KENYA SUGAR RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Annual Report 2005

All correspondence to: The Director Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (KESREF) Kisumu Miwani Road P.O. Box 44 - 40100 Kisumu, KENYA Tel: 057-2027305 / 2027308 / 0735 339912 Fax: 057-2027310 Email: kesref@africaonline.co.ke Editorial Committee: J.K. Rono, N.W. Wawire, F. Kahora, F. Juma, R. Amolo

March, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
From the Directors Desk...............................................................................................1 CORPORATE AFFAIRS ..............................................................................................2 INCORPORATION.......................................................................................................3 KESREF Vision .............................................................................................................3 KESREF Mission...........................................................................................................3 KESREF Core Values....................................................................................................3 Strategic Objectives .......................................................................................................4 THE KESREF BOARD.................................................................................................4 ADMINISTRATION HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................7 Weather Report ............................................................................................................10 PLANT BREEDING ...................................................................................................12 (i). The 2005/2006 crossing season and early stage selection .....................................12 (ii) Selection of varieties suited to various cane growing zones..................................12 (iii) Sugarcane variety verification trial in the Tana Delta: .........................................15 PLANT PATHOLOGY ...............................................................................................16 (i) Identification of physiologic races of sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) in Kenya ...................................................................................................16 (ii) Evaluation of sugarcane smut inoculation methods...............................................17 (iii) Screening sugarcane for resistance to sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) disease ......................................................................................................17 (iv) Yield loss assessment studies due to sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) infection in plant cane ..............................................................................18 (v) Survey on abundance and genera of plant-parasitic nematodes in SONYsugar growing zone ...........................................................................................18 (vi) Plant disease diagnosis..........................................................................................19 AGRONOMY ..............................................................................................................20 (i) Effects of tillage methods on sugarcane yields .......................................................20 (ii) Effect of planting pattern and plant population on sugarcane productivity ..................................................................................................................21 (iii) Evaluations efficacy Glyphosate 360 g/l SL and Glyphosate 450 g/l SL on sugarcane weeds...........................................................................................23 (V) Effects of Phosphorous sources and rates on sugarcane varieties.........................24 (Ratoon I) .....................................................................................................................24 (vi): Potential use of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris saccharifera) as an alternative source of sugar production in the Kenya sugar industry............................25 SUGAR TECHNOLOGY............................................................................................27 TECHNICAL SERVICES ...........................................................................................29 (i) Extension.................................................................................................................29 SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND BIOMETRICS..............................................................34 (i) Zonal identification and ranking of sugarcane production constraints in Kenya.....................................................................................................34 (ii) Cost reduction strategies in sugarcane production in Kenya. ................................35 (iii) Updating of sugarcane and sugar database ...........................................................36

List of Tables Table 1: Weather parameters obtained in Kibos, 2005...............................................10 Table 2: Selection of promising varieties in stages 1, 2, and 3...................................12 Table 3: Plant crop yield and other agronomic parameters of the 96/97 series in Kibos and Mumias..................................................................................................................13 Table 4: Performance of promising varieties in Kibos ................................................14 Table 5: Performance of promising varieties in Opapo ...............................................14 Table 6: Reaction of differential cultivars to sugarcane smut populations..................16 Table 7: Preliminary results of smut screening trial on plant cane..............................17 Table 8: Cost estimate of various tillage methods used in the experiment..................20 Table 9: Effects of tillage methods on sugarcane yields..............................................20 Table 10: Effect of tillage methods on cane yield attributes .......................................21 Table 11: Sugarcane yields as affected by treatment combinations ............................21 Table 12: Sugarcane quality as affected by treatment combinations..........................22 Table: 13. Economic analysis for Opapo and Kibos sites ...........................................22 Table 14: Effects of source of P on sugarcane population per ha (Pop), cane yield ...24 (TCHa), POL % cane (Pol) and fibre % cane (fibre) for Ratoon I crop ......................24 Table 15: Effects of P rates on sugarcane population per ha (Pop), cane yield...........25 (TCH), Pol% cane (Pol) and fibre % cane (fibre) for Ratoon I crop ...........................25 Table 16: Mean tuber yield, plant population and number of rotten tubers of ............26 posada sugar beet variety at different fertilizer P and N rates long rains season. ....26 Table 17: Sugar Beet evaluation at Eutric vertisols in 2004 short rains......................26 Table 18: Samples received and analyzed during the year 2005 .................................27 Table 19: Results and interpretation of samples received at Agronomy laboratory....28 Table 20: Trend of Sugarcane farmers contacted and advised since 2002. ................29 Table 21: Areas covered in Western Kenya by KESREF extension staff ..................29 Table 22: Constraints identified and their recommendations ......................................31 List of Figures and Plate Fig 1: Monthly rainfall and evaporation trends for 2005 at Kibos ..............................11 Fig 2: Plant crop cane yields (TCHa) in Mumias for different varieties .....................13 Fig 3: Cane yields of some varieties in Tana Delta .....................................................15 Plate 1: Colonies of Screlotium rolfsii on potato dextrose agar (PDA).......................19

From the Directors Desk

The year 2005 started on a high note, and proved to be an extremely busy period in the life of the Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (KESREF). With a new Board and a new Management in place, the Foundation set itself for a major overhaul of its operations and administrative functions. KEREF Management worked closely with the Board to streamline operations with a view to re-affirming the Foundations place and mandate within the sugar industry. Faced with an industry that is struggling, emphasis was given to strengthening the Foundations core functions development and dissemination of improved technologies and reorganising administrative structure. Science and technology are the foundation of any sector development. As the premier sugar research organization in the country, the Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (KESREF) has a central role to play in the development and dissemination of appropriate technological innovations that would enhance the competitiveness of our sugar industry. KESREFs newly developed Strategic Plan for 2005 2010 period envisages a vibrant, strong and effective research institution that meets the technological and information needs of the sugar industry. In addition to continuing and strengthening its traditional research efforts in variety improvement (cane breeding), crop protection, cropping density, weed management, soil fertility and plant nutrition, irrigation, socio - economics studies, and laboratory services, KESREF is expanding to embrace new lines of research such as farm mechanization, cane transportation, soil and water conservation, cane milling and processing, value addition and utilization of milling co-products, markets and policy research, environmental management, and the use of biotechnology techniques. Our extension and technology transfer programme is being strengthened to give full and effective coverage of all sugar growing zones. The expanded Foundations outreach programme will include the provision of healthy (disease and pest free) seed cane of all improved varieties suitable for each sugar cane zone for bulking and distribution to millers and out-growers. Our confidence in Kenyas sugar industry is strong, despite the many reforms that still need to be undertaken. KESREF is positioning itself to play its part in transforming our sugar industry into a profitable and sustainable sub-sector. George E. Okwach, PhD DIRECTOR - KESREF

CORPORATE AFFAIRS

INCORPORATION
The Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (KESREF) is the research arm for the sugar industry.TheFoundationwasincorporated2000asaprivatecompanywithliability limitedbyguaranteeundertheCompaniesAct(cap486).Beingundertheguarantee of the Government confers to the Foundation a State Corporation status, under the MinistryofAgriculture. KESREFwasestablishedtopromoteresearchintoandinvestigateallproblemsrelatingto sugarcaneanditsmanufactureintosugarandbyproducts,suchothercropsandsystemsof husbandry as are associated with sugarcane throughout Kenya including the productivity, qualityandsustainabilityoflandinrelationtosugarcaneplanting,andonmattersancillary thereto(MemorandumofArticlesofAssociationofKESREF,2000). ThesubscriberstotheMemorandumofAssociationwere: PermanentSecretaryMinistryofAgriculture PermanentSecretaryTreasury ChiefExecutiveOfficerKenyaSugarBoard DirectorKenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute ChairmanKenyaSugarcaneManufacturersAssociation ChairmanKenyaSugarcaneGrowersAssociation

KESREF Vision
KESREFs vision is to be the premier institute for research and development of the sugar industry in Africa.

KESREF Mission
The Foundation is mandated to develop and disseminate, in collaboration with stakeholders, appropriate technologies for enhanced productivity, profitability and sustainability of the sugar industry in Kenya.

KESREF Core Values

KESREF upholds the following core values:

Quality research and effective technology and service delivery: The Foundation values its stakeholders and strives to exceed their expectations through excellent product and service delivery. Competitiveness and cost effectiveness: The Foundation works to the highest standards and ensures competitiveness and cost effectiveness in the national, regional and global setting. Integrity, transparency and accountability: KESREF upholds virtues of integrity through honesty, fairness, and professionalism in its operations. Equal opportunity employer: KESREFs employment policy provides equal opportunities to all qualified Kenyans, without regard to gender, ethnicity, or religion. Positive institutional culture: Discipline and hard work are the hallmarks of the Foundation. Social responsibility: The Foundation remains sensitive to the social needs of the surrounding communities. Its programmes and activities are ethically acceptable and environmentally friendly, demonstrating the Institutes sense of responsibility to both the present and the future generations of the Kenyan society.

Strategic Objectives
KESREF recognises that technology and information play a leading role in the development of any sector of the economy. In view of the constraints to sugar production in Kenya, the Foundation is expected to play a major role in the enhancement of the competitiveness of the sugar industry, if Kenya is to attain self sufficiency in sugar production and become competitive in the region.

