated returns \nFarmers who have adopted ISFM technologies have more than \ndoubled maize productivity and increased \ntheir farm-level incomes. Returns at 4 bags/acre= kes 12,000/= \nagainst returns at 35 bags per acre of Kes 55,000/=. \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and dissemination \n \nIt is labour intensive hence may not be adopted by women \nwho are already overburdened. \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to credit to purchase \nthe required inputs such as such as fertilizers than men. \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to land for dry beans \ncultivation than men \n \nWomen have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \nGender related opportunities \n \nOpportunity exist for women to access the required credit \nthrough the women enterprise funds. \n\n353 \n \nVMG related opportunities \n \nAffirmative action in various areas as for instance in the \nprovision of finances to VMGs \n \nIncreased production due to use of the TIMP will lead to \nincreased consumption and utilization of dry beanss and \nhence improved health of VMGs \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and dissemination \n \nIt is labour intensive hence may not be adopted by women \nwho are already overburdened. \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to credit to purchase \nthe required inputs such as such as fertilizers than men. \n \nWomen and youth have limited access to land for dry beans \ncultivation than men \n \nWomen have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nISFM successes have been reported in maize in Kenya highlands. \nA 46-year old long-term experiment at KALRO Kabete has shown \nthat high maize yields can be sustained when manures and mineral \nfertilizers are combined in the production process as soil fertility \namendments. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nAlways use well-adapted, disease- and pest-resistant \ngermplasm/seed to make efficient use of available nutrients. \nEnsure that good agronomic practices are upheld, for \nsustainability, lone use of inorganic or organic materials should \nbe avoided.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1=Ready for upscaling: \n2=Requires validation; 3=Requires further research \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.1]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nCentre Director, KALRO Kabete, P.O. Box 14733-00800, \nNAIROBI Tel: +254-020-2464435 Ext. 300, E- \nmail: cd.narl@kalro.org \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO; E. Gikonyo, C. Kibunja, A. Muriuki, D. Kamau, A. \nEsilaba, J. Ndufa, M. Okoti, C. Kundu and S. Kimani \nPartner organizations \nCounty governments, KEFRI \nResearch Gaps \n- Validation of the ISFM technology in Counties where technology has not been \ntested. \n- Testing (fertilizer types, rates, frequencies) with different value chains \n-", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.1", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection header:\n2.6.2 Integrated Manure Management (IMM) \nTechnology name \nIntegrated Manure Management \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nManagement practice", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize productivity 4-8 bags per acre (1-2 t ha-1) against a \npotential yield of 35-50 bags per acre (8-12 t ha-1) and reduction \nof Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Declining soil fertility\nhas resulted in low crop productivity. To address this challenge,\n\n354 \n \nfarmers have resulted to use of manures, albeit poorly in terms\nof management and handling leading to increased GHG\nemissions \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nIntegrated Manure Management (IMM) is the optimal, site-\nspecific handling of livestock manure from collection, through \ntreatment and storage up to application to crops. \n \n \nJustification \nThe decline in soil fertility in smallholder system is a major \nfactor inhibiting agricultural development on farms. It is \nestimated that soils are being depleted at annual rate of 22 \nkg/ha for nitrogen, 2.5 kg/ha for phosphorous, and 15 kg/ha \nfor potassium. Manure plays an essential role in the nutrient \ncycle where crops grow on land to feed livestock, which in \nreturn feeds the land with their manure. Recycling the (macro \nand micro) nutrients in manure reduces the need for additional \nmineral fertilizer purchase. In general, adding manure to soils \nenhances soil fertility and soil health that leads to increased \nagricultural productivity, improved soil structure and \nbiodiversity. Given the acute poverty and limited access to \nmineral fertilizers, manure has the potential providing the \nlimiting nutrients and improving the soil health.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS), Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP), On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations, Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, Field days, Agricultural shows, Moa/Extension \nofficers, Farmer research networks, Farmer to farmer, Mass \nmedia – Agricultural programs, Promotional (posters, \nbrochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, mobile \nAPPs and SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive Research to test, validate and \nintegrated manure management, \n A platform for interaction ofIMM practice with \nstakeholders, Model demonstration plots using cereal \ncrops, \n Training on management and use of manure, \nDissemination approach used to reach target farmers \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling \nup and their roles \n County government extension services - Provide link \nwith farmers. \n Community farmer groups - play coordination role for \nease in problem identification and dissemination, \n ILRI - Technical backstopping, \n\n355 \n \n NGOs – Micro financing services", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nTharaka Nithi, Kajiado, Uasin Gishu \nCounties where TIMP will be \npromoted \nAll counties where maize is produced \nChallenges in dissemination \n Lack of IMM innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders, \n Limited model demonstration farms, \n Cultural challenges, for instance lack of interest by \npastoral communities, \n Lack of continuity in training of extension and farmers \nin the skill for manure management, \n Lack of proper mobilization mechanism for reaching \nmany farmers \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n \nEstablish IMM innovation platforms, \n Establishment of many IMM demonstration plot by \ncounties, \n Capacity building of pastoral communities on manure \nmanagement and its benefit, \n Continuous capacity building of demonstration farmers \nand extension workers, \n Use of improved approaches to mobilize farmer to \nattend demonstration forums. \nLessons learned if any \n Chances of successful scaling are higher when diverse \nvalue chain stakeholders collaborate in an innovation \nplatform, \n Partnership is important in technology dissemination \nand adoption and this can be facilitated through \ninnovation platforms, \n Proper use of manures improves soil fertility, Use of \nmanures enhances crop productivity, \n Skills in manure preparation, storage and application \nensures efficiency and effectiveness \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary \n Awareness that applying manure to soils saves on \npurchase of inorganic fertilizer, increases crop yield and \nimproves crop water use efficiency. \n Awareness that manure can harbor pathogens which can \ncause disease outbreaks to livestock, \n Awareness that manure affects the environment and can \ncontaminate water sources through leaching of \n nutrients, \n Awareness that organic manures when poorly managed \nand handled can increase GHG emissions.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \n\n356 \n \nBasic costs \nProper handling of manure needs labour for collecting the \nmanure, storing and maintaining it and finally transporting and \napplying it in the field which takes a lot of effort and time, \nManure costs are dependent on type, e.g. goat, sheep, cattle, \npoultry, etc. The basic costs is estimated at KES 20,000-26,000 \nper acre. Using locally available manure often saves on \npurchase of inorganic fertilizer. \nEstimated returns \nThe estimated returns are about Kshs. 52, 000 - 94,000 per acre \nGender issues and concerns in \ndevelopment and dissemination \n It is labour intensive in terms of handling and application \nhence may not be adopted by women who are already \noverburdened. \n Women and youth may also have limited access to inputs \nsuch as manures than men. \n Women have less access to credit to purchase the required \ninpits like manure than men. \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \nGender related opportunities \n Opportunity exists for women to access the required \ncredit through the women enterprise funds. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs may also have limited access to finances to buy \nthe required inputs such as manures than men. \n VMGs have less access to credit to purchase the required \ninpits like manure than men. \n VMGs have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \nVMG related opportunities \n Affirmative action in various areas as for instance in the \nprovision of finances to VMGs. \n Increased production due to use of manure will lead to \nincreased consumption and utilization of dry beans hence \nimproved health of VMGs.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nFarmers who adopt manure management practice have reported \nimproved soil health and increased crop yield, and \nsustainable source of income, e.g. keeping one steer in a \nsmallholder farm measuring 0.45ha in central Kenya produces \nmanure equivalent to 112 kg N/ha/year of whole farm area when \noptimum collection and manure \ncomposting strategies are followed (Lekasi et al, 2001). \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nThe guideline focuses on Livestock housing and manure \ncollection, Manure storage to preserve nutrient and avoid \nloses, Manure treatment for ease of transport and application in \nthe field, Timing of application for maximum utilization by the \ncrop, Anaerobic digestion for biogas production, Regular \nanalysis of manure to ascertain the quality. \nManure/Composts take a long time to cure, hence need good \nplanning prior to use. IMM is always site specific and users \nadvised to only use information relevant to local circumstances", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness (1=Ready for upscaling: \n2=Requires validation; 3=Requires further research \nRequires validation \n\n357", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Integrated Manure Management (IMM)]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.2]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nDirector, Environment & Natural Resource Systems, KALRO \nSecretariat, P.O. Box 57811-00200 \n+254 722 206986/8, Ext 2316 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, S. Kimani, E. Mutuma, D. Kamau, M. Okoti, J. \nWamuongo, A. Esilaba \nPartner organizations \nCounty government and Private Public Partnerships \nResearch Gaps \n1. Promote IMM complementary technology in counties that have not practiced it. \n2. Conduct nutrient budget study on selected farms utilizing manures (including \ncomposts) in each of the 24 counties.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Integrated Manure Management (IMM)", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.2", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection header:\n2.6.3 Rapid soil testing services \nTIMP name \nRapid soil testing services \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice) \nInnovation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the technology, innovation or management practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize productivity 4-8 bags per acre (1-2 tha-1) against a \npotential yield of 35-50 bags per acre ( 8-12 tha-1). Low crop \nyields are obtained since farmers apply soil fertility \namendments which are not based on soil testing to ascertain the \ninherent fertility status. Conventional methods for soil testing\nare not cheap to farmers; results take long and not reproducible,\nConventional methods have not provided solutions for paired \nsoil and leaf testing to determine health of soil and crop \nsimultaneously, Current methods do not provide a framework \nfor large-scale assessment of geo-referenced sampled points\nusing standardized protocols, Limited access to soil testing\nservices (centralized soil testing laboratories and cost) \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nThis is a dry method for soil testing using simplicity of \nlight—the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter \nto characterize biochemical composition of a soil and/or plant \ntissue. Requires that partners involved in this TIMP (ICRAF, \niSDA and Soil Cares) work closely with KALRO and county \nagricultural officers to sensitize farmers to embrace the testing \nmethod. \nThis innovation will involve working closely with soil \n\n358 \n \nscientists to generate specific fertilizer recommendation \ndriven by soil, crop and manure data obtained. \nJustification \nSoil testing is the basis for good fertilizer management that \nmaintains the productivity of soil and improves the quality of \ncrops. It promotes more efficient and targeted fertilizer use \nand prevents environmental pollution from excess fertilizer \napplication, and cost efficiency. However, limited access to \nsoil testing services is depriving the farmers’ ability to make \ninformed decisions with regard to soil management and \nfertilizer use.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination and scaling up/out approaches \nUsers of TIMP \nLead farmers, public and private agricultural service providers \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS); Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms (AIP); On farm and on station research \ntrials and demonstrations; Training workshops, Seminars, \nMeetings, Field days Agricultural shows; Moa/Extension \nofficers Farmer research networks Farmer to farmer Mass media \n– Agricultural programs Promotional materials (posters, \nbrochures, leaflets and manuals), Web material’s, mobile APPs \nand SMS. \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion. \n Availability of the necessary equipment for rapid on \nthe spot soil testing. \n Established rapport between farmers and the technical \npersonnel involved in soil testing. \n Adequate qualified staff to cover the large number of \nsamples from the target 24 counties before the \nplanting season begins. \n A well-designed information storage system for data \nobtained at farm level including (GPS readings, \nphysical description of the locations, raw measured \nscanned data, and fertilizer recommendation according \nto crop type suitability). \n Farmers must understand, trust, and be willing to act \nupon the information provided. \nPartners/stakeholders for scaling \nup and their roles \n County government extension services; providing the \nlink to farmers. \n Soil cares; Provides soil scanners technology and \ncapacity building in collaboration with KALRO and \nICRAF, ICRAF and iSDA; Tests and validate the \nrecommendations obtained in collaboration with Soil \nCares and \n KALROFertilizer companies; To provide fertilizer \nblends according to soil health status \n Agro dealers to stock required fertilizers that is readily \navailable to farmers", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future scaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted \nTechnology has not been promoted though testing has been \nongoing in a few counties including Bungoma, Trans Nzoia, \nKiambu, Nyeri \n\n359 \n \nCounties where TIMP will be \nupscaled \nAll the 24 KCSAP counties \nChallenges in dissemination \n Lack of maize innovation platforms to facilitate \ninteraction of farmers with relevant stakeholders \n The TIMP requires continuous updating of methods to \nimprove recommendations. \n Lack of awareness on the importance of regular testing \nof soil quality \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Awareness creation, intensive farmer field training \n(capacity building) \n Make the whole process cost efficient. \n Use of scanners (spectroscopy) and less wet chemistry \nanalysis. \n Automated pipelines for updating existing \nrecommendation methods. \nLessons learned in upscaling \nif any \n Timely affordable soil information will guide on \nfertilizer use. \n Farmers have reported frustration when they apply the \nwrong fertilizers and see no results because they did not \ntake the first step to understand what the soil demand in \nterms of macro, micronutrients and trace elements like \nZinc and Boron. \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development and \nupscaling. \n Socially acceptable as it brings income, increases food \nproduction, nutrition security and family cohesion. \n Environmentally friendly; Recommendations provided \nensures that farmers only apply the required amounts of \nfertilizers. \n No excess nutrients to contaminate ground and surface \nwater. Market will absorb the increased productivity \nSupporting frameworks/policies are available.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nSoil testing equipment and consumables, sampling and \npackaging materials, personnel. The actual costs will be \ndetermined upon consultation. Its estimated Kshs. 650,000 for \nacquiring thus shipping the kit and services per acre. \nEstimated returns \nAt least 30% to 50% higher returns for all value chains utilising \nthe service. \nGender issues and concerns \nin development and \ndissemination \n It is labour intensive hence may not be adopted by \nwomen who are already overburdened \n Women and youth have limited access to to credit to \npurchase the required inputs such as such as fertilizers \nthan men \n Women and youth have limited access to land for kale \ncultivation than men \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men \nGender related opportunities \n Opportunity exist for women to access the the required \ncredit through the women enterprise funds. \n\n360 \n \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs have limited access to land for kale cultivation \nthan men. \n VMGs have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \n It is labour intensive hence may not be adopted by some \nVMGs who are elderly. \n Women and youth have limited access to to credit to \npurchase the required inputs such as such as fertilizers \nthan men. \nVMG related opportunities \n Affirmative action in various areas as for instance in the \nprovision of finances to VMGs \n Increased production due to use of the TIMP will lead to \nncreased consumption and utilization of kale and hence \nimproved health of VMGs consumption and utilization \nof maize hence improved health of VMGs", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of success stories \nSuccess stories \nHas been tested and used successfully by other organizations \nlike ICRAF, Soil Cares & former Kenya Sugar Research \nFoundation. It has been adopted at Kenya cane testing centre \nfor checking maturity level and quality of \nsugarcane. \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nA handheld scanner to test soils and crops in the field. \nCommunity soil sampling champions are identified and \ntrained on good soil sampling procedures. \nSoil and crop are analyzed and the results including fertilizer \nrecommendation generated on site.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1=Ready for upscaling: \n2=Requires validation; \n3=Requires further research \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Rapid soil testing services]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.3]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nDirector, Environment & Natural Resource Systems, KALRO \nSecretariat, P.O. Box 57811-00200 \n+254 722 206986/8, Ext 2316 \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO; C. Kibunja, E. Gikonyo, Christy van Beek, A. Sila, D. \nKamau, A. Esilaba, M. Okoti, C. Kundu and S. Kimani \nPartner organizations \nCounty governments in the 24 counties, Soil Cares, ICRAF and \niSDA \nResearch Gaps \n1. Testing paired soil and crop samples to determine nutrients in the soil and \nwhat is available to plant. \n2. Determine nutrient deficiency and make recommendation for the type of \nfertilizer to use and at what rate. \n3. Developing a fertilizer recommendation system with options for new \nblends. \n4. Working with fertilizer companies to produce fertilizer blends packaged in \nsmaller quantities as per farmer needs. \n\n361 \n \n5. Using scanners at farm level to undertake fertilizer quality analysis, e.g. \nquantitative and qualitative analysis, major and trace elemental analysis, \nand chemical and physical analysis. \n6. Updating existing soil maps with newly acquired soil data to provide \ncurrent soil fertility status in the country.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Rapid soil testing services", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.3", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection header:\n2.6.4 Low-Cost Composting technology \nTechnology name \nLow Cost Composting \nCategory (i.e. technology, \ninnovation or management \npractice)", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "header" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection A:\nA: Description of the \ntechnology, innovation or \nmanagement practice \nManagement practice \nProblem addressed \nLow maize productivity 4-8 bags per acre (1-2 tha-1) against a \npotential yield of 35-50 bags per acre ( 8-12 tha-1) Organic \nwastes constitute the highest percentage of waste flow in Kenya \nleading to big landfills especially near the urban centres. \nHowever, there is low awareness on appropriate low-cost \ncomposting technologies and lack of supporting policies. \nMoreover, lack of proper composting management and \nhandling leads to increased GHG \nemissions. \nWhat is it? (TIMP description) \nComposting is the biological decomposition of organic waste \nsuch as food or plant material by bacteria, fungi, worms and \nother organisms under controlled aerobic conditions resulting \nin an accumulation of partially decayed organic matter called \nhumus. Composting is thus an effective process for recycling \norganic wastes intended for use in agriculture \nJustification \nThe decline in soil fertility in smallholder system is a major \nfactor inhibiting agricultural development on farms. It is \nestimated that soils are being depleted at annual rate of \n22kg/ha for nitrogen, 2.5kg/ha for phosphorus, and 15kg/ha \nfor potassium. Composts contain the nutrients- nitrogen, \nphosphorus and potassium and that are found in most \nchemical fertilizer and even secondary and trace elements \n(such as zinc, iron and magnesium) that are not, and which are \nuseful to the roots of growing plants. Composts also contain \nmicronutrients. The compost also adds balanced nutrients to \nsoil in an easily assimilated form, and helps improving soil \nstructure by lightening heavy clays and improving water \nretention properties in porous sands", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "A" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection B:\nB: Assessment of dissemination \nand scaling \nup/out approaches \n\n362 \n \nUsers of TIMP \nFarmers, extension workers, researchers, small & medium \nenterprises \nApproaches to be used in \ndissemination \nFarmer field and business Schools (FFBS) \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms (AIP) \nOn farm and on station research trials and demonstrations \nTraining workshops, Seminars, Meetings Field days \nAgricultural shows \nMoa/Extension officers Farmer research networks Farmer to \nfarmer \nMass media – Agricultural programs \nPromotional materials ousters/brochures/leaflets, manuals) Web \nmaterial’s, mobile APPs and SMS \nCritical/essential factors for \nsuccessful promotion \n Applied and adaptive Research to test, validate and \ndisseminate low-cost composting management practices \n Platform for interaction of maize value chain stakeholder \ntraining on different composting techniques and use \n Model demonstration plots using cereal crops \nPartners/stakeholders for \nscaling up and their roles \n County government extension services - Provide link \nwith farmers. \n Community farmer groups - play coordination role for \nease in problem identification and dissemination, \n ILRI - technical backstopping, \n NGOs – Micro financing services, Financial institutions \n(banks, donors, credit facilitators) for financial solutions", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "B" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection C:\nC: Current situation and future \nscaling up \nCounties where already \npromoted if any \nTharaka Nithi, Kajiado, Nyeri, Bomet, Uasin Gishu, Kakamega, \nBusia, Machakos \nCounties where TIMP will be \npromoted \nAll 24 KCSAP counties \nChallenges in dissemination \n Lack of low-cost composting innovation platforms to \nfacilitate interaction of farmers with relevant \nstakeholder. \n Lack of model demonstration farms \n Lack of continuity in training of extension and farmers \nin composting skill slack of proper mobilization \nmechanism for reaching many farmers \n Lack of composting innovation platforms \n Poor information dissemination on composting \npractices \nSuggestions for addressing the \nchallenges \n Establish maize innovation platforms, Establishment of \nmany demonstration plots by counties, Capacity \nbuilding of smallholder farmers on composting \nmanagement and its benefit, Continuous capacity \nbuilding of demonstration farmers and extension \nworkers, Use of approaches to mobilize farmer to attend \ndemonstration forums \n\n363 \n \nLessons learned if any \n Proper use of composts to improve soil fertility, \n Use of composts to enhance crop productivity, \n Skills in composting methodologies and minimizing \nhealth risks associated with composts making \nSocial, environmental, policy \nand market conditions \nnecessary for development \nand upscaling \n Awareness that composting requires care when handling \nwastes that would normally contain heavy loads of \npathogens \n Awareness that composts may contain non-\nbiodegradable and harzadous waste which may affect \nhuman health. Environmental hazards including \ncontamination by leaching of nutrients. \n Knowledge that applying composts to soils saves on \npurchase of inorganic fertilizer, increases crop yield and \nsaves water. Hence socially and environmentally \nacceptable", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "C" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection D:\nD: Economic, gender, vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs) considerations \nBasic costs \nPreparation of composts require labour for building a compost \nheap, maintaining it and finally transporting and applying it in \nfield which take a lot of effort and time. The cost is estimated at \nKES 10,000/= per acre. \nEstimated returns \nReturns estimated at Kshs.65,400 to 112,000 per acre \nGender issues and concerns \nin development \n,dissemination, adoption and \nscaling up \n It is labour intensive in terms of preparation and \napplication hence may not be adopted by women who \nare already overburdened. \n Women and youth have limited access to land for kale \ncultivation than men. \n Women have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \nGender related opportunities \n Opportunities for youth’s male’s employment exist in \nthe task of composting. \nVMG issues and concerns in \ndevelopment, dissemination, \nadoption and scaling up \n VMGs have limited access to land for kale cultivation \nthan men. \n VMGs have less access to agricultural information, \ntechnology and knowledge than men. \nVMG related opportunities \n Opportunities for youth’s males’ employment exist in \nthe task of composting.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "D" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection E:\nE: Case studies/profiles of \nsuccess stories \nNone \nSuccess stories \n Farmers who use composts in quickly maturing crops \nhave reported 3 to 5 times increased production due to \n improved soil health \n\n364 \n \nApplication guidelines for \nusers \nThe guidelines for users focus on need to mix the compost \nwith the soil to ensure adequate nutrition in the rooting zone. \nCompost storage to preserve nutrient and avoid loses. \nTiming of application for maximum utilization by the crop. \nRegular analysis of compost to ascertain the quality including \ncontaminants like heavy metals and pathogens. \nType of composts and quality that will determine the \napplication rates. \nMaterials that cannot be used for composts include, charcoal \nashes, dog/cat manure, meat/animal fat, leaves or biomass \nfrom certain tree species that have toxic levels for microbes, \ne.g. eucalypts and cassia spp. \nReference \nKaranja NK, Kwach HO, Njenga M (2005). Low-cost \ncomposting training manual. Techniques based on the UN \nHabitat urban harvest CIP community-based waste management \ninitiative.", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "E" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection F:\nF: Status of TIMP readiness \n(1=Ready for upscaling: \n2=Requires validation; \n3=Requires further research \nRequires validation", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "F" }, { "text": "[TIMP: Low-Cost Composting technology]\n[Category: Soil Fertility Management]\n[AEZ/Theme: Soil Fertility Management]\n[Section: 2.6.4]\n\nSection G:\nG: Contacts \nContacts \nDirector, Environment & Natural Resources, KALRO \nSecretariat \nLead organization/scientists \nKALRO, B. Mugo, D. Kamau, E. Mutuma, M. Okoti, C. Kundu \nand S. Kimani \nPartner organizations \nCounty government, NGOs \nResearch Gaps \n1. Promote composting technology in counties that have not practiced it. \n2. Conduct nutrient budget study on selected farms using composts in the 24 \nCounties.\n\n365", "source": "MAIZE_TIMPS_Volume-1_for_Upload.pdf", "layer": "pdf", "timp_name": "Low-Cost Composting technology", "aez": "Soil Fertility Management", "category": "Soil Fertility Management", "section_code": "2.6.4", "section_label": "G" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n1 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAn Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the Development of Communication \nPlans Used in the Diffusion of Improved Maize Varieties among Farmers in the Semi-\nArid Lower Eastern Kenya \n \n \nEmily Keles Muli, Prof. Maurice Sakwa, PhD and Dr. Masaya H. Chakava, PhD", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n62 \n \nAn Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in \nthe Development of Communication Plans Used \nin the Diffusion of Improved Maize Varieties \namong Farmers in the Semi-Arid Lower \nEastern Kenya \n1*Emily Keles Muli \nPhD Student, Mass Communication \nJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and \nTechnology \n2Prof. Maurice Sakwa, PhD \nJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and \nTechnology \n3Dr. Masaya H. Chakava, PhD \nJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and \nTechnology \n \n \nArticle History \nReceived 13th August 2024 \nReceived in Revised Form 17th September 2024 \nAccepted 25th October 2024 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAbstract \nPurpose: While it is acknowledged that increased \nadoption of agricultural innovations is today hinged \non increased and proper application of participatory \ncommunication \napproaches, \nthe \nadoption \nof \nimproved maize varieties in the semi-arid Lower \nEastern Kenya has remained low at less than 30 \npercent despite the application of the approach. \nProper application of the approach requires adequate \ninvolvement of stakeholders in communication \nactivities that include the assessment of the \ncommunication needs and the formulation of the \ncommunication strategies at all stages of the \ndevelopment and diffusion of an innovation. The \npurpose of this study was therefore, to assess the \nlevel of stakeholder involvement in the development \nof communication plans used in the diffusion of \nimproved maize varieties among farmers in the \nsemi- arid region of Lower Eastern Kenya \nMethodology: Qualitative data was collected from \nfarmers, \nagricultural \nscientists, \nagricultural \nextension officers and documents. It was analysed \nusing a thematic analysis method in accordance with \napriori themes and sub-themes developed by the \nresearcher from the literature, principles of \nparticipatory communication approaches and the \nconcerns of the research questions. \nFindings: The study revealed a critical gap in \nstakeholder involvement during the development of \nthe communication plans which could hinder the \n", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " literature, principles of \nparticipatory communication approaches and the \nconcerns of the research questions. \nFindings: The study revealed a critical gap in \nstakeholder involvement during the development of \nthe communication plans which could hinder the \nformulation of an effective communication strategy. \nUnique Contribution to Theory, Practice and \nPolicy: In order to improve the adoption rates of \nimproved maize varieties in the semi-arid Lower \nEastern Kenya, stakeholders should adequately be \ninvolved in the development of communication \nplans to enable them to uncover their information \ndeficits and identify their existing communication \nnetworks necessary for sustained adoption of the \nmaize seeds. This involvement facilitates free and \nopen dialogue which leads to conscientization in \nwhich individuals and communities develop a \ncritical understanding of their social reality through \nreflection and action; ownership where participants \naccept the initiative and become active participants \nand; praxis (practice) in which the imitative is fully \naccepted and used. \nKeywords: Participatory Communication, \nStakeholder Involvement, Development, \nCommunication Plans, Improved Maize Varieties \n©2024 by the Authors. This Article is an open access \narticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the \nCreative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license \n(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n63 \n \nINTRODUCTION \nMany agricultural innovations that could benefit farmers fail to achieve sustainable adoption \nrates due to inadequate involvement of stakeholders in developing communication plans used \nin the diffusion of the innovations. Engaging all the stakeholders during this crucial activity in \nthe development and diffusion of an innovation would help in identifying the community’s \nspecific information needs and leverage existing, relevant communication networks within the \ncommunity, thereby enhancing the diffusion of these innovations. Food and Agriculture \nOrganization (FAO) emphasises that achieving sustainable adoption of innovations is today \nhinged more on the people involved in their use than in the innovations themselves (Rizzo, et \nal. 2024). This shift in perspective underscores the pivotal role of participatory communication \napproach which is rooted in dialogue fostering equitable sharing and exchange of information, \nknowledge, experiences, and perceptions among stakeholders. The aim of participatory \ncommunication approach is to make communication and dialogue an integral part of the \ndevelopment process unlike in earlier linear models in which communication was seen as a \ntool to persuade people to adopt new practices (Tufte and Mefalopulos, 2009). The emphasis \nin the linear models was the transfer of information on innovations from the source to the \nreceiver (Servaes, 2021). The role of the receiver for whom the innovations were developed \nwas totally disregarded in the communication process, continually resulting in failure of \ninnovations that were otherwise sound and beneficial (Lundy, 2005). \nParticipatory communication approach holds that true development is from within and \ntherefore advocates for the involvement of all the stakeholders in the search for solutions \nthrough dialogic interaction throughout a project life cycle. Participatory communication in \nagricultural research allows people who are traditionally the researched to have a voice by \nletting them play a key role in making decisions on communication goals during the research \nactivities. Key to this process, according to Freire (1972), is free and open dialogue which leads \nto conscientization in which individuals and communities develop a critical understanding of \ntheir social reality through reflection and action; ownership where participants accept the \ninitiative and become active participants and; praxis (practice", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2), is free and open dialogue which leads \nto conscientization in which individuals and communities develop a critical understanding of \ntheir social reality through reflection and action; ownership where participants accept the \ninitiative and become active participants and; praxis (practice) in which the imitative is fully \naccepted and used. \nAccording to Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009), stakeholders often have very different visions and \ndefinitions of participation in development. Therefore, it is important for development \npractitioners to be clear on their conceptual approach to participation. According to Balit, \n(2007) the 9th UN Roundtable in Rome, (2004), on “Communication and Sustainable \nDevelopment adopted the vision of participatory communication that emphasizes that \ncommunication for development must be about people and the processes needed to facilitate \ntheir sharing of knowledge and perceptions in order to effect positive developmental change \nand should be based on dialogue, following the two-way, horizontal model and not the \ntraditional one-way, vertical model of sender message-channel-receiver. Communication for \ndevelopment must also give voice to those most affected by the development issue(s) at stake, \nallowing them to participate directly in defining and implementing solutions and identifying \ndevelopment directions. It recognizes that reality is largely socially constructed implying that \nthere can be different realities or different perceptions for the same situation according to \nspecific groups’ perceptions and needs. Thus, the role of development and communication is \nnot to “impose” the correct reality, but rather to foster dialogue, to facilitate mutual \nunderstanding among different perspectives. It is also contextual and uses a number of tools, \ntechniques and media, to facilitate mutual understanding, define and bridge differences of", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n64 \n \nperceptions. These tools and techniques are most effective when used at the beginning of \ndevelopment initiatives. \nInternational confirmation of the participatory communication approach was given at the 2004 \nplenary session of the 9th UN Roundtable on Communication for Sustainable Development in \nRome requiring communication to be at the centre of development initiatives (The \nCommunication Initiative, 2007). Thus, there was a shift in the trend of the communication \napproach to development initiatives at the global level, from a one-way to a two-way \nparticipatory approach. The international shift in the approach to development communication \nalso influenced the approach to the communication of agricultural innovations in Kenya where \nthe main challenge was the adoption rates of innovations (Mbithi, 1972; De Groote, 2005; Bett, \net al2017). The National Agricultural Research System Policy, (NARSP) acknowledged the \nshift to participatory methods which employed a bottom–up strategy, relating to stakeholders \nin simple and effective terms, and communicating and working in partnership (NARSP, 2012). \nIn line with this policy, the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, KALRO, \nemployed the participatory approach to raise the adoption rates of its agricultural innovations \nincluding improved maize varieties among farmers in the semi-arid Lower Eastern Kenya, a \nregion characterised by erratic rain patterns. According to Oakdel (2023) improved maize \nvarieties for the semi-arid regions are known for their high yield, early maturity, and resistance \nto pests and diseases. Adoption rates for the improved maize varieties have however, remained \nlow at below 30 per cent despite the application of participatory communication and its \nacknowledged technical excellence (Mbithi, 1972; De Groote, 2005; Bett, et al, 2017). Yet \nexamples of positive results have been reported wherever participatory communication has \nbeen applied (Kadiyala et al, 2021; Miraftab 2004). According to Van de Fliert (2010), where \nparticipatory communication approach is applied, low", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " wherever participatory communication has \nbeen applied (Kadiyala et al, 2021; Miraftab 2004). According to Van de Fliert (2010), where \nparticipatory communication approach is applied, low adoption rates of innovations can only \nbe attributed to inappropriate use of the approach. The purpose of this study was therefore, to \nassess the level of stakeholder involvement in the development of communication plans used \nin the diffusion of improved maize varieties among farmers in the semi- arid region of Lower \nEastern Kenya. \nTheoretical Review \nThis study is premised on Paulo Freire’s Theory of dialogical action (1974) which is seen by \nmany researchers and practitioners as the foundation of participatory communication \napproaches to diffusion and adoption of innovations (Mefalopulos, 2008, Cornish and Dunn, \n2009). According to Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009), participatory communication strategy \noffers a specific perspective on how to articulate social processes, decision-making processes, \nand any change processes. Proponents of the participatory communication approach use the \nconcepts of the dialogical action theory as a communicative tool of involvement of all \nstakeholders in the diffusion of innovations. \nFreire’s Theory of Dialogical Action \nFreire’s (1968) Theory of the Dialogical Action is essential for understanding the critical role \nof giving the voice to those who have traditionally been excluded from contexts of dialogue \nand participation (del Mar Ramis, 2018). According to Freire (1970) dialogical \ncommunication, can be considered as a tool to develop an individual’s capacity for reflection \nabout their own living conditions in terms of which they willingly and actively participate and \nbecome enthusiastic supporters of the change process.", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n65 \n \nIn participatory communication approach, the theory of dialogical action is useful in bringing \nabout the involvement of local participants or beneficiaries, while also creating opportunities \nfor them to shape their own processes through critical reflection. It allows the sharing of \ninformation, perceptions and opinions among the various stakeholders. According to Tufte and \nMefalopulos (2009) participatory communication is not just the exchange of information and \nexperiences: it is also the exploration and generation of new knowledge aimed at addressing \nsituations that need to be improved (Tufte and Mefalopulos, 2009). \nFollowing Freire’s (1970) concepts, diffusion of agricultural innovations is seen as involving \na process of information sharing and dialogue between innovators and farmers for whom the \ninnovations are developed. Through dialogue, and the reflection that it entails, farmers increase \nthe scope of their perception, becoming aware of situations and conditions in their lives of \nwhich they were previously not aware. \nThe key concepts of Freire’s theory of dialogic action are: \nDialogue: Free and open dialogue is the main concept of participatory communication. \nDialogue allows the sharing of information, perceptions and opinions among the various \nstakeholders, thereby facilitates their empowerment. It is not just the exchange of information \nand experiences: it is also the exploration and generation of new knowledge aimed at \naddressing situations that need to be improved. \nConscientization: Another key concept in Freire’s approach is conscientization, ways in which \nindividuals and communities develop a critical understanding of their social reality through \nreflection and action. This involves examining and acting on the root causes of oppression as \nexperienced in the here and now. Conscientization should be learned through teaching based \non dialogue and communication; a dialogue that should be between participants engaged in \ncritical thinking. The process of developing a critical awareness of one’s social reality through \nreflection and action is fundamental because it is the process of changing the reality. \nOwnership: Freire noted that, without dialogue, people accept content in a passive way and \nthey rarely reflect on them as validity of the knowledge. Dialogue enables", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " through \nreflection and action is fundamental because it is the process of changing the reality. \nOwnership: Freire noted that, without dialogue, people accept content in a passive way and \nthey rarely reflect on them as validity of the knowledge. Dialogue enables partners in an \ninitiative to become deliberate, goal-seeking participants and therefore owners of an initiative. \nPraxis: Finally, there is praxis which is the act of engaging, applying and exercising, the new \nideas. It is the culmination of dialogue, conscientization and ownership of an initiative by a \ncommunity. \nMETHODOLOGY \nExplanatory research design was used for this study. The target population for the study were \nthe farmers who belong to farmer groups in the maize growing zones in the Kenya Cereal \nEnhancement Programme - Climate Resilient Agriculture Livelihoods (KCEP-CRAL) \nprogramme in Lower Eastern Kenya - Machakos, Makueni and Kitui counties and the \nagricultural extension officers in those counties. Purposive sampling was applied. Farmer focus \ngroup discussion (FGD) participants were drawn from the individual members of the farmer \ngroups. In total there were 12 FGDs. Extension officers totaling eleven in the selected areas \nwere also purposively selected and interviewed. Farmer FGD participants and scientists and \nAEO interviewees totaled 125. Table 1 below shows total number of farmers FGD participants \nand AEOs interviewees and their areas covered. The study employed qualitative data collection \nmethods. Data was collected using FGDs, in-depth interviews and documents analysis. Data", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n66 \n \nwas analyzed thematically. Three themes were developed to study stakeholder involvement in \nthe development of communication plans. The themes are: \ni) Communication needs identification, \nii) Communication plans formulation, and \niii) Extent of dialogue. \nParticipant Coding \nParticipants were sequentially assigned numbers with abbreviations depending on their \noccupations for professionals, thus. AS01-03 for Agricultural scientists and AEO 01 – 11 for \nAgricultural Extension Officers. Farmer participants were identified with letters FGD (for \nfocus group discussion participants) followed by numbering denoting the specific focus group. \nSequel numbering followed the gender identification (M for men or W for women), for instance \nFGD 6, M01. \nTable 1: AEOs and Agricultural Scientists Interviewees and Farmer Focus Group \nDiscussion Participants by Location and Gender \nSub county \nNo of FCDs \nNo. of participants \nTotal no. of participants \n \n \nMen \nWomen \n \nMakueni \n6 \n15 \n40 \n55 \nYatta \n4 \n13 \n24 \n37 \nMbooni \n2 \n8 \n11 \n19 \nSubtotal \n12 \n36 \n75 \n111 \nAEOs \n-- \n-- \n-- \n11 \nAS \n-- \n-- \n-- \n3 \nTotal \n12 \n36 \n75 \n125 \nRESULTS \nThe following are findings of the analysis of the qualitative data on level of stakeholder \ninvolvement in the development of communication plans used in the diffusion of improved \nmaize varieties among farmers in the semi- arid region of Lower Eastern Kenya. \nCommunication Needs Identification \nThe study sought to understand the extent to which stakeholders were involved in the \nidentification of the communication needs in relation to maize farming in the semi-arid Lower \nEastern Kenya during the introduction of improved maize varieties. In participatory \ncommunication model, there are no senders and receivers of information; instead, the \ncommunication process is transactional and the players are all regarded as communicators. In \nthe approach, identification of information needs - ideally through participatory rural \ncommunication appraisal (PRCA) - is the first step in the formulation", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " instead, the \ncommunication process is transactional and the players are all regarded as communicators. In \nthe approach, identification of information needs - ideally through participatory rural \ncommunication appraisal (PRCA) - is the first step in the formulation of a communication \nstrategy. PRCA is a communication methodology that utilizes visualization techniques and \nparticipatory exercises to open dialogue and generate information for the design of effective \ncommunication programs for development purposes. It involves stakeholders in joint \ninvestigations not only of the Problems and the Needs, but also of the Opportunities and \npossible Solutions (NOPS), facilitating the required common understanding needed to address \nboth structural as well as communication issues. Identification of needs establishes what the \ncommunity already knows, what the information deficits are as well as existing communication \nmethods that could be utilized for effective communication. According to Hawkins and Van", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n67 \n \nden Ban (1999) ownership of a project is greatly influenced by the stakeholders’ involvement \nin the identification of communication needs. Hawkins and Van den Ban (1999) state that by \nactively participating in the communication needs identification process, farmers are able to \nconvey their objectives. \nFindings from this study indicate that although a majority of the farmer participants in focus \ngroup discussions (FGD) were given information about improved maize seed varieties, the \nagricultural scientists did not undertake any communication activities to uncover the existing \ncommunication networks in the community and to understand farmer information needs in \nrelation to maize seeds. The methods through which the farmers came to learn about the maize \nseeds confirm this as illustrated by some of the typical answers from farmers throughout the \nresearch area. \n “My son came from school with a message that there was a planned chief’s baraza. It \nwas at the baraza that I learned of the introduction of the new maize variety and where \nthe demonstration of the new seeds would be held” – (FGD 01, W02) \n“We were invited to demos at the station where we learnt about the seeds. And later, \nduring field days we were explained about the advantages of the new seed varieties and \ngiven samples to plant” – (FGD 06, W 05) \nThis lack of involvement extended even to the agricultural extension officers who are a key \nlink between the farmers and the researchers. An agricultural extension officer stated: \n “I come into contact with agricultural scientists only when they have something they \nwant to introduce to farmers. They will tell me: We have these seeds which we want \nyou to distribute to farmers. They will send the seeds I distribute. Other times they will \nask me if I have a farmer’s group which they can use to try a new seed. Sometimes \nthey will call me when there is a planned demo to organise farmers to attend. Most \ntimes they will go direct to farmers if they have worked with them before”– (AEO, O1 \nInterviews) \nAnother agricultural extension officer described how the communication process has changed \nwith the dawn of devolved system", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " attend. Most \ntimes they will go direct to farmers if they have worked with them before”– (AEO, O1 \nInterviews) \nAnother agricultural extension officer described how the communication process has changed \nwith the dawn of devolved system of government in Kenya in 2013. The participant described \nhow regular meetings used to be held involving farmer representatives, ministry of agriculture \nofficials and researchers during which stakeholders would express their needs and share \nknowledge. However, according to the participant, the outcomes of these meetings were not \nshared. \n “I remember we used to hold monthly meetings .... I remember every meeting was \nattended by at least three farmer representatives, researchers, extension workers and \nrepresentative from the ministry of agriculture. Discussions were very free. And the \nresearchers took notes. What I can’t tell you is what the researchers did with the notes \nthey took.” – (AEO, O5 Interviews) \nSimilar views were expressed by yet another agricultural extension officer who described a \nscenario when before devolution, they used to hold monthly meetings with farmers, researchers \nand extension workers in which they shared information. \n “There was even a research extension liaison officer at Kalro-Katumani.... Every \nseason, breeders invited extension workers and farmers so that everyone was kept \ninformed. For example, before they introduction of QPM (quality Protein Maize) in \nMakueni in 2013, the extension workers and farmers met with the breeders and had", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n68 \n \ndiscussions. In my view, the maize variety they introduced was liked by farmers though \nit later went out of the market – (AEO, 07 Interviews) \nThese findings show that farmers and extension officers, key stakeholders in agriculture, were \nnot involved at this crucial stage of communication needs assessment as required in \nparticipatory communication. Using Pretty (2006), the degree of involvement of stakeholders \nin communication needs assessment could best be described as passive participation where the \napplication of participatory communication is least applied and in which primary stakeholders \nof a project participate by being informed about what is going to happen or has already \nhappened. The failure to involve key stakeholders in agricultural sector is an indication that \nthere were no prior efforts to establish farmer communication needs and existing \ncommunication channels before undertaking the improved maize diffusion process. The \nfindings are similar to those obtained by other researchers such as Kaliba, Verkuiji and \nMwangi, (2009); Musembi, (1998) who also found that farmers were not involved in the \nidentification of their communication needs. In a similar research Kamau, (2007) looked at \npractices of agricultural scientists while carrying out research and found that the research cycle \nis usually dictated by production factors and available funds. Kamau (2007) concluded that \nparticipation in research often thinly disguises the deeply institutionalized value system \ninherent in the research process for quantitative results. This exclusion of stakeholders in \ncommunication activities would seem to defeat the purpose of participatory communication \nwhich was introduced to facilitate the inclusion of farmers’ voice in the research process, and \nhence improve on the appropriateness of the farming innovations. According to FAO and GTZ \n(2008), achieving sustainable agricultural development is less based on material inputs such as \nseeds and fertilizer than on the people involved in their use. This focus on human resources \ncalls for increased knowledge and information sharing about agricultural production, as well \nas on appropriate communication methodologies, channels and tools. \nOn paper however, National Agricultural Research System Policy 2012 states that the current \nprocedure for all research in Kenya starts with a", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " for increased knowledge and information sharing about agricultural production, as well \nas on appropriate communication methodologies, channels and tools. \nOn paper however, National Agricultural Research System Policy 2012 states that the current \nprocedure for all research in Kenya starts with a participatory diagnosis phase, followed by \nparticipatory prioritization, planning, implementation, evaluation and scaling-out. All these \nphases require participation of all stakeholders from the beginning to the end. Similarly, \nKALRO in its 2017 – 2021 Strategic Plan aims for continous engagement in technology \ndissemination activities and to develop and promote use of participatory research methods in \nthe organization. \nDesigning Communication Strategy \nCommunication for farming innovations is based on the premise that successful farming \npractices calls for the conscious and active participation of all the stakeholders at every stage \nof the development process. Communication for agricultural development can thus be \ndescribed as the planned and systematic use of communication, through defined \ncommunication channels, to collect and exchange information among all those concerned to \nformulate a communication plan (Bessette, 2006). This study therefore, also sought to know \nwhether all the key stakeholders were involved in designing the communication strategy used \nin the diffusion of improved maize seed varieties. Discussions with farmers and extension \nworkers in the semi-arid Lower Eastern Kenya however, showed that neither the farmers nor \nthe agricultural extension officers were involved in the communication strategy formulation. \nParticipants in a focus group discussion explained to the point at which they got involved in \none project:", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n69 \n \n“The first time we met the researcher was when she came to request us to give her \nplots for planting her seeds for demonstration. Our role was to do mother and baby \ndemos and then we evaluate. We have been attending demos at the Kambi Mawe \n(research station). I believe that’s how the breeder got our contacts.” – (FGD 04, \nM03) \nThe same pattern of operation was described by members of other focus groups discussions \n(FGDs). According to one of the participants: \n“The researcher informed us that he needed to demonstrate a seed variety. He asked \nus to identify a farm from among our members where he could do the demo and we \ndid.” – (FGD 07, M02) \nAn agricultural extension officer confirmed the process of involvement thus: \n “I don’t know whether the scientists have a communication strategy in place. Many \ntimes, I see the promoters of a project come to our offices to get contacts of farmer \ngroups who can attend their events.” – (AEO 2 Interviews) \nLack of involvement of farmers in the planning of communication activities leads to low \nadoption of agricultural innovations. FAO and GTZ (2008) state that in many countries low \nagricultural production has been attributed, among other factors, to poor linkages between \nResearch-Advisory Service-Farmers and to ineffective technology delivery systems, including \npoor information packaging, inadequate communication systems and poor methodologies. It is \nnotable that KALRO policy does not emphasise the need for proper formulation of \ncommunication plans to be used in diffusion of innovations and additionally, there are no \ndepartments for communication at the research institute level. Additionally, the lack of \ninvolvement of agricultural extension officers who are key stakeholders in agricultural \ndevelopment and diffusion processes leads to distrust and antagonism between the agricultural \nextension officers and the researchers which further affects perceptions and adoption of \ninnovations. Asked about what their role in designing the communication strategy was, an \nagricultural extension officer said: \n“Once scientists have worked with a farmer group, they go straight to them when they", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " further affects perceptions and adoption of \ninnovations. Asked about what their role in designing the communication strategy was, an \nagricultural extension officer said: \n“Once scientists have worked with a farmer group, they go straight to them when they \nhave an innovation to introduce or test with farmers. Since they have their contacts, \nthey apparently don’t see the need to involve government officers in planning their \nactivities.” - (AEO 6 Interviews) \nThe attitude of agricultural scientists on the need to involve the other stakeholders in \ncommunication strategy formulation was expressed by one scientist who told this researcher: \nResearch focuses on solving a certain known or expected problem which a farmer may \noverlook. What research is doing is to bring solutions based on data accumulation and \nanalysis. Discussing issues with farmers at the initial stages would therefore, be of no \nbenefit – (AS03) \nFrom the quotations above, it is clear that farmers are incorporated into the research activities \nlong after the conception of the project. These comments from both farmers, agricultural \nextension officers and agricultural scientists show the lack of involvement of key stakeholders \nin the semi-arid Lower Eastern Kenya in communication plans formulation. Using Pretty \n(2006), the degree of involvement of stakeholders in communication plans formulation could \nbest be described as passive participation. The stakeholders were not involved in decision \nmaking but were only informed about the planned activities. The findings are also supported", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n70 \n \nby other studies such as those of De Groote, et al (2002) and Wekesa, et al (2003) which \nexamined factors affecting adoption of improved maize in Eastern Africa and particularly in \nKilifi in Kenya. Without regard to other stakeholders, agricultural scientists decide the \ncommunication activities they want to undertake as well as the roles the farmers and extension \nofficers should play in the activities. In the participatory communication approach, \ncommunication plans should spring from the community’s perceptions of their communication \nneeds and problems and should therefore be developed with their active participation \n(Anyaegbunam Mefalopulos and Moetsabi, 2004). \nExtent of Dialogue in Communication Activities \nParticipatory communication emphasizes the role of dialogue in the implementation of \ndevelopment projects. According to Freire (1970), consensus in the implementation of a project \nis arrived at as a result of dialogic action – conversation or shared dialogue to explore the \nmeaning of something. Dialogical actions promote understanding, consensus, praxis (practice) \nwhile non-dialogic actions or monologues, distort communication, lead to lack of consensus \nand lack of adoption. According to Freire (1974), through dialogue and the reflection, people \nincrease the scope of their perception, becoming aware of situations and conditions in their \nlives which they were not previously aware of. And it is through “knowing” the world through \nthis dialogue, action and reflection that the conditions for transformation and empowerment \nare enabled ending in praxis” or practice of the new information. \nThe narrations in the previous sections of this report show that maize farmers in Lower Eastern \nKenya and agricultural extension officers were not involved during communication needs \nidentification and neither were they involved in the formulation of the communication strategy. \nIt therefore means that there was no dialogue between the farmers and the agricultural scientists \nin the formulation of the communication strategy. For a majority of the farmer participants in \nthe focus group discussions, the first time they came face to face with agricultural scientists \nwas during demos at the station, activities that were decided on by the agricultural scientists: \n “The first time", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " strategy. For a majority of the farmer participants in \nthe focus group discussions, the first time they came face to face with agricultural scientists \nwas during demos at the station, activities that were decided on by the agricultural scientists: \n “The first time we had contact with agricultural scientists was during demos at the \nstation. That is the first time we spoke with them.”- (FGD 09, M01) \nSimilarly, during the implementation stage activities, up bottom, non-dialogic communication \nactivities still persisted as indicated in one of the statements quoted earlier: \n“During the demos and field days, members of the group are explained about the \nadvantages of the new crop and given samples to plant” - (FGD 06, W05) \nHowever, findings from this study in the semi-arid Lower Eastern Kenya established that there \nwas an element of dialogue at evaluation stage in the development of the maize seeds during \non station and field days where seed varieties had been planted: \n“We had discussions with the scientists when we were evaluating the maize varieties. \nFarmers were open about their opinions. Sometimes we had different opinions and the \nagricultural scientists had their own.”- (FGD 06, M04) \nHowever, farmers and agricultural officers stated that decisions such as where or at whose \nfarm the demos would be held were often made by the scientists. This is often a unitary \ndecision with no effort at consensus. According to an extension officer:", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n71 \n \n“Agricultural scientists often identify leaders of farmer groups and approach them with \nthe need for demos. The researcher is the one with the criteria for the selection of the \nlocation. It has to be convenient” - (AEO, 08 Interviews) \nThe result of lack of dialogue is failure to arrive at consensus which is necessary for creating \nconditions for transformation that enables the practice of the new information or idea (Freire, \n1974). A good illustration of communication activities that do not promote dialogue and \nconsensus in the case of the improved maize is a story narrated to this researcher by an \nagricultural extension officer: \n “In one of the on-station demonstration workshops, the researcher planted five \nvarieties of improved maize seeds including the traditional maize seeds (Machakos \nWhite maize variety) commonly known as Kikamba or kinyanya. But the improved \nseeds did very poorly while the local seeds did very well. The farmers pointed this to \nthe breeder. Instead of trying to figure out the explanation with farmers, the \nresearcher decided to shift focus and make soil management the agenda of the demo”– \n(AEO, 07 Interviews) \nThe consequence of this lack of dialogue is that many farmers and agricultural extension \nofficers in Lower Eastern Kenya are confused and cannot tell what maize seeds come from \nKALRO or other sources. An example is a conversation this researcher held with two \nagricultural extension officers, one of whom had participated in the introduction of improved \nmaize varieties developed by KALRO in collaboration with CIMMYT. \n“I participated with Kalro scientists in the evaluation of …varieties at Kiboko Research \nStation (a substation of KALRO-Katumani Research Centre). It was very good and \nfarmers loved it. I don’t know what happened to it. I don’t see it anymore.” (AEO, 03 \nInterviews) \n“It’s still in the market. One of the varieties was given the name ……” (AEO,5 \nInterviews) \nThat is strange. I know … seed. But how am I expected to link", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 03 \nInterviews) \n“It’s still in the market. One of the varieties was given the name ……” (AEO,5 \nInterviews) \nThat is strange. I know … seed. But how am I expected to link what we evaluated at \nKiboko to the … in the market? (AEO, 03 Interviews) \nWhere there is no consensus, there is a plurality of solutions (Freire 1974). This is the situation \nin Lower Eastern Kenya where currently many seed varieties have been developed by private \ncompanies that are involved in aggressive marketing efforts. This researcher counted not less \nthan 20 improved varieties, with all kinds of names, all in competition for farmers’ attention. \nAs one farmer sardonically put it during one of the focus group discussions: \n“Siku hizi mbegu zinachanganyika. Tumechanganyikiwa” (These days seeds are mixed \nup and we are mixed up, we don’t know which seeds to trust). It is survival of the loudest \nin promoting, not necessarily the best suited – (FGD 06, M02) \nAnother consequence of lack of dialogue and consensus is that eenthusiasm also wanes. \nAnother extension officer described the enthusiasm he witnessed when he was involved in an \nevaluation of a maize variety he described as promising to be good for the area he was working \nin but the farmers did not get a chance to give or get feedback. \n “We planted demos with five seed varieties. Since then, I have not seen the breeders \nand the maize varieties we evaluated. I see like currently maize is not being promoted \n.... It’s like it has been relegated.” – (AEO, 04 Interviews)", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n72 \n \nThe findings above, show that the level of dialogue among stakeholders in the diffusion of \nimproved maize in Lower Eastern Kenya was not optimal. The findings are similar to those of \nother studies such as Schroeder, et al (2013) and Ouma and De Groote, (2011) which show \nlack of involvement of farmers in the introduction of hybrid maize innovations. Tufte and \nMefalopulos (2009) advocate actively engaging stakeholders in open dialogue to generate \ninformation for the design of effective communication programs and activities from the early \nstages of the research and design of interventions of a development project through to its \nevaluation. It is at the early stage that the development problem is accurately defined. All \nrelevant stakeholders should be involved in dialogue in this process to share their perceptions \nof the problem, existing community knowledge and relevant contextual information. \nStakeholder Involvement in the Development of Communication Plans in the Diffusion \nof the Improved Maize Varieties \nThis study aimed to assess the extent of stakeholder involvement in the development of \ncommunication plans used in the diffusion of improved maize varieties in the semi-arid Lower \nEastern Kenya. In this study, a qualitative method was employed to collect data from farmers, \nagricultural extension officers, and scientists involved in implementing participatory \ncommunication during the improved maize diffusion process. Overall, the involvement of \nstakeholders in communication activities for the development of the communication plan was \nminimal or lacking in most instances and could therefore, not lead to conscientization and \nownership which in Freire’s (1974) Dialogic Action are critical stages in social change as \nreceiver communities became aware of their social reality and thus become partners in search \nfor solutions. \nStakeholders were excluded at all the stages of the development of communication plans where \nthe communication needs and social networks would have been identified empowering them \nto become partners in the diffusion process of the improved maize in Lower Eastern Kenya. \nThe results revealed a lack of meaningful engagement from key stakeholders—both farmers \nand agricultural extension officers. Insufficient stakeholder involvement in the formulation of \ncommunication planning hinders effective dialogue, preventing the identification of", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " the improved maize in Lower Eastern Kenya. \nThe results revealed a lack of meaningful engagement from key stakeholders—both farmers \nand agricultural extension officers. Insufficient stakeholder involvement in the formulation of \ncommunication planning hinders effective dialogue, preventing the identification of farmer \ninformation needs and consensus-building. Comments from farmers, agricultural extension \nofficers, and scientists highlighted this deficiency. Previous research has demonstrated that \nproperly implemented participatory communication fosters dialogue, facilitates the sharing of \nperceptions and knowledge, and builds consensus among stakeholders, ultimately increasing \nownership and the eventual increase in the adoption of agricultural innovations. \nSUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS \nSummary \nThe study identified a significant gap in stakeholder involvement during the development of \nthe communication plans used during the development and diffusion of improved maize seed \nvarieties in the semi-arid Lower Eastern Kenya. At the critical stage of the identification of \ninformation needs for the development of the communication plans which is essential to help \nidentify farmers’ needs, understand their prior knowledge, and prioritize key aspects, there was \ninsufficient engagement which could hinder the formulation of an effective communication \nstrategy. \nDiscussions with farmers and extension workers in the study area also revealed that neither \ngroup was involved in the communication strategy formulation. Studies indicate that low \nagricultural production and ineffective technology delivery systems, including poor", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n73 \n \ninformation packaging, inadequate communication systems, and suboptimal methodologies, \ngreatly affect the adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations. \nEffective innovation diffusion also relies on dialogue among all stakeholders, which promotes \nunderstanding, consensus, adoption, and diffusion. A lack of dialogic communication leads to \na lack of consensus and adoption. This study found that there was a lack of dialogue among \nstakeholders during the diffusion process of the improved maize varieties in the semi-arid \nLower Eastern Kenya. \nConclusion \nIn conclusion, this study aimed to assess stakeholder involvement in the development of \ncommunication plans used in the diffusion of improved maize varieties in the semi-arid Lower \nEastern Kenya. The findings align with prior research by De Groote, Doss, Lyimo, Mwangi, \nand Alemu (2002) and Wekesa, Mwangi, Verkuijl, and De Groote (2003), which also \nhighlighted a lack of stakeholder engagement in the adoption process of improved maize in \nEastern Africa, particularly in Kilifi, Kenya. While agricultural scientists may have their own \nreasons for not involving stakeholders in communication plan development, participatory \ncommunication researchers consistently emphasize that communication plans should be rooted \nin the community’s perceptions of their communication needs, opportunities and challenges. \nIgnoring these community perspectives may lead to the failure of development initiatives \n(Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos, and Moetsabi, 2004). \nRecommendations \nBased on the conclusions of this study, here are the researcher’s recommendations: \n1. Agricultural research scientists should actively involve stakeholders in the development of \ncommunication plans. The goal is to engage stakeholders in identifying their communication \nneeds and opportunities. By doing so, researchers can uncover farmer information deficits, \nunderstand farmers’ prior knowledge, and discover their preferred communication methods. \nThis will facilitate the designing of effective communication plans. \n2. The study also recommends fostering continuous dialogue between farmers, agricultural \nextension workers, and scientists throughout the communication activities in the diffusion of \ninnovations. By doing so, researchers can ensure that communication materials resonate with \nfarmers’ needs", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n2. The study also recommends fostering continuous dialogue between farmers, agricultural \nextension workers, and scientists throughout the communication activities in the diffusion of \ninnovations. By doing so, researchers can ensure that communication materials resonate with \nfarmers’ needs, preferences, and local context.", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n74 \n \nREFERENCES \nAli, A. C., & Sonderling, S. (2017). Factors affecting participatory communication for \ndevelopment: the case of a local development organization in Ethiopia. Journal \nKomunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 33(1), 80-97. \nAnyaegbunam, C., Mefalopulos, P., & Moetsabi, T. (2004). Participatory Rural \nCommunication Appraisal Starting with the People: A Handbook. Food & Agriculture \nOrg. \nBessette G. (2020), Participatory Development Communication and Natural Resources \nManagement. Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change, \n2020 ISBN: 978-981-15-2013-6 \nBalit, S. (2007). Communication for isolated and marginalized groups. Communication And \nSustainable Development, 101. \nBessette G. (2004). Involving the Community: A Guide to Participatory Development \nCommunication. Ottawa: IDRC Books. \ndel Mar Ramis, M., Gandia, V., Bellot-Arcís, C., Cibrian, R., Peredes-Gallardo, V., & \nGandia, J. L. (2018). Evaluation of Invisalign treatment using the Peer Assessment \nRating (PAR) index. Evaluation, 2(1), 13-19. \nFreire, Paulo., (2006). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Ed. New York: \nContinuum \nKamau G. (2007). Researching with Farmers: A study of KARI participatory research practices \nin context, PhD Thesis, Wageningen University \nLundy, M. M., Gottret, M. V., & Ashby, J. A. (2005). Learning alliances: An approach for \nbuilding multistakeholder innovation systems. ILAC Brief. \nMaharani Dita Novita. 2002. An Evaluation of the Participatory Communication Approach for \nthe Development of the Kotagede Area: A Case Study of the Rekompak-J", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "holder innovation systems. ILAC Brief. \nMaharani Dita Novita. 2002. An Evaluation of the Participatory Communication Approach for \nthe Development of the Kotagede Area: A Case Study of the Rekompak-JRF Heritage \nExtension Programme in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. A Thesis presented to the Faculty of \nthe Graduate School Ateneo de Manila UniversityManila University. \nMefalopulos P., 2003 Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication: The case of the \nFAO Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa” PhD Dissertation, \nUniversity of Texas, \nMelkote, S. and Steeves, H. Leslie., 2001. Communication for Development in the Third \nWorld: Theory and Practice for Empowerment (2nded.). New Delhi: Sage. \nMozammel and Schechter.,2005. Communication for Development and Social Change, Sage \nPublication. \nNaidoo, L,.2010. The Participatory Development Communication Approach of Thusong \nService Centres in Tshwane. M.A. Thesis, Northwest University, Potchefstroom, South \nAfrica \nNgumbo, L. N. (2015). Participatory communication in Poverty Reduction in Kenya: A study \nof Murang’a County (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Journal of Communication and Public Relation \nISSN 2520-7989 (Online) \n \n \n \nVol.9, Issue 4, No.5, pp 62 - 75, 2024 \n www.iprjb.org \n75 \n \nRizzo, G., Migliore, G., Schifani, G. et al. Key factors influencing farmers’ adoption of \nsustainable innovations: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Org. Agr. \n14, 57–84 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-023-00440-7 \nServaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2014). The role and place of Communication for Sustainable \nSocial Change (CSSC). International Social Science Journal, 65. \nTufte, T. & Mefatopulos, P, (2009. Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide, World \nBank Working Paper No. 170. Washington DC: The World Bank.", "source": "5918316f944c1ded652dc9bd8559f216401b.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "THE KENYA CEREAL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME (KCEP) \n \nADAPTATION AND DISSEMINATION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR \nSMALLHOLDER ADOPTION \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nKALRO-KCEP MAIZE TRAINING AND EXTENSION MANUAL \n \n \n \nAPRIL, 2016", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ii\r  \n \nTable of content \nTraining Objectives\t\r  .....................................................................................................................................\t\r  iii\t\r  \nOutcomes\t\r  .....................................................................................................................................................\t\r  iii\t\r  \nAcknowledgements\t\r  ......................................................................................................................................\t\r  iv\t\r  \n1\t\r  \nIntroduction/ Background\t\r  ......................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n1.1\t\r  \nEcological requirement\t\r  ...................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n1.1.1\t\r  \nAltitude\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n1.1.2\t\r  \nRainfall\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n1.1.3\t\r  \nSoil type\t\r  ...................................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n1.1.4\t\r  \nTemperature\t\r  .............................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n2\t\r  \nKey Operations\t\r  ......................................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n2.1\t\r  \nPre-field operations\t\r  ........................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n2.1.1\t\r  \nVarietal Selection\t\r  ....................................................................................................................\t\r  1\t\r  \n2.1.2\t\r  \nSeed selection and treatment\t\r  ...................................................................................................\t\r  2\t\r  \n2.1.3\t\r  \nTesting for germination\t\r  ...........................................................................................................\t\r  2\t\r  \n2.1.4\t\r  \nSite selection\t\r  ............................................................................................................................\t\r  2\t\r  \n2.2\t\r  \nField Operations\t\r  .............................................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n2.2.1\t\r  \nLand preparation\t\r  ......................................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n2.2.2\t\r  \nSoil fertility management\t\r  ........................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n2.2.3\t\r  \nPlanting\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\r  \nSoil fertility management\t\r  ........................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n2.2.3\t\r  \nPlanting\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  4\t\r  \n2.2.4\t\r  \nWeeding\t\r  ...................................................................................................................................\t\r  5\t\r  \n2.2.5\t\r  \nCrop rotation\t\r  ............................................................................................................................\t\r  5\t\r  \n2.2.6\t\r  \nControlling pests and diseases\t\r  .................................................................................................\t\r  5\t\r  \n2.2.7\t\r  \nHarvesting\t\r  ................................................................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.3\t\r  \nPostharvest handling\t\r  .......................................................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.3.1\t\r  \nSeed drying\t\r  ..............................................................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.3.2\t\r  \nShelling\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.3.3\t\r  \nGrain and seed dressing and storage\t\r  ........................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.3.4\t\r  \nProper storage\t\r  ..........................................................................................................................\t\r  9\t\r  \n2.4\t\r  \nMaize storage pests\t\r  .......................................................................................................................\t\r  10\t\r  \n2.5\t\r  \nMould and aflatoxin control\t\r  .........................................................................................................\t\r  11\t\r  \n2.6\t\r  \nUtilization and value addition\t\r  .......................................................................................................\t\r  11\t\r  \n3\t\r  \nPractical\t\r  ...............................................................................................................................................\t\r  12\t\r  \n3.1\t\r  \nHow to determine the moisture content of maize\t\r  .........................................................................\t\r  12\t\r  \n4\t\r  \nTake home messages\t\r  ...........................................................................................................................\t\r  12\t\r  \n5\t\r  \nFurther reading\t\r  ....................................................................................................................................\t\r  13", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iii\t\r  \nOverview \nThe purpose of this module is to train extension officers, lead farmers and service providers on \nmaize production along the value chain, with enhancement of gender participation for improved \nlivelihoods. \n \nTraining Objectives \n• To train the extension officers and other stakeholders to enhance the productivity on maize. \n• To enhance and empower the capacity of farmers on the maize value chain for food security. \n• To increase commercialization of maize. \n• To promote gender inclusion and participation in maize production along the value chain. \nOutcomes \n1. Extension officers and other stakeholders trained on maize production. \n2. Capacity of farmers for food security along the maize value chain enhanced. \n3. Commercialization of maize enhanced. \n4. Gender inclusion and participation in maize along the value chain enhanced.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iv\r  \n \nAcknowledgements \nThe authors of this manual acknowledge the support from European Union (EU) through the \nInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Kenya Cereals Enhancement \nprogram (KCEP) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries MoALF in \ncollaboration with the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO)-\nKCEP, Nairobi, Kenya.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "v\t\r  \n \n \nAbbreviation/Acronym \nAC \n Acre \nAEZ \nAgro-ecological-zones \nCAN \n Calcium ammonium nitrate \nDAP \nDi-ammonium phosphate \nFYM \nFarmyard manure \nHa \nHectare \nKALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \nKCEP \nKenya Cereal Enhancement Programme \nKSC \nKenya Seed Company \nNPK \nNitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium \nUH \nUpper Highlands \nLH \n Lower Highlands \nUM \nUpper Midlands \nWSC \nWestern Seed Company \nGDP \nKenya’s Gross Domestic Product \n°C \nDegrees Celcius", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1\r  \n \n1 \nIntroduction/ Background \nMaize is a staple food and contributes to about 65% of daily per capita cereal consumption. It \nserves as subsistence and a commercial crop, and grows on an estimated 1.4 million hectares. \nMaize accounts for more than 20% of the total agricultural production and 25% of agricultural \nemployment. It is an important source of carbohydrate, protein, iron, vitamin B, and minerals. \nMaize products include baked, roasted and boiled fresh maize on the cob, porridges, pastes, beer, \nstarch, oil and livestock feed from by-products of fresh and dry maize grain. The stalk provides \nan important source of livestock feeds as crop residue and silage. \n1.1 \nEcological requirement \nMaize grows across a range of agro-ecological zones and most varieties differ in maturity, \nresistance/tolerance to pests and diseases. \n1.1.1 Altitude \nMaize is grown at all altitudes ranging from sea level at the Coast to 2,200 m above sea level. \nHowever, if planted in very low or high altitudes poor yields will be realised. \n1.1.2 Rainfall \nRainfall requirements vary with different varieties. In general maize will do well in areas that \nreceive 600-900mm of rainfall. The rainfall should be evenly distributed during the growing \nperiod. For higher yields, the crop should receive enough rainfall during the first five weeks after \nsowing and at flowering time. Otherwise any drought at flowering time will interfere with \npollination and drastically lower the yields. Dry weather conditions are required during \nharvesting. \n1.1.3 Soil type \nSoils should be well drained, well aerated, deep and warm. The best soils for growing maize are \nsilt loam with sufficient nutrients and a pH range of 5.0-7.0. Water logged soils should be \navoided because if maize stands in water for more than two days it wither and die off. Soils \nshould be routinely analyzed. \n1.1.4 Temperature \nThe temperature requirements of maize vary with varieties. Cold conditions at high altitude will \nextend life cycle, whereas high temperatures will expose the crop to much respiration and lower \nthe yields. The optimum temperature for good yields will be 30°C. \n2 \nKey Operations \n2.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " varieties. Cold conditions at high altitude will \nextend life cycle, whereas high temperatures will expose the crop to much respiration and lower \nthe yields. The optimum temperature for good yields will be 30°C. \n2 \nKey Operations \n2.1 \nPre-field operations \n2.1.1 Varietal Selection \nThe choice of appropriate maize varieties for a given location is very important because every \nvariety has extensively been tested and recommended based on climatic conditions, soil type, \nyield potential, resistance to pest and diseases or maturity period among others (Table 1). Some", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2\r  \ntolerant and resistant varieties include Hybrid 6218 is tolerant to leaf blight, Hybrid 6213 and \n6210 are tolerant to grey leaf spot. \n2.1.2 Seed selection and treatment \nFarmers are advised to use certified seeds and practice best agronomic practices for best yields. \n2.1.3 Testing for germination \nWhile the germination percentage (%) of seeds is supposed to be indicated on every sold packet, \nfarmers often get non-germinating seeds and this results in disappointment after planting. \nTherefore it is advisable to conduct a simple germination test. Counting a 100 seeds of a selected \nmaize variety and put between moist old newspapers does this. After four days of incubation, the \ngerminated seeds are counted and divided by the total seeds and expressed as a percentage. For \nexample, if out of the 100 seeds 85 seeds germinate, germination percent will be 85%. A \ngermination percentage of 85-100% is considered good for the maize seed. In case germination \nrate is lower, you may increase sowing density correspondingly to ensure appropriate plant \ndensity (for example plant 2-3 seeds) per hole. \n \n2.1.4 Site selection \nTo ensure high maize yields, select highly productive land suitable that is suitable for maize \nproduction. For example, avoid steeply sloping land, or near a swamp, very sandy soils, and \nareas with shallow surface soil and places with couch grass.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3\r  \n \n \n \nTable 1: Maize varieties five KCEP implementing counties in Western Region \nVarieties \nSource \n AEZ where grown \nKCEP sites \nMaturity \n(Days) \nYield \npotential 90 \nkg bags/acre \nH 6213 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nTrans \nNzoia, \nNandi, Nakuru, \nKakamega \nBungoma \n160-210 \n50 \nH6210 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nTrans \nNzoia, \nNandi \nNakuru, \nKakamega \nBungoma \n160-210 \n45 \nH629 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nTrans \nNzoia, \nNandi \nKakamega and \nBungoma \n160-210 \n43 \nKH600-23A \nAgricultural \nDevelopment \nCorporation (ADC) \nHighlands \n \n140-175 \n56 \nH614D \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nNandi, Nakuru \nand Bungoma \n160-210 \n33 \nH627 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nBungoma \n150-210 \n47 \n \nWH509 \nWestern \nSeed \nCompany \nMoist Mid-Altitude \nBungoma \n120-180 \n30-35 \nWH505 \nWestern \nSeed \nCompany \nMoist Mid- altitudes \nBungoma \n120-180 \n30-35 \nH516 \nKenya Seed Company \n \nMoist Mid altitude \nBungoma \n \n20 \nPHB30G19 \nPioneer \nSeed \nCompany \n \nMoist Mid-altitude \nNakuru \n90-120 \n30 \nH517 \nKenya Seed Company \nMoist Mid-altitude \n \nBungoma \n120-130 \n32 \nH624 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \n \nNakuru \n140-180 \n32 \nH6218 \nKenya Seed Company \nHighlands \nTrans \nNzoia, \nNandi, Nakuru \nand \nKakamega \n150-200 \n56 \nPANNAR \n(691) \nPannar \nSeed \nCompany \nHighlands \nKakamega \n150-200 \n25 \nWH507 \nWestern \nSeed \nCompany \n \nMoist Mid-altitude \nBungoma \n120-130 \n32 \nSIMBA61", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Pannar \nSeed \nCompany \nHighlands \nKakamega \n150-200 \n25 \nWH507 \nWestern \nSeed \nCompany \n \nMoist Mid-altitude \nBungoma \n120-130 \n32 \nSIMBA61 \nSeed \nCompany \n(SeedCo) \n \nMoist Mid-altitude \nBungoma \n120-130 \n32", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4\r  \n2.2 \nField Operations \n2.2.1 Land preparation \nA maize farm can be prepared using Conventional CA methods. Conservation Agriculture \nincludes spraying with recommended herbicides and crop residue management. Conventional \nmethods include hands, us of an ox-plough or a tractor. It’s important to prepare the land early \nenough to allow weeds to dry and decompose. \n \nTable 2: Land preparation practices/technologies employed in five KCEP implementing Counties in \nWestern Region \nCounty/ Sub-county \nLand preparation practices/technologies \nConventional land \npreparation: \nConventional \nland \npreparation- \nConservation \nAgriculture \n1. Bungoma County (Tongaren and \nSirisia sub counties); \n2. Kakamega County (Lugari and \nLukuyani sub-counties); \n3. Nandi \nCounty \n(Mosop \nand \nChesumei sub-counties); \n4. Trans Nzoia County (Kwanza and \nCherangani sub-counties); \n5. Nakuru County (Njoro and Molo \nsub- counties) \nPlough twice and harrow \nonce or plough once but \nat least 3 months before \nthe anticipated time of \nplanting + 2 harrows just \nbefore planting \nOne plough \n(disc or \n mould board) + 1 \nharrow \nUse Glyphosate \n based herbicide at 2 \nl/acre during fallow \nand 1.2 l/acre at \nleast 2 weeks before \nplanting. \n. \n2.2.2 Soil fertility management \nSoil fertility can be managed through several strategies including, organic fertilizers/manures, \nand inorganic or chemical fertilizers. \n \nOrganic fertilizers/manures \nFarmyard manure (FYM) can be applied either alone at a rate of 4 tonnes per acre. When FYM is \nused in combination with inorganic fertilizers half the recommended rates should be applied. \n \nInorganic/chemical fertilizers \nFertilizer recommendations are based on different agro-ecological zones and soil types. The \nmain fertilizers used are Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) at 50kg/acre (50kg bag/acre) (applied \nat planting), Calcium ammonium phosphate (", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ro-ecological zones and soil types. The \nmain fertilizers used are Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) at 50kg/acre (50kg bag/acre) (applied \nat planting), Calcium ammonium phosphate (CAN) at 92kg/acre (2 bags of 50kg each) top-\ndressed when the plants are knee-high. However, farmers should follow the recommendations \nagreed during the KCEP validation workshop until further notice. \n \nManagement of acid soils \nLiming is recommended for acid soils. However, other fertilizers with a liming effect like MEA \nMazao (100 kg/acre), Mavuno basal (100 kg/acre) and Mavuno for topdressing (75 kg/acre) are \nrecommended for acidic soils. \n2.2.3 Planting \nPlanting time", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5\r  \nThe time of planting is a very critical step in maize production. Planting should be done within \nthe first two weeks of the onset of rains. Early planted maize allows the germinating seed to \nbenefit from nitrogen flux effect, warm soil temperatures and good aeration and escape from \ninsect pests and diseases. Maize planting depth ranges from 2.5-5 cm. \n \nSpacing and plant population per hectare\t\r  \nThe recommended spacing and planting density of maize for different zones is as shown in Table \n3. \n\t\r  \nTable 3: Recommended spacing and planting density of maize for different zones \nRegion \nSpacing \nDensity (plants per ha) \nHighland \n75x25cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n75 x 50cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n53,333 \n53,333 \nMedium \n75 x 30cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n75 x 60cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n44,444 \n44,444 \nDry land \n90 x 30cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand) \n90x 60cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop) \n37,850 \n37,850 \n. \n2.2.4 Weeding \nWeeds reduce maize yields by competing for moisture, nutrients, space and light. Weeds are also \nan alternative host to pests and diseases. The most critical stage of weed competition in the life \nof a maize plant is during the first four to six weeks after emergence of the crop. The most \ncommon practice in weed management are hand weeding and use of herbicides. Some of the \nrecommended practices include: hand weeding that should be done at least three weeks after \nemergence of the plants followed by a second weeding at knee high. Other recommended \napproaches include the use of a dense legume cover crop to suppress weeds for example lablab \n(Lablab purpureus), velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) or sunhemp (Crotalaria juncea) and \ndesmodium. Farmers can regularly scout their fields and uproot Striga weed early enough before \nthe seeds are produced. \n2.2.5 Crop rotation \nCrop rotation is highly recommended to reduce build-up of maize diseases and insect pests. \nRotation is mainly done with beans,", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " their fields and uproot Striga weed early enough before \nthe seeds are produced. \n2.2.5 Crop rotation \nCrop rotation is highly recommended to reduce build-up of maize diseases and insect pests. \nRotation is mainly done with beans, cowpeas and peas. Rotating of maize with other cereal crops \nlike sorghum and millet should be avoided, especially in case of Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease \n(MLND). \n2.2.6 Controlling pests and diseases \nDiseases and pests are largely responsible for the low maize yields, however, the incidence and \nseverity vary between seasons. Integrated pest and disease management is recommended. Some \nexamples of common maize pests and diseases and their control measures are shown in Tables 4 \nand 5, respectively.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6\r  \nPests \n \nTable 4: Field pests, destructive stage, damaging symptoms and control \nPest \nSymptoms \nControl \nFIELD PESTS: \n \n \n \nMaize stem borers \n \n \n \n \n \nCaterpillars feed on young plants (a)and cause dead \nhearts (b). They later burrow into stems (c and d) \naffecting water and nutrient flow. \n• \nIntercrop with non-host crops. \n• \nIntercrop with green leaf \ndesmodium. \n• \nPlant trap crops around the \nplot. \n• \nBiological control with \npredators and parasites. \n• \nUse recommended \ninsecticides. \nMaize leafhoppers \n \n \n• \nSlender hoppers with two small black spots \nbetween eyes and hop away on disturbance \n• \nHoppers feed on maize plants and transmit maize \nstreak virus. Plants turn chlorotic and streaked \nand damage may be up to 100% \n• \nPlant away from grassland or a \nprevious irrigated crop. \n• \nPlant early to reduce risk of \nvirus transmission. \n• \nKeep the fields free from grass \nweeds. \n• \nRemove residues of cereal \ncrops. \n• \nUse \nrecommended \nMSV \nresistant maize varieties. \n• \nCatch them with sticky green \ntraps \nMaize Aphids \n \n• \nSmall, 1 to 4 mm long, soft-bodied dark green to \nbluish-green in color with two long antenna. \n• \nFeed on young leaves in dry periods. \n• \nMottling stunted growth and dieback. Sooty \nblack mold becomes evident. \n• \nMixed cropping, trap crops. \n• \nUse predators and parasites like \nladybirds and hover fly. \n• \nSprays with recommended \nChemical in severe infestations. \nBollworms \n \n \n \n• \nPolyphagous pest that damages many crops. \n• \nBollworms feed on leaves, buds, growing points, \nflowers and fruit. \n• \nDamage reduces leaf area, which slows plant \ngrowth. Also feeds on flowers and fruit causes \nthe main damage. \n• \nIntercrop maize with other \ncrops in heavy infestations. \n• \nSpray with approved \ninsecticides \nB\t\r  \nC\t\r", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Also feeds on flowers and fruit causes \nthe main damage. \n• \nIntercrop maize with other \ncrops in heavy infestations. \n• \nSpray with approved \ninsecticides \nB\t\r  \nC\t\r  \nD\r  \nA", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7\r  \nCutworms \n \n• \nThese are caterpillars that are found in the soil \nand damage young seedlings. \n• \nThey cut off the plant at or below the ground \nlevel. \n• \nSeed dressing with approved \nseed dressers. \n• \nSpread bait on the ground. \n \nDiseases \n \nTable 5: Selected maize diseases, symptoms and control strategies \nDisease \nSymptoms \nPrevention/control \nDowny mildew \n \n \n \nLeaves and leaf sheaths have white \nand yellow stripes, stunting of the \nwhole plant, which produces no \nyield. \n• \nEarly planting. \n• \nCrop rotation. \n• \nResistant varieties \nNorthern Corn (Turcicum) \nLeaf Blight \n \nA chlorotic “halo” develops into a \nnecrotic lesion that grows into \nmature cigar-shaped lesions about \n2 cm wide and 15 cm long. The \nsymptoms appear first on lower \nleaves and increase in size and \nnumber as the plant develops. \n• \nPlanting resistant varieties. \n• \n Crop rotation. \n• \nFungicides in the early stages \nof the disease. \n \nSouthern leaf blight \nLight brown leaf spots appear with \na brown margin, of up to 25 mm \nlong and 2-6 mm wide. The spots \nare at first restricted by the leaf \nveins, but later leaves dry out and \ndie prematurely. Survival in soil \noccurs for up to 12 months. \n• \nUse disease-free seed or \ntreated seed with fungicides. \n• \nDestroy crop residues and \nvolunteer plants. \n• \nPractice crop rotation. \n• \nUse tolerant/resistant varieties. \nGray leaf spot (GLS) \n \n \nMature lesions, about 5cm long \nand 0.3 cm wide start from the \nlower leaves and increase in \nnumber usually after silking. The \ncolour changes from light to gray \nlesions, which may grow together \nand kill the entire leaves. \n• \nObserve field hygiene; \n• \nUse resistant/tolerant \nvarieties; \n• \nEarly planting; \n• \nProper tillage; \n• \nCrop rotation for at least 2 \nyears with non -host crops \nlike potato, beans or pea; \n• \nUse recommended rates of \nfertilizers. \nCommon rust", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "; \n• \nProper tillage; \n• \nCrop rotation for at least 2 \nyears with non -host crops \nlike potato, beans or pea; \n• \nUse recommended rates of \nfertilizers. \nCommon rust \n \nThe disease is characterized by \nelongate raised bumps (pustules) \nscattered or clustered together on \nboth leaf surfaces that are red to \ndark \nbrown \nin \ncolor. \nThe \nsymptoms are mainly observed in \nthe mid and upper canopy of the \ncrop, especially during tasseling. \nLater the epidermis is ruptured and \nthe lesions turn black and spores \nare released as the plant matures. \n• \nUse resistant varieties. \n• \nFoliar application of \nfungicides. \n• \nCultural practices.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8\r  \nCommon smut \n \nThe fungus attacks all parts of the \nplant that is leaves, stalks, tassels \nand ears even below the soil \nsurface. It gains entry through \nwounds or thin walled cells of \nactively growing maize. Galls that \nreplace individual kernels and are \ncovered with white membranes \ncharacterize common smut. Later, \nthe galls break open releasing black \nmasses of spores that will infect \nmaize in the following season. \n• \nObserve field hygiene \n• \nPlant resistant varieties \n• \nSpray with fungicides \n• \nAvoid injuring the plants. \nHead Smut \n \nThe fungus penetrates the seedlings \nand grows inside the plant without \nshowing \nsymptoms, \nuntil \nthe \ntasseling and silking stage. \n \n• \nPlant resistant varieties. \n• \nPlant early, when temperatures \nare unfavorable for spore \ngermination. \n• \nTreat seeds with systemic \nfungicides. \n• \nMaintain balanced soil \nfertility. \n• \nWhere feasible, remove and \nburn smutted tassels and ears \nas they emerge to reduce \ninoculum spreading. \n• \nCrop rotation. \nMaize lethal necrosis disease \n \n \n \nThese include chlorotic mottle on \nthe leaves, usually starting from the \nbase of the young leaves in the \nwhorl and extending upwards \ntoward the leaf tips, mild to severe \nleaf mottling, dwarfing and \npremature aging. Necrosis of the \nyoung leaves in the whorl before \nexpansion leading to a “dead \nheart”. Lesions sometimes \nassociated with unfurled leaves \nappear on the stem. Tassels with no \npollen and finally there is poor \ngrain filing. \n \n• \nIntegrated pest and disease \nmanagement. \n• \nUse of certified seeds. \n• \nObserve field hygiene. \n• \nManage the hosts and vectors. \n• \nAvoid \nvolunteering \ncrops/weeds in the farm. \n• \nObserve closed seasons. \n• \nCop rotate with non-cereal \ncrops. \n \nMaize streak virus \nNarrow white to yellowish streaks \non the leaves whorls. The central \nleaves die, resulting in a dry, \nwithered parallel to the mid rib \n'dead", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \ncrops. \n \nMaize streak virus \nNarrow white to yellowish streaks \non the leaves whorls. The central \nleaves die, resulting in a dry, \nwithered parallel to the mid rib \n'dead-heart' symptom. \n \n \n• \nUse of resistant varieties. \n• \nPlant early in the season \n• \nEradicate grass weeds. \n• \nControl vectors.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "9\r  \n \n2.2.7 Harvesting \nGreen maize \nMaize that is to be eaten green is ready for harvest when the grain hardens or when the silky \nflowering at the top of the maize cob turns black. \n \nDried maize \nThe recommended moisture content for dry maize is 13%. \n2.3 \nPostharvest handling \n2.3.1 Seed drying \nMaize can be dried on cob or after shelling. Both shelled and unshelled maize can be dried in the \nsun on a cemented floor, mats, and tarpaulins, raised structure like cribs or specially constructed \ndrying sheds. Maize should not be dried on bare ground because the grains will pick up moisture, \ndirt and insects. In case of open air-drying, the grain should be protected from rain, night dew, \ndomestic animals and birds. Maize can also be dried in mobile motorized driers, which are now \naccessible to farmers and can dry up to 37 bags in two hours. The recommended moisture \ncontent for dry maize is below 13%. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure 2: Methods for drying maize. \n \n2.3.2 Shelling \nShelling should be done immediately after drying the cobs. Sort the cobs to remove diseased or \nrotten grains. Shelling can be done using a hand-held Sheller or motorized Sheller. Shelling of \nthe grains should be done carefully, so that the grains do not get damaged. After shelling, the \ngrains should be cleaned by removing any dirt and foreign matter, small and damaged seeds. \n2.3.3 Grain and seed dressing and storage \nBefore storage, and consuming maize treat the grains with Super actellic @ 50g per bag/90kg. \nStore maize as dry as possible in air-tight bins or drum or well-secured gunny bags. \n2.3.4 Proper storage \nThe dried shelled grains should be stored in metallic silos or packed in Hermatic bags (Agro-Z \nbags). Place the silos or bags on pallets in a clean and well-ventilated store. \nMaize drying on bare ground \n(not recommended \nMaize \ndrying \non \ntarpaulin \nor \nmobile \ndrier \n(Recommended)", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "10\t\r  \n \n \n \nFigure 3: Maize storage methods \n2.4 \nMaize storage pests \nSeveral post-harvest pests affect maize and some selected pests of economic importance are \nshown in Table 6 below: \n \nTable 6: Storage pests, symptoms, damages caused and control strategies \n \nPest \nSymptoms \nDamage \nControl \n \n \nLarger \nGrain \nBorer (LGB) \nA beetle like insect \nthat is a serious \npest of maize. \n \n \nLGB will attack maize on \nthe cob, both before and \nafter harvest. \n \n \nAdults bore into maize husks, cobs \nproducing large quantities of grain \ndust as they tunnel. \n• \nEarly harvesting, drying and \nstorage in cleaned and \ndusted store and bags. \n• \nUse plant extracts such as \nNeem, pyrethrum and castor \nseed. \n• \nUse recommended \nchemicals. \nMaize weevils \nThe \nadults \nare \nsmall (2.5 to 4.0 \nmm long), black \nwith a long, narrow \nsnout. \n \nFemale lays eggs inside the \ngrain. \n \n \n \nLarva (grub) lives inside the grain \nhollowing it out leaving circular \nholes on the surface of the grain \n• \nEarly harvesting, drying and \nstorage \nin \ncleaned \nand \ndusted store and bags. \n• \nRecommended \nChemicals \ncan also be used. \nRodents \n(Rats and mice) \nFeed on maize grain. \n \n• \nUse rat guard when building \nthe in the granaries. \n• \nUse traps \n• \nUse baits. \n \nPoor\t\r  Maize\t\r  storage\t\r  condition\t\r  \nSky\t\r   plastic\t\r   and\t\r   small\t\r  \nmetal\t\r  silos\t\r  \t\r  \nLarge-­‐scale\t\r  metal\t\r  silos", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "11\t\r  \n2.5 \nMould and aflatoxin control \nAflatoxin in maize is caused by moulds (Aspergillus species). Cooking or heating cannot destroy \naflatoxins. The only way is to dry maize grain quickly after harvest to moisture levels of between \n12 and 15% and ensure good ventilation. \n \n2.6 \nUtilization and value addition \n1. The grains are ground to produce maize flour and it is also consumed as a food grain \nfresh, ground, boiled or mixed with other foods. \n2. The stalks, leaves, and other remains from the maize cobs are used to feed domestic \nanimals especially dairy cattle. \n3. The stalks and cobs are used to provide domestic fuel particularly in the rural areas. They \nare also used as organic manure. \n4. The grains are used in manufacture of corn oil and animal feeds hence it is a vital raw \nmaterial for industrialization.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "12\t\r  \n \n3 \nPractical \n3.1 \nHow to determine the moisture content of maize \nMoisture content can be determined by using a moisture meter. Where farmers have no moisture \nmeter, they can use the biting grain method or the salt test. \nSalt test \nPut maize grains into a 750ml glass bottle (which should be about one third full). Add 2–3 \ntablespoons (20–30g) of dry salt and shake vigorously for 1 minute to mix the salt and grain, and \nthen leave for 15 minutes. If the salt sticks to the side of the bottle, the moisture content of the \ngrain is above 15% and is not safe for storage. If the salt does not stick to the bottle, the moisture \ncontent is below 15% and the grain is safe for storage. \n \n4 \nTake home messages \n1. Always plant certified seeds. \n2. Carry out timely land preparation. \n3. Always plant early. \n4. Do timely weeding. \n5. Always control pests and diseases. \n6. Harvest at physiological maturity. \n7. Dry to 13% moisture content. \n8. Treat grains before storage. \n9. Store in a clean dry place.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "13\t\r  \n \n5 \nFurther reading \nAcland, J.D. (1971). East African Crops. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United \nNations, Longman Group Limited. \nDe Groote, H., Owuor, G., Ouma, J., Muhammad, L. and Danda, K. (2005). The Maize \nGreen Revolution in Kenya Revisited. E-Journal of Agricultural and Development \nEconomics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, pp. 32 – 49. \nFAO, (2010). Food Security Statistics. Http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/food/security/-\nstatistics/en/ (accessed 30th December 2010). \nIITA. (1982). Maize Production Manual Series No. 8. Vol. 1, Chapters 1 – 9. \nKiiya W, Ndungu F, Onyango R, Lunzalu E, and Mulati J. (2005). Maize Varieties, soil \nfertility, improvement and appropriate agronomy practices. \nMoA-Agricultural Information Resource Centre. (2011). Field Crops Technical Handbook, \n3rd Edition Vol. 1. Nairobi.", "source": "861533390-KALRO-KCEP-Maize-Extension-and-Training-Manual-04042016.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ \n \n*Corresponding author: E-mail: njokafm@yahoo.co.uk, njokafm@gmail.com; \n \nJournal of Applied Life Sciences International \n \n12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \nISSN: 2394-1103 \n \n \n \n \nAgronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize \nin Kiambu and Embu Counties of Kenya \n \nFredrick M. Njoka1* and Jeniffer M. Kariuki2 \n \n1Department of Agricultural Resource Management, University of Embu, P.O.Box 6-60100, \nEmbu, Kenya. \n2Department of Crop Sciences, Kenyatta University, P.O.Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya. \n \nAuthors’ contributions \n \nThis work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Author FMN designed the study, \nperformed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Author JMK managed the \nanalyses of the study. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. \n \nArticle Information \n \nDOI: 10.9734/JALSI/2017/30932 \nEditor(s): \n(1) Shahira M. Ezzat, Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Egypt. \n(2) J. Rodolfo Rendón Villalobos, Department of Technological Development, National Polytechnic Institute, México. \nReviewers: \n(1) Abdulwahab Shaibu, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. \n(2) Ahmed Medhat Mohamed Al-Naggar, Cairo University, Egypt. \n(3) Evellyn Giselly de Oliveira Couto, University of São Paulo, Brazil. \n(4) Aamir Raina, Aligarh Muslim University, India. \n(5) S. Gandhi Doss, Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute, India. \n(6) B. A. Monpara, Junagadh Agricultural University, India. \nComplete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/19489 \n \n \n \nReceived 9th December 2016 \nAccepted 7th June 2017 \nPublished 12th June 2017 \n \n \nABSTRACT \n \nAims: This study was conducted to determine the agronomic performance of respective maize \nsingle crosses in different environments in", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " December 2016 \nAccepted 7th June 2017 \nPublished 12th June 2017 \n \n \nABSTRACT \n \nAims: This study was conducted to determine the agronomic performance of respective maize \nsingle crosses in different environments in varying soil and climatic zones in Kenya. \nMethodology: The trials were conducted at experimental stations of Kenya Agricultural and \nLivestock Research Organization (KALRO), Muguga South and KALRO Embu in Kiambu and \nEmbu counties of Kenya respectively. The germplasm used in this study were 36 single crosses \namong 18 inbred lines of maize. The experiment was laid out in a 6 x 6 lattice randomized complete \nblock design (RCBD) with two replications. Agronomic performance was measured by collecting \nand analyzing data on plant height, ear height, disease scores of maize streak virus and gray leaf \nspot and grain yield. Data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Genstat 12 \nprogram for individual single crosses. Mean separation was done using Tukey’s comparison \nmethod at 5% significance level. \nOriginal Research Article", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n2 \n \nResults: The best performing crosses in Muguga were also the best in Embu on grain yield \nproduction with exception of cross MUL 516 x MUL508 which had a mean grain yield of 11.9 t/ha in \nMuguga but produced 2.7 t/ha in Embu which was attributed to other factors other than genetic \nmakeup. Variation in yield showed a diverse genetic background of genotypes studied under these \nconditions. The grain yield ranged between 1.01 t/ha (MUL533 x MUL513) to 11.9 t/ha (MUL 516 x \nMUL 508) both in Muguga). The best performing cross for grain yield in Muguga was MUL 516 x \nMUL 508) while in Embu the best performing cross for grain yield was MUL541 x POPA. Data on \ndisease scores where natural infestation was visually scored showed that majority of the crosses \nhad a score of one confirming their near immunity status. \nConclusions: For grain yield improvement crosses MUL508 x MUL688, POPA x MUL14, MUL513 \nx MUL114 and MUL513 x CN244 can further be evaluated and eventually released to farmers as \nthey indicated promising relationship with yield potential compared to other crosses. Further \nresearch on agronomic performance of the crosses can be done not only in the research sites but \nalso in other regions of Kenya. \n \n \nKeywords: Genotypes; mean performance; significant difference. \n \n1. INTRODUCTION \n \nMaize (Zea mays L.) is the world’s most widely \ngrown cereal and it is the primary staple food for \nmajority of population in many developing \ncountries [1]. It is a major source of food in Sub- \nSaharan Africa and it is grown by both small and \nlarge scale farmers [2]. Maize is an important \nsource of carbohydrate, protein, iron, vitamin B, \nminerals, livestock fodder and it is used in \nindustries for starch and oil extraction [3]. In \nKenya maize production is divided into six agro-\necological zones based on elevation and climate. \nThese regions include: the lowland tropics", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " fodder and it is used in \nindustries for starch and oil extraction [3]. In \nKenya maize production is divided into six agro-\necological zones based on elevation and climate. \nThese regions include: the lowland tropics \ncomprising of the coastal strip and adjoining \ninland area, the dry mid attitude, the dry \ntransitional zones in the South East, the \nhighlands tropics, the moist transitional zone to \nthe East and West of the highland tropics, the \nmoist mid altitude zone around Lake Victoria [4]. \nThe moist transitional zones are the most \nimportant maize production zones followed by \nthe highland tropics. Maize yield variability is \nextremely high in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) than \nother regions of the world, as maize production is \nprimarily rain fed. Between 2005 and 2008, for \nexample the average maize yield in SSA was \nestimated at 1.4 t/ha which is very low as \ncompared to 2.5 to 3.9 in developing countries \n[5]. Between 2003 and 2005 the World Food \nProgram spent USS1.5 billion to alleviate food \nshortage due to drought and food failure in SSA \nalone [6]. With maize occupying such central \nposition in Kenya’s diet and farm production \nactivities, it’s imperative that ways and means of \nimproving maize productivity be sought [7]. One \nway of increasing maize production is by \nidentifying maize varieties that perform well in \ndifferent agro-climatic zones of Kenya. The main \nobjective \nof \nthis \nstudy \nwas \nto \nevaluate \nperformance of single cross hybrids in varying \nclimatic and soil conditions of Kenya. \n \n2. MATERIALS AND METHODS \n \n2.1 Study Area \n \nThe experiment was undertaken in KALRO \nMuguga and KALRO Embu in Kiambu and Embu \ncounties respectively as shown in Fig. 1. \n \n2.2 Planting \nMaterials \nand \nField \nManagement \n \nThe experiment was laid out in a 6 x 6 lattice \nrandomized complete block design (RBCD) with \ntwo replications. The plots were ploughed before \nthe onset of rains and harrowed to produce a \nmedium tilth for maize. The plots consisted of 3 \nrows of 11 hills", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " design (RBCD) with \ntwo replications. The plots were ploughed before \nthe onset of rains and harrowed to produce a \nmedium tilth for maize. The plots consisted of 3 \nrows of 11 hills each at a spacing of 75 cm inter \nrow and 25 cm between hills. Planting at Muguga \nwas done on 10/4/2012 and in Embu on \n14/4/2012 at the onset of the long rains. A \ncompound fertilizer di-ammonium phosphate \n(DAP) was applied at the recommended rate of \n80 kg P2O5 per hectare during planting time. \nTwo seeds were planted per hill but later thinned \nto leave one plant per hill. The plot area \nmeasured 5.55 m2 (0.75 m x 3 rows) x (0.3 x 11 \nplants) and had a population of 33 plants, giving \na total population of 53333 plants per ha-1. Hand \nweeding was done twice during the growth \nperiod; first two weeks after emergence and the \nsecond weeding four weeks after the first \nweeding. \nTop \ndressing \nwas \ndone \nusing \nnitrogenous fertilizer, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate \n(CAN 21%N) at the rate of 80 kg N per hectare", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n3 \nafter thinning the plants. Maize stalk borer \n(Busseola \nfusca) \nwas \ncontrolled \nusing \nBulldock ® (Beta-cyfluthrin) applied on the funnel \nof each plant at the rate of 6 kg per ha-1. \nHarvesting \nwas \ndone \non \n9/10/2012 \nat \nKALRO Muguga and 10/10/2012 at KALRO \nEmbu. \n \n \nThe germplasm used in this study were 18 inbred \nlines and their respective single crosses derived \nfrom KALRO Muguga. The entries were used \nboth as the maternal parents in one cross as well \nthe paternal parents in the reciprocal cross \n(Table 1). \n \n2.3 Data Collection \n \nData was collected during growth period and \nafter attainment of physiological maturity. Data \nwas recorded on 12 randomly picked plants from \neach row. The pre harvest data included \nmeasurement of plant height, ear height and \nvisually scoring for gray leaf spot (GLS) and \nmaize streak virus (MSV). The post- harvest data \ncollected was grain yield per hectare. \n \n \n \nFig. 1. Study sites of KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu \nArrows designate the two study areas Source: [8] \n \nTable 1. Inbred lines used in the study as parents of single crosses \n \nEntry \nSingle crosses \nEntry \nSingle crosses \n1. \n \nMUL 508 X MUL 516 \n2. \n \nPOP A X MUL 141 \n3. \n \nMUL 508 X MUL 521 \n4. \n \nPOP A X MUL 536 \n5.\nMUL 508 X MUL141\n6.\nPOP A X MUL 541\n7. \n \nMUL 508 X MUL 541 \n8. \n \nPOP A X MUL 688 \n9. \n \nMUL 508 X MUL 688 \n10. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 531\n11. \n \nMUL 508 X CN 244 \n12. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 533\n13. \n \nPOP A X M", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "UL 688 \n10. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 531\n11. \n \nMUL 508 X CN 244 \n12. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 533\n13. \n \nPOP A X MUL 511 \n14. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 114\n15. \n \nPOP A X MUL 521 \n16. \n \nMUL 513 X CN 244 \n17. \n \nPOP A X MUL 114 \n18. \n \nMUL 513 X MUL 516", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n4 \n \n2.4 Data Analyses \n \nData collected was subjected to analysis of \nvariance (ANOVA) using Genstat 12 software. \nMean separation was done using Tukey’s \ncomparison method at 5% significance level. \nThe data from the two environments, KALRO \nMuguga and KALRO Embu was analyzed \nseparately. \nAgronomic \nperformance \nwas \nanalyzed by determining coefficient of variation \n(CV) for plant height, ear height, maize streak \nvirus and gray leaf spot and grain yield (GY). \nGenotypes with low CV, low disease scores and \nhigh grain yield (GY) were considered most \ndesirable. \n \n3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION \n \n3.1 Mean Performance of Crosses on \nDifferent \nMorphological \nTraits \nin \nKALRO Embu \n \nThe analysis of variance (ANOVA), showing the \nmean squares of plant height (PH), ear height \n(EH), disease scores of maize streak virus (MSV) \ndisease, gray leaf spot (GLS), and grain yield \n(GY) for Embu are shown in Table 2. The \ncrosses showed a highly significant difference \n(p=.001) for plant height and ear height. They \nalso showed a significant difference (p=.05) on \ngrain yield. \n \nThe data (Table 3) showed that the mean ear \nheight for the crosses ranged between 53 cm for \nentry 30 (MUL533x MUL513) to 134 cm for entry \n18 (MUL141 x POPA). Most of the crosses \nshowed resistance to MSV with a mean score of \n1. However crosses: MUL516 x MUL508, POPA \nx MUL141, MUL513 x MUL531, MUL 513 x MUL \n516 (entry 2, 19, 28, 36) respectively had MSV \nscore of 2 and above, crosses MUL531 x \nMUL513 (entry 28) had a score of 4 which \nindicated infection. The mean plant height for the \ncrosses in Embu was 185 cm, ear height \n99.", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " above, crosses MUL531 x \nMUL513 (entry 28) had a score of 4 which \nindicated infection. The mean plant height for the \ncrosses in Embu was 185 cm, ear height \n99.5 cm, disease scores for MSV and GLS were \n1 and 1.77, respectively, while mean grain yield \nwas 4.14 t/ha (Table 3). Test cross POPA x MUL \n521 (entry 15) had the highest plant height \n(236 cm) in Embu while the lowest was 119 cm \nfor MUL533 x MUL513 (entry30) (Table 3). \n \n3.2 Mean Performance of Crosses in \nKALRO Muguga \n \nThe analysis of variance (ANOVA) for plant \nheight, ear height, disease scores for MSV and \nGLS and grain yield for Muguga are shown in \nTable 4. The crosses showed significant (p=.05) \ndifference for plant height, ear height and GLS, \nwhile there was no significant difference on \nMSV and grain yield on the crosses in Muguga \n(Table 4). \n \nData on the mean plant height in Muguga ranged \nbetween 148±4.00 cm for MUL 533 x MUL 513 \n(entry 30) to 278±3.00 cm for POPA x MUL541 \n(entry 23) (Table 5). The cross which had the \nlowest mean plant height MUL533 x MUL 513 \n(entry 30) also had the lowest mean grain yield of \n1.01±0.4742 t/ha, the cross also had low mean \near height (45±6 cm) and a GLS score of \n3.25±0.25 (Table 5). Cross MUL516 x MUL508 \n(entry \n2) \nhad \na \nmean \nplant \nheight \nof \n178±1.5 cm, mean ear height of 55±2 cm and the \nhighest grain yield of 11.9±10.84 t/ha (Table 5). \nThe second best cross in grain yield was POPA x \nMUL541 (entry 23) which had grain yield of \n10.08±0.83 t/ha; this test cross also had the \nsecond highest mean ear height", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nThe second best cross in grain yield was POPA x \nMUL541 (entry 23) which had grain yield of \n10.08±0.83 t/ha; this test cross also had the \nsecond highest mean ear height of 123±1.00 cm \n(Table 5). Cross POPA x MUL 141(entry 19) had \nthe \nhighest \nmean \near \nheight \nof \n125±2.5 cm and was the third best in mean grain \nyield of 8.65±0.33 t/ha. Crosses CN244 x \nMUL508 (entry 12) and POPA x MUL511 (entry \n13) had equal mean plant heights but different \nmean ear heights and different mean grain yields \n(Table 5). \n \n \nTable 2. Analysis of variance of crosses for different morphological traits in KALRO Embu \n \nSource of variation \nDf \nPH (cm) \nEH (cm) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY (t/ha)\nReplication \n1 \n6290.7 \n660.1 \n10.889 \n27.5035 \n3.19 \nGenotype \n35 \n2047.7** \n1221.8** \n2.2 \n0.5527 \n4.02* \nError \n35 \n175.8 \n169 \n1.203 \n0.5035 \n1.74 \nOverall mean \n \n185 \n99.5 \n1.00 \n1.44 \n2.68 \nCV% \n \n7.1 \n4.3 \n5.5 \n49.4 \n7.2 \n*,** Significant at (p=.05), and (p=.001) respectively, PH-plant height, EH-ear height, MSV-maize streak virus, \nGLS-grey leaf spot, GY-grain yield, CV%-Coefficient of variation", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n5 \n \nTable 3. Mean performance (± standard error) of crosses on different morphological \ntraits in Embu \n \nEntry \n Crosses \nPH (cm) \nEH (cm) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY (t/ha) \n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 \n157±3.0 \n71±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n2.5±1.0 \n2.8±0.1 \n2 \nMUL516XMUL508 \n143±11.0 \n70±11.0 \n2±1.0 \n2.5±1.0 \n2.7±0.7 \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 \n135±19.5 \n60±6.0 \n1±0.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.0±0.7 \n4 \nMUL521XMUL508 \n151±14.5 \n75±2.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n2.3±0.9 \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n195±10.0 \n99±5.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n2±0.5 \n4.2±0.7 \n6 \nMUL141XMUL508 \n197±27.0 \n105±11.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n4.6±1.7 \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 \n157±21.0 \n72±8.0 \n1±0.0 \n2±1.0 \n2.6±1.2 \n8 \nMUL541XMUL508 \n153±17.5 \n78±7.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n2.3±1.0 \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 \n223±8.0 \n116±3.5 \n1.5±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n5.3±1.0 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n221±0.5 \n121±7.5", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "0 \n116±3.5 \n1.5±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n5.3±1.0 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n221±0.5 \n121±7.5 \n1±1.0 \n2±1.0 \n4.1±0.6 \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n162±15 \n71±4.0 \n1.5±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n3.2±0.8 \n12 \nCN244XMUL508 \n210±0.5 \n123±0.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1±0.25 \n4.8±0.7 \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n209±12.0 \n121±11.5 \n1±0.0 \n1±0.0 \n3.2±0.0 \n14 \nMUL511XPOPA \n198±5.0 \n102±3.0 \n1±0.0 \n2±0.5 \n5.1±0.6 \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n236±7.0 \n132±5.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.3±0.75 \n6.7±0.3 \n16 \nMUL521XPOPA \n210±13.0 \n123±1.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1±0.0 \n4.3±0.2 \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n186±2.5 \n94±6.0 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n5.3±0.3 \n18 \nMUL114XPOPA \n221±8.0 \n134±3.5 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n5.8±0.1 \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n192±24.5 \n123±15.5 \n2±0.0 \n1±0.0 \n3.6±0.9 \n20 \nMUL141XPOPA \n212±2.5 \n131±5.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n5.6±0.8 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n219±", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "XPOPA \n212±2.5 \n131±5.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n5.6±0.8 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n219±23.5 \n124±20.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n4.5±2.4 \n22 \nMUL536XPOPA \n186±17.0 \n101±6.0 \n1±0.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n5.4±1.2 \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n214±4.0 \n125±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n6.8±0.2 \n24 \nMUL541XPOPA \n223±4.0 \n129±2.5 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n6.9±0.5 \n25 \nMUL688XPOPA \n223±12.0 \n132±8.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n5.0±0.3 \n26 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n195±7.0 \n122±4.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n3.6±0.9 \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 \n151±22.0 \n83±8.5 \n2±2.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.3±1.0 \n28 \nMUL531XMUL513 \n153±1.5 \n73±2.0 \n4±1.0 \n2±1.0 \n4.0±1.3 \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 \n140±5.5 \n66±6.0 \n1±1.0 \n1±0.0 \n2.3±0.3 \n30 \nMUL533XMUL513 \n119±10.0 \n53±5.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n1.7±0.8 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n192±5.0 \n126±3.6 \n2±2.0 \n1±0.0 \n", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n2.5±1.5 \n1.7±0.8 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n192±5.0 \n126±3.6 \n2±2.0 \n1±0.0 \n4.2±1.4 \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n200±17.5 \n100±10.5 \n1±0.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n5.6±0.9 \n33 \nMUL513XCN244 \n207±3.0 \n111±0.0 \n3.5±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n4.6±0.7 \n34 \nCN244XMUL513 \n186±5.5 \n90±3.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.5±0.5 \n3.6±1.4 \n35 \nMUL516XMUL513 \n146±22.5 \n76±13.0 \n2.5±1.5 \n2±1.0 \n3.1±0.8 \n36 \nMUL513XMUL516 \n144±3.5 \n76±0.5 \n2±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n4.9±1.7 \n \nMean \n185±13.26 \n99.5±13 \n1±1.097 \n1.77±0.7096 4.14±1.319 \n \nL.S.D 5% \n26.92 \n26.39 \n2.2 \n1.4405 \n2.678 \nPH-plant height, EH-ear height, MSV-maize streak virus, GLS-grey leave spot, GY-grain yield, L.S.D % –Least \nSignificant Difference (5%) \n \nTable 4. Analysis of variance of crosses for different morphological traits in Muguga \n \nSV \nDf\nPH (cm)\nEH (cm)\nMSV\nGLS\nGY (t/ha)\nReplication \n1 \n19 \n32 \n0.0868 \n0 \n1.488 \nGenotype \n35 \n2175.9** \n796.8** \n0.1725 \n0.2865** \n11.536 \nError \n35 \n362.4 \n115.7 \n0.2225 \n0 \n8.", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n35 \n2175.9** \n796.8** \n0.1725 \n0.2865** \n11.536 \nError \n35 \n362.4 \n115.7 \n0.2225 \n0 \n8.215 \nOverall mean \n \n214 \n79.9 \n1.16 \n1.94 \n4.84 \nCV% \n \n0.3 \n1.2 \n4.2 \n0 \n4.2 \n** Significant at (p=.05), PH- Plant height, EH- Ear height, MSV-Maize streak virus, GLS- Grey leaf spot, GY- \nGrain yield, CV%-Coefficient of variation", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n6 \n \nTable 5. Mean performance (± standard error) of crosses for different morphological traits in \nKALRO Muguga \n \nEntry\nCrosses\nPH (cm)\nEH (cm)\nMSV\nGLS\nGY (t/ha)\n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 \n156±16.0 \n42±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n3.5±0.50 \n1.78±0.1901 \n2 \nMUL516XMUL508 \n178±1.5 \n55±2.0 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.00 \n11.9±10.8447 \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 \n181±1.5 \n58±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.00 \n1.95±0.3049 \n4 \nMUL521XMUL508 \n160±7.5 \n54±6.0 \n2±1.00 \n3.25±0.25 \n1.84±0.0886 \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n221±14.5 \n79±5.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.49±1.1328 \n6 \nMUL141XMUL508 \n242±6.0 \n92±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.75±0.25 \n5.17±0.0279 \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 \n212±6.5 \n78±12.5 \n1.25±0.5 \n2.5±0.50 \n3.24±0.0854 \n8 \nMUL541XMUL508 \n220±10.5 \n76±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n5.71±1.0585 \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 \n274±2.5 \n87±4.5 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.64±0.3859 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n233±15.5 \n", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "688 \n274±2.5 \n87±4.5 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.64±0.3859 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n233±15.5 \n87±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.75±0.25 \n4.66±0.8067 \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n211±5.0 \n68±10.0 \n2±0.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.84±02879 \n12 \nCN244XMUL508 \n238±17.5 \n84±10.5 \n1±1.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.99±0.7511 \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n238±21.5 \n101±6.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n7.01±0.9207 \n14 \nMUL511XPOPA \n220±4 \n81±5.0 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.7±0.0413 \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n234±13.0 \n83±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n5.64±0.8723 \n16 \nMUL521XPOPA \n233±28.5 \n95±2.8 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.07±1.6994 \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n180±6.0 \n66±12.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.94±0.2226 \n18 \nMUL114XPOPA \n227±17.5 \n95±3.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.75±0.25 \n5.38±1.0128 \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n260±3.5 \n125±7.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n8.65±0.3338 \n20 \nMUL141XPOPA \n250±18.5 \n117±8.5 \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n6", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "±0.25 \n8.65±0.3338 \n20 \nMUL141XPOPA \n250±18.5 \n117±8.5 \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.75±2.6645 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n249±34.0 \n108±23.5 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.50 \n7.79±1.9045 \n22 \nMUL536XPOPA \n189±9.5 \n74±5.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.42±0.6465 \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n278±3.0 \n123±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n10.08±0.8281 \n24 \nMUL541XPOPA \n232±11.0 \n96±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n6.23±0.6035 \n25 \nMUL688XPOPA \n227±15.5 \n86±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n5.77±1.039 \n26 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n209±4.5 \n86±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.00 \n4.75±0.472 \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 \n197±15.5 \n67±9.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n2.95±0.1149 \n28 \nMUL531XMUL513 \n182±1.5 \n72±2.0 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.50 \n1.82±0.1047 \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 \n197±7.5 \n65±1.5 \n1.5±0.50 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.42±0.5265 \n30 \nMUL533XMUL513 \n148±4.00 \n45±6.0 \n1±0.00 \n3.25±0.25 \n1.01±0.4742 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nMUL533XMUL513 \n148±4.00 \n45±6.0 \n1±0.00 \n3.25±0.25 \n1.01±0.4742 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n241±20.5 \n86±12.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.05±0.8808 \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n240±6.5 \n84±1.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2±0.50 \n5.75±0.6533 \n33 \nMUL513XCN244 \n217±8.0 \n80±2.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.00 \n4.28±0.712 \n34 \nCN244XMUL513 \n186±10.5 \n70±11.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.5±0.50 \n4±0.8857 \n35 \nMUL516XMUL513 \n163±12.0 \n49±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n3.25±0.70 \n2.82±0.5103 \n36 \nMUL513XMUL516 \n187±13.0 \n71±11.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±1.00 \n2.83±0.6653 \nMean \n214±19.04 \n79.9±10.76\n1.16±0.4 \n1.944±0.32 \n4.84±2.866 \nL.S.D 5% \n38.64 \n21.84 \n0.9576 \n0.6645 \n5.819 \nPH-plant height, EH-ear height, MSV-maize streak virus disease, GLS-grey leaf spot, GY-grain yield, L.S.D- Least \nSignificant Difference (5%) \n \nThe height of the main ear is a very important \ncharacteristic for breeding maize, the higher it is \nthe more ears can develop from the nodes below, \nhowever if it is too high the weight of the ear may \nbend the stalk or even break it. Although low ear \nheight is unfavorable for yield and makes \nharvesting difficult, it does protect the stalk from \nex", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " below, \nhowever if it is too high the weight of the ear may \nbend the stalk or even break it. Although low ear \nheight is unfavorable for yield and makes \nharvesting difficult, it does protect the stalk from \nexcessive weight [9]. The study revealed that \ncrosses from inbred line POPA had the highest \nplant height, ear height and also the highest grain \nyield in Embu (Table 3). According to Viola et al. \n[10], maize displays an orderly sequence of \ndevelopment of yield components namely: ear \nheight, plant height, ears per plant and grain \nweight. This explains why indirect selection can \nbe used by searching for improved yield \ncomponents. The crosses in Embu and Muguga \nshowed significant difference on plant height, ear \nheight and grain yield (P≤ 0.05). The results \nrevealed that entry 23 in Muguga (POPA X MUL \n541) had the highest plant height (278±3.00 cm) \n(Table 5). The contrast was observed with entry \n30 (MUL 533 X MUL 513) having plant height of \n(119±4.0 cm) in Embu which was the lowest and", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n7 \n \nalso \nrecorded \nthe \nlowest \ngrain \nyield \nof \n(1.675±0.47 t/h) (Table 4). The possible reason \nfor the observed differences among the crosses \non yield and yield components was variation in \ngenetic makeup. Different hybrids have also been \nevaluated for morphological and agronomic traits, \nshowing significant variation [11]. \n \nGrain yield being a complex trait is influenced by \nvarious environmental factors including biotic and \nabiotic factors. There is also interplay of various \nmorphological characteristics that influence final \nyield. The best performing crosses in Muguga \nwere also the best in Embu on grain yield \nproduction with exception of cross MUL 516 x \nMUL508 which had a mean grain yield of 11.9 \nt/ha in Muguga but produced 2.7 t/ha in Embu \nwhich was attributed to other factors other than \ngenetic makeup. Variation in yield showed a \ndiverse genetic background of genotypes studied \nunder these conditions. The grain yield ranged \nbetween 1.01t/ha entry 30 (MUL533 x MUL513) \nto 11.9 t/ha entry 2 (MUL 516 x MUL 508) both in \nMuguga (Table 5). The best cross for grain yield \nin Muguga was MUL 516 x MUL 508 (entry 2) \n(Table 5) while in Embu the best cross for grain \nyield was MUL541 x POPA (entry 24) (Table 3) \nindicating the crosses were unstable attributed to \nenvironmental factors. \n \nData on disease scores where natural infestation \nwas visually scored on a scale of 1-5 showed \nthat among the evaluated crosses majority \nshowed an MSV average score of 1.16 in KALRO \nMuguga while in KALRO Embu the highest MSV \naverage scores of 4.00 were recorded. These \nobservations could be attributed to high incidence \nof leaf hoppers (Cicadulina spp.) which transmit \nmaize \nstreak \ndisease \nin \nEm", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " MSV \naverage scores of 4.00 were recorded. These \nobservations could be attributed to high incidence \nof leaf hoppers (Cicadulina spp.) which transmit \nmaize \nstreak \ndisease \nin \nEmbu. \nCrosses \nMUL531xMUL513 and MUL513 x CN244 had the \nhighest \nmean \nMSV \nscores \n4.0 \nand \n3.5 \nrespectively. \n \n4. CONCLUSION \n \nIn Embu inbred line POPA produced the best \ngrain yields when crossed with MUL541 and \nMUL521. Its high grain yield was also witnessed \nin Muguga where on average its performance \nwas superior to other inbred lines. Cross MUL \n516 x MUL 508 had the highest overall mean \ngrain yield (11.9 t/ha) but had a GLS score of 3 \ncompared to the second best in mean grain yield \nPOPA x MUL541 10.1t/ha. These findings \nshowed that POPAX MUL541 though a good \nyielding cross was affected by GLS disease \nthough at a late stage when the ears had already \ndeveloped. Crosses with high plant height had \nhigher mean grain yield than those with low plant \nheight, while crosses with low ear height had low \nmean grain yield and vice versa. In order to \ndevelop promising genotypes, it is essential to \nknow the different traits particularly those \nassociated with grain yield which is the ultimate \nobjective in any breeding program. \n \n \nThe present findings are useful to breeders in \nselecting the potential parental materials for \nmaize improvement programs in mid altitude \nagro-ecological zones in Kenya. For grain yield \nimprovement crosses MUL508 x MUL688, POPA \nx MUL141, MUL513 x MUL114 and MUL513 x \nCN244 can further be evaluated and eventually \nreleased to farmers as they indicated promising \nrelationship with yield potential compared to other \ncrosses. Inbred line MUL 513 can further be \nevaluated for grain yield improvement with all the \nother inbred lines which had high grain yields. \nInbred lines MUL 508, POP A and MUL513 can \nbe used in improving other genotypes on disease \nresistant trait. There is also need for further study \n", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nother inbred lines which had high grain yields. \nInbred lines MUL 508, POP A and MUL513 can \nbe used in improving other genotypes on disease \nresistant trait. There is also need for further study \nof the inbred lines used in this study for stability \nand adaptability in other counties of Kenya. \n \nCOMPETING INTERESTS \n \nAuthors have declared that no competing \ninterests exist. \n \nREFERENCES \n \n1. \nOfori E, Kyei-Baffour N. Agro-meteorology \nand maize production; 2006. \nAvailable:http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/w\ncp/agm/gamp/documents/chap13c-draft \n(Accessed on 3/10/2015) \n2. \nAnami S, De Block M, Machuka J, Van \nLysebettens M. Molecular improvement of \ntropical maize for drought stress tolerance \nin Sub-Saharan Africa. Critical Reviews in \nPlant Sciences. 2009;28(1-2):16-35. \n3. \nKenya agricultural and livestock research \norganization. Strategic plan implementation \nframework. \nK.A.L.R.O, \nKenya. \n2009-\n2014;15. \n4. \nCorbett JD. Classifying maize production \nzones in Kenya through multivariate cluster \nanalysis. \nIn: \nMaize \ntechnology \ndevelopment \nand \ntransfer: \nA \nGIS \napplication for research planning in Kenya, \nHassan \nRM(Ed.). \nCAB \nInternational, \nWallingford UK. 2005;15-25. \n5. \nSmale M, Byrerlee D, Jane T. Maize \nrevolutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. World", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Njoka and Kariuki; JALSI, 12(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JALSI.30932 \n \n \n \n8 \n \nBank Policy Research Working Paper. \n2011;56(59):34. \n6. \nEdmeades G. Drought tolerance in maize. \nAn emerging reality. Companion Document \nto Excecutive Summary ISAAA Briefs. \n2008;39. \n7. \nGOK. Increasing value in agriculture. \nKenya Vision 2030. Government of Kenya. \n2007;6-7. \n8. \nDe Groote H, Owuor G, Doss C, Ouma J, \nMuhammed L, Danda K. The maize green \nrevolution in Kenya revisited- Electronic \nJournal of Agriculture and Development \nEconomic. 2005;2(1):32-49. \nAvailable:www.Fao.org/es/esa/JADE \n(Accessed 24/4/2013) \n9. \nZsubori Z, Gyenes Z, Hegyi, Illes O, Pok I, \nRacz F, Szoke C. Inheritance of plant and \near height in maize (Zea mays L.) Maydica. \n2002; 28:1-5. \n10. \nViola G, Ganesh M, Reddy SS, Kummar \nCVS. Study of heritability and genetic \nadvances in elite baby corn (Zea mays) \nLines. Progressive Agriculture Introduction \nto Regression Test Automation Software. \n2003;3(2):127-128. \nAvailable:www.operativesoft.com \n(Accessed: 21/6/2013) \n11. \nIhsan H, Khalil IH, Rehman H, Igbal M. \nGenotypic \nvariability for morphological \ntraits among exotic maize hybrids. Sarhad \nJ. Agric. 2005;21(4):599-602. \n_________________________________________________________________________________ \n© 2017 Njoka and Kariuki; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution \nLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any \nmedium, provided the original work is properly cited. \n \n \n \nPeer-review history", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution \nLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any \nmedium, provided the original work is properly cited. \n \n \n \nPeer-review history: \nThe peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: \nhttp://sciencedomain.org/review-history/19489", "source": "Agronomic Performance of Single Crosses of Maize.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "i \n \nCOMBINING ABILITY OF INBRED LINES OF MAIZE (Zea mays L.) AND \nSTABILITY OF RESPECTIVE SINGLE CROSSES IN KIAMBU AND EMBU \nCOUNTIES OF KENYA. \n \n \n \n \n \nBY \n \nKARIUKI JENIFFER MUTHONI \nB. ED (SCIENCE) \nREG. NO. I56/CE/22247/2010 \n \n \n \n \nA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF \nSCIENCE (GENETICS) IN THE SCHOOL OF PURE AND APPLIED \nSCIENCE OF KENYATTA UNIVERSITY \n \n \n \n \n \nAUGUST, 2015", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ii \n \nDECLARATION \nThis thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other \nuniversity. \n \nKariuki Jeniffer Muthoni \nSignature…………………………………… \nDate…………………… \n \n \nSupervisors’ Approval \nWe confirm that the candidate carried out the work in this thesis under our \nsupervision. \n \nDr. Fredrick M. Njoka \nDean, School of Agriculture \nEmbu University College \nSignature……………………………………. \nDate…………………………… \n \nDr. Philip K. Leley \nMaize Breeder \nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization Muguga South \nSignature ……………………………………………… \nDate……………………", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iii \n \nDEDICATION \nTo my husband Jesse and our lovely children Jeff, Janice and Princess Jasmine who \nencouraged me all through.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iv \n \nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \nThe work reported here was carried out at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock \nResearch Organization (KALRO) Muguga South and Embu centers in Kiambu and \nEmbu Counties respectively. I acknowledge the immeasurable support that I received \nfrom my supervisors Dr. Njoka F. M. of Embu University College, Plant and \nMicrobial Sciences Department and Dr. P. K. Leley of maize breeder KALRO \nMuguga South Center. I also thank Prof. Douglas Ndiritu who shared his knowledge \nof genetics in guiding me on this work. I also acknowledge the assistance I received \nfrom Dr. Elius Thuranira of KALRO Kabete who guided me on my research work. I \nreceived great assistance from KALRO workers: Peter Njoroge senior field \ntechnician, Ann Ndambuki, Florence Gatumu and John Gaitho who provided me with \ntransport means for every visit to KALRO Embu center, they worked hand in hand \nwith me to complete the research work. Mr. Mwangi Gichobi chief laboratory \ntechnician Plant and Microbial Sciences Department of Kenyatta University was of \ngreat assistance to me.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "v \n \n \nTABLE OF CONTENTS \nDECLARATION ........................................................................................................... ii \nDEDICATION ............................................................................................................. iii \nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv \nTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v \nLIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii \nLIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x \nLIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................ xi \nDEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................... xii \nACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. xiii \nABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. xiv \nCHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................... 1 \nINTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 \n1.1 \nBackground Information .................................................................................... 1 \n1.2 \nProblem Statement ............................................................................................. 6 \n1.3 \nHypotheses ........................................................................................................ 6 \n1.4 \nObjectives .......................................................................................................... 6 \n1.4.1 General Objective .............................................................................................. 6 \n1.4.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................ 7 \n1.5 \nJustification ........................................................................................................ 7", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vi \n \nCHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................... 8 \nLITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 8 \n2.1 \nOrigin of maize .................................................................................................. 8 \n2.2 \nBiology of maize ................................................................................................ 8 \n2.3 \nMaize breeding................................................................................................. 10 \n2.4 \nHeterosis in maize ............................................................................................ 13 \n2.5 \nGeneral and specific combining abilities (GCA & SCA) ................................ 15 \nCHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................... 18 \nMATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 18 \n3.1 \nStudy area......................................................................................................... 18 \n3.2 \nStudy materials................................................................................................. 19 \n3.3 \nExperimental layout ......................................................................................... 20 \n3.4 \nPlanting and field management ........................................................................ 20 \n3.5 \nData collection ................................................................................................. 21 \n3.5.1 Plant height ...................................................................................................... 21 \n3.5.2 Ear height ......................................................................................................... 22 \n3.5.3 Grain yield (t/ha) .............................................................................................. 22 \n3.5.4 Disease scores .................................................................................................. 22 \n3.6 \nData analyses ................................................................................................... 23", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vii \n \nCHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................... 24 \nRESULTS \n ............................................................................................................... 24 \n4.1 \nWeather conditions at KALRO Muguga in Kiambu County and KALRO \nEmbu in Embu County during the growth period. ........................................... 24 \n4.2: Mean performance of crosses on different morphological traits in \nKALRO Embu ................................................................................................ 24 \n4.2.2 Mean performance of crosses in KALRO Muguga ......................................... 35 \n4.2.3 Performance of crosses on both environments Embu and Muguga ................. 47 \n4.3 Correlations analyses ....................................................................................... 51 \n4.4 \nCombining ability analyses .............................................................................. 52 \n4.5 Discussions ...................................................................................................... 57 \nCHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................... 61 \nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 61 \n5.1 \nConclusions ...................................................................................................... 61 \n5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 62 \nREFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 64 \nAppendix A: Inbred lines and their respective crosses used in the study .................. 75", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "viii \n \nLIST OF TABLES \n \nTable 1.1: \nMaize production in Kenya for the last ten years .................................... 4 \nTable 3.1 \nRating of Maize Streak Virus ............................................................... 22 \nTable 3.2 \nRating of Gray leaf spot . ...................................................................... 23 \nTable 4.1: \nPerformance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nKALRO Embu ...................................................................................... 25 \nTable 4.2: \nMean performance of crosses on different morphological traits \nin Embu ................................................................................................. 26 \nTable 4.3: \nMean performance of crosses for plant height in Embu ....................... 32 \nTable 4.4: \nMean performance of crosses for ear height in Embu ........................... 33 \nTable 4.5: \nMean performance of crosses for grain yield in Embu ......................... 34 \nTable 4.6: \nPerformance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nMuguga. ................................................................................................. 35 \nTable 4.7: \nMean Performance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nKALRO Muguga ................................................................................... 37 \nTable 4.8: \nMean performance of crosses in plant height in Muguga ..................... 43 \nTable 4.9: \nMean performance of crosses on ear height in Muguga ....................... 45 \nTable 4.10: Mean performance for GLS disease scores in Muguga ........................ 46 \nTable 4.11: Performance of crosses on plant height in KARLO Embu and \nKALRO Muguga environments ............................................................ 48 \nTable 4.12: Performance for ear height in Embu and Muguga environments ......... 49", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ix \n \nTable 4.13: Performance of crosses for MSV disease scores for Embu and \nMuguga environments ........................................................................... 49 \nTable 4.14: Performance on GLS scores at Embu and Muguga Research sites ....... 50 \nTable 4.15: Performance of crosses for grain yield at Embu and Muguga \nresearch sites .......................................................................................... 51 \nTable 4.16: Correlations among grain yield and other traits in both \nenvironments ......................................................................................... 51 \nTable 4.17: Estimates of G.C.A effects for inbred lines for yield and yield \ncomponents ............................................................................................ 54 \nTable 4.18: Estimates of S.C.A effects for inbred lines for yield and yield \ncomponents ............................................................................................ 56", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "x \n \n \nLIST OF FIGURES \n \nFigure 1.1: Global maize production for the top nine producing countries in \ncomparison with Kenya ........................................................................... 3 \nFigure 3.1: Study sites KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu ................................ 18 \nFigure 3.2: Experimental design (randomized complete block design) .................. 20 \nFigure 4.1: Mean monthly rainfall and temperature distribution during \nthe growth period at KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu. ................ 24 \nFigure 4.2: Mean plant height (cm) for the crosses in KALRO Embu. ................... 27 \nFigure 4.3: Mean ear height (cm) for crosses in Embu. ........................................... 28 \nFigure 4.4: Mean MSV disease scores in Embu ...................................................... 29 \nFigure 4.5: Mean performance of crosses for grain yield in Embu ......................... 30 \nFigure 4.6: Mean plant height (cm) for the crosses in KALRO Muguga ................ 38 \nFigure 4.7: Mean ear height (cm) for crosses in Muguga ........................................ 39 \nFigure 4.8: Mean MSV scores for crosses in Muguga ............................................. 40 \nFigure 4.9: Mean GLS scores for the crosses in Muguga ........................................ 41 \nFigure 4.10: Mean grain yield (t/ha) for the crosses in Muguga ............................... 42 \nFigure 4.11: Mean performance of plant height for crosses in KALRO \nEmbu and Muguga ................................................................................ 47 \nFigure 4.12: Mean ear height in Embu and Muguga environments ........................... 48 \nFigure 4.13: Mean grain yield for crosses at Embu and Muguga .............................. 50", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xi \n \n \nLIST OF PLATES \n \nPlate 1.1: Female inflorescence with young silk ........................................................... 9 \nPlate 1.2: Male flowers .................................................................................................. 9 \nPlate 3.1: Researcher taking plant and ear height data at KALRO, Embu ......... 21", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xii \n \n \nDEFINITION OF TERMS \nAdditive gene effect- \nIs the estimate of the quantitative change in a trait that \nis associated with substituting one or more alleles with \nthat of a different allele(s). \nCombining ability- Ability of inbred lines to transmit desirable performance \nto the hybrid progeny. \nGeneral combining ability- Average performance of each parent in a series of \ncrosses. \nDiallel cross – \nA type of crossing where every line is crossed with all \npossible Combinations. \nInbred line – \nA plant or plants that is homozygous for the selected \ngenotypes resulting from self- pollination. \nSpecific combining ability- Performance of a combination of two specific inbred \nlines in a particular cross. \nHeterosis- \nBetter performance of a hybrid relative to each of the \nparents. \nReciprocal cross- \nA cross in which each of the two parents serves as a \nmaternal in one cross and a paternal in the next cross. \nTransposons- \nSeemingly mobile genetic elements.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xiii \n \nACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS \nANOVA \nAnalysis of Variance \nA.S.L Above Sea Level \nCIMMYT \nInternational Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement \nCN Central Nursery \nCV % \nCoefficient of variation \nDf \nDegrees of freedom \nEH Ear Height \nFAO \nFood and Agricultural Organization \nFAOSTAT \nFood and Agricultural Organization Statistics \nG C A \nGeneral Combining Ability \nG o K \nGovernment of Kenya \nG L S \nGrey Leaf Spot \nGY Grain Yield \nIFPRI \nInternational Food Policy Research Institute \nISAAA \nInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications \nKALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \nLSD \nLeast Significant Difference \nM o A \nMinistry of Agriculture \nM S V \nMaize Streak Virus \nM T \nMillion Tones \nMUL Muguga Line \nPH Plant Height \nPOP A Population A \nSCA \nSpecific Combining Ability", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xiv \n \n \nABSTRACT \n \nDespite the fact that virtually all households in Kenya grow maize over 60% of them \nare net maize buyers because they do not produce enough for their consumption. \nKenya‘s current food supply situation and outlook give cause for serious concern. \nMaize is the main staple food averaging over 80% of total cereals (rice, wheat, millet \nand sorghum) in Kenya. Maize stocks are estimated to be depleted at all levels \nthroughout the country. According to strategic grain bank report on food security, the \nNational Grain Reserve had 2.2 million bags of the staple by the end of February 2012 \ninstead of the required four million. Combining ability of inbred lines is important \ninformation in maize hybrid breeding programs incorporating materials from various \ngermplasm sources. This study was conducted to select lines with good combining \nability and to determine the stability of their respective single crosses in different \nenvironments. The trials were conducted in 2012 at experimental stations of Kenya \nAgricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Muguga South and \nEmbu in Kiambu and Embu counties of Kenya respectively. The study was conducted \nwith 36 crosses. General combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability \n(SCA) were determined for grain yield, height of the ear, plant height and disease \nscores using Griffing‘s method (1956). Interaction between the genotypes and \nenvironment was also determined among the crosses. Disease scores for natural \ninfestation of grey leaf spot and maize streak virus disease were visually scored on \nscale of 1-5 with 1 being resistant and 5 susceptible by assessing the severity of the \nsymptoms on the selected plants. The experiment was laid out in a 6 x 6 lattice \ncomplete randomized block design (RBCD) with two replications. Combining ability \nwas estimated by method 1 model 1 of Griffing‘s (1956) which was used to partition \nthe lattice adjusted treatment mean squares into GCA, SCA without reciprocal effects. \nThe data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Genstat 12 program \nfor individual test crosses as well as for combined environments considering \nenvironments as random effects and crosses as fixed effects. Mean separation was \ndone using Tukey‘s comparison method at 0.05% significance level. Mean separation \nfor MSV", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " program \nfor individual test crosses as well as for combined environments considering \nenvironments as random effects and crosses as fixed effects. Mean separation was \ndone using Tukey‘s comparison method at 0.05% significance level. Mean separation \nfor MSV and grain yield in Muguga and for GLS in Embu was not done because the \nvariance ratio for the crosses was not significant. The best combiners for grain yield \nwere MUL 508 XMUL 516 (entry 9), POP A x MUL 541(entry 23) and MUL 513 X \nMUL 114 (entry 31) with entry 23 (POPAxMUL541) giving the highest yield of 8 \nt/ha. Data on grain yield showed no significant difference between the sites but there \nwas significant difference on crosses grain yield. Grain yield showed positive \nsignificant correlation with ear height (r=0.4292) and plant height (r= 0.5830). Data \non disease scores where natural infestation was visually scored showed majority of \nthe crosses had a score of one confirming their near immunity status. The results will \nbe useful to breeders and farmers in selecting the potential parental materials for \nimprovement in maize breeding programs.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1 \n \nCHAPTER ONE \nINTRODUCTION \n1.1 \nBackground Information \nMaize (Zea mays) also known as corn is an economically important crop worldwide \nand particularly in Africa where the annual production exceeds that of wheat and \nother important staple crops. Maize is the world‘s most widely grown cereal and is the \nprimary staple food for majority of population in many developing countries (Pingali, \n2000 and Ofori and Kyei – Baffour, 2006). In sub- Saharan Africa maize provides \n50% of the basic calories (Machuka, 2001; CIMMYT, 2001) and it is an important \nsource of carbohydrate, protein, iron, vitamin B, minerals, livestock fodder and \nindustrially for starch and oil extraction (KALRO, 2009). Maize is the third most \nimportant and highest industrial valued cereal in the world after wheat and rice (FAO, \n2000). Maize is versatile over a range of agro-climatic zones and its suitability to \ndiverse environments is unmatched by other crops. In Kenya maize production is \ndivided into six agro-ecological zones based on elevation and climate. These regions \ninclude: \ni. \nthe lowland tropics comprising of the coastal strip and adjoining inland \narea \nii. \nthe dry mid attitude \niii. \nthe dry transitional zones in the South East \niv. \nthe highlands tropics \nv. \nthe moist transitional zone to the East and West of the highland tropics \nvi. \nthe moist mid altitude zone around Lake Victoria (Corbett, 2005)", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2 \n \nThe moist transitional zones are the most important maize production zones followed \nby the highland tropics. These zones mostly lie above 1200m above sea level and \nhave rainfall above 550 millimeters per year with current maize yields of 2.7-5 tons \nper hectare (Hassan et al., 1998). \nMany African countries experience maize shortages which affect approximately 100 \nmillion people (Alexander and Bindiganavile, 2004). The average maize production in \nAfrica stood at 1.3t/ha compared to 3.0 t/ha elsewhere (FAO, 2006). This low grain \nyield can be attributed to a number of constraints which include biotic stress (disease, \npests and lack of suitable varieties), abiotic stress (low soil fertility and lack of capital \nto purchase farm inputs) Salasya et al., 1998. Diseases taking the greatest toll in many \nAfrican countries include maize streak virus disease, gray leaf spot, turcicum blight \nand smuts and maize streak virus disease. In Kenya the disease is prevalent in central \nhighlands causing up to 100% yield losses especially when the crop suffers from \ndrought (Njuguna, 1996; Ininda et al., 2002). Globally spectacular progress has been \nwitnessed in production and productivity of maize through the exploitation of hybrid \nvigor. According to FAO (2012), global maize production has been hampered by \ndrought which has led to drop in production. According to FAOSTAT (2012) reports, \nproduction of maize in major production states has been hurt by widespread drought, \nthe latest being from the U.S Department of Agriculture in which 30% of the crop is \nconsidered poor; however in comparison to Kenya the production is still higher \n(Figure 1.1).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3 \n \n0\n50000\n100000\n150000\n200000\n250000\n300000\n350000\n400000\nPRODUCTION (1000MT)\nUnited States\nChina\nBrazil\nEU-27\nArgentina\nUkraine\nIndia\nMexico\nSouth Africa\nKenya\n \nSource: Faostat, 2012 \nFigure 1.1: Global maize production for the top nine producing countries in \ncomparison with Kenya", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4 \n \nAccording to FAO (2012), maize production in Kenya for the year 2012 compared to \n2011 shows an improvement though this has not met the high demand of maize in the \ncountry due to high population growth rate (Table 1.1). \n \nTable 1.1: Maize production in Kenya for the last ten years \nYEAR \nPRODUCTION (1000MT) Percentage (%) \n2003 \n2710 \n11.52 \n2004 \n2140 \n-21.03 \n2005 \n2670 \n24.77 \n2006 \n3000 \n12.36 \n2007 \n2950 \n-1.67 \n2008 \n2100 \n-28.81 \n2009 \n2200 \n4.76 \n2010 \n3200 \n45.45 \n2011 \n2700 \n-15.63 \n2012 \n2800 \n3.70 \n \nSource: Faostat, 2012 \n \nThe amount of maize produced is far below the amount required to feed Kenya‘s \npopulation of over 35 million people which is still growing at a very high rate (IFPRI, \n2002). Karugia (2003) noted that despite the release of improved maize varieties, the \ntrend of maize production and yields has been registering fluctuations since the \n1980‘s.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5 \n \nIt appears that future growth in maize production in Kenya would have to depend \nmainly on yield gains made possible by increased use of technologies such as use of \nimproved germplasm in hybrid maize varieties available in the Kenya seed market \n(KALRO, 2002). \nMaize is a very important food crop in Kenya with its consumption being estimated to \nbe 98kg per person per year (Nyoro et al., 2004) and the national food security is \npegged to availability of adequate supplies of maize. Across the maize growing \ndeveloping countries continued breeding of maize is therefore important to meet the \nhigh demand. \nMoreover past success in maize production was achieved by exploiting the \ntremendous synergy between the technology developments, dissemination, seed \nmultiplication and distribution programs (Karanja, 1996). Development and \nutilization of pest, weed, disease and stress tolerant maize genotypes is an efficient \napproach to reducing yield loss due to adverse conditions (Zhang et al., 2000). \nCurrent strategies used to create more stress tolerant crops include genetic \nengineering, mapping, use of quantitative trait loci (QTL) and conventional breeding \n(Zhang et al., 1999).The annual maize production in Kenya is about 2.7 million tones \nand is slightly lower than the domestic consumption (Hassan et al., 1998). Over the \nlast ten years domestic production has stagnated between 24 and 28 million bags per \nannum (Kibaara, 2005). According to the FAO (2006) report, maize production has \nbeen declining over the past decade in contrast the consumption is increasing due to \nsteady population growth and enhanced utilization of maize for various industrial \npurposes hence high yielding varieties are needed.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6 \n \n1.2 \nProblem Statement \nMaize farming in Kenya has been a deeply rooted ―cultural practice‖ for many years \nwith declining commercial appeal. The amount of maize produced is far below the \namount required to feed the Kenya‘s high population of over 35 million people and \nwhich is growing at a very high rate (IFPRI, 2002). Karugia (2003) noted that despite \nthe release of improved maize varieties the trend of maize production and yields has \nbeen registering fluctuations since the 1980‘s brought about by biotic and abiotic \nconstraints. The high population growth rate creates high national domestic food \nconsumption that exceeds the annual production. This creates maize demand gap in \nthe country. There is little information regarding stability of general combining ability \nand specific combining ability effects. Maize streak virus disease and Grey leaf spot \nare major damaging of all foliar diseases in many countries in Sub-Saharan region \nincluding Kenya. The diseases have however remained persistent constraints in maize \nproduction systems in midlands (Magenya et al., 2009). \n \n1.3 \nHypotheses \nNull hypotheses (HO) \nThere is no interaction between the genotypes and environment on improved yield \namong the crosses. \nAlternate hypotheses (HA) \ni) \nThe combining ability among the inbred lines is not significant. \nii) \nAll the crosses lack stability to grain yield improvement. \n \n1.4 \nObjectives \n1.4.1 General Objective \nTo determine the combining ability of the inbred lines and stability of the crosses in \ndifferent agro-ecological zones and assess genotype x environment interaction among \nthe crosses.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7 \n \n1.4.2 Specific Objectives \ni) \nTo determine the combining ability on genetic yield improvement on the \ninbred lines. \nii) \nTo determine genotype x environment interaction among crosses. \niii) \nTo assess the stability of the crosses in different agro-ecological zones. \n \n \n1.5 \nJustification \nCombining ability is of special importance in cross pollinated crops like maize, it \nhelps in identifying potential inbred parents with hybrid vigor. Utilization of heterosis \nfor genetic improvement of different traits and combining ability are fundamental \ntools for enhancing productivity in the form of filial one hybrids (Flint – Garcia et al., \n2009). There is need therefore to advise farmers on new maize varieties that will give \nthem high yield and overcome biotic and abiotic stress factors. Heterosis increases \nyield potential and improves adaptations to stress in maize: however the underlying \nmechanism of heterosis and combining ability remains elusive (Ararus et al., \n2010).There is little information in stability of general combining ability and specific \ncombining ability variance. \n Maize production has been hampered by unfavorable environmental conditions and \nattacks by various diseases which reduce yield. Future growth in maize production in \nKenya will depend on progressive trials of new lines for high productivity. In the near \nfuture the increasing world‘s population will require more food and maximum part of \nthis food will come from maize crop (Ali and Yan, 2012). It has been estimated that \nmore than half of the increased demand in world food in terms of cereals as a whole \nwill be produced from maize farmers and consumers (Yan et al., 2011).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 21, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8 \n \nCHAPTER TWO \nLITERATURE REVIEW \n2.1 \nOrigin of maize \nMaize belongs to the family Poaeceae, it was introduced to Africa by the Portuguese \nin the 19th century (Matsuoka et al., 2002). Four main hypotheses dominate the \ncontroversial origin of maize, the decent from teosinte, the tripartite, the common \norigin and the catastrophic sexual transmutation hypothesis (Bennetzen et \nal.,2001).The decent from teosinte hypothesis is the oldest and most accepted, which \nproposes that maize was domesticated from teosinte (Zea diploperennis) by human \nselection (Iltiz and Benz, 2000). Maize is classified into two distinct types depending \non latitude and environment in which it is grown. Maize grown in warmer \nenvironments falling between the equator, 30º N and 30º S is referred to as tropical \nmaize, while that grown in cooler climates beyond 34º N and 34º S is classified as \ntemperate maize (Karim et al., 2000) \n \n2.2 \nBiology of maize \nMaize stem superficially resembles bamboo canes and the internodes can commonly \nbe 18 centimeters. Maize has distinct growth forms; the lower leaves being like broad \nflags 50 – 100 centimeters long and 5- 10 centimeters wide, the stems are erect \nconventionally 2-3 meters in height, with many nodes, casting off flag leaves at every \nnode. Under these leaves and close to the stem grows the ears. The ears are female \ninflorescence tight covered over several layers of leaves and so closed-in by them to \nthe stem that they do not show until the emergence of the pale yellow silks from the \nleave whorl at the end of the ear. The silks are elongated stigmas that look like tufts of", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 22, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "9 \n \nhair, at first green and later red or yellow (Bortiri, 2007), (Plate 1.1). The apex of the \nstems ends in the tassels with an inflorescence of male flower (Plate1.2). \n \n \n \nPlate 1.1: Female inflorescence with young silk Plate 1.2: Male flowers \n \nCertain varieties of maize have been bred to produce many additional developed ears. \nThese are the source of ―baby corn‖ used as vegetable in Asian cuisine (Beckle and \nHall, 2008). Maize is facultative long night plant and flowers at a temperature of \n(20ºc) in the environment to which it is adapted (Paliwal, 2000). The magnitude of the \ninfluence that long nights have on the number of days that must pass before maize", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 23, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "10 \n \nflowers is genetically prescribed and regulated by the phytochrome system (Barret et \nal., 2008). \n \nWhen the tassel is mature and conditions are suitably warm and dry, anthers on the \ntassel dehisce and release pollen. Maize pollen is anermophilous (dispersed by wind) \nand because of its large setting velocity most pollen falls within a few meters of the \ntassels. Each silk may become pollinated to produce one kernel of maize. The kernel \nof maize has a pericarp of the fruit fused with the seed coat referred to as ‗caryopsis‘ \ntypical of the grasses family and the entire kernel is often referred to as the ‗seed‘ \n(Kling et al.,1997). The cob is close to a multiple fruit in structure except that the \nindividual fruit (the kernels) never fuse into a single mass. The grains are about the \nsize of peas and adhere in regular rows round a white pithy substance which forms the \near. An ear can commonly hold 600 kernels and be 7 inches (178mm) in length. \nYoung ears can be consumed raw within the cob and silk but as the plant matures \n(usually during summer months) the cob becomes tougher and the silk dries. Because \nof its shallow roots maize is susceptible to drought, intolerant to nutrient deficient \nsoils and prone to be uprooted by severe winds (Hibbard and Willmont, 2007). \n \n2.3 \nMaize breeding \nThe objective of maize breeding is to develop maize varieties and hybrids adapted to \nthe area in which they are to be grown and superior to those already in use. Hybrid \nmaize traces its roots back to experiments on heterosis and inbreeding conducted by \nShull (1908, 1909) at Cold Spring Harbor laboratories in New York, and East (1909) \nat Connecticut State College. They observed that when maize plants were self-\npollinated that is inbred in successful generations, their vigor and grain yield rapidly", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 24, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "11 \n \ndeteriorated (Shull, 1908; East, 1909). In Kenya the goal of maize breeding effort is to \ndevelop high yielding, stable and adapted maize varieties that have resistance \ntolerance to the major biotic and abiotic stresses prevalent in the region (Chumo, \n2004). The varieties that have been released have been tested in different agro-\necological zones namely lowlands with altitude ranges of 0-1250m a.s.l, highlands \nwith altitude range of 1500-2100m a.s.l and mid altitude areas with 1000-1700m a.s.l \naltitude ranges. Maize becomes the model for breeding hybrid cultivars. The double \ncross hybrids, proposed by D.F Jones in1918, became the model for breeding hybrid \ncorn until replaced by the single –cross hybrid in the 1960s. Maize breeding in pre-\nhistory resulted in large plants producing large ears. Modern maize breeding began \nwith individuals who selected high yielding varieties in their fields and then sold seed \nto other farmers. James L. Reid was one of the earliest and most successful \ndeveloping Reid‘s yellow dents in the 1860‘s.These efforts were based on mass \nselection. Later breeding efforts included ear to row selection (Hopkins, 1896), \nhybrids made from selected inbred lines (Shull, 1909), and the highly successful \ndouble cross hybrids using 4 inbred lines. The ear - to - row breeding method was \nused in selection experiments to increase protein and oil content in corn. \nMaize has 10 chromosomes with a combined length of 1500cm long, some of the \nmaize chromosomes have what are known as ‗chromosomal knobs‘; highly repetitive \nheterochromatic domains that stain darkly. Barbara McClintock used these knob \nmanners to validate her transposons theory of ―jumping genes‖ for which she won the \n1983 Nobel Prize in physiology of medicine.Maize has highly polymorphic genome \nstructure (Fu and Dooner, 2002). The maize genome was completed in 2008 (Patrick, \n2009). In 2009 the consortium published results of its sequencing effort in science, \n―The B73 maize Genome‖. The genome (85%) of which is composed of transposons", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 25, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "12 \n \nwas found to contain 32,540 genes (by comparison, the human genome contains 2.9 \nbillion bases and 26000 genes). Most of the maize genome has been duplicated and \nreshuffled by helitrons, which are a group of rolling circle transposons (Feschotte, \n2009). Along with the standard complement of chromosomes maize can also have \nseveral unusual chromosomes for example version of chromosome 10 known as \nabnormal 10 (Ab10) that causes meiotic drive. Meiotic drive is a distortion of normal \nMendelian segregation so that the Ab10 chromosome is preferentially passed on. This \nchromosome interacts with the knobs and thus the prevalence of knobs is likely the \nresult of the meiotic drive (Feschotte, 2009). The maize Genetics Cooperation Stock \nCenter, funded by the USDA Agricultural Research service and located in the \nDepartment of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, is a \nstock center of maize mutants. Genetic data describing the maize mutant stocks as \nwell as myriad other data about maize genetics can be accessed at the maize genetics \nand Genomics Database MGDB (Sach, 2009). \nPrior to British conquest, the Portuguese had already introduced maize to the Coast of \nKenya, where it became common among the Swahili traders. Kenyans incorporated it \ninto their mixed plots and Sweden systems (William, 2010). During the period from \n1900- 1925, maize became the staple food in Kenyan diet, which was previously \ndominated by the millets, tubers and legumes commonly found in traditional farming \nsystems (William, 2010). \nKenya has been touted as aglobal maize ―success story‖ for decades (Smale and \nJayne, 2010). Released on the eve of independence, H611, Kenya‘s first maize hybrid, \na unique varietal hybrid with Ecuadorean and Kenya parentage diffused at rates faster \nthan among farmers in the U.S Cornbelt during the 1930s – 1940s (Gerhartt, 1975).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 26, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "13 \n \nParadoxicaly policy researchers have more recently lamented that earlier gains in \nmaize productivity have not lived up to their potential (De Groote et al., 2005). In \n1955, the first ―scientific maize research program began in Kenya at Kitale. The chief \nmaize breeder M.N. Harrison was funded by the Rockfeller Foundation to visit \nMexico and Colombia in 1958 and he brought maize seed back with him. This \nresulted in the 1964 release of a hybrid maize made with Kenyan and Ecuadorean \ngermplasm (Smale and Jayne, 2003). Rates of growth in maize production have not \nkept pace with demand in large part due to population growth so that the country‘s \nimport bill has risen during recent years (Kirimi et al., 2011). The CIMMYT survey \nof hybrid seed use in Kenya, which are based on seed sales as compared to farm \nsurveys, indicate that an estimated 62% of maize area was planted to hybrids in 1990 \nand 1996 and 68% in 2006 (Hassan et al., 2001 and Langyintuo, 2010) Hybrid \nproduction method is essential for commercialization. In fact the early maize inbred \nvarieties had extremely low seed yield leading to the use of double cross hybrids until \ninbred varieties with high seed yields could be developed (Durick, 2001). \n \n2.4 \nHeterosis in maize \nHeterosis or hybrid vigor is the better performance of hybrid relative to the parents \nand the outcome of the genetic and phenotypic variation. It is the superiority of first \nFilia-1 generation over the standard commercial checks variety; hence it is also called \neconomic superiority over checks (Sharief et al., 2009). Recently it has been divulged \nthat the utilization of heterosis is extremely effective for the genetic improvement of \ndifferent traits and that combining ability are the fundamental tools for enhancing \nproductivity of different crops in the form of F1 hybrids (Flint-Garcia et al., 2009). \nHeterosis increases yield potential and improves adaptation to stress in maize \nhowever, the underlying mechanism of heterosis and combining ability remains", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 27, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "14 \n \nelusive (Ararus et al., 2010). Heterosis is a dramatic phenomenon that is realized \nduring hybridization and is utilized by breeders to improve productivity. It is the \nhybrid dominance that presumably resulted in pseudo-over dominance, arising from \ndominant alleles in repulsion phase linkage (Crow, 1999). Most evidence in maize \nsuggests that the genetic basis of heterosis is partial to complete dominance (Hallauer \net al., 1988). Over dominance had long been discussed as the basis of heterosis (East, \n1936; Crow, 1948). Unlike other major cereal crops there is physical separation of \nmaize male and female flowers, this allows for cross pollination and the large scale \nproduction of hybrid corn which is based on the exploitation of heterosis or hybrid \nvigor (Sprague, 1953), broad morphological variation and genetic plasticity and \ndiversity. \nFu and Dooner (2002) reported the surprising discovery that maize cultivars differ in \nthe set of genes they carry: some loci in one cultivar lack corresponding alleles in \nanother line. In this case any component of the heterosis effect due to \ncomplementation between different loci could never be fixed in an open pollinated \nline since these loci would remain on separate chromosomes. Flint- Garcia et al., \n(2009) measured 17 traits among 267 maize hybrids and found that the amount of \nheterosis in any hybrid relative to its parents was dependent on traits and that hybrids \ncould not simply be classified as heterotic or non-heterotic. \nMaize provides an excellent system for the study and application of heterosis. A wide \nrange of natural genetics diversity has been captured in the current maize germplasm \n(Flint-Garcia et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2005; Troyer, 2006). Maize is relatively easy \nto self or cross pollinate, which has enabled the development of both diverse inbred \nand many hybrids for evaluation. Additionally heterosis does not simply result from", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 28, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "15 \n \nthe overall genetic diversity with a hybrid but is likely a reflection of diversity at \nspecific important genes that contribute to particular traits. This view is supported by \nthe ability to map QTLS that contribute to heterosis for individual traits in maize and \nrice (Lu et al., 2003). \n \n2.5 \nGeneral and Specific Combining Abilities (GCA & SCA) \nThe concept of general and specific combining ability was introduced by Sprague and \nTatum (1942) and its mathematical modeling was set about by Griffing (1956) in his \nclassical paper in conjunction with the diallel crosses. The value of any population \ndepends on its potential and it‘s combining ability in crosses (Vacaro et al., 2002). \nCombining ability analysis is of special importance in cross pollinated crops like \nmaize as it helps in identifying potential inbred parents that can be used for producing \nhybrids and synthetic maize varieties (Vasal, 1998). Maize displays an orderly \nsequence of development of yield component namely number of cobs per plant, \nnumber of rows per cob, number of kernels per row and kernel weight (Viola et al., \n2003). This explains why indirect selection can be used by searching for improved \nyield component. Maize production can be boosted by providing some relevant and \nbasic information about the pattern and genetic variability to the breeding community. \nThe average performance of a particular inbred in a series of hybrid combinations is \nknown as its general combining ability while specific combining ability refers to the \nperformance of a combination of two specific inbred lines in a particular cross \n(Sharief et al., 2009). For maize yield Sprague (1942), found that GCA was relatively \nmore important than SCA for unselected inbred lines while SCA was more important \nthan GCA in previously selected lines. Early generation testing is a pivotal method for", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 29, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "16 \n \nplant breeders to discard undesirable materials while generating inbred lines for the \nproduction of hybrids (Ali et al., 2011). \nThe most important agronomic traits in maize include grain yield, days to tasseling, \ndays to silking, plant height, ear height, grain moisture, kernel rows and 1000 kernel \nweight, (Haq et al., 2005; Rezaei et al., 2005; Sridic et al., 2006. Some studies \nrevealed that grain yield and yield components were controlled by additive and non-\nadditive genes (Wolf and Poternelli, 2000; Wu et al., 2003; Butruille et al., 2004; \nChoukan and Mosavat, 2005). He et al., 2003; Melani and Carena, 2005, reported the \nimportance of additive effects as well as non-additive effects. The assessment of \ngenetic variations of lines proposed by Griffing‘s (1956), is based on the concept of \nGCA and SCA established by Sprague and Tatum (1942), who presented detailed \nmethods for analyzing fixed sets of lines or varieties in diallel crosses. Kalla et al., \n(2001); Renugopal et al., (2002); Unay and Konak (2004) and Akbar et al., (2008), \nreported that GCA and SCA effects were highly significant but GCA effects on 100 \ngrain weight under high temperature condition was non-significant. The use of diallel \ncrosses to study genetic control of trait and to select parents to obtain synthetics or \nhybrids is frequent in maize breeding (Welcker et al., (2005); Rodrigues (2006); \nVivek et al., (2010). \nReciprocal effects in a diallel mating design are important in order to determine if \nplasma genes from mitochondria and plastids contribute to trait inheritance (Glover et \nal., 2005). Analysis of diallel data is conducted according to the methods of Griffing‘s \n(1956) which partition the total variation of diallel data into GCA of the parents and \nSCA of the crosses (Yan and Hunt, 2002). Given the diversity of environment in \nwhich maize", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Griffing‘s \n(1956) which partition the total variation of diallel data into GCA of the parents and \nSCA of the crosses (Yan and Hunt, 2002). Given the diversity of environment in \nwhich maize is grown in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the genotype by environment is", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "17 \n \nnormally expressive (Vivek et al., (2010).Therefore it is necessary to identify hybrids \nthat present not only wide adaptations, assessed by the mean yield but also have high \nstability that is with homeostasis to adjust to environmental changes. The study of \nstability and adaptability of genotypes evaluated under different environments is very \nimportant for maize breeding programmes (Vencovsky and Barriga, 1992). For \neffective selection of grain yield and other desirable traits, information on the \nmagnitude of useful genetic variances in the population in terms of combining ability \nand heterosis is required (Vacaro et al., 2002). \nThis study was conducted to evaluate the effects of GCA and SCA of the inbred lines \nusing complete diallel scheme and to assess genotype x environment interaction.