survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to

Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum

bicholor) in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness

By Asmerom Kidane, Woldeamlak Araia, Zeru Ghebremichael and Goitom Gobezay

December 2004

DCG Report No. 33

Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor)

in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness

Sorghum field attacked by Striga hermonthica

DCG Report No. 33

December 2004

The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical experiences and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. DCG facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policy-making institutions. The DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and sustainable natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian People's Aid, The Strømme Foundation and The Development Fund. Noragric, the Centre for International Environment and Development Studies at the Agricultural University of Norway, provides the secretariat as a facilitating and implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation). Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG secretariat. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author(s) and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.

© Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z., & Gobezay, G., Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 33 (12, 2004) Drylands Coordination Group c/o Noragric P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 94 98 23 Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org ISSN: 1503-0601 Photo credits: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg. Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås. Printed at: Rotator, Ås.

iii

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ....................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Location of the study area ...................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Population............................................................................................................... 1 1.1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.4. Soils........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1.5 Crop production...................................................................................................... 5 1.1.6 Livestock production.............................................................................................. 5 1.1.7 Source of income.................................................................................................... 6

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT................................................................................................ 7

1.3 PURPOSES AND GOALS ................................................................................................ 8

1.4 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... 8

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 9

2.1 GROUP DISCUSSION...................................................................................................... 9

2.2 HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW ........................................................................................... 9

2.3 FIELD SAMPLING AND PLANT COUNTS ............................................................... 10 2.3.1. Sample collection ....................................................................................................... 10

2.4 DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................... 10

2.5 SECONDARY DATA AND DOCUMENTATION....................................................... 10

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................. 12

3.1 SORGHUM HUSBANDRY IN RELATION TO STRIGA.......................................... 12 3.1.1 Choice of crops............................................................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Landraces and their characteristics ............................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Seed source.................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.4 Seed bed preparation ................................................................................................... 15 3.1.5 Source of power .......................................................................................................... 16 3.1.6 Cropping calendar ....................................................................................................... 17 3.1.7 Seeding rate ................................................................................................................. 18 3.1.8 Moisture conservation practices.................................................................................. 19 3.1.9 Fertility ........................................................................................................................ 20

iv

3.1.10 Crop rotation ............................................................................................................. 22 3.1.11 Intercropping ............................................................................................................. 23 3.1.12 Harvesting ................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.13 Grain yield................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.14 Production constraints ............................................................................................... 26

3.2 STRIGA MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 27 3.2.1 Striga species and symptoms....................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Striga in relation to other weeds.................................................................................. 29 3.2.3 Striga distributions and source of dissemination......................................................... 31 3.2.4 Striga counts, biomass and dry weight........................................................................ 34 3.2.5 Striga seeds in soil bank .............................................................................................. 36 3.2.6 Striga control ............................................................................................................... 37

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 42

4.1 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 42

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 43

5. REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 45

v

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample family size and status of the studied areas ...................................................... 2 Table 2: Response of farmers on livestock type and size .......................................................... 6 Table 3: Source of income of the farmers interviewed .............................................................. 6 Table 4: The frequency of farm sizes of interviewed farmers in the villages .......................... 12 Table 5: Type of landraces grown in the villages of the study area......................................... 13 Table 6: Landraces and their characteristics in the villages of the study area ......................... 14 Table 7: Response of farmers on the plough frequency for land preparation .......................... 15 Table 8: Farmers’ responses on the source of power for land preparation .............................. 17 Table 9: Farmers’ access to tractor service to plough.............................................................. 17 Table 10: Cropping calendars and crop type in the study area ................................................ 18 Table 11: Relationship between soil type and date of planting in sorghum ............................ 18 Table 12: Range of seeding rates of crops in kg/ha in the study area ...................................... 19 Table 13: Farmers’ experiences on soil and water conservation systems................................ 19 Table 14: Farmers’ know how on the use of fertilizers............................................................ 21 Table 15: An example of rotation cycle practiced by limited farmers..................................... 23 Table 16: Percent of farmers practicing crop rotation in the study area. ................................. 23 Table 17: Type of intercropping practiced among limited farmers in the study area .............. 24 Table 18: Yield (qt/ha) of crops during poor and good years .................................................. 25 Table 19: The extent of yield reduction in a field with striga infestation as responded by

farmers.............................................................................................................................. 26 Table 20: Response of farmers on production constraints in the study area............................ 27 Table 21: Types of weeds, months of abundance and time of weed control common in the

villages of the study area.................................................................................................. 31 Table 22: Weed control mechanisms applied by farmers ........................................................ 31 Table 23: Farmers’ know how on striga way of distribution ................................................... 33 Table 24: Response on the source of dissemination for striga................................................. 33 Table 25: Extent of striga infestation as responded by farmers ............................................... 33 Table 26: The relationship between the striga weight and grain yield..................................... 36 Table 27: Farmers’ responses on the control mechanisms of striga ........................................ 40 Table 28: Farmers’ responses on constraints for controlling striga. ........................................ 40 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of the Goluge sub zone in Gash Barka ............................................................... 3 Figure 2: Total rainfall in mm of Goluge from 1998 to 2002 .................................................... 4 Figure 3: Members of the research team while conducting a household interview with the

farmers in the study area. ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Striga counts in a sorghum field ............................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Sorghum field showing poor performance ............................................................... 28 Figure 6: Attachment of striga on sorghum roots .................................................................... 28 Figure 7: Number of striga plants m2 in fields planted with different type of crops............... 35 Figure 8: Number of striga seeds in different depths of sampling ........................................... 37 Figure 9: Early planting of sorghum with striga infestation .................................................... 38 Figure 10: Late planting showing less striga infestation.......................................................... 38

vi

FOREWORD

About 70-80% of the population in Eritrea depends on subsistence agriculture. Improvement

of income and productivity at farm level through addressing the production constraints is very

essential. One of the critical production constraints is the problem of striga on sorghum that is

rendering the production uneconomic.

Goluge sub zone is the breadbasket of Eritrea, where sorghum and sesame are grown in large

hectares. During the last few years build up of striga has been increasing from year to year

and the impact has resulted in decreasing the productivity. The striga infestation is aggravated

by poor soil fertility and inappropriate cropping systems in the area.

This research team has translated and prepared a bulletin on striga and its control in local

languages (Tigrigna and Arabic) to be used by the farming community. Seminars and

workshops on the indigenous knowledge on striga organized by the research team will

definitely create awareness among farmers.

The research team would like to thank NORAD for financing this research, NORAGRIC and

DCG Norway for the coordination. We are also very grateful to the members of the DCG

Eritrea and NCEW especially Ato Amanuel Negassi, Mrs. Larraine Block, Mrs. Ellen

Borchgrevink and Mr. Paul Roden for their support in facilitating the financial and

administrative issues. We are also thankful to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture in the

sub zoba and the Goluge Research Station for their support and assistance.

The Research Team

Asmara, March 2004

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The study was conducted in the Goluge sub zone, which is one of the 13 sub zones in the

Gash Barka Administrative zone. Goluge is flat in area with chains of hills extended in

eastern and northern parts. The elevation ranges from 540 to 1470 m above sea level. The

total population is about 35,158 distributed over five villages- Goluge, Omhajer, Sabunite,

Gergef and Tebeldia. Most of the people live in Goluge and Omhajer.

2. The soil is low in both nitrogen and organic matter with phosphorus and potassium

notably medium to high. Sorghum and sesame are the main crops grown in the study area.

The livestock population fluctuates depending on the season with the majority of the

livestock being sheep and goats followed by cattle. About 93 % of the farmers interviewed

do not own drought animals and farmers are interested in owning very few and selective

types.

3. The current cropping system in the Goluge sub zone is vulnerable to high infestation of

striga and degradation of soil fertility. The build up of striga due to the traditional sole

cropping of sorghum has been increasing from year to year. This has resulted in the loss of

production. The low nitrogen content in the soil further aggravates the striga build up.

4. No detailed socio economic survey on striga was conducted in the Goluge sub zone.

Furthermore, creating awareness among the farming community through organizing

seminars has been inadequate. There is no adequate documentation and dissemination on

the indigenous knowledge of striga using bulletins, booklets, posters etc in local languages

especially in Tigrigna, Arabic or Tigre. The agronomic research to control striga is not

addressed properly. Therefore, this socio-economic survey was conducted to fill the gap.

5. The major objectives of the survey were to:

- assess the indigenous knowledge adopted for striga management and control;

- upgrade farmers awareness through seminars;

- provide farmers with bulletins on striga translated into local languages;

viii

- assess the striga-sorghum relationship and understand the soil bank as a reserve for

striga seed.

6. The survey was initiated to cover the potential sorghum growing areas of the Goluge

sub zone comprising five villages specified above in No. 1. The study was done using

group discussion with 10-15 farmers selected from each village who represented

various ethnic groups, gender, wealth and age groups. Open-ended topics for

discussions were held in order to obtain adequate information. These were followed by

household interviews using a questionnaire. About 100 farmers were taken randomly

for the household interview. Soil sample was collected from different areas to identify

the seed bank of striga in the soil. Other data collected were striga counts, fresh weight

and dry weight of striga. The data was compiled and organized in the form of tables

and figures and was interpreted. The quantitative data was compiled by converting it

into percentages and mean values. Seminars and workshops were organized for

farmers and extension agents in the sub zone to receive feedback and to create

awareness.

7. The study revealed that farmers use a number of sorghum landraces that have

resistance to striga- Wediferej, Korokora, Hiriray, Ajebsid (tolerant) etc. The farmers

also stated that there are sorghum landraces that are susceptible to striga namely

Arfagedom, Tabat, Gedamalhama etc.

8. It was also found that minimum tillage is practiced either by ploughing the land once

during seed covering or one time ploughings followed by a second ploughing for seed

covering during planting. Farmers in the area are aware of an increased weed

infestation if minimum tillage is used. If weeds are controlled properly then minimum

tillage can be preferable. Most farmers indicated that they are obliged to use minimum

tillage because of lack of adequate machinery services.

9. Date of planting depends on the nature of the crop, type of landrace or variety used,

soil type, availability of machinery and the farmer’s capacity to control weeds. In

black clay soils, which are wet and sticky planting is performed late because farmers

ix

have to wait until the soils are dry. Sorghum planting is done mainly in July and

August.

10. Farmers usually adjust the planting date so that the sorghum landraces can escape the

problem of striga. For example Hiriray and Higritay if planted early (July) become

susceptible to striga; when planted late (August) they can escape the striga infestation.

11. The moisture and soil conservation practices are critical for sustainable crop

production, but more than 75% of the farmers do not practice any soil and water

conservation measures. Those who plough the land either once or twice consider it as

a conservation measure. Farmers rarely use stone bunding, tied ridging, etc for

conserving moisture and protecting the soil from run off. Such moisture conservation

measures can inhibit the germination of striga and reduce the infestation.

