BIOTECHNOLOGY TRUST OF ZIMBABWE

SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM AND SWEET POTATO PROJECTS

M. Mudhara1 and A. B. Mashingaidze2

1Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare. Email: [email protected] and 2Department of Crop

Science, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare. Email: [email protected]

17 224 February 2003

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1997, the Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ) embarked on multi-stakeholder and need driven projects in Agricultural Biotechnology to address selected problems of resource-poor farmers in Buhera and Hwedza districts. Extensive participatory needs identification and priority setting exercises, to understand the needs of the resource poor farmers, were carried out in the two districts from 1994 to 1997 using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodologies. A multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach was chosen for implementing the projects. The approach required a continuum of activities from laboratory research using complex techniques and equipment, greenhouse experimentation, participatory experimentation and transfer of the generated technologies to farmers. Before project support was stopped, the project would provide technical backstopping and collateral support to adopters while facilitating entry of new adopters. To achieve the above project cycle, the participation of institutions from universities and research institutes, extension organisations, farmer organisations, local authorities and others, were required.

Three project were implemented, i.e., BNF, mushroom and sweet potato micro propagation. After the implementation of the projects, BTZ tasked two consultants to evaluate the impact of the projects on the target groups and other institutions involved in the projects, using specified terms of reference. To collect data, the consultants used household level questionnaire interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and reviews of secondary sources of information.

The sweet potato project sought to increase sweet potato production, consumption and marketing through provision and maintenance of pathogen-free, high quality sweet potato seed stock of true-to-type cultivars to smallholder farmers in Hwedza and Buhera districts. Collaborating institutions in the project were BTZ, Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI), Tobacco Research Board (TRB), Horticultural Research Institute (HRI) and the division of Agricultural Research and Extension (AREX). Six nursery sites were established during the project. Sweet potato cultivars from the target districts were collected and identified. Viruses were eliminated from the cultivars using meristem tip culture. On-farm trials were designed to evaluate the performance of the cleaned cultivars, i.e., with different levels of fertilizers, after being re-infected and when compared with unclean cultivars. Clean cultivars had significantly higher yields compared to cultivars that were not cleaned. Cleaned planting materials were provided to the nursery sites, the failure by pilot nurseries to keep potted plants of cleaned varieties in the lathe houses exacerbated the problem of limited availability of planting material. While little planting materials were supplied to the nursery sites, failure by the pilot nursery sites to keep potted planted of clean varieties in the lathe house exacerbated the problem of limited availability of planting material. Until the end of the project, the farmers had not yet been empowered to produce nurseries of horticultural crops other than sweet potatoes, as envisaged in the project objectives.

The BNF project was established to increase farmer awareness and exploitation of rhizobium inoculants, increase farmers’ knowledge and skills of cultivating a wide range of legume crops and increase the use of legume crop residues for improving soil fertility. Research conducted during the project showed the benefits of using rhizobium inoculant on soyabeans yields. Farmers adopted soyabean production in their farming systems. The nutritional and income status of farmers was enhanced through the multiple ways in which soyabeans could be

ii

prepared into food. The mushroom project sought to improve the nutritional base and income of resource poor farmers through the cultivation and sale of tropical mushroom in Buhera and Hwedza districts. The project developed a technology for producing mushrooms under smallholder farming conditions and using locally available resources. Farmers who were not original members of the project are now adopting the technology and some of the adopters have started producing mushroom for sale.

As part of project implementation, participants underwent different training courses to enhance their effectiveness to commercially run the projects. In the sweet potato project, farmers were trained in different aspects of nursery management. In the BNF project, farmers and extension personnel were trained in the production, utilization and processing of soyabeans. Without the training, the adoption of the technology would have been low. Farmers realized the value of the soyabean crop for consumption, for improving soil fertility through residual fertility and as livestock feed. As part on the mushroom project, farmers and extension workers were trained in mushroom production. Training workshops of the utilisation of sweet potatoes were conducted.

The biotechnology research conducted in these projects was carried out in a participatory manner. Field days, at which farmers assessed the performance of the effects of the biotechnological interventions, were held. In the sweet potato project, selected cultivars were evaluated and farmers became aware of improved and more efficient techniques of producing sweet potatoes. Farmers’ awareness of the economic value of virus-cleaned materials was increased. In the BNF project, different legumes were evaluated at farmer-hosted trails.

The mushroom project worked with groups of participants during the research phase. The sweet potato project participants organized themselves into well-structured executive committees. The committees are conducive to the continuation of projects activities after termination of BTZ funding is terminated.

Women were the major beneficiaries of the mushroom project as they almost exclusively ran all projects. The BNF project uplifted the position of women in the households as they could produce a variety of nutritious and tasty products. Even those women who did not produce soyabeans could buy soyabeans locally and produce the products in their homesteads. There is potential of women realising additional benefits from the BNF project if they could be facilitated to produce and sell the soyabean products for income generation.

The selection of project participants needs to be gender sensitive. The gender that traditionally performs a duty carried out in the project must be chosen. Deliberate targeting of the correct composition of project groups to carry out gender sensitive operations is required. Before project inception, participatory rural appraisal and gender research should be conducted to study the local beliefs regarding activities that are envisaged in each project.

Group-managed mushroom projects performed better than individually rum projects. Groups proved to be barely sustainable in the mushroom project and some fractionated; with some group-members starting individually owned mushroom houses. Members should only be allowed to form groups when the returns from the project are sizeable. When the proceeds from the project area are small, they should be conducted by individuals or by a few members only.

Availability of inputs was the major weakness of the three projects. Limited quantities of sweet potato planting materials were available to the nurseries, thus curtailing the ability of the nurseries to meet the demand from their clients. Adequate quantities of planting materials should be supplied early for it to be bulked at the nurseries. Pilot nurseries should establish potted sweet potato plants in order to effectively use the lathe houses. The availability of planting seed and

iii

inoculant has been a bottleneck for widespread adoption of soyabean production. Mechanisms for insuring a permanent supply of soyabean seed to growers are needed. In the mushroom project, insufficient quantities of spawn on the market were a major problem and ways of rectifying this problem are required.

It emerged that co-ordination of multi-institutional project teams had problems, especially in the sweet potato project. In future, terms of reference, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or contracts must be drafted spelling out the activities of each organisation participating in a collaborative effort. Each collaborating institution should be tasked and be held accountable to fulfil its part of the project activities.

For any project, an exit strategy that ensures sustainability of the project activities must clearly be laid out in the project proposal. Funding of the various stages of the project must be conditional on the successful implementation of activities that ensure sustainability of the project at the end of the project cycle.

Experiences during the projects showed that supplying free handouts to project participants could be detrimental to the successful implementation of project. The handouts have a tendency of attracting freeloaders and uncommitted individuals. Project participants must be made to invest considerable amounts of money, labour and inputs into project activities. A sense of ownership of project activities and assets is a driving parameter to engendering long-term commitment of project participants in project activities. To ensure the sense of ownership it might be necessary to have provisions on the ownership of the project included in the constitutions of the groups.

iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AIDS Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome AREX Agricultural Research and Extension Services BNF Biological Nitrogen Fixation BRDC Buhera Rural District Council BRI Biotechnology Research Institute BTZ Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe DAEO District Agricultural Extension OfficersDCC District Co-ordination CommitteeDPhil Doctor of PhilosophyDVS Department of Veterinary ServicesEW Extension Worker FDT Farmers Development Trust GMB Grain Marketing Board HRI Horticultural Research CentreHRI Horticultural Research InstituteICRAF International Centre for Research in AgroforestryIITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture MPhil Master of PhilosophyPI Principal InvestigatorPMEC Project Monitoring and Evaluation Committee PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal TRB Tobacco Research Board SIRDC Scientific and Industrial Research and Development CentreTOR Terms of ReferenceTRB Tobacco Research Board UZ University of Zimbabwe ZFU Zimbabwe farmers UnionZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PageEXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................iiLIST OF ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................................................v1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................12. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................4

2.1 Structured and Unstructured Interviews...................................................................................................42.2 Focus Group Discussions..............................................................................................................................42.3 Key Informant Interviews............................................................................................................................52.4 Document Reviews........................................................................................................................................5

3. THE SWEET POTATO PROJECT........................................................................................................................63.1 Background and objectives..........................................................................................................................63.2 Implementation.............................................................................................................................................63.3 Selection of Nursery Members and Group Dynamics...............................................................................73.4 Training and Technology Extension.........................................................................................................103.5 Gender Issues in the Sweet Potato Project...............................................................................................133.6 On-farm-research and experimentation...................................................................................................143.7 Input Procurement and Produce Marketing............................................................................................193.8 Sweet Potato Prices.....................................................................................................................................213.9 Institutional Linkages.................................................................................................................................223.10 Benefits of the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project........................................................................24

3.10.1 Benefits to the primary beneficiaries................................................................................................243.10.2 Benefits to collaborating institutions.................................................................................................28

3.11 Recommendations for Exit strategy..........................................................................................................314. BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN FIXATION PROJECT...........................................................................................35

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................354.2 On-farm Research.......................................................................................................................................354.3 Impact on Target Groups and Other Stakeholders.................................................................................37

4.3.1 Soyabean Processing and Utilization................................................................................................384.3.2 Ranking of Uses of Soyabean.............................................................................................................394.3.3 Advantages of Soyabeans...................................................................................................................424.3.4 Limitations to Adoption of soyabeans...............................................................................................43

4.4 Training and Technology Extension.........................................................................................................444.5 Socio-economic Issues.................................................................................................................................45

4.5.1 Impact Project on Extension Services...............................................................................................454.5.2 Sustainability of the Project Activities..............................................................................................454.5.3 Institutional Linkages.........................................................................................................................47

4.6 Input Procurement and Produce Marketing............................................................................................484.6.1 Access to Production Inputs...............................................................................................................484.6.2 Marketing of Soyabeans.....................................................................................................................50

5. MUSHROOM PROJECT.....................................................................................................................................52MUSHROOM PROJECT.............................................................................................................................................52

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................525.2 On-farm Participatory Trials....................................................................................................................525.3 Impact of the Project..................................................................................................................................53

5.3.1 Benefits on primary beneficiaries......................................................................................................535.3.2 Institutional Benefits...........................................................................................................................55

5.4 Training in Mushroom Production...........................................................................................................565.5 Socio-economic Issues.................................................................................................................................57

5.5.1 Sustainability of Project Activities....................................................................................................575.5.2 Effects of the Project on Gender........................................................................................................605.5.3 Institutional Linkages.........................................................................................................................62

5.6 Input Procurement and Produce Marketing............................................................................................635.6.1 Availability of Spawn..........................................................................................................................63

vi

5.6.2 Marketing of Produce.........................................................................................................................655.7 Limitations to Project Impact....................................................................................................................66

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................686.1 Impacts on target groups and other stake holders..................................................................................686.2 Training and technology extension............................................................................................................706.3 On-farm research........................................................................................................................................716.4 Socio-economic issues.................................................................................................................................716.5 Input procurement and produce marketing.............................................................................................726.6 Lessons learnt and recommendations.......................................................................................................73

APPENDIX I: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT.............................................................................................................................................78APPENDIX II: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT.............................................................................................................................................82APPENDIX III: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT.............................................................................................................................................86APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS IN THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS...........................................................................................................................................................90APPENDIX V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION FRAMEWORK AND ACTION PLAN........................................91APPENDIX VI: PARTICIPANTS IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS DURING EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS...........................................................................................................................................................92APPENDIX VII: LETTER FROM DAEO BUHERA TO MEMBERS OF MURAMBINDA IRRIGATION SCHEME......................................................................................................................................................................94APPENDIX VIII: PROJECT OUTPUTS.....................................................................................................................95APPENDIX IX: EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLES BOUGHT FOR BRI (SIRDC) BY THE SWEET POTATO MICRO-PROPAGATION PROJECT..........................................................................................................................98EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................iiiiiiiiLIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................vvvv1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................11112. ...................................................................................DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................44442.1 .......................................................................................Structured and Unstructured Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................44442.2 .............................................................................................................Focus Group Discussions ...................................................................................................................................................44442.3 .............................................................................................................Key Informant Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................55552.4 .......................................................................................................................Document Reviews ...................................................................................................................................................55553. ................................................................................................THE SWEET POTATO PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................66663.1 ...........................................................................................................Background and objectives ...................................................................................................................................................66663.2 .............................................................................................................................Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................66663.3 ..................................................................Selection of Nursery Members and Group Dynamics ...................................................................................................................................................77773.4 .............................................................................................Training and Technology Extension ...........................................................................................................................................101010103.5 ...................................................................................Gender Issues in the Sweet Potato Project ...........................................................................................................................................13131313

vii

3.6 ........................................................................................On-farm-research and experimentation ...........................................................................................................................................141414143.7 ..................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing ...........................................................................................................................................191919193.8 .......................................................................................................................Sweet Potato Prices ...........................................................................................................................................212121213.9 ...................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages ...........................................................................................................................................222222223.10 ...........................................................Benefits of the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project ...........................................................................................................................................242424243.10.1 .......................................................................................Benefits to the primary beneficiaries ...........................................................................................................................................242424243.10.2 .......................................................................................Benefits to collaborating institutions ...........................................................................................................................................282828283.11 ............................................................................................Recommendations for Exit strategy ...........................................................................................................................................313131314. .....................................................................BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN FIXATION PROJECT ...........................................................................................................................................353535354.1 ...................................................................................................................................Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................353535354.2 .........................................................................................................................On-farm Research ...........................................................................................................................................353535354.3 .......................................................................Impact on Target Groups and Other Stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................................373737374.3.1 .........................................................................................Soyabean Processing and Utilization ...........................................................................................................................................383838384.3.2 ....................................................................................................Ranking of Uses of Soyabean ...........................................................................................................................................393939394.3.3 ..........................................................................................................Advantages of Soyabeans ...........................................................................................................................................424242424.3.4 .......................................................................................Limitations to Adoption of soyabeans ...........................................................................................................................................434343434.4 .............................................................................................Training and Technology Extension ...........................................................................................................................................444444444.5 ..................................................................................................................Socio-economic Issues ...........................................................................................................................................454545454.5.1 .......................................................................................Impact Project on Extension Services ...........................................................................................................................................454545454.5.2 ......................................................................................Sustainability of the Project Activities ...........................................................................................................................................454545454.5.3 ................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages ...........................................................................................................................................474747474.6 ..................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing ...........................................................................................................................................484848484.6.1 ......................................................................................................Access to Production Inputs ...........................................................................................................................................48484848

viii

4.6.2 ............................................................................................................Marketing of Soyabeans ...........................................................................................................................................505050505. ...............................................................................................................MUSHROOM PROJECT ...........................................................................................................................................525252525.1 ...................................................................................................................................Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................525252525.2 .........................................................................................................On-farm Participatory Trials ...........................................................................................................................................525252525.3 .....................................................................................................................Impact of the Project ...........................................................................................................................................535353535.3.1 ..............................................................................................Benefits on primary beneficiaries ...........................................................................................................................................535353535.3.2 ..................................................................................................................Institutional Benefits ...........................................................................................................................................555555555.4 ...............................................................................................Training in Mushroom Production ...........................................................................................................................................565656565.5 ..................................................................................................................Socio-economic Issues ...........................................................................................................................................575757575.5.1 ............................................................................................Sustainability of Project Activities ...........................................................................................................................................575757575.5.2 ................................................................................................Effects of the Project on Gender ...........................................................................................................................................606060605.5.3 ................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages ...........................................................................................................................................626262625.6 ..................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing ...........................................................................................................................................636363635.6.1 ................................................................................................................Availability of Spawn ...........................................................................................................................................636363635.6.2 ................................................................................................................Marketing of Produce ...........................................................................................................................................656565655.7 .......................................................................................................Limitations to Project Impact ...........................................................................................................................................666666666. .........................................................................CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................686868686.1 .........................................................................Impacts on target groups and other stake holders ...........................................................................................................................................686868686.2 ...............................................................................................Training and technology extension ...........................................................................................................................................707070706.3 ..........................................................................................................................On-farm research ...........................................................................................................................................717171716.4 ..................................................................................................................Socio-economic issues ...........................................................................................................................................717171716.5 ...................................................................................Input procurement and produce marketing ...........................................................................................................................................727272726.6 ...........................................................................................Lessons learnt and recommendations ...........................................................................................................................................73737373

ix

APPENDICES

I: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT ..................................................................................................78787878II: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT ..................................................................................................82828282III: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT ..................................................................................................86868686IV: QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS IN THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS ..................................................................................................90909090V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION FRAMEWORK AND ACTION PLAN ..................91919191VI: PARTICIPANTS IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS DURING EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS ..................................................................................................92929292VII: LETTER FROM DAEO BUHERA TO MEMBERS OF MURAMBINDA IRRIGATION SCHEME ...........................................................................................................................94949494VIII: PROJECT OUTPUTS ..............................................................................................95959595IX: EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLES BOUGHT FOR BRI (SIRDC) BY THE SWEET POTATO MICRO-PROPAGATION PROJECT ..............................................................98989898EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................2LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................51 ...........................................................................................................................INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................82 ....................................................................................DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................122.1 ......................................................................................................................Structured and Unstructured Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................................122.2 .............................................................................................................................................Focus Group Discussions .......................................................................................................................................................................................122.3 ............................................................................................................................................Key Informant Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................................132.4 ......................................................................................................................................................Document Reviews .......................................................................................................................................................................................133 .................................................................................................THE SWEET POTATO PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................................153.1 ..........................................................................................................................................Background and objectives .......................................................................................................................................................................................153.2 ............................................................................................................................................................Implementation .......................................................................................................................................................................................153.3 .................................................................................................Selection of Nursery Members and Group Dynamics .......................................................................................................................................................................................163.4 ............................................................................................................................Training and Technology Extension .......................................................................................................................................................................................193.5 ...................................................................................................................Gender Issues in the Sweet Potato Project .......................................................................................................................................................................................233.6 .......................................................................................................................On-farm-research and experimentation .......................................................................................................................................................................................243.7 .................................................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing .......................................................................................................................................................................................293.8 ......................................................................................................................................................Sweet Potato Prices .......................................................................................................................................................................................31

x

3.9 ...................................................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages .......................................................................................................................................................................................323.10 ..........................................................................................Benefits of the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project .......................................................................................................................................................................................343.10.1 ......................................................................................................................Benefits to the primary beneficiaries .......................................................................................................................................................................................343.10.2 ......................................................................................................................Benefits to collaborating institutions .......................................................................................................................................................................................383.11 ...........................................................................................................................Recommendations for Exit strategy .......................................................................................................................................................................................424 ...............................................................................................Biological Nitrogen Fixation Project .......................................................................................................................................................464.1 ..................................................................................................................................................................Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................464.2 ........................................................................................................................................................On-farm Research .......................................................................................................................................................................................464.3 .......................................................................................................Impact on Target Groups and Other Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................................................................................484.3.1 ........................................................................................................................Soyabean Processing and Utilization .......................................................................................................................................................................................494.3.2 ...................................................................................................................................Ranking of Uses of Soyabean .......................................................................................................................................................................................504.3.3 .........................................................................................................................................Advantages of Soyabeans .......................................................................................................................................................................................534.3.4 ......................................................................................................................Limitations to Adoption of soyabeans .......................................................................................................................................................................................544.4 ............................................................................................................................Training and Technology Extension .......................................................................................................................................................................................564.5 .................................................................................................................................................Socio-economic Issues .......................................................................................................................................................................................564.5.1 .......................................................................................................................Impact Project on Extension Services .......................................................................................................................................................................................564.5.2 .....................................................................................................................Sustainability of the Project Activities .......................................................................................................................................................................................574.5.3 ................................................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages .......................................................................................................................................................................................584.6 .................................................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing .......................................................................................................................................................................................604.6.1 ......................................................................................................................................Access to Production Inputs .......................................................................................................................................................................................604.6.2 ...........................................................................................................................................Marketing of Soyabeans .......................................................................................................................................................................................625 ...........................................................................................................................Mushroom Project .......................................................................................................................................................645.1 ..................................................................................................................................................................Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................645.2 ........................................................................................................................................On-farm Participatory Trials .......................................................................................................................................................................................645.3 ....................................................................................................................................................Impact of the Project .......................................................................................................................................................................................655.3.1 .............................................................................................................................Benefits on primary beneficiaries .......................................................................................................................................................................................655.3.2 .................................................................................................................................................Institutional Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................................67

xi

5.4 ...............................................................................................................................Training in Mushroom Production .......................................................................................................................................................................................685.5 .................................................................................................................................................Socio-economic Issues .......................................................................................................................................................................................695.5.1 ...........................................................................................................................Sustainability of Project Activities .......................................................................................................................................................................................695.5.2 ...............................................................................................................................Effects of the Project on Gender .......................................................................................................................................................................................735.5.3 ................................................................................................................................................Institutional Linkages .......................................................................................................................................................................................745.6 .................................................................................................................Input Procurement and Produce Marketing .......................................................................................................................................................................................765.6.1 ...............................................................................................................................................Availability of Spawn .......................................................................................................................................................................................765.6.2 ...............................................................................................................................................Marketing of Produce .......................................................................................................................................................................................775.7 .......................................................................................................................................Limitations to Project Impact .......................................................................................................................................................................................786 ................................................................................................Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................816.1 ........................................................................................................Impacts on target groups and other stake holders .......................................................................................................................................................................................816.2 ..............................................................................................................................Training and technology extension .......................................................................................................................................................................................836.3 .........................................................................................................................................................On-farm research .......................................................................................................................................................................................846.4 .................................................................................................................................................Socio-economic issues .......................................................................................................................................................................................856.5 ..................................................................................................................Input procurement and produce marketing .......................................................................................................................................................................................866.6 ..........................................................................................................................Lessons learnt and recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................................................86

APPENDICESI: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT ..............................................................................................................91APPENDIX III: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT ...............................................................................................998 ..............APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS IN THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS ...........................................................................103APPENDIX V: Focus group discussion framework and action plan ..........................................104Appendix VI: Participants in key informant interviews during evaluation of three BTZ projects .....................................................................................................................................................105Appendix VII: Equipment and consumables bought for BRI (SIRDC) by the Sweet Potato Micro-Propagation Project ...........................................................................................................107APPENDIX VIII: Project outputs ...............................................................................................108

xii

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page2.1 Groups that were engaged in focus group discussions during the evaluation exercise .......55553.1 Simple ranking of courses by project participants at Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite

Nursery Project ...........................................................................................................111111113.2 Simple ranking of importance of courses attended by the participants in the Rufaro Sweet

Potato Nursery group ..................................................................................................111111113.3 Pair-wise ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato

Nursery project (Murambinda)……………………………………………………………. 123.4 Ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery

project participants ......................................................................................................131313133.5 A list of top ten varieties evaluated and selected by farmers during field days at Murambinda Irrigation Scheme (Buhera), Mashaye (Ziyambe East), Musvinu (Goneso Ward) and Mukondwa (Mashaya Ward) inWedza…………………………… ….153.6 A list of virus tested sweet potato accessions that were successfully regenerated from meristem culture in 1999 (Source Mrs Chirara, BRI)………………………………….17 3.7 Ways in which a selected sample of non-project farmers accessed sweet potato improved

varieties .......................................................................................................................212121213.8 Results of pair-wise ranking of the benefits of the sweet potato project by members of the

Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery, Murambinda ......................................................252525253.9 Ranking of perceived benefits by participants of the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery project,

Murambinda ................................................................................................................252525253.10 Income and Expenditure at Murambinda Irrigation Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery Group Over

time ..............................................................................................................................262626263.11 Income and Expenditure at Mawire Sweet Potato Group, Hwedza District .............262626263.12 Pair wise ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at Zvichanaka

Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project .............................................................262626263.13 Ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at Zvichanaka Chete Sweet

Potato Satellite Nursery project ..................................................................................272727273.14 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of the Sweet Potato project at Mvurachena Irrigation

Scheme ........................................................................................................................272727273.15 Simple ranking of enterprises in gardens by sweet potato project participants at Zvichanaka

Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery .........................................................................282828283.16 Ranking of the contribution of different crops to household income by the Shumba family at

Murambinda ................................................................................................................303030304.1 Extent of Groundnut Inoculant Use in Selected Wards in Buhera District .................373737374.2 UZ team estimates of number of soyabean adopters over time…………………..……..…..384.3 Results of a pair wise ranking exercise of benefits of soyabeans by project participants in

Hwedza District ...........................................................................................................404040404.4 Summary of exercise to rank benefits of soyabeans by project participants in Hwedza District .........................................................................................................................404040404.5 Results of pair wise ranking exercise of the importance of three projects as perceived by farmers at Gutsavana Garden Project, Shava Areas, Buhera District………………………..414.6 Summary of ranking of the importance of three projects by project participants at Gutsavana

Garden Project .............................................................................................................41414141

xiv

4.7 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of soyabean by the Gutsavana project participants .....................................................................................................................................41414141

4.8 Rank of soyabean uses and attributes by Murambinda males farmers. .......................424242424.9 Inputs contained in the credit package given during the BNF Project ........................494949495.1 Simple ranking of perceived project outcomes in order of importance to project participant

livelihoods by members of the Mvurachena Mushroom Project ................................545454545.2 Comparison of advantages and problems of mushroom production. ..........................555555555.3 Simple ranking of perceived importance of courses sponsored by BTZ by participants in the

Mvurachena Mushroom project. .................................................................................575757575.4 Income and Expenditure for Mrs Mashonganyika, Hwedza District, Mushroom Producer,

first round of production .............................................................................................606060605.5 Incomes and Expenditure for Tashinga Mushroom Group, Buhera District, Ward 6 .616161615.6 Incomes and Expenditure for Mvurachena Mushroom Group, Hwedza District in 2001

.....................................................................................................................................616161615.7 UZ Mushroom Team Spawn Supplies to Buhera and Wedza Districts in 2001/2 ......636363635.8 Channels of accessing spawn and satisfaction with the channel. ................................64646464Table 2.1 Groups that were engaged in focus group discussions during the evaluation exercise

.....................................................................................................................................15Table 3.1 Simple ranking of courses by project participants at Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite

Nursery Project ...........................................................................................................22Table 3.3 Simple ranking of importance of courses attended by the participants in the Rufaro

Sweet Potato Nursery group .......................................................................................22Table 3.5 Pair-wise ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet

Potato Nursery project (Murambinda) ........................................................................23Table 3.7 Ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato

Nursery project participants ........................................................................................24Table 3.9 Ways in which a selected sample of non-project farmers accessed sweet potato

improved varieties .......................................................................................................33Table 3.10 Results of pair-wise ranking of the benefits of the sweet potato project by members

of the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery, Murambinda ............................................37Table 3.12 Ranking of perceived benefits by participants of the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery

project, Murambinda ...................................................................................................37Table 3.14 Income and Expenditure at Murambinda Irrigation Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery Group

Over time .....................................................................................................................38Table 3.15 Income and Expenditure at Mawire Sweet Potato Group, Hwedza District . . .38Table 3.17 Pair wise ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at

Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project ..........................................38Table 3.18 Ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at Zvichanaka Chete

Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project ........................................................................39Table 3.20 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of the Sweet Potato project at Mvurachena

Irrigation Scheme ........................................................................................................39Table 3.22 Simple ranking of enterprises in gardens by sweet potato project participants at

Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery ......................................................40Table 3.24 Ranking of the contribution of different crops to household income by the Shumba

family at Murambinda .................................................................................................43Table 4.1 Extent of Groundnut Inoculant Use in Selected Wards in Buhera District .......50

xv

Table 4.3 UZ team estimates of number of soyabean adopters over time .........................51Table 4.5 Results of a pair wise ranking exercise of benefits of soyabeans by project participants

in Hwedza District ......................................................................................................53Table 4.6 Summary of exercise to rank benefits of soyabeans by project participants in Hwedza

District .........................................................................................................................53Table 4.8 Results of pair wise ranking exercise of the importance of three projects as perceived

by farmers at Gutsavana Garden Project, Shava Areas, Buhera District ....................54Table 4.10 Summary of ranking of the importance of three projects by project participants at

Gutsavana Garden Project ...........................................................................................54Table 4.12 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of soyabean by the Gutsavana project

participants ..................................................................................................................55Table 4.14 Rank of soyabean uses and attributes by Murambinda males farmers. ...........55Table 4.16 Inputs contained in the credit package given during the BNF Project ............62Table 5.1 Simple ranking of perceived project outcomes in order of importance to project

participant livelihoods by members of the Mvurachena Mushroom Project ..............68Table 5.3 Comparison of advantages and problems of mushroom production. ................69Table 5.5 Simple ranking of perceived importance of courses sponsored by BTZ by participants

in the Mvurachena Mushroom project. .......................................................................71Table 5.7 Income and Expenditure for Mrs Mashonganyika, Hwedza District, Mushroom

Producer, first round of production .............................................................................75Table 5.8 Incomes and Expenditure for Tashinga Mushroom Group, Buhera District, Ward 6

.....................................................................................................................................75Table 5.9 Incomes and Expenditure for Mvurachena Mushroom Group, Hwedza District in 2001

.....................................................................................................................................76Table 5.10 UZ Mushroom Team Spawn Supplies to Buhera and Wedza Districts in 2001/2

.....................................................................................................................................77Table 5.11 Channels of accessing spawn and satisfaction with the channel. ....................78

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page3.1 Yield of virus cleaned and non-virus cleaned planting material as perceived by participants at

the Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Project ............................................151515153.2 Venn diagram of organisations interacting with the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery

Project, Murambinda ...................................................................................................222222224.1 Venn diagram of organisations involved in the BNF project as drawn by Hwedza farmers

during focus group discussions ..................................................................................47474747Figure 3.1 Yield of virus cleaned and non-virus cleaned planting material as perceived by

participants at the Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Project .....................28Figure 3.2 Venn diagram of organisations interacting with the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery

Project, Murambinda ...................................................................................................36Figure 4.1 Venn diagram of organisations involved in the BNF project as drawn by Hwedza

farmers during focus group discussions ......................................................................62

xvii

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ) embarked on multi-stakeholder and need driven projects in Agricultural Biotechnology for resource-poor farmers in Buhera and Hwedza districts in 1997. The philosophical foundations of BTZ are partly captured in the introductory remarks of the editor in the September issue of Biotechnology 2002 thus:"Need driven research is the hallmark of the Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe's agricultural biotechnology for resource-poor farmers programme. The other pillars in the triangular approach to technology development are technology extension, and technology utilisation".

