Transforming Tanzania’s Agrarian Sector through Maize Breeding

Transforming Tanzania’s Agrarian Sector through Maize Breeding

By: Arnold A Mushongi (PhD), National Maize Breeder, Tanzania

Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) – Uyole

P. O. Box 400

Mbeya

Tanzania

February 29th 2012

i

Table of contents

Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

Importance of maize in Tanzania……………………………………………………………………………………………………1

Advantage of use of improved cultivars ………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Constraints to maize production in Tanzania …………………………………………………………………………………..2

Disparity between actual and potential grain yields ……………………………………………………………………..2

Insecure food situation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Unstable climate ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

Low use of seed of improved cultivars ………………………………………………………………………………………..7

Dependency syndrome on external inputs in maize production system………………………………………….9

Situation with reference to Africa’s Green Revolution………………………………………………………………………9

Targeted breeding products (varieties and traits) …………………………………………………………………………..11

Capacity and continuity of maize breeding programme ………………………………………………………………….12

Breeding strategy proposed to solve the problem………………………………………………………………………….14

Empirical breeding for targeted traits ……………………………………………………………………………………….14

Participatory variety development ……………………………………………………………………………………………17

Involvement of the private seed sector……………………………………………………………………………………..17

Variety Adoption Strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

State of seed companies or seed multiplication groups that may take up distribution of the new

cultivars…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Involvement of farmers (when and how) …………………………………………………………………………………..18

Evolution of the national seed industry and engagement of private sector ……………………………………….18

History of seed sector in Tanzania …………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Economic reforms and the seed industry in Tanzania………………………………………………………………….19

Description of seed companies operating in the country: consequences and way forward ……………..20

Current status of collaboration between the Public and the Private sector ……………………………………21

ii

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24

1

Background

Maize (Zea mays L.) is a widely studied and used crop worldwide. The species is widely adapted across a

range of altitudes, latitudes, soils, moisture regimes, slopes, and production technologies. It is widely

adapted because of its allogamy nature of reproduction; easy of agronomic management, harvesting, and

processing compared to small-grains of African origin. Introduction of western education in Africa by

colonialists reduced labour because children who scared birds that destroyed small grains had to be sent

to school so adopted and adapted as the grains are tightly protected by husk cover which popularized

further maize in Africa.

In Tanzania the crop was popularized in the Southern Highlands Zone between 1950s and1970s.

however, from the crop-pest ecological point of view, and being alien to Africa, maize suffers from

indigenous biotic and abiotic stresses and their interactions. Such stresses keep maize productivity at low

and erratic grain yield within and across countries and regions. Changes in climatic conditions and

artificial selection pressure to suit various human needs exacerbate low productivity. The most intractable

stresses of African origin include striga (witch weed), maize streak virus foliar disease, and insect pests

many of which are alien to Africa but they have adapted themselves so fast to infest on maize.

The diversity of uses of maize decreases with level of economy of the country. The potential of the crop to

boost Agrarian Economies is higher particularly in sub Sahara Africa (SSA) as maize is synonymous with

food security and it is also a source of income to rural resource-poor farming communities. With regards

to contribution of maize to Africa’s Green Revolution, the potential is higher in Africa viz. Asian Green

Revolution because the later revolution followed a top-down and reductionist approach as it was against

biodiversity conservation, which an Indian Environmental Activist – Vandana Shiva termed it as

‘Monocultures of the mind’. Maize is a political crop in SSA. The evidence sends us back to mid 2000s

when a Minister for Agriculture in Kenya had to step down because of failing to manage grain maize thus

endangering food security. Recently in Tanzania the Prime Minister banned unofficial cross boarder

export of grain maize to safeguard in-country food security and to know official contribution of maize

industry to the economy. Still, inconclusive debates ram SSA with regards to introduction and use of

Genetically-Modified maize and/or its products from the western world.

Importance of maize in Tanzania

Maize provides 60% of dietary calories and more than 50% of utilizable protein to the Tanzanian

population. Tanzania ranks 23rd in maize production in the world (FAOSTAT, 2007), with small-scale

farmers contributing over 80% of the total production (RATES, 2003). The per capita consumption of

maize in Tanzania is among the highest just as it is in other SSA countries. The crop is cultivated on an

average of two million hectares (AATF 2009), which is about 45% of the cultivated area in Tanzania

(Bisanda et al., 1998). In 2005/2006 maize production in Tanzania was 3,423, 000 tons (AGSTATS FOR

FOOD SECURITY, 2007), whereas FAOSTAT (2007) indicate 3.66 million MT (Table 1). About 85% of

2

the maize produced in Tanzania is grown by peasants whose farms are <10 ha, medium-scale

commercial farms (10-100 ha) produce 10%, and large-scale commercial farms (>100 ha) produce 5%.

Between 1961-65 and 1985-95, national maize production was estimated to have grown by 4.6%, of

which 2.4% can be attributed to growth in area and 2.2% to growth in yield. Despite this marginal yield

growth, average yields stagnate at <1.5 t/ha, although yields are higher in high-potential areas such as

the Southern Highlands (SHT) (Bisanda et al., 1998), where Lyimo (2006) estimate yield potential of 8

t/ha. Such farmers’ yield figures are slightly above the range of 0.9-1.2 t ha-1 in SSA, which is very low

yield level in relation to the average world maize production by resource-poor farmers in the comparable

altitudes (Elings et al., 1997). However, research on safety of grain maize in food and feed systems has

been barely done in Tanzania. Therefore the safety of whatever little is available for direct consumption

might have been infested with mycotoxins thus compromising health of consumers. Generally, grain

yields fluctuate with seasons and locations but with no significant rise to meet the self-sufficiency levels

for the country  the challenge which maize research has been attempting to address.

Advantage of use of improved cultivars

Genetic advancement in crops contributes significantly to food security. MacRoberts (2009) reported that

improved varieties are a prime catalyst to strategies use of agro-inputs and other sectors of crop

development. For instance, tolerance of crops to biotic stresses would minimize use of pesticides

(Robinson, 1987), whereas tolerance to a biotic stresses may suggest use of less fertilizers under low soil

moisture conditions (Bänzinger et al., 2000), all of which reduce costs of production to resource-poor

farmers (Echarte et al., 2008) and facilitate sustainable conservation of natural resources (Duvick, 1999).

Uniformity characteristic of improved varieties warrant value addition at different nodes in maize value

chain i.e. agronomic management, post harvesting, processing, packaging and marketing. These few

examples are in support of Echarte et al. (2008) that improved cultivars are beneficial over unimproved

genotypes. Nonetheless, inadequate availability of seed of improved varieties and poor access by

farmers to improved good quality seed of, albeit a few varieties in the market, has continued to hamper

increased productivity of maize at the country level. Unfortunately this situation is made worse by the lack

of an efficient seed production, promotion and distribution system for locally-bred improved cultivars,

affecting mostly poor rural farming communities and country’s economy at large.

Constraints to maize production in Tanzania

Disparity between actual and potential grain yields

Yield instability due to biotic and abiotic stresses which is further compounded with socio-economic

factors such as poverty, conflicting and uncoordinated policies on access to technologies (i.e. seeds of

improved varieties, fertilizers, extension, and credit), among others limit food security in Tanzania. New

and improved varieties of maize should be continuously made available to the resource-poor farming

communities in order to safeguard the national food security and alleviate poverty in a sustainable

3

manner. Because any threat to maize industry may compromise the country’s food security, and spill over

effects to neighbouring countries who import maize from Tanzania.

