ec 2011 final reports

Earth Clinic Review: 2011 Final and 2012 Progress Reports April 23, 2013 FINAL REPORTS – 2011 Awards Social Cohesion & Development in the Liberia Millennium Village Name(s) of PI(s): Macartan Humphreys and Elisabeth King Improving the productivity of high pH soils through the use of suitable N sources and rates in Koraro Millennium Villages, Ethiopia Name(s) of PI(s): Generose Nziguheba Improving Post Harvest Handling of Maize and Bean Grains for Increased Food Security in Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project, Uganda Name(s) of PI(s): Prof. Pedro A. Sanchez

Earth Clinic – Final Report, 31 December 2012 (max 3 pages)

Title of Project: Social Cohesion & Development in the Liberia Millennium Village

Name(s) of PI(s): Macartan Humphreys and Elisabeth King

Amount awarded: $30,000

1. Describe the major findings of the Project (~Remainder of page 1):

Our Project evaluates the efforts of the Kokoyah Millennium Village Project (MVP) to improve welfare and build social cohesion in post-conflict Liberia. Through a quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences research design, we collected data on welfare and social cohesion, comparing the outcomes for individuals within project communities (i.e., the treatment group) with outcomes for individuals in matched comparison communities that did not receive the project (i.e., the control group) before the project began (2008/9), and with Earth Clinic Funding, three years into the project (2011/2).

We found that social cohesion, widely believed to be low in the aftermath of conflict in Liberia, was already higher than anticipated before the project began, at least in the areas that we studied. Amid concerns about backsliding in Liberia’s efforts at peace building (International Crisis Group, 2012), most social cohesion measures were fairly high in both project and comparison communities, at baseline and end-line, although our study focused primarily on cohesion within the community, rather than broader cohesion across communities. These findings are consistent with earlier work by Humphreys and colleagues in Liberia (Fearon et al. 2009) and Democratic Republic of Congo (Humphreys et al. 2012). Our findings suggest that rather than importing models developed for other contexts, policymakers and practitioners should measure existing social cohesion before beginning a project and examine how best to harness what is already there.

In regards to the welfare impact (food consumption and perceptions) of the MVP, for measures on which we have both baseline and end-line data, our results show either no effect, or statistically significant negative effects. Note, though, that the questions are very limited in scope. Analysis remains to be done on the much more comprehensive set of questions that appear on the end-line only.

In regards to social cohesion measures for which we have both baseline and end-line data, our Project suggests the MVP increased some desirable measures of social cohesion, while not affecting undesirable outcomes. The Kokoyah MVP had a positive and statistically significant effect on group membership, and a statistically significant negative impact on perceptions of ethnic conflict between groups and on conflict between different villages. Although trust in national government declined in project and comparison communities, the decline was less in project communities, and calculations show a positive statistically significant effect of the Kokoyah MVP on trust in national government. Here too, further analysis remains to be done on the wider set of social and political measures from the end-line study. Note that we focused principally on attitudinal survey measures and self-reported behavioural measures. We recommend that

future studies of social cohesion integrate observed behavioural measures as in Humphreys’ recent work in DRC (2012).

2. Write a personal assessment of the Project (Have stated goals been achieved? If not, what problems were encountered? Lessons you would like to share with the Earth Clinic?) (~3/4 page):

The primary goals of the project were achieved. We conducted the first quasi-experimental evaluation of the MVP. We completed the end-line survey on time and within budget and are learning interesting lessons through the findings. The overall attrition rate was 25 percent between baseline and end-line surveys, as we were able to re-contact 75.1 percent (592 of 788) of baseline respondents. Analysis of the baseline, end-line, and project and comparison community results illustrates the value of an experimental or quasi-experimental research design and the ways in which we would likely have come to different, less accurate, conclusions had we surveyed only after the project, or only in project communities.

The most significant challenge we encountered relates to the fact that the MVP interventions that have taken place in Kokoyah over the past three years were significantly less than those planned. Furthermore, plans for meaningful community development and local governance — in other words, explicit efforts to build social cohesion — have yet to materialize. As a consequence, this research ultimately examines not only the impact of the development intervention, but also the likely impact of dashed expectations. While we have yet to systematically analyze responses to questions about perceptions of the MVP, enumerators encountered many comments from community members such as “[The project said they would] make this place a city and they’re doing nothing!” (field notes; see also Ushahidi, 2010). A second complication is that at the same time as the development project, the main road running through Kokoyah was substantially improved, which may have led to erroneous attributions of change to the project. Nonetheless, not all project communities are very near the new road and being near to the road does not seem to meaningfully affect survey responses. Finally, evaluating the impact of a package of interventions is a challenge; some researchers try to parse the effects by varying the components of the development project to which different sub-populations are exposed, but that was not possible in this project. Our Project experience suggests a number of lessons. Some of the challenges we encountered would have been mitigated if project communities had been randomly selected among equally needy communities. This may have been accommodated by integrating an evaluation into the project even earlier in the project cycle. At the same time, we note that not all projects are a good fit for this kind of quasi-experimental or randomized evaluation for a variety of reasons. Here, in hindsight, the MVP was not insufficiently implemented to fully test our hypotheses. Related, more routine monitoring and evaluation of the MVP would be tremendously useful. Finally, while we worked to develop a strong relationship with UNDP and the project implementers, staff turnover and competing priorities for the implementers made this difficult. The Earth Clinic may be able to help foster these relationships in cases where researchers are working on Earth Institute-related projects.

3. Describe the impact the Project has had (i.e. funding, demonstration or intervention expanded in scale, targeted population benefited, new research or educational programs, etc.). If any publications or manuscripts resulted from the project, please include title, authors, journal and whether Earth Clinic support was acknowledged. (~1/2 page):

Our preliminary findings will soon be published as “Can Development Interventions help Post-Conflict Communities Build Social Cohesion?” Africa Initiative Discussion Paper, Waterloo, Ontario: Africa Initiative/Centre for International Governance and Innovation (CIGI). Earth Clinic support was acknowledged. We are happy to share a copy of this publication as soon as it is available. We expect to author an academic article in the first part of the new year and present it at the annual International Studies Association (ISA) conference, in San Francisco in April 2013. We will then plan to submit it to a topic- and method-appropriate peer-reviewed journal, such as Third World Quarterly or the Journal of Development Effectiveness. We will acknowledge Earth Clinic support.

4. Detail any resources that were obtained or are expected to be obtained from other sources for the project (i.e. sources of funds, amounts, PIs, etc.) (~1/4 page):

To complement the Earth Clinic funding for our end-line study, we also received $10,000 from the Africa Initiative, Center for International Governance Innovation, in Waterloo, Canada. The baseline study was jointly funded by UNDP Liberia and Columbia University’s Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP). REFERENCES: Fearon, James D, Macartan Humphreys and Jeremy Weinstein. 2009. “Can Development Aid Contribute to

Social Cohesion after Civil War? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia.” American Economic Review 99, 2.

Humphreys, Macartan, Raul Sanchez de la Sierra, and Peter van der Windt. 2012. Social and Economic

Impacts of Tuungane: Final Report on the Effects of a Community Driven Reconstruction Program in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

International Crisis Group. 2012. Liberia: Time for Much-Delayed Reconciliation and Reform. Dakar and Brussels: ICG.

Ushahidi. 2010. Kokoyah’s Residents Seek Input in Millennium Village Project. Available at:

http://liberia.ushahidi.com/reports/view/651.