The need-driven nature of the biotechnology projects implemented by BTZ since 1997 in Hwedza and Buhera districts was underpinned by an extensive and exhaustive needs identification and priority setting exercise with resource poor farmers in the two districts. The exercise was carried out between 1994 and 1997 using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodologies. To address the multi-faceted problems unearthed during the needs identification and priority setting exercise, a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach was chosen as the most appropriate modus operandi in the implementation phase of the projects. The multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach recognizes that the problems being tackled using biotechnology techniques, required a continuum of activities spanning from laboratory research using complex techniques and equipment, greenhouse experimentation, participatory experimentation and transfer of the generated technologies to farmers. After successful adoption by farmers, there is need to provide technical backstopping and collateral support to the adopters, and facilitation of entry by new adopters' entry before cutting off project support to farmers is cut off. The above project cycle required the participation of various institutions, i.e., universities, research institutes, extension organisations, farmer organisations, local authorities and others, hence the multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary tenets that applied across all BTZ sponsored projects.

The overall objective of the BTZ programme in Hwedza and Buhera was to applying "need driven" agricultural biotechnology to improve the standard of living of resource poor farmers. in these two districts through the application of "need driven" agricultural biotechnology. The specific objectives of the programme were to:1. To facilitate the application of biotechnology in contributing to the solution of identified

agricultural production constraints;2. To develop and implement appropriate research activities to intervene on those identified

constraints;3. To build capacity in biotechnology in institutions that can potentially use this technology to

increase agricultural production in marginalised production systems; and 4. To implement supportive activities to ensure good management of projects and participation

of farmers in the development and adoption of agricultural biotechnology, and5. To promote the adoption of bio-safety in Zimbabwe.To that end, six biotechnology projects were conceptualised and launched in Hwedza and Buhera in1997. Among the projects encompassing research, extension and utilisation of biotechnology that were initiated in Hwedza and Buhera in 1997 were the Mushroom Cultivation, Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF)/ Legumes and the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation projects. The three projects are the subject of this socio-economic evaluation.

2

According to the Terms of Reference of the Evaluation Team, the overall aim of the evaluation assignment was to investigate the achievements by each of the three above-mentioned projects, especially at target beneficiaries' level. The ultimate destination in these activities was to determine how sustainability of the technologies promoted by the projects could be perpetuated.

The specific objectives of the socio-economic evaluation were: To establish and analyse the benefits that have accrued to farmers, extension personnel and

other development agents who participated in each of the projects; To assess and document the uptake and impact of training activities that were carried out

within each project; To evaluate the effectiveness of local level arrangements that have been put in place to

ensure sustainability of activities implemented, including a study of group dynamics in each project and how these impact on each project;

To identify strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats for each project; and To assess the impact of project activities on gender issues as well as other social structures in

the target communities.The structure of the specific terms of reference for the evaluation team were based on

specific thematic areas that BTZ stipulated for the analysis of outcomes of the three projects under review as follows:

1. Impact on target groups and other stakeholders

Achievement of each project's overall achievements versus set objectives, highlighting the major reasons for low/high level of achievement.

Tangible and intangible benefits derived from the projects and unforeseen effects caused by the project (both negative and positive), on project and non-project farmers.

Lessons learnt by the various stakeholders from project intervention and strategies employed. Analysis of where the biggest impact was felt-on farmers working as individuals or those

working as groups, and why. Determine prospects of sustainability of project activities.

2. Training and technology extension

Analysis of the relevance and effectiveness of the training that was given to farmers and extension personnel in each project.

Are records on what they were trained on and records of produce/sales from the sponsored projects available?

Was there synergy between training that was offered other players/organisations What additional training is required and why?3. On-farm research

Analysis of participation of stakeholders in on-farm research trials, selection of pilot farmers, interpretation of research objectives and results, feedback to beneficiaries.

How did participation in research influence farmer's and extension's understanding of the value of the project, and the role they can play in it?

3

4. Socio-economic issues

Impact of the projects on the organisational abilities of the community. Impact on the social interactions among community members. Impact on farmers' perception of other organisations working with them Ownership and sustainability of results from the project. How viable as business ventures are the project activities? At what opportunity cost are

farmers engaging in project activities vis-à-vis engaging in other activities? Analysis of each project's approach to gender issues -was there a deliberate position on

gender representation? Involvement of women and their perception of the projects. Impact of each project on the relationship between men and women. Effect of project on tasks allocated to each gender group.

5. Input procurement and produce marketing

Analysis of the input procurement and produce marketing arrangements in each team-who is involved and how sustainable are the arrangements.

Give recommendations.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

What are the major lessons learnt from each project? Recommendations on the way forward-link to SWOT analysis.

The operational terms of reference for the evaluation team guiding its parameters of engagement with the client organisation were as follows:

Submit a summary proposal of how the task will be carried out. Undertake visits to Buhera and Hwedza for interviews with farmers, extension staff

personnel and representatives of other development agents working in the areas. Compile and submit a report of findings to the BTZ Bureau within the agreed time frame. Be available for discussion and clarification of issues with the Bureau.

The evaluation report is structured into six chapters. The first chapter presents the background to the evaluation, including the terms of reference. Chapter 2 presents the methodology used for collecting information for the evaluation. Chapters 3 to 5 present findings pertaining to each of the three projects, i.e., sweet potatoes, BNF and mushrooms, respectively. The last chapter contains conclusions and recommendations.

4

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

Four data collection methods, i.e., structured and unstructured interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and document reviews were used for gathering evidence to measure the achievements of the three projects as specified in the TORs for the evaluation. Information from the four methods of data collection was synthesised and triangulated tTo determine the truth regarding project implementation, problems encountered and project achievements, . information from the four methods of data collection was synthesised and triangulated. Triangulation allowed the evaluators to verify the extent various players and stakeholders shared views on keyimportant aspects of the projects.

2.1 Structured and Unstructured Interviews

Structured interviews based on pre-coded questionnaires (Appendix I, II and III) were chosen as the best method of collecting information from individual farmers on the outcomes of the projects. The interview technique allowed face-face interaction with each individual farmer, allowing for the evaluators to explain their questions until they were understood by the farmers and to follow other emerging issues, not covered by the questionnaire, as the interview unfolded. The majority of the farmer respondents interviewed have low levels of literacy, making the personal interview technique an appropriate method of eliciting their opinions on the impact of the BTZ funded projects on their livelihoods.

The questionnaires were formulated from reviews of project literature (project proposals, half-yearly reports, interim evaluation reports and correspondence), key informant interview with some project principal investigators and perusal of evaluators' TORs. The questionnaires were formulated to measure the impact of the three BTZ projects measured against the initial project objectives and in the context of the areas of focus that the evaluators had to focus, as specified in their TORs. The questionnaire interviews were conducted mostly on the farmers involved in the BNF and mushroom projects. The Sweet Potato project participants were organised as groups for each pilot or satellite nursery such that focus group discussions were more appropriate for eliciting their perceptions. Appendix IV presents a list of the interview respondents in the final evaluation of the three projects.

Unstructured interviews were employed on non-project farmers. Open-ended questions and PRA techniques were used where appropriate. Farmers were interviewed while inas groups or individually.

2.2 Focus Group Discussions

Where project or non-project participants were gathered in a group, focus group discussions were conducted. For project participants, the discussion sought to measure the collective views of project participants on the impact of specific BTZ projects that they were involved in. On the other hand, for non-project participants, the discussions were geared at evaluating their perceptions of the manner in which the project was conducted and the benefits

5

that accrued to them from the project activities. The action plan used in the focus group discussions and tools used for data collection is appended (Appendix V). Discussions that ensued after use of PRA techniques such as Venn diagrams, simple ranking and pair wise ranking, were noted down and indicated the logic to farmers’ decisions. This enabled the evaluation team to gauge the perceptions of the farmers on the importance of the outcomes of the particular BTZ project being assessed. Focus group discussions were held with the groups shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.10.1 Groups that were engaged in focus group discussions during the evaluation exercise

Status Name of Group/Location Date of interview

Number of participants

Project members

Non-projectMembers

Hwedza BNFRufaro Sweet PotatoGutsavana MushroomMvurachena Sweet PotatoMvurachena Mushroom

MawireMawireMvurachena

20/11/200226/11/200228/11/200229/11/200229/11/2002

30/01/200330/01/200331/01/2003

5 women and 1 man4 women 9 women2 men and 3 women5 women

3 women, 1 man2 women, 2 man2 women, 2 man

2.3 Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews were designed to get in depth information about the projects from people closely associated with each of the three projects. The informants provided specific information on project implementation, problems encountered during the implementation process and their perception of the extent to which project objectives had been achieved. When the project principal investigators were interviewed, they were asked on the exit strategy they had put in place to ensure sustainability of project activities once project support from BTZ ended. The key informants that were interviewed are shown in Appendix VI.

2.4 Document Reviews

To get an overview of the three projects before embarking on the field evaluation exercise, the evaluators reviewed various project documents. Documents included such as project proposals, various types of project reports, interim evaluation reports, correspondence, minutes of institutional stakeholder meetings, and others. The document reviews enabled the team to formulate a schedule of activities, identify key informants for interview and construct questionnaires. The other information from document reviews was collated and synthesised into the evaluation report to contribute to a record of project implementation, problems and the extent to which project objectives were achieved.

6

3. THE SWEET POTATO PROJECT

3.1 Background and objectives

At project inception in 1996, it was noted that although some sweet potatoes were grown in Hwedza and Buhera, there was general lack of good crop management. Pests and diseases, the potato weevil (pongwe) and viruses heavily attacked the sweet potatoes. Generally, growth was poor (low plant vigour) most likely due to virus infection. Farmers obtained low yields that. Planting material was not available in sufficient quantities and the limited quantities that were available were not available in time to allow planting at the beginning of the season. The varieties that farmers had access to were was limited.

The objectives of the Sweet Potato project were to increase sweet potato production, utilisation and marketing in Hwedza and Buhera. This was to be achieved through production, distribution and use of pathogen-free, high-quality seed stocks of true-to-type varieties adapted and acceptable to local communities. The project further aimed at training sweet potato nursery farmers on the following aspects: Production and maintenance of healthy sweet-potato planting material; Establishment of pilot or satellite nurseries; and Introducing and evaluating new sweet potato varieties and agronomic practices against those

currently used in the two districts.

3.2 Implementation

According to the Extension Supervisor for Murambinda, the start of project activities in the district was ushered in by a survey of sweet potato varieties that were being grown in Buhera. About 109 varieties were collected from Buhera, Hwedza and other districts. They were taken for virus cleaning at BRI and Tobacco Research Board (TRB). In 1998, 23-25 varieties, which included new varieties from HRI, traditional varieties collected from project area and commercial check cultivars, were brought back to Buhera and Hwedza for inclusion in demonstrations trials. The objective of the trials was to enable farmers and researchers to participate in the assessment of adaptability, yield potential, agronomic characteristics as well as taste of several sweet potato varieties grown at different locations in Hwedza and Buhera. The planted material was harvested at field days at which organoleptic and yield evaluation by farmers was carried out culminating in the participatory selection of the "top ten varieties". The top ten varieties chosen at each of the four test sites (Murambinda of Buhera district, Goneso, Zviyambe and Mashaya of Hwedza) were then adopted for further trials in three research trials. The three trials were:

The re-infection trial; Performance of virus-cleaned and uncleaned planting materials; and The fertiliser management trial. The trials were held at pilot nurseries and satellite nurseries that had been set up. The

pilot nurseries were set up at Murambinda Irrigation Scheme in Buhera and at Mawiri Irrigation Scheme in Hwedza. Each district was allocated two satellite nurseries: Masasa and Birchnough

7

Bridge for Buhera and Nyamhemba and Mvurachena for Hwedza. Pilot nurseries were equipped with a lathe house to enable rapid multiplication of virus-cleaned material to be sold to satellite nurseries. It was envisaged that pilot nurseries would receive enough virus-cleaned material from HRI, in time, to enable rapid multiplication and distribution to satellite nurseries and surrounding farmers. Satellite nurseries would further multiply the sweet potato planting material and sell locally.

The other players in the Sweet Potato Project were the research institutions that included TRB, HRI and BRI of SIRDC. According to information from key informant interviewees (Mrs P. Chiunze-Dhliwayo and Mrs T. Chirara) and document reviews, TRB was responsible for disease (virus) elimination and long-term storage of in-vitro plant material. BRI was supposed to contribute in disease (virus) elimination, long term storage of in-vitro plant material and product development to enhance utilisation of sweet potato tubers and vines. BRI was therefore also charged with spearheading the training of project participants and other farmers in sweet potato processing and utilisation. HRI was responsible for disease (virus) elimination, long-term storage and fieldwork. The fieldwork component involved the planting and monitoring of trials and demonstrations and training of project participants in sweet potato production and nursery management.

The due process as envisaged at a Sweet Potato Micro-Propagation Project Formulation Workshop at Hwedza Inn, 5-7 March 1997 planned as follows:

1. Tissue Culture Laboratory (Heat treatment, tip meristem culture, virus indexing using the indicator plant Ipomoea setosa and the serological method Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ELISA). Personnel HRI and TRB initially carried out this work in laboratories at TRB because the tissue culture laboratory at SIRDC had not been set up. Later on in the project (2000), the report by the Sweet Potato Project Monitoring and Evaluation Committee show that by that time the BRI laboratory had finally been equipped for tissue culture work although they were some management problems.

2. The hardened virus-cleaned material was then passed on to HRI for multiplication, distribution and storage.

3. The multiplied vines were supposed to be supplied to pilot nurseries and satellite nurseries for further multiplication and sale to surrounding farmers. The sweet potato pilot and satellite nurseries are supposed to run as viable businesses based on the production and sale of disease-free planting materials to surrounding farmers.

3.3 Selection of Nursery Members and Group Dynamics

The selection of project participants at pilot and satellite nurseries was largely participatory. Since the pilot and satellite nurseries were based at irrigation schemes, the participants in the irrigation scheme largely chose those among themselves who deserved to join the Sweet Potato Project. The Mawire Irrigation Committee selected the two men and three women to form the Mawire Pilot Nursery site (Hwedza). The members of the nursery group were chosen on the basis that they resided with their parents but did not have irrigation plots of their own. It was deemed necessary then, to give the adults an income-generating project, as they were not directly involved in the irrigation scheme. At Nyamhemba Satellite Nursery site, a

8

meeting of all irrigators was convened at which the project members volunteered. Apparently, there was little enthusiasm to join the nursery project because another sweet potato project implemented at Nyamhemba Irrigation Scheme between 1992-1994 and sponsored by COOPIBO, had earlier failed. At Murambinda (Rufaro) Pilot Nursery, members of the irrigation scheme chose the members to constitute the group. Initially, ten members were selected to undergo training. Farmers who were considered articulate and having the ability to teach others upon returning from the course were selected. On returning from the training, five farmers from the original group were asked to volunteer to become members of the sweet potato group. Again, there was little competition for places as the farmers were heavily committed with work in the irrigation scheme and lacked confidence in the prospect of project success. Members of the Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery were inherited from a previous vegetable garden project that utilised the site. The 14 members of the group are largely members of two extended families, from the Zariro and Tokotore clans.

All the sweet potato groups visited by the evaluation team had constitutions that guided the members on how to operate. One of the stipulations of the constitution is that when a member of the group died of the group dies or became becomes incapacitated, a sibling of their choice would replace the member. This ensures that members of the family continue to benefit from the time and labour invested previously by the deceased member. The respondents indicated that inclusion of such a clause in the constitution engendered ownership of the sweet potato project by the family. Therefore, it ensured full attention by the members to project affairs since they realised that they would leave the investment to their families. In a sense, the sustainability of the sweet potato pilot and satellite nurseries is ensured by this constitutional arrangement. BTZ has put in considerable investment that in the pilot and satellite nurseries in the form of lathe houses (for pilot nurseries only), storerooms, pig-wire fencing, irrigation equipment and tools. The level of support that has been give has made, to the extent that someother members of surrounding communities are takeing notice and expressing an interest to join the sweet potato nursery projects. To allow changes in membership of the groups across families would be fatal to the long-term commitment of members to the success of the project. Members would only be interested in making short-term gains during the period of their tenure in the project, at the expense of infrastructure and therefore the long-term business interests of the sweet potato projects. On the other hand, increasing membership by bringing in additional new members will only create friction in the group, which would be detrimental to the productivity of the members. Regardless of the realization of the shortcoming of subdividing the nursery groups, farmers were also aware of the shortcoming of making people work in groups. They noted that the group set-up did not stimulate competition between the members.

At Murambinda, the evaluation team heard of people who wanted the membership at the pilot nursery project to be rotated so that they could also benefit. This campaign is on the pretext that the pilot nursery should be used as a training ground for successive groups of members. It was also alleged that other irrigators were arguing that the current members were only supposed to work in the pilot nursery for five years, i.e., up to end of 2003. Testimonies from the non-members in Murambinda suggest that most non-members were against the idea of replacing the current members of the sweet potato group, nor that of increasing the membership of the group. They realize that bringing in a new set of members would require training in areas such as nursery management and training for transformation and business management skills. Since the broader project supported by BTZ was winding up, they realise that further training was not

9

likely to be widely available, if at all. Therefore, it would be ill advised to change membership at this point.

During an interview with non-project participants at Murambinda, it was disclosed that members of the Murambinda irrigation scheme were going to hold a meeting on Tuesday, 4th of February 2003. The subject of discussion at the meeting will be to discuss the fate of the sweet potato project, which is that is located within the irrigation scheme. The meeting was going to discuss the letter (reproduced in Appendix VII) to the irrigation members from the AREX District Agricultural Extension Officer. The letter is an attempt by AREX to thwart any attempt by some members of the irrigation group to oust the sweet potato group members and replace them with new members. Such an eventuality will negate all the investment in training the group members as new members will need to be trained anew in all aspects of sweet potato rapid multiplication, nursery management and training. The tight clauses in the constitution of the group were likely to curtail all this mischief for the long-term survival of the nursery projects as viable businesses. At Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project, attempts to pressure the group to allow other members to join the already bloated group (14 members) have been deflected by the constitutional provisions. The group has also provided planting materials and offered training to interested groups that wanted to start sweet potato projects. The group has trained a number of new adopter nurseries.

Non-project members that the evaluation team interviewed supported the inclusion of the constitutional-clauses that exclude entry of new members into the project. They noted that, without the clauses, people without the training or motivation required for meaningful participation in this project would came into the project. However, they also noted that by restricting the membership within the same household, people unsuitable to partipateparticipate in the project ended up in the project. For example, some replacements might turn out to be too old to contribute meaningfully to the group activities. According to non-members, at Mawire some of the original group members pulled out after they realised that very little returns would flow from the project. Elderly women replaced the deserters, such that the activities of the group became very passive. The Mawire group started with two men who later resigned. One of the two male members that were originally in the group resigned and was replaced by the brother’s wife and the . The second male member was replaced by his mother. A few non-project members felt that competition for places in the project could instil people to put effort in the project. Competition could be instituted by threatening non-performing members with expulsion.

The pilot and satellite nurseries consisted of five members, with the exception of the Zvichanaka Chete group, chosen as previously described. Observations and verbal testimonies by members of the groups suggested that the group dynamics were cordial, co-operative and business-minded. The groups had no conflicts and were committed to a task-oriented approach. This could be attributed to the small sizes of each nursery group. In addition, members were aware that they were equal shareholders in the business enterprise that would be inherited by one of their family members, as enshrined in each group's constitution. In the larger group at Zvichanaka Chete Satellite nursery, there was evidence that the group was dominated by two patriarchs of the extended family, Mr Tangarirai Tokotore and Mr Tephius Zariro, at the expense of participation by other group members. It is doubtful that decisions within this group are democratically arrived at, given that most of the other members are widows of either Mr Zariro or Mr Tokotore' s siblings. The Zvichanaka Chete Satellite Nursery group members belong to the Apostolic Faith Church that demands unquestioning obedience of wives to their

10

husbands, explaining the docility that was apparent in the women group members during the group interview process.

Non-members of the sweet potato nurseries had a general understanding of the objective of the project and the criteria used for selecting the project participants. Some non-project members at Mawire Irrigation Scheme indicated that project members were selected from non-owners of irrigation plots to enable them to have an independent source of income. At Murambinda, as already noted, farmers indicated they selected project participants whom they were confident would train and share knowledge with the community after being trained in sweet potato production. The process of selecting project participants was considered transparent.

3.4 Training and Technology Extension

All the pilot and satellite nursery participants that were interviewed went through some or all the training that the Sweet Potato Project offered to project participants. Four training courses were attended by Sweet Potato Project participants from 2000 to 2002. The courses were:

o Sweet Potato Agronomy and Rapid Multiplication;o Nursery Management, Business Management and Leadership;o Training for Transformation; ando Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation.

During focus group discussions at Murambinda pilot and Mvurachena satellite nurseries, it was apparent that participants highly valued the knowledge they obtained in nursery management and sweet potato agronomy and rapid multiplication. Knowledge in nursery management and sweet potato production was consistently ranked as the most important benefits from participating in the project. The participants also showed a particular bias in ranking the four courses in terms of their usefulness to the members. The production and rapid multiplication course and the nursery management courses were most preferred at Murambinda and Mvurachena, respectively. The Business Management and Leadership course was ranked second at Murambinda, showing that the project participants appreciated the need to be educated in keeping proper records of financial transactions and making the correct business decisions.

The participants at Mvurachena Satellite Nursery project placed most value in the training they received in Nursery Management, followed by Business Management and Leadership and then Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation (Table 3.1). Training for Transformation and Leadership course was ranked lowest. The narrative arguments presented during the ranking exercise made it apparent Judging from the narrative arguments during and ensuing the ranking exercise, it was apparent that the focus group participants used direct contribution utility of a course towards their ability to productione and marketing of sweet potatoes from the projects as was the major criteria used in determining the outcome of tforhe ranking the coursesexercise. Therefore, Although although Training for Transformation was cited as being important "in inculcating groups dynamics, leadership skills, rural development strategies, farmer-farmer transfer of technology and use of market information sources to best advantage " it was ranked last. The fact that it was ranked last does not diminish its importance; it only reflected the criteria used by the farmers to rank the various courses. It would be erroneous to use the ranking exercise results to drop Training for Transformation from the schedule of courses that smallholder farmers have to go through in BTZ sponsored projects. It is the conclusion of the evaluators that the narrative provided by the project participants on their perceived importance of

11

Training for Transformation is more revealing. The course also instilled a certain level of confidence in the farmers so that they could believe that they could develop their projects into some major company that could contribute significantly to the national economy. This is captured in the The following comment from one Mvurachena Sweet Potato group interviewee captures this:

"Training for Transformation is responsible for the harmony that exists within the group because the whole group was taught the duties and responsibilities of executive members (Chairperson, Treasurer, Secretary, Committee members). Everyone knows what he/she has to do and conflicts are minimal. We were also taught how to resolve conflicts when they arise within the group in this course."

It would be fatal to group dynamics and the smooth running of group projects if Training for Transformation was omitted from the training programmes that groups have to go through in BTZ projects.

Table 0.3.12 Simple ranking of courses by project participants at Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Project

Course Score RankingNursery Management (7) 1Business Management and Leadership (6) 2Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation (5) 3

Training for Transformation (2) 4

The Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery ranked the Sweet Potato Production (Agronomy) and Nursery Management courses as being most valuable and second most valuable, respectively. The Business Management and Leadership course, Training for Transformation and the Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation Course were ranked similarly and had the lowest score (Table 3.32).

Table 3.2 Simple ranking of importance of courses attended by the participants in the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery groupTable 0.3 Simple ranking of importance of courses attended by the participants in the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery group

Course Score RankingSweet potato agronomy and rapid multiplication (Mrs Chiunze-Dhliwayo, HRI)

(6) 1

Nursery Management (Mrs Chiunze-Dhliwayo, HRI)

(5) 2

Business Management and Leadership(Mrs Mandishona, ZFU)

(4) 3

Training for Transformation (Mrs Musendo)

(2.5) 4

Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation (Mrs Chirara and Mr Chivero, SIRDC)

(2.5) 4

12

In all the focus group discussions, the Sweet Potato Processing and Utilisation course was ranked lowly. However, in all the interviews it was cited as allowing the women to unlock the extra value in sweet potatoes by making sweet potato flour to make bread, muffins, scones, buns and pancakes. Sweet potato bread was particularly popular and all the interviewed farmers indicated that they were making it. Knowledge about the various uses of sweet potatoes was not restricted to project nursery farmers alone. There was widespread awareness of the products that could be made from sweet potatoes among non-project farmers.

Table 0.4 Pair-wise ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery project (Murambinda)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. Bread Xa 1b 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 12. Chips X X 2 4 5 6 7 2 2 23. Jam X X X 4 5 6 7 3 9 104. Scones X X X X 5 4 7 5 4 105. Flour X X X X X 5 7 5 5 56. Buns X X X X X X 7 6 6 107. Boiled X X X X X X X 7 7 78. Starch X X X X X X X X 9 109. Stock-feed X X X X X X X X X 910 Relish X X X X X X X X X XaX = Comparison not applicable; bNumber in the box indicates the product, out of two products from sweet potatoes that is preferred between the two.

The Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery showed most preference for the traditional boiled tubers, followed by flour and sweet potato bread (Tables 3.3 and 3.74). Boiled tubers were ranked as the most preferred product from sweet potatoes because this is the way sweet potatoes have traditionally been processed, it is easy and is a quick method of producing a filling meal, we were told. In addition, boiled tubers are replacement for bread and are eaten with tea at breakfast. Sweet potato bread was said to be very tasty and is valued as an easily available substitute for the scarce and expensive wheat flour bread, for sweet potato farmers. There was however need to have some wheat flour in the household for one to be able to make sweet potato bread, hence the higher preference shown for boiled sweet potatoes. Wheat flour is not always available in the shops and is considered expensive. The equal weighting of bread and flour was expected since bread is made from flour anyway. Equal preference was shown for sweet potato chips, scones, buns and sweet potato leaves cooked as relish. Not all varieties of sweet potato had leaves that could be cooked as green vegetables as some were bitter because of a high content of tannins. Use of sweet potato leaves as vegetables was therefore not widespread but the potential to use them in this manner had been introduced to farmers during sweet potato processing courses. Sweet potato jam and starch were the least preferred products from sweet potatoes.

Table 3.3 Pair-wise ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery project (Murambinda)

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. Bread Xa 1b 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 12. Chips X X 2 4 5 6 7 2 2 23. Jam X X X 4 5 6 7 3 9 104. Scones X X X X 5 4 7 5 4 105. Flour X X X X X 5 7 5 5 56. Buns X X X X X X 7 6 6 107. Boiled X X X X X X X 7 7 78. Starch X X X X X X X X 9 109. Stock-feed X X X X X X X X X 910 Relish X X X X X X X X X Xa X = Comparison not applicable; b Number in the box indicates the product, out of two products from sweet potatoes that is preferred between the two.

Records of the members who went for each type of training were available for each sweet potato group. The Zvichanaka Chete Satellite Nursery group at Masasa in Buhera District indicated that they were carrying out extension and technology transfer to new adopter groups springing up around the satellite nursery. These new adopter sweet potato production groups are based around suitable permanent water sources and Mr N. Tokotore and Mr G. Zariro were going round training the adopter farmers in sweet potato establishment and rapid multiplication. The groups were given disease free vines from the satellite nursery and then taught how to plant the vines. According to the members of the Zvichanaka Chete group, five groups had already been trained viz Tatsunga, Tasarira, Kuwirirana, Domboramusoni and Njeremoto groups, each group consisting of more than 10 members.

Table 0.3.45 Ranking of preferred products from sweet potatoes by the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery project participants

Preferre00000000000d Product Score RankingBoiled sweet potato tubers 9 1Sweet Potato Flour 8 2Sweet Potato Bread 8 2Sweet Potato Chips 4 4Sweet Potato Scones 4 4Sweet Potato Buns 4 4Sweet potato leaves cooked as relish 4 7Livestock feed 3 8Sweet Potato Jam 0 9Starch 0 9

Records of the members who went for each type of training were available for each sweet potato group. The Zvichanaka Chete Satellite Nursery group at Masasa in Buhera District indicated that they were carrying out extension and technology transfer to new adopter groups springing up around the satellite nursery. These new adopter sweet potato production groups are based around suitable permanent water sources and Mr N. Tokotore and Mr G. Zariro were going round training the adopter farmers in sweet potato establishment and rapid multiplication.

14

The groups were given disease free vines from the satellite nursery and then taught how to plant the vines. According to the members of the Zvichanaka Chete group, five groups had already been trained viz Tatsunga, Tasarira, Kuwirirana, Domboramusoni and Njeremoto groups, each group consisting of more than 10 members.

Extension workers were also trained in sweet potato agronomy, multiplication, disease and pest management and nursery management in a one-week course at HRI. The course was conducted in 2000 after farmers in the nurseries had already undergone training in the same aspects. The extension workers should have been trained first to remain credible in front of their client farmers.

Field days held during project implementation were instrumental in encouraging farmers to adopt improved sweet potato varieties. They also allowed farmers to identify the varieties they preferred, based on multiple criteria such as taste, yield and disease resistance that were exposed at the field day.

Farmers benefited from the education they received through the sweet potato project, usually provided at the field days. For instance, before the project they used to plant long, thick runners. Instead, they are now planting the tips of the runners as they have been convinced, through the project, that using the tips gave better yields. The only problem is that when using the tips more planting material is needed. In most cases, to get more planting material, the tips of earlier plantings had to be cut continuously. Farmers are also aware of the need to rotate the location on which they plant their sweet potatoes to reduce pest and disease attack.

