| Literature DB >> 23888278 |
Joseph Kihoro1, Njoroge J Bosco, Hunja Murage, Elijah Ateka, Daigo Makihara.
Abstract
Rice is the most important cereal crop in Kenya coming third after maize and wheat. It forms a very important diet for a majority of families in Kenya. The demand for rice in Kenya has seen a dramatic increase over the last few years while production has remained low. This is because rice production has been faced by serious constraints notably plant diseases of which the most devastating is rice blast. Rice blast is known to cause approximately 60% -100% yield losses. It is caused by an Ascomycete fungus called Magnaporthe Oryzae. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of rice blast disease on the livelihood of the local farmers in Greater Mwea region and develop a rice blast disease distribution map using GIS approach. The study methodology employed a questionnaire survey which were subjected to sample population of households in the 7 sections with 70 blocks within Mwea region. The collected data was analysed using SAS Version 9.1. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the household characteristics, the farm characteristics and the farmers' perceptions of rice blast disease. In the questionnaire, farmers' response on whether they had been affected by rice blast disease and the total production per acreage was used to develop an attribute table with GPS points. The GPS points were interpolated to create a geographical distribution map of rice blast disease. From the research findings almost all the farmers' had awareness and knowledge of rice blast disease, 98% of the farmers interviewed were aware of rice blast disease. Out of the 98% with knowledge and awareness 76% have been affected by the disease, while 24% have never been affected. Farmers attributed rice blast disease to a range of different causes, including excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer, water shortage, lack of proper drainage canal and due to climate change. Majority of the farmers interviewed (72%) did not engage themselves in any other socio-economic activity even after being affected by the rice blast disease. 15% opted to growing horticultural crops, 7% engaged in trading activities while 2% started livestock raring, wage earning and Boda boda business.Entities:
Keywords: GPS; Geographical distribution; Livelihood; Rice blast disease; Socio-economic activity
Year: 2013 PMID: 23888278 PMCID: PMC3715686 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Figure 1Age distribution of farmer respondents.
Average annual income of each social economic activity practiced by the respondent
| Activity | No. of people | % in total adults | Average annual income |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farming | 719 | 73.4 | Ksh 67,040 |
| Formal employment | 30 | 3.1 | Ksh 118,884 |
| Business | 73 | 7.4 | Ksh 55,969 |
| Casual labour | 125 | 12.8 | Ksh 39,932 |
| Others | 33 | 3.4 | Ksh 41,900 |
Figure 2Food expenditure per person in a week.
Figure 3Land owned in acres for rice cultivation.
Land tenure system
| Tenure system | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Title deed | 72 | 21 |
| Owned but not title | 207 | 59 |
| Leasehold | 4 | 1 |
| Government land | 13 | 4 |
| Rented -in | 3 | 1 |
Figure 4Farmers source of seeds.
Fertilizer use by the farmers in rice cultivation
| Fertilizer use | No. | Kind of fertilizer | Frequency % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planting fertilizers | 1 | Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) | 87.4 |
| 2 | Nitrates, Potash and Potasium (NPK) | 4.5 | |
| 3 | UREA | 1.5 | |
| 4 | Sulphur Ammonium (SA) | 3 | |
| 5 | Muriate of Potash (MOP) | 3.6 | |
| Top dressing fertilizers | 1 | Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) | 4 |
| 2 | Nitrates, Potash and Potasium (NPK) | 2.5 | |
| 3 | UREA | 1.4 | |
| 4 | Sulphur Ammonium (SA) | 89.9 | |
| 5 | MOP/CAN | 2.2 |
Average expenditure on family labour, hired labour and mechanization costs for rice production per acre for the main crop in one season
| Rice production | Activity | Costs per acre (Ksh) |
|---|---|---|
| Land preparation | Clearing field | 1,429 |
| Repairing Bunds | 585 | |
| Repairing canals | 649 | |
| 1st ploughing | 3,466 | |
| 2nd ploughing | 1,211 | |
| 1st harrowing | 1,590 | |
| 2nd harrowing | 1,790 | |
| Labour use | Planting/sowing | 4,060 |
| Soil covering | 1,133 | |
| 1st weeding | 1,782 | |
| 2nd weeding | 1,725 | |
| water management | 1,235 | |
| Scaring birds | 5,062 | |
| Harvesting | 3,632 | |
| Post harvest activities | 2,012 | |
| Agricultural materials | Fertilizer and chemicals application | 495 |
| Other expenses | 638 | |
Average harvesting and sale of rice in 2010 cropping season
| Variety planted | Average harvest per acre 90 kg bags | Percentage | Percentage | Average unit price per 90 Kg bag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount consumed | Amount sold | |||
| Basmati370 | 21.7 | 12.3 | 87.7 | Ksh 4,473 |
| IR2793-80-1 | 3.1 | 76.5 | 23.5 | Ksh 2,500 |
| BW196 | 26.03 | 62.4 | 37.6 | Ksh 3,500 |
Figure 5Farmers marketing channels.
