IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/334038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ selection cues in cowpea for vegetable use in eastern Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Kyebalyenda, Tadeo
  • Nakanwagi, Mildred Julian
  • Sseremba, Godfrey
  • Buteme, Ruth
  • Kabod, Nahamya Pamela
  • Odeke, Valdo
  • Amayo, Robert
  • Runyararo, JR
  • Egeru, A
  • Falk, T
  • Kizito, Elizabeth Balyejusa

Abstract

A participatory cowpea varietal selection was carried out in Eastern Uganda in Kumi district among farmers (n=30) in the sub-Counties of: Ongino, Kumi and Kanyum. A range of opinions were collected to identify farmers’ selection criteria based on different sensory attributes and their most preferred genotypes for vegetable use. A preference analysis was carried out to obtain quantitative preference scores of each plot. This was followed by organoleptic tests which included attributes like taste, aroma and texture of the genotypes at the vegetative and immature R4 stages. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also held to find consensus of the independent evaluations made by individual farmers. Data for sixteen (16) cowpea genotypes were collected at the different above mentioned stages. Quantitative data were analyzed based on farmers’ scores made on the different evaluated attributes and ANOVA was used to provide mean differences between location, gender and genotype at a significant level of 5%. Preference score for each of the varieties tested was determined and presented. Data from FGDs were grouped, similarities and differences were later determined depending on their level of importance to the farmers. Significant differences (p<0.05) in farmer choices were observed for leaf taste, immature pod aroma, taste and texture; mature pod aroma, taste between farmer groups, age genotype and gender. Irrespective of age, gender, farmer group and genotype, farmers seemed to give more importance to the smooth texture, little hard leaves when chewing, sweet taste with a mild aroma (leaves) and a moderate aroma (pods). Majority (9%) of the farmers preferred Ebelat (landrace) at V4 stage; this was followed by Danila (8.7%). On the other hand, UCUCOW1 (13% at immature and 10.2% at mature cooked R4 stage) followed by Ebelat (9% and 9.8% for immature and mature R4 stage, respectively) were preferred by majority of the farmers. In terms of sensory attributes, farmers preferred genotypes with sweet taste, moderate aroma and tender texture. The information is a baseline for understanding key farmer selection criteria in utilization of cowpea as a vegetable which can be used in generating a demand-led variety design for the crop.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyebalyenda, Tadeo & Nakanwagi, Mildred Julian & Sseremba, Godfrey & Buteme, Ruth & Kabod, Nahamya Pamela & Odeke, Valdo & Amayo, Robert & Runyararo, JR & Egeru, A & Falk, T & Kizito, Elizabeth Balyej, 2022. "Farmers’ selection cues in cowpea for vegetable use in eastern Uganda," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(04).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334038/files/Kizito20155.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shamrova, Daria P. & Cummings, Cristy E., 2017. "Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 400-412.
    2. Emelike, N.J.T. & Ujong, A.E. & Achinewhu, S.C., 2020. "Proximate and Sensory Properties of Moi-Moi Developed from Cowpea and Avocado Pear Seed Flour Blends," Journal of Food Technology Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 7(2), pages 136-143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hassan Raza, 2018. "Participatory action research: working beyond disaster toward prevention," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(1), pages 117-131, March.
    2. Manou Anselma & Mai Chinapaw & Teatske Altenburg, 2020. "“Not Only Adults Can Make Good Decisions, We as Children Can Do That as Well” Evaluating the Process of the Youth-Led Participatory Action Research ‘Kids in Action’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Malorni, Angie & Lea, Charles H. & Richards-Schuster, Katie & Spencer, Michael S., 2022. "Facilitating youth participatory action research (YPAR): A scoping review of relational practice in U.S. Youth development & out-of-school time projects," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Ruff, Saralyn C. & Harrison, Kristi, 2020. "“Ask Me What I Want”: Community-based participatory research to explore transition-age foster Youth’s use of support services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Jessica A. Thomas & Emma R. Miller & Paul R. Ward, 2022. "Lifestyle Interventions through Participatory Research: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Alcohol and Other Breast Cancer Behavioural Risk Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Островерх О. С. & Тихомирова А. В., 2021. "Соучастное Проектирование Образовательного Пространства Новой Школы," Вопросы образования // Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 260-283.
    7. Andrew Binet & Vedette Gavin & Leigh Carroll & Mariana Arcaya, 2019. "Designing and Facilitating Collaborative Research Design and Data Analysis Workshops: Lessons Learned in the Healthy Neighborhoods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Sarah Clement & Katie Spellman & Laura Oxtoby & Kelly Kealy & Karin Bodony & Elena Sparrow & Christopher Arp, 2023. "Redistributing Power in Community and Citizen Science: Effects on Youth Science Self-Efficacy and Interest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Elmore, Kristen C. & Sumner, Rachel & Tifft, Megan & Forstrom, Melanie A. & Burrow, Anthony L., 2019. "Building collaborative youth development research-practice partnerships through Cooperative Extension," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Sarah Little, 2020. "Engaging Youth in Placemaking: Modified Behavior Mapping," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-10, September.
    11. Mariam Mandoh & Seema Mihrshahi & Hoi Lun Cheng & Julie Redfern & Stephanie R. Partridge, 2020. "Adolescent Participation in Research, Policies and Guidelines for Chronic Disease Prevention: A Scoping Review Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Giuseppina Lo Moro & Emma Soneson & Peter B. Jones & Julieta Galante, 2020. "Establishing a Theory-Based Multi-Level Approach for Primary Prevention of Mental Disorders in Young People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Oksana Ostroverkh & Anna Tikhomirova, 2021. "Participatory Design of New School Learning Environments," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 260-283.
    14. Manou Anselma & Mai J M Chinapaw & Daniëlle A Kornet-van der Aa & Teatske M Altenburg, 2020. "Effectiveness and promising behavior change techniques of interventions targeting energy balance related behaviors in children from lower socioeconomic environments: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Lisa Wilderink & Ingrid Bakker & Albertine J. Schuit & Jacob C. Seidell & Carry M. Renders, 2021. "Involving Children in Creating a Healthy Environment in Low Socioeconomic Position (SEP) Neighborhoods in The Netherlands: A Participatory Action Research (PAR) Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-16, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ajfand.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.