afriveg - wur

Af

riVe

g

Herman de Putter and Mathew Ngoma

April 2009 report 10

Effect of fertilizer, starting material and planting distance on yield of tomato and profit of farmers practice fields in Arusha

AfriVeg report 10: April 2009 1

The AfriVeg Programme Management If you think you could contribute to the goals of AfriVeg in any way, please contact the Programme management. The Netherlands Mr. C.L.M. de Visser Applied Plant Research P.O. Box 430 8200 AK Lelystad The Netherlands Phone: +31 320 291691 Fax: +31 320 230479 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. A. de Jager Agricultural Economics Research Institute P.O. Box 29703 2502 LS Den Haag The Netherlands Phone: +31 320 291691 Fax: +31 320 230479 E-mail: [email protected]


Table of content

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5

2 Part I: Results of demo fields...................................................................................7 2.1 Materials and methods ..................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Raising of seedlings ............................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Cultivation ........................................................................................................ 10 2.1.3 Fertilization ....................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Harvesting ........................................................................................................ 11 2.1.5 Observations .................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Results.......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Soil characteristics............................................................................................ 13 2.2.2 Emergence....................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Harvest ............................................................................................................ 14 2.2.4 Profitability of treatments................................................................................... 17

3 Part II: Farmers observations at the demo fields .....................................................21 3.1 Results of farmers observations ...................................................................... 22

4 Part III: Results of Farmers practice fields...............................................................27 4.1 General information ........................................................................................ 27 4.2 Results.......................................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Cultivation ........................................................................................................ 28 4.2.2 Profitability ....................................................................................................... 30

5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 31

6 Recommendations................................................................................................ 33

Annex I. Farmers groups....................................................................................................... 35

Annex II. Lay out demo plot at Semu Kaaya Farm.................................................................... 36

Annex III. Profitability calculations of Semu’s practice field and treatments. ...............................38

Annex IV. Profitability calculations of Jackson’s practice field and treatments. ...........................43

Annex V. Records of Jackson Lema’s field.............................................................................. 48

Annex VI. Records of Semu Kaaya’s field................................................................................49


1 Introduction

The described activities in this report are part of the BOCI project “Development of commercial field vegetable production, distribution and marketing for the east African 10-006-050-02 and the project been started in 2007. The main purpose is to contribute to a vital rural economy of Tanzania and Kenya through the development of effective and integrated field vegetable chains for the domestic and regional market in East Africa. In Tanzania it was found that farmers mainly produce for bulk markets which are located in Dar es Salaam or in Mombasa. The latter being an export market. Since they can only compete on price farmers have to produce their product at the lowest cost price possible. Cost price need to be calculated in order to know the margins at which a crop is profitable or not. Cost price reduction can be achieved also by implementing better cultivation methods where production will increase while investment costs remain lower than the additional profit. As a part of the project experiments are implemented in the area of Arusha, Tanzania. This in order to demonstrate methods of cultivation improvements, cost price reduction and profit calculation. With the demonstrate techniques farmers should be able to produce their crop at a lower cost price per kilo thus becoming more competitive on the tomato market of Mombasa. In 2008 a first demonstration on fertilizer amounts and use of healthy starting material showed a positive effect on yield. In the second half of 2008 a second demo started to show the effect of fertilizer rates, planting distance and starting material on yield and profit. This report describes the results of this demonstration. The lay-out of this report is as follows:

1) Reporting on the results of the demoplot on demonstrating the effect of starting material and fertilizer use.

2) Reporting on analyzing profitability of tomato cultivation based on registration of three farmers practice fields.

3) Reporting on the farmers observations of the demo plot


2 Part I: Results of demo fields

The two demo fields were situated at tomato farms near Ngarenanyuki, a small village situated in the valley between Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Meru in Northern Tanzania, 80 km north of Arusha (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Location of the Ngarenanyuki tomato production area. The demo fields were located at the farm of Semu Kaanya and Jackson Lema. Both are experienced farmers in tomato, sweet pepper, hot pepper, beans and maize cultivation. Annually approximately 5 acres in two cycles are cultivated at their farms. In the demo fields the next treatments were compared:

- Planting density: 30 x 30 cm and 60 x 60 cm - Fertilizer rates (optimal, low, high) - Starting material (tray transplants, improved transplant raising, standard farmers

practice)

2.1 Materials and methods

2.1.1 Raising of seedlings Tomato cv. Onyx was sowed on September 22nd , 2008 (Table 1). Seedlings were raised from seeds were sown in a nursery bed at Semu’s farm (Fig. 2) and seedlings were raised inside a nursery construction in Arusha (Fig. 5). At Semu’s farm two treatments in four replications were carried out namely (I) farmers practice (FP) (Fig. 3), and (II) improved farmers practice (IFP) (Fig. 4). With improved farmers practice a nursery bed was prepared and 30 g/m2 NPK 17-17-17 fertilizer was added. After incorporating the fertilizer in the soil, lines or rows were drawn with a stick in the bed at a distance of 15 cm between rows. Seeds were placed in rows at a distance varying from 2 to 4 cm. With improved


farmers technique at sowing a drench with 1 g/l Ridomil (40g/kg metalaxyl and 640 g/kg mancozeb) and 2 ml/l Thionex) (endosulfan 350g/l) was applied at a rate of 0.5 liter spray mix per m2 nursery. A drench with Ridomil was applied again 3 days after emergence in the nursery and in the field immediately after transplanting. With farmers practice technique, most commonly used in Ngarenanyuki, a nursery bed was prepared and seeds were sown broadcasted in the bed and afterwards mixed through the soil by hand. Inside the nursery, a construction made of wooden poles, screen net and plastic, plug seedlings and raised in a modular tray with 150 cells. Potting soil used for tray filling consisted of 1 volume part cococoir and 1 volume part sterilized soil. During raising 0.5 g/l N-P-K fertilizer was added to the irrigation water.

replication 1 replication 2 replication 3 Farmers practice

9 g seeds

Improved farmers practice

6 g seeds

Farmers practice

9 g seeds


6.5 g seeds

Farmers practice

9 g seeds

0.9 m

4 meter replication 4 replication 3 Improved

farmers practice 7 g seeds

Farmers practice

9 g seeds


7 g seeds

Figure 2. Layout of nursery beds at Semu.

Figure 3. Farmers practice treatment with broadcasting of seeds.


Figure 4. Improved farmers practice with sowing in rows.

Figure 5. Transplant raised in trays inside a nursery construction. Table 1. Starting material raising treatments. Treatment Sowing date Amount of

seeds Method Location

FP April 15 36 g broadcasted Semu IFP April 15 26.5 g in rows plus drenching Semu Tray April 15 19 g trays Arusha


2.1.2 Cultivation Transplanting took place on November 9th , 2008. Per replication raised transplants were taken from the nursery beds and transplanted at the respective replications of both demo fields. Treatments were tested in four replications with individual plots of 3 x 4.2 m. Two different planting densities were tested, the first one being 60 x 60 cm and the second one 30 x 30 cm. Therefore, respectively per plot either 35 or 140 plants were planted. At transplanting seedlings were lifted out of the nursery bed by using a knife and transported to the field. One day before transplanting, on November 8th , the field was flooded and ploughed. After transplanting, irrigation was frequently applied as flood/furrow irrigation. Crop protection was carried out as common practice.

2.1.3 Fertilization Common practice is to fertilize the field once with either NPK 17-17-17, calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) or urea. In case the farmer has sufficient cash a second application is applied. Usually only nitrogen is applied since compared to NPK fertilizers, the fertilizers urea and CAN are cheap fertilizers and applied rates range from 0 to 135 kg nitrogen per hectare. In this experiment two fertilizer strategies per planting distance were compared. The F2 improved strategy was based on optimal rates that a tomato crop requires and on the optimal timing where the crop requires the nutrients. With the F1 practice only two times a fertilizer was applied at both distances with a rate of 20 g per plant of NPK and with 20 g per plant of CAN. At the distance of 30 x 30 cm with this strategy an overdose of nitrogen was applied to a amount of 978 kg nitrogen per hectare. With this treatment the effect of excess nitrogen on yield and profit was shown. At the planting distance of 60 x 60 this F1 strategy represented the farmers practice in case enough cash is available to purchase the fertilizers. Commonly lower amounts then in this demonstration are applied by the farmers. With F1 and F2 strategy at 60 x 60 cm the nitrogen rates at both strategies was about the same. Only timing of application differed between the two strategies present at this planting distance and also were the rates for phosphate and potassium different. F1: Two applications strategy for both 30 x 30 and 60 x 60 plant arrangement.

- -1st application at transplanting with NPK 17-17-17 (20 g/plant) - -2nd application at start first flower buds with CAN (20 g/plant)

F2: Improved strategy for 60 x 60 cm plant arrangement

- At transplanting: o 0.4 kg/plant farm yard manure incorporated in plant hole (10 ton/ha) o 20 g/plant Triple super phosphate incorporated in bed just before planting.

- 10 days after transplanting: o 12.5 g/plant NPK 17-17-17 placed at 10 cm from stem and incorporated in

soil. - At visible stage of flower buds

o 12.5 g/plant Calcium ammonium nitrate placed at 20-30 cm from stem and incorporated in soil.

- At Fruit set o 12.5 g/plant NPK 17-17-17 placed at 10 cm from stem and incorporated in

soil.


F2: Improved strategy for 30 x 30 cm plant arrangement - At transplanting:

o 0.1 kg/plant farm yard manure incorporated in plant hole (10 ton/ha) o 5 g/plant Triple super phosphate incorporated in bed just before planting.

- 10 days after transplanting: o 3 g/plant NPK 17-17-17 placed at 10 cm from stem and incorporated in soil.

- At visible stage of flower buds: o 3 g/plant Calcium ammonium nitrate (27% N) placed at 20-30 cm from stem

and incorporated in soil. - At fruit set:

o 3 g/plant NPK 17-17-17 placed at 10 cm from stem and incorporated in soil. Table 2. Rates of inorganic fertilizers per treatment kg/ha kg/acre Planting distance

Fertilizer treatment

N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O

30 x 30 F1 978 378 378 396 153 153 F2 203 363 113 82 147 46 60 x 60 F1 245 94 94 99 38 38 F2 208 368 118 84 149 48

2.1.4 Harvesting At the demo field at Jackson’s farm harvest took place on 7, 17 and 28 February. The demo field at Semu’s farm was harvested on 10, 20 and 28 February and 3 March. Only red and marketable fruits were picked per harvest date.

Figure 6. Harvest at Semu’s demo field.

2.1.5 Observations


Soil characteristics On September 22 one soil sample was taken of the nursery, on September 29 one sample was from the potting soil used for filling the trays for seedling raising, and on November 7, per replication of the production field one sample was taken. Samples were stored in a cold room at approximately 5oC and per airfreight send to the Den Haan laboratory at Wateringen The Netherlands for analyzing on nutrient content. Percentage seedlings and density In the nursery, number of emerged seedlings after 10 and 20 days was observed, and percentage of seedlings was calculated as number of present seedlings divided by the number of sowed seeds times hundred. Total surface of the nursery beds used for seedling raising was established and the average number of seedlings per square meter was calculated. Cultivation During cultivation all inputs, material and labor, and costs were recorded. Harvest Total marketable yield in kg and harvested number of fruits per plot was recorded. Based on the surface of the plot and the yield in kg, yield in kg per m2 was calculated.


2.2 Results

2.2.1 Soil characteristics For tomato cultivation al samples showed low levels for the nutrients NO3, S, P, Ca and Mg when compared to target levels for a high yielding crop of 40 tons per hectare or 16 tons/acre (Table 3). Potting soil showed a slightly too high pH for transplant raising. Nitrogen content in the potting soil was not too low considering that transplants must not be overfed with nitrogen to prevent too luxuriant growth where problems with diseases such as damping off can occur. In the field nursery located at Semu’s farm pH level was quite high and nitrogen content was very low. Potassium content (K) was at target level. In general nutrient content at the field located at Semu’s farm was higher as compared to the level present at Jackson’s farm. At both locations pH level was quite high with 7.7 and 7.6 compared to the target of 6.5. At Semu’s field nitrogen level was 4.7 mmol/l and was only 0.9 mmol/l below the target level. At Jackson’s field on the other hand nitrogen level was very low with 0.8 mmol/l. Sodium chloride (NaCl) content at Semu’s field was higher as the level present at Jackson’s field. Phosphate content at both fields was very low. Also Magnesium content at both fields was below the target level for an optimal tomato cultivation. Potassium level at Semu’s field was above the target level and at Jackson’s farm it was below the target level. Table 3. Nutrient content of the soil. unit Target Potting soil Field nursery Field at Semu Field Jackson pH pH-H2O 6.5 6.3 7.7 7.7 7.6 ec mS/cm 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.3 NO3 (mmol/l) 5.6 3.3 1.8 4.7 0.8 Cl (mmol/l) 0.4 1.4 5.3 <0.2 S (mmol/l) 2.5 0.6 0.4 1.4 <0.2 HCO3 (mmol/l) 0.5 <0.2 0.9 1.1 1.0 P (mmol/l) 0.15 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.07 NH4 (mmol/l) 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 K (mmol/l) 2.2 1.6 2.3 3.9 1.3 Na (mmol/l) 2.8 2.2 6.5 0.9 Ca (mmol/l) 2.5 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 Mg (mmol/l) 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.7 <0.2 Fe (umol/l) 7 0.7 5.5 4.6 7.6 Mn (umol/l) 0.8 <0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 Zn (umol/l) 1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 B (umol/l) 7 8 9 24.0 18.5 Cu (umol/l) 0.8 <0.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 Mo (umol/l) <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Si (mmol/l) 0.41

2.2.2 Emergence When comparing the different treatments used for seedling raising the percentage emergence after 10 and 20 days was at seedling raising in trays the highest. Between farmers practice (FP) and improve farmers practice (IFP) no differences in emergence percentages were present.


At IFP plant density was the lowest with 263 seedlings per square meter. At tray transplants the density was twice as high with 532 seedlings per square meter. Table 4. Plant density and emergence at different nurseries.

seeds seedlings (%) nr per m2 Nursery

surface (m2) gram amount 10 days 20 days

FP 14.4 36 11,252 26.0 43.4 339 IFP 14.4 26 8,282 27.6 45.8 263

Tray 19 6,000 84.0 85.1 532 LSD 0.05 11.5 23.5

p= <0.001 0.005

2.2.3 Harvest At the demo field located at Jackson’s farm the number of marketable fruits was the highest at the treatment of 30 x 30 cm with F2 fertilizer regime and with transplants raised with the improved farmers practice (Table 5). The number was significant higher compared to the number present at the other treatments. Between the other treatments no significant differences were present. The number of marketable fruits at 60 x 60 cm was in general lower than that at 30 x 30 cm. Between transplant raising methods no differences were present. Table 5. Number of marketable fruits per square meter at Jackson’s field.

Treatment (T) Transplant (S) distance fertilizer FP IFP tray Mean

30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 27.9 9.3 23.0 20.1 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 21.2 50.0 16.1 29.1 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 19.9 10.7 8.7 13.1 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 8.5 15.2 16.1 13.2 Mean 19.4 21.3 16.0 18.9 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 8.6 7.5 14.9 p= 0.002 0.35 <0.001

No significant effects were present at the demo field located at Semu’s farm (Table 6). On average 46 fruits per square meter were harvested, which was more then twice as the number present at Jackson’s farm. The number of fruits per square meter present at 60 x 60 cm was not different from the number per square meter at 30 x 30 cm. At 30 x 30 cm distance with F1 treatment no higher fruit numbers were present compared to F2 treatment at 30 x 30. Also between transplant raising methods no significant differences in fruit number per square meter were present.


Table 6. Number of marketable fruits per square meter at Semu’s field. Treatment (T) Transplant (S)

distance fertilizer FP IFP tray Mean 30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 42.2 50.6 44.8 45.9 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 40.5 57.6 50.1 49.4 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 39.9 48.8 47.0 45.2 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 42.4 42.7 44.5 43.2 Mean 41.3 49.9 46.6 45.9 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 12.1 10.4 20.9 p= 0.77 0.25 0.96

Marketable weight of tomatoes grown with transplants raised with the improved farmers practice at 30 x 30 cm planting distance and in combination with the F2 fertilizer treatment was compared to the other treatments significant higher (Table 7). Marketable weight at other treatments was not significant different from each other. On average the marketable weight at 30 x 30 cm planting distance was slightly higher then the weight present at 60 x 60 cm treatments. With F2 fertilizer treatment at 30 x 30 cm distance a significant higher yield on average was present compared to the average present at F1 at 30 x 30. However, only at IFP transplants a higher weight was present with F2 while at the other transplant treatments the weight at F2 was lower compared to the F1 treatments. At 60 x 60 cm no differences in fertilizer treatment were present. Table 7. Marketable weight per square meter at Jackson’s field.


