FARMERS' PRACTICES IN RELATION TO CROP INTENSIFICATION INNOVATION WITHIN POTATO PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN UGANDA

Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 104 ISRG PUBLISHERS Abbreviated Key Title: Isrg J Econ Bus Manag ISSN: 2584-0916 (Online) Journal homepage: https://isrgpublishers.com/isrgjebm/ Volume – III Issue - V (September-October) 2025 Frequency: Bimonthly FARMERS’ PRACTICES IN RELATION TO CROP INTENSIFICATION INNOVATION WITHIN POTATO PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN UGANDA Ainebyona Roland Rwambuka1, Sanya Losira Nasirumbi1, Agea Jocab Godfrey1, Karubanga, Gabriel.1 & Mugisha Johnny2 1 Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, Makerere University P.O Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda 2 Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics, Makerere University P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda | Received: 27.09.2025 | Accepted: 02.10.2025 | Published: 05.10.2025 *Corresponding author: Ainebyona Roland Rwambuka Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, Makerere University P.O Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda Abstract The disparity between actual and potential potato crop yield is still persistent in Uganda. This is attributed to existing smallholder farmers‟ potato production practices, notably poor-quality seed and limited use of fertilizers that cripple yield. Experimental studies indicate that utilization of high-quality seed, adequate soil fertility enhancement practices, and suitable companion cropping strategies can close the yield gap. This study sought to establish and document the existing smallholder farmers‟ practices and techniques in relation to potato crop intensification production system in the districts of Rubanda, Kabale, and Rukiga. Data were collected through six focus group discussions (FGDs) with smallholder potato farmers and analyzed using a combination of thematic analysis utilizing ATLAS.ti software and descriptive statistics. Results indicated that home-saved seed recycled from previous harvests was the main potato seed source thus because it was perceived as cheap and guaranteed seed availability. Relatedly, farmers mainly utilized small size tubers because small tubers cover (plants) a wide area compared to medium and large size tubers but little knowing that small from recycled seed sources is usually small due to degeneration because of overuse and or diseased. Maize and sorghum were the main potato-based intercrops mainly for food security reasons compared with potato-legume based intercropping system that guarantees soil fertility. Similarly, while there was general limited use of synthetic fertilizers, farmers could also not ably differentiate the different types of fertilizers used by name but by coulour and shape leading to a risk of inappropriate use such as using wrong fertilize, underuse or overuse. Relatedly, in addition to generally low use of organic manure, farmers applied farmyard manure by grazing and tethering livestock in gardens reserved for potato Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 105 1.1 INTRODUCTION Globally, potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) stands as a pivotal crop among smallholder farmers, contributing significantly to both food security and economic sustenance (Mugisha et al., 2017). Its importance is underscored by its ranking as the third most vital crop worldwide, following rice and maize (Shaaban & Kisetu, 2014). Its production has witnessed half a century of improvements with its yield annually steadily increasing by 2% mainly due to improved seed systems (Devaux et al., 2021). In Africa, potato production over the last 20 years has more than doubled mainly resulting from increased acreage (Campos & Ortiz, 2019). This increase is also attributed to other factors ranging from good weather, fertile soil, and enabling policy framework that strengthens institutional and legal regulatory frameworks that support variety development and seed production (Kisakye et al., 2020). For instance, in Kenya, the government instituted a range of policies, regulations, and investment strategies to expand the production volumes and value of potato in the country over the past decade (McEwan et al., 2021; Muthoni et al., 2010). In Uganda, potato holds a prominent place as the third most consumed food crop, offering relatively affordable source of essential food nutrients such as carbohydrates, dietary fiber, lipids, proteins, minerals, and vitamins (Munyuli et al., 2017). However, its current yield, averaging at 4.3-7.1t/ha, significantly falls below its potential (25-30t/ha) (Namugga et al., 2017). This disparity in yield is attributed to various factors, among them being persistent reliance on traditional production practices by smallholder farmers (Aheisibwe et al., 2016). In Southwest Uganda where about 60% of the national potato output is obtained, farmers‘ over dependence on traditional potato production practices, including poor quality seed, inappropriate use of agrochemicals, unsuitable intercropping systems cannot be overemphasized (Nakibuule et al., 2022; Srivastav, 2020; Aheisibwe et al., 2016). Whereas some traditional crop production methods may have some cultural significance and historical precedence, their coherence in maximizing crop yield and productivity in the context of smallholder farmers is ambiguous. Therefore, this study sought to establish and document existing farmers‘ potato production practices in relation to potato crop intensification to answer questions on what agricultural practice farmers use, how they implement them, and why to provide a foundation for enhancing uptake of contemporary practices that ultimately improve productivity and yield. 1.2 Theoretical and conceptual frameworks Much of farmers‘ practices remains undocumented which not threatens its continuity but also to establish their cultural significance and historical precedence and coherence to maximize crop yield and productivity in the context of smallholder (Bhatia, 2024). In this kind of production system, farmers tend to emphasize livelihoods through livelihood assets (natural. Physical, human, financial and social capital) that shape the kind of practices to adopt (He & Ahmed, 2022). Such practices usually include intercropping, soil fertility management and pest and disease management and traditional crop varieties that are more adapted to local conditions. However, farmers‘ practices usually have limited focus on documentation and preservation to preserve them for continued use and transitioning to future generations but also to integrate them with modern agricultural practices for a more resilient and sustainable food system. There are multiple entry points for promoting crop yield, productivity, and resilience for smallholder farmers (Figure 1). For instance, access to improved varieties and quality seed is central to agricultural development, economic growth, and poverty reduction particularly, for smallholder farmers (Bagamba et al., 2023). Figure 1 Influence of farmers‘ practices on potato yield and productivity Source: Adapted from Okello et al. (2016) production a few months before planting the potato which leads to leaching, erosion, volatilization, and poor distribution. These practices implied that farmers lacked basic knowledge on good agronomic practices regarding potato production. Based on the results, it was recommended that integrated extension programs are adopted to be able to provide comprehensive training on quality seed, proper cropping strategies and soil fertility management practices. Keywords: Agronomic practices, comprehensive training, extension programs, farming system, potato production, smallholder farmers. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 106 Traditionally, smallholder farmers are usually limited in many agricultural production contexts such as knowledge and other production inputs such as seeds and fertilizers. As such, proponents of traditional knowledge argue that this kind of knowledge should not be developed or harnessed as a substitute for scientific knowledge but rather to complement formal knowledge for enhanced resilience in smallholder farming systems (Makate, 2019). The dependency on farmers‘ practices has been responsible for low yield and productivity achievable by smallholder farmers (Molnár & Babai, 2021; Reyes et al., 2020). Thus, smallholder farmers remain imbedded in abject food insecurity and low household income. 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS 2.1 Research Design An exploratory descriptive research design was adopted to conduct the research using FGDs following the launch of the CARP+ Project potato crop intensification intervention to establish the ‗what‘, ‗how,‘ and ‗why‘ that were central in this study. According to Sanya et al. (2017), a research design is a framework that supports production of evidence-based knowledge. Different research designs exist in literature such as experimental designs, longitudinal designs, comparative designs, case study designs cross-sectional designs. Based on the ‗what‘, how‘, and ‗why‘ questions to be established in the study, the study followed a qualitative method to collect and analyze the data. 2.2 Study Area The study was carried out in Southwestern Uganda at three sites purposively selected across three districts: Rubanda, Kabale, and Rukiga following the launch of the Community Action Research Programme Plus (CARP+) Project. This initiative aimed to improve the uptake of potato crop intensification innovation within the potato farming system among smallholder farmers through targeted research, demonstration, training, and dissemination activities. These locations were chosen due to their integration of farmers earmarked to participate in the project, prevalence of diverse potato farming activities, and the access of local stakeholders who collaborated with the CARP+ project implementation. Additionally, these districts are geographically diverse, encompassing different potato farming systems and socioeconomic conditions, thereby enhancing the robustness and generalizability of the study findings. Overall, the deliberate choice of study sites within Southwestern Uganda underscores the systematic and rigorous approach employed to investigate how smallholder farmers accept to use or reject innovations. 2.3 Study Population The study targeted smallholder potato farmers who actively participated in the CARP+ Project. These were selected based on their knowledge of the CARP+ Project implementation activities and experience in potato production. 2.4 Data collection methods The study adopted a qualitative method to collect data. Data were gathered using focus group discussions (FGDs), each involving 8 potato farmers. These participants were purposefully selected based on their active involvement in potato farming activities and active involvement in the CARP+ Project activities. An interview guide served as the foundation for the FGDs, guiding discussions and ensuring consistency in data collection across sessions. The moderator (researcher) skillfully facilitated the dialogues by posing relevant questions and employing probing techniques to elicit detailed narratives from participants. To ensure accuracy, a voice recorder was used to record the interview session after seeking informal consent from respondents, and notetaking was done by a research assistant. This approach enabled the exploration of participants' perspectives, experiences, and insights regarding production practices used by smallholder farmers. 2.5 Data analysis Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis and ATLAS.ti and descriptive statistics to generate frequencies and percentages. These methodological approaches were chosen to comprehensively explore the qualitative data while providing quantitative summaries where applicable. Thematic analysis was employed to identify recurrent themes and patterns within the data. Initially, transcripts were translated from Rukiga dialect and accurately reviewed to develop a coding framework. Following this step, segments of data were systematically coded according to emerging themes. Through an iterative process, codes were refined and organized into key themes that were central to the data. Descriptive statistics were further utilized to provide quantitative summaries of certain aspects of the data. Frequencies of themes and sub-themes were analyzed to identify their prevalence within the dataset. Particularly, where applicable, measures mainly percentages were computed to quantify the distribution or central tendencies of specific themes. According to Braun & Clarke (2023), integration of thematic analysis and descriptive statistics allows for a comprehensive and multifaceted analysis of the data. Thematic analysis facilitates the exploration of underlying meanings and patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006), while descriptive statistics provide quantitative insights that complement and enrich the interpretation of findings (Siedlecki, 2020). Thus, this methodological synergy enabled a robust examination of the qualitative data, yielding important insights into the practices and contemporary techniques of smallholder farmers used in potato production. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 General perception of smallholder farmers toward potato crop intensification innovations before and after CARP+ Project Survey results indicated a significant shift in farmers' perception from relying on traditional potato production practices from 51.3% before CARP+ Project (<2018 season A) to 13.6% (after CARP+ Project intervention) (Figure 2). Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 107 51.3 6.8 7.2 23.8 0.8 2.3 13.6 7.9 21.1 40.9 3.4 47.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Convetional practices Improved potato seed Potato monocrop with recom. spacing (75cm x 30cm) Potato-legume intercropping system Fertilizers Complete package of all innovations Percent of farmers Perception towards potato crop intensification practices Before CARP+ intervetion (<2018 Season A) After CARP+ intervetion (>2021) Figure 2. General perception of smallholder farmers toward potato crop intensification innovations before and after the CARP+ intervention Source: Survey data, 2022 There also a tremendous change in positive shift in farmers‘ perception from using traditional practices from 2.3% (<2018 season A) to uptake of a complete package of innovations (47.2%) after the project. Similarly, there was notable positive change in perception towards potato-legume intercropping system from 24 to 41% and potato monocropping with recommended spacing (75cm x 30cm) improved from about 7 to 21% respectively. This positive towards uptake of improved practices could probably be attributed to the extension services and demonstration activities that were rendered to farmers during project implementation period. However, much as there was a slight improvement in perception in use of improved seed from research station (7 to 10%) and use of fertilizers (0.8 to 3.4%), their uptake remained comparably lower. This negative perception was caused by high cost of this input, accessibility and, the small-scale nature of most farmers and lack of skills and experience to apply these inputs. It is, therefore, imperative that clear extension messages and information dissemination to create awareness on benefits of using quality seed and fertilizers coupled with strengthening supply chain and distribution networks to ensure that quality seed and fertilizers are easy to access and readily available. 3.2 Farmers’ practices used in potato production 3.2.1Potato seed sources commonly used by smallholder farmers Results from FGDs indicated that there were about eight potato seed sources commonly used by smallholder farmers. These potato seed sources ranged from home-saved sources where farmers recycle part of the previous harvest to use as seed in subsequent season, buy from local stores and local markets, buy from other/fellow farmers, farmer groups such as cooperatives, and research stations mainly Kachwekano-ZARDI, buy from extension agents and use volunteer crops as demonstrated in Figure 3. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 108 Figure 3. Potato seed sources commonly used by smallholder farmers in the study area i) Home-saved seed (potato seed recycled from previous harvest) Home-saved potato seed source, a practice whereby farmers keep part of the seed from previous harvests to use as seed in the next planting season was mainly liked by smallholder farmers from Rubanda, Kabale, and Rukiga districts respectively for various reasons such as low cost, seed acclimatization, seed and food security. After harvesting, farmers usually sort out marketable size tubers for sale and/or household consumption and leave smallsize tubers (unmarketable size) preserved as ‗seed‘ during the next planting season. During seed storage in a way of seed preservation, farmers poured the seed on dry grass or on well laid timber placed in a well-aerated space either in the main house or farm store to avoid direct contact with soil and allow sprouting. Some farmers also sprinkle wood ash to prevent rotting and encourage sprouting. Home saved potato seed source was mostly preferred for various reasons mainly: Being cheap: It reduces the cost of production because farmers do not need cash to buy and transport seed at the time of planting, the seed is readily available at home. ―When I have kept my seed, it becomes cheaper for me, I don‟t have to buy seed which is always expensive, especially at planting time. Am also sure of the seed variety and am guaranteed of disease-free seed” (FGD, Rukiga district). Guaranteed seed availability: The system guarantees seed availability at the time of planting, and it saves farmers from being cheated by traders in the market. “I was disappointed once by Kachwekano-ZARDI, I went there two years ago at the beginning of the planting season, but they did not have any seed. From that time, I have never gone back for seed. That season, I missed on growing potato as I could not get seed elsewhere because I was already late” (A farmer, FGD Rubanda district). Good quality: Farmers regarded potato seed from home-saved seed source as high quality in for variety because, free from damage by cutting/bruising/rotting, disease resistance, and yielding capacity because of the known history (Own farm). “Can you imagine! sometimes you plant Rwangume potato variety, but you end up harvesting Kinigi variety. Other potato seed sources are not reliable. There is a mixture of varieties. They even don‟t remove the bruised ones, hence the rotting of seed” (FGD, Rukiga district). Source of food and income: Home-saved seed potato can be a good source of food during the food crisis. A farmer can also sell part of the seed to raise some money to cater for basic needs such as school fees (food and income security). ―Our children cannot sleep hungry when we have seed in the house. Even when they are chased from school, we must sell a small quantity and send children back to school‖ (An elderly potato farmer in Kabale district). Self-reliance: Farmers particularly women want to