The Foundations strategic objectives are:

1. To develop appropriate production technologies, products and services for sugarcane and related crops and their derivatives 2. To establish an effective information management and exchange mechanism, and to disseminate improved and appropriate sugar technology for all players in the industry 3. To develop an effective and sustainable institutional capacity

THE KESREF BOARD

The Foundations Board is composed of members appointed in accordance with Section 6 of the State Corporations Act Cap 446 of the Laws of Kenya. The current Board is composed of the following. Norman J. Brooks (MBS) George E. Okwach (PhD) Andrew O. Otieno Ephraim Mukisira (PhD) Wilson A. Songa (PhD, OGW) Protus Sigei John K. Rotich Foustino Othieno Virginia W. Mathenge (Mrs) Oddah OWakwabi (Mrs) Kepha Pakia Patrick Wandaka -Appointed Member - Chairman -Director KESREF -Chief Executive Officer - Kenya Sugar Board -Director-Kenya Agricultural Research Institute -Alternate Director - Ministry of Agriculture -Alternate Director - Treasury -Chairman Kenya Sugar Millers Association -Chairman-Kenya Sugar Growers Assoc. -Appointed Member -Appointed Member -Appointed Member -Rep. of Inspectorate of State Corporation

The KESREF Board Members

Highlights of Board Activities in 2005 January 2005: Receiving and inducting the new Director of the Foundation, Dr. George E. Okwach, following the retirement of the founding Chief Executive, Dr. N.C.O Keya. February 2005: Establishment of four standing committees to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities. These committees are Research and Technology Transfer, Finance and Establishment, Audit, and Tender May 2005: Hosting the Minister for Agriculture, Hon. Kipruto Arap Kirwa during the Ministers tour of Nyando sugar belt. June 2005: Signing the first cycle of performance contract with the Government August 2005: Meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Hon. Kipruto Arap Kirwa for discussion on the Foundations development needs September 2005: Touring the proposed Tana Delta Sugar Project at Garsen, Tana River District

Picture 1:

Board members undertaking a tour of the project site

Picture 2: The Minister for Agriculture, Hon. Kipruto Arap Kirwa, being shown KESREFs new varieties by the Director, Dr. George Okwach

ADMINISTRATION HIGHLIGHTS
Systems of Internal Controls
Internal control systems play a crucial role in ensuring achievement by KESREF of Compliance with applicable government laws and regulations Adherence to Board and management policies and procedures Coordinated effort in accomplishing strategic objectives Accurate and timely financial reporting and Management of key risk. During the year the Foundation attained a key milestone in enhancing its systems of internal controls by developing Financial Management and Internal Control Guidelines, and Board Audit Committee and Internal Audit Charters. Financial Management and Internal Control Guidelines The Foundations Financial Management and Internal Control Guideline were prepared in recognition of the need to have improved oversight by the Board and management over operations, expenditure and assets. Key deliverables accruing from the implementation of the Guidelines include improved accountability for finances, protection of Foundation assets and increased awareness by staff on prudent management and utilization of public funds. Board Audit Committee and Internal Audit Charters The Audit Committee Charter spells out the duties and responsibilities of the Board Audit Committee, and defines the Committees relationship with Management, Internal Auditor and the Board. In fulfilling its specified roles under the Committee charter the audit Committee continued to provide valuable guidance to management and the Board on corporate governance, and other matters during the year. Similarly the Internal Audit Charter specifies the responsibilities, scope, and relationships important to the internal audit activity at the Foundation. All internal audit work has, and will continue to be, undertaken in accordance with the internal audit charter.

Staff Matters
Streamlining personnel management
The Foundation implemented major reviews and restructuring of its personnel management system during the year 2005. This included: Review of the Schemes of Service and Terms and Conditions of Service documents Job evaluation and staff grade harmonization Review of salaries and allowances

Staff changes
The Foundation staffing level as at December 2005 is given in Annex 1. Incoming New appointments George E. Okwach Director Lilian C. Nyaluogo Human Resources Manager Felistas W. Kahora Biometrician

Outgoing Resignations Mrs. Lynette W Muganda Human Resources Officer

Retirement
Samson O Odiyo Research Technician Samson A Kongo Research Technician

Capacity building
Ongoing academic training Caleb Ochia Philemon Chepkwony Lillian Lihasi George Omoto Kelly Kariuki MSc (Plant Breeding) MSc (Extension) MSc (Extension) MSc (Agronomy) BSc (Agric. Engineering)

Completed academic training Noah Wawire Caroline Thuo Short skill development courses

PhD (Environmental Economics) MSc (Extension)

Nineteen (19) staff benefited from short courses and seminars organized by various professional bodies and training institutions in a bid to update skills in the following areas: Defensive Driving-AA KENYA Senior Secretarial Management-KIA Performance Contract Management-GTI-MOMBASA Counseling in the work place-IPM HIV/AIDS in the workplace-IPM Procurement Management Seminar-KISM Senior Secretaries Management Seminar GTI MOMBASA Sugarcane Agronomy - RASITC-MAURITIUS Chemical Control - RASITC-MAURITIUS

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

Weather Report
Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (KESREF) - Kibos, is situated at 1184m above sea level (a.s.l) on a latitude 0o 24S and longitude 34o 48E. During the year under review (2005), KESREF continued to monitor the weather in Kibos and other sugar growing areas. It received a total of 1357.4mm rainfall, which was 11.1mm above the long term mean (LTM). This total amount of 1357.4mm, was considered normal, given the long-term mean annual rainfall is 1346.3mm. Some months, such as December, were extremely dry having received only 19.7mm out of the expected 106mm. Others such as, August, were extremely wet, with 231mm against a long term mean of 112mm. Radiation, sunshine hours, temperatures and the Relative Humidity remained higher than their respective long-term means. The weather parameters obtained in Kibos during the year in review is presented below (Table 1). Table 1: Weather parameters obtained in Kibos, 2005
Months January February March April May June July August September October November December Actual total /means Long Term Mean Rainfall (mm) 111.3 111.8 88.8 87.1 170.1 141.1 157.8 184.4 101.6 107 64.7 67.2 118.3 74.5 231.3 112.7 76.3 114.4 79 101.7 138.5 138.3 19.7 106.1 1357.4 1346.3 Evapo. Radiation. Suns (mm) MJd^-1m^-2 (hrs.) 5.6 30.9 10.3 6.9 28.8 7.6 6.5 32.8 10.1 6.5 32.5 9.2 5.1 28.7 9.1 6.5 28.6 7.3 4.8 20.3 7.1 4.8 27.2 6.6 4 23.9 4.3 4.5 24 4.7 4.3 25 6.6 4 24.1 6.1 4.4 22.3 6.6 4.2 24.9 6.6 4.8 23.6 6.7 4.5 26.2 7.1 5.1 28.9 6.8 4.7 26.9 6.5 5.6 31.6 7.7 4.8 27.9 6.5 4.6 29 8.1 4.3 26.7 6.5 6.7 33.9 8.9 5 28.1 7.8 5.1 27.6 7.7 5.1 27.2 6.9 Temperature 0 C Max. Min. Mean 31.7 17.1 24.4 30.2 14.5 22.35 33.9 16.6 25.25 30.1 16.5 23.3 30.9 17.8 24.35 31.2 15.5 23.35 29.5 17.3 23.4 29.2 15.4 22.3 28.2 17.1 22.65 28.2 17 22.6 29.1 16.1 22.6 27.4 14.1 20.75 28.8 15.6 22.2 25.8 14.6 20.2 28.7 15.6 22.15 25.5 14.6 20.05 30.1 16.3 23.2 26.6 14.7 20.65 32.2 16.9 24.55 27.3 15.2 21.25 31.3 16.4 23.85 27 15.2 21.1 33.8 16 24.9 27.1 15.3 21.2 30.7 16.6 23.6 28.0 15.2 21.6 R. H % 0900hrs 1500hrs. 66.4 35.5 66.3 42.1 58 34 60 35 75.4 38.3 68.1 42.6 70.7 42 71.3 49 77.6 49.4 77.4 50.4 75.7 43.2 75.7 53.5 73.3 45.6 64 42 75.6 53.1 64.1 40.1 73.6 55 58.6 40.6 65.2 40.7 58 40 66.7 46.1 68.1 47.7 56.4 32.6 66.3 44.7 69.6 43.0 66.5 44.0

Note: Bolded numbers are the long term means, whereas unbolded are actual total means The main weather constraint to sugar cane production in Nyando zone and most other sugarcane growing areas is moisture deficit caused by inadequate or poor rainfall distribution against steady evaporation in excess of 1800mm. Figure 1 shows a comparison of monthly rainfall to monthly evaporation. This explains the need for irrigation in Nyando zone in December-March and August-October periods. There is also great need for improved rainfall water utilization efficiency.

10

250

Rainfall mm evapo mm

Rainfall/Evaporation mm

200

150

100

50

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months 2005

Fig. 1: Monthly rainfall and evaporation trends for 2005 at Kibos

11

PLANT BREEDING
The major objective of Plant Breeding programme is to contribute to the productivity, profitability and competitiveness of the Kenya sugar industry through the development and dissemination of improved sugarcane varieties suited to the environmental conditions in Kenya. This programme involved hybridisation and selection procedures, which starts with early selection stages (1, 2 and 3) undertaken in Mtwapa and Kibos (Table 2). The final selection phase (stage 4 and 5) of promising varieties are evaluated in at least 5 to 7 sites of sugarcane producing zones and this is done in collaboration with the growers and millers. Promising varieties from the final phase of selection are released for commercial growing.

(i). The 2005/2006 crossing season and early stage selection

Flowering was very poor due to the harsh weather conditions of high temperatures and lack of rainfall. Only 24% of the parental varieties in the three gardens flowered. A total of 130 crosses were made between September and December 2005. About 100 of these crosses were sown and gave rise to approximately 38,000 hybrid seedlings. Selection for advancement to the single line stage (stage 2) was done between March and April 2005 using the following criteria: Brix values of at least 18%, absence of major diseases (e.g. smut, mosaic), stalk population of minimum of 5 stalks per stool, free from other undesirable agronomic characteristics (e.g. clinging trash, splits on the internodes, lodging). The status (Table 2) of early selection of promising varieties at Mtwapa and Kibos during the year is shown below. Table 2: Selection of promising varieties in stages 1, 2, and 3
Stage 0 (Hybridisation) 1 2 3 Series 2006 2005 2004 2003 2003 2001 and 2002 Number of varieties evaluated 38,000 seedlings 19,600 seedlings 2,765 1,028 407 176 Selection status Field nursery to be established in April 2006 in Mtwapa Selection due in March - April 2006 in Mtwapa Selection due May-June 2006 Bulking/Observation in Kibos

(ii) Selection of varieties suited to various cane growing zones

A number of preliminary trials were conducted to evaluate and select improved varieties for the various zones.

The 1996/97 series

Fifteen (15) promising varieties were evaluated in replicated variety trials (stage 4) at Kibos, Mumias, Muhoroni, and Awendo in 2004 with the aim of selecting improved varieties suited to the growing conditions of these zones. Plant crops were harvested in Mumias and Kibos in December 2005 and January 2006 at 19 and 20 months, respectively. The results (Table 3) showed that varieties 97-224, 97-226, 97-131, 97-317, 97-204 and 96-173 out yielded the

12

commercial standard variety CO 421 in Kibos while 97-215, 97-131, 97-221, 97-399, 97-224 and 96-173 yielded at least 90% of the check variety CO 945 in Mumias Table 3: Plant crop yield and other agronomic parameters of the 96/97 series in Kibos and Mumias
Variety Tones Cane per ha 161.0 146.7 137.1 133.6 116.5 114.3 108.9 102.9 101.4 100.5 97.6 91.2 85.4 83.4 83.4 80.1 78.7 76.6 Pol % Cane 15.6 14.4 14.4 12.6 15.2 15.9 14.7 16.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 13.7 14.6 15.7 14.9 15.1 12.7 14.9 Kibos Brix Fibre % Cane 19.0 14.0 18.9 13.5 19.7 17.5 19.3 16.3 19.5 12.7 17.7 13.8 18.5 12.8 19.1 11.9 20.9 14.0 19.9 20.3 19.8 13.2 18.7 14.3 19.7 14.8 19.7 12.7 18.4 12.7 18.8 13.0 18.1 16.4 19.8 12.5 Mumias Tonnes Cane per ha 152.9 126.3 161.5 162.5 104.2 141.9 129.2 145.2 147.5 120.2 124.2 155.2 167.7 157.1 133.3 132.7 127.5 118.8

97-224 97-226 CO617 97-131 CO 945 N14 97-317 97-204 96-173 CO421 96-153 97-321 97-399 97-215 97-221 97-100 97-102 97-264 96-50

Height in (m) 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.2

Girth (cm) 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.7

The 1995 Series

Varieties of the 1995 series have been evaluated in preliminary trials in Kibos, Mumias, South Nyanza and Chemelil to identify suitable varieties for growing in these zones. The plant crop results for these trials were reported in 2003 and 2004 Annual Report. Results of a plant crop in Mumias are shown in the Fig 2.