12. Soil fertility is important not only for increasing productivity but also for minimizing

the infestation of striga. Farmers do not apply organic manure to improve the fertility

of the soil. Other reasons for not using manure could also be its lack of availability,

lack of transportation, and a lack of knowledge on the benefits of manure. Some of the

strategies adopted to maintain the fertility of the soil are alternate planting of landraces

but these practices do not seem to contribute to the fertility of the soil and need

confirmation. Fertilizer application is also not common because farmers believe that

fertilizers give a better yield when there is adequate rainfall. Thus for sustaining crop

production and minimizing the infestation of striga, application of both organic and

non-organic fertilizers are helpful. This has to be integrated with soil and moisture

conservation practices.

13. Farmers are aware that crop rotation reduces weed infestation and maintains the

fertility of the soil. They also think that crop rotation is changing varieties or landraces

of same crops, a practice which is not helpful either in weed or pest reduction and

increasing the soil fertility. For example, in some of the villages farmers rotate

Wediaker against Hiriray and back to Wediake, which are all sorghum landraces.

About 69% of the farmers never used crop rotation meaning that they plant their land

x

only with sorghum mono cropping. Only 31% of the farmers use crop rotation but do

not follow it strictly because of rainfall variability, lack of suitable grain legumes for

rotation, shortage of labor for harvesting and weeding (especially for sesame, pearl

millet etc).

14. If drought is combined with striga attack, the yield of sorghum becomes nil. About

69% of the farmers have indicated that reduction of yield due to striga ranges from 80-

100%. If striga is not controlled properly, the infestation leads to significant yield

losses in sorghum.

15. Striga hermonthica with large flowers and red or purple corolla is the prevalent species in

the study area. The weed emerges in mid August and stays up to September. It damages

the plant more when there is insufficient moisture in the soil. The symptoms shown due

to striga infestation would be stunted growth, wilting of the crop and finally burning or

discolouration of the leaves. The poor performance of crops is much more severe when

striga infestation and drought are combined together.

16. There are few weeds other than striga that are particularly associated with sorghum,

and the range of species varies widely in different sorghum growing villages of the

Goluge sub zone. The weeds are Tebor (bind weed) Hemeray (melokia), and Adar

(Sudan grass). Sudan grass is an alternative host for striga. Weed control measures

adopted by farmers other than striga are hand weeding, inter-row cultivation, use of

chemicals and replanting. The major constraints in weed control are lack of labor and

money.

17. There are several sources of striga distribution and dissemination: the movement of

livestock from one place to another for grazing; winds carrying striga seeds from one

field to another; flooding also transports or moves weed seeds available in the soil

bank from one place to another; weed seeds are introduced together with seeds used

for planting. Farmers are unaware that farm tools, equipments (machinery) and man

himself (shoes or boots) can disseminate the striga from one place to another causing

infestation. The spread of striga can be prevented by using clean seeds or seeds that

xi

have been imported through proper channels using quarantine regulations; cleanliness

of the farm tools and implements after working in infested fields; preventing livestock

to graze in fields that are heavily infested with striga; collection, drying and burning of

the uprooted striga plants and removal of striga from the field before the weed sets

seeds.

18. The number of striga counts m2 has indicated that the lowest number of striga was

counted from fallow lands and virgin lands. Lands cropped with pearl millet and

chickpea have also shown less number of striga than sorghum monocropping, which

had the highest number of striga infestation. There was striga infestation in virgin

lands indicating that striga seeds might have been spread by either wind, ploughing

machines etc.

19. The control measures are not universally applied in the villages of the study areas. The

most important control measures are replanting, adjusting planting date, higher

seeding rate, choice of a crop or land races, crop rotation (not properly done),

intercropping, washing seed with water, washing seed with urine, and chemical

application. Actually there is no single control measure available for complete control

of striga. The major constraints contributing to the lack of adequate control of striga

are the lack of proper crop rotation practices, lack of resistant variety to control striga

and lack of appropriate soil and water conservation.

Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in Goluge

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The Goluge sub zone where the study has been done is described below in terms of location,

population, soils, climate, crop production, livestock production and source of income.

1.1.1 Location of the study area Eritrea is divided into six agro-ecological zones out of which the Western Lowlands Zone

(Gash-Barka) is identified as a priority zone, an area with a potential that has not yet been

exploited.

There are six political administrative zones and 52 sub zones in Eritrea in which Goluge is

one of the 13 sub zones in the Gash Barka Administrative Zone. It is located in the

Southwestern part of Eritrea sharing boundaries with Ethiopia to the south and Sudan to the

West. Its geographical location is between 150 N and 37o 15’ East. Most of the Goluge’s skin

area is flat with chains of hills extending in eastern and northern parts. The elevation ranges

from 540 to 1470 m above sea level. The area of the sub zone is estimated to be about 5152.5

sq. km with arable land being about 300,000 ha, out of which 21% is under cultivation (Figure

1).

1.1.2 Population The total population in the study area is about 35,158 out of which 30% of the population

lives in Goluge (10,595 people) followed by Omhajer (9.737 people) with 27.7%. Sabunite

has the least population with 2,769 people living in the village, which is about 7.9%. The rest

of the villages such as Gergef and Tebeldia have 6,559 and 5,498 people respectively. All

Ethnic groups are found in the sub zone, but the prominent ones are Tigre, Saho and Tigrigna

ethnic groups.

During the 1961-1991 period of the armed struggle against Ethiopia many villagers of the

Goluge sub zone fled to Sudan and some were internally displaced within Eritrea. However,

after independence many returned to Eritrea and settled in the villages. According to the

assessment conducted in three out of the five villages about 40 to 85% are returnees, except in

Sabunite where 95% of the people are demobilized ex-fighters. About 63% of the farmers that

were interviewed have a family size greater than 6 and 37% have a family size of less than 5.

This is advantageous for securing human labor.

Drylands Coordination Group

2

About 45% of family members are under the age of 14 and 55% above the age of 15. At the

moment almost all males between the ages of 20-40 are at the national service (Table 1). For

this reason household labor is not sufficient to meet the requirements of crop production in all

the villages, especially during the peak periods of weeding and harvesting. That is why

farmers choose to plant sorghum, which is less laborious than the alternative crop sesame. As

a result, farmers commonly practice the monoculture system. This forces every farmer to

work on his own; very few hire labor even though sometimes they work together during

weeding and harvesting.

Table 1: Sample family size and status of the studied areas

Returnee Family size Age group Remarks Village

Yes No � 5 �6 < 14 >14

Goluge 8 12 3 12 48 68

Gergef - - 9 11 46 89

Sabunite 1 19 12 8 74 48 Ex-fighters

Tebeldia 17 3 4 16 81 69

Omhajer 9 11 6 14 45 86

� 35 45 34 61 294 360

% 43.5 46.5 37 63 45 55


3

GOLUJ Pot=146,301 Act=72,000

STATE OF ERITREA

Figure 1: Map of the Goluge sub zone in Gash Barka


4

1.1.3 Climate The Southwesterly monsoon winds bring rainfall to the area during the summer mainly from

June to October. More than 90% of the rainfall occurs between June and September. From

north to south, it ranges from 320 mm in Teseney to 610 mm in Omhajer per annum (Kelim,

1995). In Gash Barka, Tokombia is a place where the rainfall is the highest.

Figure 2 shows the rainfall of Goluge for 5 years from 1998 to 2002. It was the highest during

1998 and 1999 with 482 mm and 469 mm respectively. It decreased during 2001 and 2002.

This indicates that Goluge has suffered from a shortage of rainfall during the past two years

and it was not evenly distributed during the growing period.

1.1.4. Soils The soil texture in the sub zone varies widely from loamy sand to sandy loam; clay loam to

sandy clay loam; silty loam and clay. The soil of the areas showed that it is low in both

nitrogen and organic matter which ranges between 0.1-1.45%. However phosphorus and

potassium ranges from medium to high. The soil reaction is mild to moderate alkaline

(Atzbeha et al., 1998). The dominant soil types are classified as vertisols and fluvisols with

flat and gently sloping areas, which are suitable for rainfed agriculture having a high potential

if properly managed. The vertisols usually swell when there is high moisture and crack or

shrink during the dry season.

Figure 2: Total rainfall in mm of Goluge from 1998 to 2002


5

1.1.5 Crop production Sorghum and sesame are the main crops grown in the study area. Gash Barka in fact has the

highest percentage of 130, 000 ha sorghum production in Eritrea. Pearl millet is also well

adaptable in the area. The cropping system is dominated by mono cropping of sorghum,

which is a staple food in the area with sesame grown as a cash crop. The current cropping

system is vulnerable to high infestation of striga and degradation of soil fertility, which results

in low yield. Other factors affecting productivity are the absence of water harvesting or

moisture conservation techniques or practices, poor market of oil crops like sesame and

shortage of labor.

1.1.6 Livestock production The livestock population normally fluctuates from season to season. Currently the livestock

population is about 159, 752 with sheep and goats- 81,400; cattle-70, 960; donkeys-5, 000 and

camels- 2, 300. A large majority of farmers in the Gash Barka Zone are agro pastoralists who

rely on both crops and livestock production. Goats are the most common animals, even

though camels and cattle are widespread. Camels are used for ploughing and are the best

adopted animals to drought prone conditions. There is no balance between crop and livestock

production where the livestock component at household level seems to be small and

insignificant.

The head of cattle, goats, sheep and camel per household or family is only 0.69, 0.39 and

0.03% respectively which is very small. Chickens do exist but are hardly important. Above

93% of the total households do not own drought animals (Table 2). They own very few and

selective (quality) types of livestock, which are mainly used for milk and meat. Goats and

cows are reared for milk and sheep mainly for meat. The livestock component does not

contribute to the supply of manure nor draft power to plough. This implies that tractors are the

major components used to plough the land. Out of the people interviewed only 11 owned

cattle (56 heads), none owned chicken, one owned camels (3 heads) and five owned goats and

sheep (29 heads) only.


6

Table 2: Response of farmers on livestock type and size

Village Cattle Goats & sheep Camel

Goluge 5 10 0

Gergef 0 14 0

Sobunite 20 15 3

Tebeldia 33 0 0

Omhajer 3 0 0

� 61 39 3

% 0.61 0.39 0.03

Note: the number of chickens is nil hence not shown in the table.

1.1.7 Source of income Most of the farmers stated that they rely on crops or animal production. However, several of

the people depend on non-agricultural activities. The important non-agricultural activities

mentioned by the people are mini shop, mini cafeteria, hired labor, water fetching and sale of

livestock. Those who rely on non-agricultural activities depend on mini shops (12%) and

livestock sale (9%) and mini cafeteria (3%). Labor hiring is also one of the sources of income,

but is mainly concentrated in three villages. Sale of livestock as a source of income is

common only in two villages, Sabunite and Tebeldia. Owning a mini shop as a source of

income was mentioned in all the villages except in Goluge. Water fetching from hand dug

wells and spreading it in to shallow pools for livestock use and human consumption was noted

only in Sabunite, which accounts for only 2% (Table 3).

