Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:17:37.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm agronomic performance and farmer preference of quality protein maize grown under conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: a case for Zimbabwe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2022

C. S. Nyakurwa ,
E. Gasura Open the ORCID record for E. Gasura [Opens in a new window] ,
S. Mabasa ,
J. T. Rugare  and
P. S. Setimela
C. S. Nyakurwa
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
E. Gasura*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
S. Mabasa
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
J. T. Rugare
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
P. S. Setimela
Affiliation:
38A Harare Drive, Marlborough, Harare, Zimbabwe
*
Author for correspondence: E. Gasura, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maize is the most important staple food crop in southern Africa with human consumption averaging 91 kg/capita/year. Most smallholder farmers and weaning children depend on maize for much of the daily food requirements and it is the largest contributor of dietary proteins. Despite the development of quality protein maize (QPM) with high tryptophan and lysine content, stunting and kwashiorkor remain high in southern Africa partly due to low adoption of QPM varieties. The objective of this study was to compare the agronomic performance and farmer preferences of new generation of QPM with non-QPM varieties under conservation agriculture on-farm conditions. Eight QPM and four non-QPM varieties were tested on on-farm trials in Zimbabwe during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 cropping seasons at five different locations. Significant differences were detected among the genotypes for the measured traits in the two seasons. Similarly, genotype plus genotype × environment interactions were significant for both seasons for grain yield. Three QPM varieties, SC527, SC535 and SC643, recorded the highest and stable yield. Four QPM varieties, SC643, SC535, SC527 and MQ623, and a non-QPM variety, PAN413, were ranked high among farmers for overall ear characteristics as their most preferred varieties. The high-yielding and stable QPM varieties are likely to be adopted by farmers in southern Africa.

