Farmers' Sources and Varieties of Cassava Planting Materials in Coastal Kenya
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz) grows in diverse agro-ecological zones. In Kenya, it is widely cultivated in Western and Coastal regions. It is mainly grown for food and nutrition security and excess roots are sold to generate income for the farm households. Its productivity per unit of the land area is high compared to maize and wheat which are staple crops in the country. However, scarcity of cassava planting materials and pests and diseases limit production in these regions. This study aimed at revealing the sources and varieties of cassava planting materials used by farmers and other farmers' practices in coastal Kenya. Four focus group discussions (FGD) and a survey were conducted in 2018, using a semi-structured questionnaire targeting 250 farmers. The data collected on the sources of planting materials, preferred varieties and the practices employed by the farmers in cassava production, was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Majority of farmers (83%) interviewed indicated that they recycled planting materials from the previous crop while some 67% respondents obtained the planting material from their neighbors. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization's (KALRO) and the local markets were reported as sources of planting materials by 11 and 5% farmer respondents, respectively. The only formal seed source reported was KALRO. The rest, own seed, neighbors, and the local markets, were informal seed sources. Piecemeal harvesting practiced by 98% of the farmers favored planting material recycling. Farmers dedicated a small proportion of their land (mean 0.2 ha) to cassava production as reported by 60 and 72.8% of farmers from Taita Taveta and Kilifi, respectively. Slightly above half (56%) of the farmers in Kilifi dedicated slightly more land to cassava, planting between 100 and 4,000 cuttings (2.5% of an acre up to a full acre) compared to 87% farmers from Taita Taveta who planted 100 cuttings or less (which is about 2.5% of an acre or less). A majority (81.1%) of farmers in Taita Taveta planted local cassava varieties compared to Kilifi's 57.8%. Slightly above half of the farmer respondents reported Kibandameno as the preferred variety followed by Tajirika as the second preferred variety as reported by 18% farmers. Kibandameno was preferred for its sweet taste by 75.6% farmers while Tajirika was preferred by 52.4% farmers because of the high yielding capacity. Nearly all farmer respondents, in Taita Taveta County obtained the planting material from informal seed sources, except a negligible number, who reported buying their planting material from KALRO, a formal seed source, far from their locality. Farmers sourcing cuttings from a formal seed source such as those from Kilifi County were more likely to use a tractor for land preparation compared to those who sourced planting materials informally who more likely had scarce knowledge on cassava production and the value of cassava. Therefore, interventions to establish a sustainable healthy cassava planting materials seed system are needed to address the systemic constraint and help develop a viable cassava value chain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».