KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
VALUE CHAIN ASSESSMENT OF TWO INDIGENOUS LEAFY VEGETABLES
(Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.) IN KUMASI METROPOLIS
BY
JESSICA KUKUA BAIDOO
MARCH, 2015
i
VALUE CHAIN ASSESSMENT OF TWO INDIGENOUS LEAFY VEGETABLES
(Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.) IN KUMASI METROPOLIS
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE
STUDIES, KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AD TECHNOLOGY,
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY (MPhil. POSTHARVEST TECHNOLOGY) DEGREE
BY
JESSICA KUKUA BAIDOO
MARCH, 2015
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work towards the award of MPhil. Postharvest
Technology and that to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published by another author nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the University, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jessica Kukua Baidoo …………………………….. ………………………
(Student) Signature Date
Certified by:
Dr Francis Appiah …………………………… …………………………
(Main Supervisor) Signature Date
Mr. Patrick Kumah …………………………… …………………………
(Co-Supervisor) Signature Date
Dr Francis Appiah …………………………. .………………………
(Head of Department) Signature Date
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Glory of God
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing. My Great Redeemer‟s Praise. God to your name be all the
Honour, Praise and Adoration for successfully seeing me through this programme. I am nothing without you.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. Francis Appiah, who has not only been a supervisor but a father to me. Your suggestions, time, energy and resources has made this project a reality and I say God richly bless you. I also wish to express gratitude to my co-supervisor, Mr. Patrick Kumah, another father I am grateful for. Paa, thank you and God richly bless you too.
To all those who made various comments and criticisms about my project to shape it: Dr.
Laura Atuah and all lecturers of Department of Horticulture, I acknowledge your support and I am grateful.
I also wish to acknowledge Mr. Gabriel Quansah of CSIR, Soil Research Institute, Kwadaso who helped in my laboratory analysis, Laboratory Technicians of Horticulture Department and
Mr. Obed Adjei who helped in my survey work. Thank you very much.
I cannot end without appreciating my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Baidoo; my sisters, Phoebe, Kezia,
Petra, Cagelire and a dear friend, Mr. Anthony Appiah. Your prayers, words of encouragement, useful suggestions and love made this work a success. God bless you all.
iv
ABSTRACT
Indigenous leafy vegetables are known to provide essential minerals and vitamins for consumers. Their consumption is on the ascendency especially in urban communities where they are produced under urban horticulture systems. For sustained production, appropriate handling and quality has to be assured. It is also important that assessment of profitability and wealth distribution along the value chain is documented. Unfortunately, there is insufficient information on indigenous vegetables grown in urban communities in Kumasi. A survey was conducted to assess the value chain and official standards were used to address the nutritional composition The study showed that most (88%) indigenous vegetable producers cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables such as Corchorus spp. commonly called “Ayoyo” and
Amaranthus spp. also known as “Aleefu”. Producers had an average of 1- 4 acres of land and used farmer saved seeds for production. River water was the main source of water for irrigation and harvesting was done late in the evening to meet dawn market. Precooling by sprinkling of water, sorting, grading and packaging were postharvest activities observed by both producers and traders. Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. were sold between GH ₵0.50p to GH ₵ 2.00 per bunch and between GH ₵10-100 per bed while traders sold their produce for GH ₵1.00 per bunch or GH ₵ 80-100 per sack. Challenges mostly faced by producers and traders were glut during the rainy season which led to faster deterioration of the leaves while consumers complained of scarcity during the dry season which caused an increase in prices of produce.
Proximate analysis conducted on the Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. showed that the leaves were good sources of protein (33% and 33%), ash (22% and 16.8%), fibre (16.75% and
10.88%) and carbohydrate (33.75% and 46.91%) but less in fat (6.5% and 6.0%) respectively
v which was healthy for consumption. They were also found to be rich in minerals such as
Magnesium (2.75% and 2.53%), Potassium (2.27% and 1.44%), Calcium (39.2% and 43.80%),
Iron (163.52mg/kg and 164.96mg/kg) and Zinc (26.8mg/kg and 17.28mg/kg). A total production of 7759.44kg/acre and 14,896.44kg/acre for Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. respectively are produced in Kumasi Metropolis and a producer also generated approximately
GH₵2090.00 per acre (GH₵49.76 per day for an acre) as against the trader who makes approximately GH₵1530.00 per acre (GH₵510.00 profit per day) of produce bought.
Generally, production of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. is very lucrative and a major source of income especially for traders. Their consumption should be therefore be promoted as they are major source of minerals.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page……………………………………………………………..…………………………i
Declaration ...... ii
Dedication ...... iii
Acknowledgement ...... iv
Abstract ...... v
List of Tables ...... xviii
CHAPTER ONE……………………..…………………………………………………….…..1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 Background ...... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ...... 2
1.3 Justification of the study ...... 3
1.4 Objectives of the study...... 4
1.4.1 Main Objective ...... 4
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ...... 4
CHAPTER TWO ...... 5
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5
2.1 Vegetables ...... 5
2.2.1 Nutritional Importance ...... 6
2.2.2 Economic Importance ...... 7
2.3 Kinds of vegetables in Ghana ...... 8
2.3.1 Leafy Vegetables ...... 8
vii
2.4 Traditional Vegetables ...... 9
2.4.1 Traditional Leafy Vegetables ...... 10
2.4.2 Importance of traditional leafy vegetables ...... 11
2.4.2.1 Nutritional importance of traditional leafy vegetables ...... 12
2.4.2.2 Economic importance of traditional leafy vegetables ...... 13
2.4.2.3 Uses of traditional leafy vegetables ...... 13
2.5 Important traditional leafy vegetable species ...... 14
2.5.1 Amaranth ...... 15
2.5.1.1 Economic and Nutritional importance of Amaranth ...... 17
2.5.1.2 Uses of amaranth ...... 18
2.5.2 Corchorus spp...... 19
2.5.2.1 Economic and Nutritional importance of Corchorus ...... 20
2.5.2.2 Uses of Corchorus spp...... 21
2.6 Proximate composition of leafy vegetables ...... 22
2.6.1 Protein ...... 22
2.6.2 Carbohydrate ...... 23
2.6.3 Dietary Fibre ...... 24
2.6.4 Dietary Fat ...... 24
2.6.5 Ash ...... 25
2.6.6 Moisture Content ...... 25
2.7 Mineral composition of leafy vegetables ...... 26
2.7.1 Iron ...... 26
2.7.2 Phosphorus ...... 27
2.7.3 Calcium ...... 27
viii
2.7.4 Potassium ...... 29
2.7.5 Magnesium ...... 29
2.7.6 Heavy Metals...... 30
2.8 Postharvest handling of leafy vegetables ...... 31
2.8.1 Harvesting and Handling on the Field...... 32
2.8.2 Packaging ...... 32
2.8.3 Transportation ...... 33
2.9 Value Chain ...... 34
CHAPTER THREE ...... 35
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 35
3.1 Introduction ...... 35
3.2 Survey ...... 35
3.2.1 Sampling Area ...... 35
3.2.2 Sampling Size and Method ...... 36
3.2.3 Data Collection Instrument ...... 36
3.2.4 Method of Data Analysis...... 37
3.3 Laboratory Experiment ...... 37
3.3.1 Source of Samples ...... 37
3.3.2 Sample Preparation ...... 37
3.4 Parameters Studied...... 38
3.4.1 Proximate Composition ...... 38
3.4.1.1 Moisture content determination ...... 38
