Evaluating Sustainable Intensification of Groundnut Production in Northern Ghana Using the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Experimental Design and Agronomic Management
2.3. Assessment of Sustainable Intensification
2.4. Selection and Measurement of Indicator by Domains
2.4.1. Productivity
2.4.2. Economic
2.4.3. Environment
2.4.4. Human
2.4.5. Social
2.5. Transformation, Aggregation of Indicators, and Sustainability Indexing
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Productivity
3.2. Economic
3.3. Environment
3.4. Human
3.5. Social
3.6. Sustainability Index
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations; Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Vanlauwe, B.; Barrios, E.; Robinson, T.; Van Asten, P.; Zingore, S.; Gérard, B. System productivity and natural resource integrity in smallholder farming: Friends or foes? In Sustainable Intensification in Smallholder Agriculture; Öborn, I., Vanlauwe, B., Phillips, M., Thomas, R., Brooijmans, W., Atta-Krah, K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 159–176. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Gunton, R.M.; Firbank, L.G.; Inman, A.; Winter, D.M. How scalable is sustainable intensification. Nat. Plants. 2016, 2, 10–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Snapp, S.S.; Grabowski, P.; Chikowo, R.; Smith, A.; Anders, E.; Sirrine, D.; Chimonyo, V.; Bekunda, M. Maize yield and profitability tradeoffs with social, human and environmental performance: Is sustainable intensification feasible? Agric. Syst. 2018, 162, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baulcombe, D.; Crute, I.; Davies, B.; Dunwell, J.; Gale, M.; Jones, J.; Pretty, J.; Sutherland, W.; Toulmin, C. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Schut, M.; van Asten, P.; Okafor, C.; Hicintuka, C.; Mapatano, S.; Nabahungu, N.L.; Kagabo, D.; Muchunguzi, P.; Njukwe, E.; Dontsop-Nguezet, P.M.; et al. Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agric. Syst. 2016, 145, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musumba, M.; Grabowski, P.; Palm, C.; Snapp, S. Guide for the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework; Kansas State University: Manhattan, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Pasupuleti, J.; Nigam, S.N.; Pandey, M.K.; Nagesh, P.; Varshney, R.K. Groundnut improvement: Use of genetic and genomic tools. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsigbey, F.K.; Brandenburg, R.L.; Clottey, V.A. Peanut production methods in Northern Ghana and some disease perspectives, 2003. World Geogr. Peanut Knowl. Base Website. 2003, 9, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures (2016); MoFA-Statistics, Research and Information Directorate: Accra, Ghana, 2017.
- Larbi, A.; Dung, D.D.; Olorunju, P.E.; Smith, J.W.; Tanko, R.J.; Muhammad, I.R.; Adekunle, I.O. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) for food and fodder in crop-livestock systems: Forage and seed yields, chemical composition and rumen degradation of leaf and stem fractions of 38 cultivars. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999, 77, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naab, J.B.; Seini, S.S.; Gyasi, K.O.; Mahama, G.Y.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Boote, K.J.; Jones, J.W. Groundnut yield response and economic benefits of fungicide and phosphorus application in farmer-managed trials in Northern Ghana. Exp. Agric. 2009, 45, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giayetto, O.; Cerioni, G.A.; Asnal, W.E. Effect of sowing spacing on vegetative growth, dry matter production, and peanut pod yield. Peanut Sci. 1998, 25, 86–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meena, R.S.; Yadav, R.S. Yield and profitability of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) as influenced by sowing dates and nutrient levels with different varieties. Legume Res. 2015, 38, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tetteh, F.M.; Larbi, A.; Nketia, K.A.; Senaya, J.N.; Hoeschle-Zeledon, I.; Abdul Rahman, N. Suitability of Soils for Cereal Cropping in Northern Ghana. Evaluation and Recommendations; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA): Ibadan, Nigeria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kotu, B.H.; Abass, A.B.; Hoeschle-Zeledon, I.; Mbwambo, H.; Bekunda, M. Exploring the profitability of improved storage technologies and their potential impacts on food security and income of smallholder farm households in Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 82, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, J.; Croppenstedt, A.; Aggrey-Fynn, E. Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Ghana; Working Paper 47; World Bank’s Development Research Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Teasdale, J.R.; Brandsaeter, L.O.; Calegari, A.; Neto, F.S.; Upadhyaya, M.K.; Blackshaw, R.E. Cover Crops and Weed Management: Non-Chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Daubenmire, R.F. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Sci. 1959, 33, 43–64. [Google Scholar]
- Unkovich, M.; Herridge, D.; Peoples, M.; Cadisch, G.; Boddey, B.; Giller, K.; Alves, B.; Chalk, P. Measuring Plant-Associated Nitrogen Fixation in Agricultural Systems; Monograph No. 136; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR): Canberra, Australia, 2008.
