IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/230409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Staking Options for Sustainable Yam Production in Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Danquah, Eric Owusu
  • Ennin, Stella A.
  • Lamptey, Joseph N. L.
  • Acheampong, Patricia P.

Abstract

The study evaluated staking options to address the problem of deforestation for sustainable yam production in the Forest and Forest-Savannah Transition zones of Ghana. A split-plot design with three yam varieties (Dente, Water Yam and TDR95/19177 line) and three staking options (No staking, Vertical staking and Trellis with 50% and 30% number of vertical stakes for 2012 and 2013 respectively) as main plots and subplots respectively were used. Results revealed a significant (P < 0.05) interaction between yam variety and staking options on yam tuber yields in both locations and years. While water yam had similar tuber yields under all staking options, Dente and TDR95/19177 under no staking had significant yield reductions ranging from 37 to 65% compared to the other staking options. The observed yield reduction under no staking of Dente and TDR95/19177 could be attributed to higher incidence of yam mosaic virus leading to significantly lower fresh leaf biomass production. Reducing the number of stakes in trellis to as low as 30% of the vertical/optimum staking option did not result in a significant reduction in tuber yields for TDR95/19177 and Water yam. The economic analysis revealed that it is more profitable to produce water yam and TDR95/19177 under no staking and trellis (50% and 30% number of optimum staking) respectively in both locations. The results suggest trellis/minimum staking can be used to minimize the use of stakes, yam mosaic virus disease infection and for sustainable yam production in the face of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Danquah, Eric Owusu & Ennin, Stella A. & Lamptey, Joseph N. L. & Acheampong, Patricia P., 2014. "Staking Options for Sustainable Yam Production in Ghana," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:230409
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.230409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/230409/files/p106_106-113_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.230409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricia Pinamang Acheampong & Eric Owusu Danquah & Hashini Galhena Dissanayake & Princess Hayford & Cholani Weebadde, 2019. "A Socioeconomic Study of Transition Zone Yam Farmers Addressing Constraints and Exploring Opportunities for Integrating Pigeonpea into Yam Cropping Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Boräng, Frida & Jagers, Sverker C. & Povitkina, Marina, 2016. "Political determinants of electricity provision in small island developing states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 725-734.
    3. Hickey, Gordon M. & Pouliot, Mariève & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Wunder, Sven & Nielsen, Martin R., 2016. "Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 122-132.
    4. van der Zwaan, Bob & Kober, Tom & Longa, Francesco Dalla & van der Laan, Anouk & Jan Kramer, Gert, 2018. "An integrated assessment of pathways for low-carbon development in Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 387-395.
    5. Stutz, Adrian & Schell, Sabrina & Hack, Andreas, 2022. "In family firms we trust – Experimental evidence on the credibility of sustainability reporting: A replication study with extension," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Productivity Analysis;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ccsesa:230409. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    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.