Next Article in Journal
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Bonded Nd-Fe-B Magnets: Virgin Production versus Recycling
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Properties Classification in Sustainable Agriculture Using Genetic Algorithm-Optimized and Deep Neural Networks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/su16198600
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Farmers Preferentially Allocate More Land to Cultivation of Conventional White Maize Compared to Weevil-Resistant Biofortified Orange Maize

by
Smith G. Nkhata
*,
Finason Watson
,
Monica Chimbaza
,
Sydney Namaumbo
,
Kondwani Kammwamba
,
Gift Chisapo
,
Theresa Nakoma Ngoma
,
Madalitso Chilembo
and
Limbikani Matumba
Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, Faculty of Life Sciences and Natural Resources, Natural Resources College, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 143, Malawi
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(19), 8600; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198600
Submission received: 24 May 2024 / Revised: 7 September 2024 / Accepted: 17 September 2024 / Published: 3 October 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The successful translation of biofortified orange maize (BOM) to a staple household food is dependent on farmers’ ability to cultivate and subsequently utilize it. In this study, we assessed farmers’ allocation of their land to the cultivation of BOM and conventional white maize (CWM) varieties in districts where the AFIKEPO Nutrition Program is implemented in Malawi. The results showed that farmers were skeptical of allocating more land to the cultivation of BOM. CWM was allocated significantly more land (1.75 ± 0.51 acres) than BOM (1.12 ± 0.32 acres) (p < 0.001) in all districts. More farmers (87.9%) allocated less than 1 acre to BOM cultivation. The cost of seeds did not explain the preference for CWM, as the price of seeds in Malawi Kwacha was similar for both maize types (p = 0.742). Consequently, the average number of bags (50 kg maize grains/bag) harvested was significantly lower (mean: 6.48 ± 8.27 bags; median: 4 bags) for BOM than for CWM (mean: 23.11 ± 20.54 bags; median: 17 bags). Interestingly, BOM was found to be more resistant to weevils during post-harvest storage, suggesting the potential for improved food and nutrition security for households. The knowledge of high grain resistance to weevils did not influence farmers to cultivate more BOM. This has the potential to negatively affect maize biofortification as an effective strategy to alleviate vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in developing countries. Farmers should be sensitized to identify the benefits of BOM so that they are willing to purchase seeds and grow BOM on a larger scale. Coupled with its higher resistance to storage weevils, superior taste, and nutrient content, the continued cultivation and consumption of BOM has the potential to contribute to the achievement of both food and nutrition security within communities.