- Pollesch, N.; Dale, V.H. Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kang, G.S.; Beri, V.; Sidhu, B.S.; Rupela, O.P. A new index to assess soil quality and sustainability of wheat-based cropping systems. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2005, 41, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdul Rahman, N.; Larbi, A.; Opoku, A.; Tetteh, F.M.; Hoeschle-Zeledon, I. Crop–livestock interaction effect on soil quality and maize yield in Northern Ghana. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 907–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Institute. Base SAS 9.4 Procedures Guide; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 328–331. [Google Scholar]
- Bank of Ghana 2020. Available online: http://www.bog.gov.gh/treasury-and-the-markets/daily-interbank-fx-rates/ (accessed on 16 June 2020).
- Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Vlek, P.L.; MacCarthy, D.S. Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: A case study of Sekyedumase district in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tubbs, R.S.; Beasley, J.P., Jr.; Culbreath, A.K.; Kemerait, R.C.; Smith, N.B.; Smith, A.R. Row pattern and seeding rate effects on agronomic, disease, and economic factors in large-seeded runner peanut. Peanut Sci. 2011, 38, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dominguez-Hernandez, M.E.; Zepeda-Bautista, R.; Valderrama-Bravo, M.D.C.; Dominguez-Hernandez, E.; Hernandez-Aguilar, C. Sustainability assessment of traditional maize (Zea mays L.) agroecosystem in Sierra Norte of Puebla, Mexico. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 383–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Productivity | Economic | Environment | Human | Social | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield (kg/ha) | Net Income | Vegetative Cover (Days After Planting, %) | BNF | Calorie | Protein | Technology Rating (%) | |||||||||
Grain | Fodder | (GHC/ha) | BCR | 0 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | Harvest | (%/ha) | (kcal/ha) × 106 | (g/ha) × 105 | Male (n = 182) | Female (n = 147) | |
Variety | |||||||||||||||
Chinese | 784.2 bc | 1636.4 b | 272.7 c | 1.2 bc | 31.8 a | 45.6 a | 71.0 a | 82.7 a | 88.6 a | 25.7 c | 4.4 bc | 2.0 bc | 20 | 29 | |
Yenyawoso | 788.8 bc | 2029.7 b | 311.9 bc | 1.2 bc | 27.1 a | 41.8 a | 65.0 a | 81.0 a | 90.1 a | 39.7 b | 4.5 bc | 2.0 bc | 24 | 20 | |
Samnut 23 | 758.2 c | 1868.7 b | 183.0 c | 1.1 c | 29.1 a | 43.3 a | 76.4 a | 84.2 a | 90.2 a | 23.7 c | 4.3 c | 2.0 c | 10 | 12 | |
Azivivi | 909.2 ab | 2827.7 a | 525.6 ab | 1.3 ab | 24.5 a | 39.2 a | 69.5 a | 83.9 a | 92.7 a | 63.0 a | 5.2 ab | 2.3 ab | 12 | 16 | |
Mani pinta | 985.5 a | 3168.8 a | 714.6 a | 1.4 a | 28.7 a | 43.0 a | 69.8 a | 81.0 a | 89.1 a | 69.3 a | 5.6 a | 2.5 a | 21 | 16 | |
Samnut 22 | 847.7 abc | 2797.8 a | 414.7 bc | 1.3 ab | 30.9 a | 46.4 a | 75.4 a | 86.2 a | 90.8 a | 69.3 a | 4.8 abc | 2.2 abc | 14 | 9 | |
s.e.m | 46.42 | 134.52 | 83.58 | 0.06 | 1.79 | 1.88 | 3.05 | 2.66 | 1.88 | 4.50 | 0.26 | 0.12 | - | - | |
p-value | 0.0257 | <0.0001 | 0.00520 | 0.00870 | 0.1120 | 0.1464 | 0.1581 | 0.7292 | 0.7214 | <0.0001 | 0.0257 | 0.0257 | - | - | |
Plant density (plant/ha) | (n = 150) | (n = 110) | |||||||||||||