160 140

SD

Yield (t ha-1) -1) Yield (t ha

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

VARIETY Variety

Fig 2: Plant crop cane yields (TCHa) in Mumias for different varieties

13

In Opapo 23 varieties were evaluated in two trials. The trials were harvested March at 21 months age. The results showed that varieties 97-125, 97-221, 97-399, 97-317, 97-102 and 97-224 out yielded the checks CO 617, CO 945, CO 421 and EAK 70-97. Further observations for all these trials will be made in ratoon crops Varieties 96-173, 97-317 and 97-224 out yielded both N14 and CO 421 in sucrose content. Unfortunately trials in Muhoroni and Awendo were accidentally burnt. Variety 95-385 had the highest cane yield and relatively small variance while 95-272 and 95578 had the lowest cane yield compared with the checks CO 421, CO 945 and N14. Promising varieties identified for bulking and further evaluation included: 95-87, 95-238, 95-240, 95-253, 95-301, 95-378, 95-385, 95-486, 95-562, 95-588, 95-593, 95-609, 95-681, 95-713, 95-738, 95-918 and 96-986.

The 1987-89 Series

Promising varieties in this series were evaluated in Kibos and Opapo and harvested in plant crop at 21 and 22 months after planting respectively (Tables 4 and 5). Table 4: Performance of promising varieties in Kibos
Variety 87-68 89-545 CO421 N14 89-357 89-550 89-737 89-274 89-370 89-309 Tones Cane per ha 188.6 161.8 160.0 151.4 119.6 91.6 80.5 79.2 68.3 43.8 Brix 21.2 18.7 18.9 18.0 18.2 18.6 18.3 19.4 19.5 19.0 Girth (cm) 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.2 Height (cm) 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3

Table 5: Performance of promising varieties in Opapo

Variety 87-68 CO945 CO421 89-545 89-309 89-550 89-274 89-737 89-357 88-570 Tones Cane per ha 159.63 149.63 120.77 115.60 92.37 89.07 68.83 58.33 43.27 39.20 Brix 20.00 20.67 20.03 20.30 19.87 20.53 20.23 20.00 20.20 20.83 Girth (cm) 2.30 2.13 2.07 1.87 2.03 1.87 1.17 1.73 1.73 1.33 Height (cm) 2.40 2.63 1.93 2.13 2.03 2.40 2.27 1.70 1.567 1.30

These results show that varieties 87-68, 89-545 and 89-357 are promising in Kibos, whereas 87-68 and 89-545 are promising in Opapo.

14

(iii) Sugarcane variety verification trial in the Tana Delta:

Plans to introduce irrigated sugarcane growing in Tana River District by the Tana and Athi River Development Authority (TARDA) are underway. The Integrated Sugar Industry Development Project is expected to significantly boost sugar production in Kenya. Available soil and climate data indicated that irrigated sugarcane production in the area was possible. However, information on the cane varieties to grow was lacking. In December 2004 TARDA-KESREF collaborative variety trial was established to test some of the improved varieties under irrigation in the Delta. Ten candidate varieties viz: KEN 82-216, KEN 82-247, KEN 82-401, KEN 82-808, KEN 83737, D8484, D8530, D15481, N14 and CO 421 were selected on the basis of their performance in Mtwapa. Furrow irrigation was applied to the trial. Preliminary plant crop yield and cane quality data indicate that cane can be harvested within 12 months with satisfactory sucrose content. KEN 83-737 (14.13), KEN 82-401 (13.3) and D 8484 (13.99) gave the highest sucrose content. The highest cane yielding varieties were KEN 82-401 and KEN 82-216 though statistically, they were not significantly different from KEN 82-808

and N14. The lowest performers were D8484 and D8530 (Fig.3). observations will be made in the ratoon crops.
Cane yield for different varieties in tons per hecture
240 200
-1 Yield (t Ha -1 Yield (T ha ))

Further

SD

160 120 80 40 0

Variety Variety

Fig 3: Cane yields of some varieties in Tana Delta

Proceedings 1. Jamoza J.E., 2005. Sugarcane improvement in Kenya. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 79:230-234 (CD-ROM) 2. Jamoza J.E and Nyangau A.M., 2005. Selection of promising varieties from the KEN 95 series for final evaluation. 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press)

15

PLANT PATHOLOGY
(i) Identification of physiologic races of sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) in Kenya
Sugarcane smut, caused by fungus Ustilago scitaminea is currently considered the most economically important disease of sugarcane in Kenya. The disease occurs in all sugarcane growing areas of Kenya, and is potentially destructive disease as total crop failure is possible if susceptible cultivars are used and conditions are favourable for its development. Control measures include hot water treatment (20 minutes at 52-54oC or 30 min at 50oC), planting resistant varieties, decreasing the number of ratoons in susceptible varieties, rouging smutted plants and by fungicides. A control by host resistant however, is the most practical as it is cheap, sustainable and environmentally safe. Reports indicate that cultivars like CO 421 which used to be resistant to sugarcane smut in the past are now susceptible. Also, there is geographical variation in response of cultivars to smut infection. For instance, CO617 is susceptible in Chemelil and Muhoroni but still resistant in South Nyanza; and EAK 73-335 is susceptible in Mumias but resistant in Kibos. This phenomenon suggests the existence of smut races. Studies were therefore started during 2004 long rains season to investigate the existence of physiologic races of sugarcane smut in Kenya by differential hosts. Twelve proposed local and international differential cultivars were selected from the germplasm collection in Kibos (Table 6). Four sugarcane smut populations were collected from the main sugarcane growing areas. Forty eight three budded setts of each cultivar were hot-water treated at 52oC for 20 minutes and cooled. Twelve setts of each cultivar were inoculated with each of the 4 smut populations to form a 12 x 4 cultivar by smut population combination. The setts were stored in plastic bags for 24 hours to maintain humid conditions before planting in the field in single row plots. Data on smut incidence measured as percent stalks infected per row was collected monthly starting three months after planting until the crop was nine months old. Table 6: Reaction of differential cultivars to sugarcane smut populations
Differential cultivar CO 1001 B53-107 CO 1148 CP 26-116 NCO 376 CO 421 CO 527 F 134 H50-7209 N52-219 Smut population 1 (Nyando) S S S S S S S S S S Smut population 2 (South Nyanza) R R R R S S S R S R Smut population 3 (Mumias and Busia) R R R S S S S R S R Smut population 4 (Nzoia and West Kenya) R R R R S S S S S R

S =Susceptible, R = Resistant

Preliminary results (Table 6) on 10 differential hosts (CO 62175 and M 31-45 did not germinate) suggesting existence of three sugarcane smut races in Kenya. Since the seed cane used was old and of non-uniform age it may have influenced the results. Further research investigation on this work continues.

16

(ii) Evaluation of sugarcane smut inoculation methods

Four sugarcane smut inoculation methods viz: dip in (seed cane dipped in a suspension of smut spores 0.3g/litre of water for 30 minutes), bud paste (smut spores pasted on buds of seed cane), wound paste (seed cane buds pricked with a pin and a smut spore paste applied) and control, were evaluated on plant cane during 2004/2005 season. The objective was to determine the most efficient and reliable method(s) for screening sugarcane varieties against sugarcane smut (U. scitaminea). Four sugarcane varieties namely: CO421, CO945, CO1148 and CB3822 were used. The setts were heat treated for 20 minutes at 52oC prior to inoculation with smut spores. After inoculation, setts were stored in plastic bags for 24 hours prior to planting in the field. These setts were planted in 5m row plots in a split-plot design arrangement. The smut incidence (percent stalks infected) was determined monthly starting three months after planting until the crop was nine months old. The results showed that the four methods statistically differed significantly at =0.05 level. The wound paste method resulted in the highest smut incidence, followed by bud paste and dip in. Although the wound paste method resulted in the highest smut incidence, it significantly reduced germination and tiller counts in all varieties due to its severity. The bud paste method gave similar results to dip-in method but it can be time consuming and laborious when testing a large number of varieties as in breeding trials. The dip-in method appears to be promising since it is simple and involves less labour and time. Trials are underway to test whether results of dip-in method correlate with natural smut reaction in the field.

(iii) Screening sugarcane for resistance to sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) disease
Control of sugarcane smut by host resistance, as it is applied in Kenya, is the most practical approach as it is cheap, sustainable and environmentally safe. Screening for smut resistance in Kenya started in 1963, whereby planting of sugarcane smut resistant cultivars was made compulsory in the country. According to Kenya Legal Notice No. 390 of the Plant Protection Ordinance, cultivars which show more than 21% stools smutted in the ratoons are not considered for commercial production and it is illegal to grow such a cultivar. Thus, only varieties which are rated as immune, very highly resistant, highly resistant, intermediate, intermediate resistant and intermediate may be grown. During year under review, 31 varieties inclusive of 10 checks were artificially screened against sugarcane smut. Preliminary result of the plant cane is indicated below (Table 7). Those bolded and underlined are the checks. Table 7: Preliminary results of smut screening trial on plant cane
Variety D 8532 MS 95-401 CO 421 KEN 83-311 MS 95-734 D 15841 KEN82-808 KEN 82-216 EAK 73-335 KEN 85-83 MS 95-307 KEN 82-219 H 284 MS 95-1247 D 85-32 MS 95-216 Smut rating 5 0 9 5 6 5 8 9 0 6 0 9 0 7 7 0 Disease description Intermediate Immune Very highly susceptible Intermediate Intermediate susceptible Intermediate Highly susceptible Very highly susceptible Immune Intermediate susceptible Immune Very highly susceptible Immune Susceptible Susceptible Immune Variety D 8415 MS 95-962 D 8484 D 4946 MS 95-526 KEN 82-62 MS 95-1126 KEN 83-737 EAK 70-97 KEN 82-247 KEN 82-472 D 8687 CO 945 CO 1148 KEN 82-401 Smut rating 0 0 0 7 9 7 0 8 0 7 6 7 6 5 8 Disease description Immune Immune Immune Susceptible Very highly susceptible Susceptible Immune Highly susceptible Immune Susceptible Intermediate susceptible Susceptible Intermediate susceptible Intermediate Highly susceptible

17

(iv) Yield loss assessment studies due to sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) infection in plant cane
A trial was established in Kibos during the long rains of 2004 to estimate yield loss caused by sugarcane smut (U. scitaminea) infection in sugarcane production. Seed cane of six sugarcane varieties (CO421, CO945, N14, EAK 70-97, CO1148 and CO 617) were heat treated at 52oC for 20 minutes, cooled and inoculated with smut spores (0.3 grams per litre of water). The inoculated and non-inoculated (control) setts were stored in humid conditions in polythene sacks for 24 hours, then planted in the field in double row plots 5m long. A split-plot design was used, with cultivars as main plots, and inoculated and control plots as sub-plots. Data was collected on percent germination, tiller production, and smut incidence (% stalk infection), done monthly between three to nine months after planting; pol % cane, fibre % cane, plant girth, plant height, millable stalks and cane yield at harvest. Preliminary results indicate that: Smut inoculated treatments had significantly more tillers than control. Smut inoculated plots had significantly more smut incidence than controls. However, there were no significant differences in smut incidence among control plots. Plant height in smut inoculated and control plots did not differ significantly Smut inoculation significantly reduced millable stalks in all varieties except in EAK70-97 and CO 617. However, there were no significant differences in millable stalks in the control treatment Smut reduced cane yields in all inoculated plots relative to control plots by 27% EAK70-97 had the highest yield in the inoculated treatment, while CO421 had the lowest yield. There were no significant differences in yields of varieties in the control plots Percent yield loss due to smut infection was highest in varieties CO421 (38%) and CO 945 (33%), and lowest in CO 617 (17%) The reduction in cane yield positively correlated with percent smut incidence in inoculated treatments, and correlated negatively with percent smut incidence in the control treatments.

(v) Survey on abundance and genera of plant-parasitic nematodes in SONYsugar growing zone
The survey on genera and abundance of plant-parasitic nematodes in the South Nyanza Sugar zone was concluded late in the year 2005 following surveys in sectors 2 to 6, and in the nucleus estate. Previous surveys in year 2004 covered sector 1 and pockets of the nucleus estate (KESREF Annual Report 2004).The following plant parasitic nematodes viz:

Criconemoides spp, Dolichodorus spp, Hemicycliophora spp, Hirshmaniella spp, Longidorus spp, Paralongidorus spp, Pratylenchus spp, Rotylenchulus spp, Trichodorus spp, Tylenchorynchus spp, Xiphinema spp, Ditylenchus spp, Helicotylenchus spp, Hemicriconemoides spp, Hemicriconemoides spp, Hoplolaimus spp, Meloidogyne spp, Paratylenchus spp, Rotylenchus spp, Scutellonema spp, Tylenchus spp, and Tylenchulus spp were identified in sugarcane soil and roots in sectors 2
to 6, and in nucleus estate in the SONY sugar zone The nematode counts were found to vary with soil type, cane age, crop cycle and cropping system. The counts varied from as high as 269 nematodes per 100 gram soil to as low as 78 nematodes per 100 gram soil. In roots, the highest nematode counts were 76 per 10 gram roots, and lowest were 5 per 10 gram roots.

18

The results suggest that plant parasitic nematodes are economically important in the sugar industry. Future studies should focus on the economic importance of plant parasitic nematodes in the sugar industry.

(vi) Plant disease diagnosis

a). Rhizoctonia crown and root rot:
Rhizoctonia crown and root rot was diagnosed on sugar beet at Mumias Sugar Company and at KESREF. The disease is caused by the fungus Rhizoctonia solani. R. solani is ubiquitous, causing some type of disease in almost every cultivated plant. In sugar cane, the fungus causes root and sheath rot.

b). Screlotium root rot

Screlotium root rot was diagnosed on sugar beet at Mumias Sugar Company and at KESREF. The disease is caused by Screlotium rolfsii (Plate 1), a fungus which has a very wide host range. The fungus is important in such crops as tomatoes, beans and peanuts, where it causes southern blight disease.

Plate 1: Colonies of Screlotium rolfsii on potato dextrose agar (PDA) Proceedings 1. Nzioki, H. S., Orinda, E. O., Agoi, P. L., and Buluma, P. 2005. Survey on genera, distribution and abundance of plant-parasitic nematodes in the South Nyanza Sugarcane Zone. 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press) 2. Nzioki, H. S., Jamoza, J. E., and Agoi, P.L. 2005. Identification of physiologic races of sugarcane smut (Ustilago scitaminea) in Kenya. 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press)

19

AGRONOMY
(i) Effects of tillage methods on sugarcane yields
The cost of land preparation in the sugar industry varies from Kshs 8,375 (6% of production costs) in Nzoia to Kshs 22,693 (22 % of production costs) in Muhoroni. It is one of the factors targeted for reduction in the overall strategy for reducing sugar production costs. A trial was established in KESREF, Kibos on Eutric planosols in split-plot design to identify areas for reducing tillage costs by comparing conventional with other innovative methods. The 5 tillage methods were: T1-Mouldboard plough (50cm deep) + Double harrowing + furrowing, T2Mouldboard plough (40cm deep) + Double harrowing + furrowing, T3-Disc plough (30cm deep) + Double harrowing + furrowing, T4-Disc plough (15cm deep) + single harrowing + furrowing and T5-Minimum tillage (Round up herbicide at 8l/ha) + furrowing. Three sugarcane varieties were used viz: N14, CO 617 and KEN 82-808. Data were collected on percent germination count at 30 and 60 days after planting, stalk height, girth, millable stalks and cane yields at harvest. The cost estimate based on Chemelil Sugar Company rates (which is close to and sharing similar soils with KESREF, Kibos) of various tillage methods is presented in Table 8. The cost estimates are a function of the tillage depth: treatment T1 was the most costly at Kshs 17,693 while treatment T4 was the cheapest at Kshs 9,733. However, it proved not very practical, as it was too shallow for effective removal of stamps from previous crop. Minimum tillage was the second lowest in cost at Kshs 11,966 and had the added advantage of soil and water conservation. Table 8: Cost estimate of various tillage methods used in the experiment Operation T1 T2 T3 T4 Mouldboard plough 8,776 6,771 Disc plough 5,235 4,200 Harrowing 6,467 6,467 6,467 3,433 Round up (8 l/ha) Furrowing 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Total 17,693 15,338 13,809 9,733

T5 9,896 2,100 11,966

Table 9 and 10 shows that cane yield does not depend on tillage depth or implement used as there is no significant difference in cane yield between T1, T2, T4 and T5. T2 gave the highest yield (144 TCH) while T3 gave the least yield (120 TCH). Varieties yield response to tillage methods varied but not significantly. However, CO 617 gave the highest yield of 167 TCH under minimum tillage. The differences observed in stalk population, height, girth and brix % (Table 10) could be attributed largely to varietals differences than to tillage methods. Table 9: Effects of tillage methods on sugarcane yields Tillage methods CO 617 KEN 82-808 N14 T1 133 135 107 T2 160 128 144 T3 140 98 123 T4 140 147 137 T5 167 131 117 Means 148 a 128 b 126 b CV % 16.9 Means with the same letter are not significantly different at =0.05

Means 125ab 144a 120b 141ab 138ab

20

Table 10: Effect of tillage methods on cane yield attributes Stalk height Stalk girth Treatment Millable (cm) (mm) stalks 3 (x 10 ) T1 97.6 b 248.0 ab 24.3 a T2 103.3 b 265.4 a 24.2 a T3 99.2 b 246.1 ba 25.2 a T4 106.4 ba 265.7 a 24.7 a T5 116.3 a 235.6 b 23.7 a LSD 11.1 22.0 1.7

Brix %

Within a column, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at =0.05

17.9 ba 17.9 ba 18.7 a 18.3 a 17.5 b 0.95

Farmers in Nyando zone pay upto Kshs 17,693/ha for deep ploughing (60cm) with a mouldboard plough, yet these results strongly indicate that sugarcane yield in Eutric planosols in Kibos is not dependent on tillage depth or tillage method used. There is therefore an opportunity for reducing tillage costs by shallow ploughing (so long as it uproots stumps of previous crop) or adopting minimum tillage method. Minimum tillage is particularly attractive given that it conserves soil and moisture, especially on sloping land. It is an accepted practice in major sugar producing countries.

(ii) Effect of planting pattern and plant population on sugarcane productivity

Sugarcane yields in Kenya have been on the decline from 100 t ha-1 in the early 1970s to 74 t ha-1 in 2004. High density planting (HDP) has been identified as one of the cultural practices that could improve sugar cane productivity through better radiation capture and space utilization, especially in the humid conditions with minimal mechanized farm operations. A study was undertaken in Kibos and Opapo sites, representing sub-humid and humid conditions, respectively. At Kibos, the trial involved 2 sugarcane varieties viz: KEN 82216 and N14; 3 row spacing viz: 0.5, 1.5 and paired rows of 0.5m by 2m, arranged in a randomized complete block design and replicated three times. At Opapo, 3 sugarcane varieties viz: KEN 82247, N14 and KEN 83737; 4 row spacing viz: 0.5, 1.2, 1.5m and paired rows of 0.5m by 2m, were arranged in split-plot design with varieties on main plots and row spacing on sub-plots and replicated three times. High stalk populations at harvest were observed under close row spacing of 0.5m for upto the 9th month, leading to significantly low and high stalk populations in sub-humid and humid environments, respectively. Plant crop results at Kibos showed that close row spacing (0.5m) was inferior in both cane and sugar yields to the standard 1.5m and paired row spacing (0.5m by 2m), with the latter two being at par (Table 11). Table 11: Sugarcane yields as affected by treatment combinations
Kibos site Opapo site Spacing (m) KEN 82 216 N 14 Mean KEN 82 - 247 N 14 KEN 83 - 737 0.5 by 2 104.2 96.7 100.5a 131.2 178.1 135.5 0.5 100.4 90.1 95.3a 224.8 189.2 176.2 1.5 120.7 92.5 106.6a 100.5 169.4 144.1 1.2 140.6 176.5 151.7 Mean 108.4 a 93.1 a 100.8 149.3 a 178.3 a 151.9 a CV% 15 22 Means with same letter are not significantly different at = 0.05