1. Introduction

Over the last two decades, the bio-fortification of staple crops has increasingly become relevant, especially in the developing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), South America, and the Middle East, where micronutrient deficiencies are high. More crops are targeted for bio-fortification with iron, zinc, and provitamin A carotenoids (pVAC). Maize and sweet potatoes are the main staples targeted for vitamin A bio-fortification. The choice of these crops is dependent not only on their widespread consumption in targeted countries but also on their inherent ability to accumulate vitamin A carotenoids biosynthetically [1]. Bio-fortification has, therefore, been touted as the most cost-effective and hence preferred strategy to alleviate vitamin A deficiency (VAD) compared to nutrient supplementation and food fortification [1].
The VAD prevalence in Africa is estimated at approximately 48% [2]. To date, 11 countries have implemented maize bio-fortification, and these include Malawi, Zambia, Nigeria, Cameroon, DR Congo, Ghana, Mali, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe in Africa, and Brazil in South America. A total of 63 varieties have thus far been released (https://www.harvestplus.org/home/crops/, accessed on 23 May 2024). The bio-fortification of maize is considered an economical strategy to reduce VAD in countries where maize is consumed as a staple food by the majority [3]. In general, maize alone provides 30% of the total calories in SSA, with some countries having a high daily per capita consumption of 330 g [4,5]. This level of consumption is adequate to affect vitamin A status among consuming households. HarvestPlus set a target for pVAC content in biofortified maize cultivars at 15 µg/g to meet 50% of the recommended dietary requirement, and this value has already been surpassed by several varieties released in those countries so far [6,7]. Therefore, the widespread consumption of bio-fortified maize grains has the potential to reduce national, regional, and global VAD. Several benefits have been reported in several efficacy and effectiveness trials to assess the effects of the regular consumption of biofortified staple foods on improving human vitamin A status [8].
Despite many countries implementing the bio-fortification of maize, the cultivation and adoption of biofortified maize still remains very low [9] to significantly influence the national or regional vitamin A status of the population. This is because the adoption and retention decisions of biofortified crops are influenced by many factors, including farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics, such as gender, nutrition knowledge, education, access to planting material, taste, dry matter content, yield per hectare, maturity duration, and drought-tolerant traits [9]. To date, conventional white maize (CWM) varieties remain the dominant type of maize in many households, and farmers have to make decisions to reserve some land to accommodate biofortified orange maize (BOM). Farmers must reduce the acreage of their existing crops to accommodate new crops. The size of land they could reserve for growing new biofortified crops could be determined by factors such as expected yield and income relative to other known crops. The majority of rural farmers are smallholder farmers owning less than 2 ha of land [10], making them less likely to portion their already limited land to the growing of new crops.
The current approach focusing on high yield, nutrition, and sensory properties of BOM may not increase adoption among some households because of the limited availability of farmland. For instance, families with more land are most likely to practice crop diversification [11].
Various stakeholders, including governments, research institutions, seed companies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are actively promoting the cultivation and consumption of biofortified maize through developing and distributing maize varieties that are adapted to agroecological conditions [12]. However, the cultivation of these crops may be limited by inadequate land to grow preferred crops. Therefore, this study was carried out to understand the farmer’s preference for BOM and CWM based on land allocation, cost, the main sources of seeds, the number of bags (each 50 kg of grains) harvested, and comparable resistance to storage weevils (Sitophilus zeamais).

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Site

The study was carried out in 10 districts where the AFIKEPO Nutrition Program is currently being implemented in Malawi. AFIKEPO, normally written as ‘afikepo’, is a Chichewa word that is translated into English to mean ‘let them grow’. Chichewa is a national language in Malawi, and ‘them’ refers to children. In these districts, farmers grew both BOM and CWM in the two seasons preceding the study. FAO and UNICEF, in collaboration with the Government of Malawi, implement the AFIKEPO Nutrition program. The AFIKEPO program promotes the production and utilization of BOM through the provision of inputs, such as seeds and fertilizers, to farmers.

2.2. Sampling Frame and Sample Size

Due to the limited numbers of farmers who had grown both BOM and CWM in the two seasons preceding the study, approximately 20 farmers from each district were purposively selected by agricultural frontline staff. A total of 224 farmers (n = 224) across the ten districts participated in the survey.

2.3. Survey Data Collection

A semi-structured questionnaire in the Chichewa or Tumbuka language was administered to farmers (refer to the English version of the questionnaire in the Supplementary Materials). Where farmers were not clear, enumerators rephrased and clarified the questions. Farmers were asked diverse questions related to production, storage, utilization, and services related to orange maize and white maize. Informed consent was sought from all participating farmers before starting to respond to the survey questionnaire.

2.4. The Comparable Susceptibility of BOM and CWM to Weevils

During the survey, farmers observed that BOM varieties are less susceptible to weevils than CWM varieties. Therefore, a study was carried out to compare the susceptibility of BOM and CWM. Briefly, four varieties, two white (dent and flint) and two BOM (dent and flint) were evaluated for weevil susceptibility. The experiment was laid out in a completely randomized design. The four treatments (varieties) were performed in triplicate at 4 testing intervals (0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks). Therefore, 48 bottles, each containing 250 maize grains for each maize variety, were placed and stored in perforated bottles infested with 20 weevils (Sitophillus zeamis). The grains were stored for nine weeks in a well-ventilated room, and sampling was performed every three weeks.