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "18 \n \nCHAPTER THREE \nMATERIALS AND METHODS \n3.1 \nStudy area \nThe experiment was undertaken in KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu in Kiambu \nand Embu counties respectively. \nMuguga\nFigure 3.1: Study sites KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu \nSource: De Groote et al., 2005", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 32, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "19 \n \nKALRO Muguga lies at a longitude 36º 38‘ E, Latitude 1º 3‘ S at an altitude of 2096 \nmeters above the sea level. The area receives average rainfall of 750mm per annum, \nwith mean temperature of 16ºC. The area has deep dark reddish friable clay soil and \nlies in the Lower Midland (LM) agro-ecological zones. KALRO Embu lies at a \nlongitude of 37º 27‘ E, Latitude 3º 32‘S at an altitude of 1560meters above the sea \nlevel. The area receives average rainfall of 1252mm per annum with a mean \ntemperature of 19ºC.The area lies in the Upper Midland (UM) agro—ecological \nzone with volcanic loam soil (Jaetzold and Smith, 2007). The two sites receive \nbimodal rainfall between March and May and October and November respectively. \nThe experiments were carried out during the long rain growing season from March to \nSeptember, 2012. \n \n3.2 \nStudy materials \nThe germplasm used in this study were 18 inbred lines and their respective single \ncrosses derived from KALRO Muguga. The entries were used both as the maternal \nparents in one cross as well the paternal parents in the reciprocal cross. (Appendix A).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 33, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20 \n \n \n3.3 \nExperimental layout \nThe experiment was laid out in a 6 x 6 lattice design consisting of 6 blocks with two \nreplication in each site. Each block had 6 plots making a total of 36 plots in each \nreplication. The distance from each block to the other was 1 meter and from one \nreplication to the other was 2 meters (Figure 3.2). \n \nFigure 3.2: Experimental design (randomized complete block design) \n \n3.4 \nPlanting and field management \nThe plots were ploughed before the onset of rains and harrowed to produce a medium \ntilth for maize. The plots consisted of 3 rows of 11 hills each at a spacing of 75cm \ninter row and 25cm between hills. Planting at Muguga was done on 10/4/2012 and in \nEmbu on 14/4/2012 at the onset of the long rains. A compound fertilizer di-\nammonium phosphate (DAP) was applied at the recommended rate of 80kg P2O5 per \nhectare during planting time. Two seeds were planted per hill but later thinned to \nleave one plant per hill. The plot area measured 5.55m2 (0.75mx3rows) x \n(0.3x11plants) and had a population of 33plants, giving a total population of 53333", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "21 \n \nplants per ha-1. Hand weeding was done twice during the growth period; first two \nweeks after emergence and the second weeding four weeks after the first weeding. \nTop dressing was done using nitrogenous fertilizer, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate \n(CAN 21 %N) at the rate of 80kg N per hectare after thinning the plants. Maize stalk \nborer (Busseola fusca) was controlled using Bulldock ® (Beta-cyfluthrin) applied on \nthe funnel of each plant at the rate of 6kg per ha-1. Harvesting was done on 9/10/2012 \nat KALRO Muguga and 10/10/2012 at KALRO Embu. \n \n3.5 \nData collection \nData was collected during growth period and after attainment of physiological \nmaturity. Data was recorded on 12 randomly picked plants from each row. The pre \nharvest data included plant height, ear height and disease scores for GLS and MSV. \nThe post- harvest data collected was grain yield per hectare. \n \n3.5.1 Plant height \nMeasurements for plant height were taken on 12 sampled maize plants (in cm) using a \nruler, it was measured from soil surface to the base of the flag leaf. \n. \nPlate 3.1: Researcher taking plant and ear height data at KALRO, Embu", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "22 \n \n3.5.2 Ear height \nHeight of the first ear was measured from the soil surface to the base of the lowest \ncob (in cm) using a ruler. The average value was then used for statistical analysis. \n \n3.5.3 Grain yield (T/HA) \nData for grain yield was taken without the husk cover and shell. It was calculated \nusing shelled grain weight adjusted to 12.5% moisture content. Using the formulae; \nYield= Field weight/Plot size x (100 mc -87.5) x 0.8 x 10 \nField weight = total weight of grain harvested \n100mc-87.5=12.5 the recommended moisture content for the grains \n0.8= shelling percentage \n \n3.5.4 Disease scores \nNatural infestation of diseases Grey leaf spot and Maize streak virus disease were \nvisually scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being highly resistant,2- resistant,3-\nmoderate,4-susceptible and 5 being highly susceptible by assessing the severity of the \nsampled plants in each plot. The diseases were scored during the period of crop \ngrowth with the first score taken when there were perceivable differences between \nplots for the severity of the disease symptoms. This was period between tasseling and \nphysiological maturity, a period within which the diseases development is considered \nto be at its optimum. (Table 3.1, 3.2). \nRate \nObserved Plant Symptom \n1 \n No symptoms on leaves \n2 \nLight symptoms on 20-40% leaf area \n3 \nModerate streaking 40-60% leaf area , plants severely stunted and dying or dead \n4 \nSevere symptoms at least 60% of leaf area uniformly over all leaves and the \nwhole plant \n5 \nVery severe streaking: 75% of the leaf area or more affected with stunting \n \nTable 3. 1 Rating of Maize Streak Virus (Beyene et al.,2012)", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 36, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "23 \n \nRate \nObserved Plant Symptom \n1 \nTraces small of lesion or no symptoms \n2 \nSmall regular elongated brown-gray necrotic spots growing parallel to veins \n3 \nLesions reach 3.0cm x 0.3cm on lower leaves spreading upwards on plant \nduring the season. \n4 \nSevere at least 60% leaves infected. \n5 \n8-9 leaves infected translating to 75% leaves covered with dark, grayish- \nbrown rectangular lesions. Very severe. \n \nTable 3.2 Rating of Gray leaf spot (modified from Mesfin et al., 1992) \n \n3.6 \nData analyses \nThe data collected was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Genstat 12 \nsoftware. The data from the two environments, KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu \nwas analyzed separately and also while combined. Mean separation was done using \nTukey‘s mean comparison method at 5% significant level. Combining ability was \nestimated using Griffing (1956) analysis method, model 1 expressed as: \nXij = u + gi + gj + sij, where u was the overall mean of all entries in the diallel \ndesign, gi is the general combining ability of the ith parent, gj was the general \ncombining ability of the jth parent, and sij was the specific combining ability \nbetween the ith and jth parent.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 37, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "24 \n \nCHAPTER FOUR \nRESULTS \n4.1 \nWeather conditions at KALRO Muguga in Kiambu county and KALRO \nEmbu in Embu county during the growth period. \nRainfall and other weather readings were collected from weather stations close to the \nrespective experimental sites as (Figure 4.1) \n \nSource: Meteological stations at Muguga South and Embu KALRO farms (April-\nSeptmber 2012). \n \nFigure 4.1: Mean monthly rainfall and temperature distribution during the \ngrowth period at KALRO Muguga and KALRO Embu. \n \n4.2: Mean performance of crosses on different morphological traits in \n \nKALRO Embu \nThe analysis of variance (ANOVA), showing the mean squares of plant height \n(PH),ear height (EH), disease scores of maize streak virus (MSV) disease, gray leaf \nspot (GLS), and grain yield (GY) for Embu are shown in table 4.1. \nMonth \nKALRO Muguga average temp. \nRainfall (mm) \nKALRO Embu average temp. \nRainfall (mm)", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 38, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "25 \n \nThe crosses showed a highly significant difference (p< 0.001) for plant height and ear \nheight. They also showed a significant difference (p<0.05) on grain yield. \nTable 4.1: Performance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nKALRO Embu \n Mean sum of squares \nSource of \nVariation \nDf \nPH(cm) \nEH(cm) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY( t/ha) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nReplication \n1 \n6290.7 \n660.1 \n10.889 \n27.5035 \n3.19 \nGenotype \n35 \n2047.7** \n1221.8** \n2.2 \n0.5527 \n4.02* \nError \n35 \n175.8 \n169 \n1.203 \n0.5035 \n1.74 \nOverall mean \n185 \n99.5 \n1.00 \n1.44 \n2.68 \nCV% \n \n7.1 \n4.3 \n5.5 \n49.4 \n7.2 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n*,** Significant at (p<0.05), and (p<0.001) respectively, PH-plant height, EH-ear \nheight, MSV-maize streak virus, GLS-grey leaf spot, GY-grain yield, CV%-\nCoefficient of variation \n The data (Table 4.2) showed that the mean ear height for the crosses ranged between \n53cm for entry 31 (MUL533x MUL513) to 134cm for entry 20 (MUL141 x POPA). \nMajority of the crosses showed resistance to MSV with a score of 1. However \ncrosses: MUL516 x MUL508, POPA x MUL141, MUL513 x MUL531, MUL513 x \nMUL516(entry 2,20,28,36) respectively had MSV score of 2, crosses MUL531 x \nMUL513(entry 28) had a score of 3.5 which indicated some infestation.The mean \nplant height for the crosses in Embu was 185cm, ear height 99.5cm, disease scores \nfor MSV and GLS were 1 and 1.77, respectively, while mean grain yield", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 39, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "estation.The mean \nplant height for the crosses in Embu was 185cm, ear height 99.5cm, disease scores \nfor MSV and GLS were 1 and 1.77, respectively, while mean grain yield was 4.14 \nt/ha (Table 4.2).Test cross POPA x MUL521(entry 15) had the highest plant height \n(236cm) in Embu while the lowest was 119cm for MUL533 x MUL513 (entry30) \n(Table 4.2).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 39, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "26 \n \nTable 4.2: Mean performance of crosses on different morphological traits in \nEmbu \n \nEntry CROSSES \nPH(CM) \nEH(CM) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY(T/HA) \n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 \n157±3.0 \n71±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n2.5±1.0 \n2.8±0.1 \n2 \nMUL516XMUL508 \n143±11.0 \n70±11.0 \n2±1.0 \n2.5±1.0 \n2.7±0.7 \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 \n135±19.5 \n60±6.0 \n1±0.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.0±0.7 \n4 \nMUL521XMUL508 \n151±14.5 \n75±2.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n2.3±0.9 \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n195±10.0 \n99±5.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n2±0.5 \n4.2±0.7 \n6 \nMUL141XMUL508 \n197±27.0 \n105±11.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n4.6±1.7 \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 \n157±21.0 \n72±8.0 \n1±0.0 \n2±1.0 \n2.6±1.2 \n8 \nMUL541XMUL508 \n153±17.5 \n78±7.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n2.3±1.0 \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 \n223±8.0 \n116±3.5 \n1.5±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n5.3±1.0 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n221±0.5 \n121±7.5 \n1±1.0 \n2±1.0 \n4.1±0.6 \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n162±15 \n71±4.0 \n", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "±0.5 \n121±7.5 \n1±1.0 \n2±1.0 \n4.1±0.6 \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n162±15 \n71±4.0 \n1.5±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n3.2±0.8 \n12 \nCN244XMUL508 \n210±0.5 \n123±0.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1±0.25 \n4.8±0.7 \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n209±12.0 \n121±11.5 \n1±0.0 \n1±0.0 \n3.2±0.0 \n14 \nMUL511XPOPA \n198±5.0 \n102±3.0 \n1±0.0 \n2±0.5 \n5.1±0.6 \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n236±7.0 \n132±5.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.3±0.75 \n6.7±0.3 \n16 \nMUL521XPOPA \n210±13.0 \n123±1.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1±0.0 \n4.3±0.2 \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n186±2.5 \n94±6.0 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n5.3±0.3 \n18 \nMUL114XPOPA \n221±8.0 \n134±3.5 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n5.8±0.1 \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n192±24.5 \n123±15.5 \n2±0.0 \n1±0.0 \n3.6±0.9 \n20 \nMUL141XPOPA \n212±2.5 \n131±5.0 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n5.6±0.8 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n219±23.5 \n124±20.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n4.5±2.4 \n22 \nMUL536X", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n219±23.5 \n124±20.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n4.5±2.4 \n22 \nMUL536XPOPA \n186±17.0 \n101±6.0 \n1±0.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n5.4±1.2 \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n214±4.0 \n125±1.5 \n1±0.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n6.8±0.2 \n24 \nMUL541XPOPA \n223±4.0 \n129±2.5 \n1±1.0 \n2.25±0.75 \n6.9±0.5 \n25 \nMUL688XPOPA \n223±12.0 \n132±8.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n5.0±0.3 \n26 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n195±7.0 \n122±4.5 \n1±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n3.6±0.9 \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 \n151±22.0 \n83±8.5 \n2±2.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.3±1.0 \n28 \nMUL531XMUL513 \n153±1.5 \n73±2.0 \n4±1.0 \n2±1.0 \n4.0±1.3 \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 \n140±5.5 \n66±6.0 \n1±1.0 \n1±0.0 \n2.3±0.3 \n30 \nMUL533XMUL513 \n119±10.0 \n53±5.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n2.5±1.5 \n1.7±0.8 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n192±5.0 \n126±3.6 \n2±2.0 \n1±0.0 \n4.2±1.4 \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n200±17.5 \n100±10.5 \n1±0.0 \n1.5±0", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2.0 \n1±0.0 \n4.2±1.4 \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n200±17.5 \n100±10.5 \n1±0.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n5.6±0.9 \n33 \nMUL513XCN244 \n207±3.0 \n111±0.0 \n3.5±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n4.6±0.7 \n34 \nCN244XMUL513 \n186±5.5 \n90±3.5 \n0.5±0.5 \n1.5±0.5 \n3.6±1.4 \n35 \nMUL516XMUL513 \n146±22.5 \n76±13.0 \n2.5±1.5 \n2±1.0 \n3.1±0.8 \n36 \nMUL513XMUL516 \n144±3.5 \n76±0.5 \n2±0.0 \n2.25±1.25 \n4.9±1.7 \n \nMEAN \n185±13.26 \n99.5±13 \n1±1.097 \n1.77±0.7096 4.14±1.319 \n \nL.S.D 5% \n26.92 \n26.39 \n2.2 \n1.4405 \n2.678 \n \nPH-plant height, EH-ear height, MSV-maize streak virus, GLS-grey leave spot, GY-\ngrain yield, L.S.D % –Least Significant Difference", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "27 \n \nData on plant height showed that cross MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) had the lowest \nmean plant height 119±4cm while POP A X MUL521 (entry15) had the highest plant \nheight 236±7cm, (Figure 4.2). \n \n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536\nPlant Height\nEntry\n \nFigure 4.2: Mean plant height (cm) for the crosses in KALRO Embu. \nEmbu mean ear height ranged between 53 ±5.5cm for MUL 533 x MUL 513(entry \n30) to 134±3.5cm for MUL114 x POPA (entry 18) (Figure 4.2). Generally majority of \nthe crosses had a mean ear height of more than 60 cm except MUL533 x MUL513 \n(entry 30) which had a mean ear height of 53±5.5 cm (Figure 4.3).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 41, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "28 \n \n \nFigure 4.3: Mean ear height (cm) for crosses in Embu. \n \nThe MSV scores in Embu ranged between 1 - 4 for majority of the crosses and cross \nMUL531 x MUL513 (entry 28) had the highest score of 4±1 (Figure 4.4). Cross \nMUL513 x CN244 (entry 33) had the second MSV score of 3.5. Crosses which were \nas a result of crossing inbred line MUL513 had the highest MSV scores compared to \nthose crossed with inbred line MUL 508 and POPA which had the lowest scores \n(Figure 4.4).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 42, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "29 \n \n \nFigure 4.4: Mean MSV disease scores in Embu \nData in Embu had a grand mean grain yield of 4 t/ha-1, the mean grain yield ranged \nbetween 2 t/ha for MUL508 x MUL521 (entry 3) to 7±1 t/ha for MUL 541 x POP A \n(entry 24). There was a significant (p<0.05) difference on mean grain yield on the test \ncrosses sampled in Embu (Figure 4.5). Majority of crosses in Embu which produced \nhigh mean grain yield were those crossed with inbred line POPA (Figure 4.5). \nAverage producers were those crossed with inbred line MUL 508, while the test \ncrosses which had low mean grain yield were those crossed with inbred line MUL513.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 43, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "30 \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure 4.5: Mean performance of crosses for grain yield in Embu \n \nData on mean performance showed that crosses POPA x MUL521, MUL508 x \nMUL688, MUL541 x POPA, POPA x MUL688, MUL114 x POPA, MUL541 x \nMUL508, MUL688 x MUL508, POPA x MUI536, POPA x MUL541, MUL141 x \nPOPA, MUL521 x POPA and CN244 x MUL508 (entries 15, 9, 24, 25, 18, 8, 10, 21, \n23, 20, 16 and12) respectively were not significantly (P ≥ 0.05) different on mean \nplant height (Table 4.3). Results also revealed no significant (P ≥ 0.05) difference on \nmean plant height for crosses POPA x MUL511,MUL513 x CN244, MUL114 x \nMUL513, MUL511x POPA, and MUL141 x MUL508 (entries 13,33,32,14 and 6 ) \nrespectively (Table 4.3). Further the highest cross on plant height POP A × MUL511 \n(entry 15) showed a significant (P ≤ 0.05) difference with its reciprocal cross", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 44, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "31 \n \nMUL511x POPA (entry 16).The same observation was made with the cross which \nhad the lowest plant height MUL533 x MUL 513 (entry 30) which showed a \nsignificant (P ≥ 0.05) difference with its reciprocal cross MUL513 x MUL533 (entry \n31). Crosses MUL508 x MUL541, MUL513 x MUL531, MUL516 x MUL513 and \nMUL533 x MUL513 (entry7, 27, 35 and 30), respectively showed no significant (P ≥ \n0.05) difference on plant height with their reciprocal crosses (Table 4.3). Further \ncrosses with lowest plant height were those crossed with inbred line MUL513 while \nthose with highest were those crossed with inbred line POPA (Table 4.3).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 45, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "32 \n \nTable 4.3: Mean performance of crosses for plant height in Embu \n \nEntry \nCrosses \nMean \n \n \n15 POPAXMUL 511 \n236±3 A \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n223±8 Ab \n24 MUL541XPOPA \n223±4 Ab \n25 MUL688XPOPA \n223±12 Ab \n18 MUL114XPOPA \n221±8 Abc \n10 MUL688XMUL541 \n220.5±0.5 Abc \n21 POPAXMUL536 \n218.5±23.5 Abcd \n23 POPAXMUL541 \n214±4 Abcde \n20 MUL141XPOPA \n211.5±2.5 Abcdef \n16 MUL521XPOPA \n210±13 Abcdef \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n209.5±0.5 Abcdef \n13 POPAXMUL511 \n209±12 Bcdef \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n207±3 Bcdef \n32 MUL114XMUL513 \n199.5±17.5 Bcdef \n14 MUL511XPOPA \n198±5 Bcdef \n6 MUL141XMUL508 \n197±27 Bcdef \n5 MUL508XMUL141 \n195±10 Cdef \n26 POPAXMUL688 \n195±7 Cdef \n31 MUL513XMUL114 \n192±5 Def \n19 POPAXMULI141 \n191.5±24.5 Ef \n22 MUL536XPOPA \n186±17 Fg \n17 POPAXMULI114 \n185.5±2.5 Fg \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n185.5±5.5 Fg \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n162±15 Gh \n1 MUL508XMUL516 \n157±3 Hi \n7 MUL508XMUL541 \n157±21 Hi \n8 MUL541XMUL508 \n152.5±17.5 Hi \n28 MUL531XMUL513 \n152.5±1.5 Hi \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n151±22 Hi \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n150.5±14.5 Hi \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n145.5±22", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".5 Hi \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n151±22 Hi \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n150.5±14.5 Hi \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n145.5±22.5 Hij \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n143.5±3.5 Hij \n2 MUL516XMUL508 \n143±11 Hij \n29 MUL513XMUL533 \n139.5±5.5 Hij \n3 MUL508XMUL521 \n134.5±19.5 Ij \n30 MUL533XMUL513 \n119±10 J \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukeys \ncomparison at 5% probability level). \nData (Table 4.4) showed that the highest cross on ear height MUL114 x POPA (entry \n18) showed no significant (p ≥ 0.05) difference with its reciprocal cross POPA x \nMUL114 (entry 19). However cross MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) showed a", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "33 \n \nsignificant (P ≤ 0.05) difference on ear height with its reciprocal cross MUL513 x \nMUL 533(entry 31). Majority of crosses with high ear height were those crossed with \ninbred line POPA, while those with lowest were those crossed with inbred line \nMUL508 (Table 4.4). \nTable 4.4: Mean performance of crosses for ear height in Embu \nEntry \nCrosses \nMean \n \n18 \nMUL114XPOPA \n133.5±3.5 \n A \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n131.5±5.5 \nAb \n25 \nMUL688XPOPA \n131.5±8.5 \nAb \n20 \nMULI41XPOPA \n131±5 \nAbc \n24 \nMUL541XPOPA \n128.5±2.5 \nAbc \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n126±3.6 \nAbcd \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n124.5±1.5 \nAbcde \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n123.5±20.5 \nAbcde \n16 \nMUL521XPOPA \n123±1 \nAbcde \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n122.5±15.5 \nAbcde \n26 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n121.5±4.5 \nAbcde \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n120.5±7.5 \nAbcde \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n120.5±11.5 \nabcde \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 \n115.5±3.5 \nabcdef \n33 \nMUL513XCN244 \n111±0.0 \nabcdef \n12 \nCN244XMUL508 \n105.5±0.5 \nbcdefg \n6 \nMUL141XMUL508 \n105±11 \ncdefg \n14 \nMUL511XPOPA \n102±3 \ndefgh \n22 \nMUL536XPOPA \n101±6 \ndefghi \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n99.5±10.5 \nefghij \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n99±5 \nefghijk \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n94±6 \n", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n99.5±10.5 \nefghij \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n99±5 \nefghijk \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n94±6 \nfghijkl \n34 \nCN244XMUL513 \n89.5±3.5 \nfghijklm \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 \n82.5±8.5 \nghijklmn \n8 \nMUL541XMUL508 \n77.5±7.5 \nhijklmno \n35 \nMUL516XMUL513 \n76±13 \nhijklmno \n36 \nMUL513XMUL516 \n75.5±0.5 \nijklmno \n4 \nMUL521XMUL508 \n74.5±2.5 \njklmno \n28 \nMUL531XMUL513 \n73±2 \nklmno \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 \n72±11 \nlmno \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n71±4 \nlmno \n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 \n70.5±0.5 \nlmno \n2 \nMUL516XMUL508 \n70±11 \nlmno \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 \n66±6 \nmno \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 \n60±6 \n no \n30 \nMUL533XMUL513 \n52.5±5.5 \n O \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukeys \ncomparison at 5% probability level).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "34 \n \nData (Table 4.5) on grain yield in KALRO Embu revealed that crosses MUL541 x \nPOPA, POPA x MUL541, POPA x MUL521, MUL114 x POPA, MUL114 x \nMUL513, MULI41 x POPA, MUL536 x POPA, POPA x MUL114 MUL508 x \nMUL688, and MUL511xPOPA showed no significant (P>0.05) difference on grain \nyield t/ha. However crosses MUL531 x MUL513, POPA x MUL141, CN244 x \nMUL513, POPA x MUL688, POPA x MUL511and MUL508 x CN244 showed a \nsignificant (p<0.05) difference on grain yield (Table 4.5). Highest grain yield was \nachieved from crosses made from inbred line POPA in both its direct and reciprocal \ncrosses (Table 4.5). \n \nTable 4.5: Mean performance of crosses for grain yield in Embu \nEntry \nCrosses \nMean \n \n24 MUL541XPOPA \n6.889±0.518 A \n23 POPAXMUL541 \n6.845±0.1628 A \n15 POPAXMUL521 \n6.717±0.2918 Ab \n18 MUL114XPOPA \n5.793±0.1299 Abc \n32 MUL114XMUL513 \n5.628±0.7811 Abcd \n20 MULI41XPOPA \n5.604±0.7962 Abcd \n22 MUL536XPOPA \n5.366±1.225 Abcde \n17 POPAXMUL114 \n5.301±0.3134 Abcde \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n5.25±0.973 Abcde \n14 MUL511XPOPA \n5.076±0.61 Abcdef \n25 MUL688XPOPA \n5.047±0.2915 Abcdef \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n4.861±1.7495 Abcdefg \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n4.833±0.6669 Abcdefg \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n4.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " MUL513XMUL516 \n4.861±1.7495 Abcdefg \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n4.833±0.6669 Abcdefg \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n4.627±0.7195 abcdefgh \n6 MUL141XMUL508 \n4.553±0.9779 abcdefgh \n21 POPAXMUL536 \n4.468±2.3978 abcdefgh \n16 MUL521XPOPA \n4.282±0.1684 abcdefghi \n5 MUL508XMUL141 \n4.247±0.73 abcdefghi \n31 MUL513XMUL114 \n4.243±1.3535 abcdefghi \n10 MUL688XMUL508 \n4.129±0.603 bcdefghi \n28 MUL531XMUL513 \n4.019±1.2804 Cdefghi \n19 POPAXMUL141 \n3.643±0.9499 Cdefghi \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n3.609±1.4126 cdefghi \n26 POPAXMUL688 \n3.602±0.892 cdefghi \n13 POPAXMUL511 \n3.238±0.0259 cdefghi \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n3.163±0.8325 cdefghi \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n3.08±0.8461 defghi \n1 MUL508XMUL516 \n2.756±0.1099 efghi \n2 MUL516XMUL508 \n2.699±0.7254 efghi \n7 MUL508XMUL541 \n2.555±1.2804 fghi \n29 MUL513XMUL533 \n2.319±0.3331 ghi \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n2.299±0.9779 ghi \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n2.283±0.9398 ghi \n8 MUL541XMUL508 \n2.27±0.8979 ghi \n3 MUL508XMUL521 \n2.032±0.6863 Hi \n30 MUL533XMUL51 \n1.675±2.3978 I \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukeys \ncomparison at ", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "521 \n2.032±0.6863 Hi \n30 MUL533XMUL51 \n1.675±2.3978 I \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukeys \ncomparison at 5% probability level).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "35 \n \n \n4.2.2 Mean performance of crosses in KALRO Muguga \nThe analysis of variance (ANOVA) for plant height, ear height, disease scores for \nMSV and GLS and grain yield for Muguga are shown in table 4.6.The crosses showed \nsignificant (p<0.05) difference for plant height, ear height and GLS, while there was \nno significant difference on MSV and grain yield on the crosses in Muguga (Table \n4.6). \n \nTable 4.6: Performance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nMuguga. \nMEAN SUM OF SQUARES \nSV \nDf \nPH(cm) \nEH(cm) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY(t/ha) \nReplication 1 \n19 \n32 \n0.0868 \n0 \n1.488 \nGenotype \n35 \n2175.9** \n796.8** \n0.1725 \n0.2865** \n11.536 \nError \n35 \n362.4 \n115.7 \n0.2225 \n0 \n8.215 \nOverall mean \n214 \n79.9 \n1.16 \n1.94 \n4.84 \nCV% \n \n0.3 \n1.2 \n4.2 \n0 \n4.2 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n** Significant at (p<0.05), PH- Plant height, EH- Ear height, MSV-Maize streak \nvirus, GLS- Grey leaf spot, GY- Grain yield, CV%-Coefficient of variation \n Data on the mean plant height in Muguga ranged between 148±4 cm for MUL 533 x \nMUL 513 (entry 30) to 278±3 cm for POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) (Table 4.7). The \ncross which had the lowest mean plant height MUL533 x MUL 513 (entry 30) also \nhad the lowest mean grain yield of 1.01±0.4742 t/ha, the cross also had low mean ear \nheight (45±6cm) and a GLS score of 3.25±0.25 ( Table 4.7). Cross MUL516 x \nMUL508 (entry 2) had a mean plant height of 178±", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " (45±6cm) and a GLS score of 3.25±0.25 ( Table 4.7). Cross MUL516 x \nMUL508 (entry 2) had a mean plant height of 178±1.5cm, mean ear height of 55±2cm", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "36 \n \nand the highest grain yield of 11.9±10.84 t/ha (Table 4.7 and Figure 4.6). The second \nbest cross in grain yield was POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) which had grain yield of \n10.08±0.83 t/ha; this test cross also had the second highest mean ear height of \n123±1cm (Table 4.7). Cross POPA x MUL 141(entry 19) had the highest mean ear \nheight of 125±2.5cm and was the third best in mean grain yield of 8.65±0.33 t/ha. \nCrosses CN244 x MUL508 (entry 12) and POPA x MUL511 (entry 13) had equal \nmean plant heights but different mean ear heights and different mean grain yields \n(Table 4.7).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 50, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "37 \n \nTable 4.7: Mean Performance of crosses for different morphological traits in \nKALRO Muguga \n \nEntry \nCROSSES \nPH(CM) \nEH(CM) \nMSV \nGLS \nGY(T/HA-1) \n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 \n156±16.0 \n42±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n3.5±0.50 \n1.78±0.1901 \n2 \nMUL516XMUL508 \n178±1.5 \n55±2.0 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.00 \n11.9±10.8447 \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 \n181±1.5 \n58±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.00 \n1.95±0.3049 \n4 \nMUL521XMUL508 \n160±7.5 \n54±6.0 \n2±1.00 \n3.25±0.25 \n1.84±0.0886 \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 \n221±14.5 \n79±5.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.49±1.1328 \n6 \nMUL141XMUL508 \n242±6.0 \n92±0.5 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.75±0.25 \n5.17±0.0279 \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 \n212±6.5 \n78±12.5 \n1.25±0.5 \n2.5±0.50 \n3.24±0.0854 \n8 \nMUL541XMUL508 \n220±10.5 \n76±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n5.71±1.0585 \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 \n274±2.5 \n87±4.5 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.64±0.3859 \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n233±15.5 \n87±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.75±0.25 \n4.66±0.8067 \n11 \nMUL508", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n10 \nMUL688XMUL508 \n233±15.5 \n87±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.75±0.25 \n4.66±0.8067 \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n211±5.0 \n68±10.0 \n2±0.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.84±02879 \n12 \nCN244XMUL508 \n238±17.5 \n84±10.5 \n1±1.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n3.99±0.7511 \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n238±21.5 \n101±6.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n7.01±0.9207 \n14 \nMUL511XPOPA \n220±4 \n81±5.0 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.7±0.0413 \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n234±13.0 \n83±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n5.64±0.8723 \n16 \nMUL521XPOPA \n233±28.5 \n95±2.8 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.00 \n5.07±1.6994 \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n180±6.0 \n66±12.0 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.94±0.2226 \n18 \nMUL114XPOPA \n227±17.5 \n95±3.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.75±0.25 \n5.38±1.0128 \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n260±3.5 \n125±7.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n8.65±0.3338 \n20 \nMUL141XPOPA \n250±18.5 \n117±8.5 \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.75±2.6645 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n249±34.0 \n108±23.5 \n1±0.00 \n", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n1±0.00 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.75±2.6645 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n249±34.0 \n108±23.5 \n1±0.00 \n2±0.50 \n7.79±1.9045 \n22 \nMUL536XPOPA \n189±9.5 \n74±5.5 \n1.75±0.75 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.42±0.6465 \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n278±3.0 \n123±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n10.08±0.8281 \n24 \nMUL541XPOPA \n232±11.0 \n96±5.5 \n1±0.00 \n1.5±0.00 \n6.23±0.6035 \n25 \nMUL688XPOPA \n227±15.5 \n86±3.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.25±0.25 \n5.77±1.039 \n26 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n209±4.5 \n86±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.00 \n4.75±0.472 \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 \n197±15.5 \n67±9.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.50 \n2.95±0.1149 \n28 \nMUL531XMUL513 \n182±1.5 \n72±2.0 \n1±0.00 \n3±0.50 \n1.82±0.1047 \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 \n197±7.5 \n65±1.5 \n1.5±0.50 \n2.5±0.00 \n3.42±0.5265 \n30 \nMUL533XMUL513 \n148±4.00 \n45±6.0 \n1±0.00 \n3.25±0.25 \n1.01±0.4742 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n241±20.5 \n86±12.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.05±", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1.01±0.4742 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 \n241±20.5 \n86±12.0 \n1.5±0.5 \n1.75±0.25 \n6.05±0.8808 \n32 \nMUL114XMUL513 \n240±6.5 \n84±1.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2±0.50 \n5.75±0.6533 \n33 \nMUL513XCN244 \n217±8.0 \n80±2.5 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±0.00 \n4.28±0.712 \n34 \nCN244XMUL513 \n186±10.5 \n70±11.0 \n1.25±0.25 \n2.5±0.50 \n4±0.8857 \n35 \nMUL516XMUL513 \n163±12.0 \n49±1.0 \n1±0.00 \n3.25±0.70 \n2.82±0.5103 \n36 \nMUL513XMUL516 \n187±13.0 \n71±11.0 \n1±0.00 \n2.5±1.00 \n2.83±0.6653 \n \nMEAN \n214±19.04 79.9±10.76 \n1.16±0.4 \n1.944±0.32 \n4.84±2.866 \n \nL.S.D 5% \n38.64 \n21.84 \n0.9576 \n0.6645 \n5.819 \n \nPH-plant height, EH-ear height, MSV-maize streak virus disease, GLS-grey leaf spot, \nGY-grain yield, L.S.D- Least Significant Difference (5%)", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "38 \n \n \n \nFigure 4.6: Mean plant height (cm) for the crosses in KALRO Muguga \n \nData (Figure 4.7) in Muguga showed that crosses from inbred line POPA had the \nhighest mean ear height, those from inbred line MUL513 had medium ear height \nwhile those from inbred line MUL508 had the lowest mean ear height. Cross \nMUL508 x MUL516 (entry 1) had the lowest ear height of 42±5.5 cm, cross \nMUL533x MUL513 (entry 30) followed with 45±6.0 cm while cross MUL516 x \nMUL513 (entry 35) was third lowest with 49±1.0 cm. Cross POPA x MUL141 (entry \n19) had the highest ear height 125±2.5 cm (Figure 4.7).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 52, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "39 \n \n \nFigure 4.7: Mean ear height (cm) for crosses in Muguga \n \nData (Figure 4.8) showed that the test crosses with high MSV scores were those from \ninbred line MUL508 followed by those from inbred line POPA, while those with the \nlowest were from inbred line MUL513. Majority of the crosses in Muguga showed \nresistance to MSV disease.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 53, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "40 \n \n \nFigure 4.8: Mean MSV scores for crosses in Muguga \nIn Muguga GLS disease score means ranged between 1.5 and 3.5 (Figure 4.9), none \nof the crosses in Muguga was completely resistant to GLS disease. Cross MUL508 x \nMUL516 (entry 1) had the highest mean GLS score of 3.5±0.50 followed by MUL521 \nx MUL508 (entry 4) with 3.25±0.25. MUL516 x MUL508 (entry 2) had GLS score of \n3±0.00, whereas test crosses MUL 141 x POPA (entry 20) had 1.75±0.25 and POPA \nx MUL 141(entry 19) had a mean GSL of 1.5±0.25 which was the lowest (Figure \n4.9).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 54, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "41 \n \n \nFigure 4.9: Mean GLS scores for the crosses in Muguga \nMean grain yield at Muguga was 4.84 t/ha the test cross with the highest mean grain \nyield was MUL516 x MUL508 (entry 2) 11.9±0.19 t/ha (Figure 4.10). Cross POPA x \nMUL 541(entry 23) was second highest with a mean grain yield of 10.08±0.83 t/ha \nand the third best was POPA x MUL141 (entry19) with mean grain yield of 8.65±0.33 \nt/ha. Cross MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) had the lowest mean grain yield of \n1.01±0.47 t/ha (Figure 4.10). Crosses MUL508 x MUL516 (entry 1) and MUL531 x \nMUL513 (entry28) had mean grain yield of 1.78±0.19 t/ha and 1.82±0.10 t/ha \nrespectively (Figure 4.10). Data further showed significant (P<0.05) difference \nbetween cross MUL508 x MUL516 (entry 1) which produced 1.78±0.19 t/ha in its \ndirect cross and 11.9±10.84 t/ha in its reciprocal cross MUL516 × MUL508 (entry 2) \n(Figure 4.10).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 55, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "42 \n \n \nFigure 4.10: Mean grain yield (t/ha) for the crosses in Muguga \nData (Table 4.8) on plant height in Muguga showed that crosses POPA x MUL541 \n(entry23), MUL508 x MUL688 (entry 9), POPA x MUL141 (entry19), MULI41 × \nPOPA (entry 20), POPA × MUL536 (entry 21), MUL141 × MUL508 (entry 6), \nMUL513 × MUL114 (entry 31), and MUL114 × MUL513 (entry 32) showed no \nsignificant difference. Crosses CN244 x MUL508 (entry12) and POPA × MUL511 \n(entry13) had no significant difference on plant height. Further the data showed \ncrosses POPA × MUL521 (entry15), MUL688 × MUL508 (entry10), MUL521 × \nPOPA (entry16), MUL114xPOPA (entry18) and MUL688 × POPA (entry25) had no \nsignificant difference in plant height (Table 4.8). POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) showed \na significant (P<0.05) difference with its reciprocal cross MUL541 x POPA (entry 24) \non plant height. Further data revealed that cross MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) \n148±13 cm which was the lowest plant height had a significant difference in its \nreciprocal cross MUL513 x MUL533 (entry 31) 240.5±20.5 cm.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 56, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "43 \n \nTable 4.8: Mean performance of crosses in plant height in Muguga \nEntry \n Crosses \nMean \n \n23 POPAXMUL541 \n278±3 A \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n273.5±2.5 Ab \n19 POPAXMUL141 \n259.5±3.5 Abc \n20 MULI41XPOPA \n249.5±18.5 Abcd \n21 POPAXMUL536 \n249±34 Abcd \n6 MUL141XMUL508 \n242±6 Abcde \n31 MUL513XMUL114 \n240.5±20.5 Abcde \n32 MUL114XMUL513 \n239.5±6.5 Abcde \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n237.5±17.5 Bcde \n13 POPAXMUL511 \n237.5±21.5 Bcde \n15 POPAXMUL521 \n234±13 Cdef \n10 MUL688XMUL508 \n232.5±15.5 Cdef \n16 MUL521XPOPA \n232.5±28.5 Cdef \n24 MUL541XPOPA \n232±11 Cdef \n18 MUL114XPOPA \n226.5±17.5 Cdefg \n25 MUL688XPOPA \n226.5±15.5 Cdefg \n5 MUL508XMUL141 \n220.5±14.5 Defgh \n14 MUL511XPOPA \n220±4 Defghi \n8 MUL541XMUL508 \n219.5±10.5 Defghi \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n217±8 defghij \n7 MUL508XMUL541 \n211.5±6.5 defghijk \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n211±5 defghijk \n26 POPAXMUL688 \n208.5±4.5 efghijk \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n196.5±15.5 Fghijkl \n29 MUL513XMUL533 \n196.5±7.5 Fghijkl \n22 MUL536XPOPA \n188.5±9.5 ghijklm \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n187±13 Hijklm \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n185.5±10.5 hijkl", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "22 MUL536XPOPA \n188.5±9.5 ghijklm \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n187±13 Hijklm \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n185.5±10.5 hijklmn \n28 MUL531XMUL513 \n181.5±1.5 Ijklmn \n3 MUL508XMUL521 \n180.5±1.5 Jklmn \n17 POPAXMUL114 \n180±6 Jklmn \n2 MUL516XMUL508 \n177.5±1.5 Klmn \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n163±12 Lmn \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n159.5±7.5 Lmn \n1 MUL508XMUL516 \n156±16 Mn \n30 MUL533XMUL513 \n148±4 N \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukey‘s \ncomparison at 5% probability level). \nData (Table 4.9) on ear height showed that crosses POPA x MUL141 (entry19), \nPOPA x MUL541 (entry23), MULI41 x POPA (entry20), and POPA x MUL536 \n(entry21), had no significant difference in ear height. Crosses POPA x MUL511", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "44 \n \n(entry13), MUL541 x POPA (entry24), MUL521 x POPA (entry16), and MUL114 x \nPOPA (entry20) had no significant difference on mean ear height. Crosses MUL508 x \nMUL688 (entry9) and MUL688 x MUL508 (entry10) showed no significant \ndifference in both its direct and reciprocal cross. POPA x MUL688 (entry26) and \nMUL688 x POPA (entry25), MUL513 x MUL114 (entry31) and MUL114 x MUL513 \n(entry32), MUL511 x POPA (entry14) and MUL511 x POP (entry 15), and MUL513 \nx CN244 (entry33) and CN244 x MUL513 showed no significant difference in both \ntheir direct and reciprocal crosses, respectively (Table 4.9). Crosses MUL536 x POPA \n(entry 22), MUL516 x MUL513 (entry35) and MUL533 x MUL513 (entry30) showed \nsignificant difference in ear height with their respective reciprocal crosses (Table 4.9).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 58, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "45 \n \nTable 4.9: Mean performance of crosses on ear height in Muguga \n Entry \n Crosses \nMean \n \n19 POPAXMUL141 \n124.5±2.5 A \n23 POPAXMUL541 \n123±1 A \n20 MULI41XPOPA \n116.5±8.5 Ab \n21 POPAXMUL536 \n107.5±23.5 Abc \n13 POPAXMUL511 \n101±21.5 Bcd \n24 MUL541XPOPA \n95.5±5.5 Bcde \n16 MUL521XPOPA \n95±3.5 bcdef \n18 MUL114XPOPA \n95±7 bcdef \n6 MUL141XMUL508 \n91.5±0.5 cdefg \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n86.5±4.5 cdefgh \n10 MUL688XMUL508 \n86.5±3.5 cdefgh \n26 POPAXMUL688 \n86±1 cdefghi \n31 MUL513XMUL114 \n86±12 cdefghi \n25 MUL688XPOPA \n85.5±3.5 defghi \n32 MUL114XMUL513 \n84±1 defghi \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n83.5±10.5 defghi \n15 POPAXMUL521 \n82.5±3.5 defghi \n14 MUL511XPOPA \n81±5 defghi \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n79.5±2.5 defghi \n5 MUL508XMUL141 \n78.5±5.5 efghij \n7 MUL508XMUL541 \n77.5±12.5 efghij \n8 MUL541XMUL508 \n75.5±3.5 efghijk \n22 MUL536XPOPA \n73.5±5.5 fghijk \n28 MUL531XMUL513 \n72±2 ghijk \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n71±11 ghijk \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n70±11 ghijkl \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n68±10 hijkl \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n67±9 hijkl \n17 POPAXMUL114 \n66±3 hijklm \n29 M", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "70±11 ghijkl \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n68±10 hijkl \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n67±9 hijkl \n17 POPAXMUL114 \n66±3 hijklm \n29 MUL513XMUL533 \n64.5±1.5 ijklm \n3 MUL508XMUL521 \n57.5±5.5 jklmn \n2 MUL516XMUL508 \n55±2 Klmn \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n54±6 Klmn \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n49±1 Lmn \n30 MUL533XMUL513 \n45±6 Mn \n1 MUL508XMUL516 \n41.5±5.5 n \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukey‘s \ncomparison) at 5% probability level. \nData on mean GLS scores in Muguga showed crosses MUL688XMUL508, POPA x \nMUL536, MUL513 x MUL531, MUL688 x POPA, POPA x MUL688, MUL533 x", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "46 \n \nMUL513, MUL508 x MUL516, and MUL513 x MUL533(entries 10,21,27,25,26,30,1 \nand 29) respectively were not significantly different (Table 4.10). \nTable 4.10: Mean performance for GLS disease scores in Muguga \nEntry \nTest cross \nMean \n \n10 MUL688XMUL508 \n2.75±0.25 A \n21 CN244XMUL508 \n2.75±0.50 A \n27 MUL513XMUL531 \n2.75±0.50 A \n25 MUL688XPOPA \n2.5±0.25 Ab \n26 POPAXMUL688 \n2.5±0.00 Ab \n30 MUL533XMUL513 \n2.5±0.25 Ab \n1 MUL508XMUL516 \n2.25±0.50 abc \n29 MUL513XMUL533 \n2.25±0.00 abc \n3 MUL508XMUL521 \n2±0.00 Bd \n6 MUL141XMUL508 \n2±0.25 bcd \n8 MUL541XMUL508 \n2±0.50 bcd \n12 CN244XMUL508 \n2±0.25 bcd \n19 POPAXMUL141 \n2±0.25 bcd \n22 MUL536XPOPA \n2±0.00 bcd \n23 POPAXMUL541 \n2±0.00 bcd \n28 MUL531XMUL513 \n2±0.50 bcd \n33 MUL513XCN244 \n2±0.00 bcd \n34 CN244XMUL513 \n2±0.50 bcd \n36 MUL513XMUL516 \n2±1.00 bcd \n2 MUL516XMUL508 \n1.75±0.00 Cd \n4 MUL521XMUL508 \n1.75±0.25 Cd \n5 MUL508XMUL141 \n1.75±0.25 Cd \n7 MUL508XMUL541 \n1.75±0.50 Cd \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n1.75±0.00 Cd \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n1.75±0.25 Cd \n16 MUL521", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1.75±0.50 Cd \n9 MUL508XMUL688 \n1.75±0.00 Cd \n11 MUL508XCN244 \n1.75±0.25 Cd \n16 MUL521XPOPA \n1.75±0.00 Cd \n31 MUL513XMUL114 \n1.75±0.25 Cd \n35 MUL516XMUL513 \n1.75±0.75 Cd \n13 POPAXMUL511 \n1.5±0.00 D \n14 MUL511XPOPA \n1.5±0.00 D \n15 POPAXMUL521 \n1.5±0.50 D \n17 POPAXMUL114 \n1.5±0.00 D \n18 MUL114XPOPA \n1.5±0.25 D \n20 MULI41XPOPA \n1.5±0.25 D \n24 MUL541XPOPA \n1.5±0.00 D \n32 MUL114XMUL513 \n1.5±0.50 D \n \nMeans followed by the same letter/s are not significantly different (Tukey‘s \ncomparison) at 5% probability level.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "47 \n \n4.2.3 Performance of crosses on both environments Embu and Muguga \nData comparing the mean plant height for the two environments Embu and Muguga \nrevealed that cross MUL508 x MUL688 (entry9) had the highest plant height \n(248±2.75cm) in overall performance while MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) had the \nlowest (133.5±3cm) plant height (Figure 4.11). Further the data (Table 4.11) showed \nthere was a significant (P<0.001) difference on site and also on the crosses \nperformance. \n \n \nFigure 4.11: Mean performance of plant height for crosses in KALRO Embu and \nMuguga", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 61, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "48 \n \nTable 4.11: Performance of crosses on plant height in KARLO Embu and \nKALRO Muguga environments \n \nSource of variation \nd.f. \ns.s. \nm.s. \nv.r. \nF pr. \nRep \n1 \n2809.0 \n2809.0 \n8.9 \n \nSite \n1 30044.4 30044.4 \n95.5 \n<.001 \nEntry \n35 131972.6 \n3770.6 \n12.0 \n<.001 \nSite/Entry \n35 15852.6 \n452.9 \n1.4 \n0.097 \nResidual \n71 22336.0 \n314.6 \n \n \nTotal \n143 203014.6 \n \n \n \n \nData on mean ear height in the two environments showed that mean ear height ranged \nbetween 75± 13.19cm for MUL 533 x MUL 513(entry 30) to 118.25± 8.41cm for \nMUL688 x POPA (entry25). Further there was a significant P< 0.001 difference \nbetween the site and crosses performance. (Figure 4.12 and Table 4.12). \n \n \nFigure 4.12: Mean ear height in Embu and Muguga environments \n \nEH (CM)", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 62, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "49 \n \nTable 4.12: Performance for ear height in Embu and Muguga environments \nSource of variation \nd.f. \ns.s. \nm.s. \nv.r. \nF pr. \nRep \n1 \n200.7 \n200.7 \n1.4 \n \nSite \n1 13806.3 13806.3 \n93.8 \n<.001 \nEntry \n35 63608.8 \n1817.4 \n12.3 \n<.001 \nSite/ Entry \n35 \n7041.2 \n201.2 \n1.4 \n0.133 \nResidual \n71 10456.3 \n147.3 \n \n \nTotal \n143 95113.3 \n \n \n \n \n Data on MSV disease score showed a significant P<0.001 difference on the crosses \n(Table 4.13) however there was no significant P>0.05 difference on the sites for MSV \ndisease score. \nTable 4.13: Performance of crosses for MSV disease scores for Embu and \nMuguga environments \n \nSource of variation \nd.f. \ns.s. \nm.s. \nv.r. \nF pr. \nRep stratum \n1 \n0.16 \n0.16 \n0.03 \n \nSite \n1 \n17.57 \n17.57 \n3.53 \n0.064 \nEntry \n35 \n377.41 \n10.78 \n2.17 \n0.003* \nSite/ Entry \n35 \n167.04 \n4.77 \n0.96 \n0.542 \nResidual \n71 \n352.96 \n4.97 \n \n \nTotal \n143 \n915.13 \n \n \n \n \n \nData on mean grey leaf spot scores showed there was significant (P≤ 0.05) difference \namong genotypes in the two research sites Embu and Muguga (Table 4.14).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 63, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "50 \n \nTable 4.14: Performance on GLS scores at Embu and Muguga Research sites \nSource of variation \nd.f. \ns.s. \nm.s. \nv.r. \nF pr. \nRep \n1 \n4.516 \n4.516 \n5.690 \n \nSite \n1 \n0.918 \n0.918 \n1.160 \n0.286 \nEntry \n35 \n37.769 \n1.079 \n1.360 \n0.137 \nSite/ Entry \n35 \n45.269 \n1.293 \n1.630 \n0.041* \nResidual \n71 \n56.359 \n0.794 \n \n \nTotal \n143 \n144.832 \n \n \n \n \nData on grain yield for the sampled test crosses in both environments Embu and \nMuguga showed there was significant (P < 0.05) difference in grain yield (t/ha) \nbetween the research sites (Table 4.15). Further data showed grain yield ranged \nbetween 9.84±4.88 t/ha for MUL533 x MUL513 (entry 30) to 19.92± 7.55(Figure \n4.13). \n \nFigure 4.13: Mean grain yield for crosses at Embu and Muguga", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "51 \n \nTable 4.15: Performance of crosses for grain yield at Embu and Muguga \nresearch sites \n \nSource of variation \nd.f. \ns.s. \nm.s. \nv.r. \nF pr. \nRep \n1 \n13.14 \n13.14 \n27.86 \n \nSite \n1 \n15.02 \n15.02 \n31.84 \n<.001 \nEntry \n35 \n9.55 \n0.27 \n0.58 \n0.961 \nSite/Entry \n35 \n11.67 \n0.33 \n0.71 \n0.869 \nResidual \n71 \n33.48 \n0.47 \n \n \nTotal \n143 \n82.86 \n \n \n \n4.3 Correlations analyses \n Correlation analyses showed that all the crosses had a positive significant correlation \n(r=0.4292, r═0.1246, r=0.583) between grain yield and ear height, GLS and plant \nheight respectively, (Table 4.16). The crosses had negative correlation(r=0.0627) \nbetween grain yield and MSV. Further all the crosses showed positive significant \ncorrelation (r=0.0217, r=0.6121) between ear height and GLS and plant height \nrespectively. Further study showed that all test crosses on MSV showed negative non-\nsignificant correlation (r=-0.0597) with plant height (Table 4.16). \nTable 4.16: Correlations among grain yield and other traits in both \nenvironments \n* **= Significant at 0.05 and 0.001 level of probability \nGY=Grain yield (t/ha-1), EH= Ear height (cm), GLS =Grey leaf spot, MSV =Maize \nstreak virus disease, PH= Plant height (cm). \n \nGY(t/ha-1) \nEH(cm) \nGLS \nMSV \nPH(cm) \nGY(t/ha -1) \n - \n \n \n \n \nEH(cm) \n0.4292** \n - \n \n \n \nGLS \n0.1246 \n0.1912* \n - \n \n \nMSV1 \n-0.0627 \n-0.1833* \n0.0788 \n - \n \nPH(cm) \n0.583** \n0.6121** \n-0.0531 \n-0.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n \n \nMSV1 \n-0.0627 \n-0.1833* \n0.0788 \n - \n \nPH(cm) \n0.583** \n0.6121** \n-0.0531 \n-0.0597 \n -", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "52 \n \n4.4 \nCombining ability analyses \nCombining ability analysis revealed significant difference on plant height, ear height \nand grain yield indicating the importance of both additive and non-additive gene \nactions in the expression of these traits (Table 4.17). The inbred lines were divided \ninto three sets, in set one inbred line MUL 508 was crossed with inbred lines MUL \n516, MUL521, MUL141, MUL541, MUL688 and CN244 (entries 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11). In \nset two inbred line POP A was crossed with inbred lines MUL511, MUL521, \nMUL114, MUl141, MUL536, MUL541 and MUL688 (entries 13,15,17,19,21,23 and \n25) while set three inbred line MUL513 was crossed with inbred lines MUL 531, \nMUL533, MUL114, MUL516 and CN244 (entries 27, 29, 31, 33 and 35) ( Table \n4.17). \nThe sets were without reciprocals. Data on GCA (Table 4.17) revealed that set one \nwhere MUL 508 was used the GCA range on grain yield was -0.8 to 0.5,when POPA \nwas used the GCA range on grain yield was -0.29 to 0.29, while when inbred line \nMUL513 was used the GCA range on grain yield was -0.18 to 0.62 Data (Table \n4.17) showed that inbred line MUL508 had positive significant (p<0.05) GCA for ear \nheight when crossed with inbred line MUL541, it also showed a positive significant \nGCA for grain yield when crossed with inbred line MUL688. Inbred line MUL508 \nfurther showed a positive significant GCA for GLS resistance when crossed with \ninbred line CN244 (Table 4.17). Data for set two showed inbred line POPA had a \nnegative GCA -1.71 and -1.57 for plant height and ear height respectively when \ncrossed with MUL511, however there was positive GCA with", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "17). Data for set two showed inbred line POPA had a \nnegative GCA -1.71 and -1.57 for plant height and ear height respectively when \ncrossed with MUL511, however there was positive GCA with grain yield 0.21, MSV \ndisease resistance 0.31 and GLS disease resistance 0.71 (Table 4.17).The data \nfurther showed that when POPA was crossed with inbred line MUL521 there was \nnegative GCA in all the traits except ear height which had positive GCA (Table 4.17).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "53 \n \nFurther negative GCA was seen when the inbred line POPA was crossed with inbred \nline MUL536 in all the traits studied, however with inbred line MUL688 there was \npositive GCA for all traits except for MSV disease resistance (Table 4.17). \nData on table 4.17 further showed that when inbred line MUL513 in set three was \ncrossed with inbred line MUL 531 there was a negative GCA for MSV resistance but \na positive GCA for all the other traits studied. The data also showed positive GCA for \nall the traits when POPA was crossed with MUL 533(Table 4.17).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "54 \n \nTable 4.17: Estimates of G.C.A effects for inbred lines for yield and yield \ncomponents \nINBRED \nLINES \nPH(CM) \nEH(CM) \nGY(T/HA) \nMSVSCORES GLS \nSCORES \nMUL516 \n34.17 \n19 \n-0.8 \n0.42 \n1.24 \nMUL521 \n32.17 \n16 \n0.5 \n0.28 \n1.52 \nMUL141 \n-17.83 \n-14 \n0.1 \n-0.12 \n-0.36 \nMUL541 \n6.17 \n0.0** \n0.5 \n-0.12 \n0.61 \nMUL688 \n57.93 \n-26 \n0.0** \n0.08 \n-2.99 \nCN244 \n3.17 \n0.5 \n-0.3 \n0.28 \n0.01* \nMUL511 \n-1.71 \n-1.57 \n0.21 \n0.31 \n0.71 \nMUL521 \n-13.71 \n2.43 \n-0.09 \n-0.29 \n-0.34 \nMUL114 \n38.29 \n29.43 \n-0.29 \n-0.19 \n1.22 \nMUL141 \n-4.71 \n-14.57 \n-0.09 \n0.11 \n-0.31 \nMUL536 \n-12.71 \n-6.57 \n-0.19 \n-0.09 \n-0.29 \nMUL541 \n-24.71 \n-14.57 \n0.21 \n0.31 \n-2.62 \nMUL688 \n19.29 \n5.43 \n0.21 \n-0.19 \n1.66 \nMUL531 \n13 \n7.8 \n0.18 \n-0.28 \n1.16 \nMUL533 \n19 \n17.8 \n0.38 \n0.28 \n0.91 \nMUL114 \n-29 \n-23.2 \n-0.12 \n0.28 \n-1.3 \nCN244 \n-25 \n-12.2 \n0.62 \n-0.02* \n-0.67 \nMUL531 \n22 \n9.8", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n-0.12 \n0.28 \n-1.3 \nCN244 \n-25 \n-12.2 \n0.62 \n-0.02* \n-0.67 \nMUL531 \n22 \n9.8 \n-0.18 \n-0.32 \n-0.06 \n*,** Significant at p< 0.05 and p<0.001 levels respectively, \nPH=Plant height, EH= Ear height, GY=Grain yield, MSV=Maize streak virus disease, \nGLS=Grey leaf spot.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "55 \n \nData on Specific combining ability (SCA) (Table 4.18) showed that there was a \nsignificant (p<0.05) difference between the inbred lines in the three sets on grain \nyield. The SCA range on grain yield in set one where MUL 508 was used was -0.15 to \n0.75,when POPA was used the SCA range on grain yield was -0.28 to 0.49 while for \ninbred line MUL 513 the SCA range was -0.32 to 0.51( Table 4.18). Data on grain \nyield in set one showed a positive SCA on cross MUL508 x MUL141 and MUL508 x \nMUL 688(entry9) (Table 4.18).The data further showed a positive SCA in set two on \ncross POPAxMUL521(entry 15), POPA x MUL141(entry19), POPA x MUL536 \n(entry21) and POPAxMUL541(entry 23) on grain yield (Table 4.18). Further the data \nshowed a positive SCA on yield on crosses MUL513 x MUL114 (entry31) and \nMUL513 x MUL516 (entry 36) was crossed with inbred line MUL114 and MUL516 \n(Table 4.18).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 69, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "56 \n \nTable 4.18: Estimates of S.C.A effects for inbred lines for yield and yield \ncomponents \n \nEntry \nCROSSES \nPH \nEH \nGY \nMSV \n1 \nMUL508XMUL516 -8.33 \n-4.75 \n-0.31 \n0.16 \n3 \nMUL508XMUL521 -8.08 \n-4.00 \n-0.38 \n-0.16 \n5 \nMUL508XMUL141 4.42 \n3.50 \n0.09 \n0.06 \n7 \nMUL508XMUL541 -1.58 \n0.0** \n-0.15 \n-0.14 \n9 \nMUL508XMUL688 14.42 \n6.5 \n0.75 \n0.04* \n11 \nMUL508XCN244 \n-0.83 \n-1.25 \n0.0** \n0.04* \n13 \nPOPAXMUL511 \n-0.31 \n0.17 \n-0.18 \n-0.06 \n15 \nPOPAXMUL521 \n2.09 \n-0.63 \n0.03* \n-0.06 \n17 \nPOPAXMUL114 \n-8.31 \n-6.03 \n-0.28 \n0.12 \n19 \nPOPAXMUL141 \n0.29 \n2.77 \n0.03* \n0.14 \n21 \nPOPAXMUL536 \n1.89 \n1.17 \n0.02* \n0.00** \n23 \nPOPAXMUL541 \n4.29 \n2.77 \n0.49 \n-0.06 \n25 \nPOPAXMUL688 \n0.09 \n-0.23 \n-0.12 \n-0.06 \n27 \nMUL513XMUL531 -3.6 \n-1.93 \n-0.32 \n-0.08 \n29 \nMUL513XMUL533 -5.6 \n-5.26 \n-0.23 \n-0.15 \n31 \nMUL513XMUL114 10.4 \n8.40 \n0.51 \n0.02* \n33 \nMUL513XMUL516 9.1 \n4.74 \n0.28 \n0.19 \n35 \nMUL513X", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "114 10.4 \n8.40 \n0.51 \n0.02* \n33 \nMUL513XMUL516 9.1 \n4.74 \n0.28 \n0.19 \n35 \nMUL513XCN244 \n-10.3 \n-5.93 \n-0.22 \n0.02* \n \n**,* Significant at p< 0.001 and p< 0.05 respectively \nPH=Plant height (cm), EH=Ear height (cm),GY=Grain yield (t/ha),MSV=Maize \nStreak Virus, GLS=Grey Leaf Spot.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "57 \n \n4.5 Discussions \nThe study revealed that crosses from inbred line POPA had the highest plant height, \near height and also the highest grain yield in Embu (Table 4.5). Maize displays an \norderly sequence of development of yield components namely: ear height, plant \nheight, ears per plant and grain weight (Viola et al., 2003). This explains why indirect \nselection can be used by searching for improved yield components. For effective \nselection of grain yield and other desirable traits, information on the magnitude of \nuseful genetic variances in the population in terms of combining ability and heterosis \nis required (Vacaro et al., 2002). The crosses in Embu and Muguga showed \nsignificant difference on plant height, ear height and grain yield (P≤ 0.05). The results \nrevealed that entry 23 in Muguga (POPA X MUL 541) had the highest plant height \n(278±3 cm) (Table 4.8). \nThe contrast was observed with entry 30(MUL 533 X MUL 513) having plant height \nof (119±4cm) in Embu which was the lowest and also recorded the lowest grain yield \nof (1.675±0.47 t/h) (Table 4.6). The possible reason for the observed differences \namong the crosses on yield and yield components was variation in genetic makeup. \nDifferent hybrids have also been evaluated for morphological and agronomic traits, \nshowing significant variation (Ihsan et al., 2005). The height of the main ear is a very \nimportant characteristic for breeding maize, the higher it is the more ears can develop \nfrom the nodes below, however if it is too high the weight of the ear may bend the \nstalk or even break it. Although low ear height is unfavorable for yield and makes \nharvesting difficult, it does protect the stalk from excessive weight (Zsubori et al., \n2002). The results in this study are in line with those of Dijak et al. (1999), who \nreported that variation in plant and ear height may be attributed to differences at the \ngenotypic level.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 71, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "58 \n \n The best crosses in Muguga were also the best in Embu on grain yield production \nwith exception of cross MUL 516 x MUL508 (entry 2) which had a mean grain yield \nof 11.9 ±10.84t/ha in Muguga but produced 2.7 ±0.73 t/ha in Embu which was \nattributed to other factors other than genetic makeup. Grain yield being a complex \ntrait, it is influenced by various environmental factors including biotic and abiotic \nfactors. There is also interplay of various morphological characteristics that influence \nfinal yield. Variation in yield shows a diverse genetic background of genotypes \nstudied under these conditions. The grain yield ranged between 1.01±0.47 t/ha entry \n30(MUL533 x MUL513) to 11.9±10.84 t/ha entry 2 (MUL 516 x MUL 508) both in \nMuguga (Table 4.8). The best cross for grain yield in Muguga was MUL 516 x MUL \n508(entry 2) (Table 4.8) while in Embu the best cross for grain yield was MUL541 x \nPOPA (entry 24) (Table 4.5) indicating the crosses were unstable attributed to \nenvironmental factors. \nCorrelation analysis of plant data in plant breeding provides a thorough understanding \nabout genetic relationship of various plant traits with grain yield improvement and \nmeasures the relationship between the dependent and independent variables or the \ndegree to which the two variables change together. Data on correlation showed there \nwas positive significant correlation of the crosses on grain yield (r=0.4292), r=0.583) \nto ear height and plant height, respectively (Table 4.16). The results in this study are \nin line with those of Begna et al. (2000), who reported that plant height is positively \ncorrelated with the length of the vegetative phase and dry matter yield, however the \ntranslocation rate of assimilates to the kernels of shorter hybrids was found to be \ngreater in the taller ones . The analysis of genotype x environment interaction showed \nsignificant difference for the traits studied namely: plant height, ear height, MSV \ndisease, GLS and grain yield hence the crosses were unstable on both environments", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "59 \n \n(Table 4.11,4.12,4.13,4.14 and 4.15) respectively. Data on combining ability where \nset 1, 2 and 3(MUL508, POPA and MUL 513) were crossed in diallel system showed \nthe significant GCA and SCA variances for majority of the traits. This indicated the \nimportance of both additive and non-additive gene actions in the expression of these \ntraits. Diallel mating systems have provided genetic understanding for a chosen set of \nparents (Murray et al., 2003) and have been used to study various traits in many \ncrops. Positive GCA deviation for yield indicated high yield potential like in cross \nMUL508x MUL521(entry 3) and POP Ax MUL688 (entry 26) (Table 4.17), while \npositive GCA values for disease scores indicated vulnerability to diseases(Table \n4.17). These observations were in line with those of Kumar et al., (2007), who \nobserved that GCA and SCA variances were highly significant for yield and yield \nattributing traits which indicated the importance of both additive and non-additive \ngene action. \nThere was a significant difference among GCA and SCA effects on ear height but this \ntrait was highly influenced by the additive effect since GCA contributed highest \npercentage to the crosses sum squares. MUL508 showed significant (p<0.05) \ndifference when crossed with MUL541 and CN244 for ear height and grain yield, \nrespectively. Most of the SCA estimates were non –significant, further indicating that \nperformance of crosses for ear height was dependent on GCA effects (Table 4.17). \nPredominance of additive genetic effects in influencing ear height has been reported \npreviously (Glover et al., 2005; Menkir and Ayodele, 2005). Inbred line MUL508 \nshowed significant (P<0.05) difference when crossed with MUL141, MUL541, \nMUL688 and CN244 for GLS disease. Mul508 also showed a highly significant \n(p<0.001) difference when crossed with MUL688 for MSV disease scores.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 73, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "60 \n \nData on disease scores where natural infestation was visually scored on a scale of 1-5 \nshowed that among the test crosses evaluated majority showed an MSV score of one \nin KALRO Muguga while in KALRO Embu the highest MSV scores were recorded. \nThese observations were attributed to high incidence of leaf hoppers (Cicadulina spp.) \nwhich transmit maize streak disease in Embu. Crosses MUL531xMUL513 and \nMUL513 x CN244 had the highest mean MSV scores 2.5 and 2.3 respectively. Data \non GLS showed that a number of crosses did not show symptoms of GLS : MUL508 \nx MUL688, MUL508 x CN244, CN244 x MUL508, POPA x MUL511, MUL521 x \nPOPA, POPA x MUL141, MUL513 x MUL533, MUL513 x MUL114, MUL114 x \nMUL513, MUL513 x CN244 and CN244 x MUL513 (entries 9,11,12,13,16,19,29 and \n31) respectively in Embu (Figure. 4.4). However all the others crosses showed \nmoderate lesions below the leaves in Embu (Figure 4.4). Crosses that did not display \nany GLS symptoms in Embu showed moderate lesions in Muguga which was \nattributed to agronomic factors such as heavy rain, moist and humid conditions \nexperienced in the research site other than genetic makeup of the crosses. Cross \nMUL516 x MUL508 had the highest grain yield in Muguga however GLS score was \n3,the yield was high since the disease symptom set in after tasselling and ears \ndevelopment hence the effect was minimal.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "61 \n \n \nCHAPTER FIVE \nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS \n5.1 \nConclusions \nThe purpose of this research was to study combining ability and genetic correlation \namong various quantitative characteristics in maize to find out traits responsible for \nhigh grain yield especially in mid-altitude areas in Kenya. \nIn Embu inbred line POPA produced the best grain yields when crossed with \nMUL541 and MUL521. Its high grain yield was also witnessed in Muguga where on \naverage its performance was superior to other inbred lines. Cross MUL 516 x MUL \n508(entry 2) had the highest overall mean grain yield (11.9 t/ha) but had a GLS score \nof 3 compared to the second best in mean grain yield POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) \n10.1t/ha. These findings showed that though a good yielding cross it was affected by \nGLS disease though at a late stage when the ears had already developed. Crosses with \nhigh plant height had higher mean grain yield than those with low plant height, while \ncrosses with low ear height had low mean grain yield and vice versa. In order to \ndevelop promising genotypes, it is essential to know the different traits particularly \nthose associated with grain yield which is the ultimate objective in any breeding \nprogram. \nGCA effects showed that inbred line MUL513 was a good general combiner for grain \nyield, ear height and plant height. Inbred line POPA was a good general combiner for \ngrain yield. Based on SCA estimates, the best cross combinations for plant height \nwere MUL 508 x MUL 688(entry 9), POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) and MUL513 x \nMUL114 (entry 31). For ear height best cross combinations were: MUL 508 x MUL \n688(entry 9), POP A x MUL 141(entry 19), POPA x MUL 541(entry23) and MUL", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 75, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "62 \n \n513 x MUL114 (entry 31). The best combinations for grain yield were MUL 508 x \nMUL 688(entry 9), POPA x MUL541 (entry 23) and MUL 513 x MUL 114 (entry \n31). Crosses MUL508 x MUL521, MUL541 x MUL508, and MUL688 x MUL508 \nwere good combinations for MSV disease resistance since in both research sites they \nhad an MSV score of 1. \nInbred line MUL 513 showed positive GCA for plant height, ear height, and grain \nyield and a negative GCA for MSV when crossed with inbred line MUL531, MUL \n533 and CN244, showing additive genes were more predominant. There was a \npositive significant correlation of grain yield with ear height (r=0.4292) and plant \nheight (r=0.5830).These traits can be chosen as superior characteristics to help \nimprove maize grain yield. \n \n5.2 Recommendations \n1. The present findings are useful to breeders in selecting the potential parental \nmaterials for maize improvement programs in mid altitude agro-ecological zones \nin Kenya. For grain yield improvement test crosses MUL508 x MUL688(entry 9), \nPOPA x MUL141(entry 19), MUL513 x MUL114 (entry 31) and MUL513 x \nCN244 (entry 33) can further be evaluated and eventually released to farmers as \nthey indicated promising relationship with yield potential compared to other test \ncrosses. Test crosses MUL508 x MUL516 (entry1), POPA x MUL141 (entry 19) \nand POPA x MUL688 (entry 26) can further be evaluated for disease resistance. \nInbred line MUL 513 can further be evaluated for grain yield improvement with \nall the other inbred lines which had high grain yields.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "63 \n \n2. Inbred lines MUL 508, POP A and MUL513 can be used in improving other \ngenotypes on disease resistant trait. \n3. There is also need for further study of the inbred lines used in this study for \nstability and adaptability in other counties in Kenya.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "64 \n \nREFERENCES \n \nAkbar, M., Saleem, M., Azhar, F. M., Yasin, M. and Ahmad, R. (2008). \nCombining ability analysis in maize under normal and high temperature \nconditions. Journal of Agricultural Research ,46(1): 27-38. \n \n \nAlexander, P. and Bindiganavile V. (2004). Combining ability of CIMMYT‘S Early \nMaturing Maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm under stress and non-stress \nconditions and identification of testers. Proceedings of the 4th international \ncrop science conference.Brisbane Australia 26thSeptember- 1st October 2004. \n \n \nAli, F. and Yan, J.B. (2012). The phenomenon of disease resistance in maize and the \nrole of molecular breeding in defending against global threat. Journal of \nIntegrated Plant Biology: 10.1111/journal 17447909.2012.01105. \n \n \nAli, F., Munirer, M., Rahman, H., Noor, M., Durrishahwar, F., Shaukat, S. and \nYan, J.B. (2011). Heritability estimates for yield and related traits based on \ntestcross progeny performance of resistant maize inbred lines. Journal Food \nAgriculture Environment,9: 438-443. \n \n \nArarus, J., Sanches, C. and Cabrera, L. (2010). Is heterosis in maize mediated \nthrough better water use. New Phytologist, 187: 392-406. \n \n \nBarret, P., Brinkmann and M. Beckert.(2008). A major locus expressed in the male \ngametophyte with incomplete penetrance is responsible for insitugynogenesis \nin maize. Theory Application Genetics, 117: 581-594. \n \n \nBeckle, H. J. and L. M. Hall (2008). Simple to complex: Modelling crop pollen \nmediated gene flow. Plant science, 175: 615-628. \n \n \nBegna, S., H. \nHamitton., \nR.I. Dwyer., L.M. Stewart., Smith, \nD.L. \n(2000).Variability among maize hybrids differing in canopy architecture for \nabove ground dry", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "egna, S., H. \nHamitton., \nR.I. Dwyer., L.M. Stewart., Smith, \nD.L. \n(2000).Variability among maize hybrids differing in canopy architecture for \nabove ground dry matter and grain yield. Maydica, 45: 135-141. \n \n \nBennetzen, J., Buckeler, E., Vicki, C. and Doebley, J. (2001). Genetic evidence and \nthe origin of maize.Latin American Antiquity, 12(1) 84-86. \n \n \nBeyene, Y., Mugo, S., Pillay, K., Tefera, T., Ajanga,S., Njoka, S. and Karanja, \nH.(2012). Test cross performance of doubled haploid maize lines derived from \ntropical adapted backcross populations. Maydica 56 (4).", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "65 \n \n \n \nBortiri, E. and Hakes, S. (2007). Flowering and Determinacy in maize. \nExperimental Botany, 58(5): 909-916. \n \n \nButruille, D.V., Silva, H.D., Kaeppler, S.M. and Coors, J.G. (2004). Response to \nselection and genetic drift in three populations derived from golden glow \nmaize population. Crop Science, 44: 1527-1434. \n \n \nChoukan, R. and Mosavat, S. A. (2005). Study gene action difference traits in maize \nlines using diallel crosses. Seed and Plant Journal, 21 (4): 547-556. \n \n \nChumo, J. J. (2004). Research field day handout. Kenya Seed Company Limited, pp. \n3-6. \n \n \nCIMMYT (2001). CIMMYT in 2000-2001. Global Research for Local Livelihoods. \nCIMMYT, Mexico. 61 pages. \n \n \nClerget, B., Dintiger, J. and Reynaud, B. (1996). Registration of maize inbred \nCIRAD 390 Parental line. Crop Science, 36: 826. \n \n \nCorbertt, J. D. (2005). Classifying Maize Production Zones in Kenya Through \nMultivariate Cluster Analysis, In: Maize Technology Development and \nTransfer: A GIS Application For Research Planning in Kenya, Hassan, R. M. \n(Ed.). CAB International, Wallingford UK, pp. 15-25. \n \n \nCrow, J. F. (1948). Alternative hypothesis of hybrid vigor.Genetics, 33: 477-487. \n \n \nCrow, J. F. (1999). Dominance and Over dominance. PP. 49-58, In. Coors, J.G. and \nPandeys. (eds).The Genetics and exploration of heterosis in crops. ASA, \nCSSA, Madison,WI. \n \n \nDe Groote, H., G. Owuor., C. Doss., J. Ouma., L. Muhammed and K. Danda \n(2005). The Maize Green Revolution in Kenya Revisited- Electronic journal \nof Agriculture and development Economic,", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " G. Owuor., C. Doss., J. Ouma., L. Muhammed and K. Danda \n(2005). The Maize Green Revolution in Kenya Revisited- Electronic journal \nof Agriculture and development Economic, www.Fao.org/es/esa/JADE 2(1) \n32-49.Accessed 24/4/2013. \n \n \nDijak, M. Modarrels, A.M., Hamilton, R.I., Dwyer, L.M., Stewart, D.W., \nMatner, D.E., Smith, D.L. (1999). Leafy reduced stature maize hybrids for \nshort season environments. Crop Science, 39(4): 1106-1110.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "66 \n \n \nDurick, D.N. (2001). Biotechnology in the 1930‘s: The development of hybrid \nmaize. Natures Review Genetics, 2: 69-74. \n \n \nEast, E. M. (1909). Inbreeding in Corn in Connecticut. Agriculture Experiment \nStation, 1907: 419-428. \n \n \nEast, E. M. (1936). Heterosis.Genetics, 21:375-397. \n \n \nFAO (2000). Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) STAT Database records. \nAccessed on 15th April 2013. \n \n \nFAO Statistics (2006). www.fao.org. Accessed on 15th April 2013. \n \n \nFAO \n(2012). \nAgricultural \nStatistics.http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture. \nAccessed on 12th July 2012. \n \n \nFAOSTAT \n(2012). \nFood \nAgricultural \nOrganization \nStatistics \nDivision. \nhttp://www.fao.org./../en.Accessed on 13th July 2012. \n \n \nFeschotte, C. (2009). A cornucopia of Helitrons shapes the maize genome; \nProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 106 (47) 19747-\n19748. \n \n \nFlint-Garcia, S.A., Thullet, A.C., Yu, J., Pressoir,G., Romero, S., Mitchell, S. E., \nDobley, J., Kresovich,S., Goodman, M.M., Buckler, E.S. (2005). Maize \nassociation population: A high resolution platform for quantitative trait locus \ndissection. Plant journal, 44: 1054-1064. \n \n \nFlint-Garcia, S.A., Buckler, E. S., Tiffin, P., Ersoz, E. and Springer, N. M. (2009). \nHeterosis is prevalent for multiple traits in diverse maize germplasm. PLOS \nONE 4: e7433, 10.1371 Journal, 0007433. \n \n \nFu, H. H. and Dooner, H. K. (2002). Intraspecific violation of genetic colinearity \nand its implications in", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " e7433, 10.1371 Journal, 0007433. \n \n \nFu, H. H. and Dooner, H. K. (2002). Intraspecific violation of genetic colinearity \nand its implications in maize. Proceedings of National Academy of \nSciences,U.S.A, 99: 9573-9578 \n \n. \nGerhart, J. (1975).The Diffusion of Hybrid Maize in Western Kenya CIMMYT \nAbridged version. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT. PP.34-49.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "67 \n \n \n \nGichuru, L. N. (2008). Combining ability for grain yield and other agronomic traits \nand F1 maize streak virus disease expression in diverse genotypes of maize \n(Zea mays L.) Msc. Thesis University of Nairobi. \n \n \nGlover, M. A., Willmot, D. B., Darrah, L.L., Hibbard, B. E. and Zhu, X. (2005). \nDiallel analyses of agronomic traits using Chinese and U.S. maize germplasm \n.Crop Science, 45: 1096-1102. \n \n \nGriffing, B. (1956). Concept of General and Specific Combining ability in relation to \ndiallel crossing systems. Australian Journal of Biology Science, 9: 463-493. \n \n \nHallauer, A. R. and Mirandafilho, J. B. (1988). Quantitative genetics in maize \nbreeding. Ames; Iowa State University Press, pp.63. \n \n \nHaq, N. M., Saad, I. M., Mozamil, H., Sajjad, URC., Habib, I. J (2005). Genetic \ncorrelation among various quantitative characters in maize (Zea mays L.) \nhybrids. Journal Agriculture Association, 1813-2235/2005/01-3-262-265. \n \n \nHassan, R. M., Corbett, J. D. and Njoroge, K. (1998). Combining Geo-referenced \nsurvey data with agro-climate attributes to characterize maize production \nsystems in Kenya. In:Hassan,R.M.(eds).Maize Technology Development \nResearch Planning and Transfer in Kenya, a GIS application for CAB \nInternational. Wallingford UK pp.71- 88. \n \n \nHassan, R. M., M. Kuria and W. Mwangi (2001). Maize breeding research in \nEastern and Southern Africa: Current status and impacts of past investments \nmade by the public and private sectors 1966-1997. Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT \n \n \nHe, D. Y., Wu, U. W., Long, D. X., LU, J. J. and Liu, Q. (2003). Analysis of \ncomb", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1997. Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT \n \n \nHe, D. Y., Wu, U. W., Long, D. X., LU, J. J. and Liu, Q. (2003). Analysis of \ncombining ability and heredity parameters of main quantitative characters of \n10 maize inbred lines. Journal Maize Science, 11(1): 26-29. \n \n \nHibbard, B. E. and D. B. Willmont. (2007). Registration of maize germplasm C R \nW (SI) C6 with resistance to Western corn rootworm Journal of Plant \nRegistration, Vol.1: 151-154. \n \n \nHopkins, C. G. (1899). Improvement in the chemical composition of the corn kernel. \n111. Agriculture Experimental Station Bulletin. 55: 205-240.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "68 \n \n \nIhsan, H., I. H. Khalil., H. Rehman and M. Igbal. (2005). Genotypic Variability for \nMorphological traits among exotic maize hybrids. Sarhad J. Agric. 21(4): 599-\n602. \n \n \nIltiz, H.H. and Benz, B. F. (2000). Zea nicaraguensi (poaceae) a new teosinte from \nPacific Coastal Nicaragua, Noven 10: 382-390. Inheritance of plant and ear \nheight in maize (Zea mays L.) Maydica, 28: 1-5. \n \n \nIninda, J., Gethi, M., Odongo, O., Njuguna, J. and Ochieng, J. A. W (2002). \nResearch \nabstract: \ncoordinated \nEcosystem \nBreeding \nin \nKenya: \nProgress,challenges and opportunities in: biotechnology breeding and seed \nsystems for African crops. Research and product development that reaches \nfarmers. The Rockefeller foundation, Nairobi (wwwafricancrops.net). \n \n \nInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2002). Agricultural \nTechnology Diffusion and Price Policy.2020 Vision Network for East Africa. \n \n \nInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). \nMaize (2001).http://www.isaaa.org/ Accessed 8/10/2012. \n \n \nJaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H., Hornet Z. B. and Shisanya, C. A. (2007). Farm \nManagement Handbook of Kenya-Natural conditions and Farm Management \nInformation.2nd edition. Vol. 11/C. Central Kenya (Eastern and Central \nprovinces) Ministry of Agriculture /GTZ, Nairobi, Kenya. \n \n \nJayne, T. S., T. Yammamo., J. Nyoro and T. Awuor. (2001). Do farmers benefit \nfrom high food prices. Balancing rural interests in Kenya‘s maize prizing and \nmarketing policy. http//www,aec.msu.ed/agecon/fas/Kenya/inde.htm. \n \n \nJones, D.F., (1918). The effects of inbreeding and cross breeding upon development. \nConnecticut", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nmarketing policy. http//www,aec.msu.ed/agecon/fas/Kenya/inde.htm. \n \n \nJones, D.F., (1918). The effects of inbreeding and cross breeding upon development. \nConnecticut Agriculture Experiment Stanford. Bullentin 107. 100pp. \n \n \nKalla, V., Kumar, R. Basandrai, A.K. (2001). Combining ability and gene action \nestimates of yield and yield contributing characters in maize. Crop Research, \n22:102-106. \n \n \nKaranja, D. (1996). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960-2000, \nScience, 300 (2): 758-762.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "69 \n \nKarim, M. A., Frachebound, Y. and Stamp, P. (2000). Effect of high temperature \non seedling growth and photosynthesis of tropical maize genotypes. Journal of \nAgronomy and Crop Science, 184: 217-223. \n \n \nKarugia, J. T. (2003). A micro level Analysis of Agricultural intensification in \nKenya: the case of food staples, Lund, Sweden. \n \n \nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (2002). Demand-\ndriven Agricultural Research for Sustainable National Resource Base, Food \nSecurity and Incomes. Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Scientific Conference. \nNairobi: KALRO. \n \n \nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (2005). Agricultural \nInnovations for Sustainable Development. A strategic plan for 2005-2015. \nNairobi, Kenya, pp. 40. \n \n \nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (2009). Strategic plan \nimplementation framework (2009-2014). K.A.L.R.O, Kenya pp.15. \n \n \nKibaara, W. B. (2005). Technical efficiency in Kenya‘s maize production. An \napplication of the Stochastic Frontier Approach. Department of Agriculture \nand Resource Economics Colarado State University, USA. \n \n \nKirimi, L., N. Sitko, T. S. Jayne, F. Karin, M. Muyanga, M. Shean, J. Flock and \nG. Bor (2011). A Farm Gate-to-Consumer value chain analysis of Kenya‘s \nmaize marketing system. Tegemeo working paper (Forth coming) Tegemeo \nInstitute, Nairobi. \n \n \nKling, J. G. and Edmeades, G. (1997). Morphology and growth of maize, IITA, \nC1MMYT research guide 9: Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 36. \n \n \nKonak, C., Unay, A., Basal, H. and Sorter, E. (2001). Combining ability and \nheterotic effects in some characteristics of second crop. Turkish Journal of \nField Crops,6: 64-70. \n \n \nKumar, S., Singh, H", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "er, E. (2001). Combining ability and \nheterotic effects in some characteristics of second crop. Turkish Journal of \nField Crops,6: 64-70. \n \n \nKumar, S., Singh, H. B., Sharma, J. K. (2007). Combining ability analysis for grain \nyield and other associated traits in rice. Oryza, 44 (2): 108-114.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "70 \n \nLangyintuo, A. S. and C. Mungoma. (2010). The effect of household wealth on the \nadoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia. Food policy, 33:550-559. \n \n \nLu, H., Romero-severson, J., Bernardo, R. (2003). Genetic Basis of heterosis \nexplored by simple sequence repeat markers in s random-mated maize \npopulation. Theory application Genetics, 107: 494-502. \n \n \nMachuka, J. (2001). Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa. African Scientists and \nfarmer must feed their own people. Plant physiology, 126: 16-19. Maize \nmarketing system. Tegemeo Working Paper (Forthcoming), Tegemeo \nInstitute, Nairobi. \n \nMagenya, O.E.V., Mueke, J. and Omwega C. (2009). Association of Maize Streak \nVirus disease and its vectors (Homoptera, Cicadelidae) with soil macro \nnutrients and altitudes in Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 : \n1284-1290. \n \nMatsuoka, Y., Vigourux, Y., Goodman, M. M., Sanchez, G. J., Buckler, E. and \nDoebley, J. A. (2002). Single domestication for maize shown by multilocus \nmicrosatellites genotyping. Proceedings of National Academic Science, U S A, \npp. 6080-6084. \n \n \nMelani, M. D. and Carana M. J. (2005). Alternative maize heterotic patterns for \nNorthern maize belt.Crop Science, 45: 2186-2194. \n \n \nMenkir, A. and Ayodele, M. (2005). Genetic analysis of resistance to GLS of mid \naltitude maize inbred lines. Crop Science, 45: 163-170. \n \n \nMesfin, T., Bosque-perez, N. A., Buddenhagen, I. W., Thottappilly, G and \nOlejede, S. O. (1992). Studies on Maize Streak Virus Isolates from grass and \nCereal hosts in Nigeria. Plant disease, 76:789-795. \n \nMurray", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ", G and \nOlejede, S. O. (1992). Studies on Maize Streak Virus Isolates from grass and \nCereal hosts in Nigeria. Plant disease, 76:789-795. \n \nMurray L. W., Ray I. M., Dong, H. Segovialerma, A (2003).The Gardener and \nEberhart analyses 11 and 111 re-visited. Crop Science, 43: 1930-1937. \n \n \nNjuguna, J. G. M. (1996). Epidemiology of Maize Streak Virus disease in Kenya. \nPHD Thesis, OHIO State University. PP. 185.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "71 \n \nNyoro, J. K., Lillian, K. and Jayne, T. (2004). Competitiveness of Kenyan and \nUgandan maize production: Challenges for the future. \n \n \nOfori, E. and Kyei-Baffour, N. (2006). Agro-meteorology and maize production. \nhttp://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/agm/gamp/documents/chap13c-draft. \nAccessed on 3/10/2012. \n \n \nPaliwal, R. F. (2000). FAO UN. Technology and Engineering, pp. 363. \n \n \nPatrick, S. (2009). The B73 Maize genome, Complexity Diversity and Dynamics. \nJournal of Scientific Research, 326: 1112-1115. \n \n \nPingali, P. L. and Pandy, S. (2000). Meeting World maize needs technological \nopportunities and priorities for the public sector in CIMMYT (1999-2000) \nWorld maize facts and trends, Mexico. PP. 1-20. \n \n \nRenugopal, M. N., Ansar, A. and Rao, N. V. (2002). Combining ability studies in \nmaize (Zea mays L.)Annual Agriculture Research, 23(1): 92-95. \n \n \nRezaei, A. H., Yazdisamadi, B., Zali, A., Rezaei, A. M., Tallei, A. and Zeinali, H. \n(2005). An estimate of heterosis and combining ability in maize using diallel \ncrosses of inbred lines. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 36(2): 385-\n397. \n \n \nRodrigues, M. C., Chaves, L. J. and Pacheo, C. A. P. (2006). Heterosis in crosses \namong White grain, maize populations with high quality protein. Brazzilian \nSociety of Genetics, 41: 59-66. \n \n \nSach, M. M. (2009). Maize Genetic Research International: Molecular genetics \napproaches to maize improvement, Springer-Verlag Berlin. Vol.63, pp. 197-\n209. \n \n \nSalasya, B.D.S.,", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " M. M. (2009). Maize Genetic Research International: Molecular genetics \napproaches to maize improvement, Springer-Verlag Berlin. Vol.63, pp. 197-\n209. \n \n \nSalasya, B.D.S., Mwangi, W., Verkuji, H., Odendo, M.A and Odeny, J.O. (1998). \nAn assessment of the adoption of seed and fertilizer package and role of credit \nin small holder maize production in Kakamega and Vihiga districts, Kenya. \nMexico D.F: CIMMYT and KALRO. \n \n \nSharief, A. E., Elkalla, S. E., Gado, H. E. and Abo-Yousef, H. (2009). Heterosis in \nyellow maize. .Australian Journal of Crop Science, 3: 146-154.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "72 \n \n \nShull, G. H. (1908). The comparison of a field of maize. American Breeding \nAssociation Report, 4:296-301. \n \n \nShull, G. H. (1909). A pure line method of Corn breeding. American Breeding \nAssociation Report, 5:51-59. \n \n \nSmale, M and Jayne T. (2003). Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa. `seeds‘ of \nsuccess in Retrospect Environment and production technology Division, \nInternational Food Policy Research Institute. \n \n \nSmale, M and T. S Jayne (2010). Seeds of success in Retrospect: Hybrid maize in \nEastern and Southern Africa. Inc. Haggblade and P.B.R Hazel (ed.). Success \nin Africa Agriculture: Lesson for the future. John Hopkins University press for \nthe International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore. \n \n \nSprague, G. F. and Tatum, L. A. (1942). General verses specific combining ability \nin single crosses of corn. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, 34: \n923-932. \n \nSprague, G. F. (1953). Heterosis in Maize: Theory and Practice. Theory Application \nGenetics, 6: 47-70. \n \n \nSridic, J., Mladenoivic-drinic, S. S. and Pajic, Z. (2006). Combining abilities and \ngenetic resemblance of maize lines. Journal of Agronomy, 54: (3): 337-342. \n \n \nTroyer, A. F. (2006). Adaptedness and heterosis in corn mule hybrids. Crop Science, \n46: 528-543. \n \n \nUnay, A. and Konak, C. (2004). Inheritance of grain yield ulation. Turkish Journal \nof Agriculture, 28: 239-244. \n \n \nVacaro, E., Neto, B., Fernards, J., Pegoraro, D.J., Nuss, C.N and Conceicao, L.D \n(2002). Combining ability of twelve maize populations. Brazzillian Society of \nGenetics, 37: 67-72. \n \n \nVasal, S. K. (1998). Hybrid maize technology: challenges and expanding", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2002). Combining ability of twelve maize populations. Brazzillian Society of \nGenetics, 37: 67-72. \n \n \nVasal, S. K. (1998). Hybrid maize technology: challenges and expanding \npossibilities for research in the next century in: Vasal, S.K., CF. Gonzalez and \nF. Xingming (ed). Proceedings of 7th Asian Region maize workshop. Los \nBanos, Philippines. February, 23-27 pp.58-62.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "73 \n \nVencovsky, R. and Barriga, P. (1992). Biometry of Genetics. Brazilian Society of \nGenetics, 18: 496. \n \n \nViola, G. M.Ganesh., S. S. Reddy and C. V. S Kummar (2003). Study of \nHeritability and Genetic Advances in Elite Baby Corn (Zea mays) Lines. \nProgressive Agriculture, 3(2): 127-128. Introduction to Regression Test \nAutomation Software.www.operative soft.com. Accessed 21/6/2013. \n \n \nVivek, S., Odongo O., Njuguna J., Imanywona J., Diallo, A., Pixley, K. (2010). \nDiallel analyses of grain yield and resistance to seven diseases of 12 African \nmaize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Euphytica, 172 : 329-340. \n \n \nWelcker, C., The, C., Andreau, B., De Leon,C., Parentoni, S.N., Bernal. J., \nZonkeng, C., Salazar, F., Narro, L., Chacosset, A., Horst,W.J. (2005). \nHeterosis and combining ability for maize adaptation to tropical acid soils: \nImplications for future breeding strategies. Crop science , 45:2405-2413. \n \n \nWilliam Collier (2010). Re-Thinking Biodiversity in Forest and Field: Colonial \nmaize and climate: limits of Agricultural Development for Adaptation in Rift \nvalley, Kenya. \n \n \nWolf, D. P. and Poternelli, L. A. (2000). Estimate of genetic variance in F2 maize \npopulation. Journal of Heredity, 95 (5): 384-391. \n \n \nWright, S. I., Schroeder, S. G.,Yamasaki, M., Doebley, J. F., McMullen. M. D., \nGaut, B. S. (2005). The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. \nScience, 308: 1310-1314. \n \n \nWu, U. W., Long, D. X., He, D. Y., Lu, J. J. and Liu, Q.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " on the maize genome. \nScience, 308: 1310-1314. \n \n \nWu, U. W., Long, D. X., He, D. Y., Lu, J. J. and Liu, Q. (2003). Analysis of \ncombining ability and heredity parameters of main quantitative characters of \n10 maize inbred lines. Journal Maize Science, 44: 1427-1434. \n \n \nYan, J. B., Warburton, M. and Crouch, J. (2011). Association mapping for \nenhancing maize (Zea mays L.) genetic improvement. Crop Science,51:433-\n449. \n \n \nYan, W. and L. A. Hunt (2002). Biplot analyses of diallel data, Crop Science, 42: \n21-30.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "74 \n \nZhang, J., Klueva, N., Wang, Z., David, H. O. T. and Nguyen, H. T. (2000). \nGenetic Engineering for abiotic stress resistance in crop plants. In Vitro cell \nDevelopment and Biology Plant, 36: 108-114. \n \n \nZhang, J., Nguyen, H. T. and Blum, A. (1999). Genetic analysis of osmotic \nadjustment in crop plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 50: 291-302. \n \n \nZsubori, Z., Z. Gyenes, Hegyi, O. Illes, I. Pok, F. Racz and C. Szoke. (2002). \nInheritance of plant and ear height in maize(Zea mays L.) Maydica, 28: 1-5.", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "75 \n \n \nAppendix A: Inbred lines and their respective crosses used in the study \nEntry \nSingle crosses \nEntry \nReciprocal crosses \n1 \nMUL 508X MUL 516 \n2 \nMUL 516 XMUL 508 \n3 \nMUL 508 X MUL 521 \n4 \nMUL 521 X MUL 508 \n5 \nMUL 508 X MUL141 \n6 \nMUL 141 X MUL 508 \n7 \nMUL 508 X MUL 541 \n8 \nMUL 541X MUL 508 \n9 \nMUL 508 X MUL 688 \n10 \nMUL 688 X MUL 508 \n11 \nMUL 508 X CN 244 \n12 \nCN 244 X MUL 508 \n13 \nPOP A X MUL 511 \n14 \nMUL 511 X POP A \n15 \nPOP A X MUL 521 \n16 \nMUL 521X POP A \n17 \nPOP A X MUL 114 \n18 \nMUL 114 X POP A \n19 \nPOP A X MUL 141 \n20 \nMUL 141 X POP A \n21 \nPOP A X MUL 536 \n22 \nMUL536 X POP A \n23 \nPOP A X MUL 541 \n24 \nMUL 541 X POP A \n25 \nPOP A X MUL 688 \n26 \nMUL 688 X POP A \n27 \nMUL 513 X MUL 531 \n28 \nMUL 531 X MUL 513 \n29 \nMUL 513 X MUL 533 \n30 \nMUL 533 X MUL 513 \n31 \nMUL 513 X MUL 114 \n32 \nMUL 114 X MUL 513 \n33 \nMUL 513 X CN 244 \n34 \nCN244 X MUL 513 \n35 \nMUL 513X MUL 516 \n36 \nMUL 516 X MUL 513", "source": "Combining ability of inbred lines of maize.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "THE KENYA CEREALS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME - CLIMATE \nRESILIENT AGRICULTURAL LIVELIHOODS \n(KCEP - CRAL) WINDOW\nFarmers’ Extension Handbook \nCereals and Pulses\nSUPPORTED WITH FUNDS FROM EU AND ASAP\nAPRIL 2021", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Farmers’ Extension Handbook \nCereals and Pulses\nTHE KENYA CEREALS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME \n- CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURAL \nLIVELIHOODS (KCEP - CRAL) WINDOW\nSUPPORTED WITH FUNDS FROM EU AND ASAP\nAPRIL 2021", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Disclaimer\nThe information presented in this manual is for advisory use only. Readers using the manual \nshould verify details that relate to their agro-climatic zones from their area agricultural \nextension officers.\n© Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization 2021\nAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in database systems, \ntranscribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording \nor otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher. \nPublished by\nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization\nKALRO Secretariat\nP O Box 57811-00200\nNairobi, KENYA\nEmail: directorgeneral@kalro.org Tel. No(s): +254-722206986/733333223 \nEdited by: Esilaba, A.O., D. Nyongesa, M. Okoti and L. Wasilwa\nCompiling Authors: Nyongesa D., A.O. Esilaba, M. Okoti, J. Kavoi, J. Karanja, P. \nKetiem, A. Micheni D. Mutisya, D. Macharia, M. Njunie, F. Pole, B. Muli, E. Muthiani, , \nE. Mutuma, R. Kisilu, E. Njiru, A. Kathuku-Gitonga, N. Mangale, M. Otipa, R. Amata, A. \nToo, E. Muindi & L Wasilwa\nProduction Editors: Mukundi K. T, Maina P. and Nyabundi K.\nDesign and layout: Nyaola E. O, and Njeru J.\nCitation\nEsilaba, A.O. et al. (2021). KCEP–CRAL Farmers’ Extension Handbook. Kenya Agricultural \nand Livestock Research Organization, Nairobi, Kenya\nISBN: 978 - 9966 - 056 - 0", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iii\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \nThe authors of this manual acknowledge the support of the European Union (EU) \nthrough the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Kenya \nCereals Enhancement Programme - Climate Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods \nWindow (KCEP-CRAL) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries \nin collaboration with the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \n(KALRO). We high acknowledge the support of the Project Coordinating Unit \n(PCU) and the KALRO Management for the overall guidance of the Project.\nWe also thank the researchers, farmers and stakeholders who participated in the \nproject for their support in setting up trials, collecting and processing the data and \nthus generating large amounts of knowledge and information that KCEP-CRAL has \npackaged and shared through scientific papers, in seminars and in reports among \nothers. The support of technical officers, laboratory personnel, administrative and \nsupport staff is also appreciated as it contributed to the success that the project \nachieved.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iv\nFOREWORD \nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) is one of the \nkey partners in the Kenya Cereals Enhancement Programme - Climate Resilient \nAgricultural Livelihoods Window (KCEP-CRAL) Programme funded by the \nEuropean Union (EU) and implemented by the International Fund for Agricultural \nDevelopment (IFAD). KALRO participation in this programme is based on proven \nexperience and expertise in agricultural research. Within the programme, KALRO \nhandles the research component, conducting on station and on farm trials, develops \nfarmer recommendations together with training materials for extension staff and \nservice providers and conducts the training. The implementation of KCEP-CRAL is \nin thirteen (13) counties namely Nakuru, Nandi, Trans Nzoia, Kakamega, Bungoma, \nKitui, Tharaka-Nithi, Embu, Machakos, Makueni, Taita Taveta, Kwale and Kilifi. \nKCEP-CRAL focuses on the three leading rain-fed cereals (maize, sorghum and \nmillet) and associated pulses (beans, green grams, cowpeas and pigeon peas). The \nprogramme’s overall objective is to contribute to the reduction of rural poverty and \nfood insecurity of smallholder farmers. \nThrough this Handbook, the programme will provide a comprehensive guide to \nextension officers, service providers and lead farmers on how to successfully produce \ncereals and pulses in Kenya. The Handbook is a useful training and reference material \nfor extension officers and other stakeholders seeking to enhance the capacity of \nfarmers, increase commercialization for food security and promote gender inclusion \nand participation along the commodity value chains. \nInitial lessons learnt in this project indicate that enhancing the capacity of the \nextension staff and service providers has improved uptake of new technologies for \ndry land farming. It has opened up more land for farming through use of conservation \nagriculture in areas that hitherto were not under agriculture. Besides easing the \npressure on previously arable land, farmers in the project areas have been trained \nto use alternative disease and pest management regimes using Integrated Disease \nand Pest Management and Push pull technologies for persistent pests of economic \nimportance. \nOn behalf of KALRO, I am grateful to the European Union for supporting this project \nthrough the IFAD and KCEP-CRAL of the Ministry of", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "and Pest Management and Push pull technologies for persistent pests of economic \nimportance. \nOn behalf of KALRO, I am grateful to the European Union for supporting this project \nthrough the IFAD and KCEP-CRAL of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, \nFisheries and Cooperatives (MoALF&C). I also appreciate the excellent coordination \nof the whole process by the KCEP-CRAL Secretariat led by Dr Anthony O. Esilaba, \nMoALF&C and other partners, scientists in participating centres, Knowledge, \nInformation and Outreach Unit team and secretarial staff. It is my hope and desire \nthat in using this Handbook, the expectations of all stakeholders will be met. \nEliud K. Kireger, (PhD, OGW) \nDIRECTOR GENERAL, KALRO", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "v\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................iii\nFOREWORD .............................................................................................................iv\nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................ix\nOVERVIEW................................................................................................................xi\n1. CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE.......................................................................1\n1.1 What Causes Climate Change and Variability? ...............................................2\n1.2 Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) ....................................................................2\n1.3 Characteristics of climate smart farms...............................................................2\n1.4 CSA Practices and their Benefits .....................................................................3\n1.5 Soil and Water Conservation Measures............................................................5\n1.6 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) .................................................6\n1.7 Gender in Climate Smart Agriculture ..............................................................6\n2 INTEGRATED SOIL FERTILITY AND WATER MANAGE..........................8\n2.1 What is soil?......................................................................................................8\n2.2 Soil Composition...............................................................................................8\n2.3 Soil Properties...................................................................................................8\n2.4 Traditional soil fertility indicators.....................................................................9\n2.5 Plant nutrients and their roles on crop production..........................................10\n2.6 Important nutrients sources.............................................................................12\n2.7 Organic amendments ......................................................................................12\n2.8 In-organic sources...........................................................................................12\n2.9 Soil fertility degradation and amelioration.....................................................13\n2.10 Soil Fertility Evaluation ...............................................................................14\n2.11 Soil Degradation, its Causes and Management.............................................15\n2.12 Soil and Water and Management Practices...................................................17\n2.13 Problematic Soils and their Management.....................................................20\n3 FARM-LEVEL AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCE...........................................23\n3.1 What is Resilience? ........................................................................................23\n3.2 Major Technologies and Management Practices ............................................23\n3.3 Rainwater Harvesting and Management Practices..........................................24\n3.4 Water Efficient Irrigation Systems...................................................................25\n3.5 Contributions Of Drip Irrigation System To Farm Level Resi........................25\n3.6 Seed Management Practices............................................................................25\n3.7 Crop Management Practices ...........................................................................26", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vi\n3.8 Agro-Forestry Management Practice...............................................................27\n3.9 Pests and Diseases Management Practices .....................................................28\n3.10 Livestock, Pasture and Rangeland Management Practices ...........................29\n3.11 Climate Information Services........................................................................30\n3.12 Agricultural Insurance ...................................................................................30\n4 CEREALS..............................................................................................................32\n4.1 Maize ...............................................................................................................32\n4.2 Sorghum ..........................................................................................................41\n4.3 Millet ...............................................................................................................48\n5 PULSES..................................................................................................................53\n5.1 Common Beans ...............................................................................................53\n5.2 Green Grams....................................................................................................60\n5.3 Pigeon Peas.....................................................................................................66\n5.4 Cowpea ............................................................................................................72\n6 FARMING AS A BUSINESS................................................................................79\n6.1 Advantages/ Importance of Farming as a Business.........................................79\n6.2 Farm Records and Record Keeping.................................................................79\n6.3 Importance of Record Keeping........................................................................79\n6.4 Markets and Marketing for Cereals and Legumes...........................................80", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vii\nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS\nAEC\t\n\t\nAnion Exchange Capacity\nAN\t\n\t\nAmmonium Nitrate\nAS\t\n\t\nAmmonium Sulphate\t\n\t\n\t\nCa\t\n\t\nCalcium\nCA\t\n\t\nConservation Agriculture\nCAN\t\n\t\nCalcium, Ammonium Nitrate\nCEC\t\n\t\nCation Exchange Capacity\nCO2\t\n\t\nCarbon Dioxide\nCSA\t\n\t\nClimate Smart Agriculture\nDAP\t\n\t\nDi-Ammonium Phosphate Fertiliser\nFAB\t\n\t\nFarming es Business\nFYM\t\n\t\nFarm Yard Manure\nGHGs\t \t\nGreenhouse Gases\nHa\t\n\t\nHectare\nIPM\t\n\t\nIntegrated Pest Management\nISFM\t \t\nIntegrated Soil Fertility Management\nK\t\n\t\nPotassium\nK2O\t\n\t\nPotassium Oxide\nKALRO\t\nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization\nKAT\t\n\t\nKatumani\nKg\t\n\t\nKilogramme\nM66\t\n\t\nMachakos 66\nMLND\t\t\nMaize Lethal Necrosis Disease\nMOP\t\n\t\nMuriate of Potash\nN\t\n\t\nNitrogen\nNa\t\n\t\nSodium\nNa2CO3\t Sodium Carbonate\nNaHCO3\t\nSodium Bi-carbonate\nNPK\t\n\t\nCompound Nitrogen, Phosphorous Potassium fertiliser", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "viii\nP\t\n\t\nPhosphorous\nP2O5\t\n\t\nPhosphatic\nPICs\t\n\t\nPerdue Improved Cowpea Storage\t\nRWH \t \t\nRain Water Harvesting\t\nSALs\t\n\t\nSemi-arid Lands\nSOP\t\n\t\nSulphate of Potassium\nSSP\t\n\t\nSingle Super Phosphate\nSWC\t\n\t\nSoil and Water Conservation\t\nTSP\t\n\t\nTriple Super Phosphate\nUTEO\t \t\nWinnowing Trays", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ix\nOVERVIEW\nThe agriculture sector is important to Kenya’s economy. It contributes 33% of the \ncountry’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) directly, 27% of GDP indirectly and accounts \nfor 65% of export earnings. It also provides livelihood for most of the Kenyan population \nthrough employment opportunities to the rural population and 40% of the country’s \ntotal population. Agriculture contributes Kenya’s food security through production, \ndistribution and availability of safe, and nutritious food. It is a large and complex sector, \nmany public, parastatal, non-governmental and private players. It is a fully devolved \nthe function of the County Governments in ensuring food security. Apart from food \nproduction, the Agricultural sector is the main driver of non-agricultural economy \nwithin the country comparing manufacturing, building/construction, transportation, \ntourism, education and other social services. \nDespite the important role played by Agricultural sector in the Country’s’ economy, its \ngrowth and stability has been continuously affected by many factors. Climate change \npotentially is one of the greatest challenges particularly within farming communities. \nClimatic risks, marked by increased recurrence of droughts, floods, rainfall variability \n(pattern, timing and intensity), increased mean surface temperature and famine that \nerode livelihood opportunities and community resilience. Other sources of risks include \ndeclining water resources, soil fertility and, increased pests and diseases. Sustainable \nagricultural production calls for adoption of approaches that sustainably increase \nagricultural productivity and incomes while adapting and building resilience to climate \nchange, and reducing greenhouse emissions. These approaches include: Climate Smart \nAgriculture (CSA), conservation agriculture (CA) and agroforestry among others. \nContinued supply of nutrients required by plants in correct forms and quantities require \nsoil health management achieved through application of inorganic fertilisers, organic \nfarmyard manure, compost, plant residues and practicing crop rotation. In a nutshell, \nthis is applying integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) or Sustainable Soil \nManagement (SSM). Within the Sustainable Development Goals, soil fertility/health \nmaintenance is of economic, social and environmental importance because it supports \nhealthy plants and livestock growth leading to adequate food provision and healthy \nindividuals. The resultant healthy crops and livestock generate income when sold as \nwell as income from employment opportunities in the production, value addition and \nmarketing phases. \nFarmers should strive", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "healthy plants and livestock growth leading to adequate food provision and healthy \nindividuals. The resultant healthy crops and livestock generate income when sold as \nwell as income from employment opportunities in the production, value addition and \nmarketing phases. \nFarmers should strive to conduct their farming with a business orientation geared to \nthe market. However, farming is certainly a risky business, depended upon the factors \nof production, domestic prices, changes in foreign markets and climate change and \nvariability. To succeed in farming business, just like any other business, several crucial \nprinciples should be applied. This calls individual farmers to develop a passion because \nonly passion can take the entrepreneur far into any business including farming. Without \npassion, one cannot last in farming; commitment to continuous learning. Applying \nbusiness methods such as record keeping, benefit–cost analysis, marketing skills, group \nmanagement skills, gender considerations and good communication skills can greatly", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "x\nimprove the efficiency of farming. Understanding farm records and record keeping as \nwell as marketing dynamics especially for cereals and pulses is very important.\nThe cereals covered in this hand book comprise of maize, sorghum and millet. Maize \nis a staple food and contributes about 65% of daily per capita cereal consumption, 35% \nof total dietary energy and 32% of total protein consumption. It is an important source \nof carbohydrate, protein, iron, vitamin B, and minerals. It serves both as subsistence \nand commercial crop. It grows on an estimated 1.4 million hectares comprising 25% \nlarge-scale and 75% smallholder farmers. Maize accounts for more than 20% of \nthe total agricultural production and 25% of agricultural employment. However, its \nproduction has been decreasing due to climate change and variability. Sorghum is a \ndrought tolerant crop that plays an important role as a food security crop in semi-arid \nareas (SALs) of Kenya. It has an extensive root system which makes it very efficient \nat extracting any water from the soil. It can survive drought conditions for weeks by \nrolling up its leaves and thus decreasing water loss through the leaves. It is a high-\nenergy, nutritious food, suitable for consumption by all. It is particularly recommended \nfor children, lactating mothers, convalescents and the elderly. The grain has high levels \nof iron and zinc, hence may be used to reduce micro-nutrient malnutrition. Millet on \nthe other hand is an important food security crop in semi-arid lands of Kenya. It fits \nwell in popular local recipes such as Ugali and Uji. In recognition of its nutrition value \nand frequent maize crop failures, the Government of Kenya is putting more emphasis \non production of millet to mitigate food and nutritional security.\nThe pulses covered include beans, green grams, pigeon peas and cowpeas. Bean is \nthe most important pulse in Kenya ranking second to maize in importance. The crop \nprovides cheap protein source, rich in essential amino acids such as lysine which is found \nin fewer quantities in maize and other grains. Despite its importance, production over \nthe years has majorly remained at subsistence level with limited commercialization. \nOptimal production has continuously been limited by poor agronomic practices such as \nuse of uncertified seeds, poor soil health management practices,", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Despite its importance, production over \nthe years has majorly remained at subsistence level with limited commercialization. \nOptimal production has continuously been limited by poor agronomic practices such as \nuse of uncertified seeds, poor soil health management practices, poor pest and disease \nmanagement practices and climate change effects. Green gram is an erect annual plant \nwhich grows to a height of 60-70 cm tall. It is often cultivated in rotation or relay with \ncereals and consumed as whole seeds boiled with cereals such as maize or sorghum \nand occasionally in stews. Pigeon pea is a perennial legume that is highly adapted to \ndry environments. It can grow to 12 ft. tall, but usually only reaches 3 to 6 ft. It has \nvery deep roots which enables it to take up nutrients and water from lower subsoil \nlayers. Cowpea ranks second to beans in importance as vegetable protein food crops. \nIt is mainly grown as a green leafy vegetable in Western Kenya and for grain in the dry \nlands of Eastern, Coast and Nyanza regions. The grain is rich in protein content of up to \n30%, including micronutrients such as iron and zinc. Despite its importance, its yields \nhave remained either low or stagnant due to low soil fertility, poor agronomic practices, \npest and diseases and poor postharvest management. These aspects of production are \npoised to be addressed by increased awareness created by this Project.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1\n1. CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE\nThe impact of climate change and variability on Kenya’s agricultural sector is of \ngreat concern to policymakers, researchers, development partners, farmers and other \nstakeholders. It is a big threat to achieving food security. This handbook presents \nimproved ways on adapting agricultural production systems to climate change \nindicators, namely, increased temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and extreme \nclimatic occurrences. The effects of climate change and variability are characterized \nby increased frequency of droughts and floods, changes in weather patterns, high \nrainfall intensity and increased incidence of pests and disease outbreaks. Below find \npictures of these effects on crop production systems. \nIncreased land degradation due to \nclimate change\nIncreased water scarcity\nIncreased pests and disease incidence\nDecreased crop yields \nIncreased incidence of floods\nDecreased crop yields", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2\n1.1 What Causes Climate Change and Variability? \nFigure 1.1: Causes of climate \nchange in agriculture\n•\t\nIt is largely linked directly and indirectly \nto human activities \n•\t\nCarbon dioxide remains the major \ngreenhouse gas that contributes to climate \nchange \n•\t\nThe major agricultural activities linked \nto climate change include land clearing \nand burning plant biomass for farming, \ncharcoal burning, conventional tillage, \npoor manure handling, and inappropriate \nuse of agro-chemicals, among others \n(Figure 1.1). \n1.2 Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) \nClimate Smart Agriculture (CSA) comprises agricultural practices and techniques \nthat are aimed at sustainably increasing agricultural production and system resilience \nwhile reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, CSA aims to achieve food \nsecurity and broader development goals under a changing climate and increasing \nfood demand. Consequently, CSA practices are made to suit three main pillars: \nincreasing agricultural production and incomes, enhancing resilience (adaptation) \nof livelihoods/ecosystems and reducing GHG emissions. This handbook describes \nkey approaches that conserve the soil, rain water, soil nutrients and stabilize \nland production. The approaches are based on three principles; minimum tillage, \npermanent soil cover and crop rotation.\n1.3 Characteristics of climate smart farms (Climate-smartness \nindicators)\n•\t\nSoil and water conservation structures or measures to increase ground cover \nand use little water\n•\t Use of manure and compost to decrease \nuse of chemical fertilizers \n•\t Promotion of agroforestry (crops and \ntrees) systems i.e. trees and crops coexist and \nbenefit from each other\n•\t Integration of perennial and annual crops\n•\t Diversification of farm enterprises\n•\t Readiness of a farm plan (Figure 1.2, Table \n1.1 and 1.2).\nFigure 1.2: An integrated climate \nsmart farm", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3\nTable 1.1: Different agricultural practices under CSA pillars\nAdaptation -Build resilience \nand the capacity of \nagricultural and food systems \nto adapt to climate change\nMitigation- Seek opportunities \nto reduce or remove greenhouse \ngases \nfood security and development \ngoals\nProductivity- sustainable \nincrease in agricultural \nproductivity and incomes\nAgronomic practices\n• Improved crop variety, \nCrop rotation, green \nmanure, Multiple cropping, \nIntercropping, Alley \ncropping, Relay cropping, \nContour strip cropping, \nridging and IPM\nNutrient Management \npractices\n• Mulching\n• Improved fallows\n• Manures\nLivestock management practices\n• Improved feeding, Animal \nbreeding or upgrading, and use \nof fodder banks\n• Farm production adjustments \nsuch as diversification and \nintensification\nAgro-forestry practices\n• Use of trees in Agricultural \nsystems\n• Use of boundary/hedges or tree \n/contour planting\nFood and nutrition security \nin the face of climate change \n• Food and Nutrition \nsecurity (Availability)\n• Enough food is accessible \nto everyone everywhere \n- phisically and \neconomically (Access)\n• Food is properly utilized \n(right quality and \ndiversity) (Utilization) \n• Composting \n• Careful use of fertilizers\nWeed Management practices\n• planting windbreaks, Woodlots\nTillage and Residue \nManagement practices\n• Reduced tillage\nIncome generation measures\n• Establishment of fruit and \ntree nurseries\n• Cover crops\n• Appropriate crop \nintercropping\n• Zero tillage\n• Residue Management\n• Sell of fruit and tree \nseedlings \n1.4 CSA Practices and their Benefits \n1.4.1 Conservation Agriculture \nWhat is Conservation Agriculture? – It is a method of farming system that \nconserves, improves and uses natural resources more efficiently through sustainable \nintensification (integration) of locally available resources.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4\n1.4.2 Principles of Conservation Agriculture\nA.\tMinimum soil disturbance - The farmer tills the soil as \nlittle as possible or disturbs the soils as little as possible. \nThe soil should only be dug where the seed, fertilizer \nand manure are placed when sowing. Some of the \nbenefits of minimum soil disturbance include improved \nsoil water infiltration, build-up of soil organic matter, \nreduced cost of tilling the land, reduced soil degradation \netc. \nB.\tPermanent soil cover – a farmer uses crop residues, \ncover crops, tree biomass to provide maximum soil \ncover. The cover crops include cowpeas, velvet beans, \nsoya beans, common beans. Some of the benefits of \npermanent soil cover include reduced soil erosion, more \nwater sinking into the soil, suppresses emergence of \nweeds, organic residues improve organic matter content \nand soil nutrient status. \nC.\tCrop diversification - growing several crops on the \nsame land through crop rotation or intercropping \nsystems. Some of the benefits include improved soil \nfertility, reduced pests and diseases, increased income, \n1.4.3 Benefits of conservation agriculture\nA.\t Economic – saves resources like finances; controls pests and diseases; reduces \nrisks of crop failure; increased farm output and incomes; improved soil water \nmanagement; reduced labour use etc.\nB.\t Environmental – improved soil health; reduced greenhouse gas emissions and \nwater use; improved water infiltration etc.\nC.\t Agronomic - Increase in soil organic matter – good soil environment for crop \ndevelopment. \nTable 1.2: Examples of CSA Practices and benefits.\nCSA PRACTICE\nBENEFITS\nPHOTO\nAgroforestry\n• Provides a buffer against the effects of \nclimate change\n• Provides alternative income streams to the \nfarmer hence reduces potential on-farm \nincome risks \n• Reduces soil erosion\n• Windbreaks and more building materials", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5\nCSA PRACTICE\nBENEFITS\nPHOTO\nIrrigation and \nDrainage systems\n• Drip irrigation systems promotes efficient \nwater use \n• Increase crop production efficiency \n• Irrigation provides crops/fodder production \nthroughout the year \n• Well-designed water channels reduce soil \nerosion and improve plant water access.\nWater harvesting \nand conservation \nmeasures(terraces/ \nbunds, Zai pits)\nIt is the harnessing of rain (road runoff) or \nground water \n• It retains water and conserve moisture/\nfertility \n• Rehabilitation of barren/crusted lands\n• Controls soil erosion\nImproved soil \nmanagement \nmeasures\n• Improve soil fertility \n• Contributes to sustainable land \nmanagement \n• Increases crop productivity and improves \nagrarian livelihoods.\nCrop diversification \nand seed/varietal \nselection \n• Merges crop/seed variety with local \nclimatic conditions \n• It spreads farmer production and income \nrisks\n• It reduces household inability to cope with \nweather or market shocks\n• It brings benefits in terms of pest \nmanagement and soil quality, etc.\nWeed/control \nmanagement\n• Use of shallow weed scrapper or herbicide \napplication have minimal soil disturbance\n• Use of cover crops manages weeds and \nenhance soil stability\n• Prevent weeds from flowering\nImproved Livestock \nmanagement \nmeasures\n• Includes improved feeding, rotational \ngrazing, Fodder crops, Grassland \nrestoration/ conservation, Manure \ntreatment, Improved livestock health\n• Increases farm productivity and household \nincomes\n1.5 Soil and Water Conservation Measures\nSoil conservation is the prevention and reduction of the amount of soil lost through \nerosion.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6\nWater conservation is a way of tapping as much water as possible and storing it in \ntanks or reservoirs. \n1.5.1 Principles of soil and water conservation\na)\t Make effective use of soil water reserves \nb)\t Use rainwater effectively \nc)\t Take measures to avoid run off \nd)\t Reduce water losses through drainage \n1.5.2 Benefits of soil and water conservation\na)\t Minimizes the risk of crop/production failure during droughts, intra-\nseasonal droughts and floods \nb)\t Reduces water erosion, improves water quality, water infiltration and \nretention, all of which should lead to higher and less variable yields.\nc)\t Controlling soil erosion improves crop and pasture yields.\nd)\t Conserving water makes it available for crops, livestock and domestic use \nover a longer period.\ne)\t They increase the value of the land. \nf)\t More and better livestock fodder is available.\ng)\t Increases water use efficiency.\n1.5.3 Common Soil and Water conservation technologies\na)\t Field level practices: Bench terraces, Check dams, Contour bunds and \nhedgerows, ‘Fanya juu’ terraces, Planting Pits/Zai pits, Katumani Pits, Stone \nlines, Trash lines, Grass strips, Grassed waterway, Retention ditches, Cut-off \nDrains, Mulching and Cover crops.\nb)\t Landscape level practices: Agroforestry, Wind breaks/shelter belts, \nwoodlots, Riparian vegetation buffer strips. Large flows are diverted and \neither used directly or stored for supplementary irrigation.\n1.6 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) \nISFM is a set of soil fertility management practices that necessarily include the use \nof fertilizer, organic inputs, and improved germplasm combined with the knowledge \non how to adapt these practices to local conditions, aiming at maximizing agronomic \nuse efficiency of the applied nutrients and improving crop productivity. All inputs \nneed to be managed following sound agronomic principles of ISFM.\n1.7 Gender in Climate Smart Agriculture \nIt is important to recognize and adequately address the particular needs, priorities, \nand realities of men, women and youth to equally benefit them in the design", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7\nand application of any CSA practice. For example, women and youth typically \nhave less access than men to assets, knowledge and resources. They do not have \nthe same capacity to take up new climate-smart practices for improved climate \nchange resilience. A clear understanding of gender dynamics will therefore lead to \nsignificant improvements in the lives of smallholder farmers as well as achieving \nmore sustainable results (Figures 1.3a & b).\nFigures 1.3a & b: Gender roles", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8\n2 INTEGRATED SOIL FERTILITY AND WATER \nMANAGEMENT\nSoil is the most valuable and widespread natural resource. However there is a \ngeneral decline in land productivity due to declining soil fertility arising from \ncontinuous mining of soil nutrients and inappropriate farming practices. For \nsustainable agriculture production there is need to aim at achieving high yields per \nunit of land while at the same time conserving soil resources. \n2.1 What is soil?\nTo a farmer: soil provides the medium \nwhere plants grow.\nTo an Agronomist: soil is unconsolidated \nlayer of the earth’s surface that consist of \nmineral or organic material, air, water and \nliving organisms that supports plant growth..\nFigure 2.1: Soil Profile \n2.2 Soil Composition\nSoil is composed of mineral particles from weathered underlying rocks, plants and \nanimals residues (organic matter), living organisms, air and soil water. The relative \namount of each component within a given soil determines the properties of the soils \nin that area.\n2.3 Soil Properties\nSoil properties are divided into physical, chemical and biological. \n2.3.1 Soil physical properties \nSoil physical properties includes: texture, structure, bulk density, porosity, \nconsistence, depth/horizonation and colour (Figure 2.1). \nSoil texture is the proportions of sand, silt and clay within a soil. This results into \ntextural classes such as sand, loam, clay loam, clay, and silt among others. \nSoil structure refers to the arrangement of primary soil particles/ aggregates into \nsecondary aggregates. A well-structured moist soil contains about 50% of solid \nmaterial by volume and 25% each of air and water. \nBulk density is an indication of soil compactness while porosity is the ratio of the \nvolume of the pores to the total soil volume and is inversely related to bulk density. \nConsistence is the ability of soil to resist rapture or deformation. It is a good \nindication of whether the soil is loose, soft, hard, sticky, firm or friable under \ndifferent moisture levels and it helps in making decisions on use of farm implements. \nSoil horizonation refers to soil depth. Depending on soil formation and climate,", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "9\nsome soils are shallow and others very deep. This properties determine the ability of \nsoils to provide water, nutrients and good environment for plant growth and yield. \nThey are also used to show land that has been suffering waterlogging conditions as \nwell as favourable construction sites. \n2.3.2 Soil chemical properties\nSoil pH, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), Anion Exchange Capacity (AEC) and \nBuffering Capacity (BC) are some of the most important chemical properties.\n• \nSoil pH, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), Anion Exchange Capacity (AEC) \nand Buffering Capacity (BC) are some of the most important chemical \nproperties. Soil pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity of a soil. The pH \nfor acidic soil is below 5.5 while alkaline soils are above 7.5. A pH range \nbetween 6.5- 7 is the best because most plant nutrients are available for most \nof the crops and soil organisms to thrive. \n• \nCation exchange capacity (CEC) is the ability of soils to maintain adequate \ncations (positively charged ions such as potassium, calcium etc. in the \nsoil solution while anion exchange capacity (AEC) is the ability of soil to \nmaintain adequate anions (negatively charged ions e.g. nitrates, sulphates \netc.) in the soil solution. This properties determines whether the soil is fertile \nor infertile. \n• \nOrganic matter or manure application is important because it contributes to \nimprovement of all soil properties namely texture, structure, porosity, water \nholding capacity, adds nutrients to the soil leading to improved soil CEC \nand AEC and regulates changes in pH because manure is a strong buffering \nagent.\n2.3.3 Biological properties \nSoils contain a wide range of soil organisms (fauna and flora). These organisms \ninclude micro-organisms (e.g. bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes), macro \norganisms (e.g. spiders and springtails earthworms and termites) and plant roots. \nThese organisms are important in provision of nutrients through breakdown and \ndecomposition of organic matter as well as loosening soils for root penetration.\n2.4 Traditional soil fertility indicators\nA fertile soil can be identified using local indicators. \n• \nStructure", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 21, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "These organisms are important in provision of nutrients through breakdown and \ndecomposition of organic matter as well as loosening soils for root penetration.\n2.4 Traditional soil fertility indicators\nA fertile soil can be identified using local indicators. \n• \nStructure – a soil with big clods indicates a fertile soil\n• \nWeed species associated with either a poor or a fertile soil e.g. the grassy \nweed called poverty grass (Rhynchelytrum repens) occurs in very infertile \nsoils \n• \nDominance of certain weed flora (e.g. Commelina benghalensis, Bidens \npilosa, Galinsoga parviflora, Commelina diffusa and Amaranthus spp.) \nimply high fertility\n• \nDominance of soil fauna (e.g. earthworms) also imply high fertility.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 21, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "10\n2.5 Plant nutrients and their roles on crop production\nPlants require 17 elements to grow well and complete their life cycle. Some of these \nelements are obtained from the air such as carbon and oxygen while others such as \nhydrogen and oxygen are obtained from water and the rest (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, \nPotassium, Calcium, Sulphur, Magnesium, Zinc, Molybdenum, Boron, Iron, \nCobalt, Manganese, copper and Nickle) are obtained soil. The concentration of \nthese elements within a given soil is depended on soil type and fertility management \nlevels. Lack of adequate proportions of this nutrients within a given soil leads to \npoor crop establishment or growth resulting to poor yields (Table 2.1 and Figure \n2.2). \nTable 2.1: Function of the various plant nutrients and resultant deficiency \nsymptoms\nNutrients\nFunctions and deficiencies\nMajor Nutrients\nNitrogen\nFunction\n-\t\nFormation of chlorophyll. \n-\t\nPlant Vegetative growth. \n-\t\nProteins synthesis. \nDeficiency symptoms\n-\t\nYellow discoloration of leaves from midrib towards margins.\n-\t\nStunted growth leading to poor yields.\nExcess N symptoms\nExcess lodging, excess vegetative growth and low yield.\nMaize\nGreen grams\nSorghum\nMillet\nBeans\nPhosphorus\nFunction\n-\t\nDevelopment of the root system. \nSeed and fruit formation\nDeficiency symptoms\nStunted growth and purpling of leaves/stem from margin towards midrib. \nPlants slow to ripen, remaining green. Fruits may be misshapen, grain is \npoorly filled\nSorghum/Millet\nMaize", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 22, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "11\nNutrients\nFunctions and deficiencies\nPotassium\n• \nTolerance to moisture stress. \n• \nImproves the quality of fruits, vegetables, and grains. \n• \nEarly ripening of crops. \n• \nResistance to diseases\nDeficiency symptoms\nStunted growth and outer edges of leaves becomes yellow or reddish, becoming \nbrownish or scorched and dead (edge necrosis); leaves wilted. Lodging.\n \n Maize Beans\nSecondary Nutrients\nCalcium\nFunction\n•\t\nImproving the cell structure and fast division of plant cells, leading to \nfaster growth\nDeficiency symptoms\n•\t\nYoung leaves yellowish to black and curved or cupped (brown spots).\n•\t\nPlants appear to wilt.\n•\t\nFruits may appear rotten (tomato).\n•\t\nRoots are malformed\n \n Maize beans\nMagnesium\nFunction\n•\t\nChlorophyll formation\n•\t\nPhosphate metabolism, Biological N fixation, plant oil and fat forma­\ntion, iron utilization. \nDeficiency symptoms\n•\t\nYellowing of leaves between veins while veins remain green. Leaf mar­\ngins turn red- brown- purple. Symptoms start from lower leaves. \n \n Maize Beans\nMicronutrients\nZinc\nFunction\n-\t\nChlorophyll formation\n-\t\nEnzymes activation.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 23, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "12\nNutrients\nFunctions and deficiencies\nDeficiency symptoms \nStunted growth. Broad bands of white bleached-stripped tissues on each \nside of the midrib in maize and yellowing of lower leaves that develops into \nbronze or brown colour. \nSorghum\nBeans\n2.6 Important nutrients sources\nPlant nutrients can be obtained from organic amendments such as organic matter and \nin-organic sources such as chemical fertilizers.\n2.7 Organic amendments \nOrganic amendments refers to any \nmaterial that is part of or originated from \nliving organisms. They include farmyard \nmanure, compost, green manure, chicken \nmanure, urban waste, sewage.\n2.7.1 Characteristics and benefits of \nmanure\n• \nMain source of organic \namendments and also supply macro, and \nmicronutrients.\n• \nProvision of soil nutrients\n• \nBuffering soil pH to avoid instant changes on application of alkaline or \nacidifying inputs.\n• \nEnhances water-retaining capacity \n• \nCreates favorable conditions for soil micro-organisms\n• \nImproves soil structure and consistence.\n• \nUnlike inorganic fertilizers that provide nutrient immediately, manure has to \ndecompose first to release nutrients.\n2.8 In-organic sources\nIn-organic fertilizers or mineral/chemical fertilizers are manufactured products that \ncontain minimum of one plant nutrient that is essential for plant growth. They are \nconcentrated sources of essential nutrients in a form that is readily available for plant \nuptake.\nFigure 2.2: Source of soil nutrients", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 24, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "13\n2.8.1 Characteristics of chemical fertilizers\n• \nRich sources of plant nutrients but don’t contain organic matter. \n• \nWhen exposed to the atmosphere, tend to cake by absorbing moisture therefore \nneed proper handling and storage. \n• \nNitrate-based fertilizers (such as ammonium nitrate) can become explosive in \nnature if not stored properly. \n• \nMajority provide one or two plant nutrient, such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), \nor potassium (K). \n• \nShow a quick response and become available to plants immediately on application. \n2.8.2 Classification of in-organic/chemical fertilizer products \nCommon inorganic fertilizers are marketed as either straight or compound fertilizers. \nFor example: \nNitrogenous (N): Ammonium Nitrate (AN), Ammonium Sulphate (AS), Urea and \nCalcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN), NPK.\nPhosphatic (P2O5): Single Super Phosphate (SSP), Triple Super Phosphate (TSP), NPK\nPotassium oxide (K2O): Muriate of Potash (MOP), Sulphate of Potash (SOP), NPK.\nApart from the above mentioned, many varied brands with different combinations of \nboth macro and micro elements are available in the market.\n2.9 Soil fertility degradation and amelioration\nSoil fertility degradation is the loss of the capacity of soil to supply nutrients in \nadequate amounts. Common causes of soil degradation include continuous removal of \nplant residues (nutrient mining), soil acidification, salinization, sodicification, erosion, \nleaching, poor tillage practices, urbanization, pollution, and loss of organic matter.\n2.9.1 Nutrient mining\nThe amount of nutrients removed through cropping depends on type of crop grown, \npart of crop harvested, stage of growth at harvest and level of nutrient replenishment \novertime. Nutrient mining problem can be corrected by cultural methods such as leaving \ncrop residues in the farm or application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Nutrient \nexpert tool can also be used in the management of nutrient mining.\n2.9.2 Soil acidity \nCauses of soil acidity include acidic parent material, leaching of base cations and \ncontinuous nutrient mining through crop removal, use of acidifying fertilizers", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 25, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " also be used in the management of nutrient mining.\n2.9.2 Soil acidity \nCauses of soil acidity include acidic parent material, leaching of base cations and \ncontinuous nutrient mining through crop removal, use of acidifying fertilizers such as \nammonium rich fertilizers, acid rain and industrial emissions e.tc. Acidification leads \nto unavailability of some essential nutrients such as phosphorus for plant uptake and \nabundance of other nutrients such as micronutrients leading to toxicity. Some important \nsoil macro and microorganisms also do not thrive well in acidic soils leading to poor soil \nbiological processes hence low fertility levels. Soil acidity can be corrected through \nliming with pure calcium carbonate or dolomitic lime, application of wood ashes and \nmanure/organic matter.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 25, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "14\n2.9.3 Soil compaction \nOccurs as a result of poor tillage methods such as ploughing and hoeing which \nresult in the formation of hard pans or hard plough layer leading to poor water, air \nand root penetration. Corrective measures include; sub soiling and ripping to break \nthe impermeable plough-pan, avoid ploughing when the soil is very wet. In addition, \nmulching and addition of manures improve soil structure in compacted soil.\n2.9.4 Soil erosion \nSoil erosion is one of the major causes of land degradation in Africa which causes \nwashing away of top fertile soils leading soil compaction, poor water infiltration rates \nand poor fertility levels hence poor crop yields. Corrective measures include, increased \nvegetation, use of embankments, contour cultivation, strip cropping, use of cover crops \nand conservation tillage\n2.9.5 Salinization and sodicification\nSalinization and sodicification refers to accumulation of salts in soils. This is caused \nby original mineralogy of the soil, over application of base fertilizers, and /or poor \nmovement of salts within the soil because of lack of adequate moisture in dry lands. \nAccumulation of salts leads to occlusion of some important nutrients such as phosphorus \nhence making them unavailable for plant uptake and also abundance and toxicity of \nother nutrients/ salts such as calcium or sodium with their carbonates and bi carbonates \nwhich leads to burning of plant roots or hindering some important soil organisms from \nthriving. \n2.9.6 Leaching\t\nLeaching is carrying away of soil nutrients beyond the reach of crop roots. It is very \ncommon in areas with high rainfall intensity (>30 mm/day) and in coarse-textured \nsandy soils (>35% sand). Corrective measures include application of manures and \nnutrient replenishment. \n2.10 Soil Fertility Evaluation \nContinuous maintenance of good crop yield requires regular soil fertility maintenance. \nThe fertility maintenance is done through regular fertility status evaluation which is \ncarried out through soil or plant tissues sampling and analysis. \n2.10.1 Soil sampling and basic soil parameter measurements\nWhat to consider when undertaking soil sampling i.e. identifiers of soil fertility; \n• \nTopography, soil types, soil colour\n• \nLand degradation intensities, \n• \n", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 26, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".10.1 Soil sampling and basic soil parameter measurements\nWhat to consider when undertaking soil sampling i.e. identifiers of soil fertility; \n• \nTopography, soil types, soil colour\n• \nLand degradation intensities, \n• \nSharp physical discontinuities (e.g. rocky outcrops), \n• \nLand-use history or distance from the homestead and livestock facilities.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 26, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "15\n2.10.2 Frequency of soil sampling and number of samples\n• \nNew land- done yearly for first few years until you understand the soil.\n• \nCultivated land- every 2-3 years, unless concern for environmental problems.\n• \nSample at least one month before onset of rains to provide enough time for \nanalysis/amendments.\n• \nNumber of samples is normally determined by type of anticipated enterprise, \nland physical attributes and observable diversity. Agronomists normally \nrecommend one composite sample per 2.5 acres or 1Ha or at least one composite \nsample per acre for uniform land. The composite samples are then taken to the \nlaboratory for analysis (Figure 2.3).\nFigure 2.3: Steps in soil sampling\n2.10.3 Soil analysis reports\n• \nWhen the soil is analyzed in a credible laboratory, soil analysis report is always \nprovided.\n• \nThe soil test reports contain values that indicate specific nutrient levels in \nthe soil. The levels are either indicated as low, moderate, adequate or high. A \nsummary of these levels implies availability of low, moderate or high fertility. \nSoil fertility replenishment recommendation is then provided based on the report \nand the intended crop to be grown. \n2.11 Soil Degradation, its Causes and Management\nSoil degradation is the decline in soil quality as a result of improper land use \nactivities such as inappropriate agricultural intensification and farming practices, \nintensive grazing and unsustainable urban or industrial expansion. It involves the \ndecline of the soil’s physical, biological and chemical quality. It can be the loss of \norganic matter, decline in soil fertility and structural condition, erosion, adverse \nchanges in salinity, acidity or alkalinity, and the effects of toxic chemicals, pollutants \nor excessive flooding. Soil degradation may occur naturally, due to climate change or \nhuman activities.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 27, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "16\n2.11.1 Causes of soil degradation include physical, chemical and biological factors \na)\t Physical Factors \nPhysical factors such as rainfall, surface runoff, floods, wind erosion, tillage, and \nmass movements result in the loss of fertile top spoil thereby declining soil quality. \nb)\t Soil erosion \nSoil erosion refers to the wearing away of a land’s topsoil by the natural physical \nforces of water and wind or through forces associated with farming activities such \nas tillage (Table 2.2). Soil erosion occurs through a number of ways that include \nwater and wind erosion.\nTable 2.2: Types of erosion\nSheet and rill erosion\nSheet erosion occurs when \na thin layer of topsoil is \nremoved over a whole hillside \npaddock—and may not be \nreadily noticed.\n Rill erosion occurs when runoff \nwater forms small channels as it \nconcentrates down a slope. These \nrills can be up to 0.3m deep. If \nthey become any deeper than 0.3 \nm they are referred to as gully \nerosion.\nScalding\nScalding can occur when \nwind and water erosion \nremoves the top soil and \nexposes saline or sodic soils.\n Gully erosion\nOccurs when runoff concentrates and flows \nstrongly enough to detach and move soil \nparticles. Gullies may develop in watercourses \nor other places where runoff concentrates. In \ncultivation or pastures, advanced rill erosion \ncan develop into gully erosion.\nStream bank erosion\nWhen clods of these soils are exposed to water, \nthey readily break down into individual particles \nof sand, silt and clay which are easily removed \nas water moves through the subsoil. The major \ncause of stream bank erosion is the destruction \nof vegetation on river banks (by clearing, \novergrazing, cultivation, vehicle traffic up and \ndown banks or fire) and the removal of sand and \ngravel from the stream bed.\nc)\t Chemical Factors \nThis is the reduction of soil nutrients due to alkalinity, acidity, water logging \nor removal of nutrients through crop harvests. The chemical factors are mainly \nalterations in the soil’s chemical property that determine nutrient availability.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 28, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "17\nd)\t Biological Factors \nBiological factors refer to the human and plant activities that tend to reduce \nthe quality of soil. Some bacteria and fungi overgrowth in an area can highly \nreduce microbial activity in the soil through leading to decreased organic matter \nbreakdown, decomposition and availability of nutrients within soil for plant \nuptake hence reduced crop yields. \ne)\t Deforestation \nThis is the removal of trees and crop cover exposing soil minerals to adverse \nweather effects. Vegetation cover promotes binding of soil together and soil \nformation, hence when it is removed it considerably as affects soil health. It also \nreduces landscapes carbon sequestration ability. \nf)\t Misuse or excessive use of fertilizers and chemicals \nExcessive use and the misuse of pesticides and chemical fertilizers kill organisms \nthat assist in breaking down and decomposing organic matter to increase soil \nfertility. It also kills beneficial soil organisms that kill soil pests. \ng)\t Industrial and Mining activities \nIndustrial and mining activity destroys crop cover and releases various toxic \nchemicals such as heavy metals (mercury) into the soil thereby poisoning it and \nrendering it unproductive. It also releases toxic effluents and material wastes \ninto the atmosphere, land, rivers, and ground water that eventually pollute the \nsoil. Industrial and mining activities degrade the soil’s physical, chemical and \nbiological properties. \nh)\t Improper cultivation practices \nImproper tillage on agricultural lands breaks up soil into finer particles, which \nincrease erosion rates. It also exposes soil organisms and organic matter to the \nsurface leading to fertility lose. Shallow cultivation leads to soil pan that hinders \nroot penetration.\ni)\t\nUrbanization \nRemoves the soil’s vegetation cover, compacts soil during construction, and \nalters the drainage pattern. Most of the runoff and sediments from urban areas \nare polluted with oil, fuel, and other chemicals. Increased runoff from urban areas \nalso causes a huge disturbance to adjacent water sheds by changing the rate and \nvolume of water that flows through them.\nj)\t Overgrazing \nOvergrazing destroys surface crop cover and breaks down soil particles, increasing \nthe rates of soil erosion which affects soil quality. \n2.12 Soil and Water and Management Practices\nSoil water management can be defined as active involvement in controlling soil \nwater content at an optimal state for all given purposes, including environmental", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 29, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "18\nneeds. An optimal state is often a compromise between competing uses and needs \nto account for long-term sustainability of the soil water system.\nThe line between soil and water conservation (SWC) and rainwater harvesting \n(RWH) technologies for crop production is very thin. SWC can be described as \nactivities that reduce water losses by runoff and evaporation, while maximizing in-\nsoil moisture storage for crop production, but the same could be said of RWH. The \ntwo are differentiated by the fact that under soil and water conservation, rainwater \nis conserved in-situ wherever it falls, whereas under water harvesting, a deliberate \neffort is made to transfer runoff water from a “catchment” to the desired area or \nstorage structure.\n2.12.1 Principles of rainwater harvesting and management\n• \nHarvesting and storage increases the availability of water in the drier \nseasons. \n• \nDevelop structures such as contour ditches, terracing, pits and bunds to \nreduce run-off and increase water availability for crops. \n• \nReduce water lose in the soil by adding organic matter in the form of \ncompost, manures or plant residues. \nThere are two types of rain water harvesting i.e. in-situ and ex-situ. \n2.12.2 Soil and Water Conservation Technologies)\nRainwater harvesting for infiltration, also known as in-situ water harvesting, is a \npractice in which rainwater uptake in soils is increased through the soil surface, \nrooting system and groundwater. Structures for in-situ water harvesting include:\n• \nContour - bunds and hedgerows – Stone or earthen walls built across a \nslope to prevent runoff. The aim is to concentrate moisture into the ridge and \nfurrow area where the crops are planted. \n• \nBench terraces - a series of beds which are more or less level running \nacross a slope at vertical intervals, supported by steep banks or risers (walls \nor bunds). They are designed to reduce soil losses; promote permanent \nagriculture on steep slopes and intensive land use. \n• \nFanya juu terraces - constructed by excavating soil and throwing it up-\nslope to make an embankment. The embankment forms a runoff barrier and \nthe trench (ditch) is used to retain or collect runoff. The embankments are \nusually stabilized with fodder grass", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ating soil and throwing it up-\nslope to make an embankment. The embankment forms a runoff barrier and \nthe trench (ditch) is used to retain or collect runoff. The embankments are \nusually stabilized with fodder grasses.\n• \nStone lines - are 25 - 35 cm contour lines made of locally available stones. \nThey slow down runoff, increase water infiltration and form the basis for \nimproved production in semi-arid areas. \n• \nTrash lines - created across the slope along the contour using previous \nseasons’ crop residues (millet, maize and sorghum stalks), grasses, litter and \nother dead vegetative organic materials. Trash lines control surface runoff, \nsoil erosion and enhance water infiltration.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "19\n• \nRetention ditches - designed to harvest and retain incoming runoff and hold \nit until it infiltrates into the ground. They can be an alternative to waterways \nin high rainfall areas. \n• \nGrass strips - are 1 m-wide strips of grass planted on terraces along \ncontours to reduce the amount of water flowing down the slope and conserve \nsoil. Grass strips are planted with fodder grass such as Napier or are left with \nnatural grass; thereby providing fodder to livestock. \n• \nCheck dams - is a small temporary or permanent barrier constructed of rock, \ngravel bags, sandbags, fibre rolls, or reusable products, placed across a gully, \nchannel or drainage to lower the speed of flows from storm events. \n• \nZai pits - are 10-15 cm deep, 15-50 cm wide and 80-100 cm apart. The pits \npromote an integrated soil, water and nutrient management by retaining \nwater.\n• \nTied ridges - are small earthen ridges, 30 cm high, with an upslope furrow \nwhich accommodates runoff from a catchment strip between the ridges. \n2.12.3 Rainwater harvesting for storage (ex-situ rainwater harvesting)\nRainwater harvesting for storage, also known as  ex-situ  water harvesting, is a \npractice in which rainwater is collected and stored for productive use, for example \ndrinking, agriculture, sanitation and more. Structures for ex-situ water harvesting \ninclude: -\n• \nRooftop water harvesting with above ground tank - A roof becomes a \ncatchment when it is used for harvesting rainwater. Roof catchment systems \nprovide water that can be used for domestic purposes.\n• \nWater pans - are shallow depressions (1 m to 3 m deep) constructed to \ncollect and hold runoff water from various surfaces including from hillsides, \nroads, rocky areas and open rangelands. \n• \nSmall earthen dams - its constructed either on-stream or off-stream, where \nthere is a source of large quantities of channel flow. The dam wall is 2 - 5 m \nhigh and has a clay core and stone aprons and spillways to discharge excess \nrunoff. \n• \nSand dams – it is a wall constructed across the stream to restrict surface \nflow. The height of the dam wall is increased by ", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "high and has a clay core and stone aprons and spillways to discharge excess \nrunoff. \n• \nSand dams – it is a wall constructed across the stream to restrict surface \nflow. The height of the dam wall is increased by 0.3 m after floods have \ndeposited sand to the level of the spillway.\n• \nWells and boreholes - water obtained from underground sources. \n2.12.4 Soil moisture conservation techniques\n• \nThe goal is to minimize the amount of water lost from the soils through \nevaporation (water loss directly from the soil) and transpiration (water loss \noccurring through the plants) – or combined, the evapotranspiration. \n• \nPreserving soil moisture is important for agricultural production, and also \nhelps minimize irrigation needs of the crops.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20\n2.12.5 Methods for soil moisture conservation include: - \n• \nSpreading manure or compost over the soil – this minimizes \nevapotranspiration and also provides valuable nutrients to the soil through \ndecomposition \n•\t\nMulching – placing a layer of organic (or inorganic) material at the root \nzone of the plants. \n•\t\nConservation tillage- reducing or in extreme cases completely eliminating \ntillage to maintain soil structure and increase soil organic matter that \nimproves soils capacity to absorb and retain water. \n•\t\nCrop rotation – growing different types of crops every other season - \nimproves soil structure; water holding capacity; soil fertility; and helps \ncontrol pests and diseases. \n•\t\nGreen manure – growing of plant materials with the purpose of adding \norganic matter to the soil. The improved soil quality then also improves \nwater retention capacity. \n•\t\nMixed cropping intercropping and inter-planting – involves cultivating \na combination of crops with different planting times and different length of \ngrowth periods.\n•\t\nContour ploughing –ploughing along the contour instead of up- and \ndownward slopes, reduces water velocity, creating even barriers, and \nmore water is retained in the soils and distributed more equally across the \ncropland.\n•\t\nStrip cropping - growing erosion permitting crops and erosion resisting \ncrops in alternate strips.\n2.13 Problematic Soils and their Management\nProblematic or problem soils refer to soils that possess characteristics that make \nthem uneconomical for cultivation of crops without adopting proper reclamation \nmeasures. We have three major types of problem soils: \n• \nPhysical problem soils\n• \nChemical problem soils\n• \nBiological problem soils.\n2.13.1 Soils with Physical Problems for Agricultural Production\nThese are soils whose physical properties have some limitations. They include: \nimpermeable soils, soil surface crusting and sealing, subsoil hardpan, shallow soils, \nhighly permeable soils, heavy clay soils and fluffy paddy soils.\n2.13.2 Soils with unfavourable Chemical Properties for Agricultural \nProduction\nThe major soils in this category are acidic and salt affected soils.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 32, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "21\na)\t Acid soils\nSoil with pH of less than 7 is generally referred to as acid soils. The acidity \nlevel however increases with pH decrease from 7 towards zero with pH levels \nlower than 5.5 being strongly acidic and pH of less than 4.75 being extremely \nacidic. \nAcidity in soils can be caused by mineralogy of parent material, organic matter \naccumulation, leaching of base cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium and \nsodium), and management practices such as continuous use of acid forming \nfertilizers, application of elemental sulphur which undergoes reactions \nforming sulphuric acid, tillage practices and soil pollution. \nSoil acidity can be managed by application of organic amendments such as \nmanure. Application of pulverized Limestone or dolomitic limestone is one \nthe fastest ways to increase soil’s pH or reduction of soil acidity.\nb)\t Saline soils\nSaline soils are non-sodic soils containing sufficient soluble salt to adversely \naffect the growth of most crop plants with a lower limit of electrical \nconductivity of the saturated extract (ECe) being 4 deci Siemens / meter \n(dS/m), which is equivalent to a value of 4 mm hos/cm. Very salty soils are \nsometimes recognizable by a white layer or dry salt on the soil surface.\nThe saline soil problems are caused by the accumulated soluble salts in the \nroot zone. In this soil due to high salt levels microbial activity is reduced. \nSpecific ion effects on plants are also seen due to toxicity of ions like chloride \nand sulphates.\nThe reclamation of saline soils involves basically the removal of salts from \nthe root zone soil through the processes of leaching with water and drainage. \nProvision of lateral and main drainage channels of 60 cm deep and 45 cm wide \nand leaching of salts could reclaim the soils. \ni)\t Irrigation of Saline Soils \nProportional mixing of good quality (if available) water with saline \nwater and then using for irrigation reduces the effect of salinity. Alternate \nfurrow irrigation favours growth of plant than flooding. Drip, sprinkler \nand pitcher irrigation have been found to be more efficient than the \nconventional flood irrigation method since relatively lesser amount of \nwater is used under these improved methods.\nii)\t Fertilizer Management for Saline soils\nAddition of extra dose", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 33, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nand pitcher irrigation have been found to be more efficient than the \nconventional flood irrigation method since relatively lesser amount of \nwater is used under these improved methods.\nii)\t Fertilizer Management for Saline soils\nAddition of extra dose of nitrogen to the tune of 20-25% of recommended \nlevel will compensate the low availability of N in these soils. Addition of \norganic manures like, FYM, compost, etc. helps in reducing the ill effect \nof salinity due to release of organic acids produced during decomposition. \nGreen manuring and or green leaf manuring also counteracts the effects \nof salinity.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 33, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "22\nc)\t Sodic soils\nSodic soils are soils containing sufficient exchangeable sodium to adversely \naffect the growth of most crop plants. These soils have high levels of \nexchangeable sodium (Na) and low levels of total salts caused by natural \npresence of minerals producing sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or sodium bi-\ncarbonate (NaHCO3) upon weathering. They are usually defined as containing \nan exchangeable sodium percentage greater than 15% and a pH of 8.2 or more. \nExtreme cases may have a pH of above 10.5. These soils tend to occur within \narid to semiarid regions and are innately unstable, exhibiting poor physical \nand chemical properties, which impede water infiltration, water availability, \nand ultimately plant growth. \nSodic soils may impact plant growth by: a) Sodium toxicity to sodium sensitive \nplants; b) Nutrient deficiencies or imbalances; c) High pH of > 8.0 and d) soil \nstructure destruction or dispersion or flocculation of clay minerals.\nSodic soils can be reclaimed or managed using several approaches, they \ninclude: \ni.\t\nEstablishment of sodic tolerant crops \nii.\t Application of organic manures.\niii.\t Application of chemical amendments such as soluble calcium salts \n(gypsum, calcium chloride), acids or acid forming substances (sulphuric \nacid, iron sulphate, aluminium sulphate, lime-sulphur, and pyrite) or \ncalcium salts of low solubility like ground limestone. The compounds in \nthe salts or acids reacts with the sodium carbonate (Na2CO3 or NaHCO3) \nforming a leachable compound. \niv.\t Agronomic management such as planting at the edge of hills, leaching, \ncrop rotation among others. \nd) Alkaline soils\nAlkaline soils are clay soils with high pH, poor soil structure and low \ninfiltration capacity. Often they have a hard calcareous layer at 0.5 to 1 meter \ndepth. The causes of alkaline soils can be natural or man-made. Natural \ncauses are the presence of minerals producing sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or \nsodium bi-carbonate (NaHCO3) upon weathering. The soils can be reclaimed \nby incorporation of grass cultures, organic compost, waste hair and", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " are the presence of minerals producing sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or \nsodium bi-carbonate (NaHCO3) upon weathering. The soils can be reclaimed \nby incorporation of grass cultures, organic compost, waste hair and feathers, \norganic garbage, acidifying materials (inorganic or organic material) into the \nsoil, and enhancing dissolved Ca in the field water by releasing CO2 gas. Deep \nploughing and incorporation of the calcareous subsoil into the topsoil also can \nbe of help. \n2.13.3 Soils with unfavourable biological Properties for Agricultural \nProduction\nThese include soils with low organic matter content, soil living organisms or \nharmful soil living organisms such asbacterial wilt, Fusarium wilt and nematodes.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "23\n3 FARM-LEVEL AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCE AND \nADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE\nClimate change and variability affects agriculture particularly rural livelihoods, \nincomes and food security. This is through increased temperatures, changing rainfall \npatterns which have become unreliable, increased frequency and intensity of floods and \ndroughts. Because of this, it is important for farmers to learn and practise appropriate \nfarm level adaptation measures so as to build their capacity and resilience in food \nproduction systems. \nThese impacts of climate change on agriculture can be classified into: \n• \nCrop production i.e. changes in quantity and quality of crop yields, forages \nand crop residues; changes in the timing and duration of crop growing seasons; \ninterference with the coordination of farm activities and distribution of labour \netc.\n• \nSoil fertility: Reduced soil carbon, soil moisture, soil organisms, vegetation \ncover leading the soil prone to erosion, soil degradation.\n• \nWater availability: flooding, waterlogging or water deficit at the crop \nroot zone; affect the quality and quantity of water for human and animal \nconsumption.\n• \nLivestock production: Poor quality feeds, poor feed yields, increased diseases \nand pests, invasive pasture and lose of others from ecosystem. \t\n3.1 What is Resilience? \nThis is the ability of farm production systems to deal with major climatic shocks such \nas rainfall variability, drought, floods, pest infestation and other stresses. This ability \nhelps the farmer or agricultural system to absorb the stress impact and recover quickly.\n3.2 Major Technologies and Management Practices for Enhancing \nFarm Level Resilience \n3.2.1 Soil Health Management Practices \nSoils as a natural resource and base for agricultural productivity is critical in \nenhancing farm level resilience. A healthy soil has the capacity to sustain agricultural \nproduction. A health soil should have good tilth, sufficient depth, good water \nstorage, good drainage, sufficient supply of nutrients, minimal plant pathogens and \ninsect pests, free from chemicals and toxins, resistant to degradation among others. \nThis is however impacted by climate change as shown in Table 3.1.\nTable 3.1: Impact of climate change on soil health\nClimate change \nindicators\nImpact on soil health\nImpact on crop \nproduction\nIncreased \ntemperature\na)\t\nReduced soil organic matter \nb)\t\nReduced", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".\nTable 3.1: Impact of climate change on soil health\nClimate change \nindicators\nImpact on soil health\nImpact on crop \nproduction\nIncreased \ntemperature\na)\t\nReduced soil organic matter \nb)\t\nReduced capacity to retain and supply nutrients \nto crops\nc)\t\nReduced soil water holding capacity \na)\t\nReduced crop yields", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "24\nClimate change \nindicators\nImpact on soil health\nImpact on crop \nproduction\nIncreased rainfall \nintensity \na)\t\nIncreased ground water pollution and soil acidity\nb)\t\nLoss of soil nutrients\nc)\t\nIncreased pests & diseases and weeds \na)\t\nReduced crop yields \nb)\t\nLow quality yields \nReduced rainfall \nintensity \na)\t\nPoor soil water infiltration and retention\nb)\t\nLimited root penetration\nc)\t\nPoor water and nutrients uptake by crops\na)\t\nPoor or no crop \ngrowth \nb)\t\nReduced crop yields \nor crop failure \nTable 3.2 describes various interventions to enhance soil health for increased \nproductivity and farm level resilience\nTable 3.2: Interventions for enhancing soil health\nIntervention\nTargeted constraint(s)\nContribution to resilience\nReduced tillage \n(CA)\nLow soil organic matter content; Limited \nsoil water content; Poor soil aggregation; \nLow water retention; High soil erosion \nstatus \nRestores soils physical, chemical \nand biological status; Reduces soil \nerosion; Improves environmental \nbiodiversity\nCrop rotations and \nintercrops (crop \ndiversification)\nHigh pests & disease infestation; Low soil \norganic matter content; Low soil nutrients \nlevels \nReduces pests & diseases \nincidences; Increases soil nutrients; \nProvides diverse sources of food, \nfeed and revenue\nGrowing cover \ncrops\nLow soil organic matter content; Poor soil \naggregation; Low water retention; Low soil \nfertility; High erosion\nRestores soils physical, chemical \nand biological status; Reduces soil \nerosion; Provides diverse sources of \nfood, feed and revenue \nAgro-forestry\nLow soil organic matter content; Poor soil \naggregation; Low water retention; Low soil \nfertility; High soil erosion status \nRestores soils fertility; Reduces soil \nerosion; Provides diverse sources of \nfood, feed and revenue\nInoculation of \nleguminous crops\nLow soil nitrogen levels; Expensive \ninorganic nitrogen fertilizers \nIncreases soil fertility; Reduces use \nof inorganic fertilizers \nIntegrated \nSoil Fertility \nManagement \n(ISFM)\nLow soil nutrients levels; Low soil organic \nmatter content; Poor soil aggregation; Low \nwater retention\nIncreases soil nutrients and organic \nmatter; Restores soil fertility; \nRed", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 36, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "izers \nIntegrated \nSoil Fertility \nManagement \n(ISFM)\nLow soil nutrients levels; Low soil organic \nmatter content; Poor soil aggregation; Low \nwater retention\nIncreases soil nutrients and organic \nmatter; Restores soil fertility; \nReduces application of soil fertility \ninputs. \nOrganic fertilizer \naddition\nLow soil organic matter content; Poor soil \naggregation; Low soil water retention; Low \nsoil nutrients levels\nRestores soils fertility; Reduces use \nof inorganic fertilizers \nInorganic fertilizer \naddition\nLow soil nutrients levels\nIncreases soil nutrients levels\nAcidic soil liming\nLow soil pH level; Toxic levels of micro \nnutrients; Low soil Phosphorus nutrient \nlevel\nIncreases soil pH, reduces toxic \nlevels micro-nutrients and increases \navailability of Phosphorus to crops. \n3.3 Rainwater Harvesting and Management Practices\nFarm level resilience principles aims at reducing the vulnerability of farmers and \ntheir agricultural systems to water scarcity. This can be achieved by increasing the \navailability and access to water during the drier seasons by developing structures (such \nas contour schemes, terracing, pits and bunds to reduce `run-off and increase water", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 36, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "25\navailability for crops) or reduced water loss in the soil by adding organic matter in the \nform of compost, manures or plant residues. \n3.4 Water Efficient Irrigation Systems\nDrip irrigation technology supports farmers to adapt to climate change by providing \nefficient use of water supply (Figure 3.1). The technology saves water by managing \nand minimizing evaporation losses, and delivering water at the crop root zone where it \nis required. The system consist of elevated water source (tank), pumping unit, filters, \ndrippers and drip lines which can either be on the surface or sub-surface (buried). \nBelow is a simple illustration of a drip irrigation system\nFigure 3.1: Illustration of simple drip irrigation system\n3.5 Contributions Of Drip Irrigation System To Farm Level Resilience \n• \nProducing more crops with less water. \n• \nUses less energy for pumping and conveying water.\n• \nIt has minimal nutrient leaching and local environmental pollution.\n• \nContributes to increased food security and incomes since crop production \ncan be done on and off rain season. \n• \nLeads to reduced workload for women allowing them to re-allocate their \ntime and resources to other livelihood activities.\n3.6 Seed Management Practices\nSeed has direct links to food security and resilient livelihoods. It’s important to \ndevelop seeds that are resilient to current and future climatic shocks. These include:\n3.6.1 Use of early maturing crop varieties – \nCrop that matches with the rainfall patterns. An example is the “Mwezi Moja” bean \nvariety that matures within one month. \n3.6.2 Adopting heat tolerant crop varieties– \nCrops that can withstand increases in temperatures", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 37, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "26\n3.6.3 Use of salt tolerant crop varieties-\nCrops that survive soil and water conditions that are saline\n3.6.4 Contribution of seed management practices to agricultural resilience \n1.\t Adopting drought tolerant or faster maturing seed varieties increases \nresilience to dry spells and assures them a harvest.\n2.\t Adopting drought tolerant or faster maturing seed varieties contributes to food \nproduction. Drought tolerant crops like cassava, millet or sorghum, despite \ntheir low market value, ensure that farm households have at least some food \nfor consumption when crops like maize fail.\n3.\t Adopting drought tolerant, heat tolerant and saline tolerant varieties \ncontributes to household incomes.\n3.7 Crop Management Practices \nCrop management is one of the cost-effective methods of building resilience into \nagricultural systems. It takes into account seasonal climatic stresses such as changes in \nrainfall distribution, increased temperatures, increased incidence of pests and diseases, \nextreme floods and sea level rise which will hamper crop yields. The major crop \npractices are; \n3.7.1 Use of salt tolerant crop varieties –\nCrops that survive soil and water conditions that are saline\n3.7.2 Matching crop/varieties with ecology - \nYou need to plant crops that suit specific environment or farms. \n3.7.3 Seeding/seed rate – \nWhen planting make sure that the number of seeds planted per unit area considers \nthe plant requirements (feeding space), purpose of cultivation (grain, silage, etc.), soil \nfertility status, climatic conditions, and other factors to ensure maximum `yield. The \nfarmers should practice timely planting to maximize on the rainfall\n3.7.4 Crop diversification- \nThis suppresses pest and diseases, assures the farmers a harvest from one of the crops. \n3.7.5 Crop fertilization (organic or inorganic fertilizers) – \nFertilizers increases soil fertility that enhances and sustains growth of plants. The type \nand quantity of fertilizer to apply should be well identified and farmers should first \nknow their soil fertility status through soil testing. \n3.7.6 Soil Liming – \nOveruse of fertilizers, pesticides, mono-cropping and depletion of soil organic matter \nmight increase soil acidity that negatively affects crops as discussed in section 2.12.2", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 38, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " testing. \n3.7.6 Soil Liming – \nOveruse of fertilizers, pesticides, mono-cropping and depletion of soil organic matter \nmight increase soil acidity that negatively affects crops as discussed in section 2.12.2 \nabove. Application of lime provides improves such soils leading to increased crop \ngrowth and yield.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 38, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "27\n3.7.7 Timely harvesting – \nTimely harvesting reduces losses and impact on quality. Farmers need to follow crop \nharvesting recommendations to avoid losses.\n3.7.8 Post-harvest handling – \nSelecting appropriate crop handling, processing and storage technology minimize \nlosses, increases food security, incomes and household resilience\n3.7.9 Contributions of seed system management to resilience \n• \nCrop diversification reduces the susceptibility of the farm to crop pests and \ndiseases \n• \nStabilizes farm production as climate risks do not affect all crops to the same \ndegree e.g. mixing drought tolerant crops with non-drought tolerant crops \nensures some harvests under drought conditions.\n• \nCrop diversification ensures that income can be derived from produce as \ndifferent crops have different market values. \n• \nUsing nitrogen-fixing plants reduces the amount of money needed to purchase \ninorganic fertiliser, thereby reducing the cash expenditure of smallholder \nfarms.\n• \nHolds some potential for greater social resilience by building social capital – \ncrop rotation and mixed cropping are good farm management practices that \nensure that the farm does not become a source of risk for surrounding farms \nthrough the concentration of crop pest and disease as would happen without \ncrop rotation or mixed cropping.\n• \nPotential improvement in farm income and job creation.\n• \nImproved soil quality and reduced erosion. \n• \nReduces the risk of crop failure hence enhance farm level incomes and food \nsecurity\n3.8 Agro-Forestry Management Practice\nThis is the deliberate practice of growing woody perennials (trees, shrubs) as agricultural \ncrops alongside other crops and livestock in the same land. It has potential of enhancing \nproductivity and sustainability. Farmers are recommended to choose the right type of \ntree species for their farms.\n3.8.1 Contribution of agroforestry management practices to farm level resilience \n• \nTrees fixes nitrogen which contributes to enhanced soil fertility, crop yields \nand general farm productivity.\n• \nIncreased soil fertility have the potential to reduce the impact of droughts in \nthe farm \n• \nTree biomass increases the soil organic matter that leads to increased soil \nwater infiltration and retention capacity.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 39, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "28\n• \nFarm trees stabilizes the soil structure and thereby reduces soil erosion. \n• \nSale of agroforestry products such as fodder, woodfuel, honey, medicines, \nmulch, vegetables and fruits are sources of income for farmers. \n• \nEnhanced soil fertility as a result of nitrogen-fixing plants reduces the amount \nof money needed to purchase inorganic fertilisers, thereby reducing the cash \nexpenditure of smallholder farms.\n• \nFarm diversification through agroforestry reduces both environmental and \neconomic risks by spreading harvests and income throughout the year. \n• \nAgroforestry canopy are sinks of GHGs (Carbon) hence mitigating the \nimpacts of climate change. \n3.9 Pests and Diseases Management Practices \nClimate change and variability causes highly variable environmental conditions leading \nto increased pest and diseases. This phenomena causes reduced crop yields, low quality \nof agricultural produce, loss of life, malnutrition, loss of income, loss of crop diversity \nand environmental pollution resulting from increased use of pesticides. Farm level \nresilience pest and disease management practices methods include:-. \n3.9.1 Biological pest management\nThis involves the use of biological methods to control pests and diseases. It includes use \nof beneficial insects such as ladybirds (predator), digger wasps (parasite) and bacteria \n(pathogen) to kill larvae. Push and Pull Technology’ (PPT) can also be used to control \nfall armyworms. Through this approach, the potential risks to farmers, plants and \nanimals are reduced, thereby enhancing farm resilience and long-term environmental \nimprovements.\n3.9.2 Mechanical pest management\nHere pests are controlled by non-chemical direct physical measures. It includes hand-\npicking to remove insects, tilling to remove weeds and trapping to catch insects or \nrodents.\n3.9.3 Pesticides pest management: \nPesticides may be chemical, biological or physical agents used to prevent, destroy, \nrepel, mitigate, harm or kill organisms which are considered to be pests.\n3.9.4 Cultural methods for pest management\nThis methods used alter the plant environment and may include irrigation and \nfertilization schedules, early planting, sanitation practices, intercropping (crop rotation, \nrelay) and use of improved crop varieties.\n3.9.5 Integrated pest management (IP", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " used alter the plant environment and may include irrigation and \nfertilization schedules, early planting, sanitation practices, intercropping (crop rotation, \nrelay) and use of improved crop varieties.\n3.9.5 Integrated pest management (IPM)\nThis are techniques used to reduce or stop pests and diseases from multiplying. It \nincludes the introduction of beneficial insects (biological control); using crop-resistant \nvarieties; improving cleanliness (field and store hygiene); using alternative agricultural", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "29\npractices such as pruning and spraying; improving crop health by either using organic, \ninorganic or combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers.\n3.9.6 Contribution of pest and disease management practices to farm level \nresilience \n• \nUsing biological control, the soil and water pollution is reduced thereby \nimproving environmental conditions for the farmer.\n• \nBiological controls are cheaper and easier to access. Therefore, the farmers \nhave less expenditure implying that profits to the farmer are maximized.\n• \nBy using biological pesticides, farmers will use indigenous knowledge that \nis fast disappearing. This will allow farmers contribute to maintaining and \ntransferring indigenous knowledge on handling crop pests and diseases.\n3.10 Livestock, Pasture and Rangeland Management Practices \nClimate change and variability is a real threat to the productivity of rangelands. \nThere is increased degradation and livestock grazing fields is decreasing and unable \nto support livestock stock. This has negatively impacted on the communities and \nproduction systems resilience. Therefore, various farm level strategies are required \nto promote good rangeland management. These include:\n3.10.1 Grazing management control: \nThis involves changing the control and regulation of grazing pressure through the \nreduction of grazing intensity and reforestation (vegetation improvement). The \ncontrols can be achieved through fencing, rotational grazing, ‘cut-and-carry’ of \nfodder, and vegetation improvement. \n3.10.2 Fodder substitution and fodder banks: \nThis can be achieved through:\n• \nCreation of fodder banks – areas delineated with fodder to be used in lean \ntimes; harvesting and keeping fodder to be used later \n• \nManagement of invasive species\n• \nInvesting in alternative fodder like Cactus for livestock feed\n• \nProduction of fodder under irrigation.\n3.10.3 Livestock substitution:\nThis is the replacement of the large stock (e.g. cattle) with small stock to merge \ncarrying capacity or switching to camels which are more drought-resilient.\n3.10.4 Management of crop and industrial residues: \nThese are investments in the production of livestock feeds to reduce pressure on the \nnatural feed sources. An example is the production of Multi Nutrient Blocks to fed \nlivestock during drought seasons", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 41, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "30\n3.10.5 Contribution of livestock, pasture & rangeland management practices to \nfarm level resilience \n• \nThe practice increases soil carbon which positively affects soil fertility and \noverall rangeland production.\n• \nThrough the improved grazing land management measures which leads to \nincreased fodder availability, farmers enhances livestock fodder sufficiency.\n• \nThrough the collective management of community pastures, the practice \nfosters social resilience thereby enhancing social cohesion.\n3.11 Climate Information Services\nAs a result of unpredictable climatic pattern, farmers requires robust climate information \nservices to enable them make informed decisions. This includes information about past, \npresent and future climate scenarios, and their implications on farming enterprises, \nlivelihoods and environment.\n3.11.1 Importance of climate information services\n1.\t Increased understanding of climate change and related risks on agricultural \nlivelihoods. \n2.\t Helps farmers make good choices of farm enterprises – seasonal and long-\nterm\n3.\t Short-term national development planning e.g. to plan for subsidies and farm \ninputs like irrigation water infrastructure.\n4.\t Long-term national development planning e.g. decisions on agricultural \ninfrastructure like where to locate dams and water reservoirs for irrigation.\n5.\t Pest and disease surveillance and early warning. \n6.\t Development of appropriate adaptation and mitigation technologies\n3.11.2 Contribution of climate services to farm level resilience\n1.\t Adequate and timely weather information helps farmers make informed \ndecisions on the timing of agricultural activities for increased productivity\n2.\t It enables farmers to manage the negative impacts of weather-induced risks in \nthe season while also taking advantage of good climatic seasons. \n3.\t It helps agricultural actors to adjust their plans as climate stressors and shocks \nunfold.\n4.\t It provides information that supports mitigation (i.e. use of fertilizers) to \nreduce emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming\n3.12 Agricultural Insurance \nClimate change and variability presents numerous social, economic and environmental \nrisks. At farm level, farmers face a number of risks ranging from production, produce", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 42, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "31\ntransportation and marketing that are linked to climate. Therefore, risk management \ntechniques, tools and policies are important to minimize adverse losses and develop \nresilience to agricultural production systems. \nAgricultural insurance practices are applicable to all sectors such as crops, livestock, \nforestry, and aquaculture. Insurance allows a farmer to transfer a risk of an agricultural \nloss in exchange for a premium to prevent a devastating loss. \n3.12.1 Contribution of Agricultural Insurance to farm level resilience \na)\t It increases farmer willingness to adopt the climate-smart agricultural \ntechnologies leading to increased productivity; food security and economic \ngains.\nb)\t Improves farmers access to credit for agricultural activities\nc)\t Supports agricultural and rural development by helping farmers, financial \nservice providers and input suppliers cope with climatic risks.\nd)\t It reduces the need for ad hoc disaster programmes which tend to be \nexpensive, ineffective, and inefficient. \ne)\t By accessing credit, farmers take additional risks by investing in improved \npractices that increases farm productivity and food security.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 43, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "32\n4 CEREALS\nThis section covers production, crop protection and post-harvest handling of three main \ncereal crops namely; maize, sorghum and millets.\n4.1 Maize \n4.1.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements\nMaize grows on a wide variety of soils, but performs best on well-drained, well-aerated, \ndeep warm and silt loamy soils with sufficient nutrients. Maize does not tolerate water \nlogging; it can wither if it stands in water for more than two days (Table 4.1)\nTable 4.1: Soil, PH, Temperatures and rainfall requirements for Maize \nCrop\nSoil type\npH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nMaize\nLoamy\n5.0-7.0\n30-34\n250-900\n4.1.2 Agronomic Practices\na)\t Selection of Suitable Varieties\nThe choice of appropriate maize varieties for a given location is very important \nbecause every variety has extensively been tested and recommended based on \nclimatic conditions, yield potential, resistance to pests and diseases and maturity \nperiod (Figure 4.1) and Table 4.2.