be self-reliant in terms of potato seed supply. By continuously saving their potato seed and attending some training on potato production, they obtain knowledge and technologies of potato seed production such as positive seed selection. “I was taught by Caritas NGO how to make my own potato seed; I have to make sure that I reserve a small Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 109 portion of my harvest by spotting certain plants that look healthy when they are still in the garden, I mark them and harvest them either first or last and then reserve that harvest for seed for the next season. Such a method is called positive seed selection” (A male farmer in Rubanda District during FGD). Seed acclimatization: Some smallholder farmers believe that because the local potato seed that is recycled over time has become more acclimatized to the local soil conditions in the area so are reluctant to buy new seed from other sources. “We have been using our seed for many years, I think it is used to soils and weather. That‟s why we must keep our seed to get a better yield. We fear that we may get seed from other sources, and we lose everything‖ (FGD Rukiga district). ii) Research station seed source Study findings revealed that the research station mainly (Kachwekano-ZARDI) was the second used potato seed source by smallholder farmers because of resistance to disease and purity (uniformity). ―Kachwekano-ZARDI does not supply seed to individual farmers but only deals with rich and big farmers who are organized in registered groups” (FGD, Rukiga district). iii) Local markets and local stores Research findings from FGDs indicated that local markets and local stores were common potato seed sources in the study area because the seed sources were more accessible. “I cannot trust potato seed which I do not know where it came from” (A female farmer during FGD in Kabale district). However, the potato seed source was associated with some challenges such as poor quality due to mixed varieties, sometimes less reliable because of limited supplies, high cost, and inability to trace the origin of the potato seed. iv) Volunteer crop potato seed source A volunteer crop seed source was used mainly in Rukiga district. This is where farmers intentionally leave some potato tubers in the soil (garden) during harvesting as seed for the following cropping season. This potato seed source implies that no additional seed requirements are needed at the following planting. This method was commonly applied by women as a seed security measure. However, with the prevalence of potato blight, which is a bacterial disease that significantly lowers potato yield, hence requiring that a given land is followed for at least three seasons before another potato is planted again to control this disease (Kwambai et al., 2023). Therefore, this method of preserving potato seed could be among the contributing factors for potato bacterial wilt disease among farmers. v) Fellow farmer seed source Fellow farmer seed source is where farmers obtain seed from fellow farmers who are perceived to have had healthy garden the previous season. This seed source was popular because farmers can observe and monitor the neighbor‘s garden (fellow farmer) and then book the seed based on the physical observation regarding the health status of the garden. “When the neighbor‟s garden looks healthy in the garden, you have to book seed early enough by paying in advance to avoid missing out” (Farmer during FGD, Rukiga). vi) Extension agent Extension agent potato seed source was most common because extension agents usually offer more extension services such as how to plant, pest and disease control such as agrochemicals to use among others. ― I like getting seed from extension agents because the agents can tell you how to plant and which chemicals to use to control pests and diseases” (A male farmer FGD, Kabale) Extension agent is where farmers rely on the extension agent as an individual to supply potato seed. The extension agents sometimes source potato seed they supply to their clients from either research stations or other sources such as other farmers, local markets and/or local stores. “Sometimes, seed from extension agent rots before germination or starts drying shortly after germination. And you cannot report him because you don‟t have evidence that you bought seed from him or her. Government should help us‖ (FGD, Rubanda district). This implies that this seed source sometimes may not offer the expected yield results to the farmers because it is recycled but disguised as quality seed. Because these individuals are not licensed to supply seed and there is no contractual agreement, farmers cannot hold extension agents liable for crop failure resulting from poor seed supplies. vii) Farmer groups This is where farmers obtain potato seed from organized farmer groups such as cooperatives and other farm-based organizations in their local communities. This source is preferred most because of its easy accessibility. ―Our groups have helped us. You can even get seed on the morning of planting. You don‟t even need transport since it is near” (FGD, Kabale district). Therefore, despite its reputation for supplying high-quality potato seed with desirable traits, the research stations, including Kachwekano-ZARDI encounter skepticism among smallholder farmers due to issues such as cost, reliability, and accessibility. While the emphasis on disease resistance and variety purity is laudable, challenges related to its affordability and outreach by individual farmers pose significant barriers to uptake. Scientific investigation into its supply chain management is imperative to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of research stationderived seeds not only to address farmers' needs but also to enhance agricultural productivity. Thus, smallholder farmers tend to find traditional potato sources, mainly home saved sources that are perceived as cheap, reliable, easily accessible and thus, more adoptable. While home saved seed may be perceived as cheap, reliable, and easily accessible, it often lacks scientific traits such as disease resistance necessary for optimal agricultural productivity and resilience (Aheisibwe et al., 2016; Muthoni et al., 2022; Okello et al., 2016). Research station seed,, on the other hand, offer several key advantages that can significantly benefit smallholder farmers Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 110 (Adolwa et al., 2019; Kuntosch & König, 2018; Oyetunde-Usman et al., 2021; Vandevelde et al., 2021). Potato seed from research stations is carefully bred and selected to possess desirable traits such as disease resistance, high yield potential, and adaptability to changing environmental conditions (Aheisibwe et al., 2015; Mastenbroek et al., 2021). Therefore, by utilizing such improved seed, smallholder farmers can enhance the quality and quantity of their potato yield, leading to increased incomes and food security. Further, improved seed sources contribute to the sustainability of agricultural systems by reducing the risk of crop failure due to pests, diseases, and environmental stressors. Research stations invest in rigorous quality control measures to ensure the purity and efficacy of their seeds, providing farmers with reliable planting materials that contribute to long-term agricultural sustainability (Muthoni et al., 2022; Vandevelde et al., 2021). Therefore, prioritizing the uptake of improved seed from research stations offer smallholder farmers an opportunity to overcome the limitations of traditional home saved seeds and unlock the full potential of potato cultivation, thus improved livelihoods and sustainable development of rural communities through enhanced improved agricultural productivity. 3.2.1.1 Perception of smallholder farmers towards research station (Kachwekano-ZARDI) as a credible source of improved potato seed Survey results revealed that there was a significant regional variation in the preferred sources of potato seed among farmers in the Rubanda, Kabale, and Rukiga districts (Figure 4). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Rubanda Kabale Rukiga Percent of farmers Figure 4: Preference for research station (KachwekanoZARDI) as credible source for quality seed Source: Field data, 2022 Specifically, research station including Kachwekano-ZARDI are highly preferred in Rubanda and Kabale (90 and 70% respectively) but less preferred (40%) in Rukiga. This preference discrepancy was probably associated with location of Rukiga district being far away from Kachwekano-ZARDI, leading to additional transaction costs related to transport and travel time to and from the research station. Transport costs and other logistical challenges play a crucial role in the uptake of new practices because of the additional costs involved (Juma, 2015). Thus, by reducing the distance that farmers need to travel to access an input significantly improved its uptake (Vandevelde et al., 2021). This finding also feeds into the need for Kachwekano-ZARDI to extend its distribution networks by partnering with local stores and local markets to ensure all the services offered by the institute such as supply of quality declared seed and extension services are extended nearer to the remote farmers through public private partnerships (PPP) arrangement. 3.2.2 Potato tuber size planted as seed by smallholder farmers Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 111 Figure 5: Size of potato tuber commonly planted by farmers who use recycled seed Results from FGDs indicated that small tubers were the most used as potato planting material (60, 50 and 80%) in Rubanda, Kabale, and Rukiga districts respectively (Figure.5). After potato harvesting, farmers sort out large and medium tubers for sale to meet immediate basic needs like school fees and basic health and reserve small tubers which are then pilled in dark places to sprout for the next planting season. “After harvesting, I remove tubers which relatively big and sell them to get money for fees and medication. I leave the small tubers which I can‟t peel to cook piled in one of the corners in the house to sprout and I use them as seed next season. Sometimes when there is nothing to cook in house, I can spare some time to peel some of them to supplement the main meal‖ (A female farmer, FGD in Rukiga district) Some of the smallholder farmers preferred using small size seed because it can plant comparably a bigger portion of the garden than medium and larger size. “To me, I like planting small tubers because I can plant a larger area compared to medium-size or large size, hence I can plan for my garden well for the quantity I need, instead of going to other sources and finding no seed” (A farmer in Kabale district during FGD). This finding contradicts with existing literature where medium and large tubers recommended for high potato yield and productivity (Masarirambi et al., 2012). From a scientific point of view, the size of seed does not significantly affect potato yield when quality seed is used, but the reverse is true when recycled seed system is used (Mumia et al., 2018). According to the authors, recycled seed tends to undergo gene degeneration resulting from use over a long period and/or disease accumulation, thus losing its growth vigor. The relationship between seed tuber size and potato yield has also been extensively studied by several authors such as Asnake et al. (2023) who categorized tubers into small (31.5 ± 2.5g), medium (57 ± 2.5g), and large (77.5 ± 2.5g). According to their research, the size of the seed tuber plays a pivotal role in determining the overall yield and productivity of the potato crop. The authors noted that smaller seed tubers are often characterized by a reduced number of eyes and limited food reserves, which are crucial for vegetative growth. Consequently, the use of small-sized tubers can lead to suboptimal plant development and smaller harvests. Proponents of using medium and larger seed tubers such as Asnake et al. (2023) argue that the increased number of eyes and greater food reserves facilitate better vegetative growth, resulting in higher yield. Medium and large-sized tubers enhance plant vigor and tuber size at harvest, leading to improved productivity. Larger tubers, with their more substantial nutrient reserves, can sustain the plant through critical growth stages, thereby optimizing yield potential. This finding points to the need for extension information to demonstrate the missed opportunities in dwelling in recycled potato seed. Thus, there is need for urgent and continuous extension services and training programs to create awareness to inform farmers on the benefits of transitioning from recycled seed systems and/or using medium and large size tubers as an innovative intensification potato practice. 