Smale and Jayne (2004) reported that none of the most major maize producing countries in SSA has

actual maize production per capita kept pace with population over the past 40 years. Specifically to

Tanzania, Amani (2004) pointed out that maize production has not kept up with population growth (i.e. 2.8

to 3.0%). Possible explanations for such disparity include: i) the higher cost of fertilizer, ii) expansion of

export crops due to export liberalization, iii) shifts in demand toward other staples, and iv) insufficient and

erratic rains due to climate change, v) high levels of poverty among resource-poor farmers who feed the

country, vi) uncoordinated and dishonest markets specific to the maize industry, vii) poor governance with

regards to maize industry i.e. reliance of foreign seed, failure to control fraudulence of inputs for maize

production, low investments in maize research, among others. Despite impoverished soils, farmers in

Tanzania apply less inorganic fertiliser to farms compared to many countries in the world (Table 1) thus

perpetuating low yields. Breeding initiatives for nutrient-use efficient cultivars which are early maturing

and locally adapted even under low moisture levels would reduce the existing yield gap between farmers’

yields and potential yields.

Table 1: Consumption of fertilisers and estimates of maize grain production in Tanzania compared with

selected regions and countries

Region/Country Grain production†

(million MT)

Amount of inorganic

fertilisers applied

(kg ha-1)

Industrialised countries* 352.15 206

South East Asia 30.46 135

South Asia NA 100

Latin America 84.61 73

South Africa 7.13 50

Malawi 3.23 27

Tanzania 3.66 9

Source: http://www.tzonline.org, adopted from Abuja Africa Fertilizer Summit, June 2006)

* = Western Europe and United States of America, MT = metric tons, NA = data not available;

†FAOSTAT (2007)

Insecure food situation

Shortage of the availability and accessibility of food to people in Tanzania due to natural or socioeconomic

factors is estimated at 4-7% (Amani, 2004). Such factors still make the food security status in

Tanzania unpredictable. According to the Tanzania’s National Food Balance Sheet, maize consumption

4

in the country was estimated at around three million metric tons per year (RATES, 2003). Compared to

Table 1 this suggests that Tanzanians consume what they produce. Food security, involves three

components: food availability, access, and utilization in right amount and quality to right segment of

human population, time and place in order to support a healthy and productive life. Because food security

is a cross-cutting issue rapid scientific and governance interventions are therefore required to level off the

existing scarcity.

Unstable climate

According to Bisanda et al. (1998) and Moshi and Marandu (1985) agro-ecologies for maize production in

Tanzania are divided into three major zones and calendar physiological maturities. These include: low

altitudes (<900 m.a.s.l. with 90-100 maturity days), intermediate altitudes (900-1500 m.a.s.l. with 130-170

maturity days) and the high altitudes (>1500 m.a.s.l. with 170-200 maturity days). However, Lyimo (2006)

reported that bracket maturity periods for maize in Tanzania and other SSA countries are no longer fixed

and they have been reduced significantly due to climatic changes as farmers now require relatively earlier

maturing elite cultivars than it used to be.

Suitable production conditions for maize are no longer reliable. It further implies that effective maize

production area has been declining with time. And farmers produce maize under multiple stresses (Plates

1-7). As a result the rising human population numbers will not survive on little food that is produced. Soil

impoverishment; abject poverty; rising temperatures and decreasing, yet, unpredictable and unevenly

distributed rains decimate maize production and productivity. Very often unstable weather leads to

proliferation of new strains of biotic stresses such as pests and diseases and abiotic stresses (i.e. drought,

floods, soil deprivation and changes in soil pH, changing in planting density and planting seasons thus

reducing further effective areas for maize production.

Plate 1: Irrigation canal for maize production in Kiwere village in Iringa region, Tanzania. Despite this

costly infrastructure (~600,000US$) maize production is under threat and farmers are about to deny

maize production due to Maize Streak Virus disease as indicated in Plate 2 below.

5

Plate 2: Maize field with sparse population density at Kiwere village due to Maize Streak Virus disease

Plate3: Heavy infestation of maize crop with striga weed (left) and farmers holding a striga weed in a

close range (right) at Upendo village in Chunya district, Tanzania. The farmer called it a menace as it

deepens poverty in their village. The weed is a partial parasite.

6

Plate 4: Dying maize plant due striga weed at Upendo village; intercropping maize with cowpea could

not protect maize from the weed

Plate 5: Striga weed cohabiting grasses at Upendo village indicating that this site is hotspot for striga.

Presence of an alternative host is an undesirable adaptation mechanism that will further ravage maize

productivity.

7

Plate 6: Maize infested with termites (left) and effect of early season drought at Mtandika village in

Kilolo district in Iringa region, Tanzania

Plate 7: Farmers at Upendo village observing and assessing damage of stalk borer insect pest at Upendo

village in Chunya district, Tanzania

NB: all photographs were taken between mid January to early February 2012 during Monitoring and

Evaluation of AGRA-funded project

Low use of seed of improved cultivars

Majority of farmers in Tanzania use seeds of unimproved cultivars. Edmeades et al. (1997) associated dry

lands and impoverished soils with the preponderance of use of unimproved cultivars (landraces and

8

recycled cultivars which have lost genetic integrity) in tropical maize. Echarte et al. (2008) reported that

unimproved varieties use available agricultural inputs (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides) less efficiently. These

production constraints result in stagnantly low and erratic maize grain yields observable in Tanzania

contrary to the production potential. The yield figures in low potential areas are further lower estimated at

5 t ha-1. Nonetheless open pollinated varieties (OPVs) are usually not an option in these zones as it has

been suggested by previous studies. Pixley and Bänzinger (2004) asserted that OPVs are relevant and

appropriate where farmers’ yields are <2 t ha-1, but farmers need to shift to hybrids in agro-ecological

zones with higher potential. Enhanced maize production to narrow the gap between grain yield and

increasing human population will be compromised if higher yielding varieties are not bred and adopted by

farmers.

Table 2 indicates that farmers in Tanzania use mainly unimproved cultivars of maize compared with

neighbouring countries such as Kenya, Malawi and Zambia, though statistics are about 20 years old the

trends may not have changed much to date. Inability to pay for seed of improved cultivars and inability to

sell product in a stable and open market is the chief impediment to adoption of improved and properly

adapted maize cultivars, in many developing countries in Africa (Smale and Jayne, 2004). Furthermore

the social investigations by Mushongi (2010) revealed that in areas where maize is irrigated farmers always

use improved seed of maize although this was not the case where farmers had alternative sources of income

other than maize. This may suggest that irrigation infrastructure may increase adoption of improved cultivars.

Therefore appropriate seeds of improved cultivars especially which tolerant to Maize Streak Virus diseases

are highly needed. And this would be cost effective because with undesirable consequences of climate

change, irrigation schemes should be increased, though breeding of water use efficient (and other ecological

resources) cultivars would be needed in future as water resources are becoming scarce.