Mean 148.3b 196.7a 138.0 b 156.3 b 159.8

21

However, at Opapo, close row spacing of 0.5m was superior in both cane and sugar yields to other spacing and net returns. Paired row spacing was similar to standard spacing of 1.2m and 1.5m in mean cane and sugar yields (Table 11). Sugarcane quality was significantly and marginally reduced by 4 and 2% by close spacing at Kibos and Opapo, respectively (Table 12). There was no effect on cane quality due to varieties at Opapo except at Kibos where N14 was of superior quality than KEN82-216 (Table 12). Table 12: Sugarcane quality as affected by treatment combinations
Kibos site Pol % Cane Spacing (m) KEN 82 216 N 14 Mean KEN 82 - 247 0.5 13 13.7 13.4b 13.9 0.5 by 2 12.6 14.7 13.7ab 15.9 1.5 13.1 14.8 14.0a 15.5 1.2 14.4 Mean 12.9b 14.4a 14.9a CV% 3 Means with same letter indicates not significantly different at = 0.05. Opapo site Pol % Cane N 14 KEN 83 - 737 14.5 14.9 14.4 14.8 14.9 13.9 14.3 15.1 14.5a 14.7a 3 Mean 14.4b 15.0a 14.8ab 14.6ab

Table: 13. Economic analysis for Opapo and Kibos sites

Spacing (m) 0.5 1.2 1.5 0.5 by 2 Spacing (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 by 2 TCH Total Costs (Kshs) 225,712 179,585 163,271 177,712 Total Costs (Kshs) 138,452 129,268 131,805 Total Revenue (Kshs) 354,060 281,340 248,400 266,940 Total Revenue (Kshs) 183,929 205,738 193,965 Opapo site Net Revenue (NR) (Kshs) 128,713 101,756 85,129 89,229 Kibos site Net Revenue (NR) (Kshs) 45,477 76,470 62,160 NR/Ton Pol % Cane 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 Pol % Cane TSH TERSH

196.7 156.3 138.0 148.3 TCH

654 651 617 602 NR/Ton

28.3 22.8 20.4 22.2 TSH

21.9 17.7 15.8 17.2 TERSH

95.3 106.6 100.5

477 717 619

13.35 13.95 13.65

12.70 14.90 13.70

9.90 11.50 10.70

Note: Opapo: Zone H of SONY Sugar, Kibos: Zone E of Chemelil sugar Prices: 2003/04 input prices used; 2005 output Prices used. Sugar recovery Average recovery of 2003/04 (77.5 %) used Economic analysis showed that close row spacing was superior in terms of net returns at Opapo but inferior in Kibos sites, respectively (Table 13). Tentative conclusions indicated that standard spacing of 1.5 m may still be ideal for subhumid zones while 0.51.2 m may be adopted for the humid conditions. However, close spacing may be adopted for seedcane multiplication in the sub-humid environment since seed cane is harvested between 12-14 months after planting with little intra-specific competition.

22

(iii) Evaluations efficacy Glyphosate 360 g/l SL and Glyphosate 450 g/l SL on sugarcane weeds
Glyphosate 360 g/l SL is a chemical name of Manifest salt, active ingredients (a.i) of Isopropylamine salt, reportable ingredient of Tallow alkyl amine ethoxylate at 9% by weight, is an aqueous solution of the isopropylammonium salt and its physical property is clear, viscous solution, with a light yellow colour. Glyphosate 450 g/l SL is a chemical name of Round up Turbo salt with an a.i of isopropylamine salt of gylphosate 450 g/l equivalent to Glyphosate 360 g/l (Round up conventional). Its chemical nature is an aqueous solution and its physical property is clear, viscous solution, with a light yellow to brown colour. It has ammonium base odour and an active ingredient (a.i) of 36%. These two products are applied as an early post-emergence for the control of both major broad, annual and perennial grass weeds in such plantation crops like tea, coffee and sugarcane. They translocated throughout the leaves of broad and grass weeds with ease. Their uptake via the root system is precluded by soil inactivity of this product. The objective of this study was to evaluate the most efficacious rate of Glyphosate 360 SL and Glyphosate 450 SL; their persistence on weeds and potential sugarcane phytotoxicity, relative to Glyphosate 480 SL (conventional Round up). These experiments were conducted at KESREF, Kibos in April, 2005 on a Eutric cambisol soil with a pH of 6. The treatments for Glyphosate 360 SL, Glyphosate 450 SL and Glyphosate 480 SL each applied at 2 and 3 L/ha, respectively. Sugarcane variety KEN 83737, was planted following the recommended agronomic practices at Kibos conditions. The treatments were applied in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three times. Data on sugarcane percent germination at 30, 45 and 90 days after planting; tiller count at 3, 4, and 5 months after planting; types of weeds observed before and after herbicides application, and possible herbicides phytotoxicity on the germinating cane were collected. Observation at the experimental site before the applications of herbicide treatments, showed Couch grass (D. scalarium) [80%], as the dominant grass weed, whereas Goats weed (A. conyzoides) [60%], Lions ear (L. mollisima) [40%], and Pigweed (A. hybridus) [40%] were the broad-leafed weeds. Glyphosate 360 SL, Glyphosate 450 SL and Glyphosate 480 SL (conventional Round up) each at 2L/ha controlled 85 and 90% grass weeds, respectively for 2 to 4 weeks, while similar treatments each at 3L/ha controlled 90 and 95% broad-leafed and grass weeds for 2 to 6 weeks. The results showed no significant differences between treatment rates in the control of weeds. There was no phitotoxicity effect on the cane. The Glyphosate 360 SL, Glyphosate 450 or Glyphosate 480 SL applied as post-emergence herbicides did not affect sugarcane percent germination.

It can be concluded that Glyphosate 360 SL, Glyphosate 450 SL and Glyphosate 480 SL each applied at 2 and 3 L/ha control weeds (broad and grasses) for 2 to 4 weeks of assessment. Also these products did not affect sugarcane percent germination or tillering.

23

(V) Effects of Phosphorous sources and rates on sugarcane varieties (Ratoon I)

The sugarcane crop and its sugar yield are known to exhibit a characteristic manifestation of varieties, soil, climatic and management factors and their interactions. The Kenya sugar industry has as a matter of policy applied fertilizer phosphorous (P) and nitrogen (N) besides other inputs to sustain the productivity of the industry. The rate and source of application of P, over the years has been largely blanket with the larger Western Zone ( Mumias, Nzoia, Busia and West Kenya) and Southern Nyanza (Awendo, Trans Mara, Gucha) zone that are transcended by humid climate (~ rainfall 1700 mm annually) receiving a blanket application ranging from 8090 Kg P2O5 ha-1. On the other hand, the Nyando sugar belt (Kibos, Miwani, Chemelil, Muhoroni and Soin) zone with annual rainfall averaging 1500 mm or below (subhumid climate), receiving P rates of 4060 Kg P2O5 ha-1. In both cases, the basis for applications has been on the recommendation from studies that were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, when the industry was dominated by only a few varieties namely: CO 331, CO 421, CO 617 and CO 945. These rates are still used indiscriminately, though unfortunately there is a general declining trend in cane yields (over 100 TCH in the 70s to 6075 TCH by 2004), implying something need to be done to review this recommendation. In Nyando sugar belt, unconfirmed reports have indicated that there is no response to applied fertilizer P. This study was conducted at KESREF, Kibos, to examine the effects of 4 sources of P (SSP, TSP, Rock Phosphate and DAP) and 4 rates of P (0, 40, 80 and 120 Kg P2O5 ha-1) on the performance and yield of newly released commercial sugarcane variety, KEN 82 808 (early maturity) and CO 421 (late maturity). The study was laid in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) replicated three times. The soil is predominantly water logged during the rainy season and susceptible to severe moisture deficit during the dry season. Prior to planting the soils at experimental site were sampled for selected chemical analysis including H2O soluble pH, MehlichI P, and extractable Ca, Mg and Mn. Similar samples were also taken after harvest of plant crop. In both cane varieties, P sources had no impact either on the two sugarcane varieties sugar yields for plant and first ratoon crops (Table 14) Table 14: Effects of source of P on sugarcane population per ha (Pop), cane yield (TCHa), POL % cane (Pol) and fibre % cane (fibre) for Ratoon I crop
Variety KEN 82 - 808 CO 421 P - Source SSP TSP RP DAP SSP TSP RP DAP Pop 128,698 124,089 130,026 119,141 99,843 103,099 103,437 105,052 TCH 123.3 126.9 107.1 114.0 120.4 104.6 119.0 114.9 Pol% 12.3 11.7 11.6 11.9 13.2 13.1 12.9 13.0 Fibre% 16.1 16.6 16.9 16.2 13.2 13.1 13.6 12.9

Key:

SSP TSP RP DAP

= = = =

Single superphosphate (19%) Triple superphosphate (46%) Rock phosphate (25%) Diammonium phosphate (18 46 0)

P rates had significant impact on first ratoon crops (Table 15) confirming other similar studies reported for residual effect of P.

24

Table 15: Effects of P rates on sugarcane population per ha (Pop), cane yield (TCH), Pol% cane (Pol) and fibre % cane (fibre) for Ratoon I crop
Variety KEN 82 - 808 CO 421 Rate (Kg P2O5 ha-1) 0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120 Pop 116,094 124,348 130,026 119,141 99,843 103,099 103,437 105,052 TCH 103.1 117.1 130.0 121.1 111.7 111.4 117.3 118.4 Pol % 11.6 11.9 11.9 12.0 12.8 12.8 13.1 13.5 Fibre % 16.0 16.7 16.4 16.7 13.0 12.8 13.5 13.5

It can be concluded that plant population was highest at 80 kg P2O5 ha-1 i.e 130,026 plants/ha for KEN 82-808 and 103,437 plants/ha for CO 421. Similarly, cane yields were highest at 80 Kg P2O5 ha-1 for KEN 82808 and CO 421 at 130 TCH and 117 TCH, respectively. The cane quality, Pol% cane, was lower over all rates of P for KEN 82808 than for CO 421. Additionally, KEN 82 808 was superior to CO 421 in fibre % cane, at 16.45 and 13.20%, respectively, averaged over all P rates. Lower Pol% cane for KEN 82808 was also manifested in purity; it was 77.8% while that of CO 421 was 89.4%. Whereas soil analysis results are not shown (before planting and after harvesting ratoon I), they were observed to influence response of cane to applied Prates. Consequently, when the initial inherent soil P level was found to be above 20 mg P2O5/Kg soil, there was no response to all applied rates of P. However, when this analysis indicated soil P-levels below 20 mg P2O5/Kg soil response was observed in ratoon I of this study.

