Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project and Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Partnership in Karatu District, Tanzania Technical Report, 20 January 2019 – 19 July 2019 Submitted to Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Contact Person Dr. Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon, Project Manager I.Hoeschle-Zeledon@cgiar.org July 2019 www.africa-rising.net About Africa RISING The Africa Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three research-in-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future initiative. Through action research and development partnerships, Africa RISING is creating opportunities for smallholder farm households to move out of hunger and poverty through sustainably intensified farming systems that improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base. The three regional projects are led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (in West Africa and East and Southern Africa) and the International Livestock Research Institute (in the Ethiopian Highlands). The International Food Policy Research Institute leads the program’s monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. Africa RISING appreciates support from the American people delivered through the USAID Feed the Future initiative. We also thank farmers and local partners at all sites for their contributions to the program and the CGIAR Trust Fund. About Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Islands of Peace (IDP) is a Belgian NGO created in the 1960’s. It is a pluralist association, with no religious, philosophical, ideological or political ties. Currently IDP works in Benin, Burkina Faso, Peru, Uganda and Tanzania. IDP also conducts activities in Belgium such as advocacy and development education. The intervention of IDP in Africa's overall objective is to enable people to pursue their own sustainable development process independently and with dignity. In its countries of operation, Islands of Peace facilitates local, reproducible and sustainable development led by disadvantaged populations with their representatives and local authorities. Islands of Peace is an NGO specialized in the support for local development. Its interventions target vulnerable rural communities for whom the IDP programs tackle food insecurity. © 2019 This publication is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by the publisher or the author(s). i Contents Part I: Post-harvest activities ..................................................................................................ii Overview ...................................................................................................................................... ii Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 Identification of varieties for better nutrition ............................................................................. 5 Nutritional and processing quality of maize varieties ................................................................. 5 Nutritional and processing quality of common bean varieties .................................................... 7 Mechanization for time and labor efficiency ............................................................................. 11 Crop storage – preserving available food to last longer ............................................................ 13 ICT messaging ............................................................................................................................. 15 Capacity building of partners ..................................................................................................... 16 Partnership/linkages with other projects .................................................................................. 23 Lessons learned and recommendations .................................................................................... 23 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Part II: Vegetable production activities ................................................................................. 26 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 26 Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 26 Capacity building of partners and farmers ................................................................................ 31 Partnership/linkages with other projects .................................................................................. 31 Problems and challenges ........................................................................................................... 32 ii Part I: Post-harvest activities Overview Activity name: Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project and Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Partnership in Karatu District, Tanzania Activity start date: 20 July 2018 Activity end date: 31 October 2019 Name of prime implementing partner: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Major counterpart organization (s) Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Contact person Dr. Christopher Mutungi Email: C.Mutungi@cgiar.org Implementation team • Christopher Mutungi (IITA) • Audifas Gaspar (IITA) • Juma Amri (Islands of Peace) • Judith Tungu (Islands of Peace) • Abass Adebayo (IITA) Geographic coverage (districts, regions) Karatu District, Arusha Region, Tanzania Reporting period: 20 January 2019 – 19 July 2019 3 Executive summary The Africa RISING partnership with Iles de Paix (IDP) seeks to deliver to farmers postharvest technology packages that improve the productive social, human, and economic conditions of smallholders in Karatu District. The goal is to contribute to sustainable family farming and responsible food systems. The partnership involves a Research in Development model for innovation delivery and scaling. This has two components: (i) introduction of the technologies in IDP’s action villages using a mother-baby demonstration (demo) approach whereby learners (farmers) train their peers in a cascading model backstopped by Africa RISING; and (ii) joint research activities by Africa RISING and IDP to (a) address specific technology challenges and (b) build