3.!- . ‘3
3h“; 51%}; t"?

L¥§§§§£’ 3.5%
#3? " #32; «a:

h‘l;.,

‘ Iv
:3. “3“

" ‘s
#3:.“ ‘
, 1:» ~

Lg

r
. - i H -—
L.5&=k$'}:t..'ff= “'31? ' '
I‘ ': ‘ .‘z 2““ I:
“‘ L ‘3}~*-¢1E3.‘£¢‘«5' .
...

£4:
~ mi". ‘ , 1,»
‘7’...

in! "I

4.5,.
“’1; E751

:H‘wfi‘n‘ :53 ‘b‘iiilixg; , ’4

' "V r35 ‘ x. V-

‘e‘ifi‘éfl‘ " ' -
.'\\..,u .H- *
‘mfid‘nfi ; .. ‘

_ \-

es:-

it
A:
I:
a.

,
‘01?
- $2:

«3.
53:3.
71. :c:
' ‘33::
'5

q-W‘ -
MAW;
my“: ”mum“:
v. , 3:34“: .
‘ ~ pa mg:
.

\ .
uh “‘1‘ .

’ "' - .f '7;
Effigy, .
’ “‘7
R w

:32 In? ‘4‘.
A 32:383-39‘
' " v

.
7
‘3.

1‘1;

'61?! law

‘, ‘ "1:-t”~}u
,‘M o“! "I

l

:1
11.314“
K

; 2"."

3533-5
"7- .
fiffihfifi
.

«LL
w t
. .V‘“

uk."

‘1" _..;
'.I...~¢.; :‘V - x 5 4 .1. '

. 4Q N a. y - . .' A.“ . “if '.

‘1'. t"; . . . . . _ : .fim ”I ,3. , , w v, . . '1" hi" ~L‘Z‘ia: {w},

t' 12“?" V ’ '9'“ ' ‘.' ‘ 1;?“ ' ‘21:“! r
‘2‘ " fl? -' ‘ ‘ . 73%), "33‘", 5" up 3 ”3 ‘ 31'}??? .1" flag: a?

' . _:.;.:.. ,‘ ,.' ‘

. 5
“f. ,
w" »,

lth‘t’lll‘dt‘"

 

TATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

‘Ill‘tllll’ll II mm 1|: Hill”

3 1293 01019 7642

THESAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FIELD BEAN FARMING SYSTEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE
USE OF RHIZOBIUM INOCULUM IN EGYPT

presented by

Purna Bahadur Chhetri

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Crop and Soil Sciences

WZW

Major professor T

 

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ill RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or before date duo.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

l l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Adlai/Equal Opportunity imitation

Wanna-pt

 

.i’

I .

“EFF“F‘FIF’T":

fitfififfifi‘i‘flfim?ifl‘—Wiw

{‘2}? ami‘ffiwfifigfi

FIELD BEAN FARMING SYSTEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE USE OF
RHIZOBIUA/I INOCULUM IN EGYPT

By

Puma Bahadur Chhetri

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
1994

FIELD BEAN FARIVIING SYSTEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE USE OF
RHIZOBIW INOCULUM IN EGYPT

by

Puma Bahadur Chhetri

ABSTRACT

Fresh market snap beans are an important crop in Egypt. Rapidly rising fertilizer
costs make the potential for Rhizobial nitrogen fixation in beans very attractive to the
small-scale, modest income farms that produce for both local market and for export. The
Bean-Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program, of which this research is a part,
focused on finding solution to the very low nitrogen fixation and assisting Egyptian
researchers and farmers to reach the approximately 124 kg ha‘1 of fixed nitrogen that
should be possible.

This study described Egyptian common bean farming systems and identified
prospects and barriers both on and off farm, for Rhizobium inoculum technology (RIT) at
two bean growing sites. Fayed is an export bean-growing site (newly claimed land, exotic
bean varieties, sandy soils). The other, El Eyat, produces local market beans (old lands,
local varieties, alluvial, saline soils).

Farm size for bean growers averaged 1.3 hectares. Earned annual net income was
less than $300 ($33 per capita). Seventy percent of households owned television or
radios. Per capita bean consumption averaged 2.5 kg per season. Ninety percent of
varieties grown were local varieties for home use or local markets. F ifieen percent of

national bean production was exported. Average yields of local and export beans were 6.2

and 9 tons ha'l, respectively. Income from beans ranged from $53 to $1418 ha'l,
depending on varieties grown, land rental fees and whether for export or local market.
Cultivation was high-input, using fertilizers (180 kg N ha’l), irrigation and
pesticides. Soil nitrogen was so high, (above 40 ppm of nitrate N), that it may be
preventing nodulation. Production constraints were: 1) pests and diseases, 2) low profits,
3) lack of markets, 4) expensive seeds, and 5) lack of information. RIT constraints were
1) lack of information (90% of farmers had no heard of RI), and 2) unavailability of
inoculum. Almost all growers showed interest in using RI. Economic analysis showed
potential savings of $16 ha'1 per season, equivalent to half the per capita income of many
small-holders. Major barriers for RIT promotion include: 1) low literacy level, 2) lack of
private sector involvement in RIT, and 3) widely scattered and ineffective extension
services. Recommendations include: 1) determining optimum fertilizer nitrogen levels, 2)
regulating pesticide use, 3) identification of local inoculum carrier materials, 4) improving
RI availability, 5)publicizing RIT, 6) conducting result and method demonstrations, and 7)

involving private sector.

Dedicated to the small farmers of Egypt

iv

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Richard R. Harwood, for his
exceptional guidance, advice and support in completion of this research and my graduate
program. I would also like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to my committee
member, Dr. Patricia Bames-McConnell, Director of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative
Research Support Program, for providing me a research assistantship without which my
study at Michigan State University would not have been possible. Despite her busy
schedule, she accompanied me to Egypt and helped me administer the rapid appraisal
phase of the research. I am also indebted to committee members Drs. Richard Bemsten
and Russ Freed for help in developing the questionnaire and analyzing the results.

I would also like to thank Gaye Burpee and Dr. Sabry Elias for their invaluable
comments, suggestions and help all through this study. Thanks are also due Dr. Peter
Graham of the University of Minnesota and my colleagues at Michigan State University
for their help and encouragement.

My special thanks go to Dr. Fayed Saweris Fan's, Vegetable Research Division,
Cairo, and his colleagues for helping me administer the survey. My deepest appreciation
goes to my wife Nilam and two boys Pravin and Pratik, for their constant encouragement,
support, and patience throughout my study at Michigan State University. I also thank my
fiiends Netashwa, Phanindra, Mahendra and Lokendra for thier constant encouragement
and support. I acknowledge my gratitude to my father, Nar Bahadur Chhetri, and my late
mother Som Maya for their support and encouragement. I also extend my gratitude to the
United States Educational Foundation, Nepal, for providing me with a Fulbright-Hays
scholarship to pursue my studies in the United States. Finally I thank the farmers of Egypt

for their time and cooperation and their selfless efforts to feed the people.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 1
Research Objectives and Rationale ................................................................... 2
Thesis Organization .......................................................................................... 3

COUNTRY PROFILE ................................................................................................. 4

Climate ................................................................................................. 4
Agriculture ........................................................................................... 6
Population: ........................................................................................... 7
Policy Constraints ................................................................................. 8
Institutional Constraints ........................................................................ 10
Resource Constraints ............................................................................ 11
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 13
Historical Observation of Legume-Rhizobium Association .................... 13
Nitrogen Fixation .................................................................................. 14
Classification of Rhizobium ................................................................... 15
Amount of Nitrogen Fixed in Beans ...................................................... 16
Cost of Nitrogen Fixation ..................................................................... 17
Use of Rhizobium and Factors Affecting N2 Fixation ............................ 18
B/C CRSP Work in Egypt .................................................................... 24
Small Farm Characteristics .................................................................... 26
Barriers to Adoption ............................................................................. 29
RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN ...................................................................... 33
Approach .............................................................................................. 33
Production Area Selection .................................................................... 35
Data Collection Instruments .................................................................. 36
Research Hypotheses ............................................................................ 41
Sample Size and Sampling Process ....................................................... 42
Data Analysis and Test Statistics ........................................................... 44

vi

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 45

Household Characteristics ..................................................................... 45
Ownership of Land and Other Assets .................................................... 46
Production Characteristics .................................................................... 50
Production Constraints ......................................................................... 78
Economic Benefits of Using Rhizobium Inoculum ................................. 83
Promotion and Use of Rhizobium Inoculum .......................................... 85
Role of Rhizobium Inoculum in Sustaining Bean Production ................. 91
Environmental Sustainability ................................................................. 92
Factors Enhancing Sustainability of Bean Production ............................ 93
CONCLUDING SUMMARY, IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION ............ 95
Limitations of the Research ................................................................... 98
Conclusion and Policy Implications ....................................................... 99
What next for Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support
Program ............................................................................................... 105
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 107
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 14 1

vii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

LIST OF TABLES

Determinants of common bean farming systems in Egypt
Mean educational level and family size of bean growers

Number of households and size of land cultivated in
Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Summary of socio-economic characteristics of
household in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Frequency of household bean consumption by growers
in Egypt

Cross tabulation of per unit consumption of fresh
beans and level of income earned from bean cultivation
by bean growers in Egypt

Cross tabulation of per unit consumption of fresh

beans and size of land cultivated by sampled bean

growers in Egypt

Bean cultivars consumed by households at Fayed and
El Eyat, Egypt

Seeding rates and cost of local and exotic bean
cultivars in Egypt

Labor requirements for bean cultivation in Fayed and
El Eyat, Egypt

Harvest of fresh beans in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Yields of local and exotic bean cultivars in Egypt

viii

34

46

46

47

48

48

49

49

56

57

58

59

Table 13.

Table 14

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20a.

Table 20b.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24a.

Table 24b.

Opinion of respondents to yield of local and exotic
cultivars in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Farmer desired characteristics of beans in Egypt

Response of households to change in amount of
fertilizer use in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Types of fertilizer used by bean growers, time of
application and average amounts used

Time of foliar fertilizer applied on beans in El Eyat
and Fayed, Egypt

Number of households using foliar fertilizer in
Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Managed inputs used for bean cultivation in Fayed and
El Eyat

Chemical analysis of soil paste extract from
Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and
micro-nutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu) in soil samples
from Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt

Electrical conductivity of irrigation water and the level
sodium levels in water samples fi'om Fayed and El Eyat,

Egypt

Cost of production of beans of sampled households
in Egypt

Returns from bean cultivation from local and exotic
varieties of beans in Egypt

Correlation matrix for bean yield and key
management practices

Correlation matrix for bean yield and key
management practices in Fayed, Egypt

ix

60

6O

61

62

63

64

64

67

68

71

73

74

75

76

Table 24c.

Table 25.

Correlation matrix for bean yield and key
management practices in El Eyat, Egypt

Fertilizer replacement values for Rhizobium inoculum
on beans

77

85

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5a.
Figure 5b.

Figure 5c.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

LIST OF FIGURES

Map of Egypt
Schematic drawing of a legume root nodule and root segment

Conceptual model of factors affecting nodulation on
common beans under field conditions in Egypt

Sampling scheme for household survey, Egypt

Yield of green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-91

Area under green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-91
Production of green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-91
Cropping pattern and crop rotation practiced in Egypt

Conceptual model of common bean farming
systems and its relationship to nutrient cycling in Egypt

Pest of serious concern to bean growers in Fayed and
El Eyat, Egypt

Production information sources for bean growers
in Fayed and El Eyat

Production constraints in Fayed and El Eyat
Amount of nitrogen derived from N2 fixation, soil and
fertilizer nitrogen, estimated in bean seeds at different

levels of nitrogen and two application methods: foliar (F)
and soil (S)

xi

17

25

43

51

52

53

54

65

78

8O

82

84

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Input supply system for field bean cultivation in Egypt

Household demographic characteristics

xii

88

9O

GLOSSARY

Acre = 4,047 square meters
Ardeb = 198 liters
155 kg of beans, chickpeas
140 kg of maize, soybeans

B\C CRSP = Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program

Beans = Common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Berseem = Local clover variety (Trifolium alexandrum)

Cultivar = Cultivated variety

Fedan = 1.038 acres (0.042 hectares)

GDP = Gross Domestic Product

GOE = Government of Egypt

Hectare = 2.471 acres

IMF = International Monetary Fund

LE = Egyptian pounds

MAARE = Ministry of Agriculture, Arab Republic of Egypt

MOAE = Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt

PBDAC = Principal Bank of Development and Agricultural Credit,
Egypt

ppm = Parts per million

PRN = Primary root initiation

RRA = Rapid Rural Appraisal

US = United States of America

USAID = United States Agency for International Development.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

Common beans (beans) occupy a key place in Egyptian farming systems. An
important source of nutrition and income, they are grown for fresh pods, as well as for dry
seeds. Nearly 15 percent of the total production is exported abroad as snap beans.
Hence, they are also an important source of foreign exchange.

By virtue of being a legume, beans also fix atmospheric nitrogen in association
with appropriate strains of Rhizobia species of soil bacterium (Tisdale, 1993). Under
optimal conditions, legumes can fix from 45 to 227 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year
(FAO, 1983; Kucey and Hynes, 1989; Tisdale, 1993). This property is particularly
important for resource-poor farmers who have little or no access to chemical nitrogen.

Legumes such as lentil, faba bean, soybean, and peanut fix nitrogen under current
soil conditions in Egypt. However, nodulation on beans is sparse to non-existent (Baha
Eldin, 1985).

Agriculture in Egypt is highly chemical-intensive, using nearly 400 kg of fertilizers
ha'l per year (World Bank, 1992). The price of major fertilizers has increased three to
four fold in the last few years (Annex 1), making bean cultivation less profitable,
particularly for resource-poor small-scale farmers. Sustaining bean production at a
reasonably profitable level requires reduction in the use of costly inputs. One way to
achieve this is through the use of Rhizobium inoculum to reduce the amount of fertilizer

nitrogen applied.

2
In order to tackle the problem of non-nodulation of beans the Bean/Cowpea CRSP
initiated a collaborative research program with the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture to

improve common bean production. The specific objectives were to:

1. Study bean production in Egypt.
2. Characterize small-scale farming systems in which beans were grown.

3. Select appropriate Rhizobia for nodulation and nitrogen fixation of beans to identify
tolerant of alkaline/saline soil conditions, and to study the genetic basis for bean
cultivars that were tolerant of alkaline or lower pH soil and osmotic stress.

4. Identify superior nitrogen-fixing bean lines, and to evaluate factors which influence
nodulation under field conditions.

5. Evaluate gennplasm for disease resistance under field conditions.

6. Foster active professional relationships between Egyptian scientists and Bean/Cowpea
CRSP scientist, through scientific exchange.

Research Objectives and Rationale

The goal of this portion of the research is to understand the farming systems
setting, the relevant agronomic practices, and the constraints and opportunities for
enhancement of Rhizobium use. This requires understanding the local and external
systems and constraints associated with bean cultivation (Harwood, 1979; Randolph and
Koppel, 1982). Although studies on bean cultivation are available in Egypt, they have not
included a systems perspective. In order to fill the void, this research was carried out with

the following objectives:

1. Describe general agronomic practices adopted for bean cultivation.

2. Compare management practices of beans grown for export and local markets.
3. Describe the relationship between bean growers and the private sector.

4. Describe the sources farmers use to obtain production information.

5. Describe the prospects and barriers associated with bean cultivation and promotion of
Rhizobium inoculum.

6. Determine which socio-economic variables are related to farmers attitudes toward the
use of Rhizobium.

Thesis Organization

This first chapter has introduced the research, stated the research problem,
objectives and limitations of the research. The second chapter describes the country,
Egypt. The third chapter reviews literature on nitrogen fixation, use of Rhizobium
inoculum, factors affecting its use, small farm characteristics and their constraints.
Chapter Four presents the conceptual definitions of the variables, the research questions
and describes the methodology used to gather the data and the test statistics used for data

analysis. Results and discussions are presented in Chapter Five.

COUNTRY PROFILE

Egypt is bordered by Israel and the Red Sea on the east, Sudan on the south, Libya
on the west and the Mediterranean on the north (Figure 1). The total area is 1,101,449
square kilometers. Of the total land area, 96.5% is desert or urban. Less than 3% of the
land is cultivated (Helm, 1985). There are four geographical regions: the Nile valley and
its Delta; the western desert, the eastern desert and the Sinai peninsula. Of the four
geographical regions, the 1,080 kilometer-long highly fertile Nile valley and its Delta are
the most important sites for agriculture. It is also in these regions where most of the
population is concentrated (Kluck, 1983). To Egyptians, the Sinai peninsula is the second
most important region of the country serving as a geo-political barrier to Israel. This is
also the site of most of Egypt's oil production (Helm, 1985).
Climate

Egypt may be roughly divided into two climatic regions. The first includes the
Delta and is characterized by a Mediterranean-type climate. The winter is mild with
maximum temperature of 20 degree Celsius and minimum temperature of 7 degree
Celsius. Winter rainfall ranges from 60 mm (east) to 200 mm (west) in the northern
coastal area. Maximum day temperatures are around 32-35 degree Celsius and minimum
temperature 20 degree Celsius. The second region includes all the area south of Cairo and
has a mild almost rainless winter with maximum temperatures of 20-24 degree Celsius and

minimum of 5-9 degree Celsius. The summer is hot with a maximum temperature of 36-

Skva Oasis ,, . p . i
' . .. '- Saudi
A H I ’ Arabia

Farafra Oasis

Duh/a Oasis

Alexandria 100 miles

Roads
-v—o—o- Railways

Oilfield:

50 miles Su'he

I Tank farm

A
A Oil drilling
Q Refinery
0

Airports

0 Pumping station

 

Figure 1. Map of Egypt.
(SOURCE: United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Assistance Report No.2, 1979)

6
42 degree Celsius in daytime and 20-26 degree Celsius at night. The climate is generally
dry; only in August does humidity become relatively high (Nassib et al., 1990).
Agriculture

Agriculture is an important sector of the Egyptian economy. It accounts for 17%
of the gross domestic product. Per capita income in 1989 was US $640 (World Bank,
1992). Rural population constitutes about 55% of the total population while the labor
force is estimated at 4.4 million (FAO, 1993). Most farmers are small-scale with holdings
that average less than one hectare in size (USDA, FAS Cairo, 1993). It has been reported
that Egyptian farmers must cultivate 1.26 hectares (2-3 feddans) to provide food for
subsistence (Harik and Randolph, 1979). Those farmers who own less must either rent
land to meet the food requirement, purchase food or face food shortages. Farm operators
who rent land in addition to the farms they own have the larger estates, 1.97 ha (4.7
feddans) per farm on average. The average farm size of owners who do not rent
additional land is 4.3 feddans. Based on the holding, farmers in Egypt can be classified
into three categories: 1) small-scale with less than 1.04 hectares (2.5 feddans) each; 2)
medium-scale with 1.2 to 2.1 hectares (3-5 feddans), and 3) stable and well-to-do farmers
with 2 hectares (5 feddans) and above (Harik and Randolph, 1979).

The government has fixed the rental price of land, according to land quality. For
example, rented land in Musha was US $76 (LE 107) per year. However, land being
scarce and highly productive, is rented out in the "free-market" or "black-market" at rates
five or six times higher than the government rate. Many of these lands are rented for the
season, rather than the year, in order to avoid giving the renter a legal claim to occupancy
(Hopkins, 1987).

Egyptian agriculture is unique. Almost all cultivated land is irrigated. Fertile
alluvial soil, deposited by annual flooding of the Nile valley over centuries, and the year-

round availability of mild temperatures, high sunlight levels and irrigation have made

7
Egyptian agriculture one of the most productive systems in the world. Yield of most
crops are among the highest in the world (Annex 2). However, out of 114 million
hectares (286 million acres) of the surface area, only 2.6 million hectares (6.5 million
acres) or 3% are arable. Much of this land is concentrated along the Nile valley and its
Delta.

Although the law prohibits construction of housing on agricultural lands in the Nile
valley, 20 to 30 thousand acres of prime agricultural lands have been lost to urban
encroachment (Commander, 1987; FAO, 1993). Claiming desert land for cultivation is a
viable, but expensive, option. Between 1965 and 1980, as much as 63% of the
agricultural investment budget was allocated to claim new lands. Of the 1.1 million acres
brought into production since 1960, only one third of the land managed to cover the
variable cost of production (Englin, 1983; Commander, 1987). Only high value
commodities such as fruit and vegetables are economically feasible in the newly claimed
desert lands.

Despite high yields, Egypt has not been able to close the food gap. The hOpe for
self-sufficiency has faded away with each succeeding year. Egypt imported a total of
8,850 thousand metric tons of cereals in 1990 compared to 3,877 thousand tons in 1974
(World Bank, 1992). The inability to become self-sufficient and the resulting growth in
food imports has put more pressure on the cultivation of high value crops in which the
country has a comparative advantage. Egypt has ready markets in Europe, particularly for
winter production. Egypt's inadequate domestic food production has been ascribed to
increasing population, inappropriate policy, and institutional and resource constraints.
Population:

Population of Egypt has increased rapidly in the last two decades. In 1975 Egypt's
population was 36 million compared to an estimated 54 million in 1992 (World Bank,

1992). As most of Egypt's population resides in the Nile valley and the Delta, there is a

8
tremendous competition of landuse on limited arable land. Population density is estimated
at 24 persons ha'1 of arable land.
Policy Constraints

Agriculture in Egypt has been subject to a number of socio-economic and policy
changes during the last two decades. When President Nasser took power in 1952,
agriculture accounted for over 80% of export earnings, 60% of employment and about
30% of gross domestic product (FAO, 1993). At that time it was largely organized
according to traditional feudal patterns, which left large pockets of acute poverty.

Agricultural lands were subsequently redistributed. Farm outputs were controlled
and procurement prices fixed in order to extract resources to develop other sectors of the
economy, ensure production of export crops and to subsidize urban food distribution
(Berkofski, 1987). Compulsory delivery of controlled crops through cooperatives was
enforced. All farmers had to become members of the respective cooperatives. The two-
year crop rotation system was replaced by a three-year rotation. Mechanization of
agriculture was encouraged.

During this time, the government invested substantially in increasing agricultural
productivity by constructing the Aswan High Dam and extending irrigation canals.
Irrigation water was then and still is made available to farmers free of cost. Water supply
down to the secondary canal was the government's responsibility. Beyond that it was the
individual or the cooperative's responsibility.

In 1973, President Sadat's new policy of infitah, " economic opening" restored
some of the power of the farmer "agrarian elite, " which actively pressed for the expansion
of government subsidies and reduction of taxes on agriculture. Production credit, inputs,

mechanization, and rural consumption were subsidized. Food subsidies cost nearly US $2

billion in 1987/88 (FAO, 1993).

9

Inappropriate pricing policies led to stagnation in agricultural production. For
example, wheat imported from the world market at a price of LB 24 per ardeb was sold at
a retail price of LE 11 per ardeb. This difference in price compelled farmers to sell their
produce at LE 11, representing an indirect subsidy to urban consumers. While average
rural family income was about half of that of the urban sector, inappropriate policies led
the poor to subsidize the relatively rich urban consumers. This situation increased the
intensity of rural-urban migration (F A0, 1993).

The price and production of cash crops such as cotton (Gossypium sp.), sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum), soybean (Glycine max), peanut (Arachis hypogaea), bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris), wheat (T riticum Sp.) and lentils (Lens culinaris) were controlled.
Of the major crops only berseem clover (T rifolium 5p), winter wheat and corn were not
controlled (Commander, 1987). This policy hindered a free flow of resources to their
highest use and deterred economic incentives. Most of these policies were developed to
implement social and economic benefits for the urban population, without a full
understanding of their implications for the agricultural sector (MAARE & USDA, 1982).
The discrepancy in prices between the controlled and uncontrolled crops led to a switch
from cultivation of controlled to uncontrolled crops.

In recognition of these problems and the unsatisfactory performance of the
agricultural sector, the government of Egypt introduced reforms in 1986. In 1991, major
adjustments were made in agriculture, following a stand-by agreement with the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a Structural Adjustment Loan from the World
Bank (F A0, 1993). Production and price controls on all crops except cotton, rice and
sugarcane were removed. Subsidies on fertilizers and insecticides were also removed.
Private sector firms were encouraged to participate in production and marketing of
agricultural inputs, which used to be supplied only by the Principal Bank for Development
and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC).