2.5. Determination of Protein Content of Grains

Crude protein was analyzed using the Kjeldahl Method, as reported by Munthali et al., 2022 [13]. Briefly, 100 mg of the sample was weighed using an analytical balance on a filter paper and was placed in a digestion tube. Thirty milliliters (30 mL) of 98% H2SO4 was then added into the digestion tube together with 1 tablet of the Kjeldahl catalyst. The digestion apparatus was assembled and placed in the fume hood, which was turned on. The digestion of the sample was initiated at a low heat (150 °C) for 30 min and then increased to higher heat (400 °C). After the samples turned green, the digester was switched off to allow the tubes to cool down. The digest was then transferred to a 50 mL volumetric flask through a funnel and then increased the volume with distilled water to the 50 mL mark. A 10 mL aliquot of the extract was then transferred into a distillation tube, which had 10 mL of 40 percent NaOH dispensed in it. Thereafter, 10 mL of 2 percent boric acid was added in an Erlenmeyer flask, followed with 5 drops of the mixed indicator made of methyl red and bromo-cresol green. The mixture was then steam-distilled for 4 min until the wine-red color of the solution in the Erlenmeyer flask flashed to green. Lastly, the solution was titrated back to the original pink or wine-red color using 0.1 N HCl acid. The crude protein content was calculated using the following formula below:
P r o t e i n   % = N × 14.007 × V s − V b × 6.25 × D × 1000 W × 1000
where N = the normality (0.1) of standard HCl acid (may also be 0.01), Vs = the volume of standard HCl acid used to titrate a sample, Vb = the volume of standard HCl acid used to titrate a blank, W = the weight (g) of the dry sample used, and D = dilution factor (50/2).

2.6. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed quantitatively using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 to generate means and standard deviations. Statistical comparisons were made among districts and between CWM and BOM for the size of land allocation, the cost of seeds, the number of bags harvested, and other parameters. The number of damaged grains, the visible weevils, visualizing part of maize grain mostly attacked, and changes in protein content were used to determine maize grains’ susceptibility to weevils. Significant differences between means were determined using Tukey’s test at α = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Farmer Demographic Characteristics

A total of 224 farmers who had grown both BOM and CWM for two years preceding the survey were purposively interviewed. The majority (70%) of respondents were female farmers. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents attained primary education, while 41% had gone up to secondary education. Approximately 85% of the households had a family membership greater than 4.

3.2. Land Allocation to Maize Cultivation

The average household land allocated to maize cultivation was approximately 1.89 ± 0.47 acres. CWM was allocated significantly more land (1.75 ± 0.51 acres) than BOM (1.12 ± 0.32 acres) (Table 1). Similarly, the median land allocation was higher for CWM (2 acres) than BOM (1 acre), and this was consistent in all districts (Table 2 and Supplementary Table S1). The average land allocated to maize during the previous growing season was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in males (2.04 ± 0.42 acres) than in females (1.82 ± 0.46 acres). The majority of respondents (87.9%) who had grown BOM allocated less than 1 acre of their land (Table 1). Only 11.6% allocated 1–3 acres of land to the cultivation of BOM compared to 68.3% who had allocated the same land size to the cultivation of CWM.

3.3. Number of 50 kg Bags Harvested

The average number of bags, each weighing 50 kg, harvested was significantly lower for BOM (6.48 ± 8.27 bags; median = 4 bags) than for CWM (23.11 ± 20.54 bags; median = 17 bags) (p < 0.000) (Table 3). There were significant variations in the average and median number of the 50 kg bags harvested across 10 districts, with BOM having fewer bags in all districts (Supplementary Table S2).

