tanzania agricultural research€¦ · illustration materials and news items that will help...

Tanzania Agricultural

Research& TrainingNewsletter

Published by Ministry of Agriculture Food Security &CooperativesDepartment of Research & Training P.O.Box 2066 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

VOL. XX, No. 1-4 DECEMBER 2005

ISSN 0856-3128

CONTENTS COVER PHOTO

The Tanzania Agricultural Research & TrainingNewsletter is published qauarterlyby the Department of Research & Training, Ministryof Agriculture Food security & Cooperatives.The newsletter is a means of enhancingcommunication among Tanzania agricultural scientists,and disseminating scientific information especiallyrecent research findings to relevant users. It is alsoused for publication-exchange programme with otherscientific institutions within and outside Tanzania.

We invite contributions from the agriculturalscientists and those of the allied sectors in Tanzania.Such contributions should be in form of short articles(800 - 3000 words), workshop/conference reports,illustration materials and news items that will helpagricultural development in Tanzania. The articlesshould be original and authentic research findings orprogress reports about on going projects.

Please send contributions or any enquiries to:

The Director of reseach& Training or theEditor, Research & Training NewsletterP.O. Box 2066 Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: +255-22-2860326Fax: +255-22-2865312email: [email protected] URL: http://www.drd.mafs.go.tz

Editor: Richard Y. KasugaTypesetting & Layout: Richard Y. Kasuga

This is one of the 16 new cashew clones whichwere developed by the Naliendele AgriculturalResearch Institutes, Mtwara-Tanzania. The clonesare high yielding and resitant to diseases such asPowderly mildew, Athracnose and Die back. Thenew clones produce yield as high as 70 kg per tree.

Photo Courtesy by Dr. Peter Masawe, PrincipalResearch Officer, ARI Naliendele, Mtwara

Message from the Director ofResearch and Training 3

Improved arabica coffee varietiesprovide new hope to coffeefarmers 4

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Performance of cashew hybridsdeveloped from partial dialedcrossing between selected clonesin Tanzania 5

Evaluating the impact of improvedagricultural technologies at farmlevel in Tanzania 9

R & D NEWS

SARO-5 an emerging highyielding and profitable rice cultivarin Tanzania 14

Seed industry development inTanzania 16

WORKSHOPS/CONFERENCES

Smart Toolkit for evaluatinginformation products and serviceslaunched 19

RESEARCH ABSTRACTS 21

DIRECTORY OF R& TINSTITUTIONS 23

Message from the Director of Researchand Training

Top of the agenda in 2005 was the merging of twoDepartments, the Department of Research andDevelopment (DRD) and the Department of TrainingInstitutes (DTI) to form the Department of Researchand Training (DRT). The implementation of the newstructure was effective in July 2005, where at theMinisterial level, I was appointed to be the firstDirector of the new department and my colleagueMr. Ramadhan S. Kapande was appointed theAssistant Director responsible for training.

The Implementation of the new structure atthe Zonal level was worked out by a team of expertsand recommendations on the modalities are being putinto actions. It was under the same development spirit,a meeting of Zonal Directors for Research andDevelopment and Principals of Training Institutes washeld on 30th September 2005 at Kibaha SugarResearch Institute under the chairmanship of thePermanent Secretary, Wilfred Ngirwa. The meetingdeliberated on among other things the implementationof the new structure at the Zonal level. In the newstructure the zonal management team will include theZonal Director Research and Training (ZDRT),Assistant Zonal Director Training (AZDT),Assistance Zonal Director Research (AZDR) andTechnology Transfer Coordinator (TTC). Thesepositions will soon be advertised and will be filled inon competitive basis with a specific salary structureand terms of service.

The good news for coffee growers this yearwas the official launching of 10 new varieties ofArabica coffee by the Tanzania Coffee ResearchInstitute (TaCRI). That was a big break through forcoffee research which started 50 years ago. The newvarieties have potential to increase incomes offarmers by reducing costs that were previously spenton coffee diseases control. The major coffee diseasesthat the new varieties are resistant are Coffee BerryDisease (CBD) and Coffee Leaf Rust (CLR). Letme take this opportunity to comment TaCRI for theirspeedy release of the new varieties and their planson the ground to ensure the varieties get quickly tofarmers.

Another development worth mentioning is theimprovement of government budget to financeresearch activities. As you may recall, this was thesecond year to operate without TARP II, where ourresearch activities have operated entirely ongovernment budget. Unlike in previous years this yearthe government budget going into research increasedsubstantially. As a result after many years we couldfinance some of the personnel benefits such as payingleave allowance, which could not be provided inprevious years.

The increasing GoT funds have given us moreroom to address issues that are of priority to ournation. Relatively substantial amount of funds wereallocated to all research programs including the newthrust to research on traditional and non traditionalcrops. In addition to routine research activities,

resources were also spent to support various trainingprogrammes in the country and abroad.

As you may have noted, the coordinatingcommittee meetings which used to draw scientiststogether to discuss and share experiences stopped

some few years ago andin return they werereplaced by zonalcommittee, meetingsnamely the InternalProgramme Review(IPR), Technical ReviewCommittee (TRC) andZonal ExecutiveCommittee (ZEC)meetings. Over the lasttwo years the funding levelcould not support thosemeeting to take place.This has seriously deniedour scientists a forum forexchanging ideas andexperiences. This

weakness has been observed and it has been agreedthat after every two years there will be a NationalAgricultural Scientific Conference that will bringtogether scientists from different disciplines to presentpapers on a particular theme. The first scientificconference is planned to take place starting 2006/07and I call upon all scientists to take this up seriouslyas this will be an opportunity and a gateway to getinternational exposure.

Information communication between the DRTHead office and research stations has continuouslyimproved. Commendable achievements wererecorded during TARP II where a number of zonalresearch centres were connected to the internet. Itis interesting to mention that these efforts havecontinued in 2005, where four other research stationsnamely Mlingano, Ifakara, Dakawa and Makutoporawere connected to the Internet. It is with thisdevelopment, the DRT has almost all of its researchstations connected to the Internet. This has not onlyfacilitated the smooth flow of information with thehead office, but has enabled scientists and trainers tocommunicate with each other and around the globeand access information almost instantly which hasbeen an impetus in improving their research outputs.Efforts will continue in the coming years to improvecommunications in other research stations and traininginstitutes.

Let me now underscore the importance ofagricultural experts in improving agriculturalproductivity in the country. As we all know, the numberof existing extension officers that are supposed toserve the farmers is very low. Worse still is theongoing erosion of technical staff in the departmentdue to retirement and other calamities. These areserious challenges which can only be solved byincreasing the capacity of our training institutes to

MESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGE

Research & Training Newsletter Vol. xix Nos. 1-4, Dec. 2005 3

Dr. J.M.Haki

enrol more students to cope with the demand. Thecurrent situation shows that in recent years there hasbeen improvement in student enrolment especiallyafter the government decision to start providingsponsorship. However the challenge now is theinadequate number of tutors to cope with theanticipated increase of students in the near future.

The sad news in 2005, involved the students’dormitory at the Ukiriguru Training Institutes whichwas completely gutted on fire accident that wascaused by electricity faulty. In this incidence over 40students lost their properties. I wish to convey mysympathy to all the effected students. The governmenthas taken measures to restore the building to normal.

With the launching of the ASDP Basket Fundin year 2006/2007 and with renewed commitmentfrom Government to increase the level of funding forthe Department, we must now position ourselves to

respond to the challenges ahead of us. The ZonalAgricultural Research and Development Funds to beestablished under the ASDP will provide additionalresources to enable us respond to farmer needs.

I therefore look forward to a busy 2006/2007whereby our contribution to agricultural growth willbe required.

I thank you all for your continued cooperation,and wishing you all the best.

Jeremiah M. Haki, PhDDirector, DRT

Improved Arabica Coffee VarietiesProvide New Hope to Coffee Farmers

Ten new varieties of Arabica coffee have beendeveloped and released by the Tanzania CoffeeResearch Institute (TaCRI). These varieties are theproduct of research efforts which started 50 yearsago by coffee research programme of the Departmentof Research of the Ministry of Agriculture, whichwas later taken over by TaCRI with the aim ofrevitalizing coffee production in the country.

The goals of the coffee research program havebeen to come up with solutions on problems facingcoffee industry in Tanzania. Diseases such as CoffeeBerry Disease (CBD), Coffee Leaf Rust (CLR) andCoffee Wilt for Robusta coffee prompted scientiststo breed for resistant varieties. Parallel to diseaseswere the various insect pests that attack coffee whichreduce coffee productivity and finally the income ofthe farmer.

More so aged coffee trees, non-use of modernproduction technologies, high costs of inputs, highinterest rates of loans and low coffee prices are amongmany problems that are facing coffee industry inTanzania. It is estimated that coffee diseases couldreduce coffee yields from 30 to 60 per cent, whereasthe costs of controlling the diseases in previous coffeevarieties accounts by almost 50 per cent of theproduction cost.