3.4.1.2 Crude protein determination ...... 38
ix
3.4.1.3 Ash content determination ...... 39
3.4.1.4 Fat determination ...... 40
3.4.1.5 Crude Fibre determination ...... 40
3.4.1.6 Carbohydrate (Nitrogen Free Extract, NFE) Determination ...... 41
3.4.2 Mineral Composition Analysis...... 42
3.4.2.1 Iron (Fe) determination ...... 42
3.4.2.2 Phosphorus (P) determination ...... 42
3.4.2.3 Potassium (K) determination ...... 43
3.4.2.4 Calcium (Ca) determination...... 43
3.4.2.5 Magnesium (Mg) determination ...... 43
3.4.2.6 Determination of micronutrients (Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Cadmium and Lead) ...... 44
3.4.3 Shelf-Life Studies ...... 44
3.4.3.1 Weight loss ...... 44
3.4.3.2 Colour changes ...... 45
3.4.5 Data Analysis ...... 46
CHAPTER FOUR ...... 47
4.0 RESULTS ...... 47
4.1 Producers...... 47
4.1.1 Demographic Information of Producers ...... 47
4.1.2 Information on Farming of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 48
4.1.2.1 Type of vegetables produced ...... 48
4.1.2.2 Type of indigenous leafy vegetables produced ...... 49
4.1.2.3 Reasons why Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. were produced ...... 49 x
4.1.2.4 Farming experience years of producers ...... 50
4.1.2.6 Production information on indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 51
4.1.2.7 Storage periods and methods of farmer-saved seeds ...... 52
4.1.2.8 Cultivation season of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 53
4.1.2.9 Source of irrigation water ...... 54
4.1.2.10 Pesticide usage ...... 54
4.1.2.11 Time and reason for harvesting of produce ...... 55
4.1.2.12 Months produce are harvested ...... 55
4.1.2.13 Number of times indigenous leafy vegetables are harvested ...... 56
4.1.2.14 Methods used in harvesting indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 57
4.1.3 Postharvest Handling of Leafy Indigenous Vegetables ...... 57
4.1.3.1 Precooling of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 57
4.1.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 58
4.1.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 59
4.1.3.4 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables before transportation ...... 59
4.1.3.5 Selling of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 60
4.1.3.6 Mode of transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 61
4.1.3.7 Postharvest loss of produce during transportation ...... 61
4.1.3.8 Use of unmarketable indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 62
4.1.3.9 Basis on which indigenous leafy vegetables are sold ...... 63
4.1.3.10 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 63
4.1.3.11 Training on GAP and Postharvest handling ...... 64
4.1.3.12 Challenges faced by producers ...... 65
4.2 WHOLESALERS ...... 65
xi
4.2.1 Demographic Information of Wholesalers ...... 65
4.2.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 67
4.2.2.1 Types of indigenous leafy vegetables traded by wholesalers ...... 67
4.2.2.2 Source of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased ...... 67
4.2.2.3 Purchasing point and mode of transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 68
4.2.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 69
4.2.3.1 Postharvest loss during transportation ...... 69
4.2.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 69
4.2.3.3 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 70
4.2.3.4 Where and how indigenous leafy vegetables are stored ...... 71
4.2.3.5 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 72
4.2.3.6 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 73
4.2.3.7 Processing methods used ...... 73
4.2.3.8 Form in which indigenous leafy vegetables are sold ...... 74
4.2.3.9 Dried indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 75
4.2.3.10 Storage and Handling problems ...... 75
4.2.3.11 Buying price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 76
4.2.3.12 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 77
4.2.3.13 Challenges faced by Wholesalers ...... 77
4.3 Retailers ...... 78
4.3.1 Demographic Information of Retailers ...... 78
4.3.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 79
4.3.2.1 Types of leafy vegetables traded by retailers ...... 79
4.3.2.2 Indigenous leafy vegetables traded by retailers ...... 80
xii
4.3.2.3 Transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 81
4.3.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 81
4.3.3.1 Postharvest loss during transportation ...... 81
4.3.3.2 Sorting of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 82
4.3.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 83
4.3.3.4 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 84
4.3.3.5 Storage and handling problems ...... 84
4.3.3.6 Profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.) ...... 86
4.3.3.7 Buying price of indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.) ...... 86
4.3.3.8 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.) ...... 87
4.3.3.9 Challenges faced by retailers ...... 88
4.4 Consumers...... 88
4.4.1 Demographic Information of Consumers ...... 88
4.4.2 Consumption of Exotic Leafy Vegetables ...... 90
4.4.3 Consumption of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 90
4.4.4 Use of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables by Family ...... 91
4.4.5 Reasons for Consuming Indigenous Leafy Vegetables (Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.) ...... 92
4.4.6 Proportion of Income used in purchasing the Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 92
4.4.7 Form in which Indigenous Leafy Vegetables were purchased ...... 93
4.4.8 Quantity of fresh Amaranthus spp. purchased in a week ...... 94
4.4.9 Quantity of fresh Corchorus purchased in a week ...... 94
xiii
4.4.10 Amount of Price paid for fresh indigenous leafy vegetables purchased per week ..... 95
4.4.11 Source of Indigenous leafy vegetables purchased ...... 96
4.4.12 Quality Parameters Assessed by Consumers ...... 97
4.4.13 Rank of Quality Parameter Assessed ...... 97
4.4.14 Sorting of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 98
4.4.15 Storage of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 99
4.4.16 Reasons for Storing or not Storing Indigenous Leaves ...... 99
4.4.17 Processing Methods used by consumers ...... 100
4.4.18 Challenges faced by Consumers ...... 101
4.6 Proximate Composition ...... 101
4.6.2 Corchorus spp...... 103
4.7 Mineral Composition ...... 105
4.7.1. Amaranthus spp...... 105
4.7.1.1 Macro mineral nutrients ...... 105
4.7.1.2 Micro mineral nutrients ...... 106
4.7.2 Corchorus spp...... 108
4.7.2.1 Macro mineral nutrients ...... 108
4.7.2.2 Micro mineral nutrients ...... 109
4.8 Shelf-Life Studies ...... 110
4.8.1 Weight Loss...... 110
4.8.1.1 Amaranthus spp...... 110
4.8.1.2 Corchorus spp...... 111
4.8.2 Colour Changes ...... 112
4.8.2.1 Amaranthus spp...... 112
xiv
4.8.2.2 Corchorus spp...... 114
4.9 Volume Flow and Wealth Distribution ...... 117
4.9.1 Volume Flow ...... 117
4.9.2 Wealth Distribution ...... 118
CHAPTER FIVE ...... 119
5.0 DISCUSSION ...... 119
5.1 Producers...... 119
5.1.1 Demographic Information of Producers ...... 119
5.1.2 Information on Farming of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 120
5.1.2.1 Indigenous leafy vegetable production ...... 120
5.1.2.2 Farming experience of producers ...... 121
5.1.2.3 Production of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 122
5.1.2.4 Cultivation season and irrigation for indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 123
5.1.2.5 Pesticide usage ...... 123
5.1.2.6 Time for harvesting of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 124
5.1.3 Postharvest Handling of Leafy Indigenous Vegetables ...... 125
5.1.3.1 Precooling of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 125
5.1.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 125
5.1.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 126
5.1.3.4 Transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 126