\nFigure 4.1: Criteria for selecting maize varieties\nTable 4.2: Recommended maize varieties in Kenya\nVariety\nSource\n AEZ where grown \nMaturity \n(Days)\nYield potential \n90Kg bags/acre\nKCB\nKALRO\nDry lands\n90-110\n11\nKDV 1\nDry land Seed company\nDry lands\n100-120\n12\nKDV4\nDry land Seed company\nDry Lands\n100-120\n14\nSungura\nAgri-Seedco\nDry land\n100-120\n15\nSAWA\nDry land Seed company\nDrylands\n100-200\n14\nDH02\nKenya seed company\nDry lands\n90-120\n11\nDUMA43\nAgri-Seedco\nCoffee region\n90-110\n22", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 44, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "33\nVariety\nSource\n AEZ where grown \nMaturity \n(Days)\nYield potential \n90Kg bags/acre\nPAN4M-19\nPANNAR\nDry lands\n90-110\n25\nPH4\nKenya seed company\nCoastal Lowlands\n100-120\n24\nPH1\nKenya seed company\nCoastal Lowlands\n95-110\n22\nSY594\nSyngenta\nCoastal Lowlands\n110-120\n24\nDH04\nKenya Seed company\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n110-120\n16\nTOSHEKA\nEast Africa Seed\nMoist Mid-altitude\n100-110\n24\nDK8033\nBAYER\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n120-130\n38\nDK777\nBAYER\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n120-180\n40\nKH500-43A\nEast Africa seed\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n100-130\nTSAVO3106\nGicheha Farm Limited\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n100-150\n32\nTSAVO4141\nGicheha Farm Limited\nDry lands/Coffee regions\n100-120\n30\nBingwa\nUltraveties\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n120-180\n35\nDKC90-89\nBAYER\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n150-180\n44\nPH3253\nPioneer\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n110-120\n30\nH 6218\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n160-210\n56\nH 6213\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n160-210\n50\nH6210\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n160-210\n45\nH629\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n160-210\n43\nH614D\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n160-210\n33\nWH505\nWestern seed company\nMoist Mid-altitude\n120-180\n35\nH517\nKenya seed company\nMoist Mid altitude\n120-180\n20\nH520\nKenya seed company\nMoist Mid-altitude\n120-130\n32\nPHB30G19\nPioneer Seed Company\nMoist Mid-altitude\n90-120\n30\nKH500-31A", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 45, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20\nH520\nKenya seed company\nMoist Mid-altitude\n120-130\n32\nPHB30G19\nPioneer Seed Company\nMoist Mid-altitude\n90-120\n30\nKH500-31A\nKALRO\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n120-140\n33\nMH-401\nEast African Seed\nMoist Mid-Altitude\n90-120\n32\nH624\nKenya seed company\nHighlands\n140-180\n32\nSIMBA 61\nSeed Co\nHighlands\n150-200\n25\nb) Germination test \nProcedure for testing seed germination: Count 100 seeds of a selected maize \nvariety and put between moist old newspapers. After four days of incubation, the \ngerminated seeds are counted and divided by the total seeds and expressed as a \npercentage. For example, if out of the 100 seeds 85 seeds germinated, germination \nis ((85/100)*100)) 85%. \nA germination of between 85% and 100% is considered good for the maize seed. In \ncase germination rate is lower, you may increase sowing density correspondingly \nto ensure appropriate plant density for example plant 2-3 seeds per hole.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 45, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "34\nc) Land Preparation\nA maize farm can be prepared by hands, an ox plough, tractor and/or by spraying \nwith recommended herbicides. It is important to prepare the land early enough to \nallow weeds to dry and decompose. \nTable 4.3: Land preparation practices/technologies \nLAND PREPARATION PRACTICES/TECHNOLOGIES\nConventional Land preparation: Virgin \nland\nConventional Land \npreparation-Stubble \nland \nConservation Agriculture: \nVirgin land\nPlough twice and harrow once or plough \nonce but at least 3 months before the \nanticipated time of planting + 2 harrows with \nthe last just before planting\nOne plough (disc or \nmoldboard) + one \nharrow\nUse Glyphosate based \nherbicide at 2 L/acre during \nfallow and 1.2 L/acre 24 \nhours before planting\nPlough twice and harrow once or if using \na tractor and/or virgin land, plough once at \nleast 3 months before the anticipated time of \nplanting + two harrows with the last harrow \njust before planting\nOne plough (disc or \nmoldboard) + one \nharrow\nUse Glyphosate based \nherbicide at 2 L/acre on \nfallow and 1.5 L/ha 24 hours \nbefore planting\nPlough twice and harrow once or plough \nonce but at least 3 months before the \nanticipated time of planting + two harrows \nwith the last harrow just before planting\nOne plough (disc or \nmoldboard) + one \nharrow\nUse Glyphosate based \nherbicide at 2 L/acre during \nfallow \nPlough twice and harrow once or plough \nonce but at least 3 months before the \nanticipated time of planting + two harrows \nwith the last harrow just before planting\nOne plod (disc or \nmoldboard) + one \nharrow\nUse Glyphosate based \nherbicide at 2 L/acre during \nfallow \nPlough twice and harrow once or plod once \nbut at least 3 months before the anticipated \ntime of planting + two harrows with the last \nharrow just before planting\nOne plod (disc or \nmoldboard)", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Plough twice and harrow once or plod once \nbut at least 3 months before the anticipated \ntime of planting + two harrows with the last \nharrow just before planting\nOne plod (disc or \nmoldboard) + one \nharrow\nUse Glyphosate based \nherbicide at 2 L/acre during \nfallow and 1.2 L/acre 24 \nhours before planting\nd) Soil fertility management\nFertilisers are recommended based on existing soil fertility status. \nTable 4.4: Fertilizer recommendation rates for maize in Kenya\nChoice\nMaize\nMaize/bean intercrop\nPlanting \nTop dress \nPlanting \nChoice 1\nNPK (23-23-0)\n2 bags/acre\nTop-dress with CAN \n(26-0-0)\n1.5 bag/acre\nNPK (23-23-0)\nExtra 25 kg/acre\nChoice 2\nMEA Mazao (10-26-10 + 25% Ca \nand micronutrients)\n2 bags/acre\nTop dress CAN (26-0-0)\n1 .5 bag/acre\nMEA Mazao \nExtra 25 kg/acre\nChoice 3\nMavuno Basal (10-26-10 + Ca and \nmicronutrients) \n2 bags/acre\nTop-dress with Mavuno \n1.5 bag/acre\nMavuno basal\nExtra 25 kg/acre", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "35\ne). Planting\n• \nPlanting time is a very critical step in maize production. Maize should be \nplanted according to the following recommendations. Maize depth ranges \nfrom 2 to 3 cm.\nTable 4.5: Recommended spacing and planting density of maize for different zones\nRegion\nSpacing\nDensity (plants per acre)\nHighland\n75x25cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand)\n75 x 50cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop)\n21,333\n21,333\nMedium\n75 x 30cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand)\n75 x 60cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop)\n17,778\n11,778\nDry land\n90 x 30cm 1 plant/hill (pure stand)\n90x 60cm 2 plants/hill (intercrop)\n15,140\n15,140\nf) Weed management in cereals\n• \nWeeds reduce maize yields by competing for moisture, nutrients, space and \nlight. The most critical stage of weed competition in the life of a maize plant \nis during the first four to six weeks after emergence of the crop. Some of the \nrecommended practices include: \no\t Hand weeding: Weed twice but the first weeding should be done 4 weeks \nafter emergence followed by a second weeding at knee high \no\t Use of herbicides: The recommended herbicides can be applied before \nthe crop emerges.\n• \nOther approaches include establishing a dense legume cover crop such as \nlablab (Lablab purpureus), velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) or sunhemp \n(Crotalaria juncea) to suppress weeds. \n• \nStriga being a parasitic weed that grows by attaching itself to roots of a host \nplant like maize and sorghum can be managed by using clean seeds and \nequipment as well as striga resistant or tolerant maize varieties, in case they \nare available. Legumes that are grown in rotation or as intercrops with maize \nstimulate the germination of striga, but inhibit post-germination growth of the \nweed because it cannot grow on the roots of legume crops. It is recommended \nto use push and pull technology where fodder crops such as desmodium, \nsesbania, crotalaria or fodder grasses like Napier grass for at least two \n", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " cannot grow on the roots of legume crops. It is recommended \nto use push and pull technology where fodder crops such as desmodium, \nsesbania, crotalaria or fodder grasses like Napier grass for at least two \nseasons until all striga is eliminated. Farmers can also apply ‘Kichawi Kill’ \nat 1-2 grams of the freshly prepared substrate in each maize planting hole to \narrest the striga seeds. However, farmers should regularly scout their fields \nand uproot the Striga weeds early enough before they produce seeds.\ng) Crop rotation\nPractise crop rotation and avoid planting maize continuously. This is due to \nchallenges of diseases like the maize lethal necrosis disease. Some options will", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "36\ninclude rotating with pulses like beans, cowpeas and peas. Avoid rotating with \ncereal crops like sorghum and millet. Vegetables could be used for rotation \nhowever, careful selection needs to be done to ensure that the hosts and vectors \nare not same as for the maize diseases e.g. Aphids and thrips. \n4.1.3 Crop Protection\nPests and diseases are a major constraint in maize production in Kenya that lead to \nheavy yield losses and income for farmers and other value chain players Losses of 30 \n-100% have been reported due to maize diseases such as maize lethal necrosis disease \n(MLND) and insect pests such as the fall army worm depending on the period the crop is \naffected, incidences and severity of the problem. Hence the information provided in this \nsection aims at empowering farmers in pest & disease identification and management \nto minimize losses\nTable 4.6: Pests and Diseases management of Maize\nProblem\nSymptom \nDescription\nManagement\nGray leaf spot \n(Cerospora \nmayidis)\nPhoto source: \nJames Karanja, \nKALRO\n• Necrotic brown spots on \nyounger leaves that are \nparallel to leaf veins \n• Later brown spots merge \nand become ashy grey \nstarting from the lower \nleaves and increase in \nnumber after silking.\n• The wounds change from \nlight to gray and join \ntogether killing the entire \nleaf\n• Plant resistant varieties\n• Remove plant debris \n• Encourage deep ploughing to \nreduce fungal spores causing \ninfection. \n• Crop rotate with potato, beans \nor pea\n• Use recommended doses of \nfertilizers \n• Destroy diseased plants before it \nlodges by burning or burying 2 \nfeet deep\n• Spray with Azoxystrobin & \nDifenoconazole (Amistar top \nSC @200ml/Acre and Ortiva @ \n125g/20L.\nCommon leaf \nrust \nPhoto source; \nAbel Too, \nKALRO\n• Elongated raised bumps \n(pustules) scattered or \nclustered on both leaf \nsurfaces that are red to \ndark brown in colour \n• Pustules appear on the \nmid and upper canopy of \nthe crop especially during \ntasseling\n• As the plant matures, the \nleaf epider", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " on both leaf \nsurfaces that are red to \ndark brown in colour \n• Pustules appear on the \nmid and upper canopy of \nthe crop especially during \ntasseling\n• As the plant matures, the \nleaf epidermis breaks and \nresulting wounds turn \nblack while releasing \nspores\n• Using tolerant varieties\n• Deep ploughing to bury crop \nresidue after harvest \n• Use clean certified maize seed \nfrom a reliable source. \n• Rotate maize crop with beans, , \nchickpea at least every 2-3 years \n• Remove lower leaves which \nare infested to improve air \ncirculation and reduce the \namount of the infectious spores", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "37\nProblem\nSymptom \nDescription\nManagement\nCommon smut \n( Ustilago \nmayidis)\nPhoto source; \nUniversity of \nGeorgia\nPhoto source; \nUniversity of \nGeorgia\n• Symptoms include \npresence of whitish grey \ntumour- like galls/ swelling \non tassels, husks, ears/\nkernels, stalks, leaves, \nroots.\n• A black mass of spores on \nsorghum head\n• Infected plants are dwarfed \nand tillers profusely \nproduce smutted heads, \nstunted growth may be \nexperienced and some \nseeds rot leading to \ndevelopment of mycotoxin.\n• Affects millets immediately \nafter booting stage\n• Practice crop rotation with \ncassava and sweet potatoes\n• Plant certified seeds Plant tolerant \nvarieties \n• Timely planting\n• Destroy infected plants and galls \nbefore the smut ruptures by \nburning\n• Seed dress seeds using carboxin \n15%+Thiram 13% (Vitaflo 280) \n1.5g/ kg seed\nMaize lethal \nnecrosis \ndisease\nPhoto source; \nAbel Too, \nKALRO\n• Colourless patches on \nleaves starting from the \nbase of young leaves in \nthe whorl and extending \nupwards to leaf tips. \n• Dwarfing and premature \naging of the plant, necrosis \nof young leaves \n• Dead heart symptom in the \nwhorl of the plant\n• Kernels are poorly filled in \nthe cob and tassels have no \npollen. \n• Avoid moving plants from \ninfected to non-infected regions to \nreduce spread \n• Practise crop rotation with beans, \ngarlic, onions and vegetables for \nat least 2 seasons. \n• Avoid continuous planting of \nmaize to stop persistence of virus \nand possible vectors\n• Plant early with fertilizer and \nmanure\n• Use certified seeds dressed with \ninsecticides and avoid planting \nrecycled seeds. \n• Keep the field free from weeds, \nuproot and destroy diseased plants \nby burning or burying 2 feet deep\n• Spray vectors (thrips &aphids) \nusing Lambda-cyhalothrin based \nproducts\nStreak virus \ndisease\n• Narrow white to yellowish \nstreak", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nby burning or burying 2 feet deep\n• Spray vectors (thrips &aphids) \nusing Lambda-cyhalothrin based \nproducts\nStreak virus \ndisease\n• Narrow white to yellowish \nstreaks on the leaves \nwhorls, the streaks form \nbroken lines that run \nparallel\n• The central leaves die, \nresulting in a dry, withered \nparallel to the mid rib \n‘dead-heart’ symptom.\n• Plant resistant varieties\n• Plant early in the season at the \nonset of rains \n• Rotate maize, sorghum and millet \nwith potatoes, cabbages, beans, \navoid overlap of two maize crop \nseasons", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "38\nProblem\nSymptom \nDescription\nManagement\nPhoto source: \nMiriam Otipa, \nKALRO\n• Uproot infected plants and feed \nlivestock or burn\n• Spray using Alpha-cypermethrin \n(Albaz; Alfacyper, Alfagold; \nAlfapor), uusually 20-30ml/20l \nof water. Spraying should start 1 \nmonth after planting \nFusarium ear \nrots\nPhoto source; \nJames \nKaranja-\nKALRO\n• White streaks on the surface \nof grains and occasionally \nas whitish to pink cottony \npowder (web-like) over the \ngrains. \n• Fusarium ear rot results in \nmycotoxins which are toxic \nto humans and animals\n• Control stem borers since they \ncarry the fungus and harvest the \ngrain when mature to avoid disease \nspread\n• Rotate maize with beans and soy \nbeans after 3 years\n• Spray with neem (Azadirachta \nindica) to kill young stem borer \nlarvae. All planting seed must \nbe dressed with thiram at 280 \nml/100kg. \nAspergillus \near rot\nPhoto source: \nJames \nKaranja-\nKALRO\n• Cobs silk appear with \nyellowish-green powder\n• The maize crop are stunted \nwith small cobs, while their \ngrain is discoloured\n• Take action as soon as 1-2 \nin 10 plants per acre have \near rot.\n• Plant certified seeds on the onset \nof rains Apply nitrogen fertilizer \n(Basal: 20 – 40 kg/ha D-compound \nand top dress: 20 kg/ha Urea) to \novercome stress. \n• Harvest the grain early when \ndry to avoid spread of fungus to \nuninfected cobs\n• Destroy crop residues by \ncomposting and rotate maize with \nsoya beans, cowpea and beans.\nStem borers ( \nBussiola fusca, \nChilo partellas, \nS. calamistis)\nPhoto source; \nGerphas Ogola, \nCIMMYT\n• Moths lay eggs on maize \nleaves which hatch into \ncaterpillars that feed on \nyoung plants and later \nburrow stems for water and \nnut", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 50, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Photo source; \nGerphas Ogola, \nCIMMYT\n• Moths lay eggs on maize \nleaves which hatch into \ncaterpillars that feed on \nyoung plants and later \nburrow stems for water and \nnutrient flow\n• Symptoms appear \nas actively feeding \ncaterpillars on the plant \nyoung leaves which later \nspread to the stem\n• Plant resistant varieties\n• Intercrop with non-host crops \nsuch sweet potato, pigeon pea and \ncommon beans\n• Practise push pull management \nusing desmodium (push) and \nNapier grass or Bracharia (Pull) \naround the plot\n• Destroy maize residues after \nharvest \n• Maintain a hedge around the \nfarm to conserve biological \ncontrols such as predators and \nparasites", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 50, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "39\nProblem\nSymptom \nDescription\nManagement\nFall \narmyworm \n(Spodoptera \nfrugiperda)\nPhoto source; \nZ. M. Kinyua, \nJames Karanja-\nKALRO\n• Inverted Y pattern at the \nforehead of the caterpillar\n• Gray to back larvae with \npale stripe down the back\n• Spray with botanical based \nproducts such as neembicidine at \nrate100ml/ 20l water\n• Spray Flubendazole based \nproducts such as Belt to manage \nthe pest\n• Spray Chlorantraniliprole based \nproducts such as Voliam targo at \nrate 5ml/20l water to manage fall \narmyworm\n• Spray with Thiamethoxam and \nlambda cyhalothrin such as \nEngeo at rate 20ml/20l water and \nrepeat interval of 7 days\nTermites\nReticulitermes \nspp.\nPhoto source: \nJames Karanja\n• They attack sowed seeds \nas well as whole plant \nand damage the stems at \nground level\n• Can occur before and after \nmaturity depending on the \ntime of infestation\n• Destroy the queen to prevent \nincrease of termite population.\n• Flood the fields if you are using \nirrigation\n• Remove plant debris and burn \nafter harvesting\n• Use baits laced with termicides \nthat the workers will carry to \nthe colony resulting in colony \ndestruction\n• Seed dress seeds using thiram, \nimidacloprid, chlorpyrifos and \nfipronil based products\n• Destroy the queen to prevent \nincrease of termite population.\n• Flood the fields if you are using \nirrigation\nTermites\nReticulitermes \nspp.\n• Remove plant debris and burn \nafter harvesting\n• Use baits laced with termicides \nthat the workers will carry to \nthe colony resulting in colony \ndestruction\n• Seed dress seeds using thiram, \nimidacloprid, chlorpyrifos and \nfipronil based products", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "40\n4.1.4 Post-Harvest Management And Handling\na)\t Harvesting green Maize\nMaize that is to be eaten green is ready for \nharvest when the grain starts hardening or \nwhen the silky flowering at the top of the \nmaize cob turns black (Figure 4.2). \nFigure 4.2: Green Maize cobs \nready for harvesting\nb)\t Harvesting dried maize\nMaize should be harvested at physiological maturity. However, maize can be left \nin the field beyond physiological maturity to allow further drying. This can be \ndone through stooking for about 2 to 4 weeks.\nc)\t Processing\n\ti. Shelling\nShelling should be done immediately after drying the cobs to reduce weevil \ndamage. Shelling of the grains should be done carefully, so that the grains do \nnot get damaged/break. Shelling can be done using a hand-held sheller. After \nshelling, grains should be cleaned by removing any dirt, foreign matter, small \nand damaged grains.\n\tii. Drying \nAfter harvesting, it is recommended that the maize should be dried to a \nmoisture content below 13%. Drying should not be carried out on the bare \nground, but on a cemented floor, on mats or tarpaulins (Figure 4.3) on a raised \nstructure like cribs or specially constructed drying sheds. This is to avoid the \ngrains picking up moisture, dirt and insects. In case of open air-drying, the \ngrain should be protected from rain, night dew, domestic animals and birds. \nMaize laid on the ground for drying\nMaize drying on a tarpaulin\nFigure 4.3: Methods for drying maize before and after shelling\nSalt method can be used to test if the maize is dry enough and with the \nrequired moisture content. Use a clean, dry glass bottle of about 750 ml", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 52, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "41\ncapped. Grains are put into the bottle (which should be about one third full) \nand 2–3 tablespoons (20–30g) of dry salt are added, shaken vigorously for \n1 minute to mix the salt and grain, and then left for 15 minutes. If the salt \nsticks to the side of the bottle, the moisture content of the grain is above 15% \nand is not safe for storage. If the salt does not stick to the bottle, the moisture \ncontent is below 15% and the grain is safe for storage.\n\tiii.\t Storage\nThe dried and cleaned shelled grains should be stored in metallic silos (Figure \n4.4) or packed in Hematic bags (Agro-Z bags) and stored well on pallets \nin clean and well-ventilated stores. For farmers who do not have adequate \nstorage capacity, it is advisable to sell off the grain immediately to avoid \nincurring losses. \nPoor Maize storage condition\nSky plastic and small metal silos \nLarge scale metal silos\nFigure 4.4: Maize storage methods\niv. Marketing of grain\nEfforts are geared towards produce aggregation and warehousing with an \nto provide an organized marketing channel for farmers, to attract better \nprices and leverage their stored grain to access credit. Formation of village \ncollection centres that are certified for warehouse receipting is important. \nThey serve as focal points for interaction of farmers and other stakeholders \nas well.\n4.1.5 Value Addition and Utilization \nMaize has three possible uses: as food, feed for livestock, raw material for the industry \nparticularly manufacture of starch or may be dry milled into several intermediary \nproducts including maize grits of different particle sizes and maize flour. These materials \nin turn have applications in a large variety of foods including alcoholic beverages. The \nmost popular maize dish is “Githeri” (maize + bean). \nClean and well-dried maize grain is milled into flour and used to prepare porridge and \nUgali. Maize germ is used as a source of edible oil. Although the technology has been \navailable for a long time, the increase in fuel oil prices has resulted in much research \non the fermentation of maize to produce alcohol. Fermentation also provides some \nalcoholic beverages.\n4.2 Sorghum \nSorghum is a drought tolerant crop and", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 53, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " time, the increase in fuel oil prices has resulted in much research \non the fermentation of maize to produce alcohol. Fermentation also provides some \nalcoholic beverages.\n4.2 Sorghum \nSorghum is a drought tolerant crop and is an important food and nutritional security \ncrop especially in semi-arid lands (SALs) of Kenya. It is a high-energy, nutritious food,", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 53, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "42\nwhich is suitable for consumption by all. It is particularly recommended for children, \nlactating mothers, convalescents and the elderly.\n4.2.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements\nTable 4.7: Agro-ecological requirements\nCrop\nSoil type\nPH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nSorghum\nClay-Loamy\n5.0-8.5\n15-35\n250-900\n500-2500\n4.2.2 Agronomic Practices\na)\t Sorghum Varieties Selection\nThe choice of appropriate sorghum varieties is very important because of specific \nattributes based on climatic conditions, yield potential, resistance to pests and \ndiseases, maturity period, household utilization and market preference (Table 4.8).\nTable 4.8: Sorghum varieties, special attribute, maturity and yield potential \nVariety\nAttributes\nMaturity\nYield (90 kg bag)\nGadam\n• It has high malting quality\n85-95 days\n8-20 bags/acre\nSila\n• Has high malting quality\n120-150 days\n10-20 bags/acre grain \nand 17 bags (4 t/ha) \nfodder\nKARI Mtama 1\n• Has high malting (brewing) \nquality and a stay green stress \ntolerance \n95-100 days\n11-17 bags/acr\nMacia\n• Large head size and high \ngrain yield\n• Low dehulling losses\n10-20 bags/acre\nSerena\n• Bird tolerant\n110-120 days\n10-20 bags/acre\nSeredo\n• Bird tolerant\n110-120 days\n12 bags/acre\nKM 32 -1 (Kamani) \n• Has malting (brewing) quality\n90-110 days\n20 bags/acre\nIS 76 \n• Medium yielding, brown \n90-110 days\n10-12 bags/acre\nE 1291 \n• It is good for sorghum \nbeverage. \n150-210 days\n10-15 bags/acre grain \nand 10-15 bags/acre \nforage \nE 6518 \n• Dual Purpose for grain and \nhigh quality fodder \n210-240 days\n12-17", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 54, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n150-210 days\n10-15 bags/acre grain \nand 10-15 bags/acre \nforage \nE 6518 \n• Dual Purpose for grain and \nhigh quality fodder \n210-240 days\n12-17 bags/acre grain \nand 7.2 t/ha forage \nBJ 28 \n• Dual purpose variety suitable \nfor grain and forage \n150-210 days\n12-15 bags/acre\nIkinyaruka DP\n• Dual purpose variety suitable \nfor grain and forage \n210-240 days\n26 bags/acre grain \nand 8tons forage/ha", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 54, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "43\nFor best yields always endeavour to use certified seeds. However, as a last option \nrecycle seeds but for only three seasons. Grow only one variety in the same field \nfor parity. The following steps are essential in seed selection;\n1)\t Identify healthy plants with large panicles in the middle of the crop field.\n2)\t Tag the identified plants.\n3)\t Harvest them separately before harvesting the rest of the crop \n4)\t Sun dry to the recommended moisture content (12%).\n5)\t Discard the tip of the panicle to avoid small malformed grains.\n6)\t Thresh and sort the seed to remove the broken, damaged or shriveled seed\n7)\t Dress the seeds with chemical products like Thiram, Marshall, Poncho \nFS 600 and Cruiser 350 FC at the recommended rates. Mix the seeds \nthoroughly with the chemical\nb)\t Germination test\nTest seeds before planting to determine their viability. The seed testing steps are:\ni.\t\nSelect a site near the homestead where there is access to water.\nii.\t Prepare a 1m by 1 m seedbed and make 100 planting stations (10 by 10 \ncm).\niii.\t Plant 100 seeds and cover with soil. Water adequately for seven days.\niv.\t Take first germination count after 5 days and the final count at seven days.\nv.\t 85% germination count is considered adequate for sorghum.\ni)\t\nLand preparation\nPrepare fields well in advance. It is recommended that land be ploughed \nimmediately after harvesting the previous crop. Sorghum seeds are small in \nsize and require a fine seedbed for better seedling establishment. If tractor or \noxen plough is used to open up the field, it is advisable to harrow it once in \norder to break the large soil boulders (Figure. 4.5a). When hand-hoes are used \nfor land preparation, the large soil boulders should be reduced by breaking \nthem to provide a moderately smooth seed bed (Fig. 4.5b).\nFigure 4.5a: Poor seed bed\nFigure 4.5b: Good seed bed", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 55, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "44\nii)\t Soil fertility management\nAt planting apply one bag (50kg) per acre of compound fertilizer NPK \n(20:20:0, 23:23:0 or 17: 17:17). Top dress with one bag (50kg) of calcium \nammonium nitrate (CAN) per acre preferably after first weeding. \nDrill the fertilizer along the planting furrows and thoroughly mixed with the \nsoil before planting and covering the seed. Manure improves soil organic \nmatter which impacts positively on soil moisture retention and structure. \nBroadcast well-decomposed manure in the field close to the onset of the rains \nat a rate of 2 tons per acre and mix it with the soil during ploughing. Manure \ncan also be spread in bands along the planting furrows and mixed with the \nsoil before seeds are sown.\niii)\t Planting\nDry planting is highly recommended. Plant before or at the onset of rains by \neither drilling seeds in the furrows made by oxen plough, tractor, or hill plant \nin holes made by hoe (Jembe) or Panga. \nPlant at a depth of 2.5 cm to 4.0 cm when soil is moist (after onset of rains) \nand 5 cm when dry planting. If planting is done when soil is moist press the \nsoil to get in good contact with the seeds. \nUse the recommended spacing and seed rates as indicated in Table 4.9 and \nFigs. 4.6a & b. \nTable 4.9: Recommended sorghum spacing, and seed rates\nCrop\nSpacing (cm)\nSeed rate (kgs/ acre)\nSorghum (sole crop)\nOxen (90 × 15); Manual (75 × 20)\n4-5\nSorghum (intercrops) Single \nalternate rows\n90 × 20 and legume between rows of \nsorghum\n4\nSorghum (intercrops) Double \nrows of legumes\nSorghum 120× 20-two rows of \nlegume between sorghum rows \n2-3\nFigure 4.6a Furrows made by ox-plough\nFigure 4.6b: Furrows made by hoe\n\t\n iv)\t\nWeeding\nWeeding should be done within 2-3 weeks after", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 56, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2-3\nFigure 4.6a Furrows made by ox-plough\nFigure 4.6b: Furrows made by hoe\n\t\n iv)\t\nWeeding\nWeeding should be done within 2-3 weeks after emergence. The second \nweeding depends on the rainfall and weed density.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 56, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "45\nv)\t Thinning and rogueing\nThinning is best done around 3 weeks after emergence after first weeding. \nThin when the soil is moist to minimize disturbance of the roots of the \nremaining plants to leave one plant per hole. Leave 2 plants adjacent to a gap \nto compensate for a missing plant within the row. To achieve good yields, the \nvegetative regrowth (tillers) ensure 2-3 plants per stool.\nRemove plants that are diseased or has characteristics which are different \nfrom the others. For example, plants that are taller than the general height of \nthe other plant population or those whose head or grain colour is different.\nvi)\t Crop rotation\nCrop rotation is highly recommended to reduce build-up of sorghum diseases \nand insect pests. Avoid rotating of sorghum with other cereal crops like maize \nand millet. \n4.2.3 Crop Protection\nPests and diseases management\nIntegrated pest and disease management is recommended. Some examples of common \nsorghum diseases and pests and their control measures are shown in Tables 4.19 and \n4.11, respectively.\nTable 4.10: Important diseases and their control\nDiseases\nSymptoms\nControl Measures\nAnthracnose \nAnthracnose damages foliage and stems \nof grain sorghum. Dry lesions appear on \nthe leaf surface. A brown sunken area \nwith distinct margins develops appears \non the stem holding the head (peduncle). \nWhen infected stems are cut lengthwise \nthey have brick-red discolorations. \nThe infection inhibits the flow of water \nand nutrients to the grain causing poor \ndevelopment.\n• Plant resistant/tolerant varieties\n• Rotate with non-cereals \npreferably with pulses.\n• Good management of crop \nresidues.\nLeaf blight\nSmall reddish-purple or yellowish-brown \nspots on the leaves. Severely affected \nplants look as if they have been burnt. \nUnder warm, humid conditions the disease \nmay cause serious damage by killing all \nleaves before plants have matured.\n• Plant resistant varieties\n• Use certified disease-free seeds.\n• Good management of crop \nresidues.\nLeaf rust\nSmall raised pustules or blisters on both \nthe upper and lower leaf surfaces that \nrupture and release many reddish-brown \nspores. Appears when plants nearly \nflowering", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " management of crop \nresidues.\nLeaf rust\nSmall raised pustules or blisters on both \nthe upper and lower leaf surfaces that \nrupture and release many reddish-brown \nspores. Appears when plants nearly \nflowering. Forage yields are affected most. \nGrain yield losses are usually not serious. \n• Use resistant varieties such as \nKARI Mtama 1\n• Rotate with non-cereals.\n• Control weeds", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "46\nDiseases\nSymptoms\nControl Measures\nLong smut\nThe spores are seed borne and germinate \nsoon after the seed is planted and invades \nthe young sorghum plant. It continues \nto grow unobserved until heading stage, \nwhen the long pointed smut galls appear \nin the heads in place of normal grains. \nUnlike covered smut, this disease stunts \nthe infected plants and often induces \nabundant side branches.\n• Certified disease-free seeds.\n• Control weeds.\n• Rotation with non-cereals.\n• Field sanitation.\nCovered smut\nBlack masses of powdery spores instead \nof grains; the entire head becomes \nblack. Plants become infected while in \nthe seedling stage but infection is not \napparent until heading stage. The smut \ngall produces thousands of spores, which \nbecome soil-borne and initiate systemic \ninfection of seedlings in subsequent years.\n• Plant resistant hybrids to avoid \nlosses.\n• Use certified disease-free seed.\n• Rotate with non-cereals.\n• Plough deep.\nErgot\nDark brown to black sclerotia develop in \nplace of seeds on the panicle. The spores \nare carried by insects or splashed by rain \nto infect flowers, where they invade the \nyoung kernels and replace them with \nfungal growth. The spores are also seed \nborne and soil borne but the damage \nbecomes apparent when they reach \nflowering stage.\n• \nPlant resistant varieties, \n• \nRemove affected panicles.\n• \nPlant clean seeds.\n• \nPlough deep.\n• \nRotate with non-cereals \n• \nGood field sanitation\nTable 4.11: Sorghum pests\nPest\nSymptoms\nControl\nShootfly\nThe yellowish or white maggots bores into \nthe hearts of the shoot causing drying of \nthe central growing shoot (dead heart)\n• Early uniform planting \n• Spray with systemic \ninsecticide like Actara,\n• Seed dress with systemic \ninsecticide such as Bellamid \n600 FS at 3g/1Kg seed\nStalk borers\nCaterpillar feed inside the stalks causing a \nstunted plant growth, windowing of leaves, \nwithered shoots and often and poorly \ndeveloped heads\n• Plant early into the season\n• Field sanitation\n• Apply insect", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 58, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nCaterpillar feed inside the stalks causing a \nstunted plant growth, windowing of leaves, \nwithered shoots and often and poorly \ndeveloped heads\n• Plant early into the season\n• Field sanitation\n• Apply insecticide into the \nfunnels such as Bulldock, \nDipterex, Thiodan\n• Practice Push Pull technology \nby intercropping with \ndesmodium and napier round \nthe edge of the farm\nBirds\nBirds are one of the most important pests \nof sorghum. They are capable of causing \nheavy losses. The most notorious species \nis Quelea\n• Use bird scaring device\n• Destroy their roosting sites\n• Avoid isolated fields\n• Timely harvesting", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 58, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "47\nPost-Harvest Management and Handling \nHarvest sorghum when it has reached physiological maturity (when the grain is hard \nand does not produce milk when crushed) by cutting the heads with sickles or sharp \nknife. \ni. Sorghum Ratooning\n•\t\nRatooning is a practice of getting more than one crop (tillers) from a single \nsowing through proper crop husbandry. \n•\t\nCut back the plants immediately after harvesting to about three inches above \nthe ground to allow vegetative regrowth in the following rain season.\n•\t\nThe well-established root system of the ratoon crop has the ability to utilize \nthe environmental resources better than a freshly sown crop. It reduces \nlabour requirements by minimizing costs such as ploughing, planting and \nbird scaring associated with migratory birds at off seasons. \nii.\t Drying and storage\n•\t\nSun dry or use a dryer to dry the harvested panicles to moisture content of \n12 to13% to avoid fungal growth which can lead to aflatoxin accumulation. \nAvoid drying sorghum grain in field to reduce the risk of yield losses due to \npests, especially birds\n•\t\nSorghum may be stored as unthreshed panicles or threshed grain. \n•\t\nPanicles can be threshed on mats to maintain qualityby beating on a \nthreshing rack, tarpaulins or by using a mechanised thresher. \n•\t\nThreshed grain is thinly spread on plastic tarpaulins, mats, plastic sheets or \nraised wire mesh trays to allow air to pass through it and turn it regularly to \nensure proper drying before storage\n•\t\nWinnow and sort the dry grains to remove chaff, dust, foreign matter such \nas stones, broken, shrivelled, mouldy, insect damaged, rotten, discoloured or \nfaded grains, and any remaining plant parts (leaves and stalks)\n•\t\n Dust the panicles or grain with storage chemicals like Actellic or Actellic at \nrate 50g/90kg grains\n•\t\nStore in a clean store, hermetic bags or metal silos.\n•\t\nIf grain is kept for more than 90 days especially in hot areas, a second \ndusting is recommended after 3 months to protect it during storage pest \n•\t\nUse a secured storage system to protect", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " bags or metal silos.\n•\t\nIf grain is kept for more than 90 days especially in hot areas, a second \ndusting is recommended after 3 months to protect it during storage pest \n•\t\nUse a secured storage system to protect the seed from damage caused by \ninsects, fungi and rodents.\n4.2.5 Value Addition and Utilization\nSorghum grain can be utilized either as whole or dehulled and processed further to \ngive various products (sorghum pilau, sorghum cookies and cakes, uji, ugali and many \nothers).", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "48\n4.3 Millet \nMillets are a group of cereals grown in semi-arid regions. They include pearl millet, \nfinger millet, foxtail millet and Proso millet. They have a short growing season, can \nwithstand high-temperatures and escape drought. They are cultivated as human food or \nas fodder for animals. The Government of Kenya has put more emphasis on production \nof millet to mitigate food safety and nutritional security. \n4.3.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements\nTable 4.12: Millet agronomic requirements\nCrop\nSoil type\nPH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nMillet\nClay-loamy\n5.0-8.5\n15-30\n200-500\n500-2400\n4.3.2 Agronomic Practices\ni. Variety selection\nChoice of appropriate millet varieties is very important because every variety \nhas extensively been tested and recommended based on climatic conditions, \nyield potential, resistance to pests and diseases, maturity period and household \nutilization and market preferences.(Table 4.13).\nCertified seeds of improved varieties are recommended. Farmers can also select \nand save seeds from the harvest and replant them for 3 seasons before buying \ncertified seed once more. \nThese steps are essential when farmers are selecting their own seed.\n• \nIdentify disease and pest free plants in the field.\n• \nSelect plants with large panicles and preferably in the middle of crop field.\n• \nTag the identified plants.\n• \nHarvest them separately before harvesting the rest of the crop. \n• \nSun dry to the recommended moisture content (12%).\n• \nDiscard the tip of the panicle to avoid small malformed grains.\n• \nThresh and clean the seed before treatment.\n• \nStore seeds in a cool dry environment.\n• \nDress the seed with Apron star, Poncho FS 600, Cruiser FS 350 \nTable 4.13: Millet varieties, Maturity, grain colour and yield potential\nCrop \nVariety\nMaturity \n(months)\nGrain colour\nYield (90 kg \nbag) /acre\nPearl millet\nKAT/PM-1\n2.5-3\nGrey\n8 – 10\nKAT/PM3\n2.5-3", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ain colour\nYield (90 kg \nbag) /acre\nPearl millet\nKAT/PM-1\n2.5-3\nGrey\n8 – 10\nKAT/PM3\n2.5-3\nGrey\n10-12", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "49\nCrop \nVariety\nMaturity \n(months)\nGrain colour\nYield (90 kg \nbag) /acre\nFinger millet\nP224\n4\nBrown\n10 – 12\nGulu E\n4\nBrown\n8 bags\nKAT/FM-1\n3\nBrown\n6 -8 bags\nLANET FM-1\n4\nBrown\n7 – 10bags\nProso millet\nKAT/PRO-1\n2.5\nCream\n6- 8 bags\nFox millet\nKAT/FOX-1\n4\nCream yellow\n8 -10bags\nFor a recommended plant density to be achieved during planting, a simple \ngermination test of owned saved seeds help in determining the viability of the \nseed before planting. The testing steps are:\n• \nSelect a site near the homestead where there is access to water.\n• \nPrepare 1m by 1 m seedbed and make 100 planting holes spaced at10cm by \n10 cm.\n• \nPlant a 100 seed and cover with soil and water adequately for seven days.\n• \nTake first germination count after 3 days and the final after seven days.\n• \n85% germination count is considered adequate for millet.\n• \nSelect seeds with good vigour (Figure 4.7).\nFigure 4.7: Normal seedlings with vigour \nii. Land preparation\nMillet is a small seeded crop and therefore requires a fine seedbed for good seed \ngermination and seedling establishment. A tractor or oxen plough can be used to \nopen the field, harrow to break the large soil boulders (Figure 4.8a). When hand-\nhoes are used for land preparation, the large soil boulders should be reduced by \nbreaking them to provide a moderately smooth seed bed (Fig.4.8b). Select fields \nnot far from homesteads and avoid birds breeding sites.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 61, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "50\nFigure 4.8a: Poor seedbed\n Figure 4.8b: Ideal seedbed\niii. Soil Fertility Management\nDuring planting, it is recommended to apply NPK (20:20:0 or 23:23:0) at a rate of \none bag (50kgs) per acre. In soils with low fertility and in instances where rainfall \ncontinues beyond 30 days after planting, top dress with CAN at a rate of one bag \n(50 Kgs) per acre. Apply fertilizer along the furrows and thoroughly mix with soil \nbefore placing the seeds.\nOne can also apply manure to improve nutrients, structure and increases moisture \nretention capacity level in the soil. Only use well-decomposed manure by \nbroadcasting in the field close to the onset of the rains and mix with the soil during \nploughing. In case of low volumes of manure, it can be spread in bands along the \nplanting furrows and mixed with the soil before seeds are placed (Figures 4.9a and \n4.9b). Application of farmyard manure at 5 tons acre is recommended. \nFigure 4.9a: Manure banded in rows\nFigure 4.9b: Mixing manure with soil\niv. Planting\nThe spacing for planting furrows depends on; the variety being used and whether \nit is a sole or intercrop. However, for optimum plant density a spacing of 90 \ncm between row and 20 cm between plants is recommended (Figures 4.10a and \n4.10b). The recommended planting depth is 5 cm on dry soils, and 2 and/or 4 cm \non wet soils. Seed rates \nPearl millet - 2 kg/acre\nFinger millet - 1.2 kg/acre\nProso millet - 1.6 kg/acre\nFox millet - 1.6 kg/acre", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 62, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "51\nFigure 4.10a: Furrows made by ox-plough\nFigure 4.10b: Manual planting\nMillet can be intercropped with pulses such as pigeon peas and green grams. The row \narrangement for the cereal and legume could be a single alternate where a legume falls \nbetween two rows, or rows of millet spaced at 60 cm (Fig. 4.11). Two rows of pulses \ncould also be alternated with two rows of millet. \nFigure 4.11: Pearl millet-legume intercrop\nFigure 4.12: Weeding\n v. Weeding and Thinning Stages \n• \nThe first weeding should be done within 2-3 weeks after emergence (Figure \n4.12) and second weeding is recommended depending on the weed density. \nChemical weeding can also be done using pre-emergence herbicides.\n• \nThinning should be done when the soil is moist to ensure minimal \ndisturbance of the roots of the remaining plants for a healthy growth. \nThinning should be done 3 weeks after emergence (at 3-4th leaf stage \nand leave 1 plant per hole. This is best done after first weeding in order \nto accommodate appropriate plant density adjustments, and leaving two \nplants adjacent to it compensates for a gap within the row. \n• \nUproot plants that display abnormal characteristics like being taller than \nother plants, if the flower colour deviates from the majority of other plants, \nor grain colour that is different from that of majority of plants.\n4.3.3 Crop Protection\nTable 4.14: Millet diseases \n`Disease\t\nSymptoms\nControl\nHead smut\nThe disease generally manifest few days after \nflowering. The affected heads show enlarged \ngreen sacs instead of grain The grains are \nscattered randomly in the head. The affected \novaries get converted into black gall like bodies, \nwhich are bigger than the normal grains.\n• Plant resistant varieties\n• Rotate with non-cereals.\n• Plough deep into the soils\n• Practice good field sanitation", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 63, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "52\n`Disease\t\nSymptoms\nControl\nErgot\nCream to pink mucilaginous droplets of \n“honeydew” ooze out of infected florets. Within \n10 to 15 days, the droplets dry and harden, and \ndark brown to black mass develop in place of \nseeds on the panicle.\n• Plant resistant varieties \n• Remove affected panicles. \n• Use clean seeds \n• Rotate with pulses. \n• Good field sanitation\nDowny mildew\nLeaves develop chlorotic lesions starting at the \nbase and progressively to higher leaves. The \nplant assumes a bunchy and bushy appearance. \nSeverely infected plants are generally stunted \nand do not produce panicles. Floral parts are \ntransformed into leafy structures.\n• Provide good drainage \n• Practice crop rotation\n• Rogue infected plants \n• Weeding \nTable 4.15: Millet insect pests\nPest\nDamage \nControl\nBirds\nBirds feed on the grains and can completely \ndevastate the crop\n• Use bird scaring devices\n• Early uniform planting\n• Early harvesting\n• Destroying roosting and \nbreeding sites\n4.3.4 Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling \nHeads are harvested manually by cutting with knives at physiological maturity and sun-\ndried before threshing and drying to 12-13% moisture content. Threshing and sorting \nof the dry grain can be dusted with Actellic or Actellic for protection against storage \npests. If the grain is meant for seed, then it should be dressed with Bellamid 600 FS or \nGaucho FS 350 for protection against soil pests.\nThe grain should be kept in either metal or plastic containers. When sisal bags are used, \nthey should be kept in a cool, dry and well-ventilated place. If grain is kept for more \nthan 90 days especially in hot areas, a second dusting is recommended after 3 months.\n4.3.5 Value Addition and Utilization\nMillet is a high-energy nutritious cereal. It is particularly recommended for children, \nlactating mothers, convalescents and the elderly. Some of the healthy benefits of millet \nincludes; prevention of cancer, help management of diabetes, offer a dietary option \nfor people with Celiac disease, improve digestive health", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " children, \nlactating mothers, convalescents and the elderly. Some of the healthy benefits of millet \nincludes; prevention of cancer, help management of diabetes, offer a dietary option \nfor people with Celiac disease, improve digestive health, build strong bones, promote \nred blood cell development, and boost energy and fuel production. Pearl millet is \ntraditionally used for making a variety of foods including thin porridge, “Ugali” and \nlocal brew.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "53\n5 PULSES\nThere are four pulses covered in this hand book and they include: common beans, green \ngrams, pigeon peas and cowpeas.\n5.1 Common Beans \n5.1.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements\nTable 5.1: Summary for the agro-ecological requirements of beans.\nTable 5.1: Agro-ecological requirements for beans\nCrop\nSoil type\nPH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nBeans\nSilt loamy\n5.8-7.0\n18-30\n500-1500\n900-2100\n5.1.2 Agronomic Practices\ni. Variety Selection\nFor successful production, it is important that high-quality seed be used. Using \ndisease-free seed reduces the incidence of seed-borne diseases. \nUse of certified seed is preferable, however, a farmer may select from his bean \nharvest. This should be done carefully ensuring all wrinkled, damaged and \ndiseased seeds are removed. Bean seed bought from shops or markets may have \nbeen damaged by insects, or may be rotten, broken or mouldy. Beans should be \nwell sorted and only the best be used for planting. Good quality bean seed has the \nfollowing properties:\n• \npure: all seeds are of the same variety and size;\n• \nclean: not mixed with foreign matter such as stones or dirt, or other seeds;\n• \nnot damaged: broken, shriveled, mouldy, or insect damaged;\n• \nnot rotten, not discoloured or faded ; may be diseased.\nSelected seeds must be dressed with insecticides such as Aldrin 2.5% at 5g/kg seed \nor thiram or Fenasan D at the rate of 3g per kg of seed against pests and fungal \ndiseases. Once the seeds is treated, it should not be used for human consumption \nand should be planted immediately. \nAlways test your/cycled seed for germination before it is planted. Take samples of \nseeds (a handful) place them between moist newspapers for five days. If 90% (9 \nout of 10) germinate the seeds are good, if less than 80% (8/10) germinate plant \ntwo seeds per hole instead of one. If less than 40% (4", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " If 90% (9 \nout of 10) germinate the seeds are good, if less than 80% (8/10) germinate plant \ntwo seeds per hole instead of one. If less than 40% (4/10) germinate discard the \nseeds.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "54\nTable 5.2: Recommended Bean varieties, potential yield, maturity and special \nattribute \nVariety name/\ncode\nSeed source\nOptimal \naltitude\nrange \n(masl)\nDuration \nto \nmaturity \n(months)\nGrain\nyield\n(90kg \nbags per \nacre)\nSpecial\nAttributes\nMwitemania \n(GLP 92)\nKALRO/\nKSC\n900-1600\n2-3\n6-8\nDrought tolerant\nRosecoco \n(GLP 2)\nKALRO/\nKSC\n1500-2000\n2-3\n8-10\nHigh yield; wide \nadaptation; attractive \nseed colour; Good taste\nRed Haricot \n(Wairimu)\nKALRO/\nKSC\n1500-1800\n2-3\n6-8\nIt is susceptible to bean \nroot rot. \nKK 8\nKALRO \n1500-1800\n2-3\n8-10\nTolerant to root rot\nChelalang’\nEgerton \nUniversity\n500-1,500\n2.5-3\n10-12 \nIt is disease and insect \npest tolerant.\nTasha\nEgerton \nUniversity\n1,000–1,800\n2.5-3\n8-10\nIt is disease and insect \npest tolerant. \nKATRAM\nKALRO\n900-1600\n2.5-3\n7-8\nDrought tolerant to bean \nrust, mosaic virus and \nbean common mosaic \nand necrotic virus, \ntolerant to angular \nleaf spot, anthracnose, \ncommon blight and web \nblight\nNyota\nKALRO/ \nBubayi/Dry \nland/Seedco\n900-1800\n2.5-3\n6-7\nDrought tolerant, high \niron content (>95ppm), \nhigh zinc content \n(>39ppm)\nAngaza\nKALRO/East \nAfrica seed \n(Agriscope)\n1200-1900\n2.5-3\n6-7\nHigh grain iron content \n(>97ppm), zinc grain \ncontent (>57ppm), fast \nto cook\nFaida\nEast Africa \nSeed \n(Agriscope)\n1300-2000\n2.5-", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7\nHigh grain iron content \n(>97ppm), zinc grain \ncontent (>57ppm), fast \nto cook\nFaida\nEast Africa \nSeed \n(Agriscope)\n1300-2000\n2.5-3\n6-7\nHigh zinc content \n(>56ppm), high \npotassium (2,746ppm), \nhigh manganese \n(27.51ppm), tolerance \nto angular leaf spot, \ncommon bacteria blight \nand common mosaic \nvirus\nii. Land Preparation \nTo realize high yields, select highly productive land. Always avoid steeply sloping \nland which is near a swamp, areas with shallow surface sandy soils with a lot of \ncouch grass. Land preparation should be done early to remove weeds and ready", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "55\nfor planting at the onset of rains. Seed bed should have fine soils and leveled to \nfacilitate planting at uniform depth and uniform distribution of water.\niii. Soil Fertility Management\nUse 15-20 tons/ha of farm yard manure especially in areas where soils are low \nin organic matter content. Well decomposed animal manure or compost should \nbe applied under dry conditions and then mixed with the top soil. This should be \ndone about one week prior to planting.\nOne can also use 80kg DAP or 23:23:0, or Mavuno per acre. The fertilizer should \nbe thoroughly mixed with soil before covering the seed. It is recommended to \nartificially inoculate the seeds with an appropriate strain of Rhizobium to increase \nnitrogen fixation. Dissolve 60g of molasses thoroughly in half-litre of water and \nadd a packet of the culture is mixed so as to form slurry. Mix 10kg seed (free from \ndust) thoroughly with the slurry of the culture taking care that all the seeds are \nequally coated with the product. Spread the coated seed on a polythene sheet or a \nclean cloth in the shade and allowed them to dry. Plant the dried seed immediately.\nAlways check the expiry date of the culture (inoculum). Store the inoculum in \nthe refrigerator (do not freeze). Do not mix the inoculum with either pesticide or \nfertilizer.\n iv. Planting\nBeans should be planted at the onset of rains since heavy rain may lead to soil crusting \nand restrict seedling emergence. Delay in \nplanting may result in reduced yields or crop \nfailure.\nIn mono cropping (beans alone) plant at \nspacing of 50 cm x 10 cm (one seed per hole \nwithin a depth of 2.5 to 5.0 cm below the soil \nsurface (Figure 5.1). If weeding will be done \nby animal use 60 cm spacing. \nIn intercropping with maize, plant maize \nat the recommended spacing for the agro-\necological zone. Interplant two bean rows \nbetween the maize rows at 15 cm within the row, one seed per hole. The other \nalternative is to have one bean row between maize rows and two seeds per hole.\nThe amount of seed required for a given area vary from variety to variety", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "between the maize rows at 15 cm within the row, one seed per hole. The other \nalternative is to have one bean row between maize rows and two seeds per hole.\nThe amount of seed required for a given area vary from variety to variety \ndepending on the size of the seed. The bigger the seed size the more the seed \nquantity required. It ranges between 16-25kg/acre.\nv. Weeding\nKeep your bean field free from weeds. Timely and thorough weeding is absolutely \nessential. This is achieved by a first weeding at 2-3 weeks after emergence followed \nby a second weeding 3 weeks later (just before flowering) in mono-cropping. \nFigure 5.1: Bean planted under monocrop", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "56\nIn case of intercrop, one weeding 3 weeks after planting may be sufficient except \nin high rainfall areas where a second weeding 3 weeks after the 1st weeding may \nbe necessary. Care should be taken to avoid damaging the shallow roots especially \nduring the first weeding. Avoid weeding during flowering time to avoid flower \nshedding and when the field is wet to avoid spread of diseases and soil compaction.\nWhere the use of herbicide is economically feasible, apply Lasso 4 E-C (Alachlor) \n– 3 liters product in 160 litres of water per hectare pre-emergence and when the soil \nis moist, or Galex (metabromuron + metolachlor) 6.0 litres product in 160 Iitres of \nwater per acre. Other pre-emergent herbicides are Stomp (Pendimicthalira) at 1.0 \nlitres per acre and Linuron. Basagran (Bentazons) can be applied post - emergent \nat 1.0–1.2 litres per hectare in both pure and mixed cropping to control broad \nleaved weeds.\nvi. Crop Rotation \nThis practice is recommended to avoid pest and disease build up. Rotation is \nmainly done with cassava, maize, sorghum or any other non leguminaceae family \nmember crop.\n5.1.3 Crop Protection\nTable 5.3: Crop Protection Aspects\nDisease\nSymptoms\nDescription\nManagement\nPowdery \nmildew\nPowdery mildew \n(Source: Sila \nNzioki, KALRO)\n• Small white powdery \nspots on leaves, stem \nand pods\n• They later turn dirty \nwhite\n• Leaves turn yellow \nand fall when \ndisease is severe\n• Crop rotation with cereals \n• Use recommended spacing\n• Uproot and destroy severely \ninfected plants\n• Avoid overhead irrigation to \nreduce splash of pathogen to \nhealthy plants\n• Spray with Sulphur based \nproducts (e.g. Jet, Cosavet DF) or \nAzoxystrobin based (Ortiva SC; \nTarget Top 325SC) \nRust\nRust (Source: Ruth \nAmata, KALRO)\n• Dark brown raised \nspots appear on \nleaves\n", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nAzoxystrobin based (Ortiva SC; \nTarget Top 325SC) \nRust\nRust (Source: Ruth \nAmata, KALRO)\n• Dark brown raised \nspots appear on \nleaves\n• In severe cases stems \nand pods get infected \nand leaves later fall \noff\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \nfor 2-3 seasons\n• Use certified seed\n• Plant early\n• Remove diseased plants and \nweeds - some act as alternative \nhosts\n• Uproot & bury/burn infected \nresidues\n• Avoid working in the field during \nwet weather\n• Spray copper based fungicides \ne.g Cuprocaffaro or isocap once \ninitial symptoms are observed, or \nAzoxystrobin ( Rustop 250)", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "57\nDisease\nSymptoms\nDescription\nManagement\nAnthracnose\nAnthracnose on \npods)\n(Source; Ruth \nAmata (KALRO)\n• Sunken dark brown \nspots appear on the \npods and leaves \n• Spots have orange, \npink spores\n• Reddish brown spots \non leaf veins/stem/ \npods\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \n• Use certified seeds (seed borne \ndisease)\n• Uproot and destroy severely \naffected plants & bury or burn\n• Spray with Kabendazim or \nAzoxystrobin based products e.g. \nBendazim 500SC and Target Top \n325 SC respectively\na) Angular \nleaf spot\n \nAngular leaf spot\nSource: ipm.\npbgworks.org \n• Grey spots appear on \nleaves\n• Later they turn brown \n• Spots are enclosed \nwithin leaf veins\n• Dark brown circular \nspots on stems and \npods\n• Leaves fall in severe \ncases\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \n• Use certified seed / or treat seed \nwith cabendazim based products \ne.g. Seed Plus WS\n• Plant early\n• Uproot diseased plants /weeds /\nvolunteers- some act as alternative \nhosts\n• Uproot & bury/burn infected \nresidues\n• Avoid working in the field during \nwet weather\n• Spray plants with copper based \nfungicides e.g. Cupro caffaro \nor isocap and alternate with \nAzoxystrobin based fungicides e.g. \nAffair Top 800WDG\nHalo Blight\nHalo blight \n(Source: Ruth \nAmata KALRO)\n• Small brown spots on \nleaves surrounded by \na yellow ring\n• Entire leaf turns \nyellow\n• Oval greasy water-\nsoaked spots on \npods which become \nsunken reddish/ \nbrown in colour\n• Seed borne\n• Use tolerant varieties-\n• Use certified seeds \n• Practice crop rotation with non-\nleguminous crops \n• Uproot and destroy infected plants/ \nvolunteers by burning\n• Disinfect farm tools in jik solution \n(50ml:litre)\n• Avoid working in wet fields \n• Apply copper based fungicides \n(e.g. Cupro caffaro or Isac", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 69, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nvolunteers by burning\n• Disinfect farm tools in jik solution \n(50ml:litre)\n• Avoid working in wet fields \n• Apply copper based fungicides \n(e.g. Cupro caffaro or Isacop 50WP) \nat the mid vegetative stages \nBacterial \nBlight\nBacterial blight \n(Source: infonet-\nbiovision.org)\n• Water soaked spots \nappear on leaves and \npods\n• Spots on leaf margins \nappear in an angular \norientation\n• Water soaked spots \non pods like those for \nhalo blight\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \n• Plant certified /clean seed\n• Plough deep and bury infected crop \nresidues \n• Use drip and furrow irrigation to \navoid spread of the disease \n• Avoid field operations when leaves \nare wet\n• Disinfect farm tools \n• Spray with copper based products \n(Cupro caffaro and Isacop).", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 69, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "58\nDisease\nSymptoms\nDescription\nManagement\nMosaic \nviruses\nMosaic virus\n(Source; Howard \nSchwartz, \nUniversity of \nColorado) \n• Distorted leaves\n• Stunted growth \n• Leaves appear dark \ngreen along the main \nveins and light green \nyellow in between \n• Leaves curl and roll \ndownwards \n• Infected plants fail to \nform pods\n• Plant certified\n• Establish fields in isolated areas not \nnear bean fields\n• Uproot infected beans and destroy by \nburning to prevent spread\nBean fly/\nBean stem \nmaggot\nBean stem maggots \non the stem\n(Source: Plantwise.\norg)\n• Affect at seedling \nstage \n• Thickening of the \nstem at soil level \n• On splitting the stem, \na brown feeding area \nand larvae or pupae \nare seen\n• Holes on leaves and \nstem \n• Stunted & wilting \nplants\n• Adult flies are small \nshiny black with clear \nwings \n• Use mulch around the plant rows \nto promote root development and \nenhance tolerance to maggots\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \ncrops\n• Frequently irrigate to reduce water \nstress in the beans\n• Uproot wilted plants and destroy \nby burning crop debris to avoid \nemergence of bean fly adults\n• Spray with acetamiprid based \nproducts such as “Acetak 200 SL” to \nmanage bean fly\n• Seed dress with Cruiser; Spray with \nimidacloprid and thiamethoxam \nbased products\nAfrican \nBollworm\nBollworm larvae \nSource: Infonet \nBiovision)\n• Large roundish holes \nin the green pods\n• The caterpillar also \nfeeds on flowers, \nleaves and terminal \nbuds\n• Presence of waste on \nthe surface of affected \nplants\n• Practice crop rotation with non-\nlegumes crops\n• Avoid planting susceptible crops \nadjacent to each other\n• Deep plough the soils after \nharvesting to expose the pupae to \npredators\n• Spray with biopesticides e.g \nNeemraj Super, Ozoneem 1% \n• Spray with Deltamethrin and \nBifenthrin based products such as \n“Decis” and “Atom” respectively\nA", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " biopesticides e.g \nNeemraj Super, Ozoneem 1% \n• Spray with Deltamethrin and \nBifenthrin based products such as \n“Decis” and “Atom” respectively\nAphids\n \nAphids on bean \n(Source; James \nKaranja KALRO)\n• Black /grey soft \nbodied insects found \non the stem young \nshoots pods and \nunderside of leaves\n• Suck plant sap and \ncause stunting, plants \nwilt, yellow and die. \n• Black sooty mold on \nsurface of leaves\n• Early planting\n• Destroy volunteer crops and weeds \nthat act as alternate hosts\n• Crop rotate with non-legumes \n• Use of yellow sticky traps\n• Spray with soapy solution at the rate \nof 10-15 tablespoon liquid soap in 20 \nlitres of water\n• Spray with neem based botanical \nproducts e.g. nimbecidine\n• Spray with insecticides Lambda-\ncyhalothrin, deltamethrin or \nAcetamiprid based products under \nheavy infestation", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "59\nDisease\nSymptoms\nDescription\nManagement\nThrips \n(Thrips \ntabaci)\nThrips (Source; \nInfonet Biovision)\n• Small slender \nyellow, brown to \nblack insects found \nin flowers and \nunderside of leaves \n• Cause water soaked \nspots and curling of \npods \n• Leaves appear \nsilvery \n• Cause flower \nabortion, and \ndeformed pods\n• Destroy volunteer crop and weeds \nwhich may serve as alternate hosts\n• Intercrop beans with repellant crops \nsuch as garlic and onions to keep \naphids away\n• Use blue sticky traps to manage \naphids in the bean plantation \n• Chemical sprays with active \ningredients of deltamethrin and \nlambda Cyhalothrin (Asataf SP, \nTata Umeme 2.5 EC) may be used\nRoot knot \nnematodes\nRoot knot \nnematodes\nSource: Infonet \nbiovision\n• Stunting\n• Yellowing\n• Wilting\n• Galling on roots\n• Patchy field\n• Crop rotation with grass crops\n• Prevent surface run off to control \nspread of nematode \n• Clean farm tools and footwear to \nremove adhering contaminated soil \nand crop debris \n• Uproot affected plants and bury or \nburn in deep pits\n• Use biopesticides (e.g. Achook, \nNimbecidine, Neemraj Super)\nBean \nbruchids\nBean Bruchid\nSource: \nafricasoilhealth.\ncabi.org\n• Small reddish brown \nbeetles\n• Bore thin tunnels \nbeneath the seed coat \nand circular holes on \nsurface of grain\n• Harvest timely\n• Ensure good storage hygiene\n• Clean stores before storing new \ngrain\n• Do not mix old grain and newly \nharvested grain in same storage \narea\n• Before storage, treat or mix stored \nseed with a mixture of plant parts \n(e.g. neem, lantana and pyrethrum \nand others)\n• Dust grain with Actellic 50g/90kg\n5.1.4 Post-Harvest Management and Handling\nHarvest the beans when all the pods have turned yellow and before they become so dry \nthat the pods begin to shatter or rot away. Dry beans should have a moisture content", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 71, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5.1.4 Post-Harvest Management and Handling\nHarvest the beans when all the pods have turned yellow and before they become so dry \nthat the pods begin to shatter or rot away. Dry beans should have a moisture content of \nabout 50% at physiological maturity. However, beans are ready for harvesting when the \nmoisture content drops to 16%. \nIf dry beans have not attained 16% moisture content, sun dry them before threshing. \nTest the moisture of the seed before threshing using your teeth or pinching with your \nFingers. Avoid threshing immediately after harvesting this can damage the seed because \nit is too moist. Threshing on the ground or in a gunny bag can easily damage the seed. \nThreshing on a threshing rack protects the seed from damage and dirt and prevents it \nfrom scattering. Broken or cracked seed is likely to be attacked by insects and fungi.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 71, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "60\nAfter the seed has been threshed, dry again to about 10% moisture content. If the \nmoisture is still high, dry the grains on mats, or wire mesh trays raised on a platform. \nSpread the seed thinly on the drying surface to allow air to pass through it. Turn the seed \nregularly to avoid overheating.\nWinnow the dried grains to remove chaff. Sort to remove foreign matter such as stones \nand all grains that are broken, shriveled, mouldy, insect damaged, rotten, discoloured or \nfaded.\nMake sure the store is well ventilated. Clean and dust with Malathion 25% at 400gms \nin 5 litres of water for every 100 m2 before storing your beans. Bruchids are major \nstorage pests, dust beans with Actellic (50g per bag) before storage. Beans intended for \nconsumption should be treated with Actellic or 2% Malathion dust at the rate of 50g per \nbag of 90kg or sunflower or maize oil at 200ml per bag. The beans can also be stored in \nair-tight bins or drum or well secured gunny bags. \nBeans for planting should be treated with Fernason D (contains) Linclance Thiran) at \n3g/kg seed or Aldrin 2.5% at 5g/kg seed.\n5.1.5 Value Addition and Utilization \nThe seeds are utilized in various ways which include boiling pure beans mixed with \nother grains to make the following dishes; \n• \nBoiling beans with maize mixture to soft (Githeri)\n• \nBoiling beans with maize mashing with potato and greens (mukimo)\n• \nBoiling beans alone and mashing with sweet potato (mushenye)\n• \nBoiling beans alone with testa or without and marsh or not and used to eat with \nUgali, and cooked rice\n• \nPre-cooking plus tomato sauce and canned (bean variety Mexican 142)\n5.2 Green Grams\nGreen grams also known as Mung beans and in Kiswahili Ndengu are well suited to \ndiverse environments and fit in various cropping systems, low input requirements, fast \ngrowth, nitrogen fixing and weed smothering ability. They are commonly grown in \ncentral, south Nyanza, eastern", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ili Ndengu are well suited to \ndiverse environments and fit in various cropping systems, low input requirements, fast \ngrowth, nitrogen fixing and weed smothering ability. They are commonly grown in \ncentral, south Nyanza, eastern and coastal regions. Its edible grain is characterized by \ngood digestibility, flavor, high and easily digestible protein content and absence of any \nflatulence effects. It’s also a crucial source of vitamins A and B, micro-nutrients such as \niron and zinc which are good for pregnant women and children.\n5.2.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements \nTable 5.4: Agro-ecological requirements for green grams\nCrop\nSoil type\npH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nGreen Grams\nSandy loamy\n6.3-7.2\n25-30\n350-700\n50-1600", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "61\n5.2.2 Agronomic Practices\na. Varietal Selection: \nThere are two major varieties that can be differentiated through the grain colour. \nThese are the yellow and the green grain grams. The N26 green gram variety is \nsmall and ripens unevenly while the improved variety KS20 has bigger seeds and \ntends to ripen uniformly (Table 5.5). \nTable 5.5: Green gram variety characteristics\nVariety/\nDescription \nSeed Source\nSeed Colour\nMaturity\nYields (90 \nkg bags)/\nacre\nN22 or KVR 22 \nDryland \nSeed\n• Golden yellow seeds \n• Semi-determinate plant\n• Tolerant to aphids, \nyellow mosaic and to \npowdery mildew\n• Flowers in \n55 - 60 days \nand matures in \n80-90 days\n4 – 7 \nN26 or KVR-26\n(Nylon)\nKALRO \nSeed Unit\n• Shiny green seeds\n• Determinate growth \nhabit \n• Flowers in 40 \nto 45 days and \nmatures in 60 \nto 65 days\n6 – 8 \nKS20\n(Uncle, Cotton)\nKenya Seed \nCompany\n• Grains are dull green in \ncolour \n• Grains are bigger in size \ncompared to N26. \n• Flowers in \n60-65 days and \nmatures in 80-\n90 days \n7 -10 \nTable 5.6: Summary of Green gram varieties Eastern Sub-region e-voucher \nPackage, 2019\nSELECTED GREEN GRAMS VARIETIES\nCOUNTIES\nKitui\nEmbu \n(Mbeere)\nTharaka \nNithi\nVarieties\nRemarks\nN 26 (Nylon)\nN 26 (Nylon)\nN 26 (Nylon)\nAvailable with Agrodealers\nKS 20 (Uncle, \nCotton, Makueni)\nKS 20\nKS 20\nAvailable with Agrodealers\nN 22\nN 22\nN22 is available with Agrodealers\nKAT 1,\t\nKAT 2,\t\nand KAT 3 \nreceived a score of zero (0) and \nhence not selected by farmers for the \ne-voucher system", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 73, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "62\nb. Germination test\nFarmers are advisable to conduct a simple germination test by taking a few seeds \nof the green grams (e.g. a table spoonful), soak them in water overnight and wrap \nthem in a moist cotton cloth or old newspaper. Water them 3 times a day and exam \nthe number of sprouted seeds on the 3rd day. Count the number of seeds that sprout \nand divide by the total number of seeds. If the germination is 60% (6/10), plant \n3-4 seeds per hole while, if 90% (9/10) germination, plant 2 seeds per hole.\nc. Site selection\nIn order to realize good yields, avoid steep sloppy land, swampy fields, heavy \nclays and fields with a lot of couch grass. It is important to look for high soil \nfertility indicators and also fields where green grams have been grown for not \nmore than two seasons. Crop rotation should be practiced using non-leguminous \ncrops like maize, sorghum, millet and cassava.\nd. Land Preparation\nTo realize high yields, select highly productive land suitable. Always avoid \nsteeply sloping land, land which is near a swamp, very sandy soil and areas with \nshallow surface soil and a lot of couch grass. Land preparation should be done \nearly enough so that the field is free of weeds and ready for planting at the onset \nof rains. Seed bed should have fine soils. A level seedbed facilitates planting to a \nuniform depth and uniform distribution of water\ne. Improving soil fertility\nIt is advisable to use fertilizers on the basis of soil test and recommendations, a \nbasal dose of NPK (23:23:0) 1 bag (50Kgs)/ acre may be broadcasted. Nitrogen \nfertilizer is usually not applied as green grams fix their own nitrogen, but 10-20 \ntons (100 wheel barrows) per acre farm yard manure can be applied. The manure \nshould be broadcasted just before rains start and ploughed in. Fertilizer should be \nwell mixed with the soil before placing the seed. Lime should be applied one year \nprior to growing green grams and thoroughly incorporated \nf. Planting, spacing and seed rate\nSeeds for planting should obtained from a known source", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " should be \nwell mixed with the soil before placing the seed. Lime should be applied one year \nprior to growing green grams and thoroughly incorporated \nf. Planting, spacing and seed rate\nSeeds for planting should obtained from a known source and should be clean \nand of good quality. For local varieties a source with good quality seed should be \nsought. \nPlant seeds 3-5cm deep in a well-prepared seedbed with good moisture content. \nIf the surface layers are dry, increase the depth to 7.5 cm but only if the soils do \nnot crust easily. When using oxen plough for planting, place the seed at the side \nof the furrow. \nGreen grams can be planted as a single crop or intercropped with other crops like \nsorghum. When planted alone, the spacing should be at 45cm (1.5ft) between \nrows and 15cm (0.5ft) between plants (Figure 6.2). In intercropping, the green \ngram rows are planted in the middle of the accompanying crop and the intra row \nspacing is maintained at 15cm. Plant 4-5kg/acre or 2‘gorogoro’ per acre.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "63\nFigure 5.2: Spacing of green grams\ng. Weeding: \nWeed control in green grams is essential, to reduce competition for nutrients \nwhich result to low yields. Weed-free crop of green grams decreases insect pest \ninfestation. The most common weeding method is hand weeding but oxen can \nbe used too. The first weeding should be done 2 weeks after emergence and the \nsecond before flowering. \nh. Crop Rotation\nGreen grams in a mono cropping system should be rotated with non-leguminous \ncrops such as maize, millet, sorghum, sweet potatoes and cassava. This practice is \nrecommended to avoid pest and disease build up. It is not advisable to grow mug \nbeans for two consecutive seasons on the same field. Mug beans leave a nitrogen-\nrich soil allowing subsequent crops to benefit and grow successfully. \n5.2.3 Crop Protection\nLosses of up to 10-45% in green grams have been associated with common blight while \n80% due to angular leaf spot disease. Therefore, pests and disease management is very \nimportant for high grain yield and quality. The major pests and diseases for green grams \nare indicated in Table 5.7.\nTable 5.7: Common green gram pests, diseases and their management\nPest\nSymptom\nDescription\nControl\nBean fly \n(Ophiomyia\n spp)\nAffected stem\nSeedling stage\n• Leaves droop, \nyellow and dry \nup \n• Stem swells \nand cracks \n• Early planting \n• Plant certified seed or seed \ndress with Apron Star 42WS\n• Practice crop rotation with \nnon- legumes\n• Remove severely affected \nplants & volunteer plants & \nburn\n• Spray using Acetak 200SL", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 75, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "64\nPest\nSymptom\nDescription\nControl\nThrips\n(Megalarothrips \nSjostedti)\n \n• Feeds on flower \nstigma, leads to \nflower abortion \n• Severe infestation \ncauses shriveled \ngrains \n• Destroy volunteer crops /weeds \n• Intercrop with repellant crops e.g \nonions & garlic\n• Spray neem seed kernel extract \n(50 g/l) and neem oil 3000 at \n20 ml/l or use biopesticides e.g \nnimbecidine or Achook 0.15%EC \nor chemicals e.g Atom 2.5 EC & \nTata Umeme 2.5EcUse blue sticky \ntraps \nBean Aphids \n(Aphis fabae)\n• Feeds on foliage \nand pods\n• Cause distortion \nof leaves\n• Stunting \n• Early planting \n• Destroy volunteers and weeds \n• Use yellow sticky traps\n• Spray with neem products e.g \nbiopesticides e.g nimbecidine or \nachook 0.15% EC or chemicals \ne.g Alfa cyper EC or Atom 2.5EC\nWhitefly \n(Bemisia tabaci)\n \n• Transmits yellow \nmosaic virus \n(MYMV) disease\n• Maintain natural enemies e.g \nparasitic wasps, lady bird beetle, \nlacewings\n• Use neem biopesticides e.g \nnimbecidine or achook 0.15% EC \n• Use chemicals e.g Aceta 20 SP or \nHalothrin 2.5EC\nRed spider mites \n(Tetranychus \nspp.)\n \n• Causes speckling \nof leaves and \nform webs on \nunderside of \nleaves cause \ndrying of plants \n• Plant early\n• Control weeds-;alternative hosts\n• Use dish washing soap-2 \ntablespoons /4L water\n• Use abamectin products eg \nAbalone 18EC; Agrimec 18EC\nBruchid \n(Callobruchus \nmaculates)\nInfested grain show \nholes in the seeds \nand a whitish larva \nor pupa can be found \ninside.\n• Grains should be dried up to 10% \nmc and stores cleaned\n• Mix neem leaves with the grain \nin store", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nholes in the seeds \nand a whitish larva \nor pupa can be found \ninside.\n• Grains should be dried up to 10% \nmc and stores cleaned\n• Mix neem leaves with the grain \nin store. Smear mustard oil, \nneem oil @ 10ml/kg of seed and \nactivated charcoal powder @ \n10g/kg seed.\n• Use Actellic dust before storage\n• 50g/90kg\nPowdery Mildew\n(Erysiphae \npolygonii)\n• \nWhite powdery \nspots on leaves \nstem and pods\n• \nThey later turn \ndirty white\nA major fungal \ndisease that causes \nsevere yield loss. \nThe disease spreads \nfast once it sets in\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \nfor 2-3 seasons \n• Uproot and destroy severely \naffected plants and burn/bury\n• Avoid overhead irrigation to \nreduce splash", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "65\nPest\nSymptom\nDescription\nControl\n• Leaves fall if \nthe disease is \nsevere\nIt is favored by \ncooler conditions \nand is severe in the \nlate planted crop\n• Use baking soda 1tsp/litre of \nwater\n• Spray with Sulphur based \nproducts (e.g. Jet, Cosavet DF) or \nAzoxystrobin based (Ortiva SC; \nTarget Top 325SC) \nCercospora Leaf \nSpot\n• Leaf spots with \nbrown to greyish \ncentre and \nreddish brown \nborder Leaves, \nstems and pods \nget affected. \nSpots increase \nin size and at \nthe time of \nflowering and \npod formation \nlead to \ndefoliation\n• Cercospora \nleaf spot (CLS) \nmay cause \nsevere losses \nof yield under \nhumid weather \nconditions. \nFungus survives \non the infected \nseeds and crop \ndebri\n• Crop rotation with non- legumes \nfor 2-3 seasons\n• Destroy infected crop debris by \nburning or burying\n• Remove alternative crop hosts \nfrom the vicinity of the cropSpray \nwith Sulphur based products (e.g. \nJet, Cosavet DF) or Azoxystrobin \nbased (Ortiva SC; Target Top \n325SC)\nAnthracnose\nSource: Link. \nSpringer .com\n• Circular brown \nsunken spots \nwith dark \ncenters and \nbright red \norange margins \non leaves and \npods.\n• The disease \noccurs on green \ngrams and other \nlegumes. The \ndisease affects \naerial plant \nparts, however, \nthe leaves and \npods are more \nvulnerable\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes \nfor 2-3 seasons\n• Use certified seeds \n• Uproot and destroy severely \naffected plants & bury or burn\n• Spray with cabendazim \n(Bendazim 500SC) or \nAzoxystrobin (Target Top 325) \nSC respectively\n5.2.4 Post Harvest Management and Handling\nHarvesting should take place when most of the pods have turned black. Pods should \nbe picked individually or whole plants by uprooting before they start shattering in the \nfield. Dry", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".2.4 Post Harvest Management and Handling\nHarvesting should take place when most of the pods have turned black. Pods should \nbe picked individually or whole plants by uprooting before they start shattering in the \nfield. Dry the pods for about 2 to 5 days before threshing to avoid grain damage due to \nhigh seed moisture content. Mechanical harvesting can also be done in order to save \non labour costs. \ni)\t\nThreshing\nBefore you start threshing test the moisture by crushing a few grains with the \nteeth or pinching with fingers. If the seed is easily crushed, the moisture is still too \nhigh and the harvests should be dried further. Threshing can be done using either \nmechanical or by biting. Use a stick to hit the pods either placed on a tarpaulin \nor inside a bag to avoid dirt and foreign materials. For the mechanical method, \na thresher can be used which makes work easier and faster. Spread the threshed \ngrains on a raised cement platform or tarpaulin to dry.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "66\nii)\t Winnowing and sorting\nSorting and winnowing is the process \nof removing foreign material from \nthe threshed grain. This can be done \nby either picking the broken/rotten/\ndeformed grains or by scooping the \ngrain and subjecting it to wind action \n(winnowing) (Figure 5.3). The grain \ndrops to the ground while the chaff \nor foreign material is blown away. \nFigure 5.3: Winnowing process\niii)\t Drying\nDry the winnowed grain to 12% moisture content before storage. \niv)\t Storage\nClean he grain bins/silos and fumigate to control bruchids. Make sure the store \nis well aerated, leak proof and damp proof. Dust the grains using different \nrecommended chemicals such as Actellic at a rate of 50gm per 90 kg bag. Make \nsure the storage bins, silos or hermetic bags are airtight.\n5.2.5 Value Addition and UTILIZATION\nThe grains are utilized in variable ways such as; \n•\t\nBoiling as stew which can be served hot with rice, chapatti, Ugali, cassava or \nsweet potatoes\n•\t\nGreen grams sprouts that can be consumed directly with lemon and salt as a \nhealthy snack or added to salad\n•\t\nGreen grams flour for preparing soups, porridge, snacks, bread and noodles.z\n5.3 Pigeon Peas\n5.3.1 Agro-Ecological Requirements\nTable 5.8: Agro-ecological requirements for pigeon peas\nCrop\nSoil type\nPH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nPigeon \npeas\nMedium \nheavy loams\n 5.0-7.0 but can \ntolerate 4.5-8.4\n18-30\n400-750\n0-1800", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "67\n5.3.2 Agronomic Practices\na. Varietal Selection\nPigeon pea varieties differ in form of seeds, colour taste, growth habit, time \nof flowering, maturity period and susceptibility towards pests and diseases.\nTable 5.9: Pigeon peas varieties and their characteristics\nVariety\nMaturity \n(Days)\nPotential yield \n(Kg/Acre)\nDescription\nMbaazi \n1 (ICPL \n87091)\n105 - 120\n• 400 in one \nseason.\n• 800 for two \nseasons\n• Flowers in 55-70 days\n• Pods are green with purple streaks\n• It is determinate variety that grow to 80-120 \ncm high depending on the season and altitude.\n• It is compact and is grown as sole crop.\n• High susceptible to insect pests mainly pod \nsucking bugs and pod borers\nKAT 60/8\n135 - 150\n• 400-600 for \none season.\n• 1200 for two \nseasons\n• Yellow flowers (standard and wing)\n• Flowers in 95-120 days\n• Has indeterminate growth habit and grow to 85-\n130cm depending on the altitude and season\n• Grains are white in colour with brown spots and \nsmaller than long duration local landraces\n• Susceptible to insect pests mainly pod sucking \nbugs and pod borers\n• Tolerant to wilt and leaf spot diseases\nMbaazi 2\n(ICEAP \n00040)\n150 - 180\n• 520\n• Has yellow flowers while the pod are green with \ndark stripes\n• Flowers in 60-90 days\n• Has indeterminate growth habit and plant height \nranges from 120 to 240cm depending on season \nand altitude\n• Normally planted in the short rain season \n(October-November) – mainly two season \nvariety.\n• The plant is taller and stronger at lower altitudes \n(less than 1000 m) than at higher altitudes\n• Grain colour is greyish", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "68\nTable 5.10: Varieties selected for the semi-arid lands in 2016-2020\nCounty\nKitui\nEmbu (Mbeere)\nTharaka Nithi\nVariety\nMbaazi 1\nMbaazi 1\nMbaazi 1 \nLower zone\nKat 60/8\nKAT 60/8\nKAT 60/8 \nUpper zone\nPeacock\nMbaazi 2\nb. Seed treatment\nSeed treatment plays an important role in protecting the seeds and seedlings from \nseed, soil borne diseases and insect pests affecting crop emergence and its growth. \nSeed-borne diseases result in poor germination, poor plant vigour, low yield and \npoor quality seed. The seed is dressed with either a dry formulation or wet treated \nwith a slurry or liquid formulation.\nc. Germination test\nThe results of the test inform the farmers how much seed they need to plant per \ngiven acreage to get good yields. To calculate the germination percentage, a \nrandom sample of 100 seeds is taken from the seed lot. They are placed on moist \nnewspaper and covered with another piece of moist newspaper. The seeds should \nbe kept moist, but not wet. Seedlings should begin to emerge 7-11 days after \nplanting. The germination percentage is calculated by counting the number of \nseeds that have germinated and dividing this by the number of seeds that were \nplanted. Then multiply this number by 100.\nd. \t Site selection\nTo ensure high pigeon pea yields, one needs to select highly productive land \nsuitable for pigeon pea production and avoid steeply sloping land, which is near \na swamp, or very sandy soil or areas with shallow surface soil with a lot of couch \ngrass. Areas that indicate high soil fertility are the best.\ne. Land Preparation\nLand preparation should be done as early as possible to ensure early planting. \nPigeon peas require a medium tilth and soils with huge soil clods should be \navoided.\nf. \tImproving soil fertility \nAlthough pigeon pea is a nitrogen fixing species, fertilizer is recommended at \nlevels of 9-11kg/acres(20–25 kg/ha) N. Phosphorus is the most limiting factor for \npigeon pea and a basal application of one 50", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " nitrogen fixing species, fertilizer is recommended at \nlevels of 9-11kg/acres(20–25 kg/ha) N. Phosphorus is the most limiting factor for \npigeon pea and a basal application of one 50kg bag / acre of NPK fertilizer (either \n20:20:0 or 23:23:0) should be applied at planting. To enhance nitrogen fixation \nthe seeds can be inoculated with Rhizobium. Pigeon pea can be used as a green \nmanure crop.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "69\ng.\t Planting\nIn most cases pigeon pea is grown as an intercrop with cereals (maize, sorghum \nand millets) or other legumes, which are harvested to avoid competition before \nflowering and seed set. Pigeon pea does best when broadcast and covered or \ndrilled into a well-prepared seedbed at a depth of 2.5–10 cm. Early planting is \nrecommended. Seedlings are difficult to transplant.\nSeed rate: 10 kg/ha (4 Kg/acre) \nSpacing: Sole cropping\t\nMbaazi 1 (ICPL 87091) - Sow at 50 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants \nif using plough, skip one furrow.\nKat 60/8 - Plant 75 cm between rows and 50cm between plants. When using oxen \nfor ploughing and planting sow after every other two furrows.\nMbaazi 2 (ICEAP 00040) - Plant 100 cm between the rows and 50 cm between \nplants at lower altitudes where temperature are warmer. At higher altitudes these \nspacing’s should be reduced by 20-30 cm.\nLocal varieties – Plant at 120 cm between rows and 60 cm between plants.\nh.\t Intercropping\nKat 60/8 and Mbaazi 2 can be intercropped with maize, sorghum or millet \nduring the first season which is normally the short rains (October-December). If \nintercropped with maize, sow either one row of pigeon pea after one row of maize \nor one row of pigeon pea followed by two rows of maize at a distance of 90cm \nbetween maize and sorghum and pigeon pea rows. Mbaazi 1 should always be \nplanted as a pure stand. \ni.\t\nWeeding\nSeedlings emerge 2–3 weeks after sowing. The initial growth is slow until \nthe taproot develops. The plant is very sensitive to weed competition in the \nearly growth stage and it is important to keep the crop weed free in the first \n45 to 60 days of growth. Effective weed control at the early growth stages \nof the crop is one of the most important factors contributing to high yields. \nThe first weeding of all varieties must be done within the first 2-3 weeks \nafter germination whereas subsequent weed", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Effective weed control at the early growth stages \nof the crop is one of the most important factors contributing to high yields. \nThe first weeding of all varieties must be done within the first 2-3 weeks \nafter germination whereas subsequent weedings will depend on the growth of \nweeds and amount of rainfall.\n5.3.3 Crop Protection\na)\t Pests and diseases control \nInsect pests and diseases have negative impact on pigeon pea productivity; also \nleading to poor quality seed. Pests and diseases reduce the plant stand; however, \nthese can be controlled by the use of pest and disease resistant cultivars, crop \nrotations, weed removal, inoculation with the cowpea group strain of Rhizobium \nand intercropping with cereals.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "70\nCommon Insect Pests\nAphids, thrips, pod fly, pod sucking bugs, pod borers and bruchids are major \npigeon pea pests. Mbaazi-1 and KAT 60/8 flowering normally coinciding with \npeak periods of the insect pests infestations. Different insect pests are best \ncontrolled in the following stages:\nBefore flowering - Thrips and aphids\nAfter flowering - Pod fly, pod borers, pod sucking bugs\nStorage - Bruchids\nGeneral recommendation - spray once before flowering and twice after flowering. \nTable 5.11 summarises the most common insect pests and their management.\nTable 5.11: Common insect pests and their management\nPest\nSymptoms\nControl\nFlower thrips \n(Megalarothrips sp.) \nShiny yellow/ black \ninsects which cause \nflower abortion or \nfailure to flower\n• Intercrop with repellant crops e.g garlic and \nonions to keep aphids away\n• Use blue sticky traps to manage thrips \n• Chemical sprays with deltamethrinand lambda \nCyhalothrin based products\nAphids\nFeed on foliage, pods \nand causes distortion of \nleaves, and stunting of \nplants.\n• Early planting \n• Destroy volunteers and weeds\n• Use yellow sticky traps\n• Spray with neem biopesticides e.g \nnimbecidine or Achook 0.15% EC or \nchemicals e.g Alfa cyper EC or Atom 2.5EC\nPod borers (Maraca \ntestulallis) \nYellowish-white \nor greenish-white \nor reddish-white \ncaterpillars feed on \nflower buds and seed\n• Destroy plant residues\n• Crop rotation with non-legumes for 2-3 \nseasons\n• Spray with Lambda cyhalothrin products e.g \nPentagon 5%EC\nBruchids\nThin tunnel beneath the \nseed coat and circular \nholes on the surface of \nthe grain.\n• Clean stores before storing new grain\n• Store in hermetic bags.\n• Dust grain with Actellic at 50gm per 90kg \nbag\nb) Common diseases\nThe crop is susceptible to Fusarium wilt especially on wet soils. Table 5.12 \npresents the common diseases and their control.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "71\nTable 5.12: Common diseases in pigeon peas\nDisease\nSymptoms\nControl\nFusarium wilt \n(Fusarium udum)\n• The fungus survives \non infected debris and \nin soil for upto 3years\n• Symptoms appear 4-6 \nweeks after planting.\n• Plants wilt , yellow\n• \nCrop rotation for 3-4 years with non-\nlegumes\n• \nPlant resistant varieties (KAT 60/80, \nEgerton Mbaazi 1\n• \nDisinfect tools with jik (50ml/l water)\n• \nRogue infected plants and burn\n• Leaves fall\n• Stem develops black \npurple streak\n• \nUse Trichoderma products (e.g \nTrianum-P; Trichotech, )at planrting \n• \nDrench soils with Carbendazim products \n(Rodazim, Pearl, Saaf) \nLeaf and pod spot\n(Ascochyta pisi)\n-Circular, often sunken \nbrown spots on leaves, \nstem and pods\n• \nCrop rotation with non-legumes \n• \nAvoid working in the field during \nwet weather. Use copper fungicides \ne.g. Cuprocaffaro alternate with \nAzoxystrobin fungicides e.g. Affair Top \n800WDG\nPowdery Mildew\n(Erysiphe \npolygoni) \n• \nWhite to greyish \nspots on leaves, \nstems and pods\n• \nThey later turn dirty \nwhite\n• \nLeaves fall if the \ndisease is severe\n• \nCrop rotation with non-legumes \n• \nUse recommended spacing \n• \nDestroy severely infected plants\n• \nSpray with Sulphur based products (e.g. \nJet, Cosavet DF) or Azoxystrobin based \n(Ortiva SC) \n5.3.4 Post Harvesting Management and Handling\na) Harvesting: \nHarvest dry grains when most of the pods are dry and have turned brown. Harvesting \nis done by hand picking individual pods or cutting the bearing branches. Farmers \nuse human labour or domestic animals to transport and thresh the harvest. \nHarvesting ground is not usually covered with canvas in most cases and the grain \ncollects a lot of dust and dirt, and at times gets mixed up with animal dung and \nurine", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " or domestic animals to transport and thresh the harvest. \nHarvesting ground is not usually covered with canvas in most cases and the grain \ncollects a lot of dust and dirt, and at times gets mixed up with animal dung and \nurine. Therefore, winnowing and sorting is necessary to remove foreign materials. \nSorting is also done to remove stones. \nb)\t Threshing\nCarried out using either mechanical or manual methods. For mechanical method, \na thresher can be used to makes work easier and faster but for manual threshing \nsticks are used to hit the pods either placed on a tarpaulin or inside a bag. To avoid \ndirt and foreign materials, the threshed seeds should be spread on polythene paper\nc) Winnowing and sorting \nWinnowing is the process of removing foreign material from the threshed grain \nand this is achieved by use of winnowing trays (‘uteo’) or by scooping the grain \nand subjecting it to wind action. The grain drops to the ground while the chaff", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "72\nor foreign material is blown away. Sorting is the process of removing foreign \nmaterial from the threshed grain. This can be done by either picking the broken/\nrotten/deformed grains. \nd) Grain dressing and storage: \nGrains should be stored when thoroughly dried (13% Moisture content or less), \ndressed with neem leaves or treated with wood ash (4-6 kg per 90 kg bag) or \nActellic (50g per 90 kg bag) if stored for longer period. The grains can also be \nkept in airtight drums or in hermetic bags. However, if seeds are to be used for \nplanting, they should not be stored in airtight containers so as to maintain viability \nhowever gunny bags are recommended.\n5.3.5 Value Addition and Utilization\nPigeon peas provide both human food as well as livestock feed. It is an excellent source \nof dietary protein. It can be consumed in form of whole grain or split (dehulled). It is \nalso eaten as a vegetable (immature pods or green pea) or a dried grain (cooked and \neaten as dhal (dry split cotyledons). \nThe dry peas may be sprouted briefly, and then cooked, for a flavour different from the \ngreen or dry peas. Sprouting enhances digestibility of dried pigeon peas by reduction \nof indigestible sugars that would otherwise remain in cooked dried peas. Pigeon peas \nleaves and husks provide livestock feed.\nPigeon peas are also useful as tall hedges on dry soils and on the bunds of paddy fields. \nThe branches and stems can be used for baskets and firewood. It is often grown as shade \ncrop, cover crop or windbreak. \n5.4 Cowpea \nCowpea is an important grain legume in the farming systems of Kenya since it is a \nmajor source of dietary protein and income for the people. It also known to improve \nsoil fertility, suppressing weeds, supply of vegetables and dry grain after maturity. It is \nusually grown as an intercrop with maize, sorghum, millet and/or cassava. It is mainly \ngrown in Western, lower eastern, Coast and Nyanza regions for vegetables, grain and \nanimal feed. However, 85% of total area under cowpea production in the eastern region \nof", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " and/or cassava. It is mainly \ngrown in Western, lower eastern, Coast and Nyanza regions for vegetables, grain and \nanimal feed. However, 85% of total area under cowpea production in the eastern region \nof Kenya as an intercrop with maize and or cassava. \n5.4.1 Agroecological Requirements\nThese are summarised in Table 5.13.\nTable 5.13: Agro-ecological requirements for cowpeas\nCrop\nSoil type\nPH\nTemperature (oC)\nRainfall (mm)\nAltitude\nCowpeas\nSandy to well \ndrained clays\n 5.0-6.5\n20-35\n200-500\n0-1500", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "73\n5.4.2 Agronomic Practices\na)\t Varietal Selection\nOne of the main reasons for the low cowpea productivity is lack of access to \nimproved seed varieties. Improved, farmers’ preferred cowpea varieties and are \nalso tolerant to major diseases and insect pests but high yielding are presented in \nTable 5.14. \nTable 5.14: Cowpea varieties \nVariety \nname/code\nOptimal \naltitude\nrange (m a.s.l)\nDuration \nto maturity \n(days)\nGrain yield\n(90kg bags \nper acre)\nSpecial\nattributes\nMachakos \n66 (M66)\n1200-1500\n80-95\n4 - 7.\n• Tolerant to aphids and thrips. \n• Tolerant to cowpea yellow \nmosaic virus and scab\nKatumani \n80 (K80)\n750-1500\n75-85\n4 – 8\n• Resistant to aphids and \nmoderately tolerant to thrips, \npod borers.\nKVU 27-1\n600-1200\n70-90\n4 – 8\n• Dual purpose \n• Moderately tolerant to aphids, \nthrips and pod borers\n• Moderately resistant to foliar \nfungal disease and mosaic virus\nKVU-419\n600-1200 \n65-72\n1.0 -1.5\n\t\n• Mainly grown for grain than \nleaves\n• Grains are smaller than both \nM66 and K80 \n• Tolerant to cold and recovers \nfrom drought very fast\nKunde- \nFaulu\n750-1200\n70 - 80 \n7 – 10\n• Large sized grain\n• Early maturing\n• Tolerant to Alectra vogelii \nKunde- \nTamu\n500– 1500 \n70 - 80 \n7 – 9\n• Tender and sweet leaves when \ncooked\n• Dual purpose \nKAT- Kunde\n600- 1800 \n80 - 90 \n6 - 9 \n• Early maturing\n• Tolerant to Alectra vogelii \n• Dual purpose \nKunde- \nSoko\n600- 1800 \n80 90 \n6 - 8 \n• Grain colour:- Large sized", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "• Early maturing\n• Tolerant to Alectra vogelii \n• Dual purpose \nKunde- \nSoko\n600- 1800 \n80 90 \n6 - 8 \n• Grain colour:- Large sized grain\n• Early maturing\n• Tolerant to Alectra vogelii\nKunde- \nTumaini\n500 – 1500 \n70 - 80 \n6 – 9\n• White grained\n• Early maturing\n• Tolerant to Alectra vogelii", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "74\nb) Germination test\nIt is advisable to conduct a simple germination test for cowpeas seeds before \nplanting; \n•\t\nTake a few seeds of cowpeas (e.g. a table spoonful) and soak them in water \novernight. \n•\t\nWrap the soaked seeds in moist cotton clothing or new paper. \n•\t\nKeep the cloth/paper moist by watering 3 times a day. \n•\t\nExamine sprouted seeds on the third day. If at least 90%( 9/10) seeds have \nemerged, then it is good for planting. If less than 60% (6/10) emerge get \nnew seeds as it will result to poor establishment. \nc)\t Site selection\nTo ensure high cowpeas production, avoid steeply sloping area, land that is near \na swamp, or very sandy soil, areas with shallow surface soil and a lot of couch \ngrass. Planting on fields that had a leguminous crop previously should also be \navoided to reduce pests and diseases. Crop rotation is encouraged with maize, \nsorghum and millet.\nd)\t Land Preparation\nLand preparation should be done early enough so that the field is free from weeds \nand ready for planting at the onset of rains. The seedbed should have fine tilth, \nto suppress weed growth and enhance moisture retention, easy germination and \nroot penetration. The land must be ploughed and harrowed after clearing and all \nthe debris removed. The ground must be deep, level and firm because this ensures \nbetter surface contact between the seed and the soil, increasing the absorption of \nmoisture. \ne)\t Soil Fertility\nOrganic fertilizers\nAs a legume, cowpea fixes its own nitrogen. Too much fertilizer will push leafy \ngrowth and reduce grain production. The use of at least 2.5 tons/acre of farmyard \nmanure is especially in areas where soils are low in organic matter content. Well-\ndecomposed animal manure or compost should be applied under dry conditions, \nand then mixed with the soil at ploughing or planting. \nInorganic fertilizers\nCowpea requires more phosphorus (P) than nitrogen in the form of single super \nphosphate (SSP). About 16 kg of P/acre is recommended for cowpea production to \nhelp the", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nInorganic fertilizers\nCowpea requires more phosphorus (P) than nitrogen in the form of single super \nphosphate (SSP). About 16 kg of P/acre is recommended for cowpea production to \nhelp the crop to nodulate well and fix its own nitrogen from the air. The fertilizer \nshould be thoroughly mixed with soil before placing the seed.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "75\nf)\t Planting\nCowpeas should be planted at the onset \nof rains. For a good plant stand and \nhigh yields, seeds must of high quality. \nGenerally, for early maturing types, \nplanting at the beginning of the rains \nis advised. Ideally, planting should be \ntimed in relation to the maturity period \nof the variety such that the crop is \nharvested during the dry weather. Delay \nin planting may result in reduced yields \nor crop failure. \nFigure 5.4: Planted cowpeas plant\n•\t\nSpacing: In sole cropping system of cowpeas planting erect/semi-erect \ntype the recommended spacing is 60cm × 20cm with two seeds per hole \nrepresenting 66,400 plants/acre. For the spreading types wider spacing of 50 \ncm x 75 cm can be used representing 21,600 plants/acres and later thinned \nto two seedlings per hole, one week after germination. When intercropping \nwith maize, sorghum or millet the recommended spacing is two equidistant \ncowpea rows between the rows at 20cm within the row, one seed per hole. \nThe other alternative is to have one cowpea row between the cereal rows, \ntwo seeds per hole. Generally the seeds are placed 2.0 to 2.5 cm deep in the \nsoil. \n•\t\nSeed rates: Use about 12–25kg/acre of cowpea seeds, depending on the \nvariety, seed size, cropping system, and viability of the seeds. More seeds \nare required when erect varieties are used than when prostrate varieties \nare adopted. Similarly, fewer seeds are required when the cowpea is to be \nintercropped with other crops. The larger the seeds, the more seeds per acre \nare required. \ng)\t Crop rotation\nThis practice is recommended to avoid pest and disease build up. Rotation is \nmainly done with cassava, maize, sorghum, millet or any other non-leguminous \ncrop.\nh)\t Weeding \n•\t\nManual weeding: Cowpea should be kept free from weeds. Timely weeding \nshould be done as soon as weeds emerge and/or before the weeds flower. \nWeeding reduces the spread of pest and disease infestation at the early stages.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " weeding: Cowpea should be kept free from weeds. Timely weeding \nshould be done as soon as weeds emerge and/or before the weeds flower. \nWeeding reduces the spread of pest and disease infestation at the early stages. \nFirst weeding should be done two weeks after emergence followed by a \nsecond weeding three weeks later (just before flowering). Avoid weeding at \nflowering time to prevent shedding of flowers and when the field is wet to \navoid spread of diseases and soil compaction. \n•\t\nChemical weed control: The choice of herbicide depends on the predominant \nweed species and the availability of the herbicide. Herbicides are available \nfor control of weeds before they emerge (pre-emergence) or after they", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "76\nemerge (post-emergence). If pre-emergence herbicide is applied at or just \nbefore planting, one manual weeding may be required at 4-5 weeks after \nplanting.\n5.4.3 Crop Protection\nDiseases and pests are main contributor to unstable production. Incidence and severity \nvary between seasons because of environmental and management practices. Integrated \ndisease and pest management, using all suitable control measures, is recommended \n(Table 5.15). \nTable 5.15: Cowpea pests and diseases and their control measures are as given\nProblem\nDescription\nSymptoms\nControl\nAphids\n• Infested leaves curl and \nbecome chlorotic. \n• Aphids excrete black sooty \nmould that covers the leaf \nsurface \n• Transmit the Cowpea \nmosaic virus\n• Use yellow sticky traps\n• Spray nimbecidine/Achook\n• Spray with Alpha-\ncypermethrin 10 EC. 20-\n30ml/ 20 litres of water\nPod borers \n• Causes defoliation in early \nstages. Larvae’s head is \nthrust inside pods with the \nrest of the body hanging \nout.\n• Destroy infected plant \nresidues\n• Spray neem products or \nnimbecidine or Achook\n• Spray with Pentagon 5%EC\nFlower thrips\nInsert photo\n• Affected flowers \nare brown, dried, or \ncompletely distorted. \n• Flowers drop prematurely \nleading to\n• decreased pod production. \nPods are deformed.\n• Use blue sticky traps\n• Use neem based products \ne.g. Nimbecidine or Achook \n0.15%EC\n• Spray with Alpha-\ncypermethrin 10 EC. 20-\n30ml/ 20 litres of water\nPod sucking \nbugs \n• Suck sap from pods and \nseeds \n• Cause necrosis, pod \nmalformation, premature \ndrying, shriveling of seeds, \nloss of germination ability, \nand formation of empty \npods. \n• Spray neem seed kernel \nextract (50 g/l) and neem \noil 3000 ppm at 20 ml/l.\n• Spray with Pentagon 5%EC\nCow pea \nBruchids\n• Larvae feed on seeds \ndestroying them\n", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " kernel \nextract (50 g/l) and neem \noil 3000 ppm at 20 ml/l.\n• Spray with Pentagon 5%EC\nCow pea \nBruchids\n• Larvae feed on seeds \ndestroying them\n• .Adult emerges from the \nseeds leaving small round \nholes on the cowpea seeds\n• Grains should be dried \nup to 10% mc and stores \ncleaned\n• Dress seeds with neem seed \noil at 5ml/kg\n• Apply Actellic 50g/90kg", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "77\nProblem\nDescription\nSymptoms\nControl\nPowdery Mildew \nRust\n• Circular reddish brown \npustules on the underside \nof the leaves\n• Shrivelling and defoliation \n• Early planting\n• Uproot and destroy affected \nplants\n• Spray copper oxychloride \nat a rate of 50gm/20litres \nwater \nAnthracnose\n• Circular, black, sunken \nspots with dark centre and \nbright red orange margins \non leaves and pods\n• Crop rotation with non-\nlegumes for 2-3 seasons\n• Use certified seeds \n• Uproot and destroy diseased \nplants & bury or burn\n• Spray with Cabendazim \n(Rodazim SC) or \nAzoxystrobin ( Target Top \n325 SC) respectively\n5.4.4 Postharvest Management and Handling \na)\t Leaves harvesting\nLeaves for vegetables use must be young and tender and this is done three weeks \nafter planting at weekly intervals up to the time flower buds appear (just before \nflowering). If the crop was grown for leafy vegetables then uprooting the entire \nplant at the 3-5 true leaf stage before the leaves become too mature and fibrous/\ntough. Harvesting cowpea at 7-days intervals give higher leaf vegetable yields.\nb)\t Dry seed harvesting\nHarvest cowpea when the pods are fully mature and dry. In early-maturing and \nerect varieties, one picking may be sufficient. For indeterminate and prostrate \nvarieties, the dried pods can be picked two or three times. The pods do not mature \nat the same time because of the staggered flowering period. Matured, dried pods \nshould be harvested promptly, delay in harvesting will encourage shattering and \nweevil infestation in the field.\nc)\t Threshing and winnowing\nCowpea can be threshed manually by thrashing the plants or pods on a clean \ncement floor, tarpaulin, or beating bagged pods with sticks once they are dry \nenough. Various types of threshing machines are available in different sizes, \npowered by petrol, diesel, or electricity, for small-, medium-, and large-scale. \nWhatever the method used cowpea seed can be easily damaged if threshed too \nroughly or when too dry. Test", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " available in different sizes, \npowered by petrol, diesel, or electricity, for small-, medium-, and large-scale. \nWhatever the method used cowpea seed can be easily damaged if threshed too \nroughly or when too dry. Test the grain to see if it is dry enough for storage \nor market by biting or pinching grain with your finger nails or teeth. When dry \nenough, grain should break or crack rather than bend or stick between teeth or \nfingernails. Afterwards, winnow against the airflow so that materials such as chaff \nand broken seeds are blown away.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "78\nd)\t Moisture content before storage\nAfter the seed has been threshed, dry them on mats, plastic sheets or wire mesh \ntrays raised on a platform to about 10% moisture content. The seed should be \nspread thinly on the drying surface to allow air to pass through it and turned \nregularly to avoid overheating. The seed should be protected from rain, insects, \nanimals and dirt. \ne)\t To check moisture\nPick a clean, dry bottle/jar with a lid, scope a sample (handful) of cowpea seed \nand add one tea spoon of salt. Shake the bottle/jar well and then allow the seed to \nsettle for about 10 minutes. If after 10 minutes one can see damp salt stuck to the \nsides of the jar, the seed is too moist. This means that the moisture is above the \nrequired 13%. If the jar is dry and there is no salt stuck to the sides of the bottle/\njar, the seed is well dried.\nf)\t Sorting and grading\nSort to remove broken, discoloured, rotten, pest-damaged, immature, shrivelled \nseeds and foreign matter as they are characteristics for grading the grains\ng)\t Storage\n• \nClean the store thoroughly before a new harvest is brought in. \n• \nOnly well-dried and properly cleaned grain should be stored.\n• \nWell-dried cowpea seed should have less than 13% moisture content with \n8-10% moisture content recommended for long term storage. \n• \nUse hermetic bags such as PICS (Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage) bags to \nkeep away insects from the grain.\n• \nEnsure the hermetic bags are protected from rats and mice for effectiveness.\n• \nThe grain can also be dusted with Actellic before storage in metal or plastic \nsilos\n5.4.5 Value Addition and Utilization\nCowpeas are cultivated for the grain (shelled green or dried), the pods or leaves that are \nconsumed as green vegetables or for green manure. Livestock thrive on the stems and \nleaves left once the seeds have been harvested. In Kenya, cowpea grains are consumed \nin three basic forms: Cooked together with vegetables or maize, spices and oil, to \nproduce a thick soup, which accompanies the staple food (rice, ugali or", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 90, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " seeds have been harvested. In Kenya, cowpea grains are consumed \nin three basic forms: Cooked together with vegetables or maize, spices and oil, to \nproduce a thick soup, which accompanies the staple food (rice, ugali or chapati). They \nare also cooked as vegetables and they are a good source of Vitamins A, B and C and \nare rich in calcium, phosphorus, carbohydrates proteins and fibre. Green cowpea grains \nare boiled, canned or frozen.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 90, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "79\n6 FARMING AS A BUSINESS\nFarming for the market is a business. It is a business in that farmers use land, labour, \nand capital to produce goods for sale. To say that farming is a business is in no sense \nto downgrade its importance or to adversely criticize it. Farmers as businessmen \nneed to understand the risks that they take and the benefit they provide for all of their \ncustomers. Farming is certainly a risky business because it depends on changes in \nprices in domestic and foreign markets, and environmental aspects.\n6.1 Advantages/ Importance of Farming as a Business\nFarming as a business (FAB) helps farmers to get \nthe best out of their farms and their resources. \nApplying business methods such as record \nkeeping, benefit–cost analysis, marketing skills, \ngroup management skills, gender considerations \nand good communication skills can greatly \nimprove the efficiency of farming. It involves \nweighing, sorting, grading and packaging farm \nproduce collectively at aggregation centres. \nIn order to understand the farming business, \nfarm goals are clearly defined. This calls for an \nindividual farmer to know what to produce (specific farm enterprise); how to produce \nit (technological issues); for whom to produce (target market); when to produce \n(appropriate market price and profitability); and, how much to produce (where is the \nfarming business heading to). When everyone involved with the farm (family members, \nextension workers, development agencies) understands the goals, they will work better \ntogether towards them.\n6.2 Farm Records and Record Keeping\nA record is written proof of what happened. Record keeping is an important activity \nthat is necessary for operating farm enterprises effectively. It involves gathering \nvaluable data or information on the happenings of a particular undertaking, with a view \nto processing it in the future (for example, analysing sales and costs and calculating \nprofits). Lack of well documented farm records, makes it problematic for farmers to \nestablish whether their businesses are making profit or losses. Farm records gives an \naccount of the various activities carried out on the farm on a regular basis. Farm records \ninclude crops cultivated, livestock kept, varieties planted, breeds reared, management \nactivities carried out, quantity harvested among others. \n6.3 Importance of Record Keeping\nRecords provide essential information which assists the farmer to do proper farm \nplanning; credit sourcing;", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 91, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " livestock kept, varieties planted, breeds reared, management \nactivities carried out, quantity harvested among others. \n6.3 Importance of Record Keeping\nRecords provide essential information which assists the farmer to do proper farm \nplanning; credit sourcing; monitoring farm performance and provides basis for proper \ndecision making. Records give an insight into the money spent if different farm \nenterprises and or operations; money received; money obtained from produce sales; \nand, determine if a profit or a loss was made.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 91, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "80\nThe common types of farm records include production \nrecords (vital in determining performance of difference \nenterprises); labour records (Show the amount and type \nof labour hired or employed to work on the farm); Cash \nflow records (they record all the cash flow in and out \nof the farm business each year); home consumption \nrecords (indicate household intake, date, item and \namount consumed, unit and total price if item was \nsold); fixed assets records (indicate all the items present \non the farm at a particular time); and, profit and loss \nrecords (are major farm records that show the economic \nperformance of the farm). Most farmers tend to keep only this record. However, other \nrecords are important in order to come up with this type of records.\n6.4 Markets and Marketing for Cereals and Legumes\nA market is a means by which the exchange of goods \nand services takes place as a result of buyers and sellers \nbeing in contact with one another, either directly or \nthrough mediating agents or institutions. It is a place \nwhere buyers and sellers meet to exchange goods, \nservices \nand other relevant information. Marketing refers to the \nprocess through which the gap between the producers \nand consumers is bridged. In this definition, producers are separated by time and \ndistance. It involves finding out what the consumers want and then supplying them \nwith the same at a profit. Organized farming business helps reduce the costs of storage \nand transportation. This is because it is easier to centrally manage farm produce at \naggregation centres for ease of quality checks and grading; while reducing transport \ncosts. It also gives the farmers a bargaining advantage when selling their aggregated \nfarm produce.", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 92, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "81", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 93, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "82", "source": "FarmersExtensionHandbookCerealsandPulses.pdf", "page": 94, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n1 \nIN-SITU WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES AND FERTILIZER \nRATES INCREASE MAIZE AND BEAN YIELDS IN THE SEMI-ARID \nKATUMANI, KENYA † \n \n[LAS TECNOLOGÍAS DE COSECHA DE AGUA IN SITU Y LAS TASA DE \nFERTILIZANTE AUMENTAN LOS RENDIMIENTOS DE MAÍZ Y \nFRIJOLES EN EL SEMIÁRIDO KATUMANI, KENIA] \n \nKelvin M. Wafula1*, Nancy N. Karanja1, George N. Karuku1 \nand Anthony O. Esilaba2 \n \n1 Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, \nUniversity of Nairobi, P.O Box 29053-00625 Nairobi, Kenya. \n2 Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Headquarters. \nP.O Box 57811-00200 Nairobi, Kenya. Email: wafulakelvin2019@gmail.com \n*Corresponding author \n \n \nSUMMARY \nBackground: Crop production in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) is constrained by erratic rainfall and poor soil \nfertility. Therefore, climate smart agriculture mechanisms such as in-situ rainwater harvesting technologies and \nrecommended fertilizer rates would be vital for ensuring food security. Objective: To evaluate selected in-situ water \nharvesting technologies and fertilizer rates on soil water content and yield of maize and beans at KALRO Katumani \nResearch Center in Machakos County, Kenya during the 2019 and 2020 short and long rain seasons, respectively. \nMethodology: The experiment was established in a randomized complete block design with a split-split plot \narrangement, replicated three times, with in-situ water harvesting technologies comprising of zai pits, ngolo pits, \ncontour furrows and conventional tillage, as the main plots, whereas the split plots were varying rates of fertilizer \ninputs: Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP), goat manure and control. The split-split plots comprised of maize and beans \ncropping systems. Soil moisture content was assessed at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks after emergence, whilst nutrient uptake", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ium phosphate (DAP), goat manure and control. The split-split plots comprised of maize and beans \ncropping systems. Soil moisture content was assessed at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks after emergence, whilst nutrient uptake, \nuse efficiency and crop yields at physiological maturity. Data was subjected to analysis of variance. Results: Soil \nmoisture, maize and beans yields, nutrient uptake and use efficiency were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased by in-situ \nwater harvesting technologies and fertilizer inputs. Highest soil moisture content was recorded under zai and ngolo \npits and lowest in conventional tillage treatments. Ngolo pits recorded higher maize and beans grain yield. Application \nof DAP fertilizer increased maize and beans grain yield compared to control. Intercropping maize and beans increased \ngrain yield significantly (p ≤ 0.05) compared to sole maize and sole beans. Implications. There is need for promoting \na combination of in-situ rainwater harvesting technologies especially ngolo and zai pits with application of DAP+ \nmanure in semi-arid areas where water is scarce coupled with poor soil fertility. Conclusion: Ngolo and zai pits \nincreased soil water retention capacity while application of DAP fertilizer led to increased crop yield and the study \ntherefore recommends their adoption within the study area and extrapolation to areas of similar conditions. \nKey words: in-situ water harvesting; ngolo pits; zai pits; nutrients uptake; use efficiency. \n \nRESUMEN \nAntecedentes: La producción de cultivos en las tierras áridas y semiáridas (ASAL) se ve limitada por la irregularidad \nde las lluvias y la escasa fertilidad del suelo. Por lo tanto, los mecanismos de agricultura climáticamente inteligente, \ncomo las tecnologías de recolección de agua de lluvia in situ y las tasas de fertilizante recomendadas, serían vitales \npara garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. Objetivo: Evaluar tecnologías seleccionadas de recolección de agua in situ y \ntasas de fertilizantes sobre el contenido de agua del suelo y el rendimiento de maíz y frijoles en el Centro de \nInvestigación KALRO Katumani en el condado de Machakos, Kenia, durante las", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "izantes sobre el contenido de agua del suelo y el rendimiento de maíz y frijoles en el Centro de \nInvestigación KALRO Katumani en el condado de Machakos, Kenia, durante las temporadas de lluvia corta y larga de \n2019 y 2020, respectivamente. Metodología: El experimento se estableció en un diseño de bloques completos al azar \ncon un arreglo de parcelas divididas y divididas, replicado tres veces, con tecnologías de recolección de agua in situ \nque comprenden pozos zai, pozos ngolo, surcos de contorno y labranza convencional, como las parcelas principales. \nmientras que en las parcelas divididas se variaron las tasas de aportes de fertilizantes: Fosfato diamónico (FDA), \nestiércol caprino y testigo. Las parcelas divididas fueron constituidas por los sistemas de cultivo de maíz y frijol. El \ncontenido de humedad del suelo se evaluó a las 4, 8, 12 y 16 semanas después de la emergencia, mientras que la \n \n† Submitted February 17, 2022 – Accepted June 27, 2022. http://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.4247 \n \n Copyright © the authors. Work licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ \nISSN: 1870-0462.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n2 \nabsorción de nutrientes, la eficiencia de uso y el rendimiento de los cultivos en la madurez fisiológica. Los datos se \nsometieron a análisis de varianza. Resultados: La humedad del suelo, los rendimientos de maíz y frijol, la absorción \nde nutrientes y la eficiencia del uso aumentaron significativamente (p ≤ 0.05) con las tecnologías de recolección de \nagua in situ y los aportes de fertilizantes. El contenido de humedad del suelo más alto se registró en pozos zai y ngolo \ny el más bajo en tratamientos de labranza convencional. Los pozos de ngolo registraron un mayor rendimiento de grano \nde maíz y frijol. La aplicación de fertilizante DAP aumentó el rendimiento de grano de maíz y frijol en comparación \ncon el control. El cultivo intercalado de maíz y frijol incrementó el rendimiento de grano (p ≤ 0.05) en comparación \ncon el maíz único y el frijol único. Implicaciones. Es necesario promover una combinación de tecnologías de \nrecolección de agua de lluvia in situ, especialmente pozos ngolo y zai con la aplicación de estiércol DAP+ en áreas \nsemiáridas donde el agua escasea y la fertilidad del suelo es deficiente. Conclusión: Los pozos ngolo y zai aumentaron \nla capacidad de retención de agua del suelo, mientras que la aplicación de fertilizante DAP condujo a un aumento del \nrendimiento de los cultivos y, por lo tanto, el estudio recomienda su adopción dentro del área de estudio y la \nextrapolación a áreas de condiciones similares. \nPalabras clave: captación de agua in situ; pozos de ngolo; pozos zai; absorción de nutrientes; eficiencia de uso. \n \n \nINTRODUCTION \n \nRainfed agriculture is the primary source of \nlivelihoods for majority", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ": captación de agua in situ; pozos de ngolo; pozos zai; absorción de nutrientes; eficiencia de uso. \n \n \nINTRODUCTION \n \nRainfed agriculture is the primary source of \nlivelihoods for majority of farmers in sub-Saharan \nAfrica (SSA) (Mechiche-alami and Abdi, 2020). \nUnfortunately, this sector has been marred with a \nmyriad of challenges including, but not limited to low \nand poor rainfall distribution, water scarcity, poor soil \nfertility, high evapotranspiration rates and high \nnutrient losses through erosion and runoff (Vanlauwe \net al., 2017; Mzezewa et al., 2011; Yazar and Ali, \n2016; Gikonyo et al., 2022). These challenges have led \nto low yields, leaving majority of household’s food \ninsecure (Rockström et al., 2003; Mutekwa, 2009). \n \nThe reduction in yields from farmers’ fields \ndemonstrate the need for appropriate agricultural \nproduction technologies, innovations and management \npractices (TIMPS) that are climate smart and geared \ntowards conservation of the little water received in the \nASALs, for the farmers to realize increased food \nproduction (Nyang’au et al., 2021; Ngetich et al., \n2014, Zougamore et al., 2014; Karuku, 2018; Gikonyo \net al., 2022). \n \nAmong the proposed technologies that have been \neffective in increasing crop production are the in-situ \nrainwater harvesting technologies such as zai pits, \nfurrow-ridges, tied ridges, earth and stone bunds and \nmulch ripping (Abubaker et al., 2014; Biazin et al., \n2012). These are simple and more affordable \ntechnologies that trap and hold rain water where it falls \nlong enough, increasing time for infiltration, delaying \nthe occurrence of severe water stress, thus buffering \ncrops against damage resulting from water deficits \n(Bayala et al., 2012; Dile et al., 2013; Mudatenguha et \nal., 2014; Nyamadzawo et al., 2013). Another unique \ntechnique is the use of the ng", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "., 2012; Dile et al., 2013; Mudatenguha et \nal., 2014; Nyamadzawo et al., 2013). Another unique \ntechnique is the use of the ngolo cultivation \ntechnology, which has been practiced by the Matengo \ncommunity in Tanzania. This system is characterized \nby combination of anti-erosion and soil fertility \nmaintenance technique of pits and ridges on steep \nslopes (Kato, 2001). \n \nStudies have shown that in-situ water harvesting \ntechnologies increase crop yields. For instance, JICA \n(1998) reported that maize grain yield increased by 1.3 \ntimes in ngolo pits plots compared to those under \nconventional tillage. A similar experiment at Mt \nKilimanjaro indicated 2.3 times higher maize grain \nyield in ngolo pits compared to those under \nconventional tillage and 3 times more compared to \nthose under bench terraces. In Ethiopia, Cofie and \nAmede (2015) reported increased potato and bean \nyields by 500% and 250%, respectively, as well a 300-\n700 % increase in crop water productivity in farms \nwith zai pits compared to those without. In Mali, \nMalesu et al. (2006), found out that maize yields under \nzai pit increased by a factor of 10 compared to \nconventional tillage. \n \nIn as much as these technologies have shown an \nincrease in crop yields, their effectiveness is inefficient \nunless supplemented with soil fertility amendments. \nCombining water harvesting technologies with \nfertilizer inputs create a synergy that increases water \nand nutrient use efficiency, hence increasing yield \n(Winterbottom et al., 2013). Miriti et al. (2007) \nobserved that tied ridges in combination with \nintegrated nutrient management had the potential to \nimprove crop production in semi-arid eastern Keya. \nNjeru et al. (2015) reported that integration of organic \nand inorganic inputs under various water harvesting \ntechnologies could be considered as an alternative \noption towards food security for semi-arid areas under \nthe changing climatic conditions. \n \nIn order to address these challenges of soil fertility \ndecline, water scarcity and low economic returns, a \ntrial was established in Katumani, Mach", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "option towards food security for semi-arid areas under \nthe changing climatic conditions. \n \nIn order to address these challenges of soil fertility \ndecline, water scarcity and low economic returns, a \ntrial was established in Katumani, Machakos County \nwith the aim of addressing the effects of in-situ water \nharvesting technologies with combined fertilizer \ninputs on soil moisture content, nutrient uptake, use \nefficiency and yield of maize and beans.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n3 \nMATERIALS AND METHODS \n \nStudy site \n \nThe experiment was conducted at Katumani Research \nStation of Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research \nOrganization (KALRO) in Machakos County (Figure \n1), 80 km south-east of Nairobi, amid the short and \nlong rain seasons of 2019 and 2020, respectively. The \nstation lies between latitudes 1°35′ S and longitude \n37°14′ E, at an elevation of 1575 meters above sea \nlevel. The area falls under agro-climatic zone IV \n(Jaetzold et al., 2006). \n \nKatumani experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern with \nthe long rains commencing in March and ends in May \nwhereas the short rains occur in November and taper \noff in January (Recha et al., 2012). The site’s average \nannual rainfall ranges between 450-600 mm (Jaetzold \net al., 2006). The mean maximum and minimum \ntemperature are 24.6 and 13.7 0C, respectively. The \nmean potential evaporation ranges from 1820mm to \n1840mm with an estimated evapotranspiration (ETo) of \n1239 mm per year (Gicheru and Ita, 1987). \n \nThe predominant soil types are Ferralo-Chromic \nLuvisols (WRB 2015), having high sand and low clay \ncontent, and exhibiting high bulk density (Karuku and \nMochoge, 2016; Karuma et al., 2014; Mbayaki and \nKaruku. 2021a and b; Mbayaki and Karuku 2022)). \nThese soils have low nitrogen mineralization potential, \nwith a pH of 6.3 (Kwena et al., 2018; Karuku and \nMochoge, 2018). Crops grown in the area include \nmaize (Zea mays, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), millet \n(Pennisetum glaucum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), \ngreen grams (Vigna radiata), pigeon peas (Cajanus \ncajan", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ays, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), millet \n(Pennisetum glaucum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), \ngreen grams (Vigna radiata), pigeon peas (Cajanus \ncajan) cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) and dolichos \nlablab (Lablab purpureus) and mangoes (Mangifera \nindica). \n \nExperimental Design \n \nThe experiment was laid out in a split-split plot design \nwith individual treatments arranged in a randomized \ncomplete block design (RCBD) and replicated three \ntimes. \n \nTreatments \n \ni. \nIn-situ water harvesting technologies namely; \nzai pits, ngolo pits, contour furrows and \nconventional tillage as the main plots. \nii. \nFertilizer types and rates; 100 kg/ha Di-\nammonium phosphate (DAP), 50 kg /ha DAP \n+ 2.5 t/ha goat manure, 5 t/ha goat manure as \nthe split plots and a control (no input). \niii. \nCropping systems; sole maize, sole beans and \nmaize-bean intercrop as the split-split plots. \n \nThe goat manure used had an alkaline pH (>7.0) with \na total nitrogen (TN) content of 2.1%, while organic \ncarbon was 6.4 and 7.4%, phosphorus levels were 785 \nand 730 ppm, while potassium levels were 17.5 and \n14.7 cmol/kg, in the manure used during the 2019 SR \nand 2020 LR seasons, respectively. \n \n \n \n \nFigure 1. Study site in Machakos county, Kenya.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n4 \nThe blocks measured 15 cm in length and a width of \n23 cm. The spacing between main plots was 2 m path, \nbetween split plots was 1 m while between the split-\nsplit plots was 0.5 m. In each of the split-split plots, \nthere were 3 zai pits under the zai pit technology and \nthree ngolo pits under the ngolo technology. The test \ncrops were maize (Katumani KDV4 variety) and beans \n(KATB1 variety). These varieties were selected due to \ntheir good adaptability, early maturation and yield \nhighly under semi-arid conditions. \n \nAgronomic practices \n \nLand preparation \n \nLand preparation and installation of the rain water \nharvesting structures was done on 16th October of 2019 \nbefore the onset of the short rains. Zai pits were \nconstructed by digging a hole measuring 1.5 m × 1.5 \nm to a depth of 30 cm using a hand hoe (Figure 2a). \nThe top 0-15 cm soil was piled on one side, and that \nfrom 15-30 cm piled on the lower side of the pits to \ntrap water in case of runoff, leaving a pit (zai) at the \ncenter. The top 0-15 cm dug out soil was then mixed \nwith the fertilizer and manure treatments and returned \nto half-fill the pit before planting. \n \nNgolo pits: During the construction of ngolo pits, \ndried pigeon peas residues were collected, cut into \nsmaller pieces and then spread on the four sides of \nsquares measuring 1.5 m × 1.5 m (Figure 2b). Soil \nfrom the center of the pit was heaped evenly on the \nplant residues, leaving a pit at the center (ngolo) as \ndescribed by Kato et al. (2001). Maize and beans seeds \nwere planted on the heaped soils while the ngolo pits \nwas left bare to collect rain water. \n \nContour furrows were prepared by digging 0.3 m \ndeep trenches and planting was done in the furrows. \nThe conventional tillage system involved preparation \nof land", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " the ngolo pits \nwas left bare to collect rain water. \n \nContour furrows were prepared by digging 0.3 m \ndeep trenches and planting was done in the furrows. \nThe conventional tillage system involved preparation \nof land using hand hoes; which is the farmers practice \nin the study area. \n \nCrop husbandry \n \nSowing was done at the onset of the rains on 19th \nOctober2019 and 20th April 2020 for the SR and LR \nseasons, respectively. Short rain season (SR) \ncommenced in October 2019-February 2020, whereas \nlong rain season (LR) from April 2020-August 2020. \nMaize was planted at a spacing of 75 cm between the \nrows and 30 cm within rows, while beans were planted \nat a spacing of 45 cm between rows and 15 cm within \nrows. Two maize and three bean seeds were planted \nper hill, and then thinned two weeks after planting to \none maize and two beans per hill, giving a population \ndensity of 44,444 maize and 296,296 bean plants per \nhectare, respectively. Plants were randomly tagged for \naccuracy and ease of monitoring growth and data \ncollection. \n \nWeeding was done using a hand hoe at the emergence \nof weeds. At 4 and 8 weeks after emergence. To \ncontrol black cut worms (Agrotis ipsilon), (Duduthrin \n(Lambdacyhalothrin 17.5g/L) pesticide was sprayed, \nwhile corn leaf aphids (Rhopalosiphum maidis) were \ncontrolled by using Thunder (Imidacloprid 100g/L + \nBeta-cyfluthrin 45g/L) and Marshal (35 percent \nCarbosulfan). During the growing season, pesticides \nwere sprayed four times at 14-day intervals. \n \nBeans and maize were harvested at physiological \nmaturity (2 and 4 months), respectively. \n \n \n \nA) Zai pits \nB) Ngolo pit \nFigure 2. These rain water harvesting structures (pits) were left on the land for the preceding long rain season.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n5 \nInstallation of access tubes \n \nThe polyvinyl chloride (PVC) access pipe, 100 cm \nlong and 5cm in diameter, with a watertight lid at the \nbottom, were manually inserted in the auger holes, in \nthe middle of each plot for soil moisture measurement. \nIn the zai pits, the pipes were placed in between the \nmaize crops along the rows. In ngolo pits, pipes were \nplaced on top of the ridges, between the crops, whereas \nin contour furrows, they were placed inside the \nfurrows. Pipes were placed between the maize crops \nalong the rows in in the middle of the conventional \ntillage. \n \nData collection \n \nWeather data \n \nDaily weather data on rainfall (mm), maximum and \nminimum temperature (°C) was obtained from the \nmeteorological weather station located at the KALRO-\nKatumani meteorological station. \n \nSoil moisture content \n \nSoil moisture was measured at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks \nafter planting (WAP) non-destructively using a \ncalibrated Neutron 503DR Hydro probe. This was \ncalibrated using the gravimetric water content (g/100 g \nsoil) by plotting a graph of neutron counts against \ngravimetric water content. A line of best fit was \ndeveloped with, \n \n𝑦= 𝑚𝑥 × 𝑐 (1) \n \nWhere; \ny = gravimetric water content, m = the gradient, x = \nneutron counts and c = y intercept. \n \nAll the neutron probe readings were converted into \ngravimetric by multiplying with m (gradient of the line \nof best fit). Finally, the gravimetric water readings \nwere converted into volumetric using (Eqn 2) \n \n𝛳= 𝜔𝜌𝑏÷ 𝜌𝑤 (2) \n \nPlant tissue sampling and analysis \n \nBeans and maize plant tissue samples were collected \n65 and 120 days after sowing when crops attained \nphysiological maturity. Five (5) randomly selected and \ntagged maize plants were cut at the base with a \nmachete and separated into grains and biomass", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " plant tissue samples were collected \n65 and 120 days after sowing when crops attained \nphysiological maturity. Five (5) randomly selected and \ntagged maize plants were cut at the base with a \nmachete and separated into grains and biomass, \nwhereas ten (10) bean plants were uprooted by hand. \nGrains were threshed manually and their weights \nrecorded using a weighing balance (± 0.05g precision). \nThree (3) maize Stover and five (5) bean straws from \nthe harvested batch were chopped into smaller pieces. \nA subsample of grains and biomass were put in \nrespective khaki bags, and dried in the oven at 70 0C \nfor 24 hours to a constant weight, while beans were sun \ndried for 3 days to attain a moisture content of 12.5%. \n \nThe dried samples were ground using a Willey Mill \nand passed through a 2 mm sieve for analysis of N, P \nand K contents using standard procedures as shown in \nTable 1. \n \nNutrient uptake \n \nThe nutrients (N, P and K) uptake was calculated as a \nproduct of nutrient concentration in grains or straw and \nthe yield (Eqn 3). \n \n𝑁𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 (𝑘𝑔 ℎ𝑎−1) =\n𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ×\n𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (3) \n \n \nTable 1. Laboratory procedures. \nParameter \nMethod \nReferences \nTotal \nnitrogen \nModified \nmicro-\nKjeldahl method \nBremner,1996 \nAvailable \nphosphorus \nExtracted \nby \nMehlich-1, \nthen \nme", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nParameter \nMethod \nReferences \nTotal \nnitrogen \nModified \nmicro-\nKjeldahl method \nBremner,1996 \nAvailable \nphosphorus \nExtracted \nby \nMehlich-1, \nthen \nmeasured using a \nUV \nspectrophotometer \nMurphy \nand \nRiley, 1962 \nPotassium \nFlame photometer \nBarnes et al., \n1945 \n \n \nNutrient use efficiency \n \nNutrient use efficiency was computed using the \nformula as described by Brentrup and Palliere (2010) \n(Eqn 4). \n \nNutrient use effiiciency =\n 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡𝑠 −𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡𝑠 \n𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑\n (4) \n \nBiomass and grain yield \n \nFinal biomass and grain yield were obtained from \nplants harvested from the net plot measuring 2.25 m2 \nafter discarding the border rows and end of plants of \neach row. The collected subsamples were oven dried at \n70 0C for 48 hours. Dry maize and beans grain and \nStover/straw were computed using (Eqn 5). \n \n𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛/𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑘𝑔 ℎ𝑎−1) =\nGrain dry yield (kg) ×10,000 m2", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "𝑠𝑠 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑘𝑔 ℎ𝑎−1) =\nGrain dry yield (kg) ×10,000 m2 \ntotal area of the plots \n (5)", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n6 \nStatistical analysis \n \nEffect of different treatments on soil moisture, yield, \nnutrient uptake and use efficiency was determined in a \ntwo-way ANOVA with the aid of GenStat 15th edition \n(Lane and Payne, 1997). Mean separation was done \nusing Fisher’s protected Least Significant Difference \n(LSD) at 5% significance level. \n \nRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS \n \nSoil physical and chemical properties \n \nThe soil physical and chemical properties are \npresented in Tables 2 and 3. \n \nThe soil had a sandy clay loam (SCL) textural class, \nwith percentage sand decreasing down the soil profile, \nwhereas clay content increased. Kwena et al. (2018) \nobtained similar findings in the textural class and this \nmay have an implication to water holding and rain \nwater holding issues. Similarly, the diffusivity may be \nlower and hence availability of nutrients is limited and \nhence may affect the nutrient use efficiency. \n \nThe bulk density was 1.4 g/cm3 at the upper horizon \nand it decreased down the soil profile. The high bulk \ndensity at the top horizon could have formed due to \ncompaction caused by previous shallow ploughing \nwhich created an impervious layer and a hard pan. \nDigging of ngolo and zai pits as well as construction of \nthe contour furrows helped in breaking the surface \ncrust, hence improving water infiltration (Danjuma \nand Mohammed, 2015). This could be the probable \nreason for higher soil moisture obtained at deeper \nhorizons under the rain water harvesting technologies, \nas the technologies collected water and retained it for \nperiod of time. \n \nThe average soil pH was 6.25, within the range \nbetween 5.0 -7.0, required for effective growth of \nmaize and beans (FAO, 2012). Soil pH plays a pivotal \nrole in the chemical characterization of the soil. In \nmost arid and semi-arid areas, a mixture of minerals \nexists each with different zero point of charge (ZPC) \nsimilar to this study site. A soil is composed of so many \nconstituents that the ZPC value of the soil is", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " and semi-arid areas, a mixture of minerals \nexists each with different zero point of charge (ZPC) \nsimilar to this study site. A soil is composed of so many \nconstituents that the ZPC value of the soil is \ndetermined and/or affected by their physico-chemical \nproperties and eventually its efficiency in crop \nproduction (Bennett et al., 2019). \n \nThe % OC ranged from 0.6 to 1.2 %, hence low, \naccording to London (2014). Soil organic matter is a \nkey attribute of soil quality that impacts soil \naggregation, resulting in increased infiltration, \nmovement of water in the soil and available water \ncapacity. Soils with organic matter content ≤ 3% are \nconsidered not suitable for crop production, because \nthe ideal organic matter content is ≥ 6% (USDA, \n1997), hence there in need for addition of fertilizers \nand manure in order to increase crop production. \n \nThe TN ranged between 0.08 to 0.1%, hence regarded \nas low (London, 2014). The low TN could be attributed \nto the low soil organic carbon, mainly as a result of \nlack of crop residue plough back. Available \nphosphorus content ranged between 15 to 23.4 ppm, \nrated at medium in relation to the threshold value of 25 \nppm (Brennan et al., 2013; Fairhurst, 2012). \nExchangeable potassium (K) concentration ranged \nbetween 0.9 to 1.7 cmol/kg. \n \nClimatic data \n \nMonthly climatic data during crops’ growing season \nare shown in Table 4. \n \nIn the 2019 SR, most rainfall was recorded at crop \nplanting (I) and vegetative development stages (II); \n219.9 and 211.5 mm, respectively (Figure 3). On the \nother hand, minimal rainfall was recorded at \ntasseling/silking stage; 57.9 mm. Low rainfall \nespecially at tasseling/silking stage could result to \nwater stress and therefore affect grain filling process \nand eventually, yield. However, this was not the case \nin the 2019 short rain season, probably because of the \npresence of the in-situ water harvesting technologies \nwhich could have stored", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "water stress and therefore affect grain filling process \nand eventually, yield. However, this was not the case \nin the 2019 short rain season, probably because of the \npresence of the in-situ water harvesting technologies \nwhich could have stored enough soil moisture and \navailed it to crops for uptake. \n \n \n \nTable 2. Soil physical properties of the experimental site. \nDepth \nPb (g/cm3) \nPorosity % \nSand % \nClay % \nSilt % \nKsat cm/hr \nTextural class \n0-15 \n1.4 \n0.47 \n74 \n24 \n2 \n19.6 \nSCL \n15-30 \n1.2 \n0.55 \n70 \n28 \n2 \n43.5 \nSCL \n30-45 \n1.2 \n0.55 \n68 \n30 \n2 \n36.1 \nSCL \n45-60 \n1.2 \n0.55 \n66 \n32 \n2 \n32.8 \nSCL \n60-75 \n1.2 \n0.55 \n64 \n32 \n4 \n37.4 \nSCL \n75-90 \n1.3 \n0.51 \n62 \n34 \n4 \n9.1 \nSCL \nAverage \n1.25 \n0.53 \n69 \n29 \n3 \n29.8 \nSCL \nLegend: Pb- Bulk density, SCL- Sandy clay loam.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n7 \nTable 3. Soil chemical properties. \nParameters \n0- 15 \ncm \n15-30 \ncm \n30-60 \ncm \n75-90 \ncm \npH (H2O) \n6.6 \n6.5 \n6.1 \n5.80 \nOrganic carbon \n(OC) (%) \n1.2 \n1.3 \n0.9 \n0.55 \nTotal Nitrogen \n(TN) (%) \n0.1 \n0.1 \n0.1 \n0.08 \nPhosphorus (P) \n(ppm) \n23.4 \n25.1 \n23.9 \n15.00 \nPotassium (K) \n(cmol/kg) \n1.7 \n1.9 \n1.8 \n0.90 \n \n \nIn the 2020 LR, minimal rainfall was recorded at crop \nvegetative development, tasseling/silking and at \nmaturity; 12, 6.3 and 5 mm, respectively. The highest \nrainfall experienced was at initiation (I); 140.8 mm. \n \nOn average, the two cropping seasons recorded low \nrainfall, though higher in short rain season than in the \nlong rain season (Figure 3). Low rainfall in the 2020 \nLR season would imply that crop yields would be \nlower as uptake of water and nutrients by plant roots \nwould be difficult as water is held at high tension \nmeaning more energy expended in water uptake that \ncould go to yield production. \n \nReference evapotranspiration was higher during the \n2020 LR season compared to the 2019 SR season, with \nhigher values recorded at tasseling/silking (III) and \nmaturation (IV) stages compared to values recorded at \nvegetative/development (II) and at initiation (I) stages \n(Figure 3). \n \nThe increase in the ETo values coincided with \ntasseling and silking stages where the rate of \ntranspiration because at this stage, the plants are fully \ndeveloped. If not managed well, the crops might wilt \ndue to higher water loss because in this period, the \nwater demand is the greatest and therefore, a strict \ncontrol of water supply is quite necessary", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " stage, the plants are fully \ndeveloped. If not managed well, the crops might wilt \ndue to higher water loss because in this period, the \nwater demand is the greatest and therefore, a strict \ncontrol of water supply is quite necessary (Farias et al., \n2017). \n \nThe average maximum and minimum temperature \nrecorded in the 2019 SR was 25 and 15.1 0C, \nrespectively. The hottest months were February and \nMarch, corresponding to crop maturation stages with a \nmean temperature of 26.2 0C. In the 2020 LR, the \naverage maximum air temperature was 24.4 and \nminimum was 12.7 0C, with May and June as the \nhottest months with maximum mean temperature of \n24.8 and minimum temperature of 13 0C. \n \n \nFigure 3. Rainfall, reference evapotranspiration (ETo), minimum (Tmin) and maximum (Tmax) temperature recorded \nfor different maize development stages namely; initiation (I), vegetative and development (II), tasseling/silking (III) \nmaturation (IV). \n \n \n5\n10\n15\n20\n25\n30\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\nI\nII\nIII\nIV\nI\nII\nIII\n1V\n2019 SR\n2020 LR\nTemperature (°C)\nRainfall and ETo (mm)\nRainfall (mm)\nETo (mm)\nTmax (°C)\nTmin (°C)", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n8 \nInfluence of in-situ water harvesting technologies, \nfertilizer inputs and cropping systems on soil \nmoisture retention \n \nTable 4 presents soil moisture content (cm3 /cm3) at \ndifferent sampling times. Soil moisture recorded at 4 \nweeks after planting (WAP) showed significant (p ≤ \n0.05) differences among the in-situ rain water \nharvesting technologies. Ngolo pits recorded 22.87 \ncm3/cm3 moisture, significantly higher than contour \nfurrows and conventional tillage which recorded 19.45 \nand 16.42 cm3 cm-3, respectively. The higher and \nsignificant soil moisture observed in ngolo pits \ncompared to the other technologies could be attributed \nto the increased water retention as well as the mulching \neffect resulting from the buried crop residues during \nconstruction. These findings are consistent with those \nof Malley (2005) who found out that the buried \nresidues in the ngolo pits, helped in improving soil \nfertility status, conserved soil moisture and led to \nincreased maize yield. \n \nA similar trend was observed in the soil moisture \nrecorded at 8 WAP (tasselling and silking stage). \n \nAt this stage, crops had fully developed and the ground \ncover was sufficient to reduce the direct impact of solar \nradiation which helped in reducing soil evaporation \nrate (Qi et al., 2011). Well established crop cover can \nalso increase water infiltration and reduce runoff (Yu \net al., 2016). This could have been attributed to the \nreduced ETo as reported earlier. \n \nSimilarly, cropping systems had a significant (p ≤ \n0.05) effect on soil moisture between cropping at crop \nvegetative \ndevelopment \nstage \n(4 \nWAP) \nand \ntasselling/silking stages (8 WAP). Sole plots of maize \nand beans recorded; 18.01 and 18.97 cm3/cm3 \nmoisture, respectively at 4 WAP and 11.08 and 12.36 \ncm3/cm3 moisture, respectively at 8WAP compared to \nintercrop. \n \nComparison of soil moisture between seasons and \ntreatments", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "isture, respectively at 4 WAP and 11.08 and 12.36 \ncm3/cm3 moisture, respectively at 8WAP compared to \nintercrop. \n \nComparison of soil moisture between seasons and \ntreatments showed that 2019 SR season was higher \ncompared to the 2020 LR. This could be attributed to \nthe differences in the amount of rainfall received, with \nthe 2020 LR season, receiving only 309 mm the entire \ngrowing season, which is below the maize and beans \nwater requirement of 500-800 and 300-500 mm, \nrespectively (FAO, 2012; Abideen, 2014). This was a \nlimiting factor in contrast to the 2019 SR season where \nthe total rainfall received was 1078 mm. This implied \nthat crops did not suffer water stress during the 2019 \nseason, hence the higher yields recorded. \n \n \nTable 4. Influence of in-situ water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping systems on soil water \ncontent in cm3/cm3 at the top 0-20 cm depth. \n \n2019 SR \n2020 LR \nTreatments \n4 WAP \n8 WAP \n12 WAP \n16 WAP \n4 WAP \n8 WAP \n12 WAP \n16 WAP \nWater harvesting technologies (T) \n \nNgolo pits \n22.87a \n14.75a \n17.21a \n16.78a \n14.97a \n13.40ab \n14.76a \n14.21a \nZai pits \n20.15ab \n13.14ab \n17.12a \n16.71a \n13.82a \n13.78a \n15.49a \n15.16a \nContour furrows \n19.45b \n11.22b \n15.43a \n16.20a \n13.72a \n12.24b \n14.50a \n14.82a \nConventional tillage \n16.42c \n10.91c \n14.74a \n16.10a \n13.64a \n11.58b \n13.41a \n11.02a \nFertilizer inputs (I) \n \nDAP \n18.80a \n11.15a \n17.30a \n17.10a \n14", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "64a \n11.58b \n13.41a \n11.02a \nFertilizer inputs (I) \n \nDAP \n18.80a \n11.15a \n17.30a \n17.10a \n14.17a \n12.41a \n14.75a \n13.77a \n½ DAP + ½ Manure \n19.30a \n12.15a \n15.97ab \n16.53a \n14.22a \n12.49a \n14.86a \n13.72a \nManure \n17.99a \n11.05a \n15.77b \n16.25a \n13.99a \n12.48a \n14.29a \n14.39a \ncontrol \n16.34a \n11.01a \n15.47b \n16.00a \n13.85a \n12.22a \n14.26a \n13.34a \nCropping systems (CS) \n \nSole beans \n18.97a \n12.36a \n16.68a \n16.61a \n14.93a \n12.17a \n14.42a \n13.32a \nSole maize \n18.01a \n11.08ab \n15.91a \n16.47a \n13.91a \n12.56a \n14.45a \n13.00a \nIntercrop \n16.44b \n10.57b \n15.79a \n16.34a \n13.33a \n12.49a \n14.75a \n15.10a \nSummary p-values \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nT \n0.002 \n0.008 \n0.172 \n0.940 \n0.046 \n0.006 \n0.507 \n0.346 \nI \n0.157 \n0.311 \n0.014 \n0.474 \n0.549 \n0.710 \n0.824 \n0.671 \nCS \n0.037 \n0.029 \n0.288 \n0.814 \n0.105 \n0.239 \n0.836 \n0.006 \nI × CS \n0.054 \n0.558 \n0.151 \n0.082 \n0.624 \n0.929 \n0.975 \n0.623 \nT × CS \n0.389 \n0.306", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".006 \nI × CS \n0.054 \n0.558 \n0.151 \n0.082 \n0.624 \n0.929 \n0.975 \n0.623 \nT × CS \n0.389 \n0.306 \n0.546 \n0.188 \n0.091 \n0.904 \n0.281 \n0.944 \nT × I × CS \n0.038 \n0.406 \n0.656 \n0.629 \n0.207 \n0.434 \n0.349 \n0.614 \nLegend: DAP fertilizer (100 kg/ha), half rate DAP + half rate goat manure (50 kg /ha+2.5 t/ha), Manure (5 t/ha), WAP-\nWeeks after planting *Means followed by the different letter down the column differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n9 \nThe difference in soil moisture content at different \ngrowth stages could be attributed to the amount of \nrainfall, soil evaporation, transpiration and crop water \nuptake (Mujdeci et al., 2010). For instance, low soil \nmoisture was recorded at tasselling stage (8 WAP) and \nsilking (12 WAP) compared to vegetative development \nstage (4 WAP). Tasselling and silking are the critical \nstages where crops water requirement is high and \ntherefore takes up a lot of water from the soil. Moisture \nstress and nutrient deficiencies occurring at these \nstages could greatly reduce the number of kernels per \nrow, resulting in shorter ears and lower yield potential \n(Admasu et al., 2017). \n \nFormation of pits during the construction of ngolo and \nzai technologies allowed more storage of rain water \nand time for infiltration, thus the reason for higher soil \nmoisture content. One proven attribute of ngolo pits is \nsoil entrapment in the pits, which helps in reducing \nrunoff \nwhilst \nencouraging \ninfiltration \nand \nsedimentation. \n \nAmede et al. (2011), Milkias et al. (2018) and \nGebreegziabher et al. (2009), recorded higher soil \nmoisture content in zai pits and tied ridges probably \ndue to increased water retention, infiltration and \nreduced run-off. Fatondji et al. (2006), while working \non psammentic paleustalf soils in Niger reported \nsimilar findings with zai pits retaining significantly \nmore soil water than conventional tillage. \n \nThe low soil water content recorded in intercrop \nsystem compared to monocrops could be due to the \nhigh population density per plot, which could have \nresulted in higher water extraction from the soil. These \nfindings are in conformity with those of Karuma et al. \n(2014), while working on Alfisols and Acrisols soil \ntypes in the semi-arid area of Mwala in Machakos \ncounty. \n \nBeans provided soil cover during the vegetive and \ndevelopment stages,", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "(2014), while working on Alfisols and Acrisols soil \ntypes in the semi-arid area of Mwala in Machakos \ncounty. \n \nBeans provided soil cover during the vegetive and \ndevelopment stages, a probable reason for higher soil \nmoisture in bean plots. Steiner (2002) reported that \ncropping systems that offer surface cover promote soil \nwater conservation by reducing evaporation and \nincreasing infiltration rate. \n \nMaize grain and biomass yields \n \nTable 5 presents the interactive effects of water \nharvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping \nsystems on maize grain and Stover yields. \n \nIn-situ water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs \nand cropping systems significantly (p ≤ 0.05) \nimproved maize grain yield during the 2019 SR \nseason. Highest maize grain yield (4.5 t/ha) was \nobtained in ngolo pits, which was 28.5, 44 and 68.6 % \nhigher than zai pits, contour furrows and conventional \ntillage, respectively (Table 3). While there was no \nsignificant difference between maize yields in zai pits \nand contour furrows, mean separation indicated that \nzai pits had 21.7% more yield than contour furrows. \n \nApplication of fertilizer and manure resulted in a \nsignificant (p ≤ 0.05) maize yield increase with \nfollowing trend; DAP ≥ DAP + 2.5 t/ha manure ≥ 5 \nt/ha of manure ≥ control treatments. Significant \ndifferences (p < 0.001) in maize grain yield were also \nobserved between cropping systems, where maize \nyield was higher in the intercrop compared to sole \nmaize. This could be attributed to the increased water \nand nutrient use efficiency and the complementarity \nbetween the two crops as alluded by Hauggaard-\nNielsen et al. (2008) and Buhk et al. (2017). \n \nSimilar trend was observed in stover production, with \nin-situ rain water harvesting technologies having a \nsignificant (p ≤ 0.05) effect. Highest stover of 7.43 t/ha \nwas recorded in ngolo pits, which was significantly \ndifferent from stover obtained from contour furrows \nand conventional tillage which recorded the least \nstover of ", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "05) effect. Highest stover of 7.43 t/ha \nwas recorded in ngolo pits, which was significantly \ndifferent from stover obtained from contour furrows \nand conventional tillage which recorded the least \nstover of 4.39 and 3.16 t/ha, respectively. Application \nof DAP fertilizer gave the highest stover yield with \ncontrol plots yielding the lowest stover. \n \nIn the 2020 LR season, the effect of fertilizer inputs \nwas significant (p < 0.001) in influencing maize grain \nand stover yields. The highest mean yields were \nrecorded in plots treated with DAP alone and in \ncombination with manure at half rates, with the lowest \nin the control. This could therefore imply that addition \nof organic and inorganic amendments to the soil \nimproved the chemical properties that enhanced \navailability of nutrients and their uptake as alluded by \nRuganzu et al. (2015). \n \nMoisture content plays a pivotal role in crop’s \nphysiological development from germination to \nmaturity \nas \nit \ncontrols \ncrop’s \nphenological, \nphysiological and morphological characteristics (Khan \net al., 2001). When there is soil water scarcity, the \nnumber of grains per plant and yield per unit area also \ndeclines (Saberina, 2010). This is because the \nbiochemical processes occurring in the plant are \naffected and the crops tend to hasten their maturity and \ncan end up wilting. Higher grain and stover yields \nobserved in ngolo and zai pit technologies could be \nattributed to the nutrient and moisture availability. \nCrop roots absorb these available resources, resulting \nin increased growth and improved grain yield.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n10 \nTable 5. Maize Stover and grain yields as affected by in-situ water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and \ncropping systems. \nTreatments \n2019 SR \n2020 LR \nStover \nGrains \nStover \nGrains \n \nt/ha \nWater harvesting technologies (T) \nNgolo pits \n7.43a \n4.52a \n4.21a \n1.55a \nZai pits \n5.98ab \n3.23b \n2.65a \n1.06a \nContour furrows \n4.39bc \n2.53b \n3.47a \n0.88a \nConventional tillage \n3.16c \n1.42c \n2.24a \n0.61a \nS.E. \n0.528 \n0.248 \n0.527 \n0.303 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n1.827 \n0.574 \n2.5824 \n1.048 \nFertilizer inputs (I) \nDAP \n7.20a \n3.67a \n4.81a \n1.54a \n½ DAP + ½ Manure \n5.66b \n3.49a \n3.49b \n1.25a \nManure \n5.09b \n2.53b \n2.51c \n0.87b \nControl \n3.01c \n2.02c \n1.74d \n0.44c \nS.E. \n0.233 \n0.145 \n0.179 \n0.121 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n0.681 \n0.323 \n0.522 \n0.353 \nCropping system (CS) \nSole maize \n5.01b \n2.88b \n2.97b \n0.97a \nMaize-bean intercrop \n5.36a \n3.21a \n3.31a \n1.08a \nS.E. \n0.118 \n0.069 \n0.081 \n0.051 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n0.339 \n0.132 \n0.234 \n0.146 \nSummary of p-values \nT \n0.006", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n0.118 \n0.069 \n0.081 \n0.051 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n0.339 \n0.132 \n0.234 \n0.146 \nSummary of p-values \nT \n0.006 \n<.001 \n0.134 \n0.234 \nI \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \nCS \n<.001 \n<.001 \n0.024 \n0.124 \nT×CS \n0.685 \n0.330 \n0.151 \n0.500 \nT×I \n0.008 \n0.058 \n0.090 \n0.050 \nI×CS \n0.659 \n0.659 \n0.017 \n0.045 \nT×I×CS \n0.439 \n0.467 \n0.477 \n0.997 \nLegend: DAP fertilizer (100 kg/ha), half rate DAP + half rate goat manure (50 kg/ha+2.5 t/ha), Manure (5 t/ ha1), \n*Means followed by the different letter down the column differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 \n \n \nKumar et al. (2000) observed that availability of \nmoisture in the soil during crop growth stages resulted \nin \nbetter \ncrop \ngrowth \nand \nimproved \nyield. \nMudatenguha et al. (2014) linked the significant \nincrease in maize yield under zai pits compared to \nconventional tillage to, the ability of zai pits to collect, \nstore and avail soil moisture to the crop roots during \ngrowth. \n \nJICA (1998) attributed the higher maize yields \nrecorded under ngolo pits to improved soil fertility \nstatus, which could have resulted from decomposition \nof the buried crop residues during the construction of \npits. \n \nAccording to Kato (2001), darker soil rich in organic \nmatter is formed in deeper layers under ngolo pits, \nwhen buried residues are mixed into the deep soils, \nwhich provide conditions favorable for high crop \nyields (Kato, 2001). \n \nThese results are consistent with Wouterse (2017) who \nreported that zai pit technology was an intervention \nused by smallholder farmers to increase agricultural \nproduction through improving rainwater capture, \nreducing runoff, reducing water evaporation", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "These results are consistent with Wouterse (2017) who \nreported that zai pit technology was an intervention \nused by smallholder farmers to increase agricultural \nproduction through improving rainwater capture, \nreducing runoff, reducing water evaporation from the \nsoil increasing water infiltration. Biazin et al. (2012), \nDanjuma et al. (2012) and Kar et al. (2013) also \nreported that rain water harvesting technologies in \ncombination with the use of inorganic and organic \ninputs increases nutrients in the soil, thereby \nimproving crop productivity. \n \nThe significant increase in grain and biomass yield in \nresponse to the application of DAP fertilizer alone and \nmixture of DAP and manure at half rates could be \nattributed to increased nutrient and soil moisture \navailability, which could have facilitated the uptake of \nnutrients by plant roots, translating to high yield. Soil \nmoisture has an impact on the forms, solubility, and \naccessibility of plant nutrients required for crop growth \n(Ampofo, 2006). Increased yield following fertilizer", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n11 \nand manure application could be attributed to the \nimproved fertility status of the soil, as alluded by Patel \net al. (2013). This result signified the more prominent \nroles played by DAP fertilizer and manure in \nenhancing growth of crops and thus yield. This is due \nto the fact that mineral fertilizer provides nutrients that \nare easily soluble in soil solution, whereas organic \nmanures help to improve soil health and health, \nthereby improving nutrient availability and making \nnutrients readily available to crops (Aziz et al., 2010; \nAyuke et al., 2004; Bationo, 2004). \n \nUnder cropping systems, grain and stover yields from \nintercropping systems outperformed those from \nmonocrop. This implies that intercropping is more \nefficient than mono-cropping at utilizing soil water and \nnutrients, which could be attributed to intercrop \ncomplementarity \nand \nsynergist \neffects. \nThis \ncontradicts the findings of Belel et al. (2014), who \nobtained lower yields in intercropping systems due to \ncompetition for moisture, nutrients and light. \n \nLower maize grain and stover yields were recorded in \n2020 long rains in all the treatments, which could be \nattributed to the low amounts of rainfall received \nduring the season (Figure 1). Given that maize requires \n500-800 mm of water in the entire growing season \n(FAO, 2012), the rainfall amount recorded in this \nseason was inadequate to meet the crop’s seasonal \nwater requirement. This might have resulted in water \nstress conditions, which might have resulted in reduced \nnutrient uptake, growth and yield (Khondaker et al., \n2013). \nBean grain yield \n \nThe interactive effects of in-situ water harvesting \ntechnologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping systems on \nbean yields is shown in Figure 4. \n \nBean yield was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) affected by in-\nsitu water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and \ncropping systems. A significant (p ≤ 0.05) interaction \nbetween water harvesting technologies × fertilizer \ninputs × cropping system was observed. Higher grain \nyield of", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ") affected by in-\nsitu water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and \ncropping systems. A significant (p ≤ 0.05) interaction \nbetween water harvesting technologies × fertilizer \ninputs × cropping system was observed. Higher grain \nyield of 1.64 t/ha was obtained in bean-maize \nintercropping system under ngolo pits following the \napplication of 100 kg/ha DAP fertilizer, whereas \nlowest yield of 0.44 t/ha was obtained from control \nplots of sole beans under conventional tillage during \nthe 2019 SR (Figure 4). \n \nDuring the 2020 LR, rainfall distribution was poor, \nwith \nprolonged \ndrier \nconditions \nexperienced \nthroughout the growing season, and this greatly \naffected beans, resulting to crop failure. \n \nThese results show that combination of in-situ water \nharvesting technologies; ngolo pits and DAP fertilizer \nfavored beans growth through provision of water and \nnutrients for uptake, and thus improved yield. Under \nthe different cropping system, higher yield was \nobserved under the intercrop system. This could be \nattributed to the complementarity and synergist effects \nbetween intercrops.\n \n \n \nFigure 4. Bean grain yield as affected by in-situ water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping systems. \n0.0\n0.5\n1.0\n1.5\n2.0\n2.5\nBeans\nIntercrop\nBeans\nIntercrop\nBeans\nIntercrop\nBeans\nIntercrop\nNgolo pits\nZai pits\nContour Furrows\nConventional Tillage\nGrain yield (t ha-1)\nTechnologies\nDAP\nDAP+ Manure\nManure\nCTRL", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n12 \nDrought experienced during the 2020 LR especially at \nthe crop flowering stage could have resulted in \nsignificant reduction in crop growth and hence low dry \nmatter production. The drying of leaves signifies a \nreduction in photosynthesis the pathways, hence low \nleaf development and reduced light interception. This \nin turn results to a significant reduction in yields \n(Emam et al., 2010). Similar findings were presented \nby Rezene et al. (2013) who reported that drought \nstress at the pre-flowering resulted to a reduction in \nseed quality, lowered the number of pods per bean \nplant, ultimately leading to a reduction in yields. \n \nEffect of in-situ water harvesting technologies, \nfertilizer inputs and cropping systems on nutrient \nuptake \n \nThe interactive effect of water harvesting technologies, \nfertilizer inputs and cropping systems on nutrient \nuptake is shown in Table 6. \nIn-situ water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs \nand cropping systems had significant (p ≤ 0.05) effects \non grain N, P and K uptake. In the SR, the highest \ngrain N, P and K uptake by maize grain (67.7, 48.2 and \n24.9 kg/ha, respectively) recorded in ngolo pits were \nsignificantly different from zai pit, contour furrows \nand conventional tillage. The lowest uptake by grain \nwere exhibited in conventional tillage (Table 6). \n \nHighest N, P and K content was recorded following \napplication of DAP fertilizer, with control plots \nexhibiting the lowest grain N, P and K contents. \nApplication of 100 kg/ha DAP fertilizer recorded 31.8, \n29.6 and 31.6% higher N, P and K, respectively than \napplication of 5 t/ha manure and 56.3, 53.2 and 54.5% \nhigher N, P and K uptake, respectively than control \nplots. \n \n \nTable 6. Nutrient uptake in maize grain as affected by water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and \ncropping systems \n \nTreatments \n2019 short rain (SR) \n2020 long rain (LR) \nGrains uptake (K", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Table 6. Nutrient uptake in maize grain as affected by water harvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and \ncropping systems \n \nTreatments \n2019 short rain (SR) \n2020 long rain (LR) \nGrains uptake (Kg/ha) \nGrains uptake (Kg/ha) \nN \nP \nK \nN \nP \nK \nWater harvesting technologies (T) \nNgolo pits \n67.7a \n48.2a \n24.9a \n23.2a \n20.1a \n12.1a \nZai pits \n43.1b \n40.7ab \n16.2b \n15.9a \n19.0a \n10.9a \nContour furrows \n38.9b \n35.2b \n12.5b \n11.2a \n11.7a \n10.0a \nConventional tillage \n19.5c \n25.7c \n9.5c \n11.2a \n11.3a \n7.4a \nS.E. \n3.180 \n2.07 \n0.913 \n3.432 \n2.131 \n1.011 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n11.003 \n10.62 \n3.527 \n11.878 \n7.374 \n 5.119 \nFertilizer inputs (I) \nDAP \n55.4a \n42.5a \n20.9a \n20.9a \n19.9a \n13.3a \n½ DAP + ½ Manure \n51.7a \n37.1a \n18.5b \n18.3ab \n17.6a \n10.4a \nManure \n37.8b \n29.9b \n12.5c \n14.3b \n15.6a \n7.6ab \ncontrol \n24.2c \n19.9b \n9.5d \n8.0c \n9.1b \n4.3b \nS.E. \n3.531 \n2.81 \n0.887 \n1.505 \n1.697 \n0.988 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n10.307 \n11.13 \n2.076 \n4.394 \n4.953 \n 4.729 \nCropping systems (CS) \nSole maize \n38.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n0.988 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n10.307 \n11.13 \n2.076 \n4.394 \n4.953 \n 4.729 \nCropping systems (CS) \nSole maize \n38.8b \n43.2b \n14.2b \n14.5a \n15.1a \n12.2a \nMaize-bean intercrop \n45.8a \n56.5a \n16.6a \n16.2a \n16.0a \n12.8a \nS.E. \n1.264 \n1.71 \n0.137 \n0.823 \n0.556 \n0.412 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n3.64 \n4.92 \n0.711 \n2.371 \n1.603 \n0.945 \nSummary p-values \n \n \n \n \n \n \nT \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n0.136 \n0.048 \n0.079 \nI \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n0.001 \n0.034 \nCS \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n0.155 \n0.238 \n0.122 \nT × I \n0.196 \n0.084 \n0.008 \n0.019 \n0.260 \n0.312 \nT × CS \n0.473 \n0.469 \n0.056 \n0.243 \n0.038 \n0.541 \nI × CS \n0.364 \n0.200 \n0.728 \n0.870 \n0.719 \n0.119 \nT ×I × CS \n0.264 \n0.633 \n0.124 \n0.979 \n0.742 \n0.674 \nLegend: DAP fertilizer (100 kg/ha), half rate DAP + half rate goat manure (50 kg/ha+2.5 t/ha), Goat manure (5 t/ ha). \n*Means followed by the different letter down the column differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n13 \nCropping systems significantly (p ≤ 0.05) affected \ngrain uptake, with higher N, P and K uptake recorded \nin intercropped plots than in sole maize plots. \n \nDuring the LR, in-situ water harvesting technologies \nand cropping systems did not significantly influence N, \nP and K uptake, however the N, P and K grain contents \ndiffered significantly (p ≤ 0.05) with fertilizer inputs. \nApplication of 100 kg ha-1 DAP fertilizer led to \nsignificantly higher N, P and K content than N, P and \nK contents recorded in control plots. \n \nNitrogen, phosphorus and potassium values were \nsignificantly higher in ngolo as compared to zai pits, \ncontour furrows and conventional tillage, probably due \nto availability of soil moisture and better root growth \nthat favored nutrient uptake. Water is critical in \ndetermining a plant's ability to absorb nutrients from \nthe soil, because, soil water content influences nutrient \nmovement from the soil, to the roots and to the \naboveground part of the plants (Rani et al., 2020; Li et \nal., 2009). Outarra et al. (2006) reported a positive \ncorrelation between soil moisture and N, P and K \nuptake due to improved soil moisture status which \nincreases the availability of nutrients. Similar findings \nwere reported by Dougbedji (2002) who found that zai \npits \nimproved \nnitrogen \nuptake \ncompared \nto \nconventional tillage on psammentic paleustalf soils in \nNiger. \n \nThe higher uptake of N, P and K in ngolo pits \ncompared to contour furrows and conventional tillage \ncould be attributed to the improved soil health status \ndue to the decomposition of the buried crop residues. \nMalley (2005) reported that incidences where soil \nfertility status is improved, then nutrients are readily \navailable to crops, hence an increased uptake. These \nfindings corroborate with those of Pasley et al. (2019), \nwho reported higher N, P and K uptake as a result of \nincreased fertility status. \n \nThe results show that adding DAP", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " an increased uptake. These \nfindings corroborate with those of Pasley et al. (2019), \nwho reported higher N, P and K uptake as a result of \nincreased fertility status. \n \nThe results show that adding DAP and manure had a \npositive response to N, P and K uptake and it was high \nin plots treated with 100 kg ha-1 DAP followed by \nmixture of 50 kg ha-1 DAP + 2.5 t ha-1 manure. This \nmight be due to the increased supply of all nutrients \ndirectly though organic and inorganic sources to crops. \nThis proposition is consistent with that of Haile et al. \n(2012), who reported that N, p and K uptake by wheat \ncrop was significantly increased when the highest dose \nof N fertilizer was applied. Similar findings were \nreported by Malo and Ghosh (2019) who reported \nhighest uptake of N, P and K by rice following the \napplication of inorganic and organic fertilizers. \n \nIt was also noted that uptake of N, P and K increased \nunder combined use of in-situ water harvesting \ntechnologies and fertilizer inputs. This could be \nattributed to the conserved soil moisture which might \nhave helped in dissolving the soil nutrients from the \napplied DAP fertilizer, making them easily available \nfor plant uptake. \n \nDuring dry season, soils become dry and therefore, \nplants experiences difficulty absorbing nutrients, \nbecause most nutrients are in elemental forms rather \nthan ionic forms, resulting in low uptake and hence \nnutrient levels may be lower than normal (Liu et al., \n2013; Jones et al., 2011). This could explain why there \nwas higher nutrient uptake in the 2019 short rains as \ncompared to 2020 long rains. These findings are \nconsistent with the findings of Ademba et al. (2014), \nwho reported that N, P, and K uptake varied seasonally \ndue to variation in rainfall patterns. Thus, weather \nconditions have a significant impact on a plant's ability \nto absorb nutrients, with low uptake occurring during \nseasons with insufficient rainfall (Ibrahim et al., 2011; \nSigunga et al., 2002). \n \nEffect of in-situ water harvesting technologies, \nfertilizer inputs and cropping systems on nitrogen \nand phosph", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "seasons with insufficient rainfall (Ibrahim et al., 2011; \nSigunga et al., 2002). \n \nEffect of in-situ water harvesting technologies, \nfertilizer inputs and cropping systems on nitrogen \nand phosphorus use efficiency \n \nTable 7 presents the effects of water harvesting \ntechnologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping systems on \nN and P use efficiency. \n \nNitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency showed \nsignificant (p ≤ 0.05) response to the main effects of \nin-situ water harvesting technologies and fertilizer \ninputs but not with cropping systems in the 2019 SR \nseason. Nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency were \n30.12 and 38.3 kg/ha under ngolo pits, significantly \nhigher than 12.4 and 16.9 kg/ha N and P use efficiency \nunder conventional tillage in the 2019 SR season \n(Table 7). No significant difference in N and p use \nefficiency was recorded between ngolo, zai pits and \ncontour furrows. \n \nApplying DAP fertilizer at 100 kg/ha, led to an \nincrease in N and P use efficiency, whereas application \nof 5 t/ha manure resulted in lower N use efficiency. \nNitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency under DAP \nalone and mixture of DAP + manure showed an \naverage of 57.4 and 41.9 % increase, respectively over \nmanure alone in the 2019 SR season. \n \nIn the 2020 LR, neither in-situ water harvesting \ntechnologies nor cropping systems were significant in \ninfluencing N and P use efficiency. However, fertilizer \ninputs had a significant (p≤ 0.05) on N and P use \nefficiency. The highest values of N and P use \nefficiency at 39.1 and 40.1 kg/ha, respectively were \nobtained following application of 100 kg ha-1 DAP \nfertilizer, and lowest N and P use efficiency values \nrecorded in plots treated with 5 t/ha manure. \nCombination of DAP and manure applied at half rates", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n14 \nTable 7. Nitrogen and phosphorus agronomic use efficiency in maize cropping system under in-situ water \nharvesting technologies, fertilizer inputs and cropping systems. \nTreatments \n2019 SR \n2020 LR \nNUE \nPUE \nNUE \nPUE \nWater harvesting technologies (T) \nNgolo pits \n30.16a \n38.27a \n21.11a \n26.42a \nZai pits \n24.39a \n34.18a \n12.04a \n14.55a \nContour furrows \n25.89a \n32.60a \n10.80a \n12.05a \nConventional tillage \n12.44b \n16.92b \n10.04a \n13.14a \nS.E. \n2.93 \n3.70 \n2.13 \n1.93 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n10.14 \n12.8 \n8.708 \n13.06 \nFertilizer inputs (I) \nDAP \n39.09a \n40.05a \n22.97a \n24.47a \n½ DAP + ½ Manure \n23.93b \n35.90a \n15.39b \n17.98a \nManure \n16.64c \n23.28b \n13.20c \n10.92b \nControl \n- \n- \n- \n- \nS.E. \n2.19 \n2.95 \n1.93 \n1.23 \nLSD ≤ 5% \n6.55 \n8.84 \n4.941 \n7.006 \nCropping system (CS) \nSole maize \n22.5a \n29.4a \n13.28a \n16.86a \nMaize-bean intercrop \n23.9a \n30.1a \n14.43a \n17.72a \nS.E. \n1.96 \n2.53 \n1.01 \n1.44 \nLSD 5% \n5.72 \n7.39 \n2.464 \n3.182 \nSummary p-values \n \n \n \n \nT \n0.024 \n0.014 \n0.100 \n0.131 \n", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1.44 \nLSD 5% \n5.72 \n7.39 \n2.464 \n3.182 \nSummary p-values \n \n \n \n \nT \n0.024 \n0.014 \n0.100 \n0.131 \nI \n<.001 \n<.001 \n<.001 \n0.008 \nCS \n0.613 \n0.845 \n0.347 \n0.585 \nT × CS \n0.214 \n0.230 \n0.150 \n0.524 \nT × I \n0.345 \n0.368 \n0.406 \n0.365 \nI × CS \n0.705 \n0.916 \n0.639 \n0.817 \nT × I × CS \n0.894 \n0.968 \n0.579 \n0.856 \nLegend: DAP fertilizer (100 kg/ha), half rate DAP + half rate goat manure (50 kg/ha+2.5 t /ha), Goat manure (5 t ha). \nNUE-Nitrogen use efficiency, PUE- Phosphorus use efficiency *Means followed by the different letter down the \ncolumn differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. \n \n \nled to 14.2% increase in N use efficiency compared to \nwhen manure was applied at 5 t/ha. \n \nThe higher N and P agronomic use efficiencies denoted \nby yields under ngolo and zai pits than in conventional \ntillage is a probable indication that there was better \nutilization of nutrients and water in the two \ntechnologies. Crops under these technologies could \nhave benefited from the conserved water and available \nnutrients at the root zone, which resulted in faster \ngrowth, higher nutrient uptake, enhanced utilization \nand yield. Availability of moisture directly influences \nthe ability of crops to take up nutrients from the soil, \nand in turn their utilization efficiency. Dougbedji \n(2002) \nreported \nsimilar \nfindings, \nwhere \nthe \nconcentration of N in pearl millet grain was higher \nunder zai pits compared to conventional tillage. \n \nIn line with the present finding, Shaheen et al. (2012) \nreported that the efficiency of plants to absorb nutrients \nand the capacity of the soil to supply them are reduced \nunder low soil moisture condition, and therefore in \nagreement with this study’s findings. \n \nThe beneficial", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". (2012) \nreported that the efficiency of plants to absorb nutrients \nand the capacity of the soil to supply them are reduced \nunder low soil moisture condition, and therefore in \nagreement with this study’s findings. \n \nThe beneficial effect of fertilizers in enhancing \nnutrient use efficiency of crops could be attributed to \nthe rapid early growth, which contributes significantly \nto dry matter accumulation and hence higher use \nefficiency (Kugedera et al., 2019). This could probably \nbe the reason for increased N and P use efficiency \nfollowing application of 100 kg/ha DAP and mixture \nof 50 kg/ha + 2.5 t/ha manure. Higher uptake and use \nefficiency contribute to better us of applied nutrients \nand reduce losses from the soil (Oo et al., 2010). \n \nCONCLUSIONS \n \nZai and ngolo pits recorded consistently higher soil \nmoisture content at all the sampling times across the \ntwo seasons compared to conventional tillage.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n15 \nGrain and biomass yield as well as nutrient uptake and \nuse efficiency from zai and ngolo pits were higher than \nthose from contour furrows and conventional tillage. \nIt was noted that grain and biomass yield in plots \ntreated with 100 kg/ha DAP fertilizer was not \nsignificantly different from those obtained from plots \ntreated with a mixture of 50 kg/ha DAP + 2.5 t/ha goat \nmanure. Farmers can therefore apply a mixture of \nmineral fertilizer and animal manure at half rates to \nobtain optimal yield. \n \nCereals and legumes are recommended to be grown \nunder ngolo or zai pits. This is due to the ability of the \ntwo technologies to store water that will be available \nto crops and to cushion crops against droughts that are \npredicted to become more frequent and severe as a \nresult of climate change. \n \nFunding: This work was fully funded by Kenya \nAgricultural \nLivestock \nResearch \nOrganization \n(KALRO) through the Kenya Cereal Enhancement \nProgram-Climate \nResilient \nand \nAgricultural \nLivelihoods (KCEP-CRAL) project. \n \nConflict of interest: The authors confirm that there are \nno known conflicts of interest associated with this \npublication. \n \nCompliance with ethical standards do not apply: \nDo not apply. No human participants or animals were \nused in the studies undertaken in this article by any of \nthe authors. \n \n \nData availability: Data is available with Kelvin \nWafula \nMukhebi \n(wafulakelvin2019@gmail.com) \nupon reasonable request. \n \nAuthor contribution statement (CRediT): Kelvin. \nM. Wafula- conceptualization, data curation, formal \nanalysis, \nmethodology, \ninvestigation, \nproject \nadministration, visualization, resources, software, \nwriting original draft. Nancy N. Karanja, George N. \nKaruku and Anthony O. Esilaba- supervision, \nvalidation, writing- review and editing. Anthony O. \nEsilaba- funding. \n \nREFERENCES \n \nAbideen, Z.U., 2014. Comparison of crop water \nrequirements of maize varieties under \nirrig", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "- supervision, \nvalidation, writing- review and editing. Anthony O. \nEsilaba- funding. \n \nREFERENCES \n \nAbideen, Z.U., 2014. Comparison of crop water \nrequirements of maize varieties under \nirrigated condition in semi-arid environment. \nJournal of Environment and Earth Science. \n4(9), \npp. \n1-3. \nhttps://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JE\nES/article/view/11836 \n \nAbubaker, B.M.A., En, Y.S., Cheng, S.G. and Alhadi, \nM., 2014. Impact of different water \nharvesting techniques on soil moisture \ncontent and yield components of sorghum. \nPakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, \n51, pp- 779-788. \n \nAdemba, J.S., Kwach, J.K., Ngari, S.M., Esilaba, A.O. \nand Kidula, N.L., 2014. Evaluation of organic \nand inorganic amendments on nutrient \nuptake, phosphorus use efficiency and yield \nof maize in Kisii County, Kenya. African \nJournal of Agricultural Research, 9(20), \npp.1571-1578. \nhttps://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2012.709. \n \nAdmasu, R., Tadesse, M. and Shimbir, T., 2017. Effect \nof growth stage moisture stress on maize (Zea \nmays) yield and water use Eeficiency at West \nWellaga, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, \nAgriculture and Healthcare, 8(23), pp. 98-\n103. \nhttps://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JB\nAH/article/view/40192/41338 \n \nAmede, T., Menza, M. and Awlachew, S.B., 2011. Zai \nimproves nutrient and water productivity in \nthe \nEthiopian \nhighlands. \nExperimental \nAgriculture, \n47(S1), \npp. \n7-20. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000803 \n \nAmpofo, E.A., 2006. Soil moisture dynamics in coastal \nsavanna soils in the tropics under different \nsoil management practices.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000803 \n \nAmpofo, E.A., 2006. Soil moisture dynamics in coastal \nsavanna soils in the tropics under different \nsoil management practices. Hydrological \nSciences Journal, 51(6), pp. 1194-1202. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.6.1194 \n \nAziz, T., Ullah, S., Sattar, A., Nasim, M., Farooq, M. \nand Khan, M.M., 2010. Nutrient availability \nand maize (Zea mays) growth in soil amended \nwith organic manures. International Journal \nof Agriculture and Biology. 12(4), pp. 621-\n624. \n \nBationo, A., Fairhurst, T., Giller, K. E., Kelly, V., \nLunduka, R., Mando, A., and Zingore, S. \n2012. Africa Soil Health Consortium: Hand \nbook \nfor \nIntegrated \nSoil \nFertility \nManagement. CAB International. ISBN (e-\nbook), \n978(1), \n78064. \nhttps://publications.cta.int/media/publication\ns/downloads/1853_PDF.pdf \n \nBayala, J., Sileshi, G.W., Coe, R., Kalinganire, A., \nTchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F. and Garrity, D., \n2012. Cereal yield response to conservation \nagriculture practices in drylands of West \nAfrica: a quantitative synthesis. Journal of \nArid \nEnvironments, \n78, \npp. \n13-25. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.10.011", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n16 \nBelel, M.D., Halim, R.A., Rafii, M.Y. and Saud, H.M., \n2014. Intercropping of corn with some \nselected legumes for improved forage \nproduction: A review. Journal of Agricultural \nScience, \n6(3), \np. \n48. \nhttps://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n3p48. \n \nBennett, J.A. and Klironomos, J., 2019. Mechanisms \nof plant–soil feedback: interactions among \nbiotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytologist, \n222(1), \npp. \n91-96. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15603. \n \nBiazin, B., Sterk, G., Temesgen, M., Abdulkedir, A. \nand Stroosnijder, L., 2012. Rainwater \nharvesting and management in rainfed \nagricultural systems in sub-Saharan Africa–a \nreview. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, \nParts \nA/B/C, \n47, \npp. \n139-151. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.08.015. \n \nBrentrup, F. and Pallière, C., 2010, March. Nitrogen \nuse efficiency as an agro-environmental \nindicator. In Proceedings of the OECD \nWorkshop on Agri-environmental Indicators, \nMarch (pp. 23-26). \n \nBuhk, C., Alt, M., Steinbauer, M.J., Beierkuhnlein, C., \nWarren, S.D. and Jentsch, A., 2017. \nHomogenizing and diversifying effects of \nintensive agricultural land-use on plant \nspecies beta diversity in Central Europe: A \ncall to adapt our conservation measures. \nScience of the Total Environment, 576, pp. \n225-233. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106434. \n \nChaudhari, P.R., Ahire, D.V", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nScience of the Total Environment, 576, pp. \n225-233. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106434. \n \nChaudhari, P.R., Ahire, D.V., Ahire, V.D., Chkravarty, \nM. and Maity, S., 2013. Soil bulk density as \nrelated to soil texture, organic matter content \nand available total nutrients of Coimbatore \nsoil. International Journal of Scientific and \nResearch Publications, 3(2), pp. 1-8. \n \nCofie, O. and Amede, T., 2015. Water management for \nsustainable agricultural intensification and \nsmallholder resilience in sub-Saharan Africa. \nWater Resources and Rural Development, 6, \npp. \n3-11. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2015.10.001. \n \nDile, Y.T., Karlberg, L., Temesgen, M. and \nRockström, J., 2013. The role of water \nharvesting to achieve sustainable agricultural \nintensification and resilience against water \nrelated shocks in sub-Saharan Africa. \nAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, \n181, \npp. \n69-79. \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.014. \nDougbedji, \nF., \n2002. \nOrganic \namendment \ndecomposition, nutrient release and nutrient \nuptake by millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. \nBr.) in a traditional land rehabilitation \ntechnique (zai) in the Sahel (Vol. 1). Cuvillier \nVerlag. \n \nEmam, Y., Shekoofa, A., Salehi, F. and Jalali, A.H., \n2010. Water stress effects on two common \nbean cultivars with contrasting growth habits. \nAmerican-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural \n& Environmental Sciences, 9(5), pp. 495-499. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2010.530256. \n \nEsilaba, A.O., Njiru, E., Ruto, R., Omondi, S.P., \n", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2010.530256. \n \nEsilaba, A.O., Njiru, E., Ruto, R., Omondi, S.P., \nKwena, K.M., Thuranira, E.G., Mwangi, J.A. \nand Simiyu, A.W., 2020. Enhancing Soil \nProductivity and Water and Nutrient Use \nEfficiencies \nin \nIntegrated \nCropping-\nLivestock Production Systems in Kenya. \nIAEA Tecdoc Series, p. 56. https://www-\npub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-\n1924web.pdf. \n \nFairhurst, T., 2012. Handbook for integrated soil \nfertility management. CTA/CABI. \n \nFAO. 2012. Crop Evapotranspiration (Guidelines for \ncomputing \ncrop \nwater \nrequirement). \nIrrigation and Drainage. 