Table 3: Source of income of the farmers interviewed Villages Crop

Sale

Min

shop

Mini

cafeteria

Livestock Water

fetching

Labor

hire

Goluge 20 - - - - 2

Gergef 20 1 3 - - 3

Sabunite 20 5 - 4 2 3

Tebeldia 20 2 - 5 - -

Omhajer 20 4 - - - -

% 100 12 3 9 2 8


7

The farmers who were interviewed have indicated that they produce crops both for home

consumption and sale. Almost all farmers responded that their source of income is farming.

Sesame is the main cash crop, which provides income whereas sorghum is produced for food

and sale.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT The current cropping system is vulnerable to high infestation of striga and degradation of soil

fertility, which has contributed to unsustainable crop production resulting in low yield. The

build up of striga due to the traditional sole cropping of sorghum has been on the increase and

is a major threat to agricultural production in the area due to striga which is confirmed by the

1996-1997 report of the MoA. Purseglove (1981) has shown that too frequent cultivation of

sorghum on the same piece of land often leads to the build up of striga infestation. The factors

that aggravate uneconomical crop production through severe striga build up are inefficient

cropping systems, poor soil fertility and moisture stress, and related agronomic practices.

The fertility of the soil in the Goluge sub zone shows that the organic matter content ranges

from 0.1 to 1.45% (Ministry of Agriculture, 2000), which implies that the nitrogen content is

very low aggravating striga build up and it is known that nitrogenous manure often reduces

striga attack (Purseglove, 1981).

Some studies on striga have been going on in the Goluge Research Station such as screening

of varieties, striga distribution and infestation, etc. However, no detailed socio economic

survey has been done in all the villages of the sub zone. Furthermore, creating awareness

among the farming community, particularly by organizing seminars for farmers has been

inadequate. Besides there is no documentation and dissemination of indigenous knowledge on

striga through bulletins, booklets, posters etc. in local languages Tigrigna, Tigre or Arabic.

Agronomic research to control striga has not been adequately addressed. Therefore, this

socio-economic survey was conducted to fill this gap.


8

1.3 PURPOSES AND GOALS

The main purpose of the project is to assess and evaluate striga infestation through a socio-

economic survey in the villages of the Goluge sub zone and to create awareness among the

farming community. Its ultimate goal is to increase household food security in the area by

creating awareness among the farming community, improving the cropping system, and

addressing the agronomic packages that have not been given adequate attention in research.

The project is aimed at benefiting 12,000 poor farmers (family heads) and 600 ex-fighters

(family heads) in the area; a small number of commercial farmers will share the benefits.

1.4 OBJECTIVES

In order to attain the above-mentioned purposes and goals the project has the following

objectives:

- Conduct a socio-economic survey to asses the agronomic packages adopted for striga

control; and to know the intensity, dissemination, yield loss and control of striga in

the Goluge area;

- Identify indigenous knowledge and recommend efficient crop management as well as

research intervention for sustainable yield and to reduce the infestation of striga;

- Upgrade farmers’ awareness through seminars, bulletins, posters and translation into

local languages;

- Assess the striga-sorghum relationship in farmers’ fields;

- Understand the relationship between striga-soil bank seed reserves and the impact of

cropping systems on the seed bank in the soil.


9

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 GROUP DISCUSSION

This survey was initiated to cover the potential sorghum growing area of the Goluge sub zone

mainly the villages of Goluge, Sabunite, Gergef, Tebeldia and Omhajer. From each village a

maximum of 10-15 farmers were selected for group discussions. Open-ended topics for

discussion were used for generating a free flow of information. The farmers who participated

in the group discussion represented various age groups such as old, medium and young and

different wealth groups- rich, moderate and poor. Gender representation was taken into

account so that female groups can participate in the discussion. Gender representation was not

easy in some of the villages, but an attempt was made to accommodate women in the

discussion. Extension agents as well as employees of the sub zoba Ministry of Agriculture

also participated in the group discussion.

2.2 HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW

A questionnaire for the household

interview was used to verify the

data gathered through group

discussion. It also helped to obtain

quantitative data that was not

gathered in group discussions. A

total of 100 questionnaires were

filled out representing about 20

household questionnaires from each

village. The questionnaire was

designed to promote and sustain the

interest of farmers. Staff of the

Ministry of Agriculture in the sub

zoba and the Goluge Research Station participated in filling out the household interview

(Figure 3).

Figure 3: Members of the research team while conducting a household interview with the farmers in the study area.


10

2.3 FIELD SAMPLING AND PLANT COUNTS

2.3.1. Sample collection Soil samples were collected from five different fields in order to identify the seed bank of

striga in the soil. These are:

−fields planted with continuous sorghum

−fields rotated with pearl millet

−fields rotated with sesame

The soil samples were taken from 4 different depths namely 0 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm in

4 replications with a total of 16 samples. Therefore the research group assisted by three

surveyors collected about 48 samples

from 3 different fields, during 5 days. The

sample was sent to Kenya for analysis in

order to determine the quantity of striga

seeds in fields with different cropping

systems.

Striga counts were made using quadrants

to find out the number of striga per m2

(Figure 4). A striga sample was taken

using a quadrant and both fresh weight

and dry weight were taken. The dry weight of striga was determined after putting the sample

in the oven at 103 0C for 24 hours by Gravimetric Method.

2.4 DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS The data was compiled and organized in the form of tables, figures along with interpretations.

The quantitative data from household questionnaire was compiled by converting the data in to

percentages (%) and mean values. Seminars and workshops were organized for farmers and

extension agents in the sub zone to get feedback and creating awareness.

2.5 SECONDARY DATA AND DOCUMENTATION Photographic documentation was also used as much as possible, especially on striga species

and the performance of sorghum fields attached or infested by striga. Secondary data was

Figure 4: Striga counts in a sorghum field


11

collected from the Sub zoba Ministry of Agriculture mainly for the description of the area.

Literature review on striga was collected to relate the findings of this particular study with

other studies. The research findings were translated in local languages (Tigrina and Arabic) in

the form of bulletin for farmers and extension agents.


12

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 SORGHUM HUSBANDRY IN RELATION TO STRIGA

3.1.1 Choice of crops Maize is mainly grown near the homestead, which occupies the smallest area compared to

other crops. Pearl millet is mainly grown as an insurance or alternative to striga control even

though threshing and bird incidence (attack) is a problem. Sesame requires a lot of labor

during production and has a problem of shattering and waterlogging which affects the yield of

the crop. Sesame is next to sorghum in area allotted (25% of the area) especially in Goluge

whereas in the other villages the importance of pearl millet and sesame are more or less

similar. Sorghum is the major crop grown in all the villages.

About 55% of the farmers own land less than 5 hectares and 19% more than 50 hectares of

land. The smallest percentage of farmers own land between 21 and 50 hectares (Table 4).

Sometimes, in spite of the big size of land, the plough operation is hampered by lack of

tractors.

Table 4: The frequency of farm sizes of interviewed farmers in the villages Village Farm size (ha)

≤5 6≤10 11≤20 21≤50 >50

Goluge 7 5 1 1 6

Gergef 16 3 1 - -

Sobunite 15 1 4 - -

Tebeldia 15 2 2 - 1

Omhajer 2 2 2 2 12

% 55 13 10 3 19

3.1.2 Landraces and their characteristics There are a number of landraces that have been grown in the area for generations. Some are

similar in all the villages and some are not (Table 5). The type of landraces shows the genetic

wealth that the area possesses in terms of variability of materials.

The characteristics of the landraces are shown in Table 6. It is important to note that some of

these are resistant to striga and some are susceptible.


13

Hiriray: the stalk of the crop is not used for animal feed and it is difficult to harvest because

of higher lodging incidence.

Eklolmoy: this landrace is sometimes called Alighider. It gives higher yields when the water

availability is adequate (supplementary irrigation).

Wediferej: three types are known- the tall ones having a bigger peduncle; the shorter ones

with medium peduncle and dwarf types with small peduncle. The problem with this type of

sorghum is that it is highly cross-pollinating, especially with wild sorghum.

Table 5: Type of landraces grown in the villages of the study area Location Landraces

Sorghum Pearl millet Sesame

Goluge WediAker, Hiriray, Gundufay, Abdulrezak

Tabat, Arfagedom,

Wediferej, Eklolmoy

Gangela, Sodorotay

Bazenay

Sabunite WediAker, Hiriray,

Wediferej, Higirtay

Gundufay, Bazenay Abdulrezak, Abunama,

Hirhir, Abuleben

Tebeldia WediAker, Hiriray, Tegil Abunama

Higirtay

Gergef WediAker, No landraces Abunama,

Gedamalhamam Abuleben

Korokora, Ajebsidi, Abusanduk,

Wediferej, Higritay, Jebrok, Hirhir

Bazenay, Arfagedom,

Hiriray

Omhajer WediAker, Hiriray, No landraces Abunama, Jebrok,

Higirtay, Wediferej Abdulrezak,

Korokora, Arfagedom Abuleben, Hirhir,

Gedamalhamam, Abusanduk

Bazenay


14

Table 6: Landraces and their characteristics in the villages of the study area Type Characteristics

Sorghum

WediAker susceptible to striga, productive, birds susceptible

Wediferej resistant to striga, requires more water, tall, lodging

Higertay white seeded, resistant to striga, grows tall, early maturing

Arfagedom susceptible to striga and birds, early maturing, white seeded

Hiriray less productive, lodging incidence, resistant to striga, early

maturing, red seeded, requires less water, preferable for injera

Eklolmoy high yielding if water is adequate, preferable for injera

Tabat more water requirement, dwarf stalk, white seeded, early maturing (75 days),

susceptible to striga

Bazenay resistant to birds, 2 panicle per plant, yellow seeded, bitter seeded, mainly

used for local beverages

Korokora resistant to striga, early maturing, medium yield

Ajebsidi high yielding, tolerates striga, early maturing, moderate in

preference for its food and animal feed

Gedamalhama high yielding, early maturing, less tolerant to striga, stalk preferable for

animal feed

Bazeny: this is a landrace with bitter seeds, which is not liked by birds, such as the Quela

quela, and is common only among the Kunama ethnic groups. The seed is mainly used as

food by mixing it with other landraces (to avoid the bitter taste).

Arfagedem: this landrace has interesting characteristics especially when it comes to striga

resistance. It is susceptible to striga when planted early, during June and July, because the

striga emerging in August can attack the crop. However, if planted late in August it will

escape the attack of striga because the weed infestation will be less.

3.1.3 Seed source Farmers use single plant selections having a bigger panicle, early maturing and clean from

diseases as a source of seed for the growing season. Some farmers keep as high as 10-15

quintals to be used for seed. However, during bad years they either buy seeds from the market

or borrow from friends. The Ministry of Agriculture also provides the seeds to farmers, which

include Hiriray, Wedefere, Gedamhamam, WediAker and Mayo.