(vi): Potential use of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris saccharifera) as an alternative source of sugar production in the Kenya sugar industry
World sugar production is as a result of the cultivation and processing of two crops sugarcane (Saccharum inter specific hybrids) and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris- saccharifera). Sugarcane dominates the tropical regions contributing about 70% of world total sugar produced. Sugar beet, on the other hand, for a long time had been restricted to temperate climates, particularly Europe, American and Asian countries where it contributes to about 30% of total sugar produced and used in the world. Countries such as India and Sudan have been able to supplement their sugar production from introduced sugar beet varieties suitable for tropical regions with tremendous success. This is a result of advancement in technology innovation that has been able to breed such varieties. Relatives of sugar beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris rupa) and red beets (Beta vulgaris crueta) were first introduced in Kenya by the white settlers 60 years ago. These two varieties have since been grown almost wildly in Nyandarua District and surrounding areas, mainly as livestock feed, with excellent response to the prevailing agro-ecological conditions. In 2001, KESREF obtained tropical sugar beet variety Posada seeds from Kenana Sugar Industries, Sudan. Preliminary results (Table 16) showed higher tuber yields of this variety ranged on average at 40 metric tonnes /ha after only six months and posted a very interesting scenario. However, this variety could not develop seed hence KESREF could not make follow up study. However, further evaluation after securing some seeds on tropical sugar beet in

November 2004 and 2005 showed that the mean beet root yield was high ranging between 28.653.5 metric tonnes per hectare but varying among the test varieties. With Pol% beet also ranging between 10.513.0 and mean yield per tuber ranging between 0.81.3 kg only after six months, this crop showed a potential for complimenting sugarcane for sugar production (Table 17). In 2005 long rains planted

25

crop on 2 sites, the percentage germination improved tremendously from the previous seasons The best performers Tomba, Posada, Inger and H10141 variety were either better or equal to percentage germination of sugarcane variety KEN 82 472, used for comparison.
Table 16: Mean tuber yield, plant population and number of rotten tubers of posada sugar beet variety at different fertilizer P and N rates long rains season.
N and P2O5 Kg/Ha 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 CV% Tubers Tonnes/ha 20.7d 38.5c 54.1b 48.0b 62.5a 60.1a 58.9a 6.1 Pop 000/Ha 505a 431bc 468a 467a 358e 381cde 361de 8.6 Rotten /ha 2778a 3333a 4445a 4167a 2778a 3889a 4722a 68.4

Table 17: Sugar Beet evaluation at Eutric vertisols in 2004 short rains
Variety Posada Inger Tomba Monza H10141 Penta KEN 82 - 401 CV% Significance % Germ 34.8 32.9 37.5 23.2 26.6 11.6 65.8 12.1 xx Tonnes/ha Pol% Beet 57.0 52.0 59.0 43.4 27.0 24.3 12.8 xx 12.3 11.7 12.1 13.0 11.4 10.5 4.2 xx Yield kg/ Beet root 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.1 6.5 xx

Key: xx Highly significant alpha = 0.01 KEN 82 404: Sugarcane variety that is not yet ready for harvesting.

Proceedings 1. Rono J.K. and Toywa P.W. 2005. Evaluation efficacy of MERLIN and its combination in the management of weeds in sugarcane. Paper presented at 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press) 2. Amolo R.A and Abayo G.O. 2005. Effects of planting patterns and plant population on sugarcane productivity. Paper presented at 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press) 3. Amolo R.A and Abayo G.O. 2005. Effects of trash and weed management on sugarcane ratoon productivity. Paper presented at 12th KSSCT Biannual OGG/Congress at Nzoia Sugar Company 27th 30th Oct 2005. (In press

26

SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
Although the laboratory continues to lack modern computerized equipment required for research, various samples of sugarcane, sugar beet, co-products, lime and soils were received and analyzed (Table 18) Table 18: Samples received and analyzed during the year 2005 No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample type Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugar Beet Source Biology Department Agronomy Department Socio Economics section TARDA/KESREF Nyahururu Kesref field No.12 No. of samples 142 218 13 10 18 17 None 1 None

Sugar Beet
Sugar Beet Co-products Molasses Baggasse Effluent and Jaggery Lime Lime Sugar Sugar Sugar Sugar Sugar Soils Kesref Kibos Kesref Kibos Kesref Kibos Kesref Kibos TARDA Kerio Valley Kerio Valley Egerton University Fortenan Kaitui Sokohuru Nehemiah Int. Dominion Farms Plant Tissue Kesref Kibos

Kibos sugar and Allied

10 11 12 13 14

Homa lime Co. Nzoia Sugar Co. KSB Nyalsons Miwa Millers Mumias Sugar Co. Sucam Sub total Agronomy Farm & Estates On-farm Miwani Rd On-farm Kabonyo Kesref Arror Site Tot Site Kesref Kesref Kesref Tech. Services Miwani Yala Swamp Sub total Agronomy Sub total Total

8 4 1 4 6 442 248 4 6 4 23 6 6 9 4 6 4 20 9 349 51 51 842

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28

27

Table 19: Results and interpretation of samples received at Agronomy laboratory

Sample Origin Kesref Kibos pH 6 Ca m.e% 13-28 Mg m.e% Trace-23 Mn m.e% 0.1-0.7 P ppm 5-121 %C Remarks pH slightly acidic, adequate in Ca, deficient to adequate in Mg, Mn P& C. pH slightly acidic to neutral adequate Ca, Mg, Mn and C pH slightly acidic to neutral adequate Ca, Mg, Mn and P deficient to toxic. pH slightly acidic to neutral adequate Ca, Mg and P deficient to toxic. pH acidic to alkaline, adequate Ca, Mg and Mn slightly inadequate to adequate in P pH acidic to alkaline, adequate Ca, Mg and P slightly inadequate to adequate in Mn and C pH acidic to alkaline Ca, Mg P inadequate to adequate in C

Tarda Tana River

6-7

37-41

19-21

0.3-0.5 1.2

15-56

0.3

Fort Tenan

6-7

50-55

Trace

0.1-0.2

548-584

Miwani Kaitui

6 6-7

13-20 17-54

6-11 12-23

0.1 0.2 0.6 0.7

7-26 13-160

0.51.0 -

Yala Swamp

5-8

6-19

8-33

0.30 2.9

17-39

0.43

Kerio Valley

7-8

9-15

6-10

0.2- 0.3

66-108

0.170.77

Njoro/Nukuru

6-8

1.313.2

Students training (Attachment) Three students were attached to KESREF laboratory: Caroline Odoyo Gusii Institute of Technology Daniel Nyando Mombasa Polytechnic Stephen Otieno Kisumu Polytechnic

Meeting/Workshop Ms. Peris Ochola attended several Kenya Bureau of Standards Technical Committee meetings on fertilizers, sugar cane and co-products standards. Messrs M Langat, P. Mulama and J. Gitau attended a workshop on sugar process technology and its derivatives.

28

TECHNICAL SERVICES
(i) Extension
Generally, there has been a gradual increase in the number of farmers contacted and advised within the sugar industry over the last four years (Table 20), indicating a continuous improvement in KESREFs extension agents and collaborators.
Table 20: Trend of Sugarcane farmers contacted and advised since 2002.
Zone Mumias & Busia W/Kenya Nzoia Sony Nyando Total 2002 935 369 3683 1659 231 6,877 2003 3240 3429 925 1156 8,750 2004 2669 2947 2745 700 3152 12,213 2005 8387 2178 577 2884 5152 19,178

The areas/regions targeted by KESREF extension agents in the delivery of production technologies messages include all the current sugarcane production zones (Table 21) Table 21: Areas covered in Western Kenya by KESREF extension staff Sugar Zone Mumias/Busia Zone Name of places, locations or centers Samanzi, Lureko, Mumias Bukura Buchifi, Busia F.T.C, MOA (Mumias office), Navakholo Moc office, Mumias sugar company, Shiasa, Nasira,Lunza, Butere, Khalaba, Namuzi, Buhwak, Shibeye B7, Matania, Bungasi, Apokor, Matungu, Bumala, Lunza, Butembo, Butere,Malaha, Ingotse, Nambacha, Shina, Mwenyuli, Muganga, Koyonzo, Whole zone, Lwange, Mukhungu, Kingandole, Bukaya Shinamwenyuli, Nabongo, Eshisinu, Eshikalafme,sinende, Masokoto, Indangalasia, Kari Alupe, Butere DCs office, Budonga, Mateka, Singoi, Ituti, Shibeye 21, Bulondo, Nasyanda Maheto, Kawere rateng, Kanyamkago, Kabuoro, Nyataro, Nyarongi, Siginia, Raruowa, Kamusi, Ukweli Pastoral centre, Obama, North Kanyagwala, rakwaro centre, Banda primary, Omware primary school, God Jope, Rabuor, Nyakurku primary school, Kanyimach, Kolwal, Kawere one Upper North Kirembe Mito, Mabanga FTC, Lubao, Malaba, Mechmera, Sangalo, Nalono, Mukweya, Lugulu, Malava, Matia, Bokoli, Naitini, Lunga, Kibochi Nzoia sugar factory. Matsokha, Kivanywa, Kibi toti, Melekha, Butali, Buvoli, Lukosi, Tande, Samitsi, Fuvuye, Mwera, Chevoso, Matisha, Lukume, Shikoti, Shianda, Burundu, Indagalasra, Shirad Kube, Shamberere, Mhahira, Buyangu, Kakungu, Masingu, Malava, Matisha, West Kenya Sugar Company, East Sanglao, Chembwai, Cheroso, Kakunga, Malavea, Ikhanya, Emulama, Lukume, Sawawa, Emukaba, Elukho, Malimali, Lubao, Mukhonje, Bukhaywa, Nguvulu, Ikoli, Shitinirs, Kimangeti, Malanga, Sundulo, Ivakale, Bukoli, Mukhaje, vihiga Muhoroni Sugar Company, Miwani Sugar Company, Chemelil Sugar Company, Sokohuru, Kapsabet, Koitaburot, Koru, Tamu, Ushirika centre, Tom Mboya labour college, Pala centre, Soliat, Ahero, Songhor, Mariwa, Chemase, Senetwa/ Maraba, Soin, Fort tenan,Kunyak, Riat, Ombeyi, Boya, Nyangoma, Masogo, Makindu, Kowawa, Kipstet.