5.1.3.5 Postharvest loss of produce during transportation ...... 126
5.1.3.6 Marketing of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 127
5.1.3.7 Training on GAP and Postharvest handling of leafy vegetables ...... 128
xv
5.1.3.8 Challenges of Producers ...... 128
5.2 Traders (Wholesalers and Retailers) ...... 129
5.2.1 Demographic Information of Traders ...... 129
5.2.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 130
5.2.2.1 Trading of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 130
5.2.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 131
5.2.3.1 Transportation ...... 131
5.2.3.2 Sorting of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 131
5.2.3.3 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 132
5.2.3.4 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 132
5.2.3.5 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 133
5.2.3.6 Storage and Handling Problems ...... 133
5.2.3.7 Pricing by Traders ...... 134
5.2.3.8 Challenges faced by traders ...... 134
5.3 Consumers...... 135
5.3.1 Demographic Information of Consumers ...... 135
5.3.2 Consumption of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 136
5.3.3 Quality Parameters Assessed and Ranked by Consumers ...... 137
5.3.4 Sorting of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables ...... 137
5.3.5 Storage of Indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 138
5.3.6 Processing Methods Used by Consumers ...... 138
5.3.7 Challenges faced by Consumers ...... 138
5.4 Proximate composition of indigenous leafy vegetables...... 139
5.4.1 Protein Content ...... 139
xvi
5.4.2 Fibre Content ...... 139
5.4.3 Ash Content ...... 140
5.4.5 Carbohydrate (NFE) Content ...... 141
5.4.6 Moisture Content ...... 141
5.5 Mineral composition of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 142
5.5.1 Magnesium ...... 142
5.5.2 Phosphorus ...... 142
5.5.3 Potassium ...... 143
5.5.4 Calcium ...... 143
5.5.6 Iron ...... 144
5.5.7 Zinc...... 144
5.5.8 Copper ...... 145
5.5.9 Manganese ...... 146
5.5.10 Cobalt ...... 147
5.5.11 Lead ...... 147
CHAPTER SIX ...... 150
6.0 Conclusion ...... 150
6.1 Recommendation ...... 152
REFERENCES ...... 153
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 175
APPENDICES ...... 194
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Demographic information of producers...... 47
Table 4.2: Production information on indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 52
Table 4.3: Demographic information of wholesalers ...... 65
Table 4.4 Storage and handling problem of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 76
Table 4.5: Demographic information of retailers ...... 79
Table 4.6: Storage and Handling problems faced by retailers ...... 85
Table 4.7: Demographic information of consumers ...... 89
Table 4.18: Proximate composition found in three Amaranthus spp...... 103
Table 4.9: Proximate composition found in four Corchorus spp...... 105
Table 4. 10: Macro Mineral contents found in three Amaranthus spp...... 106
Table 4.11: Micro Mineral contents found in three Amaranthus spp...... 107
Table 4.12: Macro minerals found in four Corchorus spp...... 108
Table 4.13: Micro Mineral contents found in three Corchorus spp...... 110
Table 4.14 Weight loss of Amaranthus spp...... 111
Table 4.15: Mean Weight loss of Corchorus spp...... 112
Table 4.16: Mean colour score for Amaranthus spp...... 113
Table 4.17: Mean colour score for Corchorus spp...... 115
Table 4.18: Mean freshness score for Amaranthus spp...... 116
Table 4.19: Mean freshness score for Corchorus spp...... 117
Table 4.20: Volume flow of Corchorus spp and Amaranthus spp...... 118
Table 4.21: Wealth distribution along the value chain ...... 118
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.3: Indigenous leafy vegetables cultivated by producers ...... 49
Figure 4.4: Reasons why Amaranth and Corchorus spp. are cultivated ...... 50
Figure 4.5: Number of years of producing indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 50
Figure 4.6 Storage duration of farmer-saved seeds……………………………………………53 Figure 4.7: Storage methods of farmer-saved seeds ...... 53
Figure 4.8: Cultivation season of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 53
Figure 4.9: Source of irrigation water for produce ...... 54
Figure 4.10: Source of pesticides used on produce ...... 54
Figure 4.11: Time for harvesting produce……………………………………………………..55 Figure 4.12: Reason for harvesting at those times ...... 55
Figure 4.13: Months produce are harvested ...... 56
Figure 4.14: Number of times produce are harvested in a year ...... 56
Figure 4.15: Methods used in harvesting produce ...... 57
Figure 4.16: Precool produce ...... 58
Figure 4.17: Sort produce……………………………………………………………………...58 Figure 4.18: Reasons for grading produce ...... 58
Figure 4.19: Package produce………………………………………………………………….59 Figure 4.20: Packaging materials used for packaging ...... 59
Figure 4.21: How produce are stored before transporting them ...... 60
xix
Figure 4.22: Sell to other people……………………………………………………………….60 Figure 4.23: Selling point of produce ...... 60
Figure 4.24: Mode of Transportation of produce...... 61
Figure 4.25: Postharvest loss during transportation ...... 62
Figure 4.26: How produce are used if not marketable ...... 62
Figure 4.27: Basis on which produce are sold ...... 63
Figure 4.28: Selling price of produce ...... 64
Figure 4.29: Have GAP and Postharvest handling training ...... 64
Figure 4.30: Challenges faced by producers ...... 65
Figure 4.31: Indigenous leafy vegetables traded by wholesale ...... 67
Figure 4.32: Source of produce bought...... 68
Figure 4.33: Purchasing point of produce……………………………………………………..68 Figure 4.34: Mode of transportation from farm gate ...... 68
Figure 4.35: Loss during transportation…………………...... 69 Figure 4.36: Percentage lost to transportation ...... 69
Figure 4.37: Sort produce………………...... 70 Figure 4.38: Reasons for grading produce ...... 70
Figure 4.39: Price of ungraded produce ...... 70
Figure 4.40: Store produce……………...... 71 Figure 4.41: How long produce are stored ...... 71
xx
Figure 4.42: Where produce are stored……………...... 72 Figure 4.43: How produce are stored if not bought ...... 72
Figure 4.44: How package produce to sell...... 72
Figure 4.45: Process produce……………… ...... 73 Figure 4.46: Why produce are processed ...... 73
Figure 4.47: Methods used for processing produce ...... 74
Figure 4.48: Form in which produce are sold ...... 74
Figure 4.49: Quantity of produce dried ……………...... 75 Figure 4.50: Reasons for drying produce ………………………………………………….75
Figure 4.51: Buying price of produce ...... 76
Figure 4.52: Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 77
Figure 4.53: Challenges faced by wholesalers ...... 78
Figure 4.54: Do retailers trade in both exotic and indigenous leafy vegetables...... 80
Figure 4.55: Indigenous leafy vegetables traded…………...... 80 Figure 4.56: Source of produce bought………………………………………………………..80
Figure 4.57: Transport produce…………… ...... 81 Figure 4.58: Mode of transportation of produce ...... 81
Figure 4.59: Loss during transportation …………………...... 82 Figure 4.60: Percentage lost during transportation ...... 82
Figure 4.61: Sort produce……………...... 82 Figure 4.62: Reasons for sorting produce ...... 82
xxi
Figure 4.63: How package produce………………...... 83 Figure 4.64: Before packaging leafy vegetables ...... 83
Figure 4.65: How store packaged leafy vegetables ...... 84
Figure 4.66: Process produce………… ...... 85 Figure 4.67: Processing methods used ...... 84
Figure 4.68: Profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 86
Figure 4.69: Purchasing price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 87
Figure 4.70: Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 87
Figure 4.71: Challenges faced by retailers ...... 88
Figure 4.72: Purchase exotic leafy vegetables……………… ...... 91 Figure 4.73: Percentage purchased…………………………………………………………….90
Figure 4.74: Types of indigenous leafy vegetables bought ...... 91
Figure 4.75: Purchase of produce……………...... 92 Figure 4.76: Use of the produce………………………………………………………………..91
Figure 4.77: Reasons for consuming indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 92
Figure 4.78: Proportion of income used in purchasing indigenous leafy vegetables ...... 93
Figure 4.79: Form in which indigenous leafy vegetables were purchased ...... 93
Figure 4.80: Quantity of fresh Amaranth purchased in a week ...... 94
Figure 4. 81: Quantity of fresh Corchorus purchased in a week ...... 95
Figure 4.82: Amount paid for fresh indigenous leafy vegetables per week ...... 96
Figure 4.83: Source of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased ...... 96 xxii
Figure 4.84: Quality parameters assed by consumers before buying the leaves ...... 97
Figure 4.85: Rank of quality parameter assessed before buying leaves ...... 98
Figure 4.86: Sort indigenous leaves……………...... 99 Figure 4.87: Reasons for sorting indigenous leaves ...... 98
Figure 4.88: Store indigenous leafy vegetables after purchase ...... 99
Figure 4.89: Reasons for storing leaves……………...... 101 Figure 4.90: How indigenous leaves are stored ...... 100
Figure 4.91: Processing methods used by consumers ...... 100
Figure 4.92: Challenges faced by consumer ...... 101
Figure 4.93: Colour changes for Amaranthus spp...... 113
Figure 4.94: Colour change for Corchorus spp...... 114
xxiii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
A vegetable as a product may be defined usually as a succulent plant or portion of a plant, which is consumed as a side-dish with the starchy staple (Siemonsma & Piluek,
1994). Vegetables are essential food component of human diets and largely preferred in their fresh state (Drechel et al., 2010) and rank higher in production than all other crops
(Bosland and Votava, 2000). Vegetables have also been discovered to be rich sources of vitamins A, C and K as well as minerals such as calcium, iron, phosphorus, some appreciable amount of thiamine, Niacin and riboflavin, carbohydrate and crude protein as compared to exotic leafy vegetables (Schippers, 2000). Vegetables have five main distinguished groups and these are leaf vegetables (e.g. amaranth), fruit vegetables (e.g.
Tomato), pulse and seed vegetables (e.g. Cowpea), tuber vegetables (e.g. sweet potato) and finally other vegetables of which for example flowers (e.g. cauliflower) are used
(Terra, 1966).
In Africa, the number of indigenous vegetable species is far greater than exotic ones and are better adapted to the environment than the introduced exotic vegetables and as well provide low-cost quality nutrition for large parts of the population in both rural and urban areas (Chweya and Eyzaguirre, 1999). In Ghana, fruit vegetables most commonly grown in Ghana are tomato, onion, shallots, okra, eggplant, local spinach
(Amaranthus spp), Indian or Gambian spinach, sweet and chilli pepper and hot pepper
1
(Obuobie et al., 2006). Indigenous green leafy vegetables consumed also include cocoyam leaves “Kontomire”, Amarantus leaves “Aleefu” and water leaf
“Bokoboko” with the ten most important vegetables produced in terms of yield being cabbage, tomato, onion, garden pea, amaranth, Chinese cabbage, eggplant, carrots, cauliflower and finally okra (Mwasha, 1998).
According to Shei (2008), vegetables are important constituent of the West African diet but traditional leafy vegetables are of the most importance. However, most species of
African native vegetables are not well known or are used only locally. Little or no attention has also been given to these West African leafy vegetables by both the local, national and international research institutions. Thus, value chain assessment and information on these indigenous leafy vegetables as well as how their quality is affected would be of importance.
Kaplinsky and Morris (2001) reported value chain to be a full range of activities required to bring a product from conception, through the different phases of production and transformation and it is made up of a series of actors (or stakeholders) from input suppliers, producers and processors, to exporters and buyers engaged in the activities required to bring agricultural product from its conception to its end use.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The production and marketing of traditional vegetables is a growing niche in Ghana‟s horticultural sector. Agriculture is also a major source of livelihood in Ghana and the horticulture industry provides 80% of all agricultural export in Ghana. In the last few years, non-traditional exports has featured prominently with traditional vegetables getting
2 prominence and these traditional vegetable are also better adapted to the environment and more nutritious. Unfortunately, information on the quality attributes, consumption and handling of traditional vegetables in Ghana along the value chain has not been sufficiently reported.
In addition, the cost of production, prices and volume flows throughout the year has received least attention. Although, several traditional vegetables are dried and sold on the
Ghanaian markets their quality characteristics has also not been properly investigated. In order to promote the production, distribution and consumption of traditional vegetables, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive value chain assessment.
Along the vegetable value chain, problems hinder the potential gains that could have been attained from the existing opportunities. In this regard, vegetable value chain analysis is an important process that needs to be investigated much in the study area.
Traders and consumers do not usually play a collective role towards one another and information on vegetable processing activities have also not been documented.
1.3 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
Traditional vegetables have been important source of livelihood, especially, for rural folks involved in its production and sales. It is a very good source of nutrients and are used in various dishes. Traditional leafy vegetables have been reported to have medicinal properties and probably more importantly are a good germplasm bank for potential breeding and crop development interventions or research. It has been estimated that almost every home in Ghana consumes some traditional vegetables in one form or the other. It is also a very good source of income for most stakeholders in the value chain.
3
Assessment of their quality characteristics, prices and volume flows as well as traditional processing technologies are therefore very essential in promoting the traditional vegetable industry in Ghana. Policy makers, researchers and consumers for the general good of the nation could use findings obtained from the study. It has been strongly advocated by
FAO/WHO (2001) that every country should produce its own traditional vegetables and consume them as a way of combating malnutrition whiles promoting food security.
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4.1 Main Objective
The main objective of the study was to assess the postharvest handling of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. along the value chain and quality in Kumasi
1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the study were to:
Determine postharvest handling practices and quality characteristics of
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.
Carry out SWOT analysis along the value chain of Amaranthus and Corchorus
spp.
Estimate quantities produced and wealth distribution along the value chain
4
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 VEGETABLES
A vegetable as a product is usually defined as a succulent or part of a plant and is normally consumed as a side-dish with the starchy staple (Siemonsma and Piluek, 1994).
Vegetables are also fresh and edible portions of herbaceous plants, which can be eaten raw or cooked (Dhellot et al., 2006).
Furthermore, many vegetables are said to be annuals since they grow for only one season, several are true biennials and some are even perennials (Weaver, 2003).