15

3.1.4 Seed bed preparation Minimum tillage refers to crop husbandry practices carried out during the period of growing

crops. Its aim is to reduce the number of plough operations required to grow a crop while

maintaining optimum physical conditions needed for crop growth. Frequent use of tillage

implements disturbs the soil structure and increases the loss of soil moisture through

evaporation and leaching. The advantages of minimum tillage are that rough textured soils are

formed with medium to small pores assisting in high water holding capacity and less run off

which conserves soil moisture by enabling the soil to hold large quantities of water; it reduces

soil erosion by providing soil cover, saves time and labor; it is cheap and saves money for

cultivation; the extension rate of root axis is lower but lateral branching of roots starts earlier

leading to the production of dense roots. The stand establishment is better under minimum

tillage where a high number of emerged plants are reported in minimum tillage than in

conventional tillage.

Table 7: Response of farmers on the plough frequency for land preparation Villages Once Twice Thrice

Goluge 5 11 4

Gergef 16 4 -

Sobunite 20 - -

Tebeldia 14 16 -

Omhajer 1 18 1

% 56 39 5

In the Goluge sub zone, farmers indicated that minimum tillage is practiced for planting crops

either ploughing the land once (0+1) during covering of the seed or one time ploughing

followed by another one time ploughing (1+1) during covering of the seed. Farmers in the

area are cautious that there is increased weed infestation in minimum tillage, which is in

agreement with Arnon (1972) who stated that in minimum tillage weed infestation is higher.

If weeds can be controlled through either herbicides or hand weeding then minimum tillage is

advantageous. Most farmers use minimum tillage because they rarely use seedbed preparation

twice due to the problem of machinery.


16

Minimum tillage is growing in popularity in semi arid parts of Africa. However, considerable

caution is required in using this technique, especially for long periods because of the low

organic matter content, absence of earth warm and other soil working organisms. These lead

to increased compaction as well as low porosity. Such soils at least need occasional deep

tillage in order to promote rooting, aeration, and percolation of water at depth by breaking up

the pans by cultivation and minimizing water and soil loss.

About 95% of the farmers mentioned that they plough the land with tractors and fairly few

use both tractors and camels for the purpose. The tractors are supplied by the Ministry of

Agriculture and very few hire them from private sources.

About 56% of the farmers practice minimum tillage due to lack of draft animals and few

(39%) plough their land twice (Table 7).

3.1.5 Source of power The major source of draft power in the area is the tractor. The use of animal power for crop

production is almost insignificant (Table 8). From the farmers interviewed almost all use

tractors and only one supplements it with camel or oxen.

Generally tractors for land preparation are provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and the

private sector. About 45% of the farmers pointed out that tractor service is inefficient and

expressive. For this reason, they sometimes cannot plow their lands on time. Most of the time

they plough the land only once, which affects proper weed management, especially sesame

fields. About 25% of the farmers said that tractors are available but expensive (Table 9).

The Ministry of Agriculture charges less as compared to the private sector with only 180

Nakfa / ha (28 disc- harrow tractor) while the private tractor owners charge 230 Nakfa /ha

(Ministry of Agriculture, 2003). According to farmers the availability of the tractors on time,

the efficiency of tractors and the provision of appropriate services from the governmental and

non-governmental agencies is an important factor, which indirectly determines productivity of

the cropping system.


17

Table 8: Farmers’ responses on the source of power for land preparation Tractors Animals

Goluge 20

Gergef 20 -

Sobunite 20 1

Tebeldia 20 -

Omhajer 20 -

% 100 1

Table 9: Farmers’ access to tractor service to plough Tractor Village

Available

Expensive

Available

& rational

Insufficient &

expensive

Insufficient & not

expensive

Camel Oxen

Goluge 8 2 8 - 1 1

Gergef 8 4 8 - - -

Sobunite 1 1 18 - - -

Tebeldia 2 - 7 11 - -

Omhajer 6 8 4 2 - -

% 25 15 45 13 1 1

3.1.6 Cropping calendar Seedbed preparation and harvesting is done earlier for sesame than any other crop. Depending

on the landrace, harvesting sorghum and pearl millet can be extended up to December.

Planting usually depends on the type of landrace or variety used, the kind of soil, availability

of machinery and capacity for weed control. Sesame is planted early mainly in June or July

whereas the planting time for sorghum and pearl millet is more or less the same (Table 10). In

black clay soils, which are wet and sticky, planting is performed late because farmers have to

wait until it gets dry for it is difficult to deal with such type of soils (wet and sticky). In red or

sandy soils, that are loose and less sticky planting is done early (Table 11). Some varieties of

sorghum when planted early become tall with lodging problem but those planted late are

relatively dwarf. Farmers usually adjust the planting time to ensure that sorghum landraces

can escape the problem of striga. For example, when Hiriray and Higritay are planted early

(July) they become susceptible to striga, but when planted late (August) they can escape the

infestation of striga.


18

Table 10: Cropping calendars and crop type in the study area Type May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Sorghum SP HH HH

PL PL

Pearl millet SP SP HH HH HH

PL PL

Sesame SP SP

PL PL HH

Note: SP= seed bed preparation; PL= planting; HH= harvesting

Table 11: Relationship between soil type and date of planting in sorghum Place Black Red soil

Goluge mid July end of June

Sabunite July early June

Tebeldia July-Aug July

Gergef - --

Omhajer July --

3.1.7 Seeding rate This refers to the quantity of planting material required per unit area. There are optimum

seeding rates that should be used for all crops. Unfortunately, farmers in the Goluge area are

forced to use higher seeding rates for adequate germination, better stand, and better weed

competition to compensate seeds submerged in the cracks (black clay soils), and against

problem of ants and rodents. Farmers need a relatively lower seeding rate when planting is

done in the months of August (late planting) when the moisture is adequate and better

germination is guaranteed. Weed infestation also gets reduced because the emerged weeds are

destroyed by the ploughing (Table 12).


19

Table 12: Range of seeding rates of crops in kg/ha in the study area Place Sorghum Pearl millet Sesame

Goluge 6-8 3 8-12

Sabunite 6-12 3 8-6

Tebeldia 6-10 5 8-10

Gergef 6-8 4 8-11

Omhajer 6-8 - 8-10

3.1.8 Moisture conservation practices The farmers indicated rainfall as a major constraint to crop production. The level of

degradation through erosion directly affects the crop production system. The interviewed

farmers do not handle moisture conservation practices adequately. Most of the rain in the area

falls at high intensity causing runoff and erosion. A significant portion of the rainfall is lost

through runoff, especially in clay soils that have a low infiltration rate of water. According to

Challenges in Dryland Agriculture (1988) the runoff from an arable field can reach 30 to 50%

during a single rainstorm.

Table 13: Farmers’ experiences on soil and water conservation systems Village Plough Tree branch

banding

Soil

banding

Stone

banding

Goluge 15 3 2 -

Gergef 11 7 2 -

Sobunite 19 1 - -

Tebeldia 20 - - -

Omhager 10 11 5 5

% 75 11 9 5

The conservation of soil and water is critical for sustainable crop production but more than 75

% of the farmers do not practice any soil or water conservation measures. They plough the

land either once or twice and consider it as a measure of soil and water conservation. A total

of 11%, 9% and 5% of the farmers stated that they practice tree branch banding, soil banding

and stone banding respectively as measures of soil and water conservation (Table 13).


20

Woldeamlak (1989; 2002) have indicated that tied ridges can increase the yield from 24% to

60%. Ramaiah and Parker (1982) have confirmed that germination of Striga hermonthica can

be prevented if the moisture in the soil is adequate.

3.1.9 Fertility Soil fertility is important not only for increasing productivity but also minimizing the

infestation of striga as nitrogen application is believed to control striga in sorghum. However,

farmers in the study area do not apply organic manure because they think that it brings about

weed infestation. They believe that weeds like Adar (Sudan grass) and Wild okra are

disseminated by manure. Almost all farmers do not use manure due to lack of availability of

the manure, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge.

Alternate planting of landraces is one of the strategies adopted to maintain the fertility of the

soil. For example Wedi ferej is expected to consume less nutrients as compared to WediAker

but this practice does not seem to contribute to the fertility of the soil and needs confirmation

whether different landraces require different rates of fertilizers. Farmers believe that if

sorghum is planted in a land that was previously occupied by sesame the growth of sorghum

improves because sesame provides nutrients to the soil. It could be because the defoliated and

decomposed leaves add to the organic matter content of the soils.

Fertilizer application is not common because farmers believe that fertilizers give a better yield

when there is enough rainfall but during periods of drought they think that the crop is

damaged or the leaves are burnt due to fertilizers. Farmers apply Di ammonium phosphate

(DAP) rarely at the rate of 50-100 kg /ha., broadcasted at the time of planting.


21

Table 14: Farmers’ know how on the use of fertilizers Goluge Gergef Sabunite Tebeldia Omhajer %

Dung

Yes - - - - - -

No 20 20 20 20 20 100

Manure not available due to

Lack of knowledge 8 6 - 10 2 26

Weed infestation 3 5 - 4 2 14

Transportation problem 3 2 2 3 11 21

Lack of manure 6 7 18 3 5 39

Commercial

Yes - 1 6 - 2 9

No 20 19 14 20 18 91

Commercial manure not

available due to

Lack of finance 2 2 3 1 4 12

Lack of knowledge 3 10 8 4 6 31

Burns crops 12 2 7 14 7 42

Insufficient supply 3 6 2 2 3 15

Only 9% of the farmers use chemical fertilizers. The rest (91%) do not use any chemical

fertilizers for several reasons. About 42% believe that fertilizer burn or kill the crop while 31%

do not use fertilizers because of their limited knowledge of fertilizers. At least, 12% are aware

of the benefits of fertilizers, but lack of resources has prevented them from purchasing

fertilizers. The implication is that resource generation is essential for increasing the purchase of

fertilizers. About 14% of the farmers have the capacity to purchase fertilizers but the supply is

limited. Farmers cannot afford to leave their land fallow, so whatever land they get is planted

with crops. Consequently, even fallowing is not used for improving the fertility of the soil

(Table 14).

For sustainable crop production, there is a need for proper application of organic and non-

organic fertilizers. If proper inputs are not supplied there will be a very serious degradation of

soil structure and fertility, which will lead to higher infestation of striga.


22

3.1.10 Crop rotation Crop rotation consists in growing of different crops in alternating succession, season after

season, on the same piece of land. It is designed to make use of land and climate to the best

advantage.

In the Goluge sub zone, the crop to be rotated depends on the onset of the rain and labor

availability for harvesting and weeding. Although farmers are aware of the importance of crop

rotation for reducing weed infestation and maintaining soil fertility, mono cropping of

sorghum is still a dominant practice. Only a limited number of farmers practice rotation in

their fields mostly if the land is virgin. In this case sorghum is rotated with sesame, especially

in areas like Sabunite, but they have difficulty incorporating sesame in the rotation cycle

because it requires much labor and money for weeding. Similarly, they have problems with

pearl millet because of threshing problem.