56, p. 163 \n \nFarias, V.D.D.S., Lima, M.J.A.D., Nunes, H.G.G.C., \nSousa, D.D.P. and Souza, P.J.D.O.P., 2017. \nWater Demand, Crop Coefficient \nand \nUncoupling Factor of Cowpea in The Eastern \nAmazon1. Revista Caatinga, 30, pp.190-200. \nhttps://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2371/23714856\n9021.pdf \n \nFatondji, D., Martius, C., Bielders, C.L., Vlek, P.L., \nBationo, A. and Gerard, B., 2006. Effect of \nplanting technique and amendment type on \npearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water \nuse on degraded land in Niger. Nutrient \nCycling in Agroecosystems, 76(2), pp. 203-\n217. \nhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10\n705-005-6209-9 \n \nGebreegziabher, T., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Getnet, \nF., Behailu, M., Haile, M. and Deckers, J., \n2009. Contour furrows", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "gziabher, T., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Getnet, \nF., Behailu, M., Haile, M. and Deckers, J., \n2009. Contour furrows for in situ soil and \nwater \nconservation, \nTigray, \nNorthern \nEthiopia. Soil and Tillage Research, 103(2), \npp. \n257-264. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.05.021 \n \nGicheru, P.T. and Ita, B.N., 1987. Detailed soil survey \nof the Katumani National Dryland Farming", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n17 \nResearch Station Farms (Machakos District). \nRepublic of Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture, \nNational Agricultural Laboratories, Kenya \nSoil \nSurvey. \nhttps://books.google.co.ke/books/about/Detai\nled_Soil_Survey_of_the_Katumani_Nat.htm\nl?id=GnoiHAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y \n \nGikonyo N.W., Busienei, J.R., Gathiaka, J.K; Karuku, \nG.N. 2022. Analysis of Household savings \nand adoption of climate Smart Agricultural \nTechnologies. Evidence from smallholder \nfarmers in Nyando Basin, Kenya. Heliyon, \n8(6), \npp. \nE09692. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09692. \n \nHaile, D., Nigussie, D. and Ayana, A., 2012. Nitrogen \nuse efficiency of bread wheat: Effects of \nnitrogen rate and time of application. Journal \nof Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 12(3), \npp.389-410. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-\n95162012005000002 \n \nHauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jørnsgaard, B., Kinane, J. and \nJensen, E.S., 2008. Grain legume–cereal \nintercropping: The practical application of \ndiversity, competition and facilitation in \narable \nand \norganic \ncropping \nsystems. \nRenewable Agriculture and Food Systems, \n23(1), \npp.3-12. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s17421705070020\n25. \n \nIbrahim, A.A., Ati, F.Q. and Adebayo, A.A., 2011. \nEffect of climate on the growth and yield of \nsorghum (sorghum bicolor) in Wailo, \nGanjuwa local government area, Bauchi state. \nResearch Journal of Environmental and \nEarth Sciences, 3(5), pp.469-472. \n \nJa", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "um (sorghum bicolor) in Wailo, \nGanjuwa local government area, Bauchi state. \nResearch Journal of Environmental and \nEarth Sciences, 3(5), pp.469-472. \n \nJaetzold, R., 2010. Farm Management Handbook of \nKenya: Volume II: Natural Conditions and \nFarm Management Information; Annex: \nAtlas of Agro-Ecological Zones, Soils and \nFertilising by Group of Districts; Subpart A2: \nNyanza Province Homa Bay and Migori \nCounty. https://d-nb.info/109742894X/34 \n \nJones, C., Olson-Rutz, K. and Dinkins, C., 2011. \nNutrient uptake timing by crops. Montana, \nUSA: Montana State University. \n \nKaruku G. N. 2018. Soil and Water Conservation \nMeasures and Challenges in Kenya; a \nReview. International Journal of Agronomy \nand Agricultural Research, 12(6), pp. 116-\n145. \n \nKaruku, G.N. and Mochoge, B.O., 2018. Nitrogen \nmineralization potential (No) in three Kenyan \nsoils, nitisols, ferralsols and luvisols. Journal \nof Agricultural Science, 10(4), p. 201. \nhttps://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v10n4p69. \n \nKaruma, A., Mtakwa, P., Amuri, N., Gachene, C.K. \nand Gicheru, P., 2014. Enhancing soil water \ncontent for increased food production in \nsemi-arid areas of Kenya results from an on-\nfarm trial in Mwala district, Kenya. Journal \nof Agricultural Science, 6(4), pp. 125-134. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n4p125. \n \nKathuli, P. and Itabari, J.K., 2015. In situ soil moisture \nconservation: Utilization and management of \nrainwater for crop production. In Adapting \nAfrican Agriculture to Climate Change (pp. \n127-142). \nSpringer, \nCham. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " management of \nrainwater for crop production. In Adapting \nAfrican Agriculture to Climate Change (pp. \n127-142). \nSpringer, \nCham. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13000-\n2_11. \n \nKato, M., 2001. Intensive cultivation and environment \nuse among the Matengo in Tanzania. African \nStudy \nMonographs, \n22(2), \npp.73-92. \nhttps://doi.org/10.14989/68204. \n \nKhondaker, Z.H., Khan, T.H., Rahman, S. and Islam, \nA., 2013. Effect of soil moisture stress on the \navailability and uptake of N, P and K by \nwheat plants and growth, yield and quality of \nwheat [in Bangladesh]. Bangladesh Journal \nof \nSoil \nScience \n(Bangladesh). \nhttps://agris.fao.org/agris-\nsearch/search.do?recordID=BD8625190 \n \nKugedera, A.T., Kokerai, L.K. and Chimbwanda, F., \n2018. Effects of in-situ rainwater harvesting \nand integrated nutrient management options \non Sorghum production. Global Scientific \nJournals, 6(12), pp. 415-427 \n \nKwena, K.M., Ayuke, F.O., Karuku, G.N. and Esilaba, \nA.O., 2018. No rain but bumper harvest: the \nmagic of pigeon pea in semi-arid Kenya. \nInternational \nJournal \nof \nAgricultural \nResources, Governance and Ecology, 14(2), \npp.181-203. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2018.10015\n157. \n \nLandon, J.R., 2014. Booker tropical soil manual: a \nhandbook for soil survey and agricultural land \nevaluation in the tropics and subtropics. \nRoutledge. \nhttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846842 . \n \nLi, S.X., Wang, Z.H., Malhi, S.S., Li, S.Q., Gao, Y.J. \nand Tian, X.H., 2009. Nutrient and water", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n18 \nmanagement effects on crop production, and \nnutrient and water use efficiency in dryland \nareas of China. Advances in agronomy, 102, \npp.223-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-\n2113(09)01007-4. \n \nLiu, X., Fan, Y., Long, J., Wei, R., Kjelgren, R., Gong, \nC. and Zhao, J., 2013. Effects of soil water \nand nitrogen availability on photosynthesis \nand water use efficiency of Robinia \npseudoacacia \nseedlings. \nJournal \nof \nEnvironmental Sciences, 25(3), pp.585-595. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-\n0742(12)60081-3 \n \nMalesu, \nM.M., \n2006. \nRainwater \nharvesting \ninnovations in response to water scarcity: The \nLare experience (No. 5). World Agroforestry \nCentre. \nhttps://agris.fao.org/agris-\nsearch/search.do?recordID=SO2007100028 \n \nMalley, Z.J.U., Kayombo, B., Willcocks, T.J. and \nMtakwa, P.W., 2004. Ngoro: an indigenous, \nsustainable and profitable soil, water and \nnutrient conservation system in Tanzania for \nsloping land. Soil and Tillage Research, \n77(1), \npp.47-58. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.10.003 \n \nMalo, M. and Ghosh, A., 2018. Studies on different \nagrometeorological indices and thermal use \nefficiencies of rice in New Alluvial Zone of \nWest Bengal. Bulletin on Environmental \nPharmacology and Life Sciences, 7(6), pp.72-\n78. \n \nMbayaki, C.W. and George N. Karuku, G.N. 2021a. \nGrowth and Yield of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea \nBatatas L.) Monocrops Versus Intercrops in \nthe Semi-Arid Katum", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". and George N. Karuku, G.N. 2021a. \nGrowth and Yield of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea \nBatatas L.) Monocrops Versus Intercrops in \nthe Semi-Arid Katumani, Kenya. Tropical \nand Subtropical Agroecosystems 24(3), pp. \n#99. \nhttps://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.\nphp/TSA/article/view/3489/1686 \n \nMbayaki, C.W. and George N. Karuku, G.N. 2021b. \nPredicting impact of climate change on water \nrequirements for directly sown rain-fed sweet \npotato in the semi-arid Katumani region, \nKenya. \nTropical \nand \nSubtropical \nAgroecosystems \n24(2), \npp.#61. \nhttps://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.\nphp/TSA/article/view/3574/1617 \n \nMbayaki, C.W. and George N. Karuku, G.N. 2022. \nSoil hydraulic properties of a chromic Luvisol \nin \nKatumani, \nKenya. \nTropical \nand \nSubtropical Agroecosystems 25 (3) (2022): \n#094. https://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.4200 \n \nMechiche-Alami, \nA. \nand \nAbdi, \nA.M., \n2020. \nAgricultural productivity in relation to \nclimate and cropland management in West \nAfrica. Scientific reports, 10(1), pp.1-10. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59943-y \n \nMilkias, A., Tadesse, T. and Zeleke, H., 2018. \nEvaluating the effects of in-situ rainwater \nharvesting techniques on soil moisture \nconservation and grain yield of maize (Zea \nmays L.) in Fedis district, Eastern Hararghe, \nEthiopia. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-\nFood Science and Technology, 6(9), pp. \n1129-1133. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v \n6i9.1129-1133", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "opia. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-\nFood Science and Technology, 6(9), pp. \n1129-1133. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v \n6i9.1129-1133.1839. \n \nMiriti, J.M., Kironchi, G., Esilaba, A.O., Heng, L.K., \nGachene, C.K.K. and Mwangi, D.M., 2012. \nYield and water use efficiencies of maize and \ncowpea as affected by tillage and cropping \nsystems \nin \nsemi-arid \nEastern \nKenya. \nAgricultural \nWater \nManagement, \n115, \npp.148-155. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.09.002. \n \nMucheru-Muna, Monicah., Mugendi, Daniel., Pypers, \nPieter, Mugwe, Jayne., Kung'u, J., Vanlauwe, \nBenard. and Merckx, R., 2014. Enhancing \nmaize productivity and profitability using \norganic inputs and mineral fertilizer in central \nKenya \nsmall-hold \nfarms. \nExperimental \nAgriculture, \n50(2), \npp.250-269. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479713000525\n. \n \nMudatenguha, F., Anena, J., Kiptum, C.K. and \nMashingaidze, A.B., 2014. In Situ Rain \nWater Harvesting Techniques Increase Maize \nGrowth and Grain Yield in a Semi-Arid \nAgro-Ecology \nof \nNyagatare \nRwanda. \nInternational Journal of Agriculture and \nBiology, 16(5), pp. 996-1000. \n \nMutekwa, V.T., 2009. Climate change impacts and \nadaptation in the agricultural sector: The case \nof smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Journal \nof Sustainable Development in Africa, 11(2), \npp. 237-256. \n \nMzezewa, J., Gwata, E.T. and Van Rensburg, L.D., \n2011. Yield and seasonal water productivity \nof sunflower as affected by tillage and \n", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". 237-256. \n \nMzezewa, J., Gwata, E.T. and Van Rensburg, L.D., \n2011. Yield and seasonal water productivity \nof sunflower as affected by tillage and \ncropping systems under dryland conditions in \nthe Limpopo Province of South Africa. \nAgricultural Water Management, 98(10), pp. \n1641-1648. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.003.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n19 \nNjeru, P.N.M., Mugwe, J., Maina, I., Mucheru-Muna, \nM., Mugendi, D., Lekasi, J.K., Kimani, S.K., \nMiriti, J., Oeba, V.O., Esilaba, A.O. and \nMutuma, E., 2015. Integrating Farmers and \nScientific Methods for Evaluating Climate \nChange Adaptation Options in Embu County. \nIn Adapting African Agriculture to Climate \nChange (pp. 185-197). Springer, Cham. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13000-2. \n \nNkuna, T.R. and Odiyo, J.O., 2016. The relationship \nbetween temperature and rainfall variability \nin the Levubu sub-catchment, South Africa. \nInternational Journal of Environmental \nScience, 1, pp. 66-75. \n \nNyamadzawo, G., Wuta, M., Nyamangara, J. and \nGumbo, \nD., \n2013. \nOpportunities \nfor \noptimization of in-field water harvesting to \ncope with changing climate in semi-arid \nsmallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. \nSpringerPlus, \n2(1), \npp.1-9. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-100. \n \nNyang'au, J.O., Mohamed, J.H., Mango, N., Makate, \nC. and Wangeci, A.N., 2021. Smallholder \nfarmers’ perception of climate change and \nadoption \nof \nclimate \nsmart \nagriculture \npractices in Masaba South Sub-County, Kisii, \nKenya. \nHeliyon, \n7(4), \np. \ne06789. \nhttp://doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06789. \n \nOo, A.N., Banterng, P., Polthanee, A. and Trelo-Ges, \nV., 2010. The effect of different fertilizers \nmanagement strategies on growth", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".2021.e06789. \n \nOo, A.N., Banterng, P., Polthanee, A. and Trelo-Ges, \nV., 2010. The effect of different fertilizers \nmanagement strategies on growth and yield of \nupland black glutinous rice and soil property. \nAsian Journal of Plant Sciences, 9(7), p. 414. \nhttps://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2010.414.422. \n \nOsunbitan, J.A., Oyedele, D.J. and Adekalu, K.O., \n2005. Tillage effects on bulk density, \nhydraulic conductivity and strength of a \nloamy sand soil in southwestern Nigeria. Soil \nand Tillage Research, 82(1), pp. 57-64. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.05.007. \n \nOuattara, K., Ouattara, B., Assa, A. and Sédogo, P.M., \n2006. Long-term effect of ploughing, and \norganic matter input on soil moisture \ncharacteristics of a Ferric Lixisol in Burkina \nFaso. Soil and Tillage Research, 88(1-2), pp. \n217-224. \nhttps://agris.fao.org/agris-\nsearch/search. \n \nPasley, H.R., Cairns, J.E., Camberato, J.J. and Vyn, \nT.J., 2019. Nitrogen fertilizer rate increases \nplant uptake and soil availability of essential \nnutrients in continuous maize production in \nKenya and Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in \nAgroecosystems, \n115(3), \npp. \n373-389. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-019-10016-1. \n \nRani, P., Batra, V.K., Bhatia, A.K. and Sain, V., 2020. \nEffect of water deficit and fertigation on \nnutrients uptake and soil fertility of drip \nirrigated onion (Allium cepa L.) in semi-arid \nregion of India. Journal of Plant Nutrition, \n44(6), \npp.765-772. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2020", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " (Allium cepa L.) in semi-arid \nregion of India. Journal of Plant Nutrition, \n44(6), \npp.765-772. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2020.1860\n220. \n \nRecha, J., Kinyangi, J. and Omondi, H., 2013. Climate \nrelated risk and opportunities for agricultural \nadaption and mitigation in semi-arid Eastern \nKenya. CCAFS East Africa Program Project \nReport. \nCopenhagen: CGIAR Research \nProgram on Climate Change, Agriculture \nand Food Security. \n \nRezene, Y., Gebeyehu, S. and Zelleke, H., 2013. \nMorpho-physiological response to post-\nflowering drought stress in small red seeded \ncommon bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) \ngenotypes. Journal of Plant Studies, 2(1), p. \n42. https://doi.org/10.5539/jps.v2n1p42 \n \nRockström, J. and Falkenmark, M., 2015. Agriculture: \nIncrease water harvesting in Africa. Nature \nNews, \n519(7543), \np. \n283. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/519283a. \n \nRockström, J., Barron, J. and Fox, P., 2003. Water \nproductivity \nin \nrain-fed \nagriculture: \nchallenges and opportunities for smallholder \nfarmers \nin \ndrought-prone \ntropical \nagroecosystems. \nWater \nProductivity \nin \nAgriculture: Limits and Opportunities for \nImprovement, \n85199(669), \np. \n8. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996691.014\n5. \n \nSchoonover, J.E. and Crim, J.F., 2015. An introduction \nto soil concepts and the role of soils in \nwatershed \nmanagement. \nJournal \nof \nContemporary Water Research & Education, \n154(1), \npp. \n21-47. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-\n704X.2015.03186.x \n \nSigunga, D.O., Janssen, B.H. and", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1), \npp. \n21-47. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-\n704X.2015.03186.x \n \nSigunga, D.O., Janssen, B.H. and Oenema, O., 2002. \nEffects of improved drainage and nitrogen \nsource on yields, nutrient uptake and \nutilization efficiencies by maize (Zea mays \nL.) on Vertisols in sub-humid environments. \nNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 62(3), \npp. \n263-275. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021242918555", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 25 (2022): #110 Wafula et al., 2022 \n20 \nSvendsen, M., Ewing, M. and Msangi, S., 2009. \nMeasuring irrigation performance in Africa \n(No. 894). Washington DC: International \nFood Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). \n \nTrenberth, K.E., 2011. Changes in precipitation with \nclimate change. Climate Research, 47(1-2), \npp. \n123-138. \nhttps://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953. \n \nVanlauwe, B., AbdelGadir, A.H., Adewopo, J., Adjei-\nNsiah, S., Ampadu-Boakye, T., Asare, R., \nBaijukya, F., Baars, E., Bekunda, M., Coyne, \nD. and Dianda, M., 2017. Looking back and \nmoving forward: 50 years of soil and soil \nfertility management research in sub-Saharan \nAfrica. International Journal of Agricultural \nSustainability, \n15(6), \npp. \n613-631. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1393\n038 \n \nVanlauwe, B., Bationo, A., Chianu, J., Giller, K.E., \nMerckx, R., Mokwunye, U., Ohiokpehai, O., \nPypers, P., Tabo, R., Shepherd, K.D. and \nSmaling, E.M.A., 2010. Integrated soil \nfertility management: operational definition \nand consequences for implementation and \ndissemination. Outlook on agriculture, 39(1), \npp. \n17-24. \nhttps://doi.org/10.5367/00000001079116999\n8. \n \nWouterse, F., 2017. Empowerment, climate change \nadaptation, and agricultural production: \nevidence from Niger. Climatic Change, \n145(3), \npp. \n367-382. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2096-8. \n \nYazar, A. and Ali", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " from Niger. Climatic Change, \n145(3), \npp. \n367-382. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2096-8. \n \nYazar, A. and Ali, A., 2016. Water harvesting in dry \nenvironments. In Innovations in Dryland \nAgriculture (pp. 49-98). Springer, Cham. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47928-\n6_3 \n \nYu, Y., Loiskandl, W., Kaul, H.P., Himmelbauer, M., \nWei, W., Chen, L. and Bodner, G., 2016. \nEstimation \nof \nrunoff \nmitigation \nby \nmorphologically different cover crop root \nsystems. Journal of Hydrology, 538, pp. 667-\n676. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.060\n. \n \nZhang, S., Grip, H. and Lövdahl, L., 2006. Effect of \nsoil compaction on hydraulic properties of \ntwo loess soils in China. Soil and Tillage \nResearch, \n90(1-2), \npp.117-125. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.08.012. \n \nZougmoré, R., Jalloh, A. and Tioro, A., 2014. Climate-\nsmart soil water and nutrient management \noptions in semiarid West Africa: a review of \nevidence and analysis of stone bunds and zaï \ntechniques. Agriculture & Food Security, \n3(1), pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-\n7010-3-16.", "source": "In_Situ_Water_Harvesting_Technologies_an.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "A critical analysis of planting dates of maize for rainfall variability adaptation for enhanced food \nsecurity at Ol joro Orok; Kenya \n \nJ.W. Onyango1, JM Miriti2, A.O. Esilaba3 Phillip Sagero4 \n1National Agricultural Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 14733-00800 Nairobi \nMobile: +254726879012, E-mail: joabwamari@yahoo.com \n2National Agricultural Research Centre, Muguga South \n3Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation \n4Kenya meteorological Department \n \nABSTRACT \nAn analysis of an experiment; which was part of a larger experiment to test the viability of \nvarious climate adaptation strategies in east and southern Africa, was done to determine the \neffect of planting dates on maize grain productivity in a cool environment in Kenya. Trials were \ncarried out in 2012 and 2013 seasons at Ol Joro Orok representing a cool-wet environment in \nKenya. The trial consisted of two planting dates namely early planting (EP) at rainfall onset and \nlate planting (LP) two weeks later. In order to maintain nutrient levels 20 kg ha-1 of nitrogen (N) \nha-1 were applied at planting and a further 20 kg ha-1 as top dressing respectively. Comparative \nanalysis between the planting dates was done of air dried-grain harvested at physiological \nmaturity separated from the cobs. In the long rains 2012 the difference of the yields between the \ntwo planting dates was 8.7% while in the 2013 rains it was 23.6%. The differences in yields \nbetween the planting dates in 2012 were not significant but they were significantly different at p \n< 0.05 in the 2013 rains. In 2013 EP ensured 172% (71.4 mm) more rain availability compared to \nLP between the silking to maturity phases while in 2012 the equivalent differences were only \n0.4% (2.2 mm). Whereas adequate rainfall distribution and amounts is critical for maize crop \nproduction; the eventual grain yields is actually determined by comparing these rainfall aspects", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "during the grain filling/forming phase. Analysis of such rainfall schedules can enable the farming \ncommunity to sustainably grow maize by instituting appropriate timing of water applications. \nKEY WORDS: Planting date, Total rainfall amounts, Rainfall distribution, Maize phenology \n \nINTRODUCTION \nHigh temporal and spatial variability of climatic factors and especially rainfall amounts and \ndistribution are among the most important factors affecting rain-fed crop agriculture. Koli (1970) \nworking in Ghana for example recommends late sowing of the Mais de Socorro variety \nexplaining that this is suitable only if intercropped with other crops in order to protect the soil \nfrom erosion. Casini (2012) also explains that late planting and early harvest alone can be \npotentially useful methods of averting pre-harvest infestation of maize by S. cereallela. A higher \nyielding variety maize variety may therefore not be necessary to compensate for potential loss of \nyield resulting from a shortened growing season. Koli (1970) observed that 85 and 45% of grain \nyield reduction for respective Perla Pandino and Bayo Blando maize varieties occurred as the \ndate of sowing was delayed by two weeks relative to the optimal date. It is for example not \nunusual for a relatively late sown crop to out-yield the control crop sown within what would be \nconsidered to be the optimum period probably due to relatively higher amounts of rainfall (Green \net al., 1985). Ngetich et al (2011) while studying the effects of planting dates in central Kenya \nobserved no significant effect on maize stover during the long rains season of 2010 concluding \ntherefore that this was caused by rainfall patterns and amounts. In order therefore to optimize on \nyield under variable climatic conditions; planting at the appropriate time to fit with limited \nmultiyear, multi-location replications, and crop maturity length and growing season is critical \n(Saseendran et al, 2005). Tollenaar & Bruulsema (1988) reiterates that the time from silking to \nphysiological maturity in maize lengthened with delay in planting dates. Appropriate planting \ndates should be chosen to ensure a favorable climate during a critical growth stage, such as at \nflowering, rather than to ensure an optimal climate early in the crop’s growth (William et al, \n2010). Earlier planting have been explained", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \ndates should be chosen to ensure a favorable climate during a critical growth stage, such as at \nflowering, rather than to ensure an optimal climate early in the crop’s growth (William et al, \n2010). Earlier planting have been explained to place the tasseling and silking period ahead of the \ngreatest risk of moisture stress and drought damage (Otegui & Melon, 1997).", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "In practice, recommended dates are normally drawn up from the results of long-running series of \nagronomic experiments, which can give mean planting dates for highest yield together with \nrealistic estimates of expected yield penalties for each week of delay in planting (Lauer et al., \n1999). However, in accepting such guidelines, several reservations must be appreciated in \naddition to the fact that use of the recommended date is not a guarantee of highest yield for that \nseason (Oktem, 2000). In South Africa these dates should be scheduled such that the growth \nstages of maize most sensitive to heat and water stress do not coincide with mid-summer \ndroughts (ARC-GCI, 2002; Du Toit et al., 2002). The objective of this study therefore \nhighlighted some salient rainfall aspects affecting planting dates as key farm management \npractice with direct impacts on maize productivity in a cool wet area of central Kenya. \nMATERIALS AND METHODS \n2.1 \nStudy site \nThe study was conducted at the Oljororok KALRO experimental station (0.04 S and 36.35 E) \nfrom April 2012 to February 2014. The site lies at an elevation of 2400 m and its agro-ecological \nzone is described as Upper Highland sub-zone 2-3 (Pyrethrum, wheat and barley Zone) with \naverage annual rainfall and temperatures of 820-990 mm and 14.0 oC, respectively (Jaetzold et \nal, 2006). Though the general rainfall patterns in Kenya are bimodal type where the long rains \ncrop season fall between March and May and the short between October and December, the Ol \nJoro orok site receives rainfall throughout the year. This study was conducted between March \n2013 and February 2014 and the rainfall distribution, mean monthly rainfall and temperatures at \nthe site during the study period are presented in figure 1 and table 1. The soil is classified as \nAndo luvic phaeozem which is a deep dark brown soil, well drained with a clay loam texture \n(Jaetzold et al., 2006). At sowing, the initial soil chemicals properties are presented in Table 2. \n \nTable 1. Weather conditions at Oljororok during the study period \nSeason \nLR2012 \nLR", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "old et al., 2006). At sowing, the initial soil chemicals properties are presented in Table 2. \n \nTable 1. Weather conditions at Oljororok during the study period \nSeason \nLR2012 \nLR2013 \nSowing date \nEarly \nLate \nEarly \nLate \nRainfall (mm) \n945 \n899 \n777 \n799 \nTmax (oC) \n 20.9 \n20.8 \n21.2 \n21.1 \nTmin (oC) \n8.2 \n8.1 \n7.2 \n7.3", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Figure 1. Rainfall and temperatures at the study site during LR2012 and LR2013 seasons \n \nTable 2. Initial soil chemicals properties at the Oljororok KARI experimental station \nSoil depth (cm) \npH \n% N \n% C \nP ppm \nK ppm \n0-20 \n5.35 \n0.25 \n2.88 \n11.18 \n877.99 \n20-40 \n5.50 \n0.23 \n2.34 \n1.08 \n1013.07 \n \n \n \nRainfall (mm) \nLR2012 \nRainfall (mm) \nDays from sowing \nLR2013", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2.2 \nTreatments \nThe effects of early planting dates (EP) and late planting (LP) as treatments on performance of \nmaize (DK8031 variety) were evaluated. The treatments which were replicated thrice in a \nComplete Randomized Block Design consisted of two planting dates the latter being one week \nafter the first. Sowing was done at a plant spacing of 75 cm by 30 cm in plots measuring 9 by 6 \nm. All plots received 40 kg N/ha as CAN, split into two doses and no phosphorus fertilizer was \napplied. During the LR2012 season, early planting was done on 18th April 2012 while the and \nlate planting treatments was on 28th April 2012. Early and late planting during the LR2013 were \ndone on 2nd May 2013 and 14th May 2013, respectively. Grain maize crop yields were measured \nat maturity and expressed in Kg ha-1. Analysis of variance was carried out using Genstat Release \n12.1 (PC/Windows Vista); Copyright 2009, VSN International Ltd. \n \nRESULTS \nEffect of planting dates \nThe difference of days between early and late planting during LR2012 season was 10, while in \nLR2013 was 12 days. The germination of maize in early planting was over 90% while there was \nvery poor germination in late planting crops especially in the LR2013 season. Gapping was done \nusing thinned plant seedlings within each plot at thinning. In the first month after germination, \nmaize seedlings leaves turned purple in colour which was an indication of phosphorus deficiency \n(Plate 2). The phosphorus deficiency however disappeared with time as the crop grew and the \nmaize plants were able to extract phosphorus from the soil.", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Maize plants in seed priming trial \nFertilized maize plants in crop variety trial \n \nThe yields of maize were significantly (P≤0.05) affected by seasons with the yields of late \nplanted crop in 2013 being the lowest. While maize yields in 2013 were altogether lower than \n2012, late planting particularly reduced the establishment and yields of maize. See table 3. \n \nTable 3. Effect of planting on maize yield \nFactor \nSeason \nMeans \nLR2012 \nLR2013 \nPP \nGrain \nTDM \nPP \nGrain \nTDM \nGrain \nTDM \nPlanting date \nEarly \n66667 \n6591 \n14273 \n38519 \n3082 \n7564 \n4837 \n10919 \nLate \n59136 \n5396 \n11640 \n11482 \n788 \n2406 \n3092 \n7023 \nLSD(0.05) \nNS \nNS \nNS \n12031 \n118 \n1078 \n1038 \n932 \n(%) \n \n4.5 \n8.7 \n20.5 \n 6.6 \n 18.7 \n 10.1 \n 23.6 \n 10 \n \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe comparative rainfall amounts received between sowing and emergence was only 13.4mm \nmore; that is 12.3% in 2012 within a difference of a day and this could not have contributed \nsignificantly to the yield differences at this early crop phase. Up to 115.4 mm (14.4%) more rain \nwas received in 2012 than in 2013 over the developmental stage of emergence to silking \nensuring a relatively better crop in the 2012 year. Long-term simulations also revealed longer \nmaturity length hybrids lose yield faster than short maturity length hybrids with planting delay. \nDuring the short rains season of2009 (SR09), there was 27% increase in the stover of dry planted \nmaize while wet planting effect was not significant. Ngetich et al (2011) for example showed \nthat, relative to late planting, dry planting increased maize stover yields by 53% (significance \np=0.05) during the long rains season of 2009 (LR09), followed by wet planting that led to a 19% \nincrease in central Kenya.", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Table 1: A comparison of rainfall aspects in 2012 and 2013 at Nyahururu \nPlanting \ndate \nYear \n2012 \n2013 \nPhase \nEmergence \nSilking Maturity \nTotal \nEmergence \nSilking Maturity \nTotal \nEarly \nNo of \ndays \n13 \n168 \n11 \n192 \n12 \n167 \n13 \n192 \nRain \n(mm) \n109.3 \n802 \n55.9 \n967.2 \n95.9 \n686.6 \n112.8 \n895.3 \nLate \nNo of \ndays \n13 \n168 \n12 \n193 \n12 \n167 \n13 \n192 \nRain \n(mm) \n160.3 \n566.7 \n53.7 \n780.7 \n1.4 \n793.4 \n112.8 \n907.6 \n \n \n \n \n \n6354 \n \n \n \n2901 \n \n \n \n \n \n6075 \n \n \n \n400 \n \nIn the early planted maize the year 2012 had 7.4% more rain than there was in 2013 while the \nrainfall amounts occurred over the same period of 192 days. This 56.1mm deficiency of rainfall \nin 2013 compared to 2012 occurred over the two crop phases of sowing to emergence (13.4mm) \nand emergence to silking (115.4mm) when the crop was developing. Despite 66.9mm more rain \nfalling between silking to maturity in 2013 compared to 2012, the amount could not compensate \nfor the relatively poorer development performance period hence the lower yields. In the late \nplanted maize, although 13.9% (126.9mm) more rain occurred in 2013 compared to 2012 it was \nconcentrated more between the later crop phases of emergence to silking (226.7mm) and silking \nto maturity (59.1mm). The sowing to emergence period suffered a serious deficit of 99.1% \n(1.4mm) compared to 2012 the excess probably causing more harm to the already low \npopulations that emerged. A scenario in 2012 whereby better moisture supply period from \nestablishment to silking in 2012 compared to 2013 is therefore envisaged. Ngetich et al (2011) \nalso observed a similar scenario whereby no grain yields due to early rainfall cessation whereas", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " better moisture supply period from \nestablishment to silking in 2012 compared to 2013 is therefore envisaged. Ngetich et al (2011) \nalso observed a similar scenario whereby no grain yields due to early rainfall cessation whereas \ndry planting increased grain yields by 77% compared to late planting. The effect of wet planting", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "was negligible (significance p=0.05) while dry planting increased grain yields by 26% compared \nto wet planting which led to 24% decrease probably due to the rainfall pattern during the onset of \nthe season. \n \nFigure 2: A comparison of rainfall at various phases at Ol Joro orok in 2012 \n \n \nFigure 2: A comparison of rainfall at various phases at Ol Joro orok in 2013 \n \n0\n200\n400\n600\n800\n1000\n1200\nS-E\nE-S\nS-M\nTotal\nRainfall (mm) \nPhenological phases \nearly\nlate\n0\n200\n400\n600\n800\n1000\n1200\nS-E\nE-S\nS-M\nTotal\nRain (mm) \nPhenological phases \nearly\nlate", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \n \nThis study was supported by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development \nof Germany through the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics \n(ICRISAT) and Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO). \n \nREFERENCES \nARC-GCI, 2002., Maize information guide. ARC-Grain Crop Institute, Potchefstroom, South \nAfrica. Pp. 31-38. \n \nCASINI P. Maize production as affected by sowing date, plant \ndensity and row spacing in the Bolivian Amazon, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for \nInternational Development – JAEID, 2012, 106 (2): 75-84 \n \nDu Toit et al., 2002) DU TOIT, A.S., PRINSLOO, M.A., DURAND, W. & KIKER, G., 2002. \nVulnerability of maize production to climate change and adaptation in South Africa, Combined \nCongress: South African Society of Crop Protection and South African Society of Horticultural \nScience, Pietermaritsburg (SA). \n \nGREEN, T.S., ENDER, M. & MOCK, J.J., 1985. Effect of sowing dates on maize yields. Agric. \nSci. 20, 51-63. \n \nHans Kgasago, Effect of planting dates and densities on yield and yield components of short and \nultra-short growth period maize (Zea mays L.). Submitted in compliance with the requirements \nfor the degree M. Inst. Agrar: Agronomy. In the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences \nDepartment of Plant Production and Soil Science University of Pretoria, October 2006 \n \nKOLI, S. EThe optimum planting date for maize in Ghana, (1970). Ghana journal of agricultural \nscience 3, 73-81. Accra Ghana University press", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Ngetich, K. F.; Mugwe, J. N.; Mucheru-Muna, M.; Shisanya, C.A.; Mugendi, D.N.; Diels, J. \n2011. Effect of Planting Dates on Maize Yield under Rainfed Conditions in the Central \nHighlands of Kenya, Department of Agricultural Resource management, Kenyatta \nUniversity: http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/8341,URI: http://ir-\nlibrary.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/8341 RP-Department of Agricultural Resources Management \n(ARM) [51] \nOKTEM, A. 2000., Determination of sowing dates of corn (Zea mays L. saccharata Sturt) under \ndryland conditions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 21, 65-71. \n \nOTEGUI, M.E. & MELON, S., 1997. Kernel set and flower synchrony within the ear of maize: I. \nSowing date effects. Crop Sci. 37, 441-447. \n \nSaseendran S. Anapalli, L. Ma, D. C. Nielsen, M. F. Vigil, and L. R. Ahuja, Simulating Planting \nDate Effects on Corn Production Using RZWQM and CERES-Maize Models. Agron. J. 97:58–\n71 (2005). \nTollenaar & Bruulsema (1988) TOLLENAAR, M. & BRUULSEMA, T.W., 1998. Effects of \ntemperature on rate and duration of kernel dry matter accumulation of maize. Can. J. Plant Sci. \n68, 935- 940. \n \nWilliam J. Sacks1 *, Delphine Deryng2 , Jonathan A. Foley3 and Navin Ramankutty2, Crop \nplanting dates: an analysis of global patterns, Global Ecology and Biogeography, (Global Ecol. \nBiogeogr.) (2010) 19, 607–620 \n \nP.A. Weston, Influence of planting date, harvest date and maize hybrid on preharvest infestation \nof maize by Sitotroga Cerealla. Proceedings of 6th international working conference on stored \nproduct infestation,Vol 1.", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". Weston, Influence of planting date, harvest date and maize hybrid on preharvest infestation \nof maize by Sitotroga Cerealla. Proceedings of 6th international working conference on stored \nproduct infestation,Vol 1. Community Research Service , Kentucky State University, Frankfort, \nKY 40601 USA", "source": "KMSpaper2015.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "All Life\nISSN: 2689-5293 (Print) 2689-5307 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tfls21\nMaize production systems, farmers’ perception\nand current status of maize lethal necrosis in\nselected counties in Kenya\nFaith Njeru, Samuel Mwaura, Paul Mbogo Kusolwa & Gerald Misinzo\nTo cite this article: Faith Njeru, Samuel Mwaura, Paul Mbogo Kusolwa & Gerald Misinzo (2022)\nMaize production systems, farmers’ perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in\nselected counties in Kenya, All Life, 15:1, 692-705, DOI: 10.1080/26895293.2022.2085815\nTo link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26895293.2022.2085815\n© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa\nUK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis\nGroup\nView supplementary material \nPublished online: 14 Jun 2022.\nSubmit your article to this journal \nArticle views: 6966\nView related articles \nView Crossmark data\nCiting articles: 8 View citing articles \nFull Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at\nhttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfls21", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n2022, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 692–705\nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/26895293.2022.2085815\nMaize production systems, farmers’ perception and current status of maize lethal\nnecrosis in selected counties in Kenya\nFaith Njeru\na, Samuel Mwaurab, Paul Mbogo Kusolwac and Gerald Misinzo\nd\naDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology, Parasitology and Biotechnology, Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS),\nSokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania; bKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Food Crops Research\nCentre, Njoro; cDepartment of Crop Science and Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania;\ndSACIDS Foundation for One Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania\nABSTRACT\nMaize Lethal Necrosis (MLN) is a disease of maize reported in Kenya in 2012 that results in yield losses\nof up to 100%. The epidemiology of MLN is complex as the disease is caused by the synergistic\ninteraction of 2 viruses (Maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) and a potyvirus). In addition, multiple\nreservoirs and transmission pathways exist for the spread of MLN. The current study was conducted\nto understand farmers’ maize production practices, their understanding of MLN, and the status of\nMLN in Kenya. Therefore, a survey of 406 randomly selected farmers was conducted in Bomet, Narok,\nKirinyaga, Embu, and Nakuru. To confirm the presence of MLN, maize leaf samples were collected\nfrom 18 fields and tested for MCMV and SCMV by molecular techniques. MLN Symptoms observed\nincluded chlorotic mottle on leaves, necrosis, and premature plant death. MCMV and SCMV were\ndetected in all the maize growing regions at varying levels of incidence, and severity. Sequence\nanalysis of the partial coat protein genes of randomly selected positive samples of the two viruses\nshowed little variability within the studied isolates and those retrieved from the GenBank. The results\nindicated that MLN is still prevalent in Kenya with farmers’ planting", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " of the partial coat protein genes of randomly selected positive samples of the two viruses\nshowed little variability within the studied isolates and those retrieved from the GenBank. The results\nindicated that MLN is still prevalent in Kenya with farmers’ planting susceptible varieties.\nARTICLE HISTORY\nReceived 6 September 2021\nAccepted 23 April 2022\nKEYWORDS\nMLN; farmers’ perception;\nmaize; genetic diversity\nIntroduction\nMaize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal\ncrops in Africa, covering 40 million hectares which are\nmainly in smallholder settings and producing about\n81 million tonnes (FAOSTAT 2019). In Kenya, maize\nis not only a significant contributor to food security\nand nutrition, it is also a source of employment and\nincome to millions of subsistence farmers. Currently,\nmaize is cultivated on 2.196 million hectares of land\nin the country, engaging more than 3 million small-\nholder farmers and with an annual production of 3.897\nmillion tonnes (FAOSTAT 2019).\nHowever, maize production in Kenya is around\n1.77 t/ha (FAOSTAT 2019), this is far below the achiev-\nable potential of 6 t/ha when maize is cultivated under\ngood agronomic and management conditions, use of\nthe right quality of fertilizers and use of improved\nmaize hybrids adaptable to the agro-ecological zones\n(Odendo et al. 2001).\nCONTACT Faith Njeru\nFaith.njeru@sacids.org\nwanjikunjeru2012@gmail.com\nDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology, Parasitology and\nBiotechnology, Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS), Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O Box 3297, Chuo kikuu, SUA, Morogoro,\nTanzania\nSupplemental data for this article can be accessed here. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895293.2022.2085815\nMaize Lethal Necrosis (MLN), caused by the syn-\nergistic interaction between Maize chlorotic mottle\nvirus (MCMV) and Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV)\nis one of the major biotic constraints that severely\naffects maize production in Kenya (Miano", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "-\nergistic interaction between Maize chlorotic mottle\nvirus (MCMV) and Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV)\nis one of the major biotic constraints that severely\naffects maize production in Kenya (Miano 2014).\nMaize yield losses to MLN have been reported to range\nfrom 30%-100% depending on the variety, stage of\ndisease infection and prevailing environmental con-\nditions (Mahuku et al. 2015). MLN infected plants\n(Figure 1) show a wide range of symptoms which\ninclude chlorotic mottle on the leaves, mild to severe\nmottling, dwarfing, premature aging of the plants,\nnecrosis developing from leaf margins to midrib,\nnecrosis of young leaves in the whorl leading to a ‘dead\nheart’ symptom and drying up of whole plant (Miano\n2014).\nMLN is transmitted from one field or plant\nto another via vectors where MCMV has been\nshown to be transmitted by chrysomelid beetles\n© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group\nThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,\ndistribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n693\nFigure 1. Maize plants infected with MLN, showing the various\nsymptoms observed. Photo taken by Faith Njeru at farmers’ field\nin Kenya.\n(Nault et al. 1978) and thrips (Cabanas et al. 2013)\nwhile aphids have been reported to spread SCMV\n(Louie 1980). MLN causing viruses can also be spread\nbetween cropping cycles by farmers planting contam-\ninated maize seeds (Jensen et al. 1991), or through\ninfected maize debris (Kinyungu et al. 2019). Contin-\nuous maize production has been associated with MLN\noutbreaks (Redinbaugh and Stewart 2018). Crop rota-\ntion has been reported to significantly reduce the inci-\ndence of MCMV, contributing to higher maize yields\n(Hutchens 1978). Results from epidemiological stud-\nies on MLN suggest that farmer’s maize production\npractices have a significant effect on the incidence of\nMLN.\nTo develop MLN management practices that are\neffective, efficient and easily adaptable to the small-\nscale farmer, there is a need to understand farmers’\nknowledge in relation to the different aspects of the\ndisease. Understanding the role of knowledge in farm-\ners’ practices is also an important starting point for\ndeveloping a management strategy that fits the context\nof the smallholder farmer maize production practices.\nIn Kenya, studies have been done to understand the\nviruses associated with MLN (Wamaitha et al. 2018)\nand their geographical distribution (Mwatuni et al.\n2020). However, no studies have been conducted to get\ninsight into farmers’ knowledge and their role in MLN\ncontrol. Hence, the present study focuses on under-\nstanding farmers’ know-how on scientific knowledge\nand recommended management practices on MLN\nand also on their local knowledge of the disease man-\nagement. The study will also look at the limiting factors\nfor the adoption of recommended practices and farm-\ners’ perception on the use of mobile phones for disease\nmonitoring and information sharing. The findings of\nthe study are relevant to the design of MLN disease\nmanagement practices in the context of smallholder\nfarmer in Kenya.\nMaterials and methods\nStudy area\nThe study was conducted covering 3 agro-ecological\nzones", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " findings of\nthe study are relevant to the design of MLN disease\nmanagement practices in the context of smallholder\nfarmer in Kenya.\nMaterials and methods\nStudy area\nThe study was conducted covering 3 agro-ecological\nzones: Highland tropics (HT), Moist transitional\n(MT), and Moist Mid attitude (MM). Five counties\nwere purposively selected from these zones target-\ning those with a high incidence of MLN (40–70%)\nfrom previous survey (Mwatuni et al. 2020). The selec-\ntion of the counties also considered that the areas\nhave high maize production. Sampled counties were\nBomet,Nakuru,Kirinyaga, Embu, and Narok.\nSelection of respondents\nThe study population comprised maize farmers in the\ntarget counties, from which a representative sample\nwas obtained. The sample size was obtained using\nCochran’s sample size formula, the desired confidence\nlevel was set at 95% and a desired precision of 5%. The\ndesired proportion of attributes was set at 50% (max-\nimum variability). This gave a sample of 385 respon-\ndents from the population, which was adjusted to 482\nto mitigate for 20% non-response rate. The probability\nproportion to size method based on the total number\nof maize farmers in the counties was used to determine\nthe distribution of the sample size across the coun-\nties. Within each target sub-county, the respondents\nwere randomly selected based on a sampling frame\ndeveloped with the help of the Agricultural extension\nofficers based in the region.\nSample size calculation:\nFormula n◦= Z2pq/ e2\nn0 is the sample size, Z2 is the abscissa of the normal\ncurve that cuts off an area a at the tails (1 – a equals the\ndesired confidence level, e.g. 95%) 1, e is the desired\nlevel of precision, p is the estimated proportion of an\nattribute that is present in the population, and q is 1-\np. Final sample size = effective sample size/ (1- non-\nresponse rate anticipated).", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "694\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nData collection\nIn the present study, a semi-structured questionnaire\nwas developed and pre-tested in Mutithi sub-county,\nKirinyaga to improve the questions set as per the study\nobjectives. The questions set aimed at understanding\nfarmers’ knowledge on MLN, their perceptions and the\nrole of knowledge in MLN control practices. The ques-\ntions asked included but not limited to, personal and\nhousehold characteristics of the farmer; maize produc-\ntion practices(varieties grown, yield obtained, external\ninputs used, key diseases and management practices,\nand chemical use); farmer knowledge on MLN and\nthe methods practised to control the disease. In addi-\ntion, farmers were questioned on the type of informa-\ntion they accessed regarding maize farming and the\nmedia platform they mostly used to access agricultural\ninformation.\nThe questionnaire was administered through face to\nface interviews conducted in the local language of the\ncommunity during the period from March–May 2021.\nThe respondents targeted were either the household\nhead, spouse or the member responsible for making\nfarming decisions. Informed consent was sought from\nthe respondents and the data handled in accordance\nwith the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).\nFarmers were also provided with coloured pho-\ntographs (taken at MLN CIMMYT Naivasha screening\nfacility), at different stages of MLN severity to deter-\nmine their ability to diagnose the disease.\nMLN test sample collection\nMaize leaf samples (84) were randomly sampled from\nthe farmers’ fieldswhich were close either to the main\nor rural roads in Kirinyaga, Bomet and Narok coun-\nties. The collected maize leaf samples were preserved\nin silica gel and transported to Kenya Agricultural\nand Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Njoro\nfor molecular analysis. In each selected field, maize\nplants were selected following the staggered ‘X’ pat-\ntern and evaluated for disease severity. MLN severity\nwas scored on a rating scale of 1–9 where 1 clean\nplant with no symptoms and 9 severely affected plant\n(https://mln.cimmyt.org/mln-scoring/mln-hybrid-sc\noring-scale/).\nData analysis\nThe survey questionnaire collected data on farmers’\nmaize production systems and their perceptions on\nMLN. The farmers’ response to", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "mln.cimmyt.org/mln-scoring/mln-hybrid-sc\noring-scale/).\nData analysis\nThe survey questionnaire collected data on farmers’\nmaize production systems and their perceptions on\nMLN. The farmers’ response to the questions was\nrecorded in the Kobo Toolbox platform which enables\nthe data to be received in real time, where data can\nbe easily managed and checked for any mistakes. On\ncompletion of the field survey, the final datasets were\ndownloaded from the server as Excel (XLS) files and\nused for further analysis. The survey data were anal-\nysed using descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency\nand mean) to present findings in summaries and tables\nafter the data were encoded. Pearson Chi-square test\nwas used to determine whether there was significant\ndifference in maize production practices and farmers’\nknowledge of MLN management among farmers of\ndifferent categories, and study counties. Disease inci-\ndence and disease prevalence were determined by the\npercentage of the plants showing MLN symptoms in\nindividual farms and the percentage of farms in a\ncounty with MLN symptoms, respectively.\nTotal nucleic acid extraction\nTotal nucleic acid (deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonu-\ncleic acid) were extracted from the 84 maize leaf sam-\nples collected from the farmers’ field in Kirinyaga,\nNarok and Bomet Counties using a modified cetyl-\ntrimetyl-amoniumbromide (CTAB) protocol where\n0.4 g of maize leaf tissue was ground in 2 ml of extrac-\ntion buffer using a mortar and pestle (Semagn 2014).\nThe RNA pellet was suspended in 50 μL of deionized\nwater.\nA Nano-Drop spectrophotometer was used to mea-\nsure the RNA concentration at maximum absorbance\nof 260 nm, and the purity was assessed by measuring\nthe 260/280 and 260/230 absorbance ratios.\ncDNA synthesis and RT-PCR\ncDNA was prepared from 1 μg of RNA following the\nNEB #M0253 first Strand cDNA Synthesis Standard\nProtocol (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, USA) as per\nthe instruction manual. Subsequently, the synthesized\ncDNA was used as a template for polymerase chain\nreaction (PCR) using MCMV and SCMV-specific\nprimers", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " England BioLabs, Ipswich, USA) as per\nthe instruction manual. Subsequently, the synthesized\ncDNA was used as a template for polymerase chain\nreaction (PCR) using MCMV and SCMV-specific\nprimers. MCMV-specific primers used were MCMV\nF 5′- AACATTCACAGCAGACACC -3′ and MCMV\nR 5′- GATAGCCACAATGAATCGTCC-3′ whereas\nSCMV specific primers were SCMV F 5′-TCTACTGA\nGCGATACATGCC-3′ and SCMV R 5′-CGTGTGTTT\nGAACCACGAAC-3′ to produce an amplicon of 259\nand 169 bp in length, respectively.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n695\nThe PCR conditions for MCMV reaction were 94°C\nfor 2 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 50°C\nfor 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min, with a final extension at\n72°C for 7 min. The PCR conditions for SCMV reac-\ntion were similar to those of MCMV but with the\nannealing temperature being set at 60°C. The PCR\nproduct was analysed on 2% agarose gel in TBE buffer\n(70 V, 75 min) and visualized under UV light.\nSanger sequencing\nTen samples were selected for Sanger sequencing based\non the geographical location and the quality of cDNA.\nThe amplified PCR product was sent to Inqababiotec\nfor sequencing. Both forward and reverse sequencing\nwas performed on an automated DNA sequencer (ABI\n3500XL Genetic Analyzer) using the specific MCMV\nand SCMV F and R primers. The sequences were\nviewed in FinchTV and ambiguous and contaminated\nsequences were removed. Both forward and reverse\nsequences were merged and aligned in Bioeditto get\nthe consensus sequence for use in further analysis.\nThe partial coat protein gene sequences of 6 samples\nin this study were registered in GenBank and the acces-\nsion numbers for MCMV (OL461943, OL461944,\nand OL461945); SCMV (OL461946, OL461947, and\nOL461948) were provided. The 6 isolates were anal-\nysed by BLASTN to determine the sequence identity\nand similarity. Phylogenetic trees were constructed for\nthe coat protein genes isolates determined in this study\nand those retrieved from GeneBank. The phylogenetic\ntree was constructed in MegaX where the sequences\nwere aligned in Clustal Omega and saved in a Fastafor-\nmat, the best model for phylogenetic tree construction\nwas identified as Jukes-Cantor model for both MCMV\nand SCMV data. Bootsrap analysis with 1000 repli-\ncates was performed to evaluate the significance of the\ninterior branches.\nResults and discussion\nSocio-demographic profile of the interviewed\nfarmers\nOf the 406 farmers who were interviewed in the\npresent study, there was almost equal representa-\ntion by both males (56.4", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " the\ninterior branches.\nResults and discussion\nSocio-demographic profile of the interviewed\nfarmers\nOf the 406 farmers who were interviewed in the\npresent study, there was almost equal representa-\ntion by both males (56.4%) and females (43.6%)\n(Table 1). Statistically, there was a significant asso-\nciation between the gender of the farmer and the\ncounty where they were from, with Embu (23.6%) and\nKirinyaga (36.7%) counties reporting a high number of\nfemales (Pearson Chi-Square = 49.869, p = 3.845e-\n10). This is in contrast to most survey studies done\nin Africa which report a higher representation of\nthe males than the females citing the engagement of\nfemales in domestic activities which limit their mobil-\nity and crucial opportunities for interaction with other\nstakeholders(Mudde et al. 2017). Therefore, efforts to\npromote MLN disease management strategies should\nbe structured in such a way that they are easily acces-\nsible to both males and females.\nThe average age was 44.1 years, with many farm-\ners (44.4%) aged between 36 and 45 years. This age\nrepresents a young population of maize farmers, pre-\nsenting great prospect of introducing new MLN man-\nagement practices as young people easily adapt to new\nways of doing things. The majority of the respondents\n(95%) had formal education, either primary school\n(grade 1–8), secondary school (grade 9–12) or uni-\nversity. Only 5% of the farmers were illiterate. Bomet-\ncounty had the highest number of university graduates\n(17.9%) while Narok had none. Hence it is easier for\nextension officers to relay relevant MLN control infor-\nmation to farmers. The average household size of the\nfarmers was 5 individuals and 4 people as dependants\n(mostly school-going children). Therefore, less fam-\nily labour to work in the farm is available unless the\nfarmer hires workers. Hence MLN control measures\ndevised should be less labour intensive for them to be\neasily adaptable to the farmer.\nMaize production systems\nThe study indicated that maize production in the study\narea is small scale, and the average field size was ", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "N control measures\ndevised should be less labour intensive for them to be\neasily adaptable to the farmer.\nMaize production systems\nThe study indicated that maize production in the study\narea is small scale, and the average field size was 1.58\nacres (0.64 hectares) (Table 2). However, there was\na statistically significant difference in the means of\nthe land owned with the county F(4, 401) = 63.25,\np = 2e-16. Respondents from Narok had on average\n3.41 acres under maize cultivation while Embu county\nhad the least area under maize cultivation, 0.42 acres\non average. Age of the respondents had no statistically\nsignificant effect on the average land owned, how-\never, gender had a significant effect F(1, 404) = 58.99,\np = 1.21e-13. This is in contrast with a report by\nKansiime et al. (2019) where older farmers owned\nlarger parcels of land. Male farmers owned on aver-\nage 1.1 more acres of land compared to female farmers.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "696\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nTable 1. Profile of sample farmers.\nSample counties\nBomet\nNarok\nEmbu\nKirinyaga\nNakuru\nOverall\nn = 106\nn = 50\nn = 61\nn = 103\nn = 86\nn = 406\nFemale\n16.9\n8.5\n23.2\n36.7\n14.7\n43.6\nMale\n33.2\n15.3\n8.7\n16.6\n26.2\n56.4\nAverage household size\n5.8\n5.8\n5.6\n4.8\n5.0\n5.4\nAverage Dependants\n4.1\n4.9\n3.8\n4.0\n3.6\n4.0\nAverage Age of household head\n41.1\n41.4\n48.9\n46.1\n43.7\n44.1\nNote: Survey data May–June 2021.\nTable 2. Maize production practices for 2021.\nBomet\nNarok\nEmbu\nKirinyaga\nNakuru\noverall\nAverage area under maize cultivation (acres)\n1.84\n3.41\n0.42\n0.67\n2.12\n1.58\nmaize yield (t/ha in good season)\n2.49\n6.86\n1.56\n2.03\n4.98\n3.30\nmaize yield (t/ha in 2020/2021 season)\n1.22\n1.42\n0.77\n0.94\n2.96\n1.48\nAverage cost of inputs (Ksh)\norganic fertilizer\n3376\n10,506\n2387\n4434\n10,626\n6065\npesticides\n1150\n3500\n1207\n2604\n1236\n2014\nweed management (per cent)\n(n = 102)\n(n = 50)\n(n = 61)\n(n = 98)\n(n = 86)\n(n = 397)\nmanual weeding\n100\n92\n85\n57\n73\n80\nuse of herbicides\n0\n2\n5\n2\n13\n4\nuse both methods\n0\n6\n10\n41\n14\n", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 397)\nmanual weeding\n100\n92\n85\n57\n73\n80\nuse of herbicides\n0\n2\n5\n2\n13\n4\nuse both methods\n0\n6\n10\n41\n14\n15\npest control methods (percent)\npesticides\n88\n93\n79\n77\n66\n75\nBiological/ cultural methods\n13\n7\n18\n6\n26\n15\npractice irrigation (percent)\n0\n2\n34\n60\n1\n21\nplough (percent)\n(n = 104)\n(n = 50)\n(n = 61)\n(n = 98)\n(n = 86)\n(n = 399)\nTractor\n2\n100\n0\n8\n60\n28\nhand plough with jembe\n4\n0\n100\n11\n33\n26\nanimal plough\n4\n0\n0\n67\n3\n18\nMaize variety grown\nn = 119\nn = 34\nn = 59\nn = 94\nn = 77\nn = 383\nImproved maize variety (percent)\n82\n56\n98\n88\n97\n87\nOPV (percent)\n18\n44\n2\n12\n3\n13\nOther constraints to maize production\nn = 5\nn = 25\nn = 34\nn = 78\nn = 69\nn = 211\nPoor market prices\n20\n72\n38\n41\n41\n91\nHigh cost of inputs\n20\n12\n44\n37\n17\n21\nWeevils\n38\n12\nA study done in Zambia also reported male farm-\ners owning larger parcels of land compared to female\nfarmers (Kansiime et al. 2019).\nIn the present study, farmers reported maize pro-\nduction at 3.3 t/ha when the season is favourable\n(timely rains and no biotic stresses). However, the\nfarmers noted that it is a while since these yields\nwere obtained as the agricultural sector has been hit\nby many biotic and abiotic stresses. Estimated maize\nproduction for the 2020/2021 cropping season was\n1.48 t/ha. Majority of farmers (77.3%) obtained an\naverage yield of less than 2 t/ha. Respondents from\nNakuru county (9.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 2020/2021 cropping season was\n1.48 t/ha. Majority of farmers (77.3%) obtained an\naverage yield of less than 2 t/ha. Respondents from\nNakuru county (9.6%), reported an average yield of\n4.41 t/ha with these farmers reporting MLN incidence\nrates of less than 10% in their farms. These farms\nwere the ones located in Molo area at an altitude of\n2411.02 m above sea level (GPS data). Previous studies\nhave reported low MLN incidence at higher altitude\nareas due to unfavourable weather for insect survival\n(Guadie et al. 2019).\nFarmers spent approximately Ksh. 6065 on organic\nfertilizer (47.8 Kgs of fertilizer per acre), for the whole\nseason (Table 2). Farmers cited low use of fertiliz-\ners to be due to lack of capital and inaccessibility to\ngovernment subsidised fertilizers. Use of herbicides\nfor weed control in combination with manual weed-\ning was also common among farmers in Kirinyaga\n(41%). Use of biological and cultural methods for", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n697\npest control was common in Nakuru (26%). Farm-\ners in Nakuru(altitude of 2411.02 m above sea level,\nGPS data)reported having minimal pest damage say-\ning when it rains, the pests are washed off. Other bio-\nlogical control methods reported included the use of\nash, soil, tobacco, and ariel (detergent). In addition,\nsome farmers reported to being against the use of pes-\nticides especially when growing maize for their own\nuse while others cited lack of money to buy the pes-\nticides. However, some farmers were of the opinion\nthat there has been a change in the pests affecting the\nmaize crop, as the cultural control methods were very\neffective (eliminating the pests by 90–100%, according\nto farmers’ observation) 5–10 years ago, but they were\nnoting these methods becoming less effective.\nMaize production in the study area was mainly rain-\nfed, with irrigation being practiced in Kirinyaga (60%)\nand Embu (34%). Most respondents (73.5%) reported\nto have noticed the impact of climate change on farm-\ning reporting less and delayed rains, changes in rain-\nfall patterns making it hard for the farmers to predict\nplanting times. Therefore, with the changes in weather\npatterns being noticeable, there should be emphasis to\neducate the farmers on the use of irrigation, and the\nuse of drought tolerant varieties.\nThe majority respondents (87%) planted improved\nmaize varieties (Table 2) with maize varieties planted\nbeing different per county. This is supported by the\nresults of the ANOVA test showing statistically signifi-\ncant differences between the maize variety planted and\nthe county F(4,401) = 28.01, p = 2e-16. In Kirinyaga\ncounty, DUMA 43 (52%) was the most planted hybrid\nselected for its drought tolerant and fast maturing\ntraits followed by Pioneer 3253 (31%) selected for its\nfavourable markets quality traits as it is sold as green\nmaize. Other hybrids planted in Kirinyaga county\nincluded DK777, Pannar, Sungura, babycorn, DK8031\nand DK9089. In Nakuru county and Narok, H6213 is\nthe most planted while in Bomet, DK777 and H", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nincluded DK777, Pannar, Sungura, babycorn, DK8031\nand DK9089. In Nakuru county and Narok, H6213 is\nthe most planted while in Bomet, DK777 and H614\nhybrid varieties in Embu county. These hybrids are\nselected for their adaptability to the agro-ecological\nzones. However, only a selected few of the hybrids are\nplanted per county and there is a need to introduce and\ndiversify maize varieties planted per region.\nRespondents in Narok reported that the OPV (Sir-\nare) was more tolerant to MLN compared to the hybrid\nvarieties. The average maize production of hybrids in\nNarok was 2.1 and 1.75 t/ha for the OPV. Therefore,\nthough the OPVs were perceived to be more disease\ntolerant, their yield was still low. Hence, the OPVs have\nunexploited genetic diversity for novel traits that can\nbe adopted into breeding programmes.\nThough pests and diseases are considered to be a\nmajor constraint to maize production, in the present\nstudy, most farmers (91%) reported poor market prices\nas the main drawback to maize farming (Table 2).\nAppropriate policies and regulations should be put in\nplace to make maize farming economically attractive\nto the farmers. Weevils was reported to be a prob-\nlem in Nakuru county. Resistance to pests and dis-\neases is considered favourable to the farmers if the\ntrait is combined with other traits such as high yield-\ning, favourable traits to the market which are more\nfavourable to the farmer. Breeders breeding for biotic\nand abiotic stresses should also take into account farm-\ners’ preferences.\nFarmers’ knowledge of MLN and if they have\nobserved it in their farms\nDuring the survey, farmers were shown photos of\nMLN infected maize plants. The majority of the farm-\ners (80%) could identify MLN, though given different\nnames in the different counties (Table 3). The sever-\nity of MLN is noted in the present study as 93%\nof the farmers reported to having observed MLN in\ntheir farms. Statistically, there was no difference in the\nknowledge of MLN and the age or gender of the farmer.\nHowever, there was a statistically significant difference\nin the means of the farmers", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " farmers reported to having observed MLN in\ntheir farms. Statistically, there was no difference in the\nknowledge of MLN and the age or gender of the farmer.\nHowever, there was a statistically significant difference\nin the means of the farmers that observed MLN and the\ncounty, F (4,392) = 4.22, p = 0.00231. Fewer farmers\nin Kirinyaga reported having observed MLN com-\npared to farmers in Bomet and Narok. Farmers (78%)\nalso reported MLN as the most problematic maize\ndisease they have observed. Other diseases observed\nincluded common rust, ear rots, leaf blight, smut.\nCommon rust was reported as a major problem by 30%\nof farmers in Nakuru (data not shown). Farmers also\nindicated the unpredictability of MLN, with farmers in\nBomet noting a reduction in incidence and severity of\nMLN in 2018 and then a resurgence in 2019.\nAcross all the study areas, more than 70% of\nthe respondents reported that MLN is higher dur-\ning the short rains (sunny season) and off-season\nplantings (Table 3). Similarly, Regassa et al. (2020)\nreported relatively high MLN incidence during the\noff-season plantings which support our findings.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "698\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nTable 3. Percent of farmers knowing and having observed MLN in their farms.\nBomet\nNarok\nEmbu\nKirinyaga\nNakuru\nOverall\nn = 106\nn = 50\nn = 61\nn = 101\nn = 86\nn = 404\nKnow MLN-yes (percent)\n45\n90\n97\n99\n84\n80\nObserved MLN in the farm (percent)\n99\n98\n93\n86\n90\n93\nSeason when MLN incidence is high\n(n = 102)\n(n = 49)\n(n = 55)\n(n = 93)\n(n = 82)\n(n = 381)\nShort rains\n72\n98\n71\n74\n87\n79\nlong rains\n5\n0\n16\n14\n1\n7\nall seasons maize is planted\n2\n2\n13\n10\n5\n6\ndo not know\n22\n0\n0\n2\n7\n8\nEnvironment plays a critical role in disease develop-\nment and the dry and hot conditions during off season\nand short rains/sunny season would be a favourable\nenvironment for reproduction and movement of vec-\ntors to transmit MLN causing viruses. A few of the\nfarmers (6%) reported MLN being high any season\nthat maize is planted. This could be attributed to\nmaybe late plantings in long rains which have been\nreported to contribute to high MLN incidence or\ndelayed rains (which simulate sunny season in the long\nrains) (Jumbo et al. 2015).\nYellowing was reported by 60% of the farmers as the\nmost common symptom associated with MLN. Few\nfarmers could identify the early onset MLN symp-\ntoms (chlorotic mottle on leaves), making it difficult\nfor the farmer to control the disease early before it\nspreads. Premature plant death and male sterility were\nnot identified by farmers as MLN symptoms. There-\nfore, yellowing was the prominent MLN symptoms\nrecognized by the farmers who had limited know-how\nof other symptoms associated with MLN.\nAbout 46.3% of the farmers reported to observe\nMLN when the maize was at the pre-flowering stage\nand 36.5% at the vegetative stage. Other prominent\nstages were", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " symptoms associated with MLN.\nAbout 46.3% of the farmers reported to observe\nMLN when the maize was at the pre-flowering stage\nand 36.5% at the vegetative stage. Other prominent\nstages were post-flowering stage (7.3%), 4–5 leaf stage\n(5.3%) and flowering stage (2.2%). About 2% of the\nfarmers noted that MLN can affect the maize plant at\nany growth stage. The results of this study are con-\ncurrent with previous studies reporting that MLN can\naffect maize plants at all growth stages (Beyene et al.\n2017).\nFarmers’ perception on MLN causal pathogens and\nspreading mechanisms\nConcerning the causal agent of MLN, 42.3% of the\nrespondents did not answer this question. However, of\nthose who responded (80.7%) did not know the causal\nagent of MLN, 8.5% of the farmers mentioned envi-\nronmental factors and 2% poor seed. However, 13% of\nthe farmers (majority being from Nakuru and Bomet)\nmentioned viruses as the causal agent of MLN.\nThough most of the farmers (84.2%) did not know\nhow MLN is spread from one area to another and\nfrom one farm to another, 15% of the respondents\nidentified insects, wind, contaminated seed, infected\ndebris/soil and contaminated farm tools as possible\nmechanisms of MLN distribution. Statistically, there\nwas a significant association between the farmers who\nhad some idea on how MLN is spread and their edu-\ncation level (Pearson Chi-Square = 190.85, p = <\n0.001). In addition, there was a significant association\nbetween gender and the respondents who answered\nthe question on MLN spread mechanisms (Pearson\nChi-Square = 67.471, p = < 0.001) with more men\n(70%) responding to the question compared to 30% of\nthe women.\nMLN causing pathogens can be spread from one\nfarm to another by insects and wind, therefore the\npractice of neighbouring farmers could have an effect\non an otherwise MLN free farm. The lack of knowledge\non MLN spreading mechanism limits how the farm-\ners view the importance of concerted effort in MLN\n", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " insects and wind, therefore the\npractice of neighbouring farmers could have an effect\non an otherwise MLN free farm. The lack of knowledge\non MLN spreading mechanism limits how the farm-\ners view the importance of concerted effort in MLN\ncontrol.\nMaize yield losses to MLN\nAbout 31% of the respondents estimated the maize\nyield loss to MLN at 50–70% (Table 4). Statistically,\nthere was a significant association between farmers’\nestimation of yield loss to MLN and their location/\ncounty (Pearson Chi-Square = 384.11, p = 2.2e-16).\nNakuru was least affected by MLN, with 43% of farm-\ners reporting less than 10% maize yield losses to MLN\n(Table 4). The results of this study show that farmers\ncould appreciate the potential magnitude of yield loss", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n699\nTable 4. Perceived yield loss due to MLN in different counties of\nKenya.\nBomet\nEmbu\nKirinyaga\nNakuru\nNarok\nOverall\n(n = 53) (n = 49) (n = 88) (n = 84) (n = 48) (n = 322)\n0–10%\n0\n8\n43\n13\n11–25%\n2\n8\n11\n12\n8\n25–40%\n2\n4\n5\n25\n8\n10\n40–50%\n8\n2\n3\n0\n2\n3\n50–70%\n85\n10\n24\n6\n52\n31\n70–90%\n2\n12\n16\n10\n33\n14\n90–100%\n2\n63\n33\n5\n4\n21\ndue to MLN where experimental studies have shown\nyield reductions of up to 70% in highly susceptible\nhybrids (Uyemoto et al. 1980).\nFurther analysis of the data showed that there was a\nsignificant association between estimated maize yield\nlosses and the cropping system practiced (monocrop-\nping, intercropping or both) (Pearson Chi-Square =\n97.524, p =\n<0.01) and whether the farmer prac-\ntised crop rotation (Pearson Chi-Square = 79.388,\np = <0.01). A study by Regassa et al.(2020) reported\na significant association between cropping systems,\ncrop rotation and MLN incidence. In addition, level\nof weeds had a positive correlation with MLN sever-\nity scores (Figure 2). Findings of this study confirmed\nthe reports of Gudero Mengesha et al. (2019), that\nMLN severity was high in plots with high weed levels.\nPearson correlation between frequency of weeding and\nMLN scores is −0.34, meaning that the two variables\nvary in opposite directions. This means that the more\nyou weed, there will be low MLN severity scores, since\na higher frequency of weeding reduces the number of\nweeds on the farm.\nMLN control measures\nIn the present study, farmers’ management of MLN\nwas limited with 74.8% reporting to not controlling\nthe disease. These", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " higher frequency of weeding reduces the number of\nweeds on the farm.\nMLN control measures\nIn the present study, farmers’ management of MLN\nwas limited with 74.8% reporting to not controlling\nthe disease. These farmers reported that MLN spreads\nvery fast, making any control attempt not effective.\nOther reasons given for not controlling MLN included:\nexpensive, not knowing how to control the disease,\nnot knowing MLN is a disease that needed to be con-\ntrolled, not being economically viable.\nThe control method that most farmers thought\nwas not economically viable was roguing, the pref-\nerence being to let the maize crop grow to cut the\nstalks for the animals or leave them as manure. In\naddition, some farmers also reported that roguing\nFigure 2. Correlation between level of weeds in the farm, num-\nber of times of weeding per season and mean MLN scores of\nrandomly selected maize plants in the farm (MLN mean scores\nof 25 maize plants in each farm. Correlogram plotted in R stu-\ndio: https://www.R-project.org/. (More intense colours for more\nextreme correlations)).\nwas not effective as MLN control method. Similarly,\nMudde et al.(2017) reported that 40% of the farm-\ners practising roguing to control MLN said the prac-\ntice was ineffective. When the data were extrapolated\nby county and gender, there was a statistically sig-\nnificant association between farmers’ management of\nMLN and their geographical location (Pearson Chi-\nSquare = 384.11, p = 2.2e-16) and gender (Pearson\nChi-Square = 11.585, p = 0.00305). A Tukey post-\nhoc test revealed that more men than women tried to\ncontrol MLN (p = 0.0006962). Hence there should be\nmore emphasis to reach and educate more women on\nMLN control methods.\nOf the farmers who tried to control MLN, crop\nrotation and roguing were the most used methods.\nGenerally, most farmers practised crop rotation for\n3–6 months (one season interval) which is ineffective\nfor disease management. A few of the farmers used a\ncombination of methods which included: crop rota-\ntion, roguing, vector control and use of", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ised crop rotation for\n3–6 months (one season interval) which is ineffective\nfor disease management. A few of the farmers used a\ncombination of methods which included: crop rota-\ntion, roguing, vector control and use of clean seeds\n(Figure 3). In addition to the use of resistant varieties,\ndecontamination of farm tools was also used though\nto a smaller scale.\nSource of information on MLN management\nThe majority of the farmers mentioned having\nreceived information on MLN management. The main", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "700\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nFigure 3. Methods used to control MLN by farmers in the study counties.\nsource of information (41.6%) was fellow farmers. Sta-\ntistically, there was a significant association between\nthe farmers who received information on MLN and\nthe education level (Pearson Chi-Square = 512.12,\np > 0.01). Furthermore, 56.4% of the farmers who got\naccess to information had secondary education. Farm-\ners acknowledged receiving information from multiple\nsources which included: extension workers, field visits,\nradio, television and agricultural offices. Few farmers\n(8%) relied on mobile phones as a source of infor-\nmation on MLN. This seems to indicate that though\nfellow farmers are the main source of information on\nMLN management, other platforms are also gaining\ntraction.\nFarmers’ use of mobile phones and\ncommunity-based system\nMost of the farmers (96.78%) in the study area owned\na mobile phone, of whom 78.5% had a smartphone.\nThese results are consistent with previous studies\nthat have reported mobile phone ownership of up\nto 95.1% among the Kenyan adult population (Krell\net al. 2021). Most of the farmers (59.2%) reported that\nusing their mobile phones for communicating with\nfamily. In addition 24.9% of the farmers used their\nmobile phones to coordinate farm activities and mar-\nketing of the maize crop. Only 9.5% of the farmers\nused their mobile phones to get information on maize\nmanagement while 15.9% accessed social media plat-\nforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter). Statistically,\nthere was a significant association between education\nlevel and farmers use of mobile phones (Pearson\nChi-Square = 278.07, p > 1.434e-14). More farmers\n(60%) whose education level was above secondary\nlevel used mobile phones for coordination of farm\nactivities and getting information on maize manage-\nment.\nWhen farmers were asked about Mbeguchoice\n(www.mbeguchoice.com), an online platform devel-\noped to assist farmers in buying the best seeds for\ntheir agro-ecological zone, none of the farmers knew\nabout it. A study by Wyche and Steinfield (2016) also\nreported the lack of awareness by", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " devel-\noped to assist farmers in buying the best seeds for\ntheir agro-ecological zone, none of the farmers knew\nabout it. A study by Wyche and Steinfield (2016) also\nreported the lack of awareness by farmers on how\nthey can use their mobile phones to gain access to\nagricultural information, market information.\nAll of the farmers also reported lack of a comm-\nunity-based system to discuss issues on maize pro-\nduction citing the lack of monetary gain in the sec-\ntor. However, this is contradictory as maize is an\nimportant crop which can be used in several applica-\ntions including use as for animal feed and in industry\n(fuel production). The lack of information leads to\nfarmers in the study areas planting maize for their\nown use (50%) or selling through middlemen (23%)\n(Data not shown) leading to lack of gain from maize\ncultivation.\nMLN disease severity, incidence and prevalence\nAll the fields evaluated in Kirinyaga, Bomet, Nakuru\nand Narok had plants infected with MLN disease.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n701\nFigure 4. Map showing severity (A) and incidence (B) of MLN in 4 study counties.\nTable 5. MLN severity analysis, incidence and prevalence. The\ndifference in the mean level of severity among the different coun-\nties was statistically not significant at α = 0.05 (F-Value = 0.863,\nP-value = 0.4446).\nCounty\nMean severity\nIncidence\nPrevalence\nBomet\n4.928\n96.8\n100\nKirinyaga\n4.412\n92.2\n100\nNarok\n4.23\n90.67\n100\nNakuru\n3.93\n79.68\n100\nNarok region had the highest MLN incidence, fol-\nlowed by Bomet, whereas the lowest incidence was\nnoted in Nakuru (Figure 4). BometCounty registered\nthe highest disease symptom severity 4.928 while\nNakuru registered the lowest 3.93 on the 1−9 MLN\ndisease symptom severity scale.\nThe samples collected from the farmers field were\nat different growth stages including 4–5 leaf stage,\nvegetative, pre-flowering and flowering stage. Statisti-\ncally, there was no significant difference in MLN mean\nscores and the maize growth stage (f (3) = 2.044,\np = 0.154). In addition, maize crop existing at differ-\nent growth stages in the field simultaneously due to\nfarmers’ practise of planting maize at different times\nfacilitates easy transmission of MLN from older to\nyounger plants by the insect vectors and leads to con-\ntinuous MLN disease infection (Table 5).\nResults of RT-PCR\nMCMV and SCMV were detected by RT-PCR in 69\nand 73 pooled leaf samples respectively out of the 84\nmaize leaf samples. Double infection of MCMV and\nSCMV was reported in 60 maize leaf samples. Inter-\nestingly in Kirinyaga, 3 asymptomatic maize leaf sam-\nples collected tested positive for MCMV with 1 of the\nsamples testing positive for both MCMV and SCMV\n(Figure 5 and Table 6).\nSequence comparisons of partial coat protein region\n", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " asymptomatic maize leaf sam-\nples collected tested positive for MCMV with 1 of the\nsamples testing positive for both MCMV and SCMV\n(Figure 5 and Table 6).\nSequence comparisons of partial coat protein region\nof SCMV\nBlast analysis of the aligned SCMV sample sequences\n(Kirinyaga, Bomet and Narok) identified the organ-\nism as SCMV. The SCMV isolates used in this\nstudy shared 99-100% nucleotide sequence identity\namong themselves. Analysis of the sample sequences\nin BLASTn, using the default parameters revealed\nnucleotide identity of 96.45% to 100% with SCMV\nsequences deposited in the GenBank. A high similar-\nity was noted between East African isolates (Tanza-\nnia, Rwanda and Ethiopia) and previously deposited\nKenyan isolates.\nTo further understand the genetic relationships\namong the global SCMV isolates, the 3 SCMV\nsequences from this study and genomes from Gen-\nBank representing different parts of the world were\nused on a phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic anal-\nysis of the partial gene sequences showed that\nthey all belong to a single monophyletic clade of\nSCMV (Figure 6). Previous studies have also reported\nthat SCMV sequences are phylogenetically diverse\nand tend to cluster together by geographical origin\n(Mahuku et al. 2015).", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "702\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nFigure 5. Results of MCMV and SCMV on a 2% agarose gel: total RNA was extracted from the samples collected from farmers’ field, cDNA\nwas then prepared followed by RT-PCR for MCMV and SCMV using specific primers for these viruses.\nTable 6. MLN viruses testing results using RT-PCR for MCMV and SCMV.\nMCMV\nSCMV\nMLN\nCounty\nNo. of samples\ntested\nPositive\nPercent\npositive\nPositive\nPercent\npositive\nPositive\nPercent\npositive\nKirinyaga\n25\n11\n40\n20\n80\n8\n32\nBomet\n25\n24\n96\n19\n76\n18\n72\nNarok\n34\n34\n100\n34\n100\n34\n100\nOverall\n84\n69\n82\n73\n87\n60\n72\nSequence comparisons of the partial coat protein\nregion of MCMV\nThe 3 MCMV isolates used in the analysis shared\n98.84% to 100% nucleotide identity with other sequences\nin the GenBank. The highest identity was observed\nwith other East African isolates. The MCMV iso-\nlates used in the study were aligned in Clustal\nOmega among themselves using the default set\nparameters, the nucleotide identity identified by\nSequence Manipulation Suite (Ident and Sim) was\n100%. The results from the present study sup-\nport results from previous studies which report low\ngenetic variability of MCMVv(Guadie et al. 2019)\n(Figure 7).\nFigure 6. Phylogenetic relationships among SCMV coat protein genes of isolates determined in this study (SCMVKirinyaga, SCMVBomet,\nSCMVNarok)andthoseretrievedfromGenBank(accessionnumberandgeographicregionisgiven).Theevolutionaryhistorywasinferred\nby using the Maximum Likelihood method and Jukes-Cantor model. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA X.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n703\nFigure 7. Phylogenetic tree reconstructed based on coat protein genes of isolates determined in these study (OL461945, OL461943,\nOL461944) and those retrieved from the GenBank: The evolutionary history was inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method based\non the Jukes-Cantor model at 1000 bootstraps. GenBank accession numbers and country of origin are indicated.\nConclusions\nThe present study has shown that MLN, caused by\nthe combination of MCMV and SCMV which were\npresent in all the study regions, is widely distributed\nand still a major problem to maize production in\nKenya. From the results of the study, farmers are still\nplanting maize varieties which are susceptible to MLN.\nThis is evident from the symptoms observed on the\nfarms. In addition, the varieties being planted had\nbeen screened for their tolerance to MLN, and the\nresults of the study showed that they were suscepti-\nble to MLN (Semagn et al. 2014). Since breeding for\ntolerant varieties is an economically and environmen-\ntally friendly way to control plant viral diseases, efforts\nshould be made to release MLN tolerant varieties to the\nfarmers.\nThe findings of the study showed that, though most\nfarmers knew MLN, their understanding of MLN was\nlimited in regard to its causal agents, spread mecha-\nnisms and visible symptoms on infected maize plants.\nTherefore, the lack of a better understanding of MLN,\nlimited the farmers to adopt effective management\npractices. For example, the farmers uprooting maize\nplants with visible symptoms, threw them at the farm\nside or in ditches. Studies have shown that MCMV can\nbe transmitted through MLN infected maize residues\n(Kinyungu et al. 2019). Therefore, improper disposal\nof MLN infected plants can lead to spreading of the dis-\nease instead of controlling it. In addition, the duration\nof crop rotation practised (3–6 months) is insufficient\nto lead to effective MLN management. Some farmers\nreported to practising crop rotation by changing the\nvariety of maize planted. There should be sufficient\nefforts to introduce new plant varieties favourable to\nthe farmer and the consumer to minimize overdepen-\ndence on maize.\nMost farmers owned a mobile phone, meaning that\nthere is an", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "variety of maize planted. There should be sufficient\nefforts to introduce new plant varieties favourable to\nthe farmer and the consumer to minimize overdepen-\ndence on maize.\nMost farmers owned a mobile phone, meaning that\nthere is an opportunity to use the platform for infor-\nmation sharing on MLN disease, its management and\nalso on other aspects of maize production such as\naccess to tolerant seed varieties and marketing. How-\never, before the use of the mobile-based platform is\nadopted, sufficient study should be conducted to find\nout the most acceptable, affordable and adaptable way\nfor the farmers to adopt the new technologies.\nFrom the results, MLN can attack maize crop at\nany stage of growth as the farmers reported to observ-\ning the disease from when the maize plant was at the\n4–5 leaf stage. The presence of MLN (MCMV and\nSCMV) was also confirmed by the results of RT-PCR\nand sequencing analysis. This corroborates with find-\nings from previous studies that MLN attack crops at\nany stage of growth (Frank et al. 2016).\nAsymptomatic plants also tested positive for\nMCMV. Therefore, there should be deployment of field\nrapid test to be able to detect MCMV early on for\nimplementation of proper control measures.\nTherefore, the present study depicts the complexity\nof MLN and its significant effect on maize production,\nfarmers’ income and food security. Maize production\nis mainly small scale and MLN mitigation measures\nshould be adaptable to be incorporated in the farm-\ners’ daily practices. Farmers should be sensitized on\ndiversification of their cropping systems with research\nbeing done to identify alternative crops attractive to\nthe farmers, the different agro-ecological zones and the", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "704\nF. NJERU ET AL.\nmarket. In addition, the government should invest in\nestablishing irrigation schemes as most of the maize\nfarming was rainfed with farmers citing unpredictabil-\nity of the weather as constraint to maize farming.\nAuthor contributions statement\nFaith Njeru was involved in concept conceptualization,\nstudy design, data acquisition, data analysis, and writ-\ning of the manuscript. Samuel Mwaura was involved\nin data acquisition, molecular work and design of the\nmolecular experiments. Paul Kusolwa contributed to\nsupervision of the project, review of the paper and\nchange in its write up. Gerald Misinzo contributed to\nsupervision and guidance for the project. All authors\nagree to the work done and for its publication.\nAcknowledgements\nI, Faith Njeruacknowledge Kenya Agricultural and Livestock\nResearch Organization (KALRO), Food Crops Research Cen-\ntre, Njoro where the molecular work was conducted. I acknowl-\nedge the farmers who contributed to the study by giving their\nviews on MLN and allowing us to collect samples from their\nfields.\nDisclosure statement\nNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).\nFunding\nThis manuscript is part of a Ph.D. project (Application of\nNanobody as a diagnostic tool against Maize Lethal Necrosis)\nfunded by the Partnership for Skills in Applied Sciences, Engi-\nneering and Technology (PASET), Regional Scholarship and\nInnovation Fund, (RSIF).\nData availability statement\nThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of\nthis study are available in the manuscript, and within the arti-\ncles referenced and their supplementary materials. The raw\ndata used for analysis is found at: njeru, faith (2021), ‘Maize\nproduction systems, farmers’ perception and current status of\nMaize Lethal Necrosis in selected counties in Kenya’, Mende-\nley Data, V2: https://doi.org/10.17632/n5cpfr4536.2. The raw\ndata that has been deposited include the MLN survey data,\nthe QGIS raw data, the sequencing raw data and the unpro-\ncessed RT-PCR gel images which are in the folder named\nnew folder.The partial coat protein gene sequences of 6 sam-\nples in this study were registered in GenBank(https", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " data, the sequencing raw data and the unpro-\ncessed RT-PCR gel images which are in the folder named\nnew folder.The partial coat protein gene sequences of 6 sam-\nples in this study were registered in GenBank(https://www.\nncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and the accession numbers for MCMV\n(OL461943, OL461944, and OL461945); SCMV (OL461946,\nOL461947, and OL461948) were provided.\nEthics approval and consent to participate\ndeclaration\nThe project which is part of the Ph.D. project was approved\nby the Board College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomed-\nical Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture under the\nreference number: SUA/PVM/D/2020/0005/03, and by the\nNational Commission for Science, Technology & Innovation\n(NACOSTI) under the reference number: 742958.Farmers\nwere explained to the purpose of the study and the reason for\nthe survey, and asked if they were willing to participate and they\nwould respond verbally with Yes/No.\nSupplementary data\nThe full version of the questionnaire is provided as a\nseparate attachment.\nORCID\nFaith Njeru\nhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3945-8740\nGerald Misinzo\nhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1827-6403\nReferences\nBeyene Y, Gowda M, Stephen LMS, Olsen M, Oikeh SO, Juma\nC, ... Prasanna BM. 2017. Genetic analysis of tropical maize\ninbred lines for resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease.\nEuphytica. 213(9):1–13. doi:10.1007/s10681-017-2012-3.\nCabanas D, Watanabe S, Higashi CHV, Bressan A. 2013. Dis-\nsecting the mode of maize chlorotic mottle virus trans-\nmission (Tombusviridae: Machlomovirus) by Franklin-\niella williamsi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol.\n106(1):16–24. doi:10.1603/EC12056.\nFAO. 2019. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol.\n106(1):16–24. doi:10.1603/EC12056.\nFAO. 2019. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of\nthe United Nations, Rome, Italy. https://www.fao.org/faostat/\nen/#data.\nFrank K, Robert G, Brian EI. 2016. Status of maize lethal necro-\nsis in eastern Uganda. Afr J Agric Res. 11(8):652–660. doi:\n10.5897/ajar2015.10616.\nGuadie D, Knierim D, Winter S, Tesfaye K, Abraham A.\n2019. Survey for the identification and geographical dis-\ntribution of viruses and virus diseases of maize (Zea\nmays L.) in Ethiopia. Eur J Plant Pathol. 153(1):271–281.\ndoi:10.1007/s10658-018-1568-7.\nGudero Mengesha G, Kedir Mohammed B, Sultan Salo K.\n2019. Management of maize lethal necrosis disease through\nhand weeding and insecticide applications at Arba Minch\nin Southern Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 5(1):1705746.\ndoi:10.1080/23311932.2019.1705746.\nHutchens NJ. 1978. LD2668T41981H87.pdf. Kansas State Uni-\nversity.\nJensen SG, Wysong DS, Ball EM, Higley PM. 1991. Seed\ntransmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis.\n75:497–498.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ALL LIFE\n705\nJumbo B, Makumbi D, Kimunye JN, Mahuku GS. 2015.\nIntegration of maize Lethal Necrosis disease manage-\nment in crop-livestock intensification to enhance pro-\nductivity of smallholder agricultural production ... , 2.\nhttps://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/58478/esa\n_mln_poster_mar2015.pdf?sequence = 1&isAllowed = y.\nKansiime MK, Mugambi I, Rwomushana I, Lamontagne-\ngodwin J, Rware H, Phiri NA, ... Day R. 2019. Farmer\nperception of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiderda J.\nE. Smith) and farm-level management practices in Zam-\nbia. Pest Manage Sci. 75(May): 2840–2850. doi:10.1002/ps.\n5504.\nKinyungu TN, Muthomi JW, Subramanian S, Miano DW,\nOlubayo FM, Maobe MA. 2019. Role of maize residues in\ntransmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus and effect on\nyield. Int J Biosci. 6655:338–349.\nKrell NT, Giroux SA, Guido Z, Hannah C, Lopus SE, Cay-\nlor KK, Evans TP. 2021. Smallholder farmers’ use of mobile\nphone services in central Kenya. Clim Dev. 13(3):215–227.\ndoi:10.1080/17565529.2020.1748847.\nLouie R. 1980. Sugarcane mosaic virus in Kenya. Plant Dis.\n64(10):944. doi:10.1094/PD-64-944.\nMahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, Jones MW, Kimunye JN,\nStewart LR, ... Redinbaugh MG. 2015. Maize Lethal Necro-\nsis (MLN), an emerging threat to maize-based food security\nin Sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology®. 105(7):956–965.\ndoi:10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI.\nMiano DW. 2014. A real threat to food security in the Eastern\nand", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ology®. 105(7):956–965.\ndoi:10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI.\nMiano DW. 2014. A real threat to food security in the Eastern\nand Central Africa. University of Nairobi Digital Repository.\n1973(Mcmv). http://hdl.handle.net/11295/79053.\nMudde B, Olubayo F, Miano D, Kilalo D. 2017. Farmer knowl-\nedge, perceptions and management of maize lethal necrosis\ndisease in selected agro-ecological zones of Uganda. Afr J\nRural Dev. 2(September):247–261.\nMwatuni FM, Nyende AB, Njuguna J, Zhonguo X, Machuka E,\nStomeo F. 2020. Occurrence, genetic diversity, and recom-\nbination of maize lethal necrosis disease-causing viruses in\nKenya. Virus Res. 286(January):198081. doi:10.1016/j.virusr\nes.2020.198081.\nNault LR, Styer WE, Coffey ME, Gordon DT, Negi LS, N\nCL. 1978. Transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus\nby chrysomelid beetles. Phytopathology. 68(7):1071–1074.\nhttp://www.apsnet.org/publications/phytopathology/backiss\nues/Documents/1978Articles/Phyto68n07_1071.pdf.\nOdendo M, De Groote H, Odongo OM. 2001. Assessment of\nfarmers’ preferences and constraints to maize production in\nmoist midaltitude zone of Western Kenya. Paper presented at\nthe 5th International Conference of the African Crop Science\nSociety, p. 21–26.\nRedinbaugh MG, Stewart LR. 2018. Maize lethal necrosis:\nan emerging, synergistic viral disease. Annu Rev Virol.\n5(1):301–322.\ndoi:10.1146/annurev-virology-092917-04\n3413.\nRegassa B, Abraham A, Fininsa C, Wegary D, Wolde-Hawariat\nY. 2020. Distribution of maize lethal necrosis epidemics and\nits association with cropping systems and cultural", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "04\n3413.\nRegassa B, Abraham A, Fininsa C, Wegary D, Wolde-Hawariat\nY. 2020. Distribution of maize lethal necrosis epidemics and\nits association with cropping systems and cultural prac-\ntices in Ethiopia. Crop Prot. 134(November 2019):105151.\ndoi:10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105151.\nSemagn K. 2014. Leaf tissue sampling and DNA extraction\nprotocols BT – molecular plant taxonomy: methods and\nprotocols. In: P. Besse, editor. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press;\np. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-767-9_3.\nSemagn K, Beyene Y, Babu R, Nair S, Gowda M, Das\nB, ... Worku M. 2014. Molecular breeding for developing\nstress resilient maize for Sub-Saharan Africa. Crop Sci.\n55(February 2015): 1449–1459. doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.09.\n0646.\nUyemoto J, Bockelman D, Claflin L. 1980. Severe outbreak of\nCorn Lethal Necrosis Disease.PDF.\nWamaitha MJ, Nigam D, Maina S, Stomeo F, Wangai A, Nju-\nguna JN, ... Garcia-Ruiz H. 2018. Metagenomic analysis of\nviruses associated with maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Virol\nJ. 15(1):90. doi:10.1186/s12985-018-0999-2.\nWyche S, Steinfield C. 2016. Why don’t farmers use cell phones\nto access market prices? Technology affordances and barriers\nto market information services adoption in rural Kenya. Inf\nTechnol Dev. 22(2):320–333. doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.10\n48184.", "source": "Maize production systems farmers perception and current status of maize lethal necrosis in selected counties in Kenya.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "© 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 72 \nInternational Journal of Scientific Research in ___________________________ Research Paper . \nBiological Sciences \n \nVol.7, Issue.1, pp.72-78, February (2020) E-ISSN: 2347-7520 \n \nMultilocation Evaluation for yield and Yield Related Traits in Three-\nWay Cross Maize Hybrids in Kenya \n \nBenard Masila1*, Charles Langat2 \n \n1,2Department of Crop Breeding, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Nairobi, Kenya \n \n*Corresponding Author: benardmasila@gmail.com, Tel.: +254-723-007-691 \n \nAvailable online at: www.isroset.org \nReceived: 05/Feb/2020, Accepted: 20/Feb/2020, Online: 28/Feb/2020 \nAbstract— Maize (Zea mays L.) is the third most important crop after wheat and rice worldwide. It is the main staple food \nin Kenya. The objective of this study was to evaluate genotype by environment interactions and yield stability of twenty \nthree-way cross hybrids at four locations in Kenya evaluated in two seasons. The experiment was conducted in an alpha \nlattice design (Incomplete Randomized Block Design) with three replications. There was significant variation for grain \nyield among the genotypes, locations and their interaction. Stability analysis was evaluated using the joint regression, \nadditive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) and GGE biplot methods. The environmental and genotypic \nmeans ranged from 2.72 to 7.67 and 2.39 to 5.56 respectively. The regression coefficient (βi) and deviation from regression \n(s2di) values of these genotypes ranged from 0.55 to 1.64 and 0.02 to 0.59 respectively. There were also significant \ndifferences for genotypes, environments and genotype by environment interaction for the AMMI analysis of variance. The \ntotal proportion of variation contributed by genotypes, environments and genotype by environment interaction was 8.82%, \n76.03% and 9.17% respectively. When considering the Pi, βi, S2 di and the AMMI biplot analysis, the most stable genotype \nin the high yielding category in this study considering all stability", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "82%, \n76.03% and 9.17% respectively. When considering the Pi, βi, S2 di and the AMMI biplot analysis, the most stable genotype \nin the high yielding category in this study considering all stability parameters was WE-CMT-TWC-1001 (G1) followed by \nWE-CMT-TWC-1003 (G3) and WE-CMT-TWC-1020 (G20). The best genotype with both high mean yield and high \nstability was WE-CMT-TWC-1003 (G3). The genotypes identified could be utilized as reference for genotype evaluation \nand tested further for selection. \n \nKeywords— Multilocation trial, grain yield, three way cross maize hybrids \n \nI. INTRODUCTION \n \nMaize (Zea mays L.) is the main staple food for many \nnations and third most important crop after wheat and rice \nworldwide [1,2]. It is the main staple food in Kenya \nestimated to contribute to about 68% of daily per capita \ncereal consumption, 35% of total dietary energy \nconsumption and 32% of total protein consumption thereby \nindicating that Kenya’s national food security is strongly \nlinked to production of adequate quantities of maize to \nmeet an increasing domestic demand [3]. \n \nIn plant breeding, the process of identifying genotypes \nwith high yield potential and yield stability across \nenvironments is a fundamental activity [4]. Identification \nof stable genotypes by plant breeders is usually difficult \ndue to the presence of genotype by environment interaction \n(GEI) [5]. GEI causes the relative ranking of genotype \nperformance to change across environments and thereby \naffecting breeding progress [6]. Due to GEI effect, \ngenotypes with wide adaptation are rarely identified [7]. \n \nVarious stability analyses using the GEI have been \ndeveloped in order to identify genotypes with good yield \nperformance \nand \nyield \nstability \nacross \ndifferent \nenvironments [8]. These stability analysis methods include, \nadditive main effects and multiplicative interaction model \n(AMMI), principal component analysis (PCA), linear \nregression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and \nGGE biplot analysis [9]. The ANOVA describes the main \neffects with no information on individual genotypes and \nlocations, which are elements of the interaction and the \nAMMI uses the principal", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " of variance (ANOVA) and \nGGE biplot analysis [9]. The ANOVA describes the main \neffects with no information on individual genotypes and \nlocations, which are elements of the interaction and the \nAMMI uses the principal component analysis to explain \ngenotype performance by incorporating the use of \nANOVA and PCA [10]. The AMMI explains the main \neffects of genotypes, environments and their interaction by \ncombining the additive components in a single model for \nthe main effects of genotype and environment and \nmultiplicative components of their interaction [11]. \n \nThe linear regression analysis proposed by Eberhart and \nRussell, [12] classifies variation in genotype performance \ninto predictable (regression) and unpredictable (deviation \nfrom regression) evaluating yield and stability respectively \n[13]. ccording to this model, a relatively lo er value of \nregression coefficient (βi) around 1 (βi 1) ill mean a \ngenotype is less responsive to environment and therefore \nmore adaptive [4]. Deviation from regression (s2di) if \nsignificantly different from zero will mean the genotype is \nless stable across environments and if not significantly \ndifferent, the genotype is stable [12]. If the phenotypic \nindex (pi) is negative, the genotype has a low grain yield \nand if phenotypic index is positive, the genotype has a high \ngrain yield [14]. The environmental index (Ij) reflects the", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 73 \nsuitability of an environment to hybrid maize production. \nNegative environmental index reflects a poor environment \nwhile positive environmental index reflects a favorable \nenvironment for the hybrid maize production [15]. \n \nThe GGE (genotype plus genotype-by-environment) biplot \nanalysis combines the genotype and genotype by \nenvironment effects in genotype evaluation [6]. It uses \ngraphic axes to identify candidate genotypes in the mega \nenvironments (groups of environments sharing the same \ntest genotypes) [16]. The GGE biplot also incorporates \nANOVA and PCA by classifying genotypes and genotype \nby environment interaction sum of squares together by use \nof the PCA method [17]. \n \nBecause of increasingly importance of maize production in \nKenya there is need to improve its production and thereby \nimprove food security. This will be achieved by growing \nhigh yielding and stable maize varieties. Therefore, this \nstudy aims to evaluate the yield performance and yield \nstability of three way cross maize hybrids across four \nenvironments in Kenya using AMMI, GGE biplot and joint \nregression methods. \n \nII. \nMETHODOLOGY \n \nGermplasm: \nThe experimental materials used in the study were 20 three \nway cross hybrids and four commercial local check \nvarieties (Table 1). The 20 three way crosses were obtained \nfrom the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research \nOrganization (KALRO) breeding program. \n \nExperimental sites: \nThe experiments were conducted at KALRO Kakamega, \nKALRO Katumani, KALRO Kiboko and KALRO Kitui in \nKenya. The agro-climatic descriptions of the four \nexperimental sites are presented on table (Table 2). \n \nExperimental design: \nThe 20 three way cross hybrids together with four local \nchecks were planted in an Alpha Lattice Design \n(Incomplete Randomized Block Design) with three \nreplications in all the locations for two seasons. Each \nhybrid was sown in two row plot of 5.0 m. Two seeds were \nplanted in each hill and thinning was later done to one \nplant per hill. Plant spacing was 0.75 m between rows and \n0.25 m", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "own in two row plot of 5.0 m. Two seeds were \nplanted in each hill and thinning was later done to one \nplant per hill. Plant spacing was 0.75 m between rows and \n0.25 m between hills. \n \nA recommended application of fertilizer for nitrogen (60 \nkg N ha-1) and phosphate (60 kg P2O5) was applied for \neach location to ensure healthy and vigorous plants. The \nexperimental sites were also kept free of weeds by hand \nweeding throughout the growth cycle of the plants. \nSupplemental irrigation was done when necessary. \n \nData collection and analysis: \nData on yield and yield related characters was collected \naccording to the standard protocols provided by CIMMYT \n[19]. \nAnalysis of variance for every location was done for grain \nyield and yield related characters using the SAS computer \nprogram [20]. Bartlett’s test as used to evaluate the \nhomogeneity of error variances before the combined \nanalysis of variance across environments. \n \nThe stability analysis for genotype by environment \ninteraction was estimated using the AMMI model [21,22]. \nIn this model, the contribution of every genotype and every \nenvironment to the genotype by environment interaction is \nestimated using the GGE biplot whereby genotype mean \nyields and environmental means are plotted against the \nfirst interaction principal component axes scores (IPCA1). \nAMMI analysis computational program is supplied by \nDurate and Zimmermann [22]. \n \nThe regression model stability parameters, regression \ncoefficient (βi) and deviation from regression (S2di) were \ncalculated according to the method proposed by Eberhart \nand Russell [12]. The t-test was used to test the significant \ndifferences among the βi values and unity hile the F-test \nwas used to test significance of the S2di values. \n \nIII. \nRESULTS \n \nANOVA for grain yield (t ha-1) and yield related traits \nThe analysis of variance for grain yield within locations \nshowed significant differences for genotypes (Table 3). \nThe analysis of variance also showed significant \ndifferences for grain yield (GY), number of plants \nharvested (NP), number of ears harvested (NE), grain \nmoisture content percentage (MOIST) and ear aspect (EA) \nacross genotypes, locations and their interaction (Table 4). \n \nE", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " of plants \nharvested (NP), number of ears harvested (NE), grain \nmoisture content percentage (MOIST) and ear aspect (EA) \nacross genotypes, locations and their interaction (Table 4). \n \nEberhart and Russell joint regression model \nThe environmental and genotypic means ranged from 2.72 \nto 7.67 and 2.39 to 5.56 respectively. Twelve genotypes \nhad a higher grain yield (positive phenotypic index) and \nalso twelve genotypes had a lower grain yield (negative \nphenotypic index). Kiboko (-0.78), Katumani (-1.08) and \nKakamega (-1.54) were poor environments for hybrid \nmaize production while Kitui (3.41) was the best for \nhybrid maize production. The regression coefficient (βi) \nand deviation from regression (s2di) values of these \ngenotypes ranged from 0.55 to 1.64 and 0.02 to 0.59 thus \nshowing that these genotypes responded differently to \ndifferent environment (Table 4). \n \nAccording to the joint regression model, the most stable \ngenotypes as indicated by the lowest (s2di) values were \nWE-CMT-TWC-1017 with a genotype mean of 4.35 which \nwas ranked eleventh with a phenotypic index (pi) of 0.09, \nregression coefficient (βi) of 1.03 and deviation from \nregression (s2di) of 0.02 then followed by WE-CMT-TWC-\n1008 with genotype mean of 4.16 (ranked fourteenth) with \npi value of -0.10, βi value of 0.81 and s2di value of 0.05 \nand WE-CMT-TWC-1003 with genotype mean of 5.27 \n(ranked second) with pi value of 1.01, βi value of 0.80 and \ns2di value of 0.06. The most unstable genotype as indicated \nby the highest s2di value was WE-CMT-TWC-1007 with a", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 74 \nmean of 3.93 (ranked eighteenth) with pi value of -0.34, βi \nvalue of 1.64 and s2di value of 0.59. The genotype was \nclassified as the most unstable because its s2di value was \nsignificantly different from zero and bi value was \nsignificantly different from 1 as compared to the rest \n(Table 5). \n \nAdditive main effects and multiplicative interaction \n(AMMI) analysis \nThe combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) according to \nthe AMMI 2 model indicated that there were highly \nsignificant \ndifferences \n(p≤0.01) \nfor \ngenotypes, \nenvironments and the interaction of genotype by \nenvironment (Table 4). The IPCA were ordered according \nto decreasing importance [8]. All genotypes showed highly \nsignificant differences for the first IPCA scores (Table 6). \nThe total variation explained (%) was 8.82% for \ngenotypes, 76.03% for environments and 9.17% for \ngenotype by environment interaction and the two IPCA \naxes explained 88.4% of the genotype by environment \ninteraction. The first IPCA captured 66.02% of the total \ninteraction sums of squares in 36% of the interaction \ndegrees of freedom and the second IPCA captured 22.38% \nof the interaction sum of squares in 33% of the interaction \ndegrees of freedom (Table 6). \n \nThe analysis of the GGE biplot \nThe GGE biplot gives a visual expression of the \nrelationship between the first principle component analysis \n(IPCA) and the means of the genotypes and environments. \nThe IPCA scores of genotypes indicate the stability or \nadaptation of the genotypes to the environments. The \ngreater the IPCA score, whether negative or positive (as it \nis a relative value) the more specifically adapted is a \ngenotype to certain environments. The more the IPCA \nscores are close to zero, the more adapted or stable the \ngenotype is across all the environments sampled. The \nenvironment scores from AMMI analysis relating to \ninteraction also have a meaningful interpretation in", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " to certain environments. The more the IPCA \nscores are close to zero, the more adapted or stable the \ngenotype is across all the environments sampled. The \nenvironment scores from AMMI analysis relating to \ninteraction also have a meaningful interpretation in that, \nenvironments \nwith \nlarge \nIPCA \nscores \nare \nmore \ndiscriminating of genotypes while environments with \nIPCA scores near zero show little interaction across \ngenotypes and low discrimination among genotypes [8]. \n \nFrom the biplot analysis, environments are categorized into \nfour parts i.e Quadrants I (top left) and IV (Bottom left) as \nlower yielding environments and Quadrants II (top right) \nand III (bottom right) as the high yielding environments. \nTherefore, the high yielding environment as indicated by \nthe biplot analysis \nis \nKitui and lower \nyielding \nenvironments are Kakamega, Katumani and Kiboko. Kitui \nshowed more discrimination for genotypes as compared to \nKakamega, Katumani and Kiboko (Figure 1). \n \nThe genotypes categorized under favorable environments \nconsidering the IPCA 1 scores with above average means \nwere G1 (WE-CMT-TWC-1001), G3 (WE-CMT-TWC-\n1003), G18 (WE-CMT-TWC-1018), G20 (WE-CMT-\nTWC-1020) and G14 (WE-CMT-TWC-1014). Among \nthem, G18 (WE-CMT-TWC-1018) was considered more \nstable with IPCA values close to zero. The genotypes \ncategorized \nunder \nlow \nyielding \nenvironments \nare \ncategorized into the upper and lower left quadrants of the \nbiplot. G21 (PH3253 (Local check)) was categorized as the \nmost unstable genotype according to the AMMI model. \nGenotypes that are close to environment indicates their \nbetter adaptation to that environment, therefore G7 (WE-\nCMT-TWC-1007) was the best adapted to Kiboko and \nKatumani while G24 (WH505 (Local check)) was best \nadapted to Kakamega. \n \nSince IPCA2 also played an important role (22.38%) of \nexplaining the genotype by environment interaction, \nIPCA1 scores were plotted against IPCA2 scores to", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " check)) was best \nadapted to Kakamega. \n \nSince IPCA2 also played an important role (22.38%) of \nexplaining the genotype by environment interaction, \nIPCA1 scores were plotted against IPCA2 scores to further \nexplain the adaptation (figure 2). G1 (WE-CMT-TWC-\n1001), G21 (PH3253 (Local check)) G24 (WH505 (Local \ncheck)), G10 (WE-CMT-TWC-1010) and G7 (WE-CMT-\nTWC-1007) were categorized as unstable genotypes. G9 \n(WE-CMT-TWC-1009), \nG12 \n(WE-CMT-TWC-1012), \nG15 \n(WE-CMT-TWC-1015), \nG18 \n(WE-CMT-TWC-\n1018), and G19 (WE-CMT-TWC-1019) were categorized \nas moderately stable genotypes. G17 (WE-CMT-TWC-\n1017) was categorized as the most stable according to the \nmodel. \n \nWhen considering the regression model, AMMI analysis \nand the GGE biplot, the most stable and ideal genotypes in \nthe high yielding category in this study were WE-CMT-\nTWC-1001 (G1), WE-CMT-TWC-1003 (G3) and WE-\nCMT-TWC-1020 (G20). The best genotype with both high \nmean yield and high stability was WE-CMT-TWC-1003 \n(G3). The genotypes can therefore be recommended as \nreference for genotype evaluation and tested further for \nselection. \n \nIV. DISCUSSION \n \nGenotype performance \nSignificant mean squares for grain yield from the analysis \nof variance for the four locations indicated that the mean \nyield of genotypes differed from location to location due to \nenvironmental diversity. Similarly, there were also \nsignificant \ndifferences \namong \nthe \ngenotypes \nthus \nindicating that the genotypes differed in their yield \npotential across locations. The presence of significant \ngenotype by location interaction indicated the differential \nin performance of genotypes across environments, \ntherefore, genotypes performed well in one environment \nand performed poorly in another environment. Similar \nresults have been reported whereby a change in \nenvironment cause genotype by environment interaction on \nmaize [23,16]. \n \nThe highly", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " environments, \ntherefore, genotypes performed well in one environment \nand performed poorly in another environment. Similar \nresults have been reported whereby a change in \nenvironment cause genotype by environment interaction on \nmaize [23,16]. \n \nThe highly significant differences (p≤0.01) in genotypes, \nlocations and genotype by location interaction for grain \nyield indicated the need to develop varieties that are \nadapted to particular environmental conditions and \nvarieties that are exceptional in their stability across \nenvironments [24].", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 75 \nThe significant mean squares for locations and genotypes \nfor days to tasseling, days to silking, plant height, ear \nheight, number of ears, moisture, grain texture and husk \ncover indicate that the genetic expressions of these traits \nwere affected by environmental conditions at the four \nlocations [25]. \n \nStability analysis \nThe genotype by environment interaction for grain yield \nwas significant hence showing that the stability parameters \n(βi and s²di) estimated by linear response to change in \nenvironment were not the same for all genotypes across \nenvironments. These findings are in agreement with \ndifferent authors in their study on yield stability of maize \ngenotypes \n[26,27]. \nThey \nreported \nthat \ngenotypes, \nenvironments and genotype by environment interactions \nhad significant effect on yield of maize genotypes. \n \nThe AMMI analysis of variance for all the genotypes \nindicated that there were large sum of squares and highly \nsignificant mean squares for environment hence indicating \nthat the environments were diverse with large differences \namong the environmental means causing most of the \nvariation in the grain yield. These results are in agreement \nwith the findings of [28,17] who declared significant all \nthe genotypes, environment and genotype by environment \neffects in the ANOVA of AMMI. Previous research also \nreported that environment contributed the largest portion of \nthe total variance whereby 80% and above of total sum of \nsquare variance is contributed by environment while 10% \nis contributed by genotype and environment interaction \n[5]. \n \nGenotype \nperformance \nand \nstability \nacross \nenvironments \nA good genotype must have both high mean yield \nperformance and also be stable for selection for broad \nadaptation [29]. Therefore GGE biplot, regression \ncoefficient (βi) and deviation from regression (s2di) were \nused to determine the mean performance and stability of \ngenotypes for grain yield because of the significant \ninteraction for grain yield alone. \n \nAccording to the joint regression model, a stable variety \nhas βi values close or equal to unity (1) and s2di values \nclose or equal to zero (0) [30]. This method has been \nwid", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " alone. \n \nAccording to the joint regression model, a stable variety \nhas βi values close or equal to unity (1) and s2di values \nclose or equal to zero (0) [30]. This method has been \nwidely used but it has some difficulties that can be realized \nfrom the analysis of the results (Table 4) whereby the \ngenotype PH3253 (Local check) was the most stable when \nconsidering s2di values but unstable when considering the \nβi values. This makes it difficult on using the method alone \nto recommend high yielding and stable varieties for future \nproduction. Similar results were reported by different \nauthors [26,31]. \n \nThe biplot showed the pattern of variability of genotypes, \nenvironments and their interaction, however, different \nscaling methods for biplot puts different weight on means \nand stability thereby causing the choice of scaling method \nto affect the ranking of the genotypes in relation to mean \nperformance and stability [32,33]. \n \nContrary to this, genotype PH3253 (Local check) was high \nyielding but unstable. This fact can cause a serious \nchallenge to plant breeders in variety selection because the \nhighest yielding genotypes may not be preferred by \nfarmers due to their instability across environments. This \nfinding is also in agreement with [34] who reported that \nhigh interaction caused difficulties in selection of high \nyielding genotypes due to their inconsistency to perform \nacross different environments. \n \nV. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE \n \nFrom the study conducted, yield performance of maize was \nhighly affected by environmental change. There is also \nneed to test the maize hybrids for more environments to \npromote breeding efficiency for genotype stability across \nenvironments. The most preferred genotype was WE-\nCMT-TWC-1003 (G3), followed by WE-CMT-TWC-\n10020 (G20) and WE-CMT-TWC-1001 (G1). These \nhybrids need to be tested further and thereafter be \ncommercially released in order to increase maize \nproduction in Kenya in order to increase food security. \nFigures and Tables \nA \nTable 1: Description of maize genotypes used in the study \nGenotype No. \nGenotype Code \nSource \n1 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1001 \nKALRO \n2 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1002 \n", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 1: Description of maize genotypes used in the study \nGenotype No. \nGenotype Code \nSource \n1 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1001 \nKALRO \n2 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1002 \nKALRO \n3 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1003 \nKALRO \n4 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1004 \nKALRO \n5 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1005 \nKALRO \n6 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1006 \nKALRO \n7 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1007 \nKALRO \n8 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1008 \nKALRO \n9 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1009 \nKALRO \n10 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1010 \nKALRO \n11 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1011 \nKALRO \n12 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1012 \nKALRO \n13 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1013 \nKALRO \n14 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1014 \nKALRO \n15 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1015 \nKALRO \n16 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1016 \nKALRO \n17 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1017 \nKALRO \n18 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1018 \nKALRO \n19 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1019 \nKALRO \n20 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1020 \nKALRO \n21 \nPH3253 (Local check) \nPIONNER \n22 \nDK8031 (Local check) \nMONSANTO \n23 \nWE1101 (Local check) \nAATF/KALRO \n24 \nWH505 (Local check) \nWSCO \nKALRO: Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \nAATF: African Agriculture Technology Foundation \nWSCO: Western Seed Company \n \nTable 2. Geographical and Climatic data for four sites (locations) used in the study \nSite \nGeographic \nLocation \n \nMean \nannual \nRainfall \nTemperature \n(ºC) \n \nAgro-ecology and soil type \n \nSource \n \nLongitude \nLatitude \nAltitude \nMin \nMax", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 76 \n(mm) \nKatumani \n37˚32' E \n1˚35' S \n1580 \n582 \n13.9 \n24.7 \n Semi arid with Loamy sand soil \n[18]. \nKiboko \n37˚75' E \n2˚15' S \n993 \n548 \n17.0 \n30.6 \nSemi arid with ferrasols to ferric luvisol \nsoils \n[6]. \nKakamega \n34˚45' E \n0˚16' N \n1585 \n1995 \n13.0 \n28.6 \nSub humid with basaltic loam soil \n[6]. \nKitui \n38˚1'E \n1˚ 22' S \n1100 \n775 \n14.0 \n34.0 \nArid to semi arid with red sandy soil \n[1]. \n \nTable 3. Mean square from ANOVA and percentage of variance components for grain yield (tha-1) evaluated for the genotypes in each \nlocation (averaged over two seasons) \n \n \nKakamega \n \nKatumani \n \nKiboko \n \nKitui \nSource \ndf \nMS \nSS \n%SS \n \nMS \nSS \n%SS \n \nMS \nSS \n%SS \n \nMS \nSS \n%SS \nBloc/Rep \n3 \n1.44** \n4.32 \n10.67 \n \n0.09ns \n0.27 \n0.93 \n \n1.59* \n4.76 \n13.28 \n \n4.00* \n12.00 \n9.00 \nGenotype \n23 \n1.32** \n30.35 \n74.94 \n \n1.03** \n23.63 \n81.04 \n \n1.00* \n23.10 \n64.41 \n \n4.11** \n94.63 \n70.95 \nError \n21 \n0.28 \n5.83 \n14.40 \n \n0.26 \n5.26 \n18.04 \n \n0.38 \n8.00 \n22.31 \n \n1.27 \n26.75 \n20.06 \nTotal \n47 \n \n40.51 \n \n \n \n29", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "14.40 \n \n0.26 \n5.26 \n18.04 \n \n0.38 \n8.00 \n22.31 \n \n1.27 \n26.75 \n20.06 \nTotal \n47 \n \n40.51 \n \n \n \n29.15 \n \n \n \n35.86 \n \n \n \n133.38 \n \nCV% \n \n19.38 \n \n \n \n15.72 \n \n \n \n17.74 \n \n \n \n14.71 \n \n \ndf = degrees of freedom, MS = mean squares, SS = sum of squares, %SS = percentage sum of squares \n \nTable 4. Mean square from ANOVA for yield (tha-1) and yield related traits evaluated for the genotypes across four locations (averaged \nover two seasons) \nSource \ndf \nGY \nNP \nNE \nMOIST \nEA \nReplication \n1 \n3.30 \n70.08 \n27.00 \n2.90 \n0.00 \nGenotype \n23 \n3.82** \n205.17** \n268.41** \n17.99** \n0.93** \nLocation \n3 \n252.65** \n1456.06** \n1788.85** \n268.82** \n19.37** \nGen × Loc \n69 \n1.32** \n21.19* \n30.52* \n7.28** \n0.49* \nError \n95 \n0.59 \n12.75 \n20.31 \n4.24 \n0.32 \nS.E (Mean) \n \n0.77 \n3.57 \n4.51 \n2.06 \n0.56 \nL.S.D (0.05) \n \n1.53 \n7.09 \n8.95 \n4.09 \n1.12 \nCV% \n \n18.10 \n9.80 \n12.10 \n10.30 \n20.40 \nMean \n \n4.26 \n36.30 \n37.35 \n20.01 \n2.76 \ndf = degrees of freedom, GY = grain yield, NP = number of plants, NE = Number of ears, MOIST = moisture content, EA = ear aspect *and** = \nSignificant at 5% (p ≤ 0.05) and 1% (p ≤ 0.01) respectively \n \nTable 5. Joint regression stability analysis for grain yield (tha-1) across four locations (averaged over two", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " at 5% (p ≤ 0.05) and 1% (p ≤ 0.01) respectively \n \nTable 5. Joint regression stability analysis for grain yield (tha-1) across four locations (averaged over two seasons) \nGenotype \nPedigree \nLocations \nAcross \n \nP index \n \n \n \n \n \nKakamega \nKatumani \nKiboko \nKitui \nEnvrmnts \nRank \n(Pi) \nβi \ns²di \nRank \n1 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1001 \n3.88 \n4.61 \n4.11 \n9.67 \n5.56 \n1 \n1.30 \n0.83 \n0.08 \n5 \n2 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1002 \n2.11 \n2.32 \n3.21 \n6.67 \n3.57 \n22 \n-0.69 \n1.08 \n0.09 \n7 \n3 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1003 \n3.52 \n4.14 \n3.90 \n9.54 \n5.27 \n2 \n1.01 \n0.80 \n0.06 \n3 \n4 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1004 \n2.79 \n3.73 \n4.12 \n7.52 \n4.54 \n9 \n0.28 \n1.10 \n0.11 \n10 \n5 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1005 \n2.26 \n4.11 \n3.69 \n6.94 \n4.25 \n13 \n-0.01 \n1.11 \n0.26 \n22 \n6 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1006 \n3.44 \n3.30 \n2.56 \n9.93 \n4.81 \n5 \n0.55 \n0.65 \n0.11 \n11 \n7 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1007 \n2.74 \n3.12 \n4.37 \n5.49 \n3.93 \n18 \n-0.34 \n1.64 \n0.59 \n24 \n8 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1008 \n2.59 \n2.55 \n3.14 \n8.35 \n4.16 \n14 \n-0.10 \n0.81 \n0.05 \n2 \n9 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1009 \n1.96 \n", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "59 \n2.55 \n3.14 \n8.35 \n4.16 \n14 \n-0.10 \n0.81 \n0.05 \n2 \n9 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1009 \n1.96 \n3.35 \n3.92 \n6.98 \n4.05 \n16 \n-0.21 \n1.05 \n0.20 \n20 \n10 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1010 \n3.19 \n3.56 \n4.56 \n7.12 \n4.61 \n8 \n0.35 \n1.27 \n0.19 \n19 \n11 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1011 \n2.85 \n3.50 \n3.20 \n6.62 \n4.04 \n17 \n-0.22 \n1.31 \n0.12 \n12 \n12 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1012 \n2.71 \n3.35 \n3.99 \n7.53 \n4.39 \n10 \n0.13 \n1.06 \n0.08 \n6 \n13 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1013 \n2.81 \n3.33 \n2.90 \n6.12 \n3.79 \n19 \n-0.47 \n1.44 \n0.17 \n17 \n14 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1014 \n4.04 \n3.26 \n2.97 \n9.86 \n5.03 \n4 \n0.77 \n0.68 \n0.14 \n14 \n15 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1015 \n1.59 \n3.43 \n3.41 \n7.91 \n4.08 \n15 \n-0.18 \n0.83 \n0.12 \n13 \n16 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1016 \n2.58 \n3.64 \n4.38 \n6.72 \n4.33 \n12 \n0.07 \n1.25 \n0.27 \n23 \n17 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1017 \n2.93 \n3.22 \n3.58 \n7.66 \n4.35 \n11 \n0.09 \n1.03 \n0.02 \n1 \n18 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1018 \n2.71 \n3.18 \n4.49 \n8.64 \n4.75 \n6 \n0.49 \n0", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "09 \n1.03 \n0.02 \n1 \n18 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1018 \n2.71 \n3.18 \n4.49 \n8.64 \n4.75 \n6 \n0.49 \n0.84 \n0.10 \n8 \n19 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1019 \n2.27 \n2.18 \n3.59 \n6.90 \n3.73 \n21 \n-0.53 \n1.02 \n0.16 \n16 \n20 \nWE-CMT-TWC-1020 \n4.30 \n3.88 \n3.46 \n8.79 \n5.11 \n3 \n0.85 \n0.89 \n0.18 \n18 \n21 \nPH3253 (Local check) \n2.83 \n2.21 \n2.72 \n10.78 \n4.63 \n7 \n0.37 \n0.55 \n0.07 \n4 \n22 \nDK8031 (Local check) \n3.32 \n2.30 \n2.69 \n6.72 \n3.76 \n20 \n-0.51 \n1.08 \n0.25 \n21 \n23 \nWE1101 (Local check) \n1.58 \n2.38 \n2.81 \n6.10 \n3.22 \n23 \n-1.04 \n1.15 \n0.10 \n9 \n24 \nWH505 (Local check) \n0.31 \n1.85 \n1.78 \n5.63 \n2.39 \n24 \n-1.87 \n0.99 \n0.14 \n15 \n \nMean \n2.72 \n3.18 \n3.48 \n7.67 \n4.26 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nEnv. Index (Ij) \n-1.54 \n-1.08 \n-0.78 \n3.41 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nLSD (0.05) \n \n \n \n \n1.53 \n \n \n \n \n \ns²di, βi and Pi = deviation from regression, regression coefficient and phenotypic index respectively", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 77 \nTable 6. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on the AMMI model for grain yield (t ha-1) for the genotypes across four environments \n(averaged over two seasons) \nSource \n df \n SS \n MS \nTotal variation \nexplained (%) \nG×E explained \n(%) \nCumulative \n(%) \nTotal \n191 \n996.80 \n5.22 \n \n \n \nEnvironments (E) \n3 \n757.90 \n252.65** \n76.03 \n \n \nBlocks within (E) \n4 \n6.10 \n1.54* \n \n \n \nGenotypes (G) \n23 \n87.90 \n3.82** \n8.82 \n \n \nGen × Env (G×E) \n69 \n91.40 \n1.32** \n9.17 \n \n \nIPCA 1 \n25 \n70.40 \n2.81** \n \n66.02 \n \nIPCA 2 \n23 \n13.40 \n0.58 \n \n22.38 \n88.4 \nResidual \n92 \n53.40 \n0.58 \n \n \n \ndf = degrees of freedom, MS = mean squares, SS = sum of squares, *and** = Significant at 5% (p ≤ 0.05) and 1% (p ≤ 0.01) respectively \n \n \n \nFigure 1. Biplot of interaction principal components analysis \n(PCA) axis 1 mean yield (tha-1) for the genotypes grown in four \nenvironments. The vertical line represents the grand mean of the \nexperiment while the horizontal line is PCA axis 1=0. \n \n \n \nFigure 2. Biplot of interaction principal components analysis \n(PCA) axis 1 versus axis 2 for grain yield (tha-1) for the \ngenotypes grown in four environments \n \nACKNOWLEDGMENT \n \nThe author acknowledge the Centre Director, KALRO - \nAMRI, (Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research \nOrganization - Agricultural Mechanization Research \nInstitute) for hosting research, providing the germplasm \nand research facilities. The author thank KALRO-\nAMRI Kiboko and Katumani staff for assisting in \nmanaging field experiments", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Organization - Agricultural Mechanization Research \nInstitute) for hosting research, providing the germplasm \nand research facilities. The author thank KALRO-\nAMRI Kiboko and Katumani staff for assisting in \nmanaging field experiments and data collection. \n \nREFERENCES \n \n[1] \nB. Mbuvi, M. M imali, M. Githiri, “Estimation of General \nand Specific Combining Ability of Maize Inbred Lines Using \nSingle Cross Testers for Earliness”, W J Agric Res, Vol.6, \nNo.2, pp.37–48, 2019. \n[2] \nR. U. ziz, S. Gaher al, “Egg parasitism caused by \nTrichogramma spp. Against maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”, \nIntl J Scientific Res in Biol Science, Vol.4, No.5, pp.14–17, \n2017. \n[3] \nD. Chepkesis, H. Parzies, C. Schroeder, T. Onyango K’Oloo, \nR. Nar Bahadur, N. Jick, D. Gemenet, “Potentials of Hybrid \nMaize Varieties for Small-Holder Farmers in Kenya: A Review \nBased on Swot Analysis”, Afric J Fd, Agric, Nutr and Dvpt, \nVol.13, No.2, pp.7562–7568, 2013. \n[4] \nD. Djurovic, M. Madic, N. Bokan, V. Stevovic, D. Tomic, S. \nTanaskovic, “Stability Parameters for Grain Yield and its \nComponent Traits in Maize Hybrids of Different FAO Maturity \nGroups”, J Cntrl Eurpn Agric, Vol.15, No.4, pp.199–212, \n2014. \n[5] \nY. Beyene, S. Mugo, T. Tefera, J. Gethi, J. Gakunga, S. \nAjanga, H. Karaya, R. Musila, W. Muasya, R. Tende, S. \nNjoka, “Yield stability of stem borer resistant maize hybrids \nevaluated in regional trials in east", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Ajanga, H. Karaya, R. Musila, W. Muasya, R. Tende, S. \nNjoka, “Yield stability of stem borer resistant maize hybrids \nevaluated in regional trials in east Africa”, Afric J Plt Sci, \nVol.6, No.2, pp.77–83, 2012. \n[6] \nF. Nzuve, S. Githiri, D. M. Mukunya, J. Gethi, “Analysis of \nGenotype x Environment Interaction for Grain Yield in Maize \nHybrids”, J Agric Sci, Vol.5, No.11, pp.75-85, 2013. \n[7] \nM. Kwabena Osei, B. Annor, J. Adjebeng- Danquah, A. \nDanquah, E. Danquah, E. Blay, H. Adu-Dapaah, “Genotype × \nEnvironment Interaction: A Prerequisite for Tomato Variety \nDevelopment”, In S. Tatu Nyaku & A. Danquah (Eds.), Recent \nAdvances in Tomato Breeding and Production, IntechOpen, \nLondon UK, pp.72-91, 2019. \n[8] \nE. Tena, F. Goshu, H. Mohamad, M. Tesfa, D. Tesfaye, A. \nSeife, “Genotype × environment interaction by AMMI and \nGGE-biplot analysis for sugar yield in three crop cycles of \nsugarcane (Saccharum officinirum L.) clones in Ethiopia”, \nCogent Fd and Agric, Vol.5, No.1, 2019. \n[9] \nJ. Adjebeng-Danquah, J. Manu-Aduening, V. E. Gracen, I. K. \n sante, S. K. Offei, “AMMI Stability Analysis and Estimation \nof Genetic Parameters for Growth and Yield Components in", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences Vol.7, Issue.1, Feb 2020 \n © 2020, IJSRBS All Rights Reserved 78 \nCassava in the Forest and Guinea Savannah Ecologies of \nGhana”, Intrnl J Agrmy, PP.1-10, 2017. \n[10] B. Mitrovic, D. Stanisavljevic, S. Treskic, M. Stojaković, M. \nIvanovic, \nG. \nBekavac, \nM. \nRajković, \n“Evaluation \nof \nExperimental Maize Hybrids Tested in Multi-Location Trials \nUsing AMMI and GGE Biplot Analyses”, Turk J Fld Crps, \nVol.17, No.1, pp.35–40, 2012. \n[11] G. V. Miranda, L. V. de Souza, L. J. M. Guimarães, H. \nNamorato, L. R. Oliveira, M. O. Soares, “Multivariate \nanalyses of genotype x environment interaction of popcorn”, \nPesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Vol.44, No.1, pp.45–50, \n2009. \n[12] S. . Eberhart, W. . Russell, “Stability Parameters for \nComparing Varieties”. Crp Sci, Vol.6, No.1, pp.36–40, 1966. \n[13] . Morsy, W. Fares, S. Ragheb, M. Ibrahim, “Stability \nAnalysis of some Soybean Genotypes using a Simplified \nStatistical Model”, J Plnt Prod, Vol.6, No.12, pp.1975–1990, \n2015. \n[14] D. Bassa, F. Gurmu, H. Mohammed, “Comparison of \nUnivariate and Multivariate Models to Analyze Stability of \nCommon Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Genotypes in \nEthiopia”, Agrotechnology, Vol.8, No.2, pp.1-7, 2019. \n[15] M. Matin, A. Aminul Islam, M. Khaleque M", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nEthiopia”, Agrotechnology, Vol.8, No.2, pp.1-7, 2019. \n[15] M. Matin, A. Aminul Islam, M. Khaleque Mian, J. Ahmed, M. \n miruzzaman, “Stability analysis for yield and yield \ncontributing characters in hybrid maize (Zea mays L.)”, Afric \nJ Agric Res, Vol.12, No.37, pp.2795–2806, 2017. \n[16] T. R. A. de Oliveira, H. W. L. de Carvalho, G. H. F. Oliveira, \nE. F. N. Costa, G. de A. Gravina, R. D. dos Santos, J. L. S. de. \nCarvalho Filho, “Hybrid maize selection through GGE biplot \nanalysis”, Bragantia, Vol.78, No.2, pp.166–174, 2019. \n[17] C. Singh, A. Gupta, V. Gupta, P. Kumar, R. Sendhil, B. Tyagi, \nG. Singh, R. Chatrath, G. Singh, “Genotype x environment \ninteraction analysis of multi-environment wheat trials in India \nusing AMMI and GGE biplot models”, Crp Brdng and Appl \nBiotech, Vol.19, No.3, pp.309–318, 2019. \n[18] T. Tefera, S. Mugo, Y. Beyene, H. Karaya, J. Gakunga, G. \nDemissie, “Postharvest Insect Pest and Foliar Disease \nResistance and Agronomic Performance of New Maize \nHybrids in East Africa”, Intrnl J Plnt Brdng and Gntics, Vol.7, \nNo.2, pp.92–104, 2013. \n[19] C. Magorokosho, B. Vivek, J. MacRobert, “Characterization \nof Maize Germplasm Grown in Eastern and Southern Africa. \nResults of the 2008 Regional Trials Coordinated by CIMMYT”, \nHarare, Zimbabwe, pp.1-64 2009. \n[20] S S, “", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Germplasm Grown in Eastern and Southern Africa. \nResults of the 2008 Regional Trials Coordinated by CIMMYT”, \nHarare, Zimbabwe, pp.1-64 2009. \n[20] S S, “S S ® 9.4 for Windo s”, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, N.C, \nUSA, 2013. \n[21] A. Bisawas, U. Sarker, B. Banik, M. Rohman, M. Talukder, \n“Genotype x environment interaction for grain yield of maize \n(Zea mays L.) inbreds under salinity stress”, Bngldsh J Agric \nRes, Vol.39, No.2, pp.293–301, 2014. \n[22] J. B. Duarte, M. J. Zimmermann, “Selection of locations for \ncommon \nbean \n(Phaseolus \nvulgaris \nL.) \ngermoplasm \nevaluation”, Revista Brasileira de Genética, Vol.14, No.3, \npp.765–770, 1991. \n[23] H. Mafouasson, V. Gracen, M. Yeboah, G. Ntsomboh-\nNtsefong, \nL. \nTandzi, \nC. \nMuteng a, \n“Genotype-by-\nEnvironment Interaction and Yield Stability of Maize Single \nCross Hybrids Developed from Tropical Inbred Lines”, J \nAgrnmy, Vol.8, No.62, pp.1-17, 2018. \n[24] S. Ngailo, H. Shimelis, J. Sibiya, K. Mtunda, J. Mashilo, \n“Genotype-by-environment interaction of newly-developed \nsweet potato genotypes for storage root yield, yield-related \ntraits and resistance to sweet potato virus disease”, Heliyon, \nVol.5, No.3, pp.1-23, 2019. \n[25] E. K. Mageto, D. Makumbi, K. Njoroge, R. Nyankanga, \n“Genetic analysis of early-maturing maize (Zea mays L.) \nInbred lines under stress and non-stress conditions”, J Crp \nImprvmnt,", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". Njoroge, R. Nyankanga, \n“Genetic analysis of early-maturing maize (Zea mays L.) \nInbred lines under stress and non-stress conditions”, J Crp \nImprvmnt, Vol.31, No.4, pp.560–588, 2017. \n[26] W. nley, H. Zeleke, Y. Dessalegn, “Genotype X environment \ninteraction of maize (Zea mays L.) across North Western \nEthiopia”, J Plnt Brdng and Crp Sci, Vol.5, No.9, pp.171–181, \n2013. \n[27] J. Crossa, “From Genotype × Environment Interaction to Gene \n× Environment Interaction”, Currnt Gnmcs, Vol.13, No.3, \npp.225–244, 2012. \n[28] L. C. I. da Silveira, V. Kist, T. O. M. de Paula, M. H. P. \nBarbosa, L. . Peternelli, E. Daros, “AMMI analysis to \nevaluate the adaptability and phenotypic stability of sugarcane \ngenotypes”, Scientia Agricola, Vol.70, No.1, pp.27–32, 2013. \n[29] F. E. Belo , J. R. Seebauer, “Management and environmental \nfactor contributions to maize yield”, MDPI Books, pp.1-189, \n2019. \n[30] T. Welu Gebremedhin, “Adaptation of food barley (Hordeum \nvulgare L.) genotypes”, J Agric Sci, Vol.60, No.2, pp.227–235, \n2015. \n[31] P. C. Rodrigues, D. G. S. Pereira, J. T. Mexia, “A comparison \nbetween Joint Regression Analysis and the Additive Main and \nMultiplicative Interaction model: The robustness with \nincreasing amounts of missing data”, Scientia Agricola, \nVol.68, No.6, pp.679–686, 2011. \n[32] D. Bustos-Korts, I. Romagosa, G. Borràs-G", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "”, Scientia Agricola, \nVol.68, No.6, pp.679–686, 2011. \n[32] D. Bustos-Korts, I. Romagosa, G. Borràs-Gelonch, A. M. \nCasas, G. A. Slafer, F. van Eeuwijk, “Genotype by \nEnvironment Interaction and daptation”, In R. A. Meyers \n(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, \nSpringer New York, New York, pp.1–44, 2018. \n[33] W. Yan, M. S. Kang, B. Ma, S. Woods, P. L. Cornelius, “GGE \nBiplot vs. AMMI Analysis of Genotype-by-Environment Data”, \nCrp Sci, Vol.47, No.2, pp.643–653, 2007. \n[34] G. A. Owusu, D. Nyadanu, P. Owusu-Mensah, R. Adu \n moah, S. missah, F. C. Danso, “Determining the effect of \ngenotype × environment interactions on grain yield and \nstability of hybrid maize cultivars under multiple environments \nin Ghana”, Ecol Gntcs and Gnmcs, Vol.9, pp.7–15, 2018.", "source": "Multilocation_Evaluation_for_yield_and_Y.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "SOIL MOISTURE CONSERVATION, CROPPING SYSTEMS AND SOIL \nFERTILITY EFFECTS ON SOIL AND MAIZE PERFORMANCE IN \nMACHAKOS COUNTY, KENYA \n \n \n \n \n \nNGIE MWENDE (B. Sc. [Hons], M. Sc.) \nReg. No: A99/29362/2014 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nA Thesis submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Degree of \nDoctor of Philosophy in Dryland Agriculture in the School of Agriculture and \nEnterprise Development of Kenyatta University. \n \n \n \n \n \nMAY, 2019", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ii", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iii \n \nDEDICATION \n \nI dedicate this Thesis to my loving husband Dr. Laban Mutwiri Muriithi \n(PhD) and dear son, Wise Munene Mutwiri for their prayers, moral support and \nencouragement. It’s a journey that we have walked together successfully.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iv \n \nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \nI would wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to my \nsupervisors Dr. Benjamin Danga and Dr. Jayne Mugwe for their selfless guidance \nand contribution towards successful completion of this Doctor of Philosophy thesis. \nTheir support and constant demand to get the best out of me, made my thesis write \nup progress as scheduled. \nFurther gratitude goes to the Kenyatta University for the financial support \nthrough payment of tuition fees, research grant and enabling me to work as I studied. \nIn addition, I would like to appreciate the Government of Kenya through National \nResearch Fund (NRF) for facilitating partially my research work. Additional \ngratitude goes to The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern \nand Central Africa (ASERECA) through Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research \nOrganization (KALRO), Katumani who supported my research work. Special thanks \ngo to Dr. Kwena Kizito who administered the ASERECA grant through KALRO, \nKatumani. This list will not be complete without mentioning the many KALRO \nKatumani employees who participated directly or indirectly in the research work. \nSpecial thanks go to my colleagues in the School of Agriculture and \nEnterprise Development and in particular those from the department of Agricultural \nScience and Technology. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge the laboratory \ntechnicians of Kenyatta University, University of Nairobi and National Agriculture \nResearch Laboratories, Kabete for assisting in the laboratory analysis.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "v \n \nTABLE OF CONTENTS \nDECLARATION ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. \nDEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iii \nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... iv \nTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ v \nLIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... ix \nLIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi \nLIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................... xii \nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................ xiii \nABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. xiv \nCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 \n1.1 Background Information ......................................................................................... 1 \n1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 4 \n1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 5 \n1.4 Research Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 6 \n1.5 Conceptual Frame work .......................................................................................... 6 \n1.6 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 8 \n1.7 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 9 \nCHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 10 \n2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10 \n2.2 Effect of Tied-Ridging on Soil Moisture Conservation ........................................ 11 \n2.3 Effect of Farm Yard Manure Application on Nutrient Availability and Soil \nMoisture Content ......................................................................................................... 14 \n2.4 Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Farm Yard Manure on Crop Yields .................. 18 \n2.4.1 Effect of organic fertilizers on crop production ................................................. 20", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vi \n \n2.4.2 Effect of inorganic fertilizers on crop production .............................................. 22 \n2.4.3 Effect of fertilizer micro-dosing on crop yields ................................................. 23 \n2.4.4 Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer application on crop nutrient uptake .. 24 \n2.5 Effect of Soil Organic Carbon on Soil Fertility .................................................... 26 \n2.6 Effect of Cropping Systems on Crop Yields ......................................................... 27 \n2.7 Effect of Soil Management Practices on Profitability in Crop Production ........... 31 \n2.8 Summary of the Literature Review and the Study Gaps Identified ....................... 32 \nCHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................... 34 \n3.1 Site Description ..................................................................................................... 34 \n3.2 Experimental Treatments and Design ................................................................... 36 \n3.3 Characterization of the Farm Yard Manure used in the Experiment ................... 37 \n3.4 Characterization of Soils in the Experimental Site ................................................ 38 \n3.5 Seedbed Preparation and Planting of Maize .......................................................... 40 \n3.6 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 41 \n3.6.1 Rainfall data ........................................................................................................ 41 \n3.6.2 Determination of soil moisture content .............................................................. 41 \n3.6.3 Maize growth measurements .............................................................................. 42 \n3.6.4 Soil sampling and analysis of the soils in the experimental site ........................ 44 \n3.6.5 Determination of soil pH .................................................................................... 44 \n3.6.6 Determination of total nitrogen, organic carbon, available phosphorus, calcium \nand potassium in the soil ............................................................................................. 45 \n3.6.7 Determination of profit margin .......................................................................... 45 \n3.7 Statistical Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 47 \nCHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................. 49 \n4.1 Rainfall Distribution during the Experimental Period ........................................... 49", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vii \n \n4.2 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Cropping \nSystems on Soil Moisture Content .............................................................................. 52 \n4.2.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on soil moisture content at 0-60 cm depth during short rains 2015 ............... 59 \n4.3 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Cropping \nSystems on Maize Growth Parameters ........................................................................ 61 \n4.3.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters 40 days after planting (Short rains 2015) ........ 61 \n4.3.2 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters 40 days after planting (Long rains 2016) ........ 64 \n4.3.3 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting .................................. 66 \n4.3.4. Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters at 60 Days after Planting (Short rains 2015) .. 67 \n4.3.5 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting (Long rains 2016) .... 69 \n4.3.6 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Short rains 2015) .... 71 \n4.3.7 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Long rains 2016) .... 74 \n4.4 Effect of Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Cropping Systems on Soil \npH and Organic Carbon ............................................................................................... 80 \n4.4.1 Effect of farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems on soil \npH ................................................................................................................................ 81 \n4.4.2 Correlation and regression analysis of soil organic carbon and pH ................... 83", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "viii \n \n4.5 Effect of Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizers and Cropping Systems on \nMaize Crop Nitrogen Content ..................................................................................... 84 \n4.6 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizers and Cropping \nSystems on Yield and Yield Components of Maize .................................................... 86 \n4.6.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and cropping \nsystems on yield and yield components of maize (Short rains 2014) ......................... 87 \n4.6.2 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and cropping \nsystems on yields and yield components of maize (Long rains 2015) ........................ 90 \n4.6.3 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on yields and yield components of maize (Short rains 2015) ........................ 92 \n4.6.4 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and cropping \nsystems on yields and yield components of maize (Long rains 2016) ........................ 97 \n4.7 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Cropping \nSystems on Maize Profitability ................................................................................. 104 \n4.7.1 . Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems \non maize profitability (Short rains 2015) .................................................................. 104 \n4.7.2 . Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems \non maize profitability (Long rains 2016) ................................................................... 109 \nCHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 112 \n5.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 112 \n5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 115 \nREFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 117 \nLIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 148", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ix \n \nLIST OF TABLES \nTable 3.1 Experimental treatments .............................................................................. 37 \nTable 3.2 Chemical composition of the farm yard manure used in the experiments .. 38 \nTable 3.3 Textural and chemical properties of soils in the study site ......................... 39 \nTable 3.4 Prices used to calculate profit margin for various soil and water \nmanagement practices ................................................................................................. 46 \nTable 4.1 Rainfall Pattern at Katumani Research Station during Short Rains 2014 \nand Long Rains 2015 ................................................................................................... 49 \nTable 4.2 Rainfall Pattern at Katumani Research Station during Short Rains 2015 \nand Long Rains 2016 ................................................................................................... 50 \nTable 4.3 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on soil moisture content during short rains 2015 at different depths53 \nTable 4.4 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on soil moisture content at 0-60 cm depth during short rains 2015 59 \nTable 4.5 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 40 days after planting (Short Rains \n2015) ............................................................................................................................ 63 \nTable 4.6 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 40 days after planting (Long rains \n2016) ............................................................................................................................ 65 \nTable 4.7 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting (Short Rains \n2015) ............................................................................................................................ 68", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "x \n \nTable 4.8 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting (Long Rains \n2016) ............................................................................................................................ 70 \nTable 4.9 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Short Rains \n2015) ............................................................................................................................ 72 \nTable 4.10 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Long Rains \n2016) ............................................................................................................................ 74 \nTable 4.11 Interaction effect of farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on soil organic carbon and pH ....................................................................... 81 \nTable 4.12 Interaction effect of farm yard, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems \non maize grains and stovers nitrogen content .............................................................. 85 \nTable 4.14 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Long rains 2015) .......... 91 \nTable 4.15 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Short rains 2015) .......... 93 \nTable 4.16 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Long Rains 2016) ......... 98 \nTable 4.17 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize profitability (Short rains 2015) ..................................... 105 \nTable 4.18 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize profitability (Long rains 2016) ...................................... 110", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xi \n \nLIST OF FIGURES \nFigure 1.1 Conceptual framework showing the effects of soil and water ..................... 7 \nFigure 3.1: Map of Kenya showing the study area (NEMA, 2013) ............................ 34 \nFigure 4.1 Monthly Rainfall Distribution Short Rains 2014, Long Rains 2015, Short \nRains 2015 and Long Rains 2016 ................................................................................ 51 \nFigure 4.2: Relationship between soil organic carbon and soil pH ............................. 84", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xii \n \nLIST OF APPENDICES \nAppendix 1: Experimental plot lay out ..................................................................... 148 \nAppendix 2: Treatment combinations ....................................................................... 149 \nAppendix 3: Determination of Nitrogen content in plant samples ............................ 150 \nAppendix 4: Determination of soil organic carbon ................................................... 151 \nAppendix 5: Determination of available Phosphorus in the soil ............................... 152 \nAppendix 6: Determination of Calcium and Potassium in the soil ........................... 153", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xiii \nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS \nANOVA \nAnalysis of Variance \nASALs Arid and Semi - Arid Lands \nCAN \nCalcium Ammonium Nitrate \nDEAP \nDistrict Environmental Action plan \nFAO \nFood Agricultural Organization \nFYM \nFarm Yard Manure \nGDP \nGross Domestic Product \nGOK \nGovernment of Kenya \nGRIWAC \nGansu Research Institute for Water Conservancy \nICRAF \nInternational Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry \nKALRO \n Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \nKNBS \nKenya National Bureau of Statistics \nLGP \nLength of Growing Period \nLSD \n Least Significant Difference \nLR \nLong Rains \nRCBD \n Randomized Complete Block Design \nSR \nShort Rains \nSSA \nSub Saharan Africa \nTSP \nTriple superphosphate \nUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xiv \nABSTRACT \nThe main causes of food insecurity in semi–arid parts of Kenya are low soil \nfertility, low and unreliable rainfall. These two causes are the main challenges facing \nsmall-scale farmers in food production especially in semi-arid areas of the country. \nTo overcome these challenges, soil and water management technologies especially \nthose in soil and water conservation need to be embraced. The aim of the study was \nto determine the effect of tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems on soil \nproperties (moisture, pH and organic carbon), growth and yield parameters of maize; \nand to identify the most cost effective water and soil management technology. This \nstudy was carried out in four seasons at Katumani in Machakos County. The \nexperiment was a 2 x 4 x 2 factorial, laid out in a randomized complete block design \n(RCBD). The treatments were: tied ridging, flat bed planting, farm yard manure 0 \nt/ha, farm yard manure 5 t/ha, nitrogen fertilizer 20 kg/ha, farm yard manure 5 t/ha + \nnitrogen fertilizer 20 kg/ha, maize mono crop and maize cowpea intercrop. Data \ncollected included soil moisture content, soil pH, total organic carbon, growth \nparameters and maize yield. The results showed that, treatments with flat bed \nplanting in maize mono crop significantly increased soil moisture content at 0–20cm \ndepth as compared to tied ridging in maize cowpeas intercrop during short rains \n2015. Application of farm yard manure at 5 t/ha increased soil moisture content at 2 \nand 4 weeks after planting. The soil moisture content ranged from 6.30% to 23.80%. \nDuring the short rains 2015, maize mono crop significantly increased vegetative \ngrowth in comparison to maize cowpeas intercrop. Treatment with flat bed and 20 \nkg N/ha in maize mono crop had the highest mean for vegetative growth. However, \nduring the long rains 2016, treatment with tied ridging and 20 kg N/ha in maize \nmono crop registered the highest mean for vegetative growth. During the short rains \n2015, treatments with maize mono crop significantly increased grain yield with a \nrange of 1.35 t/ha 3.59 t/ha. Flat bed planting", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " crop registered the highest mean for vegetative growth. During the short rains \n2015, treatments with maize mono crop significantly increased grain yield with a \nrange of 1.35 t/ha 3.59 t/ha. Flat bed planting with farm yard manure 5 t/ha in maize \ncowpea intercrop significantly increased the grain yield by 165.93%. The harvest \nindex during the short rains 2015 ranged between 0.35 and 0.48. Treatments with \nmaize mono crop significantly increased gross benefit, net profit, gross margin and \ncost benefit ratio during short rains 2015 and long rains 2016. Application of farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha had the highest variable cost. The cost benefit ratio \nwas positive during the short rains 2015 with a range of 1.47–2.98. The yield \ndifferences among the four seasons could have been as a result of \nvariations/distribution in rainfall amount, soil moisture content and soil fertility as \ninduced by the treatments. Flat bed planting increased the yields during the short \nrains 2015 when the amount of rainfall was high whereas tied ridging resulted in \nimproved yields during short rains 2014, long rains 2015 and 2016 when rainfall \namount was low. For the farmers to maximize yields and profits in the study area, \nadoption of flat bed planting with farm yard manure 5 t/ha and maize cowpeas \nintercrop during the seasons of high rainfall could be appropriate treatment \ncombination according to the findings of this study. However, during seasons with \nlow rainfall, tied ridging with 20 kg N/ha and maize mono crop could be \nrecommended for adoption. Also, variations in seasonal rainfall should be \nconsidered when integrating different soil and water management practices because \nthe effectiveness of different technologies vary with the seasons. Farmers in \nMachakos County may have to consider use of supplementary irrigation during the \ndry spells to increase soil moisture.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1 \nCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION \n1.1 Background Information \nIn Sub - Saharan Africa (SSA), food insecurity is a threat and will persist to \nbe so for a long time unless changes are effected to the present trends of food \nproduction (SDSN, 2013). About 95% of the world’s population is found in the \ndeveloping countries where the rural economy relies on rain-fed agriculture \n(Rockstrom et al., 2003). In semi-arid and dry sub- humid Sub Saharan African \ncountries, more than 95% of the agricultural farm land is rain-fed hence, and there is \na likelihood that, farmers in these regions will continue to depend on rain-fed \nagriculture for future crop production (Classens et al., 2012). \nThe climatic zones in SSA normally have limited water availability with an \nannual average rainfall of between 300 to 900mm while the potential \nevapotranspiration is 1.5 to 4 times higher than precipitation. This makes the amount \nof water in the root zone usually rather limited. As a result, this reduces the variety \nand quantity of crops produced by the small-scale farmers. The low and unreliable \nrainfall together with low use of production inputs has led to low crop yields and \nfood insecurity (Barron, 2005). The low crop yields are also linked to inadequate \nand extreme fluctuations in the availability of water required for plant growth. The \nimpact of erratic rainfall on crop yield is important and therefore, efficient rain water \nmanagement could be a major solution in the semi-arid areas (Haibu et al., 2006). \nMost regions of SSA have low crop production. This is mostly attributed to \nlow nutrient availability as a result of continuous cropping and inadequate use of \nfertilizer rates (Breman et al., 2001). In order to attain sustainable household and \nregional food security in these areas, it is important to increase crop production \nthrough application of external nutrient inputs. However, in most cases this is not", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2 \nwithin the reach of small scale farmers (Vanlauwe et al., 2010). The small scale \nfarmers apply inadequate inputs, which result to quick depletion of nutrients in the \nsoil. In order to minimize the effect of these challenges, adoption of integrated soil \nfertility and water management (ISFWM) needs to be embraced by small scale \nfarmers in arid and semi-arid lands. \nSemi-arid areas are characterized by temporal and spatial variability of \nrainfall resulting to risk of serious drought (Demeke, 2003; Snyder and Tartwski, \n2006). The annual total rainfall ranges between 200 and 600mm, with potential \nevapotranspiration of 5-8mm/day. The semi-arid environments are susceptible to \nhazards that affect agricultural production. In addition, the infiltration rates are low \ndue to surface sealing and low organic matter content (Rockstrom et al., 2003). This \nreduces the yields by up to 75% (Barron et al., 2005). As a result, farmers in these \nregions have developed strategies to reduce risks and guard themselves against \nunfavorable weather conditions (Cooper et al., 2008). \nIn most semi-arid areas, agricultural output and productivity is usually low \ndue to unsustainable land use practices and low adoption of appropriate natural \nresource management technologies. Some of the land management practices which \ncan improve agricultural production in semi-arid areas include: mulching, contours \nand tied ridges, cover cropping, application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. \nHowever, in Machakos County, the level of adoption of these land management \npractices is below the optimal levels (Manyatsi et al., 2011). According to Mutuku \n(2017), only 21.4% of house hold heads in Machakos County have adopted land \nmanagement practices. Kathuli et al., (2014) also reported that, there is poor \nmanagement of soils by small scale farmers in this region as a result of low adoption \nlevels of natural resource management technologies. In order to improve crop", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3 \nproduction in Machakos County, interventions such as contour bunds, semi-circular \nbunds, water bunds, spreading basins and road run-off harvesting have been used \n(GoK, 2010). \nSoils in semi–arid eastern Kenya are low in fertility (Macharia et al., 2010). \nThis has led to very low crop yields even when the rainfall is non–limiting. The \ndecline in soil fertility has been attributed to continuous cultivation without adequate \naddition of nutrients in addition to nutrient loss through erosion and leaching \n(Gachimbi et al., 2005). Therefore, there is need to come up with appropriate soil \nand water management practices to conserve the available soil moisture in these \nareas. \nTied ridging is one of the options proposed to increase surface water storage. \nUse of tied ridges has been reported in various studies in different regions. \nAccording to Heluf (2003) some of the studies reveal problems and failures, while \nothers suggest great success. The success of tied ridges as a water conservation \nmethod is during low rainfall seasons. Studies done by Heluf (2003) in the semi-arid \nareas of Eastern Hararghe on the effects of moisture conservation on maize and \nsorghum crops revealed yield increase of up to 37% due to water conservation \npractices. Gicheru et al. (1998) as cited by Karuma et al., 2014 reported that, tied \nridges conserved the lowest amount of water in Laikipia District, Kenya and related \nthis to the high evaporation losses as a result of exposed soil surface. Other studies \nindicating the failure of tied ridges were done by Asmare (2012) in Ethiopia who \nreported that, tied ridges and flat bed planting had no significant effect on the soil \nmoisture content in all soil depths. Karuma et al. (2014) who worked in Machakos \nCounty observed that, tied ridges conserved the lowest amount of soil water during \nthe long rains of 2013.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4 \nFarmers in Machakos County have experienced declining crop yields in \nrecent decades. The average maize production is less than 0.5 t/ha which is only 1/3 \nof the expected potential (NEMA, 2013). The population growth rate in Machakos \nCounty is high. The current population is estimated at about 1.1 million people from \n264,500 households and with an annual population growth rate of 1.7% (KNBS, \n2018). Consequently, there is increased demand for food consumption and increased \nchronic food insecurity is a common phenomenon (NEMA, 2013). The food security \nsituation is worsened in this County by the continued poor crop performance due to \ninadequate rainfall. The County experiences erratic and unpredictable rains (less \nthan 500mm annually) (NEMA, 2013). \n \n1.2 Statement of the Problem \nIn Machakos County, the main factors limiting crop production include low \nsoil moisture and inadequate nutrients in soils. The insufficient soil moisture is as a \nresult of low and unreliable rainfall while the low soil fertility could be attributed to \ncontinuous cropping without soil fertility replenishment. In addition, most parts of \nthe County have undulating topography with steep elevation which accelerates soil \nerosion and water loss through run off. Consequently, the little available water for \ncrop use is lost from the crop land. This has led to low crop yields hence food \ninsecurity for the ever growing human population. The poverty levels in this County \nare high (59.6%) against a national average of 47.2%. The County is ranked position \n33 out of 47 Counties in reference to poverty. In order to address the low \nagricultural production, there is need to come up with interventions which can \nimprove infiltration of water into the soil during the rainy season so as to make \nmaximum use of the rain water.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5 \nMost of the past studies in Machakos County focused on a single water \nharvesting technology without integration with soil management practices. In \naddition, there is limited knowledge on the interaction of different soil and water \nmanagement practices and their effects on crop production. A lot of efforts have \nbeen made in breeding improved crop varieties but this has not succeeded in \nachieving the expected potential in crop production. \nAs much as farmers have carried out soil fertility amendments through \napplication of both organic and inorganic fertilizers, little attention has been paid on \ntheir effects on the soil properties. Also, information on economic performance of \nthe various soil and water management practices is inadequate. This could make the \nfarmers inconsistent in carrying out soil and water conservation practices in each \nseason. The effectiveness of different soil and water management practices is \naffected by variations in seasonal rainfall creating a need to identify appropriate \ntechnologies. Due to variability of rainfall in arid and semi-arid areas, identification \nand recommendation of specific soil and water management practices remains a \nchallenge, hence need to develop tailor made practices for Machakos County. \n \n1.3 Research Objectives \n \n \nThe main objective of this study was to determine the effect of tied ridges, \nfertilizers and cropping systems on soil moisture content, organic carbon, pH and \nmaize grain yields as well as to evaluate the profitability of different soil and water \nmanagement practices in Machakos County.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6 \nThe specific objectives of this research were to: \n(i) Determine the effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on soil moisture content in different soil depths. \n(ii) Evaluate the effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on growth parameters and yield of maize. \n(iii) Determine the effect of farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on soil pH, organic carbon and crop nitrogen content. \n(iv) Evaluate the profit margin of different soil and water management practices in \nmaize yields. \n \n1.4 Research Hypotheses \nThe research hypotheses of this study were: \n(i) H0: Tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems have \nno significant effect on soil moisture content in different depths. \n(ii) H0: Tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems have \nno significant effect on growth parameters and yield of maize. \n(iii) H0: Farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems have no \nsignificant effect on soil pH, soil organic carbon and crop nitrogen content. \n(iv) H0: There are no significant economic implications of using different soil and \nwater management practices in maize production. \n \n1.5 Conceptual Frame work \nThe major problems in Machakos County are low maize production, food \ninsecurity, water scarcity, poverty and soil fertility decline (Figure 1.1). This is due \nto unreliable rainfall and inappropriate farming practices. Climate variability affects", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7 \nrainfall intensity, frequency, spatial and temporal distribution. As a result, this in \nturn speeds up soil erosion and finally soil nutrient loss. High temperatures due to \nclimate variability increases oxidation of organic matter affecting soil aggregate \nstability. The reduced soil aggregate stability makes soil highly vulnerable to erosion \nand finally leads to nutrient loss. These factors work together to lower agricultural \nproductivity. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure 1.1 Conceptual framework showing the effects of soil and water \n \nInadequate soil moisture and low soil fertility in Machakos County are \nportrayed in low maize yields. By integrating various soil and water management \npractices it is expected that, soil moisture content and soil properties will be \n \n \nFarmyard Manure and Nitrogen \nFertilizer Application \nIMPROVED MAIZE YIELDS \nPROBLEM \nInappropriate Soil \nManagement \nPractices \nDeclining Soil \nOrganic Carbon \nAltered Soil pH \nLow Aggregate \nStability \nUnreliable \nRainfall \nInadequate \nSoil \nMoisture Content \nDecreased Maize Yields \nINTERVENTIONS\nUse of tied ridges and \nCropping Systems \nEFFECTS ON SOIL \nImproved Soil Organic Carbon \nAppropriate Soil pH \nIncreased Aggregate Stability \nAdequate \nSoil \nMoisture \nContent \nCAUSES", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 21, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8 \nimproved. This will lead to improved maize yields. In addition, determining the \nprofitability of different soil and water management practices will help the farmers \nin choosing the best cost effective technology to adopt. To overcome these \nchallenges, there is need for proper understanding of good soil and water \nmanagement practices based on their interactions with rainfall. This may increase \nmaize production and reduce poverty levels in Machakos County. \n \n1.6 Significance of the Study \nThe results of this study will provide guidelines on integration of different \nsoil and water management practices (tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen micro-\ndosing and cropping systems). This will probably lead to increased yields and make \nthe livelihoods of the small scale farmers better. In view of Kenya Vision 2030; \nregarding food production increase, this study may contribute to food security. \nInformation on the effects of various treatments on the soil properties will \nguide the farmers on use of most appropriate soil management practices which will \nmaintain optimum soil properties. Economic analysis will assist the farmers in \nmaking sound production choices which will maximize the profits. The research is \nexpected to contribute to suitable, sustainable and effective soil and water \nmanagement practices aimed at increasing maize productivity in Machakos County. \nThe findings will also contribute to scientific knowledge and give suggestion on \nviable coping mechanisms for future climate variability for farmers in the study area \nas well as contribute additional knowledge to research. The targeted beneficiaries \nwill be farmers, policy makers, researchers in soil science and students/researchers.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 22, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "9 \n1.7 Definition of Terms \nDry spell: A dry spell refers to two to four weeks long day without rainfall during \nthe cropping period. \nCropping systems: Cropping systems refers to crops and crop sequences and the \nmanagement technique employed in a particular field over a period of time. \nFlat bed planting: Normal tillage without imposing water conservation structures \nTied ridging: Tied ridging is a water conservation practice that involves growing of \ncrops on small ridges; established on the contour while blocking the furrows with \ncross –ties to retain rain water \nMicro-dosing: Application of small quantity of mineral fertilizer together with \nseeds of the target crop in the planting hole at sowing or 2-4 weeks after sowing \nShort rains: Short rains refer to cropping season which occurs between October and \nFebruary in Machakos County \nLong rains: Long rains refer to Cropping season which occurs between March and \nSeptember in Machakos County \nGrowing period: Growing period is the duration of the year for annual crops when \ntemperature, soil water supply and other factors permit crop growth and \ndevelopment.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 23, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "10 \nCHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW \n2.1 Introduction \nSmall scale farmers in semi-arid Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) usually \nexperience food shortages. This is due to declining crop yields, inadequate and \nextreme fluctuations in the availability of water for plant growth (Baron et al., \n2005). Water scarcity is more pronounced in semi-arid regions of SSA where \nagriculture is rain-fed and faces threat from frequent dry spells and drought \n(Rockstrom et al., 2003). \nNyssen et al. (2009) stated that, nearly all tropical highlands face land \ndegradation problems. In addition, inadequate plant nutrients due to land \ndegradation are a major cause of low crop productivity and food insecurity \n(Samchez et al., 2004). This is common where rain-fed agriculture is dominant. \nFailure by small scale farmers to intensify agricultural production in a manner that \nmaintains soil productivity is the major cause of land degradation in Sub-Saharan \nAfrica. Bossio et al. (2010) reported that, soil nutrient depletion and other forms of \nland degradation reduce water productivity, nutrient use efficiency and finally \nagricultural productivity. \nSoil erosion is the major cause of nutrient loss especially where agronomic \ninputs are low and vegetation cover is scarce (Powlson et al., 2011). Stolte et al., \n(2009) reported that, soil erosion has a direct negative impact on the productivity of \nthe land since soil, water and nutrients are lost. This means that, water conservation \nis an important aspect in crop production. Studies done by Baron (2005), Fofana et \nal., (2003) and Snyman (2003) showed that, incorporation of soil fertility \nimprovement measures make soil moisture conservation more profitable. Inadequate \nsoil moisture content results to low crop yields (Stroosjder, 2009). Ineffective in situ", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 24, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "11 \nsoil and water conservation measures can lead to imbalanced soil hydrology (Araya, \n2012). Proper soil and water conservation measures combined with appropriate soil \nfertility management practices can improve crop yields (Rockstrom et al., 2010). \nIn semi-arid areas, massive runoff and soil erosion is a common occurrence \nin small scale farms resulting to decline in crop production (ICRISAT and UNEP, \n1986). As a result, farmers realized that, failure to adopt appropriate water \nconservation techniques for rain-fed agriculture led to loss of rain water and frequent \ncrop failures. To overcome these soil erosion challenges, several cost effective, \nindigenous soil and water conservation techniques have been used in different areas \n(Wakindiki and Ben- Hur, 2002). \nSoil impoverishment in Machakos County is as result of poor farming \npractices and high costs of inorganic fertilizers (Shisanya et al., 2009). This has led \nto continued decline in soil fertility and land productivity. In addition, nutrient loss \nand water deficit especially at the plant root zone is an important factor that affects \ncrop productivity (Bossio et al., 2010). Increased soil moisture storage at the root \nzone (in situ rain water conservation) technology reduces runoff and soil loss (Ngigi \net al., 2006). \n \n2.2 Effect of Tied-Ridging on Soil Moisture Conservation \nSoil moisture is one of the key factors that affect crop production because \nplants require adequate soil moisture. The quantity of water needed by crops may \ndiffer depending on the crop species and the stages of crop growth. Soils are able to \nstore only limited quantity of water and only a small portion of this stored water is \navailable for plant use (Goyal, 2007). Most arid and semi-arid regions encounter the \nproblem of insufficient and unreliable soil moisture. In addition, there is high rate of", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 25, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "12 \nevaporation during the growing period. Rain storms are usually experienced during \nthe rainy season in semi-arid areas. Soils in these areas normally cannot absorb the \nquantity of water which falls in such a short time resulting to surface runoff (Justine \net al., 2003). \nThe prevailing climatic conditions in semi-arid regions require economic use \nof the limited quantity of rainfall as efficiently as possible. Water harvesting is one \nof the methods which can be used to make proper use of surface runoff. Another \nmethod is increasing infiltration and storage of rain water. When there is increased \namount of water available for crops’ use, this results to improved yields (Justine et \nal., 2003). In arid and semi-arid regions, inadequate water is usually a serious \nlimiting factor for vegetative growth. \nIn dry land areas, surface and ground water sources are usually too saline for \nirrigation. This leaves precipitation as the major source of water for plant growth \n(Xiao et al., 2006). Establishment of vegetative growth is normally slow due to \nprevailing critical moisture stress conditions emanating from low and erratic rainfall. \nSome studies which were done in the dry sloping land of Sub-Saharan Africa \nindicated that, about 5-10% of the precipitation is lost as runoff while 45-50% is \ntranspired by plants and 45-50% evaporates. In order to make maximum use of the \navailable rainfall, there is need to adopt more efficient soil management practices \nwhich can retain surface runoff and reduce evaporation. Micro-catchment water \nharvesting and moisture conservation practices like mulching and tillage have been \nused to increase yields in crops like wheat, sorghum and trees (Zhang et al., 2006). \nTied ridging is a water conservation method that entails growing of crops on \nsmall ridges established on the contour. The furrows are blocked with cross-ties in \norder to retain rain water (Twomlow and Bruneau, 2000). Tied ridges are physical", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 26, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "13 \nsoil and water conservation practice that when aligned parallel to the contour lines \ncontrols soil erosion and surface drainage (FAO, 2008). Imposing tied ridges \nenhances soil moisture conservation which improves crop production in arid and \nsemi - arid regions (Jensen et al., 2003, Motsi et al., 2004, McHugh et al., 2007, \nAraya and Stroosnijder, 2010). \nIn Eastern Africa, tied ridging has been a common practice for a long time \n(Baron et al., 2005). In countries like Ethiopia, traditionally, tied ridging is usually \ndone 4-6 weeks after planting maize in order to break the soil surface crusts and \nenhance infiltration (Biazin and Stroosnijder, 2012). Use of tied ridges has been \npracticed successfully in parts of Tanzania for a couple of years in marginal areas to \nconserve water (Dagg and Mac Carberry, 1986). In relation to soil and water \nconservation, tied ridges have the ability to substantially improve crop production. \nMaize yield with tied ridging in years with dry to near normal rainfall was improved \nby 42% even without addition of nutrient inputs (Jensen et al., 2003). \nStudies in the semi-arid Ethiopia have indicated that, tied ridges on slopes \nless than 3% reduced runoff by more than 75% compared with control practice. Tied \nridges are more advantageous with less steep terrain and more permeable soils \nwhere they may increase capture and infiltration of water (Giller et al., 2009). Biazin \nand Stroosnijder (2012) reported that, tied ridges enhanced rain water harvesting and \nimproved maize production. \nIn areas where small scale farmers use hand implements or animal traction to \ngrow low value subsistence crops, tied ridging has been reported to improve water \ninfiltration and therefore it is considered as an effective soil and water conservation \npractice especially in arid and semi-arid regions (FAO, 2008). Tied ridges are more \neffective in terms of water infiltration in drier areas (< 1000mm rainfall per year)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 27, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "14 \nand on gentle slopes (< 7%) as compared to wet areas or humid areas (Araya and \nStroosnijder, 2010). The effectiveness of tied ridging depends on soil type, slope, \nrainfall and design characteristics (Floor et al., 2000). Njihia (1979) as cited by \nKaruma et al. (2014) who worked in Machakos County Kenya, reported that, use of \ntied ridges made it possible to produce maize in low rainfall years when flat planted \ncrops gave no yields. In some parts of Botswana, use of tied ridges showed negative \neffects on productivity as a result of adverse weather conditions. According to \nDLFRS, (1984), the failures of the tied ridges may have been as a result of the \nhigher soil temperatures created within the ridge. This may lead to negative impact \non seed germination and shallow penetration of moisture into the soil as compared \nto that on flat soil when the rainfall is light. \n \n2.3 Effect of Farm Yard Manure Application on Nutrient Availability and Soil \nMoisture Content \nFarm yard manure constitutes litter (straw or other vegetable refuse), dung \nand urine from animals. The quality of farm yard manure varies depending on the \ncomposition of these components and the proportion in which they are present. The \nquantity of litter in the manure material determines the breakdown of the mixture \nand the final constituents of the farm yard manure produced (Chandy, 2010). When \nfarm yard manure is applied to the soil, it leads to humus formation which enhances \nthe formation of granular and crumby soil structure. The ability of farm yard manure \nto enhance formation of water stable aggregates has a major impact on soil structure \nand soil physical characteristics. Presence of increased percentage of water stable \naggregates, increases infiltration, porosity and the ability of soil particles to hold", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 28, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "15 \nwater. In addition, it also minimizes compaction and soil erosion (Bloom et al., \n1999). \nIn sandy soils, the organic matter promotes the formation of soil granules \nwhich results to improved water and nutrient retaining capacity of the soils. Humus \nhas the ability to impart black color to the soil making it to absorb increased amount \nof radiation. This helps to maintain suitable soil temperatures for microbial activities \n(Chandy, 2010). According to Bloom et al., (1999), addition of farm yard manure to \nsilt clay with high organic matter contents enhances macro-aggregation which \ninhibits structural degradation. Application of farm yard manure improves soil \nphysical properties and reduces the energy required for tillage. It also promotes \nseedling emergence and crop root penetration. Reports by Nareeed et al. (2010) \nshowed that, application of farm yard manure significantly reduced the soil bulk \ndensity and improved circulation of air in the soil, water holding capacity and \nporosity. \nShirani et al. (2002) reported that, total porosity of a soil increases with the \nincorporation of farm yard manure. Farm yard manure also facilitates water \npercolation and reduces soil crusting and compaction. In addition, it reduces surface \nrun off during the initial stages of rainfall hence minimizing the rate of soil erosion \n(Biamah et al., 2003). Application of farm yard manure leads to rapid increase in \nchemical activities of the soil. During the decomposition of farm yard, various \norganic acids are released and synthesized. The carbon oxide produced during the \ndecomposition dissolves in water to form hydro carbonic acid. This makes the soil \nsolution to become acidic for a short period (Chandy, 2010). \nAbasi et al. (2007) as cited by Mubaraka et al. (2010) reported that, \ntransformations of nitrogen in the soil are determined by the interaction of", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 29, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "16 \nenvironmental, soil factors and the composition of the substrate. The C/N ratios play \nan important role in decomposition. Those plant and animal residues that have C.N \nratios of 30:1 and above have little nitrogen to allow for rapid decomposition. This \nimplies that, micro-organisms will take NH4+ and NO3- out of the soil to facilitate \ndecomposition; removing these elements from the soil. On the other hand, plant and \nanimal residues with low C/N ratios (20:1 and less) have enough nitrogen for the \nmicro-organisms to break down the residues without removing it from the soil \n(Goings, 1999). \nNahm (2004) observed that, decreasing the C/N ratio accelerates nitrogen \nmineralization rate. At C/N ratios below 15:1, he observed an increase in net \nmineralization and also discovered that organic materials with C/N ratio of 15:1 or \nmore had a likelihood of causing net immobilization. Ghoshal (2002) reported that, \napplication of farm yard manure improves the rate of supply as well as pool size of \navailable nitrogen in the dry land. It also sustains the enhanced nitrogen pool \nthroughout the annual cycle. Farm yard manure conserves nitrogen during the first \nphase of crop cycle. This decreases nitrogen loss and provides better \nsynchronization of nitrogen availability and crop demand in the final stages of the \ngrowth cycle. According to Mohanty et al. (2010) nitrogen mineralization from crop \nresidues is affected by the concentration of N, hemicelluloses, lignin and C/N ratio. \nThey also observed that, the quality of farm yard manure depends on the type of \ncrop residues used since their composition is different. Farm yard manure constitutes \na complex of animal excreta and plant residues with different mineralization kinetics \nranging from relatively resistant lignin to readily available NH4+ and volatile fatty \nacids.