The new coffee hybrids are superior in termsof possessing many good qualities. Those qualitiesinclude resistance to major coffee diseases namelyCoffee Leaf Rust (CLR) and Coffee Berry Disease(CBD). The varieties produce large coffee beans inwhich a sack weighs between 65 – 70 Kg incomparison to 45 – 50 Kg obtained from previouscoffee varieties that result into high profit margin of

dried coffee. The varieties produce coffee of goodtaste and aroma thus attributing to their high marketingopportunities.

TaCRI’s mission now is to produce plantingmaterials of the new varieties in big numbers fordistribution to coffee farmers. Some coffee farmerssuch as Mr. Elisalia Mosha is among the elitebeneficiaries of the new coffee varieties.Commending on the varieties, Mr. Mosha said “therelease of the new coffee varieties have made mereturn to coffee farming”. He further said “coffeefarming started to loose popularity because it was nolonger profitable due to high costs of productionresulting from chemicals one has to apply to controlcoffee diseases, apart from the low productionpotential of varieties we used before the new ones”.

The launching of the new coffee varieties wasdone by Mr. Wilfred Ngirwa, Permanent Secretaryof the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security atthe ceremony which was attended by stakeholdersof coffee industry in Tanzania. Mr. Ngirwacongratulated scientists for their tireless effortsdevoted towards developing the varieties. He alsostressed on the need to protect the varieties underthe Plant Breeders Rights Act of 2004 that wouldguarantees benefits to breeders and the country atlarge.

He extended appreciation to the farmers andother stakeholders in the coffee industry such as thosein Business, the Coffee Board of Tanzania and donorsparticularly the European Union (EU) throughSTABEX program, for their support which contributedto the successful development of the new coffeevarieties.

4 Research & Training Newsletter Vol. xix No. 1-4, Dec. 2005

MESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGEMESSAGE

Performance of Cashew HybridsDeveloped from Partial Dialed Crossing

between Selected Clones in Tanzania1

P.A.L. Massawe, S. Mfume and Z. Mbunda

AbstractFive cashew clones were selected as potentially high yielding, tolerant to powdery mildew andone as susceptible to the disease. All of them were crossed to produce 30 crosses includingreciprocals and six self ’s. These progenies were planted and evaluated for their performanceat Naliendele Agricultural Research Institute in the South eastern Tanzania. Yield, nut qualityand vegetative data were recorded on a trees basis for a period of nine years. Results showedthat 13 hybrids were the most outstanding in terms of yield and nut quality.

IntroductionMost cashew trees growing in farmers fields werederived from seeds of parents representing verynarrow genetic base. However, the existing cashewpopulation shows considerable phenotypic variations.Mass selection was carried out after several yearsof observations and superior genotypes were selectedto enter a second stage of cashew improvement. Theselection was based on yield performance and nutquality assessment. This was by far adequate becausepreviously there were neither diseases nor insect-pests of economic importance for cashew in EastAfrica (Masawe 1994).

However, with the outbreak of cashewpowdery mildew in East Africa and Anthracnose inBrazil and high incidences of insect pest attack incashew, selection indices were reviewed to cope withthe existing conditions and market demands. For thatreason selection has now included more parametersand among them are diseases and insect pesttolerance, dwarfism, large nuts size and short durationof nut picking. In the existing populations, cashewtrees possess one or few of those characters.

One way of obtaining improved materials fromany genetic collection is by crossing between selectedparents. Crossing combines the characters in such away that a small proportion of the hybrids will performbetter than both parents. Once this proportion ofhybrids is identified it can then be multipliedvegetatively or forwarded for advanced trials toestablish whether the performance of the identifiedindividuals is genetically or environmentally controlled.Equally the trial will also identify hybrids, which aresuitable to specific or several environments.

In Tanzania the first hybrids were developedin 1991. Observation of the hybrids at the early stagesof the tree development indicated that growth of thehybrids was more vigorous than the clonallypropagated parental clones. It was also found thattree heights were more heritable than canopydiameters (Masawe et. al., 1998). However yieldand yield components were not considered becausethe trees were still young. Now that such cashewtrees have reached an optimum growth the dataavailable can warrant evaluation of yield and yield

components. This paper reports the performanceof the hybrids planted in 1991 in the southern zoneof Tanzania.Materials and MethodsFive parents of promising cash clones wereselected basing on yield results of over 15 years(Anonymous 1990). The clones were AC4, AC10,AC43, AZA2 and AZA17. In addition, ATA19parent clone known to be susceptible to powderymildew disease (Sijaona personal communication)was also selected. Clone AC4 was also used ascontrol (Plate 1A, 1B and 1C). The six cloneswere crossed to provide 30 crosses includingreciprocals and six selfs. Nuts from controlled handpollination were raised in polythene bags andthereafter seedlings were planted in a designrandomized complete block (RCB) design with fourreplicates, each with 18 trees per plot planted at aspacing of 6m triangle. There were 13 crosses and5 selfs from 36 combinations. The six parents wererandomized around the periphery of the trial plotsand there were four cashew trees per plot. Datarecorded were on yield, canopy diameter, nut andkernel weights. Data analysis was done using SASstatistical package.Results and DiscussionsResults shown that there were significantdifferences in yield and vegetative characters atp=0.01 between genotypes (Tables 1a & 1b). Theinteraction between of Rep x Genotypes was insignificant except for yield data recorded in 1995and also for canopy diameter which suggests thatthe genotypes were performing the same in eachreplicate.

The trial mean yield increased from yearlyto 7.97 kg/tree in 1998 and in subsequent year therewas no substantial increase probably due tooverlapping of the tree canopies, which reducesproduction area of the canopy. The coefficient ofvariation (CV) for yields was very high. On theother hand the CVs for vegetative data canopydiameter and height nut weight and percentagekernel out-turns were low.

1 Naliendele Agricultural Research Institute P.O. Box 509 Mtwara, E-mail: [email protected]


RESEARCH ARTICLESRESEARCH ARTICLESRESEARCH ARTICLESRESEARCH ARTICLESRESEARCH ARTICLES

Plate 1 Clone AC4 (A) flush, (B) inflorescence and (C) apple and nuts

A B C


6 Research & Training Newsletter Vol. xix Nos. 1-4, Dec. 2005

High CVs in cashew appears to be common in manycountries. Eijnatten and Abubaker (1983) reportedcoefficient of variation of 48%. In India, Nair andPrabhakaran (1983) found CVs varying from 46.89%to 116.85%. Higher CVs in cashew yields were alsoreported by Neto (1992), Mead and Martin (1992),Masawe and Millanzi (1997). Nut set plays animportant role in tree yields. However, nut set incashew was found to be affected by lack of pollinatingagents (Northwood, 1966; Heard et al. 1990) and tosome extent this can cause variation in yield withingenotypes, which contributed, to higher CVs. Lownut set on some cashew trees was reported inMozambique (Masawe and Mapsangue, 2000), dueto low temperatures, which delayed time of insecthatching. Other studies indicated that nut set canalso be affected by limited nutrient resources(Subbaiah, 1983; Nawale et al. 1984, Ghosh, 1989).

Results of Duncan’s multiple range tests onyields nut weight, kernel weight and percentage kernelout-turn showed that families of genotypeAZA17xAC43 had the highest in yield. In contrast,families of genotype AC10xAC10 had the lowest yieldand poor nut quality.

When yield and nut quality over the study periodwere analyzed six genotypes (AZA17xAC43ATA19xAC10, AC4xAC4, ATA19xAC4,AZA17xATA19 and AC43xATA19) performedbetter than the control genotype AC4 which had lowermean yields ranging from 2.4 to 7.3. All genotypeshad nut weight greater than 7g and percentage kernelranging from 23-32%, which is above minimum

accepted level of 20%.It was also revealed that families of genotypes

that performed better than the control genotype (AC4)had great variations within genotype in yield and nutquality. Since these are the most important charactersfor selection in cashew, a selection criterion was setto identify individual hybrids within genotypes thatcontributed to its good performance. The selectioncriterion was hybrids with mean yield equal or greaterthan 10 kg which was the average trial mean forperiod of three years the yield per unit area equal orgreater than 0.20 kg/m2, and the nut weight equal orgreater than 7g. Based on those criterion 13 hybridswere most outstanding (Table 2). Although somehybrids had same parents they recorded different yieldpotential because cashew is highly heterozygouswhich confers with other results observed whenstudying fruit color segregation in cashew (Masawe,1994). In that study hybrids from the same parentshave different fruit colors such as red, orange andyellow.ConclusionThe 13 selected hybrids are promising. However, asingle tree represents each hybrid, which can be lostdue to biotic or abiotic factors. For that reason theyshould be included in the cashew gene bank forconservation and also multiplied in scion garden forfuture use. Equally the hybrids should be tested atdifferent agro ecological sites to find out if theenvironment influences the performance of thehybrids.



ReferencesAnonymous 1990. Annual Cashew Research

Report for 1990. Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives, Tanzania

Eijnatten, C.L.M. and A.S. Abubaker, 1983.New cultivation techniques for cashew(Anacardium occidentale L.). NetherlandsJournal of Agricultural Sciences 31 (1): 13-25.

Ghosh, S.N. 1989. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorusand potassium on flowering duration, yield andshelling percentage of cashew (Anacardiumoccidentale L.). Indian Cashew Journal 19,19-23.