However, no field days were held in Mvurachena. Some few people from Mvurachena were transported to Mawire where one field day was held. Therefore, as expected, the level of awareness of non-project members of the objectives and activities of the sweet potato project was lower in Mawire compared to Murambinda were two field days were conducted. In Murambinda, it was very evident that the non-members were clear about the activities of the sweet potato group and the varieties they preferred for given attributes.

3.5 Gender Issues in the Sweet Potato Project

There is an apparent bias towards female participation in the sweet potato projects. This is apparently derived from the traditional role of women in the production and utilisation of the crop involved in the projects. This is illustrated in the case of the evolution of the membership composition of the Mawire Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery group. At the initiation of the project in 1998, the group was composed of three women and two men. However, in 2000, the men resigned from the group and their wives replaced them. Eventually, the group only comprised of females. The males left the group because of the stigmatisation associated with working with a crop that is generally viewed as women's crop. In Nyamhemba Sweet Potato Satellite group, where people volunteered to be members at the formation of the group, three women and two men volunteered to join the group. Reports of attendance at sweet potato utilisation training courses indicated that the overwhelming majority of the participants were women. At Nyamhembe, out of the 24 participants, only two men from the nursery group participated in the course.

At Mvurachena, two men and three women were chosen to join the sweet potato project by members of the irrigation scheme, in tacit approval by the group that sweet potato projects should be dominated by women. It is instructive to note that at Mvurachena Sweet Potato

15

Satellite Nursery project, two of the original women members abandoned the project. The two women could not cope with the workload of stumping and constructing contour ridges in the initial phases of the project. Two males, Mr T. Jeriwa and Mr C. Chivende, replaced them. To some extent, the initial labour requirements of the sweet potato project involved heavy work that was not suitable for women. The abandoning of the project by the two women members might well not reflect their lack of commitment to the project but gender related failure to cope with the type of work that was then at hand. When Tthe evaluators probed why the women could not harness their husbands or husband's males relatives could notbrothers to stand in for womenthem in the heavy workload at the beginning of the project. The project members , the remaining members indicated that doing would have showed lack of commitment to the project in the incumbent.

3.6 On-farm-research and experimentation

The sweet potato micro-propagation project largely reflected the ethos and philosophy of BTZ in initiating and implementing the participatory approach during the sweet potato germplasm collection and evaluation were conducted. The details of how the participatory experimentation and variety evaluation were conducted are contained in the January-December, 1999 project report compiled by the then Principal Investigator of the project, Dr Muntubani Nzima. It would be redundant to repeat the details of the on-farm trials and how the farmers evaluationsed of the 27 varieties that were tested. and selected 10 Ten "top-ten" varieties were selected (Table 3.75). The sweet potato farmers remembered the process distinctly, three years later. Such was the impact of this process on the participating farmers that all groups that were interviewed remembered the varieties that were selected into the "top-ten" in their correct sequence. The involvement of farmers in planting and managing variety trials and in organoleptic and yield evaluation of the varieties contributed to their long-term memory of the trial activities.

The subsequent on farm trials were largely carried out at pilot and satellite nurseries and consisted of three trials, i.e., the re-infection trial, the comparison of virus cleaned versus farmer accessions and the fertiliser trial. The objective of the re-infection trial was to determine the time that virus cleaned sweet potato planting material would last in the field before re-infection reduced the yield levels significantly and substantially. To the pilot and satellite nursery farmers and the non-nursery farmers who attended the field days, the demonstrative effect of this trial was successful, as they were aware of the yield reduction associated with virus infected planting material. However, farmers who did not attend field days do not know about the yield reduction that results due to use of improved materials.

Table 3.5Table 3.7 A list of top ten varieties evaluated and selected by farmers during field days at Murambinda Irrigation Scheme (Buhera), Mashaye (Ziyambe East), Musvinu (Goneso Ward) and Mukondwa (Mashaya Ward) in Wedza.

SiteRanking Murambinda Goneso Zviyambe Mashaya1 Magutse Dhube Barnabas Impy

16

2 Amai Farai B Barnabas Impy Pamhayi3 Xushu Brondal Chigogo Botswana4 Mupedzanzara Chigogo Muuyu Chigogo5 ChiZambia Impy Germany II Zibhamu Zijena6 Brondal Magutse Zibhamu Zijena Magutse 7 Germany II Zibhamu Zijena ChiZambia Kerotsi8 Kori Madhuve Pamhayi ChiZambia9 Chena Bumvu Mat South Tumbe Mupenzanzara10 Pamhayi/Muuyu Tumbe Magutse Xushu

The subsequent on farm trials were largely carried out at pilot and satellite nurseries and consisted of three trials, i.e., the re-infection trial, the comparison of virus cleaned versus farmer accessions and the fertiliser trial. The objective of the re-infection trial was to determine the time that virus cleaned sweet potato planting material would last in the field before re-infection reduced the yield levels significantly and substantially. To the pilot and satellite nursery farmers and the non-nursery farmers who attended the field days, the demonstrative effect of this trial was successful, as they were aware of the yield reduction associated with virus infected planting material. However, farmers who did not attend field days do not know about the yield reduction that results due to use of improved materials.

The perception of the participants of the sweet potato project on the differences in yield performance of virus-cleaned versus non-cleaned material was assessed through a simple participatory appraisal technique. The Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Project participants were made to draw two equal circles and distributing twenty stones in the circles to represent yield differences between cleaned and non-cleaned material. They believed that the yield of virus-cleaned material was three times greater than non-cleaned material (Figure 3.1).

Figure 30.1 Yield of virus cleaned and non-virus cleaned planting material as perceived by participants at the Mvurachena Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Project

The scenario in the Sweet Potato project that was described above prevailed before Mrs P. Chiunze-Dhliwayo, who was responsible for field activities at HRI, left HRI and the sweet-potato micro-propagation project. She indicated that three preliminary conclusions could be made from the one-year data on the re-infection trial and comparative performance trial. The conclusions were:

(5)

Uncleaned

(15)

Cleaned

17

1. That susceptibility of sweet potato varieties to viruses was variety dependent;2. For some varieties, there was a marked difference in vigour and symptom

development between infected and uninfected cultivars while, for others, there was not; and

3. Viruses adversely affect root yield, but the effect is variety dependent. Some varieties like the local accession, Chigogo, produced no yield at all when virus infected. On the other hand, others like the IITA improved variety, Pamhayi, were not affected by virus infection.

No conclusions could be made on the re-infection trial as the sweet potato varieties had only been exposed to virus pressure for a season. It is imperative that this trial should be continued with the sweet potatoes being grown under similar conditions to those found in farmer's fields. Some attempt should be made to index the viruses on the plants exposed to virus re-infection. In addition, the virus load needs to be measured every season. The yield of the sweet potatoes and symptom development scores should be carried out for each season of exposure so that some relationship between virus load and yield depression for each variety can be worked out. It is commendable that the trials were replicated at HRI. Nevertheless, the evaluators would like to reiterate the need to continue with the trials being done under farmers’ circumstances. In other words, the on-station trials should not be taken as substitutes for the on-farm trials.

At the time of the evaluation, it was not clear, who at HRI was to continue taking measurements and making observations on the development of the re-infection trial. The evaluation team was informed that Mr Rufu, the BTZ field officer, would plant the trials but would get assistance from HRI to carry out the measurements and observations required. It needs to be established rather urgently who is going to continue the work that Mrs P. Chiunze-Dhliwayo was doing at HRI in the sweet potato project, otherwise the whole research exercise would bear little fruit. Mr Chigumira-Ngwerume, the head of HRI, indicated that he was in the process of recruiting an officer for the sweet potato research. In the mean time, he will assist the HRI research technicians working on sweet potatoes to continue with the work on the trials.

All respondents parroted that it would take three years for the sweet potatoes to be re-infected in the field, including the farmers. The minimum years that would be taken to reinvest the magic three years has not been found in Zimbabwean conditions. There is need to determine when re-infection would occur in Zimbabwe so that farmers know how long they could retain the planting materials before re-investing in planting vines. There is also need to ascertain the retention periods of specific varieties before they succumbed to re-infection.

The objective of the fertiliser trial was to determine the effect of various combinations of compound D, Ammonium Nitrate, gypsum (Calcium Magnesium Sulphate), and ash on the growth and yield of sweet potatoes. The preliminary conclusions are that Ammonium Nitrate increases vegetative crop vigour but not necessarily the root yield. The gypsum had no effect on yield but it is suspected that it will increase the shelf life of sweet potato roots, given its prominent role in determining the integrity of cell walls and cell membranes. Compound D increased growth rate and yields.

In the first year of the trials, no post-harvest physiology and storage investigations and neither were organoleptic tests were done on the roots harvested from the fertiliser trials. It is therefore recommended that when the fertiliser trials are continued in the 2002/2003 season, produce from the trials should be subjected to further post harvest and tasting trials. It is known,

18

from previous research, that fertiliser applications on sweet potatoes affect taste, to the detriment of marketability.

The participation of farmers in the second phase trial was not as memorable as in the first phase trials. Evaluators had to struggle to explain these trials to members of sweet potato groups before there was some semblance of understanding of what these trials involved.

The specific outputs from the laboratory research at TRB, BRI and HRC were gleaned from document reviews and key informant interviews. Thirty-six sweet potato varieties were heat-treated and tip-meristem cultured in 1999. Of these 20 were successfully regenerated into plantlets and 19 hardened and planted out. The 19 were certified virus free using both the indicator plant Ipomoea setosa and ELISA (Table 3.86)

Table 3.8 6 A list of virus tested sweet potato accessions that were successfully regenerated from meristem culture in 1999 (Source Mrs Chirara, BRI).

Number Sweet potato accession Source12345678910111213141516171819

*Tumbe*Germany II*Mupedzanzara Sikokeri White*Dhube*ChiZambia*Impy Unnamed*Barnabas*Kori*Mai Farai B*Muuyu Cordner*Brondal*Pamhayi Japon Mukadziusaende*Chigogo

Wedza

BuheraWedzaMatebeleland NorthWedzaWedza

BuheraWedza

BuheraBuhera

WedzaWedza

*Indicates accessions that are among the top ten that were selected by farmers in Wedza and Buhera

In 2000, according to Mrs Chirara of BRI, 40 sweet potato varieties went through heat treatment and meristem culture and none was successfully regenerated. The failure to regenerate was attributed to heat damage during heat treatment. It is alleged that heat treatment lamps that were used were improvised, they were not standard, and hence temperature control was difficult. The evaluators were told that the sweet potato planting material was almost burnt when it was eventually removed from the heat treatment. In a report by R. White, the BTZ sweet potato micro-propagation technician stationed at HRC, in July 2002, 77 pathogen-tested sweet potato

19

varieties were received from TRB for multiplication in the nematode free nursery at HRC. Presumably, this set of 77 sweet potato varieties had undergone heat treatment and meristem tip culture as part of the work programme for TRB/BRI for that year. However, the same report indicated that most of the plantlets from these 77 accessions died when rapid multiplication was attempted. The reasons given for their death were that they had not been well hardened off when received from TRB, most of the pots containing the plants had no perforations leading to water-logging and death by root aneroxia (lack of oxygen) and that the plants were scotched by the sun during transportation from TRB to HRC. It could not be ascertained what varieties were successfully multiplied and which stock plants were preserved in the screen-house and what proportion of the total number this constituted. The evaluators were therefore not able to calculate the failure/success rate in successfully multiplying tissue cultured sweet potato plants at HRC in 2002. However, going by the failure recorded in 2000 and then again in 2002, it would seem that most of the success in heat treatment, meristem tip culture, hardening and generating healthy and vigorous sweet potato plants was achieved in 1999. Thereafter, the records paint an abysmal picture of considerable failure and wastage of resources.

When the evaluators visited HRI, they found only 21 varieties in the virus free stock plants kept in the insect -proof screen house. It would seem therefore that to the original 19 virus-cleaned sweet potato varieties, only an additional two were added in the ensuing years. The evaluators were not able to check and confirm this impression with key players in the sweet potato micro-propagation project, at the time of going to press. Another aspect of research that was initially envisaged in the project was to carry DNA finger printing of the sweet potato varieties to ascertain that sweet potato accessions that had different names were genetically distinct. An MSc in Biotechnology student, who was supposed to graduate this year (2003), was carrying this study under the supervision of Dr Tongoona (Crop Science, UZ) and Dr Matibiri (TRB). However, this study was not concluded because the student left for Japan without completing her studies. Genetically distinguishing the various sweet potato accessions that morphologically look similar but are named differently across regions, was therefore not achieved. It remains to be seen whether BRI will take up the challenge by perhaps taking up this research topic in routine research programmes that are funded from national resources. A Ms Chido Mhlanga, a biotechnologist at BRI, was said to be willing to take up this challenge provided funds were made available to complete this project.

There were no refereed scientific papers produced from the sweet potato project.

However, a number of non-referred conference/workshop papers were presented at various forums as shown in Appendix VIII. The dearth of any published refereed scientific papers from the sweet potato project is explainable in terms of the wide focus of the institutions involved in the implementation of sweet potato virus cleaning, micro-propagation and delivery to farmers. Institutions also were heavily engaged in training of farmers in various aspects of sweet potato production and processing and did not particularly focus on fundamental or applied research. The three trials on re-infection, comparative performance of virus cleaned and conventional planting materials and the fertiliser trial were only one season old by the time of going to press of this report and therefore havecould not yethave generated any published papers as yet. It is hoped that the data collection and

20

processing of the data will be robust enough to allow the writing of scientific papers worth publishing in refereed journals after three seasons of experimentation.

3.7 Input Procurement and Produce Marketing

At all nursery sites, the evaluation team was told that small quantities of disease-free planting materials were delivered late. This prevented the groups from multiplying adequate planting materials for sale. Ideally, the planting materials should be delivered in July for Murambinda, Masasa and Birchnough and in August for Mawire, Nyamhembe and Mvurachena. The higher temperatures in Buhera allow earlier establishment and multiplication of the planting materials while frost prevents this in the Hwedza nurseries. In the 2000/2001 season, planting material was delivered from the HRI to all nurseries as late as November and December. Therefore, there was no time for the nurseries to multiply the vines to sale to the surrounding farmers. Instead, they resorted to harvesting roots from their sweet potato nurseries, in contradiction to the objectives of setting up the nurseries. In the 2001/2002 season, planting materials were delivered in October/November and the nursery farmers considered these deliveries late. Planting material that only covered a quarter to a full bed was delivered for each variety. At Mawire Pilot Nursery, it was reported that 72 plantlets of each of the top ten varieties had been supplied in 2002. At Mawire Pilot Nursery, they reported receiving 72 plantlets of each of the ten varieties. This meant that the amount of planting material that could be multiplied to sell to other farmers was very little. All the pilot nurseries failed to supply enough planting materials to the satellite nurseries. HRI had to supply the satellite nurseries directly, blurring the original project intentions of distinguishing between the roles of pilot and satellite nurseries. The late deliveries of virus cleaned material and the fact that inadequate quantities were delivered to nurseries was cited as contributing most to the low incomes that participants generated from nursery business. This point is driven home by emptiness of the lathe houses at Murambinda and Mawire. The houses had no plant material being multiplied despite the huge investments that had been sunk in their construction. It is clear that the inadequacy of disease-free planting material supplied to the nursery sites, the investment at these sites, i.e., insect proof lathe houses, tool houses, fencing and equipment, was being under-utilised.

Interviews with HRC personnel revealed the failure of the groups to retain virus-clean stock and to use rapid multiplication techniques to bulk the material in the insect-proof lathe houses that contributed to the problem of inadequate availability of virus-free planting materials being available at the pilot and satellite nurseries was also caused by the failure of the groups to retain virus-clean stock and use rapid multiplication techniques to multiply the material in the insect-proof lathe houses. This is despite the fact that all sweet potato group members had been trained in the multiplication se aspectstechniques at HRC. There was also lack of support from HRC, the Sweet Potato Technician, Mr Mazivazwose, in terms of following up on the groups' to see that they implementationed of the stock plant preservation and rapid multiplication techniques that they had been trained to do in their lathe houses. In fact, this was why the lathe houses had been built in the first place. As a consequenceBecause of these two scenarios, the

21

pilot groups waited for material to be delivered every season so that theyand simply could multipliedy it by planting it out in the field. By so doing, they , ttotally ignoring to use the lathe houses for preserving and multiplying virus free planting material throughout the year. One sweet potato plant planted in a big pot in the lathe house in April/May can grow out and produce 100 cuttings in August. Three cuttings planted out in beds in August, after the threat of frost has dissipated, can produce a bag of 400 cuttings, after three months, in November/December. These cuttings would then be sold to surrounding farmers. Satellite nurseries that were supposed to rely on pilot nurseries for virus free planting materials never got them, they also waited for deliveries, every season from HRC. HRC failed to cope in supplying high demand forthe adequate virus cleaned material, in time, to the pilot and satellite nurseries. The high demand was due to as a result of the failure of the pilot nurseries to utilise the lathe house for the purposes for which they had been built. Members of both nurseries indicated that they kept the clean material, obtained from HRI, in the lathe house for a short period after which they would plant the vines on the ground within the nursery. They have not been leaving rootstock in the lathe house for further propagation. The requirement that the plants in the ground should be burnt once the tubers have been harvested at the end of the season has exacerbated the problem. In the next season, the nurseries have to wait for fresh deliveries of planting materials from HRI again. Unless there was some mystery phyto-sanitary reason we did not understand, the evaluators failed to fathom the reason for the instruction given nurseries to destroy the sweet potato runners and not keep them from season to season. This instruction implicitly made the nursery farmers wholly reliant on deliveries of virus cleaned planting material supplied from HRI. They could not keep material from one year to the next and multiply it at their own whim. Consequently, they were forced to wait in vain for the "too little too late" deliveries of planting materials, a major weakness of the sweet potato micro-propagation project. Therefore, the pilot nurseries have not been able to supply any planting material to the satellite nurseries. The problem of lack of enough planting materials is acknowledged in the minutes of the project monitoring and evaluation committee (PMEC) of September 18, 2000 thus:

"…the situation regarding planting materials was that even HRI did not have enough planting materials, as most of what they had was in the initial hardening stage. The PMEC expressed the need for the project to think seriously about ways of expediting the production and provision of disease-free planting material, as this was the backbone of the project."

It would seem that the problem was not solved and it remains the same.The marketing of sweet potato vines and roots was not a problem, as of now all nurseries

could not meet demand of planting materials and roots. However, the Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery group reported a marketing problem peculiar to Masasa area of Buhera. Apparently, the farmers from areas surrounding the nursery who did not attend field days did not appreciate the differences in yield between virus-clean planting material and material that has not been virus cleaned. They were also not aware of the implications of re-infection on yield. The evaluators were told that once the farmers bought planting material from the satellite nursery, they kept it and replanted it year after year without replacing it with disease free planting material after some years. A major way in which farmers accessed planting material of improved varieties was to collect vines at the field days or when they were buying sweet potatoes for home consumption from the nursery (Table 3.97). Farmers indicated that the planting material at the nurseries was available well after the time farmers needed them. To illustrate this point, non-project farmers at

22

Murambinda and Mawire Irrigation Schemes noted that by the end of February 2003, they were already harvesting sweet potatoes from their own irrigation plots. while At that time, the nursery groups were not yet ready to harvest as they had had established their crop a late crop and were not yet ready to harvest. Therefore, if the farmers had waited for the nurseries to supply them with planting materials, their planting would have delayed significantly. This would have defeated one of the major reasons why farmers plant sweet potatoes in the first instance, i.e., to bridge food requirements from one year to another. To achieve this, it is critical that they plant their crop early.

Table 03.6 7 Ways in which a selected sample of non-project farmers accessed sweet potato improved varieties

District Farmers’s Name Means of accessing improved varietiesHwedza Mrs Gweshe In 2002, bought vines for $500

Mr and Mrs Goto In 2002, picked preferred vines after attending field days

Mr Makanga Collected some varieties from on-farm trials conducted in the area

Buhera Mrs Chikandiwa Bought 2varieties in 2001Ms F. Shumba Bought 5 varieties

In 2002/2003 Bought 3 bags of planting materialsMrs Doroworwa Three varieties selected but prices of planting vines are

too high and not affordableMrs Chagonda In 2001, bought one bag of planting vines from relative in

irrigation scheme

Ms Shumba of Murambinda indicated that she was planting and harvesting sweet potatoes throughout the years, which the nurseries were not doing. Therefore, even thoughalthough they are aware of the yield advantage of the improved varieties, at times they had to depend on retained vines because fresh vines were not available from the nursery at the right time.

Even though some farmers were aware of the yield advantage of fresh improved varieties, the evaluators concluded that more demonstrations on reduction in yield that occurs with increased virus load need to be carried to show the need for replenishment. The demonstrations would generate further demand for planting materials from the nurseries and keep them in business.

3.8 Sweet Potato Prices

HRI estimates that if the pilot nurseries kept the plants in the lathe house throughout the year, a single plant potted in March/April would produce 100 cuttings in August/September. The 100 cutting, when planted on the ground in the nursery, would produce 33.3 bags of sweet potato vines, with each bag containing about 250-300 cuttings. Given that the Mawire Pilot nursery

23

received trays of 72 plantlets of each variety in 2002, it means that it could have established 72 potted plants of each variety, to give them 2,400 bags of each variety in 2003 (for use in the 2003/04 season). Selling at $250 would have 6 million dollars revenue from the ten varieties. It is disheartening to note that in 2002, the nursery only made $4,300 from selling planting vines. Assuming a worst-case scenario, where the number of bags from each plantlet is only a third of the original estimate, the nursery would make two million in revenue.

The Murambinda Sweet potato pilot nursery was selling planting material for $800/bag in 2002/3. This price made them very uncompetitive. They need to strive to lower their prices. As shown above, they could to sell at $250/bag if they could keep potted plants in the lathe house. If the pilot nurseries kept potted plants, the satellite nurseries would also have access to adequate quantities of planting material early in the season, so that, in turn, they could in turn accumulate large quantities of planting material.

This discussion shows that the viability of the nurseries hinges on the availability of planting materials. The solution to this problem partly lies in the establishment of potted sweet potato plants in the pilot nursery to increase the propagation of sweet potato vines at the pilot nurseries.

3.9 Institutional Linkages

A focus group discussion was held with members of the Rufaro Sweet Potato group at Murambimba Irrigation Scheme on 26 November,November 2002. All the four members of the group were present. As part of the discussion, the group illustrated, using a Venn diagram, how their project interacted with different organisations. The distance of the circle from the project reflected the level of interaction. The size of the circle indicated the importance of the organisation to the group (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Venn diagram of organisations interacting with the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery Project, Murambinda

RUFARO SWPT

PROJECT

BTZ

AREX

BRDC Other Irrigators

BRI (SIRDC)

ZWNWA

HRI Marondera

ZRP

ZFUDCC 24

Figure 0.3 Venn diagram of organisations interacting with the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery Project, Murambinda

The Rufaro Sweet Potato group perceived BTZ as the most important and accessible organisation in their activities in the nursery. They were fully aware that the BTZ was not the implementing agency, but at the same time were also aware of its support to the implementers. They observed that BTZ had provided resources to fence the nursery site, build a lathe house, storage rooms, set up the irrigation systems and facilitate the training of group members in nursery management, leadership and group dynamics and business management. The BTZ officers (Mr Rufu and Mr Mazivazvosa) were said to be frequently available to render assistance and provide technical support to the group.

The BRI and HRI were jointly placed second in importance of their roles in the provision of virus-clean planting materials, training of farmers in nursery management and processing and utilisation of sweet potatoes, respectively. AREX was placed in third place in terms of importance to the Rufaro group because it acted as a link between the group and BTZ, BRI, HRI and other stakeholder who contributed to the activities of the group. Buhera Rural District Council (BRDC), Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) and Murambinda Irrigation scheme were cited for providing land to establish the nursery, water for irrigation and helping in the organisation of field days, respectively.

The District Co-ordination Committee (DCC) liased with BTZ and AREX. It provided information to the group on training activities and the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) generally ensure security at the nursery site.

The multi-institutions that were supposed to co-operate in various aspects of the project,project faced a number of problems. The major problem seemed to be the blurring of responsibilities and work-plans among the three organisations (BRI, TRB and HRI) that were supposed to collaborate and deliver adequate disease-free planting material to farmers. From the time the project was initiated in 1998 until 2000, BRI lacked equipment to conduct is mandate. Therefore, BRI scientists were seconded to TRB to carry out the virus elimination work on sweet potatoes. They started operating from their premises after BRI had equipment. However, there were problems of co-ordination and collaboration among the institutions. As already noted, these problems ultimately adversely affected the delivery of disease free planting materials to farmers. The problems in institutional collaboration are captured in the review of the sweet potato micro-propagation project by the PMEC of 2000 thus:

"There seems to be lack of co-ordination and collaboration among institutions involved in the project. Instead, there seems to be a struggle for institutional ownership of various activities rather than a concerted effort to produce results, irrespective of where the work is carried out. In the original proposal, activities on cleaning, hardening and indexing were to be carried out at TRB. We are of the opinion that the collaborators should revert to this original arrangement until all are satisfied and agreed that facilities being developed at other institutions are adequate for the devolution of some of the activities to these institutions"Furthermore, according to the PMEC each institution was working independently. The

PMEC rightly pointed out that successful production of adequate disease-free planting materials depended on cohesive laboratory work from heat treatment, meristem tip culture, hardening, indexing, screening and multiplication. There was a general lack of communication among the collaborators. This was to the detriment of the co-ordinated approach to ultimately deliver enough quantities of disease free materials to the nurseries.

25

Another problem was that the Principal Investigator (PI), being based in one institution among the three (Nzima, HRI then Matibiri, TRB) had no control over the activities of the other scientists in the collaborating institutions. The research report of January-December, 1999 revealed the following:"It is difficult to manage a program where individual collaborators report to different authorities in various institutions. There is evidence of lack of self-motivation among collaborators. The PI has very limited control over this situation, which is being exacerbated by the worsening economic situation in Zimbabwe. Collaborators may rather do other activities likely to bring them income than the program".Administrative problems also weighed to dampen the enthusiasm of collaborators. At one point two technicians at TRB refused to continue rendering their services after their subsistence claims were processed inordinately late.

3.10 Benefits of the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project

3.10.1 Benefits to the primary beneficiaries

The objectives of the sweet potato project were "to increase sweet potato production in Hwedza and Buhera through production, distribution and use of pathogen-free high quality seed stocks of true to type varieties that are adapted and acceptable to local communities. The project further aimed at training sweet potato nursery farmers on production and maintenance of high-health status sweet potato planting material, at establishing pilot and satellite nurseries as well as introducing and evaluating new sweet potato varieties and agronomic practices against those currently used in the two districts."

From the ensuing presentation of evidence and discussion, it is concluded that the sweet potato micro-propagation project marginally succeeded to increase sweet potato production through distribution of pathogen free locally adaptable varieties. The marginal increase in the number of farmers producing sweet potatoes is incidental to main project activities. The evaluation team was told of the vicarious spread of the sweet potato varieties from field days and other forums. The farmers grabbed vines of material that they liked at field days and went on to multiply the materials in their gardens. This material invariably spread to other farmers through farmer-to-farmer distribution. Little disease free material, as the evidence previously presented showed, found its way from pilot and satellite nurseries to farmers. The major bottleneck was the little pathogen-free material that was not delivered in time for rapid multiplication to the nurseries and the failure of pilot nurseries to retain their own planting stock in the lathe house. The major cause of that problem was institutions not working in tandem. At best, these institutions were working at cross-purposes to the detriment of the delivery of planned project outcomes to farmers.

Pair wise ranking exercises were conducted with farmers to determine the relative ranks farmers placed on different benefits. Farmers were first asked to list the benefits, as they perceived them. Therefore, different terminologies and lists were used for listing benefits across the groups.

The project partly achieved its objectives of training sweet potato nursery farmers in nursery management for the production of high-health status sweet potato planting material. In fact, during focus group discussions of the benefits of the sweet potato project were held with

26

project farmers, farmers consistently ranked the nursery management course as the most important of all courses. In addition, participants also highly ranked knowledge from the training courses and field days as important benefits from the sweet potato project. However, there was no evidence that the pilot nursery farmers understood how to make effective use of the lathe house as reflected by their failure to keep potted plants in them.

The Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery group at Murambinda pair-wise ranked project benefits (Tables 3.8 and 3.9). The group valued the knowledge bestowed on them through the training activities sponsored by BTZ in nursery management, business management and leadership and training for transformation. They particularly cherished the valuable hands-on experiential learning on nursery management, rapid multiplication of sweet potatoes and the importance of using virus clean material.

Table 03.7 8 Results of pair-wise ranking of the benefits of the sweet potato project by members of the Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery, Murambinda

1. Food security

2. Income generation

3. Knowledge 4. Stock-feed

1. Food security Xa 2b 3 12. Income generation X X 3 23. Knowledge X X X 34. Stock-feed X X X XaX = Comparison not applicable; bNumber in box indicates the preferred benefit after comparison of two benefits.

Table 03.8 9 Ranking of perceived benefits by participants of the Rufaro Sweet Potato Nursery project, Murambinda

Perceived benefit Score RankingKnowledge 3 1Income generation 2 2Food security and availability of processed products 1 3Stock-feed 0 4

The Rufaro Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery group at Murambinda pair-wise ranked project benefits (Tables 3.10 and 3.12). The group valued the knowledge bestowed on them through the training activities sponsored by BTZ in nursery management, business management and leadership and training for transformation. They particularly cherished the valuable hands-on experiential learning on nursery management, rapid multiplication of sweet potatoes and the importance of using virus clean material.

Income generation from the sale of planting materials and tubers were cited as the second most important benefit that accrued to the members of the sweet potato project. Murambinda Irrigation Pilot Nursery Group was making the high income compared to the other projects (Table 3.1410). However, it is worth noting that 99 percent of the group’s revenue was from selling tubers, yet the primary activity should be production pf planting material. Similarly, the Mawire group also made most of its revenue from wheat production, another non-core activity (Table 3.811). Nyamhemba Sweet Potato Group made an income of $21,000.00 and shared 15 buckets of sweet potatoes with an equivalent value of $3,750.00. Therefore, the group made

27

imputed total revenue of $24,750.00. The members lamented that they could have made more money from the sale of sweet potato vines had the virus-cleaned planting material been supplied to the nursery in time and in enough quantities.

Sweet potato, as a product that ensured household food security, was ranked third. Regardless of the direct benefit to the food security status of project members, members argued that they primarily ran the nursery as a business. Feeding tubers or vines to livestock was rarely, if ever, practised and hence this benefit was ranked last.

Table 03.9 10 Income and Expenditure at Murambinda Irrigation Sweet Potato Pilot Nursery Group Over time

Year Gross Revenue ($) Expenses ($) Net Income ($)Leaf Tubers

1999200020012002

1,7020

575430

02,000

17,27085,487

2,7721,5987,055

24,251

-1,070402

10,79061,666

Sweet potato, as a product that ensured household food security, was ranked third. Regardless of the direct benefit to the food security status of project members, members argued that they primarily ran the nursery as a business. Feeding tubers or vines to livestock was rarely, if ever, practised and hence this benefit was ranked last.

Table 03.10 11 Income and Expenditure at Mawire Sweet Potato Group, Hwedza District

2001 2002Quantity of tubers produced (Buckets)Revenue from tubersRevenue from vinesTotal sweet potato revenue

Imputed Revenue from wheat salesTotal imputed revenue

Cash costs: Compound D 4 bags @ $3,300/bag

Ammonium Nitrate 2 bags @ $2016/bag Electricity Total Cash Costs

49.00 $8350.00

$8,350.00

$8,350.00

$3,483.00$3,483.00

40.40 $20,695.00 $4,300.00 $24,995.00

$90,000.00$114,995.00

$9,200.00$4,032.00

$11,650.00$11,650.00

Imputed Profit $4,867.00 $90,113.00

A group interview was carried out on the twelve members out of the 14 that constitute Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery Group. The interview was conducted at the nursery site. Pair-wise ranking was used to measure group perceptions of the benefits of the sweet potato project (Tables 3.7 12 and 3.813).

28

Table 03.11 12 Pair wise ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project

1. Knowledge 2. Income generation

3. Food security

4. Created jobs for us

1. Knowledge X 1 1 12. Income generation X X 2 23. Food security X X X 34. Created jobs for us X X X XX = Comparison not applicable; Number in box indicates the preferred benefit after comparison of two benefits.

Table 03.12 13 Ranking of benefits of the sweet potato project by participants at Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery project

Perceived benefit Score RankingKnowledge 3 1Income generation 2 2Food security 1 3Created jobs for us 0 4

The Zvichanaka group ranked the benefits from the sweet potato project in the same manner as the Rufaro Pilot project group at Murambinda. The views of the groups converged of on the value of knowledge imparted by the project, income generation and food security as the most important benefits. Farmers indicated that knowledge was the backbone of all the activities they undertook in the nursery. The knowledge they have acquired will remain even after the support from BTZ ceases. Nevertheless, they also valued the income they were making from the project. They also envisaged that the group would make even more income in future. The sweet potatoes they harvest from the plot also partly go towards meeting their food requirements.

Members of the Mvurachena Sweet Potato Project were also facilitated to rank the benefits they perceived to come from the projects. The results are presented in Table 3.10.

Table 03.13 14 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of the Sweet Potato project at Mvurachena Irrigation Scheme

Perceived benefit Score RankingKnowledge of nursery management and group dynamics (7) 1Food security and availability of many sweet potato products

(6) 2

Equipment donated to the group from the project (5) 3Income generation (2) 4

As with the other groups, the Mvurachena Sweet Potato Nursery group valued the knowledge from the project most. For the Mvurachena group, knowledge was also taken as the backbone of all the activities and sustainability of the project. In defining the benefits, the group distinguished two areas in which knowledge was acquired, i.e., knowledge on nursery

29

management and knowledge about group dynamics. The two aspects of knowledge were lumped together into knowledge.

Income generation was ranked the least whereas other groups had ranked it second, after knowledge. When probed why they did not value the original objective of the project highly, i.e., income generation, project participants testified that in relative terms income from the project was still very low. Instead, food security was much more important considering the droughts of 2001/02. Therefore, food security, tied together with availability of many sweet potato products, was cited as the second most important benefit of the project. The group experienced the usual problem of late delivery and inadequacy quantities of virus-cleaned planting material. Therefore, the group made insignificant income from sales of sweet potato vines in the 2001/2002 season. Fortunately, the group was able to sell the sweet potato roots from the nursery plants. They also harvested potato roots from the nursery to sustain their families from May to September 2002, when their grain had run out. Each members received two buckets of sweet potato tubers per month , valued at $800 per bucket. This explains why the group highly lauded the sweet potato project for ensuring food security. Non-project farmers also noted the significance of the supply of sweet potato roots to the community at large. Therefore, the project had food security benefits even beyond the project members.

The Mvurachena Sweet Potato group collectively acknowledged the investment that BTZ had made in fencing their project area, building tool sheds and providing the necessary equipment and ranked this benefit third.

At Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery, the group had other crops in the nursery garden besides sweet potatoes; there was sugar cane, tomatoes and vegetables. Simple ranking was also used to place various crops grown in the garden plots in order of importance to their livelihoods (Table 3.915). Participants used 16 stones to indicate importance they attached to each of the four enterprises in the garden.

Table 03.14 15 Simple ranking of enterprises in gardens by sweet potato project participants at Zvichanaka Chete Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery

Enterprise Score RankingSweet potato vine and tuber production (7) 1Sugarcane production (4) 2Tomato production (3) 3Vegetable production (2) 4

Sweet potato vine and tuber production was ranked approximately twice as important as sugarcane and tomato production and approximately thrice as important as vegetable production (Table 3.10). This was expected given that sweet potatoes were the primary activity in the garden and had the largest are allocated to it. The other crops were only meant to supplement the benefits of the sweet potato project.

3.10.2 Benefits to collaborating institutions

The sweet-potato micro-propagation project also contributed to institutional capacity building at BRI and HRI. Two research scientists from BRI, Mrs G. Sithole and Mrs T. Chirara, attended a tissue culture and micro-propagation course in South Africa from in 1996. The course

30

was co-ordinated by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria. In addition, BTZ sponsored Mrs Sithole and Mrs Chirara to be attached to TRB Biotechnology and Tissue Culture laboratory to gain practical experience and put into practice what they had learnt in South Africa. In the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project Report for the period January 1996 to November 1997, BRI acknowledged the impact of this training thus:

"The above training programmes have provided Biotechnology Research Institute with essential human resources capacity building. BRI has now two fully trained scientists with special skills in all areas of tissue culture, micro-propagation, virus indexing, meristem tip culture and the ability to multiply virus free material. Zimbabwe now has real capacity in both human resources and infrastructure in the field of tissue culture at BRI. The institute can use this capacity to conduct any tissue culture research work"BRI received office and laboratory equipment for tissue culture work. Equipment was

also bought for HRI. The list of the equipment that was received by BRI and HRI is listed in Appendix IX. A screen house is being built at HRI. Its completion was delayed due to funds that ran out and construction only resumed after BTZ released additional resources. The roofing stage caused further delays as a ridge had to be specially imported to fit the house. The gauze for the sides also had to be imported. Some of the excess gauze from the new screen house will be used for closing torn panels on the old screen house.

A green house is under construction at BRI. When the evaluators visited BRI, the green house had been roofed. Final work was being done on flooring, glass panels and connecting water. It was evident that work was in progress. Delays in completing the green house had been caused by the hyperinflation in the economy, so that the company which had originally won the tender realised that costs had escalated and ceased work after completing the structural outline and being paid 75% of the quotation. Another company had to be identified to complete the work after another tender process.

Originally, a laptop computer had been purchased for the PI’s use. The project computer had been handed over to Mrs Chiunze-Dhliwayo for data analysis. Upon Mrs Mrs Chiunze-Dhliwayo’s departure, the computer was taken back to BTZ as an interim arrangement. We suggest that the computer be placed at HRI where an officer to work on sweet potatoes is likely to be recruited. Even before the recruitment of the incumbent, data analysis will still need to be done at HRI by the research technicians, under the guidance of the head of the institute, Mr Chigumira-Ngwerume. This strengthens the argument for the computer to be housed at HRI.

Thirteen sweet potato varieties have so far been virus cleaned, indexed and multiplied. HRI officers were highly appreciative of the value of the genetic material that was added to their own pool. However, as already pointed out, the quantities of these virus cleaned planting materials that is supplied every year has not been adequate for the levels that pilot and satellite nurseries require to meet farmer demands and run as viable businesses.

Extension workers highly valued the training provided to AREX on sweet potato production (agronomy), rapid multiplication, sweet potato pests and diseases, harvesting and storage. The evaluators were told that prior to the implementation of the BTZ funded project, extension workers had little information on sweet potatoes and offered little advice on the crop. In any case, there was also little demand to extension on sweet potatoes. The evaluators were told that before the project, sweet potato was a "plant-and-forget" crop. The crop had been neglected and was considered to grow without any agronomic attention. Farmers would plant it on the edges of the field or wasteland and only revisited the plots to harvest the little sweet

31

potatoes that survived the vagaries of weeds, pests and low soil fertility. This was changing very quickly due to the project activities.

With the advent of the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation project in Hwedza and Buhera, the demand for advisory services on sweet potatoes increased. The training that the extension workers received, albeit later than some farmers, empowered them workers to advice old and new sweet potato growers on production and crop protection. The extension capacity of AREX increased to cover sweet potato.

Some farmers have bought planting material from the Sweet potato satellite and nursery projects, e.g., Mrs. Gwese at Mawire bought $500 worth of material in 2001/2002. Farmers who bought planting material also wanted to carry out their own assessment of the performance of the improved varieties. In the case of Mrs. Gwese, she wanted to evaluate the planting material for earliness, yield, and taste. Even thoughAlthough farmers indicated that the practice at nurseries was to destroy runners after harvesting tubers, Mr Musone’s family bought planting material after the nursery farmers had harvested the tubers. This suggests that, contrary to the standing rule on destruction of runners, some farmers access the planting materials after tubers have been harvested. During the field days in 2000, the Goto family at Mawire picked vines of the varieties they preferred. They picked planting material for Carrot, Chizambiya and Cordina varieties. Zambia was selected as it was less prone to rotting and was resistant to weevil attack. Some non-project members indicated that even though they were fully aware of the benefits of using fresh, improved planting materials, money for buying the materials was their limitation. Other farmers bought sweet potato planting material from the non-project farmers, as nurseries did not have it at that time. The evaluation team noted that awareness of the project activities was generally restricted to farmers located in the irrigation schemes or the immediate vicinity. In Buhera District, Mrs Chagonda located about 10 km from Murambinda was not aware of the sweet potato project at Murambinda so that she bought vines of two unimproved sweet potato varieties, Murambimba and Martin, from a relative who owned an irrigation plot at Murambinda Irrigation Scheme. Farmers who were not aware of the sweet potato project were not aware of the reduction in yields due to virus re-infection of the plants following re-planting of the same material. The persistent drought meant that farmers relying on dry land fields could not plant sweet potatoes. In Mvurachena, Mr and Mrs Chikosha did not buy any planting material, as they did not have an irrigated plot. They indicated that with normal rains they would buy Chigogo and Chizambiya varieties, which they selected due to taste (when cooked or raw), yields and resistance to diseases. In Murambinda, Buhera District non-project farmers have benefited from the sweet potato project in terms of know how on sweet potato production so that the are realising increased yields and revenues from the crop. Mrs Chikandiwa, a non-project member, indicated that in the January 2003 she had sold 10 buckets of sweet potatoes for $20,000.00. At the time of the interview, she had two buckets still available for sale. Ms E. Shumba at Murambinda indicated that, as a resultbecause of the project, plot holders were now planting sweet potatoes throughout the year, as contrasted to the previous practice of planting the crop in summer only. Consequently, sweet potatoes had become an important source of income for the households. For the Shumba family, the ranking of the contribution of different crops to household income are shown in Table 3.2416

Table 03.15 16 Ranking of the contribution of different crops to household income by the Shumba family at Murambinda

Crop Rank

32

Maize GroundnutsSweet potatoesField beansWheatTomatoes

123456

The ranking shows that the sweet potato crop is now a prominent source of income for a typical non-project household that owns an irrigation plot. The farmers also observed that even thoughalthough sweet potatoes had become such an important source of income, this had not been to the detriment of other crop activities on the farm.

In addition to benefiting from access to sweet potato planting materials, non-project members also have access to a local supply of tubers for their own consumption, particularly during droughts. Due to the drought of 2001/02, families substituted sweet potatoes for sadza between August and October. However, they also noted that the sweet potato nurseries planted their plots late so that they harvested their crop much later than the non-project farmers. Therefore, sweet potatoes nurseries could not make as much income as they would have wanted, as their crop was available on the market when it was already oversupplied. Because of their low sales of planting vines by the sweet potato groups, non-group members in Mawire and Mvurachena unanimously considered the groups as faring much worse than non-members did. In Mvurachena, a group1 of non-project farmers felt that the sweet potato group had not fulfilled its primary mandates of supplying planting seed and sweet potato tubers. They attributed this failure not because of their fault, but due to the small quantities of planting seed supplied to the satellite nurseries from HRI in Marondera. Rto rectify this, the non-project farmers suggested that the sweet potato group had to establish its own source of vines for planting in the nursery. However, as noted earlier, in Murambinda non-project farmers noted that the Sweet potato group was doing well, to the extend that rumour had it that other irrigation plot holders wanted to become members of the group.

The vigour of the improved varieties was evident to non-project participants. Mr Musone reported that the improved variety of Chigogo had a 150-200% yield advantage over the unimproved material. Other farmers reported experiencing similar improvements on different sweet potato varieties.

Some confusion exists regarding the need to destroy runners from the nursery plot and even on individual farmers’ fields. Farmers thought that experiments had already determined that the runners had to be destroyed at the end of the season to allow fresh material to be planted in the following season. That there were experiments still being conducted to establish the appropriate duration required before destroying the runners had not been communicated to the farmers, especially the non-project members. Some non-project farmers expressed ignorance of the reason why vines werefor destroying destroyedthe vines at the end of the season. However, they acknowledged that they had noticed deterioration in the plant stand and yield of material that was repeatedly planted.

Some non-project members2 at Mawire Irrigation Scheme indicated that they were unwilling to join sweet potato group as they were pre-occupied. with otherA activities such as

1 The group comprised of Mbuya Chivende-1, Mbuya Chivende-2, Mbuya Dongo and Mr Chiguma2 Mr and Mrs Gwese, and Mr and Mrs Chisvo

33

tending their own irrigation plots, making clay pots for sale, tending their dry land fields, etc kept them busy.

Non-members felt that the sweet potato groups could increase their productivity if they also produced and sold vegetable seedlings. Irrigation plot holders cannot establish vegetable seedlings early in the season due to commitments with other farming activities. Access to seedlings from the sweet potato group would enable the non-group members to establish vegetables early. It was suggested that the groups could also go into production of citrus tree nursery production.

3.11 Recommendations for Exit strategy

The adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies to this project. It is our view that if resources that were shared between TRB and BRI had been concentrated in one institution, greater levels of delivery would have been realised. At the initiation of the project, TRB was best equipped to carry out virus cleaning and indexing work. Therefore, it should have been given the sole mandate to do so. The experiences of the sweet potato micro-propagation project suggest that multi-institutional arrangements need careful consideration. Each organisation must have its own well-defined work plan and its contribution to the overall project objectives must be a complete unit with little dependence on inputs from other organisations. Separate and distinct MOU must be signed with each participating organisation so that it can be held accountable for meeting set target within agreed timeframes. Each organisation must directly control and operate its own budget with supervision from BTZ.

It would seem that TRB is now out of the sweet potato project, sine die. Therefore, it would be prudent to engage BRI to produce enough sweet potato pathogen-free planting material to pass on to HRI for hardening, multiplication and distribution to pilot and satellite nurseries. The production of pathogen free planting material must not be left to an ad-hoc process where collaborators are simply trusted that they will produce the required quantities of planting materials to deliver to farmers. It is recommended that BRI be contracted to produce specified quantities of pathogen-free sweet potato planting materials to be delivered to HRI at specified times. Since BRI benefited from the project, negotiations should be entered with it so that it utilises the equipment and personnel training it garnered from the project to ensure sustainability of the project. If possible, BRI should produce sweet potato planting materials at subsidised prices in lieu of the investment that BTZ had already made as part of the sweet potato micro-propagation project. In any case, it is important that virus-cleaned planting material is not out of reach for the nurseries. Similarly, the same arrangements should be made with HRI for it to make available specified quantities of virus-cleaned planting materials demanded by nurseries in Hwedza and Buhera at given times. These arrangements, to be entered into between BTZ on the one hand, BRI, and HRI on the other, should be the subject of a contract or MOU, which ever is deemed most appropriate by the BTZ.

Despite the intention to investigate long term storage of pathogen free in-vitro and ex-vitro planting materials, this aspect of the micro-propagation of sweet potato project did not receive any prominence in the research reports that the evaluators perused. It would seem to us that long term storage would nullify the need to have a conveyor-belt type of production line, i.e., from virus cleaning, indexing, hardening and multiplication. Instead, pathogen-free planting materials in long-term storage could easily be retrieved and multiplied as required. It was not

34

possible to get a cogent explanation why this strategy was not fully investigated to its natural conclusions during the course of project implementation. Perhaps it should be revived in the research agendas of both BRI and HRI, so that the results could be adopted to alleviate the problem of too-little-too-late planting material that reduced the potential impact of the sweet potato micro-propagation project.

Although HRI conducts research in horticultural crops and BTZ has facilitated it tohas taken the mantle, with BTZ facilitation, to multiply and distribute pathogen-free sweet potato planting material, its mandate is national. Therefore, its national activities could over shadow the Buhera and Hwedza project. If the Hwedza and Buhera farmers were to continue to sustainably produce sweet potatoes, HRI would need to be facilitated to avail support to these farmers. Therefore, some contractual arrangement or understanding between BTZ and HRI should be entered into so that HRI remains focused on multiplying the required varieties so that adequate quantities are available in time for Hwedza and Buhera pilot and satellite nurseries. HRI should also continue work on the sweet potato trials to their logical conclusion. HRI justifiably arguedclearly showed that they should not have been obliged to supply virus cleaned sweet potato planting materials to pilot and satellite nurseries every season because the pilot nurseries had insect proof lathe houses and were trained in preserving and micro-propagation of virus free planting materials. In the light of this, it is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that pilot nurseries begin utilising the lathe houses for the purpose to which they were built. It is incumbent upon the Sweet Potato Field Officer Manager (Mr Rufu), working with the resident Sweet Potato extension assistant, to institute a programme of to supervision for the pilot nurseries so to that they establish stock plant nurseries of preferred varieties in their lathe houses for their preferred varieties. Nurseries should also be supervised to multiply stock materials in the lathe house during the cold months from April to August so that they have material ready for planting out in the field in August for further multiplication in August. Therefore, the pilot nurseries need to be supplied once with virus clean planting material and they should be able to maintain that material virus free in the lathe houses in addition to being able to multiply it, year after year. They should only import new accessions from HRI to add to their inventory of virus free planting stocks in the lathe houses. , After meeting HRI staff on the last day of the evaluation exercise, t The evaluators did not have time to go back to the farmers after meeting HRI staff on the last day of the evaluation exercise, to to try and underdeterminestand why they could not produce virus clean material when they, yet they had it within themselves the capacity to produce their own. Perhaps the farmers need re-training in this key aspect to the sustainability in the supply chain of virus free planting materials to smallholder farmers in Buhera and Wedza. The re-training, by HRC HRI and BTZ personnel (Mr Rufu and Mazivazvose) can conduct the re-training. It should should be followed up by field supervision, in situ, at the project sites, to make sure that farmers acquire the requisite skills for the preservation and micro-propagation of virus free sweet potato planting materials in their lathe houses. To fail to do this would negate all the effort and investment that has been put in this project. If they have to rely on HRC, they , as farmers will not fail to get enough virus virus-free planting materials, in timely, if they have to rely on HRC, even when all the other suggested measures have been put in place. , even when all the other suggested measures have been put in place. The Hwedza and Buhera pilot and satellite nursery members overwhelmingly indicated their willingness to buy pathogen free planting materials from HRI, once it becomes available early in the season. However, nursery group members emphasised that they do not want to make several

35

futile journeys to Marondera, when planting material is unavailable. Therefore, when the nurseries require replenishment of root stock materials from HRI, the sweet potato extension worker, Mr Mazvivazvose and the field manager, Mr Rufu, supply information to the groups on the availability of sweet potato planting materials at HRI. Since the field officer he has a vehicle, he is should able to collect bulk orders of planting materials for the nurseries.

The trial to determine how long viruses take to re-infect pathogen-free sweet potatoes needs to be continued. A virologist or plant pathologist should participate in the monitoring of this trial. It is to the interest of the nurseries and farmers at large, to know the duration they should use pathogen-free material before it is re-infected to cause economic losses in yield. The trial should move from the nursery sites to farmers’ fields under dryland conditions to enable the sweet potato plants to be subjected to infection pressure that exists in farmers’ fields. We were told that these trials would be established in farmers’ fields this season. The trials carried out in farmer's fields can be an opportunity to directly involve farmers in the experimentation and evaluation process. Farmers groups should be formed around these trials reminiscent of farmer field schools that periodically monitor, using their own criteria, the treatments and use the opportunity for experiential learning of various aspects of sweet potato production. We recommend that the objectives of the trials, the layout and the measurements that will be taken in the trial should be explained to farmers. In addition, farmer groups should be involved in all stages of the trial. Farmers should be facilitated to come up with their own criteria for evaluating these treatments and using participatory adaptive trial methodology, which AREX is familiar with, to evaluate the treatments in the trials periodically. At least one field day should be held in each area at harvest, where farmers are facilitated to rank treatments using simple or pair-wise ranking on various attributes of the treatments being compared. The farmer evaluations will then be compared to the technical evaluations to come up with both technically sound and farmer-demanded recommendation.

The comparative trial must continue to definitively identify varieties that are tolerant to virus infection, like Pamhayi, and those that are not, like Chigogo. Tolerant varieties may not require the costly process of virus cleaning to the imminent advantage of the nursery farmers, who may then not need to replenish these varieties with pathogen free material every season. The fertiliser trial also needs additional measurements to be made, post-harvest, to measure the organoleptic acceptability of sweet potatoes treated with various fertiliser levels and combinations. The storability of sweet potatoes roots that have received different fertiliser treatments is another area that needs attention in these trials.

36

37

38

4. BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN FIXATION PROJECT

Introduction

Researchers from the Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering at the UZ initiated the biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) project with financial support from BTZ in

1997. The main objectives of the project were:To increase farmer awareness and proper exploitation of rhizobium inoculants;

To increase farmers’ knowledge and skills of cultivating a wide range of legume crops; and To increase the use of legume crop residues for improving soil fertility.

The legume crops would improve the nutritional status of the smallholder farmers, raise the farmers' level of income and improve soil fertility. The project envisaged identifying and utilizing rhizobium inoculant strains that could increase the yields of bambaranuts,

groundnuts, cowpeas, sugar beans and soyabeans through BNF. On-farm trials were conducted from 1999/2000 until 2000/2001 season. Bambaranuts, groundnuts, cowpeas,

sugar beans have been grown in the districts since time immemorial. However, they are all characterized by low yields. Before the BNF project was implemented, soyabeans had been sparsely grown in Hwedza District and its production had been on the decline. Factors such as low yields from non-use of inoculants, a lack of viable markets and lack of direct uses of

the beans to sustain the livelihoods of the smallholder farmers' households caused the decline in the production of soyabeans.

The evaluation of the socioeconomic impact of the soyabean project was carried out using key informant interviews and selected household questionnaire interviews. Thirteen households (eight in Hwedza and five in Buhera) producing soyabeans were interviewed.

Seventy seven percent of the sample comprised of couples where both the husband and wife stayed on the farm. Females with husbands not resident on the farm headed 15% of the households. The composition of the membership of the households shows that they have

high dependency ratios. Out of families of eight members, only three worked full-time on the farm.

On average, the soyabean producers were well endowed with cattle. Households had eight cattle, four of them being draft animals. Farm sizes owned by the soyabean producers

are small, at an average of three hectares.

On-farm Research

39

The BNF project changed direction from a broad based BNF project that was supposed to isolate and characterise indigenous rhizobia that were compatible and effective with

indigenous legume crops vis a vis groundnuts, bambarra nuts, cowpeas, field beans and soyabeans. The new direction was mainly to to one that promoted use of rhizobia and the

production of in and promoted soyabean production. productions After the 1998/99 trials in which groundnuts, bambarra nuts, cowpeas, field beans and soyabeans were inoculated with their respective rhizobia strains, the only viable response in the growth and yield of

the crop was obtained with soyabeans. The research leaders in the project made a decision to carry out research on soyabean rhizobial interactions in Wedza and Buhera. During

interviews with researchers in the project, they admitted that they had come up with some isolates that were very promising on Michigan pea bean but did not pursue any further

work on it. They cite the reluctance Reluctance of BTZ to support the purchase an expensive piece of equipment called a cryopresever, was cited as having contributed to their swing towards research in and promotion of rhizobia utilisation in soybeans. that

they The equipment was required to for isolatinge and characterisinge indigenous rhizobia for the traditional legumes (cowpeas, groundnuts and bambarra nuts). as having

contributed to their swing towards research in and promotion of rhizobia utilisation in soybeans. However, it is pertinent to note that at the same time that the swing shift towards soyabean occurred, the research team had been awarded somea research

fundingproject from Rockefeller Foundation to conduct on research on soyabean. It is thereforeTherefore it is conceivable that a desire to achieve economies of scale by

combining the two research projects on soyabeans motivated the abandonment of the other crops could have been motivated by a desire to achieve economies of scale by combining

two research projects on the same crop. It also apparent that the second phase of the BNF project concentrated on extension activities and input supply to soybean farmers in Wedza

and Buhera with little research being carried out. The BNF project was conducted in a participatory manner. The participatory trials

allowed farmers to determine, on their own, that the crops such as bambaranuts, groundnuts, cowpeas, sugar beans, did not give significant yield improvement from

inoculant use. Farmers hosted the trials and participated in the evaluation of the results of the demonstration trials conducted on their farms. On-farm trials and field days were the

major vehicles of training farmers on legume production. Two aspects of legume production were evaluated, i.e., the yield benefit of applying rhizobium inoculant in the

production of the legumes and the residual effect of the crop on soil fertility. The ability of the crop to fix atmospheric nitrogen meant that application of top dressing fertilizers was

not necessary. Farmers indicated that they had seen the residual fertility benefits of soyabeans on the following maize crop.

40

The project succeeded to get yield benefits from use of rhizobium inoculants on soyabeans alone. The other legumes, which have been grown in the smallholder farming

system for a while, did not show yield benefits from using rhizobium inoculant. In addition, bambaranuts seed was difficult to get, so that its trials could not be conducted. Farmers did

not use their own local bambaranut seed they requested to do so. For cowpeas, although variety IT18 seemed to have a potential, it was attacked by weevils so that the seed could not be retained. Aphids also attacked the crop. Farmers could not spray the crop as the BNF team delivered the chemicals and the spraying equipment late. Bean stem maggot

attacked sugar beans. Therefore, the project had one technology that could be adopted by smallholder farmers in the two districts. The successful technology was the growing of

soyabeans using rhizobium inoculant. Given the escalating fertilizer costs, the response of soyabeans to inoculation made it attractive to the farmers. The trials further demonstrated the residual effects of soyabeans

on the following maize crops. An unfertilised maize crop planted in a field previously planted to soyabeans had a substantial yield advantage over the other treatment, even

without incorporation of the soyabeans residues. Thus, savings could be made on fertilizer costs. During the evaluation survey, farmers indicated that the residual effect of soyabeans

on soil fertility was one of the benefits that made them adopt the crop. Extension personnel in Buhera district indicated that farmers were using inoculant in

groundnuts although research trial had not shown significant yield benefits from use of inoculant. Table 4.7 1 shows the estimated level of use if inoculants on groundnuts in

Buhera. However, the farmers expressed no similar sentiments.By conducting the trials in a participatory manner, farmers could independently evaluate

and make decisions on adoption of the technologies. The AREX Extension Workers (EWs), in collaboration with the rest of the farmers, selected participating farmers. Identified farmers had to be capable and willing to host the trials. In Hwedza, the UZ team did not specify any criteria for selecting the fields. EWs indicated that UZ researchers, EWs and other farmers selected farmers jointly. However, in Buhera, the extension workers indicated that UZ researchers stipulated that trial sites had to be along the main highway, for easy access of the farmers. This was a weakness in the participatory process in Buhera as it created a bias towards farmers with better infrastructure. Farmers located along the highway may not have been ideal for implementing the project. Farmers who hosted trials in Buhera district were selected from Wards 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14.

Table 0.4.116 Extent of Groundnut Inoculant Use in Selected Wards in Buhera DistrictWard Percentage of farmers using the

inoculant Numbers of farmers

456713

55na15na

100na

100na

175Na = Not available

By conducting the trials in a participatory manner, farmers could independently evaluate and make decisions on adoption of the technologies. The AREX Extension Workers (EWs), in collaboration with the rest of

41

the farmers, selected participating farmers. Identified farmers had to be capable and willing to host the trials. In Hwedza, the UZ team did not specify any criteria for selecting the fields. EWs indicated that UZ researchers, EWs and other farmers selected farmers jointly. However, in Buhera, the extension workers indicated that UZ researchers stipulated that trial sites had to be along the main highway, for easy access of the farmers. This was a weakness in the participatory process in Buhera as it created a bias towards farmers with better infrastructure. Farmers located along the highway may not have been ideal for implementing the project. Farmers who hosted trials in Buhera district were selected from Wards 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14.