Sony zone

Nzoia Zone West Kenya zone

Nyando zone

29

Production messages
The following technical messages were disseminated by KESREF extension agents in various sugar zones in the year 2005: - Land preparation - Soil sampling - Proper sugarcane planting technique - Fertilizer application in cane production - Weed control in sugarcane - Diseases and pests control in sugarcane - Sugarcane varieties (commercial and new) - Ratoon maintenance - Organic farming in sugarcane production - Intercropping of cane with leguminous crops. - Enterprise diversification - Cane border maintenance with food crops. Farm record keeping. Sugarcane farming as a business. Role of the sugarcane stakeholders i.e. millers, out grower institutions, KESREF, KSSCT, Cooperatives, KSB, SUCCAM, and KESGA Economics of cane production

Extension Methods
These methods entail the following: Farmers meeting, Participation at ASK shows Participation in field days and open days, Field demonstration. During the year in review KESREF established a total of 24 demonstration field in the following order: Mumias/ Busia 8, Sony 6, Nzoia/ West Kenya 6, Nyando 4.

Effective and efficient extension services are necessary within the sugar industry in order to increase cane profitability among sugarcane farmers. Extension agents need therefore to be well informed of the research technology and well facilitated to achieve their goals. Also constraints revised by farmers and field staff needs to be addressed for improved service delivery. Constraints and Recommendations
Table 22 shows sugarcane production constraints alongside appropriate recommended strategies in the sugar industry during the year under review.

30

Table 22: Constraints identified and their recommendations

Constraints (a) Mumias /Busia (i) Cane husbandry practices: Delayed input supply Seed cane is dumped far from the farmers plot. Poor quality seed supply Delayed harvest of early maturing varieties Destruction of cane by hailstorms in Bulimbo. EAK 73-335 and Pindar preformed poorly in Bukaya. Pindar, D8484, Ken 82-401 are poor in Sindede Farmers have no right in variety choice. Poor performance of cane varieties due to planting in inappropriate soils Poor harvesting standards. (ii) Poor infrastructure: Poor road maintenance resulting to cane loss during transit. Lack of access roads arising from unplanned land subdivision. (iii) Pests and diseases Prevalence of white scale in Busia. Human pest, cattle, moles and termites. (iv) High transport cost of cane Decline in cane production due to land subdivision Recommendations

Proper supervision to be done by the people concerned The varieties to be harvested during their physiological maturity stage

Farmers to be educated and empowered to choose varieties in blocks. KESREF to recommend varieties to march with suitable soil.

Effective control measure needs to be effected.

Lack of factory in Busia discourages farmers from (vii) Cane growing. - High input costs and interest rates (viii) Extension service provision Inadequate extension services Lack of transport Lack of publicity of the farmers meetings (ix) Poor farmers representation in decision making. West Kenya and Nzoia Cane husbandry practices Delayed cane harvesting Lack of good quality seed cane Insufficient seed cane for new varieties Poor ratoon ability. Delayed land preparation. Low cane yields of 20 TCA -

Agricultural land need to be at aside from homesteads. Government to enact law to regulate land subdivision Block farming to be encouraged Cane leasing should be discouraged. Planned factory need to be constructed Farmers to reduce cost by carrying out operations privately.

Requires additional means of transport Chiefs to be used for publicity. Farmers to be well represented at policy making.

More education to farmers is required Cane needs to be harvested on time at a maximum age of 24 months for good ratoon ability. Soils tests to determine nutrient availability needs to be done.

31

Striga infestation at Milo Infrastructure Poor roads Pests and diseases Smut diseases on CO 421. High input costs Lack of credit facilities for cane development Delayed cane payments in Nzoia Reluctance by Nzoia staff especially area managers, North and Western to organize extension meetings Hostile opposition to planned cane development in some parts of West Kenya farmers Lack of transport Limited field staff.

Striga control needs to be resented on

Road network needs improvement Farmers need to plant new cane varieties resistant to smut. Credit facilities to be availed to farmers.

More transport to be availed for extension workers More field staff to be deployed to Nzoia/W. Kenya to assist in extension work More research on striga control is necessary on top of logging and use of manure. Government to provide subsidiary in farm inputs. Sugar Act 2001 to be enacted to control this.

Sony: Striga weed control is a problem Moles control in sugarcane fields. Lack of credit facilities Delayed cane harvesting Late payment High interest rates on inputs credited to farmers. Cane spillage by transporters and some cane is left uncollected in the field.

Constraints Burden of interests on pending loans on farmers Poor planning and coordination of planting and harvesting programs High cost of farm inputs Lack of finance for cane establishment. Inadequate extension services.

Recommendations Long outstanding loans to be written off Proper planning and coordination need to be done. Harvesting to be done at the right time. Government to provide subsidy to farm inputs Factories to search for funds e.g. S.D.F. loans to finance farmers through loans More field staff needs to be deployed to Nyando zone to increase efficiency in extentsion services delivery. An extension vehicle needs to be allocated to Nyando zone for extension work only.

Lack of transport means for Nyando extension work.

32

Nyando: (i) Poor crop husbandry practices which includes Poor weeding because of low rates of payments by contractors Poor harvesting standards Poor quality seed cane Poor land preparation Delay in supply of inputs to farmers. Soil exhaustion (Low soil fertility).

Timely early weeding to be done to reduce cost of weeding. Weeding rates need to be reviewed and proper supervision done. Low cane cutting be encouraged Farmers to establish seed cane closer to their farms and be supervised properly. Agronomist from the factories to ensure quality seed cane varieties is supplied. Varieties demonstrations need to be established. Farrow cropping and fertilizer use to be encouraged. CESS funds to be utilized will to maintain roads. Planting of smut resistant varieties to be encouraged. More research to be done on smut Human pests need to be arrested and existing laws on cane chewing to be enforced. Five breaks needs to be restored and arsonists punished. Research on striga control be done Outstanding loans to be written off. Proper planning and coordination need to be done. Harvesting done at the right time. Government to provide subsidy to farm inputs Factories to apply for S.D.F. loans to finance farmers through loans.

(ii) Poor infrastructure Poor roads resulting to cane spillage during transit (iii) Pests and diseases Smut disease on C0421 and human pests.

(iv) Cane fires (v) Striga weed is a problem to control (vi) Burden of interests on pending loans on farmers (vii) Poor planning and coordination of planting and harvesting programs (viii) High cost of farm inputs

(ix) Lack of finance for cane establishment (x) Inadequate extension services and reliable means of transport for Nyando extension work.

- More field staff and means be deployed to Nyando zone to increase efficiency in extension services delivery.

33

SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND BIOMETRICS

Socio-Economics
During the year under review, the Socio-Economics section undertook three major studies: 1. Zonal identification and ranking of sugarcane production constraints in Kenya 2. A survey on cost reduction strategies in sugarcane production in Kenya 3. Updating of sugarcane and sugar database

(i) Zonal identification and ranking of sugarcane production constraints in Kenya

Sugarcane production constraints have been reported to threaten the survival of the sugar industry. There has been a marked decline in productivity at the farm level over the last ten years due to a conglomeration of constraints. A clear understanding and ranking of these constraints presents an opportunity in identifying and developing strategies that can assist in the management of these constraints. According to Kenya Sugar Board (KSB) report, 2003, the average sugar cane yield for the period 1992-2002 stood at 74.87 TCH while that of 2002 and 2003 was 70.67 and 69.12 TCH, respectively. The continued decline in yield and poor performance of the sugar industry is worrying and therefore requires serious attention from researchers and other stakeholders. A survey by KESREF scientists was undertaken to identify sugarcane production constraints in the sugar industry. Specifically, the study aimed at identifying and ranking the sugarcane production constraints by sugar zones with the assistance of farmers. In addition, the study developed appropriate intervention measures to the identified constraints. Mumias, Busia, West Kenya, Nzoia, Miwani, Muhoroni, Chemelil and Sonysugar zones were studied. The survey aimed at enlisting the sugarcane production constraints and possible intervention measures as perceived by farmers. A costbenefit analysis of sugarcane production by KESREF socio-economists showed that the return per shilling invested by the farmers is low. This was attributed to the various constraints as identified by the farmers during this survey. Highly ranked and most frequently occurring constraints across the sugar industry are discussed below. High cost of farm inputs was consistently highly ranked in all sugar zones. These inputs included land preparation, seedcane and fertilizer. In all zones visited, farmers felt that the cost of establishing cane is too high because of the numerous operations required. The fertilizers cost increased by 25% between January and June 2005, whereas fuel prices also increased tremendously. This has seriously affected the return in both plant and ratoon crops. Poor planning and coordination of farm operations and activities by various sugar and outgrower companies came out strongly as another major constraint in the sugar industry. Poor planning leads to poor timing of crucial farm operations, especially ploughing, planting, delayed supply and applications of farm inputs and harvesting. This consequently contributes to substantial reduction in cane yields. Delayed harvesting adversely affects the yield of early maturing varieties like N14 and CB 38-22. In zones like West Kenya, Busia and Trans Mara, harvesting has been delayed by up to 15 months above the recommended harvesting age. Under such circumstances most cane varieties are likely to give low yields due to flowering. Lack of capital and accessibility to credit facilities featured as a crucial constraint in the various zones. Delayed payment was reported to be severe in SONYsugar and Miwani sugar

34

zones. Cane farmers therefore find themselves in financial problems either for subsistence or for important farm operations like weeding. Farmers in all sugar zones except West Kenya complained of low cane prices. The average cane price was KShs. 1,850 per tonne. Sugar prices and that of other inputs like fertilizer have hit an all time high during the period March to June 2005. Low cane prices translate to reduced profit margins. Farmers felt that as prices of sugar and farm inputs rise there should be an equal adjustment in cane prices. All sugar companies have however adjusted their cane prices upwards (effective 1st July 2005). The cost of cane transportation accounts for 30-40% of the total costs according to surveys conducted earlier. In all sugar zones, farmers complained of what they called an unfair zoning system introduced by the millers (4 km band). They demanded a return to the old system (10km band). Millers however argue that the previous system is unfair to transporters. In most sugarcane zones transport costs had been increased. This affected farmers adversely. Some sugar zones are more than the economical distance of 32 km way from the mill. Such zones include Busia, Miwani, Soin and Trans Mara. These are areas where more than 45% of payment per tonne goes to transport. Mumias Sugar Company has tried to lessen this problem by giving transport subsidy to farmers in Busia zone. Poor supervision of farm operations by both farmers and millers is another constraint raised in most of the sugar zones. Poor supervision leads to cane losses due to poor harvesting, loading where a lot of cane is left in the farm, stack theft particularly in Mumias and SONY sugar and cane spillage as a result of overloading. Land preparation standards are also severely affected because contractors are not adequately supervised. Poorly prepared land is re-ploughed at farmers cost a phenomenon very common in Trans Mara zone. This seriously affects the farmers yield and hence profit from cane. Poor supervision also leads to crucial operations like weeding being done poorly by contracted labour. This is a big problem in Muhoroni and Chemelil zones where these operations are contracted. A lot of cane tonnage is therefore lost due to poor weed control arising from poor supervision. Poor keeping of farmers records is an issue of grave concern in Nzoia and Mumias sugar zone. Farmers complained that they lose a lot of money because of errors in their records in terms of acreage, distance estimation and tonnage. This was attributed to dishonesty among staff handling farmers records. Mumias farmers complained of deliberate changing of names and transfer of stacks from one farmer to another. In Nzoia, some farmers are not paid for cane delivered because of alleged deliberate change of personal information in their records. Extension services in the sugar industry are generally weak. Farmers do not have adequate information on the various cane varieties and their management. Demonstration plots, farmers extension meetings and field days are not adequate. KESREF and various sugar/outgrower companies have been asked to come out more strongly on this aspect. Lastly, the condition of roads in the sugar industry is bad. Some sugar zones like Trans Mara, West Kenya and Miwani are inaccessible. Farmers complained of lack of accountability with the cess money deducted from their cane payment and given to county councils. Road maintenance has been left to county councils, a role which is currently not well performed as reported by farmers. Poor roads lead to cane losses through spillage and delays leading to fluctuation in cane supply to the sugar factories.