Average profitability in rice growing for the year 2010
| Variety | Average sales (Ksh) | Average expenditure (Ksh) | Average profit (Ksh) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basmati | 97,064 | 40,259 | 56,805 |
| BW196 | 91,105 | 40,259 | 50,846 |
Figure 6The month of the year rice blast disease is prevalent.
The percentage rice blast occurrence and the average production in an acre
| Year | % rice blast occurrence | Bags (90 kg) produced in an acre |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 6.8 | 22.9 |
| 2007 | 6.3 | 22.2 |
| 2008 | 9.7 | 21.9 |
| 2009 | 55.5 | 10.5 |
| 2010 | 6.2 | 22.4 |
Figure 7Percentage rice blast incidences in the various planting group from 2006 to 2010.
Percentage in use of various rice blast control method
| Control method | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Burning diseased-straw and stubble | 8 | 3 |
| Use of resistance varieties | 1 | 0 |
| Chemical use | 218 | 82 |
| Apply compost | 0 | 0 |
| Avoid farm activities when plants are wet | 0 | 0 |
| Abandon field | 2 | 1 |
| Split applications of nitrogenous fertilizer | 1 | 0 |
| Others (Not using any control method) | 37 | 14 |
Farmers source of advice on the appropriate method of rice blast disease control
| Source of advice | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fellow farmers | 54 | 23 |
| Extension workers | 119 | 50 |
| Training workers | 47 | 20 |
| Radio | 0 | 0 |
| Local leaders | 5 | 2 |
| Visiting researchers | 7 | 3 |
| Newspaper/pamphlet | 0 | 0 |
| Others | 4 | 2 |
Other socio-economic activities introduced as a result of rice blast disease
| Activity | No. of farmers | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No activities introduced | 216 | 72 |
| Growing other horticultural crops | 44 | 15 |
| Livestock rearing | 7 | 2 |
| Boda boda business | 5 | 2 |
| Trade | 22 | 7 |
| Wage earner | 5 | 2 |
Assets type and value per year liquidated due to the effect of rice blast disease
| No. | Asset type | No. of farmers | Value per annum (Ksh) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Land | 4 | 280,000 |
| 2 | Tractor | 1 | 800,000 |
| 3 | Motor vehicle | 2 | 220,000 |
| 4 | Motor cycle | 1 | 50,000 |
| 5 | Ox cart | 2 | 20,000 |
| 6 | Ox plough | 1 | 3,000 |
| 7 | Livestock | 71 | 20,650 |
| 8 | Trees | 1 | 1,000 |
Farm units referenced by GPS through field
| Rice blast occurrence in the farm units | No. of farmers | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Have been affected by rice blast | 226 | 76.09 |
| Have never been affected by rice blast | 71 | 23.91 |
Figure 8GPS points displayed on the Mwea map showing cases of rice blast disease on the sampled farm units.
Figure 9Geographical distribution of rice blast disease in Mwea region.
Rice blast disease density scale as per total acreage production
| Rice production in 90 kgs bags per acre | Rice blast disease density scale |
|---|---|
| 0-4 | Very high density |
| 4.1-8.0 | High density |
| 8.1-12.0 | Moderately high density |
| 12.1-16.0 | High density |
| 16.1-20.0 | Moderately low density |
| 20.1-24.0 | Low density |
| 24.1- above | Very low density |
Figure 10Rice blast disease density map.