30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 2.5 0.8 1.9 1.7 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 1.9 3.9 1.4 2.4 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 1.8 1.1 0.8 1.2 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 Mean 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.7 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 0.68 0.59 1.18 p= 0.004 0.32 <0.001

At the field located at Semu’s farm no significant differences between either planting distance, transplants or fertilizer treatments were present (Table 8). Average marketable yield was with 4.1 kg per square meter clearly higher then the yield of 1.7 kg per square meter present at the demo field located at Jackson’s farm.


Table 8. Marketable weight per square meter at Semu’s field. Treatment (T) Transplant (S)


No significant differences were observed in fruit weight of fruits harvested at the demonstration field located at Jackson’s farm (Table 9). The average fruit weight was 93 gram. Table 9. Average fruit weight of marketable fruits at Jackson’s field.


30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 97.4 89.6 81.0 89.3 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 86.4 83.6 95.6 88.5 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 90.5 111.8 93.7 98.7 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 95.3 96.3 94.6 95.4 Mean 92.4 95.3 91.2 93.0 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 10.8 9.3 18.6 p= 0.19 0.66 0.14

At the demo field located at Semu’s farm the average fruit weight at the planting distance of 60 x 60 cm with F1 fertilizer regime was with 91.7 gram significant higher then the average fruit weight at the other treatments (Table 10). Other fertilizer and planting distance treatments showed a similar fruit weight around 86 gram. No differences in fruit weight were present between transplant treatments. Table 10. Average fruit weight of marketable fruits at Semu’s field.



A significant lower percentage of present plants was present at 30 x 30 cm with F1 fertilizer then at 30 x 30 cm with F2 or 60 x 60 cm with F2 (Table 11). The percentage at 30 x 30 cm with F1 was lower but not significant lower then the percentage at 30 x 30 cm with F2 treatment. No


significant differences were present between 30 x 30 cm F2 fertilizer and 60 x 60 cm with F1 or F2 fertilizer treatments. No effect of transplant use on present plants at harvest was observed. Table 11. Present plants at harvest as percentage of original transplanted seedlings at

Jackson’s field. Treatment (T) Transplant (S)


At the demo field located at Semu’s farm at 60 x 60 cm planting distance at both fertilizwr treatments on average a significant higher percentage of plants was present compared to the percentage at 30 x 30 cm (Table 12). At 60 x 60 cm the percentage amounted for about 90% of the transplanted plants while at 30 x 30 cm less then 50% was present. Between fertilizer regimes per planting distance no significant differences in percentage of present plants were observed. Use of transplants did not show any effect on present plants at harvest. Table 12. Present plants at harvest as percentage of original transplanted seedlings at

Semu’s field. Treatment (T) Transplant (S)

distance fertilizer FP IFP tray Mean 30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 39.4 42.4 48.4 43.4 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 49.2 38.9 34.2 40.8 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 91.4 95.6 96.6 94.5 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 96.1 93.7 89.4 93.1 Mean 69.1 67.7 67.2 68.0 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 7.2 6.2 12.4 p= <0.001 0.8 0.15

2.2.4 Profitability of treatments Since profit is a more important aspect to the farmers then yield, also per treatment profit was calculated at which fertilizer costs, cost of labor needed for additional fertilizer applications and labor needed for harvest were taken into account Also required seeds per planting distance was calculated based on the required plants for each planting density and on observed emergence percentage present at the farmers practice method. Other factors like pesticide use and labor for other activities such as irrigation were considered the same for all treatments. Used inputs and required labor were observed at practice fields near to the demonstration plots. At Semu’s farm the cultivation took place at the same field were the demonstration plot was present and started also at the same date with sowing. At Jackson’s farm the practice field was 500 meter further


down the field as were the demonstration plot was present and sowing started 2 weeks earlier. Yield levels in crates per acre per planting distance and fertilizer treatments were calculated based on average yield per square meter of all transplant raising methods. Because results were practical the same for the transplant raising methods no distinction was made between these treatments. Results of the farmers practice field of Semu and Jackson are presented in Part III of this report. Based on those practice results, profit per different treatments was calculated. Annex III and IV are presenting the profit calculation sheets for the different treatments based on results observed at the farmers practice field and demonstration fields at Semu’s and Jackson’s farm. Fertilizer costs and net profit of the demo fields and practice fields are presented in table 13 and 14. At the farmers’ field of Semu fertilizer nitrogen amounts 25 kg per hectare or 10 kg per acre (Table 13). At the 30 x 30 cm with F1 in total an amount of 978 kg/ha or 396 kg/acre nitrogen was applied which is about 4 times the amount applied at the other treatments where about 200 to 245 kg/ha or 99 kg/acre was applied. Net profit of the Semu’s practice field was Tsh 672,230 per acre. All demo field treatments, with the exception of 30 x 30 cm with F1 fertilizer treatment, resulted in higher profits then the current farmers practice. The highest profit was present at the planting distance of 60 x 60 cm in combination with fertilizer F1 treatment. A slightly higher amount of nitrogen was applied at this treatment and a higher yield level was present while total fertilization cost were still lower as compared to the F2 treatment at 60 x 60 cm. A negative result in profit was present at the planting distance of 30 x 30 cm with F1 fertilizer treatment. This was mainly due to the high fertilization costs while yield level was similar to the yield present at the other treatments. With 60 x 60 cm and F1 fertilizer treatment seed costs and fertilization costs were lower since only 2 fertilizer applications were present an yield level was not different then at the 60 x 60 cm planting with F2 fertilizer treatment, thus resulting in a higher profit. When comparing the results of the two planting distances in combination with the F2 fertilizer treatment, the 30 x 30 cm distance resulted in a better profit then the 60 x 60 cm. At 30 x 30 cm the profit was Tsh 1,184,680 per acre while at 60 x 60 the profit was Tsh 361,820 less then that at 30 x 30 cm. A higher yield was present at a planting distance of 30 x 30 cm as compared to the yield at 60 x 60 cm, while for both distances fertilization costs were comparable. Table 13. Overview of used nitrogen, harvested crates per acre, revenue, fertilizer and

harvest costs and net profit at farmers practice or at different fertilizer practices and planting distances at the demo field at Semu’s farm.

40 x 40 30 x 30 60 x 60 Farmer F1 F2 F1 F2

N (kg/ha) 25 978 203 245 208 crates/acre 206 354 385 376 339

revenue 2,155,300 3,326,000 3,689,000 3,594,000 3,202,000 fertilizer costs 192,985 1,935,200 854,640 509,600 872,350 harvest costs 107,250 183,300 200,460 195,780 176,670

net profit 672,230 - 204,520 1,184,680 1,556,660 822,860 At Jackson’s farm net profit was for all treatments negative (Table 14). This was mainly due to the fact that production was low and market prices were low at that time, and therefore resulting in low revenues. With planting at 30 x 30 cm and F2 fertilizer regime the net profit was the highest compared to the other treatments. However, compared with the farmers practice the result was less good.


Yield levels were higher with 30 x 30 cm and F2 fertilizer then at farmers practice but not high enough to compensate for the higher fertilizer costs. F1 at 60 x 60 cm resulted in a better profit then the F2 treatment at a same planting distance. Also F2 at 30 x 30 cm resulted in a better profit then the profit of F1 and F2 treatment where comparable nitrogen amounts were applied. At F1 at 60 x 60 cm a similar amount of nitrogen was applied as at F2. Fertilizer costs with F1 treatment were 350,000 Tsh per are less as compared to the latter. Table 14. Overview of used nitrogen, harvested crates per acre, revenue, fertilizer and

harvest costs and net profit at farmers practice or at different fertilizer practices and planting distances at the demo field at Jackson’s farm.

30 x 30 30 x 30 60 x 60 Farmer F1 F2 F1 F2

N (kg/ha) 25 978 203 245 208 crates/acre 178 162 223 114 121

revenue 967,390 1,167,800 1,608,900 831,200 882,350 fertilizer costs 138,100 1,935,200 854,640 509,600 872,350 harvest costs 38,000 27,360 37,810 19,190 20,330

net profit - 637,917 - 2,180,206 - 780,236 - 933,276 - 1,258,076


3 Part II: Farmers observations at the demo fields

During the cultivation of the demo fields farmers frequently visited the field to observe the results. During one visit at harvest the farmers were asked to mark the fields based on a rating scale presented in table 15. They were asked to rate the field on crop appearance, estimated production and fruit quality on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. Except for planting distance, which was visible to the famers, beforehand not known to them were the treatments per plot. Table 15. Scale for rating treatments by farmers Mark Description 1= very poor 3= poor 5= average 7= good 9= excellent

At the demo field at Jackson’s farm 9 farmers were present for the observations and at Semu’s farm 11 farmers were present.

Figure 7. Field observations during a visit of the demo field by the farmers.


Additionally during the farmers visit to the fields the following questions were asked too: - Would you buy extra fertilizer if it would result in higher profits? - Would you raise seedlings with new methods, even if it costs more time and money,

but would result in higher profits? - What is in your opinion the main problem in tomato cultivation?

3.1 Results of farmers observations Crop appearance at Jackson’s demo field was ranked slightly higher then average with 5.7 (Table 16). Farmers observed that the treatment IFP at 30 x 30 cm showed a better appearance then the other treatments at 30 x 30 cm. At both planting distances the treatment F2 was higher ranked then the F1 treatments. No differences in appearance between planting distance was present. At the F2 treatment with 60 x 60 cm a better appearance of plants obtained from tray transplants was present compared to farmers practice. At the other treatments no better appearance of tray transplants was observed. Table 16. Crop appearance as observed by farmers at Jackson’s field.


30 x 30 F1 (978 kg/ha) 5.4 5.2 5.6 5.4 30 x 30 F2 (203 kg/ha) 5.8 6.5 5.9 6.0 60 x 60 F1 (245 kg/ha) 5.4 5.0 5.3 5.2 60 x 60 F2 (208 kg/ha) 5.7 6.1 6.3 6.0 Mean 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 (T) (S) (T*S) LSD 0.05 0.31 0.27 0.54 p= <0.001 0.51 0.01

Overall crop appearance at Semu’s field was marked with a 7.8, which is in between good and excellent (Table 17). At Semu’s demo field no differences in crop appearance was observed in starting material. When comparing F2 fertilizer treatments no differences between planting distance were observed. Also the excess nitrogen treatment F1 at 30 x 30 was lower ranked then the F2 treatment at the same planting distance. At 60 x 60 cm the F2 treatment was marked with a higher rank then the F1 treatment. Table 17. Crop appearance as observed by farmers at Semu’s field.




A production slightly higher then average at Jackson’s demo field was estimated by the farmers (Table 18). Within a same planting distance no differences in estimated production were noted. At 60 x 60 cm the farmers estimated the production of the F1 treatment lower then the production of the F2 treatments at 60 x 60 cm. Table 18. Estimated production observed by farmers at Jackson’s field.



Average mark for estimated production at Semu’s field was 7.8 which is good to excellent (Table 19). Estimated production of plants obtained from tray transplants was almost significant higher then the estimated production at plants from farmers practice or improved farmers practice transplants. At both 30 x 30 cm and 60 x 60 cm the F2 treatment was given a higher mark than the F1 treatment. At 30 x 30 cm the F2 treatment was not different from the F2 treatment at 60 x 60 cm. Table 19. Estimated production observed by farmers at Semu’s field.



An average to good fruit quality was present at Jackson’s field (Table 20). No differences in fertilizer treatment, planting material or planting distance were observed.


Table 20. Fruit quality observed by farmers at Jackson’s field. Treatment (T) Transplant (S)


A good to excellent fruit quality was present at Semu’s field (Table 21). At Semu’s field no differences in fertilizer treatment, planting material and planting distance were observed on fruit quality. Table 21. Fruit quality observed by farmers at Semu’s field.



Farmers at both demo fields mentioned that main constraints in tomato cultivation were especially transport costs and the broker position in the tomato chain (Table 22). Because the broker has a monopoly position in the chain, costs of the broker are relatively high according to the farmers. When supplying to a market in Mombasa or Dar es Salaam instead of selling directly at the farm, a broker fee of Tsh 1,000 per crate has to be paid at the moment. Considering that the market price is Tsh 10,000 to Tsh 20,000 per crate this means that 5 to 10 % of the product price are broker fee costs. Another constraint observed by the farmers is the rather long period between moment of selling and moment of receiving the cash from the middlemen. Cultivation constraints are presence of pests and diseased, lack of knowledge how to control those and high prices of pesticides and fertilizers. Besides, last season water was scarce resulting in some fights over water use with Masai. By the farmers also felt is that the profit of tomato cultivation is low and that labor costs are high.


Table 22. Constraints in tomato cultivation mentioned by the farmers during the demo field visit.

Total Jackson Semu Transport prices 12 6 6 Brokers (monopoly/costs) 12 5 7 Diseases 9 7 2 Water availability 9 5 4 High fertilizer price 8 6 2 Pests (spidermites/whitefly/thrips) 8 4 4 No markets 8 4 4 Low profit 7 4 3 Pesticide price is high 6 4 2 Weather conditions 5 5 0 Low fruit quality 5 4 1 Lack of knowledge on cultivation 4 3 1 Hard work 3 0 3 low investment 2 1 1 labor costs 2 0 2 Low knowledge 1 1 0 Lack of storage facilities 1 1 0 lack of advisory services 1 1 0 Small plots/small farms 1 0 1 Long waiting period before getting money for sold product 1 0 1 No mechanization available 1 0 1 Masai troubles 1 0 1


4 Part III: Results of Farmers practice fields

4.1 General information Farmers practice fields were located at the farms of Jackson Lema and Semu Kaaya (Table 23). Table 23. General information on farmers’ fields.

Jackson Lema

Semu Kaaya

Location : Ngarenanyuki Ngarenanyuki Crop : Tomato Tomato Variety: Onyx Onyx Sowing date : 9 September 22 September Amount of seeds sown : 50 g 50 g Nr of nursery beds: 3 2 Surface of nursery beds: 9.3 m2 21.3 m2 Method of sowing: in lines broadcasted Transplanting date : 29 October 9 November Harvest date start: 9 January 10 February Harvest date end: 21 January 7 March Growing days: 134 134 days Area Transplanted : 360 / 0.09 700 / 0/17 m2/acre Total plants: 9,250 8,540 plants per field Planting distance: 30 x 30 40 x 40 cm Plants per: 11.1 / 44,921 6.5 / 26,305 plants per m2/acre

At the two farms data was collected regarding all inputs, used materials and labor, of one tomato production field (Annex V and VI). Surface of observed tomato fields was respectively 0.09 and 0.175 acre for Jackson’s and Semu’s field. Collection of prices of used materials was relatively easy. Labor costs were more difficult to assess. Per farmer and per activity a different system for payment is present. For instance, at Jackson’s farm laborers were paid per hour for picking, while Semu paid them a fixed price to finish the complete field. Prices per hour and per harvest also were variable. At the first harvest Semu paid each person 1,000 Tsh while at the last harvest persons were paid 2,000 Tsh. Based on these records, profit was calculated per acre for comparison of the two farms (Annex III and IV). In some cases different units were used in the calculation then the units originally recorded at the farmer. Use of inputs per farm was analyzed. For comparison both farmers used the same variety Onyx.