22 | 1124.5 a | 3035.9 a | 878.2 a | 1.5 a | 39.7 a | 54.4 a | 82.1 a | 93.0 a | 98.2 a | 62.3 a | 6.4 a | 2.9 a | 43 | 45 | |
15 | 882.4 b | 2546.6 b | 318.1 b | 1.2 b | 28.1 b | 43.9 b | 74.3 b | 84.7 b | 91.0 b | 55.3 ab | 5.0 b | 2.3 b | 24 | 27 | |
11 | 769.7 c | 2000.4 b | 355.5 b | 1.2 b | 26.2 b | 39.6 bc | 67.8 c | 82.0 b | 88.6 b | 36.4 b | 4.4 c | 2.0 c | 17 | 16 | |
9 | 605.9 d | 1969.8 c | 63.3 c | 1.0 c | 20.7 c | 35.0 c | 60.5 d | 72.9 c | 83.2 c | 39.8 b | 3.4 d | 1.6 d | 15 | 12 | |
s.e.m | 50.61 | 102.24 | 109.10 | 0.07 | 1.70 | 1.71 | 2.83 | 1.90 | 1.68 | 5.93 | 0.29 | 0.13 | - | - | |
p-value | 0.0003 | 0.0001 | 0.0034 | 0.0044 | 0.0002 | 0.0001 | 0.0026 | 0.0003 | 0.0011 | 0.0381 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | - | - |
Productivity | Economic | Environment | Human | Social | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield (kg/ha) | Net Income | Vegetative Cover (Days After Planting, %) | BNF | Calorie | Protein | Technology Rating (%) | ||||||||
Grain | Fodder | (GHC/ha) | BCR | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | Harvest | (%/ha) | (kcal/ha) × 106 | (g/ha) × 105 | Male (n = 182) | Female (n = 147) | |
Variety | ||||||||||||||
Chinese | 595.0 d | 1052.9 d | −269.8 d | 0.9 c | 32.4 a | 46.0 ab | 61.0 a | 71.4 b | 83.4 c | 21.9 b | 3.4 d | 1.5 cd | 31 | 31 |
Yenyawoso | 695.2 c | 1521.0 bc | 26.8 bc | 1.0 b | 29.9 ab | 47.4 a | 63.6 a | 75.5 ab | 90.1 ab | 35.4 b | 3.9 c | 1.8 c | 36 | 36 |
Samnut 23 | 816.6 a | 1430.8 c | 347.0 a | 1.1 a | 24.0 c | 35.8 c | 50.6 b | 64.1 c | 81.9 c | 32.3 b | 4.6 a | 2.1 a | 7 | 7 |
Azivivi | 655.7 cd | 1740.9 abc | −86.4 cd | 0.9 c | 25.5 c | 38.7 c | 56.2 ab | 71.9 b | 90.0 ab | 56.1 a | 3.7 cd | 1.7 cd | 9 | 9 |
Mani pinta | 780.8 ab | 1928.2 a | 269.8 ab | 1.1 a | 26.6 bc | 40.3 bc | 58.0 ab | 72.1 b | 88.8 b | 67.0 a | 4.4 ab | 2.0 ab | 16 | 16 |
Samnut 22 | 730.5 bc | 1777.5 ab | 121.4 abc | 1.0 b | 30.3 ab | 44.9 ab | 63.6 a | 79.4 a | 93.1 a | 55.5 a | 4.1 bc | 1.9 bc | 1 | 1 |
s.e.m | 28.08 | 110.34 | 82.15 | 0.03 | 1.25 | 1.98 | 2.49 | 2.26 | 1.23 | 4.96 | 0.16 | 0.07 | - | - |
p-value | 0.0006 | 0.0007 | 0.0009 | 0.0007 | 0.0019 | 0.0049 | 0.0156 | 0.0063 | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | - | - |
Plant density (plant/ha) | (n = 71) | (n = 86) | ||||||||||||
22 | 936.3 a | 1922.2 a | 765.5 a | 1.3 a | 31.6 a | 46.6 a | 66.6 a | 78.0 a | 92.3 a | 52.4 a | 5.3 a | 2.4 a | 35 | 49 |
15 | 727.3 b | 1604.1 b | −156.7 b | 0.9 b | 28.7 ab | 43.9 a | 60.3 ab | 72.3 b | 88.3 b | 45.7 ab | 4.1 b | 1.9 b | 14 | 24 |
11 | 644.8 bc | 1441.0 bc | −42.4 b | 1.0 b | 27.6 ab | 41.8 ab | 55.6 bc | 70.1 b | 87.0 b | 42.8 b | 3.7 bc | 1.7 bc | 32 | 20 |
9 | 540.8 c | 1333.6 c | −293.9 b | 0.8 b | 24.5 b | 36.4 b | 52.8 b | 69.1 b | 84.0 c | 37.8 b | 3.1 c | 1.4 c | 18 | 7 |
s.e.m | 38.43 | 58.84 | 109.98 | 0.04 | 1.13 | 1.45 | 1.17 | 1.45 | 0.79 | 2.49 | 0.22 | 0.10 | - | - |
p-value | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.0001 | 0.0114 | 0.0045 | <0.0001 | 0.0078 | 0.0003 | 0.0155 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | - | - |
Productivity | Economic | Environment | Human | Social | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield (kg/ha) | Net Income | Vegetative Cover (Days After Planting, %) | BNF | Calorie | Protein | Technology Rating (%) | ||||||||