3.4. The Cost of Seeds in Malawi Kwacha (MK)

The average cost of seeds for CWM was not significantly different from the cost of seeds for BOM (p = 0.742) (Table 4). However, there were significant variations in the cost of BOM seeds (p = 0.025), but not CWM seeds (p = 0.103) across ten districts (Supplementary Table S3). More farmers (72.8%) were more willing to purchase CWM seeds compared to BOM seeds (10.3%) (Table 5). Most farmers (50%) who had grown BOM obtained their seeds from NGOs for demonstration plots (Table 5).

3.5. Storage of Maize and Storage Period

Maize was predominantly stored in ordinary woven propylene bags (Table 6). The average storage time for CWM was significantly higher than the storage time for BOM (p < 0.000) (Table 6). CWM was stored for about 8 months compared to BOM, which was stored for only 6 months (Table 6). Approximately 83.4% of respondents indicated that their CWM was more prone to weevil attacks compared to only 16.6%, who indicated that their BOM was more prone to weevils (Table 7).

3.6. Farmers’ Preference and Form of Utilization of Maize

For those who tasted both CWM flour and BOM flour, 81.3% preferred BOM flour, and only 18.8% preferred CWM flour (Table 7). Approximately 82.6% of households indicated that BOM flour is more expensive (Table 7). About 83.5% and 13.4% consumed maize fresh and as flour, and flour only, respectively, and a further 1.8% consumed maize as fresh only. Whole maize flour (mgaiwa) was a dominant form of consumption by 60.3%, and only 20.5% and 16.1% consumed it as gran meal and refined flour (mphale), respectively (Table 8).

3.7. Resistance of BOM and CWM to Weevisl (Sitophilus zeamais)

During the verification laboratory storage experiment of farmers’ earlier observations, weevils disproportionately attacked CWM more than BOM (Figure 1). There was an increase in the numbers of damaged grains and visible weevils with storage (Figure 1 and Figure 2). After 9 weeks, CWM grains had significantly higher numbers of damaged grains than BOM (Figure 1). The CWM dent variety had more damaged grains than the CWM flint variety (Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure S1). Consistent with the high number of damaged grains in the CWM dent variety, there were significantly high numbers of visible weevils in bottles with the CWM dent (Figure 2). Regardless of variety, dent grains were more damaged by weevils than the flint grains and had higher numbers of visible weevils compared to flint varieties (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

3.8. Protein Content of Maize Grains during the Study Period

The initial protein content of the grains for all maize varieties was similar and ranged from 8.3 to 9.1% (Figure 3). However, during storage, a disproportionate increase in protein content was observed in all maize grains (Figure 3). The BOM dent had a significantly higher increase in protein content than all the other grains.