Keywords

Maize adaptabilityminimum tillagenutrition securityopaque-2 genevariety adoption
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 160 , Issue 3-4 , June 2022 , pp. 168 - 184
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abadassi, J (2015) Maize agronomic traits needed in tropical zone. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2, 371–392.Google Scholar
Ahenkora, K, Twumasi-Afriyie, S, Sallah, PYK and Obeng-Antwi, K (1999) Protein nutritional quality and consumer acceptability of tropical Ghanaian quality protein maize. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 20, 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akande, S and Lamidi, G (2006) Performance of quality protein maize varieties and disease reaction in the derived-savanna agro-ecology of South-West Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology 5, 1744–1748.Google Scholar
Arshad, M, Bakhsh, A, Haqqani, AM and Bashir, M (2003) Genotype-environment interaction for grain yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pakistan Journal of Botany 35, 181–186.Google Scholar
Bello, OB, Olawuyi, OJ, Ige, SA, Mahamood, J, Afolabi, MS, Azeez, MA and Abdulmaliq, SY (2014) Agro-nutritional variations of quality protein maize (Zea mays L.) in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Belgrade) 59, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatnagar, S, Betran, F and Transue, D (2003) Agronomic performance aflatoxin accumulation and protein quality of subtropical and tropical QPM hybrids in southern US. Maydica 48, 113–124.Google Scholar
Chitagu, M, Rugare, JT and Mabasa, S (2014) Screening maize (Zea mays) genotypes for tolerance to witchweed (Striga asiatica L Kuntze) infection. Journal of Agricultural Science 6, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groote, H, Gunaratna, N, Ergano, K and Friesen, D (2010) Extension and adoption of biofortified crops: Quality protein maize in East Africa. In 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 2010 Jun 1 (No. 96429). African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).Google Scholar
De Groote, H, Chege, CK, Tomlins, K and Gunaratna, NS (2014) Combining experimental auctions with a modified home-use test to assess rural consumers’ acceptance of quality protein maize a biofortified crop. Food Quality and Preference 38, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derpsch, R, Friedrich, T, Kassam, A and Li, H (2010) Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 3, 1–25.Google Scholar
Dugje, I, Odo, P, Teli, I, Kamara, A and Asiedu, E (2014) Evaluation of multi-stress tolerant maize varieties for sustainable intensification in northern Guinea Savanna of north eastern Nigeria. Maydica 59, 136–143.Google Scholar
Etwire, PM, Abdoulaye, T, Obeng-Antwi, K, Samuel, S, Buah, J, Kanton, RA, Asumadu, H, Abdulai, MS, Haruna, A and Etwire, JC (2013) On-farm evaluation of maize varieties in the transitional and savannah zones of Ghana: determinants of farmer preferences. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics 5, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasura, E, Setimela, P, Edema, R, Gibson, PT, Okori, P and Tarekegne, A (2013) Exploiting grain-filling rate and effective grain-filling duration to improve grain yield of early-maturing maize. Crop Science 53, 2295–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat (2011) 141 Lawes Agricultural Trust Rothamsted Experimental Station Lawes Agricultural Trust Rothamsted Experimental Statio, Harpenden, UK.Google Scholar
Harford, N, Le Breton, J and Oldreive, B (2009) Farming for the future: a guide to conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Conservation Agriculture Task Force. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/69049/4817_Farming_for_the_Future.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 09 June 2022Google Scholar
Haynes, R and Mokolobate, M (2001) Amelioration of Al toxicity and P deficiency in acid soils by additions of organic residues: a critical review of the phenomenon and the mechanisms involved. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 59, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, PR, Sayre, K and Gupta, R (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, 543–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiria, CG, Vermeulen, H and De Groote, H (2010) Sensory evaluation and consumers’ willingness to pay for quality protein maize (QPM) using experimental auctions in rural Tanzania. In 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa (No. 96417). African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE). pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
Krivanek, AF, De Groote, H, Gunaratna, NS and Friesen, D (2007) Breeding and disseminating quality protein maize (QPM) for Africa. African Journal of Biotechnology 6, 312–324.Google Scholar
López-Barrios, L, Gutiérrez-Uribe, JA and Serna-Saldívar, SO (2014) Bioactive peptides and hydrolysates from pulses and their potential use as functional ingredients. Journal of Food Science 79, R273–R283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machida, L, Derera, J, Tongoona, P, Langyintuo, A and Macrobert, J (2014) Exploration of farmers’ preferences and perceptions of maize varieties: implications on development and adoption of quality protein maize (QPM) varieties in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development 7, 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magorokosho, C, Vivek, B and MacRobert, J (2009) Characterization of Maize Germplasm Grown in Eastern and Southern Africa: Results of the 2008 Regional Trials Coordinated by CIMMYT. Harare, Zimbabwe: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Malik, H, Ara, I, Naeem, M, Hussain, M, Hanif, M and Yousaf, M (2010) Composition of open pollinated varieties and newly developed hybrids for yield and contributing trials in maize. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 37–41.Google Scholar
Masvaya, EN, Nyamangara, J, Descheemaeker, K and Giller, KE (2017) Tillage mulch and fertiliser impacts on soil nitrogen availability and maize production in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Soil and Tillage Research 168, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebratu, A, Wegary, D, Mohammed, W, Teklewold, A and Tarekegne, A (2019) Genotype× environment interaction of quality protein maize hybrids under contrasting management conditions in Eastern and Southern Africa. Crop Science 59, 576–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milošević, M, Vujaković, M and Karagić, Đ (2010) Vigour tests as indicators of seed viability. Genetika 42, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mpofu, I, Sibanda, A, Shonihwa, A and Pixley, K (2012) The nutritional value of quality protein maize for weaner pigs. Journal of Petroleum and Environmental Biotechnology 3, 1–5.Google Scholar
Ngoma, H, Mason, NM and Sitko, NJ (2015) Does minimum tillage with planting basins or ripping raise maize yields? Meso-panel data evidence from Zambia. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 212, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olakojo, S, Omueti, O, Ajomale, K and Ogunbodede, B (2007) Development of quality protein maize: biochemical and agronomic evaluation. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 7, 97–104.Google Scholar
Ouma, J, De Groote, H and Gunaratna, N (2012) Sensory evaluation of quality protein maize in Kenya. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 78, 113–118.Google Scholar
Prasanna, B, Vasal, S, Kassahun, B and Singh, N (2001) Quality protein maize. Current Science 81, 1308.Google Scholar
Rockström, J, Kaumbutho, P, Mwalley, J, Nzabi, AW, Temesgen, M, Mawenya, L, Barron, J, Mutua, J and Damgaard-Larsen, S (2009) Conservation farming strategies in East and Southern Africa: yields and rain water productivity from on-farm action research. Soil and Tillage Research 103, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, L and Ali, A (2015) Estimates of heritability and genetic advance for morphological traits improvement in maize (Zea mays.). Journal of Agricultural Research 3, 9–14.Google Scholar
Sofi, P, Wani, SA, Rather, A and Wani, SH (2009) Review article: quality protein maize (QPM): genetic manipulation for the nutritional fortification of maize. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 1, 244–253.Google Scholar
TAC Secretariat (2001) Contributions made by the CGIAR and its partners to agricultural development in Sub-Saharan Africa. A Report from TAC's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). TAC Secretariat Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C and Wall, P (2010) Investigating conservation agriculture (CA) systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change. Journal of Crop Improvement 24, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachsel, S, Burgueno, J, Suarez, EA, San Vicente, FM, Rodriguez, CS and Dhliwayo, T (2017) Interrelations among early vigour flowering time physiological maturity and grain yield in tropical maize (L) under multiple abiotic stresses. Crop Science 57, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twomlow, S, Urolov, J, Jenrich, M and Oldrieve, B (2008) Lessons from the field – Zimbabwe's conservation agriculture task force. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 6, 1–11.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, SR, Gurung, DB, Paudel, DC, Koirala, KB, Sah, SN, Prasad, RC, Pokhrel, BB and Dhakal, R (2009) Evaluation of quality protein maize (QPM) genotypes under rainfed mid hill environments of Nepal. Nepal Journal of Science and Technology 10, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasal, S (2000) The quality protein maize story. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21, 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivek, B, Krivanek, A, Palacios-Rojas, N, Twumasi-Afriyie, S and Diallo, A (2008) Breeding Quality Protein Maize QPM: Protocols for Developing QPM Cultivars Mexico: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo (CIMMYT) Mexico DF (Mexico).Google Scholar
Yan, W and Kang, MS (2002) GGE biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders Geneticists and Agronomists. London, UK: CRC press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W, Hunt, L, Sheng, Q and Szlavnics, Z (2000) Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science 40, 597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W, Kang, MS, Ma, B, Woods, S and Cornelius, PL (2007) GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Science 47, 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingore, S, Delve, RJ, Nyamangara, J and Giller, KE (2008) Multiple benefits of manure: the key to maintenance of soil fertility and restoration of depleted sandy soils on African smallholder farms. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 80, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar