|
|
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS |
| The following are questions and responses from the
Shinyanga Grain Storage Stakeholder Workshop (Nov 2002).
If you have any questions about the project please email them to
Tanya Stathers (t.e.stathers@gre.ac.uk).
| Q |
Mr Mikomangwa |
| What was the hypothesis of the Zimbabwean DE trials?
Has a cost benefit analysis been done for DE use in Zimbabwe?
Might not local geological conditions mean that local DEs
could actually cost more than imported DE products?
How were farmers involved in Zimbabwe?
|
| A |
Brighton Mvumi |
| The hypothesis was: DEs could effectively protect
maize, sorghum and cowpeas from storage insect damage in small-scale
on-farm storage situations in 3 agroecological zones in Zimbabwe.
|
| A |
Tanya Stathers |
| As DEs are not yet commercially available in Zimbabwe,
their estimated cost was based on calculations of their price
at source, plus import duty and transport costs, the resulting
figure was very similar to that of the price of Actellic Super
dust needed to treat the same quantity. At intervals throughout
the farmer-managed trials in Zimbabwe, farmers discussed and
estimated the value of a 20 litre bucket of both their Protect-It
and typically treated grain. The figures they gave suggested
that by treating their grain with Protect-It® admixed at
0.1%w/w in comparison to their typical grain protection practice,
a household, after five and seven months storage, would save
US$20 and US$40 per tonne of shelled maize grain respectively
or US$47 and US$54 per tonne of threshed sorghum grain respectively
(as at DATE?). |
| Q |
Mr Lubengo |
Why were the Shinyanga trials set up using
infested grain?
|
| A |
Mr Kitando |
| The trials aim to test DEs under realistic farmer
conditions. Grain is frequently infested by storage pests whilst
still in the field, prior to harvest and then farmers store
this grain. The maize and sorghum grain was bought directly
from farmers at the two sites and already showed low levels
of infestation. |
| Q |
Mr Maige |
What about the sustainability of the project
- Protect-It is coming in from America - when will Tanzania
be mining its own DEs?
How effective will local DEs be?
|
| A |
Mr Kitando |
| We already have information regarding the location
of some Tanzanian DE deposits, further facilitation is needed
in order to mine them. During the second season's trials we
plan to include local DEs in the trials. |
| A |
Mr Katua |
| Most synthetic pesticides are currently coming
in from outside the country. Imports from Kenya say, might still
be cost effective. |
| A |
Tanya Stathers |
| We feel this is one of the aspects of the project
in which we need to start encouraging private sector involvement
immediately. |
| A |
Brighton Mvumi |
| It must be clarified that we are not trying to
sustain the project, but the livelihoods of the poor. It is
very important to generate data that will convince the private
sector that this is something that they should invest in. |
| A |
Mr Mussula |
| There is a need to discuss the project with and
involve the private sector as stakeholders to help with sustaining
the issues. |
| Q |
Mr Mikomangwa |
The mining of local DEs will be the private
sectors job, but as we don’t yet know how effective
the local DEs are, it is premature to involve the private
sector, only the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security,
the NGOs and the Geologists should be involved at this stage.
|
| A |
Tanya Stathers |
| Historically it was believed to be unnecessary
to involve farmers in research but current thinking now tries
to involve farmers in the research process as early as possible.
Shouldn’t we also involve the private sector as early
as possible in this process, it can’t be harmful to raise
awareness about this work amongst the private sector. |
| Q |
Mr Mfanga |
All chemicals that are registered in Tanzania
need to pass through the Tanzanian Pesticide and Registration
Institute (TPRI). I’m not sure the private sector in
Tanzania can take this forward, it is unlikely to happen here
in the same way it is happening in Zimbabwe.
|
| A |
Brighton Mvumi |
| We have already met with several representatives
of agrochemical and seed companies in Arusha to discuss DEs
and the project. They seemed very keen to learn more particularly
with the phasing out of organo-phosphate pesticides which is
gradually happening especially in developed countries. TPRI
have said that the DEs will need to follow the normal application
process for registration to be effected. |
| Q |
Omari |
Can we clarify that these trials are being
set up with comparisons of traditional treatments and Actellic
Super dust so that farmers can compare these DEs to the products
they normally use?
|
| A |
Mr Kitandu |
| Yes, the trial has been set up with 7 treatments,
these include the DEs Protect-It and Dryacide at different application
rates, Actellic Super dust, traditional protectants (e.g. rice
husk or fire ash admixed with grain) and an untreated control. |
| Q |
Mr Kolowa |
Most farmers here in Shinyanga region use traditional
vihenges or bags, shouldn’t the trial use storage structures
similar to those used by most farmers, in case farmers then
think that these DEs only work in improved storage structures.
|
| A |
Mr Kitando |
| In Mlali village, Kongwa district, the DE trial
has been set up using bags as this is how many farmers there
typically store their grain. |
| A |
Tanya Stathers |
| It was at the previous meeting of Shinyanga post-harvest
stakeholders last August when the proposal was being developed
that the stakeholders decided to use a mini version of the modern/
improved vihenge design (with the lid, and outlet facility)
to simultaneously increase farmers awareness of these alternative
storage structures. |
| A |
Mr Katua |
| If we use the traditional vihenge design we will
be taking our farmers backwards not forwards. |
Updated: 21/3/03
|
|
Copyright © 2003
University of Greenwich |
|
 |