Earth Clinic New Project Proposal Coversheet

This is a proposal for a project that will begin on July 1, 2011 and will conclude by December 31, 2012. If this project is funded, all activities and spending will be complete by December 31, 2012. The final report for the project will be submitted by January 31, 2013Please provide the following contact information: Name: Macartan Humphreys Title: Associate Professor Organization/Department:Department of Political Science & the Center for the Study of Development Strategies Work Phone: 212 854 7431 (voice mail checked irregularly) FAX: 212 222 0598 E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Elisabeth King Title: Postdoctoral Research Fellow Organization/Department:The Earth Institute & the Center for the Study of Development Strategies Work Phone:n/a Mobile Phone: 416-488-1560 FAX:n/a E-mail:[email protected] Enter the title of your project in the space provided below: Social Cohesion & Development in the Liberia Millennium Village Enter a short title for your project (maximum 20 characters, for use as an account name): Liberia MV Enter the total budget amount of the project in the space provided below: $55,497.75 Total budget for survey = $37,385.25

Humphreys & King/Earth Clinic Proposal Page 1

Title and Scope of Project: Social Cohesion & Development in the Liberia Millennium Village

Social relations, operationalized as social capital or social cohesion, contribute to a variety of development outcomes, especially in post-conflict communities (Hayami 2009, Ritzen, Easterly et al. 2000, World Bank 2005). Yet, social relations are also affected by development interventions, both positively and negatively. The costs of not studying social impacts can be high in developmental and human terms. Nonetheless, most evaluations of development projects focus on outcomes such as economic welfare, health, and education; assessments of social relations have been only slowly or partially integrated, including in the Millennium Villages Project (MV).

Through the research proposed here, we aim to assess the social cohesion impacts of the MV project in Bong County, Liberia, with a quasi-experimental pre-post survey design, paired with qualitative research. The MV has received a good deal of international attention and there is a strong demand for a better understanding of the project. While showing important successes, the project has been critiqued for potentially exacerbating social divisions and disharmony (Buse, Ludi et al. 2008). Moreover, the MV team, which did not initially include evaluation of social impacts as part of its evaluation package, is now committed to doing so.

Academically, this research will contribute to testing key hypotheses regarding social relations and sustainable development and we plan to publish in peer-reviewed journals. In terms of policy, it will encourage the adoption of new research questions and standards to include social relations in the MV and other development monitoring and evaluation. The research may also inform scale-up by the MV, other organizations, or governments, since we are looking at the first MV3 at a time when the guidelines for MV3s are in development.

Methodology Fieldwork site: Liberia experienced a 14-year violent intrastate conflict that left between 5 and 10% of the population dead and more than 33% displaced (Richards, Archibald et al. 2005). Exclusion is argued to have been at the root of the conflict and social cohesion that did exist is believed to have been ruptured by the violent conflict, making the rebuilding of social cohesion a pressing task (Richards, Archibald et al. 2005; Ellis 2007). The Liberia MV is comprised of the entire statutory district of Kokoyah, Bong County, in central Liberia, with a population of approximately 24,000 people and an area of 930 square km. It is located about 240 km (4.5 hours drive) from the capital, Monrovia. The Liberia Millennium Village is the first MV-3. The comparison communities (matching procedures described below) are situated within 25 km from the survey villages in the MV, although due to road networks and conditions, are further in practice. The aim of the Liberia MV is to “integrate and implement the interventions required to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at the district level within a five-year timeframe (2008-2013).” The project puts “human security” at its centre and the Kokoyah MV also includes specific interventions aimed at improving social cohesion that have not been included in the MV1s, such as a police station (Liberia MV, 2009).


Key Questions: (1) Does living in an MV project community improve social cohesion? Specifically, does it: a) Increase membership in groups? b) Increase collective action? c) Improve trust among community members and of state and community organizations? d) Improve networks/reciprocity? e) Decrease conflicts among community members?

(2) Are there negative impacts on social cohesion of living an MV project community? a) Does participation increase conflicts among community members? b) Does participation decrease cooperation and trust with those of other communities?

(3) Since this is the first MV with comparison communities from baseline, we will also

answer questions about the basic socio-economic impacts of living in an MV3 project community (MDG goal 1 to end poverty and hunger).

Brief Overview of Existing Evidence & Literature: Some studies suggest that development projects can increase social capital (Pronyk, Harpham et al. 2008; Attanasio, Pellerano et al. 2009; Fearon, Humphreys et al. 2009). Others have found development interventions to create or exacerbate tensions (Anderson 1999; Mansuri and Rao 2004; Platteau 2004; Labonne and Chase 2008). Indeed, in a synthetic review co-authored by co-PI King, the social impacts of development interventions were decidedly mixed. Moreover, different projects measures social capital/cohesion in different ways, making comparison difficult (King, Samii et al. 2010see: http://www.columbia.edu/~ek2570/Social%20Cohesion-EKing%20et%20al%20JDeff.pdf).

Research Design: Our research design is based on the comparison of outcomes for individuals within project communities to individuals in matched comparison communities that do not receive the project. Our design is also based on the comparison of outcomes before and near the end of the project. It is thus a quasi-experimental, differences-in-differences design. We have already completed the pre-project baseline and are seeking funding for the follow-up survey and qualitative research.

Since the MV was not randomly assigned, we used a matching strategy to find similar villages outside, but close to, Kokoyah for comparison. Matching was based on village level characteristics: proximity (within 25 km of surveyed MV village), number of households, predominant ethnicity, reported migration, and key socio-economic proxies (road access, school and health clinic). This marks the first MV baseline with comparison communities.

The baseline survey was completed in project communities in Kokoyah in December 2008 and in matched comparison communities surrounding Kokoyah in May 2009. Surveys included socio-economic questions as well as questions on group membership (types and diversity within groups); who to turn to in need of help; trust of a variety of groups; generalized trust and feelings of acceptance; conflicts and conflict management; and collective action. We collected identifiable data to permit a panel for the second round. The project sample included 16 randomly-selected villages in the MV (a total of 349 respondents), representing 10% of the villages in Kokoyah and roughly 10% of the households. The comparison sample included 30


villages (a total of 429 respondents). Given the 6-month difference between the baselines, we resurveyed in 4 towns in the MV (60 respondents) in May 2009 in order to check whether any substantial changes had taken place between surveys and to ensure that the two baselines were comparable, which they were. Our findings indicate that the project and comparison communities are comparable on many dimensions, as illustrated in Table 1. We have also identified where they differ in the pre-test, allowing for accurate differences-in-differences calculation.

Table 1: Difference between project and comparison community respondent means Project

mean N Comparison

mean N Difference

in means p-value1

Respondent owns cell .28 347 .26 427 .02 0.42 H of H age 43.53 349 43.75 429 .022 0.84 HH literate .49 349 .50 425 .01 0.82 Respondent group membership .99 349 .94 425 .05 0.00* Respondent trust of neighbors 2.43 341 2.61 426 -0.18 0.00* Respondent trust of local gov’t 2.15 334 2.42 423 -0.27 0.00*

Forthcoming Field Activities: End-line survey: We anticipate conducing similar surveys in the same communities as were studied in the baseline, with as many of the same people as possible, approximately 3 years from the beginning of the project (2012). We will improve the precision of the survey instruments by adding more observable behavioral measures to complement the predominantly attitudinal and reported behavioral measures (see: King, Samii et al. 2010 on the importance of doing so). Other data sources: We will also add a chief survey in each of the villages, as per Humphreys’ earlier work in Liberia (Fearon, Humphreys et al. 2008).

Qualitative component: Approximately two months after the survey, once we have had the chance to conduct a preliminary analysis of the survey results, we will conduct qualitative work in four project communities in the goal of understanding the experience of the project and in uncovering possible explanations (mechanisms) for our quantitative findings. We will select two communities with high exposure to the MV project (i.e. schools, health clinics, or project headquarters, built in their community) and two with low exposure. The qualitative research will include one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and community observation.

Data Analysis: The primary analysis will examine simple differences in means of outcomes in MV and comparison villages, with clustering at the village level. Secondary analyses will control for pre-treatment village level variables such as geography and exposure to conflict, as well as quality of treatment (intensity of exposure to MV). We will also control for pretreatment individual level variables including gender, age, and education to examine heterogeneous effects. For the qualitative components, we will code our data for analysis using Atlas-ti and analyze it using traditional qualitative methods.

1 2-tailed t-test, 95% confidence interval, unequal variance


Policy Contributions: The lessons learned may have a direct policy impact and influence further MV scale-up. Evaluating the social impacts of the Kokoyah MV can teach us something important for the MVs since (1) we have comparison communities from the beginning (2) we are focusing on social processes, which the MV-1s and 2s are only now beginning to integrate (King is on the social capital working group and has been involved in this process), and (3) we are looking at the first MV3, a key possibility for scale-up at a time when the guidelines for MV-3s are still in development. In particular, our findings can produce practical advice on magnifying the potentially positive, and minimizing the potentially negative, social impacts of the MV. Our experience can also contribute to elaborating tools for mainstreaming social impacts across MV and other development evaluations. While we are not seeking to initiate a new intervention per se, we are studying an existing intervention in a new way. We believe that doing so will help meet the goals of the Earth Clinic of identifying and analyzing pressing issues of sustainable development and helping devise solutions.

Project Client/Project Partners: Humphreys will draw on previous experience with major surveys in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and King will draw on her experience with the baselines in Liberia and her qualitative research on social cohesion in post-genocide Rwanda. The Millennium Village Liberia team (which includes UNDP) will be the key project partner on this research. The baseline surveys in the project and comparison communities were generously funded by UNDP. For the baseline surveys, we worked with the Liberian Statistics Department (LISGIS) for enumeration and data entry. We will investigate the possibility of working with them again and will alternatively consider hiring a private Liberian research firm with whom Columbia colleagues have worked successfully.

Project Timeline: Dates Activities Deliverables/Milestones July 2011-February 2012

- Work with MV and UNDP to build partnership & to collect information on ongoing activities

- Edit household survey as above - Create chief survey - Consider behavioral games - Expand IRB permissions

- Survey instruments - IRB approval

March-April 2012 (1month, pre-rain)

- Fieldwork: household and chiefs surveys in project & comparison communities

- Original data from approximately 800 respondents (individuals + chiefs)

Summer 2012

- Clean and analyze quantitative data - Design of qualitative work & IRB approval to add

qualitative research - Presentation of preliminary findings for feedback

- Preliminary analysis of quantitative findings

- Qualitative instruments - IRB modification approval

Summer 2012 (1 month)

- Fieldwork: Qualitative research in 4 project communities

- Original data from 4 project communities

September –December 2012

- Coding & analysis of qualitative research - Analysis and writing based on quantitative and

qualitative research

- Academic article submitted to peer-reviewed journal

- Policy piece - Final report to Earth Clinic

(due Dec 2012)


Required Equipment and Approvals: We do not foresee requiring any new equipment or software. We will seek a modification to our current IRB approval, IRB-AAAD9341, to reflect the repeated survey and to add the chief survey and qualitative work.

Names and Titles of Contributors and their Role in the Project: Macartan Humphreys will be lead PI and Elisabeth King will serve as co-PI. They will collaborate on the survey instruments. Humphreys will play a supervisory role and draw on his extensive experience in experimental research and previous work on social capital in Liberia. King will take the lead in renewing the partnership with UNDP and the Liberia MV, and in overseeing data collection and analysis. She will also draw on her qualitative experience to design and conduct the qualitative research. We anticipate hiring a Columbia graduate student, trained in experimental methods (possibly associated with the Center for the Study of Development Strategies, CSDS), to help oversee the survey in Liberia. We also anticipate hiring an undergraduate student to help with data cleaning. We look forward to working collaboratively with the MV and UNDP project staff. For the baseline, MV and UNDP project staff reviewed all instruments and an MV project staff was present at all times during baseline surveying. Conflicts of Interest: We have no known conflicts of interest.

Itemized Budget: Item Estimate2 Logistics for Columbia team

Flights from NYC to Liberia for PI and RA $2,800 x 2 =$5,600 Visas for PI and RA (3 month) $250 x 2 = $500 Communications (internet, phone cards) $200 Local transportation (airport, in Monrovia, etc.) $300 Logistics subtotal (+5% indirect) $6,600 + $330 = $6930

Survey Accommodation in Monrovia for PI, project set up & enumerator training (5 nights)

$100 x 5 = $500

Accommodation in field for PI/RA (30 nights for survey ) $50 x 30 = $1,500 Meals for PI/RA (30 days survey + 5 days training/setup) $30 x 35 = $1,950 Enumerator team supervisor for survey ($45 per day, 33 days – 30 survey, 3 training)

$45 x 33 = $1,485

Enumerators for survey (5 at $30 per day) $150 x 33 =$4,950 Translators for survey (2 at $20 per day) $40 x 33 = $1,320 Columbia research assistant salary (to oversee survey) $5,000 Transportation (2 vehicles, 2 drivers & fuel at $250 each) $500 x 30 days = $15,000 Materials for enumerators (photocopying, etc) $200 Communications $300 Data entry ($2 per survey x 800 surveys) $1,600 Data cleaning (Columbia undergrad RA) $1,800 Survey subtotal (+5% indirect) $35,605 + $1780.25=$37,385.25

Qualitative research Accommodation in field for PI/RA (30 nights for qualitative) $50 x 30 = $1,500

Meals for PI/RA (30 days) $30 x 35 = $1,050 Transportation (driver, vehicle & fuel) $250 x 30 days = $7,500 Translator ($20 per day) $20 x 30 days = $600 Qualitative subtotal (+5% indirect) $10,650 + $532.50 =$11,182.50

Total $55,497.753

2Estimates based on the baseline survey and other Columbia researchers’ budgets for Liberia. The transportation costs appear high; 4x4s are required to access these remote areas and fuel is expensive.


References: Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm : how aid can support peace--or war

Attanasio, O., L. Pellerano, et al. (2009). "Building trust? Conditional cash transfer programmes and social capital."

. Boulder, Colo., Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Fiscal StudiesBuse, K., E. Ludi, et al. (2008). Beyond the village: The transformation from rural investments to national plans to

reach the MDGs. London, Overseas Development Institute.

30(2): 139-177.

Ellis, S. (2007). The Mask of AnarchyFearon, J. D., M. Humphreys, et al. (2008). Community-Driven Reconstruction in Lofa County: Impact Assessment.

New York, Stanford & Columbia Universities.

. New York, New York University Press.

Fearon, J. D., M. Humphreys, et al. (2009). "Can Development Aid Contribute to Social Cohesion after Civil War? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia." American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings

Hayami, Y., 2009. Social capital, human capital, and the community mechanism: toward a conceptual 99(2): 287-291.

framework for economists. Journal of development studies, 45 (1), 96–123. King, E., C. Samii, et al. (2010). "Interventions to Promote Social Cohesion in Sub-Saharan Africa." Journal of

Development EffectivenessLabonne, J. and R. S. Chase (2008).

2(3): 336-372. Do Community-Driven Development Projects Enhance Social Capital?

Evidence from the PhilippinesLiberia MV. (2009). The Millennium Villages Project, Annual Progress Report January 1-December 31, 2009,

. Washington, World Bank - Social Development Department.

Monrovia. Mansuri, G. and V. Rao (2004). "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review." The World

Bank Research ObserverPlatteau, J.-P. (2004). "Monitoring Elite Capture in Community-Driven Development."

19(1): 1-40. Development & Change

Pronyk, P. M., T. Harpham, et al. (2008). "Can social capital be intentionally generated? A randomized trial from rural South Africa."

35: 223-246.

Social Science & Medicine

Richards, P., S. Archibald, et al. (2005). Community Cohesion in Liberia: A Post-War Rapid Social Assessment.

67(10): 1559-1570 %U http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B1556VBF-1554TC1555H1571-1552/1552/a1555f1513aa1594ee8627f1532a1550c1553bde1054e1585f.

Social Development Papers: Conflict Prevention & ReconstructionRitzen, J., Easterly, W. and Woolcock, M., 2000. On ‘good’ politicians and ‘bad’ policies – social

. Washington, The World Bank.

cohesion, institutions, and growth. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 2448.

World Bank, 2005. Empowering people by transforming institutions: social development in World Bank operations. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.

3 We are also seeking partial support from UNDP Liberia (amount TBD) and the Africa Initiative of the Centre for International Governance and Innovation, CIGI ($10,000).

Earth Clinic – Final Report, 31 December 2012 (max 3 pages)

Title of Project: Improving the productivity of high pH soils through the use of suitable N sources and rates in Koraro Millennium Villages, Ethiopia

Name(s) of PI(s): Generose Nziguheba

Amount awarded: $30,000

1. Describe the major findings of the Project (~Remainder of page 1):

The average grain yield of teff, a major staple crop in Ethiopia, is very low averaging about 600 kg/ha in

farmers fields of semi arid conditions. This could be caused by use of inappropriate N-fertilizer in high

soil pH > 7 that can induces N volatilization from applied urea, and reduces fertilizer use efficiency.

Therefore the present study was conducted to determine the best N fertilizers in high pH areas of Koraro

cluster, by comparing the current widely used fertilizer (urea) with ammonium-based fertilizers, and to

determine the N rate that would result in best nitrogen use efficiency and maximum return on yield and

yield components of Teff. Four rates of N ( 0, 30, 60 & 90 kg N/ha) in both Urea and Ammonium sulfate

fertilizer applied in randomized complete block design with sixteen sites as replication. The crop

responded significantly (P< 0.05) to both N-fertilizers compared to the control. Ammonium sulfate N-

fertilizer application increased teff biomass (grain +straw) and grain yields on average by 112 kg/ha and

12kg/ha respectively, compared with the urea N-fertilizer application. For the second objective of

comparing the N application rates, higher biomass (2944 kg/ha) and grain (824kg/ha) yields were obtained

by applying 30 kg N/ha as ammonium sulfate. However, greater straw yield (2191 kg/ha) was obtained by

applying 60kgN of AS/ha. More grain yield per unit biomass, harvest index (31%), was obtained from

plots receiving 0 and 30kgN urea/ha.

Write a personal assessment of the Project (Have stated goals been achieved? If not, what problems were

encountered? Lessons you would like to share with the Earth Clinic?) (~3/4 page):

The goals of the project was to determine the appropriate type of N‐fertilizer suitable for use in the high pH soils

of Koraro cluster so as to reduce soil Nitrogen volatilization, and to assess the appropriate Nitrogen rates for the

area. The stated goals were achieved because the project did indicate that using Ammonium Sulfate resulted in

higher biomass yield compared to the commonly used Urea at the same rate. The project also indicates that the

rate of 30kg N/ha is appropriate for teff. The main challenges encountered in the project implementation are

related to unreliable rainfall which is typical of the region (the short rain fall season, early withdrawal of rainfall in

the experimental sites); the outbreak of pests including shoot fly in some plots; and the highly diversified

biophysical properties of the experimental sites. The early withdrawal of rainfall after two‐third N‐fertilizer

application at late tillering mainly affected the response in some experimental plots. While the results for this

project are very useful in providing guidelines for the management for N fertilizers in the area, a repeat of similar

trials to account for the high biophysical diversity of the area would add value to these results by enlarging the

dataset, therefore increasing the accuracy in our conclusions. Further research focusing on determining the

appropriate time for N‐ fertilizer application in semi arid areas with highly erratic rains like Koraro is paramount

important.

2. Describe the impact the Project has had (i.e. funding, demonstration or intervention

expanded in scale, targeted population benefited, new research or educational programs,

etc.). If any publications or manuscripts resulted from the project, please include title,

authors, journal and whether Earth Clinic support was acknowledged. (~1/2 page):

The project is implemented together with farmers and the National and regional government of Ethiopia.

The trials were implemented in farmers fields, and farmers participated in all activities. Farmers observed

and learnt the differences between the practices (inputs types, rates and application methods). The regional

bureau of Agriculture, Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, Mekelle University, National Agro-

meteorological agency and District office of Agriculture are the major partners while implementing the

project.

The findings of this study will benefit primarily the farming communities in the Koraro Millennium

Village and its environs with similar high pH soils, by providing further increases in crop production, and

improving the efficiency of fertilizers use and therefore ensuring higher returns from the use of inputs, all

contributing to improved food security and livelihood. The involvement of local regional Bureau of

Agriculture and Tigray agricultural research Institute (TARI) as partners in the project provided a platform

for dissemination and scaling up of the study findings, and for advising policies on type of fertilizers

specific to similar areas in the country. Regional bureaus of Agriculture are responsible of demonstrating

best agronomic practices and advising policies on appropriate practices for increasing production.

Partnering with them in this project ensured that the research and results are included in the agriculture

program of the region and can be scaled up to similar areas.

The regional bureau of Agriculture was demonstrating the use of Ammonium sulfate fertilizer for the first

time in Central, southern and western part of the region considering our experiment in the eastern part of

the region. Therefore, the results that we have gotten will be used for the national type of fertilizer use

strategy.

We have plan to prepare a publication on the results from this project. However given the short timeframe

between the harvest (late November) and the reporting time, we do not have a manuscript yet. Earth

Clinic support will be acknowledged in any form of publication of the results from this project.

3. Detail any resources that were obtained or are expected to be obtained from other sources for the project (i.e. sources of funds, amounts, PIs, etc.) (~1/4 page):

The regional soil laboratory and National meteorological Agency was enthusiastic on the implementation

of the project and have provided in kind support (technical, time and laboratory space) . The Regional

science and Technology has shown interest in our work while reviewing the proposal and have facilitated

the procedure for getting local ethical clearance. The Regional Research Center and the National Minister

of Agriculture has a plan to test other mineral fertilizers (other than Urea and DAP) that are mainly

sources of N,P,K,S and Zn in the region as well as the nation with different soil types. We will work

together with these institutions to look for opportunities for funding the identified additional research

needed as indicated section 2.

The project also built on existing information on soil characteristics which were collected in the Africa

Soil Information Service project for defining the sites included in this project.

