(AFCA) Feed the Future Africa Great Lakes Coffee Program (AGLC)

15th Africa Fine Coffee Conference (AFCA)
Feed the Future Africa Great Lakes Coffee Program (AGLC)
Topic: Control of Antestia/PTD and Improving Coffee
Productivity in Burundi and Rwanda
February 17, 2017 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Outline of presentation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
AGLC approach to challenge
Guiding questions
Background
Coffee overview
Preliminary studies by University of Rwanda
and Roger family company as GKI-Link
AGLC methodology
Preliminary results
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
AGLC- Introduction to
the Challenge
And Background
4
5
AGLC Background
• AGLC is a 3-year USAID-funded initiative that
addresses 2 major challenges in the coffee sector in
Rwanda and Burundi
• Reduce antestia bug/potato taste defect (PTD)
• Raise coffee productivity
• Partners
• Rwanda: Univ. of Rwanda (UR) and Inst. of Policy
Analysis and Research (IPAR)
• Burundi: University of Ngozi, Polytechnic Univ. of
Gitega
• USA: Michigan State University (MSU) and Global
Knowledge Initiative (GKI)
• Components: • applied research • policy engagement
• capacity building
6
Applied research component
• AGLC draws upon a broad mix of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies, including:
• Experimental field/plot level data collection
• Coffee farmer/household surveys (and CWS
survey)
• Key Informant Interviews
• Focus Group Discussions
• Comprehensive coffee sector data base
• Goal to integrate information from these four data
collection activities
• Provide empirical basis for policy engagement and
farmer capacity building
7
Guiding questions on the
Antestia Problem in
Burundi and Rwanda
8
Agronomic questions being addressed
in on-going experimental plots
1. What can we learn about antestia and how it
attacks coffee if we study it scientifically?
2. Which types of pest control are most effective
against the antestia pest?
3. Can organic methods of pest control be as
effective as chemical methods in controlling
antestia? Is a combination approach more effective
than either on it’s own?
4. Antestia damage ≠ potato taste defect every time.
Which treatments result in the lowest incidents of
PTD? Requires cupping.
5. What are the impacts of different pest control
9
treatments on plant growth and productivity?
Capacity-building questions being
addressed in the experimental plots
1. How can we implement experimental plots in ways
that improve capacity of the farmers who own them
and their neighbors?
2. How can we implement experimental plots in ways
that build-up the next generation of extension
workers with deep coffee knowledge?
10
Household survey
The household and field survey (n=2024) part of the
project addresses PTD issues and productivity via
large coffee farmer field and household surveys.
Important questions related to PTD are discussed in
the analysis.
See “Determinants of Farmer Investments” and
“Estimating Cost of Production” papers available as
handouts.
Mid-line survey (n=1024) completed in January 2017
for Rwanda, currently underway in Burundi.
11
Rwandan coffee Background
12
21st Century Rwandan Coffee
Industry: New Policy 1998
1.
Government of Rwanda targeted coffee as a
priority sector
A Radical
Transformation
of towards QUALITY
2.
Liberalized
coffee sector
3. Cooperatives promotion and support
4. Emphasis was placed on quality
5. Private sector participation encouraged
6. Cupping laboratories built
7. Cooperative and private promoted
8. Involve development partners
Quality in all links along the
Coffee value chain
1. Cherry picking and selection
2. Floatation for sorting and grading
3. Clean water use
4. Parchment sorting and grading
5.
Precise Transformation
fermentation
A Radical
of towards
6.
Linear sun drying
QUALITY
7. Lot creation
8. Lot quality control
9. Regional cupping laboratory
10. Market link and buyers contacts
Quality in all links along the Coffee value chain
1.
Parchment
sorting and grading
A Radical
Transformation
of towards
2.
Precise fermentation
QUALITY
3. Linear sun drying
4. Lot creation
5. Lot quality control
6. Regional cupping laboratory
7. Market link and buyers contacts
8. Parchment sorting and grading
Challenges to coffee production
(from NAEB)
 Poor soil fertility
 Lack of knowledge of farmers on good coffee husbandry
 Old coffee trees (24 % of the total number) which are not productive.
 Pests and diseases pressure.
 main insect pests being:
 antestia, (Antestiospsis sp.)