Farmers also understand crop rotation in a different way. They think that it is changing

varieties or landraces of the same crops, which is not very helpful either in weed, pest

reduction, or increase in soil fertility. In Tebeldia, Goluge and Sabunite farmers rotate

WediAker against Hiriray and back to WediAker, which are all sorghum landraces or varieties.

Others also rotate Hiriray with Arfa gedam and Keih afu etc. This is not sustainable in the

long run and is less likely to solve the striga problem, because it will allow a striga

multiplication. According to Ramaiah and Parker (1982) succession of sorghum crops and soil

and climatic conditions favorable to striga result in a build up of infestation. An example of

the crop rotation cycle practiced is shown in Table 15.

About 69% of the farmers mentioned that they never use crop rotation, meaning that they

plant their land only with sorghum. Only 31% of the farmers use crop rotation, but they do not

follow it strictly because of variability in rainfall, lack of appropriate grain legumes that can

be used in the rotation, shortage of labor for harvesting and weeding especially if they have to

incorporate in the rotation crops that are labor intensive in harvesting and weeding (Table 16).


23

Table 15: An example of rotation cycle practiced by limited farmers Place 1st cycle 2nd cycle 3rd cycle Remarks

Goluge WediAker Hiriray WediAker Sorghum

landraces

Sabunite WediAker Hiriray WediAker Sorghum

landraces

Sesame Sorghum Pearl millet Limited

Pearl millet Sorghum Pearl millet

Tebeldia Sesame Sorghum Sesame

Sorghum Sesame Sesame In virgin lands

Gergef Sesame Sorghum Sorghum

Omhajer Sesame Sorghum Sesame

Table 16: Percent of farmers practicing crop rotation in the study area. Village No Yes

Goluge 14 6

Gergef 13 6

Sobunite 7 14

Tebeldia 19 1

Omhajer 16 4

% 69 31

3.1.11 Intercropping This is when more than two crops are planted together in the same field and in the same

season. Yields are higher from proper intercropping than from mono cropping mainly

because crops are able to fully utilize the environmental resources in the soil, such as

nutrients, water and sunlight. The incidence of weeds is also lower because intercropping

provides more competitive types of plants both in space and time as suggested by Willey

(1979).

In the Goluge sub zone, relatively few farmers practice intercopping. The system that is

practiced is shown in Table 17. In Tebeldia and Sabunite intercropping is common among

the Kunama ethnic groups and usually practiced by farmers with little resources who grow

crops for local consumption rather than for commercial purposes.


24

The reasons for intercropping as explained by farmers are that different types of food products

can be obtained. For example, in sorghum+ cowpea or maize + cowpea farmers get cereals as

well as legumes that are a source of protein. It is also provides insurance against the incidence

of striga, which does not attack either beans or sesame, and for higher productivity and yield

stability because beans provide nitrogen. It is also an insurance against drought because if one

crop fails, the early maturing type will give a harvest as in a combination of pearl millet and

sorghum. It is also effective against the problem of termites, which attack sorghum/maize but

not cowpea; if sorghum / maize is attacked the harvest of cowpea can be saved.

Table 17: Type of intercropping practiced among limited farmers in the study area Place Type Remarks

Goluge Sorghum + cowpea; Maize + cowpea Minority

Sabunite Sorghum + pearl millet; Sorghum + cowpea Common in Kunama

Tebeldia Sorghum + cowpea; Pearl millet + sesame Common in Kunama

Gergef Sorghum + cowpea

Omhajer Not practiced

3.1.12 Harvesting Harvesting depends on the crop and the variety used. Delayed harvesting results in lodging

and shattering problems (for sesame). Sorghum is harvested with machinery although farmers

do not get adequate machinery services for harvesting, especially for pearl millet. Machinery

services for pearl millet are not provided due to the small area occupied by the crop. After the

crop is harvested it takes almost 15 days for the crop to lose its moisture before threshing is

carried out (the cropping calendar for harvesting is shown in Table 10).

3.1.13 Grain yield Farmers get lower yield during poor years with a yield reduction of 67% compared to good

years (Table 18). According to Martin, Leonard and Stamp (1976) the yields of sorghum may

be reduced by 30-60%.

Considering the relationship between striga infestation and yield reduction, 69% of the

farmers indicated that reduction of yield due to striga ranges from 80-100%, and the rest 9%,

5% and 17% of the farmers mentioned that yield reduction is between 20-40%, 41-60%, and


25

61-80% respectively. According to Natarajan (1998), if striga is not controlled properly the

infestation leads to significant losses of yield, which in some cases can reach up to 100%

(Table 19).

For sorghum the yield could be nil depending on the land races used especially if drought is

combined with a striga attack. The factors responsible for affecting productivity of crops are

shown in Table 20.

The ranking of the factors affecting productivity depends on the location. In Tebeldia, weed

infestation (striga) is a major factor affecting production while in Sabunite shortage of inputs

is a priority followed by weed infestation. Tractors are not available in enough number for

ploughing operation at the right time, which causes untimely planting of crops affecting

productivity.

Table 18: Yield (qt/ha) of crops during poor and good years Crops Poor years Good years

Sorghum

Higirtay 5-6 15

Hiriray 5-6 15

WediAker nil 20-25

Pearl millet 0-5 15

Sesame 2 6

Note: poor years- periods with striga infestation and drought; good years- periods with good rain

and less striga problem


26

Table 19: The extent of yield reduction in a field with striga infestation as responded by farmers

Yield reduction in % Villages

20-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

Goluge 3 2 1 14

Gergef 3 1 5 11

Sabunite 3 - 6 11

Tebeldia - - 1 19

Omhajer - 2 4 14

% 9 5 17 69

Note: None of the farmers indicated that the yield becomes less than 20% hence not shown in the

table.

In places like Goluge, shortage of rainfall is the major problem followed by shortage of

inputs.

3.1.14 Production constraints In any farming system, the constraints that influence the crop production of smallholder

households are natural resources, labor, and capital. Some of the capital items that

smallholders typically use in crop production include draft animals, implements or farming

tools, stock of seed, fertilizer and agro-chemicals. In the study area, the major constraint for

crop production is moisture stress because 62% said that it is responsible for low yield. About

27% of the farmers indicated that weed infestation is the second cause. None of the farmers

considered fertilizers, shortage of labor, diseases, insects and market availability as

constraints to crop production (Table 20).

A very negligible number of farmers use chemical fertilizers and even those few farmers that

apply fertilizers use lower rates of dosage. The reason for this is not only the lack of

awareness about the use of fertilizers but also their inadequate availability.


27

Table 20: Response of farmers on production constraints in the study area Village Rain Weeds Power Source Money

Goluge 7 9 2 2

Gergef 6 12 1 1

Sabunite 11 5 3 1

Tebeldia 20 - - -

Omhajer 18 1 1 -

% 62 27 7 4

Note: None of the farmers ranked insect or pest infestation, labor and shortage of market as

production constraints; hence they are left out from the table.

Even though army warms and grasshoppers have appeared in some places during some years,

pests are not classified as one of the major constraints. Weed, labor and finance were

considered as minor problems compared to moisture stress. The problem of human labor and

draft power are related more to sesame (weeding and harvesting) than sorghum. For that

matter sesame has failed to be cropped as permanent rotation with sorghum, which has

contributed to the domination of sorghum mono cropping.

3.2 STRIGA MANAGEMENT 3.2.1 Striga species and symptoms

This is a semi-parasite weed attached to the roots of flowering plants such as Graminae (grass

family). The principal species attacking sorghum in many parts of the World are the following:

Striga asiatic occurs widely in Southern, Central, Eastern Africa and India. The corrolla is red,

yellow or white with a slender tube. Striga hermonthica occurs in East, North and West Africa. It

has larger flowers, with the corrola being red or purple. Striga senegalensis occurs in West

Africa and has smaller flowers than that of Striga hermonthica. Striga densiflora is also a

parasitic weed on sorghum found particularly in India with the corolla having white colours.

The minute seeds of Striga asiatica and Striga hermonthica are produced in numerous numbers

and can remain in the soil for many years, particularly under dry conditions. Striga seed will only

germinate in the presence of a chemical stimulant produced by the host plant. The germinated

seedlings grow towards the roots for contact. The radicle attaches itself to the host root by a


28

"haustorium" which penetrates into the vascular system. The parasite remains below the ground

for 3-6 weeks during which it is entirely dependent upon its host for nutrition. Some plants then

appear above the ground, produce chlorophyll and photosynthesise but are still dependent upon

the host for water and minerals. Flowering of the weed commences 3 to 4 weeks after emergence

and produces its first viable seeds within 10-20 days. (Martin, Leonard and Stamp, 1976;

Purseglove, 1981). Striga produces about tens of thousands of tiny seeds per host plant. Seed size

is 0.3 mm x 0.15 mm and remains viable for as long as 20 years (Ivens, 1993).

The striga species prevalent in the

study area is Striga hermonthica,

with large flowers and red or

purple corolla. ICRISAT (2002)

has also reported that the striga

species available in Eritrea is

Striga hermonthica.

In the study area, striga emerges

starting mid August up to September when there is insufficient moisture in the soil. It is

possible to detect the infestation of

striga from the initial stage. The

crop (sorghum) grows vigorously at

initial stage but later on it becomes

stunted and grows poorly. This

symptom is followed by burning of

the leaves of the crop, discoloration

(yellowish color) and absence of

grasses or other plants where striga

is growing. The poor performance is

more severe when striga infestation and drought are combined (Figure 5). In most cases the

poor performance of the crop is severe when striga attacks the crop earlier rather than later, a

reflection made in the findings of Martin, Leonard and Stamp (1976) who indicate that severe

Figure 5: Sorghum field showing poor performance

Figure 6: Attachment of striga on sorghum roots


29

striga attack produces symptoms resembling drought; the leaves wilt and turn yellow and the

plants remain stunted and may die before yielding anything. Striga passes through seven stages

in its life cycle: dormancy, conditioning, germination, haustoria formation (Figure 6),

attachment and penetration, initiation of development and parasitism.

3.2.2 Striga in relation to other weeds The problem of striga was for the first time noticed 40 years ago in the Shambuko area and

about 10 to 15 years back in Tokombia and 5 years back in the Goluge area (ICRISAT, 2002).

There are few weeds other than striga that are closely associated with sorghum and the range

of species varies widely in different sorghum growing regions. The annuals include many

broad leafed and grass species, but it is the grass, which almost certainly causes the greatest

loss. The weeds are Tebor (bind weed) and Hemeray (melokia). Hemeray is abundant during

August to September and is a very difficult weed to remove manually. Adar (Sudan grass) is

initially removed in July during the 3 to 4 leaf stage followed by September when the weed

reaches heading stage. The type of weeds, months of abundance, and time of weed control are

shown in Table 21.

The control measures practiced (for other weed types) by farmers in the study area are the

following:

Hand weeding: it depends on the type of weeds and the type of seedbed. If minimum tillage is

adopted then hand weeding is used 2 to 3 times but if the seedbed is prepared by plough of the

land twice, the weed infestation is minimized and the frequency of hand weeding is reduced

to 1 to 2 times, which is sufficient. Hand weeding is usually combined by hoe cultivation for

effective removal of weeds.