4. Discussion

Many households allocated disproportionately more land to CWM than to BOM (Table 1), suggesting that farmers prefer growing CWM. The lower land allocation to BOM explains the lower average and the median number of 50 kg bags harvested for BOM (Table 3). Most smallholder farmers have limited land to grow their crops and would be unwilling to accommodate new crops at the expense of their conventional crops. Moreover, it has been reported that BOM varieties have comparatively lower yields than CWM varieties [3], and this may partly explain farmers’ reservation toward allocating more land to BOM. Over two decades, households that grew BOM in Mozambique were associated with low income because consumers were buying biofortified maize at lower prices [14,15,16,17]. Recent breeding programs have produced biofortified maize varieties with high yields [18], which is expected to increase the adoption of these elite maize.
There are several reasons that could influence farmers’ choice of the type of maize to cultivate. Therefore, this study explored whether the cost of seeds could partly explain the disproportionate land allocation to the cultivation of CWM versus BOM varieties. The cost of seeds for CWM and BOM was not significantly different (Table 4), which suggests that the cost of seeds did not influence the preference to grow CWM. More respondents were aware of the cost of CWM than the cost of BOM. This was expected because the majority of respondents who had grown BOM received seeds from NGOs and might not have information on the exact cost of the seeds.
The significantly lower number of farmers willing to buy BOM seeds compared to CWM seeds highlights farmers’ skepticism towards the cultivation of BOM. Most farmers who grew BOM obtained their seeds from NGOs for demonstration plots suggesting that the cultivation of BOM has been largely driven by external support rather than farmers’ own initiative. This raises concerns about the sustainability of growing these elite maize varieties once project support ends.
Maize is harvested and stored for months using different facilities. The common storage facilities include silos, sacs, Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags, and traditional granaries (nkhokwe). Studies have shown that the pro-vitamin A carotenoids in BOM degrade during storage [19,20], and these studies found that storage in PICS bags has protective effects by slowing down carotenoid degradation. In this study, the majority of farmers stored their maize in ordinary bags (Table 6), in which carotenoids degrade significantly, thereby reducing nutritional quality [18,19]. Although households might consume the stored maize, it has already lost between 50 and 65% of the vitamin A activity during its 8 months of storage [18].
Experimental results showing more damaged grains and visible live weevils in CWM varieties confirm the farmers’ observation that BOM varieties are more weevil-resistant (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Dent maize grains were more susceptible to weevils (Figure 1). This is consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated that flint maize grains are less susceptible to weevils due to their higher phenolic content [21,22]. Phenolic acids affect grain hardness, which makes them more resistant to weevils [5,22]. Comparatively, BOM has a higher phenolic acid content than CWM [23], which might partly explain its observed resistance to weevils. This has positive food security implications because households that grow BOM would be less likely to lose grains to weevils, which are the most common storage pest in Sub-Saharan Africa.
There was an increase in protein content in all the maize grains (Figure 3). An increase in the protein content might be due to the availability of laid eggs and dead weevils [24]. Figure 2 demonstrates that some weevils died during the storage of BOM, as there was a drop in the number of weevils registered in week 3. A previous study reported a high death rate for weevils in more resistant maize grains [22], which may partly explain the increased protein content in BOM grains. In addition, the variation in protein content might be explained by the differential accumulation of protein in different fractions of the grains. Generally, the endosperm contains a high protein content compared to the germ and pericarp. In this study, white flint and white dent maize endosperms were the most attached parts of the grains (Supplementary Figure S1). The relatively higher protein content of BOM might be due to the concentration effect, as the weevils attacked mostly the lipid-rich germ, leaving out the protein-rich endosperm. Therefore, the loss of the germ and tip concentrated the protein content in the endosperm fractions.

5. Conclusions

The amount of land allocated to the cultivation of BOM is comparatively smaller than that allocated to CWM. This was demonstrated by farmers’ unwillingness to purchase orange maize seeds themselves, thereby depending much on NGO support. The cause for a lack of interest in purchasing BOM seeds themselves remains unknown as the cost of seeds for both BOM and CWM are similar. Most intriguing is the fact that BOM is touted to taste better and has been found to be more resistant to weevils, but still, farmers prefer the cultivation of CWM. Small land allocation to the cultivation of BOM has the potential to hamper biofortification as an effective strategy to alleviate VAD in developing countries. Therefore, yield demonstration plots in conjunction with nutrition demonstrations could be some of the strategies to enable farmers to appreciate BOM and cultivate it on a larger scale. In addition, awareness campaigns and nutrition education should be intensified among farming families so that BOM can be equally embraced and cultivated as a food and nutrition security staple crop.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16198600/s1, Figure S1: Part of the grains mostly attached by weevils. Table S1: District specific land allocation for maize. Table S2: District specific number of bags harvested for maize. Table S3: Cost of maize seed across all ten districts. Bio fortified Orange Maize Survey Questionnaire.