In each of the clusters, four farmers hosted the trials. One farmer hosted detailed trials while the other three hosted at least two trials. EWs indicated that the four farmers hosting the trials within a ward had to be close to each other. EWs were of the opinion that this condition restricted their choice of farmers and led to some capable farmers being left out from hosting the trials. However, only taking farmers that EWs recommended might also have led to biases towards better-endowed farmers. The researchers designed the demonstrations, and then the farmers planted the trials with the guidance of the EWs. Farmers had no input into the treatments included in the trials. However, the rationale of including various treatments was explained and farmers understood the logic of the design. One field day was held in each cluster every season. Field days were conducted when the crops were at physiological maturity to allow the farmers to observe all the treatment effects, including the presence of the nodules in the roots to show evidence of BNF. Trials and field days were conducted until 2000. After 2000, farmers were expected to purchase their own seed to adopt the technology.

4.1 Impact on Target Groups and Other Stakeholders

The project resulted in the widespread adoption of soyabean production in the two districts. The level of adoption is greater in Hwedza district than Buhera. Hwedza district has more favourable agro-climatic conditions than Buhera. Table 4.2 shows adoption rates from the UZ team. In their opinion, the estimates only included farmers who accessed seed directly from the team. Therefore, the figures were likely to be underestimates since they id not include farmers who obtained seed from neighbours nor those who might have bought seed directly from the seed houses. EWs estimated that up to 60% of the households in Hwedza were growing soyabeans. They forecasted that, without input supply bottlenecks and given a normal rain season, the level of adoption of soyabeans production in Hwedza was likely to go up to 80% by the end of the 2002/03 season. Survey results suggest that fifty percent of the adopters planted soyabeans after it was introduced through the project. Only 30% started planting in 1999. The rest adopted soyabeans in 2001. The average area planted per household to soyabeans increased from 0.24 ha at the time of adopting the crop, to 0.34 ha in 2002. In 2002, farmers planned to plant an average of 0.5 ha. EWs in Hwedza estimated that farmers who adopted soyabean production planted between 0.4 ha to one hectare. The trend suggests that adoption of soyabeans is increasing both in terms of number of adopters and area that each household plants.

Table 0.17

Table 4.2 UZ team estimates of number of soyabean adopters over timeUZ team estimates of number of soyabean adopters over time

District

42

Season TotalBuhera Hwedza1997/981998/991999/002000/012001/02

5063157250> 1000

503501,0002,000> 2,000

100413

11572,250

> 3,000

Farmers’ incomes levels improved due to the soyabeans production. Farmers ranked the importance of the contribution of soyabeans to household income second after its role as a source of food. Although soyabeans is a new crop in the districts, it is already ranked high as a source of income for the farmers in the two districts. Thirty percent of the farmers ranked To 30% of the farmers ssoyabeansoyabeans ranked highest as a source of income. It was ranked second by 23% of the farmers interviewed. In 2001, when the harvest was good, soyabeans was a significant source of income. Some farmers realized $20,000 from its sales.

Soyabean Processing and Utilization

The increase in the yield of soyabeans grown using rhizobium inoculant, on its own, was not sufficient to make farmers adopt the crop wholesome. Initially, reliable market offering an attractive producer price, necessary for farmers to realize the benefits of growing the crop, was not available. Although the GMB was buying the crop, its prices were not attractive to farmers. As immediate uses of the crop at the household level had not been developed, local demand had not yet been generated and no local sales could take place. In the absence of an attractive producer price for soyabeans, the greatest incentive to adopt soyabeans was from the demonstration of the products that could be made from the crop. The products revealed the versatility of the crop in terms of the varied nature of the products that can be obtained from it. Through these products, soyabeans contributed directly to food security at the household level.

A product demonstration unit conducted one-day workshops for farmers in 2000 and 2001 to show the products that could be prepared from the beans. The trainees were also trained on how to remove the objectionable beanie flavour and in denaturing the trypsin inhibitor by boiling the beans for 30 minutes or roasting and de-hulling them. The products that were demonstrated include bread, milk, muffins, "pop corn", sadza, relish and coffee. Personnel from AREX or group representatives who had attended the utilization course elsewhere conducted the training. One-day training workshops were held within the villages. Mostly women farmers attended the training workshops as they are directly interested in enhancing their knowledge on the recipes. The knowledge of how to make the products strengthened the position of women in the households.

The product demonstration workshops proved to be the key to the adoption of soyabeans. All farmers who grow the crop indicated that they stored some for subsistence consumption. Farmers liked the products because of their taste and nutritional value. With 46% protein content, soyabeans is so nutritious that farmers have suggested that the high level of proteins in soyabeans have positive effects on the health of AIDS sufferers who consume it. The knowledge of the products that could be made from soyabeans created a local demand for the beans. Soyabean producers can now sell the beans to their neighbouring farmers for processing into food and/or seed. The price on the local market is much better than that at GMB. Farmers sell locally using 20 litre tins selling at $150,000 per tonne.

43

The products demonstrated at the training workshops can substitute for commodities that farmers were buying from the markets. Eighty percent of the soyabean producers attended some workshops at which utilization was demonstrated. The most preferred product from soyabeans is bread, followed by milk, coffee and relish. All farmers who have attended the processing courses have prepared bread in their homesteads. Soyabean popcorn, soyabean milk, coffee and relish have also been prepared. With the rate of inflation severely eroding incomes, soyabeans produced for subsistence consumption allows the households to make substantial financial savings while at the same time improving the nutritional status of their diets. If the farmers could solely rely on soyabeans for the commodities that they buy on a regular basis such as milk, bread and coffee, this could translate into huge savings in their budgets. With the availability of local demand for the crop, producers can also capitalize on the better prices in this market. Therefore, soyabeans production has increased the farmers’ income levels both directly and indirectly.

Cattle owners are also using the crop residues as livestock feed. The residues that remain after processing the beans can be used as chicken feed. Farmers realize that they benefit from residual soil fertility when they grow soyabeans.

Ranking of Uses of Soyabean

Hwedza FarmersThe evaluators took advantage of a meeting organised for the BNF project team, the

farmer representatives and agro-dealers to discuss the exit strategy of the project at Hwedza Inn. After the meeting, the evaluators pulled out a group of farmers for a focus group discussion on their perceptions of the impact of the BNF project. The evaluating team facilitated the farmers to carry out a pair wise ranking of their perceived benefits of the BNF project.

Results of the pair wise ranking exercise are presented in Table 4.1 3 and summarised in Table 4.34. The results indicate that the Hwedza BNF project participants thought that the promotion of soyabean production and processing by the BTZ sponsored project improved their welfare. The project ushered in food security, improvement in their nutrition and concomitantly, improvement in their health from consumption of soyabeans. This basket of benefits, related to the high protein content (46%) and high content of unsaturated oil, became available to the farmers when they were taught various ways of preparing products from soyabeans. All the five women in the focus group discussion had been trained, through the BNF project, in the preparation of soyabean into various products. The fact that soyabean could locally be processed into a number of products that the women can use in meal preparation was ranked equally with its value as food. In fact, it appeared that even thoughalthough the farmers came up with the two ranking criteria, they regarded them as being the same, hence the equal weights they were given.

Soyabean was also lauded for its capacity to bring income into smallholder farm households. The high price it was fetching on the local market made it the most lucrative crop available to smallholder farmers, they claimed. Therefore, they ranked the capacity of soyabean to bring income to the household equally with its contribution to food security, family nutrition and good health.

The residual effect of soyabean on soil fertility (nitrogen supply) is a result of its ability to fix nitrogen. This residual effect was ranked equally with the use of soyabean stover and beans for livestock feeding and the fact that soyabean was cheap to produce. The farmers indicated that soyabeans was inexpensive to produce as it required little fertiliser application. The crop did not need to be top-dressed with a nitrogenous fertiliser and only a little basal

44

fertiliser was required. Even thoughAlthough the costs of production was more of an rather an attribute of soyabeans, farmers considered as a benefit and insisted on keeping it among the criteria to be ranked.

Table 4.30.18 Results of a pair wise ranking exercise of benefits of soyabeans by project participants in Hwedza District

1 2 3 4 5 61. Food security, good

nutrition Xa 2b 1 1 1 1

2. Processed into various products X X 2 2 2 63. Improves soil fertility X X X 4 3 64. Livestock feed X X X X 5 65. Cheap to produce X X X X X 66. Generates income X X X X X XaX = Comparison not applicable; bNumber in box indicates the preferred benefit after comparison of two benefits.

Table 4.40.19 Summary of exercise to rank benefits of soyabeans by project participants in Hwedza District

Perceived Benefit Score RankingFood security, good nutrition and good health 4 1Ability to be processed into a number of products 4 1Generates income from sales 4 1Improves soil fertility 1 3Can used as livestock feed 1 3Cheap to produce 1 3

Gutsavana Garden Project Farmers The Gutsavana Garden project has a group mushroom house and some of the members of

the mushroom project produce soyabean and sweet potatoes. At a meeting between the members of the group and the evaluation team, the participants of the three projects were asked to use pair-wise ranking to indicate the project with the most impact on their livelihoods. The results are presented in Tables 4.4 5 and 4.56.

The Gutsavana group ranked the BNF Soyabean project as having the greatest impact on their livelihoods, followed by the Sweet Potato Project and lastly the mushroom project. The sentiments against the mushroom project arise from failure by the Gutsavana Mushroom group to receive any deliveries of spawn in the year 2002. This was despite their expressed interest and willingness to buy spawn whenever it was made available.

Table 0.20 Table 4.5 Results of pair wise ranking exercise of the importance of three projects as perceived by farmers

at Gutsavana Garden Project, Shava Areas, Buhera DistrictResults of pair wise ranking exercise of the importance of three projects as perceived by farmers at Gutsavana Garden Project, Shava Areas, Buhera District

1.Mushroom 2. Soyabean (BNF) 3. Sweet Potato 1. Mushroom X a 2 b 12. Soyabean (BNF) X X 2

45

3. Sweet Potato X X Xa X = Comparison not applicable; b Number in box indicates the preferred benefit after comparison of two benefits.

Table 4.60.21 Summary of ranking of the importance of three projects by project participants at Gutsavana Garden Project

Project Score Ranking

Soyabean (BNF) project 2 1

Sweet Potato project 1 2Mushroom Project 0 3

Since the Gutsavana project participants had ranked the soyabean project as the most important in terms of impact to their livelihoods, they were facilitated to use simple ranking of the benefits of the soyabean project to their livelihoods. Farmers were first asked to list the benefits they perceived from soyabeans. The Gutsavana project participants used twenty-four stones to rank six perceived benefits of the BNF soyabean project (Table 4.57).

Table 4.70.22 Simple ranking of perceived benefits of soyabean by the Gutsavana project participants

Perceived benefit Score RankingFood security and many nutritious

products (7) 1

Generates high income (6) 2Leaves residual nitrogen in the soil (5) 3Requires little inputs (3) 4Livestock feed (1) 5Resistant to weevils, does not rot in storage (0) 6

The ranking conforms to the patterns of other groups. Soyabean was particularly valued as a source of quality food that can be consumed as a number of soyabean products. The high capacity to generate income and the ability to leave residual fertility for the next crop were ranked second and third most important, respectively. Soyabean was also cited for being a low input crop and for its alternative uses as a stock-feed. Resistance to weevils, while being an attribute of soyabeans, was considered a benefit. However, it was ranked the least important.

Murambinda Sweet Potato Pilot NurseryA group of male farmers attending a BNF workshop at Murambinda ranked the order of

importance of uses and attributes of soyabeans to their households as shown in Table 4.78. The processing of soyabeans into food products is more important compared to its use as a cash crop. This order of ranking these two benefits was consistent throughout the survey.

Table 4.80.23 Rank of soyabean uses and attributes by Murambinda males farmers.

46

Use Rank

FoodIncomeResidual fertilityLow production costs Retained seed can be usedLivestock feed

123456

4.1.1 Advantages of Soyabeans

Farmers indicated that the area planted to soyabeans on the farm was increased at the expense of the area planted under maize. In Hwedza, soyabeans were being rotated on a one-to-one basis with maize. Hitherto, farmers have been unable to effectively practice crop rotation due to over dependence on maize. With the escalating prices of fertilisers, farmers were finding it unviable to produce maize for sale. Soyabeans, which does not require too much chemical fertilizer, presents an attractive alternative. Therefore, the inclusion of soyabeans by smallholder farmers could result in improved earnings and a more sustainable farming system. Results of interviews with farmers indicate that soyabean adopters in Buhera were planting an average of 0.6 hectares of soyabeans per farm. Some farmers were also increasing soyabean production while reducing the area under groundnuts and bambaranuts. Farmers in Zvichanaka Chete Group in Masasa, Buhera indicated that they no longer had any groundnut seed due to the crop failure during the drought. The group envisaged that by producing soyabeans, which has many uses at household level, they could compensate for the loss of groundnut planting material. Members of the Nhamo Yechingwa Yapera Group in Buhera indicated that they were also replacing pearl millet with soyabeans. Soyabeans have a number of advantages, particularly when compared to maize, its closest competitor in Hwedza. In the first place, the returns from the production of soyabeans are much higher than from maize. In 2001 season, soyabeans were being sold locally for $70,000 per tonne. The local price firmed to $150,000 per tonne in 2002 due to the shortage on the local market and the rate of inflation. The local market will remain firm as long as the majority of the farmers are not growing soyabeans. Given the trend in the adoption patterns, this will not be for very long. Fortunately, of late the official market has been offering a favourable price for soyabeans. In 2002, the official market price of soyabeans was $90,000 compared to $28,000 per tonne for maize. Olivine Industries, the major industrial buyer of soyabeans, has excess demand. Given the restructuring currently taking place due to the land reform program, communal area farmers will be expected to fill part of the void created by the departure of the large-scale commercial farmers. In general, production of soyabeans requires less labour than for maize. The crop forms a canopy that can overshadow weeds within three to four weeks. Therefore, only one weeding operation is required. Soyabeans has the advantage that farmers do not have to purchase fresh seed every season. It has been suggested that they could use the same seed for three seasons before buying new one. The use of hybrid seed in maize makes it necessary for farmers to buy planting seed every season. The products that can be processed from maize are rather limited compared to those of soyabeans. The products from maize do not substitute for products that farmers would have

47

bought from the markets. The products from soyabeans are substitutes for products that farmers would need to buy on the market, e.g., milk, bread, coffee. Therefore, by growing soyabeans, farmers can also save their meagre financial resources. The soyabean crop is unique in that it fits very well in the activity plan of the farmers. Its planting can be delayed until middle of December, when other crops have been planted. Delayed planting is preferred as it makes the crop mature towards the end of the season and its seed will not germinate. Its demand for farmers' resources is low. Labour required for weeding is low, which allows the farmers to attend to other activities on the farm. Farmers grow the crop without adding chemical fertilizers. They use rhizobium inoculant, which only costs $400 per hectare. This makes soyabeans very compatible with the farming system of resource poor smallholder farmers in Hwedza and Buhera districts. 4.1.2 Limitations to Adoption of soyabeans

Farmers might fail to adopt soyabean production because of the small size of their fields. The average size of arable land for the interviewed farmers was three hectares. Seventy seven percent of the soyabean growers reduced the area planted to maize to accommodate soyabeans on their farms. In 70% of the cases, the area under maize was reduced by the same margin as the increase soyabean production. However, since soyabeans has many uses on the farm, the reduction in area planted to maize to accommodate soyabeans should enhance the food security and income status of the farmers, rather than undermine it. The UZ team supplied seed for the trials using project funds. The team continued to source seed when the trials had creased. This seed was sold to adopters. However, farmers felt that the seed was supplied late. The late deliveries of seed mean that farmers could not effectively plan their farming of soyabeans. Soyabeans had to be included into the farming program at the very last minute. Delayed seed deliveries might force farmers to go into activities that are less attractive than soyabeans. By November of 2002 farmers had not been informed in good time that the previous arrangement, were they accessed seed through their group leaders, was no longer possible. Therefore, farmers knew that they had to purchase seed from other sources when it was late. The proposition to deliver seed through agro-dealers was noble but was conceived late. In the first place, the agro-dealers still needed to be trained on handling the input scheme. The evaluating team managed to speak to some agro-dealers who attended the BNF exit strategy formulation workshops. It was evident that the agro-dealers were not aware of the functions expected of them. The expectation of the UZ team was that the agro-dealers would determine the demand for soyabeans seed and inoculant in their locality. However, the agro-dealers expected to act as conduits of inputs between the UZ team and the farmers, whereby the UZ team would deliver the inputs to the agro-dealers’ doorsteps, which the agro-dealers would sell on commission. This would imply that the UZ teams would have had to remain involved in inputs procurement. It is doubtful that they will be able to sell the inoculants while they are viable. The fear is that the agro-dealers, driven by the need to make profit, could sell the inoculant even when it was not viable. In any case, they might not know that they were selling rhizobium inoculant that was no longer viable. This would destroy the gains made through the project.

The demand for demonstration trials is strong in other locations in the two districts. However, after the project termination, AREX will be expected to take the burden of running the demonstrations. The AREX budget is very limited and might not be able to take the soyabeans

48

demonstrations to the desired extent. Already indications are that no demonstrations are planned for the 2002/2003 season. Demonstrations need to be continued. We recommend that BTZ, through Mr Rufu, could facilitate EWs to conduct demonstrations. Some farmers have experienced problems when planting soyabeans. Soyabeans have to be planted in moist soil conditions. These conditions might prevail when the inputs are not available. To ensure that planting occurs when the soil is moist, adequate labour has to be available on the day of planting.

4.2 Training and Technology Extension

Farmers were trained on the use of rhizobium inoculant, including the knowledge of where to buy it. Farmer training was mainly conducted through the field days held at trial sites and through the soyabeans processing and utilization workshops. More than 90% of the soyabean growers attended either a field day or some kind of training in soyabean production. Those who attended field days indicated that these field days were instrumental in their adoption of the crop. One-day processing and utilization training workshops were conducted throughout the two districts. Farmers were handed pamphlets on the production of soyabeans at field days and manuals on the preparation of the food products were handed out at utilization training workshops. The training that farmers received on soyabeans production, processing and utilization empowered them to impart their knowledge within the communities. Soyabean producers indicated that they often trained other farmers on various aspects of the crop. Other farmers have approached 70% of the producers for training and information on soyabean production. On average, each producer advised 11 other farmers. This means that, over time, the training that was given to the farmers is going to have a huge multiplier effect. In Masasa, the leader of the local group indicated that his group had led to the formation of about 100 groups. Although the number might have been an exaggeration, other members concurred that many groups had been formed. The leader takes time to disseminate information about issues related to the soyabean crop at meeting held within the ward.

The growing of soyabeans has spilled over to non-project members. This is probably a reflection of the effectiveness of the field days conducted in the project. Farmers also heard about the crop from their neighbours who either were in the soyabean project or had attended field days. Interest in the crop was stimulated when farmers tasted the products of the crop. For instance, Mrs Muchetu in Buhera District heard about the crop from a friend who was a member of the soyabean group. Mrs Chagonda tasted soyabean bread that a friend had prepared. Subsequently, Mrs Chagonda requested to be paid with soyabeans after working as a casual worker for a farmer who had soyabeans. During the field days on soyabeans, non-members also benefited, as knowledge was not restricted to members of the core soyabeans group. Non-project members benefited from the knowledge on the agronomy of soyabean production such as planting depth, row spacing, and use of rhizobium. Farmers were also aware that they could have planted retained seed but could not practice this as they lost the seed during the 2001/02 drought. The need food following the drought meant that they could not buy fresh seed in 2002/02 season even though the seed was available on the market.

49

The project also facilitated training on the academic front. A student completed studies for a Masters of Philosophy degree through the BNF projects.

4.3 Socio-economic Issues

4.3.1 Impact Project on Extension Services

The extension activities of AREX officers were facilitated through their participation in the BNF project. Carrying out demonstration trials and the accompanying field days are routine activities in their normal duties. Therefore, the project provided them resources to effectively conduct their mandate. When carrying out BNF project related activities, funding for travel and subsistence allowances for the EWs was provided by the project. In some cases, the superiors of the EWs did not submit the claim forms resulting in the delays in payment. Consequently, travel and subsistence allowances were paid very late, thus lowering the morale of the EWs. The project benefited the EWs as they were able to recap on the theory and practice of soyabeans production, which they had last done while undergoing training. They also benefited by receiving pamphlets on soyabean production and on disease identification, which would be used for future reference. However, extension workers experienced a few problems associated with the BNF project. In Buhera district, the first problem was that of poor communication between the stakeholders, particularly researchers and the EWs. In some instances, the researchers would visit the demonstration sites on their own without taking the EWs with them. According to the EWs, this often resulted in the EWs and researchers taking contrasting messages to the farmers. Therefore, the farmers would be confused and EWs feared that the farmers would lose confidence in them. EWs in Hwedza complained that regardless of their participation in the various courses organized through the BNF project, they did not receive any certificates for the effort. They alleged that such a scenario was demoralising. EWs were awarded certificates for the courses that they attended in the mushroom project.

4.3.2 Sustainability of the Project Activities

The promotion of soyabean production has been incorporated into mainstream activities of the AREX EWs in Buhera and Hwedza. In Buhera, EWs now include a section on soyabeans in their fortnightly report. This development will ensure, in part, that the promotion of the crop continues even when the project has been terminated. However, due to the limited resources in AREX, EWs need to be supported financially to continue organising farmers to run demonstrations. Farmers felt that soyabean co-ordinating committees in the locality would survive even after the project has terminated. If this were to happen, the groups could organise farmers to purchase seed and rhizobium inoculant, and to marketing the produce. EWs and BTZ (through the field team) should give moral and financial support to ensure that these groups are strengthened.

The lack of a mechanism through which farmers can access soyabean production inputs threatens the sustainability of the project activities. In 2002/02 agro-dealers were not used for supplying inputs, yet the project was ending. Rhizobium inoculant was being sold from AREX

50

district offices, which are very far from most farmers. The project researchers struggled to ensure that farmers had access to planting seed. However, these efforts saw seed being sold through unorthodox ways such as from the PI’s truck after a workshop to formulate an exit strategy formulation workshop. It is therefore clear that once the teams pullsteam pulls out of the area in 2003, farmers might not know where to purchase inputs. This will be detrimental to the sustainability of soyabean production. No marketing channel has been put in place for farmers, other that the GMB, which farmers consider unattractive. All along farmers had been supplying to the UZ team who would sell to Olivine Industries, which only accepts deliveries of 15 tonnes or more. Farmers will have to organize themselves into groups if they are going to sell through Olivine Industries. This will take time, and in the mean time, producers might lose interest in soyabean production.

Some farmers indicated that they were in the process of setting up local associations of soyabean growers. The farmers hope that such associations, when fully fledged, would allow the farmers to negotiate with the oil expressers such as Olivine and Lever Brothers for them to deliver directly to the companies. In any case, the associations will be affiliated to the Soyabean and Sunflower Development Trust that is in the process of being formed. In fact, the formation of the trust was, largely, a result of the activities undertaken during the BNF project. The trust will organise farmers into local associations and will ensure that farmers have access to production inputs, loans, viable producer prices and markets. The model that is being followed is similar to what has happened with the Farmer Development Trust (FDT) that was formed specifically to promote production of flue-cured tobacco in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe. The FDT runs training centres where farmers are trained in the production of flue cured tobacco and is charged with raising money from the government and non-governmental organisations for providing farmers with seasonal and long-term loans. The trust promotes the production of the tobacco and advocates for the interests of the growers, including foreign currency retention schemes that ensure the viability of the farmers. Like the FDT, the proposed soyabean and sunflower Development Trust will have a chief executive and a plethora of workers including agronomists, trainers and other administrators. The team will inherit the day-to-day work that the Soyabean Promotion Taskforce did on an ad-hoc basis. If this could happen overnight, such efforts could result in the sustainability of soyabean production.

At the timetime, the evaluators interviewed the Principal Investigator of the BNF/soyabean project, Professor S. Mpepereki, the Soyabean and Sunflower Development Trust had not yet been formed. It is the considered view of the evaluators that it will take considerable time for the deed of trust to be signed and national structures like the Board of Trustees to be appointed. It will take even longer for provincial and district structures to be ready. The Soyabean and Sunflower Development Trust could take at least two seasons for its tentacles to finally spread to the districts like Hwedza and Buhera and for the resident farmers to benefit from its activities. Therefore, there cannot be a smooth transition between the termination of the BNF project and the establishment of the trust. A vacuum will be created in the interim. To fill the void, BTZ and the field officer, Mr Rufu, could convince the seed companies about the viability of the market for soyabean seed. The seed houses would then make seed readily available to the farmers. It is also incumbent on BTZ and Mr Rufu, to facilitate contacts between farmers and private companies that buy soyabeans.

Institutional Linkages

51

The evaluators took advantage of a BNF exit strategy meeting at Hwedza growth point to interview extension workers and farmers on their perceptions of the contribution of the BNF project on farmers and different stakeholder institutions. Figure 4.1 presents the farmers perceptions. The size of the circle depicts the relative importance of the institution while the distance of the circle from that of the BNF project farmers reflects the closeness of the institution to the farmers. Arrows were used for showing the direction in which communication flowed between stakeholder institutions themselves and between the institutions and the project farmers.

The conversation that ensued as farmers came to a consensus on the proximity and size of each organisation, involved in the BNF project in Hwedza, was recorded. This allowed the evaluators to get an insight of the farmer’s perceptions of visibility and importance of the organisations to the project.

The UZ-BNF project team was deemed the most important organisation because it introduced soyabeans in the Hwedza area by conducting demonstrations and trials that showed the benefits of growing soyabeans with rhizobial inoculation. The UZ team was said to have carried out training of farmers and extension personnel in soyabean agronomy, rhizobial inoculation and soyabean processing and utilisation. The UZ-BNF team was always in the area and therefore was deemed as having been reasonably available to support project activities to the satisfaction of farmers.

BNF PROJECT FARMER

S

DCC

52

Figure 4.4 Venn diagram of organisations involved in the BNF project as drawn by Hwedza farmers during focus group discussions

Figure 0.5 Venn diagram of organisations involved in the BNF project as drawn by Hwedza farmers during focus group discussions

The conversation that ensued as farmers came to a consensus on the proximity and size of each organisation, involved in the BNF project in Hwedza, was recorded. This allowed the evaluators to get an insight of the farmer’s perceptions of visibility and importance of the organisations to the project.

The UZ-BNF project team was deemed the most important organisation because it introduced soyabeans in the Hwedza area by conducting demonstrations and trials that showed the benefits of growing soyabeans with rhizobial inoculation. The UZ team was said to have carried out training of farmers and extension personnel in soyabean agronomy, rhizobial inoculation and soyabean processing and utilisation. The UZ-BNF team was always in the area and therefore was deemed as having been reasonably available to support project activities to the satisfaction of farmers.

Farmers considered BTZ to be the second most important player in the BNF project in Hwedza. Farmers were aware that BTZ was the sponsor of the BNF project and therefore provided all resources that supported the BNF project activities. As a resultTherefore, farmers called BTZ the "mother body". BTZ was also cited for its role in building capacity of project participants by organising training courses in Business Management and Leadership, and Training for Transformation. They were also cited for organising exchange visits for project participants. However, unlike with its sweet potato farmers, the visibility of BTZ to the farmers was assessed to be less than that of the UZ-BNF team, regardless of the fact that they both considered BTZ as the mother body, “zimai racho”.

AREX provided linkages between the UZ and BTZ. The extension workers trained farmers in soyabean agronomy and rhizobia technology in conjunction with the UZ-BNF team. The project participants placed AREX closer to them owing to the fact that its personnel reside in the area and are readily available to advise and lead farmers.

UZ PROJECT

TEAM

AREA

BTZ

53

The District Co-ordination Committee was deemed closest to the farmers but had the least role, according to their perception, compared to other organisations. It was cited as a farmers' representative body, which acted as a conduit of information between the farmers and BTZ, AREX and UZ BNF team.

Input Procurement and Produce Marketing

Access to Production Inputs

Following the successful development of the soyabeans production technology in on-farm trials, limited supply of inputs was identified as a bottleneck to potential adoption of the crop. To alleviate this shortcoming, in 2000/01 season the UZ researchers obtained cash advance from BTZ for purchasing inputs for resale to farmers in Hwedza and Buhera districts. The advance was supposed to be a revolving fund. The project PI sourced the inputs in bulk and re-packed them before distribution. The contents of the package are given in Table 4.9. Inputs were provided as a package for 0.05 ha. There was a low recovery rate of the loans. In 2001/02 the project obtained another loan for soyabeans input procurement from Olivine Industries. However, the season was a drought and again farmers failed to repay the loans. The failure to recover the loans was partly due to the poor selection of the farmers who obtained the input loans.