A Radical
Transformation of towards
coffee berry borer;
QUALITY
 Main diseases are:
 Coffee leaf rust (CLR) and
Coffee berry Disease (CBD)
Challenges to coffee production
(from NAEB)
Antestia spread in all the coffee growing zones
Feeds on berries and green shoots
It is thought to be linked with the potato taste
Can
cause loss
up to 30% if notofcontrolled
A Radical
Transformation
towards and affect
QUALITY
the quality of coffee as well
Current Antestia bug control
 Chemical control:
Use of synthetic pesticides
Use of Natural pyrethrin, Pyrethrine 5EW,
A Radical Transformation of towards
QUALITY
produced locally by the Agropharm
Africa.
 Cultural Control:
Training of farmer : eg FFS
Pilot study at University of Rwanda in
partnership with
Roger Family Company/San Fransisco
bay
Daily behaviour
 Daily distribution in the tree
8
7
6
Tot.bugs observed
5
Tot.of bugs in cherries
4
Tot.of bugs in leaves
3
Tot. of bugs in stem
Tot.bugs on ground
2
1
0
Time of assessment
Distribution in the fields
Distribution on farm
14.50%
Border plants
Middle plants
85.50%
Pilot study at University of Rwanda in
partnership with RFC
Presence of egg parasitoids
Presence of egg parasitoids in 2013 and
2014
entomopathogenic fung
i
Presence
of
entomopathogenic
fungi at different growth stages
Infection
rate
in
antestia
bugs
increased with development stage
eggs (40%),
 nymphs (60%)
adults (73.3%)
Entomopathogenic fungi:
Metarhizium anisopliae showed a great percentage of
occurrence in all growth stages :
Eggs(28%),
nymphs (28%)
adults (42.85%)
This implies that M.anisopliae has
more potential than other
entomopathogenic fungi. Especially
for adult control
AGLC- Study Plots
Methodology
31
128 agronomic study plots
• 16 coffee washing
stations in each
country selected.
• 4 farmers’ plots
(minimum 200
trees) selected
from each washing
station.
• 2 countries x 16
washing stations x
4 plots/ws = 128
study plots
32
Field work
Year 1:
Field/Farmer selection
Field set-up
Hire/train enumerators
Soil samples
Challenging roads and places
Field-Farmer Selection
Burundi
Rwanda
Protocol
Insecticide Treatments
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Confidor
(Rwanda)
Pyrethrum
EWC
[ORGANIC}
Confidor (or
equivalent) +
Pyrethrum
EWC
IPM (EWC
spot-spray)
Control
(no
treatment)
Equivalent,
ARFIC
recommende
d for Burundi
Application:
2 blanket
sprays per
season
Application:
2 blanket
sprays per
season
Application:
1 blanket
spray
Confidor, 1
blanket spray
EWC later in
season
Application:
Spot spray
weekly
Field Set-up
Plot
#
1
2
3
4
5
Field set-up
Painted
tree
trunks.
Enumerator Training
Soil Samples
Field work – Year 1 & 2
•
•
•
•
Soil analysis (challenges)
Antestia knock-down and counts
Tree growth and vigour
Cupping
Soil analysis at University of Ngozi, Burundi
Antestia knock-down and
count
1. Spray EWC
In the
morning
.
2. shake
Wait 10
minutes.
4. Record
3. Count bugs
Tree growth and vigour
Cupping to assess
incidence of PTD
Potato Taste
Yes/No
Initial
Research Findings
from Experimental
Fields
44
Progress update - no
conclusions yet
•
•
•
•
Antestia incidents high in dark, bushy canopy. “Pruning
on its own can reduce antestia by half. “ ~ Dr. Dick
Walyaro, RAB.
Organic and domestically available pyrethrum of high
interest. Cost issues. Testing “spot” vs. “blanket”
application.
Expect soil analysis to show lack of potassium in Rwanda,
which reduces sweetness in the cup.1 Distribution of
fertilizer issue.
Fly crop issues.
1
Malliavin Nzamurambaho: San Francisco Bay Coffee
Early results.
Treatment 1 has highest incidence of antestia and
highest yield.