Figure 8. Production field of Semu Kaaya.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Cultivation Ten days after sowing at the farmers nursery bed an emergence of 30 to 32% was present (Table 24). After 20 days the percentage was lower as compared to the results after 10 days and only 24 to 26% emergence was observed. Plants had died due to several reasons such as water shortage, overwatering, diseases and pests being factors that are playing an important role in this. At Semu’s farm where transplants were raised in lines the density after 20 days was 201 plants per square meter while at Jackson’s farm where seedlings where raised with broadcast sowing the density was 441 plants per square meter. Table 24. Results of transplant raising at Semu’s and Jackson’s farm. Emergence (%) Plant density (pl/m2) Farmer Raising system after 10 days after 20 days after 10 days after 20 days Semu broadcasted 31.7 24.3 262 201 Jackson sowed in lines 30.5 26.2 513 441

For the cultivation of tomatoes Jackson’s used mainly urea and foliar fertilizer applied together with the pesticide applications (Table 25). Total nitrogen per acre applied was 50.14 kg. With foliar fertilizer only very low amounts of N, P and K were applied. Cost of nitrogen applied with


urea is Tsh 1,333 per kg and much cheaper of the cost of foliar fertilizer where the costs of one kg nitrogen is Tsh 46,429. Table 25. Fertilizer use at Jackson’s plot.

amount (kg/acre) date days after planting

fertilizer kg/acre N P2O5 K2O

costs per kg N

26 November 28 Urea (45%) 111 kg 50 - - 1,333 Tsh 30 December 51 Foliar 14-11-33 1 l 0.14 0.11 0.33 46,429 Tsh At Semu’s practice field NPK, Calcium ammonium nitrate and foliar fertilizers were applied (Table 26). In total 25.16 kg nitrogen per acre was applied. Cost of 1 kg nitrogen applied with NPK is Tsh 6,235 kg and 1 kg nitrogen applied with CAN costs Tsh 4,074. Foliar applied nitrogen cost Tsh 57,142 per kg. Table 26. Fertilizer use at Semu’s plot.

amount (kg/acre) date days after planting

fertilizer kg/acre N P2O5 K2O

costs per kg N

9 November 0 NPK 17-17-17 57 kg 9.7 9.7 9.7 6,235 Tsh 30 November 21 CAN (27%) 57 kg 15.4 - - 4,074 Tsh 30 December 51 Foliar 14-11-33 400 ml 0.06 0.04 0.13 57,142 Tsh During cultivation Jackson used Abamectine to control mites and Thionex (endosulfan) and Selecron (profenofos) to control insects. Both endosulfan and profenofos are broad spectrum insecticides killing a broad range of insects including beneficials. Endosulfan classified as US EPA I, is a highly toxic organochlorine pesticide and is highly toxic to the environment and to the user. To prevent early and late blight Bayleton (triadimefon) was applied once. Table 27. Pesticide use at Jackson’s farm. Date Volume water (l/ acre) Pesticide Rate per liter Rate per acre 12 November 1124 Abamectine 0.5 ml 562 ml 26 November 1124 Bayleton 0.6 g 675 g 17 December 2248 Thionex 0.5 ml 1124 ml 31 December 2248 Selecron 2.5 ml 5621 ml At Semu’s field Abamectine was applied to control mites and the pyrethroid deltamethrin to control insects (Table 28). Farmerzeb (mancozeb), Bayleton (triadimefon) and Ridomil (metalaxyl with mefenoxam) were applied to prevent early and late blight. Table 28. Pesticide us at Semu’s farm. Date Volume water in l/ ha Pesticide Rate per liter Rate per hectare28 November 1156 Deltamethrin 1 ml 1156 ml Farmerzeb 2.5 ml 2890 ml6 December 1156 Abamectine 0.5 ml 578 ml24 December 1156 Abamectine 0.5 ml 578 ml Bayleton 0.6 g 694 g Ridomil 1 g 1156 g Deltamethrin 1.15 ml 1329 ml5 February 1156 Ridomil 2 g 2312 g Deltamethrin 1.15 ml 1329 ml


4.2.2 Profitability Profitability of Jackson’s field was negative with – Tsh 637,917 while profitability of Semu’s field was Tsh 577,185 per acre (Table 29). Gross profit at Jackson’s field was substantial lower as compared to the gross profit of Semu’s field. Firstly, yield levels at Jackson’s field was with 178 crates per acre only 86% of the yield present at Semu’s field. Also prices per crate were for Jackson lower then compared to the price Semu received from the middlemen. On average Semu received Tsh 10,450 per crate while Jackson received Tsh 5,450 per crate on average. With a crate price similar to that of Semu, Jackson too would have a positive profit. Total production costs per acre where at both fields almost similar. Since Jackson cultivated the tomatoes at a higher density as Semu did, seed costs per acre were higher as compared to Semu’s costs for seeds. Fertilizer costs were similar for both fields. Jackson used the cheaper urea as compared to Semu who used NPK and calcium ammonium nitrate fertilizers. Labor costs at Semu were much higher then those at Jackson. At Semu’s farm labor costs accounted for almost 44% while at Jackson’s farm labor costs accounted for 17%. Wages per laborer were higher at Semu and more time was spend on irrigation, fertilizer application and weeding. Other costs were at Jackson’s field high with a share of 53% in the total production costs, due to the costs of petrol needed for irrigation. In general seed costs and fertilizer costs are less then 15% of the production costs, while labor costs and other costs are more then 65% of the total costs. Table 29. Profit and costs per acre and share of different costs in total production costs. Jackson Semu Amount in Tsh % in total costs Amount in Tsh % in total costs Gross profit 967,390 2,155,300 Net profit -637,917 577,185 Total production costs 1,605,306 1,578,115

seed costs 99,900 6.2 51,300 3.3 fertilizer costs 138,100 8.6 141,440 9.0

pesticide costs 239,620 14.9 324,435 20.6 labor cost 274,646 17.1 690,500 43.8

other costs 853,040 53.1 370,440 23.5


5 Conclusions

Starting material Raising method only influenced the amount of seeds needed for production. Once healthy seedlings were planted out in the field, starting material did not influence yield levels. With farmers practice (FP) and improved farmers practice (IFP) 55% of used seeds are wasted, while with tray seedlings 85% of the seeds turns into a usable seedling. With FP and IFP seeds are sown in a nursery bed in the open field where conditions are not optimal for germination and raising. Presence of soil borne pathogens and insects can reduce the emergence. Water stress also is a limiting factor which can occur since the soil is very sandy and water retention is low. With raising seedlings in a tray raising conditions are more optimal where substrate is made from components ideal for transplant raising. Seedlings are raised in a special nursery construction where also the climate is more optimal then in the open field where hard rains and sun shine can reduce emergence. With IFP and FP more seeds are lost then and therefore based on seed price only with IFP and FP costs are double of that present at tray seedlings. In theory with the use of tray transplants transplant shock is less as compared to bare root transplants as present with FP and IFP raising methods and will result in lower loss of plants after transplanting. However, in the demo fields no effect of transplant use on missing plants were observed. Fertilizer treatments At both fields where the experiments were carried out in general the nutrient levels are low. Only nitrate (NO3 ) and potassium (K) level at Semu’s field were good. However, at his field high NaCl levels were present as well. Both fields also showed high pH levels indicating very alkaline soils. At those fields uptake of essential nutrients by the plant can be inhibited due to the high pH level. At the practice field of Semu a total of 62.9 kg/ ha nitrogen was applied with broadcasted fertilizers and the total amount was lower then at Jackson’s field where in total 125 kg/ha nitrogen was applied with foliar applications only. Recommended is to apply 180 – 200 kg/ha nitrogen and only 65% of this advice is applied at Jackson’s field and 32% at Semu’s field. Average yield levels were ranging from to 8.8 ton per hectare with a higher yield present at Semu’s field then at Jackson’s field. This might be related to the better soil status present at Semu’s field and application of P and K as well, while at Jackson’s farm no substantial amounts of P and K were applied. Fertilizer treatments ranging from 200 to 900 kg nitrogen per ha seemed not to influence yield at the demo plot. Nevertheless, compared to the yield of the practice field at Semu’s farm located next to the demo field and planted at the same date and where only 63 kg nitrogen per ha was applied yield level was at least 65 % higher. With four application dates of NPK fertilizers in combination with CAN and applying triple super phosphate no better results were obtained as compared to two applications dates with NPK and CAN only. However, to increase the yield potential it is important to apply P and K, this since soil status is too low, at least for P at both farms and for K at Jackson. Planting distance With 60 x 60 cm planting distance at both plots a similar yield was present compared to 30 x 30 cm plant arrangement. At Semu’s field at 30 x 30 cm 50% of the plants were dead at the time of harvesting and did not yield fruits. Fertilizer costs remained the same even though fertilizers were applied per plant rather then broadcasted per surface unit. Most fertilizers were applied before 20 days after transplanting when most plants were still present. Strangely enough at the 60 x 60