the capacity of partner staff and farmers. At postharvest level, the objective is to contribute to food and nutrition security through improved practices for the handling, processing, and storage of harvested produce. The aim is to transfer to farmers, processors, and other stakeholders validated technologies for improved postharvest management to reduce food losses, increase food safety, enhance nutrition, and raise the quality of produce by the following methods: • demonstrating improved harvesting, handling (drying), processing, and storage techniques for maize and legumes, • providing technical backstopping for identification and deployment of varieties with superior postharvest characteristics, and • identifying postharvest challenges within local farmer contexts and recommending best practices. During the current reporting period, the following activities were undertaken; the action sites are shown in Figure 1. • Varieties for better nutrition: Assessment was completed of nutritionally safe processing (aflatoxin contamination) and utilization properties of maize and common bean varieties popularly cultivated by farmers in Karatu. • Mechanization for time and labor efficiency: Learning sessions and knowledge exchanges were held for village-based providers of maize threshing services, staff from Kilimo Endelevu, and local fabricators, in an exercise aimed at enhancing the usefulness and integration of postharvest mechanization. • Crop storage for food security: Two follow-up visits were undertaken to assess the performance of demos and to strengthen the capacity of farmers and staff from Kilimo Endelevu to undertake monitoring. The follow-ups coincided with the sampling collection of other data. Ceremonies (field days) on opening storage devices were conducted in 8 villages, where farmers got the opportunity to evaluate the technologies. Staff from Kilimo Endelvu spearheaded the events. A total of 224 farmers (33% women) and 4 extension workers attended the ceremonies. There was evidence of technology diffusion. Farmers hosting the demos and other farmers belonging to target groups interacted and relayed information to at least 350 farmers (52% women) who did not belong to target groups. • Information for resilience: Deployment of mobile phone SMS was commenced to communicate supportive information and boost the preparedness of farmers for specific postharvest operations. In the approach, farmers are offered timely tips and reminders on when and how to undertake impending postharvest activities in line with the local postharvest calendar. 4 Figure 1: Postharvest activity sites in Karatu District. Karatu is characterized by a warm and temperate climate. The district experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern. Long rains peak in April; the short rains in December. The wet season lasts from November to May; the dry season extends from June to October. The annual temperature averages 19 °C; the average annual rainfall is about 900 mm. March is the warmest month (20 °C); July is the coolest month (16 °C) (https://en.climate-data.org). 5 Identification of varieties for better nutrition Food utilization is one of the four pillars of food security. It relates to adequacy of diets and a key aspect is nutritional quality as influenced by the way food is selected, processed, prepared, and served within households. Maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are widely consumed in Tanzania. The two crops may be cultivated as an intercrop in maize-based systems. This kind of intercropping is attractive because it improves soil fertility and also enhances productivity, economic viability, and nutrition in the system. Maize is mainly a source of calories, whereas beans complement the protein and micro-nutrient requirements. For these crops, varieties may show differences in their technological and nutritional qualities. Characteristics, such as size, color, and processing and cooking quality, define consumer acceptance because they relate directly to foods of the kind they would customarily like to consume. Nutritional and processing quality of maize varieties Nutrition Thirteen maize varieties obtained from farmers in the action sites displayed notable differences in contents of protein, fat, and total minerals. These are visualized in Figure 1. The difference between varieties with the highest and lowest protein content was 3.5%, meaning that farmers who cultivated the low protein variety produced 35 kg/t less grain protein. Similarly, production of crude fat was lower by 15 kg/t and minerals by 4 kg/t of grain for the farmers who cultivated varieties containing low levels of fat and minerals. Meru H513 was superior on the basis of protein and mineral content. In general, a choice to grow Meru H513 would result in 3.5 - 42 kg/ha more protein (average 14.3 kg/ha) representing an increase of 4 - 49% in protein production (av. 15.9%) and 0.4 - 4.3 kg/ha more minerals (average 2.3 kg/ha) representing an increase of 3 - 33.6% in micronutrient production, (average 17.6%) under average levels of farmers’ yields. 6 Figure 1: Visualization diagram of key nutrient loading of popular maize varieties on normalized scale. Meru hybrid 513 would be recommended for high production of protein and minerals. Other attributes of the variety are nitrogen-use efficiency, good harvest from small amounts of fertilizer, resistance to drought, and early maturity (100–110 days). The yield potential (3–4 t/ha) is, however, relatively low compared to other hybrids. Processing The varieties exhibited differences with regard to processing. Dehulling is a popular processing operation among the local community. The traditional method involves placing the maize grains in a mortar, moistening them, and then pounding them with a wooden pestle until the pericarp peels off. Thereafter the product is dried in the sun and the by-products are separated by manual winnowing. Modern operations use mechanical hullers that achieve the polishing of grits and separation of by-products in one operation. The maize kernels are applied with a minimal amount of water, enough to just wet the pericarp. They are then passed through