Table 2: Estimated area planted to white maize hybrids as percentage of total maize area in selected

countries in 1992

Country Percent Country Percent Country Percent

Egypt 28 Kenya 74 Zambia 65

Benin 0 Rwanda 0 Guatemala 12

Ghana 0 Mozambique 4 Honduras 12

Nigeria 3 Tanzania 6 Mexico 29

Togo 1 Uganda 5 Nicaragua 3

Cameroon 5 Lesotho 80 Venezuela 95

Ethiopia 4 Zimbabwe 100 United States 100

Malawi 24 El Salvador 34 South Africa 94

Source: 1993/94 World Maize Facts and Trends. Maize Seed Industries, Revisited: Emerging Roles of

the Public and Private Sectors, Selected Maize Statistics, CIMMYT, 1994, Mexico, DP.

9

Dependency syndrome on external inputs in maize production system

Dependency syndrome on foreign seed companies for about 70% in Tanzania as Lyangituo et al. (2008)

reported may retard pace of Green Revolution in Agrarian Economies for the reasons that become clear.

Use of varieties which have not been bred for local adaptation very often succumb them to many locally

important stresses. Regrettably this has led maize industry to depend more on pesticides, fertilizers, and

other agro-inputs, which in most cases are very expensive for farmers to afford. These inputs are not

available on time. Farmers need to be instructed on judicious use of such inputs, while other inputs are

fake. Evidence is real in Tanzania for fake inputs in the agricultural sector, maize industry in particular.

Foreign varieties have also not been bred to meet consumers’ preferred traits. Eventually such

dependency has led to agricultural technologies which are not environmentally friendly, economically

viable, and socially acceptable.

New improved high yielding and earlier maturing locally adapted maize hybrids are therefore needed to

support agrarian Tanzania in a changing ecological and social world. Efforts are needed to build farmers’

awareness on advantages of new varieties through famer participatory breeding and promotional

strategies. Linkage between the public and private institutions involved in research, production, promotion

and distribution of seeds of elite hybrids, to eventually put in place a sustainable local seed security

mechanism, for the benefit of resource-poor rural farming communities is highly required.

Situation with reference to Africa’s Green Revolution

The national maize breeding initiative holds experimental hybrids, sufficient and appropriate breeding

populations with all the desired traits for successful implementation of Green Revolution. All the

commercial and potential inbred lines have been classified based on the SH-MIP’s A-B heterotic grouping

system. This grouping system helps design of hybrids with desired characteristics such as tolerance to

stresses of economic importance and market traits. The grouping is also used as a reference to

discriminate and assess advantages of any newly introduced breeding populations into the local breeding

programme. Since according to Hallauer and Miranda (1988) that heterotic grouping is arbitrary, all the

exotic inbreds could therefore be discriminated into their respective groups against the local SH-MIP.

Smale and Jayne 2004) reported that very often maize germplasm from the temperate areas do not have

direct application to the tropical zones which suggest that the value of every germpalsm introductions

must be assesed for its adaptability to the recipient ecologies. The authors added that continued infusion

of maize germplasm/seed through farmer purchases and seed distribution schemes, and of the

involuntary mixture of germplasm types through cross-pollination in farmers’ fields, could render it difficult

to estimate reliably the areas under improved seed in SSA. However, effort should be established to

continue to speed up the breeding process and release of the new cultivars in adequate, affordable,

appropriate amount, and create awareness to the needy farming communities on the gains out of improve

varieties.

10

Diffusion, adoption and impact studies for commercially released varieties are very crucial if impact from

breeding program is anticipated. Nevertheless, the potential challenge is to conduct these social studies

to the communities where the local seed industry is dependent on imports. In addition to this, small scale

farmers produce maize under sub optimal production conditions (Plates 1-7) which reduces plant

population density thus low productivity. However, Plate 8 indicates with the right varieties under good

agronomic practices optimum population densities are possible thus pointing to high productivity. This

situation places various local seed stakeholders at cross roads on the entry point to address this

challenge. The possible intervention would be to deal with the root cause of the problem, i.e. inadequate

seed to farmers and where could have the Government gone astray with regards to the current status of

the local seed industry. Involvement of the private seed sector to share ideas and breeding materials

developed by public research system leaving regulatory mechanisms to the Government could be

pertinent solution to this long-term existing challenge of inadequate seed availability and overly

dependency of the country on improved seed from abroad.

Plate 8: Field technicians thinning maize crop to optimum plant population density (44,444 plants per

hectare) at Adnaced Maize Variety Trial site in Kiwere village in Iringa, Tanzania. The experiment is

funded by Alliance for Green Revolution in Arica (AGRA) under the initiative known as Programme for

African Seed System (PASS). The experiment aims at evaluating improved maize cultivars that are

tolerant to Maize Streak Virus disease. This plate indicates that tolerant cultivars could be bred and

compared to Plate 2 which shows susceptible maize due to the disease.

11

Old maize cultivars vulnerable to local stresses and those to suit changing human needs imply that more and

more newly improved cultivars should be bred and made accessible to farmers. The different stakeholders

are needed to such challenge. The Asian Green Revolution in the mid past century cannot be emulated

100% to SSA today because of of the changing world. Heterosis is key to revolutionalising sub Saharan

maize industry for substantial food security and poverty alleviation. However, due to market imperfections

and cash constraints and lack of improved seed, African smallholders often “recycle” F1 seed. Farmers

lack knowledge and skills on recycling of cerified seed. And this has been the case with the farmers in

Tanzania, particularly this trend increases as the altitudes descend, poverty increase and/or level of

training in maize agronomic practices decreases.

Heterosis in maize means three very important things for African smallholder farmers. First, it means that

to sustain the yield increases they seek, they are reliant on a seed industry in a way that neither the rice

nor wheat farmers of Asia’s Green Revolution ever have been. On the other hand, a hybrid-based maize

sector also requires large-scale commercial seed enterprises, whose profits can be sustained only by

strong seasonal demand by farmers for renewing their seed (Tripp 2001). Furthermore, temperate maize

germplasm is not easily adapted to the non-temperate environments of the developing world—so that the

gains achieved by private companies in the western world and some parts of China are not easily

transferred to many of the smallholder farmers who produce in wide ranges of microclimates and

technologies found in the developing world (Morris 2001).There is no doubt that as the land frontier

diminishes in many parts of the continent, including Tanzania, sustainable development in societies that

remain primarily agrarian will require productivity gains rather than area expansion. Heterosis for grain

yield and other key adaptive traits is therefore a measure of local adaptation (Duvick, 1999, Kang, 1994).

Improved cultivars i.e. hybrid maize are therefore important because maize is the highest yielding (per

plant and per unit area) crop species than any other cereal particularly in SSA. The market potential of

improved maize hybrids particularly at different nodes on the value chain needs a diversity of stake

holders. Therefore this urges strengthen the public-private-partnership in developing countries if real

Green Revolution in the Agrarian Economies is to take place.