cm arrangement only 5% of the plants were dead at the time of harvest while at the 30 x 30 about 50% died.. Not known is the cause of this difference. Perhaps water availability might be a factor although same amounts of water are most likely required to obtain a same production. Farmers observations and tomato cultivation constraints Farmers visiting the demo plots concluded the same based on visual inspection. Semu’s field was regarded as a better field then Jacksons field. Between fertilizers treatment in combination with planting distances not much differences in production and crop appearance were observed. Market and then mainly the position of middlemen or brokers is considered by the farmers as a limiting factor in tomato cultivation. Cultivation aspects such as prices of inputs and lack of knowledge in tomato cultivation are bottlenecks as well. Due to several reasons farmers consider tomato cultivation as a low profit crop and it needs a lot of labor. Profitability Results of the practice fields showed that yield levels are low at both fields. Average yield levels were respectively 178 and 205 crates per acre. This means that when considering a crate weight of 43 kg a yield of 8.8 ton/ha was present at the most. With tomato yield levels of 20 ton are possible and in the area yields of 250 crates or almost 11 ton are sometimes present. The practice field of Semu resulted in a positive profit since yield levels and average price per crate was higher then at Jackson’s field. It seems that to obtain a positive profit, farm gate price should be around Tsh 10,000 while for export to Mombasa market prices must be even higher to compensate for the additional broker costs and transport costs compared to direct selling at the farm. When farm gate price is on average Tsh 10,000 then it seems worthwhile to invest in more inputs such as fertilizers. With F1 fertilizer treatment at 30 x 30 cm yield is comparable to the other treatments while fertilization costs are much higher resulting in lower profits. With F1 fertilizer at 60 x 60 a higher profit is present due to the fact that less labor is required. Compared to the results of the practice field at Semu’s farm where only low amounts of NPK were applied, with both F1 and F2 fertilizer strategies, yield levels increased and also profitability was twice as high then at the practice field.


6 Recommendations

Starting material Once seeds have been raised to good transplants in the field no significant differences in yield and fruit quality were observed. With raising seeds in trays however, less seeds are wasted. With raising seedling son nursery beds 50 to 45 % of the seeds are wasted while with tray transplants 85% of the seeds results in a good seedling. With open pollinated varieties seed costs are approximately Tsh 100,000 (€ 65) per acre and account for about 3 to 6 % in the production costs. Taking this into mind it seems not worthwhile to invest in methods to improve starting material since also yield levels were not influenced by improved raising methods. When raising transplants with trays costs might be reduced to Tsh 50,000 based on used seeds only. Not included is the additional investment required for purchasing trays, potting soil and a nursery construction. However, when a construction can be organized where one central nursery is used to provide a farmers group of seedlings then costs per seedling will be reduced. Also when introducing more expensive hybrid seeds of which the price of seeds can be double of the price of open pollinated varieties techniques to reduce seed losses can be more profitable. Fertilizer use In general the level of nutrients in the soils is low. Especially phosphorous levels are low while nitrogen was at on site very low and at the second site just below target levels. Also potassium level was at one site very low and at the other site above target level. At both sites pH level was with about 7.5 too high and measurements to lower the pH to 6.5 are advisable. In general nitrogen amount applied to the crop is low. Advised is to apply 180 to 200 kg nitrogen per hectare, 200 – 250 kg P2O5 and 100 to 200 kg per ha K2O. At both test sites nitrogen application was too low with at the highest 125 kg nitrogen but without any phosphorous or potassium application. At the other site phosphorous and potassium were also applied together with nitrogen but at low levels, about 25 kg per hectare was applied. Since fertilizer costs are about 10% of the total cost price it is worthwhile to increase fertilizer levels this because costs fro crop protection and irrigation must still be made regardless yield levels. On the other hand when yield levels increase also more labor for harvesting and cost for crates need to be paid. These additional costs must remain lower then the investment in fertilizers. When tomato price is Tsh 10,000 per crate then it is worthwhile to invest in fertilizers. With tomato prices below that then it will be hard to earn the additional investment back. At the site of Jackson where prices of about 5,500 per crate were received profitability remained negative also when introducing the fertilizer strategies. Crop protection In tomato cultivation presence of red spider mites, white fly and aphids can reduce yield levels. To control those pests farmers apply broad spectrum insecticides. Broad spectrum insecticides such as endosulfan and profenofos are more toxic to the user and environment then more novel insecticides like Abamectine, neonicotinoid like imidacloprid and pyrethroids. Based on the farmers’ comments that knowledge is lacking, it is advisable to pay more attention to training of the farmers in right use of pesticides and pest control.


Annex I. Farmers groups

Semu Kaaya group 1. Fuataeli Zakayo 2. Sarijaeli Sawe 3. Bakari Juma 4. Ernest Erasto 5. Lamek Kaaya 6. Hamphrey Thomas 7. John Kaaya 8. Peter Marko 9. Zebedayo John 10. Zakaria Emanuel Jackson Lemu group 1. Mary Wilson 2. Mbunja Kaaya 3. Ismael Japhet 4. Godfrey Sumaeli 5. Mosse Kanaeli 6. John Nnko 7. Kundaeli Mbise 8. Julius Elias 9. Peter John 10. Aminieli Nnko


Annex II. Lay out demo plot at Semu Kaaya Farm

Dimensions are: 36.00 x 16.80 = 604.80 m2 Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 1:F2

30x30 Farmers prac

13:F2 30x30 Farmers prac

25:F2 60x60 Impr


2:F1 30x30 Tray



38:F2 30x30 Tray

3:F2 60x60 Tray

15:F2 30x30 Tray

27:F1 60x60 Impr

39:F1 30x30 Impr


16:F1 30x30 Tray

28:F1 30x30 Tray




29:F2 30x30 Tray


3 m 6:F2 30x30 Impr

18:F1 30x30 Impr

30:F1 60x60 Tray

42:F1 30x30 Tray

7:F1 60x60 Tray

19:F1 60x60 Impr


43:F2 60x60 Impr


20:F2 30x30 Impr


44:F1 60x60 Impr

9:F1 30x30 Impr

21:F1 60x60 Tray

33:F2 30x30 Impr

45:F2 30x30 Impr

10:F2 30x30 Tray



46:F1 60x60 Tray

11:F1 60x60 Impr

23:F2 60x60 Impr

35:F1 30x30 Impr

47:F2 60x60 Tray

12:F2 60x60 Impr

24:F2 60x60 Tray

36:F2 60x60 Tray


4.20 m Red marked fields = fertilisation scheme F2. Blank fields = farmers practice fertilisation Normal print indicates 60 x 60 Italic bold prints indicates 30 x 30 cm planting distance


Demoplot at Jackson

Dimensions are: 36.00 x 16.80 = 604.80 m2

Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 1:F1

30x30 Farmers prac

13:F2 30x30 Impr

25:F2 30x30 Impr

37:F2 60x60 Tray

2:F2 60x60 Tray

14:F2 60x60 Tray

26:F1 60x60 Impr

38:F2 30x30 Impr

3:F1 30x30 Impr

15:F1 60x60

Farmers prac

27:F1 30x30

Farmers prac

39:F1 30x30

Farmers prac 4:F1

60x60 Impr

16:F2 30x30

farmers prac

28:F2 30x30

Farmers prac

40:F2 60x60 Impr

5:F2 60x60

Farmers prac

17:F1 30x30 Tray

29:F2 60x60 Impr

41:F1 60x60

Farmers prac 3 m 6:F1

60x60 Farmers prac

18:F2 60x60

Farmers prac

30:F1 30x30 Tray

42:F1 60x60 Tray

7:F2 30x30 Tray

19:F1 30x30 Impr

31:F2 30x30 Tray

43:F1 30x30 Impr

8:F2 30x30

Farmers prac

20:F2 60x60 Impr

32:F1 60x60 Tray

44:F2 60x60

Farmers prac 9:F1

60x60 Tray

21:F1 60x60 Impr

33:F1 60x60

Farmers prac

45:F1 30x30 Tray

10:F2 30x30 Impr

22:F2 30x30 Tray

34:F2 60x60

Farmers prac

46:F2 30x30 Tray

11:F1 30x30 Tray

23:F1 60x60 Tray

35:F1 30x30 Impr

47:F1 60x60 Impr

12:F2 60x60 Impr

24:F1 30x30

Farmers prac

36:F2 60x60 Tray

48:F2 30x30

Farmers prac 4.20 m

Red marked fields = fertilisation scheme F2. Blank fields = farmers practice fertilisation Normal print indicates 60 x 60 Italic bold prints indicates 30 x 30 cm planting distance


Annex III. Profitability calculations of Semu’s practice field and treatments.