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "17 \nThe value of farm yard manure as a source of nutrient or soil amendment is \nknown but the ability of farm yard manure to neutralize soil acidity is less \nunderstood (Chandy, 2010). Long term field and greenhouse studies have shown \nthat, farm yard manure has a buffering effect on H + production and release from soil \ncomplex (Bloom et al., 1999). The organic matter produced by farm yard manure \ndevelops buffering capacity in the soil which in turn decreases the effect of pH on \nplant growth. Continuous application of farm yard manure for a number of years can \nplay a key role in amending saline and alkaline soils (Chandy, 2010; Keshavarz et \nal., 2012). \nUse of farm yard manure can raise soil pH since it buffers H+ ions, and \nreleases nutrients like calcium and magnesium present in the manure. This means \nthat, application of farm yard manure supplies nutrients needed for plant growth and \nalso lowers soil acidity. This improves the availability of phosphorus and decreases \nAl toxicity (Bloom et al., 1999). Ashiono et al. (2006) reported that, application of \nfarm yard manure increased electrical conductivity of the soil, organic carbon and \nsoil moisture content of cold tolerant sorghum in the dry highlands of Kenya. \nAbout 88% of the resource poor subsistence farmers in semi-arid lands of \neastern Kenya use farm yard manure as their main soil fertility input. According to \nKihara et al. (2011) combining crop residues and farm yard manure in these regions \nled to increased maize yield. Studies done by Miriti et al. (2011) showed that, the \nhighest yield was obtained with 80 kg N/ha when combined with farm yard manure. \nFarmers in Machakos County mostly use farm yard manure to supply nutrients to \nthe soil. However, its major limitation is the low quantities applied as a result of \nincreased labor required and the poor feeds given to livestock which reduce the \nquantities produced ((Classens et al., 2012).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "18 \n2.4 Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Farm Yard Manure on Crop Yields \nThe main objective of integrated nutrient management is to maintain soil \nfertility and plant nutrient supply to an optimum level. This sustains crop \nproductivity and minimizes nutrient loses to the environment. Usually this can be \nachieved through efficient management of all nutrient sources such as soil minerals, \ndecomposing soil organic matter, mineral and synthetic fertilizers, animal manures \nand composts, by- products and wastes, plant residue and biological N-fixation \n(Sign et al., 2002). \nIn order to maintain sustainable crop production, combined use of chemical \nand organic fertilizers has been found to be greatly beneficial. Various researchers in \ntheir studies have argued that, integrating chemical and organic fertilizers to \novercome the deficiency of several micronutrients in crop fields is advantageous. \nOther studies have also pointed out that, combining organic and inorganic fertilizers \nled to increased yields in comparison to sole organic or inorganic fertilizers (Briggs \net al., 2002). In relation to grain yield, Vanlauwe et al. (2010), reported an increase \nof up to 400% over the control as a result of using both organic and inorganic \nfertilizers. \nInorganic fertilizers are usually used to supplement the natural soil nutrient \nsupply to provide nutrients required by the crops. Nitrogen is one of the primary \nmacro–nutrients which plays a key role in obtaining the maximum economic yields. \nHowever, it’s normally one of the most limiting factors in soils for improved crop \nproduction. Plants absorb nitrogen in large amounts in comparison to other primary \nmacro–elements (Kotschi, 2013). Nitrogen ought to be balanced with other \nnutrients. In most plants, nitrogen is taken up inform of nitrate ion (NO3-) and to a \nlesser extent in the ammonium ion form (NH4+). The growth of plants mostly", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 32, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "19 \nimproves when a combination of ammonium and nitrate nitrogen is used (Wopereis \net al., 2006). \nCombining inorganic fertilizers together with farm yard manure has been \nreported to improve the soil structural index, infiltration rate and water retention \ncharacteristics (Chandy, 2010). Inorganic fertilizers increase the amount of readily \navailable nutrients to plants. Integrating inorganic fertilizers with organic manures \npromotes soil health and improves soil fertility (Iqbal et al., 2012). When organic \nwastes are combined with inorganic fertilizers they improve both soil fertility and \nplant quality. Composted organic wastes can be used to substitute 25% of inorganic \nnitrogen fertilizers (Mahound et al., 2009). \nMohsin et al. (2010) reported that, integrating inorganic and organic \nmaterials led to sustainable crop production and concluded that, combining \ninorganic fertilizers and farm yard manure is essential in improving crop yields. \nMwangi et al. (2010) observed an increase in maize yields as a result of combining \nfarm yard manure and inorganic fertilizers. Studies done by Achieng et al. (2010) in \nWestern Kenya showed that, farm yard manure had 108% grain yield increase as \ncompared to sole inorganic fertilizer. They also observed that, farm yard manure had \n4% grain yield advantage over inorganic fertilizer on Ultisols during the dry season \nand attributed this to its ability to improve the water holding capacity of the soil. \nTasneem et al. (2004) observed that, different levels of organic and inorganic \nfertilizers significantly influenced the number of grains per cob in a study conducted \nto determine the effectiveness of farm yard manure, poultry manure and nitrogen in \nrelation to corn productivity. Tolessa and Friesen (2001) reported that, the growth \nand yields of maize increased significantly with the use of enriched farm yard \nmanure by 40% as opposed to conventional farm yard manure. Wakene et al. (2001)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 33, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20 \nfound out that, NP fertilizers and farm yard manure significantly increased grain \nyields. \nGikonyo and Smithson (2004) stated that, there was a significant increase in \nyields by 0.46 to 1.3 t/ha in their experiments in high and medium rainfall areas of \nKenya. Studies done by Ouedrago and Mando (2010) revealed that, integrating \norganic materials and inorganic fertilizers increased yields. This is in comparison to \nwhen nitrogen fertilizer in form of urea was applied alone. Alemu and Bayo (2005) \nobserved that, sorghum grain yield ranged from 0.54 t/ha in the control to a \nmaximum of 3.77 t/ha with the application of 120 kg N/ha. This accounted for an \nincrease of 3.23 t/ha yields in comparison to the control treatment. \nKogbe and Adediran (2003) observed that, maize grain yield increased with \nrise in nitrogen rates while the control recorded the least yields. Average corn yield \nin U.S A was predicted to decline by 41% without use of inorganic fertilizers \n(Stewart, 2003). Cakmak et al. (2010) and Solhi et al. (2012) found that, application \nof nitrogen was the most influential in relation to increasing crop production. They \nalso reported that, nitrogen played a key role in plant nutrition. \n \n2.4.1 Effect of organic fertilizers on crop production \nOrganic materials are important in soil fertility management (Ouattara et al., \n2007). This is because, being a source of nutrients, they affect nutrient availability \nand determine the release pattern of nutrients available for plant use (Islam et al., \n2011). When fallow vegetation or crop residues are incorporated into the soil, they \nenhance water infiltration and retention. The soil organic matter content also \ndetermines the cation exchange capacity of the soil (Kincaid, 2002). The benefits \nand limitations of specific organic inputs are influenced by the quality of the organic", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "21 \nmaterial, the soils’ organic matter pool to which they contribute as well as on site \nfeatures (Magid and Kjaer guard 2001; McNair Bostick et al., 2007). \nThe effect of organic inputs on soil organic matter dynamics can be resilient, \ntemporary or slightly long term. Organic materials of high stability with low carbon \n- nitrogen ratio are gotten as a result of composting (McDonagh et al., 2001). The \nnature of the material used and the extent of decomposition determine the type of \ncompost (Mishra et al., 2001). Those composts whose origin is from cereal crop \nresidue release nutrients slowly into the soil over longer period as compared to crop \nresidues (Mando et al., 2001); Sanchez et al., (2004) and Ouedraogo, (2004). \nCompost can also act as a soil ameliorant which is capable of changing the \npH, moisture content, structure and nutrient contents of the soil (Semple et al., \n2001). Compost is a source of carbon hence; it helps to improve the cation exchange \ncapacity, physical and biological characteristics of the soil. When compost is applied \nto the soil, it retards crust formation, reduces runoff and effectively combats \ndegradation of the structure of those soils which are highly unstable (Albiach et al., \n2001; Bresson et al., 2001). In addition, compost also increases soil microbial \nbiomass and earthworm population (Carpente–Bogs et al., 2000). Compost enhances \nbioremediation. This is because it can support diverse populations of micro-\norganisms (bacteria and fungi) with the potential to degrade a number of pollutants \n(Kapanen and Itavaara, 2001). \nThe impact of organic amendment on long term carbon storage could be \nminimal in tropical soils (Mandal et al., 2007). Several studies have highlighted \ntheir beneficial effects on nutrient recycling (Ngo et al., 2012; Kaur et al., 2005). \nIkerra et al. (2006) reported an increase in soil pH as a result of compost application. \nWhen organic manures are incorporated into the soil, they improve soil fertility, soil", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "22 \nstructure, water retention and biological activity. However, these sources are not \nadequate to sustain soil fertility. Therefore organic fertilizers ought to be used in \ncombination with other sources of nutrients (Mahmound et al., 2009). \n \n2.4.2 Effect of inorganic fertilizers on crop production \nNutrient deficiency is one of the major limiting factors in the development of \nan economically profitable agriculture (Fageria and Baligar, 2005). It is estimated \nthat, 30 to 50% of the increase in world food production since 1950’s was due to use \nof inorganic fertilizers (Higgs et al., 2002). However, majority of the farmers rarely \nuse these type of fertilizers. This is because of the high costs, uncertainty about \neconomic returns to fertilizing food crops and also lack of information on the types \nand rates of fertilizers to be applied (Hopkins et al., 2008). \nAmongst the three primary macro-nutrients (NPK), nitrogen is the most \nimportant plant nutrient. This is because it is the primary raw material required for \nplant growth. In addition, it has been found to be an essential constituent of \nmetabolically active compounds like amino-acids, proteins, enzymes and co-\nenzymes to some non-proteinous compounds (Brandy and Weil, 2002). \nNevertheless, it is the most frequently deficient compared to phosphorus and \npotassium (Hopkins et al., 2008). Maximum nitrogen uptake by the maize plant \ntakes place a month just before tasseling and silking (Hammons, 2009). \nReasonable amount of nitrogen is lost through denitrification, leaching, \nvolatilization and removal by crops (Castellano et al., 2014). When nitrogen is \ninadequate during silking, it leads to reduced grain yields. In order to realize the \npotential of modern hybrids, availability of nitrogen in the soil solution for plant \nuptake is important. Nitrogen stress results to poor kernel formation, increased", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 36, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "23 \nabortion and low grain yield. Maize requires higher amounts of nitrogen fertilizer \ncompared to other cereals (Dinnes et al., 2002). However, high nitrogen applications \nincrease the cost of production. It also results to serious problems of nitrate build up \nin surface and ground water. To ensure efficient use of nitrogen in cropping systems, \nit has to be applied as per the recommendations (Hopkins et al., 2008). \n \n2.4.3 Effect of fertilizer micro-dosing on crop yields \nMicro-dosing refers to the application of small amounts of fertilizer next to \nthe emerged plant starting from 3 to 6 weeks after the plant has emerged. This is \nusually done after weeding and when there is enough moisture in the soil. Fertilizer \nmicro -dosing can also be defined as point application of relatively small amounts of \nfertilizer (2-6g/ hill) in cereal crop production (Ali and Raouf, 2012). The fertilizer \nmay be applied together with the seed at planting time or as a top-dress 3 to 4 weeks \nafter germination. Micro-dosing significantly reduces the recommended amount of \nfertilizer that small scale farmers ought to apply per hectare (ICRISAT, 2009). \nWhen fertilizers are applied as micro-doses, it ensures more precise and \nbetter timed fertilizer placement. This in turn enhances proper utilization of the \nfertilizer (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009). The micro - dosing technology may also be \nintegrated with other practices like water harvesting and Zai planting holes. It can \nalso be combined with livestock manure or crop residue and compost made from \nkitchen and garden wastes. Several studies have revealed that, maize yields increase \nwith fertilizer micro-dosing as compared with the control (Sanginga and Woomer, \n2009; Okebalama et al., 2014). Fertilizer micro-dosing has the ability to greatly \nincrease yields across agro-ecological zones and rainfall conditions (Ali and Raouf,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 37, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "24 \n2012). In addition, fertilizer micro- dosing can also improve the harvest index \n(Hayaishi et al., 2008). \nPlant height was significantly increased from 19 to 31% through fertilizer \nmicro-dosing (Aune and Ousman, 2011). Crops under micro-dosing perform better \nunder water stress conditions. This is because the crops larger root systems are more \nefficient at exploiting moisture at greater depths. This mostly happens later in the \nseason when soil moisture at the surface of the soil is low (ICRISAT, 2009). Any \nsmall doses which are capable of correcting soil essential nutrients deficiencies can \nmake the root systems to develop and capture more water increasing the yields. \nMicro - dosing enhances more rapid growth. As a result, this helps to avoid early \nseason drought reducing the impact of end of season drought while increasing crop \nyields (Tarkalson et al., 2009). \n \n2.4.4 Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer application on crop \nnutrient uptake \nThe ability of plants to take up nutrients and efficiently utilize them is \ngenetically determined. However, this can be modified by plant interaction with the \nenvironmental factors (Baligar et al., 2001). When nutrient inputs are balanced with \ncrop removal, this minimizes the accumulation of nutrients and reduces the cost \ninvolved in soil fertility management. The nutrient uptake and removal is influenced \nby crop yield, variety and soil fertility. Climatic conditions also affect crop nutrient \nuptake. Low soil moisture, poor aeration, low soil temperature and nutrient \nimbalances limit plant nutrient uptake (CFI, 1998). \nMaximum nutrient uptake varies from one crop to another and takes place \nbefore maximum growth rates occur. However, plants require a balanced supply of \nnutrients throughout their growing period (Jones et al., 2011). Low nutrient uptake", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 38, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "25 \nin the initial stages of plant development lowers nutrient amount for the seed. This \naffects both yield and quality. Therefore, the application of nutrients should be timed \nsuch that, they are available before the peak of crop nutrient requirement (Jones et \nal., 2011). \nAdequate supply of nutrients during the early stages of plant growth \nenhances maximum crop yields. Nutrient uptake is also determined by the ability of \nthe roots to absorb nutrients and the concentration at the root’s surface (Jones and \nJacobsen, 2001). During the plant growth, roots spread out both laterally and \nvertically. This enables them to benefit from the areas within the soil that contain \nmore water and nutrients. When the soils are dry, plants have problems in absorbing \nnutrients. This is because plants absorb nutrients in ionic forms whereas most \nnutrients are elemental. This implies that, during the dry spells, nutrient levels in \nplant tissues may be lower than normal (Sanchez et al., 2004). \nTillage practices affect soil temperature, moisture and aeration. This in turn \ninfluences nutrient uptake (Jones et al., 2011). Fertilizer placement method may \nincrease or reduce nutrient uptake in relation to the prevailing conditions (Jones et \nal., 2011). Phosphorus uptake increased with increasing rates of nitrogen and \nphosphorus application at different stages of maize growth (Mahmound et al., 2009). \nWhen Phosphorus content was between 0.15% and 0.22% with nitrogen rates at 5 to \n200 kg /ha, the nitrogen content of maize grain was between 1.36% and 1.75%. The \namount of nitrogen content in maize grains also increased with increasing nitrogen \napplication (Malathesh, 2005). \nWhen farm yard manure was applied at a rate of 12 t/ha together with \nfertilizer levels of up to 60 kg N /ha, 30 kg P2O5 /ha and 30 kg K2O /ha, it \nsignificantly improved the uptake of nitrogen by the maize crop. Nitrogen uptake by", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 39, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "26 \ncrops was consistent when compost was applied together with nitrogen fertilizer \n(Malathesh, 2005). The response of crops to phosphorus application was affected by \nthe availability of phosphorus in the soil solution and the ability of the crop to \nabsorb it (Mahmound et al., 2009). \n \n2.5 Effect of Soil Organic Carbon on Soil Fertility \nSoil organic carbon determines soil quality since it affects soil structure. In \nturn, the soil structure influences soil stability and water holding capacity of the soil. \nOne of the most important components of soil organic matter is carbon. When soil \nmicro-organisms break down organic matter, nutrients are released. These nutrients \nare used up by the crops. The process of decomposition also gives humus, which \nincreases the level of carbon in the soil (Fu et al., 2004)). \nA positive relationship between levels of soil carbon and microbial levels in \nthe soil was reported by Fang et al. (2008). They attributed this to the fact that, \nhumus is a product of soil microbial activity. Environmental factors such as \ntopography, parent material, soil depth and land use affects soil organic carbon (Fu \net al., 2004). Soil carbon is also affected by precipitation and temperature that are \ninfluenced by topography (Tsui et al., 2004). During the rainy season, the soil \nmicrobial biomass is usually higher in comparison to the dry season. According to \nFang et al. (2008), soil organic carbon is affected by the clay content in the soil. In \naddition, the amount of soil organic carbon increases with increase in soil \ntemperature. \nStudies done by Sebetha (2015) showed that, cowpeas mono crops had high \nsoil organic carbon. He attributed this to improved soil structure and fertility, which \nled to high carbon content. Intercropping legumes with cereal crops can increase soil", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "27 \nnitrogen. This leads to improved soil fertility which in turn increases soil carbon \n(Conant et al., 2001). Alvarez (2008) reported that, application of nitrogen fertilizer \nresulted to increased carbon sequestration to the system. However, Sebetha (2005) \nstated that, soil organic carbon was not affected by application of nitrogen fertilizer. \nStudies by Russel et al. (2009) revealed that, application of nitrogen fertilizer offset \ngains in carbon inputs to the soil in such a way that, soil carbon sequestration was \nzero even with 48 years of nitrogen application. \n \n2.6 Effect of Cropping Systems on Crop Yields \nCropping system can be defined as crops and crop sequences and the \nmanagement techniques employed in a particular field over a period of years \n(Ghanbari et al., 2010). On the other hand, monocropping refers to the growing of \nonly one crop on a piece of land in a cropping season. Repetition of this practice \nyear after year becomes monoculture. The growing of two or more crop species \nsimultaneously on the same field during a growing season is termed as intercropping \n(Dahlmann and Von Fragstein, 2006). In order to improve food security, the current \nmajor emphasis in the use of land resources is aimed at improving the productivity \nand sustainability of different cropping systems. \nThe commonly used cropping systems are crop rotation, intercropping or \nmixed cropping and strip cropping (Fosu and Tetteh, 2008). Maize and cowpea are \nimportant components of mixed cropping in many countries. However, most small \nscale farmers cultivate them either as a mono crop or in rotation. In most cases, \nmonocropping is carried out in large scale commercial farms. Most of the small \nscale farmers practice intercropping since their farms are less than 2 ha (Ghanbari et \nal., (2010).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 41, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "28 \nMonocropping and crop rotation have been reported to give higher yields \nthan mixed cropping by some researchers. However, crop rotation of maize and \ncowpea performed better than mixed cropping of maize and cowpea (Hardter et al., \n1991). When crops are grown in rotation, they improve soil fertility and increase \nyields as compared to those grown as mono crops. Therefore, in order to achieve \nlong-term agricultural productivity and sustainability, it is advisable to combine crop \nrotation with other fertility management practices (Snyman, 2003). \nSeveral studies have suggested that, reduced yields have occurred due to \ncontinuous monocropping of cereals. A significant yield decline in maize \nmonocropping system over a period of several cropping seasons was reported by \nZhang et al., (2003). This was attributed to the allelopathic effects and the \nphytotoxic substances produced during decomposition of the maize plant residues in \nthe soil which made the growth of the succeeding crop stunted reducing crop yields \n(Horst and Hardter, 1991). \nThe adverse effects of monocropping on yield could partly be addressed \nthrough nitrogen and phosphorus application (Hardter, 1991). Studies done by \nTwomlow et al. (2010) showed that, maize grain yield was increased in \nmonocropping when 17 kg N /ha ammonium nitrate fertilizer was applied. \nContinuous cropping reduced soil fertility and resulted to lower exchangeable Ca, K, \nmg, organic carbon, total nitrogen contents, enzyme activities and effective cation \ncapacity. Soil acidification with lower pH values and higher exchangeable Al and \nMn were reported as a result of continuous maize mono cropping (McCown et al., \n2012). \nIntercropping facilitates better efficient use of growth resources and ensures \nmore sustainable yields. It also controls weeds, lowers nitrogen losses as well as", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 42, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "29 \nreducing disease causing micro-organisms (Dahlmann and Von Fragstein, 2006). \nCompetition for growth requirements may occur in intercropping systems. To \novercome this challenge, it is important to select crops which are compatible (Zhang \net al., 2006; Seran and Brintha, (2009). Legume-cereal intercropping especially \nmaize-bean intercropping is common throughout Eastern and Southern Africa \n(Giller, 2009). The small scale farmers in East Africa usually intercrop maize with \ngrain-legume. Common beans are often replaced by cowpea or groundnut in drier \nareas (Mucheru – Muna et al., 2010). \nMost intercropping systems have been found to be better than mono crops in \nrelation to yield increase (Zhang et al., 2010). The main objective of intercropping is \nto maximize crop yields through efficient use of labor and land (Mucheru -Muna et \nal., 2010). Incorporating legumes in a cereal cropping system is important. This is \nbecause they improve soil fertility and the productivity of the succeeding cereal \ncrops (Ghosh et al., 2007). Intercropping is a common practice in most rain-fed \nareas of the world and in the tropics (Tsubo et al., 2005; Dhima et al., 2007). The \nreason being that, intercropping helps in soil conservation, weed control, prevents \nlodging and increases the yield (Chen et al., 2004; Poggio, 2005). \nThe canopy cover given by the legumes in the initial stages of growth \nreduces soil loss through erosion mostly on steep lands as well as controlling weeds. \nThe quantity of mineral nutrients to be removed from the soil varies from one crop \nto another (Tulu, 2002). This means that, where intercropping is practiced, different \namounts of nutrients are removed from the soil. This depends on the crops’ \nrequirement (Logah, 2009). In soils which are poor in nitrogen, intercropping maize \nand cowpea is recommended. This is because cowpeas get the majority of their", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 43, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "30 \nnitrogen from the atmosphere and therefore do not compete with maize for soil \nnitrogen (Vesterager et al., 2008). \nIn addition, cowpeas supply protein for human and livestock consumption \nand acts as an insurance cover against total crop failure. Maize cowpea intercrop \nalso increases the amount of the primary macro-nutrients compared to maize mono \ncrop (Dahmardeh et al., 2010). Those legumes with effective biological fixation can \nbe grown with less fertilizer application. The advantages of intercropping can be \nincreased by applying the correct amount and type of fertilizer (Vanlauwe et al., \n2010). \nStudies done in the semi-arid areas of Kenya by Karuma et al., (2014) \nshowed that, maize mono crop produced significantly higher weights (8.51 kg/ha) \nwhile the intercrop recorded 7.59 kg/ha. The intercropping also significantly reduced \nthe mean yields by 11% (from 3.71 to 3.31 kg/ha) in maize grain. The biomass was \nalso reduced by 7.3% (from 8.18 to 7.59 kg/ha). Intercropping has several \nenvironmental advantages like mitigation of runoff and erosion, improvement of soil \nproperties, increase in bio-diversity and reduction of herbicide use (Celette et al., \n2010). \nIntercropping ensures that, growth resources are efficiently utilized both in \ntime and space (Rodrigo et al., 2000). The above and below ground interaction \nbetween intercropped species leads to improved crop yields (Liu et al., 2006). There \nis a close relationship between crop growth and final yield of an intercropping \nsystem. However, intercropping can result to competition for growth requirements \nlike light, water and nutrients between crops reducing the crop yields. A major \nchallenge faced by farmers in intercropping is selecting the most suitable crop \nspecies and the best planting densities (Gao et al., 2010).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 44, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "31 \nOther short comings related to intercropping include the extra labor required \nin sowing, weeding and harvesting the seed mixture (Lithourgidies et al., 2011). It is \nalso expensive especially when the two intercrops require different types of \nchemicals and fertilizers. There is also the extra work involved in separating the \nmixed grains, unreliable market for the mixed grains, lodging problems and losses of \ngrain during harvesting (Carruthers et al., 2000). \n \n2.7 Effect of Soil Management Practices on Profitability in Crop Production \nThe integration of profit margin in soil and water management practices is a \nresearch area which has not been fully exploited (Basso et al., 2011). The challenges \nof soil and water management practices are costs, adaptability and effectiveness. \nThese in turn affects the level of adoption by farmers (Babalola et al., 2007). The \ncosts involved in various operations and the returns from the produce can be used to \nestimate the true value of relative benefits and cost of various agricultural land and \nwater management options (Dresch et al., 2004). In order to be able to suggest \nviable recommendations for improving soil fertility management practices to the \nsmall scale farmers, there is need to identify the available organic materials and \nnutrients within their reach (Dresch et al., 2004). \nMost of the previous studies relating to soil and water management practices \nhave not addressed the economic aspect. This necessitates the need to carry out \nprofit margin analysis on various soil and water management practices. This will \nhelp to establish the most cost effective practice to be recommended for adoption by \nfarmers. Production of health and good quality crop will help the farmers to \nmaximize profits (Barut et al., 2011). They also need to choose appropriate cropping \nsystems since some are more economical than others. Dahmardeh et al., (2010)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 45, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "32 \nreported that, intercropping was more profitable than mono cropping because of the \nyield advantage of the two crops. \n \n2.8 Summary of the Literature Review and the Study Gaps Identified \nThe review of the existing literature shows that, studies done on the effect of \ntied ridges on soil moisture has conflicting results. Some of the researchers reported \nincreased soil moisture due to tied ridges while in other studies, the tied ridges \nconserved less soil moisture as compared to the normal tillage practiced by the \nfarmers. However, most of the studies have indicated success of tied ridges \nespecially during the seasons when rainfall was low. \nThe studies which have reported failure of tied ridges to conserve soil \nmoisture are mostly during the seasons when rainfall is high. Most of the past \nstudies on the effectiveness of tied ridges were not season specific resulting to \nconflicting information regarding their efficiency. As a result, there is no clear \ndocumented literature regarding the effectiveness of tied ridging as a water \nconservation method in relation to seasonal variations in rainfall. Farmers in semi-\narid areas are not consistent in adopting the use of tied ridges due to these \nconflicting findings. The integration of cropping systems, organic and inorganic \nfertilizers to soil and water management practices has not been exhaustively \nresearched on. \nThe literature has also showed that, very few studies have addressed the \nprofitability of various soil and water management practices which could affect the \nrate of adoption. Most of the work done in relation to integrating soil and water \nmanagement practices in Machakos County is based on survey with limited field \nexperiments. This means that, it is important to evaluate the effect of tied ridges,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "33 \nfertilizers and cropping systems on soil properties and maize yields as well as \nfinding out the profitability of integrating different soil and water management \npractices. \nThe review has also pointed out that, integrating different soil and water \nmanagement practices is widely advocated for. However, the suitability of a soil and \nwater conservation method is site specific. This means that, the effects of an \nintegrated soil and water conservation method will vary with the soil and crop \nspecies under different agro-climatic conditions. Although the integration of water \nharvesting and nutrient management is important in increasing and sustaining crop \nproduction, there is limited information on their interaction in the semi-arid areas of \nMachakos County. The data on fertilizer use in the County is also scanty reflecting \nlow use of agricultural inputs. Therefore, there is need to address the interaction of \ntied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems in relation to soil properties and maize \nyields in Machakos County.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "34 \nCHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS \n3.1 Site Description \nThe experiment was carried out in Kenya Agricultural and Livestock \nResearch Organization (KARLO) Katumani in Machakos County which is located \nin the Eastern part of Kenya. The County boarders Nairobi and Kiambu Counties to \nthe West, Embu County to the North, Kitui County to the East and Makueni County \nto the South (Jaeztold et al., 2006) (Figure 3.1). The County covers a total area of \n6,208 km2; with an estimated population of 1,098,584 people (GoK, 2011). \n \nFigure 3.1: Map of Kenya showing the study area (NEMA, 2013) \n \nMachakos County is located in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya and is \ndominated by agro-climate zones IV and V (Jaetold et al., 2006; Karuma et al., \n2014). The elevation across this County ranges between 400 to 2100 meters above", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "35 \nthe sea level (Claessens et al., 2012). The climate in Machakos County is \ncharacterized as semi-arid with bimodal rainfall pattern, giving two unique rainy and \ndry seasons. The mean annual rainfall in Machakos County ranges between 500-900 \nmm; with a high inter-seasonal rainfall variation and the co-efficient of variation is \n28% ((Mora-Vallejo et al., 2008). There are two rainy seasons: short rainy season \nfrom October / November up to January / February and the long rainy season from \nMarch to August / September (Mora-Vallejo et al., 2008). About 80% of the mean \nannual rainfall falls in the two rainy seasons (Rao and Okwach, 2005). \nSouthward and Northward movements of inter tropical convergence zone \nresults in two rainy seasons in a year (Anyah and Semazzi, 2007). The rainy seasons \ncan be completely wet and mostly late or sudden resulting in floods and inundation. \nA general increase in the intensity of high rainfall events related in part with the \nincrease in atmospheric water vapor is a common phenomenon in the semi-arid \nregion of Eastern Kenya (Christensen et al., 2007). \nAlthough the short and long rainy seasons receive the same amount of \nrainfall, the short rainy seasons are more reliable because they are more evenly \ndistributed; hence more important for crop production (Rao and Okwach, 2005). \nDroughts are common phenomena and they occur in cycles of 4 to 5 years. This has \na negative impact on the growing seasons which in turn affects food security in the \nCounty (Mora-Vallejo et al., 2008). The mean annual temperatures range from a \nmean minimum of 15o C to a mean maximum of 25o C. October and February are the \nhottest months while July is the coolest month (Muhammed et al., 2010). According \nto the Central Bureau of Statistics, 60% of the population in Machakos County are \nbelow the poverty line with less than 1US$ per person in a day (CBS, 2003). The", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "36 \nCounty supports a variety of agricultural activities occupying almost half of the \nCounty’s total surface area (Mora-Vallejo et al., 2008). \nThe common land use systems are rain-fed and mixed crop-livestock farming \nsystems which support mainly the small scale semi-subsistence sector (Muhammed \net al., 2010). The most key staple crop is maize (Zea mays L.). Other crops grown \ninclude: common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cowpea (Vigna unguculata L.), \npigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.), bulrush millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) and \nsorghum (Sorghum biclor L.). Some farmers also grow vegetables, fruit trees and \ntuber crops like cassava (Manihot esculata L.). Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) and \ncotton (Gossypium spp L.) are grown in the County as cash crops. However, the \nyields of these crops are generally low and crop failure is a common occurrence \n(Claessens et al., 2012). \nIn Machakos County, majority of the soils reflect largely metamorphic \nparent rock and rainfall patterns which play a key role in their formation. The \ndominant soils are Alfisols, Ultisols, Oxisols and Lithic soils (FAO, 1970). These \nsoils have low fertility and are highly susceptible to erosion. In addition, less than \n20% of the soils are well drained. The most common vegetation in this County is dry \nbush with trees and in the higher areas, savannah with scattered trees. Katumani is \nlocated in agro-ecological zone IV and is dominated by chromic Luvisols (Siderious \nand Mucheru, 1977). \n \n3.2 Experimental Treatments and Design \nField experiments were carried out in KALRO Katumani in Machakos \nCounty during SR 2014, LR 2015, SR 2015 and LR 2016. The experiment was \nfactorial and laid out as a randomized complete block design (RCBD). The", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 50, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "37 \ntreatments were tied ridges, flat bed planting, farm yard manure 0 t/ha, farm yard \nmanure 5 t/ha, 20 kg N/ha, farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha, maize mono crop \nand maize cowpeas intercrop. This gave a total of 16 treatment combinations. The \ntreatments were replicated 4 times (Table 3.1). \n \nTable 3.1 Experimental treatments \n \nMain Treatments \nFertilizers \nCropping Systems \nTied ridges (W2) \nFarm yard manure 0 t/ha (F1) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nFarm yard manure 5 t/ha (F2) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cowpeas intercrop (C2) \nNitrogen fertilizer 20 kg N/ha \n(F3) \nMaize mono crop(C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nNitrogen fertilizer 20 kg N/ha + \nfarm yard manure 5 t/ha (F4) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nFlat bed planting \n(W1) \nFarm yard manure 0 t/ha (F1) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nFarm yard manure 5 t/ha (F2) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nNitrogen fertilizer 20 kg N/ha \n(F3) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \nNitrogen fertilizer 20 kg N/ha + \nfarm yard manure 5 t/ha (F4) \nMaize mono crop (C1) \nMaize cow peas intercrop (C2) \n \nThe spacing of the tied ridges was 90cm tied at 2.5 m interval. The ridges \nwere 30 cm high and ties (cross ridges) 20 cm high. The size of each plot was 5.4 m \nx 3.6 m with a net plot of 3.4", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " interval. The ridges \nwere 30 cm high and ties (cross ridges) 20 cm high. The size of each plot was 5.4 m \nx 3.6 m with a net plot of 3.4 m x 1.6 m. The plots were laid out in the field in 4 \nblocks with each block having 16 treatments randomized within the block; making a \ntotal of 64 plots (Appendix 1). The distance between the blocks was 2 m and \nbetween the plots 1 m. \n \n3.3 Characterization of the Farm Yard Manure used in the Experiment \nBefore the start of the field experiment, the farm yard manure was analyzed \nfor pH, total N, total organic carbon, available P and exchangeable cations (Ca, Mg,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "38 \nMn, Fe and Zn) following the procedures outlined by Okalebo et al., (2002). The \nresults are presented in Table 3.2. \n \nTable 3.2 Chemical composition of the farm yard manure used in the \nexperiments \n \n \n \n% \nCmol/ kg \nPpm \nSeasons \npH \nN \nOC \nK \nCa \nMg \nP \nMn \nFe \nZn \nShort rains \n2015 \n8.96 \n1.26 \n7.40 \n13.50 18.5 \n8.5 \n785 \n258.3 160.84 30.25 \nLong rains \n2016 \n7.94 \n1.00 \n6.35 \n14.58 15.4 \n6.9 \n730 \n245.2 164.48 41.15 \n \nThe analysis revealed that, the pH for the farm yard manure applied during \nthe SR 2015 had a higher pH value (8.96) compared to that used during the LR \n(7.94). However, in both seasons, the pH of the manure used was slightly alkaline \n(pH > 7.0). This indicated that, the concentration of the hydroxyl (OH-) ions was \nhigher than the concentration of the hydrogen (H+) ions. The % nitrogen content in \nthe farm yard manure was high during the SR (1.26%) in comparison to LR (1.00%) \nwhile the organic carbon was also higher during the SR (7.40%) compared to LR \n(6.35%) (Table 3.2). \n \n3.4 Characterization of Soils in the Experimental Site \nThe characterization of soils in the experimental site was also done and the \nresults shown in Table 3.3. The texture ranged from clayey loam to sandy clay at 0-\n15cm, 15-30cm, 30-60cm and 60-90cm depth. The analysis also revealed that, the \nsoils had a clay texture throughout the profile but increased sand content in the \nsurface layer. The soil test also showed that, the soil was moderately acidic with a \npH range of 5.83 to 6.54.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 52, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "39 \nThe total soil nitrogen (N) was low since it ranged between 0.05 to 0.08%. \nThe phosphorus (P) range was between 15-33% which is rated as medium (Brennan \net al., 2013). The potassium (K) content was low with a range of 0.35 to 0.87. \nSimilarly, calcium (Ca) and zinc (Zn) were in the low range (Table 3.3). The soil \norganic carbon content was also low since the range was between 0.37- 0.72% \nwhich was below the recommended amount of 1% (Brennan et al., 2013). \n \nTable 3.3 Textural and chemical properties of soils in the study site \n \nSoil depth (cm) \n0 - 15cm \n15 - 30cm \n30 - 60cm \n60 - 90cm \nSand (%) \n68 \n69 \n62.5 \n50.5 \nClay (%) \n25.3 \n23.5 \n31.5 \n40 \nSilt (%) \nTextural class \n \n6.7 \nSCL \n7.5 \nSCL \n6 \nSCL \n9.5 \nSC \nSoil PH \n6.62 \n6.54 \n6.1 \n5.83 \nOrganic carbon (C) (%) \n0.72 \n0.67 \n0.55 \n0.37 \nTotal nitrogen (N) (%) \n0.08 \n0.07 \n0.06 \n0.05 \nPhosphorus (P) (ppm) \n33.75 \n31.25 \n20 \n15 \nPotassium (K) (me %) \n0.87 \n0.81 \n0.65 \n0.35 \nCalcium (Ca) (me %) \n1.82 \n1.73 \n1.9 \n1.1 \nZinc (Zn) (ppm) \n2.36 \n1.63 \n1.18 \n1.04 \n*SCL: Sand, clay, loam, SC: Sand clay", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 53, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "40 \n3.5 Seedbed Preparation and Planting of Maize \nSeedbed preparation was done by slashing the vegetation manually using \nslashers and later dug using forked jembes. The soil clods were broken in order to \nobtain a medium tilth. This was followed by the field being lined and pegs put to \ndemarcate the blocks and plots. Tied ridges were imposed during seed bed \npreparation. The first planting was on 4th October 2014, the second on 25th March \n2015, the third on 6th November 2015 and the fourth on 14th April 2016 at the onset \nof the rains. The test crop was maize var. KDV1 (a short duration seed \nrecommended for dry areas) which was planted at a spacing of 90cm between the \nrows and 30cm within each row. The cowpea variety planted was K80. Two seeds \nwere sown per hill at a spacing of 30 cm in between the maize rows in the plots. \nAt planting, phosphorus was applied as Triple super phosphate (TSP, \n20.75% phosphorus) at a rate of 15 kg /ha. Farm yard manure was applied at a rate \nof 5 t/ha three weeks before planting in the plots where manure was a treatment. The \nbasis for these quantities was on the recommended rate for the study area (Mora-\nVallejo et al., 2008). Four weeks after planting, top dressing was done using \nCalcium ammonium nitrate (C.A.N) at a rate of 20 kg N/ha in the plots where \nnitrogen fertilizer was a treatment. The fertilizer was applied as a micro-dose. This \nwas done when there was enough moisture in the soil. Weed control was manually \ndone using a garden hoe. Weeding was done twice during the growing period to \nensure a weed free field. \nPest and disease incidences were minimal during the growing period of the \ncrop. However, routine spraying was done using Duduthrin (active ingredient: \nLambdacyhalothrin 17.5g /L) to manage leaf eating insects. Thunder (active \ningredient: Imidacloprid 100g /L + Beta - cyfluthrin 45g /L) and Marshal (active", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 54, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "41 \ningredient: 35% Carbosulfan) was used to control aphids. The pesticides were \nsprayed four times during the growing period at an interval of 14 days. \n \n3.6 Data Collection \n3.6.1 Rainfall data \nThe rainfall data was recorded on daily basis using a rain gauge installed at \nKatumani Research Station meteorological department. The monthly averages were \nthen computed. The total amount of rainfall received for each season was also \ncalculated. \n \n3.6.2 Determination of soil moisture content \nThe soil moisture content was determined at planting and thereafter at an \ninterval of two weeks up to the 8th week of the experiment. The soil moisture content \nwas taken non-destructively using a calibrated portable neutron probe (the neutron \nprobe was calibrated using field measurements in the calibration models with 2-inch \naccess tubes) was inserted into a PVC access tube. This was used to measure soil \nmoisture content at regular intervals of 20 cm down through the soil profile since the \nneutron probe takes readings through the wall of a PVC access tube. The soil \nmoisture content was calculated on volumetric basis. The data from all the soil \nprofile levels up to a depth of 60 cm was collected. The data was then downloaded \nat the end of each season and processed in MS excel and then subjected to statistical \nanalysis.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 55, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "42 \n3.6.3 Maize growth measurements \nData for the maize growth parameters was obtained by measuring the plant \nheight, number of leaves per plant, leaf length, leaf width and leaf area. The growth \ndata was collected at 40, 60 and 80 days after planting in all the cropping seasons \nand the averages computed. When collecting data on the number of leaves per plant, \nten maize plants were randomly selected and tagged from the middle row in each \nplot leaving out the boarder plants. The total numbers of leaves per plant were then \ncounted and their averages calculated. For the maize plant height, ten plants were \nrandomly selected and tagged from the middle row leaving out the boarder plants in \neach plot. The height was then measured using a meter ruler starting from the soil \nsurface to the tip of the plant in meters. The averages were then calculated for all \nseasons. \nFor the maize leaf length and width, ten plants from the middle row were \nrandomly selected and the third leaf from each plant was tagged for length and width \nmeasurements. The length was taken using a meter rule from the base to the tip \nwhile the same leaf was measured at the middle part for the width. The \nmeasurements were recorded in meters. To get the plant leaf area index, the \ncollected data on the maize leaf length and width from the ten randomly selected \nplant leaves were used. The plant leaf area was calculated in m2 using the formula \n(Equation 1): \n \nLeaf area (m2) = leaf length (m) x leaf width (m) x maize crop factor ……… Eq. 1. \n*Where the crop factor for maize = 0.85", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 56, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "43 \nTo determine the yield and yield components of maize, the following data \nwere collected at maturity stage during harvesting: cobs weight, number of ears per \nplant, stover yield, dry biomass yield, grain yield and harvest index. The grain and \nstraw harvesting was done at the end of each cropping season. From a net plot of 3.4 \nx 1.6 m, the whole plants were harvested (apart from the border rows) by cutting at \nthe ground level using a panga. The plants were then weighed as total biomass using \nan electronic weighing balance and the weight recorded. \nThe sub samples were then separated into ears (cob and grains) and stover \n(stem, leaves and husks). The plant parts (ears and stovers) were weighed using an \nelectronic balance and recorded as fresh weight. This was followed by drying the \nsamples, shelling and threshing after which the ears were further separated into cobs \nand grains. The dry weight was taken using an electronic weighing balance. All the \nweights were converted and calculated on a dry basis. The total yield from each plot \nwas converted into tones/ha (Equation 2). \n \nTotal crop yield (ton/ha) = grain yields (ton/ha) + dry matter yields (ton/ha).....Eq. 2 \n \nHarvest index can be defined as the ratio of the economic yield (grain yield) \nto the total crop yield at harvest (grain and biomass yields). Harvest Index of the \nmaize crop was calculated by the method described by Bange et al. (1998) (Equation \n3). \n \nHarvest \nIndex \n= \nEconomic yield \n ………………………………………..Eq. 3 \nTotal crop yield \nWhere: Economic yield = grain yield", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "44 \n3.6.4 Soil sampling and analysis of the soils in the experimental site \nSoil sampling was done prior to the experiment in order to characterize the \nsoils in the study site. At the end of the cropping season, soil sampling and analysis \nwas also done. The textural and chemical properties of the soil were determined. \nThis was done by taking soil samples at 0-15 cm depth, 15-30 cm depth, 30-60 cm \ndepth and 60-90 cm depth. The soil samples were taken using a soil auger \ndiagonally. The collected soil sub-samples were then put into a container. The soil \nclods were broken down and the soil sub-samples thoroughly mixed to get a \ncomposite soil sample. The soil samples were then taken for laboratory analysis at \nKALRO headquarters in Nairobi. In the laboratory, part of the soil samples was air-\ndried, crushed using a wooden mortar and pestle; then sieved through a 2 mm mesh. \nPhysical and chemical properties of the soil were determined using standard \nprocedures outlined by Rowell (1993). \nAt the end of the cropping season, soil sampling and analysis was also done. \nSoil samples were taken diagonally using a soil auger from the bases of ten plants \nselected randomly from each plot. In plots with maize cowpea inter crop, the soil \nsamples were taken between the maize and cowpea rows. The samples from each \nplot were thoroughly mixed to get a composite sample which was packed and taken \nfor laboratory analysis. In the laboratory, pH and organic carbon were determined \nfrom the soil samples. \n \n3.6.5 Determination of soil pH \nThe soil pHwater was measured in a 1:2.5 soil water ratio using a glass \nelectrode pH meter using the procedures as outlined by Okalebo et al., (2002). \nApproximately 25 g of soil was weighed into a 100 ml polythene beaker and 50 ml", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 58, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "45 \nof distilled water was added to the soil. This was followed by stirring the soil-water \nsolution thoroughly after which, the solution was allowed to stand for 30 minutes. \nThe pH meter was then calibrated with buffers of pH 4.01 and 7.00, then the pH was \nread by immersing the electrode into the upper part of the soil solution; the pH \nvalues were then read and recorded. \n \n3.6.6 Determination of total nitrogen, organic carbon, available \nphosphorus, calcium and potassium in the soil \nTotal N was determined by modified micro-Kjeldahl method (Bremner, \n1996) (Appendix 3) and organic carbon by using modified Walkley and Black wet \noxidation procedure described by Ryan et al., (2001) (Appendix 4). Phosphorous \nwas extracted by Mehlich-1 method (Sonon, 2008; Savoy, 2009) (Appendix 5). \nCalcium and potassium in the soil was determined by using, Mehlichl double acid \nextraction method (Kissel and Sonon, 2008; Savoy, 2009) (Appendix 6). \n \n3.6.7 Determination of profit margin \nThe data which was used for calculating the profit margin was collected at \nspecific time for each activity. The collected data put into account all the activities \nwhich were done from land preparation stage up to harvesting time in each \nexperimental treatment. The variables which were used to determine the profit \nmargin included: cost of labor for land preparation (where the extra cost of imposing \nthe tied-ridges was put into consideration), cost of labor for planting, weeding, \nspraying and harvesting. The extra costs incurred in planting, weeding, spraying and \nharvesting in plots with maize cowpea intercrop was considered.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "46 \nThe other costs which were put into account included the cost of pesticides \nused, cost of maize and cowpea seeds, cost of the fertilizers applied and the cost of \nfarm yard manure used. The cost of calcium ammonium nitrate and farm yard \nmanure was only considered in plots where they were used as treatments. The cost \nof triple super phosphate was considered for all the experimental plots. The labor \nrates used were based on the prevailing local rates in the study area while the prices \nof the various inputs were mainly from the local farmers and agro-input retailers. \nThe profit margin analysis was done using farm gate prices of the various inputs \n(CIMMYT, 1998). The prices of various inputs are recorded in Table 3.4. \n \nTable 3.4 Prices used to calculate profit margin for various soil and water \nmanagement practices \n \nPrices \nMarket rates (Ksh) \nCost of TSP \n100 / kg \nCost of CAN \n75 / kg \nCost of maize seeds \n200 / 2 kg packet \nCost of cowpea seeds \n80 / 2 kg packet \nCost of marshall (chemical) \n1600 /litre \nCost of bulldock (chemical) \n300 / litre \nCost of FYM \n40 / 35 kg \nCost of labor \n200 / day \nPrice of maize grains \n2700 /90 kg bag \nPrice of stovers \nPrice of cowpea \n500 / 40 kg \n50 /kg \n \nThe net profit was calculated using Equation 4 \nNet profit (Ksh/ha) \n= \nGross benefits (Ksh/ha)-Total costs (Ksh/ha) \n(Eq. 4) \n \nGross margin (%) (GM) was calculated using Eq. 5 \nGM \n= \nGross benefits (Ksh/ha)-Variable costs (Ksh/ha) x 100 \n (Eq. 5) \nGross benefit (Ksh/ha)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "47 \nReturn to labor (RTL) (Ksh/ha) was calculated as shown in Eq. 9 \n \nRTL \n= \nGross benefits (Ksh/ha)-Cost of inputs (Ksh/ha) \n (Eq. 6) \nCost of labor (Ksh/ha) \nCost benefit ratio \n= \nTotal gross benefits \n (Eq. 7) \nTotal variable costs \n \nFor the farm yard manure, labor for collection, transport and application was \nput into consideration (Table 3.4). Maize stover was used as cattle feed in the area; \nhence a source of income. In order to determine the total income, maize stover yield \nand grain yield from each plot was used. The market price for each one of them at \nthe harvesting time was used to calculate the total income from the sale of the \nstovers and grains. The collected data was then subjected to statistical analysis. \n \n3.7 Statistical Data Analysis \nAll the collected data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using \nGenstat 15th Edition software. In order to test if the collected data was normal, the \nnormality test was done by drawing the probability distribution plot before \nanalyzing the data. Where the graphical analysis showed that the residues were \nwithin the limit of the confidence level, this was an indication that the residuals were \nfollowing the Gaussian normal distribution. The residual plots were also used to \ncheck the normality and equal variance assumption of the ANOVA. Where the \ngraph formed a straight line through the origin (0, 0), the residuals were considered \nto be perfectly normally distributed. The s-bend at the extremes of the graph \nindicated that, the residuals were somewhat bunched at the tails.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 61, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "48 \nThe collected data was analyzed using Randomized Complete Block Design \n(RCBD) for factorial treatment structure. The ANOVA output was used to \ndetermine whether there were significant differences between the treatment means. \nWhere the means were significantly different, Fisher’s protected Least Significance \nDifference (LSD) was used to determine which treatment means were significantly \ndifferent from each other at P < 0.05.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 62, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "49 \nCHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION \n4.1 Rainfall Distribution during the Experimental Period \nThe rainfall amounts varied among the four seasons under study. The short \nrains 2014 and long rains 2015 seasons had poorly distributed rainfall because the \ndry days were almost three times the number of wet days. In both seasons, the most \ncritical months for rapid crop growth had very little rainfall (December and \nJanuary). In addition, at the beginning of the season, the amount of rainfall received \nwas low (26.0mm). During the short rains 2014, almost half of the rainy days were \nconcentrated in one month (November) with 117 dry days and only 34 rainy days. \nAlso, during the long rains 2015, the dry days were 123 with only 30 rainy days \n(Table 4.1). \n \nTable 4.1 Rainfall Pattern at Katumani Research Station during Short Rains \n2014 and Long Rains 2015 \n \nShort Rains 2014 \nLong Rains 2015 \nMonth \nRainfal\nl (mm) \nRainy \ndays \nDry \ndays \nMonth \nRainfal\nl (mm) \nRainy \ndays \nDry \ndays \nOct-2014 \n26.4 \n5 \n26 \nMarch-2015 \n76.3 \n5 \n26 \nNov-2014 \n81.2 \n15 \n15 \nApril-2015 \n44 \n8 \n22 \nDec-2014 \n41.6 \n9 \n22 \nMay-2015 \n14.8 \n7 \n24 \nJan-2014 \n1.5 \n2 \n29 \nJune-2015 \n9.7 \n6 \n24 \nFeb-2014 \n70.9 \n3 \n25 \nJuly -2015 \n1.3 \n4 \n27 \nTotal \n221.6 \n34 \n117 \nTotal \n146.1 \n30 \n123", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 63, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "50 \nDuring the short rains 2015, most of the season’s rainfall was received the \nfirst two months (November and December) after planting which gave the crop a \ngood start. Thereafter, little showers continued throughout the growing period \nshowing fairly even rainfall distribution. The rainy days were 65 which was almost \nequal to the number of dry days (87 days) and therefore, even distribution of rainfall. \nHowever, during the long rains 2016, the rainfall distribution was poor with 70% of \nthe total rainfall received falling in one month and in only 9 days (May). In addition, \nthe dry days were 125 which was almost 5 times the number of wet days (20 days) \nindicating poor rainfall distribution with a prolonged dry spell during the growing \nperiod (Table 4.2). \nTable 4.2 Rainfall Pattern at Katumani Research Station during Short Rains \n2015 and Long Rains 2016 \n \nShort Rains 2015 \nLong Rains 2016 \nMonth \nRainfall \n(mm) \nRainy \ndays \nDry \ndays \nMonth \nRainfal\nl (mm) \nRainy \ndays \nDry \ndays \nNov- 2015 266.9 \n24 \n6 \nApr-2016 \n24.6 \n7 \n15 \nDec-2015 \n222.4 \n13 \n18 \nMay-2016 \n67.1 \n9 \n22 \nJan-2016 \n30.6 \n10 \n21 \nJune- 2016 \n4.1 \n3 \n27 \nFeb-2016 \n25.4 \n12 \n17 \nJuly- 2016 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nMar-2016 \n29.5 \n6 \n25 \nAug-2016 \n0.2 \n1 \n30 \nTotal \n574.8 \n65 \n87 \nTotal \n96 \n20 \n125 \n \nThe amount of rainfall received during the short rains 2015 was high (574.8 \nmm) compared to short rains 2014 (221.6 mm), long rains 2015 (146.1 mm) and \nlong rains 2016 (125.0 mm). Also, the rainfall distribution during the short rains \n2015 was fairly evenly distributed throughout the growing period compared to the \nother three seasons (short rains 2014, long rains 2015 and", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " rains 2016 (125.0 mm). Also, the rainfall distribution during the short rains \n2015 was fairly evenly distributed throughout the growing period compared to the \nother three seasons (short rains 2014, long rains 2015 and long rains 2016) (Fig. \n4.1).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "51 \n \nFigure 4.1 Monthly Rainfall Distribution Short Rains 2014, Long Rains 2015, Short Rains 2015 and Long Rains 2016", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "52 \n4.2 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and \nCropping Systems on Soil Moisture Content \nThe interaction between tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer, \nand cropping systems had significant effect (P < 0.05) on the soil moisture content at \n0-20 cm soil depth during all the sampling periods. The soil moisture content \nsignificantly increased at 6 weeks after planting (WAP) compared to the other \nweeks. The moisture content also varied with weeks after planting and the soil \ndepth. However, there were no significant treatment effects on soil moisture in \ndepths 20-40 cm and 40-60 cm during all the sampling periods (Table 4.3). \nGenerally, during all sampling periods, treatment combinations with flat bed \nplanting had more soil moisture than those on tied ridging at 0-20 cm depth. The soil \nmoisture content ranged from 6.30% to 23.80% across the 8WAP. The soil moisture \ncontent in all the treatments significantly (P < 0.05) increased at 6WAP and 8WAP \nas compared to 2WAP and 4WAP. Treatment combinations with flat bed in maize \nmono crop gave significantly (P < 0.05) higher means for soil moisture content \ncompared to those with tied ridging in maize cowpeas intercrop (Table 4.3). \nThe initial soil moisture content was higher than that observed at 2WAP and \n4WAP. The highest value for soil moisture content was observed from treatment \nW1xF3xC1 (23.80%) at 6WAP. This was a percentage increase of 1.59% above \nW1xF1xC1 (22.21%) which was the control. This was followed by treatment \nW1xF2xC1 (23.78%); a percentage increase of 1.57% more than the control. The \nlowest value for the soil moisture content was given by treatment W2xF2xC2 \n(6.30%); a decrease of 3.68% below the control (Table 4.3).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "53 \nTable 4.3 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping systems on soil moisture content \nduring short rains 2015 at different depths \n \n \n0-20 cm Depth \n20-40 cm Depth \n40-60 cm Depth \nTreatments \nInitial MC \n2 WAP \nMC \n4WAP \nMC \n6WAP \nMC \n8 WAP \nMC \nInitial \nMC \n2WA\nP MC \n4WA\nP MC \n6WA\nP MC \n8WA\nP \nMC \nInitial \nMC \n2WA\nP \nMC \n4WAP \nMC \n6WAP \nMC \n8WA\nP MC \nW1xF4xC1 \n21.31ab \n13.53a \n11.14a \n23.56a \n20.56a \n23.94 \n17.99 \n16.37 \n21.22 \n18.22 \n22.89 \n18.59 \n16.55 \n17.16 \n16.90 \nW1xF2xC1 \n22.04a \n13.95a \n11.60a \n23.78a \n20.78a \n23.88 \n18.31 \n16.72 \n23.20 \n20.20 \n22.84 \n19.83 \n17.55 \n19.31 \n19.04 \nW1xF3xC2 \n21.14ab \n13.53a \n11.49a \n23.31ab \n20.31ab \n22.99 \n16.72 \n15.65 \n22.19 \n19.19 \n22.63 \n18.94 \n16.96 \n17.62 \n17.36 \nW1xF1xC1 \n20.18abc \n13.55a \n9.98abcde \n22.21abcd \n19.21abcd \n23.08 \n17.70 \n14.88 \n19.60 \n16.60 \n22.39 \n18.71 \n15.37 \n16.00 \n15.74 \nW1xF3xC1 \n19.70abcd \n12.44abc \n10.45abc \n23.80a \n20.80a \n22.99 \n16.72 \n15.65 \n22.19 \n19.19 \n22.45 \n18.49 \n17.16 \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "44abc \n10.45abc \n23.80a \n20.80a \n22.99 \n16.72 \n15.65 \n22.19 \n19.19 \n22.45 \n18.49 \n17.16 \n17.72 \n17.46 \nW1xF4xC2 \n19.64abcd \n12.37abc \n10.14abcd \n22.97abc \n19.97abc \n23.94 \n17.99 \n16.37 \n21.22 \n18.22 \n22.63 \n18.33 \n16.43 \n17.39 \n17.13 \nW1xF2xC2 \n19.38abcd \n12.51abc \n10.76ab \n22.02abc \n20.02abc \n22.83 \n16.90 \n15.42 \n20.92 \n17.92 \n22.68 \n18.15 \n17.26 \n16.65 \n16.38 \nW2xF2xC1 \n19.13abcd \n11.04bcd \n8.01cdef \n21.89abcde \n18.89abcde \n23.88 \n18.31 \n16.72 \n23.20 \n20.20 \n22.89 \n18.45 \n15.35 \n19.49 \n19.23 \nW2xF4xC1 \n18.43abcde \n10.22cd \n7.100f \n20.66de \n17.66de \n23.66 \n18.56 \n14.56 \n21.75 \n18.75 \n24.48 \n19.00 \n16.63 \n17.05 \n16.79 \nW2xF3xC1 \n18.33bcde \n10.43cd \n6.71f \n21.28cde \n18.28cde \n23.90 \n17.81 \n15.58 \n23.12 \n20.12 \n22.61 \n18.52 \n16.23 \n18.50 \n18.24 \nW2xF4xC2 \n17.78bcde \n10.39cd \n8.16bcdef \n21.15cde \n18.15cde \n23.85 \n18.07 \n15.91 \n24.02 \n21.02 \n23.82 \n18.73 \n16.81 \n18.09 \n17.83", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".15cde \n18.15cde \n23.85 \n18.07 \n15.91 \n24.02 \n21.02 \n23.82 \n18.73 \n16.81 \n18.09 \n17.83 \nW2xF1xC2 \n17.31bcde \n9.89d \n7.51def \n21.32abc \n18.16cde \n22.95 \n12.84 \n15.95 \n22.86 \n19.86 \n22.26 \n17.56 \n17.26 \n17.79 \n17.53 \nW2xF1xC1 \n17.16bcde \n9.70d \n7.42def \n21.29bcde \n18.29bcde \n23.02 \n16.80 \n15.28 \n23.39 \n20.39 \n21.63 \n18.70 \n16.64 \n18.67 \n18.41 \nW2xF3xC2 \n16.58cde \n9.75d \n7.43ef \n19.96e \n16.96e \n22.18 \n15.58 \n13.98 \n20.98 \n17.95 \n22.38 \n17.03 \n15.24 \n14.32 \n14.06 \nW2xF2xC2 \n15.55de \n9.06d \n6.30f \n20.41de \n17.41de \n21.32 \n15.16 \n13.52 \n20.97 \n17.97 \n22.34 \n17.26 \n15.58 \n17.23 \n16.99 \nW1xF1xC2 \n13.61e \n13.19ab \n10.67abc \n22.32abcd \n19.32abcd \n23.16 \n16.70 \n14.32 \n19.07 \n16.07 \n22.58 \n18.29 \n16.96 \n15.74 \n15.48 \nP value \n0.01 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.18 \n0.21 \n0.40 \n0.11 \n0.11 \n0.96 \n0.87 \n0.65 \n0.40 \n0.42 \ns.e.d \n1.48 \n0.85 \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "18 \n0.21 \n0.40 \n0.11 \n0.11 \n0.96 \n0.87 \n0.65 \n0.40 \n0.42 \ns.e.d \n1.48 \n0.85 \n0.94 \n0.71 \n1.04 \n1.53 \n1.22 \n0.82 \n1.16 \n1.70 \n0.95 \n0.91 \n0.84 \n1.30 \n2.02 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < 0.05. \n*WAP: Weeks after planting, MC: Moisture Content, W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure + 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: \nMaize – cowpea intercrop.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "54 \nAt 0-20 cm depth, across the 8WAP, treatment W1xF2xC1 registered \nsignificantly higher soil moisture content than treatment W2xF1xC2. This means \nthat, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed increased soil moisture \ncontent more than maize-cowpeas intercrop without fertilizer under tied ridging. In \naddition, treatment W1xF3xC2 had significantly higher soil moisture content than \ntreatment W2xF3xC2. This implies that, maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed retained more water than maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder tied ridging. Also, treatment combination with W1xF4xC1 registered \nsignificantly higher soil moisture content in comparison to treatment W2xF2xC2. \nThis showed that, maize mono crop with an addition of 20 kg N/ha + FYM 5 t/ha \nunder flat bed planting resulted to more increased soil moisture content compared to \nmaize cowpeas intercrop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha under tied ridging (Table \n4.3). \nIn addition, treatment W1xF2xC1 registered higher soil moisture content in \ncomparison to treatment W1xF1xC2. This indicates that, maize mono crop with an \naddition of FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed increased soil moisture content than maize \ncowpeas intercrop without farm yard manure under flat bed. These results generally \nshow more moisture content in treatments under flat bed than under tied ridging \n(Table 4.3). \nThe significantly (P < 0.05) higher soil moisture content observed in \ntreatments where farm yard manure was applied compared to those without could be \ndue to farm yard manure improving water holding capacity and porosity of the soil. \nThis is consistent with results reported by Nareed et al. (2010) that, application of \nfarm yard manure increased soil moisture content. This is because farm yard manure \nincreases water percolation, reduces soil crusting and compaction (Shiran et al.,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "55 \n2002). The farm yard manure also reduces surface run-off during the initial stages of \nrainfall minimizing soil erosion (Biamah et al., 2003). The humus content formed \nfrom the manure could have helped in maintaining the soil physical structure \nenhancing better soil moisture retention. When organic inputs are incorporated into \nthe soil, they increase water absorption, reduce run-off as well as improving soil \nmoisture content (Dejene and Lemlem, 2012). \nApplication of farm yard manure increases the percentage of stable \naggregates due to humus formed which, in turn leads to increased infiltration, \nporosity and the water holding capacity of the soil. This contributed to the increased \nsoil moisture in treatments where farm yard manure was applied. When farm yard \nmanure is applied in sandy soils, it releases organic matter, which cements the soil \nparticles together improving water retaining capacity of the soil. In addition, \napplication of farm yard manure to silt clay with high organic matter content \nenhances macro-aggregation preventing structural degradation (Chandy, 2010). \nTherefore, this explains why the addition of farm yard manure led to increased soil \nmoisture. These findings agree with the work done by Boateng et al. (2006) and \nAdelege et al. (2012) who reported that, use of farm yard manure improved soil \nmoisture content. In addition, Hulihalli and Patil (2009) also reported increased soil \nmoisture content as a result of farm yard manure application as compared to those \ntreatments which had no farm yard manure. Similar results were also observed by \nDejene and Lem lem, (2012) who reported that, application of farm yard manure \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased the soil moisture content as compared to those \ntreatments without farm yard manure. \nTreatments without farm yard manure recorded the lowest values for soil \nmoisture content. This could be due to the soils in the experimental site being", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 69, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "56 \nnaturally low in organic matter. The low organic matter in these soils makes them \nprone to water erosion hence the reduced soil moisture content (Cornelis et al., \n2006). The soils also have low residue returns and high temperatures leading to \nfaster decomposition. This coupled with low amount of rainfall results to low water \nholding capacity. \nGenerally, treatments with maize mono crops had significantly (P < 0.05) \nhigher soil moisture content compared to those with maize cowpeas intercrops \n(Table 4.3). The increased soil moisture content could have been as a result of \nincreased plant density in treatments with maize cowpeas intercrop. The high plant \npopulation led to higher water extraction from the soil leaving less water in the soil \ncompared to those treatments with maize mono crop only (Karuma et al., 2014). \nSteiner (2002) reported that, cropping system that offer quick surface cover \npromotes soil water content by reducing evaporation and increasing infiltration. \nCanopy cover of dense cowpea cultivar normally plays a significant role in \nsoil moisture retention due to decreased evaporation rate from the soil surface. The \nexpectation was that, intercropping would conserve more soil moisture as reported \nin some of the previous studies but this did not happen. Explanation for the different \nobservation could be due to the type of the cowpea cultivar used in this study. The \ncowpeas cultivar used (K80) was less dense and therefore may have not offered \nsufficient canopy cover to reduce water evaporation. Also intercropping increases \nmoisture competition especially where there is low humidity like in Machakos \nCounty. High relative humidity favors low evaporation. \nThe work by Lithourgidies et al. (2011) showed that, intercropping has the \nbenefits to use water from different soil layers by the companion crops and it \nfacilitates overall water use efficiency. However, in this study, intercropping played", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "57 \nno significant role on soil moisture conservation. These findings agree with the work \ndone by Sebetha et al. (2015) who reported that, treatments with maize mono crop \nconserved more soil moisture as compared to those with maize intercropping. These \nauthors also suggested that, the type of cowpea cultivar used affects the amount of \nmoisture conserved in the soil. Karuma et al. (2014) reported that, plots with maize \nmono crop had higher soil moisture compared to those with maize bean intercrop. \nIncreased plant density per plot could have resulted in higher moisture extraction \nfrom the soil therefore lowering the amount of available soil moisture (Passioura and \nAngus, 2010). \nThe differences observed in soil moisture content in different weeks and \ndepths could be related to the amount of rainfall received, soil evaporation, \ntranspiration and water crop uptake (Mujdeci et al., 2010). Treatments under flat bed \nplanting had higher soil moisture content compared to those under tied ridges during \nthe short rains 2015. This could be attributed to higher evaporation losses in plots \nunder tied ridges than flat bed plots due to increased soil surface area (Karuma et al., \n2014). The low soil moisture content in treatments with tied ridging could also be \nrelated to the fact that, the rainfall amount was high (574.8mm) (Table 2). This \ncould have led to ponding in tied ridges reducing water infiltration hence low soil \nmoisture. In addition, tied ridging is normally used as a prevention measure against \nrunoff (Asamare, 2012).These findings agree with those of Asamare (2012) who \nfound less soil moisture content in tied ridges in sorghum production in Ethiopia. \nThe higher initial soil moisture content compared to that at 2WAP and \n4WAP content in all the treatments could be explained by the fact that, this was at \nthe beginning of the rain season and therefore, the moisture increased as a result of \nrainfall received (Figure 4.1). In addition, at this early stage of growth, the crops", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 71, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "58 \nrequired less amount of water for their growth since the rate of growth was minimal \nand the roots had not developed completely. The decline in soil moisture content at \n4 WAP could be related to the fact that, the rainfall had decreased and also the crop \nvegetative growth at this time was quite vigorous. This resulted in increased water \nuptake by the crop thus lowering water in the soil. Soil moisture was minimal during \nthe reproductive stage (4WAP) due to high uptake of soil water by plants at this \nstage. It may be assumed that, critical moisture requirements and high water uptake \nby plants was during the 4th week stage of growth since the soil moisture content was \nlower. \nThe increased soil moisture content at 6 weeks after planting could be \nexplained by the fact that, at this stage of plant growth, the rate of vegetative growth \nhad reduced. This is because the crop was approaching maturity. Therefore, there \nwas reduced water uptake by the crop from the soil leaving much of the water in the \nsoil. In addition, there was high canopy cover during this stage. This meant that, \nevaporation from the soil surface was reduced which resulted to high availability of \nsoil at the root zone. Ghanbari et al. (2010) reported that, water uptake from soil \nlayers increased due to increased root density in the upper layers hence decreasing \nwater dissipated by evaporation. This explains the reason why at 6 WAP, the soil \nmoisture was high. The findings from this study agree with the work done by \nKaruma et al. (2014) who reported that, flat bed planting retained more soil moisture \ncompared to tied ridging in Mwala district. The same study also showed that, > 80% \nof the gained rain water due to tied ridges was lost as drainage out of the root zone. \nGicheru et al. (1998) as cited by Karuma et al. (2014) who worked in the marginal \nareas of Laikipia district also observed that, tied ridges conserved the lowest amount", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "59 \nof water and attributed this to high evaporation losses due to increased soil surface \narea. \n \n4.2.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on soil moisture content at 0-60 cm depth during short rains \n2015 \nDuring the short rains of 2015 at 0-60 cm soil depth, the interaction between \ntied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems was significant on soil moisture content \n(P = 0.011) (Table 4.4). Generally, treatments under flat bed recorded higher soil \nmoisture content in comparison to those under tied ridging. In addition, treatments \nwith maize cowpeas intercrop under tied ridging had low soil moisture content \ncompared to those with maize mono crop under flat bed. \n \nThe highest value was observed in the treatment W1xF2xC1 (229.9%). This \nwas a percentage increase of 15.8% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (214.1%). This \nwas followed by treatment W1xF4xC1 (228.3%), a percentage increase of 14.2% \nabove the control. The lowest value for soil moisture content was given by treatment \nwith flat bed without fertilizer in maize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF1xC2) (199.7%) \nwhich was a decline of 28.6% below the control (Table 4.4). \nTreatment with W1xF2xC1 (229.9%) had significantly (P < 0.05) higher soil \nmoisture content than treatment W1xF1xC2 (199.7mm). This means that, maize \nmono crop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed increased soil moisture \ncontent more than maize cowpeas intercrop without FYM under the flat bed \ntreatment. Also treatment W1xF4xC1 (228.3%) registered significantly higher soil \nmoisture content than W2xF4xC1 (204.1%). This shows that, maize mono crop with", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 73, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "60 \nan addition of FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under flat bed led to more soil moisture \ncontent than maize mono crop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under \ntied ridging (Table 4.4). \n \nTable 4.4 Interaction effects of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on soil moisture content at 0-60 cm depth \nduring short rains 2015 \n \nTreatments \n Moisture content (%) at 0-60 cm soil depth \nW1xF2xC1 \n229.9a \nW1xF4xC1 \n228.3a \nW1xF3xC2 \n223.8ab \nW1xF3xC1 \n222.5abc \nW2xF4xC2 \n216.5abcd \nW2xF2xC1 \n215.8abcd \nW1xF1xC1 \n214.1abcd \nW1xF4xC2 \n214.1abcd \nW1xF2xC2 \n213.9abcd \nW2xF1xC1 \n207.6bcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n205.9bcd \nW2xF4xC1 \n204.1cd \nW2xF1xC2 \n203.1cd \nW2xF3xC2 \n202.2d \nW2xF2xC2 \n200.2d \nW1xF1xC2 \n199.7d \nP value \n0.011 \ns.e.d \n9.66 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n*WAP: Weeks after planting, MC: Moisture Content, W1: Flat bed planting, W2: \nTied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg \nnitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, \nC1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop. \n \nSimilarly, treatment W1xF2xC1 (229.9%) had significantly (P < 0.05) higher \nsoil moisture content than treatment W2", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop. \n \nSimilarly, treatment W1xF2xC1 (229.9%) had significantly (P < 0.05) higher \nsoil moisture content than treatment W2xF1xC2 (203.1%). This indicates that, \nmaize mono crop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed resulted in more \nincreased soil moisture content than in maize cowpeas intercrop without FYM under", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "61 \ntied ridging treatment. In addition, treatment W1xF3xC2 (223.8%) significantly \nincreased soil moisture content more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (202.2%). This \nshows that, treatment of maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha under flat bed \nhad more soil moisture content than maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha under \ntied ridging. (Table 4.4). The low soil moisture content in treatments without farm \nyard manure could be explained by the fact that, soils in the study area are naturally \nlow in organic matter. This is because of the low residue returns and high \ntemperature leading to fast decomposition coupled with low rainfall. As a result, \nthese soils have low water holding capacity (Cornelis, 2006 as cited by Chepkemoi, \n2012). \n \n4.3 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and \nCropping Systems on Maize Growth Parameters \nIn both SR 2015 and LR 2016 (40 days after planting), the interaction \nbetween tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems had significant effect (P < \n0.05) on plant height, number of leaves/plant, leaf width and leaf area. Generally 40 \nDAP during the SR 2015, treatments with maize mono crops recorded significantly \nhigher means for all the growth parameters measured than treatments with maize \ncowpeas intercrop (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). \n \n4.3.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters 40 days after planting (Short \nrains 2015) \nFor all the growth parameters measured during SR of 2015, treatment with \nflat bed plus 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) recorded the highest", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 75, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "62 \nvalues. The lowest values were observed from treatments in tied ridging without \nfertilizer input and maize-cow pea intercrop (W2xF1xC2). The highest value for \nplant height was recorded in treatment combination of flat bed, 20 kg N/ha and \nmaize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) (0.50 m). This was an increase of 56.25% above the \ncontrol (W1xF1xC1) (0.32 m). Treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.28 m) significantly (P < \n0.05) decreased the plant height by 12.5% below the control. In addition, treatment \nW1xF3xC1 (0.50 m) registered significantly higher values for plant height than \ntreatment W2xF1xC1 (0.31 m). This means that, maize mono crop with an addition \nof 20 kg N/ha under flat bed increased plant height more than maize mono crop \nwithout fertilizer input under tied ridging. Also treatment W1xF2xC1 (0.41 m) \nrecorded significantly higher plant height than treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.28 m). This \nimplies that, maize mono crop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed \nincreased plant height more than maize cowpeas intercrop without fertilizer input \nunder tied ridging (Table 4.5). \nFor the number of leaves/plant, treatment W1xF3xC1 (7.08) recorded the \nhighest value which was an increase of 18% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (6.0). \nTreatment W1xF3xC1 significantly (P < 0.05) increased the number of leaves/plant \nby 18% over the control (W1xF1xC1) while treatment W2xF1xC2 (5.57) reduced \nthe number of leaves per plant by 7.33% lower than the control. Also, treatment \nW1xF3xC1 recorded significantly higher means for number of leaves per plant \ncompared to W1xF3xC2 (5.56). This implies that, maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed resulted in more number of leaves per plant than maize cowpeas \nintercrop with 20", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ared to W1xF3xC2 (5.56). This implies that, maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed resulted in more number of leaves per plant than maize cowpeas \nintercrop with 20 kg N/ha under flat bed (Table 4.5).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "63 \nTable 4.5 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer \nand cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 40 days after planting \n(Short Rains 2015) \n \nTreatments \nPlant \nheight (m) \nNumber of \nleaves/ plant \nLeaf \nlength (m) \nLeaf width \n(m) \nLeaf area \n(m2) \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.41abc \n7.08a \n0.50abc \n0.079abcd \n0.034abcd \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.50a \n7.08a \n0.55a \n0.086a \n0.04a \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.45ab \n7.02ab \n0.53ab \n0.084ab \n0.038ab \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.37bcde \n6.90ab \n0.49abcd \n0.082abc \n0.034abcd \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.36bcde \n6.66abc \n0.47bcd \n0.077bcde \n0.03bcde \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.39abcd \n6.61abcd \n0.51abc \n0.079abcd \n0.034abcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.35bcde \n6.48abcd \n0.46bcd \n0.075cde \n0.030bcde \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.35bcde \n6.32abcde \n0.43cd \n0.075cde \n0.029cde \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.32cde \n6.30abcde \n0.44cd \n0.074cde \n0.028cde \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.37bcde \n6.29bcde \n0.46bcd \n0.077abcde 0.03bcde \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.31cde \n6.04cde \n0.43cd \n0.073de \n0.027cde \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.32cde \n6.00cde \n0.45cd \n0.072de \n0.028cde \nW2xF3xC2 \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "de \n0.027cde \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.32cde \n6.00cde \n0.45cd \n0.072de \n0.028cde \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.29de \n5.93cde \n0.43cd \n0.069e \n0.026de \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.29de \n5.83de \n0.43cd \n0.07e \n0.026de \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.28e \n5.57e \n0.41d \n0.069e \n0.025e \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.32cde \n5.56e \n0.43cd \n0.072de \n0.027cde \nP value \n0.012 \n< 0.001 \n0.033 \n0.002 \n0.007 \nS.e.d \n0.06 \n0.4 \n0.04 \n0.0044 \n0.004 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05. \n*W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5t/ha + \n20kg nitrogen fertilizer / ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea intercrop. \n \nTreatment with flat bed and 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) \nhad the highest value for the leaf length (0.55 m), an increase of 22.22% above flat \nbed without fertilizer in maize mono crop (W1xF1xC1) (control). The lowest \nnumerical mean for the leaf length was observed from treatment with tied ridging, \nwithout fertilizer in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) (0.41 m), a decrease of \n8.89% below the control. Treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.53 m) significantly (P < 0.05) \nincreased leaf length more than W1xF3xC2 (", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " m), a decrease of \n8.89% below the control. Treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.53 m) significantly (P < 0.05) \nincreased leaf length more than W1xF3xC2 (0.43 m). Also treatment W1xF2xC1 \n(0.5 m) significantly resulted in higher leaf length than W2xF1xC2 (0.43) (Table \n4.5)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "64 \nThe highest value for leaf width was in treatment with flat bed, 20 kg N/ha in \nmaize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) (0.086 m), an increase of 19.44% over the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (0.072 m). The lowest value for leaf width was recorded in treatment \nwith tied ridging without fertilizer in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) (0.069 \nm), a decline of 4.17% below the control. Treatment W1xF2xC1 (0.079 m) \nregistered significantly (P < 0.05) higher leaf width than treatment W2xF1xC2 \n(0.069 m). Also treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.084) significantly increased leaf width \nmore than W2xFx1C1 (0.073 m) (Table 4.5) \nThe highest value for leaf area was observed from flat bed with 20 kg N/ha \nin maize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) (0.04 m2), 100% increase above the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (0.028 m2). The lowest mean was given by treatment with tied ridging \nwithout fertilizer in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) (0.025), a decline of 25% \nbelow the control. Treatment W1xF2xC1 (0.034 m2) significantly (P < 0.05) \nincreased leaf area more than treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.025 m2) (Table 4.5) \n \n4.3.2 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters 40 days after planting (Long \nrains 2016) \nDuring the LR of 2016, generally treatments under tied ridges had higher \nvegetative growth than those under flat bed after 40 days of planting. In addition, \ntreatments with maize mono crop registered higher vegetative growth than \ntreatments with maize-cowpeas intercrops. Treatment of tied ridging, 20 kg N/ha in \nmaize mono crop (W2xF3xC1) registered the highest values for all the growth \nparameters measured while", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "reatments with maize-cowpeas intercrops. Treatment of tied ridging, 20 kg N/ha in \nmaize mono crop (W2xF3xC1) registered the highest values for all the growth \nparameters measured while the lowest values were recorded by flat bed without farm \nyard manure in maize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF1xC2) (Table 4.6).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "65 \nThe highest value for plant height was recorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 \n(0.47 m), an increase of 46.88% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.32 m). The \nlowest value for plant height was from treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.3 m). Treatment \nW1xF4xC1 (0.37 m) significantly (P < 0.05) increased plant height more than \nW1xF1xC2 (0.33 m) Also treatment W1xF4xC2 (0.34 m) significantly had higher \nplant height than W1xF3xC2 (0.32) (Table 4.6). \n \nTable 4.6 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer \nand cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 40 days after planting \n(Long rains 2016) \n \nTreatments \nPlant height \n(m) \nNumber \nof \nleaves/ plant \nLeaf \nlength (m) \nLeaf width \n(m) \nLeaf area \n(m2) \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.30c \n5.70bcdef \n0.46 \n0.079d \n0.032c \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.38abc \n6.27abc \n0.51 \n0.086abcd \n0.037abc \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.37abc \n6.12abcde \n0.49 \n0.083bcd \n0.035bc \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.36bc \n6.21abcd \n0.5 \n0.085abcd \n0.036abc \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.37bc \n6.10abcde \n0.5 \n0.08abcd \n0.036abc \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.34c \n5.34ef \n0.47 \n0.08bcd \n0.032c \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.47a \n6.73a \n0.56 \n0.092a \n0.044a \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.36abc \n5.67bcdef \n0.47 \n0.080d \n0.030c \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.36bc \n5.43", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "044a \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.36abc \n5.67bcdef \n0.47 \n0.080d \n0.030c \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.36bc \n5.43def \n0.49 \n0.080d \n0.034bc \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.45ab \n6.40ab \n0.54 \n0.09ab \n0.042ab \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.31c \n5.59bcdef \n0.47 \n0.082cd \n0.033c \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.32c \n5.53cdef \n0.47 \n0.079d \n0.030c \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.45ab \n6.04abcde \n0.54 \n0.09ab \n0.042ab \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.33c \n5.46cdef \n0.46 \n0.080d \n0.032c \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.30c \n5.70bcdef \n0.46 \n0.080d \n0.032c \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.32c \n5.60bcdef \n0.46 \n0.077d \n0.030c \nP value \n0.033 \n0.01 \n0.104 \n0.013 \n0.032 \nS.e.d \n0.05 \n0.42 \n0.03 \n0.005 \n0.004 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05. \n*W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer / ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea \nintercrop. \n \nTreatment W2xF3xC1 (6.73) registered the highest number of leaves/plant \nrepresenting 21.70% increase over the control (W1xF1xC1) (5.53", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "a \nintercrop. \n \nTreatment W2xF3xC1 (6.73) registered the highest number of leaves/plant \nrepresenting 21.70% increase over the control (W1xF1xC1) (5.53). The lowest value", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "66 \nwas recorded by treatment W1xF4xC2 (5.34); a decrease of 3.44% below the \ncontrol. Treatment W2xF2xC2 (6.40) significantly (P < 0.05) increased the number \nof leaves/plant more than treatment W1xF4xC2 (5.34). In addition, treatment \nW1xF3xC1 (6.27) significantly increased the number of leaves/plant more than \ntreatment W1xF4xC2 (5.34) (Table 4.6). \nFor the leaf width, the highest value was recorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 \n(0.092 m); indicating an increase of 16.4% increase above the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(0.079 m). The lowest value was recorded by treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.077 m); a \ndecrease of 2.53% below the control. Treatment W2xF2xC2 (0.09 m) significantly \n(P < 0.05) increased leaf width more than treatment W2xF1xC1 (0.082 m) (Table \n4.6). \nThe highest value for the leaf area was recorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 \n(0.044 m2) which was an increase of 46.67% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.03 \nm2). The lowest value was registered by both treatments W1xF3xC2 and W1xF1xC1 \n(0.03 m2). Treatment W2xF2xC2 (0.042 m2) significantly (P < 0.05) increased leaf \narea more than W2xF1xC2 (0.032 m2). Similarly, treatment W2xF3xC2 (0.042 m2) \nhad higher leaf area than treatment W2xF1xC1 (0.033 m2) (Table 4.6). \n \n4.3.3 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting \nAt 60 days after planting during short rains of 2015 and long rains 2016, the \ninteraction between tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems had significant \neffect (P < 0", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " parameters at 60 days after planting \nAt 60 days after planting during short rains of 2015 and long rains 2016, the \ninteraction between tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems had significant \neffect (P < 0.05) on plant height, number of leaves/plant, leaf length, leaf width and \nleaf area. During the short rains 2015, generally, treatments under flat bed planting \nhad significantly higher vegetative growth than those under tied ridging. In addition,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "67 \ntreatments with maize mono crop increased vegetative growth more than those \nunder maize-cowpeas intercrop. Treatment with flat bed, 20 kg N/ha in maize mono \ncrop (W1xF3xC1) recorded the highest values for all the growth parameters while \nthe lowest values were registered by tied ridging without farm yard manure under \nmaize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). \nHowever, during the long rains 2016 generally, treatments with tied ridging \nhad higher vegetative growth compared to treatments in flat bed during. Also, \ntreatments with maize mono crop registered higher values for growth parameters as \ncompared to those with maize-cowpea intercrop. Treatment combination of tied \nridging plus 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W2xF3xC1) recorded the highest \nvalues for all growth parameters, while the lowest values were recorded in tied \nridging without farm yard manure in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) \ntreatment (Table 4.7 and 4.8). \n \n4.3.4. Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 Days after Planting (Short \nrains 2015) \nDuring the short rains 2015, treatment of W1xF3xC1 recorded the highest \nvalue for plant height (0.70 m), an increase of 34.62% over the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(0.52 m) while the lowest value was registered by treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.48 m). \nThis was a decrease of 26.15% below the control. Treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.65 m) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased plant height more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (0.49 \nm). Also treatment W1xFx2C1 (0.61 m) resulted in higher plant height than \ntreatment W2xF1xC2 (0.48 m) (Table 4.7).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "68 \nRegarding the number of leaves/plant, the highest value was registered by \ntreatment W1xF3xC1 (10.78), an increase of 11.02% above the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (9.71). Treatment W1xF3xC2 (9.26) decreased the number of leaves \nper plant by 4.63% below the control while treatment W2xF2xC1 (10.36) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) resulted in higher number of leaves/plant than treatment \nW2xF1xC1 (9.53). In addition, treatment W1xF3xC1 (10.78) significantly increased \nthe number of leaves/plant more than treatment W2xF2xC2 (9.99) (Table 4.7). \n \nTable 4.7 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer \nand cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting \n(Short Rains 2015) \n \nTreatments \nPlant \nheight (m) \nNumber \nof \nleaves/plant \nLeaf \nlength (m) \nLeaf width \n(m) \nLeaf \narea \n(m2) \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.70a \n10.78a \n0.55a \n0.079a \n3.78a \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.65ab \n10.72ab \n0.53ab \n0.077ab \n3.57ab \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.61abc \n10.78a \n0.49abc \n0.072abcd \n3.16abcd \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.59abcd \n10.31abcd \n0.50abc \n0.072abcd \n3.23abc \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.57bcde \n9.99bcde \n0.45bcd \n0.070abcde \n2.89bcde \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.57bcde \n10.6ab \n0.49abcd \n0.075abc \n3.18abcd \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.56bcde \n10.36abc \n0.46bcd \n0.069bcde \n2.83bcde \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n3.18abcd \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.56bcde \n10.36abc \n0.46bcd \n0.069bcde \n2.83bcde \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.55bcde \n10.18abcd \n0.46bcd \n0.068cde \n2.73cde \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.55bcde \n10.02abcde \n0.46bcd \n0.067cde \n2.64cde \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.52cde \n10.00abcde \n0.44cd \n0.066cde \n2.59cde \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.52cde \n9.26e \n0.43cd \n0.065de \n2.47cde \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.52cde \n9.71cde \n0.44cd \n0.065de \n2.61cde \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.51cde \n9.53de \n0.43cd \n0.066de \n2.50cde \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.50de \n9.53de \n0.43cd \n0.063e \n2.43cde \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.49de \n9.63cde \n0.43cd \n0.063e \n22.37de \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.48e \n9.28e \n0.41d \n0.062de \n2.23e \nP value \n0.012 \n< 0.001 \n0.033 \n0.002 \n0.006 \ns.e.d \n0.057 \n0.401 \n0.041 \n0.0045 \n0.4102 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < 0.05 \n* W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t /ha, F2: Farm yard \nmanure 5t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg \nnitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " F2: Farm yard \nmanure 5t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg \nnitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize: Cowpea intercrop. \n \n \nThe highest value for leaf length was recorded by treatment W1xF3xC1 \n(0.55 m) which was an increase of 25% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.44 m).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "69 \nTreatment W2xF1xC2 (0.41 m) recorded the lowest value, a decrease of 6.82% \nbelow the control. The leaf length was significantly (P < 0.05) increased by \ntreatment W1xF4xC1 (0.53 m) more than treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.43 m). Also \ntreatment W1xF2xC1 (0.49 m) significantly (P < 0.05) increased leaf length more \nthan treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.41 m) (Table 4.7). \nIn relation to leaf width, the highest value was recorded by treatment \nW1xF3xC1 (0.079 m) which was 21.54% increase over the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(0.065 m) and the lowest value was registered by treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.062 m). \nThis was a decrease of 4.62% below the control. Treatment combination of \nW2xF4xC1 (0.075 m) significantly (P < 0.05) increased leaf width more than \ntreatment W1xF3xC2 (0.065 m). Also, treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.077) significantly \nrecorded higher leaf width than treatment W1xF2xC2 (0.067 m) (Table 4.7). \nThe highest value for the leaf area was recorded by treatment W1xF3xC1 \n(3.78 m2), an increase of 44.83% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (2.61 m2). The \nlowest value was observed from treatment W2xF1xC2 (2.23 m2), a reduction of \n14.46%. Significantly (P < 0.05) higher leaf area was recorded by treatment \nW1xF4xC1 (3.57 m2) compared to treatment W2xF4xC2 (2.59 m2). In addition, \ntreatment W1xF4xC2 (3.23 m2) significantly increased leaf area more than treatment \nW1xF3xC2 (2.47%) (Table 4.7). \n \n4.3.5 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ") significantly increased leaf area more than treatment \nW1xF3xC2 (2.47%) (Table 4.7). \n \n4.3.5 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting (Long \nrains 2016) \nAt 60 days after planting (LR 2016), the highest value for plant height was \nrecorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 (0.67 m), an increase of 31.37% above the control", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "70 \n(W1xF1xC1) (0.51 m) while treatments W2xF1xC1, W1xF1xC1 and W1xF2xC1 \n(0.51 m) had the lowest value. Treatment W2xF2xC2 (0.65 m) significantly (P < \n0.05) had higher plant height than treatment W1xF4xC2 (0.54 m) similarly, \ntreatment combination of W2xF3xC2 (0.65 m) significantly increased plant height \nmore than treatment W2xF4xC2 (0.55 m) (Table 4.8). \n \nTable 4.8 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer \nand cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 60 days after planting \n(Long Rains 2016) \n \nTreatments \nPlant \nheight (m) \nNumber \nof \nleaves /plant \nLeaf \nlength (m) \nLeaf width \n(m) \nLeaf area \n(m2) \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.59abc \n10.00abc \n0.5 \n0.08abc \n3.50abcd \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.57abc \n9.82abcde \n0.49 \n0.07bcd \n3.28bcd \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.51c \n9.30bcdef \n0.47 \n0.07d \n3.07d \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.54c \n9.04ef \n0.47 \n0.07d \n3.04d \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.65ab \n10.10ab \n0.54 \n0.08abc \n3.99ab \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.56bc \n9.91abcd \n0.49 \n0.08abc \n3.40abcd \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.56bc \n9.80abcde \n0.49 \n0.08abc \n3.40abcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.67a \n10.43a \n0.55 \n0.085a \n4.15a \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.57abc \n9.37bcdef \n0.47 \n0.07bcd \n3.10", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n10.43a \n0.55 \n0.085a \n4.15a \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.57abc \n9.37bcdef \n0.47 \n0.07bcd \n3.10cd \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.55bc \n9.13def \n0.49 \n0.07d \n3.23bcd \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.52c \n9.30bcdef \n0.46 \n0.07d \n2.83d \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.51c \n9.23cdef \n0.46 \n0.07d \n2.88d \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.51c \n9.30bcdef \n0.47 \n0.07d \n3.07d \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.53c \n9.16cdef \n0.46 \n0.07d \n3.98ab \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.65ab \n9.74abcde \n0.54 \n0.08abc \n3.89abc \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.53c \n8.91f \n0.49 \n0.07d \n3.06d \nP value \n0.033 \n0.01 \n0.104 \n0.013 \n0.018 \ns.e.d \n0.056 \n0.417 \n0.034 \n0.005 \n0.402 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < 0.05 \n* W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm yard \nmanure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg \nnitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize: Cowpea intercrop’ \n \n \nTreatment W2xF3xC1 (10.43) had the highest value for the number of \nleaves/plant, an increase of 12.15% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (9.23) while the \nlowest value was observed from treatment", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".43) had the highest value for the number of \nleaves/plant, an increase of 12.15% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (9.23) while the \nlowest value was observed from treatment W2xF1xC2 (8.91). This was a decrease", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "71 \nof 4.19% below the control. The number of leaves /plant was significantly (P < 0.05) \nincreased by treatment W2xF4xC2 (9.13) more than treatment W1xF4xC2 (9.04). \nThe highest value for leaf width was registered by treatment W2xF3xC1 (0.085 m), \nan increase of 21.43% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.07m). Treatment \nW2xF3xC2 (0.08 m) significantly (P < 0.05) increased leaf width more than \ntreatment W2xF1xC1 (0.07 m). Also treatment W2xF2xC1 (0.08 m) had higher leaf \nwidth than W1xF3xC2 (0.07 m). Treatment combination of W2xF3xC1 (4.15 m2) \nhad the highest value for the leaf area which was an increase of 30.60% above the \ncontrol (W1xF1xC1) (2.88 m2). The lowest value was registered by the control. \nTreatment W2xF2xC2 (3.99 m2) significantly (P < 0.05) increased the leaf area \nmore than treatment W1xF3xC2 (2.83 m2) (Table 4.8). \n \n4.3.6 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Short \nrains 2015) \nDuring the SR 2015 (80 days after planting), the interaction between tied \nridges, fertilizers, and cropping systems had significant effect (P < 0.05) on plant \nheight, number of leaves/plant, leaf width, and leaf area (Table 4.9). Generally, \ntreatments with maize mono crops had higher vegetative growth compared to those \nwith maize-cowpeas intercrop. The highest value for plant height was recorded by \ntreatment W1xF4xC1 (1.72 m), an increase of 16.22% above the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (1.48 m). The lowest value for plant height was recorded by treatment \nW2xF1xC2 (1.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1.72 m), an increase of 16.22% above the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (1.48 m). The lowest value for plant height was recorded by treatment \nW2xF1xC2 (1.33 m), a decrease of 10.12% below the control. The plant height was \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased by treatment W1xF3xC1 (1.67 m) more than \ntreatment W2xF1xC1 (1.49 m). Similarly, treatment W1xF2xC2 (1.65 m)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "72 \nsignificantly increased plant height more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (1.44 m) (Table \n4.9). \n \nTable 4.9 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer \nand cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting \n(Short Rains 2015) \n \nTreatments \nPlant \nheight (m) \nNo. of leaves/ \nplant \nLeaf \nlength (m) \nLeaf width \n(m) \nLeaf area \n(m2) \nW1xF4xC1 \n1.72a \n12.76a \n0.67a \n0.080ab \n4.66a \nW2xF4xC1 \n1.67ab \n12.55abc \n0.65abc \n0.078abc \n4.34abc \nW1xF3xC1 \n1.67ab \n12.54abc \n0.66ab \n0.082a \n4.71a \nW1xF2xC1 \n1.65abc \n12.79a \n0.64abc \n0.077abcd \n4.27abc \nW2xF2xC1 \n1.62abcd \n12.64abc \n0.62abcd \n0.074bcde \n4.00abcde \nW2xF2xC2 \n1.58abcde \n12.50abcd \n0.61bcde \n0.074bcde \n3.95bcdef \nW2xF4xC2 \n1.52bcdef \n12.31abcde \n0.60cde \n0.069defg \n3.63cdefg \nW1xF4xC2 \n1.51bcdef \n12.67ab \n0.64abc \n0.074bcde \n4.11abcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n1.51bcdef \n12.13abcde \n0.58def \n0.072cdef \n3.63cdefg \nW2xF1xC1 \n1.49cdefg \n12.19abcde \n0.56ef \n0.069defg \n3.39defg \nW1xF1xC1 \n1.48defg \n11.98cde \n0.57def \n0.068efg \n3.42defg \nW2xF3xC2 \n1", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3.39defg \nW1xF1xC1 \n1.48defg \n11.98cde \n0.57def \n0.068efg \n3.42defg \nW2xF3xC2 \n1.44efg \n12.02bcde \n0.57def \n0.065fg \n3.23fg \nW1xF2xC2 \n1.39fg \n12.34abcde \n0.59cdef \n0.069defg \n3.52defg \nW1xF1xC2 \n1.38fg \n11.79e \n0.58def \n0.065fg \n3.30efg \nW1xF3xC2 \n1.37fg \n12.05bcde \n0.59cdef \n0.068efg \n3.51defg \nW2xF1xC2 \n1.33g \n11.83de \n0.54f \n0.064g \n3.00g \nP value \n< 0.001 \n0.035 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n0.085 \n0.341 \n0.03 \n0.004 \n0.365 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n* W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop \n \n \nTreatment W1xF2xC2 (12.79) recorded the highest value for the number of \nleaves /plant which was an increase of 6.76% above the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(11.98). The lowest value was observed from treatment W1xF1xC2 (11.79), a \ndecrease of 1.59% below the control. The number of leaves/plant was significantly", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "73 \n(P < 0.05) increased by treatment W1xF4xC2 (12.67) compared to treatment \nW2xF1xC2 (11.83). In addition, treatment W1xF4xC1 (12.76) significantly \nincreased the number of leaves/plant more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (12.02) (Table \n4.9) \nThe highest value for plant leaf length was observed from treatment \nW1xF4xC1 (0.67 m), an increase of 17.54% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.57m). \nTreatment W2xF1xC2 (0.54 m) recorded the lowest value for leaf length which was \na decrease of 5.26% below the control. Treatment W1xF3xC1 (0.66 m) significantly \n(P < 0.05) increased the leaf length more than treatment W2xF3xC1 (0.58 m). Also \ntreatment W1xF2xC1 (0.64 m) registered significantly higher leaf length than \nW2xF3xC2 (0.57 m) (Table 4.9). \nThe highest value for leaf width was recorded from treatment W1xF3xC1 \n(0.082 m), an increase of 17.07% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.068 m). \nTreatment W2xF1xC2 (0.064 m) recorded the lowest values for leaf width which \nwas a decrease of 5.88% below the control. Treatment W1xF4xC1 (0.08 m) \nrecorded significantly (P < 0.05) increased leaf width compared to treatment \nW2xF3xC1 (0.072 m). In addition, treatment W2xF2xC1 (0.074 m) significantly \nincreased leaf width more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (0.065 m) (Table 4.9). \nTreatment combination of W1xF3xC1 (4.71 m2) recorded the highest value \nfor leaf area which was an increase of 37.72% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (3.42 \nm2). The lowest value was registered by treatment W2xF1xC2 (3.0 m2),", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " area which was an increase of 37.72% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (3.42 \nm2). The lowest value was registered by treatment W2xF1xC2 (3.0 m2), a decrease \nof 12.28% below the control. Treatment W1xF2xC1 (4.27 m2) significantly (P < \n0.05) increased the leaf area more than treatment W2xF1xC1 (3.39 m2). Similarly, \ntreatment W1xF4xC2 (4.11 m2) significantly increased leaf area compared to \ntreatment W1xF1xC2 (3.30 m2) (Table 4.9).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "74 \n4.3.7 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after planting (Long \nrains 2016) \nAt 80 days after planting during the LR 2016, treatments with tied ridges had \ngenerally higher vegetative growth than those under flat bed. Also treatments with \nmaize mono had more increased vegetative growth compared to those with maize \ncowpeas intercrop (Table 4.10). \n \nTable 4.10 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on maize growth parameters at 80 days after \nplanting (Long Rains 2016) \n \nTreatments \nPlant \nheight (m) \nNo. of leaves/ \nplant \nLeaf length \n(m) \nLeaf \nwidth (m) \nLeaf area \n(m2) \nW1xF4xC1 \n1.27bcd \n11.60ab \n0.7 \n0.07bcd \n4.36bcd \nW2xF4xC1 \n1.37abc \n11.61ab \n0.72 \n0.08ab \n4.77ab \nW1xF3xC1 \n1.24bcd \n10.88bcdef \n0.71 \n0.07bcd \n4.34bcd \nW1xF2xC1 \n1.31abc \n11.22abc \n0.65 \n0.07bcd \n4.10bcde \nW2xF2xC1 \n1.42ab \n11.65a \n0.66 \n0.08ab \n4.48abc \nW2xF2xC2 \n1.17cde \n10.34ef \n0.7 \n0.07bcd \n4.33bcd \nW2xF4xC2 \n1.08def \n10.29f \n0.66 \n0.06cde \n3.80cde \nW1xF4xC2 \n1.04ef \n10.29f \n0.66 \n0.07bcd \n3.60de \nW2xF3xC1 \n1.49a \n11.77a \n0.71 \n0.09a \n5.27a \nW2xF1xC1 \n1.31abc \n11.44ab \n0.65 \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xF3xC1 \n1.49a \n11.77a \n0.71 \n0.09a \n5.27a \nW2xF1xC1 \n1.31abc \n11.44ab \n0.65 \n0.07bcd \n4.28bcd \nW1xF1xC1 \n1.19cde \n11.12abcd \n0.63 \n0.07bcd \n3.73cde \nW2xF3xC2 \n1.18cde \n11.18abc \n0.7 \n0.07bcd \n4.35bcd \nW1xF2xC2 \n1.03ef \n10.42def \n0.65 \n0.06de \n3.63cde \nW1xF1xC2 \n1.03ef \n10.40def \n0.65 \n0.06de \n3.61de \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.94f \n10.57cdef \n0.65 \n0.05e \n3.39e \nW2xF1xC2 \n1.05ef \n11.07abcde \n0.66 \n0.07bcd \n3.99bcde \nP value \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.39 \n< 0.001 \n0.002 \ns.e.d \n0.085 \n0.3742 \n0.039 \n0.0053 \n0.4355 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n* W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize -cowpea intercrop", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "75 \nThe highest value for plant height was recorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 \n(1.49 m), an increase of 25.21% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.19 m). The \nlowest value was registered by treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.94 m), a decrease of 21.0% \nbelow the control. Treatment W2xF2xC1 (1.42 m) significantly (P < 0.05) increased \nplant height more than treatment W2xF3xC2 (1.18 m). In addition, treatment \nW1xF2xC2 (1.31 m) significantly had higher plant height compared to W1xF3xC3 \n(0.94 m) (Table 4.10). \nThe highest value for the number of leaves/plant was recorded by treatment \nW2xF3xC1 (11.77), accounting for 5.84% increase above the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(11.12). The lowest value for number of leaves/plant was observed from treatments \nW2xF4xC2 and W1xF4xC2 (10.29), a decrease of 7.46% below the control. \nTreatment W2xF4xC1 (11.61) significantly (P < 0.05) increased the number of \nleaves /plant compared to treatment W1xF2xC2 (10.42). Also treatment W2xF3xC2 \n(11.18) significantly had higher number of leaves/plant compared to treatment \nW1xF1xC2 (10.40) (Table 4.10). \nTreatment combination of W2xF3xC1 (0.09 m) recorded the highest value \nfor leaf width, representing an increase of 28.57% over the control (W1xF1xC1) \n(0.07 m). The lowest value was registered by treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.05 m), a \ndecrease of 28.57% below the control. Treatment W2xF4xC1 (0.08 m) significantly \n(P < 0.05) increased the leaf width more than treatment W1xF2xC2 (0.06 m). \nSimilarly, treatment W2xF2xC1 (0.08 m) significantly had higher leaf", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " m) significantly \n(P < 0.05) increased the leaf width more than treatment W1xF2xC2 (0.06 m). \nSimilarly, treatment W2xF2xC1 (0.08 m) significantly had higher leaf width than \ntreatment W1xF1xC2 (0.06 m) (Table 4.10). \nThe highest value for leaf area was observed in treatment W2xF3xC1 (5.27 \nm2), an increase of 41.29% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (3.73). The lowest value \nwas recorded by treatment W1xF3xC2 (3.39m2), a decrease of 9.12%. Treatment", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "76 \nW2xF4xC1 (4.77 m2) significantly (P < 0.05) increased the leaf area compared to \ntreatment W1xF4xC2 (3.80m2) (Table 4.10). \n Generally, vegetative growth during the SR 2015 was higher as compared to \nLR 2016. This could be attributed to the high amount of rainfall received in SR 2015 \ncompared to LR 2016. During the SR 2015, treatments with flat bed planting in \nmaize mono crop recorded increased means as compared to treatments with tied \nridging in maize mono crop. However, during the LR 2016, treatments with tied \nridging in maize mono crop resulted to increase in vegetative growth as opposed to \nflat bed with maize mono crop. The differences observed in both SR 2015 and LR \n2016 between treatments with tied ridges and those with flat bed planting could be \nrelated to the differences in soil moisture (Khurshid et al., 2006). \nApplication of farm yard manure 5 t/ha and nitrogen fertilizer 20 kg N/ha \nenhanced vegetative growth. This resulted in differences between treatments with \nfertilizer application compared to treatments where fertilizers were not applied. The \nincreased plant density in maize cowpeas intercrop might have led to competition \nfor growth resources in comparison to treatments with maize mono crop, hence \nresulting to differences between treatments with maize mono crop and those with \nmaize cowpeas intercrop (Karuma et al., 2014). \nDuring the short rains 2015 at 40 and 60 days after planting, treatment with \nflat bed planting, 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W1xF3xC1) recorded the highest \nvalue for all the growth parameters. This could be due to the readily available \nnutrients in nitrogen fertilizer upon its application. Therefore, the plants were able to \ntake up the nitrogen which enhanced the vegetative growth. However, at 80 days \nafter planting, the highest values were observed from treatment with flat bed, FYM", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 90, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "77 \n5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W1xF4xC1). This is because at this time, \nthe farm yard manure had fully decomposed and released nutrients for plant use. \nThe application of farm yard manure and nitrogen fertilizer improved the \nnutrient levels as well as water storage in the soil. Nitrogen fertilizer plays an \nimportant role in vegetative growth because it is involved in protein synthesis, \nwhich promotes plant growth (Haris et al., 1997 as cited by Hassan et al., 2010). \nThe improved soil moisture observed in flat bed planting led to increased vegetative \ngrowth during the short rains 2015. The maize mono crop had less plant density \nwhich minimized competition for growth resources hence better vegetative growth \n(Karuma et al., 2014). \nHowever, at 40, 60 and 80days after planting (SR 2015), treatment with tied \nridging and FYM 0 t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) gave the lowest \nvalues because the amount of soil moisture in treatments with tied ridges was low. \nIn addition, there was no application of farm yard manure or nitrogen fertilizer \nresulting to low nutrient supply limiting vegetative growth. Also the maize cowpeas \nintercrop resulted to increased plant density. This might have increased competition \nfor growth resources lowering the vegetative growth (Karuma et al., 2014). \nDuring the long rains 2016 when the rainfall amount was low, treatment \ncombination of tied ridging, 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W2xF3xC1) had the \nhighest values for vegetative growth at 40, 60 and 80 days. This is probably because \ntied ridges were able to effectively conserve the little rain water which was \navailable. Also application of 20 kg N/ha resulted to increased vegetative growth; \nsince nitrogen was made readily available in soil solution for plant uptake. However, \ntreatments with addition of farm yard manure 5 t/ha, whether under tied ridges or \nflat bed planting, reduced vegetative growth during LR 2016. This is probably", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 91, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "78 \nbecause there was no enough moisture in the soil to enable mineralization of the \nfarm yard manure to take place in order to release nutrients to the soil. \nIn addition, plants only take up nutrients in ionic form hence the low soil \nmoisture was not sufficient to dissolve the nutrients. Limited nutrient up take \ncontributed to reduced vegetative growth in treatments with farm yard manure (Zang \net al., 2010). The low values for vegetative growth observed from treatment with \ntied ridging without FYM in maize cowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) at 40 and 60 \ndays after planting during the LR 2016. This was as a result of low amount of \nnutrients which affected vegetative growth. The increased plant density in maize \ncowpeas intercrops could have also led to competition for growth resources limiting \nvegetative growth. \nHowever, at 80 days after planting during the LR 2016, the lowest values for \nvegetative growth were recorded by flat bed planting with 20 kg N/ha in maize \ncowpeas intercrop (W1xF3xC2) treatment. The reason could be that at this stage of \nplant growth, the soils were too dry even for nitrogen fertilizer to be dissolved and \nabsorbed in the soil which could have limited its uptake by the plant. The amount of \nrainfall received was very low (96.0mm) (Table 4.2) and poorly distributed (Fig. \n4.1). This made treatments with flat bed planting to have reduced vegetative growth \ndue to low soil moisture (Karuma et al., 2014). \nIn both SR 2015 and LR 2016 seasons, treatments with 20 kg N/ha registered \nincreased vegetative growth because application of nitrogen fertilizer to crops \nfacilitates development of leaf area and lateral stem due to increase in the \nphysiological indices. Nitrogen application also improves plant growth by increasing \nplant height and stem diameter during the end of the vegetative growth. In addition,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 92, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "79 \nnitrogen promotes plant growth, enhances leaf expansion and development (Okpara, \n2000). \nThe increased leaf area in treatments with addition of nitrogen fertilizer \nagree with the findings of Adeleke and Haruna (2012) who reported significant \nresponse of maize leaf as a result of nitrogen application. The increased leaf area \nshows the important role played by nitrogen in promoting vegetative growth because \nnitrogen enhances cell division and is required in protein synthesis. The rate of \ngrowth and development processes are affected by high temperatures as well as \ninadequate rainfall (Birch et al., 2003) hence, the differences in leaf area during SR \n2015 and LR 2016. In addition, Asim et al. (2012) observed differences due to \nseason, plant population and N fertilizer application on leaf area. \nThe findings from this study confirmed that, nitrogen is one of the most \nessential elements required for plant growth and development. Leaf area is \ndetermined by plant population and soil fertility (Okpara, 2000). This could be the \nreason why treatments with maize mono crop, FYM 5 t/ha, and 20 kg N/ha had \nsignificantly higher values for the growth parameters compared to treatments \nwithout farm yard manure only in maize cowpeas intercrop. The increased \nvegetative growth during the SR 2015 could be due to the high amount of rainfall \nreceived (574.8mm) (Table 4.2) which was evenly distributed (Fig. 4.1). Adequate \navailability of water to plants results in cell turgidity and finally higher meristematic \nactivity of maize leading to more foliage development, higher photosynthetic rate \nand finally improved plant growth (Arnon, 1975 as cited by Hassan et al., 2012). \nThe possible cause of reduced vegetative growth in treatments with tied \nridging during the SR 2015 could be due to reduced soil moisture in these \ntreatments. This may have been as a result of inversion and mixing of the top soil as", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 93, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "80 \nthe tied ridges were being constructed which may have reduced the fertility of the \ntop soil. Also, due to the high amount of rainfall received (574.8mm), some water \nmay have ponded in the plots with tied ridges at the beginning of the rain season \nwhich could have affected the germination as well as the growth of the crops. These \nfindings are in line with the studies carried out by Khurshid et al. (2006) who \nreported that, taller plants were found in plots with flat bed planting as compared to \nthose planted in tied – ridges during seasons of high rainfall. \nAn important finding in this study was that, there was increased plant height \nduring SR 2015 compared to LR 2016. These differences may be attributed to \ndifferences in the amount of rainfall received and rainfall distribution during the \ngrowth period (Table 4.2 and Fig. 4.1). Increased plant height is important in that, \nheight is related to the final grain yield as the stem of maize can conserve as a \nreservoir of labile non- structural carbohydrates which are mobilized as sugars and \nin turn translocated to the filling grains during the post flowering period (Karuma et \nal., 2014). The stems also play an important role in maintaining the rate of grain \nfilling against longer term effects of persistent post flowering stress like drought \n(Edmeades and Lafitte, 1993, as cited by Karuma et al., 2014). The current findings \nagree with the work done by Sebetha et al. (2015). \n \n4.4 Effect of Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Cropping Systems on \nSoil pH and Organic Carbon \nThe interaction between fertilizers and cropping systems had significant \neffect (P < 0.05) on the final soil pH. However, the interaction was not significant (P \n= 0.092) on soil organic carbon (Table 4.11).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 94, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "81 \n4.4.1 Effect of farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on soil pH \nTreatments with addition of FYM 5 t/ha had higher soil pH values compared \nto those without fertilizer input. The highest value for the final soil pH was observed \nin treatment with FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop (F2xC2) (6.32) with an \nincrease of 6.04% above FYM 0t/ha in maize mono crop (F1xC1) (5.96) which was \nthe control. This was followed by treatment FYM 5 t/ha in maize mono crop \n(F2xC1) which recorded a mean of 6.31, translating to 5.87% higher than FYM 0 \nt/ha with maize mono crop (F1xC1) (5.96) (Table 4.11). \n \nTable 4.11 Interaction effect of farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on soil organic carbon and pH \n \nTreatments \nInitial \norganic \ncarbon \n(%) \nFinal \norganic \ncarbon \n(%) \nChange in \norganic \ncarbon \n(%) \nInitial \nsoil pH \nFinal \nsoil \npH \nChange \nin \nsoil \npH \nF1xC1 \n0.67 \n1.03 \n0.36 \n6.54 \n5.96cd \n-0.58cd \nF1xC2 \n0.67 \n1.01 \n0.35 \n6.54 \n6.06c \n-0.48bc \nF2xC1 \n0.67 \n1.11 \n0.45 \n6.54 \n6.31a \n-0.23a \nF2xC2 \n0.67 \n1.13 \n0.47 \n6.54 \n6.32a \n-0.22a \nF3xC1 \n0.67 \n0.87 \n0.21 \n6.54 \n5.78e \n-0.76e \nF3xC2 \n0.67 \n0.92 \n0.26 \n6.54 \n5.84de \n-0.70de \nF4xC1 \n0.67 \n1.04 \n0.37 \n6.54 \n6.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 95, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "0.67 \n0.92 \n0.26 \n6.54 \n5.84de \n-0.70de \nF4xC1 \n0.67 \n1.04 \n0.37 \n6.54 \n6.10bc \n-0.44bc \nF4xC2 \n0.67 \n0.99 \n0.32 \n6.54 \n6.12a \n-0.42b \nP value \n \n0.092 \n0.092 \n \n< \n0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n \n0.0906 \n0.0906 \n \n0.0712 0.0712 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05. \n*F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm yard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen \nfertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: \nMaize mono crop, C2: Maize -cowpea intercrop", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 95, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "82 \nThe lowest value of final pH was given by treatment 20 kg N/ha combined \nwith maize mono crop (F3xC1) with a mean of 5.78, representing a decline of \n3.02% below FYM 0 t/ha in maize mono crop (F1xC1) (5.96). The highest change \nvalue for the soil pH was recorded in treatment FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpeas \nintercrop (F2xC2) (-0.22) while the lowest was from 20 kg N/ha combined with \nmaize mono crop (F3xC1) (-0.76) (Table 4.11). \nTreatment combination with FYM 5t/ha with maize mono crop (F2xC1) \nresulted to significantly (P < 0.05) higher final soil pH than 20 kg N/ha with maize \nmono crop (F3xC1). This means that, maize mono crop combined with FYM 5 t/ha \nincreased the soil pH more than maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha. Also, FYM 5 \nt/ha in maize cowpeas inter crop (F2xC2) registered significantly higher values for \nthe final soil pH compared to maize cowpeas combined with 20 kg N/ha + FYM 5 \nt/ha (F4xC2). This means that, maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5t/ha increased \nsoil pH more than maize mono crop with 20kgN/ha +FYM 5t/ha. Similarly, \ntreatment with FYM 5t/ha in maize mono crop (F2xC1) had significantly higher \nvalues for soil pH than maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 0 t/ha (F1xC2). This \nindicates that, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha led to more increased soil pH than \nmaize cowpeas crop with FYM 0 t/ha (Table 4.11). \nThe increased significant differences in pH observed in treatments where \nfarm yard manure and nitrogen fertilizer were applied and those without fertilizer \ncould be due to application of farm yard manure which could have increased the \nlevel of acidity in the soil. When farm yard manure is applied to the soil", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 96, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " treatments where \nfarm yard manure and nitrogen fertilizer were applied and those without fertilizer \ncould be due to application of farm yard manure which could have increased the \nlevel of acidity in the soil. When farm yard manure is applied to the soil, it absorbs \nor binds hydrogen ions in the humic forms increasing the acidity in the soil (Ashiono \net al., 2006). The farm yard manure which was applied was slightly alkaline with a \npH value of 7.94-8.96 (Table 3.3) but did not neutralize the acidity in the soil.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 96, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "83 \nThe increased soil pH when FYM 5 t/ha was applied alone and when \ncombined with 20 kg N/ha nitrogen could be due to the H+ ions which were \nabsorbed from the soil solution by humic substances (Tisade et al., 1993 as cited by \nInnocent, 2014). Application of farm yard manure in the soil increases chemical \nactivities in the soil which in turn increases soil acidity. During decomposition of the \nfarm yard manure, several organic acids are released and synthesized. The carbon \ndioxide produced during decomposition dissolves in water to form hydro carbonic \nacid. This makes the soil solution to become more acidic (Chandy, 2010). This could \nbe the reason why treatments with addition of farm yard manure had increased \nacidity. Therefore, if farm yard manure is applied continuously for a number of \nyears, it can amend saline and alkaline soils (Chandy, 2010; Keshavarz et al., 2012). \nThe optimum pH value for maize production ranges from 6.0-7.2. When the \nsoil pH is less than 5.0, it leads to Al toxicity, reduces root development and \nincreases manganese toxicity; reducing plant development. Maize does not tolerate \npH conditions of less than 5.5 because in acidic soils, the roots of maize crop suffer \nimpairment from Al toxicity. This in turn inhibits nutrient uptake resulting to root \ndamage. Acidic soils also negatively affect availability of nutrients. Therefore, \ntreatment combination of maize cowpeas intercrop and FYM 5 t/ha (F2xC2) led to \nthe most ideal pH value (6.32) for maize growth. The findings from this study agree \nwith the work done by Innocent (2014) who reported that, application of nitrogen \nfertilizers and farm yard manure raised the acidity of the soils in Rwanda. \n \n4.4.2 Correlation and regression analysis of soil organic carbon and pH \nThe correlation and regression analyses showed that, there was a highly \nsignificant (P < 0.001) positive relationship between soil organic matter and soil pH", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 97, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "84 \n(Figure 4.11). The amount of soil organic carbon increased with an increase in soil \npH. This could be related to the fact that, the humic acid produced during \ndecomposition of organic matter has effect on H+ ions absorption (Sebetha, 2015). \n \nFigure 4.2: Relationship between soil organic carbon and soil pH \n \n4.5 Effect of Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizers and Cropping Systems \non Maize Crop Nitrogen Content \nDuring the LR 2016, the interaction between fertilizers and cropping systems \nhad highly significant effect (P < 0.001) on the %N content in both maize grains and \nstovers. However, during the SR 2015, the interaction effect was not significant \n(Table 4.12). During the LR 2016, generally, treatments with maize mono crop \nexhibited higher N content in both grains and stovers compared to those having \nmaize cowpeas intercrop (Table 4.12). The treatments increased N content in maize \nstovers with 1.32% more than grains. This could probably be due to the low amount \nof rainfall received in the season (Table 4.1) which led to low soil moisture storage \nwhich affected vegetative growth more than grain filling.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 98, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "85 \nTable 4.12 Interaction effect of farm yard, nitrogen fertilizer and cropping \nsystems on maize grains and stovers nitrogen content \n \n \nSR 2015 \nLR 2016 \nTreatments \n% N grains \n% N stovers \n% N grains \n%N stovers \nF1xC1 \n1.56 \n0.85 \n0.26ab \n1.43ab \nF1xC2 \n1.59 \n0.67 \n0.03c \n1.13bc \nF2xC1 \n1.49 \n0.63 \n0.38a \n1.68a \nF2xC2 \n1.58 \n0.77 \n0.06bc \n1.10bc \nF3xC1 \n1.57 \n0.83 \n0.41a \n1.73a \nF3xC2 \n1.64 \n0.73 \n0.06bc \n1.35bc \nF4xC1 \n1.41 \n0.78 \n0.38a \n1.41ab \nF4xC2 \n1.47 \n0.78 \n0.08bc \n1.09bc \nP value \n0.813 \n0.258 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n0.1474 \n0.0941 \n0.1165 \n0.1664 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n*F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm yard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen \nfertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: \nMaize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea intercrop \n \n \nMaize mono crop combined with 20 kg N/ha (F3xC1) recorded the highest \nvalues of N content in both grains and stovers (grains: 0.41% and stovers 1.73% \nrespectively). The percentage N content increase in grains, was increased by 57.69% \nabove maize mono crop with FYM 0t/ha (F1xC1) (0.26%) which was the control. \nThe lowest values of", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 99, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " The percentage N content increase in grains, was increased by 57.69% \nabove maize mono crop with FYM 0t/ha (F1xC1) (0.26%) which was the control. \nThe lowest values of N content in grains was recorded in treatment maize cowpeas \nintercrop combined with FYM 0 t/ha (F1xC2) (0.03%), a decrease of 88.46% below \nthe control (Table 4.12). \nIn both the maize grains and stovers of LR 2016, maize mono crop with 20 \nkg N/ha (F3xC1) registered significantly higher N content than maize cowpeas \nintercrop combined with FYM 5 t/ha (F2xC2). This means that, maize mono crop \nwith 20kgN/ha increased the percentage N content in grains and stovers more than \nmaize cowpeas intercrop under FYM 5t/ha (Table 4.12). Similarly, maize mono crop", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 99, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "86 \ncombined with FYM 5 t/ha (F2xC1) had significantly higher N content in both \ngrains and stovers more than maize mono crop combined with FYM 0 t/ha (F1xC1); \nindicating that, maize mono crop under 20 kg N/ha resulted to increased N content \nin both grains and stovers compared to maize mono crop under FYM 0 t/ha \n(Sanchez, et al., 2004) (Table 4.12). \nHowever, during the SR 2015, the interaction effect between fertilizers and \ncropping systems was not significant on nitrogen content in stovers and grains. This \ncould probably be due to the well distributed and high rainfall which ensured \nuniform uptake of N from the soil by the plants. Several researchers have reported \nthat, plants have difficulty in absorbing nutrients in dry soils because most nutrients \nare elemental and not in ionic forms; hence, during the dry seasons, nutrient levels \nin plant tissues may be lower than normal (Sanchez and Dorge, 1999 as cited by \nInnocent, 2014). Nutrient uptake varies with stage of plant growth (Jones and \nJacobsen, 2001). The lack of significant effect on N content agrees with the work \ndone by Innocent (2014) in Rwanda who also observed no significance difference \nwith the Interactions on % N in grains and stovers in maize. \n \n4.6 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizers and \nCropping Systems on Yield and Yield Components of Maize \nDuring SR 2014, LR 2015, SR 2015 and LR 2016, the interaction effect \nbetween tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems was significant (P < 0.05) on \nears weight, grain yield and biomass yield (Table 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 and Table 4.16).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 100, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "87 \n4.6.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and \ncropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Short rains 2014) \n During SR 2014, generally, the treatment combinations with maize mono \ncrop under tied ridges had significantly higher values for all the yield and yield \ncomponents compared to those with maize cowpeas intercrop under flatbed (Table \n4.13). \n \nTable 4.13 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Short \nrains 2014) \n \nTreatments \nCobs \nweight \n(t/ha) \nEars \nweight \n(t /ha) \nNo. of \nears/ \nha \nStover \nyield \n(t/ha) \nGrain \nyield \n(t/ha) \nBiomass \nyield \n(t/ha) \nHarvest \nindex \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.23 \n1.53ab \n1.84 \n1.11ab \n1.23ab \n3.73a \n0.09 \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.29 \n1.59a \n1.79 \n1.20a \n1.30a \n3.45ab \n0.09 \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.26 \n1.26bcd \n1.72 \n0.78efg \n1.00bcd 3.41ab \n0.08 \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.26 \n1.36abc \n1.84 \n0.10abcde 1.10abc 2.63bc \n0.08 \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.27 \n1.46abc \n1.82 \n1.17a \n1.15abc 2.52c \n0.07 \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.18 \n0.87fgh \n1.61 \n1.09abc \n0.68fg \n2.28cd \n0.08 \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.23 \n1.16cdef \n1.62 \n0.85defg \n0.93cde 2.02cde \n0.09 \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.21 \n1.01", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 101, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "0.23 \n1.16cdef \n1.62 \n0.85defg \n0.93cde 2.02cde \n0.09 \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.21 \n1.01defg 1.59 \n1.05abcd \n0.81def \n1.89cdef \n0.09 \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.19 \n0.92efgh 1.49 \n0.87defg \n0.76def \n1.84cdef \n0.12 \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.21 \n1.17cde \n1.75 \n0.71fg \n0.96cde 1.82cdef \n0.08 \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.21 \n0.10defg 1.65 \n0.92bcdef 0.79def \n1.62def \n0.08 \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.16 \n0.72gh \n1.61 \n0.71fg \n0.56fg \n1.39ef \n0.08 \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.45 \n0.90efgh 1.75 \n0.88cdefg 0.72efg \n1.38ef \n0.08 \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.13 \n0.65h \n1.68 \n0.69g \n0.52g \n1.22ef \n0.08 \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.13 \n0.62h \n1.7 \n0.79efg \n0.49g \n1.14f \n0.08 \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.16 \n0.78h \n1.42 \n0.74fg \n0.62fg \n1.09f \n0.08 \nP value \n0.982 \n< 0.001 \n0.13 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.266 \ns.e.d \n0.201 \n0.152 \n1.409 \n0.111 \n0.123 \n0.444 \n0.010 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n *W1: Flat bed", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 101, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".152 \n1.409 \n0.111 \n0.123 \n0.444 \n0.010 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n *W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha + \n20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea intercrop", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 101, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "88 \nTreatments with tied ridging, farm yard manure 5 t/ha under maize mono \ncrop (W2xF2xC1) recorded the highest value for grain yield (1.3 t/ha). This was an \nincrease of 80.56% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.72 t/ha) (Table 4.13). The \nlowest value for grain yield was recorded by treatment with flat bed, 20 kg N/ha \nunder maize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF3xC2) (0.49 t/ha), a decrease of 31.94% \nbelow the control. Treatment W2xF4xC1 (1.23 t/ha) significantly (P < 0.05) \nincreased the grain yield more than the treatment with W1xF3xC1 (0.93 t/ha). Also, \ntreatment W1xF2xC1 (1.15 t/ha) significantly increased the grain yield more than \ntreatment W1xF2xC2 (0.79 t/ha) (Table 4.13). \nThe highest value for the stover yield was recorded by treatment W2xF2xC1 \n(1.20 t/ha), an increase of 36.36% over the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.88 t/ha). \nTreatment W1xF1xC2 (0.69 t/ha) had the lowest value for stover yield which was a \ndecrease of 27.54% below the control. Treatment combination of W1xF2xC1 (1.17 \nt/ha) significantly (P < 0.05) had higher values for stover yield than treatment \nW2xF1xC1 (0.71 t/ha). In addition, treatment W2xF3xC3 (1.09 t/ha) significantly \nincreased the stover yield compared to treatment W1xF4xC2 (0.74 t/ha) (Table \n4.13). \nTreatment combination of W2xF4xC1 (3.73 t/ha) had the highest value for \nbiomass yield, an increase of 170.29% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.38 t/ha). \nThe lowest value for biomass yield", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 102, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "73 t/ha) had the highest value for \nbiomass yield, an increase of 170.29% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.38 t/ha). \nThe lowest value for biomass yield was recorded by treatment W1xF4xC2 (1.09 \nt/ha), a decrease of 21.01% below the control. Treatment W2xF3xC1 (3.41 t/ha) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased biomass yield more than treatment W1xF1xC2 \n(1.22 t/ha). Similarly, treatment W1xF2xC1 (2.5 t/ha) significantly had higher \nbiomass yield than treatment W1xF3xC2 (1.14 t/ha) (Table 4.13).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 102, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "89 \nThe treatment combination of W2xF2xC1 recorded significantly (P < 0.05) \nhigher values for all the yield and yield components during the SR 2014 compared \nto W2xF1xC2. This means that, maize mono crop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha \nunder tied ridging increased the grain and stover yields more than maize cowpeas \nintercrop without fertilizer input under tied ridging (Table 4.13). The significant \nincrease in grain and stover yields could be probably due to the low plant density in \nmaize mono crop compared to that in maize cowpeas intercrop (Karuma et al., \n2014). \nThe increased plant density in the maize cowpeas intercrop could have led to \ncompetition for growth resources such as water which was not sufficient hence the \nreduced yields. Similar observations were made by Kurasu et al. (2015) who also \nreported reduced yields as a result of increased plant density. In addition, treatment \nW2xF3xC1 had significantly higher values for stover, grain and biomass yields \ncompared to treatment W1xF3xC2. This shows that, maize mono crop with 20 kg \nN/ha under tied ridging led to more increased yields for stover, grains and biomass \nthan maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha under flat bed (Table 4.13). These \ndifferences could be related to increased soil moisture content in the tied ridges \ncompared to flat bed. \nSimilarly, treatment W2xF4xC1 had significantly (P < 0.05) higher values \nfor stover, grain and biomass yields than treatment W1xF4xC2. This implies that, \nmaize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg t/ha under tied ridging resulted to more \nincreased stover, grain and biomass yields compared to maize cowpeas intercrop \nwith FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under flat bed. In addition, treatment W2xF2xC1 \nregistered significantly higher values for stover, grain and biomass yields than \ntreatment W1xF1xC1. This indicates that, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 103, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "90 \ntied ridging led to higher stover, grain and biomass yields compared to maize mono \ncrop without farm yard manure under flat bed SR 2014 (Table 4.13). The application \nof FYM 5 t/ha increased the yield compared to treatment without fertilizer input. \nThis point out the important role that is played by FYM in improving crop yields \nbecause of soil moisture increase effect and to some extent nutrients in the soil for \nplant use. These findings agree with the work done by Marschner et al. (2011) who \nreported increased crop yields due to application of farm yard manure. \n \n4.6.2 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and \ncropping systems on yields and yield components of maize (Long rains 2015) \nDuring LR 2015, generally treatments with maize mono crop under tied \nridging had significantly (P < 0.05) higher values for stover, grain, biomass yields \nand yield components compared to those with maize cowpeas intercrop under flat \nbed (Table 4.14). The highest yield value for grain was observed from treatment \nwith tied ridging, farm yard manure 5t/ha in maize mono crop (W2xF2xC1) (0.15 \nt/ha). This was an increase of 650% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.02 t/ha). The \nlowest grain yield was obtained in treatment W2xF1xC2 which had no grains (Table \n4.14).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 104, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "91 \nTable 4.14 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Long \nrains 2015) \n \nTreatments \nCobs \nweight \n(t/ha) \nEars \nweight \n(t /ha) \nNo. \nof \nears/ha \nStover \nyield \n(t/ha) \nGrain \nyield \n(t/ha) \nBiomass \nyield \n(t/ha) \nHarves\nt index \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.046ab \n0.19a \n7.81a \n0.95ab \n0.14ab \n1.50a \n0.04ab \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.041abc \n0.19a \n7.58a \n0.76bcde \n0.15a \n1.44a \n0.04ab \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.52a \n0.21a \n7.35a \n1.07a \n0.15a \n1.23ab \n0.05a \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.029bcd \n0.14ab \n6.20ab \n0.89abc \n0.11abc \n1.31ab \n0.04ab \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.014de \n0.07bcd \n4.57abc \n0.74bcdef \n0.06cde \n1.46a \n0.02bcd \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.028bcd \n0.016d \n7.35a \n0.78bcd \n0.09abcd \n0.80d \n0.04ab \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.012de \n0.061bcd \n3.44bcd \n0.75bcde \n0.05cde \n1.09bc \n0.02bcd \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.011de \n0.050bcd \n2.75bcd \n0.71cdefgh \n0.04de \n0.91cd \n0.02bcd \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.011de \n0.047cd \n2.29cd \n0.64defgh \n0.04de \n0.79d \n0.01cd \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 105, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "cd \n0.02bcd \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.011de \n0.047cd \n2.29cd \n0.64defgh \n0.04de \n0.79d \n0.01cd \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.021cde \n0.092bcd \n4.13abcd \n0.65defgh \n0.07bcde \n1.14bc \n0.03abc \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.004e \n0.019d \n1.14cd \n0.59defgh \n0.01e \n0.92cd \n0.00cd \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.002e \n0.010d \n1.83cd \n0.54fgh \n0.00e \n0.69d \n0.00cd \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.005e \n0.026d \n1.37cd \n0.59defgh \n0.02e \n0.90efgh \n0.01cd \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.004e \n0.020d \n1.83cd \n0.57efgh \n0.02e \n0.65h \n0.01cd \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.003e \n0.015d \n0.91cd \n0.51gh \n0.01e \n0.62h \n0.01cd \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.00e \n0.002d \n0.45d \n0.46h \n0.00e \n0.70d \n0.00d \nP value \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n0.011 \n0.049 \n1.858 \n0.102 \n0.0369 \n0.152 \n0.011 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n *W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 105, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n *W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop \n \n \nThe highest value for stover was recorded by treatment W2xFx3C1 (1.07 \nt/ha) while the lowest value was registered by treatment W1xF4xC2 (0.46 t/ha). \nTreatment W2xF2xC1 registered significantly higher yields compared to treatment \nW1xF2xC2). This means that, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under tied ridging \nresulted to more increased yields than maize cowpeas inter crop with FYM 5 t/ha \nunder flat bed. The increased water trapped in the tied ridges together with reduced \nplant density in maize mono crops mighty have led to the increased yields. These", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 105, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "92 \nfindings are in line with the findings by Uwizzeyimana et al. (2018) who reported \nsignificant increase of yields due to increased soil moisture. \nIn addition, treatment W2xF4xC1 had significantly (P < 0.05) higher values \nfor stover, grains and biomass yields than treatment W1xF4xC2. This shows that, \nmaize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging increased yields \nmore than maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under flat bed \n(Table 4.14). Treatment W1xF2xC1 had significantly higher values for stover, grain \nand biomass yields compared to treatment W1xF1xC1. This means that, maize \nmono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed led to more increased yields than maize \nmono crop without farm yard manure under flat bed (Table 4.14). \n \n4.6.3 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on yields and yield components of maize (Short rains 2015) \nDuring short rains 2015, the interaction between tied ridges, fertilizers and \ncropping systems was highly significant (P < 0.001) on cobs weight, ears weight, \ngrain yield and biomass. Generally, treatments with maize mono crop under tied \nridging registered significantly higher values for all the yields and yield components \ncompared to those with maize cowpeas intercrop under flat bed. Treatment with flat \nbed plus farm yard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop \n(W1xF2xC2) had the highest values for all the yield and yield components. The \nhighest mean value for cobs weight was 0.85t/ha, an increase of 123.68% above the \ncontrol (W1xF1xC1) (0.38 t/ ha). The highest value for ears weight was 4.6 t/ha, an \nincrease of 165.90% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.73 t/ha). Treatment \nW1xF2xC2 (3.13 t/ha) recorded the highest value for", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 106, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ", an \nincrease of 165.90% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.73 t/ha). Treatment \nW1xF2xC2 (3.13 t/ha) recorded the highest value for stover yield. This was 86.3%", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 106, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "93 \nincrease above the control W1xF1xC1 (1.68 t/ha). The lowest value for stover yield \nwas observed from the control (W1xF1xC1) (Table 4.15). \n \nTable 4.15 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Short \nrains 2015) \n \nTreatments Cobs \nweight \n(t/ha) \nEars \nweight \n(t /ha) \nNo. of \nears/ha \nStover \nyield \n(t/ha) \nGrain \nyield \n(t/ha) \nBiomass \nyield \n(t/ha) \nHarves\nt index \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.85a \n4.60a \n61342 \n3.13a \n3.59a \n7.73a \n0.46 \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.71abc \n3.59abc \n53819 \n3.02a \n2.86abc \n6.60abc \n0.42 \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.77ab \n3.90ab \n58159 \n2.63ab \n3.12ab \n6.53abc \n0.48 \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.61bcd \n2.91bcd \n53819 \n2.60ab \n2.27bcd \n5.50bcd \n0.42 \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.74abc \n3.46bc \n56423 \n2.73ab \n2.71bc \n6.18abc \n0.43 \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.75abc \n3.87ab \n64236 \n3.14a \n2.95abc \n7.01ab \n0.43 \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.69abc \n3.42bc \n59895 \n2.66ab \n2.71bc \n6.08abc \n0.43 \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.55bcd \n2.65bcd \n46875 \n2.49abc \n2.09bcd \n5.15bcde \n0.4 \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.57bcd \n2.71bcd \n50347 \n2.13bc \n2.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 107, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "46875 \n2.49abc \n2.09bcd \n5.15bcde \n0.4 \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.57bcd \n2.71bcd \n50347 \n2.13bc \n2.29bcd \n4.84cde \n0.46 \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.59bcd \n2.90bcd \n53819 \n2.35abc \n2.29bcd \n5.25bcde \n0.43 \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.54bcd \n2.58cd \n50347 \n2.40abc \n2.05cd \n4.98cde \n0.43 \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.52cd \n2.66cd \n55555 \n2.09bc \n2.11cd \n4.74cde \n0.45 \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.43d \n1.94d \n44271 \n1.93bc \n1.54d \n3.88de \n0.4 \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.40d \n1.89d \n52083 \n1.87bc \n1.53d \n3.78de \n0.39 \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.38d \n1.73d \n51215 \n1.68c \n1.35d \n3.42e \n0.4 \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.40d \n1.79d \n58159 \n2.12bc \n1.39d \n3.90de \n0.35 \nP value \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.119 \n0.008 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.176 \ns.e.d \n0.142 \n0.703 \n6981 \n0.5022 \n0.5587 \n1.101 \n0.0457 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n *W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 107, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea \nintercrop. \n \n \nThe highest value for grain yield was from treatment ((W1xF2xC2) (3.59 \nt/ha), an increase of 165.93% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.35t/ha). The lowest \ngrain value was recorded by the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.35t/ha). Treatment \nW1xF3xC1 (2.86 t/ha) significantly (P < 0.05) increased grain yield more than", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 107, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "94 \ntreatment W1xF1xC2 (1.53 t/ha). Also treatment W2xF3xC2 significantly led to \nhigher increased grain yields more than treatment W1xF4xC1 (1.398) (2.95) (Table \n4.15). \nTreatment W1xF2xC2 (7.73 t/ha) had the highest value for biomass yield, an \nincrease of 141.46% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (3.42 t/ha). The lowest value \nfor biomass yield was recorded by the control. Treatment W1xF3xC1 (6.60 t/ha) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased the biomass yield more than treatment Wx1F1xC2 \n(3.78 t /ha). In addition, treatment W2xF3xC2 (7.01 t /ha) had significantly higher \nvalues for biomass yield, than treatment W1xF3xC2 (4.74 t/ha) (Table 4.15). \nTreatment combinations of W1xF2xC2 during the SR 2015 had significantly higher \nvalues for stover, grain and biomass yields compared to treatment W2xF2xC2. This \nmeans that, maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed planting \nincreased the yields more than maize cowpeas inter crop with FYM 5 t/ha under tied \nridging (Table 4.15). The increased yields could probably be due to high soil \nmoisture content in these plots which in turn improved the yields. This improved \nsoil moisture content ensured adequate moisture for growth which increased the \nyields in treatments under flat bed planting. Higher moisture status increases root \nprofile ration and enhances availability of nutrients to crop roots improving yields \n(Sarkar, 2005). \nTreatment with the highest grain yield values during the SR 2015 was flat \nbed plus farm yard manure 5t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF2xC2) in \naddition to increased soil moisture content (Table 4.15 and Table 4.3). The soil \nmoisture content enables nitrogen mineralization and availability of nutrients ions in \nsoil which in turn influences nutrient uptake and maize yields (Heluf et al., 2004).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 108, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 4.15 and Table 4.3). The soil \nmoisture content enables nitrogen mineralization and availability of nutrients ions in \nsoil which in turn influences nutrient uptake and maize yields (Heluf et al., 2004). \nThis is because most of the plant elements are in elemental form whereas plants take", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 108, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "95 \nthem up in ionic form. The soil moisture dissolves the plant nutrients to enable \nuptake by the plants. Therefore, this explains why treatments with higher moisture \ncontent had higher yields. The low yields from treatments under tied ridges could be \nassociated with the reduced soil moisture content observed. This is because plants \nhave problems in absorbing nutrients in dry soils and this leads to yield reduction \n(Jones et al., 2011). \nAlso treatment with flat bed plus farm yard manure in maize cowpeas \nintercrop (W1xF2xC2) recorded higher values for the yields than flat bed with farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha in maize mono crop (W1xF4xC1). This implies \nthat, maize cowpeas inter crop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed increased yields more \nthan maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha crop under flat bed. This \nimprovement in yields could be probably due to the benefits of intercropping in \nincreasing yields. This is because environmental resources like water, light and \nnutrients are more effectively used as compared to monocropping (Tadesse et al., \n(2012). Intercropping also increases light interception and the shading effect reduces \nthe rate of water evaporation; hence improving the yields (Ahmed et al., 2010). \nApplication of farm yard manure increases the benefits of intercropping. This could \nprobably be the reason why treatments with farm yard manure and maize cowpeas \ninter crop performed better as opposed to those without FYM under maize mono \ncrop (Undie et al., 2012). \nThe high yields in treatment with flat bed, farm yard manure 5t/ha with \nmaize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF2xC2) during the SR 2015 could also be attributed \nto efficient use of the environmental resources such as water, light and nutrients (Liu \net al., 2006). When crops are intercropped, there is better environmental resource \nuse since crops utilize growth resources differently (Tadesse et al., 2012). Therefore,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 109, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "96 \nwhen crops are grown together; they complement each other improving the yields \n(Vandermeer 1989 as cited by Karuma et al., 2014). In addition, the greater canopy \ncover provided by maize cowpea intercrop helped to minimize evaporation. It also \nregulated the soil temperature, improved water infiltration consequently improving \nthe yields (Steiner, 2002). \nApplication of FYM 5 t/ha led to increased yields because FYM plays an \nimportant role in improving the soil fertility in maize production (Muhammad and \nKhattak, 2009). In addition, application of FYM improves the physical conditions \nand biological activity of the soil increasing the nutrient levels resulting to higher \nyields (Atreya et al., 2005). Cowpeas has the ability to bring nitrogen into the \nfarming system through biological fixation as well as smothering weeds like striga \nimproving yields (Clark, 2007; Ayana et al., 2013; Agza et al., 2012). The maize \ncowpea intercrop increased the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium \ncontents which in turn mighty have contributed to the increased yields (Dahmardel \net al., 2010). When legumes are used in intercropping, they maintain soil nitrogen \nthrough nitrogen fixation (Adigbo et al., 2013; Ghanbari et al., 2010). \nIncorporation of FYM into the soil improves nutrients availability and soil \nmoisture for crop uptake (Muhammad and Khattak, 2009). This could explain why \ntreatments with FYM 5 t/ha had increased yields as compared to those without. \nAlso, organic inputs improve soil water holding capacity and facilitate release of \nother soil nutrient to the crops (Akande et al., 2005). Addition of FYM enhances soil \nmicrobial activities leading to release of nutrients after decomposition which in turn \nincreases crop yields (Belay et al., 2001). The high and positive response of crop \nyields to fertilizer application was reflected in treatments where farm yard manure \nwas used. These findings agree with the studies done by Marschner et al., (2011)", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 110, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "97 \nwho reported improved yields due to application of farm yard manure to the soil. \nShiraniet et al. (2002) and Kepkemboi (2012) also reported increased yields as a \nresult of FYM application. Similar findings were reported by Innocent (2014) who \nobserved increased yields due to use of farm yard manure. \n \n4.6.4 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizers and \ncropping systems on yields and yield components of maize (Long rains 2016) \nThe interaction effect between tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems \nwas highly significant (P < 0.001) on stover, grain, biomass yields and harvest index \nduring the LR 2016. The highest value for stover yield was recorded by treatment \nW2xF2xC1 (1.41 t/ha), an increase of 46.88% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.96 \nt/ha). The lowest value for stover yield was obtained from treatment W1xF3xC2 \n(0.78 t/ha), a decrease 18.75% below the control. Treatment W1xF3xC1 (1.31 t/ha) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased the stover yield more than treatment W2xF1xC2 \n(0.87 t/ha). Also treatment W2xF3xC2 (1.24 t/ha) led to significantly higher values \nfor stover yield than treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.78 t/ha) (Table 4.16). \nTreatment W2xF3xC1 (0.67 t/ha) recorded the highest value for grain yield, \nan increase of 458 which is 33% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.12 t/ha). The \nlowest grain mean value was recorded by treatment W1xF3xC2 which had no \ngrains. Treatment W2xF2xC1 (0.56 t/ha) significantly (P < 0.05) increased grain \nyield compared to treatment W2xF4xC2 (0.09 t/ha). In addition, treatment \nW2xFx4C1 (0.59 t/ha) significantly had higher grain value compared", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 111, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".05) increased grain \nyield compared to treatment W2xF4xC2 (0.09 t/ha). In addition, treatment \nW2xFx4C1 (0.59 t/ha) significantly had higher grain value compared to treatment \nW2xF3xC2 (0.06t/ha). Treatment W1xF2xC1 (0.36 t/ha) significantly increased \ngrain yield more than treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.03 t/ha) (Table 4.16).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 111, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "98 \nThe highest value for biomass yield was recorded by treatment W2xF3xC1 \n(2.18 t/ha), an increase of 134.41% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.12 t/ha). The \nlowest value for biomass yield was obtained from treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.78 t/ha), \na decrease of 43.59% below the control. Treatment W2xF2xC1 (2.13 t/ha) \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) increased biomass yield more than treatment W2xF1xC2 \n(0.03 t/ha). Also treatment W2xF1xC1 (0.13 t/ha) significantly increased the \nbiomass yield compared to treatment W1xF3xC2 (0.78 t/ha) (Table 4.16). \n \nTable 4.16 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on yield and yield components of maize (Long \nrains 2016) \n \nTreatments \nCobs \nweight \n(t/ha) \nEars \nweight \n(t /ha) \nNo. \nof \nears/ha \nStover \nyield \n(t/ha) \nGrain \nyield \n(t/ha) \nBiomass \nyield \n(t/ha) \nHarves\nt index \nW1xF2xC2 \n0.01c \n0.03d \n1157ef \n0.87ef \n0.02d \n0.89f \n0.02de \nW1xF3xC1 \n0.03bc \n0.12cd \n6076def \n1.31ab \n0.08d \n1.43bcdef \n0.04de \nW2xF1xC1 \n0.07b \n0.46abcd 11285cd 1.20abcd \n0.35bc \n1.66abcde \n0.13bc \nW2xF4xC1 \n0.18a \n0.79ab \n24300ab 1.30ab \n0.59ab \n2.10abc \n0.26a \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.15a \n0.72abc \n17361bc 1.41a \n0.56ab \n2.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 112, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ab \n0.59ab \n2.10abc \n0.26a \nW2xF2xC1 \n0.15a \n0.72abc \n17361bc 1.41a \n0.56ab \n2.13ab \n0.21ab \nW2xF3xC2 \n0.03bc \n0.14cd \n7812def \n1.24abc \n0.06d \n1.39cdef \n0.07cde \nW1xF2xC1 \n0.04bc \n0.18bcd \n7812def \n1.20abcd \n0.35bc \n1.38cdef \n0.06cde \nW1xF4xC2 \n0.03bc \n0.04bcd \n1736def \n0.96bcdef \n0.03d \n1.00ef \n0.03de \nW2xF2xC2 \n0.02bc \n0.12cd \n5208def \n1.12abcde 0.10d \n1.23ef \n0.26a \nW2xF4xC2 \n0.03bc \n0.97a \n8681de \n1.01bcdef \n0.09d \n2.00abcd \n0.06cde \nW2xF3xC1 \n0.19a \n0.87a \n27778a \n1.31ab \n0.67a \n2.18a \n0.28a \nW1xF3xC2 \n0.00c \n0.00d \n0f \n0.78f \n0.00d \n0.78f \n0.00e \nW2xF1xC2 \n0.01bc \n0.04d \n3472def \n0.87ef \n0.03d \n0.92f \n0.03de \nW1xF1xC2 \n0.06c \n0.03d \n2604ef \n0.90def \n0.03d \n0.93f \n0.03de \nW1xF1xC1 \n0.03bc \n0.15bcd \n7812def \n0.96cdef \n0.12cd \n1.12ef \n0.09cd \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.03bc \n0.14cd \n7812def \n1.22", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 112, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \n7812def \n0.96cdef \n0.12cd \n1.12ef \n0.09cd \nW1xF4xC1 \n0.03bc \n0.14cd \n7812def \n1.22ab \n0.10d \n1.36def \n0.07cde \nP value \n< 0.001 0.013 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< \n0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n0.038 \n0.381 \n4905 \n0.176 \n0.14 \n0.423 \n0.052 \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n *W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 112, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "99 \nTreatments with maize mono crop under tied ridging during the LR 2016 had \nhigher harvest index compared to those with maize cowpeas intercrop under flat \nbed. Treatment combination of W2xF3xC1 (0.28) had the highest value for harvest \nindex, an increase of 211.11% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.09). The lowest \nvalue for harvest index was recorded by treatment W1xF3xC2 which had no harvest \nindex because it had no grains. Treatment in W2xF2xC1 (0.21) significantly (P < \n0.05) increased the harvest index more than treatment W1xF1xC2 (0.03). Also \ntreatment W2xF1xC1 (0.13) significantly had higher values for harvest index \ncompared to treatment W2xF1xC2 (0.03) (Table 4.16). \nDuring the LR 2016, treatment with tied ridging plus 20 kg N/ha in maize \nmono crop (W2xF3xC1) gave significantly (P < 0.05) higher yields compared to flat \nbed with 20 kg N/ha in cowpeas intercrop (W1xF3xC2). This means that, maize \nmono crop with 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging increased the yields more than maize \ncowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha under flat bed (Table 4.16). The increased yields \ncould have been as a result of high soil moisture content in tied ridges during the \nlong rains. Tied ridges have the ability to retain surface run-off near the cropped \narea. This in turn could have reduced the risk of erosion and increased water holding \ncapacity of the soil which improved the yields. These results agree with the work \ndone by Hailemariam (2016) who reported that, tied ridges increased sorghum yield \nby 34.5% compared to rain- fed treatment due to increased soil moisture content. \nSimilar observations were made by Uwizzeyimana et al. (2018) who also \nreported significant increase of yields as a result of increased soil moisture. This is \nbecause water plays a key role in crop development. Water shortage in crops limit \ncell division and proliferation which lead to either", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 113, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " et al. (2018) who also \nreported significant increase of yields as a result of increased soil moisture. This is \nbecause water plays a key role in crop development. Water shortage in crops limit \ncell division and proliferation which lead to either lower grain yield or crop failure \n(Muhammed et al., 2015). When there is water shortage, germination percentage", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 113, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "100 \ndecreases significantly lowering the crop yields (Karasu et al., 2015). During the LR \n2016, the total rainfall amount was low (96.0 mm) but the tied ridges effectively \nconserved the little rain received increasing the yields. \nIn addition, Tekle et al. (2014), reported higher yield and yield components \nof pearl millet and rabi sorghum in treatments with higher moisture which improved \nthe plant growth. They attributed this to adequate available soil moisture for crop \nuse. Karasu et al. (2015), also stated that supplementary irrigation resulted to \npositive significant differences in grain and yield components due to increased soil \nmoisture. In related studies in Rwanda, NISR (2007) observed 1.52 t/ha yield under \nrain -fed as opposed to 3.3 t/ha under irrigation. He attributed this to the increased \nsoil moisture in treatments under supplementary irrigation. Higher soil moisture also \nimproves availability of nutrients to crops increasing the yields (Sarkar, 2005 as \ncited by Okeyo et al. (2014). Tied ridges can improve response of crops to rainfall \nand fertilizer soil supply of available N. This leads to increased yields and the \nharvest index (Nuti et al., 2009 as cited by Okeyo et al., 2014). \nTreatment with W2xF3xC1 had significantly (P < 0.05) higher yields than \ntreatment W1xF1xC1 for yield and yield components. This indicates that, maize \nmono crop with 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging resulted to more increased yields as \ncompared to maize mono crop with FYM 0 t/ha under flat bed (Table 4.16). \nSimilarly, treatment W2xF4xC1 recorded significantly higher yields than treatment \nW1xF1xC2. This shows that, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under \ntied ridges led to more increased yields than maize cowpeas inter crop with FYM 0 \nt/ha under flat bed. \nThe increased yields in treatments with maize mono crop compared to those \nwith maize cowpeas intercrop could probably be due to low plant density in mono", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 114, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "101 \ncropped plots, reducing competition for the little water available in the soil hence the \nyields increase. The low yields from maize cowpeas intercropped plots could have \nbeen as a result of high plant density which led to increased water demand for \ngrowth. However, the available water was not adequate to meet this demand which \nconsequently reduced the yields. These findings are in line with work done by \nKarasu et al. (2015) who also observed reduced yields as a result of increased plant \ndensity (Table 4.16). \nDuring LR 2015 and 2016, treatments with application of farm yard manure \nhad very low yields (Table 4.14 and 4.16). This is because the soils were quite dry \nfor any ionization to take place. The little moisture available in the soil was also \nused up by the micro- organisms present in the manure lowering the soil moisture \nwhich in turn reduced the yields (Mansouri et al., 2010). The higher yields in \ntreatments under tied ridges and 20 kg N/ha during the LR 2016 agrees with studies \ndone by Gichagi et al. (2003) who worked in the highland areas of Central Kenya \nand reported that, tied ridging increased both maize and bean yields. Similar \nfindings were also observed by Miriti (2010) who worked in semi-arid region of \nEastern Kenya and reported higher maize grain yield under tied ridges in \ncomparison to the control. Araya and Stroosnider (2010) reported that, maize yield \nunder tied ridges could be increased by 44% over the control. This usually occurs \nduring those years when the rainfall is below average. Tied ridges and mulching \nincreased yield by at least 65% with exceptional amounts of rainfall of about \n549mm (Enfors et al. (2011). \nThe crop failure during the LR 2015 and 2016 could be associated with the \nsevere meteorological drought experienced during the crop growing period. The \ninitiation of the ear and grain filling was greatly affected by the poor rainfall", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 115, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "102 \ndistribution in the two seasons. When drought occurs at the grain filling stage of \nmaize, it reduces photosynthetic rate and impairs assimilate translocation in kernel \nresulting to decreased maize yields (Passioura and Angus 2010). These findings \nconcur with the studies done by Muhammed et al. (2015) who reported that, water \ndeficit and drought decreased both grain yield and biomass production. \nSimilar observations were also made by Ngigi et al. 2006 as cited by Okeyo \net al. (2014) who reported that, in a semi-arid context especially where the soils are \ncoarse textured with low moisture storage, in-situ water conservation may offer no \nguarantee against poor rainfall distribution. This means that, the risk of crop failure \nis only slightly lower than that without any measures. Intra-seasonal and inter-\nseasonal changes in temperature and precipitation affect yields of cereal crops \n(Rowhanil et al, 2011). \nThe potential yield of maize is 6 t/ha (NEMA, 2013). However, this was not \nachieved in this study. This could be attributed to the amount of rainfall received in \neach season which affected the grain filling reducing the yields (Rockstrom et al., \n2010). The differences in yields in the seasons were as a result of variations in the \namount of rainfall received. In addition, the differences in maize grain yield under \ndifferent treatments could be attributed to water availability and fertility status of the \nsoil as influenced by the treatments. \nDuring the SR 2015, the total amount of rainfall was 574.6 mm with 65 rainy \ndays while during the LR 2016 the rainfall was only 96.0 mm with 20 rainy days \n(Table 4.2). This high and well distributed rainfall resulted in higher yields during \nSR 2015 as compared to the low yields in SR 2014, LR 2015 and LR 2016 seasons. \nThe maize stover yield was higher than the grain yield during the seasons when \nrainfall was low. This reflected that, the available soil moisture was only adequate to", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 116, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "103 \npositively enhance maize stover production but not enough for grain formation. \nHowever, during SR 2015, the grain yield was more than the stover yield since the \nrainfall was high. Similar observations were also made by Passioura and Angus \n(2010). \nThe harvest index was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the interaction \nbetween tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems during the LR 2015 and 2016 \nas opposed to SR 2014 and 2015 (Tables 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16). This could have \nprobably been brought about by the differences in the seasonal rainfall. Although the \nmagnitude of the harvest index is heritable, it varies with season, management and \nthe environment. The optimum harvest index for most crops is 0.4 (Passioura and \nAngus (2010). This was achieved during SR 2015 where the highest mean was 0.48 \n(Table 4.15). The harvest index for both SR 2014 and LR 2015 was below the world \naverage mean (0.3-0.5). This could probably be as a result of the low amount of \nrainfall received during these two seasons (Table 4.1) which reduced the biomass \nyield as well as the grain yield. Contrary, during the SR 2015 when the amount of \nrainfall was high (Table 4.2), the harvest index ranged between 0.35-0.46 (Table \n4.15) which was within the world range because the biomass and grain yields were \nhigh. \nThis could be probably due to variations in rainfall amount. Crops that have \ngood water supply during grain filling are able to produce a large biomass which \nmatches with a good harvest index and this explains why treatments with more \nmoisture content had a higher harvest index. In this study, the harvest index matched \nwith the grain yield. When there is presence of good partitioning of dry matter to \ngrain yield is indicated by high harvest index (Passioura and Angus, 2010).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 117, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "104 \n4.7 Effect of Tied Ridges, Farm Yard Manure, Nitrogen Fertilizer and \nCropping Systems on Maize Profitability \nThe variable cost, gross benefit, net profit, gross margin, return to labor and \ncost benefit ratio were significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the interaction between \ntied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems (Tables 4.17 and 4.18). In both SR 2015 \nand LR 2016, treatment combinations with maize mono crop generally exhibited \nhigher values for gross benefit, net profit, gross margin, return to labor and cost \nbenefit ratio than those with maize cowpeas intercrop. However, in both seasons, \ntreatments with maize cowpeas intercrop had increased variable cost in comparison \nto those with maize mono crop. Also treatments with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha \nregistered increased variable cost as compared to treatments without fertilizer \napplication. The gross benefit, net profit, gross margin return to labor and cost \nbenefit ratio was higher during the SR 2015 compared to LR 2016. The cost benefit \nratio during the SR 2015 showed positive returns because the numbers were greater \nthan 1, while during the LR 2016 the returns were negative (the values were less \nthan 1) (Tables 4.17 and 4.18). \n \n4.7.1 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize profitability (Short rains 2015) \nDuring the SR 2015, the highest value for variable cost was observed from \ntreatment in maize cowpeas intercrop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha under tied \nridges (W2xF2xC2) (63,837 Ksh/ha), an increase of 41.78% above the control \n(W1xF1xC1) (45,062 Ksh/ha). The lowest value for variable cost was registered by \nthe control (W1xF1xC1) (45,062 Ksh/ha. Treatment W2xF4xC2 (63,837 Ksh.) had \nsignificantly (P <0.05) higher variable cost than treatment combination of", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 118, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "105 \nW1xF4xC2 (62,294 Ksh.). This means that, maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 \nt/ha + 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging increased the variable cost more than maize \ncowpeas intercrop with an addition of FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under flat bed \n(Table 4.17). This could be probably due to the additional labor cost incurred in \npreparing the tied ridges. \n \nTable 4.17 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on maize profitability (Short rains 2015) \n \nTreatments Total \nvariable \ncost \n(Ksh/ha) \nGross \nbenefit \n(Ksh/ha) \nNet \nprofit \n(Ksh/ha) \nGross \nmargin \n(%) \nReturn \nto labor \nCost \nbenefit \nratio \nW2xF4xC2 \n63,837a \n115,837bcd \n53,543def \n38.34cdefg \n1.13def \n1.86de \nW1xF4xC2 \n62,294b \n112,476bcde 48,638cdef \n40.41abcdef \n1.13def \n1.76de \nW1xF2xC2 \n61,231c \n170,243a \n109,012a \n59.61ab \n2.63a \n2.79abc \nW1xF3xC2 \n60,288d \n105,078cde \n44,790ef \n34.42defgh \n1.04ef \n1.74e \nW2xF3xC2 \n60,858d \n151,484ab \n91,196abcd \n55.48abcd \n2.05abcde 2.52abcd \nW2xF2xC2 \n58,385e \n11,127bcde \n52,742def \n38.12cdefg \n1.15def \n1.90de \nW2xF1xC2 \n57,922e \n84,898de \n26,976f \n24.00efgh \n0.58f \n1.47e \nW1xF1xC2 \n56,379f \n83,319de \n26,941f \n15.88fh \n0.61", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 119, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ",976f \n24.00efgh \n0.58f \n1.47e \nW1xF1xC2 \n56,379f \n83,319de \n26,941f \n15.88fh \n0.61f \n1.48e \nW2xF4xC1 \n54,064g \n120,399bcd \n66,335bcdef \n46.30abcd \n1.61bcdef \n2.23bcde \nW1xF4xC1 \n52,512h \n83,694de \n31,174f \n34.42defgh \n0.73f \n1.60e \nW2xF3xC1 \n50,874i \n109,439cde \n58,925bcdef \n41.2bcde \n1.42cdef \n2.12cde \nW2xF2xC1 \n50,514i \n135,668abc \n85,514abcde 61.38ab \n2.11abcd \n2.71abc \nW1xF3xC1 \n48,971j \n146,056abc \n97,084abc \n63.92a \n2.51ab \n2.98ab \nW1xF2xC1 \n48,611j \n134,479abc \n85,868abcde 57.92abc \n2.21abc \n2.77abc \nW2xF1xC1 \n46,605k \n146,078abc \n99,473ab \n65.2a \n2.47ab \n3.13a \nW1xF1xC1 \n45,062l \n74,102e \n29,041f \n36.11cdefgh 0.67f \n1.64e \nP value \n < 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \ns.e.d \n \n17.03 \n17,094 \n9.15 \no.43 \n \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n*W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t/ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 119, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t/ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop. \n \nAlso treatment combination of W2xF3xC2 (60,858 Ksh.) recorded \nsignificantly higher (P < 0.05) variable cost compared to treatment W1xF3xC1 \n(48,971 Ksh.). This indicates that, maize cowpeas intercrop with 20 kg N/ha under", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 119, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "106 \ntied ridging had more increased variable cost than maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed (Table 4.17). The significantly higher variable cost could be due to \nextra cost incurred in buying cowpeas seeds in the intercrop in addition to maize \nseeds in comparison to the mono crop where only maize seeds were bought. In \naddition, there was increased labor cost in preparing the tied ridges and harvesting \nthe maize cowpeas intercrop as compared to maize mono crop under flat bed. \nThe highest value for gross benefit was recorded by treatment with maize \ncowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed (W1xF2xC2) (170, 243 Ksh/ha), \nwhich is an increase of 129.74% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (74, 102 Ksh/ha). \nThis was followed by maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging \n(W2xF3xC1) (151, 484 Ksh/ha), representing an increase of 104.43% higher than \nthe control (Table 4.17). \nThe highest value for net profit was recorded by treatment with maize \ncowpea intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed (W1xF2xC2) (109,012 Ksh/ha), an \nincrease of 275.37% over the control treatment (maize mono crop without fertilizer \nunder flat bed) (W1xF1xC1) (29,041 Ksh/ha). This was followed by treatment with \nmaize mono crop without fertilizer under tied ridging (W2xF1xC1) (99, 473 \nKsh/ha), showing an increase of 242.53% above the control. However, the lowest \nvalue for net profit was registered by treatment with maize cowpeas intercrop \nwithout fertilizer under flat bed (W1xF1xC2) (26,941 Ksh/ha), a decrease of 7.23% \nbelow the control (29,041 Ksh/ha) (Table 4.17). \nThe highest value for the gross margin during the SR 2015 was recorded by \ntreatment with maize mono crop without fertilizer under tied ridging (W2xF1xC1) \n(65", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 120, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ha) (Table 4.17). \nThe highest value for the gross margin during the SR 2015 was recorded by \ntreatment with maize mono crop without fertilizer under tied ridging (W2xF1xC1) \n(65.2%), a percentage increase of 80.56% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (36.11%). \nThis was followed by treatment in maize mono crop with an addition of 20 kg N/ha", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 120, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "107 \nunder flat bed (W1xF3xC1) (63.92%), indicating a percentage increase of 77.01% \nover the control. The lowest value for gross margin was recorded by treatment in \nmaize cowpeas intercrop without fertilizer under flat bed (W1xF1xC2) (15.88%), a \npercentage decline of 56.02% below the control (36.11%) (Table 4.17). \nDuring the SR 2015, treatment with W1xF2xC2 recorded significantly (P < \n0.05) higher values for gross benefit (105,078 Ksh.), net profit (109,012 Ksh.) and \ngross margin (59.61% Ksh.) compared to treatment W2xF1xC2 (Table 4.17). This \nmeans that, maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha under flat bed led to more \nincreased gross benefit, net profit and gross margin than maize mono crop without \nfertilizers under tied ridging. The significant increase could be probably due to the \nhigher grain and stover yields in treatment with flat bed plus FYM 5 t/ha in maize \ncowpeas intercrop (W1xF2xC2) compared to tied ridging without fertilizer in maize \ncowpeas intercrop (W2xF1xC2) which increased the profit. These findings agree \nwith work done by Barut et al. (2011) who reported increased gross benefit due to \nhigh net profit (Table 4.17). \nSimilarly, treatment combination of treatment W1xF2xC2 had significantly \n(P < 0.05) higher gross benefit, net profit and gross margin compared to treatment \nW1xF1xC2 (Table 4.17). This increase could probably be due to the increased yields \nin treatment with flat bed plus FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF2xC2) \nwhich led to increased income compared to flat bed without fertilizer in maize \ncowpeas intercrop (W1xF1xC2); where yields were low with reduced gross benefit, \nnet profit and gross margin. This reflects the yield advantage of the two crops \ncompared to the mono crop (Dahmardeh et al., 2010). \nGenerally, the return to labor during SR 201", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 121, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " gross benefit, \nnet profit and gross margin. This reflects the yield advantage of the two crops \ncompared to the mono crop (Dahmardeh et al., 2010). \nGenerally, the return to labor during SR 2015 was higher in treatment \ncombinations with maize mono crop than those with maize cowpeas intercrop.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 121, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "108 \nTreatment combination of W1xF3xC1 had significantly (P < 0.05) higher return to \nlabor than treatment W1xF3xC2. This means that, maize mono crop with 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed led to more increased return to labor than maize cowpeas intercrop \nwith 20 kg N/ha under flat bed (Table 4.17). \nAlso treatment in W2xF1xC1 recorded significantly (P < 0.05) higher return \nto labor than treatment W2xF4xC2. This shows that, maize mono crop without \nfertilizer under tied ridging resulted to more increased return to labor than maize \ncowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging. The increased \nreturn to labor in treatments with maize mono crop as opposed to those with maize \ncowpeas intercrop could be probably as a result of the extra labor cost incurred in \nplanting, weeding, spraying and harvesting in the maize cowpeas intercrop as \ncompared with the maize mono crop (Dahmardeh et al., 2010). \nThe highest value for cost benefit ratio during the SR 2015 was registered by \ntreatment in tied ridges without farm yard manure in maize mono crop (W2xF1xC1) \n(3.13), an increase of 90.85% over flat bed without farm yard manure in maize \nmono crop (W1xF1xC1) (1.64). The lowest value for cost benefit ratio was recorded \nby treatment of tied ridging without farm yard manure in maize cowpeas intercrop \n(W2xF1xC2) (1.46), a decline of 18% below the control (W1xF1xC1) (1.64). \nTreatment with W2xF1xC1 (3.13) had significantly (P < 0.05) higher value for cost \nbenefit ratio compared treatment W2xF1xC2. This indicates that, maize mono crop \nwithout farm yard manure under tied ridging had increased cost benefit ratio \ncompared to maize cowpeas intercrop without farm yard manure under tied ridging \n(Table 4.17).