Ngozi + Kayanza, Burundi
Year 1 Quarter 4 Update
Avg. # of Antestia
bugs
Yield – KG
cherry/tree
1a
Treat 1 (Confidor):
0.9
1.98
1b
Treat 2 (Pyrethrum):
0.4
1.73
1c
Treat 3 (Confidor+):
0.7
1.50
1d
Treat 4 (IPM – Pyrethrum+):
0.5
1.47
1e
Treat 5. Control:
0.0
1.64
Expecting 2017 study plot
data
More precise estimates of % yield reduction due to
antestia damage. (We typically use 30%, is it
accurate?)
Correlation between antestia presence and PTD in the
cup.
Disaggregation of antestia and PTD incidence by
geography, type of input use, plant and soil
characteristics.
Better understanding of antestia habits and lifecycle.
Capacity building
Farmers
Future Extensionists
Research Findings
from Household &
Field Surveys
49
Input Application Rates
Percent of HHs Applying Inputs
Percent of HHs
100%
80%
60%
Rwanda
40%
Burundi
20%
0%
Applied
fertilizers
Applied
pesticides
Applied
manure
50
Fertilizer Application Rates per Month
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Rwanda
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Percent of HHs
Percent of Farmers Applying Fertilizers per
Month
Burundi
Month of Fertilizer Application
51
Pesticide Application Rates per Month
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Rwanda
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Percent of HH
Percent of Farmers Applying Pesticides per
Month
Burundi
Month of Pesticide Application
52
Reasons for Not Using Inputs
Reasons for Not Using Pesticide
(for HH not using pesticides)
Not free
Reson for Not Using Pesticides
Reason for Not Using Fertilizers
Reasons for Not Using Fertilizer
(for HH not using fertilizer)
Not available
Other
Not worth cost
Too expensive
Don't know how
No labor available
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of HH reporting reason
100%
Not free
Not available
Other
Not worth cost
Burundi
Too expensive
Rwanda
Don't know how
No labor available
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent of HH reporting reason
53
Antestia and PTD: Do Farmers Know
What They Are?
Percent of Farmers Who Know Antestia and PTD
100%
Percent of HHs
80%
60%
Rwanda
Burundi
40%
20%
0%
Know Antestia
Knows PTD
54
Antestia and PTD: How do farmers
identify antestia?
Impacts of Antestia on Coffee, as Identified by Farmers
100%
90%
80%
Percent of HHs
70%
60%
50%
Rwanda
40%
Burundi
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pricks Cherry
Causes Cherry to Fall
Affects Leaf Growth
Affects Branch Growth
How Antestia Affects Coffee Trees
55
Antestia and PTD: How do farmers
identify PTD?
Description of PTD by Farmers
50%
Percent of HHs
40%
30%
Rwanda
20%
Burundi
10%
0%
Defect in Coffee
Bad taste in coffee
Bad smell in coffee
Causes lower coffee
prices
PTD
56
Antestia in Farms
Percent of Coffee Farmers Observing Antestia in
their Coffee
100%
Percent of HHs
80%
60%
Rwanda
Burundi
40%
20%
0%
Had Antestia in their Fields
Had Antestia in 2014-15
57
Antestia in Farms
Average Number of Antestia Bugs per Tree
Observed by Farmers
(of HHs reporting Antestia)
100%
Percent of HHs
80%
60%
Rwanda
40%
Burundi
20%
0%
0 bugs
1-3 bugs
4-6 bugs
7-10 bugs
more than 10
bugs per tree
Number of Antestia Bugs per Tree
58
Antestia Control
95% of farmers in Burundi and 76% of farmers in Rwanda who have had
Antestia in their coffee trees reported having taken some form of Antestia control
Percent of Coffee Farmer Using Selected Methods
for Antestia Control
(Among those taking control measures)
100%
Percent of HHs
80%
60%
Rwanda
40%
Burundi
20%
0%
Blanket Spray
Pick by Hand
Spot Spray
Metod of Antestia Control
Blanket or spot or pick
off
59
Acknowledgement
 USAID for support and funding this research in both
Rwanda and Burundi. The AGLC is funded by Feed
the Future-USAID, without it we could not be having
the important data we are getting
 Government of Rwanda and Burundi for support
and enabling environment
 Coffee farmers in both Rwanda and Burundi for their
willingness to work with the AGLC project
 Coffee stakeholders in Rwanda and Burundi for the
willingness to help us in many ways
Thank you for Listening
Download PDF
Similar pages