1


This is a proposal for a project that will begin on July 1, 2011 and will conclude by December 31, 2012. If this project is funded, all activities and spending will be complete by December 31, 2012. The final report for the project will be submitted by January 31, 2013Please provide the following contact information: Name: Dr Generose Nziguheba

Title: Associate Research Scientist, University of Columbia

Organization/Department: Tropical Agriculture and Rural Environment Program,

Earth Institute, Columbia University

Work Phone:845-680-4483

Mobile Phone:917-825-1947

FAX:845-680-4870

E-mail:[email protected]

Enter the title of your project in the space provided below: Improving the productivity of high pH soils through the use of suitable N sources and rates in Koraro Millennium Villages, Ethiopia Enter a short title for your project (maximum 20 characters, for use as an account name): “Eth N source/rate study” Enter the total budget amount of the project in the space provided below: = USD 29999

2

Title: Improving the productivity of high pH soils through the use of suitable N sources and rates in Koraro Millennium Villages, Ethiopia Scope Koraro is located in the Tigray region in northern Ethiopia. The Millennium Villages Project (MVP) was initiated in the area in 2005 to support rural communities in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Prior to the MVP, the area had significant challenges with crop production and food security. Average yields were 0.6 t/ha for the major cereals in the area, with high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition. Access to fertilizers (urea and DAP) and improved seeds of major crops grown in the area, through support by MVP, has generated increase in crop production. The type of fertilizers, rates and mode of application that have been used in Koraro are those recommended for large areas of Ethiopia. However, unlike other parts of Ethiopia, Tigray region is dominated by alkaline to very alkaline soils, with an estimated 92% of tested soil samples having pH values ranging from 7 to 9.34. High soil pH can induce N volatilization from applied urea, therefore reducing fertilizer use efficiency. It has been indicated that N volatilization is higher when fertilizers are broadcast, as commonly done in Tigray, than when incorporated (Ernst and Massey, 1960), and is influenced by the type of fertilizers (Hussain and Naqvi, 1998). There is some evidence to suggest that a different type of fertilizer than is used in Koraro, and across Ethiopia, might be more suitable for the area. Acidifying fertilizers, such as ammonium sulfate, may be at an advantage in highly alkaline soils (Bartholomew and Clark, 1965) that are prevalent in Koraro by reducing soil pH. However, ammonium fertilizers are not used in Ethiopia, and there is no data to support their advantage over urea within Ethiopia. The use of the urea – rather than ammonium fertilizers in high pH areas of Koraro cluster – could reduce the use efficiency of the fertilizers, resulting in limited increase in crop yields with implication on food security of the rural communities whose livelihood depends on those soils. Tailoring the type of fertilizer used more specifically to Koraro’s soils could further increase crop production, allowing an improved response to food security and nutrition in the area. The objectives of the project are (i) to determine the best N fertilizers in high pH areas of Koraro cluster, by comparing the currently widely used fertilizer (urea) with ammonium-based fertilizers, and (ii) to determine the N rate that would result in best nitrogen use efficiency and maximum return on inputs. The findings of this study will benefit primarily the farming communities in the Koraro Millennium Village and its environs with similar high pH soils, by providing further increases in crop production, and higher returns from the use of inputs, therefore contributing to improved food security and livelihood. The involvement of local academic (Mekele University) and Ethiopia Institute of agricultural research (EIAR) as partners in the project provides a platform for dissemination and scaling up of the study findings, and for advising policies on type of fertilizers specific to similar areas in the country.

Methodology Trials for the 2 objectives will be run concurrently on the same fields during the rainy season. Koraro cluster has only one rainy season from June to September. a. Sites, test crops and experimental design

3

The study will be conducted in 5 major wheat growing villages in the Koraro cluster, and two farmers’ fields will be used in each of the villages. The choice of the fields will be based on the soil pH, the size of the field and the willingness of the farmer to use the field for the study. Wheat is a major crop in the area and will be used as test crop because it responds to fertilizer application and has a short maturing period. The experimental design will be a Split- plot design with three replications where fertilizer type will be assigned to the main plot, and rate of N application to the subplot. The plot sizes are 4mx5m.

b. N fertilizer sources and rates of application Urea, the most commonly used N fertilizer source in the country will be compared with ammonium sulfate. Ammonium sulfate is currently not used as fertilizers in the country. However, given the specific condition of Tigray region, high soil pH, sulfur deficiency, this fertilizer should be more efficient in the region and similar areas than urea. Four rates of nitrogen will be used for each of the N fertilizers (urea and ammonium sulfate)

1. 0kg N/ha (control) 2. 30kg N/ha 3. 60kg N/ha 4. 90kg N/ha

Phosphorus in the form of Triple Phosphate will be applied at planting to all plots at a rate of 23 kg/ha of P at planting. c. Measurements Soil samples will be collected from experimental plots before planting as well as after harvesting. Both physical and chemical properties of the soil samples will be quantified. Grain and stover yields will be measured at maturity. d. Data analyses Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), agronomic efficiency, value cost ratio, and partial budget analysis will be calculated. Data collected will be analyzed using a Jump-5 statistical software to determine the effect of N fertilizer type and rate.

Fieldwork site and Project Client/Project Partners: The work will be conducted in Koraro MVP area located in northern Ethiopia. Implementation will be in partnership with Koraro MVP, Mekele University and Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). Both partner institutions have long years of experience in soils and plant nutrition research in Ethiopia. Mekele University has been involved in soil fertility studies in the Tigray Region, in which the project area is located, for more than two decades while the EIAR has been conducting soil related studies for more than 5 decades throughout the country. The Koraro MVP, through the science coordinator and the agriculture coordinator will lead the on ground work on sites selection, soil sampling, and field trials. Mekele University will provide and supervise students to work on the project, and EIAR will lead the soil and plant analyses.

4

Project timeline: The proposed study will be conducted from August 2011 to December 2012

List of activities 2011 2012

Au Sep Oct

No Dec

Jan

Feb

Ma

Apr

Ma Jun Jul Au Sep Oct

No Dec

Site selection X soil sample collection X X soil analysis X X X X Land preparation X X Planting X Harvesting and soil sample collection

X

Soil and plant tissue analysis

X X

Data analysis X X X X X X X X X X X Report writing X

Required equipment and approvals Different soil augers will be required to make soil samples. Drying oven will be used to dry soil and plant tissue. pH meter for pH measurements; and flame photometry and atomic absorption spectrophotometer for the determination of soil exchangeable bases (K, Na, Ca and Mg) and magnesium and the micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu), will be required. All these equipments are available at Mekele University and EIAR Names and Titles of contributors and their role in the project

1. Dr. Generose Nziguheba, Associate Research Scientist, – Principal Investigator will oversee the implementation of the project activities. She is the coordinator of the agriculture sector for the whole millennium village project.

2. Dr. Kidane Giorgis, Senior Agronomist, EIAR, Ethiopia,- Co-Principal investigator will be involved in field supervision and soil and plant tissue analysis

3. Dr. Kiros Meles, Science Coordinator, Koraro Millennium Villages Project, Ethiopia,- Co-Principal Investigator will be involved in site selection, planting, managing the experimental sites, data collection, analysis and report writing

4. Abrha Kebede, Agriculture Coordinator, Koraro Millennium Villages Project, Ethiopia,- Co-Principal Investigator will be involved in site selection, planting, managing the experimental sites, data collection, analysis and report writing

5. Professor Fasil Kebede, Associate Professor, Mekele University,- collaborator will be involved in student supervision, soil and plant tissue analysis, and data analysis.

Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest of any contributor with members of the steering committee

5

Itemized budget No Item unit QTY Unit price (USD)

1 Urea kg 100 90.91

2 TSP kg 100 181.82

3 Ammonium sulfate kg 150 100

4 Wheat seed kg 100 72

6 materials for plot preparation and sample collection (pegs, rope, meter, sample collection bags, labels, etc) lump sum 145.45

7 Stationery lump sum 303.03

8 communication cost lump sum 606.06

9 Fuel and lubricant lump sum 1212.12

10 Laboratory analysis (reagents and service charge) for both soil and plant tissue analysis lump sum 5000

12 cost of land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting Lump sum 4620

13 transport cost for researchers Lump sum 9090.91

14 Wage for field manager (4 months per season) person-months 2 1800

15 Allowance for researchers (2) days 20 1939.39

16 miscellaneous expenses Lump sum 727.27

17 Allowance for driver days 10 181.82

18 Administrative costs Lump sum 2500

19 subtotal 28570.78

20 Contingency (5%) 1428.539

21 Grand total 29999

References Balesh Tulema. Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Crop Production in the Central Ethiopian

highlands. PhD Thesis, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Bouyoucos, G.J.1962. Hydrometer methods improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 26: 464-465.

Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In C. A. Black, ed. Methods of soil analysis. Agronomy 9:545-567.

Ernst, J. W. and H.F. Massey. 1960. The effects of several factors on volatilization of ammonia formed from urea in the soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 24:87-90.

Fasil Kebede and Yamoah, C. 2009. Soil Fertility Status and Numass Fertilizer recommendation of Typic Hapluusterts in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal 6: 1473-1480

Fenn, L. B. and D.E. Kissel. 1973. Ammonia volatilization from surface application of ammonia compounds on calcareous soil. 1. General theory. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 37: 855-859.

Fenn, L. B. and D.E. Kissel. 1976. The influence of CEC and depths of incorporation on ammonia volatilization from ammonium compounds applied to calcareous soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 40: 394-398.

Hussain, F. and M. H. Naqvi. 1998. Ammonia losses from salt-affected soils. Pak. J. Soil Sci. 14, 1-4. Pal, U.R., 1991. Effects of source and rate of nitrogen and phosphorus on yield and nutrient uptake and

apparent fertilizer recovery by maize in the southern Guinea Savanna. Journal of Agricultural Science Technology.

EarthClinic–FinalReport,January2013

TitleofProject: Improving Post Harvest Handling of Maize and Bean Grains forIncreasedFoodSecurityinRuhiiraMillenniumVillagesProject,UgandaName(s)ofPI(s):Prof.PedroA.Sanchez

TeamMembers:Dr JosephMudiope; Dr David Siriri; Dr Generose Nziguheba; Dr

CherylPalm;andProf.ArchileoN.Kaaya

Amountawarded: $29,925

1. DescribethemajorfindingsoftheProjectMaizeandbeanweevilswerethecommonstoragepestsasreportedby75.7%and87.7% of the respondents, respectively; while the months with highest pestsoccurrences were June and July for both crops. At baseline, only 23.7% ofrespondents were applying pesticides to control storage pests in grains but thepercentagesincreasedto40.3and60.2formaizeandbeans,respectivelybytheendoftheprojectperiod.Useofwoodenpallets isrecommendedforstoringgrains. Incontrast, at baseline, only 30.6%were using this practice. Interestingly however,followingthetraining,62.0%oftherespondentswereusingthepracticeasrevealedbythe impactassessmentstudy.Besides, thepercentagestoringgrainsdirectlyonthefloorreducedfrom13.9atbaselineto4.1bycloseoftheproject.The study revealed several fungi infecting both maize and beans in storage.However,unlikemaize,beangrainsdidnotsupportanytraceofAflatoxinstherebyimplying the latter as a non‐host of Aspergillus flavus/parasiticus. Farmerscommonly store grains in ordinary bags and or directly on the floor. Theeffectivenessofthesemethodsinstoringmaizegrainswerecomparedwiththatofusingsupergrainhermeticbags(SHGB).Accordingtotheresults,afterfourmonthsofstorage,thequantitativepercentagemaizegrainlossesduetopestsanddiseasesattacks were 2.6, 17.8, and 66.1 for the SHGBs, ordinary bags, and direct floorstorage, respectively. Similarly, the respective crude protein losses were 23.5%,32.2%,and42.1%,whiletheaflatoxinlevelsinppbafter4monthsofstoragewere7.9,19.7,and50.0,respectively.ThustheresultsprovedthattheSGHBsareeffectiveinreducingquantitativeandqualitativepostharvestlossesofstoredmaizegrainsathouseholdlevel.

2

2. Write a personal assessment of the Project (Have stated goalsbeenachieved? Ifnot,whatproblemswereencountered?LessonsyouwouldliketosharewiththeEarthClinic?)

Theprojectwassuccessfulwithrespecttothesetobjectives,andthisissupportedbythefindingsoftheimpactassessmentstudyincomparisontothebaselinesurvey.Fromthebaseline, rudimentarypracticeswereused forgrainstorage.Worsestill,thehouseholdswereignorantlyconsumingstoredbeanandmaizegrainswithlowprotein values, and high aflatoxin levels in case of the latter. Thus, awarenesscreationusingradioandtrainingsthroughcommunitymeetingscoupledwithfielddayswereundertakenonappropriatepracticesforpostharvesthandlingofgrains.Also, through sensitization, the dangers of consuming damaged grains wereemphasized. This raised farmers’ knowledge and skills as well as application ofappropriatepostharvestmanagement technologies; but also theyappreciated thedangers of consuming deteriorated grains. According to the results, withoutimproved storage, aflatoxin levels in maize grains exceed 10ppb just after onemonthofstorage,andthelevelsunfortunatelyincreasewithstoragetime.However,itwas noted that farmers normally store grains formore than 3months and yet10ppbof aflatoxins in grains is themaximum regulatory limit allowed for humanconsumption by theUgandaNational Bureau of Standards. Auspiciously however,the results revealed that improving storage alone by use of SHGBs can reducequantitativemaizegrainlossby66%whilehaltingaflatoxinlevelstolessthan8ppbafterfourmonthsstorage.There is now increased motivation for farmers to store grains while using theSGHBs.Unfortunately,theagro‐inputdealershavenotyetfullyembraceddealinginthesebags,astheyarenotreadilyavailableonthemarket;andthisisconstrainingtheuptakeofthetechnology.

3. Describe the impact the Project has had (i.e. funding,demonstrationor interventionexpanded inscale, targetedpopulationbenefited, new research or educational programs, etc.). If anypublicationsormanuscripts resulted from theproject,please includetitle, authors, journal and whether Earth Clinic support wasacknowledged.

Theproject empowered farmerswithknowledgeand skills in appropriatedryingandstoragemethodstoreducepostharvestlosses.FollowingdemonstrationonuseandsubsequentlytheeffectivenessoftheSGHBsinreducingstoragelosses,thereisincreased motivation for more farmers to store grain while using these bags.Besides, following the results on the effectiveness of the different grain storagemethods, Makerere University is seeking partnership with Agri BusinessManagement (AMA) and Millennium Villages Project (MVP) to link with privatesectorandwidelypromoteuseofthehermeticbagstechnologyinEasternUganda.Aswell,theauthorsarepreparingamanuscriptentitledqualitativeandquantitativeloss assessment of maize grains under different storage facilities in Ruhiira,southwestern Uganda, in which the financial support by Earth Clinic will be

3

acknowledged.

4. Detail any resources thatwere obtained or are expected to beobtained from other sources for the project (i.e. sources of funds,amounts,PIs,etc.)

MillenniumPromisethroughMVPsupportedtheprojectwithcapitalequipmenti.e.,vehicle,motorcycles and computer.MakerereUniversity facilitated the laboratoryanalyses foraflatoxinandprotein level in thegrains,andcontributed time for thesupervision of these analyses and design of protocol. Though there has been noextra funding yet, the team has been developing proposals to seek funding tocontinueresearchonstorageandaflatoxin,buildingonfindingsfromthisproject.