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 122, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "109 \n4.7.2 Effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen fertilizer and \ncropping systems on maize profitability (Long rains 2016) \nDuring LR 2016, treatment combinations in maize mono crop had higher \nvalues for gross benefit, net profit and return to labor (Table 4.18). In addition, the \ngross benefit was quite low compared to that of SR 2015 (Table 4.17). This is \nbecause there was crop failure during the LR 2016 as a result of very low rainfall \n(96.0 mm). Most of the treatments had no grains hence it is only the stover yield \nwhich was used to calculate the gross benefit. The variable costs for all the \ntreatments during the LR 2016 were higher than the gross benefit. Consequently, \nthis resulted to loss in net profit (Table 4.18). This implies that, reduced grain yields \nlowered the gross benefit and net profit. \nThe highest value for the gross benefit was observed from treatment with \nmaize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under tied ridging (W2xF2xC1) (723.80 Ksh/ha). \nThis shows an increase of 46.73% above the control W1xF1xC1) (493.4 Ksh/ha). \nThe lowest gross benefit was recorded by treatment in maize cowpeas intercrop with \n20 kg N/ha under flat bed (W1xF3xC2) (401.0 Ksh/ha). This was a decrease of \n18.73% below the control (W1xF1xC1) (Table 4.18).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 123, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "110 \nTable 4.18 Interaction effect of tied ridges, farm yard manure, nitrogen \nfertilizer and cropping systems on maize profitability (Long rains 2016) \n \nTreatments Total \nvariable \ncost \n(Ksh/ha) \nGross \nbenefit \n(Ksh/ha) \nNet \nprofit \n(Ksh/ha) \nGross \nmargin \n(%) \nReturn \nto \nlabor \nCost \nbenefit \nratio \nW2xF4xC2 \n63,837a \n521.1bcdef \n-66,917p \n-13.423 \n-0.57n \n0.007ef \nW1xF4xC2 \n62,294b \n494.8bcdef \n-65,400o \n-13.617 \n-0.6o \n0.007ef \nW1xF2xC2 \n61,231c \n445.3ef \n-6,1540k \n-14.900 \n-0.50k \n0.007ef \nW1xF3xC2 \n60,288d \n401.0f \n-61,944l \n-17.084 \n-0.51l \n0.006f \nW2xF3xC2 \n60,858d \n639.9abc \n-63,249n \n-11.108 \n-0.48i \n0.010cde \nW2xF2xC2 \n58,385e \n569.8abcde \n-62,959m \n-11.413 \n-0.47h \n0.08def \nW2xF1xC2 \n57,922e \n449.8ef \n-59,529j \n-35.725 \n-0.39d \n0.007ef \nW1xF1xC2 \n56,379f \n461.7def \n-57,974i \n-13.257 \n-0.41f \n0.007ef \nW2xF4xC1 \n54,064g \n669.8ab \n-57,509h \n-8.820 \n-0.49j \n0.011abcd \nW1xF4xC1 \n52,512h \n626.0abc \n-56,009g \n-9.254 \n-0.52m \n0.011abcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n50", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 124, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "011abcd \nW1xF4xC1 \n52,512h \n626.0abc \n-56,009g \n-9.254 \n-0.52m \n0.011abcd \nW2xF3xC1 \n50,874i \n671.6ab \n-53,958f \n-8.257 \n-0.40e \n0.012abc \nW2xF2xC1 \n50,514i \n723.8a \n-53,545e \n-8.097 \n-0.38c \n0.013a \nW1xF3xC1 \n48,971j \n676.0ab \n-52,410d \n-8.263 \n-0.42g \n0.012abc \nW1xF2xC1 \n48,611j \n615.3abcd \n-5,211c \n-8.849 \n-0.41f \n0.011abcd \nW2xF1xC1 \n46,605k \n615.3abcd \n-50,105b \n-8.809 \n-0.3a \n0.012abc \nW1xF1xC1 \n45,062l \n493.4cdef \n-48,683a \n-10.734 \n-0.31b \n0.01bcde \nP value \n < 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n< 0.001 \n0.229 \n< 0.001 < 0.001 \ns.e.d \n \n493.4 \n-64.1 \n-6.89 \n0.002 \n \n*Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at P < \n0.05 \n*W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0 t/ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5 t/ha, F3: 20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize-cowpea intercrop. \n \n \nTreatment with maize mono crop plus FYM 5t/ha under tied ridges \n(W2xF2xC1) had significantly (P < 0.05) a higher value for gross benefit compared \nto", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 124, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " intercrop. \n \n \nTreatment with maize mono crop plus FYM 5t/ha under tied ridges \n(W2xF2xC1) had significantly (P < 0.05) a higher value for gross benefit compared \nto maize cowpeas intercrop without fertilizer input under tied ridging (W2xF1xC2) \nduring LR 2016. This means that, maize mono crop with FYM 5 t/ha under tied \nridging decreased gross benefit more than maize cowpeas intercrop without fertilizer \ninput under tied ridging. Also treatment in maize mono crop without fertilizer input \nunder flat bed (W1xF1xC1) registered significantly higher net profit than maize \ncowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under tied ridging (W2xF4xC2).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 124, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "111 \nThis implies that, maize mono crop without fertilizer under flat bed reduced the net \nprofit more than maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under tied \nridging. Similarly, treatment combination of W2xF1xC1 recorded significantly (P < \n0.05) higher return to labor than treatment W1xF4xC2. This shows that, maize \nmono crop without fertilizer under tied ridging led to decreased return to labor more \nthan maize cowpeas intercrop with FYM 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha under flat bed (Table \n4.18). \nDuring the LR 2016, the highest value for the cost benefit ratio was recorded \nby treatment in tied ridging, FYM 5 t/ha in maize mono crop (W2xF2xC1) (0.013), \nan increase of 0.3% above the control (W1xF1xC1) (0.01). The lowest value for the \ncost benefit ratio was observed from treatments with flat bed plus 20 kg N/ha in \nmaize cowpeas intercrop (W1xF3xC2) (0.006), a decrease of 0.36% below the \ncontrol (W1xF1xC1) (0.01) (Table 4.18). Treatment with (W2xF2xC1) recorded \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) higher values for cost benefit ratio compared to treatment \nW1xF2xC2. This shows that, tied ridging plus FYM 5t/ha in maize mono crop \nincreases the cost benefit ratio more than flat bed with FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpea \nintercrop.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 125, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "112 \nCHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS \n5.1 Conclusions \nThe interaction between tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping systems at 0-20 \ncm depth had a significant effect (P < 0.001) on the soil moisture content. At 0-20 \ncm depth, plant density affected the soil moisture content in this study. Applications \nof farm yard manure 5 t/ha improved soil moisture content. An important finding in \nthis study is that, during the SR 2015, tied ridges were not effective in water \nharvesting when the rainfall amount was high hence, the effectiveness of tied ridges \nas a water conservation method in the study area was influenced by the amount of \nseasonal rainfall received and its distribution. \nIn both SR 2015 and LR 2016 seasons, the interaction between tied ridges, \nfertilizers and cropping systems had significant effect (P < 0.001) on plant height, \nplant leaf width and leaf area. Maize mono crop with an addition of 20 kg N/ha \nunder flat bed recorded the highest values for all the growth parameters during SR \n2015. However, during the LR 2016, the highest values for vegetative growth were \nrecorded by treatment in maize mono crop, with an addition of 20 kg N/ha under \ntied ridging. This implies that, application of 20 kg N/ha promoted maize vegetative \ngrowth in both seasons. Also, low plant density in maize mono cropped plots \nresulted to increased vegetative growth. \nA key finding in this study is that, tied ridging was more effective in \npromoting vegetative growth during the LR when the rainfall was low and poorly \ndistributed, whereas flat bed planting was more effective during the SR as a result of \nhigh and well distributed rainfall. High soil moisture and high nutrient levels \nincreased the maize vegetative growth. Therefore, in order to promote vegetative", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 126, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "113 \ngrowth, there is need to apply nitrogen fertilizer in addition to improving soil \nmoisture content. \nThe interaction between fertilizers and cropping systems had significant \neffect (P < 0.05) on the final soil pH. The highest value for the soil pH value was \nrecorded by treatment with FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrops (6.32). \nTherefore, it may be concluded that, application of FYM 5 t/ha resulted to increased \nsoil pH. Also, treatment with FYM 5 t/ha in maize cowpeas intercrop (6.32) resulted \nto optimum pH value for growing maize which ranges from 6-7.2. \nThe percentage N content in maize stovers and grains was significantly (P < \n0.05) affected by the interaction between fertilizers and cropping systems during the \nLR 2016 season. Treatments with maize mono crop had higher percentage of N \ncontent in both stovers and grains. Treatment combination of 20 kg N/ha in maize \nmono crop had the highest N content in both stovers and grains LR 2016 season. \nThis could mean that, the percentage N content in both stovers and grains was \naffected by fertilizer application, cropping systems and rainfall variations within \nseasons. \nThe interactions between tied ridges, fertilizer and cropping systems had a \nhighly significant effect (P < 0.001) on maize grain yield and yield components in \nthe four seasons. This implies that, in maize production, fertilizer application and \ncropping systems are important aspects to be considered in order to improve maize \nyields. The grain yield was higher than stover yield during both SR 2014 and SR \n2015 seasons. However, during the LR 2015 and LR 2016, the stover yield was \nhigher than grain yields meaning that, the amount and distribution of rainfall plays a \nvery key role in determining grain filling. The highest value for the grain yield in the \nfour seasons was recorded during the SR 2015 (3.5 t/ha), by treatment with maize", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 127, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "114 \ncowpeas intercrop with an addition of 5 t/ha FYM under flat bed. The grain yield \nwas higher than what the farmers produce in the study area (0.5 t/ha). It may \ntherefore be concluded that, integrating farm yard manure 5 t/ha with maize \ncowpeas intercrop during the seasons with rainfall above average even without use \nof tied ridges could improve yields in the study area. \nThe slightly improved yield in treatments with maize mono crop in seasons \nwhen the rainfall was low with poor distribution implies that, maize mono crop may \nbe a better option for the farmers in the study area since the rainfall is unreliable in \nmost of the seasons. Therefore, when choosing a cropping system to adopt in the \nstudy area, seasonal rainfall variation and distribution should be put into \nconsideration. \nThe interaction between tied ridges, fertilizers and cropping system \nsignificantly (P < 0.05) affected variable cost, gross benefit, net profit, gross \nmargin, return to labour and cost benefit ratio during SR 2015 and LR 2016 seasons. \nTreatments with maize mono crop resulted to increased gross benefit, net profit, \ngross margin, return to labor and cost benefit ratio in both seasons while treatments \nwith maize cowpeas intercrop had increased labour cost. Application of FYM 5 t/ha \n+ 20 kg N/ha led to increased variable costs. \nThe most economical treatment combination was maize cowpeas intercrop \nwith application of 5 t/ha FYM under flat bed planting during the SR 2015 season. \nDuring the LR 2016 season, the variable costs were higher than the gross benefit \nwhich was a loss meaning that, any technology where the variable costs are higher \nthan the gross benefit lowers the net profit and consequently the gross margin.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 128, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "115 \n5.2 Recommendations \nDuring the seasons when the rainfall amount is adequate and reliable, \nfarmers may adopt maize cowpeas intercrop with application of 5 t/ha FYM under \nflat bed because this combination was the most economical combination in the four \nseasons. However, during the seasons when the rainfall is low, farmers in the study \narea may consider adopting maize mono crop with application of 20 kg N/ha under \ntied ridges. The use of tied ridging in the study area should be restricted to only \nduring the seasons of low rainfall since they are less profitable in seasons with high \nrainfall. The choice of a cropping system to adopt in this study area should be based \non the seasonal rainfall variations. \nThe amount of soil organic carbon in the soil should be maintained at \noptimum levels because it raises the soil pH. Application of farm yard manure could \nbe restricted to seasons of high rainfall since when the rainfall is low, the soil \nmoisture is too low for mineralization to take place. The farmers in the study area \ncould consider application of nitrogen fertilizer only during seasons of low rain fall \nsince the nutrients are readily available for plant use. \nIncreased vegetative growth yields in treatments of maize could be used as \nforage for livestock feeding and also mulching to increase humus in the soil. \nTherefore, there is need to integrate various soil and water management practices \nsince adopting a single technology does not exploit its potential as well as \nincorporating farm yard manure in the soil. However, variations in seasonal rainfall \nshould be put into consideration while choosing the treatment combinations to \nadopt. This is because the success of different technologies in soil and water \nconservation varies with the seasonal rainfall.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 129, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "116 \nFarmers in Machakos County may have to consider using supplementary \nirrigation during low rainfall seasons to avoid crop failure. In addition, mulching or \ncrop residues could also be incorporated with the supplementary irrigation so as to \nminimize water losses through evapotranspiration during the dry spell to improve \nthe yields.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 130, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "117 \nREFERENCES \nAchieng’, J.O., Ouma, G., Odhiambo, G. and Muyekho, F. (2010). Effects of \nFarmyard Manure and Inorganic Fertilizer on Maize Production of Alfisols \nand Ultisols in Kakamega, Western Kenya. Agriculture and Biology Journal \nof North America, 2010, Vol. 1 (4): 430-439. \nAdeleke, M.A., and Haruna, I.M. (2012). Residual Nitrogen Contributions from \nGrain Legumes to the Growth and Development of Succeeding Maize Crop. \nISRN Agronomy, Vol. 2012. \nAdigbo, S.O., Iyasere, E., Fabunmi, T.O., Olowe, V.I.O. and Adejuyigbe, C.O. \n(2013). Effect of Spatial Arrangement on the Performance of Cowpea/Maize \nIntercrop in Derived Savannah of Nigeria. American Journal of \nExperimental Agriculture, 3 (4):12-16. \nAgza, B., Kasa, B., Zewdu, S., Aklilu, E. and Alemu, F., (2012). Animal Feed \nPotential and Adaptability of some Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Varieties in \nNorth West Lowlands of Ethiopia. Wudpecker, Journal of Agricultural \nResearch, 1: 478-483. \nAhmad G., Mehdi D., Barat Ali S. and Mahmoud R., (2010). Effect of Maize (Zea \nmays L.) - Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Intercropping on Light \nDistribution, Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture in Arid. Environment \nJournal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, Vol.8 (1): 102-108. 2010 \nwww.world-food.net \nAkande, M.O, Adediran J.A, and Oluwato yinbo F.I., (2005). Effects of Rock \nPhosphate Amended with Poultry Manure on Soil available P and Yield of \nMaize and Cowpea. African Journal of Biotechnology, 4(3), 444 – 448.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 131, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "118 \nAlbiach, R., Canet, R., Pomares, F. and Ingelmo, F. (2001). Organic Matter \nComponents, Aggregate Stability and Biological Activity in a Horticultural \nSoil Fertilized with Different Rates of Two Sewage Sludges During Ten \nYears. Bioresource Technology, 77(2): 109 - 114. \nAlemu, G. and Bayo, W. (2005). Effects of Farmyard Manure and Combined N and \nP Fertilizer on Sorghum and Soil Characteristics in North Eastern, Ethiopia. \nJournal of sustainable agriculture, 26 (2): 23-41. \nAli, R. and Raouf, S. S., (2012). Effects of Rates and Nitrogen Application Timing \non Yield, Agronomic Characteristics and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Corn. \nInternational Journal of Agricultural Crop Science Vol., 4 (9), 534-539. \n Alvarez, R., and Grigera, S. (2005). Analysis of Soil Fertility and Management \nEffects on Yields of Wheat and Corn in the Rolling Pampa of Argentina. \nJournal Agronomy of Crop Science, 191, 321–329. \nAlvarez, R.A. (2008). Review of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Conservation Tillage \nEffects on Soil Organic Carbon Storage. Soil Use and Management, 21(1): \n38-52. \nAnyah, R.O., and Semazzi F. H.M. (2007). Variability of East African Rainfall \nBased on Multi-year Reg CM3 % Simulations. International Journal of \nClimatology, 27, 357–371. \nAraya, A., and Stroosnijder, L. (2010). Effects of Tied Ridges and Mulch on Barley \n(HordeumVulgare) Rainwater Use Efficiency and Production in Northern \nEthiopia. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 841 – 847. \nAraya, T., (2012). Field Crops Research Medium - Term Effects of Conservation \nAgriculture Based Cropping Systems for Sustainable Soil and Water", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 132, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "119 \nManagement and Crop Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands. Field Crops \nResearch, 132, 53 - 62. \nAshiono, G.B., Ouma, J.P. and Gatwiku, S.W. (2006). Farmyard Manure as an \nAlternative Source in Production of Cold Tolerant Sorghum in the Dry \nHighlands of Kenya. Journal of agronomy, 5(2): 201-204. \nAsim, M., Akmal, M., Khan, A., Alah, F. and Raziuddin. (2012). Rate of Nitrogen \nApplication Influences Yield of Maize at Low and High Population in \nKhyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44 (1): 289 – \n296. \nAsmare.W. (2012). Effect of Tied Ridging and Animal Manure Application on Soil \nMoisture and Grain Yield of Sorghum (sorghum bicolor l.), notrhwollo, \nEthiopia. Unpublished Master’s Thesis submitted to Haremaya University. \nAtreya, K., Sharma, S., and Bajracharya, R.M. (2005). Minimization of Soil and \nNutrient Losses in Maize-Based Cropping Systems in the Mid-Hills of \nCentral Nepal. Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 1, 1-7. \nAune, J.B., and Ousman, A. (2011). Effect of Seed Priming and Micro-dosing of \nFertilizer on Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Western Sudan. Experimental \nAgriculture, 47: 419 – 430. \nAyana Etana, Estefanos Tadesse, Ashenafi, Mengstu, Abubeker Hassen. (2013). \nAdvanced Evaluation of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Accessions for Fodder \nProduction in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural \nExtension and Rural Development, 5(3): 55-61. \nBabalola, O., Oshunsanya, S., and Are, K. (2007). Effects of Vetiver Grass \n(Vetiveria nigritana) Strips, Vetiver Grass Mulch and an Organo - Mineral", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 133, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "120 \nFertilizer on Soil, Water and Nutrient Losses and Maize (Zea mays, L) \nYields. Soil and Tillage Research, 96, 6-18. 419 - 430. \nBaligar, V. C., Fageria, N. K, and. He, Z. L (2001). Nutrient use Efficiency in Crop \nPlants. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7and8), 921–\n950 (2001). \nBaron, J., and Okwach G.E. (2006). Runoff Harvesting for Dry Spell Mitigation in \nMaize: Results from On - Farm Research in Semi-Arid Kenya. Agricultural \nmanagement, 74:1-21. \nBarron, J. (2005). Dry Spell Mitigation to Upgrade Semi-Arid Rain-fed Agriculture: \nWater Harvesting and Soil Nutrient Management for Small-Scale Maize \nCultivation in Machakos, Kenya. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis in Natural \nResource Management. Department of Systems Ecology Stockholm \nUniversity 106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN, pp. 1 - 38. \nBarut, Z., Ertekin, C., and Karaaga, H. (2011). Tillage Effects on Energy Use for \nCorn Silage in Mediterranean Coastal of Turkey. Energy, 36, 5466-5475. \nBasso, B., Sartorid, L., Bertoccod, M., Cammaranoc, D., Martine, E.C., and Grace \nP.R. (2011). Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Site - Specific \nTillage in a Maize Crop in NE Italy. European Journal of Agronomy, 35, 83-\n92. \nBelay A, Classens A.S, Wehner F.C and De Beer J.M. (2001). Influence of Residual \nManure on Selected Nutrient Elements and Microbial Composition of Soil \nunder Long–term Crop rotation. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, \n2001; 18: 1-6. \nBiamah, E.K., Sterk, G. and Stroosnyder, L. (2003). Hydrological effects of tillage \nand farmyard manure on crusting and compacting soils in semi-arid Kenya.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 134, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "121 \nIn J. Tullberg andW. Hoogmoed (Eds.). Soil Management for Sustainability, \nproceeding of 16th international soil tillage research organization \nconference: 150-158. \nBiazin, B., and Stroosnijder, L. (2012). To Tie or Not to Tie Ridges for Water \nConservation in Rift Valley Dry lands of Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage \nResearch, 124, 83-94. 74. \nBirch, C.J., Robertson, M.J., Humphreys, E. and Hutchins, N. (2003). Agronomy of \nMaize in Australia-In Review and Prospect, 45 - 57. \nBloom, P.R., Gollany, H.T., Lewandowski, A., Hansen, N.C., Allan, D. and Cheng, \nH.H. (1999). Generic environmental impact assessment for animal \nagriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to Soil. Minnesota, College of \nAgriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences. \nBoateng SA, Zichermann J, Kornahrens M. 2006. Poultry Manure Effect on Growth \nand Yield of Maize. West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology, 9: 1-. 11. \nBossio, D., Geheb, K., and Critchley, W. (2010). Managing Water by Managing \nLand: Addressing Land Degradation to Improve Water Productivity and \nRural Livelihoods. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 536-542. \nBrady, N. C. and Weil, R. R, (2002). The Nature and Properties of Soils (13th Ed.) \nPearson Education Ltd., USA. \nBreman, H., Groot, J. and van Keulen, H. (2001). Resource Limitations in Sahelian \nAgriculture. Global Environmental Change, (11) 59-68. \nBresson, L. M., Koch, C., Le Bissonnais, Y., Barriuso, E. and Lecomte, V. (2001). \nSoil Surface Structure Stabilization by Municipal Waste Compost \nApplication. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65(6): 1804-1811.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 135, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "122 \nBriggs, L., and Twomlow, S. (2002). Organic Material Flows within a Small-Scale \nHighland Farming System of South West Uganda. Agriculture, Ecosystems \nand Environment, 89, 191-212. \nCakmak, D., Saljnikov, E., Perovic, N., Jaramaz, D. and Mrvic V. (2010). Effect of \nlong-term nitrogen fertilization on main soil chemical properties in \nCambisol. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for Changing \nworld, Brisbane, Australia. \nCarpenter-Bogs, L., Kennedy, A.C. and Reganold, J.P. (2000).Organic and \nBiodynamic Management: Effects on Soil Biology. Soil Science Society of \nAmerica Journal, 64: 1479 - 1486. 1804 - 1811. \nCarruthers, K, Prithiviraj, B, Fe, Q, Cloutier, D, Martin, R.C, Smith, D.L. (2000). \nIntercropping Corn with Soybean, Lupin and Forages: Yield Component \nResponses. European Journal of Agronomy, 12:103-115. \n Castellano, M.J. and David, M.B. (2014). Long - term Fate of Nitrate Fertilizer in \nAgricultural Soils is not Necessarily Related to Nitrate Leaching from \nAgricultural Soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(8): \nE766 - E766. \nCelette, F., Ripoche, A., and Gary, C. (2010). A simple model to simulate water \npartitioning in a crop association: The example of an intercropped vineyard. \nAgricultural Water Management, 97, 1749-1759. \nCentral Bureau of Statistics (2003). Geographic Dimensions of Well - Being in \nKenya. Where are the Poor? From Districts to Locations.Vol.1. CBS, \nMinistry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi, Kenya. \nCFI (Canadian Fertilizer Institute) (1998). Nutrient Uptake and Removal by Field \nCrops. Canadian Fertilizer Institute. Eastern Canada.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 136, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "123 \nChan, Y. (2008). Increasing Soil Organic Carbon of Agricultural Land. Prime Facts. \nProfitable and Sustainable Primary Industries. NSW DPI. \nChandy, K.T. (2010). A Booklet on Farmyard manure. Booklet no. 63. Manures and \nFertilizers. MFS-2/1.www.inseda.org \nChapter 9. P Dryland Eco hydrology, D _Odorico and A. Porporato (eds.), 141-159. \nChen, C., Westcott, M., Neill K., Wichman, D. and Knox, M. (2004). Row \nConfiguration and Nitrogen Application for Barley - Pea Intercropping in \nMontana. Agronomy Journal, 96: 1730-1738. \nChepkemoi J. (2012). Influence of Tillage Practices, Cropping Systems and Organic \nInputs on Soil Moisture Content, Nutrients Status and Crop Yield In \nMatuu,Yatta Sub County, Kenya. Msc. Thesis. \nChristensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, \nR.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. \nMenéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, (2007). Regional \nClimate Projections. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., \nMarquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Climate Change \n.The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth \nAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. \nCambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. \nCIMMYT (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendation: An \nEconomics Training Manual. Completely Revised Edition. Mexico, DF. \nClaessens, L., Antle, J.M., Stoorvogel, J.J., Valdivia, R.O., Thornton, P.K., and \nHerrero, M., (2012).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 137, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Mexico, DF. \nClaessens, L., Antle, J.M., Stoorvogel, J.J., Valdivia, R.O., Thornton, P.K., and \nHerrero, M., (2012). A Method for Evaluating Climate Change Adaption \nStrategies for Small - Scale Farmers Using Survey, Experimental and \nModeled Data. Agricultural Systems, 111, 85 - 95.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 137, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "124 \nClark, A. (Ed.). (2007). Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd edition. Sustainable \nAgriculture Network, Beltsville, MD. \nConant, R.T., Paustian, K. and Elliott, E.T. (2001). Grassland Management and \nConversion into Grassland: Effects on Soil Carbon. Ecological Applications, \n11 (2): 343 -355. \nCooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, Shapiro B, Shiferaw B, and Twomlow S (2008). \nCoping better with Current Climatic Variability in the Rain-fed Farming \nSystems of Sub-Saharan Africa: An Essential First Step in Adapting to \nFuture Climate Change? Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment 126:24–\n35. doi:10.1016/j. agee.2008.01.007. \nCornelis, W.M. 2006. Hydro climatology of Wind Erosion in Arid and Semi-arid \nenvironments, in Dryland Ecohydrology, edited by P. D’Odorico and A. \nPorporato, pp 142-159, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. \nDagg, M., and Macartney, J.C. (1986). The Agronomic Efficiency of the NIAE \nMechanized Tied Ridge System of Cultivation. Experimental Agriculture, \n(4); 279-294. \nDahlmann, C., and Fragstein, N.P.V. (2006). Influence of Different Seed Rates, \nSowing Techniques and N Supply on Grain Yield and Quality Parameters in \nIntercropping Systems. Intercrop 5th Framework Programme of RTD, Key \nAction 5. \nDahmardeh, M., Ghanbari, A., Syahsar, B.A., and Ramrodi, M. (2010). The Role of \nIntercropping Maize (Zea Mays L.) and Cowpea (VignaUnguiculata L.) on \nYield and Soil Chemical Properties. African Journal of Agricultural \nResearch, 5 (8): 631-636.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 138, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "125 \nDejene, M. and Lemlem, M. (2012). Integrated Agronomic Crop Management to \nImprove Teff Productivity under Terminal Drought. In I.M. Rahmand and H. \nHasegawa (Eds). Water stress. Tech Open Science, (2012): 235-254. \nDemeke, A. B. (2003). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Soil Conservation \nPractices in Northwestern Ethiopia. Institute of Rural Development, \nuniversity of Goettingen, pp.73. \nDhima, K. V., Lithourgidis, A. A., Vasilakoglou, I. B., andDordas, C. A. (2007). \nCompetition Indices of Common Vetch and Cereal Intercrop in Two Seeding \nRatio. Field Crop Research, 100: 249 - 256. \nDinnes, D.L., Karlen, D.L., Jaynes, D.B, Kasper, T.C., Hatfield, J.L., Colvin, T.S. \nand Gambardella, C.A. (2002). Nitrogen Management Strategies to Reduce \nNitrate Leaching in Tile - Drained Midwestern Soils. Agronomy Journal, \n94:153 – 171. \nDLFRS, (1984). Fifth Annual Report of the Dryland Farming Research Scheme \n(Phase III). Agricultural Resources Sustainability. Sebele, Botswana. \nDrechsel, P., Giordano, M., and Gyiele, L. (2004). Valuing Nutrients in Soil and \nWater: Concepts and Techniques with Examples from IWMI Studies in the \nDeveloping World. IWMI Research Report 82. International Water \nManagement Institute, Colombo. \nEnfors, E., Barron, J., Makurira, H., Rockström, J., and Tumbo, S., (2011). Yield \nand Soil System Changes from Conservation Tillage in Dry Land Farming: \nA Case Study from North Eastern Tanzania. Agricultural Water \nManagement, 98, 1687 – 1695. \nFageria, N.K. and Baligar V. C. (2005). Enhancing Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crop \nPlants. Advanced Agronomy, 88: 97 - 185.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 139, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "126 \nFang, L.N., Yang, X.D. and Du, J. (2008). Effects of Land Use Pattern on Soil \nMicrobial Biomass Carbon in Xishuangbanna. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue \nBao, 22 (4), 837-844. \nFAO (1970). Soil Map of the World, Volume 1. Paris: UNESCO. \nFAO. (2008). Investing in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification. The Role of \nConservation Agriculture. A Framework for Action. Food and Agriculture \nOrganization of the United Nations, Rome. \nFloor, J. A. (2000). Soil: Erosion and Conservation.www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro \n/soil/ erosion.htm. \nFofana, B., Wopereis, M., Zougmore, R., Breman, H., and Mando, A. (2003). \nIntegrated Soil Fertility Management, an Effective Water Conservation \nTechnology for Sustainability Dry land Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. \nIn: Beukes, D., de Villiers, M., Mkhize, S., Sally, H., van Rensburg, L. \n(Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Water \nConservation Technologies for Sustainable Dry land Agriculture in Sub-\nSaharan Africa (WCT), Bloemfontein, South Africa, 8-11 April 2003.p.109 - \n117. 77. \nFosu, M. (2012). Maize: Production guide for northern Ghana. CSIR - SARI, \nAGRA, ASHC. \nFosu, M., andTetteh, F. (2008). Ghana Soil Health Program (SHP) Country Report, \nAlliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) SHP Business Planning \nProcess. \nFu, B.J., Liu, S.L., Ma, K.M. and Zhu, Y.G. (2004). Relationships between Soil \nCharacteristics, Topography and Plant Diversity in a Heterogeneous", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 140, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "127 \nDeciduous Broad-Leaved Forest near Beijing, China. Plant and Soil, 261: \n47-54. \nGachimbi, L.N, Keulen van H, Thuranira, E.G, Karuku A.M., Jager de A, Nguluu S, \nIkombo BM, Kinama JM, Itabari JK, Nandwa SM (2005) Nutrient Balance \nat Farm Level in Machakos Kenya, Using Participatory Nutrient Monitoring \n(NUTMON) Approach. Land use policy, 22:13-22. \nGao, Y., Duan, A., Qiu, X., Liu, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, J., and Wang, H. (2010). \nDistributions of Root and Root Length Density in a Maize/Soybean Strip \nIntercropping System. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 199-212. \nGhanbari, A., Dahmardeh, M., Siahsar, B. A and Ramroudi, M. (2010). Effect of \nMaize (Zea mays L.) - Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Intercropping on \nLight Distribution, Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture in Arid Environment. \nJournal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, Vol.8 (1): 102 – 108. \nGhosh, P. K., Bandypadhyay, K. K., Wanjari, R. H., Manna, M. C., Mishra, A. K., \nand Mohanty, M. (2007). Legume Effect for Enhancing Productivity and \nNutrient Use Efficiency in Major Cropping Systems - An Indian Perspective: \nA review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 30(1):61 - 86. \nGhoshal, N. (2002). Available Pool and Mineralization Rate of Soil N in a Dry Land \nAgro-Ecosystem: Effect of Organic Soil Amendment and Chemical \nFertilizer. Tropical Ecology, 43(2): 363-366. \nGicheru, P. T., Gachene, C. K. K., and Biamah, E. K. (1998). Effects of Tillage and \nMulching on Soil Moisture Conservation and Crop Production. Applied \nPlant Sciences,", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 141, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ", P. T., Gachene, C. K. K., and Biamah, E. K. (1998). Effects of Tillage and \nMulching on Soil Moisture Conservation and Crop Production. Applied \nPlant Sciences, 12(1), 5 - 9.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 141, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "128 \nGicheru, P.T., Ita, B.N. (1987). Detailed Soil Survey of the Katumani National Dry \nLand Farming Research Station Farms (Machakos District). Kenya Soil \nSurvey, Detailed Soil Survey Report No.D43. \nGikonyo, E.W. and Smithson, P.C. (2004). Effects of Farmyard Manure, K and their \nCombination on Maize Yields in the High and Medium Rainfall Areas of \nKenya. In Bationo, A. (Ed.) Managing Nutrient Cycles to Sustain Soil \nFertility in Sub-Saharan Africa: (pp137-149). Nairobi, Kenya: Academic \nscience publishers. \nGiller, K., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation \nagriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics‟ view. Field \nCrops Research, 114, 23–34. \nGoings, K.A. (1999). Basic Biological Factors of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen. \nNational Soil Survey Centre. Lincoln, Nebraska. \nGovernment of Kenya, (2011). National Food and Nutrition Security Policy. \nAgricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU), Kilimo House, Cathedral \nRoad. \nGovernment of Kenya. (2010). Agricultural Sector Development Strategy, 2010-\n2020. Government of Kenya. \nGoyal, M.R., (2007). Management of Drip/Micro or Trickle Irrigation. Ethiopia. \nMomona Ethiopian Journal of Science, 4(2):52 - 69. \nHaibu N., Mutabuzi K., Senkondo E.M, and Msangi A.S.K, (2006). Economics of \nRain Water Harvesting for Crop Enterprises in Semi-Arid Areas of East \nAfrica. Agricultural Water management, 80: 74 – 86.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 142, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "129 \nHailemariam, A., D. (2016). A review on Effect of Tied Ridging on Crop \nProductivity in Dry Land Agro - ecosystems of Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, \nAgriculture and Healthcare, 6(5), 1–6. \nHammons, J. L. (2009). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization of Corn.Virginia \ncooperative Extension. Publication 424 - 027. Harare, Zimbabwe. 246pp. \nHardter, R. and Horst, W.J. (1991). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use in Maize Sole \nCropping and Maize/Cowpea Mixed Cropping Systems on an Alfisolin the \nNorthern Guinea Savanna of Ghana. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 10: 267 - \n275. \nHardter, R., Horst, W.J., Schmidt, G. and Frey, E. (1991).Yields and Land-Use \nEfficiency of Maize-Cowpea Crop Rotation in Comparison to Mixed and \nMonocropping on an Alfisol in Northern Ghana. Journal of Agronomy and \nCrop Science, 166: 326 - 337. \nHasan, M.R., Akbar, M.A., Khandaker, Z.A., and Rahman, M.M. (2010). Effect of \nNitrogen Fertilizer on Yield Contributing Character, Biomass Yield, and \nNutritive Value of Cowpea Forage. Bangladesh Journal Animal Science, 39 \n(1and 2): 83 - 88. \nHassan, M.H., Marschner, P., McNeill, A. and Tang, C. (2012). Growth, Phosphorus \nUptake in Grain Legume and Changes in Rhizosphere Soil Phosphorus \nPools. Biology and Fertility of Soil, 48: 151 - 159. \nHayashi, T., Abdoulaye, T., Gerard, B., and Bationo, A. (2008). Evaluation of \nApplication Timing in Fertilizer Micro-Dosing Technology on Millet \nProduction in Niger, West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agro ecosystems, 80: \n257 - 265.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 143, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "130 \nHeluf, G. (2004). Grain Yield Response of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to Tied \nRidges and Planting Methods on Entisols and Vertisols of Alemaya Area, \nEastern Ethiopian Highlands. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development \nin the Tropics and Subtropics, 104 (2): 113 – 128. \nHeluf, G.(2003).Grain Yield Response of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to Tied \nRidges and Planting Methods on Entisols and Vertisols of Alemaya Area, \nEastern Ethiopian Highlands. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development \nin the Tropics and Subtropics, vol. 104 (2): 113-128. \nHiggs, B., Johnston, A.E., Salter J.L. and Dawson, C.J. (2002). Some Aspects of \nAchieving Phosphorus Use in Agriculture. Journal of Environmental \nQuality, 29: 80–87. \nHopkins, B.G., Rosen, C.J., Shiffler A.K andTaysom, T.W. (2008). Enhanced \nEfficiency Fertilizers for Improved Nutrient Management of Potato. \nUniversity of Idaho, Aberdeen. \nHulihalli U.K and Patil V.C, (2009). Soil Moisture Content, Yield and Water-use \nEfficiency of Cotton in Relation to in-situ Moisture Conservation Practices \nand Organic Manures under Rainfed Conditions. Annals of Arid Zone, 50(1): \n27-35, 2011. \nICRISAT and UNEP. (1986). Farming Systems Principles for Improved Food \nProduction and the Control of the Soil Degradation in the Arid, Semi-Arid \nand Humid Tropics. Patacheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. \nIkerra, S.T., Semu, E., and Mrema, J.P. (2006). Combining Tithonia Diversifolia and \nMinjingu Phosphate Rock for Improvement of P Availability and Maize \nGrain Yields on a Chronic Acrisol in Morogoro, Tanzannia. Nutrient Cycling \nAgroecosystem,76: 249 – 260.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 144, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "131 \nInnocent M., (2014). Effect of Farm Yard Manure and Mineral Fertilizer on Maize \nYield and Soil properties in Huye and Bugeresera District of Rwanda. Msc. \nThesis, Rwanda. \nInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi - Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). \n(2009). Fertilizer Micro-Dosing Boosting Production in Unproductive \nLands.www.icrisat.org. \nIqbal, M., Khan A.G., Hassan A.U., Raza M.W., and Amjad M. (2012). Soil Health \nIndices: Soil Organic Carbon, Nitrate Contents, Physical Properties and \nMaize Growth as Influenced by Dairy Manure and Nitrogen Rates. \nInternational Journal of Agriculture, 14: 20-28. \nIslam, M. R., Chauhan, P. S., Kim, Y., Kim, M. and Sa, T. (2011). Community \nLevel Functional Diversity and Enzyme Activities in Paddy Soils Under \nDifferent Long - Term Fertilizer Management Practices. Biology and \nFertility of Soils, 47(5): 599 - 604. \nJaetzold, R., Schmidt, H., Hornet, Z. B. and Shisanya, C. A. (2006). Farm \nManagement Handbook of Kenya. Conditions and Farm Information \n(Eastern Province), (11)/C, 2nd Ed. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry Of \nAgriculture/GTZ. \nJones C., Dinkins, C.P. and Olson-Rutz, K. (2011), Nutrient Uptake Timing by \nCrops: to Assist with Fertilizing Decisions. Montana State University, Mo. \nUSA. \nJones, C. and Jacobsen, J. (2001). Plant Nutrients and Soil Fertility. Nutrient \nManagement Module 2. Montana State University, Mo. USA.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 145, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "132 \nJustine Anschütz, Antoinette Kome, Marc Nederlof, Rob de Neef, Ton van de \nandVen. (2003). Water Harvesting and Soil Moisture Retention, Agromisa \nFoundation, Wageningen. \nKapanen, A. and Itavaara, M. (2001). Ecotoxicity Tests for Compost Applications. \nEcotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 49(1): 1 – 16. \nKarasu, A., Kușcu, H., Öz, M.,and Bayram, G. (2015). The Effect of Different \nIrrigation Water Levels on Grain Yield, Yield Components and Some \nQuality Parameters of Silage Maize in Marmararegion of Turkey. Notulae \nBotanicae \nHorti \nAgrobotanici \nClujeană-Napoca, \n43(1), \n138–145. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha4319602. \nKaruma, A., Mtakwa, P., Amuri, N., Gachene, C.K., and Gicheru, P. (2014). \nEnhancing Soil Water Content for Increased Food Production in Semi-Arid \nAreas of Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6 (4): 125 – 134. \nKathuli, P. and Itabari, J. K. 2014. In-situ Soil Moisture Conservation: Utilisation \nand Management of Rainwater for Crop Production. International Journal of \nAgricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 10 (3): 295-310. \nKaur, K., Kapoor, K., Gupta, K. and Anand, P. (2005). Impact of Organic Manures \nwith and Without Mineral Fertilizers on Soil Chemical and Biological \nProperties under Tropical Conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil \nScience, 168: 117 - 122. \nKeshavarz, A., Mohammadan, N.R., Moraditochae, M., Azarpour, E. and Fekr, A.S. \n(2012). Coping with Drought and Climate Change Project, Environmental \nManagement Agency, Zimbabwe, pp.1-19.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 146, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "133 \nKhurshid, K., Iqbal, M., Arif, M. S., and Nawaz, A. (2006). Effect of Tillage and \nMulch on Soil Physical Properties and Growth of Maize. International \nJournal of Agriculture and Biology, 8(5), 593-596. \nKihara J, Bationo A, Mugendi DN, Martius C, Vlek PLG (2011) Conservation \nTillage, Local Organic Resources and Nitrogen Fertilizer Combinations \naffect Maize Productivity, Soil Structure and Nutrient Balances in Semi-Arid \nKenya. In: Bationo A, Waswa B, Okeyo JM, Maina F, Kihara J (eds) \nInnovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa - vol 1. Exploring the \nscientific facts, p-168p 155. \nKincaid, D. C. (2002). The WEPP Model for Runoff and Erosion Prediction under \nSprinkler Irrigation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural \nand Biological Engineers, 45(1): 67 - 72. \nKogbe, J.O.S. and Adediran, J.A. (2003). Effect of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and \nPotassium Application on the Yield of Maize in the Savannah Zone of \nNigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2(10): 345-349. \nKotschi, J. (2013). A Soiled Reputation: Adverse Effects of Mineral Fertilizers on \nTropical Agriculture, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, WWF Germany. \nLithourgidis, A.S, Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A. and Vlachostergios, D.N. (2011). \nAnnual Intercrops: an Alternative Path Way for Sustainable Agriculture. \nAustralian Journal of Crop Science, 5(4): 396-410. \nLiu, J.H., Z.H. Zeng, L.X. Jiao, Y.G. Hu, Y. Wang, H. Li. (2006). Intercropping of \nDifferent Silage Maize Cultivars and Alfalfa. Acta Agronomica Sinica, \n32:125 - 130. \nLogah, V.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 147, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". Wang, H. Li. (2006). Intercropping of \nDifferent Silage Maize Cultivars and Alfalfa. Acta Agronomica Sinica, \n32:125 - 130. \nLogah, V. (2009). Soil Fertility and Microbial Biomass Carbon, Nitrogen and \nPhosphorus Dynamics under Different Amendments and Cropping Systems", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 147, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "134 \nin Ghana. PhD thesis. Department of crop and soil sciences, Kwame \nNkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, pp 200. \nMacharia, P.N., Kinyamario, J.I., Ekaya, W.N., Gachene, C.K.K., Mureithi, J.G., \nand Thuranira, E.G. (2010). Evaluation of Forage Legumes for Introduction \ninto Natural Pastures of Semi-Arid Rangelands of Kenya. Grass and Forage \nScience 65, 456-462. \nMagid, J. and Kjærgaard, C. (2001). Recovering Decomposing Plant Residues from \nthe Particulate Soil Organic Matter Fraction: Size versus Density Separation. \nBiology and Fertility of Soils, 33(3): 252 - 257. \nMahmoud, E., Nasser, A.E., Robin, P., Nouraya, A.C. and Lamyaa, A.E. (2009). \nEffect of Different Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Cucumber Yield and \nSome Soil Properties. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(4): 408-414. \nMalathesh G.H. (2005). Nutrient Substitution through Organics in Maize. MSc \nThesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dhār ward. \nMandal, B., Majumder, B., Bandyopadhyay, P.K., Hazra, G.C., Gangopadhyay, A., \nSamantaray, R.N., Sishra, A.K. and Chaudhury, J. (2007). The Potential of \nCropping Systems and Soil Amendments for Carbon Sequestration in Soil \nunder Long - term Experiments in Sub - tropical India. Global Change \nBiology, 13: 357 - 369. \nMansouri, C., Modarres,S.A., and Saberali,S.F. (2010).Maize Yield Response to \nDeficit Irrigation during Low-sensitive Growth Stages and Nitrogen Rate \nunder Semi- arid Climatic Conditions. Agricultural Water Management, \n97(1), 12–22. \nManyatsi, A. M., Mhazo, N., Mkhatshwa, M., and Mas", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 148, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "rogen Rate \nunder Semi- arid Climatic Conditions. Agricultural Water Management, \n97(1), 12–22. \nManyatsi, A. M., Mhazo, N., Mkhatshwa, M., and Masarirambi, M. T. (2011). The \nEffect of Different In-situ water Conservation Tillage Methods on Growth", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 148, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "135 \nand Development of Taro (Colocasia esculenta L.). Asian Journal of \nAgricultural Sciences, 3(1), 11-18. \nMarschner P. (2011). Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. 3rd edition. London: \nAcademic Press, pp 135–178. \nMcCown, Maetens, W., Poesen, J., andVanmaercke, M. (2012). How Effective are \nSoil Conservation Techniques in Reducing Plot Run - off and Soil Loss in \nEurope and the Mediterranean Earth Science Reviews, 115, 1-2, 21-36. R. \nL., Hammer, G. L., Hargreaves, J. N. G., Holzworth, \nMcDonagh, J. F., Thomsen, T. B. and Magid, J. (2001). Soil Organic Matter Decline \nand Compositional Change Associated with Cereal Cropping in Southern \nTanzania. Land Degradation and Development, 12 (1): 13 - 26. \nMcNair Bostick, W., Bado, V. B., Bationo, A., Soler, C. T., Hoogenboom, G., and \nJones, J. W. (2007). Soil Carbon Dynamics and Crop Residue Yields of \nCropping Systems in the Northern Guinea Savanna of Burkina Faso. Soil and \nTillage Research, 93(1): 138 - 151. \nMiriti, J. M. (2010). Effects of Conservation Tillage on Soil Properties, Moisture \nConservation and Yield of Maize and Cowpea in Semi-Arid Eastern Kenya. \nPhD Thesis, University of Nairobi. \nMishra, B., Sharma P.K. and Bronson K.F. (2001). Decomposition of Rice Straw \nand Mineralization of Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium in \nWheat Field Soil in Western Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Indian Society of Soil \nScience, 49: 419 – 424. \nMohanty, M., Probert, M.E., Sammi Reddy, K., Dalal, R.C., Subba Rao, A. and \nMenzies, N.W. (2010). Modeling N Mineralization from Green", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 149, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Mohanty, M., Probert, M.E., Sammi Reddy, K., Dalal, R.C., Subba Rao, A. and \nMenzies, N.W. (2010). Modeling N Mineralization from Green Manure and", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 149, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "136 \nFarmyard Manure from Laboratory Incubation Study. 19th World Congress \nof Soil Science, soil solutions for a changing world. Brisbane, Australia. \nMohsin, A.U., Ahmad, J., Ahmad, A. U. H., Ikram, R.M. and Mubeen, K. (2010). \nEffect of Nitrogen Application through Different Combinations of Urea and \nFarmyard Manure on the Performance of Spring Maize. Journal of Animal \nand Plant Science, 195-198. \nMora-Vallejo, A., Claessens, L., Stoorvogel, J., and Heuvelink, G.B., (2008). Small \nScale Digital Soil Mapping in Southeastern Kenya. Catena 76, 1-ISSN 0341-\n8162-P 44 – 53. \nMotsi, K. E., Chuma, E., andMukamuri, B. B. (2004). Rainwater Harvesting for \nSustainable Agriculture in Communal Lands of Zimbabwe. Physics and \nChemistry \nof \nthe \nEarth, \n29(15-18), \n1069-1079. \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2004.08.008. \nMubarak, A.R., Gali, E.A.M., Mohamad, A.G., Steffens, D. and Awadelkarim, A.H. \n(2010). Nitrogen Mineralization from Five Manures as Influenced by \nChemical Composition and Soil Type. Communications in Soil Science and \nPlant Analysis, 41(10): 1903-1920. \nMucheru-Muna, M.M, Pypers, P., Mugendi, D.N. Kungu, J., Mugwe, J. Merck, R., \nand Vanlauwe, B. (2010). A Staggered Maize-Legume Intercrop \nArrangement Robustly Increases Crop Yields and Economic Returns in the \nHighlands of Central Kenya. Field Crops Research, 115, 132-139. \nMugendi, D.N., Nair, P.K.R., Mugwe, J’N., O‟Neill M.K. and Woomer, P. (1999). \nCalliandra and", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 150, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 132-139. \nMugendi, D.N., Nair, P.K.R., Mugwe, J’N., O‟Neill M.K. and Woomer, P. (1999). \nCalliandra and Leucaena Alley Cropped with Maize. Part 1. Soil Fertility \nChanges and Maize Production in the Sub-Humid Highlands of Kenya. \nAgroforestry Systems 46:39 - 50.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 150, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "137 \nMuhammad, A., Muhammad, A., M., and Cengiz, R. (2015). Drought Stress in \nMaize (Zea mays L.) Effects, Resistance Mechanisms, Global achievements \nand Biological Strategies for Improvement (pp. 1–79) Netherland: Springer: \nhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-25442-5. \nMuhammad, L., Mwabu (2010). Characterization of Maize Producing Households in \nMachakos and Makueni Districts in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: KARI, D., \nMulwa, R., Mwangi, W., Langyintuo, A., and La Rovere, R., (2010). \nCIMMYT Publication. \nMujdeci, M., Kara, B., and Isildar, A. A. (2010). The Effects of Different soil \nTillage Methods on Water Dynamics. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(21), \n3345 - 3350. \nMutuku, M.M (2017). Factors affecting Small holder Farmers’ Adoption of \nIntegrated Soil Fertility and Water Management Practices in Machakos \nCounty. Msc. Thesis, South Eastern Kenya University. \nMwangi, T.J., Moebe, S.N., Wanjekenche, E., Onyango, R., Ngeny, J. and Osore, Z. \n(2010). Improving and Sustaining Soil Fertility by using Farmyard Manure \nand Inorganic Fertilizer for Economical Maize Production in West Pokot, \nKenya. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6(3):313-321. \nNahm, K.H. (2004). Mineralizing during Poultry Litter Composting and \nCalculations for Available N. Feed and Nutrition Laboratory College of \nNatural Resources, Taegu University, South Korea. \nNareed, Iqbal, K. Asmaut, U. Malik, Umer, F. and Irfan, M. (2010). Effects of \nTillage and Farmyard Manure on Physical Properties of the soil. \nInternational Research Journal of Plant Science, 1 (4): 075-082.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 151, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "138 \nNEMA. (2013). Machakos District Environmental Action Plan 2013, Government of \nKenya. \nNgigi, S., Rockström, J., and Savenije, H.H.G. (2006). Assessment of Rainwater \nRetention in Agricultural Land and Crop Yield Increase Due To \nConservation Tillage in Ewaso Ng”iro River Basin, Kenya. Physics and \nChemistry of the Earth, 31, 910 - 918. \nNgo, P. T., Rumpel, C., Doan, T. T., andJouquet, P. (2012). The Effect of \nEarthworms on Carbon Storage and Soil Organic Matter Composition in \nTropical Soil Amended with Compost and Vermicompost. Soil Biology and \nBiochemistry 50: 214 - 220. \nNISR, 2017.The National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) Seasonal \nAgricultural Survey (SAS) – 2017 Season App 1–42 Kigali ,Rwanda. \nOkalebo, J.R., Kenneth, W.G. andWoomer, P.L. (2002). Laboratory Method \nof Soil and Plant Analysis, Second edition, SACRED Office Nairobi.128p. \nNjihia, C.M. (1979). The Effect of Tied Ridges, Stover Mulch, and Farmyard \nManure on Water Conservation in a Medium Potential Area, Katumani, \nKenya. In: Soil Tillage and Crop Production; Lal R. (Ed). IITA,Ibadan, \nNigeria. 295-302. \nNyssen, J., Poesen, J., and Deckers, J. (2009). Land degradation, soil and water \nconservation in tropical highlands. Soil and Tillage Research, 103, 197 - \n202. \nOkebalama, C. B. (2014). Impact of Targeted Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer \nMicro – Dosing on Maize and Cow Pea Yields Under Two Different \nCropping Systems. PhD Thesis. Kwame Nkuruma University of Science and \nTechnology.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 152, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "139 \nOkeyo A. I., M. Mucheru-Muna, J. Mugwe, K.F. Ngetich,D.N. Mugendi, J. Diels, \nC.A. Shisanya. (2014). Effects of Selected Soil and Water Conservation \nTechnologies on Nutrient Losses and Maize Yields in the Central Highlands \nof Kenya. Agricultural Water Management, 137: 52 – 58. \nOkpara, D.A. (2000). Growth and Yield of Maize and Vegetable Cowpea as \nInfluenced by Intercropping and Nitrogen Fertilizer in the Low Land Humid \nTropics. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment, 2 (2): 188 \n- 194. \nOuattara, K., Ouattara B., Nyberg G., Sédogo, P. M. and Malmer, A. (2007). \nPloughing Frequency and Compost Application Effects on Soil Infiltrability \nin Cotton - Maize (Gossypiumhirsutum – Zea mays L.) Rotation System on a \nFerric Luvisol and a Ferric Lixisol in Burkina Faso. Soil Tillage Research, \n88 (1): 217 – 224. \nOuedrago, E. and Mando, A. (2010). Effects of Tillage and Organic Matter Quality \non Sorghum Fertilizer Use and Water Use Efficiency in Semi-Arid West \nAfrica. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing \nWorld, Brisbane, Australia. \nOuédraogo, E. (2004). Soil Quality Improvement for Crop Production in Semi - arid \nWest Africa. Wageningen University –ISBN, 90-6754-732-8.193 pp. \nPassioura, J. B., and Angus, J. F. (2010). Improving Productivity of Crops in Water - \nLimited Environments. Advances in Agronomy, 106, 37-75. Retrieved from \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)06002 - 5. \nPoggio, S. L. (2005). Structure of Weed Communities Occurring in Monoculture \nand Intercropping of Field Pea and Bar", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 153, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6/S0065-2113(10)06002 - 5. \nPoggio, S. L. (2005). Structure of Weed Communities Occurring in Monoculture \nand Intercropping of Field Pea and Barley. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.109: 48 - \n58.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 153, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "140 \nPowlson, D. S., Gregory, P. J., Whalley, W. R., Quinton, J. N., Hopkins, D. \nW.,Whitmore, A. P., and Hirsch, P. R.(2011). Soil Management in Relation \nto Sustainable Agriculture and Ecosystem Services q. Food Policy, 36, 72 - \n87. \nProbert T, M.E. and Dimes J.P. (2004). Modelling Release of Nutrients from \nOrganic Resources Using APSIM. In: Delve, R.J. andProbert, M.E. Eds. \n2004. Modelling Nutrient Management in Tropical Cropping Systems. \nACIAR Proceedings No. 114:25 - 31. \nRao, K.P.C., Okwach, G.E. (2005). Enhancing Productivity of Water under Variable \nClimate. In: Proceedings of the East Africa Integrated River Basin \nManagement Conference, Sokione University of Agriculture, Morogoro, \nTanzania, 7–9th March, 2–9. \nRockstrom J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S. P., Barron, J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, T., and \nBruggeman, A., (2010). Managing water in rain fed agriculture. The need for \na \nparadigm \nshift. \nAgricultural \nWater \nManagement. \nDOI: \n10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009 \nRockström, J., Barron, J. and Fox, P. (2003). Water Productivity in Rain-Fed \nAgriculture: Challenges and Opportunities for Small - scale Farmers in \nDrought - Prone Tropical Agro ecosystems. Water Productivity in \nAgriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement 85199 (669): 1 - 8. \nRodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Teklehaimanot, Z., and Nugawela, A. (2001). \nIntercropping with Banana to Improve Fractional Interception and Radiation \n- Use Efficiency of Immature Rubber Plantations. Field Crops Research, 69, \n237-249.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 154, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "141 \nRowel, D.L. 1993. Soil Science: Methods and Applications. Department of Soil \nScience, University of Reading, UK. \nRowhani, P., Lobell, D., Linderman, M., and Ramankuttya, N., (2011). Climate \nVariability Crop Production in Tanzania. Agricultural and Forest \nMeteorology 151, 449–460. \nRussell, A.E., Cambardella, C.A., Laird, D.A., Jaynes D.B. and Meek, D.W. (2009). \nNitrogen Fertilizer Effects on Soil Carbon Balances in Midwestern U.S. \nAgricultural Systems. Ecological Applications, 19, 1102-1113. \nRyan, George, E., and Rashid, A. (2001). Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory \nManual. Second edition. Jointly Published by International Center for \nAgricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the National \nAgricultural Research Centre (NARC), pp 46 – 48Agricultural Water \nManagement, 97(4), 543 - 550. \n Sanchez, J. E., Harwood, R. R., Willson, T. C., Kizilkaya, K., Smeenk, J., Parker, \nE., Paul, E. A., Knezek, B. D. and Robertson, G. P. (2004). Managing Soil \nCarbon and Nitrogen for Productivity and Environmental Quality. Agronomy \njournal, 96(3): 769 - 775. Sanchez, P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in \nAfrica. Science, 295, 2019 - 2020. \nSanginga, N., and Woomer, P.L. (2009). Integrated Soil Fertility Management in \nAfrica: Principles, Practices and Development Process. Tropical Soil \nBiology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical \nAgriculture Nairobi, Kenya. \nSarkar, S. (2005). Evapotranspiration and yield response of wheat to irrigation \nfrequencies and fertilizer levels. Indian Society of Soil Science, 53, 54-59.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 155, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "142 \nSDSN. (2013). Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems - Technical \nReport for the Post - 2015 Development Agenda. Thematic Group on \nSustainable Agriculture and Food Systems of the Sustainable Development \nSolutions Network (SDSN), New York. 57. \nSebetha, E. (2015). The Effect of Maize Legume Cropping System and Nitrogen \nFertilization on Yield, Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Moisture. Doctor of \nPhilosophy Thesis. University of KwaZulu-Natal. \nSemple, K. T., Reid, B. J. and Fermor, T. R. 2001. Impact of Composting Strategies \non the Interactions of Soils Contaminated with Organic Pollutants. \nEnvironmental Pollution, 112(2): 269 - 283. \nSeran, T. H., and Brintha, I. (2009). Study on Biological and Economic Efficiency \nof Radish (Raphanussativus L.) Intercropped with Vegetable Amaranthus \n(Amaranthus tricolor L.). Open Hortic. J., 2: 17 - 21. \nSharma, R.A., (1997). Influence of Conjunctive Use of Organics and Fertilizer \nNutrients. Journal of Communication Soil Science Plant Analysis, 32: 921 - \n950. \nShirani, H., Hajabbasi, M.A., Afyuni, M. and Hemmat, A. (2002). Effects of \nFarmyard Manure and Tillage Systems on Soil Physical Properties and Corn \nYields in Central Iran. Soil and Tillage Research, 68: 101-108. \nShisanga, C., Mucheru, M., Mugendi, D., and Kung‟u, J. (2009). Effect of Organic \nand Inorganic Nutrient Sources on Soil Mineral Nitrogen and Maize Yields \nin Central Highlands of Kenya. Soil and Tillage Research, 103, 239 - 246. \nSiderious, W. and Muchena, F.N. (1977). Soils and Environmental Conditions of \nAgricultural Research Stations in Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, National", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 156, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "143 \nAgricultural Laboratories, Kenya Soils. Miscellaneous Soil paper No. Ms, \n1977. \nSilvestri, S., Bryan, E., Ringler, C.,Herrero, M., and Okoba, B. (2012). Climate \nChange Perception and Adaptation of Agro - Pastoral Communities in \nKenya. Regional Environmental Change, 12 (4): 791 - 802. DOI: \n10.1007/s10113 – 012 – 0293 - 6. \nSingh, R. B., Kumar, P. and Woodhead, T. (2002). Small-scale Farmers in India: \nFood Security and Agricultural Policy. RAP Publication 2002/2003. \nBangkok, Thailand, FAO. \nSmith P.D, and Critchley W.R’S (1983). The Potential of Runoff Harvesting for \nCrop Production and Range Rehabilitation in Semi-arid Baringo. In: Thomas \nDB, Senga WM (eds) Soil and Water Conservation in Kenya. Proceedings of \nthe 2nd National Workshop held in Nairobi, 10-13 Mar 1982. IDS \nOccasional Paper No. 42, pp 305-323. \nSnyder KA, Tartowski SL (2006) Multi-scale Temporal Variation in Water \nAvailability: Implications for Vegetation Dynamics in Arid and Semi-arid \nEcosystems. Journal of Arid Environments, 65:219-234. \nSnyman, P.J. (2003). Evaluation of Cropping Systems, Tillage Practices and P \nFertilization for Dry Land Wheat Production in the Westerly Free State. In: \nBeukes, D., de Villiers, M.,Mkhize, S., Sally, H., van Rensburg, L. (Eds.), \nProceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Water Conservation \nTechnologies for Sustainable Dry Land Agriculture in Sub - Saharan Africa \n(WCT), Bloemfontein, South Africa, 8 - 11 April 2003. pp. 191-196. \nSolhi, S., Solhi, M., Sief, A., Aghakhani, A., Farhad, S., Mousari and Jahangir, A.K. \n(2012). Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizers on Nitrate Leaching from a Sal", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 157, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " M., Sief, A., Aghakhani, A., Farhad, S., Mousari and Jahangir, A.K. \n(2012). Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizers on Nitrate Leaching from a Saline Soil", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 157, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "144 \nProfile under Corn and Barley Cultivation. International Research Journal of \nApplied and Basic Sciences, 3(3):563-567. \nSteiner, K. (2002). Crop Residue Management and Cover Crops. African \nConservation Tillage Network Information series No. 3.Harare: ACT. \nStewart, W.M. (2003). A Regional Newsletter Published by the Potash and \nPhosphates Institute of Canada, Texas. \nStolte, J. (2009). Soil Erosion and Nutrient Losses in the Hilly Purple Soil Area in \nChina. Soil and Tillage Research, 105(2), 283 - 284. \nStroosnijder, L. (2009). Modifying Land Management in Order to Improve \nEfficiency of Rainwater Use in the African Highlands. Soil and Tillage \nResearch, 103, 247 - 256. \nTadesse, T., Liben, M., and Asefa, A. (2012). Role of Maize (Zea mays L.) - \nFababean (Vicia faba L.) Intercropping Planting Pattern on Productivity and \nNitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize in Northwestern Ethiopia Highlands. \nInternational Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, \n2(3): 102-112. \nTarkalson, D.D., Van Donk, S.J and Petersen J.L. (2009). Effect of Nitrogen \nApplication Timing on Corn Production Using Sub-surface Drip Irrigation. \nSoil Science, 174: 174-179. DOI. \nTasneem, K., Tariq, M. Kamal, J. and Masood, A. (2004). Effectiveness of \nFarmyard Manure, Poultry Manure and N for Corn Productivity. \nInternational Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 260-263. \nTaye Belachew and Yifru Abera. (2010). Response of Maize (Zea mays L.) to Tied \nRidges and Planting Methods at Goro, Southeastern Ethiopia. American - \nEurasian Journals of Agronomy, 3(1): 21 - 24.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 158, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "145 \nTekle, y (b) (2014). Evaluation of Different Moisture Conservation Practices on \nGrowth Yield and Yield Components of Sorghum at. Journal of Natural \nSciences Research, 4(3), 169–173. \nTolessa, D. and Friesen, D.K. (2001). Effects of Enriching Farmyard Manure with \nMineral Fertilizer on Grain Yield of Maize at Bako, Western Ethiopia. \nSeventh eastern and southern Africa regional maize conference: 335-337. \nTsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. (2005). A Simulation Model of Cereal - \nLegume Intercropping Systems for Semi - arid Regions. Model Application. \nField Crops Research, 93: 23 - 33. \nTsui, C.C., Chen, Z.S. and Hsien, C.F. (2004). Relationships between Soil Properties \nand Landscape Position in a Lowland Rain Forest of Southern Taiwan. \nGeoderma, 123: 131-142. \nTulu, T. (2002). Soil and water Conservation for Sustainable Agriculture. Mega \nPublication Enterprise, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. \nTwomlow, S. J. and Bruneau, P.M.C. (2000). The Influence of Tillage on Semi -arid \nSoil Water Regimes in Zimbabwe. Geoderma 95: 33-51. \nUndie, U. L., Uwah D. F. and Attoe E. E. (2012). Effect of Intercropping and Crop \nArrangement on Yield and Productivity of Late Season Maize/soybean \nMixtures in the Humid Environment of South Southern Nigeria. Journal of \nAgricultural Science, 4:4, 1-98. \nUwizeyimana, D., International Soil and Water Conservation Research (2018), \nhttps: //doi.org/10.1016/j. iswcr.2018.03.002i. \nVanlauwe, B., (2010). Staggered Maize - Legume Intercrop Arrangement Robustly \nIncreases Crop Yields and Economic Returns in the Highlands of Central \nKenya. Field Crops Research, 115, 132 - 139.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 159, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "146 \nVesterager, J.M., Nielsen, N.E., and Høgh - Jensen, H. (2008). Effects of Cropping \nHistory and Phosphorus Source on Yield and Nitrogen Fixation in Sole and \nIntercropped Cowpea - Maize Systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agro ecosystems, \n80(1): 61 – 73. \nWakene, N. Negisho, K., Friesen, D.K., Ransom, J. and Abebe, Y. (2001). \nDetermination of Optimum Farmyard Manure and N P Fertilizers for Maize \non Farmers’ Fields. Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize \nConference: 387-393. \nWakindiki, I.I.C. and Ben - Hur, M. (2002). Indigenous Soil and Water \nConservation Techniques Effects on Runoff, Erosion, and Crop Yields under \nSemi - Arid Conditions. Australia Journal of Soil Research, 40: 367–379. \nWamari, J. O., Sijali, V. I., Kheng, L. H., Miriti, J. M., and Esilaba, A. O. (2012). \nUse of Aquacrop Model to Predict Maize Yields under Varying Rainfall and \nTemperature in a Semi-arid Environment in Kenya. Journal of Meteorology \nand Related Sciences, 6, 23-32. \nWopereis, M.C., Tamelokpo, A., Ezui, K., Gnakpenou, D., Fofana, B. and Breman, \nH. (2006). Mineral Fertilizer Management of Maize on Farmers’ Fields with \nDiffering Inorganic Inputs in the West African Savannah. Field Crop \nResearch, 96: 355-362. www.sciencedirect.com. \nXiao, Y. L, Shi, P. J., Yong, L. S., and Zhi, P.Y. (2006). Influence of Various in Situ \nRainwater Harvesting Methods on Soil Moisture and Growth of Tamarix \nRamosissima in the Semiarid Loess Region of China. Institute of Land \nResources, Beijing Normal University, Beijing.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 160, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "147 \nZhang F, Li L (2003). Using Competitive and Facilitative Interactions in \nIntercropping Systems Enhances Crop Productivity and Nutrient-use \nEfficiency. Plant Soil, 248:305–312. \nZhang, K., Zhang, T., and Yang, D. (2010). An Explicit Hydrological Algorithm for \nBasic Flow and Transport Equations and Its Application in Agro-\nHydrological Models for Water and Nitrogen Dynamics. Agricultural Water \nManagement, 98(1), 114 - 123. \nZhang, S., Grip, H., and Lovdahl, L. (2006). Effect of Soil Compaction on Hydraulic \nProperties of Two Loess Soils in China. Soil and Tillage Research 90 (1): \n117 - 125. \nZhang, X.B., Z.S. (1997). Reducing the Ground Evaporation and using the \nPrecipitation Resource Fully. Bull. Soil Water Conservation 17 (1), 57 – 62. \nZhou, X., Helmers, M. J. and Hanna, H. M. (2009). Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-\nBenefit Analysis of Conservation Management Practices for Sediment \nReduction in an Iowa Agricultural Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water \nConservation, 64 (5), 314-323.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 161, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "148 \nLIST OF APPENDICES \n Appendix 1: Experimental plot lay out \n \nBlock I \nW1xF3xC2 \nW1xF4xC2 \nW1xF2xC1 \nW2xF4xC1 \nW1xF3xC1 \nW1xF4xC1 \nW1xF2xC2 \nW2xF4xC2 \nW1xF1xC1 \nW2xF2xC1 \nW1xF1xC2 \nW2xF1xC2 \nW2xF1xC1 \nW2xF2xC2 \nW2xF3xC2 \nW2xF3xC1 \n \nBlock II \nW2xF1xC1 \nW2xF2xC1 \nW2xF3xC1 \nW2xF1xC2 \nW1xF1xC2 \nW2xF2xC2 \nW2xF3xC2 \nW1xF2xC1 \nW1xF1xC1 \nW2xF4xC2 \nW2xF4xC1 \nW1xF2xC2 \nW1xF4xC2 \nW1xF3xC2 \nW1xF3xC1 \nW1xF4xC1 \n \nBlock III \nW1xF1xC1 \n W1xF4xC1 W1xF2xC2 \nW2xF4xC1 \nW1xF1xC2 \nW1xF4xC2 \nW1xF2xC1 \nW2xF4xC2 \nW1xF3xC2 \nW2xF3xC1 \nW2xF2xC2 \nW2xF1xC2 \nW1xF3xC1 \nW2xF3xC2 \nW2xF2xC1 \nW2xF1xC1 \n \nBlock IV \nW2xF3xC1 \nW2xF1xC1 \nW1xF1xC2 \nW1xF4xC2 \nW2xF3xC2 \nW2xF1xC2 \nW1xF3xC2 \nW1xF1xC1 \nW2xF2xC1 \nW2xF4xC2 \nW1xF3xC1 \nW1xF4xC1 \nW2xF2xC2 \nW2xF4xC1 \nW1xF2xC2 \nW1xF2xC1", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 162, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "149 \nAppendix 2: Treatment combinations \n \nW1xF1xC1 \nW1xF3xC1 \nW2xF1xC1 \nW2xF3xC1 \nW1xF1xC2 \nW1xF3xC2 \nW2xF1xC2 \nW2xF3xC2 \nW1xF2xC1 \nW1xF4xC1 \nW2xF2xC1 \nW2xF4xC1 \nW1xF2xC2 \nW1xF4xC2 \nW2xF2xC2 \nW2xF4xC2 \n*W1: Flat bed planting, W2: Tied ridges, F1: Farm yard manure 0t /ha, F2: Farm \nyard manure 5t/ha, F3: 20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, F4: Farm yard manure 5t/ha + \n20kg nitrogen fertilizer /ha, C1: Maize mono crop, C2: Maize – cowpea intercrop.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 163, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "150 \nAppendix 3: Determination of Nitrogen content in plant samples \nFor the determination of total N in plant tissues, 0.2g of oven dried (700C) \nsamples were weighed into 250ml digestion flask. Then a scoop of mixed catalyzed \n(1g) and 8ml of concentrated sulphuric acid were added. The mixture was shaken \ngently for the acid and the contents to mix properly after which it was placed in a \nKjeldahl digestion block and digestion commenced at low temperatures (1200C) for \none hour. The temperatures were then raised to 3300C and heating continued until \nthe solution became colorless. The contents were then allowed to cool. % N in plant \ntissue was calculated using equation 8: \n \n% N in plant sample = (corrected ml of N/70 HCL x 0.2)/ weight of sample ___ \nEq. 8. \nAbout 25ml distilled water was added and mixed well until no more \nsediment dissolved. It was then allowed to cool and made into 50ml with water. The \nmixture was allowed to settle so that, a clear solution could be taken from the top for \nanalysis. An aliquot of 10mls was taken into a Kjeldahl distillation flask and fixed \ninto the distillation system. Then 10mls of 40% sodium hydroxide was quickly \nadded through the ancillary mouth of the flask; after which distillation was started \ninto the 2% boric acid containing 4 drops of the mixed indicator in a 250ml conical \nflask. The titrate contents were added sulphuric acid 0.01N which made it to turn \ninto pink color from the green color. The same procedure was followed to determine \nthe amount of total nitrogen in the soil samples during initial characterization as \noutlined by Ryan et al., (2001) (Equation 9). \n \n% N is soil sample = (corrected ml of N/140 HCL x 0.1)/ weight of sample __Eq. 9.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 164, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "151 \nAppendix 4: Determination of soil organic carbon \nThe soil organic carbon was determined using modified Walkley and Black \nwet oxidation procedure described by Ryan et al., (2001). Half gram of air-dried soil \nwas passed through 0.5mm sieve and weighed into 500ml wide mouth conical flasks \nand 10ml of 1 N potassium dichromate added into the flasks using a burette. In a \nfume cupboard, 15ml concentrated sulphuric acid was rapidly added directing the \nstream into the suspension. This was followed by the flasks being swirled gently \nuntil all the soil and reagents mixed and thereafter more vigorously for about one \nminute. The contents were then allowed to stand for 30 minutes after which about \n150ml of distilled water was added and the solution allowed to cool. \nThen 10ml 85% orthophosphoric acid was added and finally 10 drops of \ndiphenylamine indicator. The solutions were titrated with 0.5 N ammonium ferrous \nsulphate. Organic carbon was then calculated and expressed as a percentage using as \nusing Equation 10: \n \n% organic carbon = {(V blank – V sample) x 3 x 10-3 x 100}/ Weight____ Eq. 10. \nWhere: V blank = volume (ml) of ferrous ammonium sulphate solution required to \ntitrate the blank.", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 165, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "152 \nAppendix 5: Determination of available Phosphorus in the soil \nFor the determination of available P in the soil, Mehlich l double acid \nextraction method was used (Sonon, 2008; Savoy, 2009). The dried soil was \nextracted in 1:5 ratios (W/V) with a mixture of 0.1N HCL and 0.025 NH2SO4 \nsolutions. The hydrochloric acid was used to replace the bulk exchangeable metal \ncations. Five grams of dried soil was weighed in 50ml polyethylene bottle and 25ml \nof extracting solution was added. This was followed by shaking the suspension for \none hour after which it was transferred into centrifuge tubes and centrifuged for 5 \nminutes. It was then filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper to give a clear \nfiltrate. \nFive milliliters of working standard series, soil extract and blank were \npipetted in test tubes. One milli litre of ammonium vanadate-molybdate mixture was \nadded and thoroughly mixed and its optical density recorded on the UV-visible \nspectrophotometer after an hour at 430nm. To get the concentration of P in the soil \n(ppm), the ppm in solution got from the UV-visible spectrophotometer was \nmultiplied by the dilution factor, which is the ratio of soil sample in grams to the \nextracting solution (this was the ratio 1:5 gotten from 5g of soil sample in 25ml \nextracting solution).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 166, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "153 \nAppendix 6: Determination of Calcium and Potassium in the soil \nIn order to determine calcium and potassium in the soil, Mehlichl double \nacid extraction method was used (Kissel and Sonon, 2008; Savoy, 2009). Five grams \nof soil sample was weighed and put into 50ml polyethylene bottle and 25ml \nextracting solution was added (0.1N HCL and 0.025 N H2SO4). The suspension was \nthoroughly shaken for one hour and then taken to centrifuge tubes where it was \ncentrifuged for 5 minutes and then filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper to \nget a clear filtrate. The concentrations of the cations in the soil extract were \nmeasured using flame photometer. A calibration graph was obtained from the \nworking standard series against elements (in me/100 g soil).", "source": "Soil Moisture Conversation.pdf", "page": 167, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.ae\n215\n1874-3315/18\n2018 Bentham Open\nThe Open Agriculture Journal\nContent list available at: www.benthamopen.com/TOASJ/\nDOI: 10.2174/1874331501812010215, 2018, 12, 215-226\nRESEARCH ARTICLE\nResponse of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize Lethal\nNecrosis Disease and Its Causative Viruses (Sugarcane Mosaic Virus\nand Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus) in Kenya\nJames Karanja\n1,*, John Derera\n2, Augustine Gubba\n2, Stephen Mugo\n3 and Ann Wangai\n1\n1Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, National Agriculture Research Laboratories P. O Box\n14733-00800, Kabete, Nairobi\n2University of Kwa Zulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa\n3International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)-Kenya, ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue-Gigiri,\nand P.O Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya\nReceived: April 12, 2018\nRevised: July 12, 2018\nAccepted: August 7, 2018\nAbstract:\nBackground:\nMaize lethal necrosis (MLN) disease continues to reduce the productivity of maize drastically threatening food security in the\naffected regions. It continues to cause yield loss of 30–100 percent in farmers’ fields, depending on the time of infestation which is\nvalued at $198 million in Kenya. This has not only threatened regional trade, but also seed industry. It has been reported in the major\nmaize belts of Uasin Gishu, Trans-Nzoia, Bomet, Narok and Nandi Counties. MLN is caused by the synergistic interaction between\nSugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV) and Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus (MCMV). The disease has then spread to other Eastern and\nCentral African countries with devastating food security and economic consequences.\nObjectives:\nThis study highlights result after screening selected maize inbred lines for resistance to MLN,", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "otic Mottle Virus (MCMV). The disease has then spread to other Eastern and\nCentral African countries with devastating food security and economic consequences.\nObjectives:\nThis study highlights result after screening selected maize inbred lines for resistance to MLN, SCMV and MCMV in identifying\npromising lines for integration into the breeding program for MLN resistance.\nMethods:\nSixty-five (65) maize genotypes were artificially inoculated using virus strains collected from Bomet County in Kenya at 3-4 leaf\nstage. Data on disease severity and incidence, AUDPC and flowering were recorded.\nResults:\nFrom the result, the inbred lines had significant differences for SCMV, MCMV and MLN reactions. Based on Area Under Disease\nProgress Curve (AUDPC) score and ELISA analysis, genotypes MLN001 and MLN006 have the lowest score of 270, whereas OH28\nhad a maximum at 1259 under MCMV. Genotypes MLN042 and MLN041 were identified as the most promising sources of resistant\nagainst SCMV. However, no genotype was identified to have acceptable levels of tolerance to MLN, but MLN001 and MLN013\nwere identified as the best performers under MLN. This study also validated the presence of MLN tolerance in MLN013\n(CKDHL120312) and MLN001 (CKDHL120918) as earlier reported by CIMMYT. These tolerant genotypes are now serving as\ndonors in the introgression of the tolerance into the Kenyan adapted maize backgrounds and development of improved MLN tolerant\nvarieties. This will go a long way in restoring and ensuring sustainable maize productivity in improving the livelihoods of the\nsmallholder farmers who form 75% of the major maize producers in Kenya.\n* Address correspondence to this author at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, National Agriculture Research Laboratories\nP. O Box 14733-00800, Kabete, Nairobi; Tel: +254721811561; E-mail: jakakah79@gmail.com", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "216 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\nConclusion:\nThe identified inbred lines would be recommended for use in varietal development, MLN management and to enhance maize\nproductivity, in the MLN endemic regions and further research in understanding the mode of gene action for MLN tolerance.\nKeywords: Maize, MCMV, SCMV MLN, Threatening food, AUDPC.\n1. INTRODUCTION\nMaize accounts for > 20% of total agricultural production, and 25% of agricultural employment in Kenya [1]. Thus,\nKenya’s national food security is strongly linked to the production of adequate quantities of maize to meet an increasing\ndomestic demand [2, 3]. The total land area under maize in Kenya is about 1.5 million ha, with 70-80% of maize being\nproduced by small-scale farmers with an average on-farm production of 1.5-2.6 tons per ha.\nThe major biotic causes of stress in maize include Striga a parasitic weed, insect pest, diseases mainly northern corn\nleaf blight, maize lethal necrosis (MLN), Maize streak virus (MSV), and common leaf rust, gray leaf spot (GLS), stalk\nand ear rot.\nMLN is a new disease in Kenya with its first incidences noticed in 2012 [4 - 6]. Earlier the disease was observed in\nKansas, USA, in 1978 Niblett and Claflin where it was identified as corn lethal necrosis (CLN) disease [7]. Both MLN\nand CLN are caused by double infection of maize plants by maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) (Machlomovirus:\nTombusviridae) in combination with any of the cereal viruses in the Potyviridae group, Sugarcane mosaic virus\n(SCMV) (Potyvirus: Potyviridae), Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) or Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV). MCMV\nis transmitted by vectors such as Thrips (Frankliniellawilliamsi Hood) and beetles [8] while SCMV is transmitted by\nAphids [9]. Transmission and spread of MCMV have also been reported", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nis transmitted by vectors such as Thrips (Frankliniellawilliamsi Hood) and beetles [8] while SCMV is transmitted by\nAphids [9]. Transmission and spread of MCMV have also been reported to be through seeds from infected plants [10] at\na rate of 0.0003% which can translate into a high number of infected plants resulting in epidemics. MCMV is a threat\non its own and may cause significant yield loss even in the absence of the other viruses.\nFig. (1). Distribution and losses affiliated by MLN in Kenya.\nSource: De Groote et al,. 2016\nSince its first reports in Bomet county in 2011, the disease has spread into other areas [5] (Fig. 1). Yield losses of up\nto 100% which is an estimated grain loss of 126, 000 metric tonnes valued at $52 million have been reported in Kenya\n[2] while Castillo-loayza [11] reported yield losses of up to 59% due to MCMV in Peru. A survey conducted in the\nmaize growing regions of Kenya in 2013/2014 indicated that 60% of the 2,467 randomly selected samples were positive", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize\nThe Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12 217\nfor MCMV with more than 40% of these being infected with MCMV alone. In DRC, MCMV was detected in 40 to\n80% of symptomatic samples collected from the Beni, Lubero, and Rutshuru territories of North Kivu Province in 2013\n[12, 13]. Other than seed, MCMV has also been reported to be transmitted through soil with 70% of emerging plants\nfound to be infected [12].\nDepending on the maize variety, a number of viruses infecting the plant, part of the plant infected, time of infection\nand prevailing environmental conditions, infected plants show a wide range of symptoms [14]. Common symptoms\ninclude; chlorotic mottle on the leaves usually starting from the base of the young leaves in the whorl and extending\nupwards towards the leaf tips, mild to severe leaf mottling, dwarfing and premature aging of the plants, necrosis of\nyoung leaves in the whorl before expansion leading to a “dead heart” and drying up of the whole plant. Severely\naffected plants form small cobs with little or no grain set. The entire plant can frequently be killed before flowering [5,\n15 - 17] (Fig. 2).\nFig. (2). Disease symptoms of MLN.\nPoor agricultural practices like leaving infected maize crop residues in the field, relay maize planting and maize\nmonoculture aid in inoculum build-up which increases the disease transmission season after season. In addition, poor\ncrop rotation and lack of proper weed management practices has increased maize susceptibility and also aided in\noffering alternative hosts to the vectors where the weeds are susceptible to the MCMV and SCMV. The management of\nMLN disease could be achieved by integrating cultural methods, use of a chemical such as seed dressing and vector\ncontrol with host resistance breeding. However, use of chemicals is uneconomical and environmentally unfriendly,\nespecially among the resource-constrained smallholder maize farmers.\nOther measures include; effective monitoring, rigorous implementation of the maize-free period (at least 3 months),\ntimely planting, and use of certified, MCMV-free seed and crop rotation with non-cereal crops [18]. However, these\n \n \n \n \n \n Dead heart \nPremature drying", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " implementation of the maize-free period (at least 3 months),\ntimely planting, and use of certified, MCMV-free seed and crop rotation with non-cereal crops [18]. However, these\n \n \n \n \n \n Dead heart \nPremature drying \nhusk \nMosaic and mottling \nPremature drying leaf \nsheath \nShorten internodes \nSterile tassel \na \nb \nc \nd \ne \nf", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "218 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\napproaches are difficult to implement in Bomet, Kisii and Narok counties where relay planting of maize is a common\npractice due to frequent rainfalls. Therefore, the most effective control method for MLN, SCMV and MCMV, is the use\nof resistant maize genotypes.\nDevelopment of virus-resistant maize germplasm and hybrids is the most cost-effective and environmentally\nfriendly approach to control disease [19, 20]. The utilization of disease nurseries and trials in the screen houses and field\ninfestation is the easiest approach to screen for MLN resistance in maize.\nThe objective of this study was to identify sources of resistance to MCMV, SCMV and MLN in a set of selected\nmaize genotypes that can support further research for genetic analysis and development of durable resistant maize lines\nand hybrids with good agronomic performance under MLN.\n2. MATERIALS AND METHODS\n2.1. Host plants\nSeeds of 65 selected maize genotypes were obtained from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research\nOrganization (KALRO), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) [21] and USDA, ARS Corn,\nSoybean and Wheat Quality Research Unit (CSWQRU) in Wooster, Ohio. The germplasm was selected based on\nprevious studies and data on resistant to other diseases such as maize streak virus, grey leaf spot, Turcicum leaf blight,\ncommon leaf rust among others and/or which from previous screening showed indications of resistance or tolerance to\nMLN. Four yellow maize lines; P405, OH28, N211 and KS23-6 were used as checks where; PA405 is resistant to\nSCMV but susceptible to MCMV and MLN, OH28 (CI.112-1 X Oh920) X (I11.A x I11.B) which was released in 1943\n[22]. and it is susceptible to Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV), SCMV, Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), Maize\nchlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV), Maize mosaic virus (MMV), and Maize fine streak virus (MFSV) [23 - ", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " (MDMV), SCMV, Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), Maize\nchlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV), Maize mosaic virus (MMV), and Maize fine streak virus (MFSV) [23 - 25, 14]was used\nas a susceptible check while N211 and KS23-6 were used as tolerant checks for both MCMV and MLN [12]. In the\nsecond and third screening, germplasm that had a severity score higher than OH28 in MCMV and MLN were removed,\nleaving only thirty genotypes. Plastic pots measuring 30 cm in diameter filled with autoclaved (heat-sterilized) silt-\nloam soil and manure mix (6:1, v/v) were arranged in a randomized complete block design of three replications. Seeds\nwere sown at a rate of five seeds per pot, giving a total of 15 plants per genotype. Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and\nCalcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) were applied to give 60kgN and 60kgP2O5 ha\n-1 at planting and at 8 weeks after\nplanting (WAP) respectively.\n2.2. Virus isolates/ Inoculum preparation and inoculation\nMCMV and SCMV isolates used in this study were originally collected from Bomet County in South Rift valley in\nKenya and have been maintained at KALRO-Kabete, National Agricultural Research Laboratories (NARL) by serial\npassage on to susceptible maize hybrid H614 in separate greenhouses. Virus strain identity was verified at each passage\ntime inoculum was prepared for a test by also inoculating susceptible maize germplasm OH28 and H614, Sorghum\nbicolor (L.) Moench cv. Atlas and Sart. Atlas and Sart sorghums are resistant to MCMV while Sart is susceptible to\nMDMV and SCMV but resistant to WSMV [16]. As in other crops, it is very difficult to diagnose virus diseases in\nmaize-based solely on symptoms, as these vary significantly based on plant genotype, time of infection, environmental\nconditions and the potential for multiple infections. Therefore, the serological assay, ELISA, was used to check the\nVirus purity, inoculation and disease assessment for MCMV and SCMV.\n", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " plant genotype, time of infection, environmental\nconditions and the potential for multiple infections. Therefore, the serological assay, ELISA, was used to check the\nVirus purity, inoculation and disease assessment for MCMV and SCMV.\nAt 3 to 4 leaf stage (10 days after planting) all plants were mechanically inoculated twice within a 1-week interval\nby rubbing the 2 youngest leaves [26]. Virus inoculum was prepared from freshly harvested infected symptomatic\nyoung plants (infected 10-15 days prior to the main inoculation). Before inoculation, leaves were homogenated in 0.01\nM phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) in 1:8 dilutions and 0.6% of 22µm carborundum were added prior to inoculation. The\ninoculum was kept in ice during inoculation time. The plants were watered daily until all the plants flowered.\n2.3. Symptoms identification/rating\nDisease incidences, severity and 50% days to anthesis (pollen shade) were recorded. Plants were diagnosed for virus\nsymptoms from 7 days post-inoculation (dpi) every 2 days interval up to 56 days, using a 1 to 5 scale, where; 1= no\nsymptoms, 3= mild symptoms and 5= Severe chlorosis (dieback of the plant) (Fig. 3). Included in the diagnoses were\nnotations of whether symptoms were local lesions on inoculated leaves or systemic infections that were limited or\ngeneral and consisted of mosaics, mottles, or flecks and streaks.", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize\nThe Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12 219\nFig. (3). Disease severity rating scale for SCMV, MCMV and MLN in maize.\nDouble-antibody sandwich ELISA (DAS-ELISA) analysis was carried out to confirm virus identity prior to\ninoculation and non-symptomatic plants. 500 mg of tissue were taken from the tip of 6\nth and 7\nth leaf and homogenized in\n2.5 ml of 1x extraction buffer; PBST, pH 7.2 (137 mM NaCl, 3 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 2 mM KH2PO4), containing\n2% BSA and 0.05% Tween 20. The ground samples were placed at –20°C for long-term storage. The samples were\nthawed to room temperature before loading plates. Plates were coated with a 1:1000 dilution of virus-specific IgG\n(1mg/ml) in carbonate coating buffer, pH 9.6, and the secondary antibody; alkaline phosphatase conjugated IgG (1\nmg/ml, Sigma) at a 1:5000 dilution, both of which proved to be optimal in a previous evaluation. After incubation of the\nplates containing a primary antibody for 1 hour at 37°C, the wells were washed with 200 µl of PBST, 200 µl of the\ndiluted samples were added and plates were incubated at 37°C for 1 hour. Washing was done as above and secondary\nantibody was added, plates were incubated for 1 hour at 37°C. Finally, 200 µl of a 0.6 mg/ml solution of p-nitrophenyl\nphosphate (Sigma) was added to each well and color development was allowed to continue for 1 hour at room\ntemperature. ELISA Nunc (Inter Med., Denmark) microtiter plates were used and absorbance was recorded at 405 nm\nin an MR700 Dynatech spectrophotometer (Dynatech, UK). Blank, buffer", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\ntemperature. ELISA Nunc (Inter Med., Denmark) microtiter plates were used and absorbance was recorded at 405 nm\nin an MR700 Dynatech spectrophotometer (Dynatech, UK). Blank, buffer, positive control from the primary inoculum\nand health sample were used on all plates as controls. The readings were carried out at 60 minutes after addition of the\nsubstrate. In cases of doubt, the reading overnight was compared to the reading at one hour. A sample was judged as\npositive when the reading was greater than three times the absorbance value of a healthy (negative) plant extract\nreaction.\n3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS\nAnalysis of variance for each trial and combined analysis across years was performed using Multi-environment\nTrial analysis with R; version 5.0, GenStat 15\nth edition and Breeding management system software, version 3.0.9 to\ndetermine the level of significant difference between genotypes. Area Under the Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC)\nwhich is a better indicator of disease expression over time was calculated on a single plant basis by trapezoidal\nintegration over the whole observation period as follows:\nAUDPC= ∑i[ (DSi + DSi-1) x (ti-ti-1)]/2\nWhere “i” ={6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 31, 38, 45, 56} are the days of observation, “DS” is the disease score\nusing the above severity score of 1 to 5 and “t” represents the number of days post-inoculation [27, 28]. Genotypic\ncorrelations (Rg) between treatments were estimated according to Coopre et al., 1996 as:\nRg = Rp(12)/(H1 x H2)\n1/2\nIn which Rp(12) is the phenotypic correlation between the traits measured in treatments 1 and 2, H1 and H2 are the\nbroad-sense heritability for the trait measured in screen houses 1 and 2, respectively.\n4. RESULTS\nInfection was observed in all the inoculated plants but the maize lines differed significantly (P <", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " H2 are the\nbroad-sense heritability for the trait measured in screen houses 1 and 2, respectively.\n4. RESULTS\nInfection was observed in all the inoculated plants but the maize lines differed significantly (P <0.001) for the\nresistance to SCMV, MCMV and MLN. Disease severity differed significantly with plant growth with first disease\nsymptoms in susceptible genotypes observed at 5 to 6 days post-inoculation (dpi) for SCMV, 10 to12 days for MLN\nand 14 to 15 days for MCMV. Disease severity was rated up to 56 dpi a time at which most of the lines had attained\n50% flowering. There was significant genetic variation (p≤0.001) among the genotypes at 14, 35 and 56 dpi for disease\nseverity, mean disease score and area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) (Figs. 4, 5, 6 and Table 1). Only 17% of\nthe total germplasm screened under SCMV had a mean score < 2.5. Two maize genotypes; MLN041 and MLN 042 had", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "220 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\nthe lowest AUDPC value of 286 compared to mean AUDPC value of 1338.4 for the susceptible germplasm Table 1.\nFig. (4). SCMV disease severity progress for the top performing germplasm (bottom) compared to the susceptible (top) obtained by\nplotting disease severity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).\nFig. (5). MCMV disease severity progress for the resistant germplasm (bottom), tolerant (middle) and susceptible (top) obtained by\nplotting disease severity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).\n \n0.0\n1.0\n2.0\n3.0\n4.0\n5.0\n6.0\n14dpi\n35dpi\n56dpi\nMean Score\nSCMV disease severity (scale 1-5) \nDays post inoculation \nAtlas\nMLN042\nMLN041\nMLN013\nPA405\nMLN028\nMLN019\nMLN020\nMLN056\nCML444\nCML312\nCML442\nCML 539\nOH28\n0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n14dpi\n35dpi\n56dpi\nmean\nMCMV disease severity (scale 1-5) \nDays post inoculation \nMLN001\nMLN006\nAtlas\nMLN012\nMLN016\nMLN008\nMLN007\nN211\nMLN009\nMLN050\nKS23-6\nCML312\nCML444\nCML 539\nCML442\nPA405\nOH28", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize\nThe Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12 221\nFig. (6). MLN disease severity progress for the tolerant germplasm (middle)and susceptible (top) obtained by plotting disease\nseverity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).\nTable 1. Mean performance of 10 lowest in disease severity from among 65 maize germplasm and 5 susceptible checks\nevaluated under SCMV, MCMV and MLN in 2015 P≤ 0.001.\nMCMV\nSCMV\nMLN\nPedigree AUDPC\nDays to 50%\nAnthesis\nDays to 50%\nSilking\nPedigree\nAUDPC\nDays to 50%\nAnthesis\nDays to 50%\nSilking\nPedigree\nAUDPC\nMLN001\n270 a\n71.33 abcdefgh 73.67 abcdefghijk\nAtlas\n286 a\n68 bcdefghijkl\n73.67 defghijklm\nAtlas\n196 a\nMLN006\n270 a\n59.67 abc\n62 abc\nMLN042\n286 a\n66 abcdefghij\n69 abcdefghij\nMLN001\n471.3 ab\nAtlas\n270 a\n70 abcdefgh\n74.33 abcdefghijk MLN041\n288 a\n69 bcdefghijklm\n70.67 bcdefghijklm MLN013\n518 abc\nMLN012\n286 a\n75 bcdefgh\n77 abcdefghijk\nMLN013\n321 ab\n77.33 klm\n80.67 klmn\nMLN006\n535.5 abcd\nMLN016\n287 a\n81 abcdefgh\n83 abcdefghijk\nMLN019\n378 abc\n71.33 cdefghijklm\n70.33 bcdefghijkl\nMLN019\n551.2 bcde\nMLN008\n292 a\n77.33 bcdefgh\n78.67 bcdefghijk\nPA405\n385 abc\n61.67 abcd\n62.67 abcd\nMLN052\n555.9 bcdef\nMLN007\n298 a\n76 bcdefgh\n82.67", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".67 bcdefghijk\nPA405\n385 abc\n61.67 abcd\n62.67 abcd\nMLN052\n555.9 bcdef\nMLN007\n298 a\n76 bcdefgh\n82.67 cdefghijk\nMLN028\n453 abcd\n70.67 cdefghijklm\n73 defghijklm\nMLN016\n565.8 bcdef\nN211\n454 ab\n64.67 abcdefg\n66.33 abcdef\nMLN020\n474 abcde\n63 abcdefg\n60 ab\nMLN018 573.4 bcdefg\nMLN009\n459 ab\n72.33 abcdefgh\n75 abcdefghijk\nMLN056\n566 abcdef\n66 abcdefghij\n70.33 bcdefghijkl\nMLN002 582.8 bcdefgh\nMLN050\n636 bc\n58.33 ab\n59.33 ab\nCML444\n1311 hi\n73.67 ghijklm\n74.33 efghijklmn\nMLN056 601.1 bcdefgh\nKS23-6\n844 cd\n77.33 bcdefgh\n77.67 abcdefghijk CML312\n1323 i\n70 cdefghijklm\n70.33 bcdefghijkl\nKS23-6 606.7 bcdefgh\nCML312 1132 fgh 70.67 abcdefgh 73.33 abcdefghijk CML442\n1326 i\n70.67 cdefghijklm\n73.33 defghijklm\nN211\n663.8 bcdefgh\nCML444 1166 fgh\n84.33 fgh\n86 efghijk\nCML 539\n1363 i\n66 abcdefghij\n68.67 abcdefghij\nCML444 666.8 bcdefgh\nCML 539 1165 fgh 69.33 abcdefgh\n71.33 abcdefghij\nOH28\n1369 i\n69.67 cdefghijklm\n72.33 defghijklm\nCML312 722.2 bcdefgh\nCML442 1178 fgh 76.33 bcdefgh\n75.67 abcdefghijk MLN006 960bcdefghijk\n", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "33 defghijklm\nCML312 722.2 bcdefgh\nCML442 1178 fgh 76.33 bcdefgh\n75.67 abcdefghijk MLN006 960bcdefghijk\n58.67ab\n63.76abcde\nCML 539\n890.2 efgh\nPA405\n1182 fgh 67.33 abcdefgh\n70.67 abcdefghij\nOH28\n913.5 gh\nOH28\n1259 h\n73.33 abcdefgh\n75 abcdefghijk\nCML442\n922.8 h\nMean\n1019.94\n73.099\n76.12\nMean\n1116.7\n69.932\n72.609\nMean\n740.38\ns.e.\n69.15\n5.993\n6.159\ns.e.\n196.7\n3.142\n3.352\ns.e.\n79.94\ncv%\n6.8\n8.2\n8.1\ncv%\n17.6\n4.5\n4.6\ncv%\n10.8\n*Mean followed by the same letters in the same column are nor significantly different from each other at P< 0.001\nThe symptoms were first observed at 14 dpi from the lower leaves and spread slowly to the newly emerging leaves\n \n0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n14dpi\n35dpi\n56dpi\nMean\nMLN disease severity (scale 1-5) \nDays post inoculation \nAtlas\nMLN001\nMLN013\nMLN006\nMLN019\nMLN052\nMLN016\nMLN018\nMLN002\nMLN056\nKS23-6\nN211\nCML444\nCML312\nPA405\nCML 539\nOH28\nCML442", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "222 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\nin the MCMV experiment. At 20dpi, 45% of the germplasm screened had a disease severity score < 3, while at 56dpi,\nonly 15% of the germplasm were <3. Only 9% of the total germplasm in the 2 years period of screening showed\nacceptable levels of tolerance to MCMV. Among the top-performing were; MLN001, MLN006 MLN012, MLN016,\nMLN008, MLN007 and MLN009 which had a disease severity score <2.0 at 56dpi. N211, unlike the others, developed\nsymptoms slowly with the first symptoms been observed at 20 dpi and with moderate symptoms at 56dpi (Fig. 5).\nNearly all plants inoculated with MLN (SCMV and MCMV combined) developed symptoms within 10 dpi. At\n35dpi, 95% germplasm screed had a mean disease severity score of < 2.5. However, symptoms for genotypes MLN001\nand MLN006 developed moderately with a final score of < 3.0 at 56 dpi (Fig. 6). The disease severity on susceptible\ngermplasm was high and reached a maximum score of 5 and highest AUDPC value of >650 Table 1. More than 60% of\ngermplasm under MLN showed stunted growth and dead heart (Fig. 2b) or died before reaching knee height. Since the\nplants were allowed to grow to maturity, >50% of the germplasm did not tussle. For those that managed to produce\ntassel, they did not shed pollen (sterile) (Fig. 2e). Majority of the germplasm did not produce silk. The tolerant\ngermplasm N211, KS23-6, MLN001, MLN006, MLN013 and MLN019 managed to tassel and produced silk. However,\nthe ears were either deformed, partially filled or had husk cover senesced prematurely. If a maize field is infected with\nMLN late in the growing cycle, an increased dry husk (Fig. 2f)", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". However,\nthe ears were either deformed, partially filled or had husk cover senesced prematurely. If a maize field is infected with\nMLN late in the growing cycle, an increased dry husk (Fig. 2f) and a high number of rotten ears are observed (Karanja\net al unpublished).\nOther than Sart and Atlas sorghums, no other germplasm was found to be completely immune to MCMV based on\nELISA tests Table 2. However, N211 and MLN016 can be considered to be moderately tolerant to MCVM given the\nlow ELISA readings Table 2. Moreover, inbred MLN013, MLN041 and MLN019 were found to be resistant to SCMV\nas no virus was detected with ELISA analysis. In germplasm MLN042, MLN020, PA405 and CML 444, SCMV virus\nwere detected when analysed with ELISA suggesting low virus titter hence tolerance to SCMV.\nTable 2. Confirmation of enzymes-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) results for maize germplasm with the lowest and\nhigh disease severity under MCMV and SCMV screening.\nMCMV\nSCMV\nGenotype\nElisa Reading\nReaction Type \na\nGenotype\nElisa Reading\nReaction Type \na\nBuffer\n0.18\nMLN013\n0.09\nR\nAtlas\n0.25\nR\nMLN041\n0.09\nR\nHealth control (*3)\n0.41\nMLN019\n0.09\nR\nMLN006\n0.42\nT\nBuffer\n0.09\nN211\n0.47\nT\nMLN042\n0.1\nR\nMLN016\n0.66\nS\nAtlas\n0.1\nR\nCML442\n0.74\nS\nMLN020\n0.11\nR\nMLN009\n0.74\nS\nPA405\n0.13\nR\nOH28\n0.87\nS\nCML444\n0.15\nR\nMLN007\n0.94\nS\nOH28\n0.2\nT\nMLN001\n0.95\nS\nCML442\n0.23\nT\nCML 539\n1.03\nS\nMLN028\n0.24", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nS\nOH28\n0.2\nT\nMLN001\n0.95\nS\nCML442\n0.23\nT\nCML 539\n1.03\nS\nMLN028\n0.24\nT\nMLN012\n1.03\nS\nCML 539\n0.25\nT\nCML312\n1.09\nS\nCML312\n0.25\nT\nCML444\n1.11\nS\nHealth Control (*3)\n0.26\nPositive control\n1.15\nSart\n0.28\nHighly Susceptible\nCML395\n1.2\nHighly Susceptible\nMLN006\n0.29\nHighly susceptible\nMLN050\n1.25\nHighly Susceptible\nPositive control\n1.07\nHeritability\n0.85\n0.96\nMean\n0.86\n0.2\nLSD0.05\n0.38\n0.08\nCV (%)\n25.17\n22.66\n*Three times the reading for health control;\na R=Resistant; T=Tolerant; S=Susceptible\nHowever, there is a need to use real-time quantitative PCR (RTqPCR) to confirm these given the low sensitivity of\nELISA.\nA negative genetic and phenotypic correlation was observed under MLN between 56 days post inoculation (dpi),\ndisease severity score pooled mean (dspm), Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and 50% days to anthesis", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize\nThe Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12 223\n(Anth) and silking (SLK) Table 3. Most of the plants in MLN experiment were stunted or died resulting in missing data\non anthesis and silking, thus high cv(%) of 51.2 Table 1. However, the majority of plants under SCMV and MCMV\nmanaged to flower despite the severe symptoms even for the checks Table 1.\nTable 3. Genotypic (upper triangle) and phenotypic (lower triangle) correlation estimates for 56 days post inoculation (dpi),\ndisease severity score pooled mean (dspm), Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and 50% days to anthesis (Anth)\nand silking (SLK) measured in the screen house under; a) MCMV, b) MLN and c) SCMV\na) MCMMV\nTraits\n52dpi\ndspm\nAUDPC\nAnth.\nSlk\n52dpi\n1\n0.92***\n0.99***\n0.11*\n0.12*\ndspm\n0.95***\n1\n0.96***\n0.16*\n0.16*\nAUDPC\n0.99***\n0.99***\n1\n0.13*\n0.14*\nAnth.\n0.14*\n0.20*\n0.17*\n1\n0.93**\nSLk\ne\n0.15*\n0.20*\n0.17*\n1.00\n1\nb) MLN\n52dpi\n1\n0.89***\n0.93***\n-0.51**\n-0.60**\ndspm\n0.92***\n1\n0.99***\n-0.48*\n-0.52**\nAUDPC\n0.96***\n0.99***\n1\n-0.51**\n-0.56**\nAnth\n-0.57**\n-0.52**\n-0.56**\n1\n0.80***\nSlk\n-0.73**\n-0.62**\n-0.67**\n0.93***\n1\nc) SCMV\n52dpi\n1\n0.97***\n0.99***\n0.04\nns\n0.08\nns\nMean\n0.97***\n1\n0.99***\n0.03\nns\n", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1\nc) SCMV\n52dpi\n1\n0.97***\n0.99***\n0.04\nns\n0.08\nns\nMean\n0.97***\n1\n0.99***\n0.03\nns\n0.06\nns\nAUDPC\n0.99***\n0.99***\n1\n0.04\nns\n0.07\nns\nAnth\n0.04\nns\n0.03\nns\n0.04\nns\n1\n0.96**\nSlk\n0.09\nns\n0.07\nns\n0.08\nns\n0.98***\n1\n*significant at P<0.05; **significant at P<0.01; ***significant at P<0.001; ns, not significant\n5. DISCUSSION\nThe analysis of disease severity revealed that the genotypic effect of SCMV, MCMV and MLN was highly\nsignificant on all assessment/scoring dates as well as on the pooled mean and AUDPC values. The susceptible\ngenotypes; CML444, CML 312, CML442, CML 539 and OH 28, showed the highest disease scores at all assessment\ndates, pooled mean and AUDPC. Other than Atlas sorghum, no maize genotype was observed to be immune to MLN.\nEvaluation of the germplasm suggests that MLN041 and MLN042 may be carrying the desirable genes for SCMV\nresistance and MLN001, MLN006, MLN016 and N211 for MCMV tolerance. This study has also confirmed that\nPA405 developed in Pennsylvania is tolerant to SCMV strain used in this study. Inbred PA405 was reported to show\ncomplete resistance to MDMV and SCMV inoculation under both field and greenhouse conditions [29] with six major\ngenes conferring resistance to SCMV and MDMV being identified [30 - 34]. Further studies need to be conducted in\nMLN042 and MLN041 to confirm and identify the number of genes conforming to resistance Inbred N211 which\nshowed delayed symptoms expression with the first symptoms appearing at 20 dpi could be considered have partial\ntolerant to MCMV since a low viral load", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " to confirm and identify the number of genes conforming to resistance Inbred N211 which\nshowed delayed symptoms expression with the first symptoms appearing at 20 dpi could be considered have partial\ntolerant to MCMV since a low viral load was detected at 25 dpi using ELISA. The delayed symptoms development in\nN211 was also observed by [12]. Similar observations were also made by Kovacs [35] after screening different maize\ninbred lines and hybrids with MCMV. Nelson [36] also observed that the level of resistance to MCMV varied widely\namong the maize lines screened suggesting that MCMV resistance is controlled by many minor genes. The extended\nincubation period observed in N211 is an indication of the presence of resistance genes which are providing a certain\ndegree of MCMV resistance. Similar results of delayed symptoms were observed under MLN for the inbred N211,\nKS23-6, MLN016 and MLN009. This could be associated to reduce synergistic interaction between SCMV and MCMV\ngave their high level of tolerance to MCMV [37]. Zihao [38] reported that the co-infection of MCMV and SCMV\nincreases the accumulation of MCMV [38]. The accumulation of MCMV genomic RNAs and the expression of MCMV\nCP have been observed to be higher in MLN-infected leaves than single-infected leaves, with no obvious difference\nobserved for SCMV RNA and SCMV CP expression levels between MLN and single-infected leaves [38]. This\nsuggests that the symptoms expression in MLN for the inbred MLN042 and MLN041 were for MCMV given their high\nlevel of resistance to SCMV. This study also validated the presence of MLN tolerance to MLN013 (CKDHL120312)\nand MLN019 (CKDHL140918) as earlier reported by CIMMYT [39]. However, more study needs to be conducted on", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "224 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\nthese germplasm together with N211, KS23-6, MLN001, MLN006, MLN009 and MLN016 to understand the\nmechanism underlying the synergistic interaction between MCMV and SCMV. The failure of >50% of screened\ngermplasm to reach flowering and/or delayed flowering, male sterility, poorly filled cobs and a high number of rotten\nears under MLN trials is an indication of the high impact of the disease on yield.\nCONCLUSION\nThe results presented here reveal that the studied maize germplasm has sufficient variability for response to SCMV,\nMCMV and MLN. SCMV seems to play an important role in increasing MLN symptoms in MCMV susceptible maize\ngenotypes and can be considered as a catalyst to its multiplication. This indicates that in developing MLN\ntolerant/resistant maize varieties, more focus should be on identifying and using SCMV tolerant maize germplasm.\nThese tolerant genotypes are now serving as donors in the introgression of the tolerance into the Kenyan adapted maize\nbackgrounds and development of improved MLN tolerant varieties combined with multiple abiotic and biotic stress\ntolerance traits. This will go a long way in restoring and ensuring sustainable maize productivity and improving the\nlivelihoods of the smallholder farmers who form 75% of the major maize producers in Kenya.\nIn addition, the inbred lines should be used to conduct further research on the mechanism responsible for the healthy\npollen-diseased silk relationship, SCMV and MCMV synergism as earlier suggested by Mikel [40].\nETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE\nNot applicable.\nHUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS\nNo Animals/Humans were used for studies that are base of this research.\nCONSENT FOR PUBLICATION\nNot applicable\nCONFLICT OF INTEREST\nThe authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nWe thank KALRO, CIMMYT and USDA-ARS for providing seeds of inbred lines used in this study. We are\ngrateful to KAP", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nWe thank KALRO, CIMMYT and USDA-ARS for providing seeds of inbred lines used in this study. We are\ngrateful to KAPAP and CIMMYT for proving the funds to support this study.\nREFERENCES\n[1]\nMuasya WNP, Diallo AO. Development of early and extra early drought and low nitrogen-tolerant varieties using exotic and local germplasm\nfor the dry mid-altitude ecology. In: Friesen DK, Palmer AFE, Eds. Proceedings of the seventh eastern and southern africa regional maize\nconference. February 5-11, 2001; Nairobi, Kenya. 2001; pp. 253-9.\n[2]\nGroote Hugo De , Odongo Odendo M. Assessment of Farmers’ Preferences and Constraints to Maize Production in Moist Midaltitude Zone of\nWestern Kenya. October 21-26, 2001; In: 5\nth International Conference of the African Crop Science Society; Lagos, Nigeria.\n[3]\nFood Security Statistics Http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/\n[4]\nAdams IP, Harju VA, Hodges T, et al. First report of maize lethal necrosis disease in Rwanda. New Dis Rep 2014; 29: 22-4.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2014.029.022]\n[5]\nWangai AW, Redinbaugh MG, Kinyua ZM, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus and maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Plant Dis\n2012; 96(10): 1582-3.http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-12-0576-PDN]\n[6]\nWangai A, Kinyua ZM, Otipa MJ, et al. Maize (Corn) Lethal Necrosis Disease . 2012. KARI Information Brochure [ed. by Ministry Of\nAgriculture]\n[7]\nDoupnik B Jr. Status of corn lethal necrosis Proceedings of the 34\nth Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference. Chicago,", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". KARI Information Brochure [ed. by Ministry Of\nAgriculture]\n[7]\nDoupnik B Jr. Status of corn lethal necrosis Proceedings of the 34\nth Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference. Chicago, USA. 1979;\npp. 16-34.\n[8]\nCabanas D, Watanabe S, Higashi CHV, Bressan A. Dissecting the mode of Maize chlorotic virus (Tombusviridae: Machlomovirus)\ntransmission by franliniella williamsi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol 2013; 106: 16-24.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC12056] [PMID: 23448010]", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize\nThe Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12 225\n[9]\nBrandes EW. Artificial and insect transmission of sugarcane mosaic. J Agric Res 1920; 9: 131-8.\n[10]\nJensen SG, Wysong DS, Higley P M. Seed transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1991; 75(5): 497-8.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-75-0497]\n[11]\nCastillo-Loayza J. Maize virus and virus-like diseases in Peru. In: Williams LE, Gordon DT, Nault LR, Eds. In: International Maize Virus\nDisease Colloquium andWorkshop.; OARDC, Wooster, OH. 1976; pp. 40-4.\n[12]\nMahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan\nAfrica. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185]\n[13]\nLukanda M, Owati A, Ogunsanya P, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus infecting maize in the Democratic Republic of the\nCongo. Plant Dis 2014; 98: 1448-9.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-14-0484-PDN]\n[14]\nRedinbaugh MG, Pratt PC. Virus resistance. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake SC, Eds. Handbook of maize: its biology. New York: Springer 2009; pp.\n251-68.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79418-1_13]\n[15]\nNiblett CL, Claflin LE. Corn lethal necrosis - a new virus disease of corn in Kansas. Plant Dis Rep 1978; 62(1): 15-9.\n[16]\nUyem", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "]\n[15]\nNiblett CL, Claflin LE. Corn lethal necrosis - a new virus disease of corn in Kansas. Plant Dis Rep 1978; 62(1): 15-9.\n[16]\nUyemoto JK. Biology and control of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1983; 67(1): 7-10.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-67-7]\n[17]\nUyemoto JK, Bockelman DL, Claflin LE. Severe outbreak of corn lethal necrosis disease in Kansas. Plant Dis 1980; 64(1): 99-100. formerly\nPlant Disease Reporter.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-64-99]\n[18]\nPhillips NJ, Uyemoto JK, Wilson DL. Maize chlorotic mottle virus and crop rotation: effect of sorghum on virus incidence. Plant Dis 1982;\n66: 376-9.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-66-376]\n[19]\nGururani MA, Venkatesh J, Upadhyaya CP, Nookaraju A, Pandey SK, Park SW. Plant disease resistance genes: current status and future\ndirections. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 2012; 78: 51-65.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2012.01.002]\n[20]\nAli F, Yan J. Disease resistance in maize and the role of molecular breeding in defending against global threat. J Integr Plant Biol 2012; 54(3):\n134-51.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2012.01105.x] [PMID: 22333113]\n[21]\nGowda M, Das B, Makumbi D, et al. Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease in\ntropical maize germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 2015; 128(10): 1957-68.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2559-0] [PMID: 26152570]\n[", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Genet 2015; 128(10): 1957-68.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2559-0] [PMID: 26152570]\n[22]\nZambrano JL, Francis DM, Redinbaugh MG. Identification of resistance to maize rayado fino virus in maize inbred lines. Plant Dis 2013; 97:\n1418-23.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-13-0037-RE]\n[23]\nJones MW, Redinbaugh MG, Louie R. The Mdm1 locus and maize resistance to Maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis 2007; 91: 185-90.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-91-2-0185]\n[24]\nLouie R. Vascular pucture of maize kernel for the mechanical transmission of maize white line mosaic-virus and other viruses of maize.\nPhytopathology 1995; 85: 139-683.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-85-139]\n[25]\nMcMullen MD, Louie R. The linkage of molecular markers to a gene controlling the symptom response in maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus.\nMol Plant Microbe Interact 1989; 2: 309-14.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-2-309]\n[26]\nLouie R. Effects of genotype and inoculum protocols on resistance evaluation of maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus strains. Phytopathology\n1986; 76: 769-73.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-76-769]\n[27]\nCampbell CL, Madden LV. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1990.\n[28]\nJegger MJ, Viljanen-Rollinson SLH. The use of the area under the disease-progress curve to assess quantitative disease resistance in crop\ncultivars. Theor Appl Genet 2001; 102: 32-40.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051615]\n[29]\nLouie R, Kno", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " crop\ncultivars. Theor Appl Genet 2001; 102: 32-40.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051615]\n[29]\nLouie R, Knoke JK, Findley WR. Elite maize germplasm: Reactions to maize dwarf mosaic and maize chlorotic dwarf viruses. Crop Sci 1990;\n30: 1210-5.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000060010x]\n[30]\nDussle CM, Melchinger AE, Kuntze L, Stork A, Lubberstedt T. Molecular mapping and gene action of Scm1 and Scm2, two major QTLs\ncontributing to SCMV resistance in Maize. Plant Breed 2000; 119: 299-303.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0523.2000.00509.x]", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "226 The Open Agriculture Journal, 2018, Volume 12\nKaranja et al.\n[31]\nDussle M, Quint M, Xu L, Melchinger E, Lübberstedt T. Conversion of AFLP fragments tightly linked to SCMV resistance genes Scmv1 and\nScmv2 into simple PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 2002; 105(8): 1190-5.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-0964-7] [PMID: 12582898]\n[32]\nGemechu AL, Chiemsombat P, Attathom S, Reanwarakorn K, Lersrutaiyotin R. Cloning and sequence analysis of coat protein gene for\ncharacterization of sugarcane mosaic virus isolated from sugarcane and maize in Thailand. Arch Virol 2006; 151(1): 167-72.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00705-005-0643-5] [PMID: 16195785]\n[33]\nRosenkranz E, Scott GE. Determination of the number of genes for resistance to maize dwarf mosaic virus strain A in five corn inbred lines.\nPhytopathology 1986; 74: 71-6.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-74-71]\n[34]\nUyemoto JK, Claflin LE, Wilson DL, Raney RJ. Maize chlorotic mottle and maize dwarf mosaic viruses; effect of single and double\ninoculations on symptomatology and yield. Plant Dis 1981; 65(1): 39-41.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-65-39]\n[35]\nKovacs G, Gaborjanyi R, Duong HN, Vasdinyei R. Susceptibility of maize inbred lines and hybrids to potyviruses under greenhouse and field\nconditions. Cereal Res Commun 1994; 4: 347-51.\n[36]\nNelson S, Brewbaker J, Hu J. Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus. Plant Dis 2011; 79: 1-6.\n[37]\nRetnos", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 4: 347-51.\n[36]\nNelson S, Brewbaker J, Hu J. Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus. Plant Dis 2011; 79: 1-6.\n[37]\nRetnosari A, Suvia W, Weny N, et al. Full sequence of the coat protein gene is required for the induction of pathogen-derived resistance\nagainst sugarcane mosaic virus in transgenic sugarcane. Mol Biol Rep 2018; 16.\n[38]\nXia Z, Zhao Z, Chen L, et al. Synergistic infection of two viruses MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulations of both MCMV and\nMCMV-derived siRNAs in maize. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 20520.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20520] [PMID: 26864602]\n[39]\nYoseph B, Manje G, Suresh LM, et al. Genetic analysis of tropical maize inbred lines for resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease.\nEuphytica 2017; 213: 224.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-2012-3]\n[40]\nMikel MA, D’Arcy CJ, Rhodes AM, Ford RE. Effect of maize dwarf mosaic virus Infection on sweet corn pollen and silk. Phytopathology\n1982; 72: 428-31.\n[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-72-428]\n© 2018 Karanja et al.\nThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a\ncopy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and\nreproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.", "source": "TOASJ-12-215.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Genetic trends in the\nKenya Highland Maize\nBreeding Program\nbetween 1999 and 2020\nDickson O. Ligeyo 1, Edward Saina 1, Bornface J. Awalla 1*,\nClay Sneller\n2, Walter Chivasa 3, Lennin Musundire 3*,\nDan Makumbi 3, Mable Mulanya 4, Dragan Milic 3,\nSamuel Mutiga 3, Abraham Lagat 3, Biswanath Das 3\nand Boddupali M. Prasanna 3\n1Department of Food Crops and Research Institute, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research\nOrganization, Kitale, Kenya, 2Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University,\nWooster, OH, United States, 3Global Maize Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement\nCenter, (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya, 4Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP), Nairobi, Kenya\nOptimization of a breeding program requires assessing and quantifying empirical\ngenetic trends made through past efforts relative to the current breeding\nstrategies, germplasm, technologies, and policy. To establish the genetic\ntrends in the Kenyan Highland Maize Breeding Program (KHMP), a two-decade\n(1999–2020) historical dataset from the Preliminary Variety Trials (PVT) and\nAdvanced Variety Trials (AVT) was analyzed. A mixed model analysis was used\nto compute the genetic gains for traits based on the best linear unbiased\nestimates in the PVT and AVT evaluation stages. A positive significant genetic\ngain estimate for grain yield of 88 kg ha−1 year−1 (1.94% year−1) and 26 kg ha−1\nyear−1 (0.42% year−1) was recorded for PVT and AVT, respectively. Root lodging,\nan important agronomic trait in the Kenya highlands, had a desired genetic gain\nof −2.65% year−1 for AVT. Results showed improvement in resistance to Turcicum\nLeaf Blight (TLB) with −1.19% and −0.27% year−1 for the PVT and AVT, respectively.\nSimilarly, a significant genetic trend of −0.81", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "cicum\nLeaf Blight (TLB) with −1.19% and −0.27% year−1 for the PVT and AVT, respectively.\nSimilarly, a significant genetic trend of −0.81% was noted for resistance to Gray\nLeaf Spot (GLS) in AVT. These findings highlight the good progress made by\nKHMP in developing adapted maize hybrids for Kenya’s highland agroecology.\nNevertheless, the study identified significant opportunities for the KHMP to make\neven greater genetic gains for key traits with introgression of favorable alleles for\nvarious traits, implementing a continuous improvement plan including marker-\nassisted forward breeding, sparse testing, and genomic selection, and doubled\nhaploid technology for line development.\nKEYWORDS\nmaize, genetic gain, Kenya national breeding program, highland ecology, breeding\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n01\nOPEN ACCESS\nEDITED BY\nMulatu Geleta,\nSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences,\nSweden\nREVIEWED BY\nGurjeet Singh,\nTexas A and M University, United States\nGanapati Mukri,\nIndian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR),\nIndia\n*CORRESPONDENCE\nBornface J. Awalla\njumawalla@yahoo.com\nLennin Musundire\nL.Musundire@cgiar.org\nRECEIVED 12 April 2024\nACCEPTED 10 June 2024\nPUBLISHED 01 July 2024\nCITATION\nLigeyo DO, Saina E, Awalla BJ, Sneller C,\nChivasa W, Musundire L, Makumbi D,\nMulanya M, Milic D, Mutiga S, Lagat A,\nDas B and Prasanna BM (2024) Genetic\ntrends in the Kenya Highland Maize\nBreeding Program between 1999 and 2020.\nFront. Plant Sci. 15:1416538.\ndoi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nCOPYRIGHT\n© 2024 Ligeyo, Saina, Awalla, Sneller, Chivasa,\nMusundire, Makumbi, Mulanya, Milic, Mutiga,\nLagat, Das and Prasanna. This is an open-\n", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Ligeyo, Saina, Awalla, Sneller, Chivasa,\nMusundire, Makumbi, Mulanya, Milic, Mutiga,\nLagat, Das and Prasanna. This is an open-\naccess article distributed under the terms of\nthe Creative Commons Attribution License\n(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction\nin other forums is permitted, provided the\noriginal author(s) and the copyright owner(s)\nare credited and that the original publication\nin this journal is cited, in accordance with\naccepted academic practice. No use,\ndistribution or reproduction is permitted\nwhich does not comply with these terms.\nTYPE Original Research\nPUBLISHED 01 July 2024\nDOI 10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1 Introduction\nMaize (Zea mays L.) is the primary cereal crop in Kenya, covering\napproximately 2.1 million ha of land, whereas over 75% of the area is\ndevoted to cereal production (FAOSTAT, 2013). The majority (~81%)\nof the maize farmers in Kenya are small-scale growers who cultivate\nthe crop on less than 2 ha of land. With a per capita consumption\nrange of 98 kg–103 kg, maize is a major source of staple food calories,\naccounting for 65% and 36% of the total caloric intake by the Kenyan\npopulation (De Groote et al., 2005; Kirimi et al., 2011; Marenya et al.,\n2021). Maize productivity increased from 1.3 t ha−1 in 1979 to 1.5 t\nha−1 in 2021, but the current yield is still far below the global average\nof 5.8 t ha−1 (FAOSTAT, 2013). Furthermore, the current annual grain\nproduction of 3.3 million tons only caters for approximately 75%–80%\nof the country’s demand (Erenstein et al., 2022). The low maize\nproduction in sub-Saharan Africa (and Kenya in particular) stems\nfrom the inability of the small-scale farmers to adopt good agronomic\npractices that would optimize the performance of the improved\nvarieties across agroecologies and overcome the Genotype ×\nEnvironment × Management (G × E × M) interactions (Dao et al.,\n2015; Cairns et al., 2021). Genetic innovations for enhanced crop\nresilience could reduce the G × E × M effects, increasing maize\nproduction by up to 25% (Cairns and Prasanna, 2018).\nDeploying climate-resilient crops and climate-smart\nagricultural practices is critical for closing yield gaps and reducing\nthe high risk and vulnerability, particularly for smallholder farmers\n(Cairns et al., 2021). To minimize G × E × M effects, the Kenyan\nbreeding programs and their partners have focused on development\nof adapted and resilient maize varieties for cultivation across\ndifferent agroecological zones, including the moist transitional\nhighlands, highland tropics, mid-altitudes, moist transitional, dry", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nbreeding programs and their partners have focused on development\nof adapted and resilient maize varieties for cultivation across\ndifferent agroecological zones, including the moist transitional\nhighlands, highland tropics, mid-altitudes, moist transitional, dry-\ntransitional, dry mid-altitudes, and tropical lowlands agroecologies\n(Jatzold and Kutsch, 1982; Miruka et al., 2012; De Groote et al.,\n2023). The highland agroecological zone (1,700 m to 2,300 m above\nsea level, masl; mean annual rainfall of 1,000 mm to 1,800 mm) is\nimportant to Kenyan food security because it is less prone to\ndrought, heat, and flooding than other zones (Kostandini et al.,\n2013). The highlands agroecological zone covers 12% of the maize\narea and produces approximately one-third of the maize grain in\nKenya (De Groote and Omondi, 2023). A recent analysis of the\npotential effects of climate change shows that maize yields will\nreduce by 10%–20% in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) by 2050 but the\nyield potential in the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia will increase\ndue to an increase in temperature (Philip et al., 2010; Cairns et al.,\n2013; Tesfaye et al., 2015). Unfortunately, the area classified as\nhighlands in Kenya will decrease by 35% due to climate change\n(Tesfaye et al., 2015). Increasing maize yields in farmers’ fields\nrequires an integrated approach of various interventions, including\nincreased adoption of new climate-resilient varieties, access by\nsmallholders to the seed of improved varieties, increased fertilizer\nuse, adoption of new agronomic management practices, and\nsupportive policies (Cairns et al., 2021).\nThe Kenyan Highland Maize Program (KHMP) focuses on\ndeveloping improved varieties for the highlands and is one of the six\nmaize improvement initiatives of the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock\nResearch Organization (KALRO) (Miruka et al., 2012; Schroeder et al.,\n2013). The program began with informal maize breeding operations in\nthe 1930", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " improvement initiatives of the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock\nResearch Organization (KALRO) (Miruka et al., 2012; Schroeder et al.,\n2013). The program began with informal maize breeding operations in\nthe 1930s at Njoro in Nakuru and was streamlined when the operations\nwere relocated to Kitale in 1955 (Gerhart 1975). The initial core\nactivities involved collections of suitable local white kernel parental\ngermplasm, which was used to develop the first two synthetic varieties,\nKitale Synthetic I (KSI) and Kitale Synthetic II (KSII), at Kitale in 1955\n(Harrison, 1970). To strengthen the breeding pool, additional new\ngenetic stocks were also introduced from similar agroecologies of\nCentral and Southern America (e.g., the Ecuadorian landrace,\nEcuador 573 and Costa Rica 296) through the International Maize\nand Improvement Center (CIMMYT) (Harrison, 1970). The imported\ngermplasm was used to develop the first maize hybrids (e.g., H611\ndeveloped from Ecuador 573 × KSII and released in 1964), which had\nhigher heterosis for grain yield (140%) than the earlier synthetic\nvarieties (Darrah et al., 1972, 1978). KHMP uses Ecuador 573 and\nKSII as the heterotic groups in well-defined hybrid development\npipelines (Wende et al., 2018).\nIn the last three decades, 394 improved maize varieties have been\nreleased in Kenya, with 87 (22%) coming from the KALRO maize\nbreeding programs; 17 of the 394 varieties (4%) originate from the\nKHMP (KEPHIS, 2023). A high (80%–95%) rate of adoption of\ncertified seed in the Kenyan highlands has been achieved through\nvarietal development, advocacy, and marketing programs, which are\nimplemented by KALRO, the Kenya Seed Company Limited (a\nparastatal with a mandate for certified seed production and\nmarketing), international partners, and other private seed\ncompanies (Smale and Olwande, 2011; Wang et al., 2017).\nAssessing genetic trends for the major traits can provide\n", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "fied seed production and\nmarketing), international partners, and other private seed\ncompanies (Smale and Olwande, 2011; Wang et al., 2017).\nAssessing genetic trends for the major traits can provide\ninsights into optimizing the pipelines to enhance genetic gains\nfor traits of interest to a breeding program (Khanna et al., 2022).\nBreeders can assess the response or gain in a breeding program by\nusing “the breeder’s equation” (Eberhart, 1970; Xu et al., 2017).\nThe breeder’s equation estimates potential genetic gains in a\npopulation undergoing cycles of selection and recombination\nand is based on estimates of variances (Falconer and Mackay,\n1996; Rutkoski et al., 2022). Recent interest has been in assessing\nthe genetic gains in breeding programs that are not entirely\nfocused on population improvement through selection cycles\n(Badu-Apraku et al., 2015). There are limited studies on genetic\ngains in the highlands breeding programs in Africa. A previous\ngenetic gain report for the KHMP was published in the 1970s\nbased on older highland maize genotypes, some of which were\nprogenitor populations of the germplasm used in this study\n(Eberhart and Harrison, 1973). Kebede et al. (2020) reported\ngenetic gains of 16.26 kg ha−1 year−1 for GY in Ethiopia’s\nhighland maize breeding program. However, no recent studies\nhave been done on KHMP. Therefore, this study aims to assess the\nhistorical genetic gains based on the trends of the changes in the\ngenetic values for GY, yield-related traits, and major diseases over\na 22-year breeding period at the KHMP and to utilize the results to\nidentify areas of improvement, including potential optimization of\nthe breeding pipeline.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n02", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2 Materials and methods\n2.1 Description of the germplasm and trials\nData on germplasm developed by the KHMP, which included\nthree-way hybrids (70%), top cross hybrids (15%), single-cross\nhybrids (15%), and commercial check hybrids, evaluated in trials\nbetween 1999 and 2020, was used in the study. Approximately 10%\nof the evaluated genotypes had parental components derived from\nthe doubled haploid (DH) technology. In contrast, the rest of the\ngenotypes were developed using the pedigree breeding method in\nwhich selected parental inbred lines were hybridized to generate F1\nhybrid seed and individual plants were selected from F2 and\nadvanced up to F6 prior to crossing with two single cross testers\nrepresenting the Kitale synthetic and Ecuador composite heterotic\ngroups, respectively, to generate three-way hybrids. Single-cross\nhybrids were generated from hybrid combinations between inbred\nlines from the pedigree breeding method and DH technology. These\nsingle-cross hybrids were also used as parental combinations to\ngenerate double-cross hybrids. Top crosses were generated from\ncross combinations between open-pollinated varieties, inbred lines\ndeveloped within the KHMP, and introductions from partners,\nnamely, Ethiopia’s Highland maize breeding program and Uganda’s\nNational Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)’s Highland\nmaize breeding program and CIMMYT’s Global Maize Program.\nVarious local and commercial check varieties were used in the trials\nfor years, but common checks were maintained to provide\nconnectivity and allow genetic gain estimates. The number of\nentries evaluated across the years varied, with most of the\ngenotypes in the Preliminary Variety Trials (PVT, 86%) and the\nAdvanced Variety Trials (AVT, 80%) being tested in just 1 year,\n12% and 15% in the second year for the PVT and AVT, respectively;\n2% and 5% evaluated in the third year for the PVT and AVT,\nrespectively; only 1% of the entries tested in the fourth year for the\nAVT (Table 1).\n2.2 Experiment design and\ntrial management\nThe KHMP uses the product development pipeline, which\ninvolves the stage gate advancement protocol across the different\nstages (from PVT to AVT). Each advancement stage is defined\nrelative to activities and key decisions", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " management\nThe KHMP uses the product development pipeline, which\ninvolves the stage gate advancement protocol across the different\nstages (from PVT to AVT). Each advancement stage is defined\nrelative to activities and key decisions based on defined threshold\nvalues for key traits (Supplementary Table 1) taken between the\nstages. An alpha lattice design was used in the PVT and AVT\nexperiments. In the PVT, 36 entries year−1 and 394 entries with\nthree replications over 13 years were evaluated in 55 experiments.\nSimilarly, in AVT, 25 entries year−1 and 399 entries, with four\nreplications over 22 years, were assessed in 146 experiments\nbetween 1999 and 2020 across 27 locations in the Highlands of\nKenya (Table 2; Figure 1). The experiments were planted in three-row\nplots, 3-m-long rows with 0.75-m row spacing and 0.30-m in-row\nspacing, with a final plant density of approximately 44,444 plants\nha−1. AVT were planted in two-row plots, 5-m-long rows with row\nspacing of 0.75-m and 0.25-m in-row spacing, with a final plant\ndensity of approximately 53,333 plants ha−1. The trials were fertilized\nusing basal fertilizer (18:46:0–N:P: K) at an average rate of 190 kg\nha−1 at planting and top dressing using Top CAN (26% N) at 190 kg\nha−1 split into two equal applications of 95 kg ha−1, with the first half\napplied at the early vegetative stage and the second at the booting\n(pre-flowering) stage as recommended in the PVT and AVT. The\nmajor traits offocus were GY (kg ha−1), plant and ear height (PH and\nEH) (cm), root and stalk lodging (RL and SL) (%), ear rot (ER) (%),\nhusk cover (HC) (%), and disease severity scores (1–5) for Grey leaf\nspot (GLS) and Turcicum leaf blight (TLB). Hand weeding was used\nto keep the trial area weed-free during the crop-growing", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "HC) (%), and disease severity scores (1–5) for Grey leaf\nspot (GLS) and Turcicum leaf blight (TLB). Hand weeding was used\nto keep the trial area weed-free during the crop-growing period.\n2.2.1 Trait measurements\nData were collected at all the sites applying standard procedures\nused at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center\n(CIMMYT 1985) for the following traits: (a) plant and ear height\nwas measured 2–3 weeks after flowering on 5–10 selected plants,\nmeasuring the distance from the plant base to the point where the\ntassel starts to branch and the distance in centimeters from the plant\nbase to the node bearing the uppermost ear, respectively;\n(b) percentage stalk and root lodging was recorded as a\npercentage of plants per plot that had their stems broken below\nthe ears but not above the ears and percentage of plants per plot\nwhich had their stems inclined at least 30° or more from the\nperpendicular at the base of the plant where the root zone stars,\nrespectively; (c) ear rot (ER): incidence of ear and kernel rots caused\nby Diplodia spp., Fusarium spp., or Gibberella spp., counted and\nexpressed as a percentage of the number of harvested ears; (d) husk\ncover (HC): percentage number of ears in each plot that had any\nportion of the ear exposed relative to the total number of ears per\nplot; (e) severity of GLS and TLB diseases were scored 3 weeks after\nflowering on a score scale of 1–5 (where 1 = no visible leaf damage;\n5 = severe damage of >50% of the leaf area) (Ngwira and Pixley,\n2000; Bankole et al., 2022). All plants were hand-harvested\nTABLE 1\nSummary of the composition of the Kenya highland maize\nPreliminary Varietal Trials (PVT) and Advanced Varietal Trials (AVT).\nFactors\nPVT\nAVT\nNumber of years\n13\n20\nNumber of experiments\n55\n146\nNumber of replications\n3\n4\nNumber of entries per year\n36\n25\nTotal number of entries\n394\n399\nTotal number of breeding lines\n392\n396\nNumber of breeding", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nNumber of experiments\n55\n146\nNumber of replications\n3\n4\nNumber of entries per year\n36\n25\nTotal number of entries\n394\n399\nTotal number of breeding lines\n392\n396\nNumber of breeding lines tested for 1 year\n339\n319\nTrial design layout\nAlpha\nlattice\nAlpha\nlattice\nNumber of breeding lines tested for 2 years\n47\n58\nNumber of breeding lines tested for 3 years\n6\n14\nNumber of breeding lines tested for 4 years\n0\n5\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n03", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "and shelled, and grain weight was measured in grams (g). Shelled\ngrain weight (g) was used to estimate GY adjusted to 12.5%\nmoisture content at harvest and expressed to kg ha−1.\n2.3 Data analysis\nThe analysis of variance (ANOVA) for individual environments\nwas carried out for GY, agronomic traits, and disease severity using\na model in which genotypes and replications were fitted as random\neffects. An analysis of variance was performed within each\nexperiment using the model (Equation 1):\nyij = m + gi + rj + eij\n(1)\nwhere yij is the mean phenotypic value of the trait within an\nexperiment, gi is the random effect of the ith genotype with gi ∼\nN(0,   s 2\ng ), rj is the random effect of the jth replication with rj ∼\nN(0,   s 2\nr ), and eij is the residual error with eij ∼N(0,   s 2\ne ).\nAnalysis of variance was conducted over all experiments within\neach year using the model (Equation 2):\nTABLE 2 Agro-ecology details of Kenya highland multi-location trial sites (1999–2020).\nLocation\nLatitude\nLongitude\nAltitude\n(masl)\nAnnual average\ntemperature (°C)\nMean rainfall\n(mm)\nAverage\nannual\nRH\nMin\nMax\nBaraton\n0.236\n35.185\n1,975\n12\n23\n1,648\n62\nBrigadier\n0.787\n35.038\n1,830\n10\n30\n1,100\n78\nChepareria\n1.381\n35.256\n1,723\n14\n30\n1,134\n71\nChepkoilel\n0.643\n35.343\n2,205\n10\n26\n1,103\n75\nCherangani\n1.123\n35.273\n1,870\n11\n29\n1,300\n71\nChorlim\n1.137\n34.773\n2,400\n10\n29\n1,450\n71\nEndebess\n1.139\n34.910\n1,900\n11\n29\n1,280\n69\nKabianga\n", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "137\n34.773\n2,400\n10\n29\n1,450\n71\nEndebess\n1.139\n34.910\n1,900\n11\n29\n1,280\n69\nKabianga\n−0.486\n35.188\n1,780\n10\n30\n1,300\n81\nKakamega\n0.430\n34.765\n1,540\n17\n35\n1,395\n69\nKapsabet\n0.229\n35.230\n1,950\n9\n29\n1,600\n78\nKimilili\n0.929\n34.746\n1,723\n11\n29\n1,500\n75\nKisii\n−0.773\n34.894\n1,879\n15\n27\n1,500\n62\nKitale\n1.043\n35.017\n1,900\n11\n29\n1,450\n71\nLurende\n0.806\n34.663\n1,700\n11\n29\n1,500\n77\nMakutano-Pokot\n1.250\n35.833\n2,025\n14\n31\n1,429\n75\nMolo\n−0.228\n35.705\n2,482\n12\n26\n1,430\n70\nMuguga\n−1.298\n36.721\n2,050\n11\n30\n1,200\n74\nNaitiri\n0.787\n34.817\n1,740\n11\n29\n1,100\n78\nNalondo\n0.707\n34.704\n1,370\n11\n29\n1,300\n73\nNangeni\n0.585\n34.468\n1,340\n16\n33\n1,300\n73\nNasokol/\nMakutano\n1.271\n35.082\n2,050\n11\n29\n1,429\n75\nNdalu\n0.859\n35.001\n1,820\n11\n29\n1,450\n71\nNjoro\n−0.374\n36.060\n1,800\n7\n31\n1,000\n61\nOljororok\n−0.039\n36.351\n2,400\n7\n31\n1,", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "oro\n−0.374\n36.060\n1,800\n7\n31\n1,000\n61\nOljororok\n−0.039\n36.351\n2,400\n7\n31\n1,500\n73\nSabwani\n1.214\n34.889\n1,880\n10\n30\n1,034\n65\nSang’alo\n0.591\n34.701\n1,420\n16\n33\n1,500\n73\nTongaren\n0.798\n34.954\n1,713\n11\n29\n1,100\n73\nMasl, meters above sea level; °C, degrees Celsius; mm, millimeters; RH, relative humidity (%).\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n04", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "yijk = m + gi + lk + r(l)jk + glik +   eijk\n(2)\nwhere yijk is the mean phenotypic value of the trait within an\nexperiment within a year, lk is the random effect of the kth location\nwith lk ∼N(0,   s 2\nl ), glik is the interaction of the ith genotype with\nthe kth location with glik ∼N(0,   s 2\ngl), r(l)jk. is the random effect of\nthe jth replication nested in the kth location with r(l)jk ∼N(0,   s 2\nr(l)),\nand eijk is the residual error with eijk ∼N(0,   s 2\ne ).\nGY (kg ha−1) and agronomic performance of genotypes evaluated\nin the current study highlighted variation among the genotypes\n(Table 1) in the PVT and AVT experiments. Broad sense heritability\nwas determined for all traits within each experiment. The variance\ncomponents from the above models were used to calculate entry mean\nheritability within each experiment as (Equation 3):\nH =\ns 2\ng\ns 2g + 〈s2e\nr 〉\n(3)\nwhere s 2\ne is the genetic variance, s 2\ne is the error variance, and r is the\nnumber of replications.\nSimilarly, the mean broad-sense heritability within a year was\ncalculated as (Equation 4):\nH =\ns 2\ng\ns 2g + 〈\ns 2\ngl\nl 〉+ 〈s 2e\nlr 〉\n(4)\nwhere s2\ngl   is the genotype × location variance, l is the number of\nlocations for the trial, and r is the number of replications.\n2.4 Genetic gain estimates\nThe rate of genetic gain using data from the KHMP PVT (2003–\n2020) and AVT (1997–2020) trials that were conducted across\nKenya highland environments (Figure 1) were estimated. To\ncompute genotypic Best Linear Unbiased Estimates (BLUEs) for\nuse in subsequent regression models, a mixed model, which\nincluded entries (genotypes) as", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nKenya highland environments (Figure 1) were estimated. To\ncompute genotypic Best Linear Unbiased Estimates (BLUEs) for\nuse in subsequent regression models, a mixed model, which\nincluded entries (genotypes) as fixed effects was fitted using the\nmodel (Equation 5):\nyijklm = u + gi + yj + lk + r(l)lk + gyij + glik + glyijk + cm +   eijkl\n(5)\nwhere yijklm is the phenotype of the ith entry in the jth year in the kth\nlocation and the lth replication, gi is the fixed effect of the ith genotype,\nyj is the effect of the jth year with yj ∼N(0,   s 2\ny ), lk is the effect of kth\nlocation with lk ∼N(0,   s 2\nl ), r(l)lk is the effect of the lth rep nested in\nthe kth location with r(l)lk ∼N(0,   s 2\nr(l)), gyij is the interaction of the\nith genotype with the jth year with gyij ∼N(0,   s 2\ngy), glik is the\ninteraction of the ith genotype with the kth location with ), glyijk is\nthe interaction of the ith genotype with the jth year and kth location\nwith glyijk ∼N(0,   s 2\ngly), cm is the fixed effect of control (1 for a check,\n0 for a breeding line), and eijklm is the error with eijklm ∼N(0,   s2\ne ).\nGenotype and check effects were considered fixed, and all other effects\nwere considered random.\nA concept referred to as retrogressive analysis (Ci et al., 2011;\nBadu-Apraku et al., 2015) was used to estimate the genetic gain trends\n(hereinafter referred to as genetic gains) for the key traits in trials\nevaluated between 1999 and 2020 within the KHMP. In the model,\nFIGURE 1\nKenya highland multi-location trial sites for preliminary and advanced maize varietal trials.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " In the model,\nFIGURE 1\nKenya highland multi-location trial sites for preliminary and advanced maize varietal trials.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n05", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "the best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs), which were considered to\nbe the genetic gain values of individual maize traits, were generated in\na mixed statistical analysis model (Henderson, 1975). The genetic\ngain was estimated by regressing each genotype’s estimated value in\nthe first year the genotype was tested (FYT) in the 2003 to 2020 data\nset for PVT and in the 1997 to 2020 data set for AVT. The FYT was\ndefined as the base year the genotype entered the trial (PVT or AVT).\nThe genetic gain was reported based on the direction of the trend\n(slope) and was declared to be significant if the probability of the\nslope was less than 0.05 and had an R2 greater than 0.05.\n3 Results\n3.1 Broad-sense heritability and quality of\ndata in the experiments\nThe broad-sense heritability (H) estimates expressed as a\npercentage were classified according to Robinson et al. (1949)\ninto three classes: low 0%–30%, medium 31%–60%, and >60% as\nhigh. The results revealed that in the PVT, GY and HC had medium\nH (Table 3). In this trial series, 25% and 11% of the experiments had\nH <0.2 for GY and HC, respectively. A higher proportion of\nexperiments with H >0.2 was observed for the other agronomic\ntraits and foliar diseases. In the AVT GY, EH, PH, SL, and HC had\nmedium H (Table 4). Low H2 was recorded for RL, foliar disease\nseverity scores for GLS TLB and ER in both AVT and PVT\n(Tables 3, 4). Experiments with H > 0.2 in the PVT (75%) and\nAVT (84%) for GY were used to compute the best linear unbiased\nestimates (BLUEs) for each genotype referred to as genetic values in\nthis study. Similarly, for agronomic traits, data sets with H > 0.2\nranged from 34% to 89% in the PVT and 35%–90% for agronomic\ntraits and disease severity were used", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " study. Similarly, for agronomic traits, data sets with H > 0.2\nranged from 34% to 89% in the PVT and 35%–90% for agronomic\ntraits and disease severity were used to compute BLUEs.\n3.2 Genetic trends for grain yield,\nagronomic traits, and diseases\nThe BLUEs were used in linear regression analysis to assess the\ngenetic gain values for GY and other agronomic traits in the PVT\nand AVT. The regression model accounted for 16.5% and 2.4% of\nthe variation for GY for genotypes in the PVT and AVT,\nrespectively (Table 5; Figure 2). There was significant (p < 0.05)\npositive annual genetic gain in GY for the genotypes in the PVT and\nAVT. The PVT genotypes had a mean GY of 4,530 kg ha−1 and an\nannual genetic gain estimate of 88 kg ha−1 or 1.94% year−1 (Table 5;\nFigure 2). In the AVT, genotypes had a higher mean GY than the\nPVT genotypes (6,170 kg ha−1) but a smaller annual genetic gain\nestimate of 26 kg ha−1 or 0.42% year−1.\nThe regression model accounted for variation ranging from\n2.5% to 7.2% for agronomic traits and 3.6% to 8.7% for diseases in\nthe PVT (Table 5). Similarly, the regression model accounted for\n18.6%, 4.4%, 2.8%, and 3.7% for EH, PH, RL, and GLS, respectively,\nin the AVT. Results of genetic trends revealed an increase in PH of\n0.92 cm year−1 at a rate of 0.32% year−1 in the PVT and AVT. On\nthe other hand, an increase in EH of 0.51 cm year−1 (0.27% year−1)\nwas observed for PVT genotypes, whereas AVT genotypes had an\nincrease of 0.40 cm year−1 (0.23% year−1). Root lodging and SL\nincreased at a rate of 13.8", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "was observed for PVT genotypes, whereas AVT genotypes had an\nincrease of 0.40 cm year−1 (0.23% year−1). Root lodging and SL\nincreased at a rate of 13.8% year−1 and 2.2% year−1, respectively, in\nthe PYT. In contrast, a rate of −2.65% year−1 was observed for RL in\nthe AVT. There was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in HC at a rate\nof 0.064% year−1 and 0.92% year−1 in the PVT and AYT,\nrespectively. Ear rot had a significant (p < 0.05) genetic gain of\n0.14% year−1 with a mean of 7.8% and 0.011% year−1 with a mean of\n3.3% for the PVT and AVT, respectively. Disease severity scores for\nTLB and GLS showed a significant (p < 0.05) decrease of −0.03\nyear−1 (−1.19% year−1) with a mean score of 2.3 and −0.02 year−1\n(−0.81% year−1), and a mean score of 1.7, for PVT genotypes (TLB)\nand AVT genotypes (GLS), respectively. A distinction was recorded\nfor GLS with PVT genotypes that had a significant (p < 0.05 increase\nin disease severity scores of 0.02 year−1 (1.01% year−1) and a mean\nscore of 2.2.\n3.3 Consistency in the performance of\nputatively superior maize genotypes\nTo assess the efficiency of the advancement process, the\nperformance of some superior genotypes for GY that were\nTABLE 3 Summary of maize trait values and heritability within the experiment and years for the PVT conducted between 1999–2020.\nTrait\nYears (n)\nExperiments (n)\nTrait values\nHeritability (H)\nMean\nRange\nMean\n% <0.2\nGrain yield (kg ha−1)\n12\n52\n4,530", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "0.\nTrait\nYears (n)\nExperiments (n)\nTrait values\nHeritability (H)\nMean\nRange\nMean\n% <0.2\nGrain yield (kg ha−1)\n12\n52\n4,530\n1,700–10,100\n0.40\n25.0\nEar height (cm)\n13\n50\n191\n127–249\n0.23\n53.5\nRoot lodging (%)\n12\n47\n0.5\n0–11\n0.13\n66.0\nStalk lodging (%)\n12\n47\n10.2\n1–35\n0.26\n41.3\nEar rot (%)\n13\n53\n7.8\n0–15\n0.29\n41.5\nPoor husk cover (%)\n13\n53\n4.9\n1–14\n0.45\n11.3\nGrey leaf spot (1–5)\n11\n24\n2.3\n1–3\n0.16\n54.2\nTurcicum leaf blight (1–5)\n13\n28\n2.2\n1–4\n0.20\n60.7\nAn experiment was defined as a year/location combination.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n06", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "advanced from the PVT to the AVT was tracked. The advancement\nof these entries from the PVT stage to the AVT stage was\nintroduced in 2006 in the KHMP. These were the putatively\nsuperior genotypes (PSG), and their number ranged from one in\n2019 to 20 in 2009 (Table 6). The average number of PSG advanced\nwas 8.4 per year between 2006 and 2020. We compared the mean\nGY of the PSG in the PVT to the mean GY of all other PVT\ngenotypes and to the commercial check hybrid H6213. Within the\nPVT, the PSG average GY is 114.7% of all other entries, ranging\nfrom 98% to 139.7%. The GY of the PSG in the PVT was, on\naverage, 102% of the check hybrid H6213, with a range of 96.1 to\n119%. A comparison of the GY of the PSG in the subsequent AVT\nto the mean GY of all other AVT entries and to the check H6213\nwas carried out. The PSG average GY in the AVT was 105.4% of all\nother genotypes, with a range of 97.7% to 118.8% (Table 6). The GY\nof the PSG in the AVT was, on average, 94.7% of the check H6213,\nwith a range of 76.2% to 120.2%.\nFirstly, the consistency of performance of the three PSG\nidentified in the PYT of 2006 that were evaluated in the AYT of\n2007 was assessed. These three genotypes had an average GY of\n5,290 kg ha−1 in the PYT in 2006, whereas the mean of other entries\nin this stage was 4,870 kg ha−1. In the AYT of 2007, the three PSG\nhad a consistently higher GY (5,490 kg ha−1) compared with the\nAYT mean of 5,190 kg ha−1 for the rest of the entries. Overall, the\nTABLE 5 Genetic trends in maize trait values for grain yield, agronomic traits, and disease resistance in PVT and AVT", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nAYT mean of 5,190 kg ha−1 for the rest of the entries. Overall, the\nTABLE 5 Genetic trends in maize trait values for grain yield, agronomic traits, and disease resistance in PVT and AVT between 1999 and 2020.\nTrait\nPVT\nAVT\nMagnitude* of\ngain in trait value\nAnnual gain in\ntrait value (%)a\nP-value\nR2\nMagnitude of\ngain in trait value\nAnnual gain in\ntrait value (%)\nP-value\nR2\nGrain yield\n(kg ha−1)\n88\n1.94\n<0.0001\n0.165\n26\n0.42\n0.0290\n0.024\nPlant\nheight (cm)\n–\n–\n–\n–\n0.923\n0.32\n<0.0001\n0.186\nEar\nheight (cm)\n0.513\n0.27\n<0.0001\n0.044\n0.403\n0.23\n<0.0001\n0.044\nRoot\nlodging (%)\n0.065\n13.08\n0.0089\n0.025\n−0.047\n−2.65\n0.0020\n0.028\nStalk\nlodging (%)\n0.225\n2.20\n<0.0001\n0.072\n0.032\n0.42\n0.2590\n0.004\nEar rot (%)\n0.011\n0.14\n0.5590\n0.001\n0.006\n0.17\n0.6390\n0.001\nPoor husk\ncover (%)\n0.064\n1.31\n0.0002\n0.036\n0.039\n0.92\n0.0086\n0.019\nTurcicum leaf\nblight (1–5)\n−0.026\n−1.19\n<0.0001\n0.071\n−0.004\n−0.27\n0.1280\n0.008\nGrey leaf spot\n(1–5)\n0.024\n1.01\n<0.0001\n0.087\n−0.016\n−0.81\n0.0005\n0.037\n*Magnitude is the slope of the regression equation; apercentage", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ")\n0.024\n1.01\n<0.0001\n0.087\n−0.016\n−0.81\n0.0005\n0.037\n*Magnitude is the slope of the regression equation; apercentage increases or decreases relative to the mean of the trait value.\nTABLE 4 Summary of maize trait values and heritability within the experiments and years for the AVT conducted between 1999 and 2020.\nTrait\nYears (n)\nExperiments (n)\nTrait values\nHeritability (H)\nMean\nRange\nMean\n% <0.2\nGrain yield (kg ha−1)\n18\n127\n6,170\n900–14,100\n0.51\n15.7\nPlant height (cm)\n20\n137\n290\n156–401\n0.45\n17.5\nEar height (cm)\n20\n138\n175\n26–421\n0.52\n10.1\nRoot lodging (%)\n20\n139\n1.8\n0–21\n0.16\n64.7\nStalk lodging (%)\n19\n131\n7.6\n0–86\n0.37\n26.0\nEar rot (%)\n20\n137\n3.3\n0–39\n0.26\n39.4\nPoor husk cover (%)\n19\n139\n4.3\n0–23\n0.49\n15.1\nGrey leaf spot (1–5)\n19\n75\n1.9\n1–3\n0.27\n56.0\nTurcicum leaf blight (1–5)\n20\n79\n1.7\n1–3\n0.28\n45.6\nAn experiment was defined as a year/location combination.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n07", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "PSG yielded 1.15-fold more than other genotypes in the PYT, but\nthe magnitude of difference (1.05-fold) relative to the other entries\nwas marginally lower in the following year in the AYT.\nSecondly, a comparison of the means of some specific genotypes\nmeant for advancement in the PYT to the means of all other entries in\nthe PYT trial was carried out. The advancement with the largest\nnumber of PSG (n = 20; 2009) in the PYT had a mean GY of 7,400 kg\nha−1. These PSG were evaluated in the 2010 AYT and gave a mean\nGY of 6,990 kg ha−1, approximately 1.18-fold the yield of other entries\nin that trial but 12% less than the check (H6213). In 2012, the PSG\nhad a mean GY of 7,810 kg ha−1 in PYT, and when these entries were\nevaluated in the 2013 AYT, they gave a mean GY of 5,900 kg ha−1,\nwhich was 2% less than the GY of other entries and 1.2-fold more\nthan the commercial check hybrid. Based on the occurrence of the\nmeans of GY, the probabilities for having higher GY for PSG than the\nother entries each year were (GYPSG>GYOE) = 0.86 for PYT and P\n(GYPSG>GYOE) = 0.71 for AYT. However, the mean GY in the PYT\nPSG was not likely to be different from the commercial check hybrid,\nas P(GYPSG>GYH6213) = 0.5. Overall, the PSG were more likely to\nhave a lower mean GY than the commercial check, as P\n(GYPSG>GYH6213) = 0.14) in the AYT (Table 6).\n4 Discussion\nIt is a common practice in both the public and private sectors to\nuse key performance indicators (KPIs), defined as quantifiable\nparameters, to ensure that activities are aligned toward achieving\norganizational goals through increasing transparency and\naccountability for overall long-term performance (Zakaria et al.,\n2011;", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "PIs), defined as quantifiable\nparameters, to ensure that activities are aligned toward achieving\norganizational goals through increasing transparency and\naccountability for overall long-term performance (Zakaria et al.,\n2011; Covarrubias-Pazaran, 2020). Thus, the number of varieties\nreleased by the public sector crop breeding programs has been\nfrequently used as a KPI. However, varietal releases alone do not\nreflect the efficiency of a breeding program nor the impact of a\nbreeding pipeline (Prasanna et al., 2022a). Estimates of genetic gains\nare an important KPI to measure the genetic progress, assess\nB\nA\nFIGURE 2\nRegression of grain yield BLUEs of maize inbred lines onto the first year of testing for all genotypes in the KMHP preliminary varietal trial (A, PVT) and\nadvanced varietal trial (B, AVT).\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n08", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "breeding efficiency, identify areas of improvement, and investment\nfor accelerated genetic gains in delivering improved varieties to the\nfarmers (Asea et al., 2023; Tarekegne et al., 2024).\nThe objective of this study was to estimate genetic gain for GY\n(kg ha−1), agronomic traits, and disease severity using historical\ndata in the PVT (2003–2020) and AVT (1999–2020) variety trials\nconducted by the Kenya highland maize breeding program\n(KHMP), a program under Kenya Agricultural and Livestock\nResearch Organization (KALRO). Previous genetic gain report for\nKHMP was published in the 1970s (Eberhart and Harrison, 1973).\nThe success of a crop breeding program mainly depends on the\npresence of genetic variation and the heritability of the traits under\nconsideration. Broad-sense heritability was medium (>31%‒60%)\nfor GY and HC in PVT and AVT. A similar heritability range was\nobtained for PH, EH, and SL in AVT. These results indicate that\ngenetic progress for these traits can be achieved through careful\nselection and the use of simple selection methods like pedigree\nselection. In contrast, low heritability was recorded for RL, GLS,\nTLB, and ER in both AVT and PVT and PH and EH in the PVT,\nwhich suggests that improvement of these traits may be\nconsiderably difficult due to the masking effect of the\nenvironment on genotypic expression. This also shows the\ncomplex nature of inheritance of certain traits like resistance to\nsome foliar diseases. Some of the traits with low heritability require\nselection methods that will progressively build desirable/favorable\nalleles to improve the population. The KHMP can improve the\nefficiency of selection for resistance to major diseases, especially ER,\nGLS, and TLB, by using artificial inoculation in trials at appropriate\nsites during hybrid evaluation.\nIn the current study, the general genetic gain estimates were\nhigher in PVT relative to AVT across traits. The high genetic gain\ntrend in PVT relative to AVT is mainly accounted for by the inbred\nlines in the PVT that are in early-stage generations (F3–", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nhigher in PVT relative to AVT across traits. The high genetic gain\ntrend in PVT relative to AVT is mainly accounted for by the inbred\nlines in the PVT that are in early-stage generations (F3–F5), whereas\nthe inbred lines in AVT are advanced (>F6). Genetic variance is\nusually higher in the early generations but reduces in the advanced\ngenerations due to selection. The GY genetic gain estimate for PVT\nwas 88 kg ha−1 year−1, whereas that for AVT was 26 kg ha−1 year−1.\nWhile the germplasm is not similar, the genetic gain estimate in\nPVT in this study was comparable with the 81 kg ha−1 year−1\nreported for Uganda (Asea et al., 2023), 62 kg ha−1 year−1 for\nEthiopia Highland maize (Kebede et al., 2020), 61 kg ha−1 year−1\nreported for the Zimbabwe National Breeding Program (Mazibuko\net al., 2024), and 109.4 kg ha−1 year−1 CIMMYT hybrid breeding\npipeline in Eastern and Southern Africa (Masuka et al., 2017). The\nGY genetic gain estimates of 26 kg ha−1 year−1 in the AVT was\nhigher than that reported by the CIMMYT East Africa Product\nProfile-Highland breeding pipeline −70 kg ha−1 year−1 (Prasanna\net al., 2022b). The lower genetic gain estimates in AVT relative to\nPVT may be due to the difference in the germplasm sample from\nthe given testing stage. According to Covarrubia-Pazaran (2020),\nthe use of early testing trials (within program management), i.e.,\nPVT, and late testing trials (within program management), i.e.,\nAVT to calculate genetic gain estimate uses different samples, but\neach will have different properties that affect the accuracy of the\ngenetic gain estimate and Target Population Environment (TPE)\ncoverage. The use of early-generation trials (PVT) provides a better\nestimate of the evolution of genetic variance, whereas advanced-\nstage genotypes provide a better estimate of the rate of genetic gain.\nIn addition, the low annual genetic gain estimate in AVT genotypes\nmay", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " trials (PVT) provides a better\nestimate of the evolution of genetic variance, whereas advanced-\nstage genotypes provide a better estimate of the rate of genetic gain.\nIn addition, the low annual genetic gain estimate in AVT genotypes\nmay be attributed to the long crop growth cycle in the highland\nbreeding program (Eberhart and Harrison, 1973). This calls for the\nadoption of DH technology to accelerate inbred line development.\nKenya Highland maize market segment has a defined Target\nProduct Profile (TPP)1 (Supplementary Table 1), a blueprint for the\ndesign of new varieties that indicates the traits2 required in a new\n1\nhttps://glomip.cgiar.org/target-product-profiles\n2\nhttps://www.cimmyt.org/blogs/market-segmentation-and-target-\nproduct-profiles-tpps-developing-and-delivering-impactful-products-for-\nfarming-communities/\nTABLE 6\nA comparison of grain yield (kg ha−1) for putatively superior entries (PSG), other entries and the check variety (H6213) based on evaluations\nin the PVT and AVT between 2006 and 2019.\nPVT\nyear\n(PSG) for\nadvancement\nto AVT (n)\nGrain yield (t/ha) in the PVT\nAVT\nyear\nGrain yield (t/ha) in the AVT\nCheck-\nH6213\nPSG\nOther\nentries\n(OE)1\nPSG\nvs.\nOE\n(%)\nPSG vs.\nH6213\n(%)\nCheck-\nH6213\nPSG\nOE2\nPSG\nvs.\nOE\n(%)\nPSG vs.\nH6213\n(%)\n2006\n9\n5,290\n4,870\n108.7\n2007\n5,770\n5,490\n5,190\n105.7\n95.1\n2007\n12\n5,180\n5,020\n4,600\n109.2\n96.9\n2008\n7,120\n5,420\n5,500\n98.6\n76.2\n2008\n7\n4,610\n4,620\n3,740\n123.5\n100.1\n2009\n5,980\n5,", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5,420\n5,500\n98.6\n76.2\n2008\n7\n4,610\n4,620\n3,740\n123.5\n100.1\n2009\n5,980\n5,870\n5,540\n105.9\n98.2\n2009\n20\n6,220\n7,400\n6,580\n112.5\n119\n2010\n8,240\n6,990\n6,560\n106.7\n84.9\n2010\n3\n6,150\n5,910\n4,230\n139.7\n96.1\n2011\n7,570\n6,690\n5,630\n118.8\n88.4\n2012\n6\n7,810\n7,820\n7,010\n111.6\n100.1\n2013\n4,910\n5,900\n6,040\n97.7\n120.1\n2019\n1\n6,030\n6,030\n6,150\n98\n100\n2020\n7,010\n7,010\n6,690\n104.7\n100\nMean\n8.29\n6,000\n6,010\n5,310\n114.7\n102\n6,660\n6,200\n5,880\n105.4\n94.7\nPVT, Preliminary Variety Trials; AVT, Advanced Variety Trial. Other entries tested in the PVT and AVT are putatively superior genotypes (PSG), OE1, and OE2, respectively.\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n09", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "variety to meet or exceed the requirements of farmers, processors,\nand consumers (Donovan et al., 2022). As a result, agronomic traits\nin KHMP have been deliberately selected based on thresholds set for\nessential or nice-to-have traits for this TPP. The genotypes\nadvanced from the PVT into AVT had a general trend of reduced\near height, thus indicating a deliberate selection strategy for the\nbreeding program to advance genotypes with lower ear placement,\nan essential trait for Kenya’s highland maize market segment. A\nsimilar trend was also noted for RL and SL in PVT, which had\nincreased genetic gain estimates relative to the decrease noted in\nAVT genotypes. This highlights that KHMP has made a concerted\neffort to select and advance genotypes from PVT to AVT with RL\nand SL threshold values lower than commercial check varieties, thus\nincreasing the chances of releasing varieties that have good\nstandability (root and stalk lodging). Furthermore, in\ncollaboration with CIMMYT, KHMP has recently acquired elite\ninbred lines with short stature from the CIMMYT-Ethiopian\nInstitute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) highland maize\nbreeding program and has begun to introgress the trait into its\nbreeding populations. This will eventually lead to greater use of\nparental inbred lines for a new generation of short-statured hybrids\nadapted to the Kenya highland agroecology.\nThe Kenya highland TPE (Table 2; Figure 1) is prone to ear and\nfoliar diseases due to the conducive climatic conditions (high\nrainfall, high humidity, and temperature) for disease\ndevelopment. Consequently, KHMP has defined resistance to\nTLB, GLS, and ER as an essential trait, and this still needs\ncontinuous improvement. There was a trend toward increased\nresistance to TLB (−1.19% year−1) and GLS (−0.81% year−1) in\nthe AVT, indicating that the defined selection strategy for these\ndiseases and advancement decision from PVT to AVT was optimal.\nIn the PVT, genotypes had reduced GLS resistance, as evidenced by\nincreased severity scores of 0.02 year−1 (1.01% year−1). The\ninconsistency may", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " to AVT was optimal.\nIn the PVT, genotypes had reduced GLS resistance, as evidenced by\nincreased severity scores of 0.02 year−1 (1.01% year−1). The\ninconsistency may be due to the use of natural disease sites as\nopposed to artificial inoculation. Lack of adequate pathogen\npressure may lead to reduced disease incidence in some locations\nand, hence, low disease severity scores (Kenworthy, 1966; Ward\net al., 1999; Jakhar et al., 2017; Njeru et al., 2023). Without artificial\ninoculation, screening maize at disease hotspots would be the best\nalternative to attain high disease pressure, thus enhancing genetic\ngain during selection (Lopez-Zuniga et al., 2018).\nGood husk cover (tip of the ear fully covered to ensure restricted\nentry and damage by water, opportunistic insects, birds, and\npathogens) is an essential trait in the KHMP breeding pipeline\n(Supplementary Table 1). The results indicated little progress in the\nreduction of the incidence of poor husk cover in both PVT 1.31%\nyear−1 and AVT (0.92% year−1). KHMP should consider infusing\ngermplasm with good husk coverage from other programs,\nespecially CIMMYT, to enhance gains for husk cover in the\ndesired direction. Development of varieties with a good husk\ncover would be valuable because the ongoing climate change will\nlead to an increase in temperature, and hence, maize will be\ncultivated in warmer conditions, which favors maize ear rot\ninfections (Warfield and Davis, 1996; Miedaner and Juroszek,\n2021; Nnadi and Carter, 2021). Poor husk cover is related to the\nhigh incidence of ear/cob rots and insect pests like Fall Armyworms\n(Prasanna et al., 2022a). Enhancing resistance to ER would improve\ngrain quality and prevent contamination by mycotoxins, which are\nharmful to livestock and humans and are widespread in Kenya\n(Ajanga and Hillocks, 2000; Mutiga et al., 2017).\nThe analysis of the GY of PSG which were advanced", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xins, which are\nharmful to livestock and humans and are widespread in Kenya\n(Ajanga and Hillocks, 2000; Mutiga et al., 2017).\nThe analysis of the GY of PSG which were advanced to the AVT\nshowed that while they had a GY of 114.7% of all other PVT\ngenotypes, they had a GY of just 105.4% of other AVT, and they\nwere just 94.7% of the GY of the commercial check hybrid H6213 in\nthe AVT. There is a significant genotype × year interaction affecting\nadvancements to the AVT, yet this seems to have had less effect on\nadvancements to the PVT. The average GY of the PVT experiments\nwas 26% lower than the average GY of the AVT. It is possible that\nperformance in low-GY sites may not translate to GY in high-GY\nsites. Adopting accurate and efficient phenotyping strategies, with\noptimal replication over years in environments with known levels of\nreproducibility for target agroecological zones, could enhance the\nefficiency in selection for advancement (Duvick, 2005; Gunundu\net al., 2023). The focus of the KHMP breeding pipeline has been to\nimprove GY, which averaged 4,530 kg ha−1 in the PVT and 6,100 kg\nha−1 in the AVT. The mean differences in GY between the two\nevaluation stages suggest the superiority of the fraction of genotypes\nselected for advancement in terms of GY. Although there were\nsignificant, positive genetic gain estimates for GY in the PVT and\nAVT, most of the putatively superior genotypes (or advanced\nhybrids) yielded less than the commercial check hybrid (H6213)\nreleased by the Kenya Seed Company in 2002.\nIn this study, most of the genotypes selected in the PVT and\nadvanced in the breeding pipeline evaluation stages had lower GY\nthan the commercial check hybrid. While the primary aim of this\nstudy was to document current genetic trends within the KALRO\nhighland maize breeding pipeline, the compilation of historical\ndatasets provides the opportunity to identify key areas to improve\nbre", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nthan the commercial check hybrid. While the primary aim of this\nstudy was to document current genetic trends within the KALRO\nhighland maize breeding pipeline, the compilation of historical\ndatasets provides the opportunity to identify key areas to improve\nbreeding efficiency. The introduction of germplasm from similar\nagroecological zones in Central and South America played a major\nrole in the establishment of the KHMP breeding pipeline for the\nKenyan highlands agroecology (Harrison, 1970). Similar to the\nCIMMYT-Ethiopia highland maize breeding program, the genetic\npool in the KALRO highland maize program still relies on parental\ninbred lines developed from Ecuador-573, Kitale-SYN, and Pool-9A\n(Prasanna et al., 2022a). Genetic trends in hybrid maize breeding\npipelines are a function of the gains in female and male parental\ninbred lines. The pedigree data for the current study showed that\nmost of the male inbred lines in the single-cross female parents of\nthe three-way hybrids remained the same throughout the study,\nwith only six male parents of the single-cross hybrid female parents\naccounting for 75% of all candidate hybrids tested in the AVT. Five\nof these males of single-crosses were present in hybrids in the first\nyear of testing and were still key male parental inbred lines in\nhybrids in 2020, and only one male of the single-crosses first entered\nthe AVT in 2006. The observed low performance of the PSG\nsuggests that for the program to move beyond the current GY\nperformance ceiling, it must utilize international networks to\nrevamp the breeding pipeline with superior exotic elite inbred\nlines, which are adapted to similar agroecologies (Harrison, 1970;\nAtlin et al., 2017), beyond the original introductions from Central\nand South America that were used to initiate hybrid maize\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n10", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "development in the Kenyan highlands (Harrison, 1970). The\nfindings of this two-decade study will enable the program to\nreorient its breeding strategy strategically by adopting more\nefficient modern breeding operations for better resource\nutilization and enhanced genetic gains.\nTo further enhance the genetic trends across all important traits\nin the TPP, several practical breeding modernization approaches\ncould be adopted in the KHMP, as outlined below:\ni. Adopt a product profile-based breeding approach, where\nthe efforts are aimed at developing products for the current\nmarket demands. Market-led breeding operations could\ncompel the program to adopt cost-effective methods that\nwould fast-track the release of improved varieties. To\nidentify the cost drivers for the breeding operations and\nthe potential ways of optimizing breeding metrics, the\nprogram has participated in the costing of its pipeline\nusing the University of Queensland Breeding Costing Tool\n(UQBCT) through the CGIAR Accelerated Breeding\nInitiative (ABI).\nii. Implementation of doubled haploid (DH) technology for\nfaster development of genetically homozygous inbred lines\nand accelerated hybrid development (Chaikam et al.,\n2019). CIMMYT uses DH technology for line\ndevelopment, and KHMP can use the service, with the\ncost covered through special projects.\niii. Using an artificial disease screening facility for TLB, GLS,\nand MLN will ensure accurate selection and advancement\nof genotypes with these essential traits for KHMP. KALRO\nutilizes the CIMMYT-operated MLN Screening Facility at\nNaivasha and an artificial foliar disease screening facility at\nKakamega in Kenya. These facilities could potentially be\nused for KHMP.\niv. Adoption of sparse testing for breeding trials: Field\nphenotyping is one of the major cost drivers in most of\nthe breeding programs (Lane et al., 2020). Sparse testing\ncan enhance the evaluation of many entries across multiple\nenvironments, improving breeding efficiency, and\noptimizing use of resources. In sparse testing for\nmultienvironment breeding trials, not all genotypes of\ninterest are grown in each environment but the alleles of\ninterest are tested across specific environments based on\nprior genotyping data (Atanda et al., 2022). Sparse testing\ncould be", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ", not all genotypes of\ninterest are grown in each environment but the alleles of\ninterest are tested across specific environments based on\nprior genotyping data (Atanda et al., 2022). Sparse testing\ncould be coupled with an expansion in the testing network\nwithin East Africa while leveraging the leadership of\ninternational collaborative partners like CIMMYT in\nAfrica. Increasing the size of the testing network is a key\ndriver of enhancing genetic gains in maize yields in the US\n(Cooper et al., 2014) and Eastern and Southern Africa\n(Masuka et al., 2017; Prasanna et al., 2022b).\nv. Digitization of breeding program operations, i.e.,\nelectronic data capturing and use of data management\nsystems like Breeding Management System (BMS) or the\nEnterprise Breeding System (EBS), will enhance data\nturnaround time and data quality for data-driven\nselection decisions and advancement of genotypes within\nthe breeding pipeline.\nvi. Adoption of molecular markers for forward breeding to\nintegrate qualitative traits and genomic selection for\nsimultaneous improvement of multiple traits (Moose and\nMumm, 2008). Forward breeding can be used for selection\nto enrich populations for favorable alleles before field\nphenotyping. Coupling forward breeding with genomic\nselection to simultaneously improve the germplasm for\nmultiple traits, including those that are inherited\nquantitatively, such as GY, root, and stalk lodging, ear\nrot, GLS, TLB, and MLN would be an excellent strategy to\nincrease genetic gains (Poland et al., 2009; Larkin et al.,\n2019). KHMP can leverage current efforts by CIMMYT’s\nGlobal Maize Program to implement molecular breeding\nin conjunction (Crossa et al., 2014; Prasanna et al., 2022b;\nOmondi et al., 2023).\n5 Conclusions\nThe Kenya Highland Maize Program (KHMP) focuses on\nbreeding and deploying elite, climate-resilient improved maize\nhybrid varieties. This study estimated genetic gains for grain yield\n(GY), agronomic traits, and disease resistance traits in the PVT and\nAVT conducted between 1999 and 2020. The study revealed\nsignificant genetic gains for GY, EH, PH, HC, and", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Y), agronomic traits, and disease resistance traits in the PVT and\nAVT conducted between 1999 and 2020. The study revealed\nsignificant genetic gains for GY, EH, PH, HC, and disease\nresistance (GLS and TLB). Thus, the KHMP has made desired\nstrides in hybrid maize development over the years, resulting in\ndeveloping and releasing highland maize varieties that are\nproductive, short stature, and disease-resistant. The genetic gain\ntrends for some traits were not consistently in the desired direction.\nTo further improve the genetic gains, the KHMP plans to adopt a\nproduct-profile-based breeding approach, breeding methods, and\ntechnologies that can increase breeding efficiency and genetic gains.\nData availability statement\nThe datasets presented in this study can be found in online\nrepositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession\nnumber(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.\nAuthor contributions\nDL: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing –\noriginal draft, Writing – review & editing. ES: Conceptualization,\nFormal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft,\nWriting – review & editing. BA: Conceptualization, Data curation,\nVisualization, Writing – original draft. CS: Methodology, Project\nadministration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft,\nWriting – review & editing. WC: Formal analysis, Investigation,\nResources, Validation, Writing – review & editing. LM:\nConceptualization, Data curation, Resources, Supervision,\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n11", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.\nDMa: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition,\nMethodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. MM: Data\ncuration, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing.\nDMi: Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review &\nediting. SM: Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing –\nreview & editing. AL: Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization,\nWriting – review & editing. BD: Funding acquisition, Investigation,\nSupervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. BP: Funding\nacquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision,\nWriting – review & editing.\nFunding\nThe author(s) declare financial support was received for the\nresearch, authorship, and/or publication of this article. All the field\ntrials reported in this study were primarily supported by funding\nfrom the Kenyan Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates\nFoundation and USAID-funded projects titled Improved Maize\nfor African Soils (IMAS, Grant No. OPPGD1017), and Stress\nTolerant Maize for Africa (STMA, Grant No. OPP1134248)\nprojects; the Excellence in Breeding Platform (EiB) and the Bill &\nMelinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and FFAR provided financial\nsupport to conduct this analysis through the project Accelerating\nGenetic Gains for Maize and Wheat Improvement (BMGF Grant\nnumber INV-003439).\nAcknowledgments\nThe Government of Kenya financed the development of the\nhighland maize germplasm used in the study through KALRO. The\ndata curation, management, and analysis for the KALRO highland\nmaize program was supported by the Excellence in Breeding\nprogram (EiB, INV-008091) funded by the Bill and Melinda\nGates Foundation. We acknowledge the role of the Integrated\nBreeding Platform (https://www.integratedbreeding.net) team for\ncuration of historical data into the Breeding Management System\n(BMS). We wish to acknowledge the technical and logistical support\nof Joyce Malinga from KALRO Headquarters, Nairobi; the\nCIMMYT maize breeding team, including Jill Cairns; Gustavo\nTeixeira, Liz Jones, Young Wha Lee, Ana Oliveira,", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " and logistical support\nof Joyce Malinga from KALRO Headquarters, Nairobi; the\nCIMMYT maize breeding team, including Jill Cairns; Gustavo\nTeixeira, Liz Jones, Young Wha Lee, Ana Oliveira, and Manilal\nWilliam from the Excellence in Breeding program of CGIAR.\nConflict of interest\nThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the\nabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be\nconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.\nPublisher’s note\nAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors\nand do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated\norganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the\nreviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or\nclaim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or\nendorsed by the publisher.\nSupplementary material\nThe Supplementary Material for this article can be found online\nat: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538/\nfull#supplementary-material\nReferences\nAjanga, S., and Hillocks, R. J. (2000). Maize cob rot in Kenya and its association\nwith stalk borer damage. J. Crop Prot. 19, 297–300. doi: 10.1016/s0261–2194(00)\n00020-x\nAsea, G., Kwemoi, D. B., Sneller, C., Kasozi, C. L., Das, B., Musundire, L., et al.\n(2023). Genetic trends for yield and key agronomic traits in pre-commercial and\ncommercial maize varieties between 2008 and 2020 in Uganda. Front. Plant Sci. 14.\ndoi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1020667\nAtanda, S. A., Govindan, V., Singh, R., Robbins, K. R., Crossa, J., and Bentley, A. R.\n(2022). Sparse testing using genomic prediction improves selection for breeding targets in\nelite spring wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 135, 1939–1950. doi: 10.1007/s00122–022-04085–0\nAtlin, G.", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " for breeding targets in\nelite spring wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 135, 1939–1950. doi: 10.1007/s00122–022-04085–0\nAtlin, G. N., Cairns, J. E., and Das, B. (2017). Rapid breeding and varietal\nreplacement are critical to adaptation of cropping systems in the developing world\nto climate change. Glob. Food Sec. 12, 31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.008\nBadu-Apraku, B., Fakorede, M. A. B., Oyekunle, M., Yallou, G. C., Obeng-Antwi, K.,\nHaruna, A., et al. (2015). Gains in grain yield of early maize cultivars developed during\nthree breeding eras under multiple environments. Crop Sci. 55, 527–539. doi: 10.2135/\ncropsci2013.11.0783\nBankole, F. A., Badu-Apraku, B., Salami, A. O., Falade, T. D. O., Bandyopadhyay, R.,\nand Ortega-Beltran, A. (2022). Identification of early and extra-early maturing tropical\nmaize inbred lines with multiple disease resistance for enhanced maize production and\nproductivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Dis. 106, 2638–2647. doi: 10.1094/pdis-12–\n21-2788-re\nCairns, J. E., Chamberlin, J., Rutsaert, P., Voss, R. C., Ndhlela, T., and Magorokosho,\nC. (2021). Challenges for sustainable maize production of smallholder farmers in sub-\nSaharan Africa. J. Cereal Sci. 101, 103274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2021.103274\nCairns, J. E., Hellin, J., Sonder, K., Araus, J. L., Macrobert, J. F., Thierfelder, C., et al.\n(2013). Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Hellin, J., Sonder, K., Araus, J. L., Macrobert, J. F., Thierfelder, C., et al.\n(2013). Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food\nSecur. 5 (3), 345–360. doi: 10.1007/s12571–013-0256-x\nCairns, J. E., and Prasanna, B. M. (2018). Developing and deploying climate-resilient\nmaize varieties in the developing world. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 45, 226–230.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2018.05.004\nChaikam, V., Molenaar, W., Melchinger, A. E., and Boddupalli, P. M. (2019).\nDoubled haploid technology for line development in maize: technical advances and\nprospects. Theor. Appl. Genet. 132, 3227–3243. doi: 10.1007/s00122–019-03433-x\nCi, X., Li, M., Liang, X., Xie, Z., Zhang, D., Li, X., et al. (2011). Genetic Contribution\nto Advanced Yield for Maize Hybrids Released from 1970 to 2000 in China. Crop Sci. 51\n(1), 13–20. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2010.04.0207\nCooper, M., Messina, C. D., Podlich, D., Totir, L. R., Baumgarten, A., Hausmann, N. J.,\net al. (2014). Predicting the future of plant breeding: complementing empirical evaluation\nwith genetic prediction. Crop Pasture Sci. 65 (4), 311–336, 326. doi: 10.1071/CP14007\nCovarrubias-Pazaran, G. E. (2020)Genetic gain as a high-level key performance\nindicator. In: CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform, Breeding Scheme Optimization\nManuals. Available online at: http://Excellenceinbreeding.org/toolbox/tools/eib-\nbreeding-schemeoptimization-manuals (Access", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "indicator. In: CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform, Breeding Scheme Optimization\nManuals. Available online at: http://Excellenceinbreeding.org/toolbox/tools/eib-\nbreeding-schemeoptimization-manuals (Accessed 8th April 2024).\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n12", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Crossa, J., Pérez, P., Hickey, J., Burgueño, J., Ornella, L., Cerón-Rojas, J., et al. (2014).\nGenomic prediction in CIMMYT maize and wheat breeding programs. Heredity 112\n(1), 48–60. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2013.16\nDao, A., Sanou, J., Gracen, V., and Danquah, E. Y. (2015). Indentifying farmers’\npreferences and constraints to maize production in two agro-ecological zones in\nBurkina Faso. Agric. Food Secur. 4. doi: 10.1186/s40066–015-0035–3\nDarrah, L. L., Eberhart, S. A., and Penny, L. H. (1972). A maize breeding methods\nstudy in Kenya. Crop Sci. 12, cropsci1972.0011183X001200050016x. doi: 10.2135/\ncropsci1972.0011183X001200050016x\nDarrah, L. L., Eberhart, S. A., and Penny, L. H. (1978). Six years of maize selection in\n‘Kitale Synthetic II’, ‘Ecuador 573’, and ‘Kitale composite a’ using methods of the\ncomprehensive breeding system. Euphytica 27, 191–204. doi: 10.1007/BF00039135\nDe Groote, H., Muteti, F. N., and Bruce, A. Y. (2023). On-farm storage loss estimates\nof maize in Kenya using community survey methods. J. Stored Prod. Res. 102, 102107.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2023.102107\nDe Groote, H., and Omondi, L. B. (2023). Varietal turn-over and their effect on yield\nand food security – Evidence from 20 years of household surveys in Kenya. Glob. Food\nSecur. 36, 100676. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100676\nDe Groote, H., Owuor, G., Doss, C., Ouma", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Glob. Food\nSecur. 36, 100676. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100676\nDe Groote, H., Owuor, G., Doss, C., Ouma, J., Muhammad, L., and Danda, K. (2005).\nThe Maize Green Revolution in Kenya Revisited. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 3 (1), 32–49.\nDonovan, J., Coaldrake, P., Rutsaert, P., Bänzinger, M., Gitonga, A., Naziri, D., et al.\n(2022)Market intelligence for informing crop-breeding decisions by CGIAR and\nNARES. In: Market Intelligence Brief Series 1. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.\nnet/10883/22248 (Accessed 8th April 2024).\nDuvick, D. N. (2005). Genetic progress in yield of United States maize (Zea mays L.).\nMaydica 50, 193–202.\nEberhart, S. A. (1970). Factors effecting efficiencies of breeding methods. Afr. Soils 15,\n655–680.\nEberhart, S. A., and Harrison, M. N. (1973). Progress from half-sib selection in Kitale\nstation maize. East Afr. J. Agric. Forest. 39, 12–16. doi: 10.1080/00128325.1973.11662611\nErenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Sonder, K., Mottaleb, K., and Prasanna, B. M. (2022). Global\nmaize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur.\n14, 1295–1319. doi: 10.1007/s12571–022-01288–7\nFalconer, D. S., and Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics.\n(San Francisco, California: Benjamin-Cummings Pub. Co).\nFAOSTAT. (2013). Statistical databases and data sets of the Food and Agriculture\nOrganization of the United Nations. FAO. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.\naspx", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Benjamin-Cummings Pub. Co).\nFAOSTAT. (2013). Statistical databases and data sets of the Food and Agriculture\nOrganization of the United Nations. FAO. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.\naspx. (accessed June 2024).\nGerhart, D. Z., and Likens, G. E. (1975). Enrichment Experiments for Determining\nLimitation: Four Methods Compared. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20:649–53.\nGunundu, R., Shimelis, H., and Mashilo, J. (2023). Genomic selection and enablers\nfor agronomic traits in maize (Zea mays): A review. Plant Breed 142, 573–593.\ndoi: 10.1111/pbr.13127\nHarrison, M. N. (1970). “\"Maize improvement in East Africa,\",” in Crop improvement in\nEast Africa. Ed. C. L. A. Leakey (Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, England), 27–36.\nHenderson, C. R. (1975). Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a\nselection model. Biometrics 31 2, 423–447. doi: 10.2307/2529430\nJakhar, D. S., Singh, R., Pargat Singh, S. K., and Ojha, V. (2017). Turcicum leaf blight:\nA ubiquitous foliar disease of maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 6,\n825–831. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.097\nJatzold, R., and Kutsch, H. (1982). Agro-ecological zones of the tropics, with a sample\nfrom Kenya. Tropenlandwirt 83, 15–34.\nKebede, M., Mekbib, F., Abakemal, D., and Bogale, G. (2020). Genetic gain of maize\n(Zea mays L.) varieties in Ethiopia over 42 year (1997-2015). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 15 (3),\n419–430. doi: 10.5897/ajar201", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " maize\n(Zea mays L.) varieties in Ethiopia over 42 year (1997-2015). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 15 (3),\n419–430. doi: 10.5897/ajar2019.14564\nKenworthy, J. M. (1966). Temperature conditions in the tropical highland climates of\nEast Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 4), 1–11.\nKEPHIS (2023). “Kenya National Crop Variety List”, in: pdf. (ed.). A report.\nAvailable online at: https://kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NATIONAL-\nVARIETY-LIST-APRIL-2023.pdf (Accessed on 8th November 2023).\nKhanna, A., Anumalla, M., Catolos, M., Bartholomé, J., Fritsche-Neto, R., Platten, J.\nD., et al. (2022). Genetic trends estimation in IRRI's rice drought breeding program and\nidentification of high-yielding drought-tolerant lines. Rice 15 (1), 14. doi: 10.1186/\ns12284–022-00559–3\nKirimi, L., Sitko, N., Jayne, T. S., Karin, F., Muyanga, M., Sheahan, M., et al. (2011) A\nfarm gate-to-consumer value chain analysis of Kenya’s maize marketing system\n(Accessed 1st August 2023).\nKostandini, G., La Rovere, R., and Abdoulaye, T.. (2013). Potential impacts of\nincreasing average yields and reducing maize yield variability in Africa. Food Policy\n43:213–26. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.007\nLane, H. M., Murray, S. C., Montesinos−López, O. A., Montesinos−López, A., Crossa,\nJ., Rooney, D. K., et al. (2020). Phenomic selection and prediction of maize grain yield\nfrom near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy of kernels. Plant Phenome J. 3 (1).\ndoi: 10.1002/pp", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " et al. (2020). Phenomic selection and prediction of maize grain yield\nfrom near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy of kernels. Plant Phenome J. 3 (1).\ndoi: 10.1002/ppj2.20002\nLarkin, D. L., Lozada, D. N., and Esten Mason, R. (2019). Genomic selection—\nconsiderations for successful implementation in wheat breeding programs. Agronomy 9\n(9), 479. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9090479\nLopez-Zuniga, L. O., Wolters, P., Davis, S., Weldekidan, T., Kolkman, J. M., Nelson,\nR. J., et al. (2018). Using maize chromosome segment substitution line populations for\nthe identification of loci associated with multiple disease resistance. G3-Genes Genom.\nGenet. 9, 189–201. doi: 10.1534/g3.118.200866\nMarenya, P. P., Wanyama, R., Alemu, S., and Woyengo, V. (2021). Trait preference\ntrade-offs among maize farmers in western Kenya. Heliyon 7, e06389. doi: 10.1016/\nj.heliyon.2021.e06389\nMasuka, B., Atlin, G. N., Olsen, M., Magorokosho, C., Labuschagne, M., Crossa, J.,\net al. (2017). Gains in maize genetic improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: I.\nCIMMYT hybrid breeding pipeline. Crop Sci. 57 (1), 168–179. doi: 10.2135/\ncropsci2016.05.0343\nMazibuko, P., Mutengwa, C., Magorokosho, C., Kutywayo, D., and Kamutando, C.\nN. (2024). Genetic gains of grain yield among the maize cultivars released over a\ncentury from the national breeding program of Zimbabwe. Agronomy 14, 246.\ndoi: 10.3390/agronomy14020246\nMiedaner, T., and Juroszek, P. (2021). Global", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " from the national breeding program of Zimbabwe. Agronomy 14, 246.\ndoi: 10.3390/agronomy14020246\nMiedaner, T., and Juroszek, P. (2021). Global warming and increasing maize\ncultivation demand comprehensive efforts in disease and insect resistance breeding\nin north-western Europe. Plant Pathol. 70, 1032–1046. doi: 10.1111/ppa.13365\nMiruka, M. K., Okello, J. J., Kirigua, V. O., and Murithi, F. M. (2012). The role of the\nKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in the attainment of household food\nsecurity in Kenya: A policy and organizational review. Food Secur. 4, 341–354.\ndoi: 10.1007/s12571–012-0197–9\nMoose, S. P., and Mumm, R. H. (2008). Molecular plant breeding as the foundation\nfor 21st-century crop improvement. Plant Physiol. 147, 969–977. doi: 10.1104/\npp.108.118232\nMutiga, S. K., Morales, L., Angwenyi, S., Wanaina, J. M., Harvey, J. W., Das, B., et al\n(2017). Association between agronomic traits and aflatoxin accumulation in diverse\nmaize lines grown under two soil nitrogen leaves in Eastern Kenya. Field Crops Res. 205,\n124–134. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.007\nNgwira, P., and Pixley, K. V. (2000). \"Eastern Africa Regional Maize Nursery: Project\nReport for 1997 and 1998.\" (Harare, Zimbabwe: CIMMYT).\nNjeru, F., Wambua, A., Muge, E., Haesaert, G., Gettemans, J., and Misinzo, G. (2023).\nMajor biotic stresses affecting maize production in Kenya and their implications for\nfood security. PeerJ 11, 11:e15685. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15685\nNnadi, N. E., and Carter, D. A", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " production in Kenya and their implications for\nfood security. PeerJ 11, 11:e15685. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15685\nNnadi, N. E., and Carter, D. A. (2021). Climate change and the emergence of fungal\npathogens. PloS Pathog. 17, e1009503. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009503\nOmondi, D. O., Dida, M. M., Berger, D. K., Beyene, Y., Nsibo, D. L., Juma, C., et al.\n(2023). Combination of linkage and association mapping with genomic prediction to\ninfer QTL regions associated with gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight resistance\nin tropical maize. Front. Genet. 14. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1282673\nPhilip, K. T., Jones, P. G., Alagarswamy, G., Andresen, J., and Herrero, M. (2010).\nAdapting to climate change: Agricultural system and household impacts in East Africa.\nAgric. Syst. 103, 73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.09.003\nPoland, J. A., Balint-Kurti, P. J., Wisser, R. J., Pratt, R. C., and Nelson, R. J. (2009).\nShades of gray: The world of quantitative disease resistance. Trends Plant Sci. 14, 21–29.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.006\nPrasanna, B. M., Bruce, A., Beyene, Y., Makumbi, D., Gowda, M., Asim, M., et al.\n(2022a). Host plant resistance for fall armyworm management in maize: relevance,\nstatus and prospects in Africa and Asia. Theor. Appl. Genet. 135 (11), 3897–3916.\ndoi: 10.1007/s00122–022-04073–4\nPrasanna, B. M., Burgueño, J., Beyene, Y., Makumbi, D., Asea, G., Woy", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "doi: 10.1007/s00122–022-04073–4\nPrasanna, B. M., Burgueño, J., Beyene, Y., Makumbi, D., Asea, G., Woyengo, V., et al.\n(2022b). Genetic trends in CIMMYT’s tropical maize breeding pipelines. Sci. Rep. 12,\n20110. doi: 10.1038/s41598–022-24536–4\nRutkoski, J. E., Krause, M. R., and Sorrells, M. E. (2022). “\"Breeding methods:\nPopulation improvement and selection methods,\",” in Wheat Improvement (Springer\nInternational Publishing, Cham, Switzerland), 83–96.\nSchroeder, C., Onyango K’Oloo, T., Ranabhat, N., Jick, N., Parzies, H., and Gemenet,\nD. (2013). Potentials of hybrid maize varieties for small-holder farmers in Kenya: A\nreview based on swot analysis. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 13, 7562–7586.\ndoi: 10.18697/ajfand.57.11360\nSmale, M., and Olwande, J. (2011) Is older better? Maize hybrid change on household\nfarms in Kenya. Available online at: https://www.tegemeo.org/ (Accessed 12July2023).\nTarekegne, A., Wegary, D., Cairns, J. E., Zaman-Allah, M., Beyene, Y., Negera, D.,\net al. (2024). Genetic gains in early maturing maize hybrids developed by the\nInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Southern Africa during\n2000–2018. Front. Plant Sci. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1321308\nTesfaye, K., Gbegbelegbe, S., Cairns, J. E., Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B. M., Sonder, K.,\net al. (2015). Maize systems under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: Potential\nimpacts on production and food security. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manage", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "asanna, B. M., Sonder, K.,\net al. (2015). Maize systems under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: Potential\nimpacts on production and food security. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manage. 7, 247–\n271. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-01–2014-0005\nWang, Y., Vitale, J., Park, P., Adams, B., Agesa, B., and Korir, M. (2017).\nSocioeconomic determinants of hybrid maize adoption in Kenya. Afr. J. Agric. Res.\n12, 617–631. doi: 10.5897/ajar2016.11958\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n13", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Ward, J., Stromberg, E., Nowell, D., and Nutter, J. F. (1999). Gray leaf spot: A disease\nof global importance in maize production. Plant Dis. 83, 884–895. doi: 10.1094/\nPDIS.1999.83.10.884\nWarfield, C. Y., and Davis, R. M. (1996). Importance of the husk covering on the\nsusceptibility of corn hybrids to fusarium ear rot. Plant Dis. 80, 208–210. doi: 10.1094/\nPD-80-0208\nWende, A., Shimelis, H., and Gwata, E. T. (2018). “Genetic variability for resistance\nto leaf blight and diversity among selected maize inbred lines,” in M. A. El-Esawi ed.\nMaize Germplasm - Characterization and Genetic Approaches for Crop Improvement\n(London, UK: IntechOpen Limited). Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/\nchapters/56913.\nXu, Y., Li, P., Zou, C., Lu, Y., Xie, C., Zhang, X., et al. (2017). Enhancing genetic gain\nin the era of molecular breeding. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 2641–2666. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx135\nZakaria, Z., Yaacob, M. A., Yaacob, Z., Noordin, N., Sawal, M. Z. H. M., and Zakaria,\nZ. (2011). Key performance indicators (KPIs) in the public sector: A study in Malaysia.\nAsian Soc Sci. 7, 102–107. doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n7p102\nLigeyo et al.\n10.3389/fpls.2024.1416538\nFrontiers in Plant Science\nfrontiersin.org\n14", "source": "fpls-15-1416538.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ORIGINAL RESEARCH\npublished: 15 June 2022\ndoi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.702405\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n1\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405\nEdited by:\nTodd Andrew Crane,\nInternational Livestock Research\nInstitute (ILRI), Kenya\nReviewed by:\nNathaniel Jensen,\nIndependent Researcher, Morris, NY,\nUnited States\nGirma Hailu,\nInternational Centre of Insect\nPhysiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Kenya\n*Correspondence:\nPaswel Phiri Marenya\np.marenya@cgiar.org\nSpecialty section:\nThis article was submitted to\nClimate-Smart Food Systems,\na section of the journal\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\nReceived: 29 April 2021\nAccepted: 05 May 2022\nPublished: 15 June 2022\nCitation:\nMarenya PP, Wanyama R, Alemu S\nand Woyengo V (2022) Building\nResilient Maize Production Systems\nWith Stress-Adapted Varieties:\nFarmers’ Priorities in Western Kenya.\nFront. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:702405.\ndoi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.702405\nBuilding Resilient Maize Production\nSystems With Stress-Adapted\nVarieties: Farmers’ Priorities in\nWestern Kenya\nPaswel Phiri Marenya 1*, Rosina Wanyama 1, Solomon Alemu 2 and Vincent Woyengo 3\n1 The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Sustainable Agrifood Systems Program, Nairobi, Kenya,\n2 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), Addis\nAbaba, Ethiopia, 3 Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Small Ruminant Research Center, Kakamega,\nKenya\nMaize cropping systems in Kenya, as is true in many other places in Africa, face multiple\nbiotic and abiotic stressors not least climatic ones. Guided by farmers’ priorities, maize\nbreeding programs can contribute to the needed resilience against these changes by\ndeveloping and mainstreaming new generations of maize varieties adapted to these\nchallenges. Using data from ", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " not least climatic ones. Guided by farmers’ priorities, maize\nbreeding programs can contribute to the needed resilience against these changes by\ndeveloping and mainstreaming new generations of maize varieties adapted to these\nchallenges. Using data from 1,400 farmers and applying a multi-criteria choice analysis,\nthis study reports on smallholder farmers’ relative valuation of stress tolerance traits. The\nresults showed that farmers were willing to pay significant premiums for tolerance to\ndrought, striga, low nitrogen (nitrogen use efficiency) and fall army worm infestation, in\nthat order. Large scale incorporation of these traits in legacy varieties as well as new ones,\ncan contribute to enhancing maize system resilience and adaptation to changing growing\nconditions. For seed systems development, these traits can provide the basis for making\nstrong business cases for the replacement of old varieties with new, stress-adapted ones.\nKeywords: Africa, climate change adaptation, climate-ready maize varieties, maize-genetic improvement,\nresilience, smallholder farming systems\nINTRODUCTION\nAs smallholder farming systems form the majority of maize production in Kenya, it is imperative\nto enhance their productivity, resilience, and adaptability to climate changes. Part of the toolkit\nto achieve these aims involves mainstreaming stress- and climate-adapted maize varieties. Maize\nproduction in most sub-Saharan African countries has yet to reach its potential due to a\ncombination of factors, including drought, degraded and infertile soils, diseases, pests, weeds,\nand the limited use of improved seed or chemical fertilizer (International Maize and Wheat\nImprovement Center; CIMMYT, 2013). An estimated 40% of Africa’s maize-growing area faces\noccasional drought stress, resulting in yield losses of 10–25% (CIMMYT, 2013). A combination of\nsupply and demand factors can also reduce access to modern seeds. For example, the adoption of\nstress-tolerant maize varieties in eastern and southern Africa was conditioned by their availability,\ninadequate information, a lack of resources, high seed prices, and their perceived attributes (Fisher\net al., 2015).\nIn recent years, national and international breeding systems have implemented programs to\nproduce stress-tolerant varieties focusing on tolerance to drought, weeds, low soil nitrogen, and\ninsects. For example, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ").\nIn recent years, national and international breeding systems have implemented programs to\nproduce stress-tolerant varieties focusing on tolerance to drought, weeds, low soil nitrogen, and\ninsects. For example, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), the", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nnational research body in Kenya, has implemented a number of\nsuch breeding programs. The multi-year and multi-million dollar\nDrought Tolerant Maize for Africa project (2006–2015), which\nwas implemented in 12 other African countries, is an example.\nFurther, the Improved Maize for African Soils project (2010–15)\nfocused on breeding for efficient nitrogen use.\nThe Water-Efficient Maize for Africa project (2008–2018)\nwas meant to produce varieties that were suited for moisture-\nstressed environments, while the Insect-Resistant Maize for\nAfrica project (1999–2004) aimed to promote insect resistance.\nRecently, the Stress-Tolerant Maize for Africa project (2016–\n2020) was implemented to consolidate some of the previously\nmentioned legacy breeding programs to focus on multiple stress-\ntolerant breeding goals, such as combating drought, invasive,\ncompetitive plant species, and low nitrogen, among others. The\nfocus on these stress elements is understandable, as these affect\nKenya and other countries in the region in various ways.\nDrought\nDrought is estimated to cause up to a 39% seasonal reduction\nin yield in much of sub-Saharan Africa (Daryanto et al., 2016).\nAccording to CIMMYT (2013), frequent droughts—or those\naffecting 25% of the maize area—often lead to 50% of losses\nduring the production season. The same study (CIMMYT, 2013)\nindicated that 40% of the maize area suffers from occasional\ndroughts, with yield losses of 10–25%. An ex-ante assessment of\nthe benefits of diffusion of drought-tolerant maize varieties in\n13 African countries, including Kenya, would range from 9 to\n$1.5 billion (Rovere et al., 2014), revealing the potential economic\nfallout from unmitigated effects of droughts.\nStriga\nThe striga weed (Striga hermonthica), also known by its common\nname “witch weed,” is a parasitic plant of cereals, including maize.\nIt depletes the", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "��ects of droughts.\nStriga\nThe striga weed (Striga hermonthica), also known by its common\nname “witch weed,” is a parasitic plant of cereals, including maize.\nIt depletes the host’s nutrients by inserting its roots into those\nof the host’s root tissues. The resulting nutrient malnutrition can\ncreate extremely low or absent yields depending on the severity of\ninfestation or the host plant’s tolerance (Ejeta, 2007). In the 1990s,\nstriga was estimated to impact as much as 50–100 million ha in\nsub-Saharan Africa (Lagoke et al., 1991; Kanampiu et al., 2018),\nwith consequent yield losses ranging from 20 to 80% (Khan et al.,\n2006; Ejeta, 2007). Striga’s negative effects can be observed in\nexpansive fields over a short period of time due to its diverse\nseed-dispersal mechanisms, including contaminated crop seeds,\nfarm implements, wind, and animals, among others (Berner et al.,\n1996; Ejeta, 2007).\nClimate change has expanded striga’s range of habitats\nacross maize-growing areas. Mechanical, chemical, and biological\ncontrol methods are all used to some degree, such as physical\nweeding, crop rotation, both trap and catch crops, and the use\nof herbicides and fertilizers (Gressel et al., 2004). However, none\nhave successfully eliminated the striga menace, and especially\nin Africa. The weed’s physiology and adaptability has made it\ndifficult to control, as it has a unique life cycle with broad genetic\nvariation in its reproductive process and it infects a wide range\nof crops (Ejeta, 2007; Hearne, 2009). Host plant resistance is\na promising strategy in controlling striga, and especially when\ncombined with beneficial agronomic practices, including soil\nnutrient management.\nLow-Nitrogen Soils\nMaize is a nutrient-demanding crop sensitive to nutrient\ndeficiencies, especially nitrogen (Emede and Alika, 2012).\nFurther, large amounts of nutrients are often required to achieve\nthe genetic promise of high yields (Arisede et al., 2020), while", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "deficiencies, especially nitrogen (Emede and Alika, 2012).\nFurther, large amounts of nutrients are often required to achieve\nthe genetic promise of high yields (Arisede et al., 2020), while\nmany African soils are depleted of macro-nutrients (Drechsel\net al., 2001; Pasley et al., 2020). While Smaling et al. (1993)\nestimated nitrogen (N) depletion due to maize production at\n42 kg/N per ha annually, many farmers apply limited nutrients\ndue to a lack of funds to purchase fertilizers, a long-standing\nissue (Kamara et al., 2006). The fertilizers that are distributed are\napplied in small quantities. Sheahan and Barrett (2017) estimated\nthat most of Africa only uses ∼5 to 12 kg/N fertilizer applications\nper hectare.\nThe development of N-efficient maize that can withstand\nlow levels of nitrogen in many African soils is an important\ncontribution to enabling low-input producers to best use the\navailable soil N, in addition to the limited amounts they can\nafford (Arisede et al., 2020). Maize varieties with high nitrogen\nuse efficiency (NUE) do so through a higher recovery efficiency\nof N (Arisede et al., 2020), which reduces N losses and provides a\ncost advantage for farmers who can only afford limited amounts\nof N, such as the majority of African smallholders (Sheahan and\nBarrett, 2017). Broadly and in the long run, farmers must be\ncareful, as excessive N applications can increase greenhouse gas\nemissions. Some estimates suggest that over half of applied N\nis lost through leaching, and therefore, is not utilized by plants\n(Arisede et al., 2020).\nGlobally, nitrogen from fertilizers contribute to 30% of\nthe total nitrous oxide, which contributes to air pollution\nand the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere\n(Dobermann and Cassman, 2005; Skiba and Rees, 2014). This\nsuggests a strong case for N use efficiency through agronomic\nand genetic approaches. Therefore, the pathway toward increased\ninput", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " and Cassman, 2005; Skiba and Rees, 2014). This\nsuggests a strong case for N use efficiency through agronomic\nand genetic approaches. Therefore, the pathway toward increased\ninput use and productivity, even in low-input-use environments,\nshould involve identifying methods to increase the efficiency\nof nitrogen use. Subsequently, small-scale farmers with low\nagricultural inputs can use crop varieties selected and bred for\nlow-N tolerance as a reliable economic method to increase maize\nyields. This also provides a sustainable approach to mitigate\nclimate change (Badu-Apraku et al., 2018).\nFall Armyworm\nThe fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith)—hereafter\n“FAW”—is an insect that originated in the Americas, and was\nfirst reported in Africa in early 2016 (Goergen et al., 2016). The\nFAW has the remarkable ability to migrate over long distances\non prevailing winds, produce many eggs, and thrive in a variety\nof hosts and environments (Day et al., 2017; Prasanna et al.,\n2018). By 2018, it had been identified in 30 countries across the\ncontinent, including Kenya, with losses of up to 40% estimated\nin Ghana and Zambia (Day et al., 2017), 47% in Kenya, and\n32% in Ethiopia (Kumela et al., 2019). Further, Prasanna et al.\n(2018) illustrated the devastating effects of FAW by reporting that\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n2\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nthe insect can feed on more than 80 different crop species, such\nas maize, sorghum, rice, sugarcane, pasture grasses, and millet.\nThe Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International, CABI\n(2017) estimated the FAW’s potential economic devastation as\n8.3–20.6 million metric tons of crops per year, with impacts in\na dozen maize-producing countries in Africa accounting for 21–\n53% of yield losses in a 3-year period. In monetary terms, these\nlosses amount to up to $6.2 billion.\nDe Groote et al. (2020) found that over 80% of farmers in\nKenya have already been affected by FAW and reported over\n30% in yield losses, with variations observed across ecological\nzones. A range of integrated pest-management practices (IPMs)\ncan be deployed to manage the FAW (Prasanna et al., 2018).\nWhile pesticides can be effective, the environmental and\nhealth risks demand that appropriate IPMs be promoted, and\nespecially in resource-constrained environments in Africa with\nlittle awareness of their safe use and abundant regulatory\ngaps. Therefore, developing host plant resistance is a crucial\nelement in effective IPMs to manage the FAW. In all cases,\nIPM strategies that combine good agronomic practices and\nmeasures of FAW resistance in maize can be deemed a higher\npriority than chemical-dependent interventions from a human\nor environmental health perspective and regardless of farmers’\neconomic or educational circumstances.\nGiven these challenges, maize breeding programs can provide\nthe necessary resilience by developing and promoting a new\ngeneration of maize varieties that are bred to withstand or\ntolerate these stresses. These efforts should be guided by farmers’\npriorities for the new varieties to quickly gain broad acceptance.\nThis study was designed to understand the willingness to sacrifice\nyield for stress-tolerant varieties. We consider the tolerance to\nfour stresses: drought, the striga weed, fall armyworm, and low\nnitrogen (measured by a lower top-dressing requirement).\nTHE CONTEXT: SEED MARKETS IN KENYA\nAND FARMER SEED CHOICES\nThe seed", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " drought, the striga weed, fall armyworm, and low\nnitrogen (measured by a lower top-dressing requirement).\nTHE CONTEXT: SEED MARKETS IN KENYA\nAND FARMER SEED CHOICES\nThe seed markets in Kenya and most of the maize markets in\nAfrica, are characterized by what is typically called low variety\nturnover (newer varieties are slow to gain market share to replace\nold ones). The number of varieties that are drought tolerant\nhave increased in recent years. Varieties tolerant to FAW are just\nbeginning to come onto commercial markets. Varieties tolerant\nto striga and low N have been around for some time. The\nchallenge is that due to a variety of reasons around farmers’\ndecision inertia, weak marketing strategies and low profits for\nseed companies in investing in new varieties (because it takes a\nlong time to gain market share), new superior varieties remain\npoorly commercialized.\nRegarding prices, seed prices usually do not vary based on\ntraits (Rutsaert and Donovan, 2020). This is a major weakness\nthat is frequently cited as an impediment for introducing new\nvarieties. The experiential nature of new seed varieties often\nmakes many farmers hesitant to buy these new varieties without\nfirst observing them in a low-cost way and for a period of\ntime (leading to the slow variety turnover cited above). This\nalso discourages seed companies from investing in the upfront\npromotional costs, thereby creating a viscous cycle of slow\nmarket insertion of new varieties. In focus group discussions,\nseed price was not mentioned as an attribute that farmers\nconsidered when deciding on their seed purchases, reflecting the\nundifferentiated nature of the market. This is an area that requires\ncareful attention in research and development.\nIn summary, seed prices do not vary by traits, this is\na weakness of the seed sector in Kenya (and the region).\nThis is the main reason we use yield to assess farmers’\nvaluation of these traits (this information is itself valuable)\nto inform breeding investments or innovative trait-based\ncommercialization efforts. This paper provides much-needed\ninsights into farmers prioritization of the relevant traits to\nprovide the basis for feedback to seed companies, breeders, policy\nmakers and others to inform maize improvement priorities.\nMATERIALS AND", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "fforts. This paper provides much-needed\ninsights into farmers prioritization of the relevant traits to\nprovide the basis for feedback to seed companies, breeders, policy\nmakers and others to inform maize improvement priorities.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nSampling and Data\nThe study was conducted in the mid-altitude, moist, transitional\nmaize-growing areas of western Kenya. The sample was limited\nto the administrative and agro-ecological characteristics of the\nregion’s Busia and Siaya counties. These counties were some\nof the implementation sites for a stress-tolerant maize breeding\nand seed-development project conducted by the KALRO and\nCIMMYT. The dominance of smallholder maize production\nsystems and maize’s role as a prominent staple in farmers’\ncrop portfolios were factors also considered in developing the\nsampling for this study. Finally, we considered the relatively\nlow penetration of stress-tolerant hybrids in these counties’ and\njurisdictions’ seed markets when selecting them for inclusion in\nthis study. Among the four sub-counties selected—Central Alego\nand Alego-Usonga in Siaya County; and Butula and Samia in\nBusia County—eight wards were selected: two in Siaya and six\nin Busia.\nThe final stage of sampling occurred by randomly selecting\nvillages from each ward based on the sampling principle of\nprobability proportional to size. As more villages were sampled\nfrom the larger wards, these wards contributed more to the\nsample. In each village, 40 households were randomly selected to\ngenerate a final random sample of 701 households. Two adults\nfrom each household separately participated in the interview,\nwith questions relating to household data answered by the head of\nthe household as the household representative. These questions\nwere not re-administered to the second respondent (typically\nthe spouse or another adult member of the family). After\nthe head of household finished answering their questions and\nparticipating in the choice experiment (to be described below),\nthe spouse or other adult in the household with significant\nmaize-production responsibilities participated in the full choice\nexperiment. This second respondent also answered a subset\nof the other interview questions related to the management\nof the plots they were responsible for. This process generated\na total of 1,400 respondents: 701 were household heads, 419\n", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "experiment. This second respondent also answered a subset\nof the other interview questions related to the management\nof the plots they were responsible for. This process generated\na total of 1,400 respondents: 701 were household heads, 419\nwere spouses, and 280 were other adult household members.\nOf the 1,400 respondents, 732 (52.3%) were female. The map\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n3\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nFIGURE 1 | Map of study areas in western Kenya and sample sizes per ward.\ndisplayed in Figure 1 summarizes the sampled districts, villages,\nand households.\nConceptual Framework for Choice\nExperiment\nThis study implemented a choice experiment to elicit farmers’\nrelative preferences for selected yield traits. Diverse literature has\ndiscussed choice experiment methods in the transport, health,\nmarketing, and environmental economics fields (Hensher et al.,\n2005; Louviere et al., 2010; Schipmann and Qaim, 2011; Veettil\net al., 2011; Meemken et al., 2017; Ochieng et al., 2017; Wanyama\net al., 2019). The farmers in this study were presented with two\nhypothetical maize varieties with varying levels of the identified\ntraits: yield and the tolerance to drought, striga, low nitrogen, and\nthe FAW. In using a choice experiment approach, we construe\nfarmers’ choices of their preferred variety as following a random\nutility framework, calculated as\nUij = Vij + εij,\n(1)\nwhere U is the utility of farmer i associated with choice j, V\nis the deterministic component, and ε is the random element.\nThe choice of j among several alternatives means that the utility\nderived from j is greater that the utility derived from all other\nattributes. Assuming Yi is a random variable that indicates the\nchoice made, and given the choice between alternatives j and k,\nthe probability that farmer i chooses alternative j is\nProb\n\u0000Yi = j\n\f\f j, k = Prob\n\u0002\u0000Vij + εij\n\u0001\n> (Vik + εik)\n\u0003\n,\nfor all j ̸= k; k = 1, 2 . . . J.\nTherefore, the utility Uij depends on attributes of (choice) variety\nj, and farmer i’s individual characteristics. Assuming m is a vector\nof farmer characteristics and A is a vector of the alternative’s\nattributes, it follows that\nVij = βmij + α′Ai,\n(2)\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n4\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article ", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " the alternative’s\nattributes, it follows that\nVij = βmij + α′Ai,\n(2)\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n4\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nwhere β and α are the corresponding vectors of the parameters\nto be estimated.\nWe use a mixed logit (MIXL) model as an improvement over\nthe multinomial logit (MNL) and conditional logit (CL) models\n(McFadden, 1973; Hoffman and Duncan, 1988; McFadden and\nTrain, 2000; Hensher and Greene, 2003). The MNL is appropriate\nwhen the focus is on the individual as a unit of analysis, and\nuses the individual’s characteristics as explanatory variables;\nin contrast, the CL focuses on a set of alternatives for each\nindividual, and the characteristics of these alternatives are used\nas explanatory variables (Hoffman and Duncan, 1988). The MNL\nand CL can be calculated as\nPij = exp\n\u0000Miβj\n\u0001\n/\nJ\nX\nk=1\nexp(Miβk) for multinomial logit; and (3)\nPij = exp\n\u0000Aijα\n\u0001\n/\nJ\nX\nk=1\nexp(Aikα) for conditional logit, (4)\nwhere M represents the characteristics of individual i, Aij denotes\nthe characteristics of alternative j for individual i, and β and α\nare the corresponding vectors of parameters that represent the\ninfluence of individual characteristics and choice attributes.\nA strong assumption for the MNL and CL models is the\nrequirement that the unobserved effects be independently and\nidentically distributed (IID) across the alternatives in the choice\nset, according to the extreme Type 1 distribution (Dahlberg and\nEklöf, 2003). The IID assumption results in a rigid property\nof “independence from irrelevant alternatives” (IIA; Hoffman\nand Duncan, 1988; Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire, 1999). The IIA\nproperty assumes that the entire population has a homogeneous\npreference structure that restricts the β to be the same for all\nmembers of the population (Holmes and Adamowicz, 2003).\nSpecifically, if εij for all i, then j is the probability that a given\nindividual", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "s the β to be the same for all\nmembers of the population (Holmes and Adamowicz, 2003).\nSpecifically, if εij for all i, then j is the probability that a given\nindividual i chooses alternative j within the choice set Zn, which\nis given by\np\n\u0000j\n\f\fzi\n\u0001\n=\nexp(µvi)\nP\nkεzi exp(µvk)\n(5)\nThe IIA property is difficult to satisfy when only two alternatives\nare presented (Benson et al., 2016). The IIA requirement can be\nsatisfied by allowing the unobserved part of the utility function\nto follow a multivariate normal distribution, letting the residuals\ncorrelate with each other, and estimating the model with a\nmultinomial probit model (Dahlberg and Eklöf, 2003).\nAs another approach suggested in literature, the MIXL\nmodel (Hall et al., 2004; Hensher et al., 2005; Hole, 2007) can\naccommodate random taste variations as well as correlations\nin unobserved factors, which relaxes the IIA assumption\n(McFadden and Train, 2000; Campbell et al., 2006; Train, 2009).\nWe use the MIXL model to calculate the utility derived by farmer\ni from choosing maize variety j on choice occasion t, as\nUijt = (β + ri) xijt + εij r = 1, . . . .R; j = 1, . . . J; t = 1, . . . T,(6)\nwhere β is the vector of the mean attribute utility weights in the\npopulation, ri is the vector of person i’s specific deviation from\nthe mean. The random error term εijt is still assumed to be an\nindependently and identically distributed extreme value. The ri\ncan take several distributional forms, such as the multivariate\nnormal of (0, P). As one of the variables used in the choice\nset is the seed price (cost) variable, we assume a log-normal\ndistribution because it allows the price variable to take on a\nnegative sign (Train, 2009; Fiebig et al., 2010). Assuming", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " choice\nset is the seed price (cost) variable, we assume a log-normal\ndistribution because it allows the price variable to take on a\nnegative sign (Train, 2009; Fiebig et al., 2010). Assuming non-\ncorrelation in the attributes, the estimation model takes the\nform of\nYijt = γ Pijt + δAijt + εnjt,\n(7)\nwhere Y is a binary decision variable that assumes a value of one if\nfarmer i chooses variety j in choice scenario t, and zero otherwise;\nP denotes the price attribute; and A is a vector of other attributes,\nincluding yield and the tolerance to drought, the fall armyworm,\nlow nitrogen, and striga. It is possible that the responses in\nEquation (that is Y) are correlated within households. In our case\nthe MIXL estimation was clustered at household level, and the\nstandard errors are specified as robust.1 For robustness checks,\nthe standard errors are also clustered at village level. While the\nnumber of villages in our sample is not enough (16 villages),\nthe results would still provide a good ground for comparison\nto identify any significant differences. A negative coefficient for\nγ implies that farmers generally prefer lower seed prices. A\npositive coefficient for δ implies that another variety of attributes\npositively influences the selection of a particular variety.\nHeterogeneity and Estimating Willingness\nto Pay for Traits\nThe core of the MIXL model is preference heterogeneity, which\ncan be detected when a statistically significant standard deviation\nis estimated. Therefore, several interaction terms are included to\ncapture these heterogeneities, as\nYijt = γ Pijt + δAijt + λ(Aijt∗Mi) + εijt,\n(8)\nwhere M represents a vector of socioeconomic characteristics.\nThe estimates in Equations (7) and (8) can be used to calculate\nthe willingness to pay (WTP) for the selected attributes. This is\ncomputed by obtaining the partial derivatives of price (P) relative\nto other attributes (A) and multiplying this value by −1 (Hole\nand Kolstad, 2012), as\nWTP = ∂P\n∂Aj\n=", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " obtaining the partial derivatives of price (P) relative\nto other attributes (A) and multiplying this value by −1 (Hole\nand Kolstad, 2012), as\nWTP = ∂P\n∂Aj\n= −δj\nγ\nWe also calculate an alternative WTP measure with the yield\ncoefficient instead of the coefficient for the price variable. To\n1The mixed logit (MIXL) which is meant to take care of heterogeneity uses a\ngroup variable that allows the model to be estimated by clustering at the household\nrespondent and household level. We used the variable “group_id” which was\ngenerated using three variables household ID (household cluster), respondent type\n(respondent heterogeneity) and experiment session id (to capture any correlations\nbetween experimental sessions).\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n5\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nTABLE 1 | Summary of maize traits identified and used in the experiments.\nTraits\nDescription\nLevelsa\nReference\nlevel\nPrice (Kshs/2 kg\npacket)\nThe buying price for\na maize seed\n300, 400, 500, 600, 700,\n800\nYield (90 Kg\nbags/acre)\nAmount of dry grain\nthat farmers can\nobtain per unit of\nland usually in bags\nof 90-kg per acre.\n6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24\nDrought tolerant\n(DT)\nWhen there is a dry\nspell the tolerant\nmaize stays green.\nThe variety which\nmoderately or\ndrought tolerant has\nthe quality of yielding\nat least half of the\nnormal yields when\nthere is mid-season\nmoderate\n(no-catastrophic)\ndrought.\nNot tolerant, moderately\ntolerant, completely\ndrought tolerant\nNot drought\ntolerant\nFall army worm\ntolerant (FAT)\nNot resistant, moderately\nresistant, completely\nresistant\nNot tolerant\nto fall army\nworm\nNitrogen use\nefficient (tolerant\nto low N) – NUE\nNot resistant, moderately\nresistant, Completely\nresistant\nNot tolerant\nto low\nnitrogen\nTolerant to striga\n(ST)\nNot tolerant, moderately\ntolerant, Completely\ndrought tolerant\nNot tolerant\nto striga\naIn all these cases, not tolerant (resistant) meant total yield failure (a loss of more than\n14 90–kg bags/acre or more than 90% yield failure, given a typical good yield of 15\n90-kg bags/acre). Moderately tolerant meant at 25-50% (4–8 90-kg bags/acre) yield\nfailure and tolerant meant no more than 10% (2 90-kg bags/ha) yield failure based on\n15 bags per acre reference point in most of the communities and based on the focus\ngroup discussions.\ndistinguish the two, the latter is considered the “willingness to\nsacrifice yield” (WTSY), and is calculated as\nW", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " point in most of the communities and based on the focus\ngroup discussions.\ndistinguish the two, the latter is considered the “willingness to\nsacrifice yield” (WTSY), and is calculated as\nWTSY = ∂Y\n∂Aj\n= δj\nγ\nNote that we do not multiply δj\nγ by−1 because the yield coefficient\nis (intuitively) positive.\nChoice Experiment Design\nData was collected using a structured choice experiment\naccompanied by a demographic and farm survey questionnaire.\nAs previously stated, the experiments were conducted separately\nin each household, with both the household head and the spouse,\nor another adult household member who independently operated\na maize plot. If the household had only one single adult head, with\nonly minor children as the other members, or where only one\nadult operated a maize plot, then only one member—typically the\nhousehold head—was interviewed.\nA series of 18 focus group discussions (FGDs) were used\nto identify the key traits to use in the CE. These FGDs were\nmeant to narrow down the key stress tolerance traits of concern,\nor those most likely to influence farmers’ choices of maize\nvarieties. Three FGDs occurred in each host village,2 and two\nof these meetings were exclusively men or women, with a third\nmixed; each FGD had 6–12 participants. The aim was to gather\ninformation for designing a parsimonious experiment that would\nnot impose an undue cognitive load on the participants. We\nachieved this following the 18 FGDs by restricting the choices to\nthe following six attributes, as listed in Table 1: seed prices; yield;\nand tolerance to the four stresses of drought, low nitrogen, striga,\nand fall armyworm.\nSecond, the FGDs were also meant to help us determine the\nreasonable ranges to use without creating choice options that\nwere too complex. Therefore, we aimed to develop a choice\nexperiment that was familiar in the local contexts, but that also\nused the most important choice criteria. The actual experimental\nsessions were conducted using the levels estimated from the\nFGDs; these were designed using the NGENE software suite\n(ChoiceMetrics, 2012) using a D-efficient design (Hall et al.,\n2002;", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nsessions were conducted using the levels estimated from the\nFGDs; these were designed using the NGENE software suite\n(ChoiceMetrics, 2012) using a D-efficient design (Hall et al.,\n2002; ChoiceMetrics, 2012). To facilitate a recognition of the\nchoices, 12 combinations (sessions) generated from NGENE\nwere illustrated in color (Figure 2). The choice experiment was\nexplained to respondents before each session, and the respondent\nwas allowed to ask any clarifying questions. Twelve pages similar\nto Figure 2 were produced, with each trait combination derived\nfrom corresponding NGENE output. The respondent was shown\none page at a time; the interviewer held the page with the picture\nfacing the respondent and the interviewer read out the trait\ncombinations. Each respondent was allowed ∼30 to 60 s to review\nthe pictures and make a choice. The choice experiment was\nimplemented in the local Swahili language spoken in the research\ncommunities and by all the interviewers.\nKEY RESULTS FROM THE CHOICE\nEXPERIMENT AND MIXED LOGIT MODEL\nESTIMATIONS\nTable 2\nsummarizes\nthe\ndemographic\ndata\nused\nin\nthe\neconometric\nmodels.\nAs\ntwo\nhousehold\nmembers\nwere\ninterviewed, 50% of respondents were heads of household,\n30% were spouses, and ∼20% were other adult household\nmembers. Of the respondents, 48% were male, 42% were younger\nthan 35, and 66% relied on primary agricultural production as\nthe main source of income, or representing 50% or more of their\nannual income. The respondents’ average age (42 years) was\nslightly less than that often observed among farmers (∼50 years).\nThe respondents had an average of 7.5 years of education, or a\nprimary education, with primary school in Kenya involving eight\nyears of education. Overall, youths (those under 35 years) were\nstrongly represented in the maize production sector (42%), but\nthese respondents heavily rely on agriculture. Their low levels\nof education—or no more than a primary school education on\naverage—would suggest the low accumulation of skills, as one\n2These were not the same villages in the final sample, but were located within the\nsame wards.\n", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " levels\nof education—or no more than a primary school education on\naverage—would suggest the low accumulation of skills, as one\n2These were not the same villages in the final sample, but were located within the\nsame wards.\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n6\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nFIGURE 2 | An example of choice experiment session (session 1) comparing traits for two maize varieties.\noften requires a post-primary education to begin acquiring trade\nskills. Consequently, the respondents heavily rely on primary\nagriculture and other forms of low-skilled economic activities.\nChoice Experiment Results\nWillingness to Pay for Maize Traits With Price as Cost\nVariable\nThe upper panel in Table 3 displays the WTP for maize traits.3 In\nthe pooled samples with or without interaction terms,4 the WTPs\nfor the various traits were the same after including interaction\neffects. The WTP for FAW tolerance (FAT) was slightly higher\n3The detailed MIXL results are presented in Tables S1–S3 in the Supplementary\nonline Materials to reduce the amount of data presented in the body of the\nmanuscript.\n4For each subsample, we ran two models, one with and the other without\ninteraction (heterogeneity) terms.\nin Siaya, which is possible if FAWs or similar insect infestations\nwere more prevalent in Siaya. Generally, the WTP for FAT was\n79% greater among respondents older than 35 compared to\nthe under-35 cohort. The WTP for yield was the lowest of all\ntraits. A noteworthy observation based on the data displayed\nin Table 3 is that the differences in the various sub-samples’\nWTP were not large. Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials\nnotes 13 interaction terms, but only four are significant; this is\nconsistent with weak heterogeneity in preferences and with the\nlargely similar WTPs reported in Table 3.\nWillingness to Sacrifice Yield (WTSY) for Maize Traits,\nWith Yield as the Cost Variable\nThe lower panel in Table 3 notes the WTSY estimates; the WTSY\nfor lower seed prices is comparable to that for low N tolerance.\nIn measuring WTSY, we observe that drought tolerance (DT) has\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n7\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nthe highest WTSY of all traits across locations and demographic\ncategories. The second-highest WTSY was for striga tolerance\n(ST). Regarding DT, the WTSY increases from that for moderate\nto full DT. The same occurs for ST, where the WTSY for full\nST is twice that of moderate ST. Regarding low N tolerance, we\nnote that the WTSY for moderately low N tolerant is higher\nthan the WTSY for fully low N tolerant. Across all the sub-\nsamples in Table 3, the WTSY for full low N tolerance was\nan average of 26% smaller than the WTSY for Moderate N\ntolerance, with a difference of nearly 40% in the pooled sample\nwith interactions.\nThe younger (under 35) demographic appears to have the\nhighest WTSY for lower seed prices among all categories,\nmirroring the pooled sample result. Younger farmers may be\njust starting out and have fewer resources, and their yield\nconsiderations are not prioritized, as they lack the complimentary\ninputs to achieve the varieties’ yield potential. As with WTP\nestimates, the WTSY estimates were fairly similar overall (by\nvisual inspection of Table 3); most differences occurred between\nmen and women, but appear to be generally small. The\ndifferences between WTP and WTSY estimates were most\ndiscernible when compared based on the geographic variation\nbetween Busia and Siaya. Specifically, the sub-sample from Siaya\nexhibited a higher WTP and WTSY than Busia for DT, FAT, and\nNUE. This suggests that geographic differences may be at play.\nDISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR\nMAIZE SYSTEMS’ RESILIENCE\nFarmers highly value stress-tolerant traits. Overall, the model\nestimates indicate that farmers prioritize all the stress-tolerant\nattributes, and may be willing to pay a premium in terms of\nhigher seed price or sacrifice yield to gain crops with these\nattributes. The small coefficient estimates for yield compared to\nthe other traits reflect not that yield is a trivial attribute", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " terms of\nhigher seed price or sacrifice yield to gain crops with these\nattributes. The small coefficient estimates for yield compared to\nthe other traits reflect not that yield is a trivial attribute, but that\nthe high yield potential per se has reduced economic value in\nthe presence of drought, striga and fall armyworm infestations,\nand low N (see Figure 3). It is conceivable that within this\nlimit, lower-yielding varieties with these kinds of attributes may\nTABLE 2 | Sample characteristics.\nVariable\nDescription\nMean (n = 1,400)\nRespondent type\nHousehold head (%)\n50.00\nSpouse (%)\n30.07\nAnother adult member (%)\n19.93\nSex\n=1 if respondent is male (%)\n47.71\nAge\n=1 if respondent is below 35\nyears\n41.57\nEducation\nYears of schooling\n7.53\nOccupation\n=1 if main occupation of\nrespondent is agriculture (%)\n66.21\nCounty\nSiaya (%)\n50.14\nBusia (%)\n49.86\nNumber of households\n701\nmaintain market share as farmers may be willing to accept\nsome yield penalty in favor of stress tolerance. Fortunately,\nmodern breeding techniques have led to maize hybrids with\nthese traits, but that also exhibit comparable or higher yields as\nlegacy hybrids and having stress tolerance traits that the latter\nmay lack.\nOur results are broadly consistent with recently published\nliterature. Kassie et al. (2017) found that farmers in Zimbabwe\nmore highly value stress-tolerance traits—or drought tolerance,\nin their case—even more than such grain characteristics as\nclosed tips, cob size, and flint texture. These authors also\nconclude that designing and implementing innovative ways of\npromoting drought-tolerant maize while raising awareness of\nthese issues would enhance their adoption in risk-prone farming\ncommunities. Although Sibiya et al. (2013) examined rice crop\nin South Africa, they discovered that local rice landraces were\npreferred for their tolerance to abiotic stresses and stable yields.\nRegarding impact of seed price on choice of variety, Sibiya\net al. (2013) observed that the scarce use of hybrids was attributed\nto the high seed costs, and that these varieties are not tolerant\nto acidic, low-n", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Regarding impact of seed price on choice of variety, Sibiya\net al. (2013) observed that the scarce use of hybrids was attributed\nto the high seed costs, and that these varieties are not tolerant\nto acidic, low-nitrogen soils (common issues in their study area\nin KwaZulu Natal). In our case, the WTSY for seed price was\nhigh and ranked after DT and ST (Figure 4). It is often argued\nthat seed price may not be a major determinant of seed demand.\nHowever, our study and results by Sibiya et al. (2013) suggest\nthat farmers may be critically sensitive to seed price. If a new\nvariety lacks new traits and its main selling point is not in stress\ntolerance, farmers may choose more familiar yet lower-yielding\nvarieties due to their less expensive retail price. However, in the\nlocal seed markets, there is little trait-based price differentiation.\nOur conclusion therefore would apply when more sophisticated\nseed markets emerge, as mimicked in our experiment.\nWhile the local seed markets are particularly not driven by\nprice competition (Rutsaert and Donovan, 2020), it is conceivable\nthat a more nuanced approach to seed markets may be warranted,\nas seed prices could reflect unique varieties’ combinations of\nattributes. In other words, seed markets should move toward\nattribute-based pricing. This will provide the chance for farmers\nto identify the seed product with the desired groups of attributes,\nwhich could act as a cornerstone of product differentiation and\nmarket segmentation.\nMoreover,\nKamara\net al. (2006) examined\ngeographic\nvariations in preferences in Nigeria. Specifically, these authors\nobserved that farmers in relatively market-driven production\nsystems preferred high-yielding, drought-tolerant varieties, while\nthose in resource-poor areas with low potential preferred\nearlier-maturing varieties to provide food security during\nperiods of scarcity. Efisue et al. (2008) reported on rice;\nwhich although a different crop than maize, is still relevant\nwhen discussing farmers’ trait preferences. These authors noted\nthat while farmers in irrigated ecologies in Mali preferred\nhigh-yielding, long-duration rice varieties, those in the less\nfavorable ecologies preferred tall", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " than maize, is still relevant\nwhen discussing farmers’ trait preferences. These authors noted\nthat while farmers in irrigated ecologies in Mali preferred\nhigh-yielding, long-duration rice varieties, those in the less\nfavorable ecologies preferred tall plants with a short duration.\nThis suggests that market segmentation could be based on\ngeographic segmentation. One exception involves gender, as\nsubtle differences have been observed that could influence\nmarketing within a single geographic area.\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n8\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nTABLE 3 | Mean willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to sacrifice (WTSY) for maize variety attributes, by location and demographics.\nPooled base Pooled with\ninteraction\nSiaya\nBusia\nMale\nrespondent\nFemale\nrespondent\nBelow 35\nyears\nAbove 35\nyears\nNon-Agric\noccupation\nAgric\nOccupation\nWTP (Cost variable = seed price)\nYield\n0.0340A\n0.0229***\n0.0359***\n0.0303***\n0.0351***\n0.0306***\n0.0238***\n0.0425***\n0.0298***\n0.0348***\nModerate\ndrought\ntolerant\n2.369***\n2.374***\n2.772***\n2.252***\n2.807***\n2.164***\n2.529***\n2.362***\n2.451***\n2.472***\nDrought\ntolerant\n2.550***\n2.485***\n2.828***\n2.481***\n2.933***\n2.365***\n2.680***\n2.535***\n2.519***\n2.648***\nSlight\nresistant to\nFAW\n0.563***\n0.560***\n0.576***\n0.452***\n0.466***\n0.621***\n0.465***\n0.617***\n0.691***\n0.445***\nResistant to\nFAW\n0.516***\n0.111***\n0.655***\n0.363***\n0.484***\n0.527***\n0.518***\n0.566***\n0.682***\n0.445***\nModerately\nNUE\n1.117***\n1.121***\n1.259***\n1.071***\n1.343***\n0.990***\n1.200***\n1.091***\n0.940***\n1.227***\nNUE\n0.844***\n0.697***\n1.033***\n0.754***\n1.019***\n0.752***\n0.900***\n0.844***\n0.784***\n0.907***\nModerately\nST\n0.531***\n0.533***\n0.516***\n0.513***\n0.419***\n0.599***\n0.430***\n0.611***\n0.581***\n0.483***\nST\n1.", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "***\nModerately\nST\n0.531***\n0.533***\n0.516***\n0.513***\n0.419***\n0.599***\n0.430***\n0.611***\n0.581***\n0.483***\nST\n1.596***\n1.631***\n1.493***\n1.584***\n1.475***\n1.685***\n1.517***\n1.639***\n1.708***\n1.452***\nWTSY (Cost variable = yield)\nSeed price\n25.57***\n39.83***\n22.80***\n23.66***\n21.21***\n27.86***\n31.38***\n21.52***\n26.57***\n23.37***\nModerately\nDT\n55.07***\n85.90***\n54.39***\n46.73***\n50.84***\n54.78***\n69.01***\n46.36***\n53.86***\n52.18***\nDT\n60.37***\n93.06***\n57.64***\n53.71***\n54.94***\n61.27***\n75.23***\n50.65***\n57.79***\n57.86***\nModerately\nFAT\n15.26***\n23.69***\n15.68***\n13.36***\n12.09***\n17.68***\n16.28***\n14.18***\n21.30***\n12.32***\nFAT\n13.50***\n5.099***\n16.03***\n11.94***\n12.37***\n15.22***\n17.31***\n12.54***\n18.48***\n12.06***\nModerately\nNUE\n26.28***\n41.17***\n25.46***\n22.84***\n24.90***\n25.44***\n33.06***\n21.54***\n20.88***\n26.87***\nNUE\n19.58***\n24.74***\n20.64***\n16.23***\n18.91***\n19.04***\n24.53***\n16.45***\n17.06***\n19.84***\nModerately\nST\n15.74***\n24.62***\n14.20***\n15.86***\n12.64***\n18.52***\n16.96***\n14.80***\n19.23***\n13.50***\nST\n40.40***\n63.38***\n36.12***\n38.69***\n32.03***\n46.04***\n46.60***\n35.08***\n46.72***\n35.20***\nN\n1400\n1400\n", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ST\n40.40***\n63.38***\n36.12***\n38.69***\n32.03***\n46.04***\n46.60***\n35.08***\n46.72***\n35.20***\nN\n1400\n1400\n702\n698\n668\n732\n582\n818\n473\n927\nAp < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; FAW, fall army worm.\nRegarding gender preference heterogeneity, Anja et al. (2017)\nfound gender-related differences in variety preferences. In\nmost of the studies reviewed, men exhibited a preference for\nproduction- and marketing-related traits, while women focused\non production- and use-related traits. However, when men\nand women faced similar constraints, they tended to mention\nsimilar trait preferences. As a general observation, women\nfocused more on traits related to post-harvest processing and\nfood preparation, such as storability, grain characteristics, losses\nduring the decortication process, and the resulting flour’s swelling\ncapacity. Women also mentioned various food security-related\ntraits, such as early maturity, the potential for multiple harvests,\nand production stability.\nAn apparent duality exists in women’s roles in choosing maize\nvarieties. The predominant cultural norms reveal that women\nare responsible for food processing and preparation, and this is\noften reflected in how they weigh grain qualities for example.\nHowever, women as farmers prefer the same attributes as male\nfarmers. Finally, it is important to recognize that when women\nexpress strong preferences for specific consumption traits, those\npreferences are most likely those expressed by their households,\nin that this captures the preferences of the women, men and\nother members in the household. Will only consumption traits\nmatter when targeting women farmers with information on\nnew varieties? It is more likely that this will require a better\nunderstanding of who in the household chooses its varieties.\nThe second consideration will be whether the varieties\nconcerned are primarily for subsistence, in that they are\nconsumed at home, or whether they are intended for the market.\nRegarding the former, both consumption and stress-tolerance\ntraits will have to be collectively considered in the household.\nRegarding the latter, the main issue may be stress tolerance\nand storability, and particularly if farmers store dry grain for\nsome time", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".\nRegarding the former, both consumption and stress-tolerance\ntraits will have to be collectively considered in the household.\nRegarding the latter, the main issue may be stress tolerance\nand storability, and particularly if farmers store dry grain for\nsome time before sale. As maize grain is often not graded on\nconsumption traits, farmers may pay less attention to these issues\nif the varieties are primarily meant for market sale.\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n9\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nFIGURE 3 | Pairwise comparisons of WTP and WTSY between traits.\nCONCLUSIONS\nMaize cropping systems must respond accordingly to biotic\nand abiotic stressors exacerbated by climatic changes. One way\nto accomplish this is for maize improvement programs to\ndevelop and promote varieties that are simultaneously tolerant\nto multiple stressors. Consequently, this study examined farmers’\nvaluation of maize traits and how they may prioritize them.\nWe used a choice experiment approach similar to those more\nbroadly used in product development research and applied a\nmixed-logit model to examine data from 1,400 smallholder\nfarmers responding from two counties in the mid-altitude\ntransitional and mid- to low-potential maize-growing regions\nin western Kenya. These areas are characterized by smallholder\nfarmers operating low-capital farming enterprises dominated\nby subsistence concerns and limited commercialization. The\nresults revealed that farmers were willing to pay significant\npremiums for seed tolerant to drought, striga, low nitrogen\n(nitrogen use efficiency), and fall armyworm infestation, in that\norder. The large-scale incorporation of these traits in both legacy\nand new varieties could enhance the maize system’s resilience\nand adaptation.\nIn\nconclusion,\nthe\nmulti-criteria\nprioritization\ndata\npresented\nhere\nsuggests\nthat\nto\nmainstream\nclimate-\nresilient,\nstress-adapted\nmaize\nvarieties\nin\nthe\ncountry’s\nmaize production systems, drought- and striga-tolerant and\nnitrogen-efficient characteristics must be prioritized in the\ncountry’s\nmaize-breeding\nprograms.\nSeed\ncompanies\nwill\nmore\nlikely\ncommercialize\nthese\nstress-adapted\nvarieties\nif\nin\naddition\nto\nstress\ntolerance\ntraits,\nthe\npreferred\nconsumption traits are integrated into these new varieties,\nor vice versa.\nThese trait combinations can provide a basis for seed\ncompanies\ndevelop\ntheir\nseed\nbusinesses\nby\nreplacing\nolder varieties with those that are new and stress-adapted.\nIn\nterms\nof\nsegmentation,\nan\napproach\nthat\nprioritizes\ngeographic\nmarket\npartition", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nseed\nbusinesses\nby\nreplacing\nolder varieties with those that are new and stress-adapted.\nIn\nterms\nof\nsegmentation,\nan\napproach\nthat\nprioritizes\ngeographic\nmarket\npartitioning\nmay\nbe\nrequired\nbased\non\npredominant\nstresses\nin\nspecific\nareas.\nWithout\nbalancing\nthese\nmultiple\ndimensions,\nit\nis\npossible\nthat\nnew\nstress-adapted\nvarieties\nmay\nstruggle\nto\ngain\na\nsignificant\nmarket\nshare.\nHowever,\ncreating\nresilient,\nwell-adapted\nmaize\nsystems\nwill\nrequire\nthe\nwidespread\ncommercialization of new generations of maize consistent with\nfarmers’ priorities.\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n10\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nFIGURE 4 | Differences between men and women in WTP and WTSY for maize traits.\nDATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT\nThe raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be\nmade available by the authors, without undue reservation.\nETHICS STATEMENT\nThe studies involving human participants were reviewed\nand approved by Institutional Research Ethics Committee,\nInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. Written\ninformed consent for participation was not required for this\nstudy in accordance with the national legislation and the\ninstitutional requirements.\nAUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS\nPM conceived and designed the study and the experiments,\nrun the surveys and experiments, analyzed and interpreted\nthe data, and wrote the paper. RW analyzed data and wrote\nMIXL sections of the paper. SA implemented the surveys,\nreviewed survey instruments, and participated in data analysis\nand interpretation. VW participated in study design, supervised\nfield implementation, interpreted the data, and wrote discussion\nsections of the paper. All authors contributed to the article and\napproved the submitted version.\nFUNDING\nWe gratefully acknowledge funding from the Bill & Melinda\nGates Foundation (Grants INV-003439 and OPP1134248) and\nthe United States Agency for International Development (Grant\nMTO 069033) through the Accelerating Genetic Gains for Maize\nand Wheat and Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa Projects from\nunder which the research activities were done. We gratefully\nacknowledge additional support from the CGIAR Research\nPrograms Maize Agri-Food Systems (CRP MAIZE) and Policies,\nInstitutions, and Markets (CRP PIM) for supporting the lead\nauthor PM.\nSUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL\nThe Supplementary Material for this article can be found\nonline\nat:\nhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.\n2022.702405/full#supplementary-material\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n11\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nREFERENCES\nAnja, C., Weltzien, E., Rattunde, F., and Ashby, J. A. (2017). “Gender\ndifferentiation of farmer preferences for varietal traits in crop improvement:\nevidence and issues,” in Working Paper No. 2. CGIAR Gender and Agriculture\nResearch Network [Cali: CGIAR System Management Office and International\nCenter for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)].\nArisede, C., Mainassara, Z. A., Jill, C., Amsal, T., Cosmos, M., Bish. (2020). Low-\nN stress tolerant maize hybrids have higher fertilizer N recovery efficiency and\nreduced N-dilution in the grain compared to susceptible hybrids under low N\nconditions. Plant Prod. Sci. 23, 417–426. doi: 10.1080/1343943X.2020.1746188\nBadu-Apraku, B., Fakorede, M. A. B., Annor, B., and Talabi, A. O. (2018).\nImprovement in grain yield and low-nitrogen tolerance in maize cultivars of\nthree eras. Exp. Agric. 54, 805–823.\nBen-Akiva, M., and Bierlaire, M. (1999). “Discrete choice methods and their\napplications to short term travel decisions,” in Handbook of Transportation\nScience (Boston, MA: Springer), 5–33.\nBenson, A. R., Kumar, R., and Tomkins, A. (2016). “On the relevance of irrelevant\nalternatives,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide\nWeb (Montreal, QC: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering\nCommittee), 963–973.\nBerner, D., Carsky, R., Dashiell, K., Kling, J., and Manyong, V. (1996). A land\nmanagement based approach to integrated Striga hermonthica control in\nsub-Saharan Africa. Outlook Agric. 25, 157–164.\nCABI (2017). How to Identify Fall Armyworm. Plantwise. CABI. pp 4, Available\n", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " integrated Striga hermonthica control in\nsub-Saharan Africa. Outlook Agric. 25, 157–164.\nCABI (2017). How to Identify Fall Armyworm. Plantwise. CABI. pp 4, Available\nonline at: www.plantwise.org/fallarmyworm (accessed July 2nd, 2020).\nCampbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G., and Scarpa, R. (2006). Using Discrete\nChoice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape\nImprovements Under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence From the Rural\nEnvironment Protection Scheme in Ireland. Working Paper No. 26.2006. FEEM\n(Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.884443\nChoiceMetrics (2012). Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide. Sydney\nChoiceMetrics.\nCIMMYT (2013). The Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa project. DTMA\nBrief. Available online at: https://www.cimmyt.org/news/a-decade-of-world-\nleading-maize-and-wheat-research/ (accessed July 02, 2020).\nDahlberg, M., and Eklöf, M. (2003). Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational\nChoice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and\nMultinomial Probit Models. Uppsala: Nationalekonomiska institutionen.\nDaryanto, S., Wang, L., and Jacinthe, P.-A. (2016). Global synthesis of\ndrought effects on maize and wheat production. PLoS ONE 11, e0156362.\ndoi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156362\nDay, R., Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., et al. (2017).\nFall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Pest Manag. 28,\n196–201.\nDe Groote, H., Kimenju, S. C., Munyua, B., Palmas, S., Kassie, M., and Bruce, A.\n(2020). Spread", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ag. 28,\n196–201.\nDe Groote, H., Kimenju, S. C., Munyua, B., Palmas, S., Kassie, M., and Bruce, A.\n(2020). Spread and impact of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith)\nin maize production areas of Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.\n292, 106804.\nDobermann, A., and Cassman, K. G. (2005). Cereal area and nitrogen use efficiency\nare drivers of future nitrogen fertilizer consumption. Sci. China Life Sci. 48,\n745–758.\nDrechsel, P., Kunze, D., and de Vries, F. P. (2001). Soil nutrient depletion and\npopulation growth in sub-Saharan Africa: a Malthusian nexus? Popul Environ.\n22, 411–423. doi: 10.1023/A:1006701806772\nEfisue, A., Tongoona, P., Derera, J., Langyintuo, A., Laing, M., and Ubi, B.\n(2008). Farmers’ Perceptions on rice varieties in Sikasso region of Mali\nand their implications for rice breeding. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 194, 393–400.\ndoi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00324.x\nEjeta, G (2007). “The Striga scourge in Africa: a growing pandemic,” in Integrating\nNew Technologies for Striga Control: Towards Ending the Witch-Hunt, eds G.\nEjeta, and J. Gressel (Singapore: World Scientific), 3–16.\nEmede, T. O., and Alika, J. E. (2012). Variation in agronomic characters among\nhigh and low nitrogen S2 maize (Zea mays L) lines grown in high and low\nnitrogen environments. Maydica. 57, 139–146.\nFiebig, D. G., Keane, M. P., Louviere, J., and Wasi, N. (2010). The generalized\nmultinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity.\nMark. Sci. ", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ane, M. P., Louviere, J., and Wasi, N. (2010). The generalized\nmultinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity.\nMark. Sci. 29, 393–421.\nFisher, M., Abate, T., Lunduka, R. W., Asnake, W., Alemayehu, Y., and\nMadulu, R. B. (2015). Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to\ndrought in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants of adoption in eastern and\nsouthern Africa. Clim. Change 133, 283–299. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-\n1459-2\nGoergen, G., Kumar, P. L., Sankung, S. B., Togola, A., and Tamò, M. (2016).\nFirst report of outbreaks of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE\nSmith)(Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new alien invasive pest in West and Central\nAfrica. PloS one. 11, e0165632.\nGressel, J., Hanafi, A., Head, G., Marasas, W., Obilana, A. B., Ochanda, J., et al.\n(2004). Major heretofore intractable biotic constraints to African food security\nthat may be amenable to novel biotechnological solutions. Crop Prot. 23,\n661–689.\nHall, J., Kenny, P., King, M., Louviere, J., Viney, R., and Yeoh, A. (2002). Using\nstated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of\nvaricella vaccination. Health Econ. 11, 457–465. doi: 10.1002/hec.694\nHall,\nJ.,\nViney,\nR.,\nHaas,\nM.,\nand\nLouviere,\nJ.\n(2004).\nUsing\nstated\npreference\ndiscrete\nchoice\nmodeling\nto\nevaluate\nhealth\ncare\nprograms.\nJ.\nBus.\nRes.\n57,\n1026–1032.\ndoi:\n10.1016/S0148-2963(02)0\n0352-1\nH", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "modeling\nto\nevaluate\nhealth\ncare\nprograms.\nJ.\nBus.\nRes.\n57,\n1026–1032.\ndoi:\n10.1016/S0148-2963(02)0\n0352-1\nHearne, S. J. (2009). Control—the Striga conundrum. Pest Manag., 65, 603–614.\nHensher, D. A., and Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: the state of\npractice. Transportation 30, 133–176. doi: 10.1023/A:1022558715350\nHensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., and Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A\nPrimer. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.\nHoffman, S. D., and Duncan, G. J. (1988). Multinomial and conditional\nlogit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography 25, 415–427.\ndoi: 10.2307/2061541\nHole, A. R. (2007). Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated\nlikelihood. Stata J. 7, 388–401. doi: 10.1177/1536867X0700700306\nHole, A. R., and Kolstad, J. R. (2012). Mixed logit estimation of willingness\nto pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space\nusing data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir. Econ. 42, 445–469.\ndoi: 10.1007/s00181-011-0500-1\nHolmes, T. P., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2003). “Attribute-based methods,” in A\nPrimer on Nonmarket Valuation (Dordrecht : Springer), 171–219.\nKamara, A., Kureh, I., Menkir, A., Kartung, P., Tarfa, B., and Amaza, P. (2006).\nParticipatory onfarm evaluation of the performance of drought tolerant maize\nvarieties in the Guinea Savannas of Nigeria. J. Food Agric. Environ. 4, 192–196.\nKanamp", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". (2006).\nParticipatory onfarm evaluation of the performance of drought tolerant maize\nvarieties in the Guinea Savannas of Nigeria. J. Food Agric. Environ. 4, 192–196.\nKanampiu, F., Makumbi, D., Mageto, E., Omanya, G., Waruingi, S., Musyoka,\nP., et al. (2018). Assessment of management options on striga infestation\nand maize grain yield in Kenya. Weed Sci. 66, 516–524. doi: 10.1017/wsc.\n2018.4\nKassie, G. T., Abdulai, A., Greene, W. H., Shiferaw, B., Abate, T., Tarekegne,\nA., et al. (2017). Modeling preference and willingness to pay for drought\ntolerance (DT) in maize in rural Zimbabwe. World Dev. 94, 465–477.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.008\nKhan, Z. R., Pickett, J. A., Wadhams, L. J., Hassanali, A., and Midega, C. A.\n(2006). Combined control of Striga hermonthica and stemborers by maize–\nDesmodium spp. intercrops. Crop Prot. 25, 989–995.\nKumela, T., Simiyu, J., Sisay, B., Likhayo, P., Mendesil, E., Gohole, L., et al.\n(2019). Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of the new\ninvasive pest, fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Ethiopia and Kenya.\nInt. J. Pest Manag. 65, 1–9.\nLagoke, S. T. O., Parkinson, V., and Agunbiade, R. M. (1991). “Parasitic weeds and\ncontrol methods in Africa,” in Combating Striga in Africa: Proceedings of an\nInternational Workshop on Striga, ed S. K. Kim (Ibadan: IITA), 3–14.\nLouviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., and Carson, R. T. (2010).", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "International Workshop on Striga, ed S. K. Kim (Ibadan: IITA), 3–14.\nLouviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., and Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice\nexperiments\nare\nnot\nconjoint\nanalysis.\nJ.\nChoice\nModell.\n3,\n57–72.\ndoi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9\nMcFadden, D. (1973). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.\nBerkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.\nMcFadden,\nD.,\nand\nTrain,\nK.\n(2000).\nMixed\nMNL\nmodels\nfor\ndiscrete\nresponse.\nJ.\nAppl.\nEconometr.\n15,\n447–470.\ndoi: 10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1\nMeemken, E. M., Veettil, P. C., and Qaim, M. (2017). Toward improving the design\nof sustainability standards—a gendered analysis of farmers’ preferences. World\nDev. 99, 285–298. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.021\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n12\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Marenya et al.\nStress-Adapted Maize Varieties for Kenya\nOchieng, D. O., Veettil, P. C., and Qaim, M. (2017). Farmers’ preferences\nfor\nsupermarket\ncontracts\nin\nKenya.\nFood\nPolicy\n68,\n100–111.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.008\nPasley, H. R., Camberato, J. J., Cairns, J. E., Zaman-Allah, M., Das,\nB., and Vyn, T. J. (2020). Nitrogen rate impacts on tropical maize\nnitrogen use efficiency and soil nitrogen depletion in eastern and southern\nAfrica. Nutrient Cycl. Agroecosyst. 116, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10705-020-\n10049-x\nPrasanna, B. M., Huesing, J. E., Eddy, R., and Peschke, V. M. (2018). Fall\nArmyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, 1st Edn. Mexico,\nCDMX: CIMMYT.\nRovere, R. L., Abdoulaye, T., Kostandini, G., Guo, Z., Mwangi, W., MacRobert, J.,\net al. (2014). Economic, production, and poverty impacts of investing in maize\ntolerant to drought in Africa: an ex-Ante assessment. J. Dev. Areas 48, 199–225.\ndoi: 10.1353/jda.2014.0016\nRutsaert, P., and Donovan, J. (2020). Sticking with the old seed: input value\nchains and the challenges to deliver genetic gains to smallholder maize farmers.\nOutlook Agric. 49, 39–49.\nSchipmann, C., and Qaim, M. (2011). Supply chain differentiation, contract\nagriculture,\nand\nfarmers’\nmarketing\npreferences:\nthe\ncase\nof\nsweet\npepper in Thailand. Food Policy 36, 667–677. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.\n07.004\nSheahan,\nM", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\nmarketing\npreferences:\nthe\ncase\nof\nsweet\npepper in Thailand. Food Policy 36, 667–677. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.\n07.004\nSheahan,\nM.,\nand\nBarrett,\nC.\nB.\n(2017).\nTen\nstriking\nfacts\nabout\nagriculture input use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 67, 12–25.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.010\nSibiya, J., Tongoona, P., Derera, J., and Makanda, I. (2013). Farmers’ desired\ntraits and selection criteria for maize varieties and their implications for maize\nbreeding: a case study from KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. J. Agric.\nRural Dev. Tropics Subtropics 114, 39–49. Available online at: http://nbn-\nresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2013030542599\nSkiba, U., and Rees, B. (2014). Nitrous oxide, climate change and agriculture. CAB\nRev. 9, 1–7.\nSmaling, E. M. A., Stoorvogel, J. J., and Windmeijer, P. N. (1993). Calculating\nsoil nutrient balances in Africa at different scales. Fertil Res. 35, 237–250.\ndoi: 10.1007/BF00750642\nTrain, K. E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. Cambridge\nUniversity Press.\nVeettil, P. C., Speelman, S., Frija, A., Buysse, J., and Van Huylenbroeck,\nG. (2011). Complementarity between water pricing, water rights and\nlocal\nwater\ngovernance:\na\nBayesian\nanalysis\nof\nchoice\nbehaviour\nof\nfarmers in the Krishna river basin, India. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1756–1766.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.018\nWanyama, R., Gödecke, T., Jager, M., and Qaim,", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 70, 1756–1766.\ndoi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.018\nWanyama, R., Gödecke, T., Jager, M., and Qaim, M. (2019). Poor consumers’\npreferences for nutritionally enhanced foods. Br. Food J. 121, 755–770.\ndoi: 10.1108/BFJ-09-2018-0622\nConflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the\nabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a\npotential conflict of interest.\nPublisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors\nand do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of\nthe publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in\nthis article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or\nendorsed by the publisher.\nCopyright © 2022 Marenya, Wanyama, Alemu and Woyengo. This is an open-access\narticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC\nBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided\nthe original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original\npublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.\nNo use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these\nterms.\nFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org\n13\nJune 2022 | Volume 6 | Article 702405", "source": "fsufs-06-702405.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Musila R.N., Ligeyo D., Bett C., Nekesa C., Esilaba A. O., Muli B., Murenga M., Wayua F., Otipa M., \nNasirembe W., Odhiambo H.O, Otieno M., Wambua J., Ndubi J., Ndambuki J., Mwangi H.W., Kamau \nG.M., Momanyi V., Ndungu J., Nyaga A., Kirigua V. O. and Wasilwa L. A.\nJULY 2021\n Training of Trainers’ Manual \nCLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, \nINNOVATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR \nMAIZE VALUE CHAIN", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "JULY 2021\n Training of Trainers’ Manual \nCLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, \nINNOVATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MAIZE \nVALUE CHAIN", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "iv\nDisclaimer\nThe information presented in this manual is for advisory use only. Users of this manual should \nverify site specific details that relate to their agro-climatic zones from their area agricultural \nextension officers.\n© Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization 2021 \nAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in database systems, transcribed \nin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without \nprior written permission of the publisher. \nPublished by\nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization\nKALRO Secretariat\nP O Box 57811-00200, Nairobi, KENYA\nEmail: directorgeneral@kalro.org\t\n\t\nTel. No(s): +254-722206986/733333223 \nCompiled by: Musila R.N., Ligeyo, D., Bett C., Nekesa C., Esilaba A. O., Muli B., Murenga \nM., Wayua F., Otipa M., Nasirembe W., Odhiambo H.O., Ndubi J., Wambua J., Ndambuki J., \nMwangi H.W., Kamau G.M., Momanyi V., Ndungu J., Nyaga A., Lung’aho C., Kirigua V O. \nand Wasilwa L.A.\nEditors: Ouda J.O., Mukundi K.T., Nyabundi K.W., Maina P., Mwirigi M. and Musila R.N\nEditing and Publication coordination: Kirigua V.O. and Lung’aho C.\nDesign and layout: Nyaola E. and Mnene N.\nTypesetting: Kibwage P.N.\nISBN", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "v\nFOREWORD\nKenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) tasked the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock \nResearch Organization (KALRO) with the implementation of the project’s Component 2, which \nis ‘Strengthening Climate-Smart Agricultural Research and Seed Systems’. The component ac­\ntivities are geared towards the development, validation, adoption and delivery of context specific \nclimate smart agriculture (CSA) technologies, innovation and management practices (TIMPs). It \nis also responsible for development of sustainable seed production and distribution systems of pri­\nority agricultural value chains to enhance availability and access to improved seeds, animal breeds \nand fingerlings by target beneficiaries. Against this background, KALRO and her National Ag­\nricultural Research System (NARS) partners have developed, validated and availed CSA TIMPs \nfor dissemination and adoption. This Training of trainers’ (ToT) Manual is instructional guides to \nbe used for teaching and learning step-by-step procedures of implementing CSA innovations for \nthe Maize value chain. The training content is drawn from the inventory of TIMPs that has been \ndocumented. \nThe contents of training is arranged in progressive modules supported by extensive information \nfrom research and background data drawn from the TIMPS. Their relevance is based on the needs \nteased out of the value chain and the project objectives. The training design takes into consider­\nation the delivery system, the partners and their roles, the duration of training and logical flow of \nthe sessions. Similar content requiring similar delivery systems are grouped together while the \nroles of the partners are tapped in the training and planning of the training sessions. The Manual \nis divided into modules, which have a uniform outline that ensures every aspect of the TIMPs \nare fully covered in way that the trainees can absorb and relate to. Various delivery methods are \ndeployed and where possible demonstrations and practical work are incorporated to enable the \ntrainees learn by participating in the actual field activities. Furthermore, to ensure that the training \nacross various groups is standardized, trainers’ guidelines, program, training methods and training \nevaluation have been provided in the manual. Adhering to these lines, therefore, enables replicat­\ning the training in several locations without loss of details regardless of whether conducted by \ndifferent trainers. \nIt is highly advised that the ToT Manuals should be used in conjunction with the respective value \nchain’ TIMPs inventory", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ", enables replicat­\ning the training in several locations without loss of details regardless of whether conducted by \ndifferent trainers. \nIt is highly advised that the ToT Manuals should be used in conjunction with the respective value \nchain’ TIMPs inventory document and facts sheets in order to provide valuable resource for both \npublic and private extension service providers. The use of this Manual is therefore expected to \nenable achievement of the envisaged ‘Triple Wins’ of increased productivity, enhanced resilience \nand reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. \nI am greatly indebted to the value chain leaders and all those who participated in the preparation \nof the Manual, which is expected to herald a new way of delivering training content in a changing \nagricultural environment.\nEliud K Kireger, PhD, OGW\nDirector General, KALRO", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "vii\nPREFACE\nThe Kenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) is a Government of Kenya project \nwith support from both the World Bank and the government. The project runs for five years and \nimplemented in 24 counties, mainly in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), at an approximate \ncost of KES 25 billion. The project development objectives is “to increase agricultural productivity \nand build resilience to climate change risks in the targeted smallholder farming and pastoral \ncommunities, and in the event of an Eligible Crisis or Emergency, to provide immediate and \neffective response.” This objective is to be achieved through the implementation of five key \ncomponents, which are 1) Upscaling Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices, 2) Strengthening \nClimate-Smart Agricultural Research and Seed Systems, 3) Supporting Agro-weather, Market, \nClimate, and Advisory Services, 4) Project Coordination and Management and 5) Contingency \nEmergency Response. \nComponent 1 involves facilitating the empowering of farmers and communities to adopt \ntechnologies, innovations and management practices (TIMPs) to achieve the Climate Smart \nAgriculture (CSA) triple-wins of; increased productivity, enhanced resilience (adaptation), \nand reduced Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mitigation). Component 2 is tasked with the \nresponsibility of providing the TIMPs. Therefore, it supports the development, validation, and \nadoption of context specific CSA TIMPS to target beneficiaries under Components 1 and 3. \nTo catalyze uptake of TIMPs, Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) in \nconjunction with partners in the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and Consultative \nGroup for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) compiled inventories of TIMPs for \nthe prioritized value chains. The crop-based value chains are 19 and include roots and tubers \n(cassava, potato), pulses (dry beans, green gram and pigeon peas), vegetables (tomato, onion, \nindigenous vegetables, kale and cabbage), cereals (sorghum, millet, teff and maize) nuts (cashew \nnut), fruits (banana, mango and watermelon) and fibre (cotton). Those that are animal production \nbased are five (5) and include apiculture, indigenous chicken (meat and eggs),", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " and maize) nuts (cashew \nnut), fruits (banana, mango and watermelon) and fibre (cotton). Those that are animal production \nbased are five (5) and include apiculture, indigenous chicken (meat and eggs), dairy (cattle and \ncamel), red meat (cattle, sheep and goats) and aquaculture. Also, there are three (3) cross cutting \nthemes on pastures and fodder, natural resource management, and animal health. The TIMPs were \ncategorized into those ready for up scaling and those requiring validation. Furthermore, gaps \nthat required further research and development of TIMPS were identified. Training of Trainers’ \n(ToT) manuals focusing on TIMPs that are ready for up scaling for each of the value chains were \nsubsequently developed to form the basis of training county extension staff, service providers \nand lead farmers. Those trained are in turn expected to cascade the training to beneficiaries in the \ntargeted smallholder farming, agro-pastoral and pastoral communities in the 24 project counties of \nMarsabit, Isiolo, Tana River, Garissa, Wajir, Mandera, West Pokot, Baringo, Laikipia, Machakos, \nNyeri, Tharaka Nithi, Lamu, Taita Taveta, Kajiado, Busia, Siaya, Nyandarua, Bomet, Kericho, \nKakamega, Uasin Gishu, Elgeyo Marakwet and Kisumu. \nKALRO having the mandate of implementing the activities under Component 2 has been instru­\nmental in using its information resources and those of partners and collaborators to come up with", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "viii\nthe inventories of TIMPs and corresponding ToT Manuals. The use of these information resources \ncoupled with the accompanying training and the contribution of the other project components, will \ngo a long way in enabling the KCSAP to meet its development objective. \nThe National Project Coordination Unit is grateful to all who participated in the development and \nproduction of this Climate Smart Training of Trainers Manual for Maize value chain. It is my hope \nthat Counties and other users will put this resource to good use as they transform and reorient \ntheir agricultural systems to make them more productive and resilient while minimizing GHG \nemissions under the new realities of a changing climate. \nFrancis Muthami\nNational Project Coordinator\nKenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Project", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ix\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nFOREWORD.................................................................................................................................v\nPREFACE....................................................................................................................................vii\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................ix\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................xii\nPART I:.........................................................................................................1\nSECTION 1: BACKGROUND....................................................................................................2\n1.1 The Role of Maize in the Kenyan Economy......................................................................2\n1.2 Role of Maize in Food and Nutrition Security...................................................................2\n1.3 Maize value chain as climate innovation...........................................................................2\n1.4 Objectives of the Training.................................................................................................3\nSECTION 2: TRAINING CONTENT........................................................................................3\n2.1 Orientation of the Module..................................................................................................3\n2.2 Module Outline..................................................................................................................3\nSECTION 3: TRAINING DESIGN.............................................................................................6\n3.1 Delivery System................................................................................................................6\n3.2 Partners and their Roles.....................................................................................................6\n3.3 Training Duration..............................................................................................................7\n3.4 Logic of Design and Flow of Session................................................................................7\nSECTION 4: FACILITATORS GUIDELINES..........................................................................8\n4.1 Preparation of Training Materials......................................................................................8\n4.2 Preparation of Training Venue and Sites...........................................................................8\n4.3 The Trainees......................................................................................................................8\n4.4 Training Program...............................................................................................................9\n4.5 Training Methods..............................................................................................................9\n4.6 Planning Schedule and Guideline for ToT Preparation.....................................................9\n4.7 Evaluation of the Training...............................................................................................10\n4.8 Facilitator’s Training Notes and Reference Materials.....................................................11\n4.8.1 Key references.........................................................................................................11\n4.8.2 Guide on the use of the information.......................................................................11", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 9, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "x\nPART II: TRAINING MODULES............................................................13\nMODULE 1: CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE...............14\nMODULE 2:FARMER FIELD AND BUSINESS SCHOOL (FFBS) APPROACH IN \nMAIZE PRODUCTION..............................................................................................................18\nMODULE 3:GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAPs) AND FOOD SAFETY \nMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (FSMS).......................................................................................23\nMODULE 4: MAIZE PRODUCTION NICHES AND CLIMATIC REQUIREMENTS....31\nMODULE 5: MAIZE VARIETY SELECTION.......................................................................35\nMODULE 6: MAIZE SEED SYSTEMS...................................................................................39\nMODULE 7: CLIMATE SMART AGRONOMIC PRACTICES FOR MAIZE..................43\nMODULE 8: INTEGRATED SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR \nMAIZE PRODUCTION.............................................................................................................47\nMODULE 9: MAIZE CROP HEALTH.....................................................................................54\nMODULE 10. MAIZE HARVESTING AND POSTHARVEST MANAGEMENT..............60\nMODULE 11: MAIZE VALUE ADDITION.............................................................................65\nMODULE 12: MECHANIZATION OF MAIZE PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES.................69\nMODULE 13: MAIZE BUSINESS AND MARKERTING.....................................................74\nMODULE 14. MAIZE CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES (AGRICULTURAL \nINNOVATIONPLATFORMS, POLICY, GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND SOCIAL \nINCLUSION)...............................................................................................................................80\nSUB-MODULE 14.1. AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION PLATFORMS.............................80\nSUB-MODULE 14.2 MAIZE GENDER, VULNERABLE AND MARGINALIZED \nGROUPS (VMGs), SOCIO, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND COHESION...........85\nSUB-MODULE 14.3 CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURAL POLICY OPTIONS............90\nANNEX 1: TRAINING PROGRAM.........................................................................................95\nANNEX 2: GENERAL REFERENCE MATERIALS............................................................100\nLIST OF TABLES \nTable 1: Summary of 14 module outlines for the Maize value chain..............................................4\nTable 2: Description of Training Methods.......................................................................................9\nTable 3: Individual Sample Evaluation Form...............................................................................10", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 10, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xi\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS\nAEZs\t \t\nAgro-ecological zones \nAIP\t\n\t\nAgricultural Innovation Platform \nAPVC \t\t\nAgriculture Product Value Chain \nASALs\t\t\nArid and Semi-Arid Lands \nB \t\n\t\nBoron \nCA \t\n\t\nConservation Agriculture \nCCP\t\n\t\nCritical control points\nCIG \t\n\t\nCommon Interest Group \nCL\t\n\t\nCritical limits \nCTT \t\n\t\nCore Team of Trainers\nESMF \t \t\nEnvironmental and Social Management Framework\nESMF\t \t\nKnowledge on environmental and social management framework\nFFBS \t\t\nFarmer Field Business School \nFSMS\t \t\nFood Safety Management System\nGAPs \t\t\nGood Agricultural Practices \nHa \t\n\t\nHectare \nHACCP\t\nHazard Analysis Critical Control Points \nIDM \t\n\t\nIntegrated Disease Management \nINRM \t\nIntegrated Natural Resource Management\nIPM \t\n\t\nIntegrated Pest Management \nISFM \t \t\nIntegrated Son Fertility management\nIWM \t \t\nIntegrated Weed Management \nK \t\n\t\nPotassium \nKALRO \t\nKenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization\nKCSAP \t\nKenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project \nkg \t\n\t\nKilogram \nLF \t\n\t\nLead Farmer \nMo \t\n\t\nMolybdenum \nN \t\n\t\nNitrogen \nP \t\n\t\nPhosphorus \nS \t\n\t\nSulphur \nTIMPs \t\t\nTechnologies, Innovations and Management Practices \nToT \t\n\t\nTraining of Trainers \nVMG \t \t\nVulnerable and Marginalized Group \nZn \t\n\t\nZinc", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 11, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "xii", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 12, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1\nABOUT THIS MANUAL\nThis training of trainers’ manual consist of two parts; namely part 1 and part II. Part I comprises \nnotes for the facilitators while part II is made up of training module in the value chain.\nPART I\nThis part consists of four sections including the Background of the Maize value chain, Content of \nthe Training, Training Design and Facilitator’s Guidelines.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 13, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2\nSECTION 1: BACKGROUND\n1.1 The Role of Maize in the Kenyan Economy\nMaize (Zea mays L.) is a major staple food in Kenya, with high per capita consumption (103 kg/\nyear). It was introduced in Kenya in the 16th century from Mexico. Due to its wide adaptation in \ndiverse environments, low rate of damage by birds unlike sorghum and millets, and its relative \nease of growing, storing and processing, white kernel maize rapidly replaced African cereals in \nthe fields and in diets. \nMaize can be used as food, feed for animals and as a source of industrial raw material. It contributes \nto about 65% of daily per capita cereal consumption and maize accounts for over 20% of the total \nagricultural production and 25% of agricultural employment in the country (Government of Kenya, \n2020; FAOSTAT, 2020). It comprises about 3% of Kenya’s gross domestic product (GDP), 12% of \nthe agricultural GDP and 21% of the total value of primary agricultural commodities. It is grown \nboth for subsistence and as a commercial crop by large-scale farmers (25%) and smallholders \n(75%) and total annual production estimated at about 4.0 metric tons against a consumption of \nabout 4.5 million metric tons. It is grown in almost all agro-ecological zones Kenya that include \nthe coastal lowlands (CL), Mid medium altitude (MM), moist transitional (MT) Central and parts \nof Eastern, MT Western Kenya and the highlands, ranging from an altitude of zero metres above \nsea level (Masl) at coast to more than 2000 Masl at the highlands.\nDespite the importance of maize in Kenya, it still bedeviled by several biotic, abiotic and socio-\neconomic constraints. Specifically the constraints include, low use of improved varieties, use of \ninappropriate varieties, pests and diseases, drought, use of poor agronomic practices, low soil \nfertility, low prices, unstructured markets and low diversification.\n1.2 Role of Maize in Food and Nutrition Security\nMaize is an important food and nutrition crop contributing to 31% of calories and 28% of protein \nof the dietary requirements. It is an important source of carbohydrate, protein, iron and vitamin \nB. Its products include", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Nutrition Security\nMaize is an important food and nutrition crop contributing to 31% of calories and 28% of protein \nof the dietary requirements. It is an important source of carbohydrate, protein, iron and vitamin \nB. Its products include baked, roasted and boiled fresh maize on the cob, porridge, pastes, beer, \nstarch, oil and livestock feed from by-products of fresh and dry maize grain.\n1.3 Maize value chain as climate innovation\nMaize does well various environments in Kenya ranging from the lowlands to the highlands and \nthere exist specific varieties for all these zones. There are drought tolerant and early maturing \nvarieties suited for the coastal lowlands, medium altitude and dry transitional while late maturing \nvarieties are suited for the highlands.\nMaize does well under various climate smart soil and water management technologies such as \nconservation agriculture (mulching, minimum tillage, zero tillage, intercropping) and integrated \nsoil fertility management (ISFM).", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 14, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3\n1.4 Objectives of the Training\nThis training aims at providing farmer trainers with knowledge and skills on facilitating and \nsupporting farmers, for increased productivity through adoption of GAPs. Specifically, the \nobjectives of this training are to provide farmer trainers with:\na)\t Relevant attitude, knowledge and skill in farming as a business and market assessment \ntechniques for market-led production including establishment and management of maize \nfields.\nb)\t Proving new information to farmers on maize post-harvest management and value \naddition.\nc)\t Knowledge and skills in participatory techniques for effective facilitation of adult \nlearning processes through FFBS and developing inclusive stakeholder partnership \ndevelopment for sustainable up scaling of maize.\nd)\t Knowledge on improved maize varieties and GAP.\nAfter the training, the Trainer of Trainers as facilitators will train lead farmers (LF) in various \naspects of Maize value chain. The training will involve providing the LF with techniques in \nparticipatory preparation, mobilization, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of \ntraining sessions. The lead farmers and county extension personnel will thereafter upscale the \nadoption of GAPs through farmer groups in their villages and those in the neighborhoods.\nSECTION 2: TRAINING CONTENT\n2.1 Orientation of the Module\nThis section of the training manual deals with the training content. It outlines the orientation and \noutline of the 14 modules, which are orientated to ensure adoption and up scaling of Maize TIMPs, \nto improve productivity, resilience and mitigation of harmful greenhouse gases. The purpose \nof these modules is to enhance the knowledge and capacities of trainers in understanding and \ndisseminating the climate-smart Maize practices to the intended beneficiaries, who are primarily \nfarmers. \n2.2 Module Outline\nEach of the 14 modules consisting of 8 parts. These parts are:\na)\t Introduction – context and background to training needs, knowledge and skills gaps \nbeing addressed\nb)\t Module learning outcomes – what trainees are expected to learn\nc)\t Module target group-trainee categories\nd)\t Module users –facilitators", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 15, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4\ne)\t Module duration –number of hours of exposure to materials\nf)\t Module summary –sequence of sessions, training methods, materials and duration\ng)\t Facilitators guideline –detailed sessions, training methods, materials and session \nguides\nh)\t Participant’s handouts – detailed notes and reference materials for trainees\nThe outline of the 14 modules is presented in Table 1. \nTable 1: Summary of 14 module outlines for the Maize value chain\nNo.\nModule Name\nNeed Addressed\t\nExpected \nTraining \nOutcomes\nDuration\n1\nClimate change \nand climate smart \nagriculture\n• The impact of \nclimate crisis to \nMaize production\n• The climate smart \ntechnologies for \nMaize value chain\n• Master trainers \nmade aware of the \npotential impact of \nclimate change on \nMaize production\n• Master trainers \nupdated on climate \nsmart techniques \nfor Maize \n3 hours\n2\nFarmer Field \nBusiness School \n(FFBS) approach\n• Skills/technologies \nfor production, \nprocessing and \nmarketing\n• Improved \ntechnologies/\ninnovations \nand agronomic \npractices for Maize \navailed\n6 hours \n3\nGood \nAgricultural \nPractices (GAP) \nand Food Safety \nManagement \nSystem (FSMS) \n• Enhance food \nsafety through \nlowering presence \nof hazardous solids/ \norganisms/ and \npollutants pathogens\n• Techniques for \ndetermining \npollutants in food \nmaterial explored \nfor adoption in \nMaize value chain\n6 hours \n30 minutes\n4\nMaize production \nniche and climate \nrequirements\n• Identify areas \nsuitable for Maize \nproduction\n• Master trainers \nlearn of Maize \nniche in the \nrespective counties\n4 hours \n5\nMaize variety \nselection\n• Awareness on \nimproved Maize \nvarieties\n• Master trainers \nmade aware of \nthe new improved \nvarieties\n3 hours 30 \nminutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 16, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5\n6\nMaize seed \nsystems\n• Both formal and \ninformal seed \nsystems operations.\n• The formal and \ninformal seed \nsupply systems \nanalyzed.\n4 hours\n7\nMaize climate \nsmart agronomics \npractices\n• Agronomic options \nfor increased Maize \nproduction\n• Agronomic \npractices for \nmaize production \nvalidated and \nupscaled \n3 hours \n30 minutes\n8\nIntegrated soil and \nwater management \npractices for Maize \nproduction\n• Soil water and \nfertility enhancing \ntechniques availed. \n• All techniques \nvalidated and \nupscaled for \nincreased \nproduction \n5 hours \n9\nMaize Crop Health\n• All major pests \n(invertebrate and \nvertebrate) and \ndiseases organisms \ncontrol mechanisms \navailed to the master \ntrainers.\n• Reduction of yield \nloss of Maize by \nthe major pests \nand diseases\n6 hours\n10\nMaize harvesting \nand Post- harvest \nmanagement\n• Storage technologies \nto reduce losses in \nquantity and quality \n• Trainees \nsensitized on \nproper harvesting \ntechniques and \nstorage facilities, \nhygiene and \nmonitoring\n4 hours \n11\nMaize value \naddition\n• Various maize \nproducts, for human \nand animal feeds\n• Maize products \nidentified and \nprioritized for \nthe farming \ncommunities and \nbusiness entities\n4 hours \n30 minutes\n12\nMechanization of \nmaize production \nactivities\n• Adaptation of \nmechanized \noperations of \nmaize from crop \nestablishment, crop \nmanagement to post-\nharvest\n• Options of \nmechanization for \nincreased yield \navailed to farmers.\n3 hours \n30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 17, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6\n13\nMaize Business and \nMarketing\n• Review what \nbusiness and \nmarketing options are \navailable in Maize\n• Different business \nand marketing \noptions analyzed \nand proposed for \nuse by farmers e.g. \nContract farming\n4 hours \n14\nMaize Cross cutting \nissues\n(i)\t Innovation \nPlatforms\n(ii)\t Gender \nmainstreaming \nand social \ninclusion\n(iii)\tPolicy\n• Articulate how \nVoluntary Marketing \nGroups can draw \nbenefits from Maize \nvalue chain\n• Options of \nemployment \nopportunities in \nMaize production\n• Sites for information \nprofiled at the county \nlevels\n• Opportunities \nfor marginalized \ngroups identified \nand gains made\n• Farmers get \naccess to more \ninformation on \nMaize production\n8 hours \n30 minutes\nTotal \nDuration\n66 hours\nSECTION 3: TRAINING DESIGN\n3.1 Delivery System\nThe delivery system designed for this training consists of two stages:\na)\t Establishment of a team of facilitators\n• \nA Core Team of Trainers (CTT) to train farmer trainers (service providers) as facilitators \nof a ToT course will be established. This is done using this manual and modules \ncontained therein. \n• \nEach of the Master trainers will facilitate trainers of farmers and other stakeholders to \nacquire knowledge and skills for facilitating Farmer-led Field and Business Schools \nthrough practical demonstrations. \nb)\t Upscaling –This will be done by selecting lead farmers (LF) to be trained in facilitation \nskills.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 18, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7\n3.2 Partners and their Roles\nThe partners envisioned in this training plan are:\na)\t Core Team of Trainers – Master trainers drawn from KALRO, Universities, and Tertiary \nInstitutions offering crop sciences and State Department of Agriculture, MoALF&C will \nfacilitate initial training of trainers of farmers and other stakeholders. They will also \nprovide mentorship to farmers’ trainers during the first year of LF trainings. They should \nalso be available in the evaluation of the first round of LF trainings.\nb)\t County Government Department for Crops and Livestock \nCounty Coordination Teams (CCT) including technical departments and service providers \nwill play specific roles of LF trainers, mentors and coordinators at sub-county level. They \nwill assist FFBS to form partnership with stakeholders for sustainability. They will also \nsupport LF to establish their upscaling networks.\nc)\t Lead Farmer Networks-association of LFs in the counties to take up farmer trainings \nand upscaling in the future. Lead farmer networks and groups will conduct exchange \nvisits to learn best practices in other project implementing counties. \nd)\t Private Sector Service Providers – Inputs suppliers, financial and business development \nservice providers, market players and processors will partner and support growth of \nindividual or mMaize farmer groups. \n3.3 Training Duration\nThe proposed ToT course for Master trainers for 14 modules in the Maize value chain shall take a \ntotal of 66 hours of training period. This does not include break hours of mid-morning, afternoon \nand lunch breaks\n3.4 Logic of Design and Flow of Session\nThe logic of design and flow of each module is that the facilitator, paying attention to the proposed \nmethods and sessions guidelines shall: (i) Introduce the module; (ii) Draw out the participant’s \nexpectations; (iii) Relate participants’ expectations with module objectives or learning outcomes; \n(iv) Explore the concept and content, switching to different methods of delivery of the content \n(group exercise, brainstorming, excursions, plenary discussions, role plays) as the session \nprogresses; (v) Review the module at the end using participatory approaches like one participant \nreads one summary message and its application; and, (vi) Distribute the participants’ handouts.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 19, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8\nSECTION 4: FACILITATOR’S GUIDELINES\n4.1 Preparation of Training Materials\nThe training materials suggested require adequate preparations and should be available before \nthe actual training dates. Further:\n1.\t\nThe facilitators should familiarize themselves and internalize the guidelines provided \nby this manual prior to the training.\n2.\t\nThe stationery required should be available within the training institution 3 days be­\nfore the training. These include name tags, writing materials, paper punch and medium \nsize box files for participants’ handouts filing.\n3.\t\nFlip charts and good quality felt pens could be used interchangeably with projections. \nEach participant will require one felt pen while the trainers will require two sets of felt \npens.\n4.\t\nVisual aids such as field equipment and tools should also be arranged in time before \nthe sessions start.\n5.\t\nThere should be adequate copies of participants’ handouts (one per participant) to be \ndistributed at the end of each session or as may be suitable.\n6.\t\nCopies of the modules are distributed at the end of each module.\n4.2 Preparation of Training Venue and Sites\nThe training venue will include the training room, field demonstration and market sites.\na) Training Room – Should have adequate space for 25 participants seated in a semi-circle \nor U shape arrangement ensuring access and unobstructed view of the front. There should \nbe adequate space for a desk and seats for 3 trainers preferably at the sides or at the back of \nthe training room. There should also be a desk for the trainer, their training materials and \nprojector, a flip charts holder and white wall to act as a projector screen.\nb) Demonstration Site – Should be within a walking distance with at least five distinct plots \nfor demonstrations. \nc) Market Sites – these include cereal retail outlets (kiosks, stalls, shops and supermarkets), \nwhole sale and aggregation points and processing sites if any. The operators should be in­\nformed in advance about the visits. These should not be very far away preferably less than \n10 minutes’ drive distance.\n4.3 The Trainees\nThe trainees who will participate are extension officers, lead farmers, educators, service providers \nand researchers with elaborate training back ground in extension and advisory services. They will \nbe drawn from public and private sector based on considerable experience in training farmers", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 20, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "9\nbut with minimal facilitative advisory or technology transfer approaches. The facilitator should \ntherefore act more of a facilitator than a lecturer and draw out and build on their knowledge, skills \nand experience that they shall bring. As a golden rule, do not lecture trainees but facilitate, listen \nand let them feel like equals to each other and the CTT team members.\n4.4 Training Program\nThe training program proposed consists of the actual training modules and the corresponding \ndays and time allocation (Annex 1). \n4.5 Training Methods\nThe training methods proposed for each session are suitable for adult learners and appropriate \nfor addressing knowledge, skills and attitudes of the participants. The choice of the methods has \nbeen informed by the competency issues being addressed, time available and experiences of the \nauthor sof this manual. Depending on time available, the facilitator may modify these training \nmethods but as a golden rule no presentation by the facilitator should take more than 30 minutes \ncontinuously; but should be separated by the other participatory training methods. Table 2 presents \na list of available training methods.\nTable 2: Description of Training methods\nTraining Method\nDescription of Method\nPlenary presentations\nUse of PowerPoint or flip charts and plenary discussions in \nsituations where knowledge and opinion or consensus is required\nGroup exercises, visits and \nbrainstorming sessions\nTo be considered where skills are an issue requiring sharing and \ntrying\nRole plays and problem-\nsolving exercises\nPlenary discussions have been considered as training methods \nwhere attitude is an issue\nOn-farm practical \ndemonstration and \nexchange visits\nTo be considered where hands-on practical skills are acquired \nthrough sharing and demonstration\n4.6 Planning Schedule and Guideline for ToT Preparation\nWhile planning for this training, the CTT leader should ensure the following before the training:\n1.\t Six weeks – recruit master trainers, compose CTT, have at least 5 Maize demonstration \nplots near training venue where possible\n2.\t Four weeks – send out invitation letters to participants and special guests detailing \npurpose, venue and program. Follow up on demonstration sites. Brief CTT members\n3.\t Two weeks – confirm names of participants; reproduce training materials for \nfacilitators and package, confirm preparedness of the field sites to be visited. Hold", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 21, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "10\nbriefing of CTT members to finalize training plan. Confirm special guests if any\n4.\t Four days –Confirm training sites preparedness, prepare sitting arrangements, and \nbrief assistants\n5.\t One day - arrange training room furniture, place materials, equipment and stationery \non the tables. Arrange for reception of trainees at residence proposed\n6.\t On first day – arrange for reception of trainees at the training venue. Ensure climate \nsetting is done before the course is officially opened. This includes:\n• \nRegistration\n• \nWelcoming to venue by host\n• \nElaborate introduction of CTT and participants\n• \nIntroduction to the project and training course\n• \nGround rules\n• \nGroups formation\n4.7 Evaluation of the Training\nHalf day has been allocated for planning for way forward and evaluation of the TOT on the last \nday of the training. This is as presented in the program in section 4.4. The evaluation strategy \nshould take two directions the first being the individual trainees evaluate through evaluation \nforms without conferring or refereeing to each other. The evaluation forms are then collected and \nanalyzed by the CTT members.\nThe second evaluation approach is trainees’ group evaluation. They retreat to one room and elect \na chair and a secretary. Ask them to objectively and constructively evaluate the training in about \n45 minutes in the absence of the CTT members. They then present their evaluation to the CTT \nmembers and as they do so, the CTT members should only give points of clarifications if any \nmisunderstanding occurred but should not try to be defensive. The CTT members then use the two \nevaluation results to write a report highlighting aspects that went on well and can be replicated, \nchallenges that were encountered, and opportunities for future ToT’s improvement.\nTable 3: Sample Evaluation Form\nAspect / Module\nRating\nVery Useful \n(3 marks)\nUseful\n(2 marks)\nOf Limited \nUse (1 marks)\n1.\t Climate change and Climate \nsmart Agriculture\n2.\t Farmer Field and Business School \nApproach in Maize Production", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 22, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "11\n3.\t Good Agricultural Practices \n(GAPs) and Food Safety \nManagement Systems (FSMS)\n4.\t Maize production Niches and \nClimatic Requirements\n5.\t Maize variety selection and access \nto quality seeds.\n6.\t Maize Seed Systems\n7.\t Climate Smart Agronomic \nPractices\n8.\t Integrated Soil and Water \nManagement Practices for Maize \n9.\t Maize Crop Health\n10.\tMaize Harvesting and Post-\nharvest Management\n11.\t Maize Value Addition\n12.\tMechanization of Maize \nproduction Activities\n13.\tMaize Business and Marketing\n14.\tCross-Cutting Issues (Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms, Policy, \nGender Mainstreaming and \nSocial Inclusion)\n4.8 Facilitator’s Training Notes and Reference Materials \n4.8.1 Key references\nTwo key references should be provided for each module plus a list of other relevant publications \nfor reference.\n4.8.2 Guide on the use of the information \nThe trainers will be advised to issue farmers with utmost two publications for each of the training \nsessions. This is because if they go away with 10 publications in one visit, they may be over­\nwhelmed with the material load and thus limit knowledge uptake. Also, some will just take away", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 23, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "12\nas many as they can if allowed.\nThe list of all individual publications will be stored and available as electronic copies – mainly \nPDFs. The service providers are strongly advised to keep these electronic copies on a memory \nstick, CD or portable hard drive to enable farmers easily access and if necessary, print any of \nthem out at a local internet café.\nTrainers will be advised to issue one General Maize farming manual to be accompanied by two \nother publications e.g. information sheets, brochures, factsheets and poster. With subsequent \ntraining modules, they can develop their collection of publications.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 24, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "13\nPART II: TRAINING MODULES\nThis part presents the content of 14 modules for training namely: Climate change and climate \nsmart agriculture, Farmer Field Business school (FFBS) approach, Maize production niche and \nclimate requirements, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Food Safety Management System \n(FSMS), Maize variety selection, Maize seed systems, Maize climate smart agronomics practices, \nIntegrated soil and water management practices for Maize, maize Crop Health, Maize harvesting \nand Post-harvest management, maize value addition, Mechanization of Maize production \nactivities, Maize business and Marketing, and Maize Cross cutting issues (Innovation Platforms, \nPolicy, gender mainstreaming and social inclusion).\nAll the modules will be divided into the following:\n1. \t\nIntroduction\n2. \t\nModule learning outcomes\n3. \t\nModule target group\n4.\t\nModule users\n5.\t\nModule duration\n6.\t\nModule summary\n7.\t\nFacilitator’s guidelines\n8.\t\nReference Materials", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 25, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "14\nMODULE 1\nCLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE\n1.1 Introduction\nThe impacts of climate change (CC) and variability in agriculture, food systems and food security \nis a serious concern. Kenya’s agricultural production systems is highly impacted upon, due to \nthe low adaptive capacity and the high exposure to climate related risks. The major agricultural \nactivities are prone to risks and uncertainties of nature, which is affected by climate change, \neither in intensity, scope or frequency. Climate change is expected to modify risks, vulnerabilities \nand the conditions that shape the resilience of agriculture systems as well as introducing new \nuncertainties. Adoption of climate smart agriculture (CSA) through application of tools and \ntechnologies and effective communications of weather information, reduces the negative impacts \nof climate change and enhances access to food security in a changing environment. Thus, there \nis need to mainstream suitable climate resilient technologies, innovations and management \npractices (TIMPs) to increase productivity, resilience to climatic shocks and mitigate the causes \nof climate change. \n1.2. Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes should be achieved:\n1.\t Concept of the climatic change and availability discussed and explained.\n2.\t Impacts of the climate change and variability on agricultural and food security shared.\n3.\t Concept of climate smart agriculture (CSA) shared and explained.\n4.\t Future climate scenarios and how to manage projected and appreciated.\n1.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets public agricultural extension agents, service providers and lead farmers based \nat sub-county and ward level.\n1.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended for use by Master trainers who are members of the core team of trainers \n(CTT) and lead Farmers in the target counties. The trainers using this module should thoroughly \nfamiliarize themselves with the participants’ handouts (training materials).\n1.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 3 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 26, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "15\n1.6. Module Summary\nModule 1: Climate Change and Climate Smart Agriculture in Maize Value Chain \nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nDuration\n1.6.1 Introduction and \nLevelling Expectations \n• \nPersonal\n• \nIntroduction\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nFlip charts\n30 minutes\n1.6.2 Introduction to \nclimate change and \nvariability \n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nCase study \nvideos \n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• Projector\n• Laptop\n• Videos\n• Flip charts\n• Participants’ \nhandouts\n45 \nminutes\n1.6.3. Concept of \nClimate smart \nagriculture (CSA) \nin Maize\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nVideos\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n45 minutes \n1.6.4 Projected future \nclimate scenarios \naffecting Maize and \nhow to manage \n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nCase study \nvideos \n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nParticipants \nhandouts\n40 \nminutes\n1.6.5. Module review\n• \nParticipants’ \nquestions and \ncomments\n• \nFacilitator’s \nsummary\n• \nModule review\n20 \nminutes\nTOTAL\n3 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 27, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "16\n1.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\n1.7.1 Introduction and Levelling Expectations (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator introduces the trainees to this module on climate change \nand climate smart agriculture). \nTrainees’ expectation (20 minutes)\nThe facilitator organizes the trainees into groups to state and list their \nexpectations. \nModule Objectives (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents module’s objectives on power point).\nBy the end of the module training, the trainee should be able to:\n•\t\nExplain climate change and adaptations.\n•\t\nDescribe Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA).\n•\t\nDescribe and explain available climate smart crop management \npractices in maize production.\n•\t\nExplain the benefits of selected climate smart crop management \npractices in maize production.\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nDistribute \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n1.7.2 Introduction to Climate Change and Climate \nVariability (1 hour) \nSession guide\n(The facilitator introduces the module basics). \nPlenary presentation (40 minutes)\n•\t\nBasic terminologies used in the module (weather, \nclimate, variability, adaptation, coping).\n•\t\nExplain climate change and climate variability.\n•\t\nThe causes of climate change.\n•\t\nClimate risks impacting agriculture.\n•\t\nProposed adaptation and mitigation measures \nCase study videos and discussion (20 minutes)\n•\t\nThe impact of climate change\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nPlenary Discussion\n• \nVideo Presentation", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 28, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "17\n1.7.3 Concept of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) (1 \nhour)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents to the trainees the principles \nunderpinning CSA and the link to deliverable of project \nobjectives). \nPlenary Presentation (45 minutes)\n•\t\nDefinition of the CSA approach and their charac­\nteristics\n•\t\nThe three pillars of CSA (productivity, Adaptation \nand Mitigation\n•\t\nWhy CSA is needed\nPlenary discussion (15 minutes)\nDiscussions on the CSA concept\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n• \nPlenary discussion.\n1.7.4 Projected Future Scenarios that will Impact Pro­\nductivity (40 minutes)\n Session Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in discussing future \nclimatic projections focusing on rainfall and temperature, \nwhich directly impacts on crop yields). \nPowerPoint presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nProjected impacts on food production and needed \nadaptation measures especially for maize.\nVideo presentation and discussion (20 minutes)\n• \nShort Video on showing projections of rainfall \nand temperature.\n• \nPowerPoint presen­\ntation\n• \nVideo presentation\n• \n Plenary discussion\n1.7.5 Module Review (20 minutes) \nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in summarizing the key \npoints discussed in the module).\n•\t Plenary discussion \n1.8 Reference Materials \n1.8.1 Participants hand-outs\n• \nClimate Change and CSA Factsheets\n• \nClimate Change and CSA Leaf-lets\nReference\n1.\t Esilaba, A.O. et al. (2019). KCEP-CRAL Climate Smart Agriculture \nExtension Manual. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research \nOrganization, Nairobi, Kenya", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 29, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "18\nMODULE 2\nFARMER FIELD AND BUSINESS SCHOOL (FFBS) APPROACH IN \nMAIZE PRODUCTION\n2.1. Introduction to the module \nThis module is designed for training and exposing trainees to the Farmer Field and Business Schools \n(FFBS) approach and concepts. In addition, practitioners of FFBS need to have knowledge of this \nmethodology in order to transfer various Technologies, Innovations and Management Practices \n(TIMPs) in the Maize value chain to farmers. The trainees will thereafter facilitate farmers in the \nCommon Interest Groups (CIGs) to learn by doing the available Technologies, Innovations and \nManagement Practices (TIMPs) from a common plot of FFBS and then implement what they have \nlearnt into their individual farms in order to meet the KCSAP project objectives of sustainable \nincreased productivity, building resilience to climate change risks and reduction of greenhouse \ngases. FFBS also empowers the learners with various skills in facilitation, communication and \nagri-business. Since the methodology is participatory, it improves the learners’ observation skills \nand creates linkages with other value-chain players, thereby making maize production profitable \nand sustainable.\n2.2. Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module the following outcomes should be achieved: \n1.\t Concept of Farmer Field and Business School approach in Maize value chain, teaching \nand facilitating described and explained. \n2.\t Be equipped with practical skills that help them feel informed and confident about \ntheir roles and ability Approaches to facilitate FFBS participatory learning process \ndemonstrated and explained. \n3.\t Knowledge and analytical skills to design simple experiments to test and select options \nidentified and demonstrated. \n4.\t Shift from the domestic focus on maize production to improving productivity to farming \nbusiness proposition explained.\n2.3. Module Target Group \nThis module targets agricultural extension service providers based at sub-county and ward level. \nIt will also be useful for private extension service providers dealing directly with farmer groups \nat community level and lead farmers. \n2.4. Module Users \nThis module is intended for use by Master Trainers who are members of the Core Team of", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 30, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "19\nTrainers (CTT) and Lead Farmers in the Maize value chain target Counties. The Facilitators \nusing this module should thoroughly familiarize themselves with the participants’ Handouts \n(training materials). \n2.5. Module Duration \nThe module is estimated to take 7 hours 30 minutes.\n2.6 Module Summary\nModule 2 Farmer Field and Business School Approach\nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n2.6.1 Introduction,\nClimate setting, leveling \nof expectations and \nobjectives. \n• \nParticipatory \nintroduction\n• \nPlenary Presentation\n• \nHost team and functions \nof host team \n• \nGroup discussion on \nexpectations\n• \nLaptop\n• \nProjector\n• \nFlip charts \nMark pens\n30 minutes\n2.6.2 Overview of FFBS\nkey activities\n• \nPresentations and \nplenary discussions\n• \nProjector \n• \nPictorials\n• \nLap top\n1 hour\n2.6.3 Introduction to \nCommunication and \ncommunication skills\n• \nPresentation\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nProjector\n• \nFlip charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nLap top\n1 hour\n2.6.4 Facilitation and \nleadership skills\n• \nPlenary Presentation \n• \nGroup discussion\n• \nLap top\n• \nProjector.\n1 hour\n2.6.5 Organization and\nmanagement \nin FFBS\n• \nPlenary Presentation \n• \nGroup discussion\n• \nLap top \n• \nProjector.\n1 hour \n30 minutes\n2.6.6 Developing FFBS \nCurriculum for the \nMaize value chain\n• \nGroup discussion \n• \nPlenary presentation \n• \nLap top \n• \nProjector\n• \nFlip charts \n• \nFelt pens\n1 hour 30 \nminutes\n2.6.7 SMART County \naction plan development \nof Maize value chain on \nthe transfer of TIMPs \n• \nGroup discussions \n• \nPlenary presentations\n• \nLap top \n• \nProjector\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nFlip chart Felt \npens \n30 minutes\n2.6.8 Module review\n• \nGroup Discussions \n• \nConclusions and way \nforward\n• \nLap top \n• \nFlip charts\n•", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " pens\n• \nFlip chart Felt \npens \n30 minutes\n2.6.8 Module review\n• \nGroup Discussions \n• \nConclusions and way \nforward\n• \nLap top \n• \nFlip charts\n• \nPower point \n• \nProjectors\n30 minutes\nTOTAL\n7 hour 30 \nminutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 31, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20\n2.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines to FFBS establishment and operations\n2.7.1 Introduction, climate setting Leveling Expectations \nand Objectives (1 hour) \nSession Guide \n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and invites \nthem to introduce themselves and state their expectations). \nTrainee introduction and climate setting\nIntroduction of participants, setting training norms, formation \nof FFBS sub groups (Working groups) and trainees to share \ntheir expectations\nPlenary presentation on module Objectives\nThe facilitator presents modules objective in power point \nBy the end of the module the trainee should be able to: \n• \nDescribe and explain the concepts, characteristics, \nprinciples and plans of Farmer Field and Business \nSchool (FFBS) as a ‘learning by doing approach as it \napplies in Maize \n• \nDemonstrate and explain approaches to effective \nfacilitation and participatory learning for FFBS. \n• \nIdentify and demonstrate knowledge and analytical \nskills to design simple experiments for testing options. \n• \nExplain and facilitate shift from the traditional focus to \nimproving productivity to farming business proposition.\n• \nProvide checklist \nfor introduction of \ntrainees to help them \nbuild confidence in \nparticipation\n• \nSummarize and \ndisplay trainees \nexpectations\n• \nAssign roles to the Sub \ngroups \n• \nSet Norms and \nnominate leaders\n• \nPower point \npresentation on the \nObjectives of the \nFFBS training module\n \n2.7.2 Overview of FFBS key activities (1 hour)\nSession guide\nPlenary presentation\nThe facilitator takes the trainees through the main concepts \nand pillars of FFBS which includes:\n• \nThe definition of FFBS\n• \nParticipatory technology development (PTD) for the \nmaize value chain TIMPs\n• \nAgro ecosystems Analysis (AESA) of the Maize value \nchain\n• \nConcept of what is this what is that\n• \nFFBS principle of Integrated production and pest \nmanagement (IPPM)\n• \nFFBS Business concept and opportunities in the maize \nvalue chain stages.\n• \nPower point \npresentation on the \noverview of Key \nactivities in FFBS", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 32, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "21\n2.7.3 Introduction to Communication and Communication \nskills (1 hour)\nSession guide\nGroup exercise to gage the understanding of trainees on: \n• \nWhat communication is, \n• \nCommunication channels, \n• \nBarriers to effective communication and\n• \nHow to effectively communicate\nPlenary presentation\n Communication and communication skills\nGroup exercise and \npresentations on flip charts \nand power point presentation \nHandouts\n2.7.4 Facilitation and leadership skills (1 hour)\nSession guide\nPlenary presentation \n• \nDefinition of Facilitation, facilitator and effective \nfacilitation.\n• \nQualities of a good facilitator. \n• \nGolden rules of facilitation. \n• \nRoles and responsibilities of FFBS Facilitators. \n• \nDifference between facilitation and teaching \n• \nDefinition of leadership\n• \nElements of leadership\n• \nTypes of leadership\n• \nCharacteristics of a good leader\nPower point presentation on \nFacilitation and leadership \nskills\nHandouts\n2.7.5 Organization and management in FFBS 1 hour\nSession guide\nPlenary presentation \nSteps of FFBS implementation framework \n• \nGround working. \n• \nTraining of Facilitators.\n• \nEstablishing PTDs at the FFBS.\n• \nSeason long FFBS sessions.\n• \nEvaluation of PTDs. \n• \nField days.\n• \nGraduation. \n• \nEstablishment of Lead FFBS. \n• \nFollow up. \nPower point presentation\nHandouts\n2.7.6 Developing FFBS Curriculum for the Maize value \nchain (1 hour 30minutes)\nSession guide", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 33, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "22\n Plenary presentation\nSteps of Participatory technology development on the Maize \nvalue chain production \n• \nIdentify the major constraints to increased yields of \nMaize value chain production\n• \nRanking of constraints in order from highest.\n• \nIdentify list of TIMPs to address the constraints\n• \nRank the TIMPs in order from the most preferred \n• \nDevelop PTD on the most preferred TIMP objective \n• \nDecide on the parameters for AESA\n• \nDevelop FFBS curriculum using crop growth stage \ncalendar for the maize value chain\nGroup exercises\n• \nConstraint identification and ranking\n• \nTIMPs options identification and ranking\n• \nIdentification of the growth stages of the value chain \ncrop and development of FFBS training curriculum\nGroup exercises on\n• \npair wise matrix \nranking of constraints \nand TIMPs in Maize \nvalue chain\n• \ncurriculum \ndevelopment based on \nthe value chain growth \nstages\n• \nPresentations of the \ngroup exercises on flip \ncharts\n• \npower point \npresentations on \nPTD and curriculum \ndevelopment\n2.7.7 SMART County action plan development on Maize \nvalue chain of transfer of TIMPs (30 Minutes)\nSession guide\nPlenary presentation\nAction plan of maize county value chain that has:\n• \nActivities to be undertaken in the regular FFBS \nmeetings\n• \nTime frame of the activities\n• \nWho is responsible for each of the activities\n• \nRequired resources for the specific activity\n• \nMeans of verification for the activity.\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nThe trainees conduct a group exercise of the action plan \nbased on sub counties and wards represented\nPower point presentation on \nthe template of County Maize \nvalue chain TIMPs transfer \naction plan\nGroup exercise on \ndevelopment of County \nMaize action plan for the \nrespective wards and sub \nCounties represented in the \ntraining \n2.7.8 Module review ( 30 minutes)\nSession guide\n• \nParticipants Questions and answers\n• \nFacilitator’s Summary\nPower point presentation, \nprojector, flip charts, felt pens\n2.8 Participants’ Handouts\nReferences \n1.\t\nFAO (2006) Farmer Field School FFS Manual \n2.\t\nKhisa Godrick:(2004) Farmer Field School Methodology: Training of Trainers \nManual. \n3.\t\nSustain", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "outs\nReferences \n1.\t\nFAO (2006) Farmer Field School FFS Manual \n2.\t\nKhisa Godrick:(2004) Farmer Field School Methodology: Training of Trainers \nManual. \n3.\t\nSustainet East Africa; (2010) Farmer Field School: A Technical Manual\n4.\t\nFAO (2010) Food safety manual for Farmer field Schools: A training reference guide \nfor food safety in global FFS programs.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 34, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "23\nMODULE 3\nGOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAPs) AND FOOD SAFETY \nMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (FSMS)\n3.1 Introduction \nThis module is designed for training and exposing trainees to good agricultural practices and food \nsafety management system along the Maize value chain. \nGood Agricultural Practices (GAPs) manage risks through risk prevention, risk analysis and \nsustainable agriculture by means of Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) and \nIntegrated Crop Management (ICM). Declining food safety, reduced food quality, unsustainable \nfarming practices and negative environmental impact from agricultural activities plague the food \nsector. Worker safety and health along with traceability requirements are major concerns to modern \nconsumers. Good Agricultural Practices protect consumer health by ensuring safety within the \nfood chain. It is imperative to operate from the table upstream to include suppliers of agricultural \ninputs, providers of logistics and farm equipment. Good Agricultural Practices therefore constitute \na certification system for agriculture, specifying procedures that must be implemented to produce \nand supply food that is safe for consumers and wholesome, using sustainable methods.\nFood safety assures food quality with respect to the absence or occurrence of hazards that are \nrisky to human and animal health, within acceptable limits. Hazards are common along food value \nchains that lack effective control measures and may be due to ‘bad’ agronomic practices or are \nintroduced along the supply chain. Currently, there is increased public concern on the negative \nenvironmental and health impacts of agro-chemicals, microbial pathogens and their toxins. \nControl of these hazards occurrence is done through the implementation of an effective Food \nSafety Management Systems (FSMS) through Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) \nmanagement system. It involves a seven-step management system that provides the framework \nfor monitoring the entire food chain making it more preventive, rather than reactive and control \npotential problems before they occur. Aflasafe KE01 is a pre-harvest biocontrol agent which \nreduces aflatoxin contamination in maize by 80-99% at harvest and post-harvest.\n3.2 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes will be achieved:\n1.\t Good Agricultural Practices on food safety and enhanced quality along the Maize value \nchains discussed and appreciated.\n2.\t Knowledge on optimization and utilization of resources (water, soil, manure, fertilizers", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " the following outcomes will be achieved:\n1.\t Good Agricultural Practices on food safety and enhanced quality along the Maize value \nchains discussed and appreciated.\n2.\t Knowledge on optimization and utilization of resources (water, soil, manure, fertilizers \nand other inputs), environmental protection and conservation acquired and described.\n3.\t Use of aflasafe as pre-harvest bio- control agent to control aflatoxin in maize at harvest \nexplained and demonstrated.\n4.\t Worker safety and health within the maize production system explained. \n5.\t Traceability in food safety and quality along the Maize value chain mapped and", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 35, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "24\nimplemented.\n3.3. Module Target Group\nThis module targets public and public agricultural extension agents, service providers and lead \nfarmers based at sub-county and ward level.\n3.4. Module Users \nThis module is intended for use by Master Trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT) and Lead Farmers in the maize value chain target counties. The facilitator using this mod­\nule should thoroughly familiarize themselves with the participants’ handouts (training materials). \n3.5. Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 6 hours 30 minutes.\n3.6 Module Summary\nModule 3. Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Food Safety Management Systems \n(FSMS)\nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n3.6.1 Introduction, \nobjectives and \nlevelling of \nexpectations\n• \nGroups to \nbring out \nexpectations\n• \nPlenary \npresentation\n• \nModule objectives\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n30 minutes\n3.6.2 Understanding \nwhat is GAP and its \napplication in the \nMaize value chain\n• \nPlenary \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPictorials/video clips\n30 minutes\n3.6.3 Discussion \nof what factors \nto consider when \nselecting a site for \nagricultural activities \nthrough Risk \nAssessment \n• \nPlenary \npresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPictorials/video clips\n• \nData sheets\n30 minutes\n3.6.4 Review of GAP \nrequirements for audit \nand types of protocols \npossible\n• \nPlenary \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nData forms \n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPictorials/video clips\n• \nData sheets\n30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 36, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "25\n3.6.5 Introduction to \nSite Selection\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n30 minutes\n3.6.6 GAP checklists \nand Audit\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nGroup \nexercise\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n30 minutes\n3.6.7 Safe use of \nPesticides and \ncalibration of sprayers \nand nozzles\n• \nGroup work \non nozzles \n• \nRate of \ndischarge\n• \nSafety \nguidelines\n• \nPictorials/video clips\n• \nKnapsacks\n• \nMeasuring cylinders\n• \nTape measure\n• \nNozzles\n• \nEmpty clean pesticide \ncontainers\n 1 hour\n3.6.8 Understanding \nof food safety \nmanagement system \nin Maize value chains\n• \nPlenary \npresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop \n• \nPictorials/video clips \n 30 minutes\n3.6.9 Determination \nof food safety risk/\nhazards in Maize \nvalue chains (hazard \nanalysis)\n• \nPlenary \npresentation\n• \nGroup \nexercise\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nParticipants’ hand outs\n 30 minutes\n3.6.10 Determination \nof critical control \npoints (CCPs) and \nCritical limits (CLs) \nin Maize value chain\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nGroup \nExercise\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop \n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n 30 minutes\n3.6.11 Prevention and \ncorrective measures \nfor CCPs in Maize \nvalue chain\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nGroup \nexercise\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nPower point projector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPictorials/video clips\n 30 minutes \n3.6.12 Module review\n• \nParticipants’ \nquestions and \ncomments\n• \nFacilitator’s \nsummary\n• \nParticipants’ hand outs\n• \nModule review\n ", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 37, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ictorials/video clips\n 30 minutes \n3.6.12 Module review\n• \nParticipants’ \nquestions and \ncomments\n• \nFacilitator’s \nsummary\n• \nParticipants’ hand outs\n• \nModule review\n 30 minutes\nTOTAL\n 6 hours 30 \nminutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 37, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "26\n3.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines \n3.7.1 Introduction and Levelling Expectations (30 \nMinutes)\n Session Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and invites \nthem to introduce themselves).\nTrainees’ introductions and expectations (20 minutes)\nThe facilitator invites the trainees to state their \nexpectations after brain storming in their respective \ncounty groups\nModule Objectives (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents module’s objectives in power \npoint).\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nAppreciate GAP’s on matters of food safety and \nquality along the Maize value chain. \n• \nDescribe optimization and utilization of resources \n(water, soil, manure, fertilizers, and other inputs), \nenvironmental protection and conservation. \n• \nExplain worker safety and health within the Maize \nproduction system.\n• \nExplain and demonstrate use of aflasafe as pre-\nharvest bio control agent to control aflatoxin in \nmaize at harvest.\n• \nMap and implement traceability in food safety and \nquality along the Maize value chain.\n• Summarize trainees’ \nExpectations on a flipchart \n• PowerPoint presentation\n3.7.2 Understanding what GAP is and its \napplication in the Maize value chain (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(Facilitator leads discussions on understanding of GAPs \nand its relevance to actors in the Maize value chain).\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\n• \nUnderstanding GAP in the context of Maize \nproduction\n• \nExplain the role of GAPs in safe and sustainable \nfood production system for growers and \nconsumers.\n• \nUnderstanding aflasafe pre-harvest bio control to \ncontrol aflatoxin in maize.\n• \nUnderstanding GAPs as the key to high \ncommodity market destinations\nPlenary discussion\nApplication of GAP in the maize value chain\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants handouts\n• \nPlenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 38, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "27\n3.7.3 Discussion of what factors to consider when \nselecting a site for agricultural activities through \nRisk Assessment (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(Facilitator guides discussions on the key determinants of \nsite suitability for agricultural activities).\nPlenary presentation and discussion (30 minutes)\n• \nFactors to be considered in an agricultural site \nselection\n• \n(Site history, slope of land, type of soil versus \nmaize, water sources and physical quality, soil and \nwater analysis)\n• \nThe need for documentation in a farm assurance \nsystem\n• \nTypes of mandatory farm records\n• \nGeneral guidelines to conservation agriculture \n(CA).\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n• \nPlenary discussion\n3.7.4 Review of GAP requirements for audit and \ntypes of protocols possible (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in summarizing the key points \ndiscussed in the module).\nPlenary presentation and discussion (30 minutes)\n• \nMethods and procedures required at on-farm level \nto obtain GAP certification in maize production. \n• \nGood soil management practices (appropriate \nmaize rotations, manure application).\n• \nCareful management of water resources and \nefficient use of water for rain-fed maize production \nvia irrigation.\n• \nSelection of maize types and varieties to meet local \nconsumer needs.\n• \nAdoption of IPM practices to minimize the \npotential impact of pest control actions on workers, \nfood, and environmental and health safety.\n• \n Minimizing contamination at harvest, on-farm \nprocessing and storage.\n• \nPower point presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n• \nPlenary session\n3.7.5 Introduction to Site Selection (30 minutes)\nSession Guide", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 39, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "28\n(The facilitator introduces the various factors involved in site \nselection through Pictorials/video clips PPT’s and farm walk).\n Plenary Presentation and discussions (30 minutes)\n• \nFactors to be considered in an agricultural site \nselection\n• \n(Site history, slope of land, type of soil versus \nmaize, water sources and physical quality, soil \nand water analysis)\n• \nThe need for documentation in a farm \nassurance system\n• \nTypes of mandatory farm records\n• \nGeneral guidelines to conservation agriculture \n(CA).\n• \nPower point presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n3.7.6 GAP checklists and Audit (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(Facilitator guides the trainees on self-assessment (Internal \naudit) and corrective measures for non-compliance).\nPlenary presentation (15 minutes)\n• \nNeed for mandatory records in GAPs \n• \nInternal Audit procedures\n• \nPractical on Mock Audits\n• \nInterpretation of audit reports \n• \nCompliance and corrective actions\nGroup exercise (15 minutes)\n• \nGroups audit a farm or a process within the \ntraining site\n• \nPresent audit results and verdict and corrective \nactions\n• PowerPoint presentation\n• Global GAP checklists\n• Participants’ handouts\n• Group exercise\n3.7.7 Safe use of Pesticides and calibration of \nsprayers and nozzles (1 hour 30 minutes )\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator organizes the groups to identify their level \nof knowledge on pesticide use and safety; Determination \nof less hazardous pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, \nquantities to apply and respective PHIs).\nGroup exercise (30 minutes)\nPractical session on how to handle different types of \npesticides, fungicides and herbicides together with their \ncalibrations\nPlenary presentation (30 minutes)\n• \nGuided knapsack calibration\n• \nDifferent types of nozzles and their uses\n• \nPesticide safety\n• \nPower point presentation\n• \nPesticide containers\n• \nKnapsack sprayers\n• \nNozzles\n• \nParticipants hand outs\n• \nGroup exercise", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 40, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "29\n3.7.8 Understanding Food Safety (30 minutes)\n(The facilitator should be able to introduce food safety system by \ndefining it and sharing its benefits with the trainees). \nPlenary presentation and discussion\n• \nOverview of Food Safety Management Systems \n(FSMS).\n• \nWhy food safety is important in maize production \nsystems.\n• \nRisks to human/animal health due to chemical, \nbiological and physical hazards exposure.\n• \nLegal and market requirements for food safety \npractice.\n• \nFood safety practices that reduce risks/hazards.\n• \nUse of HACCP tool/system for monitoring maize \nproduction\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n• \nPlenary discussion\n3.7.9 Determination of food safety risks/hazards (30 \nminutes)\n(Facilitator should guide discussions on the steps of \nidentification of food safety hazards FSMS).\nPlenary Presentation (15 minutes)\n• \nExplain the concept of risk identification (Hazard \nanalysis) in maize production chain.\n• \nListing the types of hazards that cause illness or \ndeath.\n• \nDetermine and identify factors influencing likely \noccurrence/severity of hazards.\n• \nList hazards alongside the possible control \nmeasures \n• \nExplain the concept in a flow diagram\nGroup Exercise (15 minutes)\n• \nGroups to identify major risk/hazards at points \nof maize production \n• \nProduce flow diagrams for the maize\n• Power point presentation\n• Participants hand outs\n• Group exercise\n3.7.10 Determination of critical control points \n(CCP) in Maize value chains (30 minutes)", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 41, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "30\n(The facilitator introduces the topic on determination of \ncritical control points (CCP)).\nPlenary presentation (15 minutes)\n• \nWhy it is important to determine CCP in \nproduction chain (preventing, eliminating or \nreducing risks).\n• \nHow to monitor and measure the CCP (point, \nstep or procedure).\n• \nHow to document the CCP\n• \nHow to establish critical limits (From standards \nor guidelines) for each CCP.\nGroup Exercise (15 minutes)\n• \nGroups to identify and establish critical \ncontrol points and critical limits.\n• \nPower point presentation\n• \nParticipants hand outs\n• \nGroup exercise\n3.7.11 Prevention and corrective measures for CCP in \nMaize value chains (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator introduces the topic on prevention and \ncontrol of possible hazards).\nPlenary presentation (15 minutes)\n• \nEstablishment of corrective actions against CCP \n• \nEstablish verification procedures for CCP\n• \nEstablish record-keeping and documentation \nprocedures\n• \nHow to develop HACCP plan and Food safety \ntool kit for the Maize value chain\nGroup exercise (15 minutes)\nGroups to identify and establish corrective actions and \nverification procedures for Maize value chain.\n• \nPower point presentation\n• \nParticipants hand outs\n• \nGroup exercises\n3.7.12 Module Review (30 minutes) \nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in summarizing the key points \ndiscussed in the module).\n Plenary discussion \n3.8. Reference Materials\n3.8.1 Participants’ Handouts \n• \nGood Agricultural Practices (GAP) hand book\n• \nHACCP hand book for crop production\n• \nFarm management and production hand book \nReferences\n• \nHazard Analysis Critical Control Point Principles and Application Guidelines (2018). \nNational Advisory Committee on Hazards Criteria for Foods. \n• \nFood Safety Manual for Farmer Field Schools (2010). A training reference guide on \nfood safety in global FFS Programs, FAO.\n• \nGlobal GAP Version V", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 42, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "31\nMODULE 4\nMAIZE PRODUCTION NICHES AND CLIMATIC \nREQUIREMENTS\n4.1 Introduction \nThis module exposes farmer trainers’ to the different types of ecological conditions comprising \nof altitudes, soils, climate and agro-ecological zones (AEZs) for maize production. These abiotic \nfactors greatly influence the yields of maize due to their relationship with biotic factors (pests, \ndiseases, weeds, beneficial soil-borne microbial activities). It is therefore important to understand \nthe agro-ecological zones suitable for maize so as to ensure high productivity. \nMaize is mainly grown by smallholder farmers under rain-fed conditions. The crop is mostly \ngrown as a monoculture but a significant proportion of farmers intercrop with legumes. The \nproduction systems are guided by the size of the farm, demand or purpose (e.g., for subsistence or \ncommercialization where farmers strictly produce for markets). It is necessary for the extension \nagents to be able to guide farmers on the suitable areas within the counties where maize can do \nwell. \n4.2 Module Learning outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the trainees should be able to: \n1.\t The importance of Maize in Kenya’s economy defined. \n2.\t Altitudes and soil types/characteristics for maize production Identified and described. \n3.\t Climatic conditions (temperatures, rainfall and humidity) required for maize production \ndescribed. \n4.\t Specific county agro-ecological zones for maize production explained.\n4.3 Module Target Group \nThis module is intended for public agricultural extension providers in the Maize value chain \ntarget counties and service providers.\n4.4 Module users \nThis module is intended for use by master trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT) and Lead Farmers in the Maize value chain target Counties. The facilitator using this \nmodule should familiarize themselves with the participants’ handouts (training materials).", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 43, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "32\n4.5 Module Duration \nThe module session is expected to last for a time duration of 4 hours\n4.6 Module Summary \nModule 4: Maize production niches and climatic requirements\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials \nTime\n4.6.1 Introduction and \nclimate setting \n• Self-introduction\n• Plenary discussion\n• Group exercise\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint Presentation\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n4.6.2 Importance of maize \nin Kenya’s economy\n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussion\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentation\n• Projector\n• Participants’ \nhandouts \n1 hour\n4.6.3 Maize production \necological/climatic \nrequirements for optimal \nyields\n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussion\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n• Participants’ \nhandouts \n• Projector\n1 hour\n4.6.4 Maize production \nAgro-ecological zones \n(AEZs)- average yields, \nand constraints in the \ntarget Counties \n• Group exercise\n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussion\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n• Projector\n1 hour\n4.6.5 Module review\n• Discussions/conclusion \nand way forward\n• Flip charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n30 minutes \nTotal \n4 \nhours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 44, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "33\n4.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\n4.7.1. Introductions and climate setting (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module on and then invites \nthem to introduce themselves and state their expectations).\nExpectations (15 minutes)\nThe trainees to form groups (e.g. county based) and list their \nexpectations. \nThe facilitator presents module objectives\nObjectives (15 minutes)\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nDefine the importance of maize in Kenya’s economy.\n• \nIdentify and describe altitudes and soil types/\ncharacteristics for maize production.\n• \nDescribe climatic conditions (temperatures, rainfall \nand humidity) required for maize production.\n• \nExplain specific county agro-ecological zones for \nmaize production.\n• Summarize the facilitator/\ntrainees involvement in \nMaize value chains\n4.7.2 Importance of Maize in Kenya’s economy (1 hour)\nPlenary Presentation (45 minutes)\n• \nOrigin of maize \n• \nMaize in Kenyan households\n• \nKey counties producing maize in Kenya\n• \nGeneral maize production in Kenya\nFacilitator’s guided discussions (15 minutes)\nQuestions/answers/comments\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n4.7.3 Maize production ecological/climatic requirements (1 \nhour)\nPlenary Presentation (45 minutes)\n• \nAltitude and Agro-ecological zones for maize \nproduction\n• \nClimatic conditions (Rainfall, Temperatures and \nhumidity)\n• \nSoils (soil types, pH, general fertility for maize)\nFacilitator’s guided discussion (15 minutes)\nQuestions/answers/comments\n• \nPower point \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts \n• \nPlenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 45, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "34\n4.7.4. Maize production AEZs (villages), average yields, \nand constraints in the target Counties (1 hour)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (30 Minutes)\nFacilitator guides in reviewing and discussing suitability map \n(County by County)\nGroup exercise (15 minutes)\nTrainees to bring out specific county or sub-county AEZs, \nland size, yields and constraints to Maize production and \npresent in the plenary: \n• \nAgro-ecological zones (AEZs) and % area suitable \nfor Maize\n• \nAverage land/farm size under Maize production in \nKenya\n• \nAverage yield of Maize per farm\n• \nConstraints to Maize production \nDiscussions/presentations from the groups (15 minutes)\nLet the trainees/groups share the group exercise outcomes\n• \nPower point \npresentations\n• \nGroup work\n• \nOpen discussions with \nthe guidance of the \nfacilitator\n• \nPlenary discussion\n4.7.5. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummary of the main points from the training (20 minutes)\n• \nObjectives and expectations (review done on basis of \nthe expectations listed earlier)\n• \nTrainees to recall the Maize production ecological/\nclimatic requirements, maize production AEZs \n(villages) average yields, and constraints in the target \nCounties\n• \nTrainees to indicate new sets of skills and knowledge \nacquired from the module. The results are recorded \nper county presented\n• \nTrainees to randomly pin-point the way forward \nissues.\nFacilitator’s guided discussion (10 minutes)\n• \nThe last participants’ \nHandouts/training \nmaterials \n• \nSummarize the main \npoints of the module \non a flip chart and \ndisplay \n• \nPlenary discussion\n4.8 Reference Materials \n4.8.1 Participants’ Handouts\n• \nMaize production Guides\n• \nMaize leaflets\n• \nMaize factsheets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 46, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "35\nMODULE 5\nMAIZE VARIETY SELECTION \n5.1. Introduction\nThis module exposes service providers, lead farmers and public extension facilitators to the \nimproved maize varieties, their uses and target area of production. It is necessary that the Master \ntrainers have knowledge on the recommended and improved maize varieties for maize production \nin all maize growing regions in Kenya. As a result of this, they will help smallholder farmers to \nimprove maize production and productivity in the country. Low adoption rates of improved maize \ntechnologies is one of the key constraints to maize production. Smallholder farmers mainly source \nmaize seed from neighbours, local markets, agrovet shops or recycles their own. Moreover, the \nseed is produced in traditional farming practices leading to below average yields. It is therefore \nnecessary to provide knowledge on recommended improved maize varieties to improve maize \nproductivity.\nThe choice of appropriate maize varieties for a given location is very important because every \nvariety has extensively been tested and recommended based on climatic conditions, soil type, yield \npotential, resistance to pest and diseases or maturity period among others. These varieties are also \ngrouped into categories such grain production varieties for human consumption, livestock fodder \nvarieties and dual purpose varieties. However, farmers are not able to identify the varieties suited \nto their regions and their needs. There is therefore need to introduce farmer trainers in the target \ncounties to the different maize varieties available in Kenya, their suitable areas of production and \ntheir end uses. \n5.2 Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes should be achieved:\n1.\t The maize crop and its climatic and ecological requirements described.\n2.\t The various improved maize varieties and their ecological areas of cultivation and their \nuses identified.\n3.\t The varieties suited to the counties of interest identified.\n5.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets agricultural extension, service providers and lead farmers based at maize \ntarget counties.\n5.4. Module users \nThis module is intended for use by Master Trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT) and Lead Farmers in the maize value chain target Counties. The facilitator using this module \nshould thoroughly familiarize themselves with the participants’ handouts (training materials).", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 47, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "36\n5.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 3 hours 30 minutes\n5.6 Module Summary\nModule 5: Maize Variety Selection \nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n5.6.1 Introduction \nand Objectives\nExpectations\n• Plenary \npresentation\n• Group discussion \nand presentation \nof expectations\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n5.6.2 Introduction to \nvarious improved maize \nvarieties, their ecological \nareas of cultivation and \ntheir attributes and uses. \n• Group Exercises \nto identify maize \nland races and \nimproved varieties\n• Plenary \nPresentations\n• Plenary discussion\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n• Projector\n• Manila papers\n1 hour 30 \nminutes\n5.6.3 Recommended \nvarieties for specific \nregions\n• Plenary \nPresentation\n• Group exercise\n• Field \ndemonstration\n• Flips charts\n• Felt pens\n• Laptop for power \npoint presentations\n• Projector\n• Manila papers\n1 hour \n 5.6.4 Module review\n• Group Exercise\n• Facilitator’s \nsummary\n• Participants’ \nhandouts \n• Module review\n• maize manual \n30 minutes\nTOTAL\n3 hours 30 \nminutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 48, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "37\n5.7. Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 5: Maize Variety Selection\n5.7. 1 Introduction and levelling of expectations and \nobjectives (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nIntroduction (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module on maize \nvarieties and invites the trainees to introduce themselves and \nstate their expectations.)\nModule Objectives (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents modules objectives)\nBy the end of the module the trainee should be able to:\n•\t\nDescribe the maize crop and its climatic and \necological requirements.\n•\t\nIdentify the various improved maize varieties and \ntheir ecological areas of cultivation and their uses.\n•\t\nIdentify the varieties suited to the counties of interest.\n• \nSummarize trainees’ \n“expectations” and \ndisplay.\n• \nDistribute \nparticipants’ \nhandouts \n• \nModule Objectives, \n5.7.2 Introduction of Maize and the various improved \nMaize varieties and their uses (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator describes the maize crop and guides the trainees \nin identifying the various maize improved varieties and their \nuses).\nGroup exercise and discussion (10 minutes)\nAsk trainees highlight and describe some of the maize varieties \nthey know.\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nWhat is maize?\n• \nImproved maize varieties. \n• \nCategories of maize varieties for grain or dual \npurpose\nShow trainees the photographs of each variety and the full \ndescription and its uses.\n• Distribute Participants’ \nhandouts \n• Group exercise\n• Plenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 49, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "38\n5.7.3 Recommended Maize varieties for the target \ncounties (2 hours)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation\nVarieties for the target counties (30 minutes)\n• \nMaize growing regions and the new regions which are \nbeing targeted for Maize cultivation in Kenya. \n• \nMaize varieties suited for each county \n• \nCounty climate conditions for target county (semi-\narid, hot dry low land, cold dry highlands and high \npotential)\nGroup exercises (30 minutes)\nTrainees discuss and come up with maize varieties in their \ncounty\nField demonstration (1 hour)\n(Ensure there is an established plot of all the varieties or maize \nplant samples).\n• \nVisit the maize plots with the trainees and assist them \nidentify and study the various varieties.\n• \nAfter the field visit facilitate them to recall what they \nlearned and discuss on any issue that may arise. (You \ncould also use maize plant samples for the various \nvarieties).\n• \nDistribute \nparticipants’ \nhandouts.\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nField demonstration\n5.7.4 .Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module).\nGroup Exercise\nSummarize the main points of the training\nTogether with the trainees review the main points about \nimproved maize varieties\n• \nWhat new things did you learn from this module?\n• \nWhat are some of the problems and issues that you \nhave become more aware of in improved maize \nvarieties?\n• \nWhat questions do you still have about identification \nof maize varieties?\n• \nThe last Participants’ \nHandouts \n• \nSummary of the \nmain points from the \nmodule.\n5.8 Reference Materials\n5.8.1 Participants’ Handouts\n• \nMaize leaflets\n• \nFactsheets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 50, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "39\nMODULE 6\nMAIZE SEED SYSTEMS\n6.1 Introduction\nMaize farmers source seeds from their neighbours, local markets, agrovet shops or recycle their \nown. Persistent use of farmer-saved seeds significantly reduces yields and undermines the potential \nof private sector investment in commercial production and marketing of improved certified seeds \nbe they open pollinated varieties or hybrids. This has negatively impacted on the dissemination of \nimproved high-quality maize seed especially in the drylands where open pollinated varieties are \nprevalent. Partly this may be blamed on the inability of the farmers to select good seed due to lack \nof the necessary information on seed selection and regulation. \nAs agricultural production increasingly becomes commercialized and global food markets \nbecome more competitive, farmers need to invest in improved high yielding maize seed varieties \nfor sustainability and profitability. This module exposes county extension officers, private service \nproviders, lead farmers and facilitators to the various seed systems and the importance of quality \nseed in maize production. It also covers community seed production and advises how to interface \nformal and informal seed production to enable farmers with adequate land to venture into \ncommercial production of maize.\n6.2 Module learning outcomes\t\nBy the end of the module, the following should be achieved:\n1.\t The main maize seed systems in Kenya explained and appreciated.\n2.\t Seed production in formal and informal seed system described.\n3.\t The importance of informal seed system, community seed bulking and its interface with \nformal seed production for enhanced production of quality grain explained.\n6.3 Module Target Group and Categories\nThis module is intended for public and private extension agents, service providers and lead farmers\n6.4 Module Users \nThis module is intended for use by Master trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT). The facilitator using this module should be well conversant with the participants’ handouts.\n6.5 Module Duration \nThe module is estimated to take a minimum of 6 hours.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 51, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "40\n6.6 Module Summary \nModule 6: Maize Seed System\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials Time\n6.6.1 Introduction, objectives and \nexpectations\n• Self-introduction\n• Presentations\n• Plenary \ndiscussion\n• Flips charts \n• Marker pens\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n6.6.2 Definition of seed and seed \nsystem in Kenya; difference \nbetween hybrids and open \npollinated varieties \n• Group exercise \n• Plenary \npresentations\n• Flips charts\n• Marker pens\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n1 hour\n6.6.3 Formal seed system in Kenya\n• Plenary \nPresentation\n• Plenary \ndiscussion\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Flips charts \n• Marker pens\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n1 hour 30 \nminutes \n6.6.4 Informal seed system in \nKenya\n• Plenary \nPresentation\n• Plenary \ndiscussion\n• Group exercise\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Flips charts \n• Marker pens\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n1 hour 30 \nminutes \n6.6.5 Module review and \ndiscussions\n• Group exercise\n• Plenary \ndiscussion \n• presentation\n• Flips charts\n30 minutes\nTotal \n5 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 52, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "41\n6.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 6: Maize Seed System\n6.7.1. Introduction and levelling of expectations and \nobjectives (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nIntroduction (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module on the \nmaize seed systems and thereafter invites trainees to introduce \nthemselves and state their expectations.\n6.7.1. Module Objectives (20 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents modules objectives)\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nAppreciate maize seed systems and its \nimportance in production.\n• \nDescribe seed production in formal and \ninformal seed system. \n• \nExplain informal seed system, community \nseed bulking and its interface with formal \nseed production for enhanced production of \nquality grain.\n• Summarize Trainees’ \n“Expectations” and display.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Plenary discussion\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts \n6.7.2. Definition of seed and seed system in Kenya (1 \nhour)\nSession Guide\nGroup exercise and presentations: (30 Minutes)\n• \nWhat is quality seed?\nPlenary Presentation (60 Minutes)\n• \nDefinition of a seed system and characteristics \nof main seed systems (formal and informal seed \nsystem)\n• \nCommodity corridors \n• Group exercise\n• PowerPoint presentation\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts\n6.7.3 Formal seed systems in Kenya (1 hour 30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentation and discussion (60 Minutes)\n• \nLegal requirements for seed certification\n• \nSeed certification process\n• \nPost certification activities for enforcing the \nseed act cap 326\n• \nPost certification activities for seed quality \nassurance\n• \nSeed importation and exportation requirements\nPlenary Discussion (30 minutes)\n• \nFormal seed systems\n• PowerPoint presentation\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 53, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "42\n6.7.4 Informal seed system in Kenya (1 hour 30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentations: (1 hour)\n• \n Seed multiplication\n• \nMaize seed standards and commercial \nproduction\n• \nInformal seed system\n• \nCommunity seed bulking and how it is \nimplemented\n• \nSynergies for formal and informal seed \nsystems\nGroup exercise and discussion (30 Minutes)\nCalculate seed requirements for the county/ward/farmer \ngroup and present\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts \n• Group exercise\n• Plenary discussion\n6.7.5 Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the module together with the trainees and \nhave a recap of the main components in:\n• \nMaize seed systems and their characteristics\n• \nImportance of using certified seed \n• \nInformal seed\n(Discuss the knowledge acquired and skills learnt from this \nmodule with the trainees. What are the observations made \nby trainees from this module?)\n• Participants’ handouts\n• Summarize the main points \nfrom the module on a flip chart \nand display \n6.8 Reference Materials\n6.8.1 Participants’ Handouts \n Maize leaflets\n Maize fact sheets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 54, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "43\nMODULE 7\nCLIMATE SMART AGRONOMIC PRACTICES FOR MAIZE\n7.1 Introduction\nIn order to optimize maize productivity, farmers need to adopt specific agronomic packages \nwithout which the yield potential of improved varieties cannot be achieved. In addition, the \nweather vagaries occasioned by climate change effects make it necessary to incorporate adaptation \nor mitigation measures which enable maize farmers to increase productivity. \nAdoption of climate smart agronomic practices enable maize farmers to adapt and mitigate effects \nof climate variability thereby attaining sustainable yields and returns despite the climate changes. \nIn doing this, maize farmers must be trained on applicable climate smart agronomic practices that \nhold promise. There is therefore need for extension service agents from the maize target counties \nto be equipped with skills and knowledge that enable them to guide farmers on the climate smart \nmaize agronomic practices, seed selection techniques, and disease and pest management strategies.\n7.2 Module Learning outcomes\nBy the end of this module training, the following outcomes should be achieved: \n1.\t Agronomic practices for maize production described and explained.\n2.\t Region specific agronomic practices for maize production optimization outlined.\n3.\t Appropriate inputs and their correct application rates for maize production described.\n4.\t Timing for operations or inputs application in maize production described and \nexplained.\n7.3 Module Target Group and Categories\nThis module targets service providers, public extension agents and lead farmers from maize value \nchain target counties.\n7.4 Module users \nThis module is intended for use by Master trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT). The facilitator using this module should familiarize themselves with the participants’ \nhandouts or training materials.\n7.5. Module Duration \nThe module is estimated to take a duration of 3 hours 30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 55, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "44\n7.6 Module Summary \nModule 7: Maize climate smart agronomic practices\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials \nTime\n7.6.1 Introduction \nand climate setting, \nobjectives and \nexpectations \n• \nSelf-introduction\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nPresentations\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nLaptop\n• \nProjector\n30 minutes\n7.6.2 Agronomic \npractices for maize \nproduction\n• \nPlenary presentation \n• \nPractical exercise \n(groups tour nearby \nfarm for layout \ndemonstration)\n• \nPlenary discussion \nresulting from the \nfarm visit\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nLaptop\n• \nProjector\n1 hour 30 \nminutes\n7.6.3 Appropriate \ninputs and their \nrecommended \napplication rates for \noptimum production \nof Maize \n• \nPresentations\n• \nGroup exercise \n(trainees enlist \ninputs and dosage in \ndifferent counties)\n• \nPlenary discussion \nto share group work \nresults\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nLaptop\n• \nProjector\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n1 hour \n7.6.4 Module \nreview and \ndiscussion\n• \nDiscussion/conclusion \nand way forward\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nLaptop\n• \nProjector\n30 minutes\nTotal \n3 hours 30 \nminutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 56, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "45\n7.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 7: Climate Smart Agronomic Practices for Maize\n7.7.1. Introduction and climate setting (30 minutes) \nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module. The trainees are \nthen invited to introduce themselves and state their expectations).\nExpectations (15 minutes)\nThe trainees form groups (e.g., county based) and list \nexpectations from the module\nThe facilitator presents the module objectives.\nObjectives (15 minutes)\nBy the end of the training module, the trainee should be able \nto:\n• \nExplain and describe agronomic practices for maize \nproduction.\n• \nOutline region specific maize production agronomic \npractices.\n• \nDescribe appropriate inputs and their correct rates of \napplication for maize production. \n• \nExplain the right timing for operations or inputs \napplication in maize production.\n• Summarize the trainees \nexpectations\n• PowerPoint presentations\n• Group exercise (listing and \npresenting expectations).\n• Expectations lists kept for \nlater reviewing compliancy\n7.7.2. Agronomic practices for Maize production (1 hour \n30 minutes)\nPlenary Presentation (40 minutes)\nThe facilitator presents critical factors on: \n• \nFactors for selecting maize production as an \nenterprise \n• \nClimate smart land preparation \n• \nClimate smart planting (seed rates, plant density)\n• \nThinning \n• \nWeed control\n• \nPests and disease control \n• \nCropping systems\n• \nSpacing (inter-and intra-row spacing) \n• \nConservation agriculture principles/benefits\nPractical exercise (30 minutes)\nGroups tour nearby for farm layout demonstration\nPlenary discussion (20 minutes)\nQuestions/answers and comments\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Plenary discussion\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts/training materials\n• Practical exercise", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 57, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "46\n7.7.3. Appropriate inputs for the optimal production of \nMaize and their correct/recommended application rates \n(1 hour)\nSession Guide\nGroup exercise (30 minutes)\n• \nThe facilitator guides trainees to list or/and present \nthe required inputs for use in maize production \n• \nThe trainees get into county groups to provide \nlists of maize inputs and their application rates as \npracticed by farmers. \n• \nThe groups present their results in the plenary - \nopening up for questions, answers and discussion. \nPlenary presentation and plenary discussion (30minutes)\n• \nThe recommended maize inputs (seeds, fertilizers, \nmanures, among others), their rates and their time \nof application for optimal yields \n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts\n• Groups exercise\n• Plenary discussion\n7.7.4. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module).\nSummary of the main points from the training\n• \nObjectives and expectations (review done on basis \nof the objectives and expectations listed earlier)\n• \nTrainees to randomly indicate new sets of skills and \nknowledge learnt from the module. The results are \nrecorded per county presented \n• \nRandomly (average of 10 cases) trainees pin-point \nthe way forward issues.\n• Participants’ handouts \n• Summarize the main points \nof the module on a flip chart \nand display \n7.8\t\nReference Materials\n7.8.1 Participants’ Handouts \n1.\t Maize production Guides.\n2.\t Maize leaflets \n3.\t Maize Factsheets\n4.\t Brochures", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 58, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "47\nMODULE 8\nINTEGRATED SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES \nFOR MAIZE PRODUCTION\n8.1 Introduction \nPoor soil conditions and unreliable availability of moisture in most smallholder farming systems \nhave been the main causes of low yields. Generally, crop yields have continued to decline over the \nyears due to increased soil acidity, mining of nutrients not supplied in the applied fertilizers and \npoor soil structure caused by failure to use the available sources of organic matter. Macronutrients \n[nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and Sulphur (S)] and micronutrients [zinc (Zn), \nMolybdenum (Mo) and Boron (B)] have been identified as deficient in Kenyan soils. Additionally, \nclimate change has accelerated the decline of the agricultural sector performance through limited \nand unpredictable water availability for the Maize production systems. \nMaize is grown on a wide range of soils but performs best on well-drained, well-aerated and deep \nsoils containing adequate organic matter content and well supplied with available nutrients. Maize \ncrop grows well in soils with a pH range of 5.0 to 8.0 with an optimum pH range for growth at \n5.5 to 7.0. For optimum production, factors such as soil moisture, temperature, pests and diseases, \nweed control, and soil chemical and physical conditions are taken into consideration. Various \nclimate smart soil and water management technologies such as conservation agriculture (mulching, \nminimum tillage, zero tillage, intercropping) and integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) \noffers the best options for improving soil fertility in the advent of climate change adaptation. \n8.2 Module learning outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following training outcomes should be achieved:\n1.\t Soil composition, the various physical, chemical and biological properties and what \nconstitutes a healthy soil, including soil classification explained and appreciated.\n2.\t Soil and plant tissue sampling for laboratory analysis, interpretation and utilization of \nresults from accredited laboratories in Kenya discussed and described.\n3.\t Soil health and Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) for climate resilient cropping \nexplained.