Table 4.90.24 Inputs contained in the credit package given during the BNF Project

Input QuantitySeedRhizobium InoculantCompound LLime

5 kg100 g5 kg 50 kg

The inputs were delivered to farmer leaders and agro-dealers that would distribute to interested farmers. As some farmers did not have the cash to purchase the inputs, farmers were given the option of either purchasing the inputs for cash or on credit. Input loans were supposed to be repaid after marketing the crop. This arrangement proved to be one of the weaknesses of the project as the repayment system encountered problems. The BNF team indicated that some farmers who had received inputs on credit marketed their soyabeans through "unofficial channels" to evade repaying the loans. There were weaknesses in the mechanisms for collecting repayments. The major players were the agro-dealers, the farmers and the project personnel from BNF team. The inputs were brought late so that the BNF team did not have adequate time to identify the potential local level input distributors. Consequently, people without good records of accomplishment were contracted as agro-dealers to distribute the inputs. While some of the distributors were farmers, others were farmer leaders and general dealers who had no previous experience dealing with customers in this manner. In some instances, the BNF team did not collect the money that farmers had repaid to the their local leaders. In Masasa Area in Buhera District, farmers indicated that the local leader was still keeping money that they had paid to him. The BNF team had not visited to collect the money because of the poor state of the road to Masasa. These weaknesses were taken advantage of by the players in the input credit scheme so that the overall rate of loan recoveringy loans rate was low. During the survey, farmers were enthusiastic to grow the crop. The keenness suggests that there was no need to provide loans to stimulate the adoption of the crop as long as the products had been demonstrated. It is critical that

54

inputs are made readily available in time and the marketing channels for seeds and inoculant are indicated to all farmers. Evidence on the ground is that availability of seed is very thin. The shortage of seed was aggravated by the drought experienced in 2001/02 season. This meant that most farmers did no retain any seed as they normally do. In Hwedza, farmers are expected to use 60% retained seed on the 2000 ha they plant and the rest would be fresh seed. In Buhera some farmers had even purchased the inoculant although the seed had not been delivered. The farmers do not have refrigerators so that the inoculant was likely to lose viability before being applied. Late delivery of seed has been experienced in the last three seasons. This has frustrated the producers to some extent. The project had made no tangible arrangements for availing seed to the farmers on a permanent basis. No communication had been made with the local representative of Seedco to ensure that the company supplied adequate quantities of seed to the areas. The project PI obtained inputs more on personal trust rather that on an institutional basis. Indications were that there was a shortage of seed at Seedco in 2002. Consequently, the company had decided to supply seed on a cash basis, thus severely limiting the ability of the project to source seed for the farmers. Even though Olivine Industries was willing to provide another loan for procuring seed, they wanted part of the loan they made out in the 2001/02 season to be repaid before they could make out another loan. With the project team maintaining that the loan repayment was low, availability of further support from Olivine industries was curtailed. The current arrangements for seed procurement are unlikely to result in a sustainable supply of seed. Until November 2002, seed distribution channels had not yet been worked out. Besides, the seed was being delivered in 25 kg pockets costing Z$4,800. Most farmers required smaller quantities of seed as they only to grow a crop that will enable them to retain adequate seed for use in the following season. They would have to look for other farmers to share the pocket.Given the drought experienced during the 2001/2002 season most farmers did not get much income from the crop. Therefore, in the 2002/2003 season, a significant proportion of the farmers will not be able to pay cash for the crop. These farmers would benefit from an initial loan injection to kick-start adoption of soyabean production again. Currently, the inoculant is being stored at AREX district offices at Hwedza and at the offices of the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) at Murambinda Growth Points under the direct responsibility of AREX officers. The AREX office at Murambinda does not have a fridge, hence the use of the fridge at the offices of the DVS. The DAEO of Hwedza indicated that government policy was against civil servants carrying large sums of money. Therefore, they have to buy small quantities of the inoculant at a time and have to replenish inoculant stocks regularly to ensure continuity of supply. Farmers were increasingly becoming aware of the availability of the rhizobium inoculant at the AREX offices. The only shortcoming of the current arrangement is that farmers have to travel distances of up to 60 km to access the inoculant. This is not viable nor is it necessary given that EWs travel to their district offices at least once a fortnight. EWs are located at ward level meaning that they are within walking distance from most farmers in the ward. The EWs could transport the inoculant to their wards for farmers who would have paid for it. However, some small cooler boxes would be needed for transporting the inoculant and for storage of the inoculant, for a day or two, before farmers collect it from the EWs. Mr. Rufu, the BTZ sweet potato project field manager to the sweet potato project, could also provide a link between the inoculant factory and the district office. He would to ensure that adequate stocks were are maintained during the season and to augment the effort of the DAEOs in collecting inoculant from Marondera. To try to ensure the sustainability of the provision of inputs to soyabean growers, the BNF project tried to engage agro-dealers to purchase seed from the seed companies for selling to the growers. The agro-dealers received training on various aspects of doing business as part of

55

the project activities. Little evidence exists to show that the agro-dealers are ready to take on this responsibility. During meetings with members of the BNF team, the agro-dealers suggested that they were capable of supplying the soyabeans seed under two possible arrangements. as long as the Either, farmers would payid for the inputs in advance or the seed wcould be supplied to tthe agro-dealers agro-dealers who towould sell on commission. Either of theBoth suggestions would simply make the agro-dealers conduits between farmers and seed companies, thus defeating the purpose of their presence.

Marketing of Soyabeans

In 2001, some 50% of soyabean producers sold their soyabean crop to other farmers for use as food and/or seed. The same percentage sold soyabeans through the BNF project. More sales occurred in 2001that in 2001/02 due to the drought experienced in the 2001/2002 season. In 2002, only 30% of the farmers managed to sell small quantities to other farmers. The lack of a reliable marketing channel was given as one of the major bottlenecks to the soyabeans production of soyabeans

5.

MUSHROOM PROJECT

5.1 Introduction

Researchers at the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) initiated the mushroom project with BTZ financial support in 1998. In the same year the project was introduced to AREX staff in Hwedza and Buhera districts. On the ground, project activities started one year later in 1999. The objective of the project was to improve the nutritional base and income of resource poor farmers through the cultivation and sale of tropical mushroom in Buhera and Hwedza districts. In addition, the project sought to create employment, and develop awareness and need to recycle agricultural waste materials and by-products. Personnel from Biological Sciences Department of UZ and Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI) of SIRDC conducted the project jointly.

5.2 On-farm Participatory Trials

The mushroom project started by working with 12 groups, six in each district. Considering the limited resource level of smallholder farmers, individual farmers would not afford to develop a mushroom house for experimental purposes. Groups of farmers hosted the houses to minimize the risk of loss due to project failure by spreading the financial and manpower burden among many people. Groups allowed farmers to pool resources for starting the projects. In each district, AREX personnel identified six mushroom experimental sites where groups already existed. In Buhera, selected sites were along the highway. Two of the groups were already involved in

56

vegetable production. Each member of the vegetable project worked on an individual vegetable plot within a larger garden.

Meetings were held at which the intention of the project, which was to investigate ideal mushroom growing conditions under smallholder farming conditions, were presented to farmers. The types and attributes of mushrooms that grow naturally in the areas were also identified during the meetings.

The process of selecting a house design was done in a participatory manner. Farmers and researchers met initially to discuss the various types of houses developed through past research. The 6 m x 8 m size of mushroom houses was selected. The flat roof, which is cheaper than the gable, was selected. The project supplied the groups with some material such as locally molded bricks, cement and funds for paying the builder towards the construction of the houses. Making the farmers contribute to the materials required on the mushroom house made them feel responsible for the project.

The farmer groups managed the trials designed by the researchers. Initially the project brought plastic bags in which the substrate and spawn had already been mixed and was ready to be put in the houses. Eventually farmers were introduced to different aspects of mushroom production such as sterilization of the substrate, mixing of the substrate and spawn and creating the correct conditions in the mushroom house. Farmers also recorded the data that was required for evaluating the performance of the different spawn strains that the project supplied during the experimental phase. The white and brown oysters types were evaluated. Farmers felt that the white oyster was heavier than the brown. Nevertheless, some farmers preferred the brown since it performed better in other times of the year.

Polythene bags of different colours, i.e., clear or black, were evaluated. Adopters are widely using black pockets. The different materials that farmers could use as substrate were also evaluated on-farm. These included banana leaves, "Gonja" grass, wheat straw, maize stalks, and groundnut shells and residues. Banana leaves produced the highest mushroom yield. The spawn lines were evaluated under the conditions that small-scale mushroom production is carried out. A line that is ideal under the smallholder conditions was selected. UZ has continued to assess other substrates. The team indicated that recently they had been impressed the performance of substrate made from maize cobs. Samples of the new substrate have been supplied to farmers for further evaluation.

Research determined the ideal conditions for mushroom production in the houses that smallholder farmers use. Ideally, the mushroom house should always have enough water applied to maintain a humidity of at least 90%. To meet this requirement, the mushroom houses have to be sited as close to the water source a possible. Temperatures need to be regulated around 25 oC to ensure germination and 20-22oC during the fruiting period. A paper on the ideal conditions for mushroom production conditions was published in Biotechnology, September 2002.

The research results were site specific. However, in general mushrooms start being produced 5-6 weeks after spawning the substrate. Mushrooms would then be harvested from the same bags for another 6-8 weeks. It has also been established that a one-metre bag produced 10 kg of fresh mushroom.

Field days were held as part of the project activities. However, due to the difficulty of pinpointing the time when the most mushroom would have been produced, it was difficult to determine when to hold the field days and call for field days well in advance. Only one mushroom field day was held in Buhera.

57

Both UZ and BRI have proposed to construct mushroom houses in which to conduct controlled experiments at their station sites. The mushroom house at BRI is nearing completion while UZ will remodel an old building. These mushroom houses are supposed to simulate the type of environmental conditions under which small-scale mushroom production is carried out in Hwedza and Buhera districts. Experiments conducted in these houses are expected to quantify the economic benefits accruing from mushroom production. Experiments to test the efficiency of different spawn types will also be conducted. Since farmers have progressed from the experimental phase to the commercial production of mushrooms, the mushroom houses in the project area can no longer be used for experimental purposes, hence the need for the mushroom houses at BRI and UZ. It is commendable that experiments are set to continue under in conditions that simulate conditions found in smallholder farmers’ mushroom houses.

5.3 Impact of the Project

5.3.1 Benefits on primary beneficiaries

The project successfully introduced mushroom production under smallholder conditions. Mushroom production is being widely adopted beyond the members who were the original participants in the project. Mushrooms have high protein content such that its introduction ensures that farmers, i.e., mushroom producers and non-producers have easy access to food of high protein content within the village. Producers reported that their households consumed about a quarter of the mushroom they produced. Therefore, the project improved household food security.

The production of mushroom has an income benefit. The income realized from mushrooms is greater for owners of mushroom houses operating individually than those working as groups. Individual owners indicated that mushroom production generated a significant level of supplementary income. Farmers indicated the money they made by recalling from memory, as they did not have the books at the mushroom houses. Indications are that the revenue from the mushroom production has been low. Survey results indicate that in 2001 and 2002, farmers with individual mushroom houses had gross revenue of $3000 and $6000, respectively. Therefore, even thoughalthough the gross revenues are low, they are increasing. The Mvurachena Group paid out a total of $600 to each member over its lifetime. Some of the members had to pool back their first share of $400 in order to reconstitute another mushroom group, so that the existing members have effectively only received $200 from the project. Mrs Mashonganyika, who owns a mushroom house individually, has sold mushrooms worth $12,310 between September 2002 and January 2003. Mrs Zinzombe had sold mushrooms worth $13,050 and had the highest value of sales. She had the advantage that she has access to buyers at Hwedza Growth Point so that she could raise her prices. Regardless of the income from the mushroom production being low, the producers were satisfied with the revenue they were getting.

In addition, mushroom production is a new and additional activity on the farm. The increase in the number and diversity of income generating activities undertaken on the farm means that farmers’ incomes become more stable than when they depend on few options. However, when mushroom producers work as a large group, very little income accrues to individual members of the group.

The mushroom production technology uses locally available resources. Locally available resources that would otherwise not have been used for any economic benefits are used for making the substrates. Resources such as banana leaves are often left to rot in wetland gardens or

58

vegetable gardens. These gardens are common in the smallholder farming systems found in Buhera and Hwedza. The UZ team is also researching on the use of maize cobs as a substrate. Maize cobs become relatively abundant on the farm after maize harvesting. Therefore, biomass that would otherwise not be used to improve the welfare of the farmers is put to good use.

The Mvurachena Mushroom Project team was facilitated to use simple ranking to show their perception of the importance of benefits or outcomes of the project to their livelihoods. The results of the ranking exercise are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.10.25 Simple ranking of perceived project outcomes in order of importance to project participant livelihoods by members of the Mvurachena Mushroom Project

Perceived Benefits Score RankingKnowledge of mushroom production (6) 1Income generation (5) 2Easy availability of nutritious food (4) 3Improvement heart and high blood pressure medical conditions

(3) 4

Equipment and buildings donated to the group (2) 5

The Mushroom project members placed the most value on the knowledge on mushroom production they gained through attendance of training sessions attended away from the project site and and in-situ training at their project site. Income generation from the sale of mushroom was ranked as the second most important benefit. Easy availability of nutritious food (popularly known as meat substitute) and improvement in health were cited as the third and forth ranked benefits. The farmers also acknowledged the important role played by BTZ in putting up the necessary infrastructure (mushroom house) in purchasing of consumables (spawn, plastic tubes). Producers interviewed during the evaluation exercise compared the benefits and problems of mushroom production (Table 5.2). The major problem for producers was that of death of pinheads during the dry season. What was more worrisome for them was that the pinheads still die even when they follow all the recommended practices.

Table 5.20.26 Comparison of advantages and problems of mushroom production.

Benefits from mushroom production Problems of producing mushroomso Easy to produceo Allows more effective use of timeo Has a local marketo Generates quick returns, not

expensiveo Easy to manageo Allows use of all biomass on the farm

o Poor yields during the dry seasono Dead pinheads in dry seasono Losses is spawn does not germinateo Drying up after following all

recommendationso Not understanding what sis going on

in the mushroom bago Shortage of grass for making

substrate

59

Twelve mushroom houses were constructed with the assistance of the project. Although the roofs on some of the houses collapsed, they can still be renovated in future for production of mushrooms. Currently, adopters have tended to construct smaller houses than the original designs. They will be able to use the larger houses when they gain experience. Some 90% of the mushroom producers indicated that they intended to extend their scale of mushroom production. On average, they were going to increase the scale of production by 90%. The original project houses could be brought into use at some point in future.

5.3.2 Institutional Benefits

A spawn line ideal for the smallholder production conditions was identified. The line is now produced in bulk for marketing in the rural area. UZ and BRI each received an autoclave for producing the spawn. UZ is poised to go into income generation by producing spawn and training adopters in mushroom production, for a fee. While the mushroom houses that the two collaborating institutions are constructing are to be used primarily for research, they could also be used for production mushroom for generating income. Construction of the mushroom house at BRI was nearing completion at the end of January 2003. The UZ team indicated that they were going to remodel a building in their department to make a mushroom house. However, it was of concern that the work to remodel the building had not yet been started.

The members of these departments gained valuable experience of conducting participatory research in the smallholder farming areas. The team is likely to find the knowledge useful in other work they might conduct in the smallholder-farming sector. EWs and farmers were trained in the production of mushroom. This training is not being used for training new adopters. Therefore, the manner in which the project was implemented ensured that sufficient expertise remains in the communities.

The project contributed on the academic front through research projects by undergraduates, scientific papers and posters (Appendix VIII). Eighteen undergraduate students worked on various projects derived from the project. However, only eight of the project titles are presented. Several papers are still in preparation. In addition, Mr. C. Kashangura successfully conducted research for his MPhil, which he has decided to upgrade to a D.Phil.

Further work by C. Kashangura for his D Phil studies include studies on the interactions of environmental factors (temperature and pH) and characterisation of Pleurotus species by biotechnological techniques. The suggested disseration in a thesis titled is "Genetic characterisation and optimisation of the growth conditions for Pleurotus species".

5.4 Training in Mushroom Production

The training component was very strong in the mushroom project. Farmers participating in the project were trained in mushroom production, business management and leadership. Twelve EWs, comprising six from each district, were trained in mushroom production at UZ. The trainees were awarded certificates, which, according to the EWs, boosted their morale. The only problem was that farmer leaders were trained earlier than the EWs. As EWs had not received any training in mushroom production, while undergoing agricultural training nor during their tenure in AREX, they had little knowledge on mushroom production before undergoing this training. Therefore, at some point during the implementation of the project, farmer leaders were more

60

knowledgeable in mushroom production than the EWs. This state of affairs could easily undermine the credibility of the EWs.

Two farmers per project site were selected to undergo the training-for-trainer course. The 12 farmers, all women, who went through the training-for-trainers courses, are training other farmers in mushroom production.

Six groups of potential adopters were trained in each district. Each group was made up of 10-11 members and was joined by another 10-20 farmers from the neighbourhood. The training, conducted over two days at each site, covered the theoretical and practical aspects of mushroom production. Already the adopters have started producing mushrooms. Even after these training sessions, demand for training in mushroom production is high. Fortunately, the investment that the project made in training farmers and EWs is beginning to pay dividends through increased rates of adoption. In Hwedza, four groups are waiting to be trained by the EWs in mushroom production. To address this problem, we recommend that more EWs undergo the training-for-trainers course.

The impact of the training could have been higher had the project trained more EWs. Only six EWs from the district were trained on mushroom production, many wards have EWs who have not been trained. EWs who have not been trained have to invite their trained counterparts to run training courses in mushroom production for their farmers. Given that the number of EWs with knowledge on mushroom production is small, farmer producers do not receive technical advice on problems they faced in the mushroom houses can not be delivered in time. For example, a pair of two women, i.e., Mrs. Musarurwa and Mrs. Chimbo, who are producing mushrooms at Hwedza Growth Point, went for more than a month before getting advice on poor germination. Such a situation can make producers despair. With time, the untrained EWs should be able to learn from their colleagues. To date the project has produced a manual for distributing to farmers. However, this manual could not be evaluated during the evaluation of the project.

During the implementation of the project, besides the training on mushroom production and training for transformation, BTZ also organized courses to strengthen the business and management skills of project participants. The evaluation team facilitated the members of the Mvurachena mushroom project to indicate their perception of the importance of the various courses. Table 5.3 presents results of a ranking exercise of the BTZ sponsored courses.

Table 5.30.27 Simple ranking of perceived importance of courses sponsored by BTZ by participants in the Mvurachena Mushroom project.

Course Score RankingMushroom Production (7) 1Business Management and Leadership (5) 2Training of Trainers for Mushroom Production (2) 3

Predictably, the Mvurachena Mushroom group valued most the course directly related to their sphere of activity, i.e., Mushroom Production. Placed second was Business Management and Leadership and lastly the Training of Trainers course in mushroom production. Testimonies by participants from other groups, although not subjected to ranking exercises, indicated that the participants placed greatest importance on the training in mushroom production.

All mushroom groups indicated that they had recorded of all the activities they conducted in the mushroom house in accordance with the training on Business Management and

61

Leadership, which they had undergone. Since most of them were visited for evaluation interviews without notice, they did not have the records to show how their business was performing.

5.5 Socio-economic Issues

5.5.1 Sustainability of Project Activities

Until 2000, the project only worked with farmer groups. The project trained 10 EWs, five per district, who could then train farmers in mushroom production. The EWs who were trained are training potential mushroom producers and giving backstopping advice to the current producers. This will continue after the project terminates and partly ensure sustainability. However, as pointed out earlier more extension workers need to be trained in mushroom production.

The project trained groups of adopters in mushroom production. The adopters were going to run mushroom houses either in groups or as individuals. The trained farmers are likely to continue producing mushrooms with assistance from EWs. The training-of-trainers courses that were conducted were an important component of ensuring that the project activities would continue after the end of the project. The trainer at Mvurachena, with assistance from other members of her mushroom group, trained a group of 52 school children and six teachers from Goto Secondary School. More children were at the school. The mushroom group even donated Z$1,600 to the school so that the children could buy spawn to start a mushroom production project at the school. They also offered to give further training at the time when the children start the project. In addition to the producers who attended the training-for-trainers course, ordinary producers who did not attend this course also train other farmers in mushroom production. Results of the questionnaire survey revealed that other farmers who wanted training in mushroom production approached 75% of the producers. On average, each producer trained 18 other farmers, informally. Through such Such activities, are likely to lead to a big potential for the adoption of mushroom production in the long term is big.

In 2000, it was decided that the farmers were now conversant with mushroom production and, in line with other BTZ funded projects, could be left to produce mushrooms on their own. The "weaning" process was to be accomplished by initially selling spawn and plastic pockets. Mushroom producers started buying spawn in 2002. The spawn is sold at a subsidized price of $400, whereas the same spawn sells at Z$1,000 in Harare. Plastic pockets cost $70 per metre. Although the price of spawn was heavily subsidized, several mushroom groups disintegrated when spawn was sold. The financial benefits from mushroom production were very little. Some groups had not shared any money from the project. In most cases, members of the mushroom groups had only benefited through sharing of mushroom for tasting purposes. Therefore, some members were unwilling to contribute their own cash for purchasing spawn when they saw limited prospects of raising reasonable income in return. Five mushroom groups in Buhera collapsed when spawn was being sold. However, one at Chivoko in Buhera District continued running after being taken over by a family. Gutsavana Group in Buhera argued that is had never collapsed. In fact, they were looking for spawn and were failing to get it. Although the availability of spawn is a real problem to most groups, the condition of the Gutsavana Group mushroom house suggested that the group might have collapsed for a while. It was encouraging to note that of the two new mushroom houses that have been built in Buhera, one was build by an individual and the other by a group. During the evaluation, one of the two new groups was ready

62

to start producing mushrooms, after it had just finished mixing substrate and spawn. Adoption is faster in Hwedza than Buhera. It was reported that while Buhera only had 10 mushroom producers, there were 33 in Hwedza.

Some members of the mushroom groups that collapsed opted to construct mushroom houses individually. Mushroom producers indicated that managing individual mushroom houses had both advantages and disadvantages. The following were the advantages:

o Allows good management to be practiced;o No arguments with other members regarding watering of the house; and o No possibility of project failing due to withdrawal of some members.

The disadvantages of owning the mushroom house individually are: o Building the mushroom house is expensive for one individual;o The project can take a significant amount of labour; and o Sharing of knowledge is reduced.

Indications are that mushrooms will continue to be produced even after the project is terminated. Mvurachena Mushroom Group was the only group producing well even after spawn was being sold. In summary, the selling of mushroom spawn might have been a small set back for the groups that had got used to getting free supplies, the adoption trend indicates that it is increasing very quickly.

Keeping groups intact was difficult. Selling of spawn might have contributed to the disintegration of some original mushroom groups, but internal conflicts between members of the groups also caused the collapse of the groups. Some groups were formed from farmers who had been engaged in other activities as cooperatives or groups, e.g., working in vegetable gardens. At the time mushroom groups were set up, What it was not realized at the time of setting up the mushroom groups was that the level of cooperation required among group members working in a garden was was different and of a more loose nature compared than to that required the cooperation required when the members were working in a mushroom house. In the garden, the members worked individually on the small area allocated to them. Although each farmer had an independent allocation, some farmers still did not tender their beds of vegetables, suggesting that they were lazy and would probably not contribute to group activities. However, when the mushroom groups were formed from members of the garden or irrigation group, all members of the vegetable garden or irrigation groups were allowed to join the mushroom group without any discretion. Consequently, the garden plot holders at Gutsavana and irrigation plot holders at Mvurachena were illegible to join. Initially, the projects started with 26 and 47 people (28 females and 19 males), respectively. During the visits by the evaluating team, the groups only had six and seven female members, respectively. Some members of the groups left the groups for reasons other than the unwillingness to contribute to the buying of spawn. Farmers who left the groups alleged that they had pulled out of the project when they realized that group financial accounts were not being properly accounted for. In addition, they also realized that the income from the project was low so that the dividends to the members were very little.

Information about the intention to set up the projects seemed to have been restricted to members of the gardening groups or irrigation schemes. Non-owners of irrigation plots indicated that they had not heard about the project at the time of its formation. Even now, when the mushroom project is producing mushrooms, some non-group members do not know about the activities of the mushroom groups or the availability of mushrooms locally, e.g., at Gutsavana Mushroom Group in Buhera District.

63

At Chivoko in Buhera District, the awareness of the establishment of the project had also been restricted to members of the vegetable garden project. Even neighbours and friends of the group members who were not in the vegetable garden project did not know about the setting up of the mushroom project. Therefore, the non-members only benefited in from having a local source of mushrooms. However, we also concluded that the non-project members were not readily receptive of new initiatives. For example, a group of 10 non-project women got together to form a mushroom project but nothing came out of the intention. The manual work undertaken in the mushroom house drove out lazy members. At Gutsavana Group water always has to be ferried from the borehole to the mushroom house, over a distance of about 30 metres. At Mvurachena, when the irrigation pump broke down, water had to be carted for long distances. Some members had joined the groups hoping that they would realize large dividends from the projects. When the dividends did not materialize, such members decided to leave. The fall in the number of members in a group strengthened the groups and people who were more resolved to see the project succeeding remained in the group. The determination of the members remaining in these groups suggests that they are likely to grow stronger and sustain the projects.

Adopters had to build their own mushroom house and buy everything required for producing mushrooms. The trend is that adopters are building smaller houses (3 m x 4 m) compared to the ones used in the project sites. In addition, whereas the project houses had brick walls, some adopters, such as Mrs Mashonganyika, constructed houses with thatched walls and roofs. By making the adopters buy all the requirements for mushroom production, the project ensured the sustainability of the programme.

A section of the Department of Biological Science is to be renovated into a spawn production unit. The departmental board has already granted permission for this change. An autoclave was purchased and is already being used. Another autoclave was bought for BRI through the project. The autoclave at BRI is still to be installed. Therefore, to date BRI has not supplied any spawn to Buhera of Hwedza Districts. When the two autoclaves are functional, they should be able to produce at least 100 kg of spawn each month. This should be enough to meet the requirements of the mushroom producers in the target areas. By providing this expensive equipment, BTZ at least endeavoured to ensure that spawn would be produced. The spawn could be made available to the small-scale mushroom producers in Hwedza and Buhera. However, if urban producers who offer higher prices and require larger quantities of spawn are included in the spawn market, the small-scale producers in Buhera and Hwedza might have problems getting spawn.

After BTZ funding ceases, spawn production is likely to be sustained by selling spawn at the market prices, which is $600 more than the current project subsidized price. However, UZ and BRI have no contractual obligation to sell spawn to the small-scale mushroom producers after the project is terminated. The prospects of this shortage are real given that spawn is in short supply, even when the researchers are still visiting the project sites regularly. UZ would also like to generate revenue by training potential adopters of mushroom production. The UZ income generating initiatives are likely to benefit urban producers who are more likely to have money for buying the market priced spawn and to attend the training.

5.5.2 Effects of the Project on Gender

The project objectives were not gender sensitive. However, there was a “natural selection” process whereby males left the projects and eventually resulted in all mushroom

64

projects being run by women. In the end, females were the primary beneficiaries of the project. Exceptions were at Chivoko, where the husband and wife ran the project after the group had collapsed and at Muhwati Mushroom Group, where two males and one female remained in the group after two other males had pulled out pf the group. Even at Muhwati, the new members had resolved to include their spouses in the group. Therefore, female membership in the group increases from the 25% to 50%. Experiences of other groups suggest that the females will run the mushroom house for the group.

Given that females run most mushroom houses, it follows that females directly control the bulk of the income from mushroom production. Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 show the income and expenditure of selected mushroom producing groups or individuals. Mrs Mashonganginka who has a mushroom house made of thatch grass. Her mushroom house was doing well and she made a profit of $10,060 in her first round of producing mushrooms. Tasangana Group in Buhera and Mvurachena Mushroom group in Hwedza made profits of $495 and $4760 respectively. Muhwati Mushroom Group in Hwedza District bought 4kg of spawn at $400 per kilogram. Its total sales were $5,275.00, thus making a profit of $3,765.00. In 2000, the Gutsavana group shared the bulk of the mushroom it produced, values at $560. The group sold mushroom worth only $640.

Table 5 .4 Income and Expenditure for Mrs Mashonganyika, Hwedza District, Mushroom Producer, first round of production

Total Revenue from mushroom sales ab

Cash costs: Spawn 3 kg @ $400.0/kg

Plastic pockets 15 m @ $70/m Total Cash Costs

$1,200.00$1,050.00

$12,310.00

$2,250.00Profit $10,060.00a Sales between 13 September 2002 and 12 December 2002b $6,000 worth of mushroom was sold in Harare

Table 5.50.28 Incomes and Expenditure for Tashinga Mushroom Group, Buhera District, Ward 6

Revenue from mushroom sales a

Imputed value of mushroom consumes by members

Total Imputed value of mushroom produced

Cash costsa: Spawn 3 kg @ $400.0/kgPlastic pockets 15 m @ $70/m Total Cash Costs

$2,200.00 $500.00

$1,200.00$1,050.00

$2,700.00

$2,250.00

Imputed Profit $495.00a Group produced 2,300 g of mushrooms and members of the group shared 500 g

65

Table 5.60.29 Incomes and Expenditure for Mvurachena Mushroom Group, Hwedza District in 2001

2001 Revenue from mushroom sales a

less Spawn 6kg @$400/kg Net Profit

2002 Revenue from mushroom sales b less Spawn 4kg @$400/kg Net Profit

Cumulative Net Profit

$5,160$2,400

$3,600 $1,600

$2,760.00

$2,000.00$4,760.00

a 43,000 g of mushrooms produced and the Mushroom project had supplied spawnb 24,000 g of mushrooms produced and the Mushroom project had supplied spawn

In addition to the effect on income, the mushroom project has had a positive impact on females in their ability to supply high value relish to the household. In general, females have the responsibility of ensuring that the households have relish of good quality daily. The target communities Mushrooms as used mushrooms as a substitute for meat in meals of the target communities. With the introduction of mushrooms, the options available to the females have increased significantly. Mushrooms can be prepared in various ways, e.g., drying or fresh, thus increasing the variety in the dishes that women prepare. Women are moremore aware of the importance of balanced diets as well as and how mushrooms canould contribute to this.

Mushroom production requires detailed attention, especially regarding the maintenance of humidity and preparation of the substrate. Males find it too taxing to take part in the operation. Therefore, females comprise the majority of the mushroom producers. Even where an individual female owns a mushroom house, resident husbands of such individual owners often do not take part in the day-to-day activities undertaken in the mushroom house. Husbands only assist in building the mushroom houses. Mushroom producers indicated, during the questionnaire surveys, that they did not have to stop any activities undertaken on the farm due to the demands from the mushroom project. This indicates that the mushroom production is ideal for the rural woman who is over burdened with responsibilities on the farm.

The project has benefited women through their direct control of the projects. This makes women proud of themselves when they look at their contribution to society. The success of the projects gives other project implementers the confidence to work with women, as they have demonstrated that they have the capacity to deliver the goods, if the correct environment and training is created. Training in mushroom production, training for transformation and business management empowered women to conduct other projects to uplift themselves.