Grain | Fodder | (GHC/ha) | BCR | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | Harvest | (%/ha) | (kcal/ha) × 106 | (g/ha) × 105 | Male (n = 182) | Female (n = 147) | |
Variety (V) | ||||||||||||||
Chinese | 728.2 b | 3000.6 d | 257.1 b | 1.1 b | 33.5 b | 50.2 abc | 72.5 ab | 81.4 ab | 89.4 a | 25.7 a | 4.1 b | 1.9 b | 8 | 39 |
Yenyawoso | 786.5 b | 3859.2 bc | 415.0 b | 1.2 b | 35.9 ab | 50.7 abc | 71.4 ab | 82.8 a | 90.5 a | 49.6 b | 4.5 b | 2.0 b | 49 | 25 |
Samnut 23 | 841.7 ab | 3443.3 cd | 534.6 ab | 1.3 ab | 33.1 b | 44.9 c | 60.4 d | 73.6 b | 85.4 ab | 32.1 c | 4.8 ab | 2.2 ab | 7 | 4 |
Azivivi | 846.3 ab | 4213.6 ab | 520.4 ab | 1.3 ab | 39.3 a | 53.4 ab | 76.8 a | 84.5 a | 87.9 ab | 51.0 ab | 4.8 ab | 2.2 ab | 0 | 0 |
Mani pinta | 950.5 a | 4292.8 ab | 805.1 a | 1.4 a | 32.3 b | 49.5 bc | 65.8 cd | 79.5 ab | 85.9 ab | 52.1 ab | 5.4 a | 2.5 a | 16 | 1 |
Samnut 22 | 958.3 a | 4331.3 a | 822.0 a | 1.4 a | 32.5 b | 57.3 a | 70.4 bc | 83.1 a | 83.8 b | 60.0 a | 5.4 a | 2.5 a | 19 | 30 |
s.e.m | 52.06 | 153.88 | 116.48 | 0.07 | 1.60 | 2.41 | 1.81 | 2.71 | 1.82 | 3.39 | 0.30 | 0.13 | - | - |
p-value | 0.0447 | <0.0001 | 0.0246 | 0.0299 | 0.0526 | 0.0456 | 0.0002 | 0.1213 | 0.1417 | <0.0001 | 0.0447 | 0.0447 | - | - |
Plant density (plant/ha) | ||||||||||||||
22 | 1147.6 a | 4312.6 a | 1292.7 a | 1.7 a | 36.4 a | 58.3 a | 75.7 a | 87.6 a | 90.9 a | 54.5 a | 6.5 a | 3.0 a | 46 | 41 |
15 | 905.1 b | 3963.3 ab | 502.1 b | 1.2 b | 36.4 a | 53.1 ab | 71.4 ab | 81.3 b | 91.4 a | 54.3 a | 5.1 b | 2.3 b | 39 | 43 |
11 | 767.8 bc | 3757.9 ab | 433.3 bc | 1.2 b | 35.1 a | 49.8 b | 69.0 b | 81.4 b | 84.8 b | 40.7 b | 4.4 bc | 2.0 bc | 12 | 16 |
9 | 587.1 c | 3393.5 b | 8.1 c | 1.0 c | 29.8 b | 42.9 c | 62.0 c | 73.0 c | 81.5 c | 30.8 c | 3.3 c | 1.5 c | 3 | 0 |
s.e.m | 39.09 | 133.57 | 79.78 | 0.04 | 1.48 | 1.26 | 1.55 | 1.19 | 1.50 | 2.77 | 0.22 | 0.10 | - | - |
p-value | <.0001 | 0.0059 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0356 | <0.0001 | 0.0011 | 0.0001 | 0.0028 | 0.0004 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | - | - |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abdul Rahman, N.; Larbi, A.; Kotu, B.; Kizito, F.; Hoeschle-Zeledon, I. Evaluating Sustainable Intensification of Groundnut Production in Northern Ghana Using the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155970
Abdul Rahman N, Larbi A, Kotu B, Kizito F, Hoeschle-Zeledon I. Evaluating Sustainable Intensification of Groundnut Production in Northern Ghana Using the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework Approach. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):5970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155970
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbdul Rahman, Nurudeen, Asamoah Larbi, Bekele Kotu, Fred Kizito, and Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon. 2020. "Evaluating Sustainable Intensification of Groundnut Production in Northern Ghana Using the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework Approach" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 5970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155970