ArticlePDF Available

Assessment of Postharvest Practices of Groundnuts in Northern Ghana Based on the Participatory Rural Appraisal Technique

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A postharvest evaluation study of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) was undertaken in a total of thirty (30) districts selected from the three Northern Regions of Ghana, namely, Upper West, Upper East and Northern, by employing the Participatory Rural Appraisal (P.R.A.) procedure. Ten (10) randomly selected, predominant groundnut growing districts were sampled in each case; interviews and focal group discussions were held which involved 600 individual key informants in all, 20 fromeach district/community and thirty (30) focal group discussions. Interviews were conducted using both open and close-ended questionnaires. The main aim of the research was to solicit general information on the postharvest activities and marketing of groundnuts as it pertains in Northern Ghana. The Statistical Package for the Social Scientists (SPSS version 17.0) and Microsoft Excel were used to analyze data obtained from the questionnaire; Results were summarized into means, using standard error, and percentages, where necessary. The association between storage structures and duration of groundnuts in storage was tested by the Chi-Square statistic method. Results obtained from the study shows that ‘China’ local groundnut variety was the most cultivated (76.5%, 99.5%, 96.5%) in all three regions (N/R, U/E and U/W respectively). Reason for choice of variety was high yielding (73.33%) and ease of harvesting and drought tolerance (32.67%). Most efficient Storage structure of groundnut was Jute sack (93%). Average length of storage was 5-6 months (74.45%). Most common storage pests were Grain weevils (57; 9.50%) and Cercospora Spp. (28; 4.67%). Most common storage diseases were Aflatoxin (78; 13%) and Aspegillus Spp. (21; 3.50%). Improvement of the storage structures has a higher likelihood of increasing the duration of groundnut in storage. The major end use of groundnut according to the study was groundnut paste (50%). Groundnuts have ready market (489; 81.50%) according to farmers. Relay of information was mostly by colleague farmers (39.33%) and MoFA (31.33%), NGOs (13.83%). The scale of measurement used was common for bowls and 100 kg bag. Average market price of a 100 kg bag and a bowl were Ghs136.55%, Ghs3.43 respectively.
Content may be subject to copyright.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: Email: danieloppongsekyere@yahoo.com;
Journal of Scientific Research & Reports
10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
ISSN: 2320-0227
SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org
Assessment of Postharvest Practices of Groundnuts
in Northern Ghana Based on the Participatory Rural
Appraisal Technique
D. Oppong-Sekyere
1*
, R. Akromah
2
, E. Y. Nyamah
3
, A. D. Ninfaa
1
,
M. M. Braimah
4
, M. M. Akpalu
1
and A. R. S. Salifu
1
1
Department of Ecological Agriculture, Bolgatanga Polytechnic, P.O.Box 767, Bolgatanga, Ghana.
2
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, KNUST-Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
3
Sichuan Agricultural University, School of Economics, 211 Huimin Rd. Wenjiang 611130,
Chengdu, China.
4
Department of Agricultural Engineering, School of Engineering, Bolgatanga Polytechnic,
P.O.Box 767, Bolgatanga, Upper East Region, Ghana.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Authors DOS and RA designed the
study, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors EYN, ADN, MMB, MMA and ARSS managed the analyses of the study. Author ADN
managed the literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JSRR/2016/22384
Editor(s):
(1) Ana Ribeiro-Barros, Biotrop Center - Environment, Agriculture and Development, Tropical Research Institute (IICT),
Oeiras, Portugal.
Reviewers:
(1)
Preeya Puangsomlee Wangsomnuk, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
(2)
Hammami Imran, Tunis El Manar University, Tunisia.
(3)
Tanziman Ara, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
Complete Peer review History:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/13943
Received 30
th
September 2015
Accepted 28
th
November 2015
Published 30
th
March 2016
ABSTRACT
A postharvest evaluation study of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) was undertaken in a total of
thirty (30) districts selected from the three Northern Regions of Ghana, namely, Upper West, Upper
East and Northern, by employing the Participatory Rural Appraisal (P.R.A.) procedure. Ten (10)
randomly selected, predominant groundnut growing districts were sampled in each case; interviews
and focal group discussions were held which involved 600 individual key informants in all, 20 from
Original Research Article
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
2
each district/community and thirty (30) focal group discussions. Interviews were conducted using
both open and close-ended questionnaires. The main aim of the research was to solicit general
information on the postharvest activities and marketing of groundnuts as it pertains in Northern
Ghana. The Statistical Package for the Social Scientists (SPSS version 17.0) and Microsoft Excel
were used to analyze data obtained from the questionnaire; Results were summarized into means,
using standard error, and percentages, where necessary. The association between storage
structures and duration of groundnuts in storage was tested by the Chi-Square statistic method.
Results obtained from the study shows that ‘China’ local groundnut variety was the most cultivated
(76.5%, 99.5%, 96.5%) in all three regions (N/R, U/E and U/W respectively). Reason for choice of
variety was high yielding (73.33%) and ease of harvesting and drought tolerance (32.67%). Most
efficient Storage structure of groundnut was Jute sack (93%). Average length of storage was 5-6
months (74.45%). Most common storage pests were Grain weevils (57; 9.50%) and Cercospora
Spp. (28; 4.67%). Most common storage diseases were Aflatoxin (78; 13%) and Aspegillus Spp.
(21; 3.50%). Improvement of the storage structures has a higher likelihood of increasing the
duration of groundnut in storage. The major end use of groundnut according to the study was
groundnut paste (50%). Groundnuts have ready market (489; 81.50%) according to farmers. Relay
of information was mostly by colleague farmers (39.33%) and MoFA (31.33%), NGOs (13.83%).
The scale of measurement used was common for bowls and 100 kg bag. Average market price of a
100 kg bag and a bowl were Ghs136.55%, Ghs3.43 respectively.
Keywords: Groundnut; jute sack; landraces; postharvest; P.R.A.; questionnaire.
1. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the mainstay of more than half of
Africans. Though the most thriving and significant
enterprise that propels economic development of
the continent, food insecurity among arid and
semi-arid African countries is a key challenge
amongst global trends [1,2]. Enhancing food
security is significant and consistent with
increasing agricultural productivity and reducing
pre- and post-harvest crop losses. Agricultural
production in Africa is basically and significantly
traditional, and among all the crop groupings,
cereals and legumes come across as the
majority in terms of food production [2]. Among
the cereals and legumes, maize, sorghum, rice,
wheat and millet, cowpea, groundnut, common
bean, soybean, chickpea, Bambara groundnut,
pigeon pea, and green gram are most common.
Notwithstanding, the most dominant crops vary
from one country to the other [3].
The seasonality of agricultural production in
Africa demands that agricultural commodities are
distributed thoroughly across the year to ensure
success. Storing agricultural produce and/or
products is a method of keeping and indeed
saving same for future use. This is done
repeatedly in the agricultural business chain
during the transport of agricultural produce from
producers to processors and same or its
products from processors to consumers who are
the end users [4,5].
According to [6], the main objective of storage of
agricultural produce by small scale farmers is to
ensure household food supplies or reserves as
well as seeds for planting in the subsequent
growing year. Cereals and legumes are stored
from one harvest to the next so as to guarantee
their constant supply all year round and also to
ensure its quality is preserved until it is needed
for use. During off-season or lean periods, the
stored crop is released gradually to the market,
which has an advantage of stabilizing seasonal
prices [7]. According to [3], in the dry Sahelian
countries in Africa, crop storage is a function of
subsistence and survival [5].
The Northern Regions of Ghana (Upper East,
Upper West and Northern), which doubles as the
main breadbasket of Ghana, is bedeviled with
low agricultural productivity, malnutrition and
poverty, affecting particularly the majority of rural
households [8,9,5]. Major factors militating
against crop production in the regions are poor
soil fertility, unavailability of quality, certified
planting seeds, and unreliable rainfall [10]. In
view of this, most households are unable to
produce enough food to feed themselves for a
major part of the year. This occurrence
contributes significantly to malnutrition, as
caused by a lack of protein, oil and vitamins in a
largely cereal-based diet; over half of the
populations in the regions live below the poverty
line. Thus, families are left with no other option
but to purchase additional food to supplement
the family diet, or better still, depend on external
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
3
inputs to improve crop productivity, which is
almost impossible for the average household
[8,9,5].