Heard, T.A., Vithanage, V. and E.K. Chako, 1990.Pollination biology in the northern territory ofAustralia. Austr. J. Agric. Research, 41, 1101-1114.

Masawe P.A.L and K.J.K Millanzi 1997.Performance of selected Malawian cashewprogenies and local selections from Tangaunder conditions of southern Tanzania.Research and Training Newsletter, Vol XII,Nos 1-4 December 1997

.Masawe P.A.L. and Z. Mapsangue 2000. Report

on investigation into poor development ofcashew fruits in Gaza province. CashewResearch and Development in Mozambique.Submitted to the National Agronomic ResearchInstitute MAPUTO 15th November 2000

Masawe P.A.L., 1994. Aspects of breeding andselecting improved cashew genotypes(Anacardium occidentale Linn). PhD Thesis.The University of Reading

Masawe, P.A.L., Cundall, E.P. and Caligari, P.D.S.1999. Observations on progenies in a crossingscheme between cashew clones:Establishment characters. Tanzania Journal ofAgricultural Science, Vol 2, No. 1, 1-6.

Mead, R. and A. Martin 1992. Draft report onfarmer participation Research, On-farmResearch and Cashew Research. NaliendeleAgricultural Research Institute, Mtwara,Tanzania.

Nair, R.B. and P.V. Prabhakaran, 1983. Optimumsize and shape of plots in field experimentswith cashew. Agricultural Research Journal ofKerala 21 (1):27-34.

Nawale, R.N., M.J. Salvi and V.P. Limaye, 1984.Studies on the fruit set and fruit drop in cashew(Anacardium occidentale L.). CashewCauserie 6, 5-7.

Neto, V. 1992. Yield variability of cashew trees inEast Africa. PhD Thesis, University ofReading, UK.

Northwood, P.J. 1966. Some observations onflowering and fruit setting in cashewAnacardium occidentale L., Trop. Agric. 43,35-42.

Subbaiah, C.C., 1983. Fruiting and abscissionpatterns in cashew. Journal of Agric Science(Cambridge) 100, 423-427.



Scientist working on cashew experiments at ARI Naliendele Mtwara, Tanzania

Evaluating the Impact of ImprovedAgricultural Technologies at Farm Level

in TanzaniaD. Lwezaura

1

AbstractAssessment of the impact of improved technologies in farmers’ fields was conducted during thelast year of implementation of the Tanzania Agricultural Research Project (TARP). The studyculminated after other studies which were conducted during the project lifetime which focusedon randomly selected sample of farmers that participated in the whole process of the development,use and transfer of agricultural technologies. Using semi-structured questionnaire a total of1995 farmers obtained through purposive and stratified sampling methods were interviewed.Generally the results showed that the project (TARP) intervention increased crop yields to farmersthat adopted improved varieties and recommended agronomic practices.

IntroductionMonitoring and evaluation (M$E) system wasinstitutionalized in the agricultural technologydevelopment and transfer prior to the implementationof the second phase of the Tanzania AgriculturalResearch Project (TARP II) in 1998. The mainobjective was to track down, on a yearly basis, theprogress, effectiveness and impact of recommendedagricultural technologies at farm level as a result ongroup research projects. TARP II started to beimplemented in June 1998 and came to an end in June2004. In order to be able to measure the impact ofthe project at farm level at the end of the projectbaseline, studies were undertaken in 1998. Timeseries information was generated through M&Estudies conducted in the year 2000. The intention wasto track changes in farming practices over a 5-yearperiod focusing on the particular households. The datawere collected repeatedly in the same farmingsystems where researchers had been interacting withrespective farmers.

Study objectivesThe assessment was to establish evidence of changesin farmers’ practices that have taken place as a resultof project intervention in agricultural technologydevelopment and transfer. The information generatedwill be a useful feedback for improving futureresearch activities and make it more responsive inaddressing to farmers needs. The information will alsobe used in research assessing the impact ofinvestment. The evaluation has taken a keen interestin performance measurement basing on the analysison rigorous performance indicators of the project. Thisstudy was also expected provided information tomanagers and donors about the contribution of theproject in terms of successes and failures and spellingout lessons for future improvement.

MethodologyThe survey covered seven research zones (Central,Eastern, Lake, Northern, Southern Highlands,Southern and Western). A total of 1995 farmers wereselected for interview. Out of these, a total of 1246were farmers who participated in on-farm researchactivities and 749 were non-participating farmers. Thefarmers were selected from five dominant farmingsystems in each zone. The sampled farmers wereinterviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire.

A multi-stage and purposive sampling processwas used to select survey areas and farmers basedon selection criteria such as the level of current on-farm research activities; past involvement in on-farmresearch and potential for initiating on-farm research(OFR) activities in the near future; agriculturalpotential; enterprise balance (crops and livestock);and other partners working in the area such as NGOs,development programmes and extension services.

Six villages from each of the five dominantfarming system of each zone were selected basedon logistics and/or proximity and level of on-farmresearch activities. Ten farmers from each villagewere selected, out of which 7 were collaborating and3 were non-collaborating farmers. Selection alsoconsidered gender balance.

Data analysisDescriptive statistics and test of functionalrelationships such as t-test, Chi2, and analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) were used in the analysis. Theanalysis based on comparison between collaboratingand non-collaborating farmers, farming system zones,adoption behavior disaggregated on such factors asgender, age, and education and farm characteristics.

1 Principal Agricultural Economist, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Department of Research & Training,Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives, P.O.Box 2066 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania


Results and DiscussionHousehold socio-economic characteristicsResults showed that 89% of households were maleheaded. The age structure showed that 39% ofrespondents were between 15 and 40 years, 47%between 41 and 60 years and 14% were above 60years old. About 78% of the respondent farmers wereprimary school leavers 9% had no formal educationand 13%) had college level education. The numberof members per household ranged from 8 to10 withan average of nine.Cultivation practicesThe prominent tillage practices applied by farmersinclude minimum tillage, hand hoeing, tractorploughing and draft animals. About 78% of the farmersindicated to be using a hand hoe followed by ox plough(34%), tractor (13% and zero tillage (12%). Terracingand tie-ridging were not common practices. Only 21%of farmers practice contouring, 12% tie-ridging and6% used terracing. Farm assetsType of assets used (through ownership or hiring) isa reflection of the wealth and capacity of householdsto manage farm and off-farm business. The resultsshow that about 97% of the respondent own and usehand hoe, out of them 63% were those collaboratingwith research institutions. This indicates that majorityof farmers in Tanzania still rely on rudimentary farmingtools. The reason could be that the peasant economyunder which most farmers are operating is not enablingthem to acquire and use modern farming tools. Theresults indicate that majority of farmers own and usethe mentioned farm assets and that of collaboratingfarmers own and use more farm assets than non-collaborators. This probably implies that, farmerscollaborating with research institutions are optimistic

of the future outcomes and hence are self-pushed toacquire more assets.

Very few farmers’ own tractor harrow or ox-plough. Hiring of farm assets was not a commonpractice. This could be due to either unavailability ofsuch hiring initiatives or inability of the farmers toafford the costs involved.Use of improved technologiesThe findings show that about 96% of the totalrespondents were using improved cotton seeds,sunflower (58%), maize (55%), sorghum (42%),pigeon peas (42%), rice (39%), banana (29%), beans(28%) and millet (27%).Percentage of farmers usingimproved varieties of groundnuts, cassava andcowpeas was low(21%,20% and 15% respectively.The levels of use of improved varieties varied foreach crop across zones. In case of maize, Northernzone with (85%)of the total respondents usingimproved varieties. This followed by Central zone with(62%), Western (53%), Lake (49%), SouthernHighlands (49%), Easter (45%) and the lowest in theSouthern zone (39%). Sixty one percent of farmersin the Northern zone used improved seeds of sorghum,that were followed by Western (53%) and Centralzone (51%). Regarding rice production (63%) ofrespondents in the Eastern zone used improved seedsfollowed by Central zone (59%)

The proportions of use of improved seedsbetween collaborators and non-collaborators varied.In all major crops the proportion of collaborators whoused improved varieties was higher than for non-collaborators. With the exception of cotton, rice andsorghum, in all other crops the differences that wereobserved were found to differ significantly at 5% level(Table 1). This implies that collaborators had benefitedfrom contact with



Table 2 indicates that there was a significant increasein the proportion of farmers using improved seedsfor maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, coffee, cotton, andsunflower. The data also show that there was noincrease in farmers adopting improved seeds forcassava, beans, groundnuts, banana and sweetpotatoes. However, these findings should be takenwith caution because of the differences in the samplesizes and number of farming systems used betweenthe years.Farm productivityTable 3 shows 11 crops commonly grown in Tanzania.Productivity of almost all crops was very lowreflecting the subsistence nature of Tanzanianagriculture. On average rice yield was 2040 kg/ha,cassava 1169 kg/ha, maize yield was 1508 kg/ha, andsunflower 1279 kg/ha, sorghum was 627kg/ha andbeans 790 kg/ha. Productivity varied among differentcrops across zones. The results also indicated thatoverall Northern zone led was leading in crop yieldsfor maize (2737kg/ha), while Southern Highlandsproduced the highest rice yield (3582 kg/ha).