Generally, vegetables form a large and diverse commodity group and are distinct groups not because their botanical features are common but because of the way they are grown and their produce is used. And because of it is highly intensive performed in gardens, it is regarded as part of horticulture (Siemonsma and Piluek, 1994).
Vegetables are organized into five (5) subgroups based on their nutrient content. These are dark green vegetables, starchy vegetables, red and orange vegetables, beans and peas, and other vegetables. Vegetables may be edible roots, stems, leaves, fruits or seed and each group contributes to diet in its own way Robinson (1990).
5
2.2 IMPORTANCE OF VEGETABLES
2.2.1 Nutritional Importance
Vegetables have different shades of variety and are rich in essential oils, glycosides, pigments and stimulates appetite as well as provides taste and palatability. The large number of species and varieties of vegetables are raw material for preparing a variety of foods, thus improving range enriching food. The chemical composition of vegetables show high water content, sugars, protein, starch, fat and energy value in calories
(Butnariu, 2006).
Vegetable products have a lower food value and a lower heat but have special importance in human nutrition. They also have high content of vitamins and minerals when compared with other animal foods. Many species of vegetables also contain high amounts of digestible carbohydrates such as starch, sucrose, glucose and fructose and non-digestible carbohydrates such as cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin and protides
(Butnariu, 2007). There is full assimilation of vitamins in the human body when fresh vegetables are consumed. Thompson and Kelly (2000) also reported that vegetables act as buffering agents for acidic substances produced during the digestion process.
According to Genders (1994), vegetables are well represented in the composition of numerous minerals such as those of Calcium, Iron, Copper, Phosphorus, Zinc,
Chlorine, Sodium and others. However, the dominant basic elements in plants and vegetables are Calcium, Potassium, Iron and Sodium and these provide alkalizing effects, neutralizing the acidity produced by other foods, especially those of animal origin. Norman (1992), also mentioned that vegetables are also a good source of
6 roughages, which by providing an indigestible matrix, stimulates intestinal muscles and keep them in working order and also prevent constipation through their laxative effect.
The fiber content of vegetables generally also adds to bulk of the food which prevents us from frequent hunger.
It has been also discovered by Schippers (2000) that vegetables are rich source of vitamins K, A, and C as well as minerals such as calcium, iron, phosphorus, some appreciable amount of thiamine, Niacin and riboflavin, carbohydrate and crude protein as compared to exotic leafy vegetables. Leguminous vegetables, sweet potato, potato, onion, garlic and methi are good sources of carbohydrates. Peas, beams, leafy vegetables and garlic are also good sources of proteins. Carrot, tomato, drumstick and leafy vegetables are good sources of Vitamin A. Peas, garlic and tomato are also good sources of Vitamin B, green chilies, drumstick leaves, cole crops, leafy vegetables and leaves of radish are also rich in Vitamin C while leafy vegetables and drumstick pods are rich in minerals (Schippers, 2000).
2.2.2 Economic Importance
Vegetables are the most widely grown crops in Ghana. Vegetables provide essential food security for many subsistent farmers in the country. They are ranked as higher in production than all other crops. Vegetables also provide very important sources of employment for those outside the formal sector in peri-urban areas because of their generally short, labour-intensive production systems, low levels of investment as well as high yield (Schippers, 2000).
7
Ghana has developed a significant export of fresh produce to Europe and almost 90,000 tonnes of fresh produce was imported from Ghana in 2007 which earned the Ghanaian horticulture cluster some €80mm (Jaeger et al., 2008). In 2011, the current volume and value of vegetables exported from Ghana was 12,018,914kg and a USD value of 3,877,
656 (GEPA, 2012).
2.3 KINDS OF VEGETABLES IN GHANA
In Ghana, more than fifteen (15) kinds of vegetables are cultivated, all of which are sold. Among the exotic ones are Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Cabbage (Brassica oleraria),
Spring onions (Allium cepa), Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea), Green pepper (Capsicum annuum), Carrots (Daucus carota) and Radish (Raphanus sativus), while indigenous vegetables included Okro (Hibiscus esculentus), “Ayoyo” (Corcorus olitorius) and
“Aleefu” (Amaranthus cruentus) (Obuobie et al., 2006).
Vegetables are distinguished into five main groups. These groups are leafy vegetables
(example being Amaranths, Corchorus), fruit vegetables (example being Tomato, eggplant), pulse and seed vegetables (example being Cowpea), tuber vegetables
(example being sweet potato) and finally other vegetables of which for example flowers such as cauliflower are used (Terra, 1966).
2.3.1 Leafy Vegetables
According to Vorster et al. (2005), leafy vegetables are defined as plant species of which the leafy parts, which may be young, succulent stems, flowers and very young fruits are used as a vegetable and have been used from history to date. Leafy vegetables
8 are important components of the human diet and provides minerals, fibre and vitamins, low in calories (Acikgoz, 2011; Emebu and Anyika, 2011) and also very good source of antioxidants (Bunning and Kendall, 2007; Velioglu et al., 1998). Green leafy vegetables are consumed and have the highest nutritional value which adds to the nutritional status of poor rural and urban households (Chadha, 2003). Examples of green leafy vegetables include cabbage, lettuce, dandelion, moringa , amaranthus, corchorus, kontomire and many more and these vegetables may be eaten raw or boiled (Martin and Ruberte-
Meitner, 1998).
A report by Mwangi and Mumbi (2006) states that most widespread and debilitating nutritional disorders, including birth defects, mental and physical retardation, weakened immune systems blindness and even death has resulted from non-consumption of fruits and vegetables habits. Millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa are threaten by hunger and malnutrition, yet the value of African traditional vegetables is not fully appreciated. However, African leafy vegetables (ALVs) consumed in large quantities can have a positive effect on nutrition, health and economic wellbeing of both rural and urban populations (Obel-Lawson, 2005).
2.4 TRADITIONAL VEGETABLES
Traditional vegetables are plants whose leaves, roots or fruits are acceptable and used as vegetables by rural and urban communities through tradition, custom and habit (FAO,
1988) and are widely consumed especially during famine or natural disaster. Traditional vegetables are described as indigenized foods (Phillips-Howard, 1999) but might not be indigenous to a country. They can be associated with tradition production system, local
9 knowledge and usually have a long history of local selection and use (Keller et al., 2004).
One hundred and fifty (150) food-plants are commonly consumed by man of which 115 are indigenous African species and the world‟s major regions of crop diversity include
Ethiopian highlands, the Sahelian transitional zone, the delta of Niger River and the humid forest zone of west and central Africa (Kimbi and Atta-krah, 2003).
Traditional vegetables play a role in nutrition, food security, culture and can provide employment opportunity (Mertz et al., 2001). According to Smith and Eyzaguirre (2007), there has been a movement currently towards a more diversified food basket by doing research on the under-utilized crop including traditional foods such as leafy vegetables.
The reduction of some of these traditional vegetables have also encouraged research to be done on these under-utilized crops because these plants are such an important part of the livelihood of many people (Chweya and Eyzaguirre, 1999; Lyke et al., 2002).