a rotary huller that removes the pericarp, tip cap, and germ by attrition or frictional force. Farmers identify ease of dehulling, less breakage during dehulling, and less dry matter extraction, as preferable attributes. Figure 3 shows that dehulling may result in the loss of 19 - 28% dry matter depending on the maize variety. This could be attributed to kernel characteristics – size, shape and hardness – and the relative proportion of endosperm. Dehulling losses constitute edible matter but also key nutrients including amino acids, essential oils, and micronutrients that are concentrated in the germ. Good choice of variety should minimize such losses. Often the by-products of dehulling are left behind with the processor for disposal. An integration training on feed processing would recycle the by-products into high-value animal 7 feed and contribute to the better nutrition of households. Also, to be considered is the fact that dehulling is known to reduce mycotoxins and residual pesticides on grains1. It thus improves the safety of the portion intended for human consumption but concentrates these contaminants on the by-products. For this reason, their use for feed should be taken with caution in mycotoxin- prone zones to avoid the risk of re-entry into the food chains through animal products. The results for aflatoxin contamination of maize samples obtained from Karatu were negative. Figure 3: Dehulling losses in different maize varieties. Nutritional and processing quality of common bean varieties Three popular varieties of common bean were identified (Fig. 4). There were differences in preference and characteristics in the varieties as reported by farmers. The differences are related to productivity, postharvest and nutrition, and economic reasons (Table 1). From literature (Selian Agricultural Research Institute, Tanzania), the yield potential of bean varieties recommended for the northern highland region of Tanzania, including Karatu, varies substantially. The yield potential of the purple speckled bean (PS) is 800 - 1400 kg/acre, whereas that of the yellow round bean (YR) is 500 - 900 kg/acre. The maturity periods also differ; PS has a shorter maturity period of 80 days compared to YR that has an average maturity period of 90 days. Postharvest and nutritional considerations predominate the list that farmers and bean consumers choose as preferable attributes – physical appearance of grain, color stability under storage conditions, cooking properties, as well as organoleptic quality of the cooked product. However, there is also a balance among productivity, nutrition, and economic value, and this complex would be likely to influence farmers’ adoption decisions around new bean varieties. 1 Mutungi C, Lamuka P, Arimi S, Gathumbi J, Onyango C (2008) The fate of aflatoxins during processing of maize into muthokoi—a traditional Kenyan food. Food Control 19:714–721. 8 Figure 4. Most popular common bean varieties cultivated by farmers in Karatu. Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. Table 1: What farmers say about popular varieties of common bean. Characteristic Purple speckled bean variety (PS) Yellow colored, round shaped variety (YR) Yellow colored, oval shaped variety (YO) Productivity - High yielding (800-1400 kg/acre). - Less yielding (500- 900 kg/acre). - Higher yield than YR but lower than PS. - Performs well even under low soil fertility. - Performs poorly under low soil fertility compared to PS. - Performs better than YR but worse than PS. - Matures earlier than YR and YO (80 days). - Takes longer in the field than PS (90 days). - Postharvest and Nutrition - Harder; does not break easily during threshing. - Breaks more readily during threshing than PS. - Breaks less than YR but more than PS. - Less susceptible to insect attack during storage. - More susceptible to insect attack during storage than PS. - More resistant to insect damage than YR but less than PS. - Color is more stable during storage. - Color changes to yellow- brown during storage. - Colour more stable than YR. - Takes longer to cook (60-80 min). - Cooks faster (40 min); saves on fuel for cooking. - Longer cooking time than YR but shorter than PS (50-60 min). - More stable cooked quality; good gravy quality. - Cooked beans develop unpleasant smell when left overnight. - Cooked beans develop bad smell when left overnight just like YR. - Causes flatulence. - Causes less flatulence than PS. - Less flatulence just like YR. - Superior taste. - Less tasty than PS. - Less tasty than YR. Economic - Lower prices in the market. - Higher market value than PS by 160 -200% - Higher price than PS by 120 -160% depending on location. - Less in demand by traders (In a - Higher demand compared to PS (In a - Higher demand by traders than for PS 9 typical season only 10% of traders ask for or buy it). typical season only 70% of traders ask for or buy it). (In a typical season 20% of traders ask for or buy it). Nutrition Comparative visualization of the nutritional composition of bean varieties is depicted in Figure 5. Total mineral content and crude fiber varied. Protein levels ranged from 17.1 to 24.6 g/100 g dmb. Crude fat contents were in the range of 1.3 to 2.2 g/100 g; ash contents ranged between 3.4 and 4.9 g/100 g dmb. Chemical composition of beans especially mineral content varies depending on variety2 and locality3 or the interaction of these factors4 Figure 5: Visualization diagram for key nutrient loading of popular common bean varieties on normalized scale. The yellow round variety (YR) is superior in minerals, whereas the yellow oval variety (YO) is superior in protein but also has higher levels of phytate (antinutrient) as well as fiber. The purple variety (PS) was found to have lowest nutritional value particularly on the basis of total mineral content. 2 Shimelis, E.A. and S.K. Rakshit. 2005. Proximate composition and physico-chemical properties of improved dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties grown in Ethiopia. LWT. Food Science and Technology 38: 331–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2004.07.002. 3 Shimelis, E.A. and S.K. Rakshit. 