10

As a result of these reforms, prices of farm commodities have recently increased,
to the benefit of the rural economy (USDA, F AS, Cairo, 1992). Farmers can now buy
fertilizers in the local market. However, one direct impact of the privatization of the
agricultural sector was a sharp rise in the price of agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers.
Institutional Constraints

Major institutional constraints in Egypt are: 1) lack of coordination between
farmers and researchers, 2) inadequate extension services and 3) government monopoly
of agricultural input supplies, until recently.
Inadequate Extension Services

General extension is the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of
Agriculture. Extension is coordinated through Research-Extension Centers at the regional
level. These centers coordinate with representatives of research, extension, govemorate
directors of agriculture, universities and the private sector. Together, they decide on the
release of new technology. Extension services are almost non-existent at the farm level.
According to MAARE and USAID (1982), one major reason for a deteriorating extension
system has been the assumption that much had been achieved in agricultural production
systems and there was little to "extend" and, consequently, little opportunity to improve
productivity and output. There is a lack of mission. Additionally, there is only one village
extension worker (VEW) for every 500 acres. A survey conducted by Commander (1987)
reported that hardly any farmer had come in contact with extension agents.

Research Constraints

 

Agricultural research in Egypt is carried out largely by the Agriculture Research
Center (ARC) of the Ministry of Agriculture, which has a research staff of well over 5000.
Research is organized on a commodity basis, with separate institutes for field crops. In
addition, there are separate institutes for soil and water research, plant protection, plant

pathology, serum and vaccines, mechanization and agricultural economics. Although most

11

of these institutes are equipped with highly qualified staff, interaction between researchers
and farmers is rare. As a result, farmers have not been able to benefit as much from
agricultural research (F A0, 1993). The National Agriculture Research Project (NARP),
established in 1985, has become a powerful means of reducing the farmer-researcher gap
and has raised ARC's capability to generate and transfer improved technology to Egyptian
farmers.
Monopoly of Input Supply

Until recently, the Ministry of Agriculture, until recently controlled the price and
distribution of major agricultural inputs through the PBDAC (Commander, 1987; FAO,
1993). The private sector was not permitted to participate in input supply markets.
However, with the new agricultural decontrol policy, private fertilizer and pesticide
dealers have entered the market. The Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reform has issued
more than 900 licenses for fertilizer retailing since the last five years (Shata, personal
communication, 1993).
Resource Constraints

Two important production resources are: 1) the fertile, but limited, agricultural
land of the Nile valley and Delta, and 2) the year round availability of irrigation water from
the Nile. Unfortunately, fertile arable land is limited. The physical and financial
difficulties associated with claiming desert land for cultivation has encouraged the
Egyptian government to increase per unit productivity of existing cultivated land.
Excessive application of free irrigation water and lack of drainage has induced salinity
problems in the old lands, negatively impacting crop yields.

After the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the natural deposition of
agricultural fields with fertile alluvial soil through annual flooding virtually ceased. For
thousands of years, farmers depended on this natural phenomenon to maintain soil fertility.

Nutrient-laden silt now remains either behind the Aswan Dam, is deposited in irrigation

12
canals or flows down the Nile. In any case, little or no nutrient-rich soil reaches farmers
fields. Agriculture must now rely on chemical fertilizers, farmyard manure and crop
rotation with legumes to maintain soil fertility. Demand for fertilizer has gone up since the
construction of the Aswan High Dam and is expected to continue to increase at 2 to 3.5%
annually (FAO, 1993)

Most farmers use simple lift irrigation systems with a medium to low capacity.
Water application rates are very slow. As a result, the upper end of the field receives
excessive amounts of water, causing water logging. Evapo-transpiration and percolation
are the only means of draining the excessive water.

New lands, estimated at about 0.64 million hectares (1.6 million acres) have been
distributed to the landless and to unemployed college graduates. The soil in most of the
new lands is sandy. Maintaining fertility is a constant challenge. Although the level of
water in the Nile is high year-round, it is insufficient for the highly porous sandy soils of
the new lands. Flood irrigation is prohibited in the new lands. Gravity sprinkler and drip
irrigation systems are recommended. The quality of sprinkler systems is sub-standard, and
drip irrigation pipes are expensive. Drip holes are sometimes plugged causing an uneven
irrigation within the field. Egypt, therefore, still has to rely largely on old agricultural
lands for food production.

Most industries are located along the Nile valley. This factor, as well as an
increasing number of vehicles on the street, are contaminating agricultural lands in the Nile
valley with heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. The metals are deposited
through wind, precipitation or irrigation water. Cadmium and lead also accumulate
through application of fertilizers, such as rock phosphate, super phosphate and pesticides
(arsenicals) (Lagerwerf, 1972). Of the three heavy metals mentioned above, cadmium
needs special attention as it is taken up by grain crops such as wheat, corn, rice, oats and

millet (Schroeder and Balassa, 1961), and eventually reaches the human diet.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Observation of Legume—Rhizobium Association

Although the use of legumes to increase soil fertility has been known since early
Greek and Roman times (Foth and Ellis, 1988), the benefit of legumes in enriching the soil
with nitrogen was first observed by Boussingalt in 1838 (Gallon, 1987). However,
Boussingalt was not able to ascertain the exact source of the additional nitrogen. His
experiment was re-evaluated by other scientist, but no satisfactory explanation could be
provided for the source of nitrogen prior to 1888 (Gallon, 1987).

A major breakthrough was made in 1888 when Hellriegel and Willfarth established
the symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants belonging to Papilionaceae (1975; Gallon, 1987;
Quispel, 1988; Evans and Burris, 1991). Hellriegel discovered biological nitrogen fixation
by accident. While working on a comparative study of the relationship between nitrogen
nutrition and yield in different plants, Hellriegel observed that legumes reacted differently
from other plant groups (Quispel, 1988).

Hellreigel's discovery was subject to both deep appreciation and furious attacks.
Major criticism came from Frank, who believed that nitrogen fixation was a capability of
all green healthy plants (Quispel. 1988). Because of the confusion about the nature and
content of root nodules, Hellreigel's conclusion was still not accepted.

The confiision was cleared up by Beyerinck, who proved the bacteroid origin of
root nodules. This was later confirmed by Prazmowski in 1890 and Nobbe and Hiltner in

1893 (Quispel, 1988).

13

14

Nitrogen Fixation

One of the major nutrients essential for plant growth is nitrogen. Although the
earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, plants are unable to use it in the gaseous form.

Legumes have an ability to access this freely available nitrogen in symbiosis with
the bacteria referred to as Rhizobia. These bacteria capture atmospheric nitrogen and
diffuse it into the nodule formed on the roots of the host legume plant, through a process
referred to as biological nitrogen-fixation. This reaction is inhibited by the presence of
oxygen. Leg-hemoglobin, a substance formed in the nodules, holds tightly to oxygen to
keep it from interfering with the fixation process. The bright pink color of oxygenated
leg-hemoglobin indicates that the nodule is active, fixing nitrogen (Sarrantonio, 1991).

Biological nitrogen fixation is confined to prokaryotes such as bacteria, blue-green
algae and actinomycetes (F oth and Ellis, 1988). They can be either free-living, such as
Azotobacter or Clostridium, or can form symbiotic association with higher plants such as
legumes (Newton and Burgees, 1983; Marschner, 1989). Nitrogen can also be fixed
through industrial processes using high temperature and pressure. Prokaryotes accomplish
the same feat at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure (F oth and Ellis, 1988).
Nitrogenase, an enzyme complex unique to Nz-fixing microorganisms, in combination with
necessary reactants, catalyzes the reduction of nitrogen to ammonia (Marschner, 1989).

When appropriate strains are present, Rhizobia living near the root of a host-plant
trigger a mechanism that induces a host-bacteria recognition event. The presence of
bacteria adjacent to a root hair causes branching and curling, followed by invasion of the
bacteria. An infection thread is formed and penetrates the root as the bacteria continue to
divide and multiply. The plant's response is to form a nodule containing cells that become
packed with bacteroids, which are bacteria that have undergone morphological and
metabolic changes. The bacteria are supplied with photosynthate, which is used for

respiration and N-fixing activities. The nitrogen fixed as ammonia is excreted from the

15
bacteria to the legume cells and is then transported as C-N compounds in the vascular
systems (Figure 2) (Foth and Ellis, 1988).
Classification of Rhizobium

In 1921, Lohnis and Hansen proposed that the microorganisms that fixed nitrogen
in symbiosis with legumes be placed under the genus Rhizobia (Gallon, 1987). Based on
the rate of growth of microorganisms on yeast extract, the genus Rhizobia was divided
into two groups: Rhizobia, fast growers such as those associated with alfalfa, clover, bean
and pea, and Bradyrhizobia, for slow growers, such as those associated with soybean,
cowpea and lupine. These two groups also differed in their ability to utilize carbohydrate
compounds. Slow growers were slower in carbohydrate uptake and grew on a limited
range of substrates (Elkan, 1984; Gallon, 1987).

Graham (1964a) reported differences in carbohydrate utilization between the fast
and slow growing root nodule bacteria. Consequently, he proposed sub-division of
Rhizobium into three genera: Rhizobia trifoli, Rhizobium Ieguminosarum and Rhizobium
japonicum. Based on adansonian analysis, Graham (1964b) proposed consolidation of
Rhizobium Ieguminosarum; Rhizobium trifolii, Rhizobium phaseoli into a single species
and combining Rhizobiumjaponicum and Rhizobium lupim' with organisms of the cowpea
miscellany to form a single species. Rhizobium melioti was proposed to be maintained as
a separate species. Graham's findings were re—examined. Splitting of the genus
Rhizobium was discouraged until more information was available (t'Mannetji, 1967).

Deley and Rassel (1965) proposed three species within the genus Rhizobium.
They proposed two subgroups namely Rhizobium leguminosarum and Rhizobium melr'oti
for fast growers and Rhizobiumjaponicum for the slow growers. Graham (1969)
reviewed the analytical serology of Rhizobiaceae and proposed three broad serological
groups, namely 1) Rhizobium trifolii, Rhizobium leguminosarum and Rhizobium phaseoli,

2) Rhizobium melioti, and 3) Rhizobiumjaponicum and Rhizobium lupini. Jarvis et al.

16
(1980) proposed combining Rhizobium trifolii and Rhizobium Ieguminosarum into one
species and retaining Rhizobium phaseoli as a single species.

Gibbons and Grefory (1972) could not distinguish between Rhizobium
Ieguminosarum and Rhizobium trifolii. They observed a close relationship between
Rhizobium lupini and Rhizobiumjaponicum and between Rhizobr'um melioti and
Rhizobium phaseoli. A recent study by Hollis and his colleagues also reported their
inability to differentiate between the reference strains of Rhizobia japom'cum and
Rhizobium Iupini by DNA-DNA hybridization (Elkan, 1987).

After several proposals and controversies, an interim committee proposed
reorganization of the family Rhizobiaceae. The revision proposed that Rhizobia be split
into three separate genera: 1) Rhizobia, containing fast growers namely Rhizobium
leguminosarum, Rhizobium melioti and Rhizobium loti, 2) Bradyrhizobia for slow
growers and 3) Phyllobacterum for leaf bacteria (Elkan, 1984).

Amount of Nitrogen Fixed in Beans

The amount of nitrogen fixed by properly nodulated legumes averages about 50-
60% of a plant's total nitrogen requirement. Nitrogen present in the soil or additions of
fertilizer must make up the difference. Typically, nitrogen fixed by legumes ranges from
45 to 227 kg per hectare per year, depending on species and soil conditions (Appendix 3)
(Kucey and Hynes, 1989; Tisdale et al., 1993). Beans, however, are considered poor
symbiotic nitrogen fixers compared to other legumes (Graham, 1981; Piha and Munns,
1987). Depending on field conditions, they fix from 20 to 124 kg N ha'1 (Graham and
Halliday, 1977; Rennie and Kemp, 1983 a,b,; Sairo, 1982; Westerrnan and Kolar, 1978
cited in Tsai, 1993). In the tropical soils of Brazil, beans fixed 20 to 60 kg N per hectare
(Da Silva et al., 1993). In Peru, they derived more than 50% of the nitrogen from

atmosphere and fixed 60 to 80 kg N ha'1 (Manrique et al., 1993). A wide variation in the

17
amounts of nitrogen fixed is due mainly to the differing conditions under which beans are

grown (Bliss, 1993).

 

 

   
 

C-N
compounds

 

photosyntl‘qte . 4....

 

 

 

Figure 2. Schematic drawing of a legume root nodule and root segment.
(Adapted from Foth and Ellis, 1988).

Cost of Nitrogen Fixation

Biological nitrogen fixation is not without a cost. The energy required for nitrogen
fixation is derived from photosynthates produced through solar radiation (Newton &
Burgees, 1983; Foth and Ellis, 1988). Thus, the renewable solar energy "powers" this
fertilizer production system in contrast to the non-renewable energy sources used in

commercial fixation of nitrogen. Between infection by the Rhizobium and subsequent

1 8
nitrogen fixation, there exists a period of 3 to 5 weeks, during which time carbohydrates,
mineral nutrients and amino acids are produced and supplied to the bacteria by the host
plant without any initial benefit to the plant. Thus the use of Rhizobium does not
necessarily eliminate the need for total nitrogen to the crop. It reduces the quantity of the
total fertilizer nitrogen needed without dramatic losses in the yield.
Use of Rhizobium and Factors Affecting N2 Fixation

In the farming systems of tropical developing countries, symbiotic nitrogen-fixing
offers an attractive means to reduce the use of costly nitrogen fertilizers (Bohlool, 1988).
Even developed industrialized countries can take advantage of the symbiotic nitrogen
fixing technique to cut down on the cost of chemical fertilizers and reduce nitrate
contamination in ground water. Soybean, a major crop in the US., for instance, receive no
nitrogen fertilizers.

Symbiotic nitrogen fixation depends on several factors. Soil temperature must be
favorable for nodule development. The fixation process depends on the characteristic
being studied and the host species involved (Graham and Halliday, 1977; Gibson, 1987).
Maximum accumulation of nitrogen occurs at the stage of host plant physiological
maturity. From flowering to physiological maturity, plants accumulate more than 50% of
the total dry matter (Pena-Cabriales, 1993).

Roughley (1976) observed that for Rhizobium species derived from temperate
regions, root temperatures in the range of 20-24 degree Celsius provide ideal conditions
for nodule development. Nodulation decrease with a decline in temperature and cease at 7
degrees Celsius or below. For species of tropical and sub-tropical origin, soil temperature
in the range of 25 to 30 degrees Celsius appears optimal for nodulation and nitrogen
fixation.

Moisture is another important factor affecting nodulation (Hume, et al, 1974;

Sprent, 1976), especially for Phaseolus vulgaris (F reire, 1984). Water deficiency inhibits

19
nitrogenase activity, impeding nitrogen fixation. Opinions vary as to whether the effect is
due to nodule dehydration, reduced photosynthesis or lowered rates of assimilate supply
to nodules. Minchin et al. (1978) noticed that excess water lowered oxygen supply,
retarded nodulation and reduced nitrogenase activity, thus reducing nitrogen fixation.

Light intensity is another important factor in nitrogen fixation (Day and Dart,
1970; Dart et al., 1976) and flowering of legumes (Gibson, 1987). Legumes are
particularly sensitive to spectral composition. Nodulation is affected by far-red wave-
lengths, presumably affecting phytochrome activity. Many species of legumes show
change in nitrogen fixation activity during pod fill. This might be due to competition for
assimilates between developing pods and the nodules (Gibson, 1987).

Mulder and Van Veen (1960) observed that nodulation of Phaseolus vulgaris was
inhibited by high levels of carbon dioxide. In most instances, however, the effect of
carbon dioxide on nodulation and nitrogen fixation has generally been stimulatory .

Soil nutrient status, particularly plant-available nitrogen and phosphorus, and soil
reaction (pH) are important determinants affecting nodulation. Despite a number of
studies, there seems to be a poor understanding of the physiological affects of combined
nitrogen on nodulation. The influence of nitrate is believed to be external. Physiological
deprivation and inhibition of nitrogenase by nitrite are two possible explanations for the
inhibition of nitrogenase activity following nitrate application (Hanway and Weber, 1971).

Soil acidity can restrict the survival and growth of Rhizobia in soil and affect
nodulation and N fixation processes. When soil is acidic, Al3+, Mn2+ and H+ toxicity, as
well as low levels of available Ca2+ and H2P04 can injure Rhizobia and roots of the host
legume. Tisdale (1993) reported that soil pH values below 6.0 drastically reduced the
number of Rhizobium meliotr' in the root of alfalfa, the degree of nodulation and yields of
host alfalfa plants, whereas soil pH values between 5.0 and 7.0 had little influence on

Rhizobium trifoli and its host, red clover.

20

Nodules require more molybdenum than the host plant for nitrogen fixation. Thus
molybdenum is critical for nitrogen fixation, especially for Phaseolus vulgaris which has a
very high requirement (Gibson, 1987). Freire (1984) has observed that molybdenum,
when present in excessive quantity, is detrimental.

Other elements important for successfiil nodule formation and nitrogen fixation
include calcium, phosphorus, molybdenum, boron, cobalt, copper, nickel and iron (Gibson,
1987)

Tisdale et al. (1993) report that maximum N fixation occurs only when available
soil N is at a minimum. Rhizobial activity is reduced if the plant has a readily available
supply of inorganic N. However, application of small amounts of N fertilizer is
recommended at planting to ensure that the young legume seedlings receive adequate
supply of photosynthates until the Rhizobia can establish themselves on the roots. This is
especially true for Phaseolus vulgaris, which requires a small amount of external nitrogen
for nodule formation and nitrogen fixation (F reire, 1984). Field studies have shown that N
fertilization increased yield substantially, and indicating that symbiotic nitrogen fixation is
unable to provide enough nitrogen for maximum yield (Buttery et al, 1987 ; Huntington et
al,, 1986 cited in Muller, 1993). Thus, a starter dose is recommended to improve plant
growth until nitrogen fixation takes place.

Determining the amount of starter dose is important, as amounts exceeding the
starter dose generally reduce subsequent nodulation and nitrogen fixation. This is
especially important for common beans for which the threshold for the depressing effect of
mineral nitrogen seems to be low (Graham, 1981). Tsai et al., (1993) also stress the need
to identify appropriate rates of N application to avoid suppressing nodulation and nitrogen
fixation. Predicting the response of Rhizobia to different levels of combined nitrogen still

remains a complicated procedure (Gibson, 1976).

21

Tsai et al. (1993) observed that nitrogen as low as 15 kg N per hectare at sowing
suppressed nodule weight and activity, but not nodule number, suggesting that the main
effect of mineral N was on nodule development and function. Da Silva et al. (1993) also
observed suppressing effects of N fertilizer, even at low rates of nitrogen fixation. They
observed that foliar nitrogen was less suppressive to nodulation, even at higher N levels,
than soil N treatments. They concluded that beans are capable of fixing atmospheric N in
the presence of fertilizer N applied in small amounts to the leaves, resulting in increased
yield and seed N.

In their experiments with peas, Lie et al (1976) observed that plants with
ammonium nitrate applications were substantially larger than those in which nodules alone
provided nitrogen. Applications of nitrogen at 40 ppm inhibited nodulation. At 80 ppm,
nodulation was completely prevented.

Dart et al. (1976) observed that applications of nitrogen at 10 kg/ha stimulated
primary root nodulation (PRN) on Vigna mungo and Vigna radiata. Beyond 10
kilograms, PRN decreased with increasing levels of combined nitrogen. At 100 kilograms
per hectare, only two nodules per plant formed.

Given the availability of appropriate strains of Rhizobium inoculum and application
with the right amount of inorganic fertilizers, it has been possible to increase the yield of
legumes and subsequent crops. In India, yields of legumes such as chickpea (Cicer
arietinum), pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), lentil (Lens culinaris) and soybean (Glycine max)
increased up to 71% when inoculation supplemented fertilizer application (Rao, 1976).
Rao observed decreases in peanut (Arachis hypogeae) yields when the crop was treated
with inoculation alone. His finding also suggested that legume-Rhizobium symbiosis
performed best when supplemented with external nitrogen, consistent with the findings of

Tisdale (1993), and Freire (1984).

22

Hera (1976) observed that cultivation of uninoculated soybeans required large
amounts of nitrogenous fertilizer, from 127 to 147 kilogram per hectare, to obtain a yield
of 2.36 to 2.41 tons per hectare under irrigated conditions in India.

Sistachs (1976) found that the response of nodulated soybean plants to lower
nitrogen rates depended on the time of application. When fertilized at planting, there was
a slight improvement in yield. Yield was depressed when plants were fertilized after
cotyledon senescence. Nodulated plants had higher yields when 50 kg N/ha were added at
planting.

Hamdi (1976) studied the response of different strains of Rhizobium on nine field
bean varieties in Egypt. His study showed sparse or non-nodulation of common beans
under field conditions in Egypt. However, other legumes, namely faba bean, lentil,
soybean and peanut, fixed 41 to 139 kg of nitrogen per hectare in Egypt.

Abdel-Ghaffer et al., (1982) observed that saline conditions depressed the
nodulation, nitrogen fixation, and yield of bean plants, with N yield reduced more than
50% when the soil salinity was increased from two to five mmhos/cm. They
recommended a study of irrigation procedures and salinization effects in relation to crop
yields in Egypt, an area which has received very little attention.

Yields of soybean increased up to 100 percent when inoculated with high-quality
inoculant on virgin soil in India (Dube, 1976). Yields increased further by 25% when
soybeans were planted a few weeks earlier. On cultivated lands, yields of chickpeas, peas
and lentil increased by 39, 46 and 67 percent respectively. Dube (1976) also noticed yield
differences due to the quality of inoculant. The non-commercial laboratory-produced
inoculant yielded 14% more than the commercially-produced inoculant.

When a legume is introduced into a new environment, it may or may not produce
effective nodules. If appropriate strains of Rhizobia are absent, the plant will fail to

nodulate (Date, 1987) and needs to be inoculated with appropriate strains of Rhizobia

23
(Marschner, 1989). Exogenous inoculant must compete with the indigenous Rhizobia to
nodulate and persist in the soil (Amarger, 1981). Competitiveness is critical to symbiosis,
as it is the prelude to all subsequent events associated with nitrogen fixation (Josephson et
al., 1991).

Freire (1984) also observed that the success in high nitrogen fixation by
Rhizobium-legume symbiosis depended on: 1) effectiveness and efficacy of the Rhizobium
strains present in the inoculum and/or in the soil in relation to the species and varieties of
the legume, 2) competitiveness ability of the introduced Rhizobia in relation to the native
Rhizobr'al population, 3) ability of the host to supply its micro symbionts' nutritional needs,
and 4) environmental factors, especially the limiting factors in soil that act on the bacteria
and the host.

Availability of appropriate strains of Rhizobia is another important factor for
nodulation (Marschner, 1989). In the absence of appropriate strains of native Rhizobia, it
may become necessary to inoculate with appropriate strains. It is also possible that the
inoculated legume variations may show differential response to the same strains. Graham
et al. (1981) observed that black and red beans responded differently to the same strains of
Rhizobia and fertilizer treatments. Similarly, pigeon peas showed variable response to
inoculation at three sites in India (Pareek, 1982).

Once established, bacteria can stay in the soil for a long period of time. Kucey and
Hynes (1989) report that the number of Rhizobium leguminosarum, once established in a
soil did not decrease in southern Alberta, Canada. But, once established, they are subject
to the same limitations as the rest of the soil microbial population, increasing and
decreasing in numbers in response to their environment. Kamicker and Brill (1987)
isolated Bradyrhizobiumjaponicum from soils that had not been planted to soybeans for

over 30 years.

24

Gibson (1976) recognized the ability to recover from the stress, involving
temperature, light, defoliation and nitrates in the symbiotic systems. He observed that
symbiotic systems adapted to adverse conditions by lowering the rate of nitrogen fixation
achieved, by increasing the level of nitrogenase in nodule tissues and increasing the
longevity of existing active tissues.

Plant factors also affect nodulation and symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes.
Non-nodulation can be due to lack of nodule initiation. Nodule initiation is also affected
by toxins produced by seeds, and specificity in root nodulation. Bacteroid firnction,
delayed senescence, energy partitioning, forms of nitrogen exported and hydrogenase
regulation all affect nodule formation. Other factors that affect nodulation and nitrogen
fixation are flooding and drought, phosphorus deficiency and soil acidity (Graham, 1984).

Production of high quality inoculant is very important. Inoculant quality depends
on number of Rhizobia in the inoculum and their effectiveness in fixing nitrogen.
Standards by which inoculants are judged vary depending on field performance in different
situations, selection of carrier material and packing. One hundred Rhizobia per seed
should provide a satisfactory inoculum level for soil with good conditions. In adverse
environments, where a large number of ineffective Rhizobia occur, up to one million
Rhizobia per seed may be required (Roughley, 1976).