Targeted breeding products (varieties and traits)

Deliberate breeding investments are needed to raise farmers’ grain yields from the current <1.5 ton ha-1 to

about 5 and 8 in low and high potential zones, respectively providing new maize cultivars that are

adapted to farmers’ production environments. The target varieties must include three-way and top-cross

hybrids for two main reasons. First is to take advantage of the wide genetic base embedded in these

varieties to confer general adaptation because maize production in the targeted environments is

conducted under multiple stresses. Secondly is to ensure bumper seed yields when it comes to seed

production stage for eventual wider distribution of seed to farmers. The ‘background breeding strategy’

targeting at the traits of economic importance along with improved cultivar productivity (per plant and per

unit area) would mitigate the changing ecological and socio-economic challenges. The SH-MIP including

12

the ideotype breeding approach (engineering designs) of Mock and Pierce (1975), had all of these traits

addressed in its routine breeding activities.

Capacity and continuity of maize breeding programme

The genetic advances needed to sustain or enhance maize yields depend on past investments in maize

research. Elsewhere, the availability of germplasm material and technical capacity for any breeding

programme has been key to complement and assure its continuity toward successful achievements even

after the senior breeders retire. Smale and Jayne (2004) cited national maize improvement capacity (i.e.

including germplasm resources) and staff continuity as a success story to Kenya’s maize breeding

programme whereas lack of the same ruined the Malawian maize breeding programme.

The SH-MIP at ARI-Uyole has potential germplasm base which are locally adapted to mitigate the challenges

to maize production and productivity such that exotic inbred lines with genes of interest may be screened and

used for hybrid combinations with the local inbreds. Inbred lines fixed for economically important stresses are

available in the SH-MIP but some other traits such as early maturity, adaptive traits, and kernel productivity

lack in the local breeding programme the situation which PASS initiative under AGRA has been devoted to

address. It is expected that given continuity of resources for maize research and farmers adopting newly

relased cultivars with time these efforts would be taken further to improve national food security and

alleviation of poverty.

To minimize this challenge of maize sector-human population growth gap, the Government should design

policy, institutional and science and technology mechanisms to feed the increased number of people under

declining productivity of maize ecosystems. Smale and Jayne (2004) warned that rising land constraints will

progressively encourage farmers to shift toward crops providing high returns to scarce land – provided

that the marketing and institutional infrastructure allows them to do so. This would be manifested in a shift

from the food self-sufficiency strategy to a comparative advantage strategy. Given reasonable

assumptions about future productivity improvements, it is unlikely that maize can provide the net revenue

on the millions of farms that are 0.5-1.0 hectares or smaller to generate substantial crop income growth.

The viable solution would be to engage private sector in the design for new maize cultivars in order to

increase grain yield productivity under unpredictable production conditions.

The availability of fake inputs in the market where farmers loose money for seed, pesticides, fertilizers and

labour thus perpetuating poverty to farmers who are already resource poor and produce maize nder

suboptimal conditions. Smallholders are likely to be even farther from realizing yield potential, for reasons

not confined to weather. One reason is that the genetic advances offered by breeding research have not

been matched by agronomic practices and efficient support services for smallholders, many of whom are

located in marginal areas. Byerlee and Heisey (1996) asserted that as adoption of improved maize moves

into more marginal areas the effects on national yield levels are also numerically marginal. Put simply,

there may be little advantage of using a hybrid if the yield potential of the farmer’s soil is less than 1 ton.

13

Therefore for maintaining high turnover of maize industry, new cultivars adapted under sub optimal

production conditions coupled with market traits are relevant.

Assessment of the advantages from the breeding investments is vague because predominant use of

unimproved cultivars in Agrarian Economies. Earlier stated, the maize breeding investments have not been

dedicated to achieve Green Revolution right from the needy communities in the intermediate and transition

to-low- altitudes mainly due to few skilled breeders and limited funds. Evidences include a large number of

foreign hybrids in these ‘forgotten ecologies’. In such areas the farmers rely on cultivars that are unimproved,

recycled, and/or landraces. The farmers do not use metric units to weigh the grain produce because all the

exotic hybrids have large kernel volumes with low kernel densities which underestimates production and

productivity of maize, and even susceptibility to post-harvest loses due insect pests, poor processing qualities

and losses due to high bran. However, the SH-MIP hybrids have been selected for high kernel density. Exotic

hybrids do not contain most of the desirable traits as those found in the local cultivars. These areas are

becoming potential for maize production because of changing climate patterns, and the need for shorter

maturing cultivars which take up ecological resources faster (and probably efficiently) due to erratic moisture,

and fast accumulation of growing heat units within shorter periods. The other potential challenge is the threat

of MSV since this disease compromises the anticipated sustainable bumper yields from irrigation investments.

Therefore maize under continuous irrigation and by even making the matter worse where farmers use

cultivars that are unimproved, segregating and susceptible provide favorable conditions for MSV. The

germplasm base ever developed and those advanced breeding populations and experimental hybrids would,

for continuity reasons due to farmers’ preference of newly bred cultivars, be of actual advantage if the SHMIP

gets funds on constant basis from pro Green Revolution donors such as AGRA.

The threats of economic importance e.g. MSV, require it necessary to incorporate resistance genes into

several of local elite inbred lines through appropriate breeding methods. For instance use of local inbred

parents with desired tolerance in hybrid combination and incorporation of good combining ability and stalk

quality has been a common approach by the SH-MIP and this provides a bright future to mitigate multiple

stresses. With reference to MSV disease, Barrow (1992) reported that a commercial MSV resistant variety

must not have yield penalty under disease free conditions. The good example was the yellow hybrid SA34

which was released in 1975 after extensive testing (van Rensburg and Kühn, 1977), but it was not accepted

commercially due to low grain yield under disease free conditions (Barrow, 1992). This is the evidence where

continuity of the developed innovation would be compromised. The SH-MIP has therefore been considering

the grain yield components in MSV tolerant cultivars.

From the above, it is evident that availability of resources and continuity of the breeding program would

enable implementation of any maize improvement initiative successfully. This could speed up the process of

designing new experimental hybrids for immediate evaluation and their eventual release for the needy

communities. However, the challenge has been inadequate local resources to sustain maize improvement

activities the situation which has cemented the disparity between consumption and production. Hundreds of

experimental hybrids at various levels of genetic stages known to be adapted to the economically important

14

stresses have not been tested either for the same reason of lack of local resources. A few varieties released

have not been adequately accessible to poor farmers who feed the country. Markets and marketing

infrastructure at all nodes in the maize value chain is ill-governed and coordinated either. Deregistration of the

certified varieties is not common in Tanzania as it is the case to South Africa or other countries where seed

industry has matured (MacRobert, 2009). With open and well controlled market in the hybrid maize industry

farmers may have choice for varieties and this would speed breeding initiatives – because breeding will be

market oriented. In countries with highly sophisticated seed industry, promotion efforts are very regular and

organized because farmers’ awareness and their willingness to test the new cultivar and the final choice also

are higher. Consequently in such seed systems many certified varieties may have short shelf lives in the

market.