5.5.3 Institutional Linkages

The Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Zimbabwe, BRI of SIRDC were the implementing partners, with financial support from the BTZ. Each institution was supposed to bring its different strength into the project. The UZ, with its capacity to conduct research was supposed to conduct research on the ideal conditions for mushroom production, including the substrates and the strains. The BRI was supposed to place more emphasis in producing adequate quantities of spawn.

66

UZ was able to conduct research on spawn and produce spawn for the project since it already had an autoclave for when it initiated the mushroom project. Therefore, it included spawn production among the teaching and research activities for which the autoclave was being used. While both BRI and UZ have received autoclaves through the project, the effective participation of BRI in the project has limited by the problem of setting up the autoclave. In the first instance, the autoclave was only delivered in June 2002, the there was no electric power source from which the machine could be connected. A three-phase connection has not been connected to the laboratory in which the autoclave is housed. The other problem has been with drainage. The autoclave is supposed to be connected to a drainage system, but there had not been any provision for this when the laboratory was constructed. BRI now wants to improvise drainage to ensure that the machine can be commissioned. Because of this BRI has not produced any spawn for distributing to the farmers. The quantities supplied by UZ to the project areas are presented in Table 5.47.

If the BRI autoclave comes is commissioned, and if they are able to produce spawn of good quantity, the project might be able to double the quantity of spawn supplied monthly to about 100 kg. This quantity should go a long way towards meeting the high demand that exists in the project areas.

BRI had only been established when its was co-opted into the mushroom and sweet potato project. Its inclusion was based more on its stated mission rather than experience from work it had previously carried out. As such at the time of starting the sweet potato project, the BRI researchers did not have their own resources and had to be housed in the SIRDC Administration building for the mushroom project after being house at TRB. Therefore, in the mushroom project, while BRI pledged to make certain contributions to the project, the timetable of the execution of the project was not coordinated with the development of the requisite infrastructure at BRI. It was only in 2002 that the BRI team moved into their current building. Even the new building is not the ‘rightful’ place for BRI as they are supposed to be eventually housed in yet another building under construction. However, construction work in the BRI building is progressing very slowly as the government does not have sufficient funds. The uncertainties in the final status of BRI offices, the management seems reluctant to connect the autoclave to the main sewer lines from the building currently housing BRI. The autoclave will need to be moved to the new building once it is completed. In future, BTZ should only co-opt institutions that have previous expertise and proven achievements and the necessary infrastructure in the field in which they are supposed to contribute to a project.

Table 5.70.30 UZ Mushroom Team Spawn Supplies to Buhera and Wedza Districts in 2001/2

Year Month Quantity (kg) 2001 July

August* September*October* November*December *

605050505030

67

2002 January February March AprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober NovemberDecember

505050405045202545235023

Total for 2002a 761aEstimate

5.6 Input Procurement and Produce Marketing

5.6.1 Availability of Spawn

Mushroom groups and farmers who participated in mushroom production early had mushroom supplied to them, initially. Even when the researchers started selling spawn, it would still be delivered to the homestead of some producers. Table 5.4 8 shows responses of mushroom producers interviewed on their sources of spawn and their satisfaction with the mechanism of spawn supply.

Table 5.80.31 Channels of accessing spawn and satisfaction with the channel.

Delivered to the homestead Buy from AREX HwedzaSatisfied 5 1Not satisfied 2 1n = 9

Some producers were not satisfied with the delivery mechanism, even when their spawn was delivered to the homestead, because at times the researchers brought the spawn when the producers did not have money. In that case, they would have to wait for another month before they could get another supply. In other instances, the deliveries just took to long due of reasons such as fuel shortages or political problems.

As an exit strategy, the researchers are going to sell spawn through the AREX office at Hwedza and Murambinda. However, this strategy does not seem to have been communicated effectively to all the producers. Interviews with the producers revealed that some of them understood that they would continue to access spawn through the UZ researchers, suggesting that there is some confusion among farmers regarding the future channels for accessing spawn. Availability of spawn is essential to the continuation of mushroom production after the termination of the project, yet access to spawn is a major limitation in the area. In fact, some producers in Hwedza growth point who wanted to go into large-scale mushroom production

68

could not get enough spawn. Some small-scale mushroom producers from the villages went to the DAEO’s offices in Hwedza only to be informed that other producers had ordered the spawn that was at the office. This meant that farmers had to place their own orders for spawn before it could be reserved for them. To get spawn under this arrangement, produces have to make two trips to the AREX district office. Poor farmers cannot afford the bus fare for these multiple trips. At the time of the survey, two groups, i.e., Rusike Brother and Gutsavana, were not producing mushrooms, as they had not been able to access spawn. Therefore, a more efficient and well-advertised system of making spawn available is required.

The AREX district office at Hwedza has taken the position that the mushroom producers from Hwedza Growth Point will be accorded least priority of being supplied with spawn. The district office considers the rural producers as their primary clients. Discussions with other extension personnel revealed that mushroom production was blooming in the growth point. We concur that the project should give priority to the producers in the villages, but should not neglect the producers at the growth points. Mushroom produced at Hwedza Growth Point will be accessible to some villagers. This can only be achieved if sufficient spawn is produced at UZ and BRI.

According the Mushroom project PI, spawn will keep being available through the AREX district offices. Mr. Rufu, the BTZ Sweet Potato Field Manager, could monitor the spawn stocks at the district offices and bring new stock from UZ (and BRI when its autoclave becomes functional), when required. Being in close contact with farmers, EWs can be provided with cooler boxes for transporting spawn from the district office to their respective wards. The same cooler boxes would also be used for transportation and short-term storage of rhizobium inoculant by EWs. EWs would take farmers’ orders for spawn and deliver them after collecting the spawn from district offices. Nevertheless, some monitoring by Mr Rufu may be necessary to assess the effectiveness of this method of delivering spawn to the village level.

On the second visit to interview non-project participants, the team was told by the Mushroom team that spawn that had been left at the AREX district offices for distribution to project farmers could not be accounted for. It was apparent that spawn was being sold from AREX offices to non-project farmers, most likely from urban areas like Harare, because it was not getting to project farmers despite delivery to AREX by the mushroom project team. No cogent explanation was available from the District AREX officer, Mr Mazaiwana, on the spawn that could was unaccounted for spawn. In the light of this eventuality, to avoid a situation where unscrupulous AREX officers use spawn for their private benefit at the expense of BTZ mushroom project participants and adopters, the whole spawn distribution arrangements need to be re-looked at carefully re-looked at to avoid a situation where unscrupulous AREX officers use spawn for their private benefit at the expense of BTZ mushroom project participants and adopters.

5.6.2 Marketing of Produce

The bulk of the mushroom that is being produced in the two districts is being sold locally. Producers have not been able to meet the demand from the local markets. However, the strength of the local demand has to be taken in light of the low prices that producers were charging. In 2002, producers in Buhera were charging $400 per kilogram while those in Hwedza were charging $250 per kilogram (except for one group that was charging $600 per kilogram).

69

Farmers charged low prices because they wanted to develop the demand for mushroom in the local community. Their strategy was to increase the price of mushrooms after creating effective demand. However, when Mrs. Mazema, in Hwedza’s Mount St Marys area, increased her price from $150 to $350, she could not find any buyers. She ended up selling the mushroom in Harare through her daughter. This indicates that the market demand is elastic and does not give the producers much room for increasing prices. However, this elasticity could be caused, in part, by the fact that rural households were struggling to feed themselves after the severe drought experienced in 2001/2002. They probably could not afford to consume any luxuries, and increasing the price of mushrooms quickly made it become a luxury commodity. If this is true, in the long-term, the producers will be able to increase their prices and realise reasonable revenue.

One group located at Hwedza Growth point supplied mushroom to a large commercial market in Harare. Although they were selling at $600/kg, which was to their satisfaction, they felt cheated when the buyer imposed frivolous deductions amounting to $50/kg on the price. Fifty percent of the producers in the household interviews had problems when marketing their mushroom. Problems encountered in marketing mushroom were low price, poor storage facilities when taking mushrooms to the market or storing mushroom at home after harvesting. This arises from the shortcoming of mushroom, i.e., that of being perishable. Producers also indicated that they had a problem identifying where the markets are located. Others said that since they were still producing small quantities, they did not have any problem with risk, particularly of mushroom rotting.

The mushroom selling price in Buhera of $300 - 400/kg was higher than the average price in Hwedza. The higher prices in Buhera could be explained by the existence of a Dorowa Mine and two other small mines within the district. Therefore, demand for mushrooms exists within the villages and on these mines. The current production levels are far from meeting the market requirements. Dorowa Mine management is so favourable to the idea of local mushroom production to the extent that they assisted a new group, the New Tar Mushroom Group, by offering transport to ferry river sand for constructing a mushroom house.

If the momentum at which the individual adopters are taking up mushroom production is maintained, particularly in Hwedza, there is a possibility that the market could be saturated in future. That might result in a fall in prices. Therefore, urban marketing channels need to be developed. Farmers would also have to be organised to supply these markets. Farmers will need information on where to sellmarkets and the costs associated with the accessing each marketing options.

The 12 sites that were in the mushroom project received scales so that they could weigh the mushroom produced. The scales also enabled then to sell their mushrooms on a weight basis. The new adopters do not have scales and thus use visual assessment to determine the quantity they sell. This may lead the farmers to make losses in their marketing.

Non-project members in Mvurachena indicated that they did not have money to buy the mushroom due to poverty. Therefore, the mushroom group had to sell its produce schools where teachers with regular incomes could afford it. Similar sentiments about the lack of money for buying the mushroom were expressed in Buhera District.

5.7 Limitations to Project Impact

70

1. The project had the problem of change of personnel, particularly that of the PI. Since its inception, the project has had three PIs. The current PI is acting on behalf of the second PI who is on sabbatical leave. Dr Mswaka, the first PI left the mushroom project in June 2001. Dr Kunjeku replaced Dr Mswaka but went on sabbatical in 2002, leaving Dr Mabveni acting. The PIs have not stayed long enough with the project for them to have a good rapport with most farmers. At one time, the project was without a PI for two months. These changes in PIs are likely to have affected the implementation of the project. However, the change in the PI was also a blessing in other respects. The first PI did not interact effectively with other stakeholders so that he was doing most of the work on his own. No EWs were trained during the first PI's tenure. Consequently, EWs only got actively involved in the project when Dr Kunjeku was the PI. Had the first PI stayed in that position until the end, the impact of the project might have been less.

2. Researchers and farmers agreed to use the flat roof, which was cheapest to construct on the size of the mushroom houses that were to be constructed. Although the flat roof was cheaper, most houses were too large for the type of roof. The roofs of several houses collapsed, i.e., two houses in Buhera and one in Hwedza. The roof that collapsed in Hwedza was not repaired. Two members of the group constructed individual mushroom houses. The collapsing of the roofs disrupted the progress in the production of mushrooms by the groups. Nevertheless, the lesson learnt is that, given the timber available in the communal areas, small mushroom houses have to be built so that the roofs do not collapse.

3. The availability of spawn is the major problem in this project. Initial supplies of spawn were very limited so that the farmers participating in the project became disillusioned about the prospects of deriving reasonable benefits from the project. The mushroom team comprising UZ and BRI members has religiously visited the two districts every month and at the same time, they have observed the adoption of mushroom production increase steadily. The quantity of spawn that the team has taken to the farmers during each visit has remained fixed at about 45 kg. Therefore, demand for spawn has outstripped supply. BRI has not managed to set up its autoclave up to now. Therefore, only UZ has been supplying spawn to the project areas. Until BRI starts producing spawn, the problem of limited available spawn will remain. .

4. At times, the researchers did not fulfil appointments due to the fuel problem that existed in the country during the implementation of the project. EWs had problems ensuring the farmers attended meetings after extension workers had failed to fulfil some appointments. Effort must be made to fulfil all appointments made with farmers.

5. A student prepared the first manual on mushroom production manual, which was distributed initially and then was withdrawn. The first manual was not based on findings of work done in the target area. Therefore, this manual had to be changed during the course of the project to accommodate the information that had been accumulated during the studies. However, no manual was reviewed during the evaluation exercise. 6. Most groups have a problem of pinheads wilting soon after emerging from the bags. To correct the problem, the mushroom project team has always advised the

71

producers to increase the watering and spraying of water. However, in the excessive heat experienced between September and November, farmers with fruiting mushrooms stand to lose a lot of revenue due to this problem. We recommend that more research be carried out on possible interventions to increase the humidity at different times.

72

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ) embarked on multi-stakeholder and need driven projects in Agricultural Biotechnology for resource-poor farmers in Buhera and Hwedza districts in 1997. The projects were accomplished by conducting need driven research in agricultural biotechnology for resource-poor farmers. The technology development approach encompassed technology extension and utilisation. Extensive and exhaustive participatory needs identification and priority-setting exercises undertaken with resource poor farmers preceded the implementation of the BTZ biotechnology projects in Hwedza and Buhera. A multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach was chosen for implementing the projects to address the problems identified during the participatory needs identification and priority setting exercises. The approach recognizes the need for a whole set of activities spanning from laboratory research using complex techniques and equipment, greenhouse experimentation, participatory experimentation to transfer of the generated technologies to farmers. Following the successful development of a technology and its adoption by farmers, technical backstopping and collateral support need to be provided to adopters, while at the same time facilitating entry by new adopters before project support can be terminated. To accomplish the defined project cycle required the participation of various institutions cutting across universities, research institutes, extension organisations, farmer organisations, local authorities and others. To this end, multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary initiatives had to be established to satisfy the requirements for BTZ sponsored projects.

6.1 Impacts on target groups and other stake holders

Sweet Potato ProjectThe broad objectives of the project were to increase sweet potato production, consumption and marketing through provision and maintenance of pathogen-free, high quality sweet potato seed stock of true-to-type cultivars to smallholder farmers in Hwedza and Buhera districts. Farmers were to be trained and assisted to set up sustainable multiplication and distribution nurseries for high quality planting material. Farmers were to be trained to expand the activities in their nurseries into other horticultural crops such as fruits and vegetables.

1. Six nursery sites were established during the project, i.e., two pilot nurseries and four satellite sites. The sites were fenced and irrigation infrastructure was put in place. Storerooms were constructed with support from BTZ and tools for use in the project were provided.

2. Sweet potato cultivars from the target districts were collected and identified. The local cultivars and those from other areas were evaluated through on-farm trials, in a farmer participatory manner. For each area, ten cultivars were selected, through a combination of criteria such as, including taste, colour, and yield, for inclusion in the nursery production. Therefore, each nursery site was exposed to a richer mix of cultivars than had been available in the area hitherto.

3. Meristem tissue culture was used for eliminating viruses from the cultivars. Significant improvements in the yields of the clean cultivars were achieved. On On-farm trials were designed to evaluate the performance of the cleaned cultivars, i.e.,

73

with different levels of fertilizers, after being re-infected and when compared with unclean cultivars.

4. Cleaned planting materials were provided to the nursery sites. The shortcoming was that very little planting materials were supplied to the nursery sites since the establishment of the sites. The planting material was persistently supplied late so that multiplication at the site could not produce enough planting material for selling to other farmers. The nurseries ended up planting the materials in their own nursery yards. Consequently, the bulk of their revenue came from selling tubers rather that the core activity of selling planting materials.

The impact of this project is more dependent on environmental conditions than the composition of the group running the nurseries. Murambinda with a climate more favourable to the growth of sweet potatoes, is able to generate the highest quantity of planting material, albeit, supplied late. It is also realized the highest revenue from the project compared to the other sites. However, the performance of the sites could be better if the could access the planting materials in July/August period. The performance could be improved even further if the pilot nurseries should effectively use their lathe houses by keeping potted virus-cleaned sweet potato plants.

5. The project did not empower the farmers to produce nurseries of other horticultural crops as envisaged in the objectives.

BNF ProjectThe objective of the project were to increase farmer awareness and proper exploitation of rhizobium inoculants, increasing farmers knowledge and skills of cultivating a wide range of legume crops, increasing the use of legume crop residues for improving soil fertility.

1. The project successfully established the benefits of rhizobium inoculant use on soyabeans yields. Trials carried out to establish the benefits of rhizobium inoculation on other legume crops indicated that no benefits could be realized.

2. Farmers adopted soyabeans as it fits well with their farming systems. The production of soyabeans has enhanced crop rotations practices. In addition, soyabeans requires little labour for weeding as it smoothers weeds three weeks after germinating.

3. The nutritional status of farmers has been enhanced through the wide range of uses into which that soyabeans can be prepared into. Farmers are also making saving on the cash they would have used for buying bread and milk.

4. Farmers are realizing more income from selling soyabeans as its producer prices are higher yet it requires less fertility inputs than maize.

Mushroom ProjectThe main objective of the mushroom project was to improve the nutritional base and income of resource poor farmers through the cultivation and sale of tropical mushroom in Buhera and Hwedza districts. In addition, the project sought to create employment, and develop awareness and need to recycle agricultural waste materials and by-products.

1. The mushroom project succeeded in developing small-scale technology for producing mushrooms under smallholder farming conditions. Local materials that could be used as mushroom substrate were evaluated and their relative performance was established.

74

2. Different house sizes and designs were evaluated in farmer participatory trials. The project worked with groups of farmers at each of the mushroom houses built in the districts. The group-approach facilitated learning by a large number of farmers and the sharing of responsibilities and risks. The group approach was not very successful in all cases as some disintegrated over time. Farmers who adopted mushroom production individually were more successful than those working as groups. The general tendency among adopters is for farmers to set up individual mushroom houses than group houses. Farmers should be encouraged to set up mushroom houses individually.

3. The scale of mushroom production level is small so that the revenue from the enterprises is not sufficient for sharing among more than five group members. This explains the collapsing of the large groups and the shift towards individual ownership of houses.

4. The options for sources of protein to rural households increased with the introduction of mushrooms in the target areas.

5. Farmers who started mushroom projects on their own, or inherited mushroom houses from groups that had collapsed, indicate that the income they get from selling mushrooms is supplementing the traditional income generating activities on the farm.

6. Mushroom production does not compromise the undertaking of other activities on the farm. Therefore, it is compatible with the farm system.

6.2 Training and technology extension

Sweet potato project1. Farmers were trained in different aspects of nursery management and they are

confident to under take the project as a commercial enterprise. 2. The training given to project participants, especially training for transformation,

makes them work harmoniously. They also know some elements of record keeping. However, it is clear that the type of training on financial records must have been too advanced for the participants. In some cases, the treasurers could not fully comprehend their own financial records.

BNF Project1. Farmers and extension personnel were trained in the production, utilization and

processing of soyabeans. The training was successful at all levels such that farmers and extension workers are continuing to train other farmers who have not been trained initially.

2. Farmers have now realized the value of the soyabean crop for their own consumption, for improving soil fertility through residual fertility and as a feed for livestock.

Mushroom Project1. Farmers and extension workers were trained in various aspects of mushroom

production. Farmers and extension workers are now able to train other farmers in mushroom production indicating that the project can be sustained after the termination of funding.

2. Project participants were trained in different aspects of record keeping. Farmers knew their mushroom yields and income realized from the projects.

75

6.3 On-farm research

Sweet Potato Project1. Selected cultivars were evaluated in a participatory manner. Farmers were interested

in the information generated from the trials that were being carried. Project participants were fully conversant with the objectives of the trials.

2. Field days at which the performance of the cultivars was assessed were held. The farmers were also given the opportunity to taste the different cultivars so that they could select the preferred cultivars on different criteria.

3. The project made farmers aware of improved sweet potato production techniques. Some of the techniques, such as the use of smaller mounts, are labour saving and allow farmers to increase the area they plant to sweet potatoes without overtaxing themselves with work.

4. Farmers are aware of the length of the runners that they should use. This increases the area they can plant with a given quantity of planting material.

5. Farmers became aware of the economic value of virus-cleaned materials. They can now identify virus- or pest-infested plants. This knowledge has created a demand for cleaned planting materials from the nurseries. Farmers who were not aware of the sweet potato project were also not aware of the reduction in yields due to re-infection of the pants following repeated planting.

6. Were recommend that field days should be conducted annually. Field days can also be rotated between areas so that farmers can visit each other’s sites. The only limitation of the latter approach is that the participation of non-project farmers is curtailed.

BNF Project o Farmers hosted trails at which different legumes were evaluated. The project

conducted sufficient field days that the farmers are fully knowledgeable of the procedure of growing soyabeans.

Mushroom Projecto The group approach allowed the project to access many participants with the limited

resources. The technology adoption now includes the members of the groups that participated in the research but proceed to set up individual mushroom houses.

o Some project participants were aware that the project had a research phase. This made them not lose hope when the mushroom production did not seem viable. However, apparently some were not aware that there was an experimental phase in the project so that when the mushroom production was below their expectation, they abandoned their group.

6.4 Socio-economic issues

Sweet Potato Projecto The project farmers are organising themselves into well-structured executive committees

in these projects. The responsibilities and boundaries of each member of the teams are

76

clear to the farmers. The training for transformation course made them more conscious of the different roles that each member had to fulfil. The organisational structures are conducive to the continued existence of the groups and the projects activities after BTZ funding is terminated.

BNF Project 1. Farmers realise the need to be organised for procuring inputs and for marketing produce.

There is evidence that the farmers rely on their executive for information of seed availability and on markets. These insights can be taken advantage of in organising farmers for other activities.

2. Farmers realise that training can be obtained from different sources. Farmers reported approaching their colleagues and/or extension workers to be trained in the growing and processing of soyabeans.

3. The position of women in the households was uplifted. The soyabeans stored for home consumption allows women to produce a variety of nutritious and tasty products. Even those women who do not produce soyabeans can also buy it locally and produce the same products in their homesteads.

o However, soyabeans are only being marketed as beans without any more value being added through processing. Women could be facilitated to go into income generating activities where they sell the soyabean products at schools and public gatherings.

Mushroom Projecto Mushroom groups that survived after the pulling out of some original members are

now stronger and will probably go a long way in their projects. o Initial projects created awareness among the local consumers that the mushroom

produced in the house are as good as the mushroom in found growing in the wild. This has created a demand for the mushroom produced in the house. The existence of the local demand for mushrooms also acts as an incentive for other farmers to go into mushroom production.

o Women are the major beneficiaries of the mushroom project. Females almost exclusively run all projects. Therefore, they are also going to control the income that will come from the projects. Income raised by women is likely to be used to improve the welfare of the whole family, particularly food security, more that that of the males.

o

6.5 Input procurement and produce marketing

Availability of inputs has been the major weakness of the three projects.

Sweet Potato Projecto Limited quantities of the planting materials were available to the nurseries. This curtailed

the ability of the nurseries to meet the demand from their clients. Mechanisms of increasing the quantity of planting materials given to the nurseries are needed. The materials should also be supplied early so that significant quantities can be bulked at the nursery.

77

o Pilot nurseries should effectively utilize the lathe houses for propagating virus cleaned planting materials.

BNF Project o The availability of planting seed and inoculant has been a bottleneck for widespread

adoption of soyabean production. While the organisation of the cchannels of supplying the rhizobium inoculant are getting better organised, there is need to ensure that farmers have easy and timely access to inoculant at wards level. Extension workers are well placed to make the availability of inoculant at village level operational.

o There is not permanent mechanism in place for ensuring that sufficient quantities of soyabean seeds are available to farmers. The agro-dealers that the project has been working with are not ready to meet this challenge. The project should see to it that permanent mechanisms of getting seed supplied to soyabean growers are in place.

Mushroom Projecto The major problem is the insufficient quantities of spawn available on the market. Spawn

is also not available within reasonable distance from farmers. Larger quantities of spawn need to be supplied by the producers and farmers should have easy and timely access to spawn at ward level. Extension workers are well placed to increase the availability of spawn at village level.

6.6 Lessons learnt and recommendations

Reading the ensuing evaluation report one is struck by poignant lessons that evaluators have drawn out of the experiences of those collaborating institutions that have been implementing the three projects in Hwedza and Buhera. The lessons that deserve to be mentioned and their concomitant recommendations are the following:

Institutional arrangements: It is difficult to co-ordinate a multi-institutional project team comprising of institutions with their own mandate to fulfil, which may be different from the project mandate. It is also difficult to motivate various players in a multi-institutional collaborative project to act in tandem and synchrony so that the various activities are timed to contribute to the achievement of laid down project objectives. It proved difficult to ensure that institutional players communicated their activities so that they work in common purpose. These lessons were prominently displayed in the Sweet Potato Micro-propagation Project as previously described.

Recommendation: Terms of reference, MOUs or contracts must be drafted spelling out the activities of each organisation participating in a collaborative effort. The timeframe and deliverables that each organisation is responsible for alsofor need to be determined before project implementation. Clear lines of communication must be put in place and be used by the project collaborators. Collaborator's meetings and workshops must be held on schedule and be used to communicate the work plans of each collaborating organisation. Any joint activities should be planned and confirmed at these joint meetings. To avoid institutional squabbling, as was evident in the sweet potato project, each institution must operate its own

78

budget and independently run its own share of activities. There must be little or no duplication of activities among the organisations and blurring of responsibilities as seen in the sweet potato project and the mushroom project.

Exit strategy: One of the biggest lessons learnt from the BNF/soyabean project was that the project must not be entirely driven through the force of personality of the PI. The teething problems that are apparent in the exit strategy of the BNF/soyabean project may be attributable to the PI. With good and honourable intentions, he got too involved in the project implementation process without bringing in other important collaborators that would ensure the sustainability of the project activities after the end of the project sponsorship. The promotion of BNF in soyabean production, and the training of farmers in the agronomy, processing and utilisation of soyabeans were pursued with zeal and garnered considerable success. However, the project failed to effectively establish institutional partners that would take on the mantle of seed and rhizobium supply and create soyabean marketing channels when the project ends. The reason for this, as we have already learnt, was that the project took it upon itself to perform most of the tasks in the project from research, extension, training, input supplies and marketing of soyabeans. To this end, the BNF team is leaving the adopters of BNF technology without a permanent solution of how farmers are going to get seed in future. Farmers also do not have a clear approach of how to exploit the markets that the BNF project previously facilitated for them. The two problems need the attention of BTZ to ensure sustainability in the utilisation of BNF in soyabean production in Hwedza and Buhera.

Recommendation: Exit strategies of any project that ensure sustainability of the project activities must be clearly laid out in the project proposal. The exit strategy must be implemented during the various phases of the project. Continued funding of the various stages of the project must be conditional on the successful implementation of activities that push the project agenda. Activities that ensure sustainability of project activities at the end of the project cycle should also be funded. Monitoring and evaluation criteria must take cognisance of this and focus on this aspect at all stages of project implementation.

Free handouts to project participants: Supplying inputs, gratis, to project participants is inimical to engendering commitment to project activities. This practice invited free loaders and uncommitted individuals who had little or no interest in the technology promoted by the project. Instead, they joined the project to get access to the free inputs and whatever temporary benefits the project produces, but at the end of the project abandon project activities. This was illustrated in the mushroom and BNF projects. In the mushroom project, when the project mushroom houses were built, large groups of participants joined what, then, looked like a gravy train. However, the moment conditions within each group became difficult, like the fetching of water from long distances, these groups fractionated, with the uncommitted members (the free loaders) quickly pulling out. The moment members were called upon to make some monetary contributions to buy consumables like spawn and plastic packs, this precipitated further disintegration of the groups and most of the free loaders left. This eventuality spelled the death knell of the activities of some, suggesting that these groups were largely composed of members who had not been convinced of the viability of the mushroom enterprises. The members remaining in those groups that have survived the turbulent process of weaning the freeloaders are committed and willing to invest money, time

79

and labour. This is because they clearly see economic and other benefits from their continued participation in the projects. In the BNF/soyabean project, the availability of seed on a cash basis only would make some of the fence sitters to abandon soyabean production and concomitantly use of BNF. The lesson from this is that, where inputs are available free or on soft credit, the adoption of the technology being promoted is likely to be an overestimate. The overestimation arises from the fact that, invariably, that the count will include freeloaders and laggards taking advantage of the easy pickings the project offers. Although the soyabean adopters showedthere is boundless enthusiasm in the cropshown by the BNF/soyabean adopters, this season, when farmers had to pay cash for all seed and inoculant may well prove to be the crunch season when the free loaders will be separated from committed adopters.

Recommendation: At the inception of every project, the project participants must be forced to invest considerable amounts of money, labour and inputs into project activities rather than receiving all requirements gratis or with token inputs from within their ranks. This process is required to weed out any pretenders and hangers-on during the early stages of project implementation. An example of this process was in the sweet potato pilot and satellite nursery projects. The sweet potato group members cleared the nursery areas, stumped the tress, dug contour ridges, moulded bricks in addition to providing labour for digging trenches for irrigation pipes and for building tool sheds and storage rooms. For mushroom farmers, the entrepreneur/adopter individual farmers who have invested in their own mushroom houses and are buying consumables (spawn and plastic tubes) are the ones showing the greatest promise. In future, individual project members should contribute considerable investment into project activities, with BTZ funding being used for supplementing critical needs that farmers would not be able to finance. This process will ensure that that BTZ works with partners rather than freeloaders.

Ownership of projects: It: It was apparent from the experiences of the sweet potato project and individually owned mushroom houses that a sense of ownership of project activities and assets is a driving parameter to engendering long term commitment of project participants to project activities. The constitutional provision enshrined in the sweet potato group's constitutions that specifies that members pass on their membership to their children or other family members has created stability in membership and a strong commitment to project activities by the members. Members are aware that, on their passing death or debilitation, theiry pass on their membership is passed on to a chosen a member of their family, thus ensuring that the labour and time they previously committed to the project will continue to benefit their immediate family. This alone is one of the most important factors that explain the harmonious working relationship and commitment to long-term prosperity of the groups that was observed in the sweet potato groups. The individual owners of mushroom houses know that whatever investment they make in the house will benefit them directly. This raises their level of commitment to the project.