As regards to carrier materials, available literature suggest that peat, by far, is the
most suitable carrier material. However, the ultimate quality of the peat depends on its
source, moisture content and pH. A pH of 6.5 supports good survival of Rhizobia
(Roughley, 1976). A moisture content of 35 to 40% has been suggested as favorable for
most carriers (Strijdom and Desschodt, 1976).

BIC CRSP Work in Egypt
B/C CRSP in collaboration with host counterparts in Egypt is already engaged in

determining the reasons for non-nodulation of beans under field conditions in Egypt.

25
Although the exact reasons are still under investigation, observations so far suggest the
following contribute to lack of nodulation. They are: 1) excessive amounts of N use and
soil N, 2) micro-nutrient deficiencies such as iron, zinc, manganese, aluminum, 3) lack of
appropriate strains of Rhizobia, 4) soil salinity, especially in old lands in the Nile valley,
and 5) quality of local inoculants. Figure 3 depicts factors affecting the nodulation of

beans in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F ' WWW
Use of hi amounts of Pressure on
A n ‘fi
nitrogen ‘— land base
Hi N in soil + l
inputs subsidy
Micronutrient
deficiency —> Lack of appro.
» Lack of ‘ cultivar —"
d l t'
Lack of appro. no u a ran
Rhizobium strain H,
Y + Lack of drainage —>
Soil Salinity + Y
* Failure to realize potential yield

 

 

 

 

* Increase cost of cultivation

 

 

 

Figure 3. Conceptual model of factors affecting nodulation on common beans under field
conditions in Egypt.

26
Small Farm Characteristics

Most small—scale farmers worldwide consume a significant fraction of what they
raise. In remote areas with few markets, they may consume more than 90% of farm
production with little selling or trading (Harwood, 1979). As the name implies, their
farms are small, generally less than one hectare per family, producing a variety of crops
and vegetables. Livestock and trees are an integral part of their farming systems. Because
these small-farms are complex and diverse, they are more stable, compared to large-scale
monoculture farming systems. Production from these farms may not compare to those
from specialized monoculture farms, but they are more sustainable under low-population
conditions (Altieri, 1986).

Small farms may be classified as subsistence, peasant, near-subsistence, petty
commodity producers or semiproliterians, based primarily on the degree to which farm and
household resources are utilized in production activities (Garrett, 1986). Thus, insights
into the availability of resources of production constraints and their interaction with the
local and external systems are crucial in understanding small-scale farming systems.
Harwood (1979), Hildebrand (1986), Vincent (1981), Landeck (1991) and Beets (1993
identify the following constraints in small farm development:

Quality of Land:

More than the size, it is quality of the land that directly affects productivity of
small-holders. Most of the small-scale farms in developing countries are inherently low in
essential plant nutrients, organic matter content, and are often subject to soil erosion. The
high rainfall and soil temperatures in the tropics cause rapid leaching of soil nutrients and
oxidation of organic matter. Insufficient recycling of nutrients and rapid leaching of
nutrients has accelerated the degradation of cultivated lands to the point that many farmers

have had to abandon their lands and migrate elsewhere.

27

Drought

Drought affects up to 80% of the total crop area. Even minor droughts can cause
greater impact since soils are often rather poor and have limited water storage capacity.
Capital

Whether big or small-scale, farmers need capital for production activities. Large-
scale specialized farmers, through cultivation of cash crops, may have some capital for
investment in production activities. Small-scale farmers lack capital to invest in
production activities. Further, their access to credit institutions is often limited by the lack
of fixed capital, which could have served as a collateral to borrow loan. As a result, small-
scale farmers end up borrowing money from sources that charge high interest rates,
directly or indirectly.
Labor

The availability of labor imposes a major limitation on the crop type and the
cropping intensity that a farm can support. The conventional wisdom is that small-scale
farms, with their bigger family size, generally has an abundance of labor. Labor
requirements, however, depend on the type and number of enterprises on the farm. Crops
that are competitive, such as corn and sorghum, require less labor, while vegetable crops
that are less competitive, are therefore, labor-intensive. Thus, depending on the cropping
pattern, labor requirements vary, and for high-value and management-intensive crops,
household labor is often inadequate.
Management skills

Management involves making decisions, performing technical operations and farm
supervision. All these activities require excellent skills and knowledge which, if
inadequate, could affect the quality of management and thereby the productivity of the
system. Management skills are particularly important for high-value crops to plan land

use, secure high quality seeds, decide appropriate planting techniques, control pests,

28

schedule time and identify appropriate markets. All these activities require skilled labor,
which is hard to obtain in non-specialized small-scale farming systems.
Inappropriate Technology

Appropriate technologies are often not available to farmers because they are
expensive or not easily accessible. One example is the green revolution technology, which
requires sufficient capital to which small-scale farmers have limited or no access. Or,
sometimes inputs may be available, but are not adapted to local conditions. Often
inappropriate and/or incomplete technologies have been introduced, without due
consideration of the consequences. It was expected that the farmer would modify his
production methods and farming environment to make up for the deficiencies of the
technologies, but this has rarely happened.
Gender Issues

In many households, there are several production systems - the male system, the
female system, and joint systems. Whatever the production system, whatever the task,
every facet of agricultural production in most developing countries involves and relies on
women. They produce food and cash crops on their own fields and in the confines of the
homestead. They assist their husbands in the production of cash and food crops. They
work as wage laborers, in the field and in the homesteads of other small-scale farmers
(F ortmann, 1992). Their work begins from as early as 4 am may last until 11 PM. Even
in Muslim countries, such as Egypt, women help husbands in the field, although it is only
men's labor which is considered "prestigious" and skillful (Morsy, 1978). Despite their
heavy involvement in farming activities, women's participation has been non-existent to
minimal in planning agricultural development activities. Such projects are more likely to

fail than succeed (F ortmann, 1992).

29

Stable Market

Market is an important determinant in small-scale farming systems and influences
the local cropping pattern. In other words, the law of economics, demand and supply,
determines the cropping pattern. Fluctuating market prices can negatively affect small-
scale farms in sustaining their production activities and cash income. A stable market is
essential if farmers are to benefit reasonably from crop production. Further, the market
should have a mechanism to alert farmers of anticipated changes in demand and supply of
commodities, so that farmers can make necessary adjustments in their cropping pattern to
accommodate anticipated changes. Stable markets are especially important for subsistence
farmers who must sell a part of their harvest for cash income to buy other basic needs. If
the price is not good, the livelihood of these farmers is affected significantly.
Barriers to Adoption

Nowak (1992) listed two key reasons for farrners' reluctance to adopt new
innovations. According to Nowak, farmers did not adopt a technology because they were

either unable or unwilling. Farmers' were unable to adopt a technology because of: 1) lack

 

 

of information, 2) high cost of technology, 3) complexity of technology, 4) high labor
requirement, 5) short planning horizons, 6) inadequate support of production resources, 7)
inadequate managerial skills or 8) lack of control over adoption decisions. They were
unwilling to adopt a technology because of: 1) inconsistent information, 2) poor
applicability and relevance of information, 3) conflicts between current production goals
and the new technology, 4) ignorance by farmers or promoters of the technology, 5)
inappropriateness of practice for the given physical setting, 6) risk of increasing negative
outcomes and 7) belief in traditional practices. If innovation is to succeed, researchers,
policy makers and extension workers should understand the complex reasons why farmers

are unable or unwilling to adopt a specific technology.

30

Failure to understand these constraints has frequently resulted in technologies that
do not address the needs of small holders, but instead are more appropriate to upper or
middle-class farmers, who have greater access to resources. Consequently, small-scale
farmers are often perceived as "change-resistant" or "conservative." However, in reality,
when a technology is developed that is viewed as useful by farmers, they adopt it very
rapidly regardless of farm size. Therefore, to increase adoption rate of a technology, it is
important to identify the constraints and then to design a model that could reach a large
number of farmers (Ortiz and Menesses, 1991).

Overcoming these constraints could mean anything from developing crops that fit
into the local cropping pattern to identifying key informants or household heads to secure
information (Barnes-McConnell, 1986). It also means providing the resources and
technology required for development, such as infrastructure, fiinding, farm inputs
(fertilizers, seeds, tools, and technology) and effective extension and support services.

Recognizing the need for a holistic approach, a farming systems approach was
developed in the 19705. This approach is concerned with extending the benefits of
research and development equitably across farms and farmers, especially resource-poor
and small-scale. It also recognizes the need to gain first-hand understanding of a farmer's
situation to improve the productivity and multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to
problem identification and solution building (Hildebrand, 1986).

Farming systems is a set of elements that are interrelated and interactive with one
another (Norman, 1986). Thus, a farming system is a complex interaction of a number of
interdependent components with farms at the center of the interaction. It recognizes that
farm production and the household decisions of small farms are intimately linked and
emphasizes the importance of their inclusion in farming systems analysis.

The main objective of introducing the farming systems approach has been to

improve agricultural sector performance by increasing the productivity of resources used

31
in agricultural production. The approach has three key features, which distinguish it form
earlier strategies for improving agricultural sector performance. First, it is couched in
systems terminology and attempts to follow the principles of systems analysis. Second, it
recognizes the key role small farmers must play in rural and national development. Third,
it rejects a historically dominant "top-down" approach to technology research, in favor of
a "bottom-up" perspective of the research and development process (Baker and Norman,
1992)

According to Norman (1986), a specific farming system is a result of the allocation
and management of land use, labor, capital, crops and crop selection, livestock, and off-
farrn enterprises with respect to the knowledge possessed by households.

Farming systems practitioners use both informal and formal surveys in
understanding small farm dynamics and in collecting socio-agronomic information,
developing research projects, implementation of research programs, and evaluation of new
technology (Freed, 1981). Informal surveys include Sondeo, Rapid Rural Appraisal
(RRA), or exploratory surveys (F ranzel, 1986). These are used to gain a rapid
understanding of farm circumstances through direct, informal interactions between
researchers and farmers. The principal advantages of informal surveys are: 1) low cost
and rapid tum-around, 2) direct researcher-farmer team work, 3) the iterative nature of
the data collection process, 4) an interdisciplinary approach, and 5) conduciveness to
collect data concerning farmer's opinion, values and objectives. Indeed, many farming
system's research and extension practitioners have found the informal survey to be an
extremely useful tool for diagnosing farming systems (Hildebrand, 1981; Rhoades, 1982).
However, informal surveys have disadvantages, as well, which may develop biases in the
data. Some of the problems are that 1) if not carefiil in the selection process, farmers
interviewed may not be representative, 2) since the questioning is not standardized, it may

not be possible to generalize across the farmers interviewed. Therefore, the analysis of

32
results from informal surveys may not allow statistical testing and may make
summarization of findings difficult.

The approach taken by Bean/Cowpea CRSP is consistent with the principles of the
farming systems approach. A team comprised of a microbiologist, agronomist, pathologist
and sociologist visited bean fields and met with a number of farmers, exporters and,
various government agents in the problem identification stage. By taking such an
approach, B/C CRSP is developing technologies that are more appropriate to the needs of
farmers. For example, farmers in Ismailia grow beans on newly claimed desert land.
During initial field visit, it was learned that Ismailia farmers needed bean cultivars that are
tolerant to excessive nitrogen, as opposed to salt tolerant Rhizobial strains. It was

previously thought that this site had a severe salinity problem.

RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN

Approach

This research used the Farming Systems approach to characterize bean cultivation
in Egypt. Farming systems research is holistic in its approach and considers land tenure,
land quality, climate and weather and socio-economic variables within the larger social,
political, economic, cultural and political environment. The Farming Systems approach is
especially useful in identifying systems constraints to food production (Beets, 1991).

This research was funded by the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support
Program, Michigan State University, under a grant from United States Agency for
International Development, Egypt.

The data for this research were collected from primary and secondary sources.
Household surveys were administered in two bean—growing areas in Egypt, namely El Eyat
of the Giza govemorate and Fayed of the Ismailia govemorate. A systematic random
sampling procedure was used to identify the sample of farmers surveyed. A total of 148
households were surveyed from El Eyat and Fayed.

Research data were collected in three phases. The first phase included a study of
background materials, a literature review and visits to bean farmers and various research
officials associated with bean cultivation in Egypt. Based on the literature review, factors
affecting field bean cultivation were identified and were subsequently revised after the field

visit (Table 1).

33

34

Table 1. Determinants of common bean farming systems in Egypt.

 

 

 

AGRONOMIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Agronomic Internal External

* Fertility management Consumption Land tenure

* Seed rate Attitude Input supply & sources
* Irrigation Preference Credit

* Soil nutrient status & salinity Education Market

"‘ Pests and diseases Family size Price

* Chemical control of pests Age Extension services

* Labor Income Sources of information
* Relation between nitrogen Private sector

* in the soil & nodulation

 

The second phase involved a rapid appraisal in major bean growing areas in
October and November of 1992 and development of the survey instrument (Appendix 4).
In addition to visiting farmers, bean exporters, dealers and researchers were visited.

The third phase involved translating the survey instrument from English to Arabic,
pre—testing the survey instrument and administering the survey in collaboration with the
staff of the Vegetable Research Division, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt. A total of 148 households
were surveyed during the months of May-June, 1993.

A total of five enumerators, three men and two women, were selected to
administer the survey. In most developing countries, it is the women who perform most
of the household duties and a significant part of the agricultural operations. Yet, their
participation is often ignored in both planning and implementation of development
activities. This research team included two women interviewers, mainly to reach women
farmers/respondents. The enumerators were trained on various aspects of the survey.
Two days were spent in the field testing the questionnaire. Subsequently, the instrument

was finalized and the survey implemented.

35

All five enumerators were on the staff of the Vegetable Research Division. They
had no formal training in field survey techniques but were provided a short training and
orientation before starting the study. This research provided them with the opportunity to
do a household survey and to gain an understanding of the basic principles and techniques
of a survey research, fulfilling one of the major objectives of the B/C CRSP.

Production Area Selection

Surveys were administered in two production areas in Egypt: Ismailia and Giza.
Ismailia is located about 100 kilometers north-east of Cairo along the Suez Canal with a
population of 542,000. Most of the cultivation in Ismailia is on relatively newly-claimed
desert land. Fruits and vegetables dominate cultivation. Some of the important fi'uits and
vegetables grown are tomato, cucumber, pepper, beans, melon, date, mango, orange and
grape. Major cereals grown are wheat, corn and rice. Clover is an important fodder crop
grown in Ismailia. The Red Sea and the Suez Canal help moderate extreme temperature
fluctuation, making Ismailia suitable for cultivation, especially fruits and vegetables.

Giza is about 10 kilometers south of Cairo with a population of nearly 3.7 million.
Cultivation in this area is mostly on old fertile alluvial soils. Major crops grown are maize,
wheat, rice, faba bean, berseem, tomato, potato, beans and many other vegetables.

While Ismailia typically represents export-driven production systems, Giza
represents both local and export-oriented production systems. These two sites were
selected through discussion with key informants, such as leader farmers, input suppliers,
researchers and extensionists associated with bean cultivation. They were selected on the
basis of their representativeness of Egyptian bean production, in terms of 1) soil type, 2)
crop management and 3) farming system. Giza soils are alluvial in origin and have greater

organic matter content, compared to the sandy soils of Ismailia.

36

Data Collection Instruments

A rapid rural appraisal (RRA), administered during the months of October to
November, 1992, provided background information about the locations and identified
additional variables to be included in the final survey instrument. The final survey was
administered in these two areas during the months of May and June of 1993. The survey
instrument was organized into three sections, agronomic, socio-economic and Rhizobium
use. Agronomic factors included: 1) agronomic practices, such as fertility management,
seed rate, irrigation schedule, soil nutrient status and salinity, pests, diseases, and labor.
The socio-econornic section was sub-divided into internal and external socio-economic
factors. Internal socio-economic factors included consumption, attitude towards
Rhizobium use, bean consumption preference, respondent's age, level of education of
respondents, and level of farm income. The external factors included land holding and
tenure, markets, price of beans, access to production inputs and credits, availability of
extension services, sources of information, role of the private sector in bean production,
availability and use of Rhizobium inoculum, and the desire to use Rhizobium inoculum.
Fertility Management

Fertility management in this research included the time, type and amount of
chemical fertilizer and manure applied, and crop history. This information was collected
from farmers by asking specific questions on the types and amounts of fertilizers and
manure used. The responses were recorded in metric units i.e. kg ha'l. The chemical
formulation, name and cost of fertilizers were collected from local retailers. Regression
analysis was used to see if there was a relationship between the amount of fertilizer and

manure applied, seed rate, labor, pesticides, frequency of irrigation and yield of beans.

37
Seeding Rate
Seeding rate was defined as the amount of seed used by farmers per unit land.
This information was collected asking the farmers the amount of seed used per feddan of
land and converted into metric units, kg ha'l.
Irrigation Schedule
Irrigation schedule in this research referred to the number of irrigation

applications between planting and harvesting. This variable was assessed by asking
farmers how many times they irrigated beans during the season.
Soil Nutrient Status and Salinig

Soil nutrient status was defined as the level of plant nutrients specifically, nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, calcium, molybdenum, manganese, iron, zinc and aluminum in the
soil. This information was collected by taking composite soil samples from ten different
bean fields in Giza and Ismailia to determine nutrient levels and soil salinity. The fields
were selected at random from sites representative of general bean cultivation sites.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, zinc, manganese, copper and iron were expressed in parts
per million (ppm). Organic matter content was expressed in percentage. Anions and
cations were expressed in meq liter‘l. In addition to the soil test, farmers were asked the
amount of plant nutrients applied to beans.
Pests and Diseases Infestation

Pests and diseases refer to the major insects, diseases and viruses, perceived by
farmers, as serious problems for bean cultivation and which cause economic loss. This
information was collected by asking farmers the major pest and diseases that they felt were
of economic importance for bean cultivation. A Likert-scale with three intervals (very
serious, serious, no problem) was used to quantify the damage ranging from very serious

to not serious.

38
Chemical Control of Pests and Diseases
Chemical control of pests and diseases was defined as the type and amount of

chemicals used for control. Farmers were asked to name the chemicals, their target , and
the amount of each chemical used. Weeding was done manually, and no herbicides were
applied to bean crops. Responses were recorded in labor days per activity per hectare.
M

Labor included both hired and household labor. Respondents were asked the total
labor required for each farming activity in man days.
Consumption

Consumption of beans referred to the amount of snap beans consumed by each
household from their production. Farmers were asked the number of times beans were
consumed during the season and approximate amounts consumed each time.
Attitude Towards Rhizobium

Attitude referred to farmers' interest in using Rhizobium inoculum. This variable
was assessed by recording responses to questions concerning farmer's interest in increased
yields of beans, their changes in the amount of fertilizer applied over the last few years and
their desire to try Rhizobium inoculum. The responses were recorded using a ‘yes' or ‘no'
format. Reduction in the use of fertilizer indicated the desire to reduce cost of production,
and an increase indicated the desire to increase yield for greater profit.
Preference

Preference in this research referred to the importance of beans in terms of home
consumption and their economic importance for the household. Farmers were asked to
rank, on a scale of 1 to 7, the top three crops providing their household with the most

income and food.

39

Age of Farmers

Age of farmers was defined as the years from his/her birth to the time of the
interview.
Level of Education

Level of education was the number of years of formal education completed by the
primary respondent.
Level of Farm Income

The level of farm income was used as one measure of socio-economic status and
was assessed by asking the respondent the total income earned by the household during
the past year from farm outputs only. The amounts were recorded in ranges, as most
farmers could not provide the exact amount earned.
Size of Land Holding and Tenure

Size of land holding was another measure of socio-economic status. This variable
was assessed by asking farmers the total land owned, cultivated and rented. Responses
were recorded in local units, feddans, and converted into hectares.
m

Price referred to the farm price farmers received for beans, recorded in local
currencies and converted to US dollars, using the exchange rate then of LB 3.33 for one
US dollar.
Access to Inputs

Access to quality seeds refers to farmers' ability to get seeds of exotic bean
cultivars. It was evaluated by asking respondents if they could buy the seeds of export
bean cultivars in the local market, other than those supplied by middlemen or bean

exporters. The answers were recorded using a 'yes' or 'no' format.

40
Sled—it.

Credit in this research was defined as the amount of money borrowed from
different sources in order to grow beans. Respondents were asked to name the institutions
from which they obtained loans, the interest rate and the reasons for choosing each source
of credit.

Market

Market was defined as the place where farmers sold their produce, such as within
the village or outside the village.
Availability of Extension Services

Availability of extension services was ascertained by asking respondents the
number of contacts they had had with extension agents and the number of extension-
initiated crop production training courses they had attended in the past five years. The
responses were recorded using a 'yes' or 'no' format.

Sources of Information

In the absence of extension services, it was important to find out the various
sources which farmers used to obtain crop production information. Farmers were asked
where they obtained information on pest and disease control, seeds and fertilizers.

Role of the Private Sector

The role of the private sector in this research reflected the relationship and inter-
dependency between middlemen, exporters and farmers for bean cultivation. This variable
was measured by the number of farmers receiving production inputs like seeds, fertilizers,
and loans from middlemen and exporters. The willingness of exporters to promote the use
of Rhizobium inoculum was also studied, by asking exporters if they were willing to help

promote the use of Rhizobium inoculum through their technical services.

41

Use and Availability of Rhizobium

"Use" of Rhizobium means current use by farmers with any legume. Responses
were recorded at a nominal level using ‘yes' or ‘no' answers. "Availability" of Rhizobium
inoculum was ascertained by asking respondents if they were able to purchase Rhizobium
inoculum in local markets.
Desire to Use Rhizobium Inoculum

The desire by farmers to use Rhizobium inoculum was assessed by asking farmers
if they wanted to use Rhizobium inoculum, if available in the market, using a 'yes' or 'no'
format.
Research Hypotheses

On the basis of the rapid appraisal, personal communications and a literature
review, the following research hypotheses were constructed, which suggested the

opportunities and constraints to the promotion and use of Rhizobium inoculum.
Hypotheses
1. Farmers in Egypt apply more fertilizers than recommended.

2. There is a difference in management practices between farmers growing beans for
export and those growing beans for local market.

4. There is no significant difference in socio-economic status between farmers growing
beans for export and for local markets.

5. Per unit consumption of fresh beans is independent of size of land cultivated and income
earned from bean cultivation.

6. The desire to use Rhizobium inoculum is independent of the socio-economic status of
bean farmers.

42
Sample Size and Sampling Process
Probability samples are representative of larger populations and
increase external validity in any study. The general rule is to use probability sampling
whenever possible (Bernard, 1988; Bemsten, 1990).

This research used systematic random sampling, as it is easier to implement and is
more economical. Bean growing districts within Ismailia and Giza govemorates were
identified. From this, one district was selected at random for each govemorate. After
selecting the district, villages were selected at random. A total of nine villages were
selected from Ismailia and Giza govemorates. Lists of farmers for selected villages were
obtained fi'om the local agricultural cooperatives. Farmers' names were randomly selected
from each village and interviewed. In each village more than 25 farmers were selected, so
that if some farmers were absent the next on the list would be interviewed. This was done
in order to save time and money. The overall process involved has been depicted in
Figure 4.

One of the key factors in sampling is to maximize between-group variance and
minimize within-group variance (Bernard, 1988; Bemsten, personal communication,
1993). Instead of selecting a large number of samples from one or two villages, this
research increased the number of villages and sampling units selected, in order to
maximize between-group variance.

Sample units were available from the agricultural cooperatives in each village and
from district offices. A total of 148 households were interviewed, with 98 fiom El Eyat
district of Giza govemorate and 58 from Fayed district of Ismailia govemorate.

Sample size depends on several factors, including 1) availability of money to do the
research, 2) availability of time, and 3) the accuracy desired of the sample statistics
(Bemsten, 1990). Despite the value of taking a large sample to increase the reliability of

statistical estimates, most dissertation research is based on samples of 150 - 300, due to

 

Behera

43

Kalyobeiah

Ismailia Menofeiah

 

 

_(__£ Fayed .]=
(n= 58)

(l.

 

iii
.

 

El Eyat
(n— 90)

Kafr El Babaey (n=20)

Meet El Quaid (n= 16)

 

Gerza (n= 14)

ll

 

Read ElKharbia (n= 17) _+

Kafr El Refac (n 23)

 

O = Govemorate S = District 0 = Villages

Figure 4. Sampling Scheme for Household Survey in Egypt, 1993.

7 .-l!