2.4.1 Traditional Leafy Vegetables
Maundu (1997) defines Traditional leafy vegetables (TLV‟s) also known as African
Leafy Vegetables (ALV‟s) as indigenous or traditional vegetables whose leaves or young shoots of flowers are consumed. Traditional leafy vegetables are mainly consumed in their fresh state but can be preserved using traditional methods or solar drying (Kordylas,
1990).
Traditional African leafy vegetables are also better adapted to the environment when compared to the introduced exotic vegetables and provide low-cost quality nutrition for large parts of the population in both rural and urban areas (Chweya and Eyzaguirre,
1999). However, a report by Orchard and Ngwerume (2003) states that, higher yields of
10 indigenous vegetables occur during the wet season. Therefore, farmers are often forced to sell at very low prices because produce have very high perishable nature and cannot be stored for a long time.
Hart and Vorster (2006) also reported that traditional leafy vegetables are often used and make up a large percentage of the food intake, even if substitute products are for sale and this has led to an increase in diversity of diet.
2.4.2 Importance of traditional leafy vegetables
According to Maundu (1997), traditional leafy vegetables have several advantages over exotic vegetables. TLV‟s have a short growing period and can be harvested within 3-4 weeks. They can also tolerate abiotic and biotic stress and responds well to organic fertilizers. Many TLV‟s grow in marginal areas where exotic crops struggle to survive
(Abukutsa-Onyongo, 2007b).
Traditional leafy vegetables are grown under rain-fed conditions as intercrops with local staples in either gardens or fields. Therefore, management of TLV‟s are relatively low
(Hart and Vorster, 2006; Mnzara, 1997). Chweya and Eyzaguirre (1999) also reported traditional leafy vegetables to be cheap but quality nutritional produce for large number of people in both the rural and urban area of Sub-Saharan Africa which offer an opportunity of improving the nutritional status of many families. For the past 20 years, according to Garcia (2012), Africa experiences mixed progress in reducing food insecurity and child malnutrition and approximately, one third of these children under 5 years of age in Africa are stunted and underweight (Asare-Marfo et al., 2013). Most countries in Africa are still struggling to address problems of under-nutrition and
11 micronutrient deficiencies (Lopriore and Muehlhoff, 2003) and African leafy vegetables are increasingly recognized as possible contributors of both micronutrients and bioactive compounds to the diets of populations in Africa according to Smith and
Eyzaguirre (2007).
2.4.2.1 Nutritional importance of traditional leafy vegetables
Martin and Ruberte-Meitner (1998) stated that tropical Africa‟s daily diet is dominated mainly by starchy staples. However, African indigenous leafy vegetables (ALV‟s) are the cheapest and most readily available sources of important proteins, vitamins (especially vitamin A) and essential amino acids. A large number of African Indigenous leafy vegetables have also been reported to have health protecting properties and uses (Okeno et al., 2003). The roots, leaves and twigs as well as the bark of tress such as moringa have been reported by Smith and Eyzaguirre (2007) to be used as traditional medicine and
Adebooye et al. (2003) also document of twenty-four indigenous leafy vegetables used as traditional medicine. Many natural products isolated from modern science have been shown to be with active principles of medicinal importance from many indigenous plants.
For example, Brassica species have been shown to contain glucosinolates, which are highly effective against cancer and heart diseases.
Indigenous leafy vegetables and fruits contain appreciable amounts of chemical composition such as crude protein, fat and oil, energy, vitamins and minerals. Rural communities also continue to use several of these indigenous leafy vegetables for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes (Adebooye, 2004; Chweya, 1997; USDA, 2003).
Some local Ghanaian vegetables such as amaranthus, corchorus, cocoyam leaves
12
“kontomire” and water leaf “Bokoboko have been indicated to of better nutrient contents than some exotic types by Abbey et al. (2006).
2.4.2.2 Economic importance of traditional leafy vegetables
Indigenous vegetables play a very important role in generating income and subsistence
(Schippers, 2000) and Adebooye (2004) reported that some indigenous leafy vegetables such as Telfairia occidentalis f. Hook, Celosia argentea L., Amaranthus cruentus L. and
Solanum macrocarpon L. in Southwest Nigeria are sold at high prices during the dry season. A report in Kenya by Abukutsa-Onyago (2003) also showed that indigenous leaf vegetables offer a significant opportunity for the poor people in western Kenya to earn a living because indigenous leaf vegetables production can be done with little capital investment. Thus, in effect these vegetables provide employment opportunities for those that are outside the formal sector.
Indigenous leafy vegetables are also important commodities for poor households because the prices of these indigenous leafy vegetables are relatively affordable when compared to other food items. In addition, increased consumption of African indigenous vegetables enhances crop diversity, alleviates poverty and promotes food security (Barry et al.,
2008). In Senegal, a report from IITA, also indicated leafy vegetables gives as much as
50-85% of household budget for some farmers (Spore No. 116)
2.4.2.3 Uses of traditional leafy vegetables
Indigenous leafy vegetables are essential ingredients of soups or sauces that goes with carbohydrate staples. Indigenous leafy vegetables such as okra, vegetable jute impart a
13 glutinous constituency to stew and soup and facilitates swallowing of food such as banku, fufu and gari (Chweya and Eyzaguirre, 1999).
Tender leaves, petioles and in some cases young tender stems are the plant parts used in the preparation of vegetable dishes (Vorster et al., 2002). The leaves and other selected plant parts are prepared as potherbs or as spicy condiments to go with maize porridge and sorghum. Leafy vegetable dishes may also be prepared from a single species or from a combination of different species. Other ingredients, such as tomatoes, onions, peanut flour and spices may be added to enhance the taste of the traditional leafy vegetables.
However, cooking methods vary from thorough boiling, which may include the replacement of the first cooking water with fresh water in the case of bitter-tasting species, such as Solanum retroflexum (Van Averbeke and Juma, 2006a), to steaming involving the use of very small quantities of water and short cooking times, as in the case of pumpkin leaves and flowers. Vorster et al. (2005) also reported the recipes used to prepare the different leafy vegetables tend to be fairly the same within particular cultural groups limiting culinary diversity.
2.5 IMPORTANT TRADITIONAL LEAFY VEGETABLE SPECIES
In South Africa a report by Jansen van Rensburg et al. (2007) indicated seven groups of leafy vegetable species of importance to be amaranth (Amaranthus spp), spider flower (Cleome gynandra), rape or Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis), night- shade (Solanum retroflexum and selected other species belonging to the S. nigrum complex), Jew‟s mallow (Corchorus olitorius and C. tridens), cowpeas (Vigna inguiculata) and pumpkins (Cucurbita pepo, C. maxima and C. moschata), melons
14
(Citrul- lus lanatus and Cucumis melo) and other selected indigenous cucurbits, such as balsam pear (Momordica balsamina).
An article by Ebert (2014) also reported that in East and West Africa traditional vegetables available include amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), jute mallow (Corchorus olitorius), African nightshade (Solanum scabrum), Asian (Solanum melongena) and
African (Solanum aethiopicum) eggplant, drumstick tree (Moringa oleifera), bitter gourd
(Momordica charantia), water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica), Chinese kale (Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra), edible rape (Brassica napus), roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa),
Malabar spinach (Basella alba), slippery cabbage (Abelmoschus manihot), winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus) and many gourd species. These traditional leafy vegetables are reported to be of considerable commercial value and thus can make a significant contribution to household income. In Ghana indigenous vegetables include
Okra (Hibiscus esculentus), “Ayoyo” (Corchorus olitorius) and “Aleefu” (Amaranthus cruentus) (Obuobie et al., 2006).
2.5.1 Amaranth
Amaranthus spp. collectively known as Amaranth is grown mainly as a leafy vegetable and also for grain production in many tropical countries in Africa, Central and South
America, Mexico and parts of Asia. Amaranth belongs to the family Amaranthaceae and the genus Amaranthus spp. consists of about 60 species, some of which have been cultivated for more than 5000 years (Dehmer, 2003).
Leafy vegetables of Amaranthus spp. include A. blitum which is livid or slender amaranth, A. dubius which is the spleen amaranth and A. tricolor (Grubben and Denton,
15
2004). Amaranth cruentus although was originally known as a cereal amaranth, it is now the main vegetable amaranth in Africa and to a lesser extent can also be found in Asia
(Grubben, 1994).
Amaranth is an extremely variable, erect to spreading herb. The height of mature plants varies between 0.3 m and 2 m but it depends on the species, growth habit and environment. Some species of amaranth have distinct markings on their leaves while terminal and auxiliary inflorescences also occur. The small seeds of the leafy amaranth are usually very shiny and dark brown to black, contrary to the grain types, which usually have seeds that are cream coloured (Norman, 1992). It is a C4 plant which grows optimally under warm conditions with day temperatures above 25°C and night temperatures not lower than 15°C, bright light and adequate availability of plant nutrients (Mhlonthlo et al., 2006). The various amaranth species are tolerant to adverse climatic conditions (Grubben, 2004) and are quite drought tolerant but prolonged dry spells induce flowering and decrease leaf-yield (Palada and Chang, 2003). Amaranth is photoperiod sensitive and starts to flower as soon as the day length shortens and under cultivated conditions amaranth produces fresh leaf yields of up to 40 tons per hectare
(Schippers, 2000; Mhlonthlo et al., 2006).
Amaranths are easy to cultivate, extremely fast growing with high yield potential, less susceptible to soil-borne diseases than most other vegetables, suitable for crop rotation with any other vegetable crop and it reacts favorably to fertilizers and organic manure
(Grubben, 2004). According to Ebert et al. (2011), amaranth becomes ready for harvesting between 20 to 45 days after transplanting or sowing, depending on the variety and harvest season. Although low yields of leafy vegetables of less than 1.2 tonnes per
16 hectare are common in Africa, leafy amaranth has a yield potential of 32–40 tonnes per hectare and is, therefore, highly competitive as stated by Oluoch et al. (2009).
Figure 2.1: Amaranthus spp.
2.5.1.1 Economic and Nutritional importance of Amaranth
Amaranth is reported to have increasingly gained importance both for household consumption and commercial production in both Africa and Asia. There is a good market potential for this crop, both in the high-price and low-price areas as it is often produced with relatively low inputs and thus has low capital risk for small-scale farmers
(Hughes and Ebert, 2013).
Amaranth is a very nutritious leafy vegetable, both in raw and cooked form. Ebert
(2011) reported the nutritional value of amaranth to be comparable to spinach, but much higher than cabbage and Chinese cabbage. Vegetable amaranth has been rated equal to or superior in taste to spinach and is considerably high in iron, phosphorus and calcium as stated by Makus (1990).
17
Priya et al. (2007) also reported that amaranths have excellent nutritional value because of their high content of essential micronutrients such as b-carotene, iron, calcium, vitamin C and folic acid. Amino acid profile of A. cruentus leaves, in particular, is its methionine and lysine levels, which are the limiting amino acids in most plant proteins
(Fasuyi, 2007).
2.5.1.2 Uses of amaranth
Edible parts of amaranth are the leaves and stems. Young leaves, growth points and whole seedlings of amaranth are harvested and cooked for use as a vegetable but it has got other uses. For example in the Tzaneen area, the leaves and stems of A. spinosis are dried and ground for use as snuff (Hart and Vorster, 2006). And according to Fox and Norwood Young (1982), in the past areas where access to salt was limited, such as in parts of the Limpopo Province, the whole dried plants of different amaranth species were burnt to produce ash. The ash was then dissolved in water and the precipitate of the filtrate of the ash was used as salt. In Nigeria, Mepha et al. (2007) reported that A. hybridus leaves combined with condiments are used to prepare soup. According to
Dhellot et al. (2006) amaranth leaves, in Congo, are eaten as spinach or green vegetables. In Mozambique and West Africa, amaranth leaves are boiled and mixed with groundnut sauce and eaten as salad (Martin and Telek, 1979). The leaves and stems of
Amaranthus spp. are also used as food in Southeast Asia and Equatorial Africa (Van Le et al., 1998) and is recommended as a good food with medicinal properties for young children, lactating mothers and for patients with constipation, fever, hemorrhage, anemia or kidney complaints. The roots of amaranth are boiled with honey as a laxative for infants in Senegal and A. cruentus is also used as a tapeworm expellant in Ethiopia.
18
In Sudan the ash from the stems is used to dress wound and people in Gabon heats the leaves to treat tumors (Grubben, 2004a).
2.5.2 Corchorus spp.
Corchorus, an erect annual herb that varies from 20 cm to approximately 1.5 m in height, belongs to the family Tiliaceae. Corchorus olitorius also known as jute was a native plant of tropical Africa and Asia but has spread to Australia, South America and some parts of Europe as reported by Oboh et al. (2009).
The stems of Corchorus are angular with simple oblong to lanceolate leaves that have serrated margins and distinct hair-like teeth at the base. Corchorus seed shows a high degree of dormancy which can be broken by means of hot water treatment (Schippers et al., 2002a).
Corchorus prefers warm, humid conditions and performs well in areas with high rainfall (600 to 2000 mm) and high temperature (30°C during the day and 25°C at night). Growth of Corchorus slows down considerably when the temperature drops below 15°C or when the plants are subjected to a prolonged period of water deficit.
Corchorus prefers rich, well-drained, medium-textured soils but will also grow in coarse and fine textured soils. Different corchorus species are used namely Corchorus asplenifolius, C. trilocularis, C. tridens and C. olitorius (Schippers et al., 2002a).
Harvesting of Corchorus can be done 4-6 weeks after sowing or 3-4 weeks after transplanting and are harvested by either pulling or topping. Pulling is when the whole plant is uprooted whereas topping is the cutting of the terminal shoots. Topping when
19 used as method of harvesting decreases the number of leaves from each harvest, reduce the size and weight of leaves and also cause reduction in appeal of recovered leaves
(Akoroda, 2008).
The Corchorus olitorius plant has many names in English amongst which are the jute plant, bush okra Jew's Mallow, West Africa sorrel, Bush Okra, Long-fruited Jute and
Krin-krin. In Nigeria the crop is known as „ewedu‟ in Yoruba, „ahuara‟ in Igbo and
„malafiya and ayoyo‟ in Hausa (Akoroda, 2008) and popularly known as „Ayoyo‟ or
„Ademe‟ in Ghana (Olaniya and Ajibola, 2008).
Figure 2.2: Corchorus spp.