Breeding strategy proposed to solve the problem

Empirical breeding for targeted traits

Emerging and evolving challenges suggest that genetic improvement should be a continuous process in

order to design cultivars that will respond to farmers’ demands. The maize breeding chain is as indicated in

Figure 1. Strategies to minimize challenges could be both general and specific. Local inbred parents with per

se grain yield (GY) potential of 3.0-3.5 t ha-1 to confer yield heterosis (i.e. local adaptation to economically

important stresses) would be a general strategy. Specific strategy would be use of exotic and/or local inbred

lines with specific genes to confer tolerance/resistance to stresses outlined previously, and any other traits of

interest. For instance, heterosis for early calendar physiological maturity, a highly required character in

current elite cultivars of tropical maize, is always achievable through hybridization such that the F1 cross

matures earlier than the two parents whereas a three-way cross is usually earlier than the F1 cross provided

wise selection is done (Hallauer and Miranda, 1988, Mather and Jinks, 1977; Giesbrecht, 1960). In both

strategies, common parents with general combining ability must constitute the superior hybrids in order to

facilitate and simplify seed production. In all situations to minimise loss of yield advantage, a male parent in a

final cross must have high GY potential since that parent constitutes 50% of genes for the trait under focus.

Three-way and top cross maize hybrids are commonly used in Tanzania just as other countries in SSA

(Smale and Jayne, 2004; Pswarayi and Vivek, 2007). Smale and Jayne (2004) preclude .use of F1 hybrids by

resource-poor farmers for the reason of difficulty in seed production by commercial seed companies.

However, single-cross hybrids, which may have a greater yield advantage due to maximum heterosis and

are more uniform, may be marketed at premium prices. Notwithstanding, breeders and seed businessmen

should consider farmers who predominate maize production to be able to access seed of single cross hybrids.

To ensure adequate seed yield for commercialization and that the farmers benefit from the breeding

programmes, the SH-MIP uses the modified cross breeding approach. In the modified single cross hybrid,

this is the cross of an F1 hybrid produced by crossing two related inbred lines (AxA’) with an unrelated inbred

line C i.e. (AxA’)xC. In order to overcome the problem of a low yielding female line as expressed in some

ordinary single cross hybrids, use of a cross between two related lines as the female parent in this type of

15

hybrids ensure more seed production while most of the uniformity characteristics typical in single cross

hybrids are maintained. In some cases the double modified single cross hybrids are desired. In such cases,

the mating takes the form of (A’xA) x (B’xB) thus A‘ and A are closely related lines as a B‘ and B. The cross

serving as a female should produce more seed than either parent used alone. Similarly the cross serving as

the male should produce more pollen than either parent used alone. For the case of modified three-way cross

hybrid, the form of (AxB) x (CxC’) is used where the male parent is a cross between two related inbred lines.

This type of hybrid combination may be used when it is desirable to enhance the male parent for pollen

producing ability or general vigour. According to Kang (1994) should there be any need of importing

germplasm, its value should be assessed on ability to 1) introduce new genes, and 2) forming heterosis with

elite local inbreds.

16

Figure 1: Chain of sustainable production and availability of improved seed of maize to farmers

in Tanzania

RESEARCH INSTITUTES (Breeding Prorammes)

Population improvement Inbred parents – hybrid development

Open Pollinated Variety (OPV)

Breeder seed

Pre-basic seed

Basic /Foundation seed by ASA

Inspection and authenticity (by

Tanzania Official Seed Certification

Institute –TOSCI)

Certified Seed

(By Private and Public

institutions)

Quality Declared seed mostly OPVs

(By Qualified small scale farmers e.g.

SACCOs, CBOs, Relief Aid NGOs i.e. World

Vision, CARITAS, etc. )

Stockists and seed distributers

(Agro-input shops, cooperative unions, etc)

Farmers access to improved seed

17

Participatory variety development

Participation of farmers and breeders in the development of varieties would result in the use of new

varieties that impact positively on grain yield because farmers and maize breeders have different

selection criteria (de Groote et al., 2002; Virk et al., 2005). A crop variety is a complex entity, with each

farmer making his/her own choices which are always difficult to quantify (Hu et al., 2007). Most

disappointingly, farmers’ selection indices have not been systematically documented (Bänziger et al.,

2000; de Groote et al., 2002). In such cases, agronomic features embedded in released cultivars might

not have been defined adequately (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996), so most cultivars that reach farmers are

inappropriate (Efisue et al., 2008). Partnerships between farmers and breeders, or client-oriented

breeding (CoB) (Witcombe et al., 2003; Virk et al., 2005), has been known to work well. For instance, the

CoB approach has reduced the breeding cycles of elite varieties in Thailand and India (Pandey and

Rajatasereekul, 1999; Witcombe et al., 2003; Virk et al., 2005). There is potential for such an approach to

be applied in Tanzania (Nkonya et al., 1997), where the adoption of improved maize varieties has been

very low.

Newly released varieties should conform to farmers’ production environments, so that farmers choose to

grow them and they should also impose no added input costs (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996). These

varieties should be more superior than existing ones in terms of maturity, grain yield, adaptability, stability

and marketability (Witcombe et al., 2003; Virk et al., 2005; Derera et al., 2006). Very often such varieties

are specific to culture, agro-ecology and socioeconomic aspects, as reported by Derera et al. (2006) in

eastern Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, breeders working alone would not easily identify these traits. Breeders

should therefore always engage with farmers in target environments for the developed varieties.

Involvement of the private seed sector

Involvement of the private seed sector is essential if there is to be a sustainable access by farmers to quality

seed of locally-improved cultivars. Private sector seed companies have the capacity to produce and distribute

quality seed, and this fact has been evidenced in many other countries which have strong seed production

and marketing enterprises under the private sector (MacRoberts, 2009).

Private sector seed companies should be involved in the variety demonstration and promotion phase, so that

farmers get to know and build confidence in them as far as their requirements for certified seed are

concerned. Overall, a map on new and existing suitable certified cultivars including areas of their adaptation

and the vibrant seed firms in the respective zones would be developed and delivered to farmers as a suite of

maize production technology. This strategy, if done concomitantly with identifying and locating prominent

maize-input dealers would enable farmers to access state-of-the art technologies in hybrid seed industry

eventually engaging the seed sector efficiently.

18

Variety Adoption Strategy

State of seed companies or seed multiplication groups that may take up distribution of

the new cultivars

At least at the moment the seed business sector has begun to go vibrant in Tanzania. So the private seed

sector has to limited capacity started to research, multiply and supply seed to farmers or community-based

organizations (CBOs). For example, the Highland Seed Growers Company Ltd which trade seed bred by

national research institutes under special contract has contracted some individual farmers, CBOs and

Government institutions such as Prisons, National Service, and agricultural colleges to multiply seed of

improved varieties and/or parents of the certified locally-bred varieties. In this case the contractor provides

technical backstopping where new applications for contracts have been overwhelmingly high. Internal quality

control which is a joint technical backstopping between the granter of the contract and the contract grower

improve further the physical and genetic purity of the seed. Therefore this would be a potential to boost the

seed industry of locally-bred improved cultivars of maize ultimately reducing food insecurity, poverty and

degradation of natural resources.

Involvement of farmers (when and how)

Farmers should be involved in the entire breeding cycle if newly improved cultivars are to be taken up and

stay longer in the market (de Goote et al., 2002; Doss et al., 2003). Farmers should therefore inform the

design of new varieties because they are the end-users (i.e. informer of market-related traits and productivity)

they also know the trends and conditions of the patterns of their production environments which may help the

empirical breeder to know the type and nature of stress. At the advanced breeding stage and post-release of

the varieties, farmers should be involved in promotion sessions. Promotional services and researches need

to be done in collaboration with the private sector who knows better grass-root stakeholders. Therefore this

effort is coupled with regular farmers’ awareness creation sessions to help farmers cope with undesirable

effects from climate changes and challenges from socio-economic pressures all of which may influence the

breeding process.