Inter-cultivation: this is helpful as indicated by farmers for proper aeration, moisture

conservation, and reduction of weed infestation.

Chemicals: 2-4-D is rarely used for the control of weeds such as Tebor and Hemeray.


30

Replanting: farmers usually plough the land occupied by other crops if the weed infestation is

high so that the weeding cost is minimized by ploughing, and then planting the field with

another crop, which is mostly sorghum.

According to the survey, farmers know several control methods but hand weeding is by far

the most widely practiced (53% of the farmers). Other measures such as frequency of

ploughing or inter raw cultivation and rotation are practiced by 32.8% and 14% respectively.

Farmers do not strictly follow rotation because it is difficult to incorporate sesame regularly

because of labor shortage and lack of access to good markets.

Crop rotation reduces weed infestation, but in the study area legumes are not incorporated in

the rotations either for improving soil fertility or for weed control because legumes are not

well known in the area. Some farmers do think of planting different landraces of sorghum

every year of the same crop as a crop rotation that can minimize weed infestation or improve

the fertility of the soil. But in reality this does not help in either minimizing weed population

or upgrading the fertility of the soil. The use of chemicals for weed control is negligibly

small. Hand weeding is done mainly for sesame.

Even though farmers know the effective mechanisms of weed control they do not apply them

strictly. The main constraints are lack of money and labor, which constitute 62% and 32%

respectively. Only 8% of the farmers mentioned chemicals and lack of tractor services as

constraints for weeding operation. Apart from these farmers receive insufficient advice on

how and when to control weeds. Removal of wild hosts of striga will interrupt the use of “trap

crops” to accelerate the depletion of striga seed in the soil (Table 22).


31

Table 21: Types of weeds, months of abundance and time of weed control common in the villages of the study area Name of weed Abundance Time of weed

Control

Remarks

Striga Aug-Sept Sept attacks sorghum

Tebor July Aug attacks mostly sesame

and is

Broadleaved

Hemeray Aug-Sept Sept all crops;

Milokia Aug-Sept Sept all crops; broadleaved

Riza July July/Aug all crops

Amaranthus July-Sept July all crops

Adar (Sudan grass) July July and Sept attacks all crops and is a

grass

Table 22: Weed control mechanisms applied by farmers Village Goluge Gergef Sabunite Tebeldia Omhajer � %

Measures

Hand weeding 14 16 19 20 20 89 53

Ploughing 8 5 2 20 20 55 32.8

Rotation 5 1 2 7 9 24 14

Chemicals - - 2 - 1 3 0.2

Constraints

Lack of money 6 11 12 18 15 62 62

Lack of labor 10 9 5 1 5 30 30

Others 4 - 3 1 - 8 8

3.2.3 Striga distributions and source of dissemination In general farmers believe that the major weed sources are the following:

- Movement of livestock from one place to another, because striga seeds are carried on

the fur of animals. About 30% farmers are convinced that animals disseminate weeds;

- About 19% believe that wind disperses weed seeds by carrying striga seeds from one

field to another neighboring field;


32

- Flooding too moves weed seeds from the soil bank of one field to a neighboring field.

About 4 % of the farmers believed this to be true;

- Weed seeds are introduced together with the seeds used for planting. If striga remains

in the crop field until it produces flowers and seeds with out being removed, weed

seeds are attached to the panicle of the plant, especially when it is piled in the ground

after harvesting. About 19% of the farmers believe that striga comes together with the

seed (Table 23).

Farmers also describe that striga dissemination is caused by the exchange of seeds from one

farmer to another or from the neighboring countries (unofficial) and even through the seed

distributed by Ministry of Agriculture. They explained that infestation in their lands appeared

mainly in the late 90’s through seed exchange and from neighboring farmers. None of the

farmers claimed that infestation came from neighboring zobas. However, 9% of the farmers

have no idea on this (Table 24).

Farmers do not know that striga seeds can be distributed or disseminated through farm tools

and implements carrying soils with striga seeds to other fields. They also do not know that

humans can carry seeds from one place to another on their boots or clothes.

Even though farmers are familiar with some of the causes that are responsible for the

dissemination or distribution of striga, the measures they take to combat the weed are very

few. Ramaiah and Parker (1982) have indicated that the distribution and severity of striga

infestation in the field are influenced not only due to climatic, or soil but also by agronomic

practices.

Striga is the most serious problem faced by the farmers because sorghum is the most common

crop. About 93% farmers said that their lands are seriously infested by striga; only 7% have

lands free from it.


33

Table 23: Farmers’ know how on striga way of distribution Village No idea Stay

soil

Flood Animal Seed Tractor Wind

Goluge 7 4 - 6 2 1 4

Gergef 7 - 2 11 4 - 3

Sobunite 4 - 3 13 10 1 7

Tebeldia 10 - 1 18 18 2 18

Omhajer 7 7 2 14 6 1 14

� 35 11 8 62 40 5 46

% 17 5 4 30 19 3 22

Table 24: Response on the source of dissemination for striga Village Neighboring

Countries

Surrounding

areas

Goluge 10 8

Gergef 12 6

Sobunite 17 3

Tebeldia 7 10

Omhajer 11 7

% 57 34

Note: None of the farmers have indicated that the source of striga infestation is from neighboring

Zobas; hence it is left out of the table.

Table 25: Extent of striga infestation as responded by farmers Village Years of appearance Free field

< 4 < 8 < 12 No idea No Yes

Goluge 12 4 2 2 8 2

Gergef 8 5 - 7 19 1

Sobunite 10 5 2 3 18 2

Tebeldia 16 4 - 18 2

Omhajer 9 6 - 5 20 -

% 55 24 4 17 93 7

The survey has shown that the frequency of striga has grown very fast. Twelve years back

(1992) only 4% of the farmers had fields infested with striga. In 1997, the infestation


34

increased to 24 % and during the last few years it increased up to 55% (Table 25). If the

infestation continues at this rate, the whole area will be seriously infested very soon and it

might not be possible to grow sorghum in the area at all. In such situation, the only solution

will be shifting cultivation, but that is not possible because of the limitation of land.

The spread of striga can be prevented by the following:

• By using seeds that have been imported through proper channels, which observe

quarantine regulations and seeds free from striga;

• Cleaning of the tools and implements after working in infested fields;

• By preventing livestock to graze in fields that are heavily infested with striga;

• By collecting, drying, and burning uprooted striga in a place outside the area of

cultivation;

• By removing striga before the seed is set so that distribution and dissemination of

seeds is avoided.

3.2.4 Striga counts, biomass and dry weight The number of striga counts m2 have indicated that the lowest number of striga m2 was

counted from a fallow land that has been cropped with 3 years of continuous sorghum

followed by one year fallow. Virgin land has shown a striga count of 31 plants m2. Virgin

land is where forests or trees have been cleared and planted with a crop of sorghum. Lands

cropped with pearl millet (50 striga plants m2) and chickpea (56 striga plants m2) have shown

a reduced number of striga m2 compared to sorghum monocropping. In the rotation cycle,

lands that were planted with chickpea have been previously planted with sorghum for 3 years

and the 4th year rotated with chickpea. The same holds true of lands planted with pearl millet

in which for 3 years they were planted with continuous sorghum and the 4th rotated with pearl

millet. The sorghum mono cropping has shown the highest number of striga (Figure 7).


35

Note: In the graph Fa- Fallow, a land planted with 3 years of sorghum and left fallow in the 4th year; Vi- Virgin land, a land planted with sorghum after clearing the vegetation or forest; Ch-Chickpea, a land planted with 3 years of sorghum and in the 4th year rotated with chickpea; Pm- Pearl millet, a land planted with 3 years of sorghum and in the 4th year rotated with pearl millet; Se- Sesame, a land planted with 3 years of sorghum and in the 4th year rotated with sesame; So- a land planted continuously with sorghum for long period. There was striga infestation on sorghum grown on virgin land even though the intensity was

too low compared to other cropping systems. This clearly indicates that striga seeds might

have been disseminated by wind, plough machines or other sources of dissemination.

Sorghum grown on virgin land can tolerate striga because of the accumulation of soil fertility

and improvement of soil texture.

Sorghum planted after the land has been left fallow has shown a striga fresh weight higher

than that in virgin land. The land was left unsown with sorghum for one year during the

summer of 2002 and ploughed when weeds were grown during September 2002.

The possibility of lower striga biomass in the fallow lands could be due to the elimination of

grasses and weeds (including striga) by ploughing the land and better moisture reserve in the

soil. The fresh weight of striga on a field previously planted with chickpea for one year was

Figure 7: Number of striga plants m2 in fields planted with different type of

crops.


36

better than some of the cropping systems. Significant number of striga was found on sorghum

grown on land where Pearl millet was grown for one year, summer 2002 (Table 26).

Table 26: The relationship between the striga weight and grain yield Striga weight in gm Cropping system

Fresh weight (gm) Dry weight (gm)

Sesame 446.3 122.1

Virgin land 153.4 42.3

Chickpea 325.7 89.9

Pearl millet 377.4 104.1

Fallow 225.7 62.3

Sorghum* 536.4 148

Note: *Land continuously planted with sorghum

3.2.5 Striga seeds in soil bank Striga seed can stay in the soil for a number of years without being germinated. Therefore all

viable seed and spores found in the soil constitute part of the soil seed bank. Striga infestation

could vary with longevity of the seed (depending on the striga species), depth of seed burial,

soil type, and level of soil disturbance.

The soil samples sent to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and analyzed for

the soil seed bank has showed that seed density of striga was influenced by past cropping

practices and soil depth. The field planted with continuous sorghum showed higher population

mean (35 seeds) of striga seed per 250 gram of soil when the result was averaged over the 4

depths (0 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm depth). The fields rotated with sesame and pearl

millet have shown relatively lower striga seeds of 25 and 23 respectively. This is evidence

that crop rotation can reduce the infestation of striga.

The number of striga seeds per depth showed that the soil sample taken from a depth of 30 cm

has shown significantly lower number of striga seeds compared to the other depths. Therefore

the striga seed bank is higher at the upper layers of 0 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm depth even

though there was not much difference among the depths (Figure 8).


37

3.2.6 Striga control Control measures are not universally applied in all the villages of the study areas. However,

among the most important control measures that are adopted for striga in the study area are

the following:

Replanting: When the land is highly infested by striga, the land is overturned and planted with

another type of crop or variety.

Adjusting planting date: This is practiced mainly against striga because if sorghum is planted

earlier it will be attacked by striga. The infestation is lower when it is planted in August

because the striga that has emerged is removed by ploughing (Figures 9 and 10).

0 10 20 30

Depth of sampling (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

No.

of s

triga

see

ds/2

50 g

m s

oil

Figure 8: Number of striga seeds in different depths of sampling


38

Higher seeding rate: this is effective

where increased amount of seed creates

a competitive community of crop plants;

Choice of crop: Pearl millet and sesame

are less attacked by striga compared to

sorghum.