Groundnuts have the ability to fix atmospheric
nitrogen; and also survive in low nitrogen soils.
Groundnuts also have the advantage of
improving soil fertility for the subsequent crop
[11].
The crop is highly nutritious, with high amounts
of protein (12 - 36%), and oils (36-54%),
therefore, has the potential of minimizing the
problems of malnutrition. Groundnuts thrive
under low rainfall conditions and can be grown
with low capital investment [12]. Groundnut is a
popular commodity that is widely traded in local,
regional and international markets, and qualifies
as an important source of income, particularly for
women farmers, who, according to [13], are the
main cultivators [5].
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is an
approach in research that was born from Rapid
Rural Appraisal (developed in the 1970s and
1980s). It is a set of informal techniques that was
used by development practitioners, particularly,
in rural areas to obtain, analyze and evaluate
data. As an antidote to the supposed challenge
of researchers and other non-community
members missing and miscommunicating with
local and community members in the area and
context of community work, as well in agricultural
and rural development projects and programmes
even when conventional methods or research
appeared to have proved unsuccessful [14,15].
PRA is a technique or method of research that
ensures that, collection and analysis of research
data are conducted by local community people;
Researchers or people of their category only
serve as facilitators rather than controllers of the
process. Further, [14] expanded PRA as “a
growing family of approaches, methods, attitudes
and behaviours to enable and also empower
people to share, analyze and enhance their
knowledge of life and circumstances and
environments and above all plan, act, monitor,
evaluate and reflect on their actions” [16].
Researchers act and lean together with the
villagers or community members, in a
collaborative fashion, meant to assist scientists
design, test and recommend new technologies in
view of information gathered about farmers’
criteria for usefulness of the innovation or
intervention [17]. Once farmers and community
members are directly involved in PRA, it is the
aim that research would come up with
technologies and innovations that farmers could
play a key part in the dissemination of such
research outcomes [18], the intended result
being a more productive, stable, equitable and
sustainable agricultural systems and schemes
[17,5].
Notwithstanding, the current study sought to
evaluate the postharvest practices and
management of groundnuts as it pertains in the
three northern regions of Ghana, which come
across as the major producers.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Location, Study Area and Sampling
Procedures for PRA
A total of thirty (30) districts were chosen, by the
simple sampling procedure, from the three
Northern Regions of Ghana (Upper West, Upper
East and Northern), by employing the PRA
procedure. Ten (10) randomly selected,
predominant groundnut growing districts were
sampled in each case; interviews and focal group
discussions were held which involved 600
individual key informants in all with 20 from each
district/community, and thirty (30) focal group
discussions. Interviews were conducted using
both open and close-ended questionnaires.
Selection of districts/communities was based on
the information of quantity of groundnuts
produced [19,5].
2.1.1 Field visits to districts/Communities
and group discussions
Visits were made to the chosen districts and/or
communities by the researcher and staff of the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) in the
respective selected districts, which objective was
for same to familiarize themselves with the key
sites, establish a good relationship with the local
people and have a first-hand experience of the
study areas. The community heads and the
extension officers were tasked to mobilize
farmers (both male and female) for focus group
discussions, Dates, time and venue were agreed
on. Checklists were developed with input from
field officers and used to guide discussions with
farmers groups and individual key informants
(opinion leaders, farmer-group/based
organizations (FBOs), Agricultural Extension
Agents and Chiefs from the study areas) [11].
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
4
A discussion was initiated between the
researcher, farmers and extension officers, to
explain the objectives of the research and also
outline the role and communication processes of
the various actors in the study. The most
common and familiar language of communication
was employed by farmers, and where necessary,
the services of an interpreter was used. Farmers
formed discussion groups to ensure focus and
consensus building, taking into consideration,
sex and age of each group [11,5].
2.2 Analysis of Research Data
Statistical Package for the Social Scientists
(SPSS version 17.0) and Microsoft Excel were
used to analyze data collected from the
questionnaire, and same summarized into
percentages and means; while Standard errors
were used to separate means where necessary.
The Chi-Square statistic method was used to test
the association between storage structures and
duration of groundnuts in storage.
2.2.1 Procedure for chi-square test
The Chi-Square statistic was used to test
whether the classification variables were
associated or not. With regards to the test of
independence, we seek to test the following
hypothesis at level α.
H
0
: Classification criteria are independent
H
A
: Classification criteria are not independent
The test statistic in this case is
(
)
= =
=
r
i
c
jij
ijij
e
eO
1 1
2
2
χ
If the null hypothesis (H
0
) is true, the value of
2
χ
should be small, since the observed values and
the expected values will be close. The null
hypothesis would be rejected if the
2
χ
statistic is
larger than
( )( )
11,
2cr
α
χ
.
The Chi-Square distribution is ‘continuous’,
however the values calculated in the chi square
test are not from a continuous scale but a
discrete one. This is because observed
frequencies vary in discrete units. The LR Chi-
Square test was applied instead since the
assumption of Chi-Square that no more than
20% of the expected counts were less than 5 and
all individual expected counts were 1 or greater
was not met,
=
i
ff
fG ln.2
Where f is the observed frequency and f
i
is the
expected frequency.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Variety of Groundnuts
According to Fig. 1, ‘China’ variety was the most
cultivated by the farmers in the Northern region,
being cultivated by more than two-thirds, (76.5%)
of the farmers, followed by ‘Agric’ (20%),‘Oboolo’
(1.5%) and ‘Otuhia (0.5%) varieties. Similar
trend was observed in the Upper East region but
generally with higher percentage figures; ‘China’
(99.5%), ‘Agric’ (74%) and ‘Oboolo’ (22%). For
Upper West region, ‘China’ variety recorded the
most cultivated groundnut variety (96.5%)
followed rather by ‘Oboolo’ (4.5%) and ‘Agric’
varieties with a small percentage (0.5%), which
incidentally runs through all the other varieties.
Varieties, ‘Obooshie’ and ‘Yenyawoso’ were not
cultivated in the Northern region.
3.2 Some Popular Groundnut Varieties
Grown and Reasons
Majority (73.33%) of groundnut farmers
interviewed, mentioned ‘high yield’, followed by
‘ease of harvesting’, (46.5%) and drought
tolerance (32.67%), among others, as their
reasons for choosing a particular type of
groundnut variety. ‘Disease tolerance’ and ‘Oil
content’ recorded 18.83% respectively whereas
‘Storability’ came across as the least (2.83%)
reason for choice of a variety (Fig. 2). ‘China
variety was mostly planted by majority (76.5%) of
the groundnut farmers, followed by ‘Agric’ (20%),
‘Oboolo’ (1.5%) and ‘Otuhia’ (0.5%) varieties.
3.3 Harvesting of Groundnuts and Other
Activities
3.3.1 Harvesting
From Table 1, a vast majority of the interviewed
groundnut farmers, 581 (96.83%) harvested their
produce only when groundnut leaves turned
yellow; and employed manual harvesting using a
hoe, 375 (62.50%), employing about thirteen (13)
or more workers, 176 (29.33%). This was
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
5
followed by 1 to 4 workers, 164 (27.33%) who
were hired to work on farmers’ groundnut farms.
‘Others’ and ‘missing’ as indicated in the
statistical analysis, represent groundnut farmers
who did not form part of either of the options
provided (or answered by farmers) or did not
provide any answer at all or had their response
missing. This is therefore treated as missing
data.
3.4 Yields of Groundnut (Shelled and
Unshelled)
Yields of shelled groundnuts were generally low
as 218 (36.33%) of the farmers in the study area
had yields ranging from 2 to 3 bags/acre (Table
2). This was closely followed by yields of 1 to 2
bags per acre of 177 (29.50%). Only a small 87
(14.50%) of the farmers obtained yields of 6 to 7
bags/acre. Among the regions, Northern region
was highest, 128 (64.00%) for 2 to 3 bags per
every acre.
According to the farmers, yields of Unshelled
groundnut was highest, 252 (42.00%) for 4 to 5
bags per acre of production. This figure was not
too different from that recorded for 6 to 7 bags
per acre, 184 (30.67%). Upper West region was
highest, 116 (58.00%) for the yield range of 4 to
5 per acres of unshelled groundnut produce.
