3.8 Article

Identification of Pro-vitamin A Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) Varieties for Adaptation and Adoption through Participatory Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROP IMPROVEMENT
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 361-376

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15427528.2014.888694

关键词

beta-carotene; vitamin A deficiency; consumer preference; gari; sensory test

资金

  1. West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI), University of Ghana, Legon
  2. National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike, Nigeria
  3. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of diligent efforts by National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) Umudike and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to make Nigeria the largest producer of cassava in the world, the adoption rate of elite cultivars by farmers is about 40% and that is unacceptable. In addition, all cassava cultivars presently grown in Nigeria are low in essential minerals, vitamins, and protein content, and high in cyanogenic content. Cassava with yellow roots contains elevated levels of beta-carotene (pro-vitamin A), an essential nutrient, but they are not commonly grown in Nigeria. Because farmers select cultivars based on multiple criteria, participatory rural appraisal and selection are essential for a successful adoption of new improved varieties. A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and sensory evaluation were conducted in Abia, Imo, and Ebonyi states of Nigeria to assess farmers' preferences for pro-vitamin A cassava. Some of the farmer-preferred traits included high yield, early maturity, tolerance to pests and diseases, sweetness, high amount of dry matter (DM) content, easy peeling, marketable roots, and roots that keep long in the ground without decaying. High pro-vitamin A cassava cultivars TMS 01-1368, TMS 05-1636, and TMS 05-0473 were better than farmers' cultivar NR 8082, because of their color, high premium price, nutritional value, texture, among others, and were selected for adoption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据