’1

 

‘m o. ..--1

44
various constraints. Time and money constraints limited the current study to 148
households.
Data Analysis and Test Statistics

Data for this research was analyzed using SPSS, the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences. Responses in the survey instrument were translated into English from Arabic,
coded and entered into SPSS for analysis. Depending on the nature of variables such as

fertilizer application, and labor, several files were created to facilitate analysis.

-.-:‘.3 --'1 1

Choice of statistics depends on the nature of the research question and the level of

measurement. Most of the variables in this research were measured at nominal and ordinal

 

levels. Simple descriptive statistics have been used to analyze the data.

l?

To ascertain whether farmers applied more nitrogen than recommended, soil tests
were conducted, and the average amount of fertilizer applied per household was
calculated. The results have been presented in Tables 18 through 21.

The presence of alternative support services was determined through an analysis of
farmers' stated sources of information and inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and credit. The
results have been presented in Figure 9.

Data which would indicate whether or not there was a difference between the two
groups of farmers (export and local market farmers) for socio-economic status and
management practices was analyzed using t-tests (Table 4). The relationship between the
socio-economic status and the desire to use Rhizobium inoculum was tested using chi-
square statistics.

Regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the yield of
beans and amount of fertilizer and manure applied, seed rate, labor, pesticides and
fiequency of irrigation. Other socio-agronomic variables, such as cropping pattern, seed
rate, choice of cultivars and the role of the private sector in input supply and promotion of

Rhizobium inoculum have also been described.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is organized into five sections. The first section describes the general
demographic characteristics of the study area. The second section characterizes bean j

production systems. The third section identifies some of the constraints associated with

 

{us A g...‘- ' . ‘. .4

bean production as perceived by farmers. Economic benefits from bean cultivation and
from the use of Rhizobium inoculum have been presented in the fourth section. The fifth
section highlights the role of Rhizobium inoculum in sustaining bean production in Egypt.
The final section in this chapter identifies the factors enhancing the sustainability of bean
production in Egypt.

Household Characteristics

Farming system approaches recognize the household as a firndamental unit of
operation. Household characteristics such as age of the respondents, land holding,
income, family size, level of education are studied, all of which have a bearing on the type
of farming at the household level.

The mean age of respondents in the study areas was 45 years, with an average
educational level of 3.9 years. Literacy level was 28%. Average family size was 9.1
members. Forty percent of the households earned an average farm income of US $150
(LE 500) or less per year (Annex 5).

Compared to El Eyat, a suburb of Cairo, respondents in Fayed were older, had
higher mean educational levels, and smaller family size. The differences were statistically

significant for mean age and family size (Table 2).

45

46

Table 2. Mean age, educational level and family size of bean growers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fayed El Eyat Probability %
Mean age (yr) 48 43 2
Education (yr.) 4.15 3.62 55
Family size 8 9.80 2
SOURCE: Survey data, 1993. ,.

Ownership of Land and Other Assets
Land holdings in the study area ranged from 0.10 ha to 18 ha, with an average of

1.2 hectares per household. According to Harik (1979), a household in Egypt must have a

 

minimum farm size of 1.3 hectares (3 fa) for subsistence. Survey data showed that 106
households or 76% (N=138) cultivated holdings less than 1.2 hectare. Only 32
households (23%) cultivated over 1.2 hectares (Table 3). Seventy-four percent of the
households rented additional land for cultivation. Average rent was US $241 per hectare.
Some farmers paid as much as $800 per hectare. This might be due to interest accrued on

delinquent rents.

Table 3. Number of households and size of land cultivated in Fayed and El Eyat

 

 

 

 

Egypt.
Land holding (ha) Fayed El Eyat Total
Less than 1.20 47 59 106
Greater than 1.21 23 9 32

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-square: 7.45" at 1 df

Fayed had a higher number of households cultivating 1.2 hectares and above. Area
under beans also was greater in Fayed, averaging 0.54 hectares compared to 047 hectares

in El Eyat. Only a few farmers in both locations owned farm implements, such as

47
Sprayers, tractors, or irrigation pumps. T-test results showed no statistical differences in
the mean score for possession of farm implements, except for mean possession of

television between Fayed and El Eyat (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of socio-economic characteristics of households in Fayed and
El Eyat, Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attributes Fayed El Eyat Probability %
Land cultivated (ha) 1.50 0.91 0.0
Bean cultivation (ha) 0.54 0.47 0.6
Tractor (#) 0.08 0.01 5.6
Sprayer (#) 0.06 0.06 86.0
Pump (#) 0.30 0.20 20.0
Television

(# households) 89.00 67.00 0.2
Radio

(# households) 87.00 76.00 12.0

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

Consumption and Preference

Jansen (1992) reports that per capita snap bean consumption in Egypt is 2.5 kg per
annum which, he believes, is over estimated. The survey data showed that 73% of
households in the study area consumed beans at least once a week (Table 5), and each use
averaged 2 kg of fresh weight. Per capita bean consumption was 2.3 kg of fresh beans
over a 90-day crop season. Higher consumption of fresh beans in the study area might be
because the respondents are bean growers and, therefore, would consume more beans than

non-growers.

48

Table 5. Frequency of household bean consumption by growers in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency of bean consumption # Households % households
(N=137)

Once a week 39 28

Twice a week 69 50

Once in two weeks 20 15

Once a month 4 3

None 5 4

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

Chi-squares were calculated to see if there were significant differences in per unit
consumption of beans in light of total land cultivated and level of income earned from
beans. Table 6 shows that 42 households with earned income of less than US $135 (LE
450) consumed less than 2.5 kg beans per consumption while 16 households in this
income group consumed more than 2.5 kg. Forty-one households that earned over US

$135 (LE 450) consumed less than 2.5 kg, and 13 households consumed over this amount.

Table 6. Cross tabulation of per unit consumption of fresh beans and level of income

earned from bean cultivation by bean growers in Egypt.

Income from beans (LE)

 

 

 

 

 

Kg. of bean < 450 > 450
consumed
< 2.5 kg 42 41
> 2.5 kg 16 13

 

 

 

Chi-square .671
(NS) at 1 df.

 

49
Similarly, no statistically significant relationship was observed between the level of
holding and per unit consumption of flesh beans by bean growers (Table 7). These results
imply that bean growers are less likely to change the amount of beans consumed, if

changes occur in the size of holding or the level of income.

Table 7. Cross tabulation of per unit consumption of fresh beans and
size of land cultivated by sampled bean growers in Egypt.

Land cultivated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kg ofbeans < 1.2 ha >1.2 ha
consumed

< 2.5 kg 67 34

> 2.5 kg 19 13

 

Chi-square = .472 (NS) at 1 df

Generally, green beans were preferred over dry beans for household consumption.
Giza 3 was the favorite bean variety for home consumption. Only a few households
consumed exotic export cultivars (Table 8). Colored seeds were generally not preferred
for consumption. Taste and low price were the main reasons for higher consumption of
local beans, compared to exotic varieties. For consumption as dry beans, only white seeds

were acceptable.

Table 8. Bean cultivars consumed by households at Fayed and ElEyat, Egg}.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultivar # of households % households
(N=13fl

Giza 3 79 59

Abu Yossouf (Contender) 42 31

Forum 3 2

Bronco 6 4

Slender 4 3

 

 

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

 

50
Production Characteristics
Bean Production Volume and Trends

Beans are grown throughout the year. Winter is the major season for local, as well
as export markets. Mild weather during the winters allows Egypt to produce off-season
beans for export to Europe. In fact, beans are now the second largest export vegetable
after potatoes (Paris, 1993). Major importers of Egyptian beans are the United Kingdom,
France, the Netherlands, and Germany. Fresh green beans are exported in three grades:
superfine, fine and bobby. Grading is based on pod diameter. Superfine measures less
than 0.5 mm. Fines measures between 0.5 and 0.8 mm. Bobbies are greater than 0.8 mm.
Other criteria used for grading beans are pod color (dark green), curvature (straight pods
are preferred), and fiber content (the less fiber, the better).

Both total production and total area under cultivation to beans has increased
substantially over the past 40 years in Egypt (Figures 5a, 5b & 5c). Nearly 22,000
hectares were cultivated with beans in 1991. Of this, 13,000 were cultivated to green
beans (F A0, 1992). The larger area allocated to green over dry beans clearly suggests a
greater market for the former.

Yields of beans in Egypt are among the highest in the world, estimated at 10.5 tons
per hectare (F A0, 1992). Fertile alluvial soil, year round availability of irrigation,
intensive management practices, mild year-round weather and adequate sunlight explain
the high bean yields.

Cropping Pattern

Agriculture in Egypt is diverse. A wide variety of crops, vegetables and fruits are

cultivated. Although crops grow throughout the year, the major growing seasons are

winter and summer. Depending on the location, different types of cropping patterns

51

Yield of beans (tons/ha)

 

12

"‘ Green beans

t Dry beans

10 As,

 

 

 

 

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Years

Figure 5a. Yield of green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-90.

1990

52

Area (1000 hectares)

 

25

4FGreenbeans
‘bIDnybeans

 

 

 

 

0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Years

Figure 5b. Area under green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-90.

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

Production (1000 tons)
200
* Green beans
+ Dry beans
//_.‘\
150._-________-_--___________________--__7; _______ X ________________________
// \~
/ \ //———4I
\V//
100 _______________________________ ,4”: _____________________________________________
/’
/,,/
/////
,r
50 ______________ 74: __________________________ _ ______________________________
‘J fiw/i/i
ii i /
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Years

Figure 5c. Production of green and dry beans in Egypt, 1950-90.

54
and rotations are used. In southern Egypt, sugarcane, sorghum and cotton are the main
crops. In northern Egypt and the Delta region, predominant cropping patterns are rice,
cotton and corn. Cropping systems in the study area are com-based. Major winter crops
are wheat, clover, tomatoes and melons. Rotations combine short and long-season crops
in such a way as to keep the land area under almost continuous cultivation.

Figure 6 depicts the crops grown and their rotations. Clover occupies the land
from November through April, followed by com or rice. Wheat occupies nearly 18% of
the land. Generally, fiill-term clover is planted the next winter, followed by catch-crop
clover, which occupies nearly 35% of the land. One or two cuttings of clover is taken
before the next crop is planted.

Vegetables are grown throughout the year. Cool season crops, such as potatoes,
beans and some tomatoes are grown in the winter, with cucumber, egg plant, tomatoes
and beans during the summer. A third crop of vegetables, including okra, beans, melons
or corn are grown in the Nili season from August through October. Depending on
location, beans follow rice, maize, berseem, peanut, vegetables such as okra or potato.
Except for peanut and berseem, all other crops receive about 110 kg ha'1 of nitrogen
fertilizer. Berseem and peanut receive about 40 kg ha'1 of phosphorus. If beans follow
potato, generally very little or no manure or fertilizer is applied. As an important cash
crop, potato receives high amounts of organic manure and fertilizer. Beans are then
grown on residual fertilizer.

Bean Varieties

Both exotic and local beans are cultivated in Egypt. However, local varieties
(Giza 3 and Giza 6) dominate the production, covering nearly 90% of the total area under
beans. The remaining 10% or so is planted with exotic varieties such as Bronco, Forum,
Slender, Montano, and Monica all of which produce fine and superfine snap beans. Local

varieties are generally exported as "bobby". Almost all the common beans cultivated are

o/Ol

90

80

Of Land

55

 

Catch crop clover (20%)

Vegetables (47%) _
(potato, bean, cucumber, tomato)

 

70

Winter Vegetables (12-18%)

 

60

50

40

30

20

10

_

p_—____________.—#___-i__.______4

Full-term clover (35%)

p——__——_____._._________.-—__._ ——

Other crops (13%)
(Beans, lentil & onions)

 

Rice (< 5%)

,.__._._.__ __.__._______ _.__._-_._____._.

Maize (40%)

Nili Maize

 

 

 

0

Fruits (5-15%)

1 I 1 l

l l l l

90

80

7O

60

50

4O

30

20

 

 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Figure 6. Cropping pattern and crop rotation practiced in Egypt.

(Source: Berkofski and Wutele, 1987; Farm survey, 1993).

56
bush type and detenninate. Climbing beans are also grown, but on a limited scale (less
than 5%). They are generally grown in green houses by rich farmers.
Seed Sources, Cost and Seeding Rates

Farmers in the study area saved their own seeds or obtained them within their own
villages. However, for seeds of exotic varieties, farmers depended on bean exporters,
who, for the protection of their business, controlled the seed supply by not making them
available in local markets.

Seeds of exotic varieties cost about US $5 per kg, while local varieties were
available for about $1. Seeding rates for local varieties ranged from 95-114 kg ha'l, while
exotic varieties needed 28-48 kg ha"1 (Table 9). Thus, from the perspective of seeding
rate, both varieties cost almost the same. However, because of the high cost of exotic
seeds, they were planted at wider in-row spacing of 20 cm compared to local varieties
which were planted at a spacing of 6 cm (in-rows) x 60 cm (between rows). There was a
variation in seeding rates for all varieties at two locations. Farmers in Fayed used fewer

seeds for planting than farmers in El Eyat.

Table 9. Seeding rates and cost of local and exotic bean cultivars in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeds Minimum Maximum Average
Local 36 190 105

Seed rate

(kfiia) Export 10 25 17
Local 0.30 2.1 1.02

Seed cost

gas Mtg) Export 3.0 7.5 4.95

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

57

Labor

As is the case of many other bean growing countries, such as Turkey, Colombia,
China, and Indonesia, bean cultivation in Egypt is also labor-intensive. Nearly 230 days of
labor are required to cultivate a hectare of beans. Household members provided 57% or
55 labor days (Table 10). The rest was hired. Harvesting, planting, fertilizer application
and irrigation were the major activities requiring labor.

Wage rates were variable. Men were paid higher at US $1.5 to $1.8 per day, while
women and children were paid $0.6 to 1.2 and $0.3 to 0.9 per day, respectively. Fayed
used less labor than El Eyat. This might be due to lighter soil and smaller family size in

Fayed.

Table 10. Labor requirements for bean cultivation in Giza and Ismailia, Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities Household Hired labor Total
labor
Plowing 5.4 3.9 9.3
Planting 3.4 6.9 10.3
Fertilization 12.2 5 . 0 17.2
Pesticide 3.0 3.0 6
Weeding 5 .4 9.6 15
Irrigation 7.0 5 12
Harvesting 18.75 8.9 27.6
Total labor
(md/fa) 55.15 42.3 97.4
(md/ha) 131.25 101 231.8
Total cost
(LE/fa @ LE 5/day) 275.75 211.5 (271) 487.25
(US $/ha) 197 151.1 (211) 348.16

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.
US $1 = LE 3.33

58
Harvesting

Generally, harvesting of snap beans begins 50 days after planting (Henry and
Janson, 1992). The time of harvest is important in order to take fiill advantage of the
biological nitrogen fixation process. Pena CaBriales et al (1993) observed that in both
green house and field conditions nitrogen fixation was at a maximum between 40 and 90
days after planting. This implies that beans harvested mid-season 60-70 days after
planting are likely to benefit more from fixed nitrogen than those harvested early in the
season.

On average, local beans in Egypt were picked twice, and exotic beans were picked
three to four times. Most exotic beans were picked beginning from 40 days after planting
and local beans were picked from 60 days onwards. Table 11 shows the days at which
growers picked most beans. Farmers in Fayed picked early compared to those in El Eyat.
This is because a large number of farmers grew exotic beans in Fayed. Exotic cultivars
were harvested early in order to avoid fiber build up, seed development and to keep the
pod diameter within the prescribed level of less than 0.5 or 0.8 mm for export. Thus,
exotic beans may not benefit as much fiom fixed nitrogen as local beans, which are picked

late.

Table 11. Harvesting of fresh beans in Fayed and El Eyat, Egy t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picking Fayed El Eyat Entire site
@ays after plantirg) (# respondents) (# respondents) (# respondents)
40 - 50 19 - 19
50 - 60 17 1 18
60 - 70 18 27 45
70 - 90 12 32 44

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

59
Yield
According to FAO (1992), yields of beans in Egypt are fairly high, about 10 tons
per hectare of fresh weight. The survey showed that such yields were possible only with
exotic varieties, which averaged 9 tons per hectare. Local varieties averaged 6.2 tons per

hectare, nearly 4 tons less than the FAO data (Table 12).

Table 12. Yields of local and exotic bean cultivars in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

Cultivar Minimum Maximum Average
(t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha)

Local cultivar 2. 8 9. 5 6. 2

Export cultivar 4.7 14.2 9.0

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

Farmer Perception of Yield

Only thirteen households thought the yields of local cultivars were high. F ifty-four
households thought yields were medium. Thirty-three households thought yields were
low. One of the reasons for excessive application of chemical nitrogen is to increase
yields. Compared to local bean growers, exotic bean growers seemed satisfied with yields.
Among the exotic bean growers, only thirteen households, thought yields were low (Table
13). Thus, from the farmers' perspective, there is a potential to increase bean yields of

local cultivars.

60

Table 13. Opinion of respondents to yields of local and exotic bean cultivars
in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinion Yield

High Medium Low
Local cultivar 13 54 33
Exotic cultivar 43 42 13

 

 

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

Farmer Desired Characteristics of Beans

Bean growers were asked to rank the characteristics they would look for in bean
varieties. Majority of farmers ranked pest and disease resistance as the number one
character they would look for, followed by color of pods, yield and fiber content in pods

(Table 14). It was interesting to note that yield was not the primary character bean

Table 14. Bean characteristics desired by bean growers in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characters Number of respondents
Yield 24
Pest and diseases 129
Pod color 80
Taste of beans 55
Fiber content 7

 

 

 

SOURCE: Field survey, Egypt, 1993.

Nutrient Management
Understanding the amount and types of chemicals applied is important from the
perspective of the biological nitrogen fixation process. Excessive amounts of nitrogen are

known to suppress the nitrogen fixation process.

61

Bean cultivation in Egypt is highly chemical-intensive. Survey data showed that
over 90% of the respondents used high rates of nitrogen fertilizer, averaging 180 kg per
hectare , 80 kg more than the amount recommended by the Vegetable Research Division,
Cairo. Government fertilizer recommendations for beans were 100, 76 and 110 kg of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium per hectare, respectively (F aris et al., 1993). Some
farmers applied as much as 414 kg of nitrogen hectare'l. Fayed farmers applied more
nitrogen than El Eyat farmers. Very few farmers used phosphorus and potassium
fertilizers. Phosphorus was applied at the rate of 78 kg ha'l’ while potassium was applied
at the rate of 83 kg ha'l- Use of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers was not common in
El Eyat. Only two households surveyed used phosphorus and potash fertilizers.

Da Silva et al., (1993) observed that even low rates of nitrogen (15 kg hectare'1)
suppressed the nitrogen fixation process. If farmers in Egypt are applying 180 kg N
hectare'l, it is no wonder that Rhizobia are not fixing nitrogen. Bean plants are reported
to prefer fertilizer nitrogen over fixed nitrogen, when available in sufficient quantity.

Despite high fertilizer application 64% of households (N=137) indicated an
increase in the use of fertilizer over the past few years, mainly to increase yields (Table
15). Of the total users, 38% were in Fayed. Twenty percent of the households reduced
the amount, due to the high cost of fertilizers. Fifteen percent of the farmers indicated no

change in the rates of fertilizer application.

Table 15. Response of households to change in fertilizer use in Fayed and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giza, Egypt.
Location Increase Decrease No Change
Fayed (# households) 52 11 6
El Eyat (# households) 36 17 15

 

Chi-square=8.045**
SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

62
Common fertilizers used were calcium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium
nitrate, urea, potassium sulfate and super phosphates. Among nitrogen fertilizers,
ammonium sulfate and urea were the two most frequently used fertilizers (Annex 7).
Fertilizers were applied in two to three split doses at 30, 40 and 55 days after
planting (Table 16). Nitrogen and potassium fertilizers were applied after planting. Only

phosphorus was applied during land preparation, as a top dressing fertilizer.

Manure

In addition to chemical fertilizers, livestock manure was also applied at an average
rate of 48 cubic meters per hectare. Major sources of manure were poultry and livestock.
Use of poultry manure was observed only in Fayed. The average cost of poultry and

livestock manure was US $1.5 and $9, respectively.

Table 16. Types of fertilizers used by bean growers, time of application and average
amounts used application and average amounts applied (kg/ha).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Second Third Mean Mean

Application Application Application (kg/ha) (kg of

Fertilizer (Day) (Day) (Day) ai/ha)3
Calcium Nitrate 24 40 56 328 52
Ammonium sulfate 22 40 55 40 10
Ammonium nitrate 23 39 51 3 18 107
Urea 26 44 S7 307 140
Potassium sulfate 20 41 55 74 36
Single super phosphate L &201 4O 50 300 48
Triple super phosphate L&242 42 59 57 26

Me 23 41 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 = At land preparation and 20 days after planting.
2 = At land preparation and 24 days after planting.
3 = Active ingredient.

SOURCE: survey data, 1993.

63
Foliar Fertilizers

Besides manure and granular fertilizers, compound foliar fertilizers were also used,
especially on beans produced for export. Thirty-three percent of the households (N=138)
used foliar fertilizer. Most of them used it mainly to get dark green colored pods, at the
suggested of middlemen and exporters. Others used foliar fertilizers to increase yield.
The time of application of foliar fertilizers ranged from 25 to 45 days after planting, with
most being applied at 30 days (Table 17). Popular foliar fertilizers used were Stemfol,
Foliar-X, Grinzit , All Grow, Nutri-Leaf, and Eral (Annex 8). The exact amount of foliar
fertilizer applied was hard to determine. However, farmers reported that they applied
about one kg of foliar nutrients per season.

Foliar fertilizers are used more with the intention of improving the quality of pod
characteristics. The amounts of granular fertilizers used incurring additional expenditure
on fertilizers. If applied in appropriate amounts at appropriate times, foliar fertilizers can
not only be used to improve pod characteristics, but also to increase yields. Because they
are foliar applied, the suppressive action of nitrogen on the fixation process is also
minimized (Da Silva et al., 1993), along with a reduction in nitrate leaching. This aspect
is particularly important for Egyptian farmers where beans are cultivated on soils with high

levels of N and frequent irrigation.

Table 17. Time of foliar fertilizer applied on beans in El Eyat and Fayed, Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time of application Number of households % respondents
(days after planting) (N=42)

25 6 14

30 13 31

35 8 19

40 21

45 6 14

 

 

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.

 

64
Application of foliar fertilizers was more common in Fayed. Out of 46 households

that used foliar fertilizers, 40 were in Fayed. Only six households used foliar fertilizers in

El Eyat (Table 18).

Table 18. Number of Households Using Foliar Fertilizers in Fayed and El Eyat.

Fayed El Eyat
Users 28 64
Non-users 40 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-square 39.19” at 1 df

Across the two locations, management practices differed only in terms of the use
of compound foliar fertilizers, poultry manure, the quantity of nitrogen fertilizer used and
the number of irrigation applications (Table 19). Use of foliar fertilizers was generally
confined to exotic bean cultivars, and therefore was common in Fayed. There are more
poultry farms in Fayed than there are in El Eyat. Hence, use of poultry manure was
common in Fayed. Irrigation frequency was greater in Fayed because of the loose texture

of sandy soil with low water holding capacity.

Table 19. Managed Inputs Used for Bean Cultivation in Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean of attributes Fayed El Eyat Probability %
Seed rate (kg/ha) 94 114 0.2
Nitrogen (kg/ha) 180 189 5.6
Manure (m3/ha) 43 48 74
Foliar spray 74 11 0.0
# respondents)
Irrigationl 36 28 0.0
(# s/.42 ha))

 

 

65

On-Farm Nutrient cycling

There is very little on-fann nutrient recycling in bean cultivation in the study area.
Two major sources of on-farm nutrients are crop residue and livestock manure. Due to
fodder shortage, crop residues are used as livestock feed. Eighty percent of the farmers
fed bean stover to livestock. If the crop was sprayed with excessive amounts of
pesticides, the stover would be burned. According to farmers, animals fed with heavily
sprayed pesticides produced milk with a bad odor. Thus, manure was the only major
source of on-farm nutrient. However, manure generated the on farm was insufficient and
was supplemented with purchased manure and fertilizers from external sources. Thus,
most bean farmers in the study area depended on external sources for major plant nutrients
and manure. Figure 7 depicts the relationship of beans to other components in the bean

farming system and to nutrient management at the micro-level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 fertilizers, seeds at others
’ BEAN cumvarlou E cash ;
A i l
810V" r— pods ——-*+ 10011 ———A) HOUSEHOLDS
l A
manure it-a livestock > milk and meat
I 4 labor >
other crops food and labor +

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

Figure 7. Conceptual model of common bean farming system in relation to
nutrient cycling in Egypt.