‘Others’ and ‘missing’ as indicated in the
statistical analysis, represent groundnut farmers
who did not form part of either of the options
provided (or answered by farmers) or did not
provide any answer at all or had their response
missing. This is therefore treated as missing
data.
Two-thirds of the groundnut farmers,
representing (426, 71.00%) indicated their worst
yield for the last five years was 1 to 2 bags/acre,
whereas a little above one percent, 9 (1.50%)
said their worst yield was in the range of 6 to7
bags per every acre of production (Table 2).
3.5 Handling and Storage
Majority of groundnut farmers (93.47%) in the
Upper West region carried their groundnut
produce home on head. This is followed by
Upper East region, with 87.5% who stored their
groundnut produce at home. In the Northern
region, 84.26% of groundnut farmers stored their
produce at home while a small 14.21% stored
the produce on the farm (Fig. 3).
Results from the study areas in the three
northern regions of Ghana, in Fig. 4 shows that,
Jute sack was the most commonly used storage
structure, recording figures as much as 93.00%,
69.04% and 66.67% for Upper West, Upper East
and Northern regions respectively. Pot/brick bins
as storage structure recorded appreciable
percentages of 20.2% and 16.75% for Upper
East and Northern regions respectively.
Fig. 1. Variety of Groundnut cultivated by farmers
20
76.5
1.5 0.5
74
99.5
22
1.5 0.5 2.5 0.5
96.5
4.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of responses (%)
Northern Region Upper East Region Upper West Region
Agric
China
Oboolo
Obooshie
Otuhia
Yenyawaso
Agric
China
Oboolo
Obooshie
Otuhia
Yenyawaso
Agric
China
Oboolo
Obooshie
Otuhia
Yenyawaso
Variety of groundnut cultivated
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
6
Fig. 2. Reasons for the choice of Groundnut varieties by farmers
Source: Field survey
Table 1. Harvesting
UER UWR NR Total
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Time of harvesting
When leaves turn yellow
When leaves are still green
Others
Missing
196 (98.00)
3 (1.50)
-
1 (0.50)
195 (97.50)
-
4 (2.00)
1 (0.50)
190 (95.00)
4 (2.00)
1 (0.50)
5 (2.50)
581 (96.83)
7 (1.17)
5 (0.83)
7 (1.17)
Mode of harvesting
Manually with hoe
Mechanically with harvester
Others
Missing
175 (87.50)
4 (2.00)
21 (10.50)
-
100 (50.00)
2 (1.00)
85 (42.50)
13 (6.50)
100 (50.00)
2 (1.00)
95 (47.50)
3 (1.50)
375 (62.50)
8 (1.33)
201 (33.50)
16 (2.67)
Number of workers employed
1 – 4 workers
5 – 8 workers
9 – 12 workers
13 or more workers
Missing
77 (38.50)
60 (30.00)
25 (12.50)
38 (19.00)
-
16 (8.00)
40 (20.00)
41 (20.50)
101 (50.50)
2 (1.00)
71 (35.50)
61 (30.50)
29 (14.50)
37 (18.50)
2 (1.00)
164 (27.33)
161 (26.83)
95 (15.83)
176 (29.33)
4 (0.67)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
Majority of the groundnut farmers, 554 (92.33%)
stored their groundnut in the Unshelled form.
This figure was highest, in percentage, for Upper
West region, 190 (95.00%). Only a small
percentage of 9 (1.50%) stored their produce in
the shelled form (Table 3).
Majority, 205 (34.17%) of the groundnut farmers
stored their groundnut produce for 5 to 6 months.
This was closely followed by 191 (31.33%) who
stored their produce for 3 to 4 months only
(Table 3). ‘Others’ and ‘missing’ as indicated in
the statistical analysis, represent groundnut
farmers who did not form part of either of the
options provided (or answered by farmers) or did
not provide any response at all. This is therefore
treated as missing data.
4.83
18.83
32.67
46.5
7.33
15.00
23.33
73.33
18.83
2.83 8.33
0 20 40 60 80
Number of responses (%)
Aflatoxin free
Disease tolerant
Drought tolerant
Easy harvesting
Easy processing
Good animal feed
High market
High yield
Oil content
Storability
seed/Pod size
Reason for the choice of groundnut variety
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
7
Table 2. Crop yield
UER
NR
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
Yield of shelled groundnut
(per acre)
1 – 2 bags
2 – 3 bags
4 – 5 bags
6 -7 bags
Others
Missing
83 (41.50)
42 (21.00)
18 (9.00)
1 (0.50)
53 (26.50)
3 (1.50)
53 (26.50)
48 (24.00)
3 (1.50)
85 (42.50)
11 (5.50)
-
41 (20.50)
128 (64.00)
29 (14.50)
1 (0.50)
1 (0.50)
-
177 (29.50)
218 (36.33)
50 (8.33)
87 (14.50)
64 (10.67)
4 (0.67)
Yield of
unshelled groundnut per
acre
1 – 2 bags
2 – 3 bags
4 – 5 bags
6 -7 bags
Others
Missing
59 (29.50)
38 (19.00)
54 (27.00)
41 (20.50)
6 (3.00)
2 (1.00)
4 (2.00)
31 (15.50)
116 (58.00)
46 (23.00)
3 (1.50)
-
1 (0.50)
8 (4.00)
82 (41.00)
97 (48.50)
8 (4.00)
4 (2.00)
64 (10.67)
77 (12.83)
252 (42.00)
184 (30.67)
17 (2.83)
6 (1.00)
Best yield in the last five years
1 – 2 bags
2 – 3 bags
4 – 5 bags
6 -7 bags
Others
Missing
17 (8.50)
30 (15.00)
74 (37.00)
54 (27.00)
22 (11.00)
3 (1.50)
2 (1.00)
7 (3.50)
37 (18.50)
144 (72.00)
8 (4.00)
2 (1.00)
8 (4.000)
5 (2.50)
11 (5.50)
100 (50.00)
64 (32.00)
12 (6.00)
27 (4.50)
42 (7.00)
122 (20.33)
298 (49.67)
94 (15.67)
17 (2.83)
Worst yield in the last five years
1 – 2 bags
2 – 3 bags
4 – 5 bags
6 -7 bags
Others
Missing
159 (79.50)
20 (10.00)
16 (8.00)
2 (1.00)
1 (0.50)
2 (1.00)
122 (61.00)
65 (32.50)
5 (2.50)
2 (1.00)
4 (2.00)
2 (1.00)
145 (72.50)
26 (13.00)
2 (1.00)
5 (2.50)
15 (7.50)
7 (3.50)
426 (71.00)
111 (18.50)
23 (3.83)
9 (1.50)
20 (3.33)
11 (1.83)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
From the results in of the study in Fig. 5, more
than two-thirds of the groundnut farmers
(72.45%) suggested Jute sack was the most
efficient storage structure for groundnuts.
3.6 Type of Storage Pest and Disease
From the results of the study in Table 4, most of
the farmers, 242 (40.33%) did not experience
storage pests on their stored groundnut produce,
though Grain weevils, 57 (9.50%), Cercospora
spp, 28 (4.67%), Bruchids, 23 (3.83%) and Grain
moth, 11 (1.83%) were found to be present in
farmers’ stored groundnut produce.
Among the storage diseases identified by
groundnut farmers, Aflatoxin, 78 (13.00%),
Aspergillus spp, 21 (3.50%), Penicillium spp, 15
(2.50%) and Fusarium spp, 8 (1.33%) were
among those present, even though majority, 369
(61.50%) of them did not experience storage
disease challenges. ‘Others’ and ‘missing’ as
indicated in the statistical analysis, represent
groundnut farmers who did not form part of either
of the options provided (or answered by farmers)
or did not provide any response at all.
From the study (Fig. 6), groundnut farmers
mentioned chemical application (35.36%) as the
most commonly used method of controlling
storage pests, followed by manual (hand picking)
with 26.62%. Application of wood ash was the
least (1.90%) commonly used method by
groundnut farmers. A little above twenty- two
percent (22.43%) did not apply any form of
control measure(s) for pests and diseases.
3.7 Processing, Uses and Marketing
Table 5 gives a description of the marketing of
groundnuts by farmers. Over 489 (81.50%)
indicated they had ready market for their
groundnut produce. About forty percent, 239
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
8
(39.83%) of the farmers said they sold their
groundnut produce at the market, whereas 82
(13.67%) sold their groundnut at home.
Less than four percent, 23 (3.83%) of the farmers
said they sold all their groundnut produce after
harvest while majority, 167 (27.83%) indicated
they only sold 75% of their groundnut produce.
About 20% of the farmers sold one-third (25%)
and half (50%) of their groundnut produce
respectively.
A little above fifty percent, 315 (52.50%) used
‘bowls’ as the scale of measurement. This was
followed by 138 (23.00%) who used the 100 kg
bag as the scale of measurement, and a small 4
(0.67%), on the 50 kg bag scale (Table 5).
Table 3. Form and duration of groundnut in storage
UER UWR NR Total
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Form of storage of produce
Shelled
Unshelled
Both forms
Others
Missing
2 (1.00)
183 (91.50)
10 (5.00)
4 (2.00)
1 (0.50)
2 (1.00)
190 (95.00)
4 (2.00)
-
4 (2.00)
5 (2.50)
181 (90.50)
8 (4.00)
-
6 (3.00)
9 (1.50)
554 (92.33)
22 (3.67)
4 (0.67)
11 (1.83)
Duration of groundnut in storage
1 – 2 months
3 – 4 months
5 – 6 months
7+ months
Others
Missing
6 (3.00)
50 (25.00)
99 (49.50)
42 (21.00)
-
3 (1.50)
-
93 (46.50)
13 (6.50)
87 (43.50)
1 (0.50)
6 (3.00)
33 (16.50)
48 (24.00)
93 (46.50)
6 (3.00)
5 (2.50)
15 (7.50)
39 (6.50)
191 (31.33)
205 (34.17)
135 (22.50)
6 (1.00)
24 (4.00)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
Fig. 3. Postharvest handling of Groundnut produce by farmers
Source: Field survey
84.26
14.21
1.02 .51
87.5
3 3 3 13.52 .5
93.47
2.51
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of responses (%)
Northern Upper East Upper West
Store at home
Store on farm
carry home on head
carted home by tractor/tricycle
others
Store at home
Store on farm
carry home on head
carted home by tractor/tricycle
others
Store at home
Store on farm
carry home on head
carted home by tractor/tricycle
others
Handling of groundnut produce after harvest
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
9
Fig. 4. Type of storage structures used by farmers
Source: Field survey
Fig. 5. Opinion of farmers on the efficiency of storage structures
Source: Field survey
Results of the study (Table 6) indicate that the
average price of 100kg bag of groundnut sold for
Ghs136.55 and that for 50kg bag of groundnut
(at lean season was) sold at Ghs137.21. A bowl
of groundnut, according to the groundnut farmers
interviewed was sold at Ghs 3.24.
The study revealed that, ‘China’ groundnut
variety had the highest market value, according
to (81.5%) of the farmers interviewed. This was
followed by ‘Agric’ (11.67%), with ‘Oboolo’ variety
recording the least with less than one percent
(0.17%).
1.02
69.04
16.75
8.63
4.57 7.58
0.51
66.67
5.05
20.2
0.5 0.5
93.00
0.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of responses (%)
Northern Upper East Upper West
Barn
Basket
Jute sack
Open field
Others
Pot/brick bins
Rhombus
Silo/warehouse
Barn
Basket
Jute sack
Open field
Others
Pot/brick bins
Rhombus
Silo/warehouse
Barn
Basket
Jute sack
Open field
Others
Pot/brick bins
Rhombus
Silo/warehouse
Storage Structures in use
0.34 1.70
72.45
7.48 4.25 5.78 7.99
0 20 40 60 80
Number of responses (%)
Barn
Basket
Jute sacks
Others
Pot/brick bins
Rhombus
Silo/warehouse
Source: Field Survey
Farmer's opinion on the efficiency of storage structures
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
10
Results of the study show that, the cost of hiring
labour for land preparation per every acre of land
stood at GHs 2, 805. The highest cost was
recorded for planting (Ghs 9,042) followed by
production (cultural practices), Ghs 6,530 and
storage, Ghs 3,020. Harvesting and Processing
cost the least with Ghs 2, 000 per every acre of
activity (Table 7).
Table 4. Disease and pest attack during storage
UER
NR
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Type of storage pest
None
Grain weevils
Grain moth
Bruchids
Cercospora sp.
Others
Missing
35 (17.50)
7 (3.50)
7 (3.50)
19 (9.50)
10 (5.00)
81 (40.50)
41 (20.00)
186 (93.00)
5 (2.50)
2 (1.00)
-
-
1 (0.50)
6 (3.00)
21 (10.50)
45 (22.50)
2 (1.00)
4 (2.00)
18 (9.00)
66 (33.00)
44 (22.00)
242 (40.33)
57 (9.50)
11 (1.83)
23 (3.83)
28 (4.67)
148 (24.67)
91 (15.17)
Type of storage disease
None
Aspergillus
Fusarium
Penicillium spp
Aflatoxin
Others
Missing
102 (51.00)
5 (2.50)
3 (1.50)
-
47 (23.50)
4 (2.00)
39 (19.50)
172 (86.00)
1 (0.50)
-
-
4 (2.00)
1 (0.50)
22 (11.00)
95 (47.50)
15 (7.50)
5 (2.50)
15 (7.50)
27 (13.50)
2 (1.00)
41 (20.50)
369 (61.50)
21 (3.50)
8 (1.33)
15 (2.50)
78 (13.00)
7 (1.17)
102 (17.00)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
Fig. 6. Control measures employed by farmers for pests and diseases in storage
Source: Field survey
Chemical
Manual (hand picking)
Wood ash
Biological
Others
35.36%
26.62%
1.90%
13.69%
22.43%
Control measures for pest and disease in storage
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
11
Table 5. Marketing of groundnut produce
Number of responses
n
(%)
Ready market for groundnut produce
No
Yes
Missing
17 (2.83)
489 (81.50)
94 (15.67)
Market location for groundnut produce after harvest
None commercial
Home
Market
Others
Missing
260 (43.33)
82 (13.67)
239 (39.83)
1 (0.17)
18 (3.00)
Percentage of groundnut harvested that is sold after harvest
25%
50%
75%
100%
Others
Missing
123 (20.50)
124 (20.67)
167 (27.83)
23 (3.83)
12 (2.00)
151 (25.17)
Scale with which groundnut is sold on market days
100 kg bags
50 kg bags
Bowls
Others
Missing
138 (23.00)
4 (0.67)
315 (52.50)
30 (5.00)
113 (18.83)
Fig. 7. Opinion of farmers on choice of variety
Source: Field survey
Agric (red/white local)
China (local)
Oboolo (0.17%) Missing
11.67%
81.5%
6.67%
Farmers' opinion on the variety with the highest market value
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
12
Table 6. Average market price (and standard deviation) of groundnut across the three northern
regions
Scales
UER
NR
Mean
(sd) GH¢
Mean
(
sd
) GH¢
Mean
(
sd
) GH¢
Mean
(
sd
) GH¢
100 kg bags 130.86 (152.13) 189.94 (113.23) 208.23 (138.73) 201.92 (136.55)
50 kg bags
(at lean season) 9.00 (0.00) 100.00 (-) 300.00 (-) 104.50 (137.21)
Bowls 30.79 (83.67) 10.83 (13.04) 14.57 (40.97) 17.64 (51.08)
Others 31.14 (83.17) - 350 (-) 41.77 (100.34)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
Table 7. Cost of groundnut production per activity per acre of investment
Activity
Mean
(GH¢)
Standard
deviation (GH¢)
Minimum
(GH¢)
Maximum
(GH¢)
Labour for land preparation (per acre) 55.88 144.46 9 2805
Planting 65.31 381.28 0 9042
Production (Cultural Practices) 45.10 267.67 0 6530
Harvesting 34.18 92.68 0 2000
Processing 15.62 82.25 0 2000
Storage 21.02 129.71 5 3020
3.8 Uses of Groundnut
Majority of the groundnut farmers interviewed
414 (69.00%), representing more than half of the
farmers used groundnut for food. Only a small
percentage, 16 (2.67%) used groundnut for
medicinal purposes. However, with regard to
dishes of the produce, soup preparation came
tops, 474 (79.00%) with more than two-thirds of
the farmers. Vegetable sauce followed closely
with almost fifty percent, 267 (44.50%). Snack
formed the least, 30 (5.00%) among the uses.
Exactly half of the interviewed groundnut
farmers, 303 (50.00%) indicated groundnut paste
as the major end use of groundnut. This is
opposed to 98 (16.33%), who mentioned
groundnut feed as the end use (Table 8).
A majority, 358 (59.67%) of the farmers,
indicated they did not receive services from
MoFA extension officers, while a little 19 (3.17%)
said they very often received services. Less than
twenty percent of the farmers, 110 (18.33%)
noted they received MoFA services once a
month and 82 (13.67%) twice every month.
Among the departments or agencies relaying
information to groundnut farmers, colleague
farmers recorded the highest figure of 39.33%
followed by MoFA (31.33%), NGOs (13.83%)
and Retailers with 11.33% respectively. A little
above 1 percent (1.17%) received meteorological
information (Fig. 8).
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Chi-Square Analysis
The Chi-Square method in Table 10 was initiated
to answer the following question; ‘does the
number of months in storage depend on the type
of storage structure used’?
The idea for this analysis is to investigate
whether or not there is a relationship between
the classifications of storage structures used by
farmers and the duration of groundnuts in
storage for the three northern regions.
Table 8. Use of groundnut
Number of
responses
n
(%)
Use of groundnut
Food
Medicine
Animal feed
Others
414 (69.00)
16 (2.67)
101 (16.83)
127 (21.17)
Dishes of groundnut
Vegetable sauce
Soup preparation
Stew preparation
Snacks
267 (44.50)
474 (79.00)
192 (32.00)
30 (5.00)
End product of groundnut
Groundnut paste
Groundnut oil
Groundnut cake
Groundnut feed
303 (50.00)
129 (21.50)
197 (32.83)
98 (16.33)
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
13
Fig. 8. Department(s) relaying information to farmers
Source: Field survey
The results in the current study (Table 10)
indicate that there is enough statistical evidence
to suggest that the classifications of storage
structures and the duration of groundnut produce
in storage are not independent (p-value = 0.000)
at the 5% level of significance. This implies that
improvement of the storage structures has a
higher likelihood of increasing the duration of
groundnut in storage.
The experience of pests and diseases on
groundnut during storage was also found to be
statistically significant at the 5% level of
significance.
Since the classifications of storage structures
and the duration of groundnut in storage were
significant, it is reasonable to suggest that an
improved storage structure that increases the life
span of groundnut in storage could also reduce
the rate at which pests and diseases attack the
produce in storage.
4.2 Choice of Variety
‘China variety was mostly planted by majority
(76.5%) of the groundnut farmers and attributed
high yield (73.33%), ease of harvesting (46.5%)
and drought tolerance (32.67%) as their reasons
for the choice of variety. ‘China’ variety is an
early-maturing groundnut variety (2 to 3 months
(65.67%). All others; Agric, Oboolo, Obooshie,
Otuhia and Yenyawoso took 4 to 5 months to
mature), and it is highly accepted for its market
value and ease of processing into groundnut
paste, which also has high market value. These
might be some of the reasons for the variety’s
popularity in the Northern regions [20]. The
results again show that farmers in these
communities were not adopting the new varieties
of groundnut released by CSIR-Crops Research
Institute, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute
and MoFA. Moreover, it appears that most
improved groundnuts varieties were yet to be
adopted by farmers [21].
Today and future agriculture of these
communities and the country as a whole must
target large scale production of most staple crops
in order to be able to feed the ever increasing
population. Groundnut is one of the most
important protein sources in the community since
animal protein is expensive and not easily
affordable by the rural people [22].
4.3 Yield
Majority (36%) of the groundnut farmers in the
current study recorded yields for shelled
groundnut at 2 to 3 bags per acre. Yield of
unshelled groundnut was highest for 4 to 5 bags
per acre. Moreover, worst yield (77.1%) for the
past 5 years was highest for 1 to 2 bags per acre
and least (1.5%) for 6 to 7 bags per acre.
39.33
1.17
31.67
13.83
4.50
11.33
1.33
6.83
0 10 20 30 40
Number of responses (%)
Farmers
Meteorology
MoFA
NGOs
Research centres
Retailers
Transporters
Wholesalers
Departments that relay information to farmers
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
14
Table 9. Frequency of receipt of extension services from MoFA
UER
NR
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
Access to
extension services
Once a month
Twice a month
Very often
Not at all
Others
Missing
53 (26.50)
21 (10.50)
10 (5.00)
106 (53.00)
3 (1.50)
7 (3.50)
4 (2.00)
12 (6.00)
1 (0.50)
176 (88.00)
-
7 (3.50)
53 (26.50)
49 (24.50)
8 (4.00)
76 (38.00)
2 (1.00)
12 (6.00)
110 (18.33)
82 (13.67)
19 (3.17)
358 (59.67)
5 (0.83)
26 (4.33)
UER: Upper East Region, UWW: Upper West Region, NR: Northern Region
Table 10. Association between storage structures and duration of groundnut in storage
Df LR Chi-square statistic p-value
Storage structure
Form of storage 28 17.397 0.940
Duration of groundnut in storage 28 124.169 0.000
Duration of groundnut in storage
Pests attack during storage 4 119.782 0.000
Diseases attack during storage 4 52.417 0.000
These yields were obtained without any fertilizer
application and under low and erratic rainfall.
Most farmers are generally of the erroneous view
that groundnuts, like many other legumes, do no
need fertilizer since it has the ability to fix
atmospheric nitrogen, hence the results in the
current study. The low yields obtained by farmers
could account for the seasonal shortage of the
crop since the farmers do not get enough for
their household use, as majority produce smaller
acreages on subsistence basis rather than on
commercial basis. Therefore only a small
percentage is marketed [20].
4.4 Storage
Storage (pests and diseases) was not a major
problem (61.5%), perhaps the type of storage
structure (jute sack) commonly used (74.45%) by
majority of the farmers as well as storage of
groundnut in the dried, unshelled form (92.33%),)
helped to increase the storage life of groundnut
produce [19]. Notwithstanding, a few of the
farmers (9; 1.5%) stored their groundnuts by
removing the shells to ensure low moisture
content and to make storage less cumbersome.
Farmers would normally only keep groundnut in
the unshelled form until they want to process or
sell in the market. Groundnut, either stored
shelled or unshelled, still gave farmers reasons
to worry as most of the farmers confirmed they
had problems with the mode of storing groundnut
after production. Results in the current study
corroborate those of [19], who said that ‘the main
problem in storing legumes such as groundnut
was susceptibility to insect attack’; There are
over ten (10) pest species of grain legumes in
Africa which destroy grain from the field and in
storage and among these are weevils [23].
According to the Chi-Square statistic used to test
the association between storage structures and
duration of groundnuts in storage, the results
indicated that there is enough statistical evidence
to suggest that at (p-value = 0.000; 5% level of
significance), improvement of the storage
structures had a higher likelihood of increasing
the duration of groundnut in storage The
experience of pests and diseases on groundnut
during storage was also found to be statistically
significant at the 5% level of significance.
Since the classifications of storage structures
and the duration of groundnut in storage were
significant, it is reasonable to suggest that an
improved storage structure that increases the life
span of groundnut in storage could also reduce
the rate at which pests and diseases attack the
produce in storage.
Majority of the farmers interviewed did not have
knowledge of management practices of the crop,
especially the diseases and pests that attacked
the crop, and also the recommended chemical(s)
for controlling such diseases and pests. All
farmers interviewed complained of attack of
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
15
pests and diseases that destroyed the crop in the
field of which they had no control measures.
Majority said that they did not adopt any
management practices since they thought the
crop is generally resistant to pests and diseases.
These findings are in line with those of CGIAR, in
a cowpea-Bambara groundnut study [24], who
stated Bambara groundnut is resistant to pests
and disease attack as compared to cowpea.
4.5 Marketing
Farmers had ready market (81.5%) for their
groundnut produce. Groundnut is a produce
which is in high demand, especially in the three
Northern regions of Ghana, perhaps due to the
various uses into which they are put to or
processed into. This is true in the current study
as 27.83% sold about 75% of their groundnut
produce after harvest.