2005. Proximate composition and physico-chemical properties of improved dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties grown in Ethiopia. LWT. Food Science and Technology 38: 331–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2004.07.002. 4 Barampama, Z. and R.E. Simard. 1993. Nutrient composition, protein quality and antinutritional factors of some varieties of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown in Burundi. Food Chemistry 47: 159–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(93)90238-B. 10 Processing Cooking properties were considered. The whole grain flours had similar gelatinization, pasting, and retrogradation properties (Table 2). However, isolated starches did show differences. Starch isolated from YO had significantly lower peak viscosity, breakdown, final viscosity, and setback viscosity, suggesting that it was less stable during continuous heating and shearing, and also had a lower tendency to harden after cooking. However, the YR starch had significantly higher setback and final viscosity which implies superior after-cooking hardening. This hardening is primarily the result of re-association of the amylose fraction of starch. Thus, the YR variety contained starch with higher levels of amylose and the starch was also less crystalline. This property is significant in that it contributes to production of a viscous sauce which is a desirable characteristic among bean consumers. In addition, bean varieties that harden well upon cooking are preferred for canning or the processing of pre-cooked products. This observation may explain the high demand for the variety YR by traders, especially when combined with the quick- to-cook property. Table 2: Pasting properties of flours (particle size < 150 µm) and starch isolated from bean varieties. RVA parameter Variety Peak viscosity(cP) Breakdown (cP) Final viscosity (cP) Setback (cP) Pasting temp (°C) Whole bean flours PS 325.11a 33.44a 599.78a 308.11a 82.55a YR 317.11a 36.00a 654.78a 345.56a 81.80a YO 340a 37.38a 617.63a 337.88a 83.00a (p = 0.943) (p = 870) (p = 0.902) (p = 0.836) (p = 0.108) Isolated starch PS 3868.00a 649.50a 6140.50a 2922.00b 73.85b YR 3734.67a 677.67a 6434.33a 3377.33a 75.32a YO 3173.50b 323.00b 4905.50b 2055.00c 75.85a (p = 0.012) (p = 0.001) (p = 0.008) (p = 0.001) (p = 0.022) PS = purple speckled bean variety (local name: punda); YR = yellow variety with round shaped grains, local name: Njano gololi; YO = yellow variety with oval shaped grains, local name: Njano ndefu. Values down the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05). The cooking character of the whole beans may not differ while the cooking behavior of the extracted starch shows differences that could become more pronounced during long storage. 11 Mechanization for time and labor efficiency Agro-processing provides a pathway for generating income by adding value to harvested crops. It enables rural farmers to be more efficient and productive in their activities while generating income which can be reinvested to make families and communities more resilient to external shocks. There are several types of low-cost mechanized maize shellers including those that are small petrol/diesel engine-powered, tractor powered, and electric powered, all designed to offer alternatives to manual means of removing maize grains from the cobs. In previous years, Africa RISING has identified and validated a small maize sheller with a diesel engine (4hp) under smallholder community arrangements. In Karatu, however, the experience has been different. Farmers have had greater exposure to mechanization, especially with respect to maize shelling. The scaling and research focus thus changed to addressing the unsatisfied needs: how to add value to the maize shellers – to perform additional tasks in a manner that integrates 2 or more postharvest operations, characteristic of the local farming system (mixed crop (maize/legume/oil crop) – livestock (cattle/poultry) system). This improvement has the potential to reduce the idling life, reduce net investment cost, and increase productivity. Four levels of mechanization for maize shelling were identified, representing different farm typologies in Karatu District. Figure 6 shows the 4 levels: (a) a small motorized sheller that is portable on motorcycles is used to provide services across villages where the terrain is difficult to navigate, usually serving small producers; (b) large motorized shellers drawn by a tractor or motor vehicle provide services to large producers and individual farmers where road infrastructure allows for transportation to the farm; (c) average-sized sheller powered by tractor (Power Take Off (PTO) to provide services where road infrastructure is good; (d) small motorized sheller owned by an individual farmer to alleviate family labor and provide services to neighbours. Figure 6: Common types of maize shellers used by farmers in Karatu District. Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. 12 We examined the service providers and perception of the shellers (Fig. 7) and solicited responses to suggestions for improvement (Fig. 8). About 40% of the service providers are concerned about grain scattering, and over 25% are concerned about incomplete stripping of grains from cobs. Scattering and incomplete separation of the grains mean additional labor for the service users (farmers) and constitute significant losses if manual stripping or collection is not done. We measured scattering and stripping losses for different types of shellers. Scattering losses were 2.1 - 23.4% (average 9.1%); losses from incomplete cob stripping were 0 - 7.9% (mean 1.5%). Frequent breakdowns dampen profitability for service providers (results not shown). The small portable threshers were more prone to breakdowns, probably because they were made of light gauge metal for portability. Other challenges reported by at least 1 in every 5 service providers were too much breakage of grain and cob, poor separation of chaff (poor winnowing capability), and difficult feeding into the hopper. Cob breakage of the machines was 30 - 91% (mean 62.8%). This is undesirable for farmers who use the cobs for fuel but desirable for those who would use the cobs as a filler for animal feed or manure. Nonetheless, excessive cob breakage means additional need for winnowing, which coincides with the suggestion by over 60% of the service providers that the winnowing capability of the threshers requires to be improved (Fig. 8). About 20% of service providers wanted modifications to allow easy feeding, durability, and ability to perform multiple functions. To this end, research initiatives are underway. Figure 7: What service providers say about mechanized shellers used to provide maize threshing services to farmers. 