Author Contributions

S.G.N. designed the survey, developed the survey questionnaire, conducted the experiment, sourced funds, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript; F.W. conducted the experiment; M.C. (Monica Chimbaza) collected data and developed the survey questionnaire; S.N. collected data, developed the survey questionnaire, and entered data; K.K. collected data and developed the survey questionnaire; G.C. collected data and developed the survey questionnaire; T.N.N. collected data and developed the survey questionnaire; M.C. (Madalitso Chilembo) collected data and developed the survey questionnaire; L.M. reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Office of Campus Director, Natural Resources College (NRC), Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) through the Research Coordinator for internally mobilizing the funds for this survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Maqbool, M.A.; Aslam, M.; Beshir, A.; Khan, M.S. Breeding for provitamin A biofortification of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Breed. 2018, 137, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Stevens, G.A.; Bennett, J.E.; Hennocq, Q.; Lu, Y.; De-Regil, L.M.; Rogers, L.; Danaei, G.; Li, G.; White, R.A.; Flaxman, S.R.; et al. Trends and mortality effects of vitamin A deficiency in children in 138 low-income and middle-income countries between 1991 and 2013: A pooled analysis of population-based surveys. Lancet Glob. Health 2015, 3, e528–e536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nestel, P.; Bouis, H.E.; Meenakshi, J.V.; Pfeiffer, W. Biofortification of Staple Food Crops. J. Nutr. 2006, 136, 1064–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ekpa, O.; Palacios-Rojas, N.; Kruseman, G.; Fogliano, V.; Linnemann, A.R. Sub-Saharan African maize-based foods: Technological perspectives to increase the food and nutrition security impacts of maize breeding programmes. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 17, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Giga, D.P.; Mazarura, U.W. Levels of Resistance to the Maize Weevil, Sitophilus Zeamais (Motsch.) in Exotic, Local Open-Pollinated and Hybrid Maize Germplasm. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1991, 12, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Manjeru, P.; Van Biljon, A.; Labuschagne, M. The development and release of maize fortified with provitamin A carotenoids in developing countries. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 1284–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Palmer, A.C.; Craft, N.E.; Schulze, K.J.; Barffour, M.; Chileshe, J.; Siamusantu, W.; West, K.P. Impact of biofortified maize consumption on serum carotenoid concentrations in Zambian children. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 72, 301–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. De Moura, F.F.; Palmer, A.C.; Finkelstein, J.L.; Haas, J.D.; Murray-Kolb, L.E.; Wenger, M.J.; Birol, E.; Boy, E.; Peña-Rosas, J.P. Are Biofortified Staple Food Crops Improving Vitamin A and Iron Status in Women and Children? New Evidence from Efficacy Trials. Adv. Nutr. Int. Rev. J. 2014, 5, 568–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jogo, W.; Bocher, T.; Grant, F. Factors influencing farmers’ dis-adoption and retention decisions for biofortified crops: The case of orange-fleshed sweetpotato in Mozambique. Agrekon 2021, 60, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ren, C.; Liu, S.; van Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Jin, S.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. The impact of farm size on agricultural sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kassie, M.; Teklewold, H.; Jaleta, M.; Marenya, P.; Erenstein, O. Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 400–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Virk, P.S.; Andersson, M.S.; Arcos, J.; Govindaraj, M.; Pfeiffer, W.H. Transition from targeted breeding to mainstreaming of biofortification traits in crop improvement programs. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 703990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Munthali, J.; Nkhata, S.G.; Masamba, K.; Mguntha, T.; Fungo, R.; Chirwa, R. Soaking beans for 12 h reduces split percent and cooking time regardless of type of water used for cooking. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De Groote, H.; Kimenju, S.C.; Morawetz, U.B. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: The case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 2010, 42, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De Groote, H.; Kimenju, S.C. Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: Application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Pol. 2008, 33, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rubey, L.; Lupi, F. Predicting the Effects of Market Reform in Zimbabwe: A Stated Preference Approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tschirley, D.L.; Santos, A.P. Who Eats Yellow Maize? Preliminary Results of a Survey of Consumer Maize Preferences East Lansing; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  18. Prasanna, B.M.; Palacios-Rojas, N.; Hossain, F.; Muthusamy, V.; Menkir, A.; Dhliwayo, T.; Ndhlela, T.; Vicente, F.S.; Nair, S.K.; Vivek, B.S.; et al. Molecular Breeding for Nutritionally Enriched Maize: Status and Prospects. Front. Genet. 2020, 10, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nkhata, S.G.; Ortiz, D.; Baributsa, D.; Hamaker, B.; Rocheford, T.; Ferruzzi, M.G. Assessment of oxygen sequestration on effectiveness of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags in reducing carotenoid degradation during post-harvest storage of two biofortified orange maize genotypes. J. Cereal Sci. 2019, 87, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Taleon, V.; Mugode, L.; Cabrera-Soto, L.; Palacios-Rojas, N. Carotenoid retention in biofortified maize using different post-harvest storage and packaging methods. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nwosu, L.C. Maize and the maize weevil: Advances and innovations in postharvest control of the pest. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Suleiman, R.; Williams, D.; Nissen, A.; Bern, C.; Rosentrater, K. Is flint corn naturally resistant to Sitophilus zeamais infestation? J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 60, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nkhata, S.G.; Liceaga, A.M.; Rocheford, T.; Hamaker, B.R.; Ferruzzi, M.G. Storage of biofortified maize in Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags reduces disulfide linkage-driven decrease in porridge viscosity. LWT 2021, 136, 110262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stathers, T.E.; Arnold, S.E.J.; Rumney, C.J.; Hopson, C. Measuring the nutritional cost of insect infestation of stored maize and cowpea. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08600 g001
Figure 1. Changes in the number of damaged grains for the two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Figure 1. Changes in the number of damaged grains for the two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Sustainability 16 08600 g001
Sustainability 16 08600 g002
Figure 2. Number of live visible weevils inside storage bottles of two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Figure 2. Number of live visible weevils inside storage bottles of two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Sustainability 16 08600 g002
Sustainability 16 08600 g003
Figure 3. Changes in protein content of maize grains during the nine-week storage of two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Figure 3. Changes in protein content of maize grains during the nine-week storage of two white maize (CWM) and two biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Sustainability 16 08600 g003
Table 1. Land allocated to maize, conventional white maize (CWM), and biofortified orange maize (BOM) cultivation by farmers.
Table 1. Land allocated to maize, conventional white maize (CWM), and biofortified orange maize (BOM) cultivation by farmers.
Land AllocationParameterAll MaizeCWMBOM
Land (acres)Mean1.89 ± 0.471.75 ± 0.511.12 ± 0.32
Median2.002.001.00
Proportion of farmers (%) allocated land to maizeProportion of farmers (%) allocated land to CWMProportion of farmers (%) allocated land to BOM
Less 1 acre 17.028.187.9
1–3 acres 76.868.311.6
More than 4 acres 6.33.60.4
n 224224224
Table 2. Allocation of land for cultivation of different maize varieties in 10 districts where the AFIKEPO program is implemented.
Table 2. Allocation of land for cultivation of different maize varieties in 10 districts where the AFIKEPO program is implemented.
ANOVA Table
Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Acres allocated for BOM *