Scale of measurement used was common in
bowls (52.5%); followed by 100 kg bag (23%)
and 50 kg bag (0.67%). Average market price of
100 kg bag was Ghs136.55% and a bowl at Ghs
Ghs3.43 only. Groundnut is a traditional crop that
is mostly marketed by women. The use of bowls
as a scale of measurement has therefore
remained a convenient means and mode of
marketing.
4.6 Choice of Variety and Marketing
Majority of the farmers chose ‘China-local’ as
their preferred variety because it had highest
market value (81.5%), followed by ‘Agric’
(11.67%) and ‘Oboolo’ (0.17%).
The different prices were quoted by the
respondents because different market places
have different prices for the produce. It was
further observed that not all the landraces were
sold at a higher price; the market women were
interested in the ‘China’ variety because of the
high demand and a relatively higher price at
sales. This might also be the reason why majority
of the farmers in the community preferred to
grow the ‘China variety, since it attracted ready
market and higher price than the others [20].
Results found in the current study are in
conformity with a grain legume baseline research
carried out by [23]. The study concluded that ‘use
of improved, modern varieties was generally low
across target countries during the baseline
studies; unavailability of improved seed and, in
some cases, lack of access to credit have been
identified as major bottlenecks for improved
variety adoption [23].
4.7 Uses
Majority (69%) used groundnut for food and a
small 2.67% used groundnut for medicinal
purposes. Dishes of groundnut, according to the
current study were; Soup preparation (79%),
Vegetable sauce (44.5%) and snacks (5%), But
major end use of groundnut from the study was
groundnut paste (50%), as against 16.33% as
groundnut feed.
Results indicated that farmers in the community
used the crop for traditional performances as well
as preparation of dishes. These findings further
confirmed the fact that groundnut was a
traditional crop in these regions. However, all the
respondents in the study indicated that traditional
belief did not hinder groundnut production in
these regions [20,25].
According to departments or agencies relaying
information to groundnut farmers, colleague
farmers recorded the highest figure of 39.33%
followed by MoFA (31.33%). This results
confirms those of CGIAR Research Program on
Grain Legumes, [23] that concluded that,
‘depending on the country, farmer-to-farmer
exchange and government extension are two
major sources of information on agricultural
technologies for farmers.
5. CONCLUSION
The current research has provided positive
results in offering a general overview of the
postharvest activities as it pertains in the
Northern part of Ghana.
It is concluded from the study that, ‘China’ local
groundnut variety was the most cultivated in all
the three regions. Reasons for choice of variety
were ‘high yielding, ease of harvesting and early
maturing’. Most common disease reported was
Early Leaf Spot (Caused by Cercospora
arachidicola). Yield of groundnut was 2-
3bags/acre (Shelled), 4-5bags/acre (unshelled).
Most efficient Storage structure of groundnut was
Jute sack. Length of storage was 5-6 months.
Most common storage pests and diseases
according to the current study were Grain
weevils and Cercospora Spp. and Aflatoxin and
Aspegillus Spp. respectively.
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
16
Groundnuts have ready market in Northern
Ghana, and relay of (market) information was
mostly by Colleague farmers, MoFA, NGOs.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Panthenius CU, Ngamo LST, Hence T.
Storage Losses in Traditional Maize
Granaries in Togo. In: Study workshop on
Post-Harvest losses of cereal crops in
Africa due to Pests and Disease, Report,
UNECA and ICIPE. 2007;87-93.
2. Ngamo LST, Ngassoum MB,
Mapongmestsem PM, Malaisse F,
Haubruge E, Lognay G, Hance T. Current
Post-Harvest practices to avoid insect’s
attacks on stored grains in Northern
Cameroon. Agricultural Journal. 2007;
2(2):242-247.
3. Osiru M, Monyo E, Waliyar F, Harvey C.
Strategies for Management of the
groundnut rosette disease in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Fourth Annual General Meeting of
the Forum for Agricultural Research in
Africa. 10 17. June. Sandton. South
Africa; 2007.
4. Thamaga-Chitja JM, Hendriks SL,
Ortmann GF, Green M. Impact of maize
storage on rural household food security in
Northern Kwazulu Natal. Journal of
family Ecology and Consumer Sciences.
2004;32:8–15.
5. Thamaga-Chitja JM, Hendriks SL,
Ortmann GF, Green M. Impact of maize
storage on rural household food security in
Northern Kwazulu Natal. Journal of
family Ecology and Consumer Sciences.
2004;32:8–15.
6. Adetunji MO. Economics of maize storage
techniques by farmers in Kwara State,
Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social
Sciences. 2007;4:442-450.
7. Adejumo BA, Raji AO. Technical appraisal
of grain storage systems in the Nigerian
Sudan savannah. Journal for Scientific
Research and Development. 2007;1:11.
8. MoFA. Agriculture in Ghana. Facts and
figures. Policy planning, monitoring and
evaluation. Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. Accra, Ghana. 1997;62.
9. MoFA. Statistics, Research and Info.
Directorate (SRID), Min. of Food & Agric.;
2014.
10. Abate T, Shiferaw B, Gebeyehu S, Amsalu
B, Negash K, Assefa K, Eshete M, Aliye S,
Hagmann J. A Systems and partnership
Approach to Agricultural Research and
Development Lessons from Ethiopia.
Outlook on Agriculture. 2011;40(3):213-
220.
11. Alhassan GA, Egbe MO Participatory rural
appraisal of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna
subterranea (L.) Verdc.) Production in
Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria.
Agricultural Science. 2013;1(2):18-31.
ISSN 2291-4471 E-ISSN 2291-448X
Published by Science and Education
Centre of North America.
12. Chenault KD, Ozias-Akins P, Gallo M,
Srivastava P. Peanut. In: Compendium of
transgenic crops: Transgenic oilseed
crops, Kole C, Hall TC, (Eds.). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., USA. 2008;169-198.
13. Varshney RK, Hoisington DA, Tyagi AK.
Advances in cereal genomics and
applications in crop breeding. Trends
Biotechnol. 2006;24:490–499.
Available:www.GrainLegumes.cgiar.org 15
August, 2012. Pp 229.
14. Chambers R. Methods for analysis by
farmers: The professional challenge.
Journal for Farming Systems Research
and Extension. 1994;4(1):87-101.
15. Chambers R. Relaxed and Participatory
appraisal. Notes of Practical Approaches
and Methods: Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies. 1996;87.
16. Abedi M, Vahidi F. The importance of
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in
Research. Journal of Applied
Environmental and Biological Sciences.
2011;1(8):264-267.
17. Odendo M, De Groote H, Odongo O,
Oucho P. Participatory rural appraisal of
farmers’ criteria for selection of maize
varieties and constraints to maize
production in Moist-Mid-Altitude Zone of
Western Kenya: A Case Study of Butere-
Mumias, Busia and Homa Bay Districts.
Nairobi, Kenya: International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT).
2002;241.
18. Chambers R. The origins and practice of
participatory rural appraisal. World
Development. 1994;22:953-969.
Oppong-Sekyere et al.; JSRR, 10(5): 1-17, 2016; Article no.JSRR.22384
17
19. FAOSTAT; 2010.
Available: http://faostat.fao.org/
(Accessed on October 15, 2012)
20. Akpalu MM, Salaam M, Oppong-Sekyere
D, Akpalu SE. Farmers’ knowledge and
cultivation of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata
(L.) Verdc.) in Three communities of
Bolgatanga Municipality, Upper East
Region, Ghana. British Journal of Applied
Science & Technology. 2014;4(5):775-
792.
Available: http://www.sciencedomain.org
21. Hammond H, Gbaguidi BJ, Coulibaly O.
The case of Cowpea Farmer Field Project.
PRONAF-IITA (2002) ‘Farmer Field
School’. Rapport provisoire d’activités.
Campagne. 2001–2002. Cotonou, Benin:
PRONAF, IITA. International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA-BENIN)
Cotonou, Benin; 2002.
22. Achieng J, Odongo M, Ojiem J. Transfer of
inorganic fertilizer and improved maize
technologies to farmers in Western Kenya.
KARI-Kakamega Annual Report, KARI,
Nairobi, Kenya. 1999;61.
23. CGIAR. CGIAR research program on
Grain Legumes; Leveraging Legumes to
Combat Poverty, Hunger, Malnutrition and
Environmental Degradation; 2012.
24. Twumasi PA. Social research in Rural
Communities, Accra, Ghana. Ghana
Universities Press. African Information
Centre. 2001. ISBN: 9964302673
Language: English Series: Second. 2001;
89.
25. Akpalu MM, Atubilla IA, Oppong-Sekyere
D. Assessing the level of cultivation and
utilization of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna
subterranea (L.) Verdc.) In the Sumbrungu
community of Bolgatanga, Upper East
Region, Ghana. International Journal of
Plant, Animal and Environmental
Sciences, 2013;3(3):68-75.
Available: http://www.ijpaes.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
© 2016 Oppong-Sekyere et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/13943
... [18]. The relative occurrence was China (76.5%) ' Agric' (20%), Obolo (1.5%) and Otuhia (0.5%). ...
... Other important traits were disease tolerance, oil content and storability. Source: Oppong-Sekyere., et al. [18]. ...
... Long-term average monsoonal rainfall at Jhansi is reported to be about 800 mm, which is apparently sufficient for groundnut production, subject to the normal occurrence of monsoonal rainfall amount and its proper distribution throughout the monsoon season. It is also reported that excess rainfall affects in varying degree in different stages of groundnut plant particularly during seedling followed by vegetative stage 45 . Hence, rainfall parameters, viz. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bundelkhand region, one of the vulnerable areas in central India, is prone to frequent drought and crop failure due to annual rainfall variability. In this study, long-term (113 years) fine resolution (0.25° × 0.25°) daily gridded rainfall data has been analysed to depict a spatial variation of annual rainfall over Bundelk-hand. An increase in annual rainfall has been observed from north to south of the study area. A declining trend varying from 0.49 to 2.16 mm per year is observed in annual rainfall time series in most parts of the study area. Trend analysis of monsoon rainfall shows overall declining trend over the study area. Rainfall events are categorized in various classes and their spatial trends over Bundelkhand are depicted. Kharif crop calendar (July-September) as well as its yield in India, including Bundelkhand, is primarily based on monsoonal rainfall parameters. A study on the relationship between groundnut yield and mon-soonal rainfall parameters for Jhansi district in Bundelkhand shows highest correlation (0.46) between groundnut yield and rainfall class 3 events (16 ≤ rainfall intensity, mm day-1 < 32) occurred in a year followed by cumulative rainfall amount precipitated during June-July (JJ). The frequency of rainfall class 5 type (64 ≤ rainfall intensity, mm day-1 < 128) as well as a delay in onset of monsoonal rainfall have shown a negative correlation with groundnut yield. This study depicts rainfall pattern over the study area and identifies the vulnerable areas that are likely to experience more water stress due to rainfall variability. DEVIATION from normal rainfall in a region has an immense effect on the availability of water resources for agriculture 1. In spite of recent advances in technologies, weather and climate are still the deciding factors for agricultural production 2. Variability of climatic parameters such as precipitation and temperature, etc. affects crop growth stages and thus, influences the crop yield. In crop season, deviation in timing of seasonal rainfall puts farmers in surmise to opt for the right time for sowing crop seeds and applying agricultural inputs 3. New challenges are arising such as increased intensity of infestation of diseases in crops and propagation of new crop diseases etc. due to the climatic variability 4. The frequency of natural hazards, particularly drought and flood events, has been increased worldwide 5. Many a time, high-intensity rainfall events that occur in the offseason cause huge crop damage and put farmers in economic stress. According to the Fifth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change 6 , the global average surface temperature over India will rise from 1.7°C to 2.2°C in the 2030s compared to 1970s, along with the increase in the number of monsoon break days and extreme rainfall events. Rising mean and diurnal temperature and frequent occurrences of extreme precipitation events are reported in many parts of the world 7-10. Decline in the number of monsoon break days 11 and monsoon depressions 12 , spati-otemporal analysis of annual and seasonal rainfall 13 and drought intensity and its frequency 14-16 over India has been studied extensively and some of them tried to link these parameters with changing climate 14. It has been predicted that freshwater availability in most of the big Indian rivers will decrease due to climate change and the probable change of water resources for major Indian river basins have been quantified 17. Many researchers have carried out region-specific rainfall trend analysis over India particularly over its central part. Kumar et al. 18 reported a declining trend of annual rainfall over central India and northeast India, and an increase in annual rainfall in other parts of India while analysing rainfall data for the period 1871-2005. Rajee-van et al. 19 observed an increasing trend of extreme rainfall events in the last five decades over central India which is attributed to the increasing trend of sea surface temperature. Increase in extreme rain events has also been reported over central India by many workers 20,21. Various studies reported the effect of rainfall variability on crop yield. Several workers observed a strong correlation between Indian summer monsoon rainfall and food grain production over India 22-24. Selvaraju 25 and Subash et al. 26 studied the effect of Indian monsoon rainfall on rice productivity over India. They showed that Indian
... Long-term average monsoonal rainfall at Jhansi is reported to be about 800 mm, which is apparently sufficient for groundnut production, subject to the normal occurrence of monsoonal rainfall amount and its proper distribution throughout the monsoon season. It is also reported that excess rainfall affects in varying degree in different stages of groundnut plant particularly during seedling followed by vegetative stage 45 . Hence, rainfall parameters, viz. ...
Article
Bundelkhand region, one of the vulnerable areas in central India, is prone to frequent drought and crop failure due to annual rainfall variability. In this study, long-term (113 years) fine resolution (0.25° × 0.25°) daily gridded rainfall data has been analysed to depict a spatial variation of annual rainfall over Bundelk-hand. An increase in annual rainfall has been observed from north to south of the study area. A declining trend varying from 0.49 to 2.16 mm per year is observed in annual rainfall time series in most parts of the study area. Trend analysis of monsoon rainfall shows overall declining trend over the study area. Rainfall events are categorized in various classes and their spatial trends over Bundelkhand are depicted. Kharif crop calendar (July-September) as well as its yield in India, including Bundelkhand, is primarily based on monsoonal rainfall parameters. A study on the relationship between groundnut yield and mon-soonal rainfall parameters for Jhansi district in Bundelkhand shows highest correlation (0.46) between groundnut yield and rainfall class 3 events (16 ≤ rainfall intensity, mm day-1 < 32) occurred in a year followed by cumulative rainfall amount precipitated during June-July (JJ). The frequency of rainfall class 5 type (64 ≤ rainfall intensity, mm day-1 < 128) as well as a delay in onset of monsoonal rainfall have shown a negative correlation with groundnut yield. This study depicts rainfall pattern over the study area and identifies the vulnerable areas that are likely to experience more water stress due to rainfall variability. DEVIATION from normal rainfall in a region has an immense effect on the availability of water resources for agriculture 1. In spite of recent advances in technologies, weather and climate are still the deciding factors for agricultural production 2. Variability of climatic parameters such as precipitation and temperature, etc. affects crop growth stages and thus, influences the crop yield. In crop season, deviation in timing of seasonal rainfall puts farmers in surmise to opt for the right time for sowing crop seeds and applying agricultural inputs 3. New challenges are arising such as increased intensity of infestation of diseases in crops and propagation of new crop diseases etc. due to the climatic variability 4. The frequency of natural hazards, particularly drought and flood events, has been increased worldwide 5. Many a time, high-intensity rainfall events that occur in the offseason cause huge crop damage and put farmers in economic stress. According to the Fifth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change 6 , the global average surface temperature over India will rise from 1.7°C to 2.2°C in the 2030s compared to 1970s, along with the increase in the number of monsoon break days and extreme rainfall events. Rising mean and diurnal temperature and frequent occurrences of extreme precipitation events are reported in many parts of the world 7-10. Decline in the number of monsoon break days 11 and monsoon depressions 12 , spati-otemporal analysis of annual and seasonal rainfall 13 and drought intensity and its frequency 14-16 over India has been studied extensively and some of them tried to link these parameters with changing climate 14. It has been predicted that freshwater availability in most of the big Indian rivers will decrease due to climate change and the probable change of water resources for major Indian river basins have been quantified 17. Many researchers have carried out region-specific rainfall trend analysis over India particularly over its central part. Kumar et al. 18 reported a declining trend of annual rainfall over central India and northeast India, and an increase in annual rainfall in other parts of India while analysing rainfall data for the period 1871-2005. Rajee-van et al. 19 observed an increasing trend of extreme rainfall events in the last five decades over central India which is attributed to the increasing trend of sea surface temperature. Increase in extreme rain events has also been reported over central India by many workers 20,21. Various studies reported the effect of rainfall variability on crop yield. Several workers observed a strong correlation between Indian summer monsoon rainfall and food grain production over India 22-24. Selvaraju 25 and Subash et al. 26 studied the effect of Indian monsoon rainfall on rice productivity over India. They showed that Indian
Article
Full-text available
A study was conducted in Sumbrungu, Bolgatanga Municipality of the Upper East Region of Ghana to determine the level of cultivation and utilization of Bambara groundnut. A survey involving the use of both open-ended and close-ended questionnaires and also interviews were administered. A total of 30 Bambara groundnut farmers were selected. Houses were chosen depending on the concentration of Bambara groundnut farmers. Data was collected on the following; Sex distribution, number of acreages cultivated, household sizes, marketing and utilization, constraints in production and farmer management of the crop. Data collected were analyzed by the use of descriptive statistics; mainly percentages. It was observed that more people cultivated lower acreages of the crop; 40% of the farmers cultivated acreages of land between 1 and 2, 37% cultivated 3 and 4, 17% 5 and 6 and 6% between 7 acres and above. All (100%) farmers complained of attack of pests and diseases that destroyed the crop in the field of which they had no control measures. 17% of the farmers applied inorganic fertilizer whiles 83% did not apply any fertilizer at all. 33% of the farmers reported that they obtained yields of between 100kg-150kg/acre, whiles 7% had yield between 700kg/acre and above. The crop is used for the preparation of dishes such as 'tubani', 'kose' and snack as well as for traditional rites (funerals). 64% uses Bambara groundnut for performance of funeral rites, 33% for medicinal purposes and 3% for gifts. The study showed that constraints to Bambara groundnut production in the community are low yields, pests and disease control methods, lack of improved varieties since weevils attack stored seeds. Bambara groundnut has a lot of potential, especially in the Northern Ghana, thus, the need to research into ways of managing the crop, in terms of pests and diseases, storage methods and chemicals, so that farmers can boost its cultivation on large scale basis.