Profit calculation of tomato production at Semu’s farm per acre based on a production of a practice field of 0.175 acre. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 7 28.6 crates 8,000 228,800 week 8 102.9 crates 12,000 1,234,800 week 9 57.2 crates 10,000 572,000 week 10 17.1 crates 7,000 119,700 2,155,300Production costs seeds 285 g 180 51,300 51,300Fertilization N-P-K 17-17-17 57 kg 1,060 60,420 CAN (27% N) 57 kg 1,100 62,700 Easy grow 14-11-33 2.29 l 8,000 18,320 141,440Crop protection Abamectine 1.14 l 100,000 114,000 Bayleton 0.69 kg 15,000 10,350 Deltamethrin 3.77 l 23,500 88,595 Farmerzeb 2.86 kg 9,000 25,740 Ridomil 3.43 kg 25,000 85,750 324,435Labor Sowing 1 day 2,000 2,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 4570 l 15 68,550 Irrigation 17 times 17,200 292,400 Transplanting 86 hr 135 11,610 Fertilizer application 2 acre 17,200 34,400 Fertilizer application 1143 l 15 17,145 Weeding 3 acre 45,715 137,145 Picking 275 hr 390 107,250 690,500Crates 205.8 crates 1,800 370,440 370,440Total production costs (b) 1,578,115Net profit (a-b) 577,185


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F1 at 30 x 30 cm based on recorded inputs of Semu’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 7 90 crates 8,000 720,000 week 8 103 crates 12,000 1,236,000 week 9 81 crates 10,000 810,000 week 10 63 crates 7,000 441,000 week 11 17 crates 7,000 119,000 3,326,000 Production costs seeds 475 g 180 85,500 85,500 Fertilization N-P-K 17-17-17 880 kg 1,060 932,800 CAN (27% N) 880 kg 1,100 968,000 1,900,800 Crop protection Abamectine 1.14 l 100,000 114,000 Bayleton 0.69 kg 15,000 10,350 Deltamethrin 3.77 l 23,500 88,595 Farmerzeb 2.86 kg 9,000 25,740 Ridomil 3.43 kg 25,000 85,750 324,435 Labor Sowing 1 day 2,000 2,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 4570 l 15 68,550 Irrigation 17 times 17,200 292,400 Transplanting 86 hr 665 57,190 Fertilizer application 2 acre 17,200 34,400 Weeding 3 acre 45,715 137,145 Picking 470 hr 390 183,300 794,985 Crates 354 crates 1,200 424,800 424,800 Total production costs (b) 3,530,520 Net profit (a-b) -204,520


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F2 at 30 x 30 cm based on recorded inputs of Semu’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 7 100 crates 8,000 800,000 week 8 129 crates 12,000 1,548,000 week 9 83 crates 10,000 830,000 week 10 58 crates 7,000 406,000 week 11 15 crates 7,000 105,000 3,689,000 Production costs seeds 475 g 180 85,500 85,500 Fertilization TSP 220 kg 1,640 360,800 N-P-K 17-17-17 264 kg 1,060 279,840 CAN (27% N) 132 kg 1,100 145,200 785,840 Crop protection Abamectine 1.14 l 100,000 114,000 Bayleton 0.69 kg 15,000 10,350 Deltamethrin 3.77 l 23,500 88,595 Farmerzeb 2.86 kg 9,000 25,740 Ridomil 3.43 kg 25,000 85,750 324,435 Labor Sowing 1 day 2,000 2,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 4570 l 15 68,550 Irrigation 17 times 17,200 292,400 Transplanting 86 hr 665 57,190 Fertilizer application 4 acre 17,200 68,800 Weeding 3 acre 45,715 137,145 Picking 514 hr 390 200,460 846,545 Crates 385 crates 1,200 462,000 462,000 Total production costs (b) 2,504,320 Net profit (a-b) 1,184,680


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F1 at 60 x 60 cm based on recorded inputs of Semu’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 7 90 crates 8,000 720,000 week 8 124 crates 12,000 1,488,000 week 9 84 crates 10,000 840,000 week 10 65 crates 7,000 455,000 week 11 13 crates 7,000 91,000 3,594,000 Production costs seeds 120 g 180 21,600 21,600 Fertilization N-P-K 17-17-17 220 kg 1,060 233,200 CAN (27% N) 220 kg 1,100 242,000 475,200 Crop protection Abamectine 1.14 l 100,000 114,000 Bayleton 0.69 kg 15,000 10,350 Deltamethrin 3.77 l 23,500 88,595 Farmerzeb 2.86 kg 9,000 25,740 Ridomil 3.43 kg 25,000 85,750 324,435 Labor Sowing 1 day 2,000 2,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 4570 l 15 68,550 Irrigation 17 times 17,200 292,400 Transplanting 22 hr 665 14,630 Fertilizer application 2 acre 17,200 34,400 Weeding 3 acre 45,715 137,145 Picking 502 hr 390 195,780 764,905 Crates 376 crates 1,200 451,200 451,200 Total production costs (b) 2,037,340 Net profit (a-b) 1,556,660


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F2 at 60 x 60 cm based on recorded inputs of Semu’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 7 91 crates 8,000 728,000 week 8 105 crates 12,000 1,260,000 week 9 71 crates 10,000 710,000 week 10 60 crates 7,000 420,000 week 11 12 crates 7,000 84,000 3,202,000 Production costs seeds 120 g 180 21,600 21,600 Fertilization TSP 220 kg 1,640 360,800 N-P-K 17-17-17 275 kg 1,060 291,500 CAN (27% N) 137.5 kg 1,100 151,250 803,550 Crop protection Abamectine 1.14 l 100,000 114,000 Bayleton 0.69 kg 15,000 10,350 Deltamethrin 3.77 l 23,500 88,595 Farmerzeb 2.86 kg 9,000 25,740 Ridomil 3.43 kg 25,000 85,750 324,435 Labor Sowing 1 day 2,000 2,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 4570 l 15 68,550 Irrigation 17 times 17,200 292,400 Transplanting 86 hr 665 57,190 Fertilizer application 4 acre 17,200 68,800 Weeding 3 acre 45,715 137,145 Picking 453 hr 390 176,670 822,755 Crates 339 crates 1,200 406,800 406,800 Total production costs (b) 2,379,140 Net profit (a-b) 822,860


Annex IV. Profitability calculations of Jackson’s practice field and treatments.

Profit calculation of tomato production at Jackson’s farm per acre based on a production of a practice field of 0.09 acre. volume unit unit price amount Yield week 1 55.6 crates 4,000 222,400 week 2 66.7 crates 5,500 366,850 week 3 44.5 crates 6,500 289,250 week 4 11.1 crates 8,000 88,890 967,390Production costs seeds 555 g 180 99,900 99,900Fertilization Urea (foliar) 111 kg 600 66,600 Easy grow (foliar) 11 kg 6,500 71,500 138,100Crop protection Abamectine 0.55 l 100,000 55,000 Bayleton 0.67 kg 15,000 10,050 Thionex 1.11 l 7,000 7,770 Selecron 5.56 l 30,000 166,800 239,620Others petrol for irrigation 444 l 1,200 532,800 532,800Labor Sowing 0.5 day 2,000 1,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 133 hr 250 33,250 Irrigation 10 x 444 hr 250 111,000 Transplanting 167 hr 188 31,396 Fertilizer application 0 hr 250 0 Weeding 2 times 20,000 40,000 Picking 200 hr 190 38,000 274,646Crates 177.9 crates 1,800 320,240 320,240Total production costs (b) 1,605,306Net profit (a-b) -637,917