Therefore, farmers plant pearl millet and

sesame as a choice against striga attack.

However, the problem of planting pearl

millet is shortage of machinery services for threshing.

Intercropping: This is practiced by farmers with little resources growing crops for local

consumption. For example sorghum + sesame; sorghum + cowpea etc.

Choice of landrace/variety: Hiriray, Higretay and Korokora are resistant due to

their early maturing characters, which is an escape mechanism against the infestation of

striga. Bazenay is not only resistant to striga but also to Quela quela birds. Sorghum varieties

sensitive to striga drop yields

radically after two years of tentative

cropping while tolerant sorghum

cultivars can perform well for 3 to 5

years in continuous cropping.

Washing seed with water: Farmers

wash their seed with water and

remove or scrap the light; chaffy

weed seeds from the seed used for

planting followed by sun drying,

which have been found to be effective. Weed seeds can be introduced together with seeds

used for planting hence washing the seed can minimize the infestation.

Figure 9: Early planting of sorghum with striga infestation

Figure 10: Late planting showing less striga infestation


39

Washing seed with urine: Farmers have found this practice to be effective for minimizing the

infestation of weed seeds. Furthermore, a field that has been under kraal and then ploughed

and planted with sorghum is observed to have less striga infestation because of the urine

killing the weed seeds.

Other measures: Application of chemicals (2,4 D). Pulling striga by hand, and using resistant

variety account for 1%, 5%, and 11% respectively. Another 11% of farmers responded that

they do not take any weed control measures against striga. Chemicals such as 2, 4-D were

introduced in the study area very recently, during the last couple of years. However, farmers

do not like it because of the depressing effect of the chemical on the crop (sorghum), which is

because of inappropriate application methods.

About 71% of the farmers indicated that crop rotation has been used for striga control. But

farmers do not generally practice rotation according to the principles of rotation. Sometimes

they change varieties of the same crop form year to year, and they wrongly call it rotation.

This practice does not increase fertility nor decreases striga infestation. Most of the time they

do not use sesame systematically in crop rotation, because it requires intensive labor and has a

low market (Table 27).

According to Ramaiah and Parker (1982) several crops can be used in any rotation with non-

host crops, such as cotton, cowpea, bean, field peas, etc known as “trap crops” which are

positively beneficial for stimulating striga seeds to germinate without being parasitized.

In general, farmers are not adequately aware of the intensity of the problem. While all the

above-mentioned mechanisms may not be adequate singly; a combination of the practices

along with other control measures, such as fertility and moisture conservation can make a

significant impact on the yield of sorghum. Farmers are aware that planting sesame can

reduce striga infestation for the next crop because it can mimic the germination signal for

striga and reduce the seed bank. In many parts of the world, manure or fertilizers, such as

nitrogen source, often reduce striga attack, especially when combined with moisture

availability. However, farmers in the study area do not depend on manure because of several


40

reasons mentioned in previous sections. In other countries herbicides such as 2,4-D have been

used but very negligible numbers of farmers in the study area use chemicals.

Varietal resistance due to the physical and mechanical prevention to the penetration of

haustria or low production of the stimulant have contributed to low striga infestation. An

early maturing variety might also support less number of striga plants than late ones.

Martin, Leonard and Stamp (1976) have shown that hand weeding or pulling if done before

flowering or fruiting could help to reduce the infestation. After pulling the striga plants,

drying and burning them may be useful. However, the experiences in the study area shows

that it is impractical to hand pull dense infestation of striga.

Table 27: Farmers’ responses on the control mechanisms of striga Village Hand weeding Chemical Rotation Variety No

Goluge - - 11 6 3

Gergef 1 1 15 3 1

Sabunite - - 11 - 7

Tebeldia - - 18 2 7

Omhajer 4 - 16 - -

% 5 1 71 11 11

Table 28: Farmers’ responses on constraints for controlling striga. Village Lack of

Labor

Lack of soil & water

conservation

Lack of

Rotation

Goluge 15 5 70

Gergef 10 - 90

Sobunite 40 15 45

Tebeldia - - 100

Omhajer 5 15 80

� 70 35 395

% 14 7 79


41

Sparse infestation can, however, be minimised by hand pulling if it is done before striga

produces flowers.

In the study area, farmers use hand weeding as a measure of controlling striga infestation,

although little success has been achieved for the biological control of striga by either insects

or pathogens.

Farmers have described that major constraints contributing to the lack of adequate control of

striga are improper crop rotation practices, lack of resistant variety to control striga, and lack

of appropriate soil and water conservation.

About 79% of the farmers think that lack of proper crop rotation is the major constraint

contributing to the inadequate control of striga. Lack of resistant varieties and lack of

inadequate moisture and soil conservation measures were ranked as the 2nd and 3rd factors

respectively in hindering the proper control of striga. None of the farmers claimed that lack of

labor, lack of marketing for crops like sesame and shortage of inputs like fertilizers are

responsible for inadequate control of striga (Table 28).


42

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSION

4.1.1. Farmers in the study area use various control measures against the problem of striga,

such as replanting, adjusting planting date, use of higher seeding rates, landraces resistant or

tolerant to striga, and washing seeds with urine and water. Other control measures are pulling

the striga by hand and the application of chemicals even though farmers who follow this

practice are smaller in percentage. Since no control measure is effective in isolation, the

integrated approach should be applied.

4.1.2. Crop rotation offers a good potential when perfectly practiced for controlling striga.

However, farmers do not practice rotation correctly because they consider changing landraces

of the same crop as rotation. Those who practice crop rotation are very few.

4.1.3 Chemicals such as 2-4 D have been introduced in the study area recently and a very

negligible number of farmers apply those because of lack of appropriate application practices.

4.1.4 Farmers apply neither organic nor non-organic fertilizers to improve soil fertility and

control striga. The crop grows stronger and becomes competitive when it gets adequate

nitrogen. Striga grows vigorously and results in crop failure when poor soil fertility is

combined with moisture stress.

4.1.5 There are indications that planting sorghum in fallow and virgin lands results in lower

striga infestation shown from the number of striga m2, fresh weight, etc as compared to the

other cropping systems. However, farmers cannot afford to leave their land fallow and any

land available is planted with a crop.

4.1.6 Farmers are not aware that human beings and farm machinery can also carry or

disseminate striga seeds together with the soil. Therefore, cleaning farm tools and boots

carrying soil can reduce the spread of striga.


43

4.1.7 The members of the research team have prepared a booklet in Tigrigna and Arabic to be

used for a seminar in which farmers, extension agents, and policy makers can participate. This

will help in creating awareness among the farming community.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2.1 Crop rotation is one of the crop management practices that can reduce the infestation of

striga. Sorghum should not be planted in a field for several years in succession but rotated

with several crops. Number of crop species such as grain legumes, groundnuts, pearl millet

and sesame can be incorporated in the rotation cycle.

4.2.2. Soil fertility management and cropping systems requires attention. Farmers should be

advised to apply decomposed manure regularly for a number of seasons in places where striga

infestation is high. The use of legumes can increase the fertility of the soil. Crop residues

should be incorporated in the soil to be decomposed for organic matter supply. This can be

applied effectively if the problem of animal feed is solved.

4.2.3 Adequate extension programmes dealing with striga control methods should be

practiced regularly with a proper follow up, advice and assistance from governmental

institutions as well as NGO’s. It is important to give adequate training to farmers not only on

control measures but also on the life cycle of striga. Leaflets and posters could be prepared

and distributed or posted so that farmers can effectively practice control measures.

4.2.4. No control measure can be effective by itself. The most effective way to control striga

is to use the integrated management where two or more methods are combined at the same

time. For example hand weeding plus soil fertility and intercropping; soil fertility combined

with moisture conservation practices; crop rotation along with soil fertility; hand weeding in

combination with soil fertility, etc.


44

4.2.5. It is important to ensure that farmers adopt at least one type of striga control measure

every season. Any of the control measures are discontinued in any one of the seasons then

striga population will dramatically increase and crop productivity will be affected.

4.2.6. Research should concentrate not only on identifying sorghum varieties that are resistant

or tolerant to striga but also on conducting agronomic studies related to crop rotation,

intercropping, fertilizer requirements (especially nitrogen), planting dates, seeding rates,

moisture conservation studies, etc. It is important to emphasize that the control of striga

cannot be achieved by the approach of a resistant variety but rather by integrated approach. In

the short term it is useful to popularize by demonstrating to farmers some of the agronomic

packages found suitable in other parts of the world with similar agro ecological conditions

like that of Eritrea.


45

5. REFERENCES

Hansen, A. (1994) Baseline report on food security, social demography, economic and

political relationships and conditions in Gash Setit, Eritrea.

Arnon, I. (1972) Crop production in dry regions. Leonard Hill, London.

Azbeha H., Iyasu W., Mohamed Kheir O., Woldeselassie O., Woldeamlak A. and

Tesfaselassie G. (1998) Rehabilitation of degraded lands in Eritrea. A bulletin jointly

prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and University of Asmara, Asmara, Eritrea.

Challenges in Dryland Agriculture (1988) A global perspective. Proceedings of the

International Conference in Dryland farming, August 15-19, 1999, Amrillo, Bushland

Proceedings.

Danagro (1999) Integrated pest management component.

ICRISAT. 2002. Sorghum, striga and shattercane: Report of biodiversity mission to Eritrea.

Nairobi, Kenya.

Ivens, G. W. (1993) East African Weeds and their control. Oxford English Press, Nairobi,

Kenya.

Kelim, W. (1995) Report on Soil and Water Conservation program and Integrated Farming

Systems, Gash-Setit, GTZ, Tesseney, Eritrea.

Martin, J.H. Leonard W.H. and Stamp D.L. (1976) Principles of Field crop production.

Macmillan publishing Co. Inc. New York, London.

Ministry of Agriculture (1996-1999) Annual Report of the Ministry of Agriculture Zoba Gash

Barka, Barentu, Eritrea.


46

Ministry of Agriculture (2002) Annual report of the Department of Agricultural Research and

Human Resources Development, Halhale, Eritrea.

Natarajan, M. (1998) Report on the production farming system, Department of Agricultural

Research and Human Resources Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Asmara, Eritrea.

Purseglove, J.W. (1981) Tropical crops: Monocotyledons. Huntsman offset printing Ltd.

Singapore.

Ramaiah K. V. and Parker C. (1982) Sorghum in the Eighties. Proceedings of the

International symposium on sorghum. ICRISAT, Pantancheru P. O. Andra Pradesh 502 324

India.

Willey, R.W. (1979 b) Intercropping its importance and research needs II. Agronomy and

research approaches. Field Crops Abstract 32 (2): 73-81.

Woldeamlak A. (1989) Effect of ridge spacing on wheat yield in areas of short growing

periods. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11 (2). 85-88.

Woldeamlak A. (2002) Review of tillage and other agronomic practices for soil moisture

conservation and reducing run off under semi arid conditions. Proceedings of the National

Workshop on Conservation Tillage July 2002 Asmara, Eritrea sponsored by Regional Land

Management Unit (RELMA).