Article
Full-text available
In spite of the availability of several improved agricultural technologies generated by the research system in Ethiopia over the last four decades, adoption of these innovations by smallholder farmers has been very low. This has led to stagnation of agricultural productivity and low crop yields, exposing the country to recurrent food shortfalls and national food insecurity. The old approach to agricultural research emphasized developing new technologies mainly through on-station research that were then supposed to reach farmers through the public-sector extension system. The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) has in recent years introduced a shift in agricultural research for development, which is based on the innovation systems approach that involved cultivating partnerships with several actors along the value chain, especially farmers, farmers' cooperatives and input suppliers. This paper presents the methodology used to facilitate agricultural innovations and the diffusion of new technologies and illustrates the outcomes of this initiative with regard to technology adoption, productivity growth and the market orientation of production. The authors use examples from experiences in scaling up three grain legumes. Compared to the three-year baseline average (2003-05), crop output increased nationally by 89%, 85% and 97% in 2008 for common bean, chickpea and lentil respectively. Nationally, 53-59% of the output growth is attributable to yield growth due to technological change, while the balance is due to area expansion. These results affirm that the new approach has led to accelerated adoption of new and high-yielding or low-risk varieties.
Article
Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) study of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.)Verdc.) production was conducted in six villages sampled from three Local Government Areas (LGA). The LGAs were Ogbadibo, Kwande (Benue State) and Olamaboro (Kogi State), all located in Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. The study involved 6 group discussions and 240 individual key informants who were interviewed using a check list with a view to provide information on existing bambara groundnut-based cropping systems. Results indicated that most bambara groundnut farmers were literate (99.58%). 52.91% of the farmers were males and 47.08% were females. Bambara groundnut production was mainly in small holdings (≤1ha). About 30 % of bambara groundnut farmers plant the crop as sole while 65.83% intercropped it with other crops. Intercropping with cassava dominated the intercrop systems. Planting was mainly on ridges (83.33%). About 77% of the farmers do not apply fertilizer to bambara groundnut with the belief that it could grow well on poor soils. Weeding was done manually by 87.08% of the farmers, while 21.25% of them used herbicides for weed control mainly in Kwande LGA. Yields of bambara groundnut were generally low (100-600 kg/ha). Labour and lack of finance ranked the highest consideration by farmers as constraints to the production of bambara groundnut in Southern Guinea Savanna. Scientific investigation into the suitability of some of the popular landraces of bambara groundnut in the various cropping systems in Southern Guinea Savanna might be necessary to ensure food security in the region.
Article
A technical survey of the village level grain storage structures existing in the Sudan Savanna climatic zone of Nigeria was undertaken. Preliminary investigation result shows that the common grain storage structures existing in this zone are the mud rhombus, thatched rhombus, underground pit, and earthen pot and warehouse storage. The grain usually stored in unthreshed forms includes millet, sorghum, maize and cowpea. Most of these structures are not moisture proof, rodent proof and are not airtight. Structural defects occur mainly in the roof, walls and columns of the storage structures. The common types of physical defects are cracks, leakage, termite infestation and structural failure of parts. The causes of defects among others include poor strength of material, inadequate columns, low elevation and pest infestation. The result however, shows that it might be more profitable for subsistent farmers to continue the storage of unthreshed cereal grain and possible unshelled pulsed in rhombus and underground pits since these have relatively low storage cost per kilogram of grain. However there is need for some technical improvement on the construction materials, nature of columns, elevation and the loading/unloading facilities. The farmers' shows willingness in adopting new storage techniques provided such structures are cheap and affordable.
Article
This study was conducted to identify and describe the factors affecting the use of maize-storage techniques among farmers. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to choose eight local government areas (LGAs) from four zones. Five villages were selected from each LGA. One hundred and eighty eight maize farmers were selected using probability proportionate to farmers' number in each village as contained in Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) household lists. Structured questionnaires were used to collect data, which were analyzed using a descriptive, multinomial model. The three maize-storage techniques under examination were local storage (LS), semi modern storage (SMS) and modern storage (MS). The survey revealed that 38% of the farmers used local storage, 31% did not store their maize, 21% used semi-modern, and 11% used modern storage techniques. About 83% of the maize farmers were male and 30% of those used local storage, while 27% did not use any storage. Fifty-five% of the farmers were in the age range of 41–50 years; 39% had no formal education and 43% had an average of eight household members. Most of the maize farmers (61%) inherited their storage structures. With the multinomial analysis revealed that increase in transportation cost, labor cost and farmers' household size enhanced the probability of using no storage, the probability of using local storage was enhanced by farmer's age, semi-modern choice was likely influenced by quantity of maize stored, while the probability of using modern storage was increased by years of experience, educational level of the farmers and quantity of maize stored by the farmers. Modern storage technique is highly recommended and farmers are encouraged to store in groups to store large quantities.
Article
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders; in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. Participatory methods include mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, seasonal calendars, trend and change analysis, well-being and wealth ranking and grouping, and analytical diagramming. PRA applications include natural resources management, agriculture, poverty and social programs, and health and food security. Dominant behavior by outsiders may explain why it has taken until the 1990s for the analytical capabilities of local people to be better recognized and for PRA to emerge, grow and spread.
Article
Recent advances in cereal genomics have made it possible to analyse the architecture of cereal genomes and their expressed components, leading to an increase in our knowledge of the genes that are linked to key agronomically important traits. These studies have used molecular genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci (QTL) of several complex traits that are important in breeding. The identification and molecular cloning of genes underlying QTLs offers the possibility to examine the naturally occurring allelic variation for respective complex traits. Novel alleles, identified by functional genomics or haplotype analysis, can enrich the genetic basis of cultivated crops to improve productivity. Advances made in cereal genomics research in recent years thus offer the opportunities to enhance the prediction of phenotypes from genotypes for cereal breeding.