66
Soil Nutrient Status

Soil samples were taken from ten fields, five each from Fayed and E1 Eyat and
tested for salinity, major nutrients (NPK), levels of exchangeable cations and anions
(calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potash) and trace elements (iron, zinc, manganese and
copper). The results have been presented in Tables 20 a & b and analyzed below. Soils in
Fayed were mostly loamy sand to sandy. Soils in El Eyat were largely alluvial in origin.

Out of five samples taken from Ismailia, four showed an EC (electrical
conductivity) value of less than 4 mmhos cm'l. Only one was greater than 4 mmhos cm'l.
Exchangeable sodium was less than 15 percent for all samples. pH values ranged from
7.15 to 7.65. Principal cations were calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Major
anions were chloride and sulfate. Levels of bicarbonate were very low, and carbonates
were absent. Organic matter content was low in all cases, except one where the value was
over 2%. Based on the EC value and the level of other nutrients, four of the samples
could be classified as non-alkaline soils. Sample number 4 was saline since, its EC value
was greater than 4.

The EC value of soil samples from El Eyat were in the range of 2.86 to 5.95.
Principal cations were calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Chloride and sulfate
were dominant anions. As in the previous case, levels of bicarbonate were very low and
carbonate was absent. Soil pH was around 7.5. Organic matter content was higher than
the Fayed soil. Levels of exchangeable anions, cations and pH were more or less the same
in both locations. The main difference was values of EC, which was higher in El Eyat.

Beans have a low tolerance to salt. Their yields are affected adversely when EC
values are 4 mmhos cm'l. In this regard, soils in Fayed seemed more suitable for bean
cultivation than El Eyat. Also, the heavier use of fertilizers, irrigation and lack of drainage

in El Eyat may be contributing to soil salinity problems there. Due to higher salt levels in

 

67
El Eyat, it may be necessary to inoculate bean seeds with salt-tolerant Rhizobia at El Eyat.

A number of salt-tolerant Rhizobia have already been identified at the University of

Table 20a. Chemical analysis of soil paste extract from Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt.

 

Fayed El Eyat

 

PROFILE 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
No

O.M(%) 0.15 0.34 0.97 2.08 0.70 2.14 1.41 2.02 1.74 1.68

 

pH 7.15 7.65 7.35 7.35 7.55 7.40 7.45 7.50 7.65 7.50
SP 24.0 23.0 25.0 61.5 24.5 60.0 24.5 59.5 58.5 58.0
EC

(mmhos/ 1.63 2.07 1.78 4.84 1.42 4.97 4.00 5.95 2.86 3.03
cm)

Anions

(meq/1)

C03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCO3 3.90 6.50 2.08 3.38 2.60 4.68 3.38 2.60 3.38 4.16

 

 

Cl 8.0 12.6 10.0 22.4 10.4 22.6 22.0 36.6 16.6 17.0
804 4.58 1.37 6.89 25.2 1.0 25.1 15.0 26.8 8.92 8.98
Cations

(meq/l)

Ca 7.42 9.54 9.54 30.7 7.42 27.5 19.8 38.1 15.9 16.1
Mg 4.31 4.74 5.25 11.1 2.78 13.8 8.94 15.9 6.74 6.84
Na 3.70 5.25 3.63 8.67 3.30 10.7 8.78 11.0 6.0 6.83
K 1.05 0.94 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.38 2.88 0.89 0.26 0.36

 

 

 

 

Analysis done by the Soils and Water Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture.

r tn...- .1"-

 

rm.-. .

68

Table 20b. Available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micro nutrients (Fe, Zn,
Mn, and Cu) in soil samples from Fayed and El Eyat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Sample N P K Fe Zn Mn Cu
No (ppm) (ppm) (ppm (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

1 58.30 13.00 117.00 2.88 1.22 1.62 1.28
2 41.80 24.50 439.14 3.10 0.88 2.08 0.94

Fayed 3 84.40 26.00 117.00 7.62 1.36 1.90 2.90
4 290.20 20.50 341.64 15.20 1.94 6.28 5.62
5 65.20 40.00 136.50 8.32 1.38 2.10 2.36
1 244.10 10.00 302.64 18.40 1.98 8.40 5.30
2 106.80 42.50 292.50 17.40 5.20 3.22 2.88

El Eyat 3 252.10 4.50 400.14 28.00 4.40 8.60 6.92
4 152.70 6.00 390.10 1.74 1.50 3.60 5.36
5 206.10 2.50 322.22 21.40 1.68 4.46 5.32

Key:

Phosphorus (ppm) Potash (ppm)

Very low -

low 0-3 0-60

Medium 4-7 61-120

High 8-11 >120

Very high >11

Zinc (ppm) Iron Copper Manganese

Low 0-0.9 0-2.0 0.5 <1.8

Marginal 1.0-1.5. 1-4.0 - -

Adequate >15 >40 >05 >18

 

* Extracting solution was (NH4HCO3-DTPA)*

 

69
Minnesota as part of B/C CRSP. These strains could be field tested in Egypt in old lands
of the Nile valley where salt accumulation is a problem.
Levels of nitrogen , phosphorus and potash.

As can be seen from Table 19b, levels of nitrate were very high, above 50 ppm in
both locations. Nitrate levels were much higher in El Eyat, at over 100 ppm. Although
values vary for crops, generally, nitrogen fertilizers are not recommended when soil nitrate
levels are above 20 ppm. Above this level, addition of nitrogen fertilizers are unlikely to
produce yield responses. Given the levels of nitrate in Fayed and El Eyat, fertilizer
nitrogen applications need to be reduced and/or beans that are tolerant to excess soil
nitrogen need to be planted. A number of cultivars have already been identified that are
tolerant to excess soil nitrogen under the B/C CRSP work at the University of Minnesota.
These cultivars will soon be field tested in Egypt to study other characteristics such as
yield, nitrogen fixing capability, pod quality, disease tolerance and compatibility within
local cropping patterns.

Most farmers used calcium nitrate and urea as nitrogen sources. Under aerobic
conditions, nitrogen is mineralized into ammonium and subsequently into nitrates.
Nitrates are the most available form of nitrogen to plants. However, they are also
vulnerable to leaching losses and can contaminate ground water. Leaching of nitrates is
even greater with urea fertilizer because of rapid hydrolysis. Thus, timing and amount of
fertilizer application should play a crucial role in efficiently utilizing this important
resource, especially in the sandy soils of Fayed, where leaching is more apt to occur.

In heavy soils, such as those in El Eyat, fertilizer application and water
management is crucial. Under anaerobic conditions, nitrogen is generally available to
plants as ammonium nitrogen. Ammonium is volatile and, therefore, vulnerable to loss

through vaporization. Again, as in the case of urea, the challenge is to fertilize on time

70
and in appropriate amounts, taking into consideration the irrigation schedule and adverse
environmental effects.

Phosphorus levels in the soil paste extract were high, ranging from 13 to 40 ppm.
Generally, P levels above 11 ppm are considered very high (The Council on Soil Testing
and Plant Analysis, 1980). Above this level, application of phosphorus fertilizer is
generally not recommended. All the samples from Fayed had phosphorus levels above 13
ppm, suggesting high levels of phosphorus in the soil. However, soils from El Eyat
showed comparatively lower levels of phosphorus. Out of five cases, three had moderate
levels of P, below 7 ppm. Only one sample showed adequate levels of phosphorus.

Potassium levels in both Fayed and El Eyat were well above 100 ppm. Levels
above 120 ppm are considered high, and no further application is generally recommended.
Micro-nutrients

In both mineral and organic soils, zinc, copper, iron and manganese are generally
deficient (F oth and Ellis, 1988). Beans require these elements for proper growth. Soil
test results from Fayed and Egypt revealed the following levels of nutrients in the soil
paste extract:

Micro-nutrient deficiencies were observed in Fayed. Zinc was the most deficient
element, possibly induced by the moderate alkalinity and high phosphorus, followed by
iron and copper. The levels of micro-nutrients affect the activities of Rhizobia in the soil.
The absence or excessive presence of important elements such as iron, zinc, copper or
molybdenum can affect the nitrogen fixation process. Local inoculants are now being
tested for their response to different levels of micro-nutrients as a part of the B/C CRSP
activity at the University of Minnesota.

Irrigation
Quality of irrigation water is another important factor that can affect crop

production. In general, water with electrical conductivity (EC) values below 750 u

 

71
mhos/cm are satisfactory for irrigation, insofar as salt content is concerned. Waters in the
range of 750 to 2,250 pmhos/cm are widely used, and satisfactory crop growth is
obtained under good management and favorable drainage conditions. But, saline
conditions will develop if leaching and drainage are inadequate. Use of waters with
conductivity values above 2,250 umhos/cm is uncommon.

Nile river is the major source of irrigation in Egypt. Water samples taken from
irrigation canals in bean growing areas showed EC values between 250 to 780 pmhos/cm
(Table 21). Although EC values below 750 umhos/cm are generally satisfactory for
irrigating crops, salt-sensitive crops may be affected by the use of irrigation waters having

EC values in the range of 250 to 750 umhos/cm.

Table 21. Electrical conductivity of irrigation water and the salt content of water
samples from Fayed and El Eyat.

 

 

 

 

Location Samples Electrical conductivity Sodium level

(micro mhos/cm) (ppm)

1 780 49.8

2 780 45.5

Ismailia 3 450 31.1
4 440 42.4

5 480 41.4

1 270 . 26.8

El Eyat 2 330 25.0
3 480 48.0

4 250 30.4

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Field survey, Egypt (1993)

72

Chemical-free Bean Production

Few farmers in Ismailia have started to cultivate beans without using any chemicals
such as fertilizers or pesticides. Exporters are looking into exporting organically grown
beans, which fetch higher market prices. The yields of organic fields, according to
growers, were comparable to those obtained from fertilized plots. Since they had just
started to grow beans organically, it was not possible to obtain reliable data on yield or
profit. It is quite possible that residual nitrogen in the soil from previous crops account
for the similar yields. Therefore, any judgment of yield performance, in comparison to
beans grown with fertilizer and pesticides, would be premature. But what is really
important is to monitor these plots over time and get the opinions of neighbor farmers
who are carefully watching the yield, economic returns and management of the organically
grown beans.
Cost of Production and Income

Costs and returns for bean production were calculated by adding variable costs,
such as labor, seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, and fixed costs, such as land tax and rent.
Due to a wide variation in yield and selling prices, costs and returns were calculated using
the average selling price and yields for both export and local cultivars. Because 74% of
households rented land for bean cultivation and other crops, costs and returns were also
computed for rented and non-rented lands, both for local and export cultivars (Annexes
11a, b, c & (1). Based on these, different levels of income were possible, ranging fi'om $53 ,
to $1418 for local and exotic beans.

Depending on various factors, such as varieties planted and status of land
ownership, bean growers could potentially earn from $53 to $445 per hectare from local
varieties and $1027 to $1268 from export varieties (Table 22). According to Baha Eldin

(1983), Egyptian bean growers earn an average income of US $1200 per hectare from

73
beans. Survey results showed that such incomes were obtained only by those growing

exotic varieties.

Table 22. Cost of production of beans of sampled households in Egypt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultivar Income Income
(LE per feddan) (US $ per hectare)
Local
Owned land, all paid labor 411 294
Owned land & household
labor (no hired labor) 622 445
Rented land, all paid 74 53
labor
Rented land & household 285 204
labor only.
Export
Owned land, all paid labor 1773 1268
Owned land & household
labor (no hired labor) 1984 1418
Rented land, all paid 1436 1027
labor
Rented land & household 1647 1177
labor only.

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.
(US $ 1=Egyptian pound 3.33)

74
In order to reflect realistic returns, both household and hired labor must be
included in the cost of cultivation. Table 23 shows that when household and hired labor
are included, return from bean cultivation ranged from $0.54 to $13 per day. As

expected, return from cultivation of exotic beans were higher than from local varieties.

Table 23. Returns from bean cultivation for local and exotic varieties in Egypt, 1993.

 

 

 

 

Land Returns per day Returns per day
ownership (local varieties) (exotic varieties)
(US 3) (LE) (U S $) (LE)
Rented land 0.54 1.80 11 37
Owned land 3 10 13 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

US $1=LE3.33

Correlations and regressions were done to see the effect of inputs such as irrigation,
fertilizer, manure, seed rate and pesticides (independent variables) on the yield (dependent
variable). Correlation coefficients showed weak relationships between yield and inputs
used for the entire study area and also for each location (Table 24 a, b & 0). Only one
variable, pesticide application, showed a weak, but significant relationship to yield.
Regressions also showed a low r2 with values of 14% and 9 % respectively (Annex 10a &
8b). r2 values were very low for El Eyat. However, Fayed showed an r2 value of 35%,
implying that the current inputs used for production by respondents in the study area may
account for 35% variability in yield of beans in Fayed.

Overall, the low r2 and weak relationships for the entire study site suggest that the
inputs farmers use may not explain the variability in bean yields. A number of studies
conducted by FAO across farmers' fields in Asia showed a low variability under field
conditions. High r2 values are observed only under tightly controlled field or green house

experiments (Harwood, personal communication, 1994).

75

Table 24a. Correlation matrix for bean yield and key management practices in Fayed and

El Eyat, Egypt.

 

Yield
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Manure
Irrigation
Seed rate
Pesticide

Foliar
fertilizer

Yield

1.00

.098

.075

.017

-.057

.026

-.270

.270**

-.002

Nitrogen

1.0

.012

-.l76

.157

-.105

-.028

-.036

-.029

Phosphorus

1.0
.273”
-.325
.246**
-.285
.328”

.433”

Potassium

1.0

-.075

.379**

-.064

.184**

.045

Manure

1.0

-.054

.143

-.221

-.213

Irrigation

1.00
-.113
208*

.132

 

* significant at .05%

** highly significant at .01%

76

Table 24b. Correlation matrix for bean yield and key management practices in Fayed,

 

Egypt.
Yield nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Manure irrigation

Yield 1.00
Nitrogen .058 1.00
Phosphorus .022 .094 1 .00
Potassium -.074 -.237 .125 1.00
Manure -.177 .098 -.314 .005 1.00
Irrigation .082 -.203 .084 .335“ -.037 1.00
Seed rate -.283 -.037 -.289 .035 .416” -.134
Pesticide .356* -.034 .150 .060 -.l69 .100
Foliar .080 .000 .504" .000 -.288 .072

fertilizer

 

* significant at .05%
** highly significant at .01%

77

Table 24c. Correlation matrix for bean yield and key management practices in El Eyat,

 

Egypt.
Yield Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Manure Irrigation

Yield 1 .00 - -
Nitrogen . 1 5 3 1 .00 - -
Phosphorus - - 1 .00 - - -
Potassium - - - 1 .00 - -
Manure .118 .199 — - 1.00
Irrigation -. 163 .049 - - .147 1.00
Seed rate -.222 -.063 - - -.107 .159
Pesticide -.035 .087 - - -.068 -.091
Foliar -.127 -.036 - - -.014 .135
fertilizer

 

(Note: Missing values are due to non-use of potassium and phosphorus fertilizers by respondents in E1

Eyat.)

78

Production Constraints

Bean production in Egypt is constrained by a number of biological and institutional
problems, including pests, diseases, small land holdings, low prices for snap beans, lack of
low-interest production credit, inadequate extension services, and high cost of seeds and
labor.
Pests and diseases

A number of pests and diseases affect bean cultivation in Egypt. Some of the
important ones, as indicated by farmers, include aphids (Apis gossr'py), mites (T etranychus
sp.,), rust (Uromyces sp., ), root rot (Pythium sp.,), pod borer (Heliothis sp.,) and leaf
minor (Agromyza sp.,) (Figure 8).

No. of respondents

 

sof 777* , 7 777 — —
40 7777777777777 .. ” .. ...... fl ..
30. V ........ ’ . _' 1.." .5 - 3 . W ...W . n W ,. I ... ...........

20 zzzzzzzzzz . .. . .3" .,,, .33-, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

 

Rust Aphids Pod Borer Mites Root rot Leaf minor

Pests and diseases
Figure: 8. Pests of serious concern for beans as indicated by bean growers in
Fayed and El Eyat, Egypt.

79

Chemicals are the chief method of controlling pests and diseases. Major chemicals
used are malathion (malathion), dimethoate (dimethyl S-methyl carbanyl methyl
phosphorodithoate), lannate (methomyl), and kelthane (1,1, chlorphenyl trichlorophanol).
Information on pesticides and fungicides were obtained from various sources, including
such as pesticide retailers, extension agents, friends and neighbors and exporters.
Lack of Drainage and Soil Salinity

Beans have a low tolerance to salt. Bean cultivation in soils with above electrical
conductivity values at or above 4 mmhos cm'1 can reduce yields by 50% or more (USDA,
1954). Almost all the cultivated land in Egypt is irrigated, and irrigation water is available
throughout the year. However, due to inadequate drainage facilities, salt accumulation is
now a serious concern, particularly in old areas such as the Nile valley. Soil test results
fiom the study areas showed that electrical conductivity values were higher in old lands
and were not a major problem in the newly claimed lands of Fayed.
Small land-holdings

Most of the households in the study area cultivated holdings of less than 1.2
hectares. Over 70% of the households rented additional land for cultivation. Rents are
high, at US $ 172 (LE 571) per hectare. The high rent of land has made it difficult for
small-scale farmers to rent additional land for cultivation, or for trying new technologies.
Lack of Reliable Production Information Services

Commander (1987) found that agricultural extension services in Egypt were very
poor, and nearly 90% of the households interviewed in his study had not come in contact
with extension agents. The survey results for this study showed that nearly 45% of the
farmers had had contact with extension agents. However, less than 20% of households
used the information received from extension agents. They relied more on knowledge

passed from parents, on neighbors or simply copied large-scale farmers, who had better

80
access to extension services. Thus, unavailability of reliable information has constrained

farmers in realizing the production potential of beans and other crops (Figure 9).

Number of respondents
50

 

    

        
  
   
  

“at x.
mm t.
(pirate-
w t
t .

 

40 ————————————————————

 
  
 
 

s

“at.
$53.35: *

“Vs? \ '

“23
u

‘V‘mfie‘ftfi‘fiafi vs

\\
xx

..
ass
t‘“

t
at
:4

 
 
 

get-H

 

30- ————————————————————————

 

 

Contact
I Trust

 

 

20- ———————————————————

 

.
,.

__________________ . , --___
10
. ,5,

   

 

 

Exporter Shops Extension Friends Self Radio Television

Sources of information used

Figure 9. Production information sources for beans growers in Fayed and El Eyat,
Egypt.

81
Low Bean Prices and Lack of Market
Beans are sold at prices ranging from US $0.03 to $1.50 per kg during the season.
Survey data showed that beans were sold at an average of $0. 14 (LE 0.47) per kg. Only
39% of farmers were able to sell beans above this price. Large-scale farmers, being

influential, were able to get better prices for beans. Small-scale farmers were denied a

l - 'K'

good price, leaving large profit margins for exporters and wholesalers. For example,
beans bought for $0.06 at the farm gate were sold for LE 0.30 to 0.60 in city markets.
Thus, the lack of a price-control structure has affected the profitability of bean cultivation i

for small-scale farmers. l

 

The large markets in Cairo, Ismailia and Alexandria are distant and transportation
are a problem. Farmers end up selling beans to middlemen in the field at much lower
prices. Setting up farmer cooperatives, run by farmers themselves, might help them
improve the marketing situation and guarantee a minimum price.

Low-Interest Credit

Bean cultivation in Egypt is capital-intensive and chemical-intensive, based on
high-input technology. Almost all bean farmers use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hired
labor, and irrigation. Banks are the principle source of credit, charging a flat interest rate
of 22%. Despite high interest rates, farmers are compelled to take out bank loans, due to
the lack of alternative credit sources.

High Cost of Seeds

Seeds are one of the major inputs for bean cultivation, and they are costly. Seeds
of exotic varieties cost between US $6 to $8 per kg, while seeds of local varieties cost
$0.30 per kg. Because of higher seeding rates for local varieties there is hardly any
difference in overall seed cost for the two varieties. Both require nearly $30-35 per
hectare for seeds. One of the reasons for adopting a wider planting space for exotic beans

is due to the high cost of seeds (Paris, 1993). Therefore, optimum plant population

82
cannot be maintained , except at great expense, resulting in lower bean yields. Production

problems, as perceived by bean growers, are shown in Figure 10 below.

% households

 

80

 

 

 

Labor Credit Pests Exten. Market No profit Seed cost

Problems

Figure 10. Production constraints in Fayed and El Eyat.

83
Economic Benefits of Using Rhizobium Inoculum
In order to estimate economic benefits of Rhizobium inoculum, at least three things

must be known: the amount of nitrogen fixed by beans, the amounts of fixed N utilized by

 

the host legume, and the amount of nitrogen in the soil. These data are currently
unavailable in Egypt for beans. Therefore, returns from the use of Rhizobium inoculum
are calculated based on 1) the amounts of fertilizer recommended by the Ministry of
Agriculture for inoculated and uninoculated beans, and 2) the amount of nitrogen fixed by

beans, based on the data from other countries.

 

Nitrogen recommendations for uninoculated and inoculated beans is 100 and 35-50

kg ha‘1 respectively. Thus, by inoculating beans with Rhizobia, farmers are able to save
50-65 kg of N ha'l. The cheapest form of nitrogen used is urea which costs $171 per ton,

or $0.17 per kg. Thus, a saving of at least $8.5 to $11 per hectare is possible. Because

 

the availability of nitrogen is highly management dependent, nitrogen recommendations
will vary from field to field and from year to year. Consequently, the savings mentioned
above will also vary.

Beans have been found to fix from 20 to 124 kg of nitrogen ha“l depending on the
environment (Graham and Halliday, 1977). Da Silva et al. (1993) observed that beans
fixed 20-60 kg N ha'l. They conducted field experiments to determine bean response to
N from different sources at various levels. When fertilized with higher levels of N, they
observed that beans used less fixed nitrogen. Beans derived from 13 to 42 kg of N ha'l,
depending on the amount and mode of nitrogen fertilizer applied (Figure 11). At 60 kg N
ha‘l, plants utilized nearly 42 kg of nitrogen from fertilizers and 24 kg N from fixation.
Using their data, returns from the use of Rhizobium inoculum were calculated (Table 25).
Savings from inoculum use ranged from $2.7 to $16.5, depending on the type, price and

amount of fertilizer used.

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

N used by plants (kg/ha) $ value of fixed N
50 . . (per hectare) 20
+ Fixed N + Fert. N at? FRV
><\ 15
40 ~\\-->~<\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
\ “ 10
30 \\ \lé\ \ 5
_________ ‘:_____ -_ssfifi______zz___z5______-________*_____-__________-___z
\
\ \ I// \
\\'___,_ \ L/ // who
.\ . /
ANN / \\
20 // ............... \ \
/ \\ \\ -5
‘ \
— \ \é
\ x. ,
10 _____________________________________ \(____\_.A_ _________________________
\
\ /
0 -20
0 10F 30F 50F 30$ 30$+30F

Fertilizer N (kg/ha)

Figure 11. Amount of nitrogen derived from N2 fixation, soil and fertilizer nitrogen,

estimated in bean seeds at different levels of nitrogen and two application

methods: foliar(F) and soil (S) FRV = Fertilizer replacement values (3) (Adapted from

Da Silva et al, 1993)

 

l

85
When higher levels of fertilizer N were applied, plants used less fixed nitrogen. In
this kind of situation, farmers could incur losses due to excessive use of fertilizer N. Such
losses could range anywhere from $0.70 to $17.8 ha‘la shown in table 25 (figures in

parenthesis).

Table 25. Fertilizer replacement values of Rhizobium Inoculum.

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Fertilizer N Potential savings from use of Rhizobium inoculum (US $)
at different levels of nitrogen (kg/ha)
0 10F 30F 50F 30$ 3OS+30F
Urea1 8.5 2.7 (0.70) (9.2) 0.68 (4.76)
Ammonium sulfate2 16.5 5.3 (1.32) (17 8) 1.32 (9.24)
Calcium nitrate3 15.5 4.9 (1.24) (16.7) 1.24 (8.68)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F=foliar application; S=soil application. l=@ $0.17/kg of N; 2=@$0.33/kg of N; 3=@ $.31/kg of N.
Figures in parentheses represent negative values.
Adapted from Da Silva et al.. (1993)

Assuming that beans grown in Egypt are able to derive 50% of their nitrogen
requirement from the atmosphere, farmers could save up to $8 ha'1 on fertilizer nitrogen.
For farmers whose per capita income is less than $20 per annum, a savings of $8 - $11 is
substantial. However, under the current situation in Egypt, it is highly unlikely that beans
will fix nitrogen because of high soil N levels and excessive fertilizer applications.
Promotion and Use of Rhizobium Inoculum

Successfiil promotion of Rhizobium inoculum requires an understanding of many
factors. This study identified the following prospects and barriers.