Crop yields between collaborators and non-collaborators and between the farms own by menand women (see Table 3). The findings indicate thatexcept for pigeon peas and cowpeas, crop yields ofcollaborators were higher than those of non-collaborators. However, in some of the crops the yielddifference between collaborators and non-collaborators was not significant (p=5%). This impliesthat a significant number of non-collaborating farmersare active in adopting the new agricultural innovationseither through parallel interventions or collaboratingfarmers.

Comparison of yields between men and womenfarmers showed significant variation. Male farmershad higher production levels for maize, rice, sorghum,cassava, cotton, pigeon peas and cowpeas. Femalefarmers had higher production levels for sunflower,beans, groundnuts and bananas. In all crops theobserved mean yield differences between the groupswas significant. There could be numerous factors toaccount for this trend including the economic statusof the crop with males dominating commercially viablecrops leading to differences in allocation of resourcesand time in management of the crop.

The yields recorded in previous surveys in1998, 2000 and 2003 for various crops are presentedin Table 4. There was an increase in yield for almostall crops except cassava, beans and sorghum. Whilethe yield of cassava decreased in the annual averageof about 13%, sorghum and beans decreased by 7%and 4% respectively. The increase in bananaproduction was substantially significant compared toother crops (Table 4). This could be due to theintroduction of improved agronomic technologies inthe study area. The average increase of yield maizeand rice was 3% and 6% respectively for the fiveyear periodFarmers’ participation in on-farm researchactivitiesTechnology development and dissemination (TDT)The findings indicate that more than 56% of the totalcollaborators were involved at different stages oftechnology development and transfer. Table 5 showsthe proportion of farmers who participated in siteselection for the trials (74%), planning for on-farmand on-station research (46%), and problemidentification (52%). There were variations acrossthe zones in the application of research participatorymethodologies. Women were not adequatelyrepresented in the TDT process.

Further analysis indicates that involvement offarmers in TDT increased from year 1998 at the startof TARP II to year 2003. For instance, about 19%,35% and 52% of collaborators said to have beeninvolved in problem identification in 1998, 2000 and2003 respectively. In year 1998, 2000 and 2003 about21%, 35% and 51% respectively participated inresearch planning. The number of collaborators whoparticipated in planning for on-farm/on-station trialsincreased in the order of 26%, 34% and 45% in 1998,2000 and 2003 respectivelyTechnology diffusionThe comparison made between collaborators and non-collaborators on the use of improved varieties andfarm production and productivity shed lights onwhether the non-collaborators did acquiretechnologies by way of diffusion. The transfer oftechnologies from collaborators to non-collaboratorscould be affected through sharing of researchmaterials, informal meetings and farmer-to-farmervisits.



The findings show that about 82% of the collaboratorsshared results with non-participating farmers. About74% of the total collaborators shared results with non-participating farmers by visiting their research plots/animal, through seasonal evaluation (28%), throughsharing of seeds/breeding bulls (29%), villagemeetings (27%) and about 76% shared throughinformal discussions.

There has been improvement for nonparticipating farmers accessing technologies fromparticipating farmers. For instance, the proportion ofnon participating farmers who visited research plots,shared improved seeds/breeds, attended villagemeetings and in informal discussion increased fromyear 1998 to 2003. In 1998 non collaborators whovisited research plots were about 5% which increasedto 31% in 2000 and 74% in 2003. There was also asignificant increase for those participating in seasonalevaluation which increased from 4% in 1998, 8% in2000 and to 28% in 2003. Those who shared improvedseeds/breeds were about 8% in 1998, 14% in 2000and 29% in 2003. Likewise, those who accessedtechnologies through village meetings increased from10% in 1998, 14% in 2000 to 27% in 2003. Themechanisms that were mentioned by farmers asappropriate for technology up scaling were informaldiscussion among farmers and farmer-to-farmer visit.The results also show that men were highly exposedthan women.Constraints in technology developmentFarmers were asked to explain the problems theyare facing in the process of technology developmentand transfer. About 39% of the total collaboratorssaid they had some problems with interacting withresearchers in on-farm research. The responsesvaried from zone to zone and included irregular visitsof researchers, poor timing of trials and untimelydelivery of inputs that does not match with farmingseason. Other problems mentioned were undesirableresults and lack of input and output market. The issueraised by farmers should, in future, be seriously takeninto account by researchers.Conclusion and recommendationsThe core problem of agricultural production inTanzania has been low yields of crops. Some of thedirect cause being poor husbandry techniques,occurrence of insect pests and diseases, low geneticpotential of crops, low plant nutrition, low soilproductivity and adverse climatic conditions. Other

problems are poor linkage between research –extension and farmers.

Out of these problems, the project (TARP II)developed researchable areas. The desired outcomesof the intervention at farm level were to see to it thatinsect pests and diseases incidents are minimized,appropriate materials of high genetic potential aredeveloped and used by farmers, soil productivity isimproved and technologies dissemination andcommunication is strengthened. Thus the mainobjective of increased farm productivity and incomewould be realized at farm households. This was inthe assumption that the key stakeholders wouldparticipate effectively in the technology development,transfer and dissemination.

Ideally, it was expected that farmers who havebeen participating in TDT would have adopted andused more technologies than those who had nointeraction with researchers. Their farm yield wouldbe higher than non collaborating farmers. But thatwere not always the outcomes met by the projectintervention. This could be due to some farmersidentified as non collaborators might have beenparticipating parallel with other development partners(run by NGOs and other private sector) while otherscould be progressive farmers who could easily interactand quickly access the different technologies andtherefore attaining higher farm yields. These andother reasons make it unrealistic to draw conclusionsfor the project impact based on this comparison. Thuscareful consideration needs to be made in selectingcontrol group. This problem might be expectedbecause it is sometimes difficulties to determine thecontrol group for the project as the farmers caninteract freely without restrictions.ReferencesBACAS (1998): Baseline Survey on the

Agricultural Research Systems. Synthesis ofMain Findings and Recommendations - Vol. 1.

URT (1999) Tanzania Agricultural ResearchProject – Phase II (TARP II): ProjectImplementation Plan (PIP). Ministry ofAgriculture and Co-operatives.

Z. Semgalawe, A.Ahmed, D. Lwezaura, T.Ngahulira, J. Banzi, B. Kapange, A.Ngereza and H. Ulotu (2000): SurveyReport of Farmers Participating in On-farmResearch. Tanzania Agricultural ResearchProject – Phase II (TARP II).

12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567891234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678912345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789

With the aim to improve and sustain the Research & Training Newsletter; agriculturabased commercial and other companies/institutions are invited to advertise theirproducts and services in this newsletter which has circulation within and outsideTanzania.

Advertising rates are as follows:

1 Page TAS 100,0001/2 Page TAS 50,0001/4 Page TAS 30,000Inside Cover TAS 150,000Outside Cover TAS 200,000

For further details contact the Director of Research & Training, Ministry of AgricultureFood Security & Cooperatives, P.O. Box 2066 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania



SARO 5-an emerging high yielding andprofitable rice cultivar in Tanzania

Z.L. Kanyeka1, J.M Kibanda

2, S.C. Msomba

2 and H. Tusekelege

3

IntroductionEfforts to improve rice varieties in Tanzania startedduring the mid thirties when the rice breeding workstarted at Mwabagole Experimental Station on theshores of Lake Victoria (Doggett, 1965; Monyo andMwaruka, 1974; Monyo et al., 1973; Kanyeka,2001). Since then there has been several breedingprogrammes the current rice-breeding program is acontinuation of the rice improvement program thatstarted in 1965, whose objectives have been detailedin a number of working papers and reports (Monyoet al 1973, Monyo and Mwaruka 1974; Monyoand Kanyeka 1978).

Since when rice-breeding activities started,more than twelve exotic and local improved ricecultivars have been recommended and only twovarieties were officially released to be grown in thecountry (Table1). However, the breeding efforts didnot put emphasis on the improvement of graincharacteristics that are preferable by farmers andconsumers. As a result the adoption of the tworecommended varieties has been low. Unacceptable.(Kanyeka et al 1995, Kanyeka 2001). About 62.5% of the improved varieties such as all IR series,Afaa Mwanza selections, Selemwa and KATRINwere only grown by the large scale commercial ricefarms which were managed by National Agricultureand Food Corporation (NAFCO) at Mbarali, Ruvu,Kapunga, and Dakawa. Small scale farmers couldnot adopt such cultivars because of poor grain qualitiesand the non preference of these improved ricevarieties.

Rice improvement programmeIn 1983 through Supa Improvement Project (SIP) abreeding program started at Dakawa ResearchCenter. The program emphasis was to improve yieldpotential, and grain characteristics such as strongaroma, good milling, long translucent and palatablekernels. These grain characteristics traits are foundin the widely cultivated and accepted local cultivarlandrace known as Supa.

The traits for grain quality were incorporatedin the new progenies through crosses between cultivarSupa and some selected cultivars. After severalcrossing, progenies were obtained. Aromaticprogenies with short plant stature that were selectedin F2 populations from a cross number TXD 306involving (Supa/P8) x (Subarimati/Supa).

Further evaluation and grouping of the lines onthe basis of aroma and grain types resulted into threedistinct series:

¨ SARO 1 Lines with strong scent and grain typeof Supa

¨ SARO II Lines with intermediate scent andgrain type of DAK 83 and NARO series werethe non-aromatic lines with grain types ofKATRIN.

¨ SARO 5 TXD 306-7-B-B1 was one of the fewpromising highly scented elite lines with shortplant stature reselected and evaluated in SAROI series (Table 2).

1 Department of Botany University of Dar Es Salaam, P.O. Box 35060 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania2 Ifakara Agricultural Research Centre Private Bag, Ifakara, Tanzania3 Dakawa Agricultural Research Centre, P.O. B0x 8792, Morogoro, Tanzania

R & D NEWSR & D NEWSR & D NEWSR & D NEWSR & D NEWS


Evaluation for Yield PerformanceSARO 5 was originally evaluated in the preliminary,replicated yield and in on-farmers’ yield trials atdifferent locations in the country.

In the preliminary and replicated yield trials,on average the line produced 3.56t/ha, out yieldingboth aromatic check varieties DAK 83 and Supaabout 11% and 6% respectively (Table 3). In on-farmyield trials, the line had an overall performance of3.7t/ha out yielding the parent DAK 83 and Supa by33% and 6% respectively. SARO 5 also out yieldedthe parent Supa by 13.5% across locations (Table 4).Agronomic characteristicsSARO 5 is semi-tall (85-110cm) lodging resistantcultivar with strong culms bearing erect leaves andshort growth duration (110-125d) which is 2-3 weeks

earlier than Supa (Table 5). The line has moderatelyexerted panicles of about 18.2 cm long with awn lessslender long translucent grains (29.1g) (Table 4).Farmers’ assessmentFarmers’ in four selected districts accepted the cultivaras a crop to grow or as to be used as food.Table 4).Farmers usually prefer tall to semi tall varieties withlong and heavy panicles for easy of harvesting byplanking single panicles.ConclusionSARO 5 is highly preferred by farmers because ofits value added grain characteristics particularly itsstrong aroma, good milling quality and translucentkernels. The cultivar has emerged as the best choicefor farmers and fetches competitive prices in manylocal markets.



ReferencesDoggett, H. 1965. The history of Mwabagole rice

experimental station, LakeProvince, Tanzania. E.Afr.Agric.For. 3.31:16-31

Kanyeka, Z.L. 2001. Rice research in Tanzania.Past, present and future

prospects. Proceed. of the Rice improvementworkshop through Research In Malawi,Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia held on 3-6march 2001 at KATC Moshi, Tanzania..pg7-14.

Kanyeka Z.L. J.K Kibanda and J C Mbapila1995. The status of RYMV in

Tanzania. A paper presented at the Special

seminar on Rice dieases and insects inTanzania held at KATC, Moshi Tanzania.

Monyo J.H and S.H Mwaruka. 1974. Ricegenetics and breeding in Tanzania

Proced. 5th eastern African cereals conference.Government Printer, Zomba, Malawi.Chapter1 pp.13-21.

Monyo J.H., Haswell, D.R and S.H Mwaruka.1973. Pure line selection in variety

Kihogo red Morogoro. E.Afr. Agric. For.3.39:149-157.

Monyo J.H. and Z.L. Kanyeka. 1978. Rice inTanzania. In The Rice in Africa

Eds I.W. Buddenhagen and persley.1978. JohnWiley and Sons Inc. London. Pp11.

Seed Industry Development in Tanzania Ngwediagi, S.P.N.

1 ; Lumbadia, M.Z.

2;

IntroductionThe government of Tanzania places great importanceon the availability of quality seed of wide range ofimproved crop varieties as one of the most importantfactors in attaining food security in the country. Formany years the government through the Ministryresponsible for agriculture has taken several steps toinitiate and strengthen a viable National SeedProgramme in collaboration with various internationalpartners. These initiatives included USAID SeedProject (1971-1982), HORTI Project (NetherlandsSeed Project at HORTI-Tengeru 1984-1988), FAO/UNDP Seed Project (1988-1995), CDC Joint Venture(TANSFED), ASPS/DANIDA (On-farm SeedComponent 1998-2002 & 2002 - 2007) and others.

As a result of these measures a number ofnotable achievements have been made, whichinclude:-

• Formation of a national seed companyTANSEED in 1973

• Enactment of the Seeds Act 2003, whichreplaced the Regulation of Standards of 1973

• Enactment of the Protection of New PlantVarieties (Plant Breeders Rights) of 2002

• Preparation of Seed Regulations and Rules of2005 which replaces Rules and Regulations of1976

• Establishment of Foundation Seed Farms in the1970s and early 1980s

• Establishment of quality control system throughthe Tanzania Official Seed CertificationInstitute (TOSCI) and its zonal seed testinglaboratories

• Streamlining procedures for seed testing• Establishment of variety release and

registration procedures

• Institutionalization of a proper mechanism forthe co-ordination, monitoring and overalldirection/guidance of seed related activitiesthrough a National Seed Committee and its sub-committee of Variety release and SeedCertification and a Seed Unit at the Ministry’sheadquarters as the Secretariat

• Formulation and adoption of the National SeedPolicy in 1994

• Approval of the National Seed IndustryDevelopment Programme (NSIDP) in 1989and National Vegetable Seed IndustryDevelopment Programme (NVSIDP) in 1992.The NSIDP provides new guidelines aimed atcreating a viable seed industry in a liberalizedeconomy.

Despite all the efforts to improve the national seedindustry, production and sale of certified seeds throughformal seed sector, has not been very satisfactory.Currently it is estimated that the formal seed sectorcontributes between 4 - 5% of the national seedrequirements while up to 95% of the seed used byfarmers is from the informal seed sector (farm savedseed).

Variety development is another importantcomponent of the seed industry, where considerableachievements have been made by the public sectorand in recent years by private sector. Unfortunatelythe improved crop varieties have not reached mostfarmers in Tanzania as it is the case in manydeveloping countries. The story is worse for low valuecrops and open pollinated varieties where there arestill few or no company which is involved in theproduction and distribution of seeds of these varieties.Recent development in the informal seed sector andgovernment decision to promote the concept of on-

1 Registrar of Plant Breeders Rights, Mininistry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives, P.O. Box 9192 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania2 Head/Coordinator, Seed Unit, Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives P.O Box 9071 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania



farm seed production as a complement to thecommercial seed sector is gradually changing thesituation.Components of the Seed IndustrySeed PolicyEffective regulations and clear policy are essentialfor development of a seed sector. As a result ofgovernment decision to liberalize its economy, the roleof the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security inrelation to development of the seed sub-sector is beingshifted from direct involvement in production of seedsto that of supporting research and development,stimulating, overseeing and regulating seed production.The National Seed Policy of 1994 seeks to ensure acollaborative effort of both government and privatesectors to achieve national seed self-sufficiency. Thepolicy document gives policy statements andimplementation guidelines for each component of theseed chain. Among other issues it states that: -

• The government will ensure a continuous supplyof improved varieties through a nationalresearch and plant improvement programme

• The government will observe plant breeders’rights through enactment of appropriatelegislation

• The government will encourage and facilitatethe establishment of formal and informal seedproduction conditions and marketingarrangements in the country

• The Tanzania Official Seed CertificationInstitute (TOSCI) shall continue to enforce theseed legislation in order to control seed qualityto make sure that, farmers get seeds of theprescribed quality

• In line with the current policy of free marketeconomy the government will adopt a liberalapproach to seed prices charged at all levels.

Research and Plant BreedingGovernment agricultural research stations areresponsible for development of public varieties whileprivate companies are responsible for developmentand maintenance of their own varieties. Currentlythere is no private seed company which is involved indevelopment of new varieties through conductingactual breeding work in the country except that allbring in advanced lines/materials for evaluation. Therules which govern seed production in the countryrequire that a variety has to be tested at differentlocations, released and registered before it is allowedto be used for seed production or marketing.Unfortunately this rule has not been applied toimported vegetable seeds.

Proposal for release of a variety, which haspassed the Multilocational Trials and DUS(distinctness, uniformity and stability) test, is tabledfor release consideration at the National VarietyRelease and Seed Certification Committee Meetingby the responsible breeder or institution. TOSCIconducts DUS test after a breeder has submittedvariety description list and an authentic seed sample.

Plans are underway to establish a NationalPerformance Trial (NPT) system whereby a neutralorgan will be responsible for evaluating the varieties.The NPT system is expected to commence recently.

Protection of Plant Breeders RightsIn order to motivate breeders and encourageinvestment in the seed industry, Tanzania has recentlyenacted The Protection of New Plant Varieties (PlantBreeders Rights) Act of 2002 for the purpose ofrecognizing breeders of new plant varieties and forprotecting their rights. The law was enacted inNovember 2002 and was declared to be operationalfrom 1st February 2004. The Plant Breeders RightsOffice (The PBR Registry) which is headed by aRegistrar is based in Dar es Salaam at theheadquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture and FoodSecurity. The office has already received severalapplications for PBR grant.

Seed Production and SupplyFormal Seed Sector (i) Public Seed SectorAs a result of the government policy to liberalize itseconomy, non-involvement in production ofcommercial seed and the collapse of TANSEED, verysmall amount of seed is produced and distributed bythe public sector. Currently the government’sFoundation Seed Farms are involved in the productionand distribution of small quantities of commercialseeds of selected crops and varieties.

There are five state owned foundation seedfarms, which are responsible for multiplication ofbasic seeds. The farms are located in different agroecological zones and have a total land area of 8620hectares of which 6400 hectares are arable. Thedistribution of land used for production of basic seedsof major field crops and pulses is as follows: ArushaSeed Farm located in Arusha (640 ha.), Msimba SeedFarm - Morogoro (3000 ha.), Mwele Seed Farm -Tanga (900 ha), Kilangali Seed Farm - Morogoro(3000 ha) and Dabaga Seed Farm in Iringa with 1080hectares.(ii) Private sectorLiberalization of the seed industry in 1989 has createdgood environment for the establishment of new seedcompanies in the country. Although some of themparticularly Monsanto (T) Ltd which initially startedby producing certified seeds locally, almost all of themwith exception of Alpha Seed Co. Ltd are nowimporting seeds. Private seed companies and otherinstitutions which are operating in the country include:- Monsanto (T) Ltd., East African Seeds Company,Kibo Seed Company, Alpha Seeds Co. Ltd, PopVriend, Sluis Brothers Ltd., Seed Project of theDiocese of Meru (formally INCOFIN Seed Project),Rotian Seeds Ltd., PANNAR SEEDS, PIONEER,INCOMET Project, Maungu Seeds Ltd., ZenobiaSeeds Ltd, Krishna Seed Co. Ltd, Suba Agro Ltd.,TANSEED International and Mbegu TechnologiesCo. There are also some seed companies which donot operate directly but use other companies as theirdistribution agents. Most private seed companies dealwith crops that have high marginal returns such asmaize, vegetables and sunflower.(iii) Marketing and DistributionAlmost all private seed companies use stockiest andother agents such as Tanzania Farmers Associationand cooperative societies to distribute seeds in the



country, although some of them own seed shops. Inthe past the co-operatives played a dominant role inseed distribution. However distribution and marketingof inputs, including seeds, is affected by severalbottlenecks. Poor infrastructure especially roads,affect the input delivery system. Moreover, thoughinput distribution centers are found in the regionalcapitals and in a few district townships there arealmost none in the smaller towns or villages. Poorsystems for forecasting the demand at the regional/district level also pose problem to seed marketing.(iv)Quality Declared Seed (QDS) ProductionQuality Declared Seeds are produced on-farm byfarmers whereby the seed quality is controlled byTOSCI. In this system small-scale farmers arerequired to declare the quality of their seeds andTOSCI verifies 10% of the declarations through fieldinspections and laboratory tests. The production ofQDS under MAFS/DANIDA Programme is meantto improve the supply and dissemination of betterseeds of superior varieties of major food crops andvegetables, which are adapted to the agro-ecologicaland social economic conditions. The system dependsheavily on the understanding of seed producers andtraders. It also relies on the efficiency of the extensionservices. In the pilot phase (1998-2002) theprogramme was implemented in 12 districts ofMorogoro, Iringa and Dodoma regions. The secondphase of the programme (2002 – 2007) intends toexpand to more regions and districts. The secondphase puts more emphasis on entrepreneurship inorder to assure sustainability of the programme.

In 2001 the Ministry of Agriculture and FoodSecurity approved rules and procedures to be followedby QDS producers all over the country. These rulesare now included in the new seed regulations.

Informal Seed SectorInformal seed sector is another form of seed supplyused by most farmers in Tanzania. About 95% ofthe seeds sown by farmers in the fields are farmersaved seed or obtained through farmer-to-farmerexchange whose quality is questionable. In this formof seed production no formal quality control ispracticed.

The other form of informal seed production isthe one practiced by a number of non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), church organizations andfarmers groups. These include Christian Council ofTanzania (CCT), Diocese of Central Tanganyika

(DCT) and Lay Volunteers International Association(LVIA). Others are HIMA Project (DANIDAsupported programme, which has been merged withASPS) and the Mara Farmers Initiative Projectsupported by IFAD.

Seed Quality ControlSeed quality control is the responsibility of thegovernment and is undertaken by the Tanzania OfficialSeed Certification Institute (TOSCI). The Institutewas established by the Act of Parliament (the SeedAct of 2003) to replace the Tanzania Official SeedCertification Agency (TOSCA). TOSCI is headedby Chief Seed Certification Officer and operates fromthe National Seed Testing Laboratory in Morogoroand has branches in Tengeru, Arusha and Njombe,Iringa. TOSCI has also trained a number of seedinspectors in the districts to represent it in areas whereit’s not easily reached by the institute. Operations ofTOSCI are hampered by lack of physical resourceswhich require immediate solution in order to have aneffective regulator of seed quality

ChallengesThe national seed programme is facing a number ofchallenges which need active participation of allstakeholders in seeking their solutions. The mostimportant issues which need immediate attentioninclude: -

• How to effect participation of private sectorin local seed production

• How to enhance an effective quality controlsystem, which meets national and internationalstandards.

• How to forge an effective public and privatepartnership (PPP) in variety development, seedproduction quality control and promotion ofimproved varieties and seeds.

• How to effect quality control of imported seedsespecially vegetable seeds

• How to increase investment in varietydevelopment and seed production usingconducive policies and legislations such as thenew Seed Act of 2003 and the Plant BreedersRights Act of 2002.



12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345612345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345612345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345612345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345612345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345612345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234561234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456

Did you know that through the Internet, you can now access journals on agricultureanywhere in Tanzania? Acess to Global Online Research in Agriculture popularly knownas AGORA organised by FAO provides this service completely free!!!. What you need to dois to obtain a password dedicated to your Institution from the Information Liaison Officer tobe able to benefit the service.

Start using AGORA now and you will get what you need!

For further information please email to: [email protected] [email protected]. Cellphone: +255-784-239946

WORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCES

Smart Toolkit for EvaluatingInformation Products and Services

LaunchedIntroductionThe Smart toolkit for Evaluating Information Productsand services was launched during a workshop whichtook place from 28 November – 2 December 2006 inDar es Salaam, Tanzania. Dr. Jeremiah Haki Directorof Research and Training represented the Ministryof Agriculture in officiating the launching of the SmartToolkit.

The workshop participants comprised ofmanagers of information products and services,communication officers, and librarians from NGOs,the private and public sectors. A total of 65Participants from 15 countries of Africa, Europe andthe Caribbean attended the workshop where amongothers; they had an opportunity to develop expertisein evaluating information products and services. Theparticipants also prepared action plans forimplementations in their respective countries. Mostimportantly, participants came up withrecommendations on how to further improve thetoolkit.

The workshop was organised by the TechnicalCentre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)in collaboration with the International Institute forCommunication and Development (IICD) and theRoyal Tropical Institute (KIT).

Need for evaluationIncreasingly, multilateral and bilateral institutions, aswell as national institutions are placing importanceon the role of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) indevelopment cooperation and management. It is alsotrue that managers are expected to evaluate their owninformation products and services, often without afirm grounding in evaluation and come up withconcrete decisions. The desire for integratingevaluation in the project cycles has been emphasieddue to the following reasons: (i) Failure of variousdevelopment models (via policies, programmes,projects, etc.) to have a significant impact on theachievement of development targets; (ii) The needfor funding agencies as well as governments andexecuting agencies to be more accountable on theuse of public funds; (iii) The need for greatertransparency, higher levels of efficiency andeffectiveness in development cooperation.

Consequently, in 2002, CTA, KIT and IICDformed a unique partnership and, together with a groupof evaluation and information specialists drawn mainlyfrom the ACP, the European Union (EU) and Canada,have developed the ‘Smart Toolkit’ to assistpractitioners in improving the management andperformance of their products and services.

What is the Toolkit?The Toolkit is particularly aimed for use by those with

little or no experience in evaluation. Its main purposeis to promote improved evaluation practices and toreinforce the evaluation culture within organisations.The Toolkit takes the matter different from thetraditional approaches on M&E – where evaluationis seen more as an externally driven process. Thetoolkit approach has two main merits: (i) Institutingthe discipline of internal evaluation as a means ofself-reflection, self-analysis and as a continuousinternal learning process; (ii) Evaluation as a meansof capacity building and institutional developmentthrough an internally driven process. This shouldcontribute to improved management and operationsin the provision of information products and services.

Using the ToolkitThe Toolkit helps practitioners to ‘self evaluate’ theirinformation products and services in the area ofagricultural and rural development. It providesflexibility, easy accessibility and a step by stepapproach in its utilisation. It has a comprehensivescope in its usage, ranging from policy-makers anddecision-makers to practitioners; and from trainersto students. It covers a range of theoretical andpractical application of many techniques and toolsthrough hands-on approaches. The Toolkit has beentested in several countries in Africa, Caribbean andPacific (ACP) where encouraging reactions to itsimportance and need were provided. Tanzania whichwas represented by the DRT of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Food Security had one of staffspecialised in Databases participate in testing exerciseof the toolkit.

Structure of the ToolkitThe Toolkit document as it was at its launching hathreemain parts. Part one is the Handbook, which discussesvarious aspects of evaluation, the information on theproject cycle; the application of evaluation techniquesand methods to the area of agricultural informationproducts and services. Part two covers nine productsand services. Each of these is presented in a particularformat with various types of information. Part threecontains the process tools. The tools in this part areconcerned with planning a project as well as planningthe evaluation process helping to plan and evaluateproject; and disseminate the findings for feedback.

Lessons learnedIt was felt that before attempting any evaluation, somekey terms need to be clearly understood. Participantsnoted possible confusion between terms such asevaluation, assessment, review and audit. Each termmay lead to completely different procedure and endresults of the evaluation. However, one may expect


that given certain information product or service,regardless of who is doing; the evaluation shouldresult into similar results if the methodology andunderstanding of such procedures are correct.

Most participants noted as they exploredvarious section of the toolkit that, one can not be anexpert of evaluation overnight, but this developsovertime as experiences is gained by evaluatingseveral products. Therefore participants came tosuch understanding as they were working in groupwhere they had opportunity to exchange experiences,and got to learn more about the evaluation. As suchmost evaluations should be done in teamwork to bringon board synergies from people with differentcapabilities.

Some participants cautioned against the notionthat may arise among users of the toolkit that; it iscapable of getting answers of all evaluations. Rather,it is important to customize the toolkit according tothe existing environment and set up an appropriateevaluation system. In this case the Toolkit is thereforean instrument in the process and should be treatedas a guiding tool.

In designing the systems for the variousscenarios, participants appreciated on the need forinstitutions to design a robust internal evaluationsystem that will be budgeted for and as part and parcelof institutional activities. This was raised in viewthat in many situations the evaluations of governmentprogrammes and projects are largely influenced bydonors.

Lastly, there was a general feeling that anevaluation must be realistic. Consideration should notbe biased on new technologies and theories but ratherbringing on board old ideas and techniques to helpreflect better on issues to facilitate learning. This isthe best way to come up with conclusive judgmentsof any evaluation.

ConclusionsThe Toolkit was widely received with enthusiasm andit was seen as a means of promoting evaluationpractice, culture and provides exposure on a widerange of tools to a diverse audience. The language,style and presentation used make it easy to read.Furthermore, the Toolkit is a self contained product,making it handy to use, particularly at the grassrootslevel where there is often limited access to evaluationmaterial.

To conduct an evaluation successfully, the topmanagement of the organisation needs to becommitted to the process and there should beinvolvement of many players in an organization.

The importance of providing feedback duringthe evaluation process not only to the keystakeholders, but also to those supplying the data inthe field was emphasised so that they can get a senseof the value of information that they provide.

M&E is a means of checking the progress ofa project based on good reasoning. M&E providestraceable reasoning (conclusions) that you can useto help guide you in the management of your project.M&E allows one to make explicit value judgmentsbased on agreed upon judgment criteria; explicitcomparisons and conclusions discussed amongstthose concerned.

The DRT participation in the process of testingand launching the toolkit places it at a good positionto use and market the toolkit to its scientists acrossthe country. Some copies of the toolkit are availableat the DRT library which is accessible to thoseinterested in getting acquainted with evaluationtechniques as expressed in the document. Additionalcopies may be obtained by contacting CTA throughthe normal procedures of ordering CTA documents.

WORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCESWORKSHOPS/CONFERENCES


Mr Jean-Claude Burguet of CTA and Dr. Jeremiah Haki from the Ministry of Agricultureadmiring the Smart Toolkit document a moment after its launch.

Characterisation and diallel analysis ofcommercially planted cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum L.) germplasm in Tanzania. Lukonge,E.P. 2005. PhD Thesis. University of Free State,South Africa.

Thirty cotton varieties were studied. Sevenparents generated 21 F1 dialled progenies. The mainobjective was to evaluate genotypes through oilcontent, fatty acids, morphological and molecularcharacteristics. Statistical procedures wereperformed with Agrobase, NCSS and NTYSScomputer programmes. Correlation, heterosis,heritability, G x E interaction and stability values wereobtained. Stability across four environments wasanalysed by five stability measures, that of Shukla,Wricke, Lin and Binns, Eberhart and Russell land theAMMI analysis.

Significant differences were observed for oiland fatty acids content. Oil content results revealedan average of 20.23%. The ratio forpolyunsaturated:saturated fatty acid was 2:1 and forunsaturated: saturated was 3:1. The predominantfatty acids were linoleic, palmitic, oleic, stearic,myristic, palmitoleic, arachidic and behenic. Palmiticfatty acid was high while oleic and stearic fatty acidswere low for almost all varieties studied. Oil andfatty acid content were significantly influenced bythe environment. CIM 70 and Cyto 12/74 can beselected as parents for increased oleic and stearicfatty acid and Stoneville 506 as a parent for reducedpalmitic fatty acid, increased oleic, stearic andlinolenic fatty acids in hybridisation.

ANOVA results indicated significantdifferences between varieties for all agronomicalcharacteristics studies, where NTA 93-21 and NTA93-15 were best performers almost for allcharacteristics. Genetic distances for morphological(qualitative characteristics) analysis ranged from 0.18to 0.80. Two major groups, one including manyvarieties from Africa and the other including varietiesfrom the USA, were revealed.

AFLP analysis showed high genetic similarities(0.85 to 0.98). Verieties were distinguished accordingto pedigree and origin. The increase genetic similarityobserved indicates the need for the introduction ofmore diverse cotton material. Comparison ofagronomical and AFLP markers for determininggenetic diversity indicated that genetic similaritiesbetween varieties were low for agronomicalcompared to AFLP markers. The correlationcoefficient between AFLP analysis and agronomicalgenetic similarities was insignificant.

Highly significant differences betweengenotypes over environments were observed andNTA 93-21 crosses outperformed the seven parentsfor almost all characteristics. The parent Super okraleaf performed poorly for many characteristics. Trialsites Ukiriguru followed by Kanziga were high yieldingenvironments.

Combining ability analysis results indicatesignificant variation in GCA estimates among parentsfor different characteristics. Genotypes having highpositive GCA estimates for yield componentsexhibited negative GCA estimates for fibre quality,excluding NTA 93-21. Some combinations indicatedpositive and significant SCA effects for seed cotton,

boll weight, GOT and lint yield. The GCA/SCA ratiosfor most of the studied characteristics were largerthan one.

Correlation among characteristics indicatedhighly significant positive and negative correlations.The observed high and significant GCA and SCAeffects for those characteristics are promising forcotton population improvement. Positive heterosisfor boll weight was observed for more than 90% ofthe combinations. Hybrids with high SCA valuespresented high values of heterosis. Heritability valuesfor the studied characteristics were moderate to high.

The combined ANOVA over four environmentsindicated significant differences between genotypesand locations for all characteristics. The percentagecontribution of location to total variation as highcompared to genotype variation except for a fewcharacteristics. Highly significant differences of G xE for lint yield and fibre strength were observed.

Three stability procedures (Wricke, Shukla andASV) identified similar stable genotypes. Eberhartand Russell’s procedure was in harmony with theabove three methods but with some divergence.Cultivar superiority measure deviated from the otherfour measures. Therefore the procedures of Wricke,Shukla and AMMI can be applied for cotton stabilitystudies.

Key worlds: Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)Genetics diversity, oil, fatty acids, morphological,agronomical, AFLP, diallel, genotype x environment,stability

Decision-Making Patterns By and Barriers toWomen Small-Scale Agricultural Producers.Maeda, E.J. 2005. PhD Thesis. University OfArkansas, USA.

This study sought to describe the role womenplay in the decision-making process and the barriersthey face as women farmers on small-scale farms.Women engaged in agriculture are a diverse groupwho either farm with a spouse or are single farmers.The study found a great diversity in the way thesefarm women make decisions related to the economicand social well-being of their households.

The study explored the literature on decision-making and barriers facing farm women. The studywas conducted using qualitative research methods,including in-depth interview, survey and participantdirect observation among 12 farm women from twocounties in Arkansas. Factors studied included theindividual’s role and position, the farm structure,household type, presence of preschool children andmarital status, education and off-farm employment.

Differences in the patterns of decision-makingwere found in the study between farm womenengaged as full-time versus part-time farm operators.Within joint male-female households, joint decision-making in major issuers was found to be especiallyprevalent among such households. For the female-only households, decision-making was based on hereducation and different sources of gatheringinformation which aided in making final informeddecisions. In the case where the female-only

RESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACT


household had preschool children, it was revealed thatbusiness and farm management decisions were madearound the children’s schedules.