13 Figure 8: Improvements recommended by service providers on local maize threshers; The greatest desire relates to capability to improve grain quality by removing non-grain matter (winnowing is an arduous task usually performed by women). There is also a desire for diversification, durability (reduced maintenance costs), and improved efficiency (easy feeding). Crop storage – preserving available food to last longer During the current reporting period, mid-line follow-up assessments of demos were accomplished (at 3.5 months) and at end-line (7 months). Also, device opening ceremonies (field days) were implemented and organized at village level for farmers to witness their performance. The strength of such ceremonies is that they allow visual appreciation, and farmers can discuss amongst themselves and with extension staff what works or does not work and why, making it possible to explain abstract concepts and underlying principles. Moreover, farmers remember more of what they see than of what they hear. Some observations relevant for the successful performance of air-tight storage structures were made during follow-up visits (Fig. 9). At the end-line visit, two air-tight bags (2.4% of bags installed for the demos) had been damaged by rodents. This suggests that the locally made non- chemical intervention applied to capture rodents (Fig. 10) performed well, and should be encouraged since proper rodent control is necessary for farmers who choose to adopt the bags. Another two (both PICS bags; maize = 1; bean =1) were completely damaged by insects. The larger grain borer (LGB) was identified in the particular farmer’s store (Fig. 11). In fact, the average LGB incidence on the harvested maize before storage across the villages was found to be 4.7% (Changarawe village 12.5%; Bashay 10%; Slahhmo 12.5%; 0% in the other villages) and reached 8.2% spread in all villages except G/Lambo at mid-line sampling. On the other hand, incidence of the common grain weevil was 76% on harvested maize before storage and 62% during midline sampling. Compared to the PICS bag, the Agro Z bag seemed to withstand LGB damage better. Further investigations are, however, under way to validate this observation. The LGB is considered the greatest threat to stored maize, especially in the warm humid regions. 14 Moreover, it can tolerate drier conditions better than other storage pests5. Successful grain storage devices must therefore indicate the capability to control and supress this pest. Figure 9: Peculiar observations made during follow-up visits demo sites. Figure 10: Locally made rodent traps: crawl-in traps (top) and snap traps (bottom). Photo credit: Musa Chamwilambo/Kilimo Endelevu. 5 Haines, C.P. (1991). Insects and arachnids of tropical stored products: their biology and identification- A training manual. Natural Resources Institute (NRI). 15 Figure 11: The larger grain borer (LGB) (local name is Scania or Dumuzi) was identified in some stores. Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. With respect to beans, high infestation from the field may have supported the survival of bean bruchids in the bags. The common bean weevil (Acanthoscelides obtectus Say), and the Mexican bean weevil (Zabrotes subfasciatus Boheman) are the bruchids known to attack beans. The two pests are thought to co-exist6 but A. obtectus appears to be more widely distributed in Eastern and Southern Africa7 and is distinguished from Z. subfasciatus by the ability to oviposit on maturing pods in the field, whereas the latter rarely does so. Incidence of infestation by adult bean weevil was 58% at the time of storage. It remains to be established whether these bruchids were able to perforate the devices installed for demos and to what extent. Collection of these data is underway. In trials with cowpea8, the cowpea bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus) was found to perforate PICS bags when sealing was delayed or inadequately done. Finally, the fact that some farmers allowed domestic animals to reside in areas designated for grain storage or tolerated dirty/dusty stores and roof leaks suggests that proper communication of storage hygiene practices should receive due attention while scaling out the technologies. ICT messaging Mobile telephone technology presents an opportunity to expand extension services to many farmers at low cost. It helps to standardize technical information for accurate transmission and is an effective way to reinforce knowledge acquired through practical demos, especially with regard to the recommended good practices accompanying a given technology. Traditionally, agricultural extension training is delivered through rigid channels such as print media and word- of-mouth using extension officers. These channels have limitations: They do not allow timely updating of content with new knowledge; they are slow, meaning that information may reach farmers outside the intended time bounds, and limited in scaling since extension officers can reach only a specific number of farmers per season. They are also resource- and time-intensive. 6 Abate, T., and J. K. O. Ampofo. 1996. Insect pests of beans in Africa: their ecology and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41: 45–73. 7 Giga, D.P., and P Chinwada, 1993. Progress in bean bruchid research in SADC, pp. 23-39. In J. K. O. Ampofo (ed.), Proceedings, 2nd meeting of the Pan-Africa Working Group on Bean Entomology, 19-22 September 1993, Harare, Zimbabwe. CIAT, Network on Bean Research in Africa. 8 16 Mobile technology use is growing rapidly in rural communities. As of 2019, the Global System for Mobile Communication Association estimates mobile phone ownership in Tanzania to be 82% of the total population. Use of SMS was crucial in delivering the extension information to the farmers as it ensured the smallholder farmers were getting customized and personalized content. All Lead farmers participating in the postharvest demos and who have access to a mobile telephone (32; at least 2 in each group) were enlisted to receive customized postharvest tips to support use of knowledge delivered through the demos during the postharvest season. Some of the messages are shown in Figure 12. Farmers receive these messages as long as they have a mobile telephone. The time to send out the messages is tailored to address resilience by boosting preparedness, that is, providing early awareness to the farmers on when and how the next postharvest activity is to be done in line with the local postharvest calendar. The complete set of messages is shown in Annex 1. In future, interactive videos for training could be deployed as an add-on to improve the transfer of knowledge by extension officers to the farmers. Already some videos have been developed by Africa RISING in partnership with communities that had previously interacted with the technologies. Figure 12: Screenshots of some of the messages as received on a smartphone. Capacity building of partners The collaboration of Africa RISING with Iles de Paix is supposed to build the capacity of staff in Kilimo Endelevu to enable them to scale out validated postharvest technologies to their target farmers. The specific research activities by Africa RISING proceeded in a manner that allowed these staff to learn and interact with the technologies in various ways, by participating in setting-up demos and field days for farmers and service providers as well as monitoring progress and collecting technical data. A summary photo report is presented (Figs 13 – 20). Actual numbers of farmers, extension staff, and service providers who have received training through the partnership are given in Table 3. The numbers attributed to field days and farmer-to-farmer spread are illustrated in Figures 21 and 22. 17 Figure 13: Staff of Africa RISING and Kilimo Endelevu (KE) participate in an exercise to assess the performance of maize shellers (see background). Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. 18 Figure 14: One of the KE staff (feeding machine with crop residues) leads service providers in testing a multi-crop processor manufactured by local fabricators as part of Africa-RISING’s research activities. Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. Figure 15: Left: KE staff at a discussion visit to a local artisan (M. Shoo, Babati) to lay down modalities for manufacturing metal silos for storage demos in Karatu; Right: One of KE staff supervises to ensure silos meet acceptable quality. Photo credit: Pascal Tutuu/Kilimo Endelevu. 19 Figure 16: Metal silos complete with how-to-use instructions produced under the supervision of staff from Kilimo Endelevu. Photo credit: Pascal Tutuu/Kilimo Endelevu. Figure 17: (a) Africa RISING team in a meeting with KE staff, extension workers, and Lead farmers to familiarize them with the technologies; (b) KE staff deliver postharvest technology demo tools to action sites; (c & d) KE staff demonstrate to farmers how to prepare grain before loading it into storage devices and how to use the metal silo; (e) One of the KE staff and farmers examine storage devices during one of the demo cycles. Photo credit: Pascal Tutuu/Kilimo Endelevu. 20 Figure 18: KE staff collect technical data. Photo credit: Pascal Tutuu/Kilimo Endelevu. Figure 19: One of the trained local youth participates in data collection. Photo credit: Christopher Mutungi/IITA. 21 Figure 20: Farmers examine quality of grain maintained for 7 months in air-tight storage bags. Photo credit: Audifas Gaspar/IITA. Figure 21: Field day attendance by farmers in the various villages by gender. More men than women attended field days in all the villages except Chemchem. Women constituted 33.3% (total = 234). 22 Figure 22: Number of farmers outside target groups who were exposed to technologies through interaction with demo hosts or members of groups hosting demos. Women: 52% (total = 350). Table 3: Number of farmers and extension workers trained in postharvest management. Type of training Date Place Farmers Extension agents Gender (F/M) Explanation Storage hygiene and inspection 18.02.2019 Karatu 73 6 39 40 Activity coincided with mid-line follow-up visit Postharvest mechanization 14.03.2019 Karatu 14 3 4 13 Activity targeted service providers Improved storage (Field day to witness performance of various air- tight storage techniques) 20– 31.05.2019 Bashay 17 5 6 11 Mobilization of farmers was fair but could be improved by advertising field days through village Heads Buger 26 9 17 Changarawe 41 9 32 Chemchem 18 13 5 G/Lambo 33 8 25 K. Simba 13 4 9 K. Rhotia 46 12 34 Slahhamo 40 17 23 Postharvest management (Farmer-to- farmer spreading to October 2018 – July 2019 Bashay 21 - 13 8 Farmers outside the groups were exposed to technologies through Buger 69 34 35 Changarawe 46 31 15 Chemchem 14 5 9 G/Lambo 45 24 21 K. Simba 53 17 36 23 non-group members) K. Rhotia 63 31 32 interaction with demo hosts or members of groups hosting demos Slahhamo 39 26 13 Partnership/linkages with other projects • Kilimo Endelevu provided the expected field support including travel to the villages, purchasing of postharvest management tools, and organizing/mobilizing farmers for field demos. • Kilimo Endelevu partnered with Worldveg to demonstrate vegetable technologies. As a way of enhancing nutrition integration, postharvest partners of Africa-RISING (including IITA) have partnered with Wordveg to demonstrate good postharvest handling and processing techniques for staple foods, segregating damaged, diseased, and moldy produce, and identifying good-quality grain for the preparation of nutritious meals. Lessons learned and recommendations • The partnership with Iles de Paix improved the ability of Africa RISING to reach out to farmers and extension staff. The partnership also improved our research and scaling efforts by providing baseline data on the characteristics of farmers as well as the postharvest challenges which the farmers need to have addressed. • Scaling efforts would be boosted by making use of modern communication technology. It is therefore important that Kilimo Endelevu continues to update the telephone contacts of their farmers and extension workers, distinguishing those devices that are video enabled from those that are SMS-only. • Videos can be used for disseminating information, training, and encouraging innovation. These could be explored in addition to communicating short messages. • Open-device ceremonies are organized for farmers to witness results of demos in on- site extension events. They improve the cost-effectiveness of extension by enabling more people to benefit from a single demo. Furthermore, they provide the opportunity for farmers to learn and ask questions and encourage them to try new ideas in their own circumstances (baby demos). Although such events are cheap to organize, effective campaigns to mobilize farmers, e.g., through Village Heads, would be needed because the culture of field days is seemingly not yet deep-seated in almost all the action villages. • Strategies to boost farmer-to-farmer spreading need to be put in place, e.g., by increasing outreach campaigns in action villages. 24 Annexes Annex 1: Postharvest messaging for increased resilience in smallholder farmers in Karatu District - simple, practical, and memorable text messages transferable via mobile telephone Stage English Swahili version When to send message 1 Harvesting The timelier the harvest the better the quality; harvest when husks turn brown, cobs hang down, or kernels are hard, and resistant to scratching by the thumbnail. Uvunaji kwa wakati ubora wa mavuno; mazao yasikae muda mrefu shambani. Vuna punje zinapokuwa ngumu na kutofikichika kwa urahisi kwa kucha. Early July 2 Harvesting Harvested produce is alive and can get diseased; remove husks immediately and dry cobs on tarpaulin or clean platform to improve storability. Mazao yaliyovunwa ni hai hushambuliwa na magonjwa; baada ya kuvuna ondoa maganda na kausha mahindi katika magunzi kwenye turubai au kwenye kichanja safi ili yahifadhiwe vizuri. Mid-July 3 Harvesting/threshing Harvested produce is alive and can get diseased and become poisonous; separate rotten/moldy cobs before shelling. Mazao yaliyovunwa ni hai, na hushambuliwa na magonjwa na kutengeneza sumu; chambua yaliyooza/ukungu kabla ya kupukuchua End July 4 Harvesting/threshing Harvested grains are alive and can get easily diseased when wounded; use method that does not break grains during shelling. Mazao yaliyovunwa ni hai. Yakipata majeraha hushambuliwa na magojwa. Tumia njia isiyosababisha majeraha wakati wa kupukuchua End July 5 Drying Harvested grains are alive; They get easily diseased when stored moist; dry well and verify level of grain moisture is < 13% during storage. Mazao yaliyovunwa ni hai na hushambuliwa na magonjwa yakihifadhiwa na unyevu; kausha vizuri unyevu usizidi asilimia 13 wakati wa kuhifadhi. Week 1, August 6 Storage (early) Clean grain, better storage: winnow grain, remove dirt, and trash to keep off insects. Mazao safi, uhifadhi bora: pepeta, ondoa uchafu na safisha kuepuka wadudu Week 2, August 25 7 Storage (early) Insects require air to survive and damage stored produce; stop them by always storing produce in air-tight containers. Wadudu wanahitaji hewa kuishi na kuharibu mazao yaliyohifadhiwa; hifadhi mazao kwenye vyombo visivyoruhusu hewa wakati wote. Week 3, August 8 Storage (early) Clean food, safe food, more money! use hermetic bags or other air-tight devices to store without chemicals. Chakula safi, salama na pesa zaidi! kuhifadhi bila kutumia kemikali tumia mifuko au vifaa vingine visivyoruhusu hewa kupita Week 3, August 9 Storage (early) Clean environment, better storage: keep old harvest far from new harvest. Mazingira safi, uhifadhi bora: weka mazao ya msimu uliopita mbali na mazao ya msimu mpya. Week 4, August 10 Storage (regularly) Clean environment, better storage: keep non-grain items away from stored grain. Mazingira safi, uhifadhi bora: Weka vitu visivyo nafaka mbali na mazao yaliyohifadhiwa. Week 4, August 11 Storage (regularly) Clean environment, better storage: keep domestic animals and trash rubbish dumps far from grain store. Mazingira safi, uhifadhi bora: weka wanyama wanaofugwa na jalala mbali na ghala. Week 1, September 12 Storage (regularly) Clean environment, better storage: sweep way spilt grain, dirt, and trash on the floor and hidden areas every week to keep off insects and rodents. Mazingira safi, uhifadhi bora: Ondoa mahindi yaliyoanguka chini, uchafu, na takataka nyingine sakafuni na maeneo yaliyofichika kila wiki ili kuzuia wadudu na panya. Week 2, September 13 Storage (regularly) Protect your food: inspect your store regularly; fix falling walls, leaking roofs, avoid dampness from floor or wall. Linda chakula chako! kagua ghala mara kwa mara; rekebisha kuta na mapaa yanayovuja. Chukua hatua za kudhibiti unyevu. Week 1, October 14 Storage (regularly) Protect your food: inspect your store soundings regularly; clear the surrounding and install rodent control measures. Linda chakulachako! kagua ghala mara kwa mara; Fyeka maeneo yanayozunguka ghala. Chukua hatua za kudhibiti panya na wadudu. Week 1, November 26 Part II: Vegetable production activities Overview Activity name: Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project and Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) Partnership in Karatu District, Tanzania Activity start date: 20 January 2019 Activity end date: 31 October 2019 Name of prime implementing partner: World Vegetable Center (WorldVeg) Major counterpart organization (s) • Iles de Paix (Islands of Peace) • Ministry of Agriculture in Karatu District • Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA) • Research Community and Organizational Development Associates (RECODA) • International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Contact person Dr. Justus Ochieng Email: justus.ochieng@worldveg.org Implementation team • Justus Ochieng (WorldVeg) • Inviolate Mosha (WorldVeg) • Hassan Mndiga (WorldVeg) Geographic coverage (districts, regions) Karatu District, Arusha Region, Tanzania Reporting period: 20 January 2019 – 19 July 2019 Executive summary During Quarter 1 of 2019, WorldVeg focused on meetings for briefing in 8 villages in Karatu District to inform farmers and partners about Africa RISING and the planned demos (Fig. 1). The meetings helped partners to understand the project and to prepare the workplans to serve the targeted farmer groups effectively (Fig. 2). About 199 farmers participated in the meetings to raise awareness; 94 (47.2%) were male and 105 (52.8%) female. 27 Figure 1: Briefing at Slahhamo village: Wayda Peter (Karatu District Council – District Extension Officer) talking to farmers about improving nutrition through improved vegetable production technologies and increased consumption. Photo credit: Inviolate Mosha/WorldVeg. Figure 2: Training participants sharing experiences during group work session on preparation of activity plans. Photo credit: Inviolate Mosha/WorldVeg. 28 In addition, IDP staff, government extension officers, and Lead farmers were trained from 4 to 8 March. Five modules were covered during training: Module 1: Principles of vegetable production; Module 2: Integrated approaches/methods to prevent pests and diseases in vegetables, identification and control; Module 3: Natural pesticides, types and uses; Module 4: Natural fertilizers types and uses; Module: 5 Data collection and record keeping. The participants were 49 in number (32 males and 17 females); 36 were farmer group representatives, 7 were extension agents, and 6 technical staff from Kilimo Endelevu project in Karatu District (Fig. 3). Farmers in various villages developed their action plans for implementing activities. Figure 3: Demo on soil sterilization for the establishment of healthy seedlings. Photo credit: Inviolate Mosha/WorldVeg. WorldVeg, Iles de Paix (IDP), and the government extension service provided support during Quarter 2, 2019, and trained 64 Lead farmers (52% male, 48% female) hosting the demo trials on managing seedlings in the nursery. Another training focused on simple drip irrigation for vegetables in which 119 farmers (51% female) participated. In another training, 198 farmers (50% female) participated in learning about bookkeeping. This training should help farmers to improve record keeping and in collecting data from the demos (Fig. 4). Lastly, 76 farmers (48% female) participated in a training to identify the maturity indices of leafy vegetables, harvesting techniques, and cooling of vegetables. Harvesting of vegetables and data collection in the demo plots are ongoing (Fig. 5). An overview of the trainings held is given in Table 1. 29 Figure 4: Bookkeeping training with one of the groups. Photo credit: Inviolate Mosha/WorldVeg. Figure 5: Harvesting and data collection exercise together with farmers in Karatu. Photo credit: Ayesiga Buberwa/IDP. Seven field days were organized in project villages from 9 to 12 July 2019 (Figs 6-7). The theme of the field day was “Grow and eat more vegetables for improved income and nutrition". In Swahili " Lima, Kula mboga kwa afya na uchumi endelevu". https://africa-rising.net/events/ The objectives of the field day were: (1) To learn good agricultural practices for producing vegetables from the host farmer group. 30 (2) To generate discussion and find solutions to the challenges that farmers face in production and marketing of vegetables in Karatu District. A total of 215 farmers participated (117 males, 98 females) and 13 representatives from MVIWATA, RECODA, district agriculture office and local government. Figure 6: Participants inspecting vegetables. Photo credit: Hassan Mndiga/WorldVeg. Figure 7: Inviolate Mosha, Research Associate, explains production practices to participants. Photo credit: Hassan Mndiga/WorldVeg. 31 The villages were identified for a baseline survey to assess the impact of nutritional messaging embedded in agricultural trainings and the communities were informed about the study. The baseline study protocol and the questionnaire were completed and submitted to the WorldVeg Institutional Biosafety and Research Ethics Committee (IBREC) for approval. The control villages for the baseline survey were also identified and informed about the study. The implementation of the survey was delayed because of the heavy rains (in March-May) in Karatu. Collecting information at this period would have been risky and visits to some areas would have been limited owing to floods. The survey will begin from 18 July 2019. Materials for training on nutrition have been prepared. Capacity building of partners and farmers Table 1: Trainings conducted under the vegetable production activities Title of training Dates Trainee category Number of trainees Percentage of women Training on principles of vegetable production, IPM, natural fertilizers, Data collection and recordkeeping 4-8 March 2019 Lead farmers, government extension agents, and IDP officers 49 37 Bookkeeping 14-19 April 2019 Farmers and Lead farmers 198 51 Training on identification of maturity indices of leafy, vegetables, harvesting techniques, and cooling 2-8 June 2019 Lead farmers, government extension agents, and IDP officers 76 48 Drip irrigation training 9-19 May 2019 Lead farmers and farmers 119 5 Partnership/linkages with other projects Africa RISING is partnering with Kilimo Endelevu project by Iles de Paix (IDP) to scale best-bet technologies in Karatu. Other partners are Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA), and Research Community and Organizational Development Associates (RECODA). WorldVeg has linkages with Mboga na Matunda (MnM) project and TAHA in Zanzibar and Arusha. 32 Problems and challenges Based on the research protocol, 128 farmers were planned to host demo trials. However, because of shortage of water in some areas, only 64 farmers with access to water were selected. The Biometrician approved the reduction in the number of farmers. The baseline survey was delayed by heavy rains (in March-May) in Karatu. Collecting information at this period would have been risky or visits to some areas would even have been limited owing to floods.