Prospects
1. Desire to Use Rhizobium Inoculum:
Almost all households sampled showed interest in trying Rhizobium inoculum,

irrespective of socio-economic status. Such an overwhelming response could be due to a

 

86

rapid increase in the price of chemical fertilizers. The price of fertilizer is expected to
continue to increase. Thus, given effective promotion, Rhizobium inoculum is likely to be
well received by farmers.
2. High Cost of Fertilizer and Low Cost of Rhizobium Inoculum

As described earlier, the price of fertilizer is volatile. Depending on the specific
commercial formulation, a kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer costs anywhere from $20 to $40
per hectare. On the other hand, a packet of Rhizobium inoculum to treat seeds for one
hectare cost about $4. Given effective nodulation, farmers can save 40 to 60% of their
total nitrogen costs, or $8 to $16.5 depending on the type of fertilizer used.
3. Access to Television and Radio

It is now well recognized that television and radio play an important role in the
dissemination of information. Over 70% of the households surveyed owned television or
radio or both. The Advantages of using Rhizobium inoculum and the method of
inoculation could be shown on television, reaching greater numbers of people within
shorter periods of time. Most farmers watch television in the evenings. This would be an
effective time to broadcast to an agricultural audience.
4. Involvement of the Private Sector

The private sector plays an important role in bean cultivation in Egypt, providing
production inputs, technical services and a market for fresh snap beans. There are over 20
been export firms. Each exporter specializes in certain varieties and imports seeds directly
from abroad. Some exporters deal directly with farmers, while others deal through
middlemen. In order to protect their business, private firms provide seeds directly to
selected farmers. The seeds are not available in the local market. In other words, private
firms control export seed production by tightly controlling their supply.

However, exporters and bean business firms also play a key role in linking research

and extension. For serious problems, subject matter specialists are brought to the field.

 

87
They have maintained excellent contact with researchers and university professors.
Further, a number of exporters have their own technicians who are site based. Thus, the
private sector, with access to excellent resources and close contact with farmers, could be
utilized effectively to promote the use of Rhizobium inoculum. Figure 12 depicts the
position and role of the private sector in input supply and as a linkage between farmers
and research and extension .
Barriers
l. Unavailability of Rhizobium Inoculum

Despite the multiple advantages of Rhizobium inoculum, its use on beans in the

 

study area was negligible. Over 90% of farmers had neither heard of nor seen inoculum.
This is because inoculum is not available in local markets. Distribution centers for
Rhizobium inoculum are concentrated around cash legumes (peanuts, soybeans and
lentils). Beans rank fourth or fifth as a cash and nutrition crop in Egypt. Hence, they have
not received as much attention as other cash legumes.
2. Low Level of Literacy
The level of literacy in the study area was 28%. Effective promotion requires
dissemination of information through different channels such as leaflets, fliers, sign boards,
television, radio, etc. Currently, use of Rhizobium is promoted through leaflets.
Instructions for use are provided on the packets. Because 72% of farmers are illiterate,
promoting the use of Rhizobium inoculum through written media may not be effective or
equitable as only educated, wealthier farmers are likely to benefit.
3. Low Availability of Effective Extension Services
Extension services include training activities, method and field demonstrations, and
group visits. It is more than just personal contacts. In the study area 94% of the farmers
had not attended any kind of training or seen any field demonstrations. As a result, the gap

between farmers and extension services has grown wider, in terms of obtaining production

88
information and farmer-extension linkages. This gap between farmers and extension

services must be narrowed.

as

retinitis-“ct

-.«

r

'2 .
75"
.r

.
as.
us

a:

/,

«we:

   

t
- 2

k\
. a,
b I

i‘
.

"K S.
61 ‘(
{we

.4 r
M‘-
. MN...
. \' ‘--‘.
:7“. \b‘x
.t .,

 

\

 

Figure 12. Input Supply System for Field Bean Cultivation in Egypt

89
4. Heavy use of Chemicals

It is well known by now that farmers in Egypt apply heavy amounts of nitrogen
fertilizer. This is probably the leading cause of non-nodulation of beans in Egypt. Seeds
of exotic varieties are pre-treated with fungicides, such as Thiram and Ceresan, to prevent
soil-home diseases, such as root rot. Ramos and Ribeiro, (1993) tested the effect of the
firngicides Benlate, Vitavax, Banrot and Difolatan on survival of different strains of
Rhizobia. They observed that Benlate and Banrot had drastic effects on the survival of
two of the three strains tested, suggesting differential responses of Rhizobia to chemicals.
Therefore, pre-treating the seeds with chemicals, in some cases, may render inoculum
ineffective and affect the biological nitrogen fixation process.

5. Production of Inoculant

Use of Rhizobium inoculum is not new in Egypt. The Ministry of Agriculture has
been producing Rhizobium inoculum for several years. A large number of strains for the
major legumes produced: soybean, peanut, lentil, faba bean, pea and clover.

Currently, the MOA is the sole producer of Rhizobium inoculum. It is made
available to farmers in small packets of 20 gm each, sufficient to treat seeds for 0.42
hectare or 1 feddan of land. Peat, imported from Holland and North America, is used as a
carrier material and is provided free of cost. Importing peat from a third country is not
sustainable, as it promotes dependency on an external resource. Further, if the cost of
peat is included, the price of inoculum is likely to go up several times. Therefore, local
alternative carrier materials must be identified. Collaborative efforts are now in progress
between Bean/Cowpea CRSP and the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt to identify
local carrier materials. Some of the promising carriers are vermiculite, clover straw, talc

powder, sand mixtures, pentonite and Irish peat.

 

90
Figure 13 provides a quick reference to the existing socio-economic attributes of

the households in the study site. This graph also shows areas where improvements can be

made in information dissemination.

Number of respondents
120 ‘ ‘“

 

 

 

}
100 l ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— i

 

 

 

0

 

Use RI Read & Write Age Desire for R1 TV Radio Extension

Characteristics

Figure 13. Household demographic characteristics

9 1

Role of Rhizobium Inoculum in Sustaining Bean Production

Crop production is sustainable only when it is profitable, equitable and
environmentally compatible. Sustainability requires inputs that are renewable, low-cost
and locally available. Rapid depletion of non-renewable resources, such as fossil file],
creates scarcity and increases prices to levels not affordable by small-scale farmers.
Negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel derived chemicals has
encouraged the use of environmentally-compatible and renewable resources. The merits
of any new technology need to be viewed from socio-economic and environmental

perspectives. In this context, Rhizobium inoculum technology seems appropriate as it can

 

ilk» -

save farmers substantial amounts of money. It is also environmentally compatible and
socially equitable.
Economic Sustainability

Beans are an important cash crop in Egypt. Depending on the variety, market and
season, bean cultivation provides an income ranging from $53 to $1418 per hectare.
Income earned from beans is used to rent additional land for cultivation, food, clothing
and agricultural inputs. It provides farmers with cash income to meet their basic needs.

However, with the rises fertilizer prices the cost of production for common beans
has gone up substantially. Small-scale farmers are particularly affected, as they are always
constrained by the lack of cash. Therefore, if bean cultivation is to remain profitable,
alternatives to reduce the cost of production must be sought. Further, the alternatives
proposed must be equitable and environmentally sound in addition to being profitable. As
estimated in the preceding section, use of Rhizobium inoculum can save as much as $8 to
$16.5 ha'l by saving the amounts of fertilizer applied.
Social sustainability

Beans are grown by both rich and poor farmers. The survey results showed that

irrespective of socio-economic status, bean growers are eager to try Rhizobium inoculum.

92
As explained earlier, the overwhelming response to use Rhizobium inoculum might be due
to a sharp increase in fertilizer prices. Certainly, compared to fertilizers the cost of
Rhizobium inoculum is affordable, even for small-scale farmers. The challenge, however,
lies in making Rhizobium inoculum available in local markets where small-scale bean
growers are concentrated.

Chi-square statistics showed that the amount of beans consumed was independent
of size of land holding and income. This implies that any change in the size of cultivation
or income is unlikely to affect the consumption of beans by growers. This is an important
finding, because farmers elsewhere were found to sell all of their crops when their income
and scale of production changed. What might be even more disturbing would be to see
export sales of a nutritious crops like beans and imports of less nutritious food crops.
Environmental Sustainability

Despite the availability of all these production resources, agriculture in Egypt is
highly chemical intensive. Nearly 180 kg N hectare'l is applied for bean cultivation alone.
Soil test results showed excessive levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the soil. Because of year
round irrigation, leaching losses of N can also be assumed to be high, especially in the
sandy soils. Although the Nile river is the major source of water, many rural people,
especially those away fiom the Nile, depend on ground water for drinking. In this context,
use of Rhizobium inoculum is most appropriate as it is non-polluting, and will reduce
ground water contamination, if accompanied by decreased fertilizer use. Besides, with all
the other biological and natural resources available within the country, it would be prudent
for Egypt to develop low-input production resources. This would not only make

production cheap, but would also reduce dependency on external sources.

 

93

Factors Enhancing Sustainability of Bean Production
Location Advantage

One of the major advantages that Egypt has over other developing countries is its
close proximity to European markets and its accessibility by sea. Fresh vegetables can be
shipped to European markets in a relatively short time, which cuts down the cost of
transportation and provides a competitive advantage over other countries.
New Markets

With the emergence of democracy in the Eastern Block, the European market has
grown larger. Improving economies of the newly emerged countries will open up even
greater markets for Egyptian agricultural goods.

Information Exchange

Many advocates of sustainable agriculture contend that information and knowledge
will be the key to productivity and economic progress in the let century. Power in the
future will accrue to those who have the knowledge needed to translate resources, inputs
and raw data into goods, services and information tailored to narrowly segmented markets
(Ikerd, 1993).

With expanding European markets and new tariffs on international trade, more and
more countries are likely to enter the European market. This will make vegetable
exporting competitive. To keep the current markets alive and tap future market for
Egyptian farmers, it will be crucial for farmers to obtaining information on new markets on
consumer preferences and on commodity prices. With the availability of excellent
production resources in Egypt, marketing and technology information can be translated
into production of high grade crops in a sustainable manner.

Environmental Advantage
Agriculture requires three basic elements: sunlight, natural resources, and

biological resources. Sunlight is available free of cost, as long as the sun burns. Natural

 

94

resources, such as land and fossil fuel, are scarce and rationed through managing prices, or
by laws. Other resources, such as water and air, are subject to depletion or degradation
and must be conserved. Egypt, by virtue of its geographic location, has been able to
benefit fiom adequate sunlight, a year round supply of irrigation water from the Nile, and
a stable year round climate. The challenge lies in utilizing these resources to produce
agricultural crops sustainably. I;

There is now increasing demand for organically grown beans in Europe. In fact, a

few farmers in Ismailia have started to cultivate beans without using any chemicals, due

mainly to European consumer demand. Because of the availability of resources and

 

I T '
r

proximity of markets, no other countries are at as much of an advantage as Egypt for
producing high quality beans with low-chemical inputs. But cultivable land is scarce and
production of high-value crops in an efficient manner will be the key to successfill
agriculture. In this context, the use of Rhizobium inoculum is of even greater significance
as it helps eliminate the use of chemical nitrogen and can provide farmers with low cost

inputs for sustainable production.

CONCLUDING SUMMARY, IMPLICATION AND
RECOMMENDATION

The following is a brief summary of research findings.

Household Characteristics

* Mean age of the respondents was 45 years. Most were between the
ages of 31 and 50 years. Average family size was 9.

* Agriculture was the main source of income. Sixty-eight percent of
households earned less than US $ 300 per year from their farm. About
20% of households had some members working outside the home,
either as seasonal labor or a part-time business.

* Twenty-eight percent of the respondents were literate.

* Over 70% of households owned a television or radio or both. Only a
few households owned farm implements, such as Sprayers and irrigation
pumps.

* There were some significant differences in household characteristics
between Fayed and El Eyat, especially for attributes such as farmer’s
age, family size, and possession of a television. E1 Eyat had bigger
households were larger in size.

* Land holding in the study area ranged from 0.10 to 18 hectares with an
average of 1.2 hectares per household. According to Harik (1979) a

holding of 1.3 hectares (3 fa) is necessary to meet subsistence needs.

* Size of holdings was larger in Fayed, with an average of 0.57 ha per
household, compared to 0.47 ha for El Eyat.

95

96

Bean Cultivation and Management

*

Beans were an important cash crop, grown for local as well as
international markets. Major importers of Egyptian beans were the
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany, and France.

Eighty percent of the land cultivated with beans was dominated by two
local cultivars, Giza 3 and Giza 6. Ninety-five of the beans grown were
the bushy type with determinate growth habits.

Eighty percent of the beans produced were consumed within the
country. Only 10-15% were exported as fresh snap beans.

Beans were exported in three categories: superfine (< 0.5mm pod
diameter), fine (0.5 - 0.8mm) and bobby (>0.8mm).

Seventy percent of households preferred local cultivars for
consumption. Per capita consumption averaged 2.5 kg per season.
Amount of fresh beans consumed was independent of the size of land
cultivated and the level of income earned from bean cultivation.

Seeding rates varied for local and exotic beans. Local beans required
95 to 114 kg of seeds per hectare while the exotic beans required only
28 to 48 kg. Average seed cost were $1.02 and $4.95 for local and
exotic varieties respectively.

Depending on the variety and export market, beans are harvested from
40 days after planting to 90 days.

As in many other developing countries, bean cultivation in Egypt is
also labor-intensive, using nearly 230 labor days per season.

Bean cultivation was intensive, using high levels of chemicals,
particularly nitrogen, compound fertilizers, labor and irrigation.
Nitrogen was applied at the rate of 180 kg/ha. Phosphorus and potash
were applied at the rate of 78 and 83 kg/ha, respectively. Fertilizers
were applied in 3 to 4 split doses at 23, 41 and 55 days.

Soil test results showed high levels of nitrogen in the soil, above 40
ppm. Levels were even higher in El Eyat.

Levels of phosphorus were very high in Fayed ranging fi'om 13 to 40
ppm, and moderate to high in El Eyat ranging from 2.5 to 10 ppm, with
one exception of 42 ppm at one of the sites.

97

 

Potassium levels were generally high in all soil samples, ranging fiom
117 to 439 ppm.

Electrical conductivity was generally above 4 mmhos/cm in El Eyat (4
out of 5 samples) and low in Fayed (4 out of 5 samples).

Manure was also applied at the rate of 48 cubic meters per hectare.
Major sources of manure were livestock and poultry. Use of poultry
manure was observed only in Fayed. This was because of a number of
poultry farms in Fayed. a,
Foliar fertilizers were used mainly for export production to obtain
greener pods, insisted on by exporters and middlemen. Use of foliar
fertilizers was generally recommended for beans grown for export.
Common foliar fertilizers used were Stemfol, Eral, Potassium, Grinzit
etc.

 

 

Although management practices were similar at the two locations, there
were significant differences in amounts of inputs used. Farmers in
Fayed irrigated their fields more frequently. Farmers in El Eyat used
more seeds per hectare, and applied more nitrogen. There were no
significant differences in amounts of manure used.

Major problems facing bean cultivation, as indicated by respondents,
were pests and diseases, mainly aphids and mites. Pesticides were the
chief source of control. Major pesticides used were Malathion,
Lannate, Dimethoate and Kelthane. Other problems, as perceived by
farmers, included the low price of beans, lack of market, high cost of
seed, lack of support services, and high-interest loans.

Average yields of beans, as reported by farmers, were 6.2 and 8.3 tons
for local and export cultivars, respectively.

Depending on the varieties cultivated, resources used and ownership of
land, income from local beans ranged from $53 to $445 per hectare.
Income from exotic beans ranged from $1027 to $1418 per hectare.

Based on the Ministry of Agriculture fertilizer recommendations for
inoculated and uninoculated beans, use of Rhizobium inoculum could
save $8 to $ 18 per hectare per season.

98
Institutional and Rhizobium Use

"‘ Over 90% of households had neither heard of nor used Rhizobium
inoculum. Only 11 households had used it, on peanuts. All the users
had bought the inoculum from agricultural offices, as it was not available
in local markets. None of the respondents had ever seen a
demonstration regarding the use of Rhizobium inoculum.

* Over 90% of farmers had not attended any extension-initiated E
agricultural training, on-farm crop demonstrations or field days.

'3‘ 4

* Farmers obtained information from various sources, including extension
agents, neighbors, shopkeepers, exporters and middlemen. The most
trusted sources were neighbors, extension agents, television and radio.
Thus, farmers used multiple sources to obtain information.

 

lilrr. _

* Exporters and middlemen play an important role in bean cultivation in
Egypt, from providing seeds to technical services and markets. They
have monopolized export bean production by controlling seed
distribution and the purchase price of beans.

* In addition to providing inputs and markets, exporters and middlemen
also play a key role in linking farmers, extension and research.

* Almost all the respondents, irrespective of their socio-economic status,
showed great interest in using Rhizobium inoculum. This may be related
to the three to four-fold increase in the price of fertilizers in the last few
years.

Limitations of the Research

Despite best efforts and with a few exceptions, the survey did not include women
respondents, for two major reasons. First, culturally, women are not encouraged to talk
to any stranger, whether local or not, regardless of the gender of the interviewer. Second,
the list of farmers had male as head of households.

Due to the lack of data from Egypt, economic returns from the use of Rhizobium
inoculum could not be calculated. The economic returns stated in this research are crude

and must be used with caution.

99

The survey instrument was translated from English to Arabic. In the process, it is
possible that some of the meanings might have been distorted. Farming systems studies,
especially those involving costs of production and yield estimates, require a more-
extended presence of the researcher in the field than was the case here. Due to time and
resource constraints, the researcher could not spend a long time in the field. It is assumed
that the information obtained from farmers was honest and reliable.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Most of the bean growers in Egypt are small-scale, constrained by small land
holdings, lack of cash, large family size, low literacy levels, and lack of support services
and technical know-how. Beans are grown mainly for cash rather than subsistence. The
income earned from bean production is used to purchase food and clothing or to rent
additional land for cultivation. Thus, beans are an important part of the life of small-scale
farmers in Egypt.

Beans are consumed by both small and large-scale farmers. Survey data showed
no relationship between the amount of beans consumed and the level of income or size of
land holdings. This implies that an increase in the size of land holdings or level of income
is unlikely to affect home consumption of beans. This is an important finding as the
objective of Bean/Cowpea CRSP is not only to increase the production and profitability of
bean production, but also to ensure that an increase in production or profitability does not
negatively affect household consumption or human nutrition.

Deteriorating soil fertility and inadequate organic matter in the soil has led
Egyptian farmers to rely on expensive chemical fertilizers. The construction of the Aswan
High Dam has checked the natural fertility-restoring process through annual flooding.
Fertilizers are now the chief source of soil fertility for most farmers.

The sharp rise in fertilizer prices has increased the cost of production of beans,

undermining the profitability. The overwhelming positive response by farmers to try

 

100
Rhizobium inoculum, reveals their desire to reduce production costs. Because Rhizobia
are able to fix atmospheric nitrogen, are low-cost and non-polluting , they offer a
significant option in the context of sustainable agriculture.

Though identification and development of Rhizobial strains is currently
inadequate, the real challenge lies in making the current technology available to those who
need it most. What conditions are necessary to promote and sustain the use of Rhizobium
inoculum ? Who is responsible for promotion of the technology? Given ineffective
extension services, what alternatives are available to promote and disseminate the
technical know-how? All these questions must be answered. If farmers have to travel
long distances as they now do to obtain Rhizobium inoculum, its use may not be
economical or feasible. Thus, the availability of the inoculum in local markets is as
important as developing the inoculum.

The private sector is actively involved in vegetable exporting. Companies have
extensive networks in the field of agricultural graduates to provide technical services to
client farmers. The private sector could assume a lead role in the promotion of Rhizobium
use. Decreases in the cost of bean production benefit both exporters and farmers.

Currently, the Ministry of Agriculture is the sole producer of Rhizobium inoculum.
Given privatization of the agricultural sector and input delivery systems, the private sector
could be encouraged to manufacture Rhizobium inoculum. The question that arises is the
sustainability of inoculum production. Peat, the carrier material, is currently obtained free
of cost from Europe and North America. What would be the real cost of inoculum if the
cost of peat were to be included? Will the private sector be able to sustain the profit and
production if they are to rely on imported peat? Local carrier materials must be identified.
Collaborative efforts are now underway between the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and
the University of Minnesota to identify suitable local carrier materials, as part of the on-

going B/C CRSP-project in Egypt.

101

The quality of inoculant, storage and handling are other important criteria that
must be considered. Peat-based inoculants are cured at 20-27 degrees Celsius for 4 to 5
weeks to provide maximum Rhizobial population. Increasing the time of curing reduces
the rate of Rhizobial population decline on seed. After curing inoculants are best stored at
4 degrees Celsius or lower. Inoculants stored above 34 degrees Celsius lose their viability
within weeks (Smith, 1987). Moisture content of the inoculum must also be regulated to
maintain the optimum number of Rhizobial population. Thus, more research on storage
conditions would be appropriate.

Bean farmers are generally poor and are not in a position to take risks. They will
not try new technology unless they are absolutely sure of success. If the inoculum they
have obtained is not viable, they will incur tremendous losses and will avoid using
inoculum in the fiiture. Thus, in addition to other promotional activities, field
demonstrations would be most important.

Given low levels of literacy among bean growers, simple handouts with few words
and many graphics would be a significant improvement over written instructions on
packets of inoculum. With regular and extensive availability of electricity in villages now,
it would be appropriate to develop video films on the storage, use and handling of
Rhizobium. These are inexpensive, yet have the capacity to reach a large audience within
a short period of time.

Though the main reason for heavy nitrogen fertilizer application was to increase
the yield, nitrogen is not the only element required for crop growth and increased yields of
beans. Several other factors also account for yield increase. In fact, excessive application
of nitrogen can aggravate uptake of other nutrients and also suppress the biological
nitrogen fixation process. It is no wonder that beans have failed to nodulate under the
present soil conditions in Egypt. The native Rhizobia may be used to luxury living under

nitrogen-abundance conditions and therefore may have lost its competitive ability

102
(Graham, personal communication, 1993). In fact, just by determining the optimum
amount of nitrogen required for bean cultivation might save farmers substantial amounts
of money.
In addition to nitrogen fertilizer almost all farmers used chemicals to control pests

and diseases. Common pesticides used were Malathion, Lannate, Dimethoate, and

 

Kelthane. European consumers are now concerned about pesticide residues in agricultural F-
produce. So far, beans exported from Egypt are not tested for pesticide residue. If strict

regulations are imposed on pesticide levels in vegetables imported into Europe and l
pesticide residues above the threshold levels are detected, Egyptian bean export will be

affected. There is a clear need to regulate pesticide imports and their use on export l:

vegetables.

Finding appropriate market at appropriate times is a problem for bean growers.
Most farmers sell their beans to contractors or wholesalers in the field at very low prices.
Purchase price of beans is based pod quality, which is based on color, fiber content, and
shape. Farmers, due to inadequate knowledge on quality aspects, have very little
bargaining power. Beans for export are generally grown on verbal understandings without
a written contract. While such an arrangement builds and shows incredible faith between
farmers and exporters, it also denies farmers a chance to negotiate for a minimum price
guarantee for their beans. Exporters, on the other hand, are assured of minimum price
guarantee from importers in Europe.

Finally, promotion of Rhizobium inoculum will require commitment from
concerned sectors to make the inoculum available, organize training on inoculum handling,
storage, and application , deploying trained man-power in the field and providing outreach
services. All of these cost money. Taking all these points into account, the following
recommendations have been proposed. Work on identification of appropriate strains of

Rhizobia of superior bean lines and of the effects of micro-nutrients on local Egyptian

103

inoculants as well as identification of bean cultivars tolerant to excess soil nitrogen are

already in progress under the B/C CRSP project and, therefore, have been excluded in the

recommendations below.

Agronomic

1.

Farmers are already applying excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer.
Determining the optimum levels nitrogen could reduce the amounts of FL
total N. Field trials to study the effects of different levels of nitrogen
under different soil types is recommended .

Set up field trials to determine the response of beans to l) foliar
fertilizer, 2) granular fertilizer or 3) a combination of granular and foliar
fertilizer.