Sanchez-Food Security Uganda Page 1 of 7


Please provide the following contact information: Name: Dr. Pedro A. Sanchez

Title: Director, Tropical Agriculture and Rural Environment

Organization/Department: The Earth Institute at Columbia University

Work Phone: 1 845 365 8330

Mobile Phone: 1 646 244 1720

Fax:

E-mail: [email protected]

Enter the title of your project in the space provided below: Improving Post Harvest Handling of Maize and Bean Grains for Increased Food Security in Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project, Uganda Enter the dates of project initiation and completion in the space provided below: July 2010 to June 2011 Enter the total budget amount of the project in the space provided below: USD 29,925


Improving Post Harvest Handling of Maize and Bean Grains for Increased Food Security in Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project, Uganda

Introduction and justification Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project (MVP) located in South Western Uganda has over 90% of its population relying on subsistence agriculture. MVP was initiated in the area in 2006 to facilitate the rural communities attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Prior to MVP intervention, crop diversification was limited with over 70% of the arable land under banana production. Thus banana, which is low in nutritional value was the main crop consumed and consequently, over 45% of children under 5 were malnourished with more than 10% suffering the effects of acute malnutrition (Baseline report, 2006). The MVP introduced improved maize and bean seeds coupled with fertilizers as well as training farmers in appropriate agronomic practices. Subsequently, yields significantly increased from 0.8 to 3.6 MT for maize, and from 0.3 to 2.2MT for beans (Mid Term Report, 2009). Unfortunately the increased harvests have not fully translated into sustainable improved food security for the community particularly during the dry months. For instance, the proportion of households who reported not having enough food during at least one month in the past 12 months decreased from 80% to just 68% (Mid term Report, 2009); far below the 50% target reduction. The inability to attain food security is mainly attributed to poor post harvest handling at household level, as the farmers lack knowledge and appropriate facilities to store the produce. As a result, immediately after harvest, some of the grain is sold moreover cheaply to middlemen while what is stored for household food security is usually attacked by rodents, pests and diseases thereby leading to build up of mycotoxins, and consequently post harvest losses. Sadly, most of this grain with its toxins is consumed by the households especially during the dry months when food is not readily available. Worse still the mycotoxin levels in these grains are not known. However in Kenya, a study in 2004 revealed aflatoxin B1 levels of 4,400 ppb in stored maize (Muthomi et al., 2009). This is far more than 20 ppb which is the maximum tolerance level for aflatoxin content in foods intended for human consumption (Richard, 2000). For the case of Uganda, the National Bureau of Standards put a maximum regulatory limit in grains of 10 ppb (Kaaya, et al., 2005); although this is still higher than the EU standard of 0 ppb for aflatoxin B1 in foods intended for infants (Williams et al., 2004). The EU standard is necessary as exposure to small doses for prolonged periods is carcinogenic (Groopman and Kensler, 1999). Besides, the increased yields coupled with inadequate storage facilities in Ruhiira, have resulted into increased number of rodents at household level thereby exacerbating post harvest losses of the grains. As well, the rodents are damaging mosquito nets that MVP distributed to households, and subsequently, increased malaria cases are being reported in the project area. To avoid loss and deterioration and sustain food security in Ruhiira using the increased yields being realized, there is a need to promote appropriate storage facilities in the area. Thus this study proposes to introduce and assess various improved storage technologies as well as the traditional ones currently under use; and determine their relative influences on stored grain. As a result, the technologies registering minimal damage and loss over a specific storage period will be promoted in the area.


Objectives of the study a. Establish the prevailing grain storage methods; pests & diseases influencing postharvest (PH)

loss at household (HH) level b. Ascertain the extent of grain damage by rodents, pests and diseases under the different

improved and traditional storage facilities on maize and bean grains in Ruhiira c. Establish the changes in protein content and aflatoxin levels; and determine over time the

food losses in the stored maize and bean grains under different storage facilities d. Create awareness and enhance use of appropriate storage technologies for maize and bean

grains in Ruhiira MVP e. Assess the knowledge acquired and level of uptake of the appropriate storage technologies by

households in Ruhiira

Objective 1: Establish the prevailing traditional and improved grain storage methods; and the pests and diseases influencing post harvest loss at household level in Ruhiira MVP

Methodology

A survey will be undertaken using 300 randomly selected farmers to identify the different storage facilities used for storing maize and bean grains in Ruhiira MVP. Concurrently, samples of visibly diseased maize and bean grains from each storage method will be taken and cultured in the laboratory. The different bacterial and fungal isolates will be identified to species and their respective prevalence established using the method described by Mortebsen (2005) for the bacteria; and the blotter and agar plate methods (Singh, et al., 2005) for the latter. In addition, the different pests in the maize and bean grains from each storage method will be identified and their prevalence levels established. Objective 2: Ascertain the extent of grain damage by rodents, pests and diseases under the different improved and traditional storage facilities on maize and bean grains in Ruhiira MVP Following the survey, an assessment on the extent of post harvest grain damage and the corresponding loss of maize and bean grains resulting from pests, diseases and rodents attacks will be conducted. This study will start one week after harvest and the damage assessment will continue on a monthly basis but for 5 months. From the 300 respondents surveyed under objective 1, a total of 10 households for each storage facility indentified will be randomly sampled and grains in their respective stores assessed for extent of damage caused by the different organisms. General sampling and assessment of damages caused by the different organism For each crop type i.e. maize and beans, the same method of damage assessment will be followed. The moisture content of the grains in the store will be recorded. In addition, a well-mixed 1Kg composite sample, taken from the store, will be sieved and then re-weighed. The difference taken as weight of sieving, will be recorded as a loss since they are not usually consumed. The sieved sample will then be assessed for pests, disease and rodents attacks as described below. Disease damage level assessment: Randomly, 200 seeds will be obtained from the 1Kg composite sample. Subsequently, all the visibly diseased seeds will be isolated from the 200 and their number as well as total weight recorded. Besides, each infected seed will be assessed and scored for disease damage level using a scale of 1-5, with 1 implying slight infection/damage and


5 severely infected; and the average weight and number of diseased seeds in each category will be recorded. The visibly disease free grains will also be counted and scored as 0. After scoring, all the 200 seeds will be put back in the composite sample and the damage assessment exercise will be repeated 3 times for each disease damage category. The assessment exercise for the subsequent months will be conducted using samples from the same storage facilities. Level of Pests damage, and combined pests and diseases damages: The assessment of maize and bean grains for pest damage, and for the combined pests and diseases damages will be conducted using the procedure as described for disease damage assessment, above. However, in the latter case, pests and or disease damage will be considered as one type of injury. Extent of loss caused by rodents A total of 10 stores under each storage facility identified during the survey will be used to store about 50Kg of maize cobs/store for a period of 5 months. These samples will not be accessed for human consumption. On a monthly basis, the moisture content and the weight of the grains will be measured in each store. Objective 3: Establish the changes in protein content and aflatoxin levels; and determine the food losses in the stored maize and bean grains under different storage facilities Mycotoxin levels and protein content (PC) will be assessed in the maize and bean varieties of Longe 5 and K 132, respectively. Besides being commonly grown, Longe 5 and K 132 are being promoted by MVP in the project area. Selection of samples for assessment: Three maize grain seeds for each disease damage score category i.e. 0-5 will be selected and independently analyzed for aflatoxin concentrations, thereby making a total of 18 samples. The same seed selection process and sample size will be used to determine the mycotoxin levels in the bean seeds, as well as for the protein content in maize and in bean grains. Similarly, for pest damage and for the combined pests and disease damages, the same selection procedure and sample sizes will be used to analyse for mycotoxins and PC in each crop. Determination of aflatoxin levels in maize and bean grains: For each disease damage level i.e. 0-5, a composite sample of 100 maize grain seeds, and another of 100 bean seeds will be used. The seeds under each damage category for each crop will then be milled into flour. Subsequently, 3 subsamples of 50 g/ subsample of flour will be taken for each damage level under each crop type and analyzed for aflatoxins using Aflatest® Fluorometer and following the method of VICAM (2006). Determination of aflatoxin concentrations in the different damage levels resulting from pests infestations, and for the combined pests and disease attacks in both maize and bean grains will follow the same procedure as for the disease damage levels. Determination of protein content in maize and bean grains: The procedure for sampling maize and bean grains to analyse for crude protein content will follow that used to establish the aflatoxin levels as described above. However, to determine the protein contents in the grains, the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1999) will be used.


Objective 4: Create awareness and enhance use of appropriate storage technologies for maize and bean grains in Ruhiira MVP Communities will be sensitized on the importance and how to reduce postharvest food losses coupled with using appropriate storage methods at household level. With emphasis, education on the dangers of consuming mouldy foods, pre and post harvest management practices to reduce grain damages coupled with construction of appropriate household stores for sustainable food security will be undertaken. This will be conducted through community trainings, radio talk shows and drama. Also, local artisans within the community will be trained to construct appropriate storage facilities by mainly using locally available materials. Subsequently demonstration stores will be established at household level. Similarly some farmers will be taken for exchange visits to areas that are successfully implementing appropriate storage of grain at household level. Besides, posters and training manuals on appropriate post harvest handling practices but translated in the local language will be availed to the community. Objective 5: Assess the knowledge acquired and level of uptake of the appropriate storage technologies in Ruhiira Towards the end of the project, a questionnaire will be administered to 300 households to establish the level of knowledge acquired and the extent of uptake of the improved storage facilities during implementation. Stratified sampling according to gender followed by random selection of 210 and 90 male and female headed respondents, respectively will be undertaken. The ratio of male to female headed households in the area is 7: 3 (Mid term Report, 2009). Data analysis Data will be entered and analysed in SPSS. Correlations between damage levels and protein content as well as aflatoxin levels will be run using linear regressions. Food loss will be analyzed and reported as all the grains of the various damage categories with aflatoxin concentration levels beyond 10 ppb which is the maximum limit allowed for human consumption (Kaaya, et al., 2005) in Uganda. Besides, the difference in PC between health seed (score 0) and each damage level will be considered as food loss corresponding to that level. Time Frame (July 2010 to June 2011)

Activity Time period Develop questionnaire and conduct survey to establish the existing grain storage methods July - Sept. 2010 Identify the pests and diseases influencing post harvest loss Aug. - Sept. 2010 Analyze survey data and write report on existing grain storage methods Oct. - Nov. 2010 Submit progress report to Earth Clinic committee Oct. 2010 Produce and distribute training manuals on post harvest handling to the community Oct. - Nov 2010 Sensitize communities on importance of appropriate storage and how to reduce food loss in storage

Oct. – Dec. 2010

Assess extent of grain damage by rodents, pests and diseases under the different improved and traditional storage facilities

Dec. 2010 to Apr. 2011

Analyze the crude protein content and aflatoxin levels in the stored grains Jan. to Feb. 2011 Train local artisans in construction of improved stores Feb. – Mar. 2011 Establish demonstration storage facilities Feb. – Mar. 2011 Submit progress report to Earth Clinic committee April 2011 Develop a questionnaire and assess the knowledge acquired and level of uptake of the appropriate storage technologies

April 2011-May 2011


Analyze data on acquired knowledge and uptake of appropriate storage technologies May 2011 Write and submit final report June 2011

Names and Titles of Contributors and their Role in the Project 1. Principle Investigator: Dr. Pedro A. Sanchez: Director, Tropical Agriculture and Rural

Environment, The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Will provide overall technical leadership of project.

2. Dr. Joseph Mudiope: Agriculture and Environment Coordinator, Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project, Uganda. He will coordinate the project at the field level.

3. Dr. David Siriri: Affiliate Associate Research scientist, Tropical Agricultue Program, Columbia University. Science Coordinator, Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project. Will lead in experimental designs, development of survey questionnaires and data analysis.

4. Prof. Dr. Archileo N. Kaaya: Biochemist, Makerere University, Kampala. Will lead the determination of aflatoxins and protein content levels, as well as identification of fungal and bacterial pathogens in the stored grains.

Budget (in US dollars) Item Total cost Office supplies (printing paper, flip chart, files, note books, flash discs) 1,200

Personnel (Field enumerators and research assistants) 6,000 Vehicle fuel during research 1,500 Laboratory expenses 7,500 Setting up storage facilities for demonstration 5,000 Producer exchange visits, radio airtime and drama 2,500 Production of posters and training manuals 1,800 Communication and local travel of scientists 2,000 Project Monitoring and evaluation 1,000

Total direct costs 28,500 Indirect costs (5%) 1,425 Total project costs 29,925

References AOAC., 1999. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. Virginia, 157pp Baseline Report (2006). Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project Baseline Report, 57pp Groopman, J. D. and Kensler, T. W. (1999). The light at the end of the tunnel for chemical-specific biomarkers: daylight or headlight/ carcinogenesis, 20, 1-11. Kaaya, A.N., H.L. Warren, S. Kyamanywa and W. Kyamuhangire, 2005. The effect of delayed harvest on moisture content, insect damage, moulds and aflatoxin contamination of maize in Mayuge district of Uganda. J. Sci. Food. Agric., 85: 2595 – 2599. Mid-Term Report (2009). Ruhiira Millennium Villages Project Mid-Term Report, 20pp. Mortensen, C. N. 2005. Seed health testing for bacterial pathogens. Danish Seed Health Centre for Developing Countries (DSHC). Thorvaldsernsvej 40, DK-1871 Frederiksberc, Copenhagen, Denmark 76pp.


Muthomi, J.W., L.N. Njenga, J.K. Gathumbi and G.N. Chemining’wa, 2009. The occurrence of aflatoxins in maize and distribution of mycotoxin-producing fungi in Eastern Kenya. Plant Pathol. J., 8: 113-119. Richard, J, 2000. Mycotoxins – An overview. RomerTM Labs’ guide to mycotoxins, 1. RomerTM

Labs Inc. 1301 Stylemaster Drive. Union, MO 63084 – 1156, pp: 48.

Singh, K, Frisvad, J. C, Thrane, U, and Mathur, S. B. (2005). An illustrated manual on identification of some seed-borne Aspergilli, Fusaria, Penicillia and their mycotoxins. Danish Government Instituite for seed pathology for developing countries Ryvangs Alle 78, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark and Department of Biotechnology. The technical University of Denmark DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark 133pp. VICAM (2006). Determination of aflatoxin using the fluorometer method. VICAM, L.P., 313 Pleasant Street, Watertown, MA 02472, USA. Williams, J. H., T. D. Phillips, P. Jolly, J. K. Styles, C. M. Jolly and D. Aggarwal. 2004. Human aflatoxicosis in developing countries: a review of toxicology, exposure, potential health consequences, and interventions. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 5, 1106 – 1122.

ec 2011 final reports

Documents

project communities

social cohesion measures

existing social cohesion

broader cohesion

pages title of project

endline data

postconflict liberia

ethiopia names of pis