(ii) Cost reduction strategies in sugarcane production in Kenya.

The cost of Sugarcane production in Kenya has been increasing over time, the results being high domestic sugar prices in comparison to other countries making Kenyan sugar non-

35

competitive globally. This has led to farmers making low profits. Kenya currently is enjoying a ban on the zero-rated sugar tax from imports from COMESA countries, which will be lifted, in February 2008. The production cost therefore needs to be reduced to make domestic sugar cheaper in order to compete with the imported sugar. KESREF Scientists undertook a survey in October 2005 in West Kenya, Mumias, Chemelil and SONY sugar zones. The main aim was to determine the high cost centers in sugarcane production, in collaboration with other stakeholders, develop appropriate cost reduction strategies in the sugar industry. The survey identified six major cost centres in sugarcane production, which included cane transport (28% for PC and 42% in the RC of the total costs). This is followed by labour costs which account for 22% in the Pc and 31% in the RC of the total costs, levies accounting for 18% in the Pc and 14% in the RC followed by fertilizer, seed cane and lastly land preparation. The recommendations made were that farmers combine tractor and oxen power in land operations (where applicable), Kenya sugar board (KSB) single source affordable fertilizer for farmers, while planting and sugarcane harvesting be synchronized, as farmers sign job completion certificates (JCC) according to the millers set standards, cess money be left with the miller for road improvement and some levies and taxes to be reduced or exempted on agricultural inputs. The results from this study will help policy makers and other stakeholders to make decisions leading to reduction of costs in cane production, and hence making the domestic sugar price cheaper. In addition, these decisions will also lead to farmers realizing improved profits in cane production.

(iii) Updating of sugarcane and sugar database

The section continued to maintain the sugar database, which requires continuous updating. During the year, the section designed an improved datasheet for data collection for the sugar industry. The datasheets are used to collect data, which is processed and then stored at KESREF headquarter. Currently, data on the prices per rate of land preparation, fertilizer, labour, land leasing, transport, pesticides, levies, sugarcane and sugar production statistics, a list of contractors, number of farmers, research publications and many other agreements are in Kibos and updated on quarterly basis. This data is analysed to provide information on the trend of performance production parameters in the sugar industry.

36

ANNEX 1: STAFFING LEVELS AS AT DECEMBER 2005

Directorate
1. George E. Okwach Director PhD. (Australia)

Technical Services
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. J.K. Rono N. W. Wawire J.E. Jamoza G.O. Abayo P. K. Chepkwony R.A. Amolo S.M. Muturi H.S. Nzioki F. W. Kahora C. M. Thuo G.O. Omoto P.N. Ochola K. K Boss C. Korir L. K. Lihasi R. M. Shiundu C.O. Olweny C.A. Kirungu A.M. Nyangau E. K. Shikanda P. L. Agoi E.R. Orwa K. Kariuki E. Wanyonyi J. Shikalia P. Mulama M. Jepkemboy J. Gitau J. Kodunga G. Okite E. Ombok D.O. Mijwanga F. A. Ochami E. Kohanga Z. Misire L. Owino S. Wesonga C. Ongany D. Awino D. S. Omoka D. Chacha T.A Keya C. Adoli Principal R. Scientist RS (Socio Economics) Head & Snr R. Scientist Head & Snr R. Scientist Head/ Ext. Scientist Research Scientist Research Scientist Research Scientist RS (Biometrics) Extension Scientist Asst. Research Scientist Asst. Research Scientist Asst. RS. (Socio-Econ) Asst. R.S (Extension) Asst. R.S. (Extension) Asst. R.S. (Economics) Asst. Research Scientist Asst. Research Scientist Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Lab. Technologist Lab Technologist Lab. Technologist Lab Technologist Lab Technologist Lab Technician Lab Technician Snr. Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician RT (Meteorology) Clerical Officer B.Sc., M.Sc. (Udai India) PhD. (Dal. Canada) BA. Econ. (Nbi), M.Sc. (USA) PhD (Moi) B.Sc. Agric. (Nbi), MSc (Qld, Australia) B.Sc. (Nbi), M.Sc. (USA) B.Sc. (Nbi), Dip. Agric. Eng. (UK) B.Sc. Agric., M.Sc. (Nbi) M.Sc. Agric. Eng. (Nbi) B.Sc. Agric. Nbi), MSc. (Kansas, USA) B.Sc Agric Econ (Egerton) M.Sc. Biometry (Nbi) B.Sc. Agric. Educ. Ext., M.Sc. (Egerton) B.Sc. Agric (Nbi) B.Sc. (Nrb) BA. Economics (Nbi) B.Sc. (Baraton) B.Sc. Agric & Home Econ. (Egerton) B.Sc. Agribusiness (Egerton) BSc. Agric. (Egerton) BSc. Agric. (Nbi) Dip. Agric. (Egerton) Dip. Agric. (JKUAT) Dip. Agric. (Egerton) Dip. Farm Management (Egerton) Dip. Irrigation (Egerton) Dip. Lab Tech (Kenya Polytechnic) Dip. Lab. Eng. (Eldoret Polytechnic) Dip. Food Tech. (Kenya Polytechnic) Dip. Chem. Proc. Tech (Eldoret Polytechnic) Dip. Food Tech. (Kenya Polytechnic) Cert. Lab. Technician (Kenya Polytechnic) Cert. Lab. Technician (Kenya Polytechnic) Cert. Agric (Embu) Cert. Agric. (Bukura) Cert. Agric. (Kilifi) Cert. Agriculture (Embu) Cert. Agriculture (Bukura) Cert. Agriculture (Bukura) Cert. Agriculture (Embu) Cert. Agriculture (Bukura) Cert. Agriculture (Bukura) Cert. Agriculture (Bukura) Cert. Agriculture (Kilifi) Cert. Meteorology (IMTC) KCSE Certificate

Corporate Services
45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. L.C.A. Nyaluogo L. W. Muganda M.A. Oluoch J. A. Okeyo E. Okwach S. N. Kamau P. W. Otsola HRM HRO (PS) HRO (Welfare & T) Finance Manager Procurement Officer Financial Accountant Accounts Assistant B.A. (Nbi), PGD (GTI Mombasa) BA (KU) B.A. (Punjab, India) B. Business Educ. (Kenyatta) CPA (K) B. Com (Nairobi) B.Com (Nbi), CPA III CPA II

37

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102.

J. K. Macharia G.O. Mogaka F.K. Juma L. Mutimba A. K. Chirhir G.K. Kosgei C.A. Dwasi M.E. Mitoko C. Ogwang D. O. Oliech J. Isaboke B. Wekhomba C. H. A. Odero A. M. Fedha J. L. Wafubwa M. Owano L. A. Odongo N. Wandera N. Outah A. Odumo J.K. Omedo S. Mutai I. A. Mbogo D. Oguma P.N. Omete D. Y. Wanyama D. O. Okumu G. O. Omondi J. O. Olik H.S. Ndeda D. Gikonyo D. Murei Z. Magoto M.A. Ali Z. O. Momanyi J. Mobegi T. K .Odora H. Aganyanya E. Jemutai C. Taabu M. Mage W. N. Amoya A. O. Ouko M. S. Muhunga R. K. Kenga J. Dulo O. Nyangate J. O. Aballa E. Ashivende E. Owuor C. Misiara

Accounts Assistant Legal & Admin Officer Administrative officer Administrative Asst. Farm Manager Estates Manager Internal Auditor Supplies Assistant Library Assistant Transport Assistant PS I (Directors Off) PS II (Agronomy) PS II (Biology) PS II (Human Resource) PS II (T/Services) Copy Typist (Lab) Copy Typist (Finance) Copy Typist (Opapo) Copy Typist (Mtwapa) Copy Typist(Admin) Clerical Officer Clerical Officer Clerical Officer Plant Operator Plant Operator Mechanic Artisan Artisan Artisan Driver I (Kakamega) Driver III (Mumias) Driver III (Kibos) Driver III (Kibos) Driver III (Mtwapa) Driver III (Opapo) Driver III (Kibos) Telephone Operator Telephone Operator Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/Clerical Office Assistant/General Office Assistant/General Office Assistant/General Office Assistant/General Office Assistant/General Office Assistant/General

CPA I B.A (India) LLB (Kenya School of Law) BBM (Moi University) Olevel Certificate B.Sc. Agriculture (Nbi) B.Sc. Civil Eng. (Nbi) B.A. Econ (Kenyatta) CPA II Dip. Supply and Mgt. (CIPS) Adv. Cert. Library, Archives (Sigalagala) Occupational Test for Drivers Grade I Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial Cert. Secretarial KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate Dip. Book Keeping (ICS) Driving Licence Class D Driving Licence Class D EACE, NTT III, Motor Vehicle Mechanic CPE, National Trade Test Grade I (Masonry) CPE. Cert. Carpentry & Joinery CPE, National Trade Test Certificate II Occupational Test for Drivers Grade II KCE, Driving Licence KCE, Driving Licence KJCE, Driving Licence KCSE, Driving Licence KCSE, Driving Licence KCSE, Driving Licence KJCE Certificate KJCE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCSE Certificate KCPE Certificate KCPE Certificate KCPE Certificate No Certificate No Certificate No Certificate

38