47

APPENDIX

Topics for group discussion during survey

1. Personals Village ____________ Subzone __________ Zone __________ Group size _______, Male ________, female _______ Age range: below 30 ____, 30 to 40 _____, above 40 _____. Name of farmers. 1._____________________________________________________________ 2._____________________________________________________________ 3._____________________________________________________________ 4. ____________________________________________________________ 5. ____________________________________________________________ 6._____________________________________________________________ 7._____________________________________________________________ 8._____________________________________________________________ 9. _____________________________________________________________ 10.____________________________________________________________ 11.____________________________________________________________ 12.____________________________________________________________ 13.____________________________________________________________ 14. ___________________________________________________________ 15. ___________________________________________________________ 16. ___________________________________________________________ 17. ___________________________________________________________ 18.____________________________________________________________ 19. ___________________________________________________________ 20. ___________________________________________________________ 2. What are the crops you grow mostly? Crop Tsimdi/ha


48

2.1. Crop Varieties and Characteristics Crop type Name of land races Characteristics 2.2 Do you obtain improved varieties from any institutes? Give the name and Characteristics? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 3. Seed source Own stock _____________ Exchange with other farmers____________ Market________________ MoA _________________ Others (specify)_______________ 4. Sowing method Broad casting _______________ Row planting________________ 5. Is production increasing or decreasing?____________ Prioritize factors that influences fluctuation in production. Drought (rain, loss of seed,)_________________ Effect of war (labour, money, market etc) ______________ Input shortage (fertilizer, labour, power, other)___________


49

Weed infestation _____________ 6. Do you practice crop rotation? Yes ________ No_______ 6.1 If yes what are the reasons? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 6.2 What are the patterns of crop rotation practiced? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 6.3 If no Why? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 7. Land preparation and source of power Source of power Type of operation Tractor ______________________________ Oxen ______________________________ Camel ______________________________ 7.1. Is tractors service available and its cost rational? Yes _______No________ 7.2 How many times do you plough your field before planting? Crop Ploughing frequency Month


50

7.3 Which months do you prepare your seed bed? Crop Month 8. When do you harvest your crops? Crop Month 9. Sowing date of different crops Crop Soil type Date of sowing Seed rate (kg/tsimdi 10. What are the reasons for using relatively higher or lower seed rate? 10.1 Higher seed rate: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 10.2 Lower seed rate: ___________________________________________________________________


51

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 11. Do you practice intercropping? Yes _______ No ________ 11.1 What are the intercropping practices that you follow? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 11.2 Give reasons for intercropping? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 12. How do you maintain soil fertility? Fallowing_________ Crop rotation________ Manure ________how many qt/ha? _______ Commercial fertilizer________ 12.1 Rate of commercial fertilizer Crop Type Rate (kg/tsimdi) 1.2.2 What is the method of fertilizer application? Give reasons. Broadcasting_______________________________________________________ Split application ____________________________________________________ Before sowing _____________________________________________________


52

After sowing_______________________________________________________ 12.3 If you don’t use, what are the reasons for not applying? Expensive-________________ Lack of Knowledge _______________ Poor Provision ___________________ Available manure _________________ It burns our crop __________________ Transportation problem ____________ Others (specify)___________ 13. Weeds

13.1 Major weeds Crop type Name of weed When is the abundance Months for weed control 13.2 What weeding method do use? Why? Turn down by ploughing ______________________________________________ Chemical control____________________________________________________ Manual____________________________________________________________ Seed rate___________________________________________________________ Inter cultivation_____________________________________________________ Late planting _______________________________________________________ Crop rotation for parasitic weeds (striga)_________________________________ Combination _______________________________________________________ 13.3 What are the major constraints for weeding? Prioritise Labour shortage________ Lack of money___________ Poor market of agricultural production_______ Others (specify)________ Is there any weed more sever than striga? Yes ________ No _______


53

13.4 Where from do you think this weed come? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.5 How does the weed disseminate? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.6 How do you identify its effect before emerging? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.7 When does striga emerge on field? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.8 Which one (s) encourages increased infestation of striga? Short drought_____________ Continuous Cropping ______________ Weeding of other weeds______________ Others (Specify)_____________________ 13.9 What control measures of striga do you know? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________


54

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.10 If you do not practice any control measures give reasons why? 13.10.1 Reasons ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.11 Do you have striga tolerant crop variety? Yes _______ No_______ If yes, give the name and the characteristics? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.12 How does the crop tolerate the weed? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.13 What are the constraints that hinder striga control? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 13.14 What is your opinion if we make participatory striga control measures? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________


55

Questionnaire for Household Interview

1. Personal information 1.1.Village___________ Subzone __________ Zone _____________ 1.2 Name of household head____________________________________ 1.3 Family size ______ age below 14 years ________ age above 14 years _____ 1.4 Source of income:- Farm _______ Minishop______ Mini cafeteria______ livestock______ Water fetching______ Labor hire _______ other _______ 1.5. If livestock type and size Cattle________ Goats and sheep ____________ Camel _________Chicks___________ 1.6 Farm size ____________ha / tsmdi; when did you own it? _______ Farm size planted each year ____________ ha / tsimdi 2. Crops grown Crop variety Planting

time Seed rate

Source of power

Ploughing frequency

Average yield qt/ha

2.1 Reason for selecting a crop or variety, list in priority order Rotation_______________ Market/labour __________ Soil fertility: ____________ Rain ______________ Effective for weeds___________ Others (specify)______________ 2.2 If the reason is soil fertility does the crop grow in poor_______ or fertile soils__________ 3. Land degradation


56

3.1 Have you observed yield degradation in the last decade? Yes______ No_____ 3.2 What are the reasons of land degredation Soil fertility ______ Weeds and labour shortage ________ Power source shortage __________ Others (specify)________ 4. Production constraints (rank them) Rain __________ Weeds_________ Disease _________ Pest_____________ Power source ____________ Fertilizer _____________ Shortage of cash _________ Labour ___________ Others (specify)___________ 5. Do you practice moisture conservation practices? Yes______ No_______ 5.1. If yes what kind of moisture conservation practices do you follow? Ploughing _________ Tree branch banding__________ Terraces with soil band__________ Others (specify)__________ 5.2. Which method is the best?________________ 5.3 If No what are the reasons of not doing it? ___________________________________________________________________ 6. Weeds 6.1 How do you control weeds? Weed Control measures Possible solutions Constraints Grass type

Broad leaves

Striga


57

6.2 When do you detect striga attack? Before emerging_________ After emerging__________ Others (specify)_________ 6.3 Does your farm get infested with striga? Yes _____ No _____ 6.4 Which month of the year does it first appear?__________________ 6.5. When does the infestation reaches maximum?_________________ 6.6 What is the source of the striga infestation? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 6.7 How does striga disseminate? Host seed _________, Stays in the soil___________ Wind___________ Others (specify)________ 6.8 Which ploughing method encourages striga Tractor ___________ Oxen plough ____________ Others (specify)__________ 6.9. Give reasons for your answer? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.10. Do you practice any control measures? Yes______ No_________ 6.11. If yes what are the control measures? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________


58

___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 6.12 If no what are the reasons? ________________________________________________________________ .________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 6.13. Do you use hand weeding for controlling striga? Yes_______ No_______ If no why? Shortage of labour_____________ Overlapping of activity_____________ Less weed infestation__________ Ability of the crop to suppress the weeds___________ Control using high seeding rate__________ Others (specify)_____________ 6.14. What is the yield (qt/tsimdi) obtained under the following? Under low striga infestation_____________ Under high striga infestation____________ 6.15 If striga problem continuous what are you going to do? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.16 Prioritize constraints that hinder striga control Lack of labour and market for rotation__________ Lack of resistant variety ___________ Constructing water conservation methods ________ Others (specify)_________________

7. Power source for ploughing Tractor ______________ Camel plough_______________ Oxen plough________________ Others (specify)______________


59

7.1. If you do not use tractors, what are the reasons for not using it? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 8. Do you apply cow dung as a source of fertilizer? Yes______ No_________

8.1 If yes what is the rate of cow dung? How many (qt/ha) ___________

8.2 If not Why? Lack of labor,______________ Lack of manure____________ Transportation shortage________ Expensive_______________ Not useful_______________ Use it for fuel_____________ Others (specify)____________ 8.3.Do you apply commercial fertilizer? Yes______ No________ 8.4 If yes what type and rate: DAP _________qt/ha, Urea _____________qt/ha TSP ____________qt/ha 8.5 If not Why? Lack of money___________ Poor Provision ___________ Lack of Knowledge ___________ Not useful for the crop (burns crop)________ Not available in the area________________ Others (specify)_____________ 9. Labor source for weeding Family labor ________________ Hired labor ________________ Others (specify)______________


60

List of Publications Reports: 1 A. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 1 B. Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 A. Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 B. Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 A. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 B. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999:“Rapport de synthèse et quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

4 A. Sydness, M. et Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de decentralisation, développement institutionnel et reorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 4 B. Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralisation Process, Institution Development and Phasing out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 5. Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 6. Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


61

7. Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 8. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Sémenciére: Etude de la gestion et de l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 9. Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricutural Extension in the Drylands of Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 10. Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la désentralisation au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 11. N’Dior, P. A. et Traore, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’espargne et de credit au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 12. Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 13. Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Intergrated Plant Nutrition Management (IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végetaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 15. Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Societe Civile aux Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la Desertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 17. Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg., 2001: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 18. Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s


62

Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 19. Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002: Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 20. Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002: Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW « Shemshemia » Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 21. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végetaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne 2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 22. Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la desertificationatelier organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (gcoza) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 a gossi (Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 23. Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions

through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?” Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 24. Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of the Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 25. Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. ”Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. ”Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs) Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. ”Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la desertification”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 27. Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 28. Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 29. Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


63

30. Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National, Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 31. Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 32. Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

33. Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 34. Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. Proceedings: 1. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan. Proceedings from a Seminar organised by the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 2. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings from a Seminar Hosted by the National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara, Eritrea, March 26th-28th, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 3. Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST), on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 4. Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action Program to Combat Desrtification and Mitigate the Effects of Dought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit, September 13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 5. Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Societe Civile dans la Mies en Euvre Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Desertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6 novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 6. Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of the role of civil society in the implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar Arranged by the Drylands


64

Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 7. Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia, Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 8. Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean Workers Conference Hall, Asmara, November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 9. DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22nd November 2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 10. Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’exchange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18 et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 11. Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 12. Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.


65

Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway: ADRA Norge Akersgata 74, 0180 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 11 20 80, Fax: +47 22 20 53 27 e-mail: [email protected] CARE Norge Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36 e-mail: [email protected] Development Fund Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: .+47 23 10 96 01 e-mail: [email protected] Norwegian Church Aid P.O. Box 4544 Torshov, 0404 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 22 22 99, Fax: + 47 22 22 24 20 e-mail: [email protected] Norwegian People’s Aid P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82 e-mail: [email protected] Noragric, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 e-mail: [email protected]

survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to

Documents