district		Between Groups1.49690.1661.6420.105
Within Groups21.4592120.101
Total22.955221
Acres allocated to all maize *
district		Between Groups11.00691.2236.781<0.001
Within Groups38.4112130.180
Total49.417222
Acres allocated for CWM *
district		Between Groups12.55791.3956.622<0.001
Within Groups44.8782130.211
Total57.435222
Table 3. The average number of 50 kg bags harvested for maize, white maize (CWM), and biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Table 3. The average number of 50 kg bags harvested for maize, white maize (CWM), and biofortified orange maize (BOM) varieties.
Statistics
Bags Harvested for CWMBags Harvested for BOM
N221220
Mean23.116.48
Median17.004.00
Std. Error of Mean1.380.56
Std. Deviation20.548.27
Table 4. Cost of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM) seeds.
Table 4. Cost of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM) seeds.
Statistics
Cost * of CWM Seed/kg PackCost * of BOM Seeds/kg Packp-Value
NValid14623
Missing78201
Mean1112.781178.260.742
Median1000.001000.00
Std. Deviation748.241336.53
Range3650.005000.00
Minimum0.000.00
Maximum3650.005000.00
* MK (Malawi Kwacha). USD1 is equivalent to MK1700.
Table 5. Main sources of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM) seeds for farmers.
Table 5. Main sources of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM) seeds for farmers.
Source of SeedsCWMBOM
From NGO for agriculture demonstration7.6 (n = 17)50.0 (n = 112)
From Ministry of Agriculture6.3 (n = 14)25.1 (n = 56)
Bought72.8 (n = 163)10.3 (n = 23)
Given by somebody3.6 (n = 8)12.1 (n = 27)
Saved from previous harvest8.9 (n = 20)2.2 (n = 5)
Table 6. Main storage structures and storage periods for conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM).
Table 6. Main storage structures and storage periods for conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM).
Types of Storage MaterialProportions (%) of Those Who Responded and Stored CWM Using the StructureProportions (%) of Those Who Responded and Stored BOM Using the Structure
Ordinary bags (Polypropylene)74.1 (n = 166)77.7 (n = 174)
PICS bags20.1 (n = 45)17.0 (n = 38)
Granaries3.1 (n = 7)0
others2.2 (n = 5)3.1 (n = 7)
StatisticsStorage Period of CWMStorage Period of BOM
N
Valid		 221 217
Missing 3 7
Mean 8.113 6.102
Median 8.000 7.000
Std. Deviation 2.714 3.194
Range 13.00 11.80
Minimum 1.00 0.20
Maximum 14.00 12.00
Table 7. Comparative susceptibility of maize, farmers’ preferences, and cheapness of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM).
Table 7. Comparative susceptibility of maize, farmers’ preferences, and cheapness of conventional white maize (CWM) and biofortified orange maize (BOM).
ParameterBOMCWM
Maize more prone to insect attach16.1 (n = 36)83.9 (n = 188)
Maize farmers prefer eating81.3 (n = 182)18.8 (n = 42)
Maize which is cheaper17.4 (n = 39)75.9 (n = 170)
Table 8. Forms of consumption of maize products by farmers.
Table 8. Forms of consumption of maize products by farmers.
Maize Product and Form of ConsumptionProportion (%)
Fresh (cooked or roasted) and flour83.5
Flour only (porridge or nsima)13.4
Fresh only1.8
Whole maize flour (mgaiwa)60.3
Gran meal20.5
Refined flour (Mphale)16.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nkhata, S.G.; Watson, F.; Chimbaza, M.; Namaumbo, S.; Kammwamba, K.; Chisapo, G.; Ngoma, T.N.; Chilembo, M.; Matumba, L. Farmers Preferentially Allocate More Land to Cultivation of Conventional White Maize Compared to Weevil-Resistant Biofortified Orange Maize. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198600

AMA Style

Nkhata SG, Watson F, Chimbaza M, Namaumbo S, Kammwamba K, Chisapo G, Ngoma TN, Chilembo M, Matumba L. Farmers Preferentially Allocate More Land to Cultivation of Conventional White Maize Compared to Weevil-Resistant Biofortified Orange Maize. Sustainability. 2024; 16(19):8600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198600

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nkhata, Smith G., Finason Watson, Monica Chimbaza, Sydney Namaumbo, Kondwani Kammwamba, Gift Chisapo, Theresa Nakoma Ngoma, Madalitso Chilembo, and Limbikani Matumba. 2024. "Farmers Preferentially Allocate More Land to Cultivation of Conventional White Maize Compared to Weevil-Resistant Biofortified Orange Maize" Sustainability 16, no. 19: 8600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198600

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop