CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
3. An appraisal of sorghum farmers’ trait preferences, production threats and
3.5. Results
3.5.4. Farmers’ trait preferences
The results showed that different farmers preferred different traits in a sorghum variety. These were divided into plant and grain related traits.
3.5.4.1. Plant trait preferences
There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in plant traits preferred by farmers across all locations (Table 3-7).
54
Table 3-7 Test of significance for the various plant traits preferred in sorghum varieties
Trait
Test Value = 0
X2 t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Difference
95 percent Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
Plant height 13.00 5 0.000 2.167 1.74 2.60 2.667
Panicle insertion 3.73 5 0.014 2.500 0.78 4.22 0.000
Leave colour 5.97 5 0.002 1.833 1.04 2.62 0.667
Plant vigour 4.00 5 0.010 1.333 0.48 2.19 1.000
2.667
Stem size 4.00 5 0.010 1.333 0.48 2.19
Leave position 4.57 5 0.006 1.833 0.80 2.87 2.667
Plant use 4.39 5 0.007 3.000 1.24 4.76 1.000
Regarding plant height, 89.1% of the farmers preferred short plants. This trait is associated with early maturing varieties. Gunhe was the only location where farmers (10.9%) chose average to tall plants (Table 3-8). For panicle insertion; big panicles were selected in Guro, Mabudo and Gunhe while in Mandie, Dimbe and Espungabera, they preferred big and long panicles. This trait is strongly associated with the harvest yield.
Leaf colour was important to the farmers because it indicates how healthy the plant is. Dark green leaves were mostly selected by farmers in Mandie, Dimbe and Espungabera and corresponded to 61.8% of all interviewed farmers. On the other hand, 24.5% of the farmers specifically in Guro and Gunhe selected a light green colour. About 13.6% of the farmers in Mabudo had no leaf colour preferences indicating any colour of leaves (dark or light green).
In terms of vigour, the majority of farmers (86.4%) selected vigorous plants in the field. Mandie farmers selected average plants meaning not too much vigour (13.6%). Regarding leaf architecture, 57.3% of the farmers selected open leaves, while 20% chose any leaf position and 22.7% preferred straight leaves. Guro, Dimbe and Gunhe farmers selected open leaves, while Espungabera and Mabudo preferred any leaf position. Mandie farmers were the only ones that preferred straight leaves.
55
In terms of plant use, construction (20.0%), and construction and animal feed (55.5%) were the major activities that used most of the plant materials after harvesting across all the locations. On the other hand, 13.6% of the farmers left the plant materials as residue in the field while some used the materials for both construction and field residue (10.9%). Farmers in Guro and Espungabera used the plant materials for construction, while Mandie and Dimbe farmers used the materials for construction and animal feed. Mabudo farmers left the plants as residue in the field and in Gunhe they used the plant materials for both construction and residue in the field.
Table 3-8 Parameters selected by farmers in the sorghum plants
Parameters Number of farmers Percent
Plant height Short 98
12
89.1 10.9 Average
Panicle insertion Big 42
68
38.2 68.8 Big and long
Leaf colour Light green 27
68 15
24.5 61.8 13.6 Dark green
Any
Plant vigour Vigorous 95
15
86.4 13.6 Average
Leaf position Open leaves 63
25 22
57.3 22.7 20.0 Straight leaves
Any
Plant use Construction 22
15 61 12
20.0 13.6 55.5 10.9 Field residue
Construction and animal feed Construction and field residue 3.5.4.2. Grain related traits preferred by farmers
The grain colour selected across locations was 100% white. Hard grain types were preferred by 83.3% of the farmers whereas 16.7% of the farmers preferred soft grain. The hard grain was selected in Guro, Dimbe, Espungabera, Mabudo and Gunhe while the soft grain was selected in Mandie.
In respect to seed size, 66.7% of the farmers in Guro, Mandie, Espungabera and Mabudo chose big size and 33.3% of the farmers in Dimbe and Gunhe chose small seeded types (Table 3-9). On the other hand, 50% of farmers chose sweet grains, 33.3% indicated any taste
56
and 16.7% preferred bitter grain taste. Guro, Mandie and Mabudo farmers preferred sweet grains, Dimbe and Espungabera no taste preferred and Gunhe bitter taste. It was observed that 66.7% of the farmers used sorghum for brewing, food and animal feed while 16.7% used the grain for brewing or for food (Table 3-9). Farmers in Mandie, Dimbe, Espungabera and Gunhe used the grain for brewing, food and animal feed while in Guro they used it more for brewing and food and in Mabudo, only for brewing.
Grain was stored for more than a year in Dimbe, Espungabera and Gunhe (50.0%) while in Mandie and Mabudo grain was stored for a year (33.3%). However, in Guro farmers stored the grain for only three months (16.7%). Additional characteristics considered in grain selection by farmers across locations included the duration of the grain in the granary, taste for beer, and cooking time. Guro, Dimbe and Espungabera farmers reported that the shelf-life in the granary is very important while in Mandie they reported that they preferred grain with a short cooking time and longer storage/shelf-life in the granary, whereas in Mabudo and Gunhe farmers indicated that they preferred grain that was good for brewing beer (Table 3-9).
Table 3-9 Grain characteristics selected by farmers in sorghum
Parameters Number of farmer Percent
Grain colour White 110 100.0
Hardness Hard 85
25
83.3 16.7 Soft
Size Big 62
48
66.7 33.3 Small
Taste Sweet 55
12 43
50.0 16.7 33.3 Bitter
Any
Grain use Brewing 15
15 80
16..7 16.7 66.7 Brewing and food
Brewing, food and animal feed
Storage Three months 15
40 55
16.7 33.3 50.0 One year
More than a year Other
characteristics
Stay longer in granary (shelf-life) 58 27 25
50.0 33.3 16.7 Good for beer
Cook quickly and stay longer in granary
57 3.5.4.3. Cost of producing the sorghum
The production cost was calculated based on the hired labour for activities carried out on the farm. In Mussorize district, farmers did not hire labour for some of the activities. Results showed that the cost of producing a hectare of sorghum in the two districts was higher in the southern part of the province than in the northern (Table 3-10).
Table 3-10 Cost of sorghum production activities in two districts
Activity Guro District cost (MZN/ha) Mussorize District cost (MZN/ha) Land preparation 3,100.00 4,500.00 Seedling/Planting 600.00 2,500.00 Pesticide 150.00 - Thinning out 1,250.00 1,250.00 First weeding 500.00 1,250.00 Second weeding 750.00 - Granary preparation 500.00 - Harvesting 875.00 800.00 Transport 300.00 - Threshing 1,000.00 - Total 9,025.00 10,300.00
Total difference (percent) 12.37
Exchange rate 1 USD = 35 MZN (February, 2015)
The total sorghum production cost in Mussorize district was 12.37% more than in Guro district where the land preparation, planting and first weeding were the most expensive activities (Table 3-10).
In Mussorize district, some of the activities were not usually carried out using hired labour because the cost was too high. For example, pesticides were not commonly applied, and a second weeding was also not commonly practiced. In addition, granary preparation, transport and threshing were solely done by the families.
3.5.4.4. Estimation of profitability
The estimation of profitability was analysed assuming that family and hired labour had the same remuneration. The information used to estimate profitability is indicated below:
Cost of producing sorghum = 9,0255.00 Mt/ha (Guro district) and 10,300.00 Mt/ha (Mussorize district)
58 Grain selling price in 2015 = 15,00 Mt/kg
Average of production in 2015 [grain yield (kg/ha)] = 1500-2,000.00 kg/ha (Mussorize and Guro districts respectively)
Profitability = [Grain yield (kg/ha) x selling price (Mt/kg)] − [Production cost (Mt/ha)]
1. Profitability Guro district = (2000 kg/ha x 15,00 Mt/kg) – (9025.00 Mt/ha) Profitability Guro district = 20975.00 Mt/ha
2. Profitability Mussorize district = (1500 kg/ha x 15,00 Mt/kg) – (10,300.00 Mt/ha) Profitability Mussorize district = 12200.00 Mt/ha
The estimation of profitability in the two districts showed that Guro had more profit when compared to Mussorize district. Although, most activities are paid using farm products, it is still be more profitable to grow sorghum in Guro.