Evolution of the national seed industry and engagement of private sector

History of seed sector in Tanzania

It is worth noting at the outset, that before 1970 Tanzania had no formal seed sub-sector and almost all

farmers (except for those who could afford expensive imported seed) remained outside the formal seed

system. Having realized these shortfalls, the government, in collaboration with the United States Agency

for the International Development (USAID), established the first seed project in 1972, to produce and

distribute seed, targeting primarily cereals and to a lesser extent legumes. Upon completion of the project,

all major features of the seed sub-sector in Tanzania were in place (Rutabanzibwa and Kirenga, 2000).

These included; (a) establishment of foundation seed farms (Arusha, Mwele, Dabaga, Msimba, and

19

Kilangali); (b) enactment of seed legislation i.e. Seed Regulation Standards Act (No. 29 of 1973) and

Seed Regulation of 1978; (c) formation of the government parastatal enterprise – Tanzania Seed

Company (TANSEED) in 1973; (d) establishment of the Tanzania Official Seed Certification Agency

(TOSCA) and its seed testing laboratories at Morogoro, Njombe and Arusha; and (e) the establishment of

seed unit at the headquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture. At this point, all institutions responsible for the

importation, production, research, processing, distribution, sale (and to a large extent, use) of modern

varieties were effectively under government control. No any viable economic reforms in Tanzania has

been able to rescue the local seed sector except only to impact negatively on small scale seed business

men and eventually trickling down to resource-poor farmers (Rutabanzibwa and Kirenga, 2000; Hella and

Mlabiti; Hella, 1992).

Economic reforms and the seed industry in Tanzania

Macro-economic reforms came into being in the mid-1980s after realization that the economy was in a

state of sustained decline. Fiscal crises were the driving force behind the acceptance of structural

adjustment in the African Governments (Smale and Jayne, 2004). The Government began to implement a

Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) by liberalization of the seed sub-sector. The process was further

accentuated by the implementation of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in the late

1980s up to the early 1990s. In 1993 the Government announced its decisions to liberalize agricultural

inputs, including seed. This was the time when proposals leading to the privatization of state enterprises,

including those in the seed sub-sector such as TANSEED and Foundation seed farms, commenced. Input

and output prices were no longer fixed by the Government. The private sectors begin to invest in

agricultural production including the provision of inputs and services, such as seeds, agro-chemicals and

veterinary pharmaceuticals. A few multinationals, as well as regional, and local investors started investing

in the seed sector as well. The most prominent of these were Cargill Hybrid seeds, Alpha Seeds, Incofin

Tanzania Ltd, East African Seed Co., Manungu Seed Co., Zambia Seed Co., Kenya Seed Co., Pannar,

PopVriend, and Sluis Brothers (Rutabanzibwa and Kirenga, 2000).

Liberalization of the seed industry, which saw the entry of several strong private seed enterprises almost

immediately, started threatening the existence of the local seed company, TANSEED. Records had

showed that TANSEED carried out its activities fairly successfully since its inception and up to the mid-

1980s, at which time it had attained sales of up to 5500 metric tones of seed maize per season, let alone

other cereals and pulse crop seeds (Mussei et al, 2003). Other data show that by July 1990 the company

did marketing about 42 crop varieties comprise 26 cereals, 11 legumes and 5 oil crops. According to seed

statistics (1990), the company had been operating in 17 regions, either through their four branches, five

depots and nine retail shops or their 138 officially recognized stockists in the country. By the late 1980s,

however, inefficiency and excessively poor management started creeping into the seed system with some

devastating consequences. Since that period, this organization consistently failed to ensure a ready seed

supply of appropriate crop varieties, of the right quality and quantities as demanded by farmers operating

in various agro-ecological zones across the country. By the late 1990s seed sales had dropped down to

20

less than 1000 metric tons per season and the number of cereal, legume and oil crop varieties marketed

by the company dropped by 54%, 82% and 80% respectively. According to Mussei et al (2003), farmers’

decision to dis-adopt crop seeds marketed by TANSEED plunged the enterprise further into problems and

by the year 2001, the company collapsed. This situation left the country without a sustainable local seed

production and delivery systems. This situation was made even worse by failure of many of the

registered local seed enterprises to quickly fill the vacuum left behind following the demise of TANSEED.

The past decade has been characterized by a combination of unfavorable weather conditions, declining

public investments in agricultural research, subsidy reductions, and erratic policies, which appear to have

precipitated a decline in productivity of maize industry.

Description of seed companies operating in the country: consequences and way forward

The above circumstances have thrown the local seed system into chaos and uncertainty as far as service

to farming communities are concerned, however, a number of relatively new local seed companies have

already emerged and have shown the desire to participate fully in the effort to revive the local seed

industry. In addition, the Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives

clearly realizes the potential contribution of the private sector (i.e. PPP) in agricultural development and

has, therefore, been supportive of the formation of various types of partnerships with the private sector in

order to speed up the effort to restore the national seed industry. The other initiative by the Government

to revive the national seed industry was to launch the Agricultural Seed Agency on 23/6/2006. This

Agency oversees promotion and protection of certified seed of local publicly bred crop cultivars. However,

ASA still has a long to go because as Lyangituo (2008) reported, Tanzania’s local seed industry depends

on imported seed by 70%. It therefore appears that ASA including other public seed stakeholders and the

private seed sector must have a common platform to put in place strategies to reinvent the wheel to

ensure the local seed industry is revived.

Generally many private seed companies in Tanzania lack visionary ideas as business firms. They also

lack skilled manpower especially trained maize breeders and state-of the-art seed processing machinery

in the pipeline of seed production and marketing. This situation has made local seed companies to

diversify their framework of goods and consultancy other than their primary objective i.e. the seed.

Majority of these companies have been used by foreign seed companies which bring in their products

other than seeds and only a handful of these local companies sell local certified seed. In the effort of their

survival, some local seed companies have lost focus consequently indulging into unscrupulous seed

business. Deliberate efforts from the Government to support and build up a strong local private seed

sector are crucial if ‘real’ Agricultural Revolution through maize industry is to take place in Tanzania.

Some of these efforts could be, but not limited, to:

21

• the central government to train local seed companies on entrepreneurial skills,

• local private seed companies to be strongly linked up with the local government authorities

because these authorities are closer to resource-poor farming communities,

• because both the private and public seed stakeholders target a farming rural resource-poor

community there should be a regulated exchange of ideas and materials relating to seed industry.

This partnership may decrease as the capacity of each firm to produce and sell hybrid seed has

attained a self-contained research program. This could emulate the USA’s seed industry whereby

the potential economic returns from the hybrid maize made the private seed sector to take off

from the 1930’s and peaked by the 1970’s. However, this trend decreased because of the

passage of Plant Protection Act and the competitiveness of the commercial seed industry.

Hallauer (1987) reported that until the 1980’s the extent of modern private breeding programmes

exceeded those in the public sector and the trend was increasing.

• providing and safeguarding subsiding environment to the local seed industry,

• capacity building for breeders in the private sector to graduate degrees, and

• foreign donors to fund visionary and vibrant local seed companies.

In a nutshell, identification of visionary seed firms and strengthening their capacity must be a priority. The

identified firms would in turn be exposed to other seed companies to share experiences and skills, and

the techniques to remain competitive in the seed business.

Current status of collaboration between the Public and the Private sector

The local private seed companies seem to have viable plans for capacity building and growth and they

may eventually become strong players with regard to hybrid seed production, distribution and marketing

in Tanzania. The private-public partnership (PPP) could be an engine to Agricultural Revolution in Africa

particularly in countries where formal seed sector is poorly developed like Tanzania (MacRoberts, 2009).

Monyo et al. (2004) and Tripp (2001) reported 66-85% of seed used by resource-poor farmers in SSA

source from informal market, thus prompting engagement of the PPP approach in the seed sector in SSA.

The PPP is expected to continue grow stronger for mutual benefit and for the benefit of resource-poor

farmers in Tanzania. Having understood and used effectively, the approach would reduce unnecessary

expenditures of public resources for reasons that become clear. First, both the public and private sector

target to improve livelihoods of resource-poor farmers. Secondly, the private sector is business-oriented

such that efficient trading system is at their centre-stage compared to the public system where many

cross-cutting issues make it inefficient in operation (MacRoberts, 2009). Thirdly, by the very nature of the

public system its role should be limited to regulatory issues whereas the private sector should take full

charge of seed business and marketing including funding of some applied and/or basic researches

undertaken by public research institutes for crops like maize that form a large share of livelihoods of

Tanzanians.

22

Conclusion

Agrarian Economies have a potential to prosper if they prioritise and use their local resources wisely in a

changing ecological and socioeconomic world to eventually achieve sustainable development. Food

insecurity and poverty still ravage deeply SSA countries due mainly to two root causes – natural and

human related, and interaction of these major factors. National development interventions in agrarian

SSA have been centering at symptoms instead of addressing root causes the situation which has resulted

to dependency syndrome. As a result neocolonialism observed to date from the industrial economies on

SSA has been gaining momentum. Agrarian countries may synonymously be called ‘raw material region’

for the developed world. And raw material covers both natural and human resources. A few highlights

where Agrarian Economies could minimize dependency syndrome and realize Green Revolution are

suggested:

• First and foremost is to conduct situation analysis to prioritise and focus on what is relevant to the

needy communities and achievable in a sustainable manner. An Agrarian Economy could

prioritise on safeguarding and harnessing genetic base of bio-resources and consider Mineral

sector a later priority because mineral ores are very few and exhaustible within a few decades.

Apparently the Mineral sector has not helped the critical mass of people in Agrarian countries

who have been custodian of the minerals. Such investment and decision by majority of Agrarian

SSA has left villagers displaced, victims of pollution, with reduced land for crop production and

eventually perpetuating misery.

• Agrarian Governments should learn to trust, listen and use their local scientists and researchers

to achieve development goals. One major pitfall in Agrarian Economies has been to politicize

agriculture. A real Green Revolution will be a nightmare if bureaucracy continues to dominate

science and technology. In my own view, such trend must be reversed.

• Political will and good governance over all agro-resources for countries like Tanzania where

peace and tranquility have been stable would be potential environment to demonstrate real Green

Revolution. Human population is an indispensable resource but it could be hostile and disastrous

if it is not managed and directed to a right path of economic development – ‘a hungry man could

be an angry man’. Improved maize productivity (quantity and quality) to feed this potential

resource seems to be only solution because this crop impacts significantly the livelihoods of

people in SSA. Having achieved food security then the Agrarian Governments must search for

viable strategies to tap such resource and engage it strategies geared to achieve sustainable

development. How?  poverty alleviation through wise investments in agriculture; coordinated

policies on food and nutrition, seed and crop varieties, food security, land, environment and

natural resources, agriculture and marketing especially through value addition in a honest market

in the entire commodity chain, preventing and combating corruption; democratization of all

development plans and interventions, among others. Having achieved this, the gap between

23

growth of Maize sector and human population will be reduced thus attaining sustainable

economies in Agrarian countries.

• The private sector must be strengthened and its role to Green Revolution must be boldly clear on

the ground. It is high time for Agrarian Governments to emulate how the private sector evolved,

got involved and continue to flourish as key partners of development in the developed world.

Having well managed and regulated with clear roles with regards to Green Revolution, the private

sector would relieve the public sector of heavy load a great deal. The motto for Agrarian

Economies should be Public Private Partnership with more and more seed of improved cultivars.

Among other areas, the extension services could be privatized under special contracts whereas

the current public research system could be made semi autonomous with some other special

tasks taken up by the private sector. Some levels of devolution of roles among key players in the

maize industry would reduce the notion that farmers are IGNORANT, extension officers are LAZY

whereas researchers are ARROGANT. And the consequences have been to reduce receptivity of

farmers to developed innovations. Therefore the change to address and reverse such trend must

underpin the real African Green Revolution.

24

References

AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation). 2009. Annual Report 2008. Addressing farmer’s constraints

through scientific interventions. English Press, Nairobi. Kenya.

AGSTATS FOR FOOD SECURITY. 2007. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, United

Republic of Tanzania. Vol 1: The 2007/08 Final Food Crop Production Forecast for 2008/09 Food

Security.

Amani, H.K.R. 2004. Agricultural development and food security in sub-Saharan Africa; Tanzania country report.

Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

ARI-Uyole, 2002/03 season. Annual Progress Report. Mbeya, Tanzania.

Bänziger, M., G.O. Edmeades, D. Beck, and M. Bellon. 2000. Breeding for drought and nitrogen stress tolerance

in maize: From Theory to Practice. CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. Mexico.

Barrow, M.R. 1992. Development of maize hybrids resistant to maize streak virus. Proceedings of the Ninth South

African Maize Breeding Symposium, Pietermaritzburg 1990. Technical Communication, Department of

Agricultural Development, Republic of South Africa. No232, 120-124.

Byerlee, D. and P. W. Heisey. (1996). Past and potential impact of maize research in sub-Saharan Africa. Food

Policy 21(3): 255-277.

Bisanda,S., W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, A.J. Mushi, and P. Anandajayasekeram. 1998. Adoption of maize production

technologies in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The united Republic of Tanzania and the Southern

African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR). Mexico D.F. Mexico.

de Groote, H., M. Siambi, D. Friesen, and A. Diallo. 2002. Identifying farmers’ preferences for new maize varieties

in Eastern Africa. CIMMYT, Mexico DF: Mexico.

Derera, J., P. Tongoona, A. Lyangituo, M.D. Laing, and B. Vivek. 2006. Farmer perceptions on maize cultivars in

the marginal Eastern Belt of Zimbabwe and their implications for breeding. African Crop Science Journal

14:1-15.

Doss, C.R., W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, and H. de Groote. 2003. Adoption of maize and wheat technologies in

Eastern Africa. A synthesis of the findings of 22 case studies. CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. Mexico.