 

Select pesticides that are less toxic to human beings and conduct field
trials to determine appropriate levels of selected pesticides to
effectively control pests. Investigate indigenous methods of pest
control and conduct cropping pattern trials to see if crop rotations and
appropriate cultural practices can be implemented to avoid problems
associated with soil-bome diseases. Integrated pest management is
recommended.

Field-test salt-tolerant strains of Rhizobia in old lands where salt levels
are higher compared to newly claimed lands in Ismailia.

The market for organically grown beans is likely to improve. It is
suggested that trials be implemented to see the difference in yield and
profitability between beans grown under organic and those grown
under current management conditions. If yields and profits are
comparable, and the market is good, farmers in Egypt might benefit
more from low-chemical input bean cultivation through the use of
Rhizobium inoculum. Monitor the growth and yield of organically
grown beans at Ismailia for yield, for problems and for farmers'
opinions.

Soil salinity is already a problem in Egypt. Water from irrigation canals
was found to contain salt levels high enough to affect bean production.
There is a need to determine the effect of different levels of irrigation
on yield, on soil salinity and on leaching of nitrates.

104
Economic

1. Determine economic returns of using Rhizobium inoculum at different
levels of fertilizers.

2. Study comparative economic analysis for Rhizobium and fertilizer on
common beans at both locations under different soil types.

Institutional
1. Given the ineffective extension services of the Ministry of Agriculture,
the excellent network and support services of the private sector should

be utilized fiilly in promotion of Rhizobium inoculum.

2. Train the technicians of both the private sector and the extension
department on the use of Rhizobium inoculum.

 

3. Pesticide retailers have a significant influence in disseminating pest
control information. Training their agents and salespersons on the
appropriate use of pesticides could make a difference in controlling the
pest efficiently. However, the training will have to be financed by the
Ministry of Agriculture.

4. Identify leader farmers from bean growing areas and train them to
become the local change agents.

5. Enhance the skill of the Horticulture Research Division in statistical
data analysis by providing them with appropriate training on the use of
advanced statistical packages. B/C CRSP has already provided a high-
tech computer and a printer. Training the staff on the use of software
such as M-STAT will greatly boost the effectiveness of their work.

6. Develop simple pictorial handouts depicting the proper use and benefits
of Rhizobium inoculum.

7. Electricity is available in most of Egypt. Video films showing the
inoculation process, storage and the benefits of using inoculum could
be developed as part of the extension program in bean growing areas.

105
Prorpotiop of Rhigfiium Inoculum
1. Make Rhizobium inoculum available in local markets.

2. For farmers, seeing is believing. Organize method and result
demonstrations on the use of Rhizobium inoculum in farmers' fields.

3. Organize field days during the crop season and highlight key points.

4. Extension agents should be trained to organize such activities,
accompanied by a subject matter specialist.

5. Organize field-based training for farmers on the use of Rhizobium
inoculum, the advantages and their importance in nutrient management.

6. Because of illiteracy rates, personal visits should be encouraged over
distribution of fliers or posters. Rhizobium packet instructions are not
effective because they are not read. Training should also address the
problems associated with the high use of agro-chemicals and their
impact on health and the environment.

7. Over 70% of households have television and radio. Almost all farmers
watch television, especially in the evenings. Thus, timing of the
promotion of Rhizobium through television is critical.

8. Leader farmers should be identified from the villages to be trained as
extension agents. Local extension workers are more likely to be
accepted than external workers.

What next for Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program

The efforts of Bean/Cowpea CRSP in developing appropriate strains of Rhizobia
in support of biological nitrogen fixation technology in Egypt is timely and appropriate,
especially in the context of sustainable agriculture. However, sustainable agriculture both
calls for developing appropriate technology and making it available to clientele groups to
ensure proper use. Both activities cost money. Given ineffective government extension

services, lack of financial resources and scarcity of well-trained man-power, it is unlikely

 

 

106
that Rhizobium inoculum will be promoted effectively unless external assistance is

provided in key areas.

 

Bean/Cowpea CRSP could initially help develop funding for promotional efforts.
As the intention of Bean/Cowpea CRSP is not to promote dependency on external
resources, its assistance should be focused on strengthening existing active sources and

focus on key activities only. The following activities are suggested for Bean/Cowpea

CRSP:

1. Develop promotion inputs, such as handouts and fliers, using few
words and simple words with graphics.

 

2. Organize and train leader farmers on the use and storage of Rhizobium
inoculum. This activity could be implemented in collaboration with the
Vegetable Research Division, Cairo.

3. Help prepare video films on the use, method of inoculation and storage
of Rhizobium inoculum. Finance video preparation and the first few
showings in villages. The staff may need to be trained on the use of
audio-visual aids.

4. Promote the use of inoculum through evening television advertisements
B/C CRSP could finance the cost of commercials for the first season.

5. Train the staff of the horticulture research center in basic statistical
procedures: laying out experimental designs, data analysis and report
preparation using computers and appropriate software, such as M-
STAT. B/C CRSP has already provided a high-tech computer to the
Vegetable Research Division. It now needs to train the staff on its use.

0\

. Partially find the first few training to be provided to the extension
agents (commercial and government), farmers and shop keepers
(pesticide and fertilizer retailers).

Appendices

 

 

108
Annex 1

Common Fertilizers Used in Egypt and Their Prices (Egyptian Pounds per Ton)

 

 

Name of the fertilizer Price (LE*/ton)

1982/83 1988/89 1990/91
Ammonium nitrate 82 241 342
(33.5% N)
Ammonium sulfate 52 173 233
(21% N)
Calcium nitrate - 132 185
(16% N)
Urea 1 13 263 -
(46% N)
Potassium sulfate 54 305 369
(48% K)
Single super phosphate 29 129 185
(16% P)
Triple super phosphate 83 316 418
(48% P)

 

"‘ US $1 = LE 3.33
SOURCE: Fertilizer Retail Shop, Ismailia, 1992.

109
Annex 2

Yield of Major Crops in Egypt (tons/ha)

 

 

 

 

 

' ”'9

 

 

 

Crop Egypt USA Europe Asia World
(t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha)
Wheat 5.21 2.56 4.83 2.36 2.57
Corn 5.30 7.44 4.23 3.09 3.68
Paddy 6.28 6.17 5.23 3.64 3.55
Green beans 8.18 5.75 6.80 6.56 6.33
Sorghum 4.58 3.95 3.47 1.02 1.31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: FAO Year Book, 1991.

1r

110
Annex 3

Amounts of N Fixed by Legumes in Temperate Climates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume Nitrogen fixed (kg/ha)*
Range in Reported values Typical
Alfalfa 57 - 510 227
Crimson clover - 142
Ladino clover - 204
Sweet clover 253 - 302 136
Red clover 86 - 192 130
Clovers (general) 57 - 340 -
Kudzu - 125
White clover - 113
Cowpeas 66 - 132 102
Lespedezas (annual) - 96
Vetch 91 - 156 91
Chickpeas - 122 -
Peas 34 - 202 79
Soybeans 66 - 181 113
Trefoil - 119
Winterpeas - 57
Peanuts - 45
Beans - 81 45
Faba beans 58 - 303 147
Faba beans (shaded) - 735 -
Lentils - 152 -

 

 

 

(Source: Tisdale et al., 1993)
‘ Converted into metric units (kg/ha)

from British unit (lb./a)

 

 

 

111

Annex 4

The survey instrument
BEAN\COWPEA CRSP SOCIO-AGRONOMIC SURVEY
(MARCH 31, 1993)

Respondent #

Name of the location
Date:

Name of the interviewer:
Time began:
Time ended:
Name of the respondent:
Gender (Don't ask, just circle) M F

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the survey about

 

 

Tell the farmers you are interested in learning how they grow fasolia and the sources of their fasolia
seeds, fertilizers, and other materials used for growing fasolia so that we might make recommendations to
improve fasolia production. We would also like to know about the use of Okadin, if any, and their
perception on its use.

Tell the farmers that the interview may last about one hour and a half and that his/her responses would
be held in the strictest confidence. Tell the farmers that his/her name will not be revealed anywhere.
His/her participation is voluntary. They can choose not to answer the questions that they feel are not
appropriate.

Tell the farmer that the study is for a student who is currently studying at Michigan State University in
the United States of America.

THANK THE FARMER FOR HIS/HER PARTICIPATION.

 

 

 

A. SCREENING QUESTION:

Ask if the respondent grows fasolia or has grown fasolia in the past three years. If yes,
start asking questions from page # 3. If NO, ask the questions in page # 2 and stop.

A. IF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT GROWING FASOLIA (Phaseolus
vulgaris)IN THE PAST THREE YEARS: ASK THE QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 15
AND QUIT

2

10

11

12

112

Respondent #_

When did you last plant fasolia? ...............................................................

Why did you stop planting fasolia? ............................................................
1 = not interested
2 = not profitable
3 = no market
4 = lack of labor
5 = lack of money
6 = soil not good
7 = don't know
8 = others, (specify)

Would you be interested in growing fasolia in fiiture?
(1 = YES; 2 = NO) ..........................................................................
(If YES: go to 5 and continue. If NO: ask 4 and continue)

IF NO, why not? ......................................
l = not enough land
2 = not interested
3 = don't know
4 = not enough cash
5 = others (specify)

 

What help or input or supports would you need

 

to grow fasolia? .......................................................................

How much land do you own? ..................................................................... __
Do you also rent land ? ............................................................................... __
How much land do you rent? ...................................................................... __
How much rent do you pay per fedan per year? ........................................ __
Do you share crop?..(1=Yes; 0=No) .........................................................

How many members are currently living in your

household? .................................................................................................... __
How old are you? ........................................................................................

 

 

 

1 13
Respondent #_

13 Have you ever attended school? .......................................................................
(If YES: ask 14 and continue. If N0: go to 15)

14 How many years have you attended the school? ........................................
1 = less than 1 year
2 = 2 to 3 years
3 = 3 to 4 years
4 = 4 to 6 years
5 = more than 5 years
6 = high school graduate
7 = college degree

15 What was the total earning from your farm last year? ................................
1 = < LE 500 5 = 2,000 to 3,000
2 = 500 to 1000 6 = 3,000 to 5,000
3 = 1,000 to 1,500 7 = 5,000 to 7,000
4 = 1,500 to 2,000 8 = >7,000
16. What is your occupation? ............................................................................
1 = farming
2 = service
3 = business
4 = others

(STOP HERE FOR NON-FASOLIA GROWER THANK THE FARMER)

 

”3’

 

 

1 14
Respondent #_

B. IF THE FARMERS HAS CULTIVATED FASOLIA IN THE LAST 3 YEARS,
ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

17 How many feddans of land do you own? ....................................................

18 Do you also rent land? (l=Yes; 0=no) .........................................................

19 If YES, how many feddans are rented? ........................................................

20 What is the rent per year? (LE/yr.) ................................................................

21 How many feddans were planted to fasolia last season? .................................

22 What were the planting dates?
season months
1. season one ...........
2. season two ............
3. season three ..........

 

 

 

23 Do you grow bush or climbing beans? ................................................................
1 = bush bean 2 = climbing bean

24 Do you grown fasolia as a monocrop or mix crop? ........................................
1 = monocrop 2 = mix crop

25 Did you grow fasolia for export or local market? ...........................................
1 = export 2 = local 3 = both
(If growing for export, ask 26 and continue. If NO, go to 37 and continue)

26 What export varieties were planted and what were their yields?
varieties yield

27 How many feddans were planted to export variety? .................................

28 Who selected the export variety for you? .................................................
1 = commercial man
2 = self
3 = family
4 = me and my wife
5 = me and my husband

 

 

 

 

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

115

 

 

 

 

Respondent #_
What was the cost of export seeds per Kg? ...........................................
How much seed do you use per feddan? ....................................... (kg)
Where did you buy the seeds? ...........................................................
1 = friend
2 = within my village
3 = outside my village In?
4 = friends .
5 = others '
If within village, ask from who? .........................................................
1 = friend
2 = shop keeper
3 = exporter '2
4 = others
How far away is the nearest market? ................................................ (km)
At what price did you sell the export beans per kg? ............................. (LE)

How much NET INCOME did you earn from export beans
last season per feddan? ...........................................................................

In your opinion the yield of export beans in your field was .....................

How many feddans were planted to LOCAL: variety? .........................

What varieties did you plant and what were their yield? .....................

Varieties yield
Giza 3 ton/fed
Giza 6 ton/fed
Abu Yossouf ton/fed
Balady ton/fed
In your opinion the yield of local beans in your field was ........................
1 = high
2 = medium
3 = low

Who selected the local varieties for you? .................................................

 

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

116

What was the cost of local seeds per kg? ................................
How much seed did you use per feddan? .................................

Where did you buy the seeds? .................................................

= contractor provided
2 = market
3 = friends
4 = keep my own seeds
5 = others

At what price did you sell the local beans? .............................

Where did you sell the local beans? .........................................

l = in my village
2 = outside my village
3 = others

In what form did you mostly sell the local beans? ....................

1 = dry 2 = green

How much net income did you earn from local beans last

year per feddan? .....................................................................

When do you prefer to plant beans? ........................................

1 = summer 2 = winter 3 = nili

After how many days did you pick beans? ...............................
How many times do you normally pick beans? ........................

Did you use fertilizer on beans last season? .............................

Respondent #_

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeee

 

........ (LE)—

oooooooooooooooo

........... (LE)

sssssssss

 

ssssssssss

 

 

1 17
Respondent #_

52 If yes, what were they?

 

Fertilizer time applied amount How applied cost
(days after applied 1=broadcast LE/kg
planting) kg/fed 2=band

3:

 

Calcium nitrate 15.5%N
I application

11 application

111 application

 

 

 

 

 

Ammonium sulfate 20.6%N
I application

H application

III application

 

 

 

 

 

Ammonium nitrate 33.5%N
I application

11 application

111 application

 

 

 

 

Potassium sulfate 46% K
1 application

11 application

HI application

 

 

 

Single super phosphate
15.5% P
I application
11 application
HI application

 

 

 

 

 

Triple super phosphate 44%
P
I application
11 application
111 application

 

 

 

 

 

 

Urea 46% N
I application
11 application

111 gpplication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

1 18
Respondent #_

Who recommended how much fertilizer to apply? ......................................
1. self determined
2. contractor
3. extension agent
4. others (specify)

 

Did your household use manure on beans ................................................... k
Is it always available? (l=yes; 0=no) ...........................................................

|
How far away is the source? ...................................................................... 5;

Over the last 5 years have you increased or decreased

 

 

the amount of fertilizer applied? ................................................................

1 = increased 2 = decreased '-
If increased, why? ...................................................................................

1 = to increase the production

2 = others
If decreased , why? ................................................................................

1 = fertilizer too expensive
2 = not available in my village

Did you use manure on beans? ..............................................................
(If yes, ask 61 and continue. If no, go to 63 and continue)

What kind and how much?

a. poultry manure. m3/feddan
b. source

 

a. cattle manure m3/feddan
b. source

 

What was the cost of manure?
1 = poultry manure (LE) /m3
2 = cattle manure (LE) /m3

Do you use foliar fertilizer? ....................................................................
1 = yes 2 = no

64

65

66

67.

68

69

70

71

72

73

119

 

Respondent #_

Ifyes, what was the name? how much and for what?
Chemical Amount Time applied Purpose
1=multi-micro (Specify unit) (days after 1=color
2=potassium sulfate planting) Z—jiield
3=nutri-leaf 3=plant health
4=foliar X 4=don't know
5=granzit
6=
7:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who recommended the use of liquid fertilizer? ...........................................

1. self determined
2. contractor

3. extension agent
4. others (specify)

 

How many times do you irrigate beans in the season? .........................

In general the problem of root rot on your beans was ..........................
2 = some problems

1 = big problem

In general the problem of rust on your beans was ................................
2 = some problems

1 = big problem

In general the problem of virus on your beans was ...............................
2 = some problems

1 = big problem

 

 

3 = no problem

 

3 = no problem

 

3 = no problem

In general the problem of aphid on your beans was ................................
3 = no problem

1 = big problem

In general the problem of leaf minor on your beans was ......................
2 = some problems

1 = big problem

In general the problem of pod borer on your beans was ......................
2 = some problems

1 = big problem

Others ...................................................

2 = some problems

 

3 = no problem

 

3 = no problem

 

 

120

 

Respondent #_
74 Did you use chemicals to control the insects? (l=yes; 0=no) ....................
75 If yes, please describe
Name of the chemical Pests Amount # times time Cost of
used applied applied chemicals
(DAP*)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DAP = days after planting

76 Where did you get the information .....................................................

1 = exporter

2 = shop keeper

3 = extension agents
4 = fiiends

5 = others

77 Did you hire labor for bean cultivation last year (l=yes; 0=no) ...........

_ ILL‘. 3‘): ”IE
'.

 

12 1
Respondent #_

78 IfyeSJlease describe:

 

Activities # of men # of women Children Wage

 

Plowing
hired
own

 

Planting
hired
own

 

Fertilizer
hired
own

 

Pesticide
hired
own

 

Weeding
hired

0WD

 

Irrigation
hired
own

 

Harvesting
hired

own

 

Selling
hired
own

 

 

Others
hired
own

 

 

 

 

 

 

79 What are the three most important characters of beans for
your household? (Please rank the answers, 1 being the most
preferred and 7 the least)

1 = yield
2 = color
3 = taste

4 = insect resistant
5 = disease resistant
6 = taste

7 = fiber content

 

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

122

Respondent #_

For home consumption which bean variety does your family
eat most? ................................................................................................

In a season, how many times does your family eat beans? ...................
1 = once a week
2 = twice a week
3 = once in two months
4 = once a month
5 = we do not eat
6 = others

How many kg at a time? ........................................................................

What does your family eat more, dry or green beans? ..........................
l = dry beans 2 = green beans

Do you plan to increase the area under bean cultivation? ......................
1 = yes 0 = no

If yes, for sale or home consumption? .....................................................
1 = sale 2 = home consumption

What three crops that your household grow provide the most
food for the family? (please rank the answers, l= most)

1 = wheat

2 = faba bean
3 = maize

4 = cotton

5 = tomato

6 1' cucumber
7 = paddy

8 = egg plant
9 = beans

10 = others

 

123
Respondent #_
87 What three crops that your household grow provide most income?
1 = wheat
2 = faba bean
3 = maize
4 = cotton
5 = tomato
6 = cucumber k
7 = paddy i
8 = egg plant
9 = beans
10 = others
88 What crops was grown before in the field where bean was cultivated ..
in the last season? .................................................................................... é;

 

89 What crop did you grow after beans in the same lot? ..............................
90 Do you always plant beans in the same plot? (l=yes; 0=no) .................

91 After harvesting beans, what did you do to the remaining parts
of the plant? ...........................................................................................
1 = fed to livestock
2 = used as fuel
3 = plowed under
4 = others

92 Do you know Okadin (Rhizobium inoculum)? (lates; 0=no) .............

(If NO: show a packet of Okadin and ask if the farmer has ever used it on his
crop)
(If YES: ask 93 and continue. If N0: go to 100 & continue)

93 On what crops? ...........................................................................................
1= Faba bean (phool)
2= lentil
3= soybean
4= peanut
5: others

94 Do you know what okadin does to your beans? (l=yes; 0=no) ..........

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

1 24
Respondent #_

If yes, what does it do? ..............................................................................
1 = increases yield
2 = produces greener plant
3 = produces healthy plant
4 = Others (specify)
5 :

 

 

Who recommended the use of Okadin .......................................................
l = extension officer

 

2 = friend 3
3 = neighbor ;'
4 = research officer '
5 = others

When did he/she start using okadin? ..........................................................

Where did you buy okadin? .........................................................................
l = agricultural office
2 = in the village
3 = others

Was it available in your village? (l=yes; 0=no) ...........................................

have you ever pulled a plant and observe the nodules at the root (1=yes;0=no)._

IF THE FARMER HAS NEVER USED IT. EXPLAIN WHAT OKADIN
DOES AND ASK IF THE FARR/[ER WOULD LIKE TO TRY IT

If no, ask why not? ......................

 

Have you ever attended any kind of training? (l=yes; 0=no) ...............

 

Where do you get information for crops and other agricultural matters
from? ........................................................................................................

1: radio

2= television

3= neighbors

4: friends

5= extension agents

6= newsletters

7= new papers

8= others (specify)

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

125

Respondent #_
Of above mentioned sources, which source do you trust most? ............... __
Can you read and write? (l=yes; 0=no) .................................................... __
Do you read newspaper? (l=yes; 0=no) ................................................... __
Does your household have a radio? (l=yes; 0=no) ................................... __
If yes, how often does your listen to it? ................................................... __

1 = frequently

2 = occasionally
3=mmw

4 = never

Which station does your household most listen to? ................................
1:
2:
3:

Does your household have a TV? (l=yes; 0=no) .....................................

 

 

 

If what is your favorite program? .............................................................

Up to what time do you watch TV? .........................................................

Do you take loan to grow beans? (l—wes; 0=no) ......................................
If yes, where do you get the loan from? ..................................................

1= neighbors

2= middlemen

3= exporter

4: whole seller

5= Bank

6= others

What is the interest rate? ..........................................................................

Which source of credit do you prefer most? .............................................

 

l 26
Respondent #_

118 Why? ........................................................................................................
1: low interest
2= always available
3= no interest
4: no other sources
5= don't know
6= others(specify)

 

119 What are the five major problems in growing beans? (please rank the answer)
1 = labor shortage
2 = lack of credit
3 = unavailability of seeds
4 = diseases
5 = insects
6 = lack of extension services
7 = lack of market
8 = low profit
9 = expensive seeds
10: others

120 How old are you? ....................................................................................
121 How many year of schools have you attended? ....................................

122 How many people are currently living in your household? ....................... __
123 Do you own a tractor?(1=yes; 0=no) ........................................................
124 Do you own a sprayer? (1== yes; 0=no) .....................................................
125 Do you own a irrigation pump? (l=yes; 0=no) ......................................... __

126 Do you own livestock? (l=yes; 0=no) ......................................................

127 What are they?

Cows oxens
he buffalo she buffalo
goats humar

chicken others (specify)—

128

129

130

127

Respondent #_

What crops have you grown in the last three years?
winter summer nili

1992

1991

What is the main income for your household? ............................................
1 = farming
2 = farm labor
3 = non-agricultural labor
4 = business
5 = others

What was the average income of your household last year? .....................

l = < 500 LE

2 = 500 - 1000
3 = 1000 - 1500
4 = 1500 - 2000
5 = 2000 - 3000
6 = 3000 - 4000
7 = 4000 - 5000
8 = 5000 - 6000
9 = 6000 - 7000

 

Vs-..

128

Annex 5

Annual net farm income of bean farmers in Giza and Ismailia in Egypt. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income Income Households Percent Households
(LE/year) (US $) (N=148)
Less than 500 Less than 150 42 28
500-1000 150 - 300 26 18
1000-1500 301 - 450 18 12
1500-2000 451 - 600 5 10
2000-3000 601 - 900 11 7
3000-4000 901-1200 14 10
4000-5000 1201-1500 1 1
5000-6000 1501-1800 1 1
More than 6000 More than 1800 2 1

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.1

 

Production growth rate of green and dry beans in Egypt from 1951-91 (Percenttgg)

129

Annex 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green Beans Dry Beans

Period Area Yield Produc Area Yield Produc-

tion tion
1951-65 10.55 5.67 16.40 8.29 1.81 9.59
1966-80 -1.80 1.67 0.24 1.12 1.86 3.84
1981-91 -l.00 2.08 1.21 5.74 3.70 9.45
1950-91 3.62 2.56 6.10 4.21 2.52 7.04

% growth 59 41 100 60 36 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: grth rate expressed in percentage.

 

 

130
Annex 7.

Freflency of households using different types of fertilizers in Fayed and El Eyat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fertilizer Total Fayed El Eyat

(Ismailia) (Giza)

# farmers (%) # farmers (%) # farmers (%)

Calcium nitrate (l 5.5%N) 38 15 10 8 25 36
Ammonium sulfate 7 3 6 5 - -
Ammonium nitrate 81 33 49 37 17 25
Potassium sulfate 17 7 17 13 - -
Single super phosphate 35 14 31 23 - -
Triple super phosphate 5 2 3 2 - -
Urea 61 25 17 13 27 39

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Household survey data, 1993.

 

 

131

Annex 8

Foliar Fertilizer, their composition and Prices.

 

Fertilizer

Composition

Price (Egyptian Pound)

 

Foliar X (Local)

Nitrogen = 10%
Phosphorus = 7%
Potash = 8%

Zinc = 2500ppm

Iron = 2500ppm

Mn = 3000ppm
Traces of copper,
magnesium, boron and
SUlfUl‘.

8/kg

 

Stemfol

 

Potassium

Potassium = 38%

12/kg

 

Grinzit

EDTA Manganese = 40%
EDTA Zinc = 48%

Iron, magnesium,
manganese, boron, zinc,
copper, nickel,
molybdenum &

cobalt = 12%

140/kg

 

All Grow

Nitrogen = 10%
Phosphorus = 4%
Potash = 7%

Zinc = 92ppm
Copper = 73 ppm
Manganese = 170ppm
Iron = 80ppm

9/L

 

 

Nutri-leaf(20-20-20)

 

Nitrogen = 20%
Phosphorus = 20%
Potash = 20%
Magnesium = 0.0251%
Boron = 0.02%
Copper = 0.05%
Iron=0. 1%

Manganese = 0.5%
Zinc = 0.5%
Molybdenum = 0.005%

 

ll/kg

 

(Source: Local fertilizer store at Ismailia, Egypt).

 

 

132

Annex 9

Common Pesticides used in Egypt by Bean growers.

 

 

Pesticides Frequency of farmers % farmers
Malathion 57 22
Dimethoatea 66 26
Lennatea 49 19
Kelthane 24 9
Tedfol 4 1.6
Benlate 4 1.6
Comite 5 2
Actellec 2 l
Bremor 3 1.2
Saprol 3 1.2
Plant vax 15 6
Sulfiirb 5 2

 

SOURCE: Household survey, 1993.

133

Annex 108

Regression table for yield and key management practices in the study area.

 

Multiple R
1'2

Standard error

Analysis of variance

Regression
Residual

F = 1.523
Variables in the equation:

Variable B

Foliar fertilizer .328
Nitrogen .001
Potash -6.780
Seed rate -.008
Manure .005
irrigation -.012
Cost -6.690
Phosphorus -.001

Constant 1.710

.3739

.1398

.7813

DF Sum of squares Mean square
8 7.44 .930

75 45.78 .610

significance F = .1633

SE B Beta T Sig T
.125 .315 2.610 .010
.002 .078 .707 .481
.006 -.011 -.104 .917

-006 -.145 -1.240 .218
.008 .080 .694 .490
.023 -.062 -.538 .591
.008 -.009 -.076 .939

-.002 -.054 -.399 .690
.454 3.770 .000

 

 

134

Annex 10b

Regression analysis for affect of management practices on yield of beans in Fayed.

 

Multiple Regression .587
r2 .345
Standard error .849

Analysis of variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
Regression 8 9.523 1.190
Residual 25 18.05 .7220
Variables in the Equation
Variable B SE B Beta T SigT
Seed rate -.008 .011 -. 151 -.766 .451
Potassium 1.551 .007 .003 .021 .983
Nitrogen .003 .004 .1 17 .648 .523
Pesticide .011 .014 .175 .801 .430
Irrigation .006 .031 .037 .216 .830
Foliar fertilizer .415 .162 .486 2.551 .017
Manure .011 .016 .136 .687 .498
Phosphorus -.002 .004 -. 133 -.578 .568

Constant .978 .818 1.195 .243

 

 

135

Annex 10c

Regression analysis on affects of independent variables on yield of beans in El Eyat,

 

Egypt.
Multiple Regression .3045
r2 .0927
Standard error .7348

Analysis of variance

DF Sum of squares Mean Square
Regression 6 2.37344 .3955
Residual 43 23.2176 ..5399

Variables in the Equation

Seed rate -.00473 .00827 -.08768 -.572 .5701
Foliar fertilizer -.08985 .30999 -.04532 -.290 . .7733
Nitrogen .00144 .00281 .07636 .512 .6110
Irrigation- .054398 .04460 -. 18786 -1.22 .2292
Manure .00557 .01061 .07985 .525 . .6021
Pesticide -.00953 .01212 -. 12380 -.786 .4361

Constant 2.2171 .56376 - 3.933 . .0003

 

 

136

Annex lla

Cost and return analysis for growing local beans (When farmers own the land)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cost Cost
(LE/fa) (US $/ha)

Inputs

Seed 129 92

Fertilizer 102 73

Manure 51 36

Pesticides 49 35
Labor

household 275 197

hired 212 1 5 1
Land tax 45 32
Sub-total (a) 863 616
Revenue of production (b)

(@ LE 0.49/kg x 2600 kg) 1274 910
Profit (b-a) 411 294
(If own labor only (b-a) 622 445

(excluding hired labor)

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.

 

137

Annex 11b

Cost and return analysis for growing local bean (Rented land )

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cost Cost
(LE/fa) (US $/ha)

Inputs

Seed 129 92

Fertilizer 102 73

Manure 51 36

Pesticides 49 35
Labor

household 27 5 197

hired 212 15 1

Rent 337 241

Land tax 45 32
Sub-total (a) 1200 857
Revenue of production (b)

(@ LE 0.49/kg x 2600 kg) 1274 805
Profit (b-a) 74 54
If own labor 285.5 204

(exclusing hired labor)

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.

138

Annex 11c

Cost and return analysis of growing exotic beans (When farmers own the land)

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cost Cost
(LE/fa) (US $/ha)
Inputs

Seed 328 234

Fertilizer 102 73

Manure 51 36

Pesticides 49 35

Labor

household 275 197

hired 212 151

Tax 45 32
Sub-total (a) 1062 758
Revenue of production (b)

(@ LE 0.81/kg x 3500 kg) 2835 2026
Profit (b-a) 1773 1268
(If own land and labor (b-a) 1984 1418
(excluding hired labor)

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.

 

 

 

Cost and return analysis for growing exotic beans (Rented land)

139

Annex 11d

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cost Cost
(LE/fa) (US $/ha)
Inputs

Seed 328 234

Fertilizer 102 73

Manure 51 36

Pesticides 49 35

Labor

household 275 197

hired 21 2 151

Rent 337 241

Land tax 45 32
Sub-total (a) 1399 999
Revenue of production (b)

(@ LE 0.81/kg x 3500 kg) 2835 2026
Profit (b-a) 1436 1027
(If own labor and land) 1647 1177
(excluding hired labor

 

SOURCE: Survey data, 1993.

 

Bibliography

Abdel-Ghaffar, A. S. (1988). Effect of edaphic factors on biological nitrogen
fixation in Vicia Fabio under Egyptian conditions. In: Nitrogen Fixation
by Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture. D. P.

Altieri, M. A., D. K. Letourneau and J. R. Davis. (1983). Developing
sustainable agroecosystems. Biosciences 33(1):45-49.

Amarger, N. (1981). Selection of Rhizobium strains an their competitive ability
for nodulation. Soil biol., vol. 13, pp. 481-486.

Baha Eldin, Salah A. (1985). Bean production in Egypt. In: Potential for Field
Beans in West Asia and North Afiica. Proceedings of a Regional
Workshop in Aleppo, Syria. 21-23 May, 1983.

Baker D. C. and D. W. Norman (1990). The farming systems research and
extension approach to small farm development. Agroecology and Small
Farm Development. Miguel A Altieri and Susanna B. Hecht (eds), CRC
Press, Ann Arbor.

Bames-McConnell, Patricia. (1986). 1985 Annual report from the social science
component. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Malawi Project. East Lansing:
Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Beet, Willem. (1990). Raising and sustaining productivity of small-holder
farming systems in the tropics. AgBe Publishing, Holland.

Berkofski, Louis and Norton, G. Wurtele. (1987). Progress in desert research.
Rowan and Letterfield. New Jersey.

140

 

141

Bernard, H. Russell. (1969). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Sage
Publications. Newbury. Bohlool, B. (1988). Rhizobium technology:
application for international agricultural development in the tropics. In:
Bothe, H, F]. Bruijn and WE. Newton (eds). Nitrogen Fixation:
Hundred Years After. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on
Nitrogen Fixation, Koln (Cologne, FGR.

Bemsten, Richard. (1993). Personal communications. Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Bemsten, Richard. (1990). ABC 868: Data collection in developing countries,
Class notes, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Bliss, F. A. (1993). Breeding common bean for improved biological nitrogen
fixation. Plant and Soil, Kluwer Academic Press, 71-79.

Bohlool, B. (1988). Rhizobium technology. Application for international
agriculture development in the tropics. In: Nitrogen fixation, hundred
years after. H. Bothe, F .J . de Bruijn and WE. Newton (eds). Gustav
Fischer, Stuttgart, New York.

Bylerlee, D. and M. Collinson et a1. (1980). Planning technologies appropriate
for farmers: concepts and procedures. International maize and wheat
improvement center (CIMMYT), Mexico.

Commander, Richard. (1987). The state and agricultural development in Egypt
since 1973. Overseas Development Institute, London. Ithaca Press,
London.

Da Silva, P. M., S.M. Tsai and R. Bonetti. (1993). Response to inoculation and
N fertilization for increased yield and biological nitrogen fixation of

common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Plant and Soil, Kluwer Academic
Press. 123-130.

Dart, P; J. Day; R. Islam and Johanna Dobereiner. (1976). Symbiosis in tropical
grain legumes: some effects of temperature and the condensation of the
rooting medium. In: Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. P.S. Nutman
(ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Day, J. M. and P. J. Dart. (1969). Light intensity, nodulation and nitrogen
fixation. Report of the Rothamstead Experiment Station, Harpenden,
England.

 

142
Deley J. and A. Rassel. (1965). J. Gen. Microbiol, 41:85-91.

Dixon, Rod, and C. T. Wheeler (1986). N2 Fixation in plants. Blackie.
Glasgow and London. pp. 125-143.

Dube, J. N. (1976). Yield responses of soybean, chickpea and lentil to inoculum
with legume in inoculants. In: Nutman, P. S. (ed.). Symbiotic Nitrogen
Fixation in Plants. Cambridge University Press. Elkan, Gerald. H.
(1984). Taxonomy and metabolism of Rhizobium and its genetic
relationships. In: Biological Nitrogen Fixation: Ecology, Technology and
Physiology. Martin Alexander (ed.). Plenum Press, New York.

Elkan, Gerald. H. (1984). Taxonomy and metabolism of Rhizobium and its
genetic relationships. In: Biological nitrogen fixation: ecology,
technology and physiology. Martin Alexander (ed.). Plenum Press. New
York and London.

Englin, Darrel R. (1983). The economy. In: Egypt, 8 country study. Richard F
Nyrop (ed.). Superintendent of Documents, US. Government Printing
Office, Washington D. C.

Faris, Saweris Fayed (1993). Personal communication, Cairo.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (1993). Egypt: agricultural modernization
project report. Cairo.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (1991). Production, Vol. 45, Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

Food and Agriculture (1993). Agriculture modernization project. Food and
Agriculture Organization. Cairo, Egypt.

Flora, Cornelia Butler. (1990). Sustainability of agriculture and rural
communities. Off prints from sustainable agriculture in temperate zones.
Charles A Francis and Cornelia B Flora (eds). John Wiley and Sons.

Foth, Henry D, and Boyd Ellis. (1988). Soil fertility. John Wiley and Sons. New
York.

Fortmann, Louise (1990). Women's role in agriculture. In: agroecology and
small farm development. Miguel A. Altieri and Susanna B. Hecht (eds).
CRC Press, Ann Arbor.

 

 

 

143

Franco, A. A. (1979). Contribution of the legume-Rhizobium symbiosis to the
ecosystems and food production. In Limitations and Potentials for
Nitrogen Fixation in the Tropics. J Dobereiner, R. H. Burris and A.
Hollaender (Eds). Plenum Press, NY 65-74.

Franzel, Steven C. (1986). Comparing informal and formal surveys.
Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and Extension. Peter
Hildebrand (ed). Lynne Rienner Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Freed, Russell, D. (1981). Issues in farming systems research and agronomist's
perspective. The research group working paper-farming systems
research group, Michigan State University, June 1981.

F riere, J. R. Jardim (1984). Important limiting factors in soil for the Rhizobium-
legume symbiosis. In: biological nitrogen fixation: ecology, technology
and physiology. Martin Alexander (ed.). Plenum Press. New York and
London.

Gallon, John and Stan E. Chaplin. (1987). An introduction to nitrogen fixation.
Cassell.

Garrett, Patricia. (1986). Viable objectives for smallholder programs: variation
by social strata. Agricultural administration.22:39-55 .....

Graham, Peter. H. (1994). Personal communication, Minnesota.

Graham, P. H. (1984). Plant factors affecting nodulation. In: Martin Alexander
(ed.): Biological Nitrogen Fixation: Ecology, Technology and
Physiology. Plenum Press, New York.

Graham, P. H. (1981). Some problems of nodulation and symbiotic nitrogen
fixation in Phaseolus vulgaris: a review, Field Crops Res. 4, 93-112.

Graham, P. H. and J. Halliday, (1977). In: exploiting the legume-Rhizobium

symbiosis in tropical agriculture (J. M. Vincent, A. S. Whitey, and E.
Bose, (eds), University of Hawaii, Honolulu, p 313-334

Graham P. H. (1969). In: Analytical serology of microorganism. J. P. Kwapinski
(ed.). Vol., Wiley, New York. pp. 353-378.

Graham, P. H. (1964a). J. Gen. Microbiol, 35:511-517.

144
Graham, P. H. (1964b). Antonie van leewwenhoek J. Microbiol. Serol., 30:68-
72.

Gibbons, A. M. and K. F. Gregory. (1972). J. Bacteriol, 111:129-141.

Gibson, A. H. (1976). Recovery and compensation by nodulated legumes to
environment stress. In: Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. P. S.
Nutman (ed). Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, Alan H. (1987). Evaluation of nitrogen fixation by legumes in the green
house and growth chamber. In: symbiosis nitrogen fixation technology.
Gerald H. Elkan (ed.). Marcel Dekker Inc. New York and Basel

Hamdi, Y. A.(1976). Field and greenhouse experiments on the response of
legumes in Egypt to inoculation and fertilizers. In: Symbiotic Nitrogen
Fixation In Plants, P. S. Nutman (ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Hanway, J. J. and Weber, C. R. (1971). Accumulation of N, P and K by soybean
(Glycine max (L.). Agronomy Journal, 63, 406-8

Hardason, Gudni. (1993). Methods of enhancing symbiotic nitrogen fixation.
Plant and Soil: 1-17, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harik, Iliya, and Susan Randolph (1979). Distribution of land, employment and
income in rural Egypt. Rural Development Committee, Center for
International Studies, Cornell University.

Harwood, Richard, R. (1993). Personal communication. Michigan State
University. Eat Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Harwood, Richard. R. (1979). Small farm development: understanding and
improving farming systems in the humid tropics. Westview
Press/Boulder, Colorado.

Helm, Croon. (1985). Meri Report, Egypt. Middle East Research Institute.
University of Pennsylvania. Croon Helm, London, New Hampshire.

Hildebrand, Peter. (1986). Economic characteristics of small family-farm
systems. Perspectives on Fanning Systems Research and Extension.
Peter Hildebrand (ed.). Lynne Rienner Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Hobbelink, Henk. (1991). Appropriate biotechnology? Biotechnology and the
future of world agriculture. Zed Books Ltd. London and New Jersey.

f-Tcl‘i-

 

 

 

145

Hopkins, Nicholas. (1987). Agrarian reform in Egypt. Westview Press Boulder,
Colorado.

Hume, D. J ., H. S. Johnson, J. G, Criswell, & K. R. Stevenson. (19974). Effects
of moisture stress on nitrogen fixation in soybeans. Canadian Journal of
Plants Sciences. Richards, J. E. and R. J. Soper. (1979). Agron. J. 71,
807-811.

Ikerd, John E. (1993). Sustainable agriculture: farming in harmony with the
biosphere. Quality of life issue in sustainable agriculture, a north central
regional SARE program, Nov. 18-19, 1993, St. Louis, Missouri.

Jansen, W. (1992). Snap bean consumption in less developed countries, Snap
bean production in the developing world. Guy Henry and Willem Jansen
(eds). CIAT, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Cali,
Colombia.

Jarvis, D. W., A. C. Dick and R. M. Greenword. (1980). Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol,
30:42-52.

Josephson, K. L., D. P. Bourque, F. A. Bliss and L. J. Pepper. (1991).
Competitiveness of Kim 5 and Viking 1 bean Rhizobia strain by cultivar
interactions. Soil biol. biochem. Vol. 23, pp. 249-253.

Kamicker, B. J. and E. J. Brill. (1987). Methods to alter the recovery and
nodule location of Bradyrhizobium japonicum inoculant strains on field
grown soybeans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53: 1737-1742.

Kluck, Patricia. (1982). The society and its environment. In: Egypt, a country
study. Richard F Nyrup (ed). US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC 20402.

Kucey, R. M. N. and M. F. Hynes. (1989). Populations of Rhizobium
leguminosarum biovars phaseoli in field after bean or pea in rotations
with non-legumes. Can. Microbiol. vol. 35.

Lagerwerf, J. V. (1972). Lead, mercury and cadmium as environmental
contaminants. In: Micro nutrients in agriculture. J. J. Mortvedt, P. M.
Gioralano and W. L. Lindsay (eds). Proceedings of a symposium held at
Muscle Shoals, Alabama. April 20-22, 1971. Co-sponsored by the
Tennessee Valley Authority and the Soil Sciences Society of America.
Soil Sciences Society of America, Wisconsin, USA.

146

Landeck, Jonathan. (1991). New age extension. Journal of farming systems
research and extension. Vol. 2. No. 2.

LaRue, Thomas A and Thomas Patterson. (1981). How much nitrogen do
legumes fix?. Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 34, 15-38.

Lie, T. A., D. Hille, Ris Lanmbers and A. Houwers. (1976). Symbiotic
specialization in pea plants: some environmental effects on nodulation
and nitrogen fixation. In. symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. P. S.
Nutman (ed. ). Cambridge University Press.

MAARE and USAII) (1982). Egypt. Strategy for accelerating agricultural
development. Annexes to: a report of the presidential mission on
agricultural development in Egypt. Ministry of Agriculture of the Arab
Republic of Egypt and the US. Agency for International Development in
cooperation with The International Agricultural Development Service
US. Department of Agriculture.

Manrique, A., K. Manrique and J. Nakahodo. (1993). Yield and biological
nitrogen fixation of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Peru.
Plant and Soil, Kluwer Academic Press, 87-91.

Marschner, Horst. (1989). Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press,
New York.

Morsy, S. (1978). Sex differences and folk illness in an Egyptian village in
female in the Muslim world. L. Beck and N. Keddie (eds). Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, 605.

Minchin, F. R., R. J. Summerfield, A. R. J. Eaglesham, and K. A. Stewart
(1978). J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge 90:355.

Mulder, E. G. and W. L. Van Veen. (1960). Plant Soil 13:265.
Muller, Sabine, P. A. A. Pereira and P. Martin. (1993). Effect of different levels

of mineral nitrogen on nodulation and nitrogen fixation of two cultivars
of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant and Soil. 152: 139-143.

Nassib, A. M., A. Rammah and A. H. A. Hussein. (198-). The role of legumes in

the farming systems of Egypt. In: The role of legumes in the farming
systems of the Mediterranean areas. A. E. Osman, M. H. Ibrahim , MA.
and Jones (eds). ICARDA. Kluwer Academy Publishers. The
Netherlands.

 

Fa .- l

 

147

Newton, W. E. and B. K. Burgees. (1983). Nitrogen fixation: its scope and
importance. In: nitrogen fixation: the chemical-biochemical-genetic
interface. Achim Muller and William E. Newton (eds). Plenum Press,
New York and London.

Norman, David (1986). Defining a farming system. Perspectives on Farming
Systems Research and Extension. Peter Hildebrand (ed.). Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.

Nowak, Pete. (1992). Why farmers adopt production technology. Journal of
soil and water conservation. Vol. 47. Number 1.

Ortiz, Ramiro and Adlai Meneses. (1991). Increasing the adoption rates of new
technology-transfer model. Journal for farming systems research and
extension, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Pareek, R. P. (1982). Response of pegeonpea to Rhizobium inoculum in
northern India. In Graham, P. H. and Harris, S. C. (Eds). Biological
Nitrogen Fixation Technology for Tropical Agriculture: Papers Presented
at a Workshop Held at CIAT, March 9-13, 1981. Cali, Colombia, Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 768p.

Pena-Cabriales, J. J ., and J. Z. Castellanos. (1993). Effects of water stress on
N2 fixation and grain yield of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Plant and Soil,
Kluwer Academic Press. 151-155.

Piha M. I. and D. N. Munns. (1987). Nitrogen fixation potential of beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) compared with other grain legumes under
controlled conditions. Plant and Soil, 98. 169-182.

Quispel, A. (1988). Hellriegel and Wilfarths discovery of (symbiotic) nitrogen
fixation hundred years ago. In: nitrogen fixation hundred years after.
Proceedings of the seventh international congress on N=nitrogen fixation.
H. Bothe, F. J. de Bruijn and W. E. Newton (eds). Gustav Fischer,
Stuttgart, New York.

Ramos, M. L. G. and W. Q. Ribeiro Jr. (1993). Effect of firngicide on survival
of Rhizobium on seeds and the nodulation of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.). Plant and Soil, 145-150. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

148

Randolph, R. H. & B. Koppel. (1982). A technology assessment of biological
nitrogen fixation. In: In Graham, P. H. & Harris, S.C. (Eds). Biological
Nitrogen Fixation Technology for Tropical Agriculture: Papers Presented
at a Workshop Held at CIAT, March 9-13, 1981. Cali, Colombia, Center
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.

Rao, N. S. Subba. (1976). Field response of legumes in India to inoculation and
fertilizer application. In: Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Plants. P. S.
Nutman (ed). Cambridge University Press.

Rhoades, Robert. (1986). The art of informal agriculture survey. In:
perspectives on farming systems research and extension. Peter E.
Hildebrand (ed). Lynne Riennes Publishers. Boulder, Colorado.

Rogers, Everett M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free
Press.

Roughley, R. J. (1976). The production of high quality inoculants and their
contribution to legume yield. In: Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. P.
S. Nutman (ed). Cambridge University Press. New York, London and
Melbourne.

Roughley, R. J. and P. J. Dart. (1970). Plant and Soil 32:518.

Sarrantonio, Marianne. (1991). Methodologies for screening. Soil-Improving
Legumes. Rodale Institute.

Schroeder, H. A. and J. J. Balassa. (1965). Influence of chromium, cadmium
and lead on rat aortic lipids and circulating cholesterol. Amer. J. Physiol.
209: 433-437.

Shata, Tarek. (1993). Personal communications, Cairo, 1993.

Sistachs, S (1976). Inoculation and nitrogen fertilizer experiments on soybeans
in Cuba. In: Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Plants. P.S. Nutman (ed.).
Cambridge University Press. New York.

Sprent, Janet. I. (1976). Nitrogen fixation by legumes subject to water and light
stresses. In: symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. P.S. Nutman Strijdorn,
B.W. and CC. Deschodt. (1976). Carriers of Rhizobia and the effects of
prior treatment on the survival of Rhizobia. In: Symbiotic nitrogen
fixation in plants. P.S. Nutman(ed.). Cambridge University Press. New
York.

 

 

149

Strijdan and C. C. Deschodt (1976). Carriers for Rhizobia and the effects of
prior treatment on the survival of Rhizobia. In: symbiotic nitrogen
fixation in plants. P. S. Nutman (ed). Cambridge University Press,
London and New York.

Tisdale, L. Samuel, Werner L. Nelson, James D. Beaton and John L. Harlin.
(1993). Soil fertility and fertilizers. MacMillan Publishing Company,
New York.

't Mannetje, Antonie Van Leevwenhock. (1967). J. Microbiol. Serol., 33: 477-
491.

Tsai, S. M., R. Bonetti, S. M. Agbala and R. Rossetto (1993). Minimizing the
effect of mineral nitrogen on biological nitrogen fixation in common bean
by increasing nutrient levels. Plant and Soil, Kluwer Academic Press,
131-138.

Tsai, S. M., P. M. Da Silva, W.L Cabezas and R. Bonetti. (1993). Variability in
nitrogen fixation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant and Soil,
Kluwer Academic Press, 93-101 .

United States Department of Agriculture. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement
of saline and alkaline soils, United States Salinity Laboratory Staff,
Agriculture Handbook No. 60. United States Department of Agriculture.

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (1992).
Agricultural situation annual. Cairo.

World Bank (1992). World Development Report 1992. Development and the
Environment. World Development Indicators. Oxford University Press.

Vincent, J. M. (1982). The legume-Rhizobium symbiosis. In: nitrogen fixation
in legumes. J .M. Vincent (ed.). Based on proceedings of an international
seminar sponsored by the Australian development assistance bureau and
the University of Sydney. Academic Press. Sydney , New York and
London.

 

 

 

nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293010197642