Two of the most important changes influencingfarm households included the significant extent towhich farm households depend on external non-farmincome and the importance of farm policy to householdrelationships. It was also revealed that these farmwomen faced some barriers including situationalbarriers such as equipment being too heavy,dispositional barriers such as lack of societalacceptance and understanding of farm women’sexperiences, and institutional barriers such asmisconceptions and prejudices about their actual rolesin agricultural production. These women feltdiscrimination from loan officers and companyrepresentatives. For the single farm operators thegreatest barriers they faced was management of timein getting their tasks done on the farm whileperforming their roles as mother and caretaker ofthe house hold and, in some cases holding down, anoff-farm job.

Variation in rooting strategy and resource useefficiecy amongst spring wheat (Triticumaestivum). Mansoor, H.A. 2005. PhD Thesis.University of Aberdeen. UK.

An estimated 1.4 billion people live and workin the vast, diverse and risk-prone rain-fed areas inless developed countries (Miguel, 2002). In theseregions, annual crops frequently complete theirdevelopment using moisture stored in the soil. Highvariability in rainfall, together with high evaporativedemand, creates severe constraints for crop growthand yields. Sustainable food security is needed forthese regions. To achieve this, wheat research hasto focus on sustaining the competitiveness ofproduction in these environments. This goal can beachieved through a shift in the yield frontier to yieldstability and enhanced input use efficiency in cerealspecies varieties such as those of wheat. In Tanzaniatraditional breeding is used to select cultivars thatperform better under drought. Although this systemhad its successes, it does take long-time and it is costly.Establishment of a single drought resistant character,which will benefit yield under water-limited conditions,and then incorporating it into existing, breedingprogrammes, is an approach that would considerablyincrease the efficiency in breeding for droughttolerance. Rooting strategy has been proposed as anappropriate character. Optimal root architecture canmediate the adaptation of plant to soils in which waterand nutrient availability is limited by increasing thetotal absorptive surface of the root system and theefficiency of water and nutrient use.

To this end, this study aimed at identificationof genetic by environmental interaction variationbetween wheat cultivars in roots system architectureand how it relates to water and nutrients acquisitionand drought tolerance/resistance. Specifically, it aimedto establish whether selection of the right rooting traitswould help in improving WUE and the production ofgrain crops in dry semi-arid environments. Since it iswell known in semi-arid regions that the two most

limiting resources (water and nitrogen) havecontrasting availability in the soil (water available indeep soil layers and nitrogen in the top soil), the studyalso intended to establish whether selection of roottraits efficient for water utilization would compromiseNUE. In addressing this, the research involvedlaboratory investigations, soil-bed and field studies.To assess variation in rooting strategies (architectureand extension rate) between spring wheat cultivarsand within cultivar seed sizes, laboratory studies wereconducted using Perspex growth chambers and agarfor root growth, which was digitally recorded by TwainPro Scanner, using WinRHIIZO. Clear differencesin rooting strategies between UK and Tanzaniacultivars and between different within-cultivar seedsized were revealed. Seed size was most influentialin determining the rooting strategies of seedlings. Themajority of cultivars that had longer total root lengthand longer seminal roots were those from Tanzania.There was also variation in rooting strategy amongstcultivars from Tanzania. This variation was used toinvestigate association between rooting strategies andresource acquisition efficiency amongst Tanzaniacultivars.

13C discrimination (Ä) and enriched 15N wereused as selection tools to determine cultivars withhigh yield potential, WUE (dry mater yield withrespect to water made available to the crop throughprecipitation and/or irrigation) and NUE (theproportion of nitrogen taken up by a crop from thatwhich was applied as fertilizer). Results providedclear evidence of association between rootingstrategies and resource acquisition in the presenceand absence of drought. The cultivars with differentrooting strategies expressed two distinctive strategies,namely, enhanced resource acquisition and aconservative strategy, which contributed todifferences in plant growth, yields WUE, NUE anddrought tolerance/avoidance between cultivars.Cultivars with enhanced resource acquisition wereable to acquire most of the water and nitrogen in bothwet and dry moisture regimes and hence had fastgrowth, high yields, NUE and WUE. These resultsshowed that WUE and NUE were both positivelyaffected by selection of root traits for droughttolerance. Thus, there was no evidence of trade-offbetween WUE and NUE.

In conclusion, the results have successfullyaddressed the study objectives. By investigatingvariation in rooting strategies and using that variationto study association between rooting strategy, WUEand NUE, the study has shown the existence ofvariation in rooting strategies amongst spring wheatcultivars. It also showed how these different rootingstrategies are associated with WUE, NUE anddrought tolerance. Results showed little genetic byenvironment variation of the characters studies, whichis much desired in breeding for wide adaptation. Mostimportantly, the study has shown how selectiondesirable rooting strategy for drought tolerance (highWUE) would also boost the NUE, disputing thesuggestion of trade-off between WUE and NUE thathas been raised by other studies. Selection of rootingstrategies can thus complement traditional breedingin order to improve its efficiency.


RESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACTRESEARCH ABSTRACT

DIRECTDIRECTDIRECTDIRECTDIRECTORORORORORY OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & T INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONS

DRT Head Office

DirectorDepartment of Research and TrainingMinistry of Agriculture Food security andCooperativesP.O. Box 2066 Dar es Salaam, TANZANIATel: +255-22-2865313/2865322/2865319/18/

20Fax: +255-22- 2865312Telex: 41246 KILIMO TZE-mail: [email protected]@kilimo.go.tzWebsite: http://www.drd.mafs.go.tzhttp://www.agriculture.go.tzPhysical address: Nelson Mandela/Kilimo Road,KILIMO II Building, 1st and 2nd Floors

Lake Zone

Zonal Director (L)ARI UkiriguruP.O. Box 1433 MWANZATel:255-28-25502 15 Fax: 255-28-2550214E-mail: [email protected]

PrincipalMATI UkiriguruP.O Box 1434 MWANZAE-mail: [email protected]: 255-28 2550215 255-28 2502555Fax: 255-28 2550214 255-28 2550169

Officer In chargeMaruku ARDIP.O.Box 127BukobaTel: 0282220721Email: [email protected]

Southern Highlands Zone

Zonal Director (SH), ARI UyoleP.O. Box 400 MBEYATel: 255-25-2510062 Fax: 255-25-2510065E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

PrincipalMATI UyoleP.O. Box 2292 MBEYATel: 025 2510015E-mail: [email protected]

Officer In chargeKifyulilo Research Sub-stationP.O.Box 93, MufindiMobile: 0784373270

PrincipalMATI IgurusiP.O.Box 336. MBEYAMobile: 0744766884 or 0745040816

Northern Zone

Zonal Director (N)ARI SelianiP.O. Box 6024ARUSHATel:255-27-2503883/2505211/2505212Fax: 255-27-25023971/2548557E-mail: [email protected]

PrincipalHorticulture Research Institute TengeruP.O. Box 1253,Arusha, TanzaniaTel.: + 255 027 2553094 / 2553067Fax + 255 027 2553067Email: [email protected]

PrincipalKATC, MOSHIP.O. Box 1241 MOSHITel: 027 2752293 027 2754247 Fax: 027 2752293E-mail: [email protected]

Southern Zone

Zonal Director (S)ARI NaliendeleP.O. Box 509 MTWARATel:255-23-2333836 Fax:255-23-2333 141E-mail: [email protected]


PrincipalMATI MtwaraP.O. Box 121 MTWARATel: 023 2333837Telegrams: kilichuomtwaraE-mail: [email protected]

Central Zone

Zonal DirectorMakutupora Viticulture Research InstituteP.O. Box 1676 MPWAPWAE-mail: [email protected]

Officer In ChargeARI HomboloBox:Mobile: 0754751375Email:

Eastern Zone

Zonal Director (E)ARI IlongaP.O. IlongaKILOSA, MOROGOROTel:255-23-2623201 Fax: 255-23-2623284E-mail: [email protected]

PrincipalMATI IlongaP.O.Box 66 KILOSATel: 255-23-2623064Email: [email protected]

PrincipalNational Sugar Institute(NSI)KidatuP.O. Box 97 KIDATUTel: 255-23- 2626050Fax: 255-23-2626440Email: [email protected]

Deputy Zonal Director (E)ARI MlinganoP.O. Box 5088 TANGATel: 255-27-2647647/2647680 Fax: 255-27-

2642577E-mail: [email protected]

PrincipalMATI MlinganoP.O. Box 5051 TANGATel: 027 2642884E-mail: [email protected]

Officer In ChargeARI MikocheniP.O.Box 6226Tel: 255 22 2700161/601Dar es Salaam

Officer In ChargeARI KATRINPrivate Bag, IfakaraTel: 255 23 2625078Fax: 255 23 2625361

Officer In ChargeARI DakawaP.O.BoxTel: 255 23 2628677Fax: 255 23 2628677Email: [email protected]

Officer In ChargeSugar Research InstituteP.O. Box 30031, KibahaTel: 255 23 2402038Email: [email protected]

Western ZoneZonal Director (W)Agricultural Research Institute TumbiP.O. Box 306 TABORATel:255-26-2604142E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

PrincipalMATI TumbiP.O. Box 603 TABORAE-mail: [email protected]

DIRECTDIRECTDIRECTDIRECTDIRECTORORORORORY OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & Y OF R & T INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONST INSTITUTIONS


tanzania agricultural research€¦ · illustration materials and news items that will help...

Documents