\n4.\t Water harvesting technologies, soil and water management discussed and explained\n5.\t Temporary or permanent decline of land productive capacity and various solutions to \nsoil degradation identified.\n6.\t Problematic", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "FM) for climate resilient cropping \nexplained.\n4.\t Water harvesting technologies, soil and water management discussed and explained\n5.\t Temporary or permanent decline of land productive capacity and various solutions to \nsoil degradation identified.\n6.\t Problematic soils and their management identified and described.\n8.3 Module Target Group and Categories\nThis module is intended for public extension agents, lead farmers and service providers in the \nmaize producing regions.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 59, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "48\n8.4 Module Users \nThis module is intended for use by Master Trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT). The facilitators using this module should be well conversant with the participants’ handouts.\n8.5 Module Duration \nThe module is estimated to last for a duration of 5 hours.\n8.6 Module Summary \nModule 8: Integrated soil and water management practices for Maize production\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials\nDuration\n8.6.1 Introduction, \nobjectives and \nexpectations\n• \nSelf-introduction\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens \n• \nProjector for \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nLaptop\n30 minutes\n8.6.2 Soil \ncomposition, \nproperties and health, \n• \nPlenary \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector for \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n30 minutes\n8.6.3 Soil and plant \ntissue sampling and \nanalysis\n• \nPlenary \nPresentations\n• \nField \ndemonstrations \n(Conduct soil \nand plant tissue \nsampling and \nanalysis) \n• \nProjector for \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n• \nSoil and \nplant tissue \nsampling tools\n1 hour\n8.6.4. Soil fertility and \nplant nutrition\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector for \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 60, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "49\n8.6.5 Soil health and \n(ISFM) for climate \nresilient cropping \nsystems\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary discussion \n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n30 minutes\n8.6.6 Soil and water \nmanagement and \nwater harvesting \ntechnologies\n• \nPlenary \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n30 minutes\n8.6.7 Soil degradation \nand reclamation \n• \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n30 minutes\n8.6.8 Problematic soils \nand their management \n• \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n• \nParticipants’ \nhandouts\n 30 minutes\n8.6.9 Module review \nand discussion\n• \nDiscussion\n• \nFlip charts\n30 minutes\nTotal\n5 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 61, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "50\n8.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines \nModule 8: Integrated soil and water management practices for Maize production\n8.7.1. Introduction, Objectives and Expectations (30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and are \nthen invites them to introduce themselves and state their \nexpectations).\nModule Objectives (30 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents the modules objectives)\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nAppreciate soil composition and what constitutes \na healthy soil, including soil classification. \n• \nDescribe soil and plant tissue sampling \nfor laboratory analysis, interpretation \nand utilization of results from accredited \nlaboratories in Kenya. \n• \nExplain soil health and Integrated Soil Fertility \nManagement (ISFM) for climate resilient \ncropping systems. \n• \nExplain water harvesting technologies, soil and \nwater management. \n• \nIdentify temporary or permanent decline of \nland productive capacity and provide various \nsolutions to soil degradation.\n• \nIdentify and describe problematic soils and their \nmanagement.\n• Summarize trainees’ \n“Expectations” and display.\n• PowerPoint presentation\n• Distribute participants’ handouts \non Module\n• Objectives and Training \nProgram\n8.7.2. Soil composition, properties and health (30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents on soil composition, properties \nand health)\nPlenary presentation (20 minutes)\nSoil composition, properties and health \n• \nDescription of soil composition \n• \nDescription of soil properties \n• \nDescribe what soil health is all about \nPlenary discussion (10Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise \n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n• \nPlenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 62, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "51\n8.7.3. Soil and plant tissue sampling and analysis \n(1 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (30 minutes)\n• \nOverview of the soil sampling methods\n• \nSoil analysis results and interpretation\n• \nOverview of soil analysis results using available \nexamples \n• \nSoil sampling guidelines\nPractical exercise and demonstration on soil sampling \n(30 minutes)\n• \nsoil sampling methods\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nhandouts\n• \nPractical exercise and \ndemonstration\n8.7.4. Soil fertility and plant nutrition (30 minutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nPotential role of different soil management \ntechniques in addressing soil fertility challenges \nin Maize smallholder farming systems \n• \nIntegrated Soil Fertility Management techniques\n• \nSoil management guidelines\nPlenary discussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nhandouts\n8.7.5 Soil health and (ISFM) for climate resilient \ncropping systems (30 minutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 Minutes)\n• \nSoil health\n• \n Introduce integrated soil fertility management \n(ISFM) \n• \n Soil health and ISFM for a climate resilient \ncropping system\n• \nManure management, mulching, organic \namendments and composting for increased use \nof organic manure for improving agricultural \nproduction\n• \nConservation agriculture as a climate smart \nagriculture practice\n• \nMaize intercrops and crop rotation as climate \nresilient cropping systems\nPlenary discussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nhandouts\n• \nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 63, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "52\n8.7.6 Soil and water management and water \nharvesting technologies (30 minutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 Minutes)\n• \nPrinciples of soil management for increased \nMaize productivity\n• \nMethods of tillage systems that conserve water \nfor Maize use.\n• \nPrinciples of soil fertility management for \nincreased Maize productivity \n• \nMethods of soil fertility management for \nincreased Maize productivity\nPlenary discussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nHandouts\n• \nPlenary discussion\n8.7.7 Soil degradation and reclamation (30 minutes) \n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nOverview of soil degradation and reclamation. \n• \nReclamation measures of degraded soil \n• \nIdentification of the causes of soil degradation\n• \nIdentification of reclamation measures of \ndegraded soil\nPlenary discussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nhandouts\n• \nPlenary discussion\n8.7.8\t\nProblematic soils and their management (30 \nminutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary presentation (20 minutes)\n• Problematic soils and their management\n• Soils with unsuitable biological properties\n• Soils with unsuitable chemical properties\n• Soils with unsuitable physical properties\nPlenary discussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learnt and discuss any \nissues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nDistribute participants’ \nHandouts\n• \nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 64, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "53\n8.7.9. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nThe facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the main points of the training review the \nmain points together with the trainees.\nDiscuss with trainees about skills learnt from this \nModule. Let them identify some of the problems and any \nother issues arising from the module. \n• \nThe last participants’ \nhandouts \n• \nSummary of the main \npoints from the module on \na flip chart and display\n8.8 Reference Materials\n8.8. Participants’ Handouts \n• \nSoil Management Extension Manual [KCEP-CRAL Manual 2021]\n• \nSoil Management Leaflets [KCEP-CRAL PAMHPLETS 2019}\n• \nOFRA Technical Training Manual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 65, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "54\nMODULE 9\nMAIZE CROP HEALTH \n9.1 Introduction\nMaize pests and diseases are important biotic constraints which cause significant yield losses in \nproduction leading to losses of 10-100%. Most maize farmers depend heavily on use of pesticides \nfor the management of these constraints and at time leading to cases of overuse of pesticides. \nOccasionally farmers using pesticides do not apply the recommended dose of pesticides leading \nto resistance or high minimum residual levels on crops. Farmers are encouraged to use integrated \nPest management (IPM), an ecologically friendly approach that relies use of combined practices \nsuch as tolerant varieties, biological control agents and selected environmentally safe synthetic \nfor disease and pest management. This approach is guided by continuous monitoring of pests and \ndiseases for timely decision making in their management. \nThis module exposes service providers, lead farmers and facilitators to the importance of \nmaintaining crop health as well as human and environmental safety when producing maize. \nThe module introduces the major maize pests and diseases, their distribution and management. \nIt also unveils the economic losses caused by the mentioned pests and diseases. A sustainable \npest, disease and weed management program is essential in minimizing losses and in enhancing \nenvironmental and food safety concerns adequately. Available options for the control of these \nbiotic impediments to high yields of maize can greatly prevent losses experienced by farmers. \nThere is need to employ human and environmentally safe approaches to pest, disease and weed \nmanagement so as to increase productivity and enhance food safety and security. Finally, the \nmodule details the recommended sustainable integrated pests, disease and weed management \npractices, which if applied, can help reduce the yield losses and improve the quality of produce \nfor the market.\n9.2 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes should be achieved: \n1.\t Major pests, diseases and weeds identified. \n2.\t Integrated pest, disease and weed management in maize described and explained.\n3.\t Knowledge on sustainable Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and scouting for \nthreshold determination explained and understood.\n4.\t Knowledge on safe use of agro-chemicals (pesticides, fungicides and herbicides) and \nsources of information on registered pesticides enhanced and applied.\n9.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets public and private extension agents, service providers and lead farmers", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 66, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "55\n9.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended for use by Master Trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT). The facilitators using this module should be well conversant with the participants’ handouts.\n9.5 Module Duration\nThe facilitation of this module is estimated to last for a period of 6 hours 30 minutes.\n9.6 Module Summary\nModule 8: Crop Health\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials \nTime\n9.6.1 Introduction, \nobjectives and \nexpectations\n• \nSelf-introduction\n• \nGroup exercise \n• \nPlenary presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nMarker pens \n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\n30 \nminutes\n9.6.2 Major maize pests \nthat cause economic \nlosses and their control \nmethods \n• \nGroup work\n• \nPlenary presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nPractical exercise\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n1 hour\n9.6.3 Sustainable \nIntegrated Pests \nManagement practices \nand scouting for \nthreshold determination \nin maize\n• \nPlenary presentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants/ handouts\n1 hour\n9.6.4 Major maize \ndiseases that cause \neconomic losses and \nconditions that favour \ntheir development \nincluding their control \nmethods\n• \nGroup work\n• \nPlenary Presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nPractical exercise\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n1 hour\n9.6.5 Sustainable \nIntegrated Management \nof maize diseases and \nscouting for threshold \ndetermination\n• \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nField demonstration\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n1 hour \n9.6.6 Integrated weed \nmanagement\n(Major weeds of maize)\n• \nPlenary Presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nField demonstration\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \n", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "outs\n1 hour \n9.6.6 Integrated weed \nmanagement\n(Major weeds of maize)\n• \nPlenary Presentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nField demonstration\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n1 hour", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 67, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "56\n9.6.7 Safe use of agro-\nchemicals and update \nsource for registered \nagro-chemicals (PCPB \nregistered products)\n• \nPresentations\n• \nPractical\n• \nPlenary discussion \n• \nProjector \n• \nLaptop\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n30 \nminutes\n9.6.8 Module Review\n• \nDiscussion/ Recap of \nthe module\n• \nTake away messages\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nMarker pens\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n30 \nminutes\nTotal \n6 hours \n30 \nminutes \n9.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 9: Maize Crop Health\n9.7.1. Introduction and leveling of expectations and \nobjectives (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nIntroduction (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and then invites \nthem to introduce themselves and state their expectations).\nModule Objectives (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents modules objectives)\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nIdentify major pests, diseases and weeds. \n• \nDescribe and explain integrated pest, disease and \nweed management in maize.\n• \nExplain and appreciate the sustainable use of \nIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and \nscouting for threshold determination.\n• \nExplain safe use of agro-chemicals (pesticides, \nfungicides and herbicides).\n• \nSummarize trainees’ \n“Expectations”\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 68, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "57\n9.7.2. Major Maize pests that cause economic losses \nand their control methods; emerging/migratory pests (1 \nhour)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents on the common maize pests that are of \neconomic importance)\nGroup work (15 minutes)\n• \nTrainees to share maize pest information from their \nrespective counties\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nNames of pests and their descriptions \n• \nSymptoms of their infestation/type of damage \n• \nData on economic significance of the common \nmaize pests\nPractical exercise (15 minutes)\n• \nIdentification of maize pests from provided \nspecimens\nDiscussion (10 minutes)\n• \nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss \nany issues that may arise.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nPractical exercise\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n9.7.3. Sustainable Integrated Pest Management (IPM) \npractices in Maize; scouting and threshold determination \n(30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nIPM principles; how to implement them with \na focus on cultural, physical, biological and \nchemical pest management options.\n• \nCritical considerations for proper scouting\n• \nThreshold determination and when to implement \ncontrol measures\n• \nAn overview on the safe use of agro-chemicals \n(demonstration on how to select most suitable \npesticides, for the management of pests in maize).\nDiscussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and seek clarification \non the principles of sustainable IPM options.\n• \nPowerPoint presentation \non scouting for pests\n• \nParticipants’ handouts \n(brochures, \n• \nLeaflets and manuals on \npest specimens on maize", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 69, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "58\n9.7.4. Major Maize diseases that cause economic losses, \nconditions that favour their development and their \ncontrol methods (1 hour)\n Session Guide\nGroup work (15 minutes) \n• \nDetermination of maize diseases in specific \nCounties \nPlenary Presentation (15 minutes)\n• \nPresentations on maize diseases and conditions \nthat favor their development\nPractical Exercise (30 minutes)\n• \nIdentification of major disease species causing \neconomic \n• \nDamage based on samples presented\n• \nPowerPoint presentation \n• \nParticipants’ handouts \n• \nDisease identification \nguidelines\n• \nPractical Exercise\n9.7.5. Sustainable Integrated Diseases Management \n(IDM); scouting and threshold determination (1 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentation (30 minutes)\n• \nCritical considerations for scouting and when to \nimplement maize disease control measures\n• \nPresentation on Integrated Disease Management \n(IDM) in maize \n• \nAn overview on the safe use of recommended \nagro-chemicals (demonstration on how to select \nmost suitable fungicides for the management of \nmajor maize diseases).\nField visit (30 minutes)\n-\t\nVisit to a nearby maize field for collection and \nidentification of diseased maize samples \n• \nPowerPoint presentation \n• \nParticipants’ handouts \n• \nDisease management \nguidelines\n• \nField demonstration\n9.7.6 Integrated weed management (Major weeds of \nMaize) (1 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentation (45 minutes)\n• \nIdentification of weeds\n• \nMajor types of weed in the maize field\n• \nIntegrated Weed control measured\nPlenary discussion (15 minutes)\nIntegrated weed management \n• \nPowerPoint presentation \n• \nParticipants’ Handouts \n• \nPlenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 70, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "59\n9.6.7 Safe use of agro-chemicals and update source for \nregistered agro-chemicals (PCPB registered products) \n(30minutes)\nSession Guide\n• \nEffects of pesticides on maize production\n• \nWHO classification\n• \nThe Red List -List of banned agro-chemicals\n• \nSafe use of agro-chemicals (pesticides, fungicides \nand herbicides).\n• \nPowerPoint presentation \n• \nParticipants’ Handouts \n• \nPlenary discussion\n9.7.8. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the main points of the training: The facilitator \nshould review the following main points about climatic \nconditions suitable for maize production:\n• \nMajor pests of maize and their economic impacts \non maize production.\n• \nIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) options for \nmaize\n• \nMajor diseases of maize and their economic \nimpact on maize production. \n• \nIntegrated Disease Management (IDM) options for \nmaize\n• \nMajor weeds of maize and their economic impacts \non maize production.\n• \nIntegrated Weed Management (IWM) options for \nmaize\n(Discuss with trainees about new skills and ideas learnt \nfrom this module. What are some of the issues that need \nclarification)?\n• \nThe last participants’ \nhandouts \n• \nSummarize the main \npoints from the module \non a flip chart and \ndisplay \n9.8 Reference Materials\n9.8.1 Participants’ handouts \n1.\t Fact sheets on Maize pest identification and control\n2.\t Factsheets on Maize disease identification and their control\n3.\t Factsheets on Maize weeds identification and their management\n4.\t Weed Management manual. Mwangi, H.W. KALRO-Kabete", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 71, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "60\nMODULE 10\nMAIZE HARVESTING AND POSTHARVEST MANAGEMENT\n10.1. Introduction\nSmallholder maize farmers in Kenya face two key interrelated challenges after harvesting their \ncrop. The first relates to poor handling and management practices (including drying and storage \nchallenges), which contribute to significant deterioration of the quality of the grain and subsequent \nlosses currently estimated to be upwards of 30%. This translates to more than US$ 4 billion losses \nannually. Postharvest losses are one of the major reasons why Kenya continues to be insufficient \nin food supply even when crop yields and land under cultivation have been increasing. The second \nchallenge relates to market access. Most smallholder farmers sell their grain individually to traders \nin their villages shortly after harvesting a result, they get low prices compared to what they would \nhave earned if they had stored their grain and sold it 3 – 6 months after the harvest period. This \nis particularly a serious challenge given that many smallholder farmers will usually need to buy \nagain grains for household consumption when prices have significantly shot up. Others process \ntheir maize to meet national standards and sell it to the Millers for processing and National Cereals \nand Produce Board for the strategic grain reserves.\nThe main purpose of this module is, therefore, to safeguard the gains farmers are expected to make \nfrom productivity enhancement, by addressing the twin problems of high postharvest losses and \naccess to profitable markets through adoption of the postharvest TIMPs. Large scale dissemination \nof the available climate smart TIMPs through farmer awareness, training and demonstrations can \nreduce these losses from the current estimated levels of 30% to the industry acceptable levels of \nbelow 5%. This module introduces service providers and lead farmer trainers to maize postharvest \nvalue chain, constraints and opportunities in maize postharvest value chain and climate smart and \ngender friendly postharvest TIMPs for minimizing the losses and enhancing quality of the grain.\n10.2 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module the participants should be able to:\n1.\t Whole range of postharvest practices for maize explained.\n2.\t Constraints and opportunities in maize postharvest value chain explained.\n3.\t Climate smart and gender friendly postharvest TIMPs for minimizing the losses and \nenhancing quality of the grain explain.\n10.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets agricultural extension service providers based at sub county and ward level", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " explained.\n3.\t Climate smart and gender friendly postharvest TIMPs for minimizing the losses and \nenhancing quality of the grain explain.\n10.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets agricultural extension service providers based at sub county and ward level. \nIt can also be useful for private extension service providers.\n10.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended for use by master trainers who are members of the CTT and Lead Farmers \nin the maize value chain target Counties. The trainers using this module should thoroughly", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 72, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "61\nfamiliarize themselves with the participant’s handouts (training materials).\n10.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 3 hours 25 minutes.\n10.6 Module Summary\nModule 10: Maize Harvesting and Postharvest management\nSessions\nTraining \nMethods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n10.6. 1 Introduction, \nExpectations Objectives\n• Personal \nintroduction \n• Group work\n• Plenary \npresentation\n• Flip charts\n• Felt pens\n• PowerPoint / projector\n30 minutes\n10.6.2 Constraints and \nopportunities in postharvest \nhandling of maize \n• Group Exercise \n• Plenary \npresentations\n• Flip charts\n• Participants’ hand-outs\n• Maize TIMPs manual\n• Videos\n45 minutes\n10.6.3 Maize postharvest \nchain TIMPs\n• Maturity indices and \nharvesting of maize\n• Field drying of maize \nbefore threshing\n• Threshing of maize \n(manual threshing, \nmechanised threshing)\n• Winnowing\n• De-stoning\n• Metal silos\n• Maize stores – design \nand location, protection \nfrom rodents\nGroup work\n• Brainstorming \nsessions\n• Plenary \npresentation\n• Practical \ndemonstration\n• PowerPoint\n• Participants’ hand-outs\n• Maize TIMPs manual\n• Materials for demos \n(tarpaulins, metal \nsilos, threshers, grain \nmoisture meters, among \nothers)\n• Video\n1 hours 30 \nminutes\n10.6.4 Module review\n• Facilitator’s \nsummary\n• Group Exercise\n• Flip charts\n• Projector\n• Module evaluation \nforms\n30 minutes\nTOTAL\n3 hours \n15 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 73, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "62\n10.7 Facilitator’s guidelines\nModule 9. Maize Harvesting and Postharvest management\n10.7.1 Introduction and levelling of expectations and \nobjectives (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and invites \nthem to introduce themselves and state their expectations). \nIntroduction and Module Objectives (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents module’s objectives) \nBy the end of the module the trainee should be able to:\n• \nExplain the whole range of postharvest practices for \nmaize.\n• \nExplain the constraints and opportunities in maize \npostharvest value chain.\n• \nExplain climate smart and gender-friendly \npostharvest TIMPs for minimizing the losses and \nenhancing quality of the grain.\nExpectations (15 minutes)\nGuide the trainees to state their expectations based on the \nobjectives\n• \nHand-outs\n• \nTraining program\n• \nNote books\n• \nPens\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentation\nSummarize trainees’ \nexpectations and display \non flip chart/board.\n10.7.2 Constraints and opportunities in postharvest \nhandling of maize (45 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(Facilitator highlights the maize postharvest value chain-\nharvesting, drying, threshing, storage, among others)\nGroup w.ork (30 minutes)\n• \nTrainees discuss constraints in the postharvest \nhandling of maize, and suggest solutions\nGroup presentation (15 minutes)\nTrainees present results of group work in plenary\nUse PowerPoint\nHand-outs\n• \nMaize manual\n• \nBrochures\n• \nLeaflets\n• \nFactsheets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 74, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "63\n10.7.3 Maize postharvest value chain TIMPs (1 hour 30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\n(Facilitator uses slides to train)\nPowerPoint Presentation (50 minutes)\nPowerPoint presentation on the operations in the maize \npostharvest chain highlighting:\n• \nMaturity indices and harvesting of maize \n(importance of harvesting at the right maturity \nindex, advantages and disadvantages of harvesting \ntoo early or too late)\n• \nPreparations farmers need to make prior to \nharvesting\n• \nMaize harvesting methods\n• \nField drying of maize before threshing\n• \nThreshing (manual vs. mechanized threshing)\n• \nWinnowing\n• \nSorting and grading\n• \nDe-stoning\n• \nMaize quality standards\n• \nMetal silos\n• \nMaize stores – design and location, protection from \nrodents, e.g. rat-proof cages / cribs, among others.\n• \nThe correct moisture content for storage\n• \nPrecautions during storage\nVideo presentation (10 minutes)\nTrainees watch a video on threshing of maize, metal silo and \ngrain storage\nPractical demonstrations (30 minutes)\n• \nThreshing of maize\n• \nSorting and grading (a sample of maize purchased \nfrom the market and grading into various grades \nwith reference to existing standards)\n• \nPower point\n• \nHandouts\n• \nmaize manual\n• \nBrochures\n• \nLeaflets\nMaterials for demos \n(maize, hermetic bags, \nmetal silos, threshers, grain \nmoisture meters, among \nothers);\nVideo", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 75, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "64\n10.7.4 Training review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nPlenary presentation (10 min)\nSummarize the main points of the training.\nGroup Exercise (10 min)\nTogether with the trainees review the main points about maize \npost-harvest handling.\n• \nWhat skills did you learn from this module?\n• \nWhat are some of the problems and issues that you \nhave become more aware of in harvesting and post \nharvesting?\n• \nWhat questions do you still have about post-\nharvest handling?\nSummary of the main \npoints from the module\n10.8 Reference Materials\n10.8.1 Participant’s Handouts\n1.\t Factsheets\n2.\t Maize TIMPs manual\n3.\t Maize production guides\n4.\t Maize leaflets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 76, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "65\nMODULE 11\nMAIZE VALUE ADDITION\n11.1 Introduction\nMaize is a major food crop in Kenya. Maize value addition (production, processing and \ndistribution) in Kenya does not only provide food security to the population, but is also a source of \nlivelihood in form of employment generation. Maize displays a rather impressive nutrition profile, \nencompassing all the essential macronutrients and micronutrients. This include carbohydrates, \nfibres, fats, and proteins, along with key micronutrient-vitamins and minerals. It has low negligible \nof cholesterol and sodium, to promote heart wellness. It’s also rich in vitamin C and E which boost \nimmunity. This module introduces farmer trainers to the importance of maize in addressing food \nand nutrition security at the household level, community level and industrial level. The module \nalso covers constraints in value addition and consumption of maize and their suggested solutions, \nand various maize value added products. It is anticipated that developments in processing and \nvalue addition will enhance production and consumption of maize, and hence enhance food and \nnutrition security. \n11.2 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes should be achieved:\n1.\t The role of maize as a food and nutrition security crop explained and appreciated.\n2.\t Nutritional composition of maize, health benefits, food security and income described.\n3.\t Constraints in value addition and consumption of maize and suggested solutions \nidentified.\n4.\t Maize-based value added products identified and explained.\n11.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets public and private extension agents, service providers and lead farmers.\n11.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended for use by Master trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT) and Lead Farmers in the maize value chain target Counties. The trainers using this module \nshould thoroughly familiarize themselves with the participant’s handouts (training materials).\n11.5 Module Duration\nThe Module is estimated to take 6 hours.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 77, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "66\n11.6 Module Summary\nModule 11 Maize value addition \nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n11.6.1. \nIntroduction, \nObjectives\nExpectations\n• Personal introduction \n• Group work\n• Plenary Presentation\n• Flip charts\n• Projector\n• Laptop\n30 minutes\n11.6.2 Role of \nMaize as a food \nand nutrition \nsecurity crop\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Group exercise\n• Plenary Presentation\n• Flip charts\n• Felt pens\n• Projector\n• laptop\n• Participants’ handouts\n30 minutes\n11.6.3. Nutritional \ncomposition of \nMaize and its role \nin human health\n• PowerPoint\n• Plenary presentation \n• Group exercise\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Flip charts\n• Felt pens\n• Participant handouts\n1 hour\n11.6.4. Constraints \nin value addition \nand consumption of \nMaize\n• Group exercise \n• Plenary Presentation \n• List of value added \nproducts \n• Checklist for \nprioritization\n• Pair wise ranking tool\n• Flip charts\n• Felt pens\n• Participants’ handouts\n• Projector\n• Laptop\n1 hour\n11.6.5 Maize \nbased value added \nproducts:\n• Plenary Presentations\n• Plenary discussion\n• Practical demonstration\n• Sensory evaluation \nof value added Maize \nproducts\n• Field visit to processing \nfirms / groups\n• Projector\n• Laptop\n• Participant handouts \n• Assorted value \naddition equipment \nand ingredients \n(Maize, corn starch, \namong others.)\n• Sensory evaluation \nforms\n2 hours\n30 minutes\n11.6.6. Module \nreview\n• Plenary discussion\n• Presentations\n• Flip charts\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Module evaluation \nforms\n30 minutes\nTOTAL\n6 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 78, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "67\n11.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 11. Maize value addition \n11.7.1 Introduction, expectations and objectives (30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nIntroduction and expectations (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and \nthen invites them to introduce themselves and state their \nexpectations), \n \nModule Objectives (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents modules objectives).\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to: \n• Appreciate the role of maize as a food and nutrition \nsecurity crop. \n• Describe nutritional composition of maize, health \nbenefits, food security and income.\n• Identify constraints in value addition and \nconsumption of maize, and suggest solutions.\n• Explain how to make maize-based value added \nproducts.\n• \nParticipants’ hand-outs\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation\n• \nSummarize trainees’ \nexpectations and display \non flip chart/board.\n11.7.2 Role of maize as a food and nutrition security crop \n(30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents on malnutrition cases in Kenya and \nthe importance of maize in addressing food security and \nmalnutrition challenges)\nPlenary Presentation (15 minutes)\nPowerPoint presentation highlighting the critical elements:\n• \nMicronutrient malnutrition cases in Kenya\n• \nDietary nutrient requirements (focusing on VMGs)\nGroup Exercises (15 minutes)\nTrainees discuss in groups, the main malnutrition challenges \nin their respective counties / regions\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nParticipants’ hand-outs\n• \nRecipe books \n• \nSample Maize and other \nprocessing ingredients\n• \nGroup exercise\n11.7.3 Maize nutritional composition and impact of \nconsumption on human health (1 hour)\nPlenary presentation (1 hour)\n• \nOverview of the documented Maize nutritional \ncomposition and their role in human health and \nnutrition\n• \nPowerPoint\n• \nParticipant hand-outs\n• \nBrochures, leaflets, \nmanual, factsheets, \nposters", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 79, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "68\n11.7.4. Constraints in value addition and consumption \nof Maize, and suggested solutions (1 hour)\nSession Guide\nGroup exercise (45 min)\nGroups discuss the constraints in Maize value addition and \nconsumption\nPlenary presentation (15 min)\nOverview of constraints in value addition and consumption \nof Maize\n• \nPowerPoint presentation\n• \nGroup Exercise\n11.7.5 Maize based value added products ( 2 hours 30 \nminutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary presentation (30 min)\n• \nOverview of maize based value added products\n• \nMeaning of value addition\n• \nRequirements for value addition of maize\n• \nMaize based value added products; sensory \nevaluation of the products\nPractical exercise (2 hours)\n• \nDemonstration on formulation of maize based \nproducts\n• \nPractical on sensory evaluation of value added \nmaize products\n• Hand-outs \n• Maize manual\n• Brochures \n• Leaflets\n• Recipes\n• Sensory evaluation forms\n• Assorted value \naddition equipment and \ningredients\n11.7.6 Training review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing he module)\nReview the main points about maize value addition \ntogether with the trainees.\n• \nWhat new things did you learn from this \nmodule?\n• \nWhat are some of the problems and issues that \nyou have become more aware of in maize value \naddition?\n• \nWhat questions do you still have about maize \nvalue addition?\nSummary of the main points \nfrom the Module.\n11.8 Reference Materials\n 11.8.1 Participants’ Handouts\n• \nMaize Manual\n• \nPamphlets, leaflets.\n• \nRecipe books", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 80, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "69\nMODULE 12\nMECHANIZATION OF MAIZE PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES \n12.1 Introduction to the module\nModern agricultural mechanization supports production and profitability in agriculture by achieving \ntimeliness, quality, quantity, entrepreneurship and reduced drudgery in farm operations. It brings \nalong precision in metering and appropriate placement of inputs therefore reducing available input \nlosses and increases utilization efficiency of costly inputs (seed, chemical, fertilizer, irrigation \namong others.). Overall, mechanization reduce unit cost of production, enhancing profitability and \ncompetitiveness in the Maize value chain. \nMechanization when applied in processing, helps in the conservation of agricultural produce and \nby-products from qualitative and quantitative damages; enables value addition and establishment \nof agro processing enterprises for additional income and employment generation from farm \nproduce. It is one of the important inputs that has potential to revolutionize maize farming in \nKenya especially when applied to seedbed preparation, planting, weeding, pest control, harvesting \nand post-harvest activities. \n12.2 Module Learning outcomes\nBy the end of the module, the following should be achieved:\n1.\t Climate smart tillage operations explained and appreciated.\n2.\t Knowledge of calibration of fertilizer and seed rates for planters enhanced and applied.\n3.\t Use of pest control implements and tools explained and demonstrated.\n4.\t Harvesting explained and demonstrated.\n5.\t Machine and procedure for shelling explained and demonstrated.\n12.3 Module Target Group and Categories\nThis module is intended for service providers and county public extension agents.\n12.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended for use by master trainers who are members of the Core Team of Trainers \n(CTT). The facilitator using this module should thoroughly familiarize themselves with the \nparticipant’s handouts/factsheets.\n12.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take a minimum of 4 hours.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 81, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "70\n12.6 Module Summary\nModule 11: Mechanization of Maize production activities\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials\nDuration\n12.6.1 Introduction, \nobjectives and \nexpectations\n• Personal introductions/\nknow your audience\n• Presentations \n• Plenary discussions\n• Flips charts \n• Power Point \nPresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n12.6.2 Climate smart \ntillage options\n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussions\n• Flip chart\n• Power Point \npresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n12.6.3 Calibration \nof fertilizer and seed \nrates for planters \n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussions\n• Flip chart\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Practical\n45 minutes\n12.6.4 Weed control \nequipment and tools, \nusage \n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussions\n• Flip chart\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Practical\n45 minutes\n12.6.5 Harvesting \n• Presentations\n• Plenary discussions\n• Flip chart\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Practical\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes\n12.6.6 Shelling\n• Presentations \n• Plenary discussions\n• Demonstrations\n• Flip chart\n• PowerPoint \npresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Practical\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 82, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "71\n12.6.7 Model review \n• Presentations \n• Plenary Discussions\n• Flip Charts\n• Hand outs \n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes\nTotal\n4 hours\n12.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines \nModule 12: Mechanization of maize production activities\n1.1.1\t\nIntroduction (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and then invites \nthem to introduce themselves and state their expectations).\nModule Objectives (30 minutes)\n(The facilitator presents modules objectives)\nBy the end of the module the trainee should be able to:\n• \nAppreciate and explain various climate smart tillage \noperations. \n• \nCalibrate fertilizer and seed rates for planter \n• \nDemonstrate usage of pest control equipment and tools \n• \nDemonstrate mechanized harvesting options\n• \nDemonstrate machine and procedure for maize grading\n• Summarize Trainees’ \n“Expectations” and \ndisplay.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute Participants \nHandouts on Module \nObjectives and Training \nProgram\n12.7.2. Maize climate smart tillage options (45 hours)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents on climate smart land preparation tools)\nPlenary Presentation (30 minutes)\n• \nOverview of the maize mechanization activities \n• \nClimate smart tillage options \nDiscussion (15 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• \nDistribute Participants \nHandouts\n• \nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual\n• \nAll trainees", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 83, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "72\n12.7.3. Maize calibration of fertilizer and seed rate for \nplanters (30 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\nPowerPoint Presentation Highlighting on: \n• \nTechniques and methods of planter seed and fertilizer \nrate determination\nDiscussion (10 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• \nDistribute Participants \nHandouts\n• \nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual\n12.7.4 Machine pest control operations (30 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\nPowerPoint Presentation Highlighting on: \n• \nTechniques and methods of using maize pest control \ntools and equipment\nDiscussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute Participants \nHandouts\n• Brochures, leaflets and \nmanual\n12.7.6. Maize harvesting machine operating principles (15 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\nPowerPoint Presentation Highlighting on: \n• \nHarvesting\nDiscussion (5 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute Participants \nHandouts\nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual\n12.7.7. Maize harvesting machine operating principles and \ngrading (15 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\nPowerPoint Presentation Highlighting on: \n• \nShelling\n• \nGrading \nDiscussion (5 Minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute Participants \nHandouts\nBrochures, leaflets and \nmanual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 84, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "73\n12.7. 8 Module review (30 hour)\nSession Guide\nThe facilitator leads trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the main points of the training and together with the \ntrainees review the main points:\n• \nVarious climate smart tillage operations \n• \nCalibration of fertilizer and seed rate for planters \n• \nPest control implements and tools operation\n• \nHarvesting machine operating principles \n• \nProcedures for shelling and grading\n(Discuss with trainees about new skills and ideas learnt from this \nModule. What are some of the problems and issues that they have \nbecome more aware of in the module?) \n•\t The last Participants’ \nHandouts \n•\t Summary of the main \npoints on from the \nmodule on a flip chart \nand display\n12.8 Reference Materials\n12.8.1 Participants’ Handouts\n• Mechanization fact sheets\n• Maize production manual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 85, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "74\nMODULE 13\nMAIZE BUSINESS AND MARKERTING\n13.1 Introduction\nMaize is an important food and income generation crop in Kenya. It can be used as food, feed for \nanimals and as a source of industrial raw material. It contributes to about 65% of daily per capita \ncereal consumption and maize accounts for over 20% of the total agricultural production and 25% \nof agricultural employment in the country (Government of Kenya, 2020; FAOSTAT, 2020). This \nmodule is designed to train Trainer of Trainers (ToTs) in skills that are useful in Maize farming \nbusiness and marketing in Kenya. \nMaize is produced in more than 90% of the households in Kenya. The main maize growing regions \nare subdivided into six agro-ecological zones, namely, coastal lowlands (CL), Mid medium \naltitude (MM), Dry Transitional (DT), Moist transitional (MT), Central and parts of Eastern, MT \nwestern Kenya, and the Highlands. Maize is an important food crop in Kenya and provides diet \nto the majority population. Total area under maize is estimated at about 1.5million hectares with \nan annual production of about 4 million metric tons against a consumption of 4.6million metric \ntons with deficit bridged by imports. The leading region in terms of production are the highlands, \ntraditionally referred to as the bread basket of the country. The growth of maize production in \nKenya has not matched the population increase and as a result the country faces periodic maize \nshortages. The irony is that when there is maize glut in the highlands, some areas of the country \nhave shortages, a dilemma that has occurred over the years. While the National Cereals and Produce \nBoard (NCPB) was supposed to address this producers’ dilemma, it has not been successful in \ndistributing maize to deficit areas hence, resulting in losses to farmers due to low pricing. There is \ntherefore need to upgrade the maize value chain through business and marketing transformation. \n13.2 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of this module training, the following training outcomes must be achieved:\n1.\t Business concept emerging farming business models for organizing farmer groups \ndescribed and appreciated.\n2.\t Skills for building a business plan acquired.\n3.\t Facilitating marketing as a group - collective marketing described and explained", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " outcomes must be achieved:\n1.\t Business concept emerging farming business models for organizing farmer groups \ndescribed and appreciated.\n2.\t Skills for building a business plan acquired.\n3.\t Facilitating marketing as a group - collective marketing described and explained\n4.\t Profitability analysis - Reviewing maize agro-enterprise performance explained.\n5.\t How to facilitate a viable scaling up plan described and explained.\n13.3 Module Target Group\nThis module targets agricultural extension, service providers and lead farmers.\n13.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended to be used by a Master Trainer who is among the members of the \ncore team trainers. The facilitator using this module should thoroughly familiarize and avail the \nparticipants’ hand-outs.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 86, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "75\n13.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 3 hours 25 minutes\n13.6. Module Summary\nModule 13. Maize Business and Marketing \nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining Materials\nTime\n13.6.1 Introduction \nto the module and \ntrainees expectations\n• Personal introduction \n• Discussion \n• PowerPoint\n• Flip charts\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes\n13.6.2 Module \nintroduction and \nobjectives\n• Personal introduction\n• Plenary presentations\n• Flip charts\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Projector\n• Laptop\n15 minutes\n13.6.3 Business \nconcept and emerging \nfarming business \nmodels\n• Plenary presentations\n• Plenary Discussion\n• Power point presentation\n• Flip charts, pelt pens\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes \n13.6.4. Building a \nbusiness plan\n• Plenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n30 minutes \n13.6.5 Marketing as \na group - collective \nmarketing\n• Plenary presentations\n• Plenary Discussion\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes\n13.6.6 Profitability \nanalysis – Evaluating \nmaize agro-enterprise \nperformance\nPlenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes\n13.6.7 Scaling up plan\nPlenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n15 minutes\n13.6.8 Contracted \nproduction model\nPlenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes\n13.6.9 Maize marketing \nentrepreurship model\n• Plenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 87, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "76\n13.6.10 Internet/mobile \nmarketing\n• Plenary presentations\n• PowerPoint \npresentations\n• Laptop\n• Projector\n15 minutes\n13.6.11. Training \nreview\n• Facilitator’s summary: \nTakeaways\n• Module review\n• Participants\n• Hand-outs\n15 minutes\nTOTAL\n3 hours 25 \nminutes \n13.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 13. Maize Business and Marketing \n13.7.1 Introduction to the module and trainees \nexpectation (15 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and them \nto introduce themselves and state their expectations.) \nPlenary discussion \nListed trainees expectations \n• Summarize trainees’ \n“expectations” and display on \nflip chart/board. \n• Handouts\n• Program\n• Note books\n• pens\n• PowerPoint slides\n13.7.2 Module objectives (15 minutes)\n(The facilitator introduces the module and states the \nobjectives and expectations)\nBy the end of this module, trainee should be able to:\n• \nDescribe and appreciate business concept emerging \nfarming business models for organizing farmer \ngroups\n• \nAcquire skills for building a business plan\n• \nDescribe and explain how to facilitate marketing as a \ngroup - collective marketing\n• \nExplain profitability analysis - Reviewing maize \nagroenterprise performance\n• \nDescribe and explain how to facilitate a viable \nscaling up plan.\n• \nPowerPoint slides\n• \nFactsheets", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 88, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "77\n13.7.3 Business concept and emerging farming business \nmodels (10 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator to highlight elements of business concept \nand emerging farming business models)\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\nMake presentation on the business concept and emerging \nfarming business models \nGroup Exercise (5 minutes)\nDiscuss areas of improvement in the models\n• PowerPoint slides\n• Handouts\n• Flipcharts\n13.7.4 building a business plan (20 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator highlights the components of a business \nplan and how to build it)\nPlenary Presentation (15 minutes)\nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Handouts\n• Flip charts, \n• Manila papers, \n• Pelt pens\n13.7.5 Marketing as a group - collective marketing (10 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\n(The facilitator describes how the farmers should organize \nthemselves to market maize )\n• Advantages of collective marketing\n• Problems with collective marketing\n• Organizing collective marketing\n Plenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts \n13.7.6 Profitability analysis – Evaluating Maize agro-\nenterprise performance (10 minutes)\t\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights the usefulness of the profitability \nanalysis)\n• Reworking the profitability analysis using actual \namounts of produce that were sold, actual material \nand labour costs and actual sales prices\n• Reworking sales amounts with the farmers in the \ngroup to determine their levels of profit\n• Calculating costs, income and profits\n \nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 89, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "78\n13.7.7 Scaling up plan (10 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights how farmers begin to organize a \nnew plan with higher targets, or more lucrative markets and \nmore farmers involved in production and sales, to target \nbuyers)\n• \nReviewing market strategy\n• \nFixing the new target\n• \nIdentifying the appropriate scaling method\n• Use power point\n• Handouts\n13.7.7 Contracted production model ( 10 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights the details of contracted maize \nproduction\n• \nEssence and objectives of contract farming \n• \nKey components of a contract \n• \nBenefits and challenges in implementation of \ncontracts \n• \nCritical issues to look at before signing a contract \n• \nThe role of government and its arms in contract \nmanagement \nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts\n13.7.8 Maize marketing entrepreneurship model ( 10 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights the characteristics of farmers \nas entrep.reneurs).\n• \nThe role of entrepreurship in Maize marketing\n• \nThe characteristics of farmers as entrepreneurs\nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 90, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "79\n13.7.9 Internet/mobile marketing ( 10 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights the usefulness of Internet/mobile \nmarketing)\n• \nAdvantages of internet/mobile marketing\n• \nHow to interact with buyers through the use of \ninternet\n \nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts\n13.7.10 Training review (5 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module. \nConclude by thanking the trainees )\nPlenary Discussion (5 minutes)\nSummarize the main points of the training.\nSummary of the main points \nfrom the Module.\n13.8\t\nReference Materials\nReferences\n1.\t FAOSTAT. 2020. FAOSTAT Statistics Division: Agricultural data, Food and \nAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2020. \n2.\t Government of Kenya. 2020. Central Bureau of Statistics for 2020, Nairobi, Kenya.\n3.\t Agricultural Marketing Manual", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 91, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "80\nMODULE 14\nMAIZE CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES (AGRICULTURAL \nINNOVATION PLATFORMS, POLICY, GENDER \nMAINSTREAMING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION)\n14.1 Introduction\nThe module on cross-cutting issues comprises issues that influence the uptake and up-scaling of \nTIMPs within the Maize value chain. The issues are namely Agricultural Innovation Platforms, \nGender and social-environmental concerns and Climate smart agricultural policy.  \nAgricultural Innovation Platforms provide a forum for stakeholders to interact and develop technical, \ninstitutional and organizational innovations to solve value chain challenges. Additionally, Gender \nand social-environmental concerns are considerations aimed at providing appropriate solutions to \nvalue chain challenges with due regard to graduated gender considerations. Finally, Climate smart \nagricultural policy creates awareness on policy formulation and the various regulations that are \nput in place to facilitate the development of value chains. The methodology of delivery for each \nof these sub modules are presented here. \nSUB-MODULE 14.1:AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION PLATFORMS\n14.1.1 Inroduction\nThis module exposes the extension staff, service providers, lead farmers and facilitators to an \ninnovation systems based configuration of stakeholders called the Agricultural Innovation \nPlatform (AIP). It is an organizational model for stimulating innovation and development and \nbrings actors together in a way that pools together skills and knowledge to address challenges \nand utilize opportunities. The AIP configuration emanated from the realization that innovations \narise from multiple sources and have to be adapted to specific contexts. The adaptation process \nrequires systems that foster partnerships and reflexive institutions which allow for learning and \ninnovation. The actors or partners within innovation platforms include individuals, private and \npublic sector organizations, policy makers and other value chain stakeholders. These actors are \nbrought together to seek technical, institutional or organizational solutions to a critical challenge \nhindering agricultural productivity within a value chain. The Agricultural Innovation Platform \nfacilitates actors to interact, innovate, learn and change with time as they seek a solution to the \ncommon challenge. In an innovation platform every actor’s contribution is valued and benefits \naccrue to all in a win-win situation. The AIP is a useful methodology for developing, testing and \nscaling of innovations in the Maize value chain. \n14.1.2 Sub-Module learning Outcomes \nBy the end of the module, the", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 92, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " in a win-win situation. The AIP is a useful methodology for developing, testing and \nscaling of innovations in the Maize value chain. \n14.1.2 Sub-Module learning Outcomes \nBy the end of the module, the following outcomes must be achieved: \n1.\t The definition of agricultural innovation systems and innovations clearly described \nand appreciated.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 92, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "81\n2.\t The characteristics of an innovation platform described.\n3.\t Mobilization of stakeholders for initiation, establishment, management and \nsustainability of an Agricultural Innovation Platform explained and demonstrated.\n4.\t The benefits and challenges of Innovation Platforms explained and appreciated.\n14.1.3 Sub-Module Target Group and Categories\nThe target users are public county extension officers, private agricultural service providers, and \nlead farmers\n14.1.4 Sub-Module Users\nThis sub-module is intended for use by master trainers who are members of the Core Team of \nTrainers (CTT). The facilitator using this module should thoroughly familiarize themselves with \nthe participants’ handouts.\n14.1.5 Sub-Module Duration\nThe sub-module is estimated to take a duration of 3 hours\n14.1.6 Sub-Module Summary\nSub-Module 14.1: Agricultural Innovation Platforms (AIP)\nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials \nTime\n14.1.6.1 Introduction, \nobjectives and \nexpectations\n• \nPersonal \nintroduction\n• \nPlenary \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPPT presentation\n20 minutes\n14.1.6.2 Definition of \nAgricultural Innovation \nSystems and different \ntypes of innovations \n(technical, institutional \nand organizational\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPPT presentation\n30 minutes\n14.1.6.3 Characteristics of \nan Agricultural Innovation \nPlatform \n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nFlip charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPPT Presentation\n• \nParticipants Handouts\n30 minutes\n14.1.6.4 Phases of an \ninnovation platform \n(Initiation, Establishment, \nManagement and \nSustainability)\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nGroup Exercise\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \n Laptop\n• \nHandouts\n• \nPPT Presentation\n", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 93, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "PowerPoint \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nGroup Exercise\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \n Laptop\n• \nHandouts\n• \nPPT Presentation\n45 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 93, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "82\n14.1.6. 5 Case studies of \nsuccessful Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion\n• \nRole plays\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nPPT Presentation\n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n15 minutes\n14.1.6. 6 Benefits and \nchallenges of Agricultural \nInnovation Platforms\n• \nPowerPoint \npresentations\n• \nPlenary \ndiscussion Role \nplays\n• \nFlips charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nProjector\n• \nLaptop\n• \nPPT presentation\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n10 minutes\n14.1.6.7 Module review\n• Discussion\n• \nFlip Charts\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nFact Sheets\n30 minutes\nTotal \n3 hours \n14.1.6 \t Facilitator’s Guidelines\nSub Module 14.1: Agricultural Innovation Platform (AIP)\n14.1.6.1 Introduction, expectations and objectives (20 minutes)\nSession Guide\nIntroduction \n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and invites them to \nintroduce themselves and state their expectations).\nModule Objectives \n(The facilitator presents modules objectives).\nBy the end of the module, the trainee should be able to:\n• \nDefine agricultural innovation systems, innovation process and \ninnovations. \n• \nDescribe characteristics of an innovation platform. \n• \nDescribe how to initiate, establish, manage and sustain an \nagricultural Innovation Platform.\n• \nDescribe the benefits and challenges of Agricultural innovation \nplatforms. \n• Summarize Trainees’ \n“Expectations” and \ndisplay.\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n13.1.6.2 A definition of Agricultural Innovation Systems and \ndifferent types of innovations (technical, institutional and \norganizational) (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n• \nPast progression of research and extension models and their \nshortcomings.\n• \nAgricultural Innovation Systems model and actualization \nthrough Agricultural Innovation Platforms.\n• \nDefinition of innovation process.\n• \nTypes of innovations (products of innovation process).\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Plenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 94, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "83\n14.1.6.3. Characteristics of an Agricultural Innovation Platform \n(30minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator should present an overview of innovation platforms and their \nmain characteristics).\nPlenary Presentation (30 minutes)\n• Characteristics of Agricultural Innovation Platforms\n• Why Agricultural innovation platforms are used \n• Where to form Agricultural Innovation Platforms \n• Establishment of linkages between value chain actors in \nagricultural innovation platforms\nPlenary discussion (15 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues that \nmay arise.\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Participants’ handouts\n• Plenary discussion\n14.1.6.4 Phases of an innovation platform (Initiation, \nEstablishment, Management and Sustenance (45 minutes)\n Session Guide\nPlenary Presentation (45 minutes)\nInitiation phase\n• Mobilization of stakeholders in the Maize value chain for \nchallenge identification \n• General description of the value chain within a specific area\nEstablishment Phase\n• Clear prioritization of the key value Chain challenge or compelling \nagenda in the (weakness in the chain)\n• Vision of the AIP formulated with clear goals\n• Development of a business plan with clear milestones to guide \noperations of the AIP \n• Formation of a main committee to coordinate platform activities.\n• Formation of diverse sub-committees with clear roles \nManagement Phase\n• Keeping stakeholders focused on the business plan to ensure an \ninclusive and transparent process.\n• Neutral facilitation to ensure joint strategy building and action and \nthe coordination of support activities. \n• Managing emerging experts taking up leading roles and issues as \nchampions.\nSustainability and scaling Phase\n• Changing roles of initiator, local stakeholders and Private sector\n• Local stakeholders lead and own AIP while Initiator backstops and \nprivate sector supports and seize opportunity\n• Embarking on fresh issues or challenges \n• Maintaining capacity acquired to address new issues or challenges \nin subsequent cycles. \nPlenary discussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues that \nmay arise.\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Participants Handouts\n• Plenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 95, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "84\n14.1.7. 5 Case studies of successful AIPS (15 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation and discussion\n• successful innovation platforms and their achievements \n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation\n• \nPlenary discussion\n14.1.7. 6 Benefits and challenges of AIPS (10 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation \n• Benefits of Agricultural innovation platforms \n• Challenges of Agricultural Innovation platforms\n• PowerPoint \nPresentation\n• Plenary discussion\n14.1.6.5. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the main points of the training and together with the \ntrainees review the main points on:\n• Agricultural Innovation Systems, Innovation process and different \nInnovations\n• AIP characteristics, why and where to form them\n• The four Phases of Innovation Platforms\n• The benefits and challenges of innovation Platforms\n(Discuss with trainees new skills and ideas learnt from this module. \nWhat are some of the problems and issues that they have become more \naware of in the module?)\n• Participants’ Handouts \n• Summarize the main \npoints from the module \non a flip chart and \ndisplay \n14.1.7\t Reference Materials\n14.1.7.1 Participants’ Handouts\nKamau G.M. (2020) Agricultural Innovation Platform Factsheet\nKamau G.M. (2020) Agricultural Innovation Platform Phases Fact sheets\n14.1.7.2\tReferences \n1.\t Kamau, G.M. and Makini F.W. (2019). Agricultural Innovation Platforms for knowledge \nexchange and learning for technical, economic, social and institutional change\n2.\t Makini F., Mulinge W., Mose L., Salasya B., Kamau G., Makelo M., and On’gala, J. \n(2018). Impact of Agricultural Innovation Platforms on Smallholder livelihoods in \nEastern and Western Kenya. FARA Research Results Vol2(6\n3.\t Makini F., Kamau G., Makello M., Adekunle A., Mburathi G., (2013). Operational field \nguide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation platforms KARI \nISSBN 978-9966-30-004-1", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 96, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "85\nSUB-MODULE 14.2 MAIZE GENDER, VULNERABLE AND \nMARGINALIZED GROUPS (VMGs), SOCIO, ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONCERNS AND COHESION\n14.2.1\t Introduction to the Sub-Module\nMaize is a major agro-enterprise in the country involving all the gender categories (men, women, \nyouth vulnerable marginalized groups (VMGs) in its value chain from production, marketing and \nconsumption. Women perform most of the crop’s production activities comprising weeding while \nmen mostly perform the task of marketing. \nAlthough the women’s contribution is huge, gender inequalities still exist in all areas of the Maize \nvalue chain. Some gender inequalities include: division of labour, access to and control of resources \nand decision making within and beyond the household. These inequalities limit women, youth and \nVMGs access to benefits from the various Technologies, Innovations and Management Practices \n(TIMPs) at different nodes of the value chain. At the macro-level, effective participation of women \nand youth in groups and market activities is constrained by their low decision making power, lack \nof voice and access to financial resources. Gender analysis examines the productive, community \nand reproductive roles of men and women; access, control and ownership of resources; levels of \npower relations; differential needs, constraints and opportunities; and impact of these differences \n(positive/ negative) on lives of men, women, youth and the VMGs.\nMaize value chain TIMPs interventions, when designed and implemented with gender equitable \nprinciples, can foster adoption leading to increased productivity as well as enhanced social and \nenvironmental impacts. \nThe overall objective of this sub module is to ensure that gender mainstreaming and social inclusion \nin Maize value chain are enhanced by the field agricultural practitioners and extension officers in \nan effort geared towards achieving Climate Smart Agriculture “triple win” in target counties.\n14.2.2\t Sub module learning outcomes\nBy the end of the training sub module, the following outcomes must be achieved:\n1.\t The concept of gender mainstreaming and social inclusion in Maize value chain \nappreciated.\n2.\t Youth empowerment in Maize value chain explained. \n3.\t Women empowerment in Maize value chain explained and understood.\n4.\t Strategies for inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups in Maize value chain \nunderstood and applied.\n5.\t", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 97, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\t Youth empowerment in Maize value chain explained. \n3.\t Women empowerment in Maize value chain explained and understood.\n4.\t Strategies for inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups in Maize value chain \nunderstood and applied.\n5.\t Knowledge on environmental and social management framework (ESMF) tool \nexplained and demonstrated.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 97, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "86\n14.2.3\t Sub module Target Group \nThis sub module is intended for service providers and county public extension agents\n14.2.4\t Sub module Users\nThis sub module is intended for use by master trainers who are members of the Core Team of \nTrainers (CTT). This module outlines the learning outcomes, the category of trainees targeted, \nmodule summary, and participants’ handouts. The facilitator using this module should thoroughly \nfamiliarize themselves with the participant’s handouts.\n14.2.5 \t Sub module Duration \nThe sub module is estimated to take a duration of 3 hours and 30 minutes. \n14.2.6 Module Summary\nSub-Module 14.2: Gender mainstreaming and social inclusion in the Maize value chain \nSessions\nTraining methods\nTraining materials\nDuration\n14.2.6.1 \nIntroduction, \nexpectations and \nobjectives \n• \nPersonal introduction\n• \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nLaptop\n• \nParticipants’ handouts\n30 minutes\n14.2.6.2 Gender \nmainstreaming in \nMaize value chain\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nGroup Exercise\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes \n14.2.6.3 Youth \nempowerment in \nMaize value chain\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nGroup exercise\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes\n14.2.6.4 Women \nempowerment in \nMaize value chain\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes\n14.2.6.5 Strategies \nfor inclusion of \nvulnerable and \nmarginalized \ngroups\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes\n14.2.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 98, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "inalized \ngroups\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint Presentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes\n14.2.6.6 \nEnvironmental and \nSocial Management \nFramework\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentations\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint \nPresentation \n• \nParticipants handouts\n30 minutes", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 98, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "87\n14.2.6.7 Module \nReview\n• \nPlenary discussion\n• \nFlips charts \n• \nFelt pens\n30 minutes\nTotal\n3 hours 30 \nminutes\n14.2.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines \nSub Module 14.2: Gender mainstreaming and social inclusion in Maize value \n14.2.7.1 Introduction, Objectives and Expectations (30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the sub module and thereafter \ninvites them to introduce themselves and state their expectations).\nSub module Objectives (30 Minutes)\nThe facilitator presents modules objectives\nBy the end of the module training, the trainee should be to:\n• \nAppreciate gender mainstreaming and social \ninclusion, in Maize value chain. \n• \nExplain youth empowerment in Maize value chain.\n• \nAppreciate women empowerment in Maize value \nchain.\n• \nRecognize strategies for inclusion of vulnerable and \nmarginalized groups in Maize value chain.\n• \nExplain the environmental and social management \nframework (ESMF) tool.\n• Summarize trainees \n“expectations” and display.\nPowerPoint Presentation\n• Group exercise\n• Objectives and Training \nProgram\n14.2.7.2 Gender mainstreaming and social inclusion in \nMaize value chain (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator presents and explain what gender mainstreaming \nis, who does what activity, who has access to what resources among \nothers. and why gender mainstreaming is important in Maize value \nchain). \nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nDefinition of gender\n• \nWhat is gender mainstreaming and why it is \nimportant?\n• \nWho does what? (gender division of roles in Maize \nvalue chain)\n• \nWho owns what? (access and control of resources & \nbenefits)\n• \nWho makes which decisions?\n• \nExisting policies in support of gender mainstreaming.\nGroup exercise and discussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise\n• PowerPoint presentation, \nGroup exercise\n• Plenary discussion\n• Participants’ handouts\n• Group exercise\n• Plenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 99, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "88\n14.2.7.3 Youth empowerment in Maize value chain s (1 hour)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (40 minutes)\n• \nWhy agriculture is not attractive to youth\n• \nYouth’s role in the value chain \n• \n Strategies to empower youth in Maize value chain.\nGroup exercise and discussion (20 Minute)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Group exercise\n• Plenary discussion\n• Participants’ handouts\n14.2.7.4 Women empowerment in Maize value chain (30 \nminutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nWomen’s role in the value chain\n• \nChallenges facing women in the value chain\n• \nStrategies for empowering women in the value chain\nPlenary discussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Distribute participants’ \nhandouts \n• Plenary discussion \n• Participants’ handouts\n14.2.7.5. Strategies for inclusion of vulnerable and \nmarginalized groups in Maize value chain (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentation (20 min)\n• \nWho are vulnerable and marginalized groups (VMGs)\n• \nWhy gender inequality exists\n• \nSocial inclusion and why\n• \nStrategies of inclusion of VMG.\nPlenary discussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues that \nmay arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Plenary discussion\n• Participants’ handouts\n14.2.7.6. Environmental and social management \nframework (ESMF) (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary presentation (20 minutes)\n• \nObjective of ESMF in Maize value chain\n• \nEnvironmental and social safeguards of Maize \n• \nSafeguard policies triggered by the project\nPlenary discussion (10 minutes)\nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues that \nmay arise.\n• PowerPoint Presentation\n• Plenary discussion", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 100, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "89\n14.2.7.7. Module review (30 minutes)\nSession Guide\nThe facilitator leads the participants in reviewing the module)\nSummarize the main points of the training and together with the \ntrainees review the main points:\n• \nWhat is gender mainstreaming and why it is \nimportant?\n• \nYouth empowerment in Maize value chain\n• \nWomen empowerment in Maize value chain\n• \nStrategies for inclusion of vulnerable and \nmarginalized groups in Maize value chain\n• \nEnvironmental and Social Management Framework \nof maize activities. \nLet the trainees recall what they learned and discuss any issues \nthat may arise.\n \n• Summary of the main \npoints on from the module \non a flip chart and display\n14.2.8\t Reference Materials\n14.2.8.1\t Participants’ handouts \n• \nGender mainstreaming and social inclusion factsheets\n• \nGender mainstreaming and social inclusion guides\nReference\nCommonwealth secretariat, (2001). Gender Mainstreaming in Agriculture and Rural Development: \nA Reference Manual for Governments and other stakeholders. Marlborough house, London.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 101, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "90\nSUB-MODULE 14.3 CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURAL POLICY \nOPTIONS\n14.3.1 Introduction \nKenya adopted Vision 2030 in 2007 as a new blue print and roadmap for political, social and \neconomic development of the country in the next two decades. The Vision identifies Agriculture \nas the engine of growth through transformation of smallholder and subsistence agriculture to \ninnovatively and commercially oriented agriculture. Kenya promulgated the new constitution in \n2010 with two levels of governments (national and county) having defined functions. Agriculture \nis one of the devolved governance functions. However, agriculture in Kenya faces many challenges \nand threats such as climate change, declining agricultural performance, limited high potential \nagricultural land and over-reliance on rain fed agriculture, limited diversification of Agricultural \nproduction, poor and inadequate rural infrastructure, inadequate and declining research in \nagriculture, agricultural sector financing and related activities and low technical capacity among \nthe actors. \nIn Kenya, agricultural policy revolves around the main goals of increasing productivity and income \ngrowth, especially for smallholders; enhanced food security and equity, emphasis on irrigation \nto introduce stability in agricultural output, commercialization and intensification of production \nespecially among smallholder farmers; appropriate and participatory policy formulation and \nenvironmental sustainability. \nThis module is designed to train Trainer of Trainers (ToTs’) on skills that are useful in making \nsmallholder farmers central in maize policy making in Kenya. This is through identifying policy \noptions, classifying policy objectives and instruments, using policy cycle to develop and influence \nnew policies and using policy validation cycle to update policies related to maize production \nand marketing. The national government maize policy of mopping up the glut during using the \nNational Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) has not been as efficient as intended. While the \nNCPB was meant to buy and distribute maize in the country, it has not resulted in stabilized prices \nthus occasioning losses to farmers. There is therefore need to rejuvenate the maize value chain \nby designing appropriate maize policies in supply, value addition and marketing. This module \nintroduces the current agricultural policies to service providers, lead farmers, master trainers \nand relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of effective climate-smart-sensitive \nagricultural policy options to promote the transition to climate-smart agriculture at the smallholder \nlevel. \n14", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 102, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " agricultural policies to service providers, lead farmers, master trainers \nand relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of effective climate-smart-sensitive \nagricultural policy options to promote the transition to climate-smart agriculture at the smallholder \nlevel. \n14.3.1 Module Learning Outcomes\nBy the end of this sub module, the following training objectives must be achieved:\n1.\t Crucial areas in the policy options that have the most impact on farmers identified.\n2.\t Policy instruments for achieving stated objectives identified.\n3.\t Use of policy development cycle in the development of new agricultural policies \nappreciated.\n4.\t Use of policy validation cycle to update agricultural policies explained.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 102, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "91\n14.3.2 Module Target Group\nThis module targets agricultural extension, service providers and lead farmers.\n14.3.4 Module Users\nThis module is intended to be used by a Master Trainer who is among the members of the \ncore team trainers. The facilitator using this module should thoroughly familiarize and avail the \nparticipants’ hand-outs.\n14.3.5 Module Duration\nThe module is estimated to take 2 hours \n14.3.6 Module Summary\nModule 14.3 Agricultural policy options for influencing maize production and marketing \nSessions\nTraining Methods\nTraining \nMaterials\nTime\n14.3.6.1. Introduction to \nthe module and personal \nintroduction \n• Personal introduction \n• Discussion \n• PowerPoint\n• Flip charts\n15 minutes\n14.3.6.2. Module \nObjectives\n• Personal introduction \nPresentation\n• PowerPoint\n10 minutes\n14.3.6.3 National \nagricultural policies with \nsmallholder farmers agency\n• Personal introduction \nPresentation\n• PowerPoint\n15 minutes\n14.3.6.4. Policy options and \ntheir objectives\n• Plenary presentation\n• PowerPoint\n10 minutes \n14.3.6.5. Policy instruments\n• Plenary presentation \n• Plenary Discussion\n• PowerPoint\n20 minutes\n14.3.6.6. Policy \ndevelopment cycle\n• Plenary presentation\n• Plenary Discussion\n• PowerPoint\n20 minutes\n14.3.6.7. Policy validation \ncycle\n• Plenary presentation\n• Plenary Discussion\n• PowerPoint\n20 minutes\n14.3.6.8. Training review\n• Facilitator’s summary:\n• Takeaways\n• Module review\n• Participants \nHandouts\n10 minutes\nTOTAL\n2 hours", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 103, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "92\n14.3.7 Facilitator’s Guidelines\nModule 14.3 Agricultural policy options to support \nmaize production and marketing\n14.3.7.1 Introduction to the module and trainees \nexpectations (15 minutes)\nSession Guide\n14.3.7.1 Module Title \n(The facilitator welcomes trainees to the module and \ninvites them to introduce themselves and state their \nexpectations). \nPlenary Discussion \n• Listed trainees expectations\n• Summarise trainees’ expectations\n• \nHand-outs\n• \nProgram\n• \nNote books\n• \nFelt pens\n• \nPowerPoint slides\n• \nSummarize trainees’ \n“Expectations” and display \non flip chart/board.\n14.3.7.2 Module objectives (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator introduces the module and states the \nobjectives and expectations).\nBy the end of this module, the trainee should beable to:\n• Identify crucial areas in the policy options that have \nthe most impact on farmers.\n• Identify the policy instruments for achieving policy \nobjectives. \n• Appreciate the use of policy development cycle in \nthe development of new agricultural policies.\n• Explain the use of policy validation cycle to update \nagricultural policies.\n• \nPowerPoint slides\n• \nFactsheets\n14.3.7.3 National agricultural policies for smallholder \nfarmers (15 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator to highlight the types of the National \nagricultural policies)\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\nMake presentation on the available agricultural policies \nDiscuss how the National agricultural policies fail to make \nsmallholder farmers’ agency central (5 minutes)\n• PowerPoint slides\n• Handouts\n• Flipcharts", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 104, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "93\n14.3.7.4 Policy options and their objectives (10 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator highlights the types of policy options \nand their objectives relevant to mango production and \nmarketing)\nPlenary Presentation (5 minutes)\nMake presentation on the available policy options and \ntheir objectives \nDiscuss which policy options are applicable to maize \nproduction and marketing (5 minutes)\n• PowerPoint slides\n• Handouts\n• Flipcharts\n14.3.7.5 Policy instruments (20 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator describes the policy instruments )\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\nGroup Exercise (10 minutes)\nDiscuss successes and failures of policy instruments in \ninfluencing production and marketing of mango\n• \nHandouts\n• \nFlip charts, \n• \nManila papers, \n• \nPelt pens\n14.3.7.6 Policy development cycle (20 minutes)\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator discusses the components of policy cycle \nand their relationship to the production and marketing of \nmango)\nPlenary Discussion (10 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts \n14.3.7.7 Policy validation cycle (20 minutes)\t\nSession Guide\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\n(The facilitator highlights the components of policy \nvalidation cycle. The facilitator also discusses the relevance \nof policy validation in the production and marketing of \nmango)\nPlenary Discussion (10 minutes)\n• Use power point\n• Handouts\n14.3. 7.8 Training review (10 minutes)\nSession Guide\n(The facilitator leads the trainees in reviewing the module. \nConclude by thanking the trainees )\nPlenary Presentation (10 minutes)\nSummarize the main points of the training\nSummary of the main points \nfrom the Module.", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 105, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "94\n14.2.8\t Reference Materials\n• Climate Smart Agricultural Policy options factsheets\n• Climate Smart Agricultural Policy options briefs\n• Climate Smart Agricultural Policy options Guide\nReferences\n1.\t Chronic Poverty Advisory Network (2012). Agriculture Policy Guide 2. Meeting the \nchallenge of a new Pro-poor agricultural paradigm: The role of agricultural policies and \nprograms. www.chronicpovertynetwork.org\n2.\t Chirwa, E.; Dorward, A.; Kathule, R.; Kumwenda, I.; Kydd, J., Poole, N.; Poulton, C. \n& Stockbridge, M. (undated). Farmer Organization for market access: Principles for \npolicy and practice. Imperial College London. University of Malawi. Agricultural Policy \nResearch Unit. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/agriculturalsciences/research/sections/aebm/\nprojects/farmerorg.htm\n3.\t Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016). The Gender in \nAgricultural Policies Analysis Tool (GAPo). FAO 2016.\n4.\t Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2010). “Climate-\nSmart” Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and \nMitigation.\n5.\t Ha-Joon Chang (2002). African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS). Who needs \nTechnology Policy? Published by The African Technology Policy Studies Network, \nNairobi, Kenya. ISBN: 9966-916-18-0\n6.\t GoK (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. \n7.\t GoK (2010). Kenya Constitution", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 106, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "95\nANNEXES\nANNEX 1: TRAINING PROGRAM\nThe training program presented here assumes that the trainees report on Sunday evening as the \nfirst day.\nDATES: 23RD TO 31ST AUGUST 2021 (DRAFT PROGRAMME)\nTime\nActivity\nDuration\nResponsible\nDay 0: Sunday \n23RD August 2021\nTravel and Arrival in \nNaivasha\nWhole day\nKALRO Secretariat Jane Njiru \n/Gladys Mueni Value chain \nLeader: Dr. Ruth N. Musila\nDay 1: Monday \n24th August 20\n21 \nChair: Dr. Joyce Maling’a \n(DI.FCRI) \nRapporteur: Dr. Ruth N. \nMusila\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m.-8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration\n30 mins.\nSecretariat\nOpening Prayer and \nIntroductions\nDr Dickson Ligeyo\n8.30 a.m.-10.00 \na.m. \nOfficial opening of the \nMaize Value Chain ToT \nWorkshop\n1hr 30 mins.\nDr. Lusike Wasilwa\n (Chair)\nMaize ToT Workshop \nObjectives\nDr. Ruth N. Musila\nRemarks from Director Crops \nSystems and Welcoming \nDeputy Director General – \nCrops\nDr. Lusike Wasilwa\nRemarks from Deputy \nDirector General - Crops and \nOfficial Opening\nDr. Felister Makini\nGROUP PHOTO\nALL\n10.00 a.m.-10.30 \na.m.\nClimate setting and class \norganization\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\n 10.30 a.m.-11.00 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\n30 mins.\nALL\n11.00 a.m.– 12.00 \na.m.\nFarmer field and business \nschool (FFBS) approach in \nMaize production\n1 hr.\nMr. Mark Otieno\n 12.00 p.m. –1.00 \np.m.\nClimate Change and Climate \nSmart Agriculture in Maize \nvalue chain\n1 hr.\nDr. Anthony Esilaba\n1.00 p.m.- 2 .00 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\n1hr.\nALL", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 107, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "96\nTime\nActivity\nDuration\nResponsible\n2.00 p.m. –4.00 \np.m.\nMaize production, niche and \nclimatic requirements \n2 hrs.\nMr. B. Muli\n4.00 p.m.\nTEA BREAK\nALL\nClose of Day 1\nDay 2: Tuesday \n25th August \n2021 \n Chair: Dr. Joyce Malinga \n(DI SGC&I) \n Rapporteur: Dr Ruth \nMusial \nPeriod\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m. – 8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer \nRecap of Day1 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\nGroup 1\n8.30 a.m. – 9.30 \na.m.\nMaize Crop Health: Maize \npests\n1 hr.\nDr Miriam Otipa \n9.30 a.m.-10.30 \na.m.\nMaize Crop Health: Maize \ndiseases\n1 hr.\nDr Miriam Otipa\n10.30 a.m.-11.00 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\n30 mins.\nALL\n11.00 a.m.-1.00 \np.m.\nMaize harvesting and post-\nharvest management \n2 hrs.\nMr. James Ndambuki\n1.00 p.m.-2.00 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\n1hr.\nALL\n2.00 p.m. - 3.00 \np.m.\nMaize value addition \n1 hr.\n Dr Francis Wayua\n3.00 p.m.–4.00 \np.m.\nMaize value added products \ndemonstrations and sensory \nevaluation\n1 hr.\nJames Ndambuki/Dr Francis \nWayua\n4.00 p.m-4.30 \np.m.\nHEALTH BREAK \n30 mins.\nALL\nEnd of day 2\nDay Wednesday \n26th August 2021 \nChair: Dr. Dickson Ligeyo\nRapporteur: James \nNdambuki\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m. – 8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer \nRecap of Day 2 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\nGroup 2\n8.30 a.m.– 10.30 \na.m.\nMaize variety and", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 108, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ".30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer \nRecap of Day 2 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\nGroup 2\n8.30 a.m.– 10.30 \na.m.\nMaize variety and Selection \n2 hrs.\nDr Murenga Mwimali/Dr \nDickson Ligeyo/Dr Ruth \nMusila\n10.30 a.m.-11.00 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\n30 mins.\nALL\n11.00 a.m.–1.00 \np.m.\nMaize climate smart \nagronomic practices\n2 hrs.\nMr. Benjamin Muli", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 108, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "97\nTime\nActivity\nDuration\nResponsible\n1.00 p.m.-2.00 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK \nALL\n2.00 p.m.-4.00 \np.m.\nMaize Seed Systems \nCommodity corridor \napproach to enhance Seed \naccess and grain production \nand marketing\n2 hrs.\nMr. David Karanja \n4.00 p.m. - 4.30 \np.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\n30 mins.\n ALL\nClose of Day 3\nDay 4 Thursday \n27th August 20\n21 \nChair: Dr. A. O. Esilaba\nRapporteur: Harun \nodhiambo\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n4.00 a.m. - 5.00 \np.m.\nExcursion: Field trip to \nKALRO Kiboko/Naivasha \nMaize farm\nWhole day\nDr Ruth Musila/Dr Murenga \nMwimali\nDay 5: Friday \n28th August 20\n21 \nChair: Dr Ruth Musial \nRapporteur: Mr. Charles \nBett\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n7.30 a.m. - 5.00 \np.m.\nExcursion: Field trip to \nKALRO Katumani \nWhole day\nDr Murenga Mwimali\nTravel Back to Naivasha\nDay 6: Saturday \n29th August \n2021\nChair: Dr Ruth Musila \nRapporteur: Charles Bett\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m. – 8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer and \nRecap of day 4 & 5 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\nGroup 3\n8.30 a.m.–10.30 \na.m.\nIntegrated soil and water \nmanagement practices for \nMaize production Part 1\n2 hrs.\nDr. A Esilaba \n10.30 a.m.-11.00 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\n30 min.\nALL\n11.00 a.m.-1.30 \np.m.\nIntegrated soil and water \nmanagement practices for \nMaize production Part 11\n2 hrs. 30 mins.\nDr. A. Esilaba \n1.30 p.m.-2.30 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\n1hr\nALL\n2", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 109, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " \nmanagement practices for \nMaize production Part 11\n2 hrs. 30 mins.\nDr. A. Esilaba \n1.30 p.m.-2.30 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\n1hr\nALL\n2.30 p.m.– 4.00 \np.m.\nMechanization of Maize \nproduction\n1 hr. 30 min.\nEng. Nasirembe\n4.00 p.m.-5.00 \np.m.\nGuidelines on action planning \nat County Level\n1 hr.\nMr. Mark Otieno\n5.00 p.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\nALL", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 109, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "98\nTime\nActivity\nDuration\nResponsible\nClose of Day 6\nDay 7: Sunday \n30th August 2021 \nChair: Dr Anthony Esilaba \nRapporteur: James \nNdambuki\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m. – 8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer and \nRecap of Day 6 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\n Group 4\n8.30 a.m. - 10.30 \np.m.\nMaize Business and \nMarketing \n2 hrs.\nMr. Charles Bett\n10.30 a.m.-11.00 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\nALL\n11.00 a.m.-1.00 \np.m.\nClimate-Smart Agricultural \nPolicy Options\n2 hrs.\n Mr. Charles Bett\n1.00 p.m.-2.00 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\nALL\n2.00 p.m.– 4.00 \np.m.\nAgricultural Innovation \nPlatforms (AIPs) \n2 hrs.\nDr. Geoffrey Kamau \n4.00 p.m.-4.30 \np.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\nALL\nClose of Day 7\nDay 8: Monday \n31st August 2021\nChair: Dr. Anthony Esilaba \nRapporteur: Mr. Mark \nOtieno\nPeriod\nFacilitator\n8.00 a.m. – 8.30 \na.m.\nRegistration, Prayer and \nRecap of day 7 activities\n30 mins.\nMr. Mark Otieno\nGroup 1\n8.30 a.m.– 11.00 \np.m.\nGender mainstreaming and \nsocial inclusions in the \nMaize\n value chain \n2 hrs. 30 mins.\nDr Jessica Ndubi\n11.00 a.m. -11.30 \na.m.\nHEALTH BREAK\nALL\n11.30 a.m.-1.00 \np.m.\n• Course Evaluation\n• Presentations of County \nAction plans\n1 hr.\nMr. Mark Otieno\n1.00 p.m.-2.00 \np.m.\nLUNCH BREAK\nALL\n2.00 p.m.-3.00 \np.m.\nWay Forward\n1 hr.\nDr. Charles Lungaho", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 110, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "99\nTime\nActivity\nDuration\nResponsible\n3.00 p.m.-4.30 \np.m.\nOfficial Closing of The ToT \nWorkshop\n• Remarks by the group \nLeader (Governor)\n• Remarks by the CPC\n• Remarks by KCSAP \nCrops coordinator- Ms. \nViolet Kirigua\n• Remarks by KCSAP \nNPCU -Dr. Charles \nLungaho\n• Issuance of Certificates –\nDr. Lusike Wasilwa\nOfficial Closing Address \nby Director Crops- Dr. \nLusike Wasilwa\n• Closing Prayer\n1 hr. 30 mins.\nChair. \nMs. Violet Kirigua\nClose of Day 8\nDay 9 Tuesday \n1st August 2021\nDeparture from Naivasha\n8.00 a.m.\nRegistration, Prayer and \nDeparture\nALL", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 111, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "100\nANNEX 2: GENERAL REFERENCE MATERIALS\nCategory / \nModules\nPublication title\nReference \ntypes\nNo \nPages\nFarmer \nCategory\nA= New \nentrant/Maize \nElite farmer\nB= Elite maize \nFarmer\nGeneral \nMaize \nproduction\nMaize production Guide in \nKenya\nManual\n25\nA/B\nA Manual for Maize \nTraining \nManual\n26\nA/B\nMaize \nVarietal \nSelection\nLeaflet\n2\nA/B\nLeaflet\n2\nA/B\nLeaflet\n2\nA/B\nVariety Characteristics and \nProduction Guidelines of \nTraditional Crops\nTraining \nManual\n38\nA/B\nMaize Crop \nHealth \nCrop Management \nGuidelines\nIntegrated Pest \nManagement (Cost saving \nTechniques for Smallholder \nFarmers)\nManual\n34\nB/A\nMaize Business \nManagement\nMaize Production Guide \nManual \n30\nB/A\nBooklet \n89\nB\nGender \nMainstreaming\nGender Mainstreaming \nin Agriculture and Rural \nDevelopment: A Reference \nManual for Governments \nand Other Stakeholders. \nMarlborough house, London.\nManual\n100\nB\nAgricultural \nInnovation \nPlatforms \nAgricultural Innovation \nPlatforms Guide \nBook\nA/B", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 112, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "101\nANNEX 3: FFBS LEARNING MATERALS\nParticipatory Technology Development (Ptd) For Maize Crop Variety\nValue Chain\nMaize\nLearning Enterprise\nMaize\nFunded Enterprise\nMaize VC at production level\nBackground Problem\nLow Maize production due to low yielding variety\nObjective\nTo increase production through improved varieties\nFactors to consider\n• Land topography\n• Runs (blocks should face East to West)\n• Certified seeds of preferred varieties\n• Material from farmers disease susceptible material\nSetting the P.T.D blocks\n• \nPlots to be laid (10x10) M, arranged three in a row with a footpath of 1M apart.\n• \nPreferred Maize varieties\n• \nDifferent Maize variety treatments\n• \nThe blocks must be right angled.\n• \nDuring data collections: collect the data using 10 plants in each block.\n• \nOther TIMPS should be applied equally in each block.\n• \nPlanting should be done on the same day in all blocks.\n• \nWeeding and spraying should also be done the same time\nParameters Measurement\n• \nNo of leaves per crop\n• \nLeaf width and length\n• \nCrop height\n• \nNo of cobs per plant\n• \nNo of Maize grains per cob\n• \nAverage weight of 20 Maize cobs\n• \nYield /unit area\nSetting of Blocks \nAddressing low yielding varieties\nPlot 1\nH 6214\n　\nPlot 2\nH 628\n　\nPlot 3\nComposite\nPlot 4\nFarmers practice", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 113, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "102\n AGRO ECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS (AESA) ON MAIZE.\nAESA NO ……………\nGeneral information Agronomic data\nFertilizer ……………… Average Leaf length…………………\nPlanting date…………… Average plant height…………………\n Average Leaf width…………………..\n Number of leaves/Plant………………..\n No of Cobs per plant…………………….\n No of grains per cob……………………\n Yield in Kg per plot……………………..\n Total yields per acre………………………\nWeather: ………………. \nTime of observation: ………………… \nDiagram of crop of enemies and insects observed \nNatural Enemies \t insects observed \n1.\t \t\n1………………………………\n2.\t \t\n2. \n3.\t \t\n\t\n\t\n3…………………………\nObservation \tRecommendation\n1.\t weeds \t Weeding after 2 weeks \n2.\t Holes on the leaves \t\n Keep monitoring and control pests\n3.\t Yellow leaves", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 114, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP)\nKALRO Secretariat, P O Box 57811-00200, Nairobi, KENYA\nTel. No(s): +254-722206986/73333322, \nWebsite: www.kalro.org", "source": "maize-tot.pdf", "page": 116, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Maize Seed Contamination and Seed Transmission of Maize Chlorotic\nMottle Virus in Kenya\nEsther N. Kimani,1,2,† Samuel M. Kiarie,3 Cyrus Micheni,3 Laureen G. Muriki,3 Douglas W. Miano,2 Isaac Macharia,4\nGary P. Munkvold,5 William M. Muiru,2 B. M. Prasanna,6,† and Anne Wangai3,6\n1 Crop Biotechnology, Kabete Center, Biotechnology Research Institute, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO),\nNairobi, Kenya\n2 Department of Plant Science and Crop Protection, University of Nairobi, Kangemi, Nairobi, Kenya\n3 Plant Pathology Department, Kabete Center, Food Crops Research Institute, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO),\nNairobi, Kenya\n4 Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS), Nairobi, Kenya\n5 Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Seed Science Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011-1050, U.S.A.\n6 Global Maize Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue – Gigiri,\nNairobi, Kenya\nAccepted for publication 23 June 2021.\nAbstract\nMaize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) causes maize lethal necrosis\ndisease in combination with a cereal-infecting potyvirus, leading\nto high yield losses. There is limited information on seed infec-\ntion or contamination rate by MCMV and its comparison with\ntransmission rate to maize seedlings. This study was conducted\nto determine the extent of seed contamination in seed lots from\nMCMV-infected maize fields in Kenya and the transmission of\nMCMV from seeds to seedlings. To determine the contamination\nlevels, whole seeds were ground and the extract tested for the\npresence of MCMV using double antibody sandwich enzyme-\nlinked immunosorbent assay (DAS-ELISA). Seedling grow-outs\nwere tested for seed transmission of MCMV using DAS-ELISA and\nreal-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-\ntime RT-PCR) methods. The seed contamination rates of the four\nseed lots tested ranged from 4.9 to 15.9%.", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "V using DAS-ELISA and\nreal-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-\ntime RT-PCR) methods. The seed contamination rates of the four\nseed lots tested ranged from 4.9 to 15.9%. MCMV transmission\nfrequency for 37,617 seedlings, tested in 820 pools of varying\nseed amounts by DAS-ELISA, was 0.17%, whereas a transmission\nfrequency of 0.025% was obtained from 8,322 seedlings tested\nin 242 pools by real-time RT-PCR. Seeds from plants mechani-\ncally inoculated with MCMV had an overall seed transmission\nrate of 0.04% in 7,846 seedlings tested in 197 pools. The study\nshowed that even with substantial contamination of maize seed\nwith MCMV, the transmission of the virus from the seed to seed-\nlings was low. Nevertheless, even low rates of transmission can\nbe significant under field conditions where insect vectors can\nfurther spread the disease from infected seedlings, unless dis-\neased plants are detected in time and properly managed.\nKeywords: maize lethal necrosis, maize chlorotic mottle virus,\nseed contamination, seed transmission\nMaize has the highest production among the cereal crops glob-\nally and is the important cereal in Latin America and sub-Saharan\nAfrica (Ranum et al. 2014). In Kenya, maize is the main staple\nfood; the crop had an average annual production of 3.57 million\nmetric tons in the years 2014 to 2018 (FAOSTAT 2021), with an\naverage consumption of 67.3 kg/person in 2019 (KNBS 2020).\nSince 2011, when the maize lethal necrosis (MLN) disease was\nfirst reported in Kenya (Wangai et al. 2012), maize production in\nthe country has been threatened by MLN, which was estimated to\nhave caused crop losses of 0.5 million tons in 2013 (De Groote\net al. 2016). An increase in maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV)\nincidence has been reported in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia in\n2018–2019 (Prasanna et al. 2020). MLN is a result of infection of\nmaize plants by MCMV", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "MCMV)\nincidence has been reported in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia in\n2018–2019 (Prasanna et al. 2020). MLN is a result of infection of\nmaize plants by MCMV in combination with maize-infecting\npotyvirids, such as sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV), maize dwarf\nmosaic virus (MDMV), Johnson grass mosaic virus in the genus\nPotyvirus, or wheat streak mosaic virus in the genus Tritimovirus\n(Goldberg and Brakke 1987; Stewart et al. 2017; Uyemoto et al.\n1980; Wangai et al. 2012).\nMaize chlorotic mottle virus is the sole member of the genus\nMachlomovirus, in the family Tombusviridae. Globally, MCMV\nwas first reported in the 1970s in Peru and subsequently in dif-\nferent parts of the world, including eastern Africa (Prasanna et al.\n2020; Redinbaugh and Stewart 2018). The genome sequence of\nthe MCMV-Kenya isolate is 99% identical to that in Rwanda\n†Corresponding authors: E. N. Kimani; esther.kimani@gmail.com and\nB. M. Prasanna; b.m.prasanna@cgiar.org\nCurrent address for Anne Wangai: P.O. Box 9369-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.\nFunding: This work was supported by a subgrant under a project led by the\nInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and funded by Bill\nand Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-006697/OPP1138693), and the CGIAR\nResearch Program on Maize (MAIZE). MAIZE receives Windows 1 and 2 support\nfrom the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, India, Japan,\nKorea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the\nUnited Kingdom, the United States, and the World Bank. USDA 2017 Norman E.\nBorlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship funded the\ntravel and work of the first author at the Iowa State University, U.S.A.\nThe author(s) declare no conflict of interest.\nCopyright © 2021 The Author(s). This", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship funded the\ntravel and work of the first author at the Iowa State University, U.S.A.\nThe author(s) declare no conflict of interest.\nCopyright © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open access article\ndistributed under the CC BY 4.0 International license.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 496\nPlant Health Progress \u0001 2021 \u0001 22:496–502\nhttps://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-02-21-0018-RS\nResearch", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "(Adams et al. 2014), has 98 to 99% similarity to MCMV isolates\nfrom China (Adams et al. 2013), and is 96 to 97% identical to\nthe MCMV isolates from Kansas and Nebraska in the United\nStates (Adams et al. 2013; Wamaitha et al. 2018). The virus is\ntransmitted through vectors, including corn thrips (Frankliniella\nwilliamsi), maize rootworms (Diabrotica undecimpunctata, Dia-\nbrotica longicornis, and Diabrotica virgifera), cereal leaf beetles\n(Oulema melanopus), and flea beetles (Systena frontalis and\nChaetocnema pulicaria) (Cabanas et al. 2013; Jensen 1985;\nJiang et al. 1992). Transmission is also reported to be through\nseed and soil, as well as mechanically by contaminated farm\nimplements (Mahuku et al. 2015; Nelson et al. 2011).\nSeed transmission of MCMV was reported from a study con-\nducted on 25 seed lots in Hawaii with a transmission rate of 0 to\n0.33% (Jensen et al. 1991), whereas another study reported no\nseed transmission (Bockelman et al. 1982). Testing of 25 indi-\nvidual seeds obtained from MCMV-infected maize plants in\nKenya resulted in 72% of the seeds being positive for MCMV\n(Mahuku et al. 2015). None of the earlier studies attempted to\ncomprehensively determine the possibility of seed contamination\nleading to transmission of MCMV to next-generation seedlings\nusing a large sample size. The present study was therefore under-\ntaken to evaluate the extent of contamination of seed lots by\nMCMV and further transmission of the East African isolate of\nMCMV to the grown-out seedlings.\nExperimental Material\nCommercial maize seed lots harvested in 2015 and 2017 from\nthe Western region of Kenya, designated as seed lots K27, K4,\nA, and B (Table 1), were contributed by a seed company. These\nseed lots from commercial hybrid seed production fields were\nrejected by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services\n(KEPH", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " as seed lots K27, K4,\nA, and B (Table 1), were contributed by a seed company. These\nseed lots from commercial hybrid seed production fields were\nrejected by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services\n(KEPHIS) after laboratory testing, due to detection of MCMV.\nIn Kenya, seed production fields are regularly inspected by\nKEPHIS for possible presence of MLN three times prior to\nmaturity, and laboratory testing is carried out on pooled samples\nof 7-day-old seedlings (two-leaf stage), using real-time reverse\ntranscription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR)\n(Shango et al. 2019). The four seed lots were sampled according\nto International Seed Testing Association guidelines (ISTA\n2016) for studying the levels of contamination and seed trans-\nmission of MCMV. The cultivars of the seed lots were different\nexcept for lots K4 and B. Group testing of the samples in pools\nwas adopted (Albrechtsen 2006a) to reduce the cost of laboratory\nanalysis per sample. Further studies on seed transmission were\ncarried out using seeds from maize plants (hybrid maize cultivars\nH614, DK777, and DUMA 43) mechanically inoculated with\nMCMV at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organiza-\ntion (KALRO)–Njoro quarantine field. H614 and DUMA 43 are\nhighly susceptible to MCMV, and DK777 is partially resistant to\nMLN (having a score of 5.0 on a scale of 1 to 9).\nThe work was done at the Molecular Pathology Laboratory at\nKALRO, Food Crops Research Institute–Kabete Center in Kenya\n(KALRO-Kabete). Seed contamination of seed lots K4 and K27\nwas tested at the Seed Science Center, Iowa State University,\nAmes, IA, U.S.A.\nTesting of Maize Seed for Contamination with MCMV\nWhole maize seeds were sampled from the four seed lots. The\nsamples obtained were then grouped into pools of 20 seeds each\nfor lots A and B, and tests were carried out at KALRO-Kabete,\nKenya; the pools were 50 seeds each for lots K27 and K4, and\nthe tests were carried out at Iowa State University, Ames,", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " lots A and B, and tests were carried out at KALRO-Kabete,\nKenya; the pools were 50 seeds each for lots K27 and K4, and\nthe tests were carried out at Iowa State University, Ames, IA,\nU.S.A. Whole seed pools were then ground to a coarse texture\nfor MCMV testing. The total number of seeds tested for the four\nseed lots was 4,560, 3,860, 1,850, and 3,100 for lots A, B, K27,\nand K4, respectively. An IKA Tube Mill control grinder (Tube\nMill CS000, IKA, Staufen, Germany) was used for grinding the\npools of 20 dry seeds, whereas a Waring 7011HS blender (War-\ning Commercial, Stamford, CT) was used to grind the pools of\n50 seeds in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) gen-\neral extraction buffer.\nDouble antibody sandwich ELISA (DAS-ELISA) was used to\ndetect MCMV. Antibodies developed against MCMV were coated\non a high protein-binding capacity polystyrene 96-well flat-\nbottomed microplate (F96 Maxisorp, Nunc, Thermo Fisher\nScientific, Waltham, MA). The samples from seed lots K27 (37\nsubsamples) and K4 (62 subsamples) were tested using a commer-\ncial ELISA reagent set for MCMV (Agdia, Elkhart, IN), following\nthe manufacturer’s instructions. The general extraction buffer was\nprepared in the laboratory using 0.2% chicken egg albumin,\n0.13% sodium sulfite, and 2% polyvinylpyrrolidone (Sigma-\nAldrich, St. Louis, MO) in 1× phosphate-buffered saline with\nTween (PBST). The buffer was added to the seed (ratio of 1:1)\nand the mixture shaken by hand vigorously prior to soaking over-\nnight in a conical flask and grinding the next day. Each sample\nwas replicated twice on the plate. The optical density absorbance\nvalues were measured using a microplate spectrophotometer\n(PowerWave HT, BioTek Instruments, Winooski, VT) at wave-\nlength of 405 nm 1 h after incubation at", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". The optical density absorbance\nvalues were measured using a microplate spectrophotometer\n(PowerWave HT, BioTek Instruments, Winooski, VT) at wave-\nlength of 405 nm 1 h after incubation at room temperature. The\ncontrols included in all the microplates were two negative controls\n(general extraction buffer and MCMV-free maize seed [20 seeds\nground together] obtained from the Seed Science Center, Iowa\nState University, U.S.A.) and a positive control (maize seed from\nMCMV-infected plants obtained from the MLN screenhouse at\nKALRO-Kabete, Kenya).\nDAS-ELISA was carried out on samples from seed lots A and\nB at KALRO-Kabete, using MCMV antibodies obtained from\nPlant Pathology Department, University of Minnesota, U.S.A.\nThe DAS-ELISA procedure was similar to that of the Agdia\nELISA reagent set for MCMV with slight modifications, and the\nbuffers were prepared in the laboratory with similar chemical\ncomposition. The plates were incubated at 37\u0001C for 1 h, except\nTABLE 1\nDetails of the seed lots used in the study\nParameter\nLot A\nLot B\nLot K27\nLot K4\nHarvesting date\n2017\n2017\n2015\n2015\nSampling date\n2018\n2018\n2017\n2017\nSource of seed\nBlended, rainfed fields\nBlended, irrigated fields\nSingle, rainfed field\nBlended, rainfed fields\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 497", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "the substrate step, which was incubated at room temperature for\n1 h. The primary antibodies were diluted at a ratio of 1:1,000 in\ncarbonate buffer, whereas the alkaline phosphatase conjugated\nantibody was diluted at a ratio of 1:4,000 in enzyme conjugate\nbuffer (buffer composition similar as those of Agdia). The opti-\ncal density absorbance values of the reaction were measured\nusing a microplate reader (Elx808 BioTek Instruments) at a\nwavelength of 405 nm, 1 h after incubation at ambient tempera-\nture. Similar controls as those described above were used in all\nthe microplates. The MCMV-free maize seed was obtained from\na seed company and tested for confirmation.\nSamples from both experiments with an average optical absor-\nbance value from the two replicates that was higher than twice\nthat of the negative maize seed control and extraction buffer\nwere considered positive for MCMV. Data were collected on the\nnumber of samples that were positive and negative for MCMV.\nThe most probable percentage of infected seeds was calculated\nusing a binomial statistical method formula at 95% confidence\nlevel (Chen and Swallow 1990):\nP = 1– Y=N\nð\nÞ1=n\nh\ni\n´ 100\nwhere n is the number of seeds per group sample, N is the num-\nber of groups, and Y is the assay-negative groups.\nDetection of MCMV in Seedling Grow-Outs from Commer-\ncial Seed Contaminated with MCMV\nSeed to seedling transmission of MCMV was tested by germi-\nnating seeds from the four seed lots (Table 1) by planting the sam-\npled seeds and from the healthy certified seed (DK777) in trays\nfilled with vermiculite mixed with sterile soil at a ratio of 1:2, at\nKALRO-Kabete, in a seed laboratory, at average day room tem-\nperature of 21\u0001C, with an average of 12 h light and 12 h night.\nFifty seeds were sown in each tray, and leaves from germinated\nseedlings from each tray were sampled 10 days after planting (at\ntwo-leaf stage) (Shango et al. 2019). Insecticides were sprayed\nweekly to control possible insect", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " each tray, and leaves from germinated\nseedlings from each tray were sampled 10 days after planting (at\ntwo-leaf stage) (Shango et al. 2019). Insecticides were sprayed\nweekly to control possible insect vectors transmitting MCMV.\nSeedlings at the two-leaf stage were counted, recorded, and sam-\npled into one sample bag as one pooled sample. Contamination of\nsamples was controlled by handling the seedlings on each tray\nwith a clean set of gloves. The samples were transported to the\nlaboratory in a cool box and stored at –40\u0001C. Testing was carried\nout using DAS-ELISA with MCMV antibodies (from the Univer-\nsity of Minnesota) as described above.\nA total of 37,617 seedlings from the four seed lots (Table 2)\nwere tested using DAS-ELISA in 820 pools with a varying\nnumber of seedlings from each tray, ranging from seven to 50\ndepending on germination count during sampling. The samples\nwere crushed using a tissue homogenizer and sample mesh bag\n(Agdia) in general extraction buffer as described above, at a ratio\nof 1:10 (w/v). Three controls were included in each plate: two\nnegative controls (general extraction buffer and leaf sample from\nhealthy certified seed) and one MCMV-positive leaf from maize\nplants infected with MCMV (maintained at Biosafety Green-\nhouse, KALRO-Kabete, Kenya).\nMCMV Detection in Seedling Grow-Outs by Real-Time\nRT-PCR\nSeedlings from seed lots A and B were also tested using real-\ntime RT-PCR. RNA was extracted from leaves of 8,322 seed-\nlings, which were in 242 pools, using a CTAB modified protocol\n(Monger et al. 2001). The pool sizes had samples from a range\nof 14 to 50 seedlings. Real-time RT-PCR was carried out using\nMCMV primers designed from the coat protein of MCMV (Liu\net al. 2016): forward primer 59-GAGTCCTGCCAATCCAAAG\nTG-39, reverse primer 59-TGGGTGGGTCAAGGCTTACTA-39,\nand\nprobe\n59-FAM-AGCCGCCGCCCACTCTCCAG", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "AGTCCTGCCAATCCAAAG\nTG-39, reverse primer 59-TGGGTGGGTCAAGGCTTACTA-39,\nand\nprobe\n59-FAM-AGCCGCCGCCCACTCTCCAG-BHQ-39.\nThe PCR mix consisted of 0.5 µl of forward and reverse primers,\n0.3 µl of fluorescence-labeled probe, 2 µl of RNA template,\n1.4 µl of diethyl pyrocarbonate-treated water, and SensiFAST\nProbe Hi-Rox one-step kit (BIO 77001, Bioline USA, Taunton,\nMA) components comprising 0.2 µl of RNase inhibitor, 0.1 µl of\nreverse transcription, and 5 µl of SensiFAST probe Hi-Rox\none-step buffer (with Hot Start DNA polymerase). The reaction\nwas done in a real-time PCR equipment (StepOnePlus, Applied\nBiosystems,\nThermo\nFisher\nScientific)\nwith\nthe\nfollowing\ncycling conditions: complementary strand synthesis step at 50\u0001C\nfor 10 min, 95\u0001C for 1 min, and then 40 cycles of 94\u0001C for 10 s\nand 60\u0001C for 1 min. Data collected was the threshold cycle (Ct)\nvalue. Samples that had Ct values lower than the Ct values of\nthe negative controls (healthy maize leaf sample and nontem-\nplate reaction) were considered positive for MCMV.\nSeed transmission for each of the pooled samples from the\nfour seed lots, based on DAS-ELISA and real-time RT-PCR\nmethods, was calculated using the pooled prevalence tests using\nEpitools epidemiological calculators (Sergeant 2018) applying a\nmaximum-likelihood estimate of prevalence of the virus for the\npooled samples. In this case, we applied the variable pool sizes\nand perfect test (Sergeant 2018), using the data for each pool\nsize, number of pools in the pool size, and number of positive\npools per size for each of the seed lots. The fixed pool size and\nperfect test method were applied where the pool sizes were the\nsame in the seed lot. The prevalence of the virus was obtained at\na 95% confidence interval and the seed transmission reported as\na percentage", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " lots. The fixed pool size and\nperfect test method were applied where the pool sizes were the\nsame in the seed lot. The prevalence of the virus was obtained at\na 95% confidence interval and the seed transmission reported as\na percentage.\nDetection of MCMV from Seedling Grow-Outs\nGerminated from Seeds from Mechanically\nInoculated Plants\nOne hundred sixty-five plants from three hybrid cultivars each\n(H614, DK777, and DUMA 43) were mechanically inoculated\nwith MCMV at the four-leaf stage at KALRO-Njoro quarantine\nfield in 2017 and 2018. MCMV inoculum was obtained at the\nKALRO biosafety level II greenhouse, where the MCMV-\ninfected plants were grown under controlled conditions for\nresearch use. Leaves from the MCMV-infected plants were\nblended with 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a ratio of 1:10 (weight/\nvolume). The mixture was sieved using a muslin cloth, and carbo-\nrundum was added just before inoculation. A motorized sprayer\nTABLE 2\nDAS-ELISA-based detection of maize chlorotic mottle virus\n(MCMV)-contaminated maize in seedlings grown from\nMCMV seed lots\nSeed\nlot\nNo. of\nseedlings\ntested\nNo. of positive\npoolsa/total\nno. of pools\ntested\nEstimated seed\ntransmission\nrate\nA\n17,098\n15/360\n0.09%\nB\n15,319\n4/356\n0.03%\nK27\n4,800\n0/96\n0\nK4\n400\n2/8\n0.57%\na Samples were tested in pools with varying pool sizes.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 498", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "was used to apply the inoculum on the seedlings. MCMV insect\nvectors and fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) were con-\ntrolled by spraying insecticides weekly by alternating alphacyper-\nmethrin (Alphaguard 10EC) and chlorpyrifos (Pyrinex 48EC)\ncombined with either chlorantraniliprole and abamectin (Voliam\nTargo) or emamectin benzoate (Escort 19EC).\nThe seeds from the infected maize plants were harvested at\nmaturity and dried to a moisture content of 13% before storage.\nThree hundred seeds for each cultivar were directly tested by\nDAS-ELISA in group sizes of 20 seeds each, and MCMV was\ndetected from 98% of the replicated samples. The harvested\nseeds were planted and treated as in the previously described\nseed transmission experiments for commercial seed lots; 7,846\ngrow-out seedlings were tested for presence of MCMV using the\nDAS-ELISA method, in pool sizes ranging from 20 to 50 seed-\nlings. The data on the number of positive pools and the number\nof pools tested per pool size were analyzed as described above\nusing the Epitools epidemiological calculators variable pool sizes\nand perfect test (Sergeant 2018).\nExtent of Contamination of the Commercial Seed\nLots by MCMV\nThe four naturally contaminated seed lots (A, B, K4, and K27)\nwere found to be contaminated by MCMV at varying levels. The\naverage contamination rate for the four seed lots was 8.75%,\nwith a range of 4.90% (K27) to 15.93% (B) (Table 3) at a 95%\nconfidence level.\nSeed Transmission of MCMV from Commercial\nSeed Contaminated with MCMV to Seedlings\nThe results from the total number of pooled samples tested\nusing DAS-ELISA indicated that 21 pooled samples tested posi-\ntive for MCMV out of a total of 820 pooled samples analyzed in\nthe study (Table 2). The numbers of pools that were found posi-\ntive for MCMV were 15 from lot A, four from lot B, and two\nfrom lot K4. A total of 37", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " analyzed in\nthe study (Table 2). The numbers of pools that were found posi-\ntive for MCMV were 15 from lot A, four from lot B, and two\nfrom lot K4. A total of 37,617 seedlings were tested from the\nfour seed lots. The average seed transmission rate for the four\nseed lots was 0.17% (Table 2) when tested using DAS-ELISA.\nThe four seed lots had varying seed transmission rates, with lot\nK4 having the lowest number of samples tested (400) but record-\ning the highest seed transmission rate (0.57%).\nTransmission of MCMV from the contaminated seed of seed\nlots A and B to the next-generation seedlings was analyzed using\nthe real-time RT-PCR method. Only two composite samples\nwere found to be positive for MCMV (Table 4), with Ct values\nlower than those of the negative healthy control, which ranged\nfrom 29.94 to 34.04 for different plates. The average seed trans-\nmission of MCMV for the seed lots tested by real-time RT-PCR\nwas 0.025%. These two samples that tested positive for MCMV\nin real-time RT-PCR were both negative when tested using\nDAS-ELISA, reflecting the sensitivity of real-time RT-PCR in\ndetection of a small amount of viruses in samples (Liu et al.\n2016). However, in this study, the high cost of detection by real-\ntime RT-PCR limited its use on all the samples that were tested\nusing the DAS-ELISA method.\nTransmission of MCMV from Seeds Obtained from\nPlants Mechanically Inoculated with MCMV\nThree seedling pools obtained from seeds that were mechani-\ncally inoculated with MCMV tested positive. These were from\nthe seeds of DK777 (one pool) and H614 (two pools) harvested\nin 2017 (Table 5). There was no detection of MCMV in the sam-\nples from 2018. Seed transmission rates of 0.1 and 0% were cal-\nculated from the infected plants harvested in 2017 (2,944\nseedlings) and 2018 (4,902 seedlings), respectively. Based on the\ndata from this study, an average seed transmission rate of", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "% were cal-\nculated from the infected plants harvested in 2017 (2,944\nseedlings) and 2018 (4,902 seedlings), respectively. Based on the\ndata from this study, an average seed transmission rate of 0.04%\nwas calculated.\nSeed transmission of viruses occurs when the virus is passed\nfrom the contaminated seed to the seedling grown out during the\nprocess of germination and growth. In most such cases, seed\ntransmission occurs when there is invasion of the embryo\nTABLE 3\nDAS-ELISA-based estimation of percentage of maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) contamination in the four maize seed lots\nSeed lot\nTotal number of\nseeds tested\nNumber of MCMV+ seed\npoolsa/total number of\nseed pools tested\nProportion of\npositive samples\nCalculated % MCMV\ncontamination rateb\nA\n4,560\n165/228\n0.72\n6.23%\nB\n3,860\n187/193\n0.96\n15.93%\nK27\n1,850\n34/37\n0.92\n4.90%\nK4\n3,100\n61/62\n0.98\n7.92%\na Samples were tested in pools, with a pool size of 20 seeds for lots A and B and 50 seeds for lots K27 and K4.\nb Contamination rate was calculated using a binomial statistical method, 95% confidence level.\nTABLE 4\nSeed transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus in\nseedlings germinated from contaminated seeds, as tested\nusing real-time RT-PCR\nSeed\nlot\nNo. of\nseedlings\ntested\nNo. of positive\nsample pools/no.\nof pools tested\nMinimum seed\ntransmission rate\nA\n4,837\n1/143\n0.02%\nB\n3,485\n1/99\n0.03%\nTABLE 5\nData on the number of seedlings tested for each cultivar\nand the number of pools that tested positive for maize\nchlorotic mottle virus by DAS-ELISA\nCultivar\n2017\n2018\nSeedlings\ntested\nPositive\npoolsa\nSeedlings\ntested\nPositive\npoolsa\nDK777\n1,031\n1b\n1,640\n0\nDUMA", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ultivar\n2017\n2018\nSeedlings\ntested\nPositive\npoolsa\nSeedlings\ntested\nPositive\npoolsa\nDK777\n1,031\n1b\n1,640\n0\nDUMA 43\n796\n0\n1,630\n0\nH614\n1,117\n2b\n1,632\n0\na Pool sizes varied from 20 to 50 seedlings.\nb The positive pools had 50 seedlings each.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 499", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "(Johansen et al. 1994; Sastry 2013a). In other cases, although\nthe virus may not be present in the embryo, contamination of\nthe seed coat or presence of virus in the outer layers of the endo-\nsperm can lead to external seed transmission (Bernardo et al.\n2018; Sastry 2013a), such as for cucumber green mottle mosaic\nvirus in watermelon (Sui et al. 2019). The virus, whether inacti-\nvated or viable, can be detected by microscope, serological, and\nnucleic-acid based methods. Results from the present study\nshowed that seeds sampled from commercial hybrid maize seed\nlots in Kenya were contaminated with MCMV at varying levels\nranging from 4.9 to 15.93%. The previously reported contamina-\ntion rate from 260 maize seeds obtained from 26 seed lots in\nKenyan markets was 6%; MCMV was detected in 12 of the 26\nseed lots (Mahuku et al. 2015). This was within the same range\nof the findings in this study with an average contamination rate\nof 8.75%. These levels of seed contamination by a virus are rela-\ntively low, compared with virus contamination in vegetables,\nfruits, and legumes; for example, contamination could be as high\nas 100 and 93.85% by cucumber green mottle mosaic virus in\nwatermelon and melon seeds, respectively (Wu et al. 2010).\nVirus contamination detected in whole seeds by serological and\nnucleic acid-based methods may include viable, transmissible\nvirus in the embryo as well as inactivated virus found externally\nor in various seed tissues (Albrechtsen 2006b; Crowley 1957).\nVirus inactivation can occur during seed maturation and also\nduring storage of the seeds (Dombrovsky and Smith 2017). The\ntesting of whole seeds for viruses in most cases does not give a\nclear indication of the risk of seed transmission into seedlings\n(Johansen et al. 1994).\nIn the present study, seed transmission of MCMV when tested\nusing DAS-ELISA ranged from 0 to 0.57% for samples collected\nfrom commercial seed lots and from 0 to 0.", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 1994).\nIn the present study, seed transmission of MCMV when tested\nusing DAS-ELISA ranged from 0 to 0.57% for samples collected\nfrom commercial seed lots and from 0 to 0.01% for samples\nfrom maize plants of three cultivars (DK777, H614, and DUMA\n43) that were mechanically inoculated with MCMV. The loca-\ntion of the virus in seed tissues was not determined; therefore, it\nis uncertain whether seed transmission resulted from external\ncontamination or internal infection. Jensen et al. (1991) reported\nMCMV transmission rates from maize seeds obtained from four\nseed lots in the United States as 0.03, 0.067, 0.2, and 0.33%,\nrespectively, from about 42,000 seedlings, whereas no seed\ntransmission of MCMV was revealed from 2,153 maize inbred\nseedlings and 1,898 hybrid seedlings (Bockelman et al. 1982). In\nanother study, analysis of seeds from MCMV-infected maize\ninbred lines (24) in Kenya revealed seed transmission in one\npooled sample from a total of 480 seedlings (Kitira 2018). From\nthese studies reported, it is evident that the transmission of\nMCMV through seed is consistently lower than 1%. Low seed\ntransmission rates have also been documented for other maize-\ninfecting viruses, with the tombusvirids having very few seed-\ntransmitted viruses (Sastry 2013b). Transmission of other viruses\nin maize via seed at low levels has been reported for MDMV,\nwith one seed transmission in 22,189 seedlings (Mikel et al.\n1984), and no transmission of SCMV in 480 seedlings of seeds\nfrom inbred lines infected with SCMV in Kenya (Kitira 2018);\ntransmission of high plains virus in sweet corn was three out of\n38,473 seedlings tested (Forster et al. 2001). In contrast, exam-\nples of high seed-transmission rates for viruses include 30% by\nsoybean mosaic virus (Domier et al. 2007), 25.3% for bean com-\nmon mosaic virus in bean cultivars (Mandour et al.", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " seed-transmission rates for viruses include 30% by\nsoybean mosaic virus (Domier et al. 2007), 25.3% for bean com-\nmon mosaic virus in bean cultivars (Mandour et al. 2013), and\n46.6% transmission of dolichos yellow mosaic virus in lablab\nbean (Suruthi et al. 2018). Seed transmission of viruses is influ-\nenced by many factors, including the host and cultivar, the\nisolate, environmental conditions, and timing of infection (Sastry\n2013a; Simmons and Munkvold 2014). Despite no transmission\ndetected for SCMV in Kenya (Kitira 2018), Li et al. (2007)\nreported 91 positive seed-transmitted cases out of 1,193 seed-\nlings for SCMV.\nMost seed transmission of viruses involves the presence of\nvirus in the embryo, leading to transmission of viruses to the\nnext progeny (Sastry 2013a). Cytoplasmic connections lead to\nmore embryo infections and to higher transmission of viruses\nfrom the seed; legumes have more cytoplasmic connections com-\npared with maize and, thus, have more seed-transmitted viruses\n(Sastry 2013a). The level of seed contamination may not be cor-\nrelated to the rate of seed transmission (Dombrovsky and Smith\n2017), as in the present study, in which we found lower seed\ntransmission in seed lots with higher seed contamination of\nMCMV and vice versa. The results are similar to findings with\nvarying levels of contamination by cowpea aphid borne mosaic\nvirus (CABMV). Increasing seed contamination levels at 0, 0.25,\nand 1% did not lead to an increase in the incidence of virus in\n31-day-old cowpea seedlings of cultivars with low ability to\ntransmit virus via seed (N\u0001eya et al. 2007). However, there was\nan increase in incidence when the contamination rate was 5%,\nand there was no significant difference in the incidence of the\nvirus when cultivars with high ability to transmit CABMV via\nseed were used. The presence of viruses on the seed coat or in\nthe endosperm is common for most viruses, but if the virus is\nabsent from the embryo", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "virus when cultivars with high ability to transmit CABMV via\nseed were used. The presence of viruses on the seed coat or in\nthe endosperm is common for most viruses, but if the virus is\nabsent from the embryo, infection in seedlings was found to be\nrare (Johansen et al. 1994). The cultivars used in the present\nstudy are all highly susceptible to MCMV/MLN infection,\nexcept DK777, which is tolerant to MLN. The exact factors con-\ntributing to transmission of MCMV, even at extremely low rates,\nfrom contaminated seed to grow-out seedlings are still unknown.\nHowever, for some viruses it is possible for virus found on seed\nextract to infect seedlings, such as pepino mosaic virus infection\nof tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana seedlings (Ling 2008).\nConclusions\nMaize is grown extensively in Kenya. Even less than 0.1%\nseed transmission rate of MCMV, if not properly detected and\ncontrolled, could have significant implications. The seeding rate\nfor maize in Kenya is about 55,000 seeds per hectare; thus, a\nseed transmission rate of 0.1% would mean about 55 MCMV-\ninfected plants per hectare. These infected plants, if not detected\nin time and discarded, could serve as a source of MCMV inocu-\nlum. Further, favorable weather conditions and the presence of\nMCMV vectors, especially the corn thrips that are widely preva-\nlent in Kenya (Mahuku et al. 2015), could translate into signifi-\ncant infection across the field and ultimately decreased crop\nyield.\nUnderstanding the probable reasons and the effects of different\nlevels of contamination of maize seed by MCMV, and the impli-\ncations of such contamination to the next-generation seedlings\ngrown especially by the farmers, is important for effective man-\nagement of MLN. Despite the very low seed transmission rate\nobserved for MCMV recorded in the present study, the implica-\ntions of maize seed contamination by MCMV are still signifi-\ncant. Therefore, effective and continued implementation of\nvarious management options and continued implementation of\nphytosanitary measures in production of seeds that are free from\nviruses causing MLN are critical to reduce the spread and impact\nof", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "ifi-\ncant. Therefore, effective and continued implementation of\nvarious management options and continued implementation of\nphytosanitary measures in production of seeds that are free from\nviruses causing MLN are critical to reduce the spread and impact\nof MLN and overall to improve the production of maize.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 500", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Acknowledgments\nThis work was supported, in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun-\ndation\n(grant\nnumber:\nINV-006697/OPP1138693),\nproject\nname\n“Understanding and Preventing Seed Transmission of Maize Lethal\nNecrosis (MLN) in Africa”. Under the grant conditions of the Founda-\ntion, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already\nbeen assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might\narise from this submission. The work is also financially supported by\nthe CGIAR Research Program on Maize (MAIZE). MAIZE receives\nW1&W2 support from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada,\nChina, France, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,\nNorway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States,\nand the World Bank. We also acknowledge Derrick A. Mayfield, who\nassisted with the laboratory activities at the Seed Science Center, Iowa\nState University. Henry Onzere and George Mosota provided immense\nsupport during planting of the seeds, harvesting, and grinding of leaf\nand seed samples at KALRO-Kabete.\nLiterature Cited\nAdams, I. P., Harju, V. A., Hodges, T., Hany, U., Skelton, A., Rai, S., Deka,\nM. K., Smith, J., Fox, A., Uzayisenga, B., Ngaboyisonga, C., Uwumukiza,\nB., Rutikanga, A., Rutherford, M., Ricthis, B., Phiri, N., and Boonham, N.\n2014. First report of maize lethal necrosis disease in Rwanda. New Dis.\nRep. 29:22.\nAdams, I. P., Miano, D. W., Kinyua, Z. M., Wangai, A., Kimani, E., Phiri,\nN., Reeder, R., Harju, V., Glover, R., Hany, U., Souza-Richards, R., Deb\nNath, P., Nixon, T., Fox, A., Barnes, A., Smith, J., Skelton, A., Thwaites,\nR., Mumford, R., and Boonham, N. 2013. Use of next-generation sequ", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "., Nixon, T., Fox, A., Barnes, A., Smith, J., Skelton, A., Thwaites,\nR., Mumford, R., and Boonham, N. 2013. Use of next-generation sequenc-\ning for the identification and characterization of Maize chlorotic mottle\nvirus and Sugarcane mosaic virus causing maize lethal necrosis in Kenya.\nPlant Pathol. 62:741-749.\nAlbrechtsen, S. E. 2006a. Group testing of seeds. Pages 231-234 in: Testing\nMethods for Seed-Transmitted Viruses: Principles and Protocols. CABI\nPublishing, Wallingford, U.K.\nAlbrechtsen, S. E. 2006b. Seed transmission of viruses. Page 13 in: Testing\nMethods for Seed-Transmitted Viruses: Principles and Protocols. CABI\nPublishing, Wallingford, U.K.\nBernardo, P., Redinbaugh, M. G., and Barriball, K. 2018. Understanding\nMaize chlorotic mottle virus transmission through seed: Localization and\ninfectivity. (Abstr.) Phytopathology 108:S1.245.\nBockelman, D. L., Claflin, L. E., and Uyemoto, J. K. 1982. Host range and\nseed transmission studies of maize chlorotic mottle virus in grasses and\ncorn. Plant Dis. 66:216-218.\nCabanas, D., Watanabe, S., Higashi, C. H. V., and Bressan, A. 2013. Dissecting\nthe mode of maize chlorotic mottle virus transmission (Tombusviridae:\nMachlomovirus) by Frankliniella williamsi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae).\nJ. Econ. Entomol. 106:16-24.\nChen, C. L., and Swallow, W. H. 1990. Using group testing to estimate a\nproportion, and to test the binomial model. Biometrics 46:1035-1046.\nCrowley, N. C. 1957. Studies on seed transmission of plant virus diseases.\nAust. J. Biol. Sci. 10:449-464.\n", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "omial model. Biometrics 46:1035-1046.\nCrowley, N. C. 1957. Studies on seed transmission of plant virus diseases.\nAust. J. Biol. Sci. 10:449-464.\nDe Groote, H., Oloo, F., Tongruksawattana, S., and Das, B. 2016.\nCommunity-survey based assessment of the geographic distribution and\nimpact of maize lethal necrosis (MLN) disease in Kenya. Crop Prot. 82:\n30-35.\nDombrovsky, A., and Smith, E. 2017. Seed transmission of Tobamoviruses:\nAspects of global disease distribution. In: Advances in Seed Biology. J. C.\nJimenez-Lopez, ed. IntechOpen, London, U.K.\nDomier, L. L., Steinlage, T. A., Hobbs, H. A., Wang, Y., Herrera-Rodriguez,\nG., Haudenshield, J. S., McCoppin, N. K., and Hartman, G. L. 2007.\nSimilarities in seed and aphid transmission among Soybean mosaic virus\nisolates. Plant Dis. 91:546-550.\nFAOSTAT. 2021. Maize production data for Kenya. Accessed 12 August\n2021. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.\nForster, R. L., Seifers, D. L., Strausbaugh, C. A., Jensen, S. G., Ball, E. M.,\nand Harvey, T. L. 2001. Seed transmission of the High plains virus in\nsweet corn. Plant Dis. 85:696-699.\nGoldberg, K.-B., and Brakke, M. K. 1987. Concentration of maize chlorotic\nmottle virus increased in mixed infection with maize dwarf mosaic virus,\nstrain B. Phytopathology 77:162-167.\nISTA. 2016. Sampling. Pages 2i–2-40 in: International Rules for Seed Test-\ning. International Seed Testing Association, Bassersdorf, Switzerland.\nJensen, S. G. 1985. Laboratory transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus\nby three corn rootworms. Plant Dis. 69:864-868.\nJensen,", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Testing Association, Bassersdorf, Switzerland.\nJensen, S. G. 1985. Laboratory transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus\nby three corn rootworms. Plant Dis. 69:864-868.\nJensen, S. G., Wysong, D. S., Ball, E. M., and Higley, P. M. 1991. Seed\ntransmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis. 75:497-498.\nJiang, X. Q., Meinke, L. J., Wright, R. J., Wilkinson, D. R., and\nCampbell, J. E. 1992. Maize chlorotic mottle virus in Hawaiian-grown\nmaize: Vector relations, host range and associated viruses. Crop Prot.\n11:248-254.\nJohansen, E., Edwards, M. C., and Hampton, R. O. 1994. Seed transmission\nof viruses: Current perspectives. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 32:363-386.\nKitira, F. G. 2018. Determining the role of seed and soil in the transmission\nof viruses causing maize lethal necrosis disease. M.Sc. thesis. University\nof Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.\nKNBS. 2020. Economic Survey 2020. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics,\nNairobi, Kenya.\nLi, L., Wang, X., and Zhou, G. 2007. Analyses of maize embryo invasion by\nSugarcane mosaic virus. Plant Sci. 172:131-138.\nLing, K.-S. 2008. Pepino mosaic virus on tomato seed: Virus location and\nmechanical transmission. Plant Dis. 92:1701-1705.\nLiu, Z., Zhang, L., Yang, C., and Xia, X. 2016. Development of real-time\nreverse transcription PCR for detection of Maize chlorotic mottle virus\nbased on a novel molecular marker. Cogent Food Agric. 2:1224047.\nMahuku, G., Lockhart, B. E., Wanjala, B., Jones, M. W., Kimunye, J. N.,\nStewart, L. R., Cassone, B. J., Sevgan, S., Nyasani, J. O., Kus", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Wanjala, B., Jones, M. W., Kimunye, J. N.,\nStewart, L. R., Cassone, B. J., Sevgan, S., Nyasani, J. O., Kusia, E.,\nKumar, P. L., Niblett, C. L., Kiggundu, A., Asea, G., Pappu, H. R.,\nWangai, A., Prasanna, B. M., and Redinbaugh, M. G. 2015. Maize lethal\nnecrosis (MLN), an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-\nSaharan Africa. Phytopathology 105:956-965.\nMandour, A. M., Abdelmaksoud, H. M. M., and El-Tahlawey, A. M. 2013.\nSeed transmission of bean common mosaic virus. Egypt. J. Agric. Res.\n91:403-409.\nMikel, M. A., D’Arcy, C. J., and Ford, R. E. 1984. Seed transmission of\nmaize dwarf mosaic virus in sweet corn. Phytopathol. Z. 110:185-191.\nMonger, W. A., Seal, S., Cotton, S., and Foster, G. D. 2001. Identification of\ndifferent isolates of Cassava brown streak virus and development of a\ndiagnostic test. Plant Pathol. 50:768-775.\nNelson, S., Brewbaker, J., and Hu, J. 2011. Maize chlorotic mottle. Plant\nDis. 79:1-6.\nN\u0001eya, B. J., Zabr\u0001e, J., Millogo, R. J., Ginko, S., and Konat\u0001e, G. 2007. Effect\nof cowpea seeds contamination rate by the Cowpea aphid borne mosaic\nvirus. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10:4365-4374.\nPrasanna, B. M., Suresh, L. M., Mwatuni, F., Beyene, Y., Makumbi, D.,\nGowda, M., Olsen, M., Hodson, D., Worku, M., Mezzalama, M", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "uresh, L. M., Mwatuni, F., Beyene, Y., Makumbi, D.,\nGowda, M., Olsen, M., Hodson, D., Worku, M., Mezzalama, M., Molnar,\nT., Dhugga, K. S., Wangai, A., Gichuru, L., Angwenyi, S., Alemayehu,\nY., Grønbech Hansen, J., and Lassen, P. 2020. Maize lethal necrosis\n(MLN): Efforts toward containing the spread and impact of a devastating\ntransboundary disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Virus Res. 282:197943.\nRanum, P., Pe~na-Rosas, J. P., and Garcia-Casal, M. N. 2014. Global maize\nproduction, utilization, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1312:105-\n112.\nRedinbaugh, M. G., and Stewart, L. R. 2018. Maize lethal necrosis: An\nemerging, synergistic viral disease. Annu. Rev. Virol. 5:301-322.\nSastry, K. S. 2013a. Mechanism of seed transmission. Pages 85-95 in: Plant\nVirus and Viroid Diseases in the Tropics. Springer, Dordrecht, The\nNetherlands.\nSastry, K. S. 2013b. Identification and taxonomic groups, Pages 55-58 in:\nSeed-Borne Plant Virus Diseases. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.\nSergeant, E. S. G. 2018. Epitools Epidemiological calculators. https://\nepitools.ausvet.com.au/.\nShango, P., Onyango, C., Oganda, J. K., Macharia, I., and Kariuki, G.\n2019. Seed certification as a means of curbing emerging diseases: A case\nstudy of maize lethal necrosis disease in Kenya. J. Agric. Res. Adv. 1:\n39-43.\nSimmons, H., and Munkvold, G. 2014. Seed transmission in the Potyviridae,\nPages 3-15 in: Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant\nPropagation Material.\n", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "-43.\nSimmons, H., and Munkvold, G. 2014. Seed transmission in the Potyviridae,\nPages 3-15 in: Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant\nPropagation Material.\nStewart, L. R., Willie, K., Wijeratne, S., Redinbaugh, M. G., Massawe, D.,\nNiblett, C. L., Kiggundu, A., and Asiimwe, T. 2017. Johnsongrass mosaic\nvirus contributes to maize lethal necrosis in East Africa. Plant Dis. 101:\n1455-1462.\nSui, X., Li, R., Shamimuzzaman, M., Wu, Z., and Ling, K.-S. 2019.\nUnderstanding the transmissibility of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus\nin watermelon seeds and seed health assays. Plant Dis. 103:1126-1131.\nSuruthi, V., Nakkeeran, S., Renukadevi, P., Malathi, V. G., and Rajasree, V.\n2018. Evidence of seed transmission of dolichos yellow mosaic virus, a\nbegomovirus infecting lablab-bean in India. VirusDis. 29:506-512.\nUyemoto, J. K., Bockelman, D. L., and Claflin, L. E. 1980. Severe outbreak\nof corn lethal necrosis disease in Kansas. Plant Dis. 64:99-100.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 501", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Wamaitha, M. J., Nigam, D., Maina, S., Stomeo, F., Wangai, A., Njuguna,\nJ. N., Holton, T. A., Wanjala, B. W., Wamalwa, M., Lucas, T., Djikeng,\nA., and Garcia-Ruiz, H. 2018. Metagenomic analysis of viruses associated\nwith maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Virol. J. 15:90.\nWangai, A. W., Redinbaugh, M. G., Kinyua, Z. M., Miano, D. W., Leley,\nP. K., Kasina, M., Mahuku, G., Scheets, K., and Jeffers, D. 2012. First\nreport of Maize chlorotic mottle virus and maize lethal necrosis in Kenya.\nPlant Dis. 96:1582.\nWu, H. J., Qin, B. X., Chen, H. Y., Peng, B., Cai, J. H., and Gu, Q. S. 2010.\nThe rate of seed contamination and transmission of cucumber green\nmottle mosaic virus in watermelon and melon. Sci. Agric. Sin. 44:1527-\n1532.\nPLANT HEALTH PROGRESS\n\u0001 2021, Vol. 22, No. 4\n\u0001 Page 502", "source": "php-02-21-0018-rs.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "1\nVol.:(0123456789)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 \n| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports\nA suite of agronomic factors \ncan offset the effects of climate \nvariability on rainfed maize \nproduction in Kenya\nKevin Ong’are Oluoch1*, Hugo De Groote2, Zachary M. Gitonga2, Zhenong Jin3,4 & \nKyle Frankel Davis1,5\nAchieving food security in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a multidimensional challenge. SSA reliance on \nfood imports is expected to grow in the coming decades to meet the population’s demand, projected \nto double to over 2 billion people by 2050. In addition, climate change is already affecting food \nproduction and supply chains across the region. Addressing these multiple food security challenges \nwill necessitate rapid enhancements in agricultural productivity, which is influenced by a host of \ndemographic, agronomic, and climatic factors. We use statistical approaches to examine rainfed \nmaize in Kenya, where maize cultivation and consumption are widespread and central to livelihoods \nand national food security. We find that improving a suite of agronomic factors, such as applying \nfertilizer, planting certified seeds, and extension services, will have a greater effect on rainfed maize \nproductivity than demographics and can offset the effects of climate change. These findings could also \noffer insights into similar challenges for other crops in Kenya and other SSA countries.\nSub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces multiple food security challenges. Currently, 22% of the people living in SSA are \n­undernourished1, and the region relies on large amounts of food imports to meet local ­demand2. In addition, cli-\nmate change is already affecting food production and supply chains across ­SSA3,4. Compounding these issues, the \npopulation of SSA is projected to double from about 1 billion people currently to over 2 billion by ­20505, which \nwill make it home to one in four people ­globally6. Addressing current food security challenges while reducing \nimport reliance, meeting rising food demand, and coping with the effects of climate change will necessitate rapid \nenh", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20505, which \nwill make it home to one in four people ­globally6. Addressing current food security challenges while reducing \nimport reliance, meeting rising food demand, and coping with the effects of climate change will necessitate rapid \nenhancements in agricultural productivity across the SSA region, particularly for staple cereals, which constitute \n50% of the current average calorie intake in developing ­countries2,7,8. While past studies have demonstrated that \nmany parts of SSA do indeed possess an immense potential to increase cereal yields through improved access \nto irrigation, fertilizers, and other ­inputs9,10, a host of demographic, agronomic, and climatic factors converge \nto exercise influence on yield outcomes. Yet, these factors are rarely considered together in studies evaluating \nthe extent to which SSA farmers can feasibly enhance cereal yields. Such integrated considerations are essential \nin SSA where most farmers practice rainfed agriculture on relatively small family-owned plots—80% of farms \nare less than 2 ­hectares11—and grow a diversity of crops that serve multiple purposes, including supporting \nhousehold nutrition, diversifying their marketable goods, and mitigating drought ­risk12.\nThe demographics of SSA farmers differ from those of developed countries, where large-scale agriculture is \nmore widely practiced. Previous work has examined how specific demographic characteristics can influence yield \noutcomes for SSA ­farmers13,14. For instance, one recent study showed that labor supply(in hours per day) per \nworker—who are household members—is low in SSA because farmworkers engage in other economic activities \nor primarily work in another sector of the ­economy14. Consequently, smallholder farms often have lower per \ncapita income as compared to larger ­farms15, smallholder yield has been found to inversely correlated with farm \nsize in ­Kenya12,16. Other studies examining the relationship between yield and gender of smallholder farmers \nhave described how male farmers may achieve better yields outcomes than female farmers because cultural \nnorms give them better land ownership and farming management rights (to acquire inputs, labor, and extension \nOPEN\n1Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. 2International Maize and \nWheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya. 3Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, \nUniversity of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA. 4", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2International Maize and \nWheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya. 3Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, \nUniversity of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA. 4Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota \n- Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA. 5Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, \nNewark, DE, USA. *email: oluoch@udel.edu", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 1, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "2\nVol:.(1234567890)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\nservices)13,15,17. Other work on smallholder demographics found that educated farmers have better uptake of \nimproved ­technologies13,15. All this previous work indicates that the demographics of smallholder farmers are \nessential to consider in developing effective strategies to improve food production in SSA.\nClimate variability and change continue to disrupt rainfed agriculture in SSA primarily through changing \nrainfall patterns, rising annual temperatures, and increasing extreme ­events18. Extensive research has examined \nthe relationship between climatic factors and rainfed yield outcomes in SSA. While climate change-induced \nchanges in SSA’s suitability for maize (Zea mays) production will vary by agro-ecological zone, the overarching \ntrend across agro-ecological zones indicates declining ­yields19. Rainfed production of cereals in SSA is projected \nto increase due to the use of improved technologies, but potentially attainable yields are likely to be reduced \ndue to changing climatic ­conditions20. Heavier rain will also increase nitrogen leaching, leading to reduced \nplant uptake and lower yields in nitrogen-deficient -soils21. Other studies focused on the effects of temperature \nhave generally found a negative relationship between temperatures and crop ­productivity3,22,23. However, rising \ntemperatures may increase yields in certain regions (i.e., the Ethiopian highlands and the continent’s southern \nregion)22. Smallholder farmers in SSA are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and \nchange and identifying opportunities to increase their yields can improve their adaptive ­capacity24,25.\nSub-optimal agronomic factors have led to lower yields compared to the attainable rain-limited crop \n­yield10,13,26. This yield gap between actual and attainable crop yields is estimated to be up to 80% for certain \ncrops in SSA ­countries27. This under-productivity is primarily the result of low uptake of improved inputs such \nas certified seeds and ­fertilizer12,15,28,29, a lack of economic incentives, or services, and insufficient capital for \nsmallholder ­farmers25. Further, improved farm equipment are often designed", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " of improved inputs such \nas certified seeds and ­fertilizer12,15,28,29, a lack of economic incentives, or services, and insufficient capital for \nsmallholder ­farmers25. Further, improved farm equipment are often designed with large farms in mind, unsuitable \nfor hilly and stony smallholder farms, and uneconomical except through rental schemes or farmers’ associations; \nas a result, their per capita ownership is also low in ­SSA30,42. Improving physical and economic access to these \ninputs and services is another vital component for enhancing smallholder productivity.\nAs evidenced above, a large body of work has sought to understand the relationship between smallholder \nyields and demographic, agronomic, or climatic factors in isolation. However, little work has evaluated the rela-\ntive importance of these three sets of factors together in ultimately determining rainfed yield outcomes. Here \nwe explore this knowledge gap by examining the case of rainfed maize in Kenya, where maize cultivation and \nconsumption is widespread, central to farmer livelihoods, and essential for national food security. We leverage \ndetailed, nationally representative farmer survey data for 2010 and 2013 to evaluate the relative importance \nof demographic, agronomic, and climatic factors in influencing maize yields. By examining the relative effect \nof these factors, this study aims to identify the factors that offer the greatest opportunity for improvements of \nrainfed maize yields in Kenya, to understand whether factors under farmers’ control can overcome the effects \nof climate variability on yields, and to draw broader inferences that are generalizable to similar challenges in \nrainfed production of other crops in Kenya and in other SSA countries.\nResults\nWe examined the significance and effect-size of each predictor variable within our three groupings: farmer’s \ndemographic information, agronomic factors, and climatic conditions (Fig. 1 and supplementary Table 3).\nModel coefficients for the farmer demographic variables had relatively small magnitudes, with farmer educa-\ntion having a significant (p = 0.0293) and modest relationship to maize yield. We find that one standard deviation \nFigure 1.   Effect sizes of variables with a significant relationship with normalized maize yield. The bars of \nsimilar color across each point (A) show the standard error. The effect sizes of climatic variables (B) with a \nsignificant relationship with normalized maize yield is", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "Effect sizes of variables with a significant relationship with normalized maize yield. The bars of \nsimilar color across each point (A) show the standard error. The effect sizes of climatic variables (B) with a \nsignificant relationship with normalized maize yield is non-linear because of the squared terms.", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 2, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "3\nVol.:(0123456789)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\nincrease in farmer’s education corresponded to a 0.049 unit increase in normalized maize yield. Gender, house-\nhold size, age, and farming experience showed no statistically significant association with maize yield.\nFarmer agronomic factors had the highest number of variables with a significant relationship with normal-\nized maize yield. Farmers who used fertilizer had a 0.362 unit increase in normalized maize yield, while those \nwho planted certified maize seeds were associated with 0.197 units higher productivity than non-certified maize \nseeds users. For every standard deviation increase in the maize plot size, normalized maize yield was reduced \nby 0.046—a confirmation of the inverse field size-yield ­relationship12,16. As the normalized time to the nearest \nmarket increased by a single unit, the normalized maize yield decreased slightly (− 0.048). At the same time, \nfarmers who had accessed extension services in the current or a previous season had increases of 0.116 and 0.195, \nrespectively, in normalized maize yield units. Access to credit, and distance to (government) extension services \ndid not significantly correlate with normalized maize yield (other factors, such as the use of certified seeds and \nthe application of fertilizer, through which access to credit and distance to extension services may impact maize \nyields may be influencing their effect-size and statistical significance).\nClimatic conditions showed significance in the associations of maximum temperature and normalized maize \nyield. The linear term of maximum temperature had the largest effect-size of 1.727. However, the squared maxi-\nmum temperature term had a negative effect of − 1.712, suggesting that the change we observed in normalized \nmaize yield due to maximum temperature has an optimal value beyond which temperature begins to adversely \nimpact yields. One standard deviation increase in annual precipitation linear term had a positive effect of 0.161, \nand the squared annual precipitation term had a marginally significant coefficient of 0.135.\nTo verify our results, we created models for each agroecological zone. Overall, the estimated coefficients \nwere consistent in size across all agroecological zones except the climatic", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " term had a marginally significant coefficient of 0.135.\nTo verify our results, we created models for each agroecological zone. Overall, the estimated coefficients \nwere consistent in size across all agroecological zones except the climatic variables, and the combined effect of \nagronomic factors had the most significant impact on normalized maize yield, followed by climatic conditions \nand, lastly, farmer demographics.\nDiscussion\nOur analysis provides new understanding of the relative importance of demographic, agronomic, and climatic \nfactors in influencing maize yields in Kenya and provides valuable insights into the ways in which these factors \nmay combine to determine yield outcomes for other crops and other countries. We find that agronomic factors \nhave a relatively high influence on yield compared to farmer demographics and offer the greatest opportunity \nfor improvements of rainfed maize yields and counteracting the effects of climatic factors. No single agronomic \nfactor has an effect-size large enough to offset the effects of climatic conditions, and adoption of agronomic \nfactors can be correlated—use of fertilizer and certified seed is an example (Table 1). Thus, a suite of agronomic \nfactors is necessary to improve smallholder yields while adapting to climate change (Fig. 2).\nWe show that farmers who plant certified seeds, apply fertilizer, or access extension services register higher \nmaize yields; however, due to lack of data, we did not study how the maize yield would vary depending on the \ntype of certified seed planted, how the farmer applied fertilizer, or what extension services they accessed. Efforts \nTable 1.   Correlation matrix of all variables.\nFarmer’s age\nFarmer’s \neducation-\nyears\nFarming \nexperience in \nyears\nHousehold size\nFarmer’s \nmarital status\nFarmer’s \ngender\nCredit \nservices\nPlanted \ncertified \nseeds\nAgricultural \nextension \n(Current)\nAgricultural \nextension \n(Previous)\nUsed fertilizer\nMaize plot \nsize\nDistance to \nextension \nservices\nTime to \nmarket\nMaximum \ntemperature\nPrecipitation\nFarmer’s Age\n1\nFarmer’s \nEducation-\nYears\n− 0.361\n1\nFarming \nExperience in \nYears\n0.7173\n − 0.3217\n1\nHousehold \nSize\n− 0.0306\n0", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "-\nYears\n− 0.361\n1\nFarming \nExperience in \nYears\n0.7173\n − 0.3217\n1\nHousehold \nSize\n− 0.0306\n0.0352\n− 0.0277\n1\nFarmer’s Mari-\ntal Status\n0.1644\n− 0.316\n0.1924\n− 0.152\n1\nFarmer’s \nGender\n− 0.1229\n0.3271\n− 0.1795\n0.1141\n− 0.8303\n1\nCredit \nServices\n− 0.0214\n0.1285\n− 0.0294\n0.043\n− 0.0478\n0.0162\n1\nPlanted Certi-\nfied Seeds\n− 0.0473\n0.1811\n− 0.0352\n0.0085\n− 0.1044\n0.1021\n0.0398\n1\nAgricultural \nExtension \n(Current)\n0.0432\n0.0935\n0.0122\n0.0247\n− 0.0486\n0.0278\n0.1138\n0.139\n1\nAgricultural \nExtension \n(Previous)\n0.0414\n− 0.0177\n0.0662\n− 0.0217\n− 0.0121\n0.0198\n− 0.0361\n0.0457\n0.0859\n1\nUsed Fertilizer\n− 0.0174\n0.1842\n− 0.0263\n− 0.0739\n− 0.044\n0.0614\n0.0436\n0.3948\n0.0428\n− 0.0061\n1\nMaize Plot \nSize\n0.0743\n0.0686\n0.0475\n0.1494\n− 0.0167\n0.0098\n0.035\n0.0212\n0.0737\n0.0414\n− 0.0823\n1\nDistance to", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\n0.1494\n− 0.0167\n0.0098\n0.035\n0.0212\n0.0737\n0.0414\n− 0.0823\n1\nDistance to \nExtension \nservices\n− 0.0257\n− 0.0364\n− 0.0452\n0.0479\n0.0061\n0.0029\n− 0.0274\n− 0.0551\n− 0.0035\n− 0.0743\n− 0.1128\n0.059\n1\nTime to \nMarket\n0.0081\n− 0.0402\n0.019\n0.0054\n0.0321\n− 0.0334\n− 0.0556\n− 0.0548\n0.0097\n0.025\n− 0.0855\n0.0326\n0.0761\n1\nMaximum \nTemperature\n− 0.015\n− 0.1055\n− 0.0549\n0.1853\n− 0.006\n3.00E− 04\n− 0.0154\n− 0.175\n0.0539\n− 0.0152\n− 0.2809\n0.1187\n0.0255\n0.0546\n1\nPrecipitation\n− 0.0769\n0.0465\n− 0.0816\n0.0245\n0.003\n− 0.003\n− 0.0211\n0.1579\n− 0.0092\n− 0.0424\n0.2949\n− 0.123\n0.0142\n− 0.0635\n− 0.4148\n1", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 3, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "4\nVol:.(1234567890)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\naiming to increase yields to feed the growing SSA population and mitigate the effects of climate variability and \nchange should focus on the factors that can most enhance productivity. By comparing the relative effect sizes of \neach demographic, agronomic, and climatic factor, we show that the mean relative effect-size of agronomic fac-\ntors is less than that of climatic factors, providing evidence that a suite of agronomic factors is needed to offset \nthe effects of climate variability, consistent with other ­studies10,31–35.\nUnlike climatic factors over which farmers have no control, agronomic factors are the set of factors most \nat agency of SSA farmers. Consequently, efforts to close maize yield gaps—and by extension, the yield gaps for \nother staple crops—should prioritize targeted improvements in agronomic factors. In particular, our findings \nprovide evidence that faster access to markets, providing extension services, planting certified seeds and applying \nfertilizer can have an immediate and positive effect on yield outcomes. We also confirm that smallholder farmers \nwith smaller fields tend to be more productive than those with larger fields, as smallholder farmer’s precision \nin implementing agronomic factors relates inversely to farm ­size16,30. We note though that our findings do not \ndownplay the effect of demographics in potentially improving yields. We find that farmers with higher levels of \neducation tend to have better yield outcomes, which can potentially be attributed to their increased awareness of \nfarming factors and market ­dynamics15. Other farmer demographics, such as gender, have been shown elsewhere \nto affect ­yield17 despite not having a significant relationship with yield in this study.\nWhile further research is needed to understand interactions of demographic, agronomic, and climatic factors \nin determining smallholder yields, our study points to multiple opportunities for holistic approaches to improve \nfarmer productivity and to offset adverse impacts of climate change and variability. While our findings are based \non rainfed maize cultivation in Kenya, we provide a generalizable methodology and set of results that can be \napplied to other crops and countries in SSA. Though smallholder options for improved productivity differ based \non the crop of interest, government policies, agro", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " maize cultivation in Kenya, we provide a generalizable methodology and set of results that can be \napplied to other crops and countries in SSA. Though smallholder options for improved productivity differ based \non the crop of interest, government policies, agroecological environments, and climatic conditions, our findings \nindicate that improved agronomic factors can play an important role in addressing the overarching challenges \nof population growth, yield gaps, and changing climate.\nMethods\nWe evaluated the sensitivity of rainfed maize yields in Kenya to demographic, agronomic, and climatic factors \nusing a linear model. We developed the linear model with farmer survey data collected in two calendar years \n(2010, 2013) covering six agro-ecological zones and thirty-two counties.\nStudy area. \nThe study focused on the main maize growing areas in Kenya. Kenya is in East Africa and has \nforty-seven counties (i.e., level-one administrative units). As of 2010, The forty-seven counties were districts \nunder the Kenyan national government. After the March 2013 general elections, the districts’ restructuring into \ncounties was completed in line with a devolved system of government outlined in a new Kenya constitution \npassed in 2010 (for consistency, the word counties is used even for 2010). The study covered thirty-two counties \nacross the southern part of Kenya. In 2010, these thirty-two counties accounted for 91% of total maize produc-\ntion (Fig. 3) and covered 92% of the total area under rainfed maize ­production36.\nSurvey: data collection, processing, and cleaning. \nThe International Maize and Wheat Improve-\nment Centre (CIMMYT), in collaboration with the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization \n(KALRO), conducted nationally representative household surveys in the major maize growing areas. The data \nand the surveys have been previously used to analyze trends in ­mechanization37 and fertilizer ­use33.\nThe 2010 and 2013 surveys used a two-stage stratified design with six maize agro-ecological zones (AEZs) as \n­strata31, census clusters or sublocations as primary sampling units, and maize growing households as secondary \nsampling units. The first survey, done in 2010, covered 120 sublocations with 1344 households. The second sur-\nvey, done in 201", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " clusters or sublocations as primary sampling units, and maize growing households as secondary \nsampling units. The first survey, done in 2010, covered 120 sublocations with 1344 households. The second sur-\nvey, done in 2013, interviewed the same farmers with a 20% replacement with randomly sampled ­households34.\nCIMMYT- Nairobi and KALRO surveyed the farmers per the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and \nthe data was provided for this study by CIMMYT-Nairobi, to the authors, after signing a confidentiality agree-\nment. The farmers provided all information in the survey after being taken through and signing a consent form. \nFigure 2.   Change in maize yield under selected agronomic factors. Lines show the changes in normalized \nmaize yield associated with a standard deviation increase in maximum temperature in the presence of different \ncombinations of agronomic factors.", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 4, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "5\nVol.:(0123456789)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\nWe combined data sets from the two surveys and removed personal identifying information and household \nobservations with missing entries. The combined cleaned data for the two years had 17 variables covering 2197 \nhouseholds -1099 in 2010 and 1098 in 2013- in 32 counties (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).\nThe 17 variables include one target variable (maize yield in kg ­ha−1) and sixteen independent variables. We \norganized the independent variables into three broad groups: farmer’s demographic information, agronomic fac-\ntors, and climatic conditions. There were six variables on farmer demographics: gender, marital status, age, size of \nhousehold, years in farming, and years of education; eight variables on agronomic factors: area under maize, use \nof certified maize seeds, use of fertilizer, access to extension services (in current and previous seasons), distance \nto the nearest extension service center, access to credit services, and, time to the nearest market; and two on \nclimatic conditions (i.e., variables largely out of a farmer’s control): maximum temperature (at 2 m height), and \ntotal precipitation in the growing season. The original dataset also included a minimum temperature variable, \nFigure 3.   Maize cultivation and survey counties. Gridded maize yield data (the year 2010) came from IFPRI 36. \nThe 32 counties covered by the survey are highlighted in light grey with dark brown boundaries, while the other \ncounties have dashed boundaries. Generated using ggplot2 package (version 3.3.5) R version 4.1.2 (Rstudio \nversion 2022.02.0 + 443 in windows 10).", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 5, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "6\nVol:.(1234567890)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\nwhich we excluded from the analysis, as it provided near-identical information to maximum temperature in \nexplaining yield variability. We mapped the spatial distributions of the independent variables to identify spatial \ntrends in the data (Supplementary Figs. 1–30).\nWe transformed each independent variable to the appropriate data structure before using them in the linear \nmodel. First, we added the squared terms of the climate variables (maximum temperature and precipitation) \nas new variables because of the non-linear relationship between climate and yield. Then, we set all binary vari-\nables (Table 2) as dummy variables with their absence as the reference value, set marital status as a categorical \nvariable of three levels, and normalized the numeric variables. We normalized numeric variables to remove the \neffects of measurement units in two steps: subtracting the mean from each observation and dividing this differ-\nence by the standard deviation. Before normalizing, the climate variables were divided into groups based on the \nagroecological zones, and each group normalized separately. Lastly, we calculated the variance inflation factor \n(VIF) to eliminate colinear independent variables based on a standard VIF threshold of five. The VIF value of \nall variables was less than the threshold, so we did not remove any.\nLinear model. \nUsing the normalized data, we developed a linear model to examine how sensitive maize \nyield (kg ­ha−1) was to farmers’ demographic information, agronomic factors, and climatic conditions ­following38 \n­and39. We computed the linear model and performed the data normalization and VIF calculation steps described \nin  \"Survey: data collection, processing, and cleaning\" section in R using functions from stats, fmsb, and R base \npackages. We organized the developed functions as a new R package and anonymized the data used in this study \nbefore including it in the R package, which we called “yieldest.”The R package is publicly available on ­GitHub40 \nand Harvard ­Dataverse41. Using normalized maize yield as the target variable and the normalized independent \nvariables, we could compare the magnitude of coefficients (i.e., effect size) in", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "dest.”The R package is publicly available on ­GitHub40 \nand Harvard ­Dataverse41. Using normalized maize yield as the target variable and the normalized independent \nvariables, we could compare the magnitude of coefficients (i.e., effect size) in the linear model to evaluate the \nrelative influence of corresponding predictor variables in determining rainfed maize yields.\nEquipment and settings. \nWe generated all figures in this manuscript using ggplot2 package R version \n4.1.2 (Rstudio version 2022.02.0 + 443 in windows 10) with data from our results and gridded maize yield data \n(the year 2010) ­from35.\nData availability\nThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Harvard Dataverse reposi-\ntory, https://​doi.​org/​10.​7910/​DVN/​UIWQQH. Contact corresponding author for data requests.\nReceived: 15 February 2022; Accepted: 26 August 2022\nReferences\n\t 1.\t FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and \nWHO. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4060/​ca969​2en (2020).\n\t 2.\t FAOSTAT, F. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. FAO (2022).\n\t 3.\t Chapman, S. et al. Impact of climate change on crop suitability in Sub-Saharan Africa in parameterized and convection-permitting \nregional climate models. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094086. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​ab9daf (2020).\nTable 2.   Summary of study data characteristics after standardization.\nVariable\nCategory\nUnit\nMinimum\nMaximum\nMedian\nSD (Standard Deviation)\nFarmer’s age\nFarmers’ demographics\nYears\n− 2.31\n3.17\n− 0.02\n1\nFarmer’s education\nFarmers’ demographics\nYears of schooling\n− 1.68\n4.07\n0\n1\n", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "\n− 2.31\n3.17\n− 0.02\n1\nFarmer’s education\nFarmers’ demographics\nYears of schooling\n− 1.68\n4.07\n0\n1\nFarmer’s experience\nFarmers’ demographics\nYears\n− 1.73\n3.52\n− 0.12\n1\nFarmer’s household size\nFarmers’ demographics\nPersons\n− 2.01\n5.51\n− 0.13\n1\nFarmer’s Relationship status\nFarmers’ demographics\n(Nominal scale: 0 to 3)\n0\n3\n0\n0.81\nFarmer’s gender\nFarmers’ demographics\n(Binary: 0 for female and 1 for male)\n0\n1\n1\n0.4\nThe farmer has access to credit\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\n(Binary: 0 for false and 1 for true)\n0\n1\n1\n0.5\nThe farmer planted certified seeds\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\n(Binary: 0 for false and 1 for true)\n0\n1\n1\n0.44\nAgricultural extension-current season\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\n(Binary: 0 for false and 1 for true)\n0\n1\n0\n0.5\nAgricultural extension-previous season\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\n(Binary: 0 for false and 1 for true)\n0\n1\n1\n0.24\nThe farmer used fertilizer\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\n(Binary: 0 for False and 1 for True)\n0\n1\n1\n0.5\nSize of plot under maize\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\nHectares\n− 0.68\n20.68\n− 0.29\n1\nDistance from the farm to the extension \nservices\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\nKilometers\n− 0.83\n12.34\n− 0.29\n1\nTime of travel from the farm to the \nmarket\nFarmers’ agronomic factors\nMinutes\n− 0.8\n17.59\n− 0.19\n1\nMaximum temperature in the maize \nfarm’s location (growing season)\nFarmers’ climatic conditions\nDegree Celsius\n−", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "onomic factors\nMinutes\n− 0.8\n17.59\n− 0.19\n1\nMaximum temperature in the maize \nfarm’s location (growing season)\nFarmers’ climatic conditions\nDegree Celsius\n− 3.1\n2.04\n0.24\n1\nTotal precipitation (growing season)\nFarmers’ climatic conditions\nMillimeters\n− 1.23\n5.96\n− 0.05\n1", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 6, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "7\nVol.:(0123456789)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\n\t 4.\t Davis, K. F., Downs, S. & Gephart, J. A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2, 54–65. https://​\ndoi.​org/​10.​1038/​s43016-​020-​00196-3 (2021).\n\t 5.\t UN-DESA. World population prospects 2019: Data booklet. UN. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18356/​3e9d8​69f-​en (2019).\n\t 6.\t Suzuki, E. World’s population will continue to grow and will reach nearly 10 billion by 2050. https://​blogs.​world​bank.​org/​opend​\nata/​worlds-​popul​ation-​will-​conti​nue-​grow-​and-​will-​reach-​nearly-​10-​billi​on-​2050 (2019).\n\t 7.\t Harrison, P. (ed.) World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: Summary Report (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United \nNations, 2002).\n\t 8.\t Wei, D. & Davis, K. F. Culturally appropriate shifts in staple grain consumption can improve multiple sustainability outcomes. \nEnviron. Res. Lett. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​ac32fc (2021).\n\t 9.\t Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​\nnatur​e11420 (2012).\n\t10.\t van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can Sub-Saharan Africa feed itself?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 14964. https://​doi.​", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "20 (2012).\n\t10.\t van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can Sub-Saharan Africa feed itself?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 14964. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​16103​\n59113 (2016).\n\t11.\t Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. \nWorld Dev. 87, 16–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2015.​10.​041 (2016).\n\t12.\t Ricciardi, V., Mehrabi, Z., Wittman, H., James, D. & Ramankutty, N. Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nat. \nSustain. 4, 651–657. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41893-​021-​00699-2 (2021).\n\t13.\t Assefa, B. T., Chamberlin, J., Reidsma, P., Silva, J. V. & van Ittersum, M. K. Unravelling the variability and causes of smallholder \nmaize yield gaps in Ethiopia. Food Secur. 12, 83–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12571-​019-​00981-4 (2020).\n\t14.\t McCullough, E. B. Labor productivity and employment gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 67, 133–152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​\n1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2016.​09.​013 (2017).\n\t15.\t Jayne, T. S. et al. Are medium-scale farms driving agricultural transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa?. Agric. Econ. 50, 75–95. \nhttps://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​agec.​12535 (2019).\n\t16.\t Muyanga, M. & Jayne, T", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 50, 75–95. \nhttps://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​agec.​12535 (2019).\n\t16.\t Muyanga, M. & Jayne, T. S. Revisiting the farm size-productivity relationship based on a relatively wide range of farm sizes: Evidence \nfrom Kenya. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 101, 1140–1163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ajae/​aaz003 (2019).\n\t17.\t Slavchevska, V., Doss, C. R., de la O Campos, A. P. & Brunelli, C. Beyond ownership: Women’s and men’s land rights in Sub-Saharan \nAfrica Oxford Dev. Stud. 49, 2–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13600​818.​2020.​18187​14 (2021).\n\t18.\t Derrick Ngoran, S., Dogah, K. & XiongZhi, X. Assessing the impacts of climate change on water resources: The Sub-Saharan Africa \nperspective. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 6(1), 185–193 (2015).\n\t19.\t Ramirez-Cabral, N. Y. Z., Kumar, L. & Shabani, F. Global alterations in areas of suitability for maize production from climate change \nand using a mechanistic species distribution model (CLIMEX). Sci. Rep. 7, 5910. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​017-​05804-0 \n(2017).\n\t20.\t Blanc, E. The Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa (Scientific Research Publishing, 2012).\n\t21.\t Falconnier, G. N. et al. Modelling climate change impacts on maize yields under low nitrogen input conditions in Sub-Saharan \nAfrica. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 5942–5964. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcb.​15261 (2020).\n\t22.\t Dale, A., Fant, C., Strze", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " 26, 5942–5964. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcb.​15261 (2020).\n\t22.\t Dale, A., Fant, C., Strzepek, K., Lickley, M. & Solomon, S. Climate model uncertainty in impact assessments for agriculture: A \nmulti-ensemble case study on maize in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth’s Future 5, 337–353. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​2017E​F0005​39 \n(2017).\n\t23.\t Talib, M. N. A., Ahmed, M., Naseer, M. M., Slusarczyk, B. & Popp, J. The long-run impacts of temperature and rainfall on agricul-\ntural growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 13, 595. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su130​20595 (2021).\n\t24.\t Campbell, B. M., Thornton, P., Zougmoré, R., van Asten, P. & Lipper, L. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart \nagriculture?. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8, 39–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2014.​07.​002 (2014).\n\t25.\t Stuch, B., Alcamo, J. & Schaldach, R. Projected climate change impacts on mean and year-to-year variability of yield of key small-\nholder crops in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Dev. 13, 268–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2020.​17607​71 (2021).\n\t26.\t Djurfeldt, G. et al. Using panel survey and remote sensing data to explain yield gaps for maize in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Land Use \nSci. 13, 344–357. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17474​23X.​2018.​15117​63 (2018).\n\t", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": ". Land Use \nSci. 13, 344–357. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17474​23X.​2018.​15117​63 (2018).\n\t27.\t GYGA. Global yield gap atlas. www.​yield​gap.​org/​home (2021).\n\t28.\t Kihara, J., Tamene, L. D., Massawe, P. & Bekunda, M. Agronomic survey to assess crop yield, controlling factors and management \nimplications: A case-study of Babati in Northern Tanzania. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 102, 5–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10705-​\n014-​9648-3 (2015).\n\t29.\t Senthilkumar, K. et al. Quantifying rice yield gaps and their causes in Eastern and Southern Africa. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 206, 478–490. \nhttps://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jac.​12417 (2020).\n\t30.\t Sheahan, M., Barrett, C. B. & Sheahan, M. B. Understanding the agricultural input landscape in Sub-Saharan Africa: Recent plot, \nhousehold, and community-level evidence. SSRN Scholarly Paper, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. https://​papers.​\nssrn.​com/​abstr​act=​24876​12 (2014).\n\t31.\t Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​\n11853​83 (2010).\n\t32.\t Hassan, R.M., Njoroge, K., Njore, M., Otsyula, R. & Laboso, A. Adoption patterns and performance of improved maize in Kenya. \nMaize technology development and transfer: A GIS application for research planning in Kenya. Cab International 107–136 (1998).\n\t33.\t Jena, P. R., De Groote, H., Nayak", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " maize in Kenya. \nMaize technology development and transfer: A GIS application for research planning in Kenya. Cab International 107–136 (1998).\n\t33.\t Jena, P. R., De Groote, H., Nayak, B. P. & Hittmeyer, A. Evolution of fertiliser use and its impact on maize productivity in Kenya: \nEvidence from multiple surveys. Food Secur. 13, 95–111 (2021).\n\t34.\t Ogada, M. J. & Nyangena, W. Complementarity of inorganic fertilizers and improved maize varieties and farmer efficiency in maize \nproduction in Kenya. Afr. Rev. Econ. Finance 11, 76–100 (2019).\n\t35.\t Wainaina, P., Tongruksawattana, S. & Qaim, M. Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of improved seeds, fertilizer, and \nnatural resource management technologies in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 47, 351–362 (2016).\n\t36.\t IFPRI. Global spatially-disaggregated crop production statistics data for 2010 version 2.0. International Food Policy Research \nInstitute, Ed., Harvard Dataverse. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7910/​DVN/​PRFF8V (2019).\n\t37.\t De Groote, H., Marangu, C. & Gitonga, Z. Evolution of agricultural mechanization in Kenya 401–422 (2020).\n\t38.\t DeFries, R., Mondal, P., Singh, D., Agrawal, I., Fanzo, J., Remans, R. & Wood, S. Synergies and trade-offs for sustainable agriculture: \nNutritional yields and climate-resilience for cereal crops in central India. In 2nd International Global Food Security Conference \n44–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gfs.​2016.​07.​001 (2016).\n\t39.\t Davis, K. F., Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh, D. & DeFries, R. Sensitivity of grain yields to historical climate variability in India. \nEnviron. Res. Lett. 14, 064013", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": " Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh, D. & DeFries, R. Sensitivity of grain yields to historical climate variability in India. \nEnviron. Res. Lett. 14, 064013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​ab22db (2019).\n\t40.\t Ong’are Oluoch, K. R Package used in the analysis: Can a suite of agronomic factors offset the effects of climate change and vari-\nability on rainfed maize production? New evidence from Kenya. https://​github.​com/​Kevin​Oluoch/​yield​est (2022).\n\t41.\t Oluoch, K. O. Replication data for: Can a suite of agronomic factors offset the effects of climate change and variability on rainfed \nmaize production? New evidence from Kenya. Harvard Dataverse. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7910/​DVN/​UIWQQH (2022)\n\t42.\t Makini, F., Mose, L., Kamau, G., Wawire, N., Salasya, B., Mulinge, W., Makelo, M. & Thuranira, E. Mechanization and skills devel-\nopment for productivity growth, employment and value addition: Insights from KENYA.", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 7, "layer": "pdf" }, { "text": "8\nVol:.(1234567890)\nScientific Reports | (2022) 12:16043 | \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19286-2\nwww.nature.com/scientificreports/\nAcknowledgements\nThis work was supported in part by the University of Delaware General University Research fund; and Borel \nGlobal Fellowship.\nAuthor contributions\nK.O.O., Z.J., and K.F.D. conceived the study, while H.G. and Z.M.G. contributed the data used in the study. K.O.O. \ndid the analysis, prepared the manuscript template, and prepared the tables and figures. H.G., Z.M.G., Z.J., and \nK.F.D. provided text for different sections. All authors edited and reviewed the manuscript.\nCompeting interests \nThe authors declare no competing interests.\nAdditional information\nSupplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​\n10.​1038/​s41598-​022-​19286-2.\nCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.O.O.\nReprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.\nPublisher’s note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and \ninstitutional affiliations.\nOpen Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International \nLicense, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or \nformat, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the \nCreative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this \narticle are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the \nmaterial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not \npermitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from \nthe copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.\n© The Author(s) 2022", "source": "s41598-022-19286-2.pdf", "page": 8, "layer": "pdf" } ]