Recommendation: Whenever group projects are conceived, the issue of ownership of assets and long-term commitment of members to project activities needs careful consideration. The model constitutional provision in the sweet potato project is recommended whenever group constitutions are drawn up. This is particularly applicable to projects that need considerable financial, human and labour investment over long gestation periods before they start bearing returns. Any other alternative, where benefits do not remain in the family, is a recipe for

80

members to pursue short-term gains to the detriment of long-term sustainability of the projects. It would be opportune to introduce this constitutional provision to the surviving mushroom groups still operating in project mushroom houses. Where feasible, members should be encouraged to establish projects individually.

Sensitivity to gender in project membership selection: The selection of project members needs to be gender sensitive. The sensitivity must be expressed in choosing members that culturally perform the duties that are mainly carried out during project activities. This was illustrated in the mushroom projects where the overwhelming majority of the project members were women, regardless of whether they were groups or individuals. This tacitly reflected the fact that the management of mushroom houses, which involves constant watering of the floor, is culturally suited to women. Culturally men rarely carry water. Therefore, they are also excluded from management of mushroom houses where water has to be carried. In fact, in mushroom groups that contain men, the men generally take on more culturally suitable jobs like mending the houses and roofs. The sweet potato is also culturally considered a woman's crop hence the predominance of women in the general membership of sweet potato groups. In addition, most men who were group members left and their wives were replaced bythem their wives.

Deliberate targeting of culturally correct composition of project groups to carry out gender sensitive operations is required. Participatory rural appraisal and gender research techniques should be used before project inception to study anthropological and cultural beliefs surrounding the activities that are envisaged in each project. Results of these studies should then be used to introduce projects with the correct gender perspective, without necessarily falling into the trap of gender stereotyping.

Groups versus individuals: Groups proved to be barely sustainable in the mushroom project and have fractionated with some of the group members starting their own individual mushroom houses. One of the poignant factors that precipitated their break-up was their large sizes and unclear ownership conditions of the assets of the mushroom project by members. Large groups, such as those initially formed at Mvurachena and Gutsavana mushroom projects, proved simply not workable. Apart from internal strife and difficulties of management of large numbers of people to cooperate towards a common goal, the groups were too large for the business from a single mushroom house. Therefore, very little tangible benefits could be gained from participating in the activities of the mushroom houses.

Recommendations: Members should only be allowed to form groups when the returns from the project are sizeable. When the proceeds are small, only few project participants should be encouraged to form groups. Large number of participants would not reap reasonable monetary income and the members would incur a considerable opportunity cost. Farmers in irrigation schemes grow other crops that could potentially make a substantial improvement of their livelihoods. Such farmers would be better off working in their irrigation plots than participate in a mushroom project, together with a multitude of other farmers, as that is will not make any significant impact on their food security or monetary earnings. However, it is recognised that the large membership in the mushroom groups allowed farmers to be trained in large numbers. It is recommended that project implementers dealing with group project put in place measures to regulate group size such that project proceeds become worth the effort

81

put by group members. Experience from the projects suggests that five or less members is a viable size of a group.

Training in processing and utilisation of crops: In all these three projects, especially the BNF/soyabean and sweet potato projects, training in the processing and utilisation of these crops was a prime driver of the adoption of the technologies. It is doubtful whether the fast adoption of soyabeans among the farmers of Hwedza and Buhera would have occurred without the training that the farmers received in the processing and utilisation of soyabeans. Processing and utilisation unlocked extra value of soyabeans as protein and oil-rich food crop that could be processed in a variety of ways by smallholder farmers. Now that nearly all the families have the ability to process and use soyabean, a substantial local market has been opened in Hwedza and Buhera. To a lesser extent, the same scenario applies for sweet potatoes and mushrooms. Field days are very instrumental in enhancing the awareness of non-project farmers to the activities of the project.

Recommendation: It is recommended that whenever a new technology is introduced, training must be carried out to enable smallholder farmers to process the product of the technology and directly utilise it. Without this condition being fulfilled, the adoption of the technology will be small.

Training is not enough: It became clear from the experiences of the sweet potato micro-propagation project that training of smallholder farmers is not a guarantee that they will use the technology that is the subject of training without further technical support in the field. Although all pilot nursery group members had beenwere trained in nursery management and sweet potato micro-propagation at HRCHRI, they did not use this the training to preserve (keep their preferred virus virus-free stock plants) delivered from HRC and multiply them their preferred virus cleaned varieties when they got the first deliveries from HRC. Instead they waited to be supplied with virus cleaned planting materials every season from HRC and neglected to use the insect proof lathe houses for the preservation of stock plants and micro-propagation of the same.

Recommendation: It is important to follow up training courses by in-situ supervision of the participants to make sure that they consolidate the skills that they gained by productively using them in the field. It is best to teach skills to s Smallholder farmersare best taught skills in small dosesdoses that are followed by practical application of skills in their own environment. A strategy reminiscent of the Farmer Field school approach is recommended where farmers learn skills and then are supervised in the application of those skills in their own fields.

82

APPENDIX I: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT

A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1) District: Hwedza = 1; Buhera = 2 2) Name of Respondent: _________________________

3) Gender M = 1; F = 2 ________

4) Age? ______ years.

5) Marital status ______ Married with resident spouse = 1; Married with spouse working away from home = 2; Widow/er = 3; Single = 4.

7) Do you own cattle Yes = 1; No = 2

6) If yes, number owned _________

7) How many are draft animals? ____________

8) How many people reside on the farm? ______________a) How many people work full time on the farm? _____________b) How many people work part-time on the farm? ____________c) How many children are below seven years? ______________

9) What is the size of you arable lands? ____________________

B. QUESTIONS FOR FARMERS WITH MUSHROOM HOUSES

10) Are you a member of the mushroom project? Yes/No

11) How do you access the spawn? ________________________

12) Are you satisfied with the arrangement put in place for you to access the spawn? _______________________If not satisfied, how best should spawn be accessed? ________________

13) Do you see any benefits of mushroom production over other farming activities.If yes, what are the advantages? __________________________

14) Do you see any disadvantages of mushroom production over other farming activities?

83

If yes, what are the disadvantages? __________________________

15) Have you sold mushrooms since you started the project? Yes/No __________

16) To whom did you sell the mushroom? 1 = Other farmers 2 = Urban market3 = Local Traders4 = Other (Specify) _____________

17) Are there advantages of owning a mushroom house individually? ___________________________________If yes, what are the advantages? ___________________________________

18) Are there any disadvantages of owning a mushroom house individually? ___________________________________If yes, what are the disadvantages? ________________________________

19) Do you have any problems producing mushrooms? Yes/No.________If yes, what are the production problems you face?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

20) How do you try to overcome the production constraints?a) _________________________________________________b) _________________________________________________c) _________________________________________________

21) Did you have to stop or reduce the scale of other activities that you used to conduct on the farm due to the demand for resources by the mushroom enterprise?If yes, What activities were reduced and by how much? a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

22. What are your plans regarding the scale of mushroom production in the next cycle? Increase/Decrease __________ by ____________%.

23) Do you hold any position in the mushroom groups? If yes, in your opinion will the committee remain functional after the end of the mushroom project? Yes/No

24) What are you arguments for the answer: _________________________________

84

25) What improvements should be implemented to improve the project? ____________________________________________________________

A. FARMER TRAINING IN MUSHROOM PRODUCTION/MARKETING

25) Have you received training on mushrooms production?a) If yes, what aspects of mushroom production were covered in the training? ______________________________________________________________

b) What aspects of the training were particularly useful in your mushroom project? __________________________________________________

26) Was the training adequate? Yes/No ________If not, what aspects would you want to see particularly emphasized for further training? _______________________________________________________

28) Who provided the training? 1 = Agritex2 = UZ 3 = Other farmers 4 = Both Agritex & UZ 5 = BRI (SIRDC)6 = Others (Specify) ________________

29) Have any other farmers requested for and been trained by you in the production of any of the three crops? Yes/No __________

30) How many farmers have requested for training? _____________

31) Have you received any training on the preparation of mushrooms for consumption? Yes/No ______________

32) In what aspects do you need further training?

a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

A. MARKETING

33) Have you sold any mushrooms so far? Yes/No ___________ If yes, what quantity did you sell:

In 2001? ______________In 2002? ______________

85

34) What other income generating activities do you conduct on the farm?___________________________________________________________

35) Please rank the activities in term of their contribution to your income?a) ________________________________b) ________________________________c) ________________________________d) ________________________________

36) Do you have any problems marketing your mushrooms? Yes/NoIf Yes, What are the problems you face? ______________________________________

37) Have you moved out of the original mushroom group and started your own independent house? Yes/No________If yes, why did you leave the group mushroom production enterprise? ____________________________________________________________

38) Did you leave the mushroom production as soon as spawn was sold instead of being given free? Yes/No ______. If yes, what problems did the new approach of supplying spawn present to you? _______________________________________________________________

39. Do you think the provision of mushroom spawn free to farmers was a sustainable approach? _____________________________________________

86

APPENDIX II: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT

A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

11) District: Hwedza = 1; Buhera = 2 12) Name of Respondent: _________________________

13) Gender M = 1; F = 2 ________

14) Age? ______ years.

15) Marital status ______ Married with resident spouse = 1; Married with spouse working away from home = 2; Widow/er = 3; Single = 4.

8) Do you own cattle Yes = 1; No = 2

16) If yes, number owned _________

17) How many are draft animals? ____________

18) How many people reside on the farm? ______________a) How many people work full time on the farm? _____________b) How many people work part-time on the farm? ____________c) How many children are below seven years? ______________

19) What is the size of you arable lands? ____________________

B. QUESTIONS FOR BNF FARMERS (SOYABEAN GROWERS)

20) Do you grow soyabeans?

21) When did you start growing soyabeans

22) What is the source of your seeds? 1 = Retained seed, 2 = Agro-dealer within district, 3 = Bought from Harare, 4 = Bought from Researchers 5 = Other (Specify)

13. What area did you plant to soyabeans when you started? __________

87

14) What area was under soyabeans in 2001/2002? __________ Variety grown __________

15) What area do you plan to plant to soyabeans this season? ______________

16) Did you have to stop or reduce the scale of other activities that you used to conduct on the farm due to the demand for resources by the soyabean enterprise? Yes/No

If yes, what activities were reduced and by how much? a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

17) Do you have any problems when growing soyabeans? Yes/No.If yes, what are the production problems you face?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

18) How do you try to overcome the production constraints?d) _______________________________________________________e) _______________________________________________________f) _______________________________________________________

19) Are you a member of the BNF/Soyabeans project? Yes/NoIf yes, what position do you hold in the soyabeans group? ___________________

20) In your opinion, will the committee remain functional after the end of the soyabeans project? Yes/NoWhat is you argument for the answer: ________________________________________

21) What should be implemented to improve the project? ____________________

C. FARMER TRAINING

22) Have you been trained in the production of soyabeans?

Yes/No ___________

Was the training adequate? Yes/No ___________If not, what other aspects would you like to be trained in? a) ___________________________________________________________b) ____________________________________________________________c) ____________________________________________________________

88

23) Who provided the training?

1 = AREX; 2 = UZ; 3 = Other farmers; 4 = Both UZ and AREX5 = Not known

24) Have you attended soyabeans production field days? Yes/No ___________Were these useful to you? Yes/No ___________If not, how could they be improved. ________________________________________

25) Have farmers requested for training on soyabean production from you? _______If yes, how many farmers have requested for the training? _________

26) How many farmers have you trained in soyabean production _________?

D. PROCESSING AND UTILISATION

27) Have you been trained in the preparation of soyabean into various products? Yes/No ______________

If yes, who trained you? 1 = UZ2 = Other farmers 3 = Agritex4 = Other projects (Specify) _______________________________5 = Not known

28). What products were you trained to produce? ___________________________

29) Rank the products in the order of preference: __________________________

30) Why do you prefer the products mentioned above?a) _______________________________b) _______________________________

31) Have you prepared any of the products in you own home for consumption? Yes/No _________

32) Which product(s) did you prepare? _____________________________

89

E. MARKETING

33) Have other farmers bought any soyabeans from you? Yes/No _________ If yes, how many farmers have approached you? _______

34) Who did you sell the soyabeans to? 1 = Other farmers, 2 = GMB, 3 = Researchers 4 = Other (Specify) ______________

35) If soyabeans was sold to other farmers, how did the other farmers want to use the beans?1 = Seed; 2 = Food; 3 = Other (Specify) _________________4 = Not known

36) If soyabeans were sold, What quantity was sold in?2001? ______________ 2002? ______________

37) How much income did you get from soyabeans in?2001 ___________ 2002 ___________

38) What other income generating activities do you conduct on the farm?______________________________________________________________

39) Please rank the activities in term of their contribution to your income?e) ________________________________f) ________________________________g) ________________________________h) ________________________________

40) Do you have any problems marketing your mushrooms? Yes/NoIf Yes, What are the problems you face? _____________________

90

APPENDIX III: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE MUSHROOM PROJECT

A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1) District: Hwedza = 1; Buhera = 2 2) Name of Respondent: _________________________

3) Gender M = 1; F = 2 ________

4) Age? ______ years.

5) Marital status ______ Married with resident spouse = 1; Married with spouse working away from home = 2; Widow/er = 3; Single = 4.

6) Do you own cattle Yes = 1; No = 2If yes, number owned _________

7) How many are draft animals? ____________

8) How many people reside on the farm? ______________d) How many people work full time on the farm? _____________e) How many people work part-time on the farm? ____________f) How many children are below seven years? ______________

9) What is the size of you arable lands? ____________________

B. QUESTIONS FOR SWEET POTATO PRODUCERS

10) Where you growing sweet potatoes before the arrival of the project?

11) Before the project, where were you getting planting materials?

12) Have you used the improved material from the project? Yes/No _________If yes? How did you obtain the planting materials? _________________

13) Do you see any benefits of planting the improved materials over the traditional one?If yes, what are the advantages? __________________________

14) Do you see any disadvantages of planting the improved materials over the traditional one?If yes, what are the disadvantages? __________________________

15) Are you still planting the unimproved sweet potato planting materials?

91

If yes, Why? ___________________________________________

16) Are you satisfied with the arrangement put in place for you to access the planting materials? Yes/No _______________If not, how could the arrangement be improved? _______________________

17) What area did you plant to sweet potatoes before the project? ____________

18) What area (or number of plants) was under sweet potatoes in 2001/2002? ____

19) What area do you plan to plant this season? ______________

20) Did you have to stop or reduce the scale of other activities that you used to conduct on the farm due to the demand for resources by the sweet potato enterprise?If yes, what activities were reduced and by how much? g) _______________________________________________________h) _______________________________________________________i) _______________________________________________________

21) Have you sold your sweet potatoes before? Yes / No ___________

22) Whom did you sell the potatoes? 1 = Other farmers, 2 = Urban Markets, 3 = Local Traders 4 = Other (Specify) ______________

23) Have other farmers requested for improved planting materials from you? ___If yes, how many farmers have approached you? _______

24) Do you have any problems when growing sweet potatoes? Yes/No.If yes, what are the production problems you face?

a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

25) How do you try to overcome the production constraints?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________

26) Are you a member of the Sweet-potato project? Yes/No

27) Do you hold any position in the sweet potatoes groups? If yes, what is your position? ______________________

92

If yes, in your opinion will the committee remain functional after the end of the sweet-potato project? Yes/No _______

28) What is you argument for the answer? ______________________________

29) How can the implementation of the project be improved? ___________________

B. FARMER TRAINING

30) Have you received training on the production of improved sweet potatoes.

31) Was the training adequate? _______________

32) Have you attended sweet potato production field days? ____________

33) Were these useful to you? ____________________

34) Who provided the training? 1 = AREX2 = Researchers3 = Other farmers 4 = Both Researchers and AREX 5 = Other (Specify) _______________

35) Were you satisfied with the training you received? Yes/No

36) What is required to improve the training? a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

37) Have you trained other farmers in sweet potato production? Yes/No _______

If yes, how many farmers have you trained? __________________

F. PROCESSING AND UTILISATION

38) Have you been trained in the preparation of sweet potato products? Yes/No __

39) What are these products? __________________________________________

40) Are there any limitations in using these products? Yes/NoIf yes, what are the limitations? ____________________________1 = AREX2 = Researchers3 = Other farmers

93

4 = Both Researchers and AREX 5 = Other (Specify) _______________

41) What is you order of preference of the products?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________c) _______________________________________________________

42) Have you prepared the products for your home consumption? Yes/No _______

43) What products have you prepared for you own consumption?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________

44) Why do you prefer the products mentioned above?a) _______________________________________________________b) _______________________________________________________

45) If you grow sweet potatoes, have you used the leaves as a relish? 1 = Never attempted2 = Tried it once 3 = Do it regularly

G. MARKETING

46) Have you sold your sweet-potato crop before? Yes/No ____ If yes, what quantity did you sell in:

2001? ______________ 2002? ______________

47) How much income did you get from sweet potatoes in:2001? ______________ 2002? ______________

48) What other crops income generating activities do you conduct on the farm?______________________________________________________________

49) Please rank the activities in term of their contribution to your income?a) ________________________________b) ________________________________c) ________________________________

50) Do you have any problems marketing your sweet potatoes? Yes/No ______If Yes, What are the problems you face? _____________________________

94

APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS IN THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS

Project District Name of farmerBNF Hwedza Mr L. Bhanhire

Mrs MazemaMupfupi BrothersMai ChiutsiMrs MarufuMrs MudyandariraMrs MakangaMrs Mashonganyika

Buhera Mr ZvapanoMr Zheke TakavadaMrs MukwatiMrs ZvapanoMrs Chivhoko

Mushroom Hwedza Mrs MazemaMr and Mrs MarufuMrs ZinzombeMrs MusarurwaMrs ChiutsiMrs MashonganyikaMrs L. BhanhireMupfupi Brothers

Buhera Mrs Chivoko

Sweet Potato Hwedza Mr L. Bhanhire

95

APPENDIX V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION FRAMEWORK AND ACTION PLAN

Aim: To enable farmers participating in the project to articulate impact of the project and show the organisations that participated in the project using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools

Action Plan:Objective PRA tools ActivityTo determine group perception of the various organisations that played a part in each of the three projects and to depict their availability and importance to the project

Venn diagram The group will be facilitated to draw circles representing organisations that participated in the project and using size and proximity to the central circle the project, indicate importance and availability to push the project agenda, respectively. The facilitator will probe to find out reasons for the way farmers place various organisations on the diagram and these sentiments will be duly recorded.

To determine group perception of ranking in order of importance to the group of project benefits, training courses and other product from project activities

Listing, simple ranking and pair-wise ranking

The group will be facilitated to list benefits or products derived from the project activities. Simple ranking will be achieved by giving the group a specific number of stones that they divide among the listed benefits in proportion to their perception of the importance of the benefits. The group will be facilitated to discuss the criteria for their ranking and the sentiments duly recorded. Pair-wise ranking will be used in place of simple ranking in cases where comparison among the benefits/products is desirable.

96

APPENDIX VI: PARTICIPANTS IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS DURING EVALUATION OF THREE BTZ PROJECTS

Name Date Position Mrs P. Chiunze-Dhliwayo

15/11/2002 Research Officer at Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), Marondera. Responsible for storage and rapid multiplication of virus cleaned planting materials and agronomic and plant pathology research on sweet potatoes. Left HRI in July 2002, now with ICRAF

Mrs Chirara 15/11/2002 Research Officer at the Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI). Responsible for producing virus clean planting material through heat treatment and meristem culture, testing for virus infection, hardening of ex-vitro plant sweet potato plants and their multiplication. Also involved in the Mushroom project in spawn production, training/advisory services to farmers.

Mr C. Kashangura

18/11/2002 Student sponsored by BTZ for M. Phil studies on optimising conditions for mushroom production by smallholder farmers. Converted to D. Phil studies. Involved from the inception of the mushroom project in extension/advisory service provision to groups and individual adopters

Mr Majongwe 19/11/2002 AREX Extension Supervisor, Murambinda, Buhera

Mrs Machidza 19/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, Ward 5A, BuheraMr V. Masuku 19/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, Ward 13, BuheraMr G. Rambire 19/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, Ward 14, BuheraMr A. Tseurayi 19/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, Ward 6, BuheraMr F Makonese 19/11/2002 Technician in Soil Science and Agricultural

Engineering Department, UZ, where the BNF project was based. Responsible for all operational issues on the BNF project in Hwedza and Buhera

Mrs Mujati AREX Extension Worker, Goto, HwedzaMrs D Kufa 20/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, Goto, HwedzaMr P. Tswarayi 20/11/2002 AREX Extension Worker, DendenyoreMr T. Chimbo 20/11/2002 AREX Extension Supervisor, HwedzaProf. S. Mpepereki

20/11/2002 Principal Investigator, BNF Project, Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, University of Zimbabwe. Responsible for putting in place a viable exit strategy for the BNF project to continue, on a sustainable basis, once the project ends.

Mr Ngoni Rufu 20/11/2002 BTZ field officer in charge of the sweet potato project. Will take over responsibility of co-ordination and of activities of the three projects in

97

Hwedza and Buhera once the institutions that are currently carrying the project activities pull out at the end of the projects. Will be responsible for implementing the exit strategy that the project teams will have set up to ensure sustainability of the projects.

Dr Mabveni 20/11/2002 Acting Principal Investigator in the Mushroom Project based in the Biological Sciences Department, University of Zimbabwe. Standing in place of Dr Kunjeku who is on sabbatical leave. Responsible for formulating and putting in place a viable exit strategy that ensures that the Mushroom Project farmers in Buhera and Hwedza continue to produce mushroom, in a sustainable manner, after the project has ended.

Mr A. Mswaka 20/11/2002 Mushroom spawn production technician in the Mushroom Project, Biological Sciences Department, University of Zimbabwe

Mrs Gatsi, Mrs Tungwarara, Mrs Zambuko, Mrs Muchero, Mrs Jakarasi

21/11/2002 Members of the Mawire East Pilot Sweet Potato Nursery (interviewed as a group)

Mrs Kandawasvika, Mrs Bviribvindi, Mrs Chitukuta, Mr Mugwara, Mr Gumbomunda

21/11/2002 Members of the Nyamhemba Sweet Potato Satellite Nursery (interviewed as a group)

Mr Zveke 27/11/2002 Chairman of the Nzara Yechingwa Yapera BNF group

Mr Mazaiwana 27/11/2002 AREX District Agricultural Extension Officer, Hwedza District.

Mrs MabvuvaMrs MawireMrs ChokoMrs ChohotaChihota

27/11/2002 Members of the New Tar mushroom Group, Dorowa

98

APPENDIX IX: EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLES BOUGHT FOR BRI (SIRDC) BY THE SWEET POTATO MICRO-PROPAGATION PROJECT

Equipment QuantityLaboratory EquipmentMagnetic stirrer with heaterDispensetteAlcohol lambs with wicksFreezer (-20 degrees Celsius)IncubatorCentrifugeWater BathPolaroid camera plus transilluminatorRefrigeratorElectrophoresis tanks and power packsLaminar air flowStandard autoclave (50 litres)Top loading analytical balancepH meter set and standDissecting microscopeStereo microscope plus light sourceGrowth chamberUltra-pure water filtration unitOrbital shakerBalanceLaboratory benchLaboratory stoolsGlasswareChemicals for meristem tip culture and propagation work

1221111112111111111116

As per project proposalAs per project proposal

Field EquipmentHose pipeWatering canHoesShovelsSmall hoes

200 metres1322

Office equipmentDesksChairsFile cabinetsBookshelvesPersonal computersPrinterVisitors chairs

3323216

99

APPENDIX VII: LETTER FROM DAEO BUHERA TO MEMBERS OF MURAMBINDA IRRIGATION SCHEME

AREX Box 50 BUHERA

13 th January 2003

I.M.C.MURAMBINDA IRRIGATION

RE: SWEET POTATO NURSERY PLOT: BTZ

According to earlier agreement and plans, the above was going to belong to the committee of 4 who do not have any plots in the Scheme.

Above plot is 1.0 ha and each of the 4 members owns share of 0.25 ha. This is where they will get their income as opposed from the other 35 members of the scheme who each have a minimum of 0.6 ha.

For the sustainability of nursery production, it is better to leave the 4 members run the nursery on professional basis.

The members are: Hilda Mapako ChairpersonSilvia Maposa Secretary Naume Mapudege (Muridzi) Storeman

J.R. Mashayapokuvaka(D.A.E.0.)

cc: Coordinator BTZC.E.O. BRDC

100

101

APPENDIX VIII: PROJECT OUTPUTS

UZ BNF TEAMPublications:

Svubure, O.; S. Mupepereki and F. Makonese, 2001. Legume production and farmer awareness of Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) Technologies in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe: Survey of Wedza and Buhera (Bio Technology Journal, No volume)

Svubure, O.; S. Mupepereki and F. Makonese. Grain legume residue soil fertility effects in a commula cropping system in Zimbabwe (Under review)

Svubure, O.; S. Mupepereki and F. Makonese. Nodulation, grain stover yield response of traditional legumes in sandy communal soils of Zimbabwe (Under review)

Svubure, O., 2000. Contibutions of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) by selected grain legumes to sustainability of maize-based cropping systems in communal areas of Zimbabwe. M. Phil Thesis. University of Zimbabwe.

BRI OUTPUTS IN SWEET POTATO MICRO-PROPAGATION PROJECT

Publications:

Chirara T., F. Gatsinzi, P. Dhliwayo-Chiunze and A. Matibiri 2000. Biotechnology for sweet potato production and improvement in Zimbabwe. Poster presented at the Biotechnology Symposium, Harare Polytechnic, May 2000.

Chirara T. 2002. Production of virus tested sweet potato stock plants. Paper presented at the BTZ Biotechnology Awareness Seminar Series, Tobacco Research Board, July 2002.

Chivero E. 2002. Sweet potato proccessing and utilisation. Paper presented at the BTZ Biotechnology Awareness Seminar Series. Tobacco Research Board, July 2002.

Rufu N. 2002. Field nursery establishment and management of sweet potatoes. Paper presented at the Biotechnology Awareness Seminar Series. Tobacco Research Board, July 2002.

102

UZ DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES OUTPUTS IN THE MUSHROOM PROJECT

BSc Level Student Research Projects

The following BSc in Biological Sciences projects were sponsored by the Mushroom project:

Zvakasikwa, K. 1996. Evaluation of readily available celluloic substrates for use in the evaluation of a tropical mushroom Pleurotus sajor-caju.

Dzadangu, V. 2001. Effect of nutrient supplementation on the performance of Pleurotus ostreatus

Sweto, A. V. 2001. The effect of light on the morphogenesis of the basidiocarps of the cultivated oyster mushrooms

Ngoroyemoto, N. 2002. An evaluation of the effect of spawn rate on the vegetative and fruit yield of Pleurotus sajor-caju and Pleorotus oestreatus

Zowa, T. 2002. Assessment of substrated on the performance of oyster mushrooms.

Chirima, J.G. 1999. The effect of composted and non-composted substrates on the yield of Pleurotus sajor-caju.

Goredema, W.P. 1995. The effect of abiotic environmental factors on mycelial growth of indigenous edible mushroom.

Mhingo, T. 1996. Nutritive values of tropical and exotic edible mushrooms of various growth habits.

Papers

Two papers have been published in a local non-refereed Biotechnology publication as follows;

Mswaka A. Y., C. Kashangura and J. L. Chigogora. 2001. Making use of locally available cellulosic wastes. Biotechnology of Zimbabwe 5 (2):4-7.

Kashangura C., E. C. Kunjeku, T. Chirara, A. Mabveni and A. Mswaka. 2002. Optimising mushroom cultivation conditions for smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Biotechnology of Zimbabwe 5 (5): 6-12.

Posters

Poster presentations on mushroom production for smallholder farmers at the Harare Agricultural Show, August 2001 and 2002.

103

Mabveni A. R. 2002. Research and development in mushroom production. Poster presented at the Industrial Development Corporation Workshop on mushroom production, IDC Head Office, Park Street, Harare, 29th Oct 2002.

Papers in preparation

Four papers are in preparation for submission to the refereed journal Mycological Research, UK, as follows;

Effect of temperature, matric and osmotic potential on mycelial growth rate of Pleurotus species.

Effect of pH on the mycelial growth rate of Pleurotus species

Further effects of matric and osmotic potential on mycelial growth rate of Pleurotus species

Evaluation of a formula to calculate the amount of water required for spawn production and the effect of omitting the boiling stage during spawn production.

The four papers are from C. Kashungara's Mphil work and are scheduled to be completed and send for review within this year.

Training Manuals

Kunjeku, E., J. L. Chigogora, V. Manjonjo-Dalu, C. Kashungara, G. Ashley, G. Nyamande and A. Mswaka. 2002. Training course for extension officers. BTZ Mushroom Project. 35 pages.

Kunjeku E., T. Chirara, A. Mswaka and C. Kashangura. 2002. Training of Trainers Manual. BTZ Mushroom Project. 19 pages.

Kashangura C. 2002. Manual for oyster mushroom (Pleurotus spp.)cultivation. BTZ Mushroom Project. 12 pages.

Kashangura C. 2002. Rugwaro rwekurimwa kwehwowa hwemando dzeoyster mushroom (Pleorotus spp.). BTZ Mushroom Project. 12 pages.

104

APPENDIX IX: EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLES BOUGHT FOR BRI (SIRDC) BY THE SWEET POTATO MICRO-PROPAGATION PROJECT

Equipment QuantityLaboratory EquipmentMagnetic stirrer with heaterDispensetteAlcohol lambs with wicksFreezer (-20 degrees Celsius)IncubatorCentrifugeWater BathPolaroid camera plus transilluminatorRefrigeratorElectrophoresis tanks and power packsLaminar air flowStandard autoclave (50 litres)Top loading analytical balancepH meter set and standDissecting microscopeStereo microscope plus light sourceGrowth chamberUltra-pure water filtration unitOrbital shakerBalanceLaboratory benchLaboratory stoolsGlasswareChemicals for meristem tip culture and propagation work

1221111112111111111116

As per project proposalAs per project proposal

Field EquipmentHose pipeWatering canHoesShovelsSmall hoes

200 metres1322

Office equipmentDesksChairsFile cabinetsBookshelvesPersonal computersPrinterVisitors chairs

3323216

105

106