3.2.2.1 Strategies used by smallholder farmers to maintain quality standards in recycled potato seed system Findings from FGDs indicated that farmers employed both scientific and traditional methods to keep quality standards in cases where home saved potato seed was used (Figure 6). The main Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 112 scientific method used was positive seed selection (PSS) and this was supplemented by potato tuber sorting and grading. Positive selection is an innovation where mother plants to serve as a sour of seed in the following season are selected from the best-looking potato plants still in the field before flowering time (Muthoni et al., 2022). The rest of farmers were scattered in more traditional methods such as soil preservation which was more common in Rukiga district and spraying with ash or ambush to control diseases related to rotting. Figure 6: Strategies for maintaining quality standards in homesaved potato seed Source: Field data The practice involves informal identification and pegging of robust and healthy-looking plants during crop growth before flowering and just before crop senescence that obscures disease symptoms (Okeyo et al., 2018). The pegged plants are checked two weeks after and pegs are removed from the plants that exhibit disease symptoms (Muthoni et al., 2022). At maturity, the plants that ultimately remain pegged are subsequently harvested individually, ensuring that plants with few, small, or malformed tubers are disregarded (Okeyo et al., 2018). Ultimately, smallholder farmers should be enabled to access the knowledge and resources needed to integrate informal seed sources such as home saved seed sources with formal seed systems that enhance potato yield and productivity, economic sustainability, and resilience of potato production systems. 3.2.3 Potato-based intercropping systems used by smallholder farmers Findings revealed that Sorghum and maize were the most crops intercropped with potato (60, 80 and 80%) for Rubanda, Kabale and Rukiga districts respectively (Table 2). Table 2: Crops intercropped with potato District Rubanda Kabale Rukiga Companion crop Percent of farmers Sorghum 60 70 50 Sweet potato 20 30 20 Beans 50 40 70 Maize 50 80 80 Cabbage 30 10 30 Carrots 40 30 30 Bananas 30 10 30 Other vegetables 40 30 20 Source: Field data, 2018/2019 “When I intercrop potato with maize or sorghum, am not only assured of higher yield. Sometimes, at least am assured of some harvest in case one of the two crops fail due to bad weather‖ (An elderly female farmer in Kabale district during FGD). Potato intercropping is one innovations that improve crop yield and productivity per unit of land (Gitari et al., 2020; Maitra et al., 2021; Sharma & Banik, 2015; Weih et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2017). Previous authors including Campos & Ortiz (2019) argue that intercropping combinations, such as potato intercropped with onions, may offer unique advantages in terms of pest management. Related literature including Nakibuule et al. (2022) argues that potato-legume intercropping, specifically utilizing beans as a companion crop, should be prioritized over other intercropping combinations to enhance potato productivity and ecological sustainability. From economic and ecological standpoints, of potato-based intercropping systems consistently demonstrate that intercropping potato with legumes, such as beans leads to higher yields and improved soil fertility (Gitari et al., 2020; Nakibuule et al., 2022). Beans can fix atmospheric nitrogen, providing a natural source of fertilizer for potato and reducing the need for additional nitrogen inputs (Nakibuule et al., 2022). This not only enhances Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w 22. Dernat S, Rigolot C, Vollet D, Cayre P, Dumont B (2022). Knowledge sharing in practice: a game-based methodology to increase farmers‘ engagement in a common vision for a cheese PDO union. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 28(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1873155 23. Devaux A, Goffart JP, Kromann P, Andrade-Piedra J, Polar V,Hareau G (2021). The Potato of the Future: Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainable Agri-food Systems. Potato Research, 64(4), 681–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-021-09501-4 24. Diop M, Chirinda N, Beniaich A, El Gharous M, El Mejahed K (2022). Soil and Water Conservation in Africa: State of Play and Potential Role in Tackling Soil Degradation and Building Soil Health in Agricultural Lands. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013425 25. Gatto M, Petsakos A, Hareau G (2020). Sustainable Intensification of Rice-Based Systems with Potato in Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains. American Journal of Potato Research, 97(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-020-09764-6 26. Gitari HI, Nyawade SO, Kamau S, Karanja NN, Gachene CKK, Raza MA, Maitra S, Schulte-Geldermann E (2020). Revisiting intercropping indices with respect to potato-legume intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 258(September), 107957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107957 27. Goldan E, Nedeff V, Barsan N, Culea M, PanainteLehadus M, Mosnegutu E, Tomozei C, Chitimus D, Irimia O (2023). Assessment of Manure Compost Used as Soil Amendment—A Review. Processes, 11(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041167 28. Haverkort AJ, Struik PC (2015). Yield levels of potato crops: Recent achievements and future prospects. Field Crops Research, 182, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.06.002 29. He Y, Ahmed T (2022). Farmers‘ livelihood capital and its impact on sustainable livelihood strategies: evidence from the poverty-stricken areas of Southwest China. Sustainability, 14(9), 4955. 30. Hou Y, Velthof GL, Case SDC, Oelofse M, Grignani C, Balsari P, Zavattaro L, Gioelli F, Bernal MP, Fangueiro D, Trindade H, Jensen LS, Oenema O (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of manure treatment technologies in Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1620–1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.162 31. Mumia B, Muthomi J, Narla R,Nyongesa M, Olubayo F (2018). Seed potato production practices and quality of farm saved seed potato in Kiambu and Nyandarua Counties in Kenya. World Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjar-61-5 32. Jan M, Hussain S, Haq MA,Iqbal J, Ahmad I, Aslam M, Faiz A (2020). Effect of Farm Yard Manure and Compost Application on Transgenic BT Cotton Varieties. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 33(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2020/33.2.371.380 33. Jennings SA, Koehler AK, Nicklin KJ, Deva C, Sait SM, Challinor AJ (2020). Global Potato Yields Increase Under Climate Change With Adaptation and CO2 Fertilisation. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.519324 34. Juma C (2015). Agricultural Innovation Systems. In The New Harvest. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190237233.003.0 004 35. Kabir MH, Rainis R (2015). Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17(6), 1413–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9613-y 36. Kajunju NHB, Atukwase A, Tumuhimbise GA, Mugisha J (2021). Potato processing in Uganda: A technical review. Makerere University Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 10(1), 60–81. 37. Kansiime MK, Tambo JA, Mugambi I, Bundi M, Kara A, Owuor C (2021). COVID-19 implications on household income and food security in Kenya and Uganda: Findings from a rapid assessment. World Development, 137, 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105199 38. Kisakye S, Tinyiro E, Mayanja S, Naziri D (2020). Current status of knowledge about end-user preferences for boiled potato in Uganda - a food science, gender and demand perspective. https://doi.org/10.4160/9789290605546 39. Kuntosch A, König B (2018). Linking system perspectives with user perspectives to identify adoption barriers to food security innovations for smallholder farmers – evidence from rural Tanzania. Food Security, 10(4), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-0180821-4 40. Kyomugisha H, Sebatta C, Mugisha J (2018). Potato market access , marketing efficiency and on-farm value addition in Uganda. Scientific African, 1, e00013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2018.e00013 41. Maitra S, Hossain A, Brestic M, Skalicky M, Ondrisik P, Gitari H, Brahmachari K, Shankar T, Bhadra P, Palai JB, Jena J, Bhattacharya U, Duvvada SK, Lalichetti S, Sairam M (2021). Intercropping—A low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agronomy, 11(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343 42. Makate C (2019). Local institutions and indigenous knowledge in adoption and scaling of climate-smart agricultural innovations among sub-Saharan smallholder farmers. 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2018-0055 43. Masarirambi MT, Mandisodza FC, Mashingaidze AB, & Bhebhe E (2012). Influence of plant population and seed tuber size on growth and yield components of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Int. J. Agric. Biol, 14(4), 545-549. 44. Massah J, Azadegan B (2016). Effect of chemical fertilizers on soil compaction and degradation. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 47(1), 44–50. 45. Mastenbroek A, Otim G, Ntare BR (2021). Institutionalizing quality declared seed in Uganda. Agronomy, 11(8). Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 120 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081475 46. Maulu S, Hasimuna OJ, Mutale B, Mphande J, Siankwilimba E, Maulu S, Hasimuna OJ, Mutale B, Maulu S, Hasimuna OJ, Mutale B, Mphande J (2021). Cogent food & agriculture enhancing the role of rural agricultural extension programs in poverty alleviation : A review food science & technology | Review article enhancing the role of rural agricultural extension programs in poverty alleviation. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1886663 47. McEwan M A, Spielman DJ, Okello JJ, Bartle B, Mbiri DG, Atieno EO, Omondi B A, Wossen T, Cortada L (2021). Exploring the regulatory space for improving availability , access and quality of vegetatively propagated crop seed : potato in Kenya. Www.Rtb.Cgiar.Org/, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.4160/23096586RTBWP20211 48. Molnár Z, Babai D (2021). Inviting ecologists to delve deeper into traditional ecological knowledge. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 36(8), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006 49. Mugisha J, Mwadime R, Sebatta C, Gensi R, Obaa B (2017). Factors enhancing household nutrition outcomes in potato value chain in South-Western Uganda. 10(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v10n3p215 50. Munyuli T, Cihire K, Rubabura D, Mitima K, Kalimba Y, Tchombe N, Mulangane EK, Birhashwira O, Umoja M, Cinyabuguma E, MukadiTT, Ilunga MT, Mukendi RT (2017). Farmers‘ perceptions, believes, knowledge and management practices of potato pests in South-Kivu Province, eastern of Democratic Republic of Congo. Open Agriculture, 2(1), 362–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0040 51. Muthoni J, Mbiyu MW, Nyamongo DO (2010). A Review of potato seed systems and germplasm conservation in Kenya. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information, 11(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496501003680565 52. Muthoni J, Shimelis H, & Mashilo J (2022). Production and availability of good quality seed potatoes in the East African region: A review. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 16(7), 907–915. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.22.16.07.p3566 53. Nakibuule J, Obala J, Kigambo M, Kajunju NHB, Mugisha J (2022). Effect of potato-bean intercrop arrangement, plant spacing and fertiliser usage on plant growth and tuber yield in different environments. Makerere University Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Vol., 11(2), 107–126. 54. Namugga P, Sibiya J, Melis R, Barekye A (2018). Combining ability analysis of earliness and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes in Uganda. Euphytica, 214(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-0182201-8 55. Nassanga P, Okello-Uma I, & Ongeng D (2018). The status of nutritional knowledge, attitude and practices associated with complementary feeding in a post-conflict development phase setting: The case of Acholi subregion of Uganda. Food Science and Nutrition, 6(8), 2374–2385. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.829 56. Norton GW, Alwang J (2020). Changes in agricultural extension and implications for farmer adoption of new practices. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13008 57. Ntakyo PR, van den Berg M (2019). Effect of market production on rural household food consumption: evidence from Uganda. Food Security, 11(5), 1051– 1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00959-2 58. Ntshangase NL, Muroyiwa B, Sibanda M (2018). Farmers‘ perceptions and factors influencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by smallscale farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal province. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020555 59. Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 60. Okello JJ, Zhou Y, Kwikiriza N, Ogutu SO, Barker I, Schulte-Geldermann E, Atieno E, & Ahmed JT (2016). Determinants of the use of certified seed potato among smallholder farmers: The case of potato growers in central and Eastern Kenya. Agriculture (Switzerland), 6(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040055 61. Okeyo GO, Sharma K, Atieno E, Narla RD, Miano DW, Schulte-Geldermann E (2018). Effectiveness of Positive Selection in Managing Seed-Borne Potato Viruses. Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(3), 71. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v10n3p71 62. Oyetunde-Usman Z, Olagunju K O, Ogunpaimo OR (2021). Determinants of adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 9(2), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007 63. Peace N (2020). Impact of Climate Change on Insects, Pest, Diseases and Animal Biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 23(5), 2003–2005. https://doi.org/10.19080/ijesnr.2020.23.556123 64. Raymundo R, Asseng S, Robertson R, Petsakos A, Hoogenboom G, Quiroz R, Hareau G, Wolf J (2018). Climate change impact on global potato production. European Journal of Agronomy, 100(November 2016), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.11.008 65. Reyes SRC, Miyazaki A, Yiu E, Saito O (2020). Enhancing sustainability in traditional agriculture: Indicators for monitoring the conservation of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) in Japan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145656 66. Rezaei R, Safa L, Damalas CA, Ganjkhanloo MM (2019). Drivers of farmers‘ intention to use integrated pest management: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. Journal of Environmental Management, 236(November 2018), 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.097 67. Sanya LN, Sseguya H, Kyazze FB, Kibwika P (2017). Actor diversity and interactions in the development of banana hybrid varieties in Uganda : implications for technology uptake. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,, 1–15. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 121 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1401549 68. Sebatta C, Mugisha J, Katungi E, Kashaaru A, Kyomugisha H (2014). Smallholder Farmers‘ Decision and Level of Participation in the Potato Market in Uganda. Modern Economy, 05(08), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2014.58082 69. Sebatta C, Mugisha J, Katungi E, Kasharu A, Kyomugisha H (2015). Adding value at the farm: The case of smallholder potato farmers in the Highlands of Uganda. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 4(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2015/13844 70. Sharma RC, Banik P (2015). Baby Corn-Legumes Intercropping Systems: I. Yields, Resource Utilization Efficiency, and Soil Health. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 39(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.942764 71. Siedlecki SL (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8– 12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493 72. Singh U, Praharaj CS, Singh SS, Singh NP (2016). Biofortification of food crops. Biofortification of Food Crops, 1–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-27168 73. Sithole, N., Lagat, J., & Masuku, M. (2014). Factors Influencing Farmers Participation in Smallholder Irrigation Schemes : The Case of Ntfonjeni Rural Development Area. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 5(22), 159–168. 74. Skendžić S, Zovko M, Živković IP, Lešić V, Lemić D (2021). The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. In Insects (12, Issue 5). https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12050440 75. Srivastav AL (2020). Chemical fertilizers and pesticides: role in groundwater contamination. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation: Pesticides and Chemical Fertilizers. LTD. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-103017-2.0000676. Tadele Z (2017). Raising crop productivity in Africa through intensification. Agronomy, 7(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010022 77. Tripathi S, Srivastava P, Devi RS, Bhadouria R (2020). Influence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on soil health and soil microbiology. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation: Pesticides and Chemical Fertilizers. LTD. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-103017-2.00002-7 78. Vandevelde S, Van Campenhout B, Walukano W (2021). Accounting for spillovers in assessing the effectiveness of video messages to improve potato seed quality: evidence from Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(4), 503–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1880454 79. Wang B, Li R, Wan Y, Li Y, Cai W, Guo C, Qin X, Song C, Wilkes A (2021). Air warming and CO2 enrichment cause more ammonia volatilization from rice paddies: An OTC field study. Science of the Total Environment, 752(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142071 80. Weih M, Mínguez MI, & Tavoletti S (2022). Intercropping systems for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture (Switzerland), 12(2), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020291 81. Wijesinha-Bettoni R, Mouillé B (2019). The Contribution of potatoes to global food security, nutrition and healthy diets. American Journal of Potato Research, 96(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-01809697-1 82. Yang F, Liao D, Fan Y, Gao R., Wu X, Rahman T, Yong T, Liu W, Liu J, Du J, Shu K, Wang X, Yang W (2017). Effect of narrow-row planting patterns on crop competitive and economic advantage in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping system. Plant Production Science, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2016.1224553 83. Zaheer K, Akhtar MH (2016). Potato production, usage, and nutrition—A Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56(5), 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.724479