Pearl millet socioeconomic and production characteristics in Uganda

Abstract

Summary Pearl millet is an important cereal grown by farmers in environmentally marginalised areas. In Uganda it is mainly grown in northern (Acholi), northeastern (Karamoja) and eastern (Teso) regions. The regions are characterised by semi-arid conditions with high temperatures, low mean annual rainfall and widespread chronic food insecurity. Technologies that increase pearl millet productivity under such conditions have been developed in international research institutes to highlight the importance of pearl millet as a resilient crop suitable for drought conditions. However, not much is known about the importance of the crop in Uganda. A baseline survey was thus conducted to document pearl millet farmers’ socioeconomic and production characteristics in the country. Information was collected about demography and food security situation, livelihood, social capital and trainings, importance and utilisation of pearl millet, agronomic characteristics, desirable and undesirable traits, factors of crop and animal production, post-harvest handling, production and marketing constraints and coping strategies.

Results indicated that the average age of heads of households (mainly males) was 45.78 years while that of their spouses was 37.22 years; with a pearl millet growing experience of over six years. In addition, majority of the households had 6-10 members many of whom were below 15 years. The heads of households were married with education experience of more than five years while their spouses were generally illiterate. The household heads and their spouses farmed the land as their main economic activity. Furthermore, majority of the households lived under poor conditions where the main house had a single room built of mud and wattle with grass as the main roofing material and earth floor. The poor living standards were worsened by majority of the households facing perpetual food insecurity mainly due to drought, insect pests, plant diseases and lack of improved planting materials.

Social capital, access to trainings and group dynamics of the farmers were also assessed. Majority (over 83%) of the households interviewed did not access credit for agricultural activities due to a dearth of credit source in the village. Lack of collateral and high interest rates were among the other important reasons for not accessing credit. However, the few (about 16%) households that accessed credit did that majorly to pay for labour for farming activities. Other reasons for accessing credit included; paying school fees, financing retail businesses and purchasing livestock. The main sources of credit were the village banks or cash boxes where the majority accessed small loans of up to 200,000/= (less than USD 100) for three months with interest rate of 10%. In addition to few households having access to credit, less than 50% of the xiii

households had at least a member receiving agricultural training. More households in the northern region received agricultural training than the eastern region and generally more heads of households attended the trainings than the spouses. Most households received training in modern agriculture while a few households in the north had members attending training in agricultural marketing. A few households in the eastern region had members trained in insect pest and disease control. Most training schedules lasted for about two days where the NAADS and NGOs were the main trainers. After receiving the trainings majority of the participants reported that they applied the skills received. The farmers were trained mainly in the modern techniques for the production of the most important crops especially ground nuts, cassava and vegetables. Unfortunately, after receiving the agricultural trainings there was no technical backstopping in form of extension to ensure farmers implemented the skills appropriately. This was reflected by the majority of the households receiving no extension visits and a few being visited only once in two years to be advised in proper planting and crop spacing.

Group dynamics was another form of social capital considered. It was observed that majority (over 58%) of the households had at least an individual being a member of a community group. The heads of households and to a lesser extent the spouses were involved in group activities. However, the majority were ordinary members with no leadership role while few were chairpersons and general secretaries. The farmers got involved mainly in mutual support groups commonly known as ‘merry go round’ in addition to a few being involved in group farming while others provided labour for agricultural activities. Most groups were also characterised by no membership or annual fee being charged for one to join a group.

Pearl millet uses were documented after establishing the farmers’ attachment to the crop. The farmers actually valued the crop since majority had grown the cereal 3-4 times in the last five years. It was grown as a food security crop in addition to being used as food and source of income while a few used it as yeast for brewing. As food, pearl millet was eaten as soft or hard porridge while some ate it in gain form after boiling. Relative to other crops pearl millet ranked the fourth after cassava, sesame and ground nuts respectively. It was more important than sorghum, maize, finger millet, green gram and sweet potatoes. The ranking was an average of the importance of the crop as food and source of income. However, the crop ranking was dynamic in the last five years and the dynamism was expected in the next five years as long as variation existed mainly in palatability, being source of income, marketability and change in household population. xiv

After establishing that pearl millet was important, agronomic characteristics were then noted. It was observed that majority of the farmers planted local unimproved land races of pearl millet once a year in the second rains (September-January) to avoid birds and control ergot disease. The unimproved varieties were grown mainly because farmers did not have alternative planting materials. The sole cropping system was adopted where farmers practiced broadcasting as the planting method. Broadcasting led to use of high seed rate of about 20Kgha-1 instead of the recommended 2-5Kgha-1. The agronomic practices and the production constraints resulted in average low productivity of 658Kgha-1. In addition, the local materials also had desirable and undesirable traits. Some of the desirable traits reported were; being tall, high tillering, stay green and white/grey grain colour while the undesirable traits included being susceptible to ergot and rust diseases, low yielding, low tillering ability, late maturity and susceptibility to drought which resulted in sterile panicles. It was observed that genotypes from northern Uganda were generally late maturing (taking 4-5 months) while those from eastern, especially Kumi district matured within three months. Farmers highlighted introduction of ergot resistant varieties and training in modern agricultural practices as the most important aspects needed to increase productivity.

Factors of production considered were land, seed and labour. Majority of the farmers owned the land they cultivated while some rented and a few borrowed. The farmers reported that the soil fertility was good much as the productivity was low. Most farmers planted pearl millet on up to one acre of land which was mainly their home stead parcel and the seed was either bought or own-saved from the previous season’s harvest. The bought seed was not certified or authentic but grain. The labour used in pearl millet production was mainly family labour where men, women and children were all involved; but women provided more labour hours than men or children. The women were mainly associated with harvesting, threshing and weeding and to some extent planting while men were involved in land preparation and planting. Hired labour was also used to some extent mainly to harvest and land preparation. The common equipment used on the farms were the hand hoes, pangas, ox-ploughs, bicycles and axes which were mainly purchased or hired. However, none of the households used inputs like fertiliser, manure, herbicides or pesticides to enhance productivity.

Results also show that more than 87% of the households interviewed reared at least one type of livestock with poultry and small ruminants being the common animals kept. Chicken ranked xv

highest among the poultry reared while goats formed the majority of the small ruminants. However, pigs were the most sold animals followed by poultry especially the turkeys and chicken. Much as more than 87% of the households reared some livestock, none of them used the technology of manure to improve soil fertility but cow dung was used in making house floors. Simple materials were used in post-harvest handling where the pearl millet was harvested using hands and knives. The harvested panicles were transported to the drying ground by carrying them on the heads. The drying was either done on bare ground or on mats and tarpaulin. Threshing was done by women where the millet was beaten and winnowing done to remove chuff before storage. However, from planting to storage pearl millet production faced numerous constraints. Production constraints included ergot, birds, weeds, rust and drought while low prices (33.95%) followed by high market taxes, lack of transport to markets, lack of markets and unscrupulous middlemen were some of the marketing constraints. In most cases farmers had no effective suggested solutions to the constraints