Duvick, D.N. 1999. Heterosis: Feeding people and protecting natural resources. In: J.G. Coors and S. Pandey

(eds.). Genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. ASA, CSS, and SSSA. Madison, Wisconsin,

United States of America.

Echarte, L., S. Rothstein, and M. Tollennar. 2008. The response of leaf photosynthesis and dry matter

accumulation to nitrogen supply in an older and a new maize hybrid. Crop Science 48:656-665.

25

Edmeades, G.O., M. Banzinger, H.R. Mickelson and C.B. Peña-Valdivia (eds.). 1997. Developing drought- and

low nitrogen tolerant maize. Proceedings of a symposium, March 25-29, 1996, CIMMYT, El-Batán,

Mexico, D.F. Mexico.

Efisue, A., P. Tongoona, J. Derera, A. Lyangituo, M. Laing, and B. Ubi. 2008. Farmers’ perceptions on rice

varieties in Sikasso Region of Mali and their implications for rice breeding. Journal of Agronomy & Crop

Science 194:393-400.

FAOSTAT. 2007. Food and agricultural commodities production. United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization. FAO, Rome. Italy.

Giesbrecht, J. 1960. Inheritance of maturity in maize. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 40:490-499.

Hallauer, A.R., and J.B. Miranda. 1988. Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. 2 ed. Iowa State University, Iowa.

United States of America.

Hallauer, A.R. 1987. Maize. In: Fehr, W.R. (ed.). Principles of cultivar development. Vol. 2. Crop species. Pp 249-

294. Macmillan Publishing Company, Macmillan Inc., New York , United States of America.

Hella, J. P. 1992. The Status of Hybrid Seed Maize Utilization in Tanzania: The case of Iringa region. Unpublished

MSc thesis, SUA Morogoro

Hella J. P. 1998. Role of Infomal Seed Sector in Tanzania’s Seed Industry. A Consultancy report to Promotion of

Small Scale Seed Production Project funded by. GTZ/SADC, 43 Merchant House, Robert Manyika

Avenue, Harare Zimbabwe.

Hella, J.P. and M.E. Mlambiti. 1998 Impact of Macro-economic reforms on Improved Seed Utilization in Tanzania.

AGREST Conference series Vol. 3. SUA Morogoro.

Hu, R., J. Cao, J. Huang, S. Peng, J. Huang, X. Zhong, Y. Zou, J. Yang, and R.J. Buresh. 2007. Farmer

participatory testing standard and modified site-specific nitrogen management for irrigated rice in China.

Agricultural Systems 94:331-340.

Joshi, A., and J.R. Witcombe. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Participatory varietal selection, a

case study in India. Experimental Agriculture 32:461-477.

Kang, M.S. 1994. Applied quantitative genetics. Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University. United

States of America.

Langyintuo, A.S. W. Mwangi, A.O. Diallo, J. MacRobert, J. Dixon, and M. Bänziger. 2008. An analysis of the

bottlenecks affecting the production and deployment of maize seed in eastern and southern Africa.

Harare, Zimbabwe, CIMMYT.

26

Lyimo, N.G. 2006. Improving farmers’ access to and management of disease resistant cultivars in the Southern

Highlands of Tanzania. Final Technical Report. Uyole Agricultural Research Institute, Mbeya, Tanzania.

MacRobert, J.F. 2009. Seed business management in Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe, CIMMYT.

Mather, K., and J.L. Jinks. 1977. Introduction to Biometrical Genetics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

United States of America.

Mock, J.J., and R.B. Pearce. 1975. An ideotype of maize. Euphytica 24:613-623.

Monyo, E.S, M.A. Mgonja, and D.D. Rohrbach. 2004. New partnership to strengthen seed systems in Southern

Africa. Innovative community/commercial seed supply models. In: P.S. Setimela, E.S. Monyo, and M.

Bänziger (eds.), Successful community-based seed production strategies. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Mussei, A.N.; L.T.H. Nsemwa; N.G. Lyimo; C. Kabungo; M.M. Mkoma. 2003. The Impact of Market Liberalisation

in Improved Seed Marketing in Ruvuma Region, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, ARI-Uyole,

Mbeya, Tanzania.

Mushongi, A. 2010. Genetic studies of seconday traits and yield in maize under high and low nitrogen conditions

incorporaating farmer perceptions and preferences for new varieties. PhD Thesis. University of KwaZulu-

Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Republic of South Africa.

Morris, M. L. (2001). Assessing the benefits of international maize breeding research: An

overview of the global maize impacts study. Part II of the CIMMYT 1999-2000 World Maize Facts and

Trends. Mexico, D.F. Mexico.

Moshi, A.J., and W. Marandu. 1985. Maize research in Tanzania. In B. Gelaw (ed.). To feed ourselves: a

proceedings of the first Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Regional Maize Workshop, Lusaka, Zambia.

Nkonya, E., T. Schroeder, and D. Norman. 1997. Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser

in northern Tanzania. Agricultural Economics 48:1-12.

Pandey, S., and S. Rajatasereekul. 1999. Economics of plant breeding: the value of shorter breeding cycles for

rice in Northeast Thailand. Field Crops Research 64:187-197.

Pixley, K.V., and M. Bänziger. 2004. Open-pollinated maize varieties: a backward step or valuable option for

farmers? In D.K. Friesen and A.F.E. Palmer (eds.),Integrated approaches to higher maize productivity in

the new millennium: Proceedings of the 7th Eastern and Southern Africa regional maize conference. 5–11

Feb. 2002. Nairobi, Kenya: CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) and KARI

(Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute).

Pswarayi, A., and B. Vivek. 2007. Combining ability among CIMMYT’s early maturing maize (Zea mays L.)

germplasm under stress and non-stress conditions and identification of testers. Euphytica 162:353-362.

27

RATES. 2003. Centre for Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support (RATES). Maize Market Assessment

and Baseline Study for Tanzania, May 2003. Nairobi. Kenya.

Robinson, R. A. (1987) Host management in crop pathosystems, NY, Macmillan Publishing Company. United

States of America.

Rutabanzibwa, A.P. and G.I. Kirenga (2000). Policy and regulatory changes to the Tanzania seed and sub-sector:

Institutional implications for future availability of quality seed. In Seed Systems for the New Millennium: An

Action Plan for Tanzania. The Proceedings of the Stakeholders’ Review and Planning Workshop, 7-8

December, 1999, SADC/ICRISAT, Sorghum and Millet Improvement Program, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. 31-

38pp.

Smale, M. and T.S. Jayne. 2004. Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: “Seeds” of Success in Retrospect.

Conference Paper No. 9. Paper presented at the NEPAD/IGAD regional conference “Agricultural

Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa”. Nairobi. November 22-25, 2004.

Tripp, R. 2001. Seed provision and agricultural development. London, UK; Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

and James Currey, London and Oxford.

van Rensburg, J.B.J and Kühn, H.C. 1977. Maize streak disease. Maize Series E.3.3.

Virk, D.S., M. Chakraborty, J. Ghosh, S.C. Prasad, and J.R. Witcombe. 2005. Increasing the client orientation of

maize breeding using farmer participation in India. Experimental Agriculture 41:413-426.

Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, and S.N. Goyal. 2003. Participatory plant breeding in maize: A case study from Gujarat,

India. Euphytica 130:413-422.