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F1 at 30 x 30 cm based on recorded inputs of Jackson’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 5 98 crates 7,000 688,800 week 6 53 crates 7,500 399,000 week 7 10 crates 8,000 80,000 1,167,800 Production costs seeds 475 g 180 85,500 85,500 Fertilization N-P-K 17-17-17 880 kg 1,060 932,800 CAN (27% N) 880 kg 1,100 968,000 1,900,800 Crop protection Abamectine 0.55 l 100,000 55,000 Bayleton 0.67 kg 15,000 10,050 Thionex 1.11 l 7,000 7,770 Selecron 5.56 l 30,000 166,800 239,620 Others Petrol for irrigation 444 l 1,200 532,800 532,800 Labor Sowing 0.5 day 2,000 1,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 133 hr 250 33,250 Irrigation 10 x 444 hr 250 111,000 Transplanting 167 hr 188 31,396 Fertilizer application 2 acre 17,200 34,400 Weeding 2 times 20,000 40,000 Picking 144 hr 190 27,360 298,406 Crates 162 crates 1,800 290,880 290,880 Total production costs (b) 3,348,006 Net profit (a-b) -2,180,206


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F2 at 30 x 30 cm based on recorded inputs of Jackson’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 5 147.7 crates 7,000 1,033,900 week 6 61.2 crates 7,500 459,000 week 7 14.5 crates 8,000 116,000 1,608,900 Production costs seeds 475 g 180 85,500 85,500 Fertilization TSP 220 kg 1640 360,800 N-P-K 17-17-17 264 kg 1,060 279,840 CAN (27% N) 132 kg 1,100 145,200 785,840 Crop protection Abamectine 0.55 l 100,000 55,000 Bayleton 0.67 kg 15,000 10,050 Thionex 1.11 l 7,000 7,770 Selecron 5.56 l 30,000 166,800 239,620 Others Petrol for irrigation 444 l 1,200 532,800 532,800 Labor Sowing 0.5 day 2,000 1,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 133 hr 250 33,250 Irrigation 10 x 444 hr 250 111,000 Transplanting 167 hr 188 31,396 Fertilizer application 4 acre 17,200 68,800 Weeding 2 times 20,000 40,000 Picking 199 hr 190 37,810 343,256 Crates 223 crates 1,800 402,120 402,120 Total production costs (b) 2,389,136 Net profit (a-b) -780,236


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F1 at 60 x 60 cm based on recorded inputs of Jackson’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 5 60.3 crates 7,000 422,100 week 6 39.4 crates 7,500 295,500 week 7 14.2 crates 8,000 113,600 831,200 Production costs seeds 120 g 180 21,600 21,600 Fertilization N-P-K 17-17-17 220 kg 1,060 233,200 CAN (27% N) 220 kg 1,100 242,000 475,200 Crop protection Abamectine 0.55 l 100,000 55,000 Bayleton 0.67 kg 15,000 10,050 Thionex 1.11 l 7,000 7,770 Selecron 5.56 l 30,000 166,800 239,620 Others Petrol for irrigation 444 l 1,200 532,800 532,800 Labor Sowing 0.5 day 2,000 1,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 133 hr 250 33,250 Irrigation 10 x 444 hr 250 111,000 Transplanting 167 hr 188 31,396 Fertilizer application 2 acre 17,200 34,400 Weeding 2 times 20,000 40,000 Picking 101 hr 190 19,190 290,236 Crates 114 crates 1,800 205,020 205,020 Total production costs (b) 1,764,476 Net profit (a-b) -933,276


Profitability calculation per acre of treatment F2 at 60 x 60 cm based on recorded inputs of Jackson’s practice field and harvest results of the demo field treatment. volume unit unit price amount Gross profit (a) Yield week 5 63.4 crates 7,000 443,800 week 6 38.1 crates 7,500 285,750 week 7 19.1 crates 8,000 152,800 882,350 Production costs seeds 120 g 180 21,600 21,600 Fertilization TSP 220 kg 1640 360,800 N-P-K 17-17-17 275 kg 1,060 291,500 CAN (27% N) 137.5 kg 1,100 151,250 803,550 Crop protection Abamectine 0.55 l 100,000 55,000 Bayleton 0.67 kg 15,000 10,050 Thionex 1.11 l 7,000 7,770 Selecron 5.56 l 30,000 166,800 239,620 Others petrol for irrigation 444 l 1,200 532,800 532,800 Labor Sowing 0.5 day 2,000 1,000 Nursery watering 10 day 2,000 20,000 Chemical application 133 hr 250 33,250 Irrigation 10 x 444 hr 250 111,000 Transplanting 167 hr 188 31,396 Fertilizer application 4 acre 17,200 68,800 Weeding 2 times 20,000 40,000 Picking 107 hr 190 20,330 325,776 Crates 121 crates 1,800 217,080 217,080 Total production costs (b) 2,140,426 Net profit (a-b) -1,258,076


Annex V. Records of Jackson Lema’s field

Total surface is 360 m2 or 0.09 acre.

Date Activity inputs amount unit unit

price total22-09-2008 sowing seeds 50 g 180 9,000 labour 0.04 day 2,000 80 watering 1 day 2,000 2,00029-10-2008 transplanting labour 15 hr 180 2,700divers irrigation (1x week) petrol (10 x 4) 40 l 1,200 48,000 10 times irrigation labour 40 hr 250 10,00012-11-2008 crop protection Abamectin with 100 l water 50 ml 100 5,000 labour 3 hr 250 75026-11-2008 Bayleton with 100 l 60 g 15 900 labour 3 hr 250 75017-12-2008 Thionex with 200l 100 ml 7 700 labour 3 hr 250 75031-12-2008 Selecron with 200 l 500 ml 30 15,000 labour 3 hr 250 750before flowering weeding labour 0.09 acre 20,000 1,800early fruiting stage weeding 0.09 acre 20,000 1,80026-11-2008 fertilization Urea (foliar spray with Bayleton) 10 kg 600 6,000

17-12-2008 fertilization Booster (foliar spray with thionex) 1 kg 6,500 6,500

crates 16 crate 1,800 28,800harvest 9-1-2009 5 crate 4,000 20,000 5 hr 187.5 938 16-1-2009 6 crate 5,500 33,000 5 hr 187.5 938 18-1-2009 4 crate 6,500 26,000 5 hr 187.5 938 21-1-2009 1 crate 8,000 8,000 5 hr 187.5 938revenues 87,000total input costs: 145,030(of which is labour) (19,450) profit -58,030

Prices in Tanzanian Shillings 1290 Tsh = 1 USD 1700 Tsh = 1 Euro


Annex VI. Records of Semu Kaaya’s field

Total surface is 720 m2 or 0.18 acre.

Date Activity inputs amount unit unit

price total22-9-2008 sowing seeds 50 g 180 9,000 labor 0.2 day 2,000 400 watering 1.75 day 2,000 3,5009-11-2008 transplanting labor 15 hrs 135 2,025divers irrigaton (1x week) labor 17 times 3,000 51,000

28-11-2008 crop protection Deltamethrin 200 ml 24 4,700 Farmerzeb 500 g 9 4,500 labor 200 l 15 3,000

6-12-2008 Abamectine 100 ml 100 10,000 labor 200 l 15 3,000

24-12-2008 Abamectine 100 ml 100 10,000 Bayleton 120 g 15 1,800 Ridomil 200 g 25 5,000 Deltamethrin 230 ml 24 5,405 labor 200 l 15 3,000

5-2-2009 Ridomil 400 g 25 10,000 Deltamethrin 230 ml 24 5,405 labor 200 l 15 3,0003 times weeding labor 0.53 acre 45,750 24,019

9-11-2008 fertilization NPK 17-17-17 10 kg 1,060 10,600 labor 0.175 acre 17,200 3,010

30-11-2008 CAN (26%) 10 kg 1,100 11,000 labor 0.175 acre 17,200 3,010

30-12-2008 Booster 14-11-33 foliar spray 400 ml 8 3,200 labor 200 l 15 3,000crates 36 crate 1,800 64,800

10-2-2009 harvest 5 crate 8,000 40,000 6 pers 1,000 6,000

21-2-2009 18 crate 12,000 216,000 4 pers 1,200 4,800

28-2-2009 10 crate 10,000 100,000 4 pers 1,000 4,000

7-3-2009 3 crate 7,000 21,000 2 pers 2,000 4,000revenues 377,000total input costs: 317,174(of which was labor) (83,825) profit 59,826

Prices in Tanzanian Shillings 1290 Tsh = 1 USD 1700 Tsh = 1 Euro

afriveg - wur

Documents