2.5.2.1 Economic and Nutritional importance of Corchorus
Various Corchorus species have been reported to be of economic and systemic importance (Mbaye et al., 2001). Corchorus spp. is of high socio-economic importance especially in western Nigeria where the livelihood of millions of local farmers depends on Corchorus production and its utilization. According to Modi et al. (2006),
Corchorus crop also grows more easily in systems of rural subsistence farming as
20 compared to exotic species like cabbage and spinach. Corchorus crop is also available during the spring season (April to June) when no other foliage crops grows well on the field.
Edible species of Corchorus are very good source of proteins and vitamins A, C and E.
They are also rich in minerals like iron and calcium (Dansi et al., 2008). Corchorus also contain high levels of iron and folate which helps in prevention of anaemia (Steyn et al.,
2001). According to Norman (1992), the leaves of Corchorus olitorius contains high levels of all essential amino acids except methionine which is at a marginal level. The young shoot tips can be eaten as it is believed to contain high levels of protein and vitamin C as stated by Shittu and Ogunmoyela (2001). Corchorus olitorius, believed to be rich in iron, is usually recommended for pregnant women and nursing mothers
(Oyedele et al., 2006) and is also used as a folklore medicine to treat diseases such as fever, gonorrhea, chronic cystisis pain and tumours (Zakaria et al., 2006).
2.5.2.2 Uses of Corchorus spp.
Corchorus which has been cooked has a mucilaginous texture, similar to okra
(Abelmoschus esculentus) and this sliminess is highly appreciated by people in the north of South Africa but not in the south. The presence of mucilage in some vegetables makes their soups more tasty and palatable (Smith, 1985). When preparing coarse-textured leaves, such as those of cowpeas, inclusion of Corchorus makes it easier for older people to swallow the vegetables. However, to reduce the sliminess of Corchorus, bicarbonate of soda or cow urine are added to the cooking water (Schippers et al.,
2002a).
21
Fresh leaves and tender shoots of Corchorus are mixed with soda and cooked to produce a slimy and slippery soup and the resultant soup makes it easy to take thick pastes of locally prepared carbohydrate dishes from either yam, maize, cassava or rice. This is the reason why Corchorus soup is used in traditional medicine to free the bowels to prevent constipation (Mensah et al., 2008) and also to purify the blood.
Corchorus leaves are also used in folk medicine for the treatment of fever, cold, chronic cystitis and tumours (Oboh et al., 2009). The mucilaginous leaves and young shoots are used as spinach in stews and soups. In Nigeria, concoction prepared from corchorus seeds is used as purgative while root scrapings from the same corchorus are used to treat toothache in Kenya (Fondio et al., 2004). According to Edmonds (1990), Corchorus rod contains fibers that can be used in manufacture of ropes for fishing lines, cloth packing and in garment bag and Corchorus tridens leaves are also used as plaster to reduce swellings.
2.6 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF LEAFY VEGETABLES
2.6.1 Protein
Protein helps in building and maintaining all tissues in the body and forms an important part of enzymes, fluids and hormones of the body as well as help form antibodies to fight infection and supplies energy. Protein is needed in children for growth and development especially during pregnancy, breast-feeding or when recovering from malnutrition, trauma or after surgery. Deficiency of protein is a serious cause of ill-health and gives symptoms such as kwashiorkor which include apathy, diarrhoea, inactivity, failure to grow, flaky skin, fatty liver, and edema of the
22 belly and legs (Jonhson, 1996).
AFPA (2010) found that plant proteins may be less digestible because of intrinsic differences in the nature of the protein and the presence of other factors such as fibre, which may reduce protein digestibility by as much as 10 %. However, protein is easily denatured by heat (Morris et al., 2004) and so care must be taking when boiling leafy vegetables. A. cruentus and C. olitorus are reported by Mensah et al. (2008) to have 4.6g/100 DM and 27.7g/100 respectively of protein content and 32.2% and 27.2% respectively for A. vividis and A. blitum on dry matter bases.
2.6.2 Carbohydrate
According to Osei (2003), carbohydrates are the most abundant organic material and forms 50-80 % of dry matter in vegetables. It is the most important food energy provider among the macronutrients, accounting for between 40 and 80% of total energy intake. Foods containing carbohydrates are healthy diets because they provide dietary fibre, sugars and starches that help the body to function well. The sugars and starches in foods supply energy to the body in the form of glucose, an important fuel for the brain and nervous system and it is therefore important to choose carbohydrates wisely
(DGA, 2005). Thus, they serve as stored forms of energy of glycogen in liver and muscles and provide major source of energy and responsibility for breaking-down of fatty acids to prevent ketosis, according to Hassan and Umar (2006). Carbohydrate content of Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius were found to be 7.0 and 26.6 g/100g DM respectively by Mensah et al. (2008) and 17.35% and 28.88% respectively for Amaranthus blitum and Corchorus olitorius.
23
2.6.3 Dietary Fibre
Dietary crude fibre is the edible parts of plants that cannot digest and absorb in the small intestine of human with complete or partial fermentation in the large intestine. It promotes beneficial physiological effects including laxation, and/or blood cholesterol or glucose attenuation. Total fibre makes up the sum of dietary and functional fibre.
Dietary fibre consists of non-digestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants while functional fibre consists of isolated, non- digestible carbohydrates which have beneficial physiological effects in humans (CFW, 2003).
Dietary fibre may be classified under three major groupings namely cellulose, non- cellulose and lignin according to their structure and properties. Foods with high amounts of dietary fibre are very low (only 2-3) in caloric content and is therefore recommended for reducing weight (Komal and Kaur, 1992). Hunt et al., 1980 also reported that fibre helps with the speed-up of excretion of waste and toxins from the body and prevent them from sitting in the intestine or bowel for too long which could cause several diseases.
Crude fibre content of Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius as reported by
Mensah et al. (2008) are 1.8 and 8.5 g/100 g DM respectively. Crude fibre content of
Amaranthus cruentus is also said to be 10.40% by Kwenin et al. (2011).
2.6.4 Dietary Fat
Dietary fats contain twice the caloric value of an equivalent weight of sugar but are of importance as protein as they are vital to cell structure and biological function. Dietary
24 fats provide essential linoleic acid which seems to have both a structural and functional role in animal tissue. However, according to Kummerow (2007), leafy vegetables do not contribute significantly to the fat supply in foods. Crude fat content of 3.0g/100g is reported to be found in Amaranthus cruentus (Kwenin et al., 2011).
2.6.5 Ash
Inorganic residue remaining after water and organic matter have been removed by heating in the presence of oxidizing agents is Ash and it provides a measure of the total amount of minerals within a food (McClement, 2003). According to Onot et al.
(2007), higher ash content predicts the presence of an array of mineral elements as well as high molecular weight elements. A study by Nnamani et al. (2009) on Zanthoxylum zanthoxyloides, Vitex doniana and Adenia cissampeliodes stated that Ash content of the test vegetables ranged from 8.10 -6.30 %.
2.6.6 Moisture Content
Water content varies among individual leafy vegetables as a result of the structural differences and cultivation condition ( Florkowski et al., 2009). High moisture content in vegetables is indicates its freshness as well as its ability not to store for long without spoiling (Adepoju and Oyewole, 2008). A report from Emebu and Anyika (2011) indicated that microorganisms that promote spoilage in foods thrive well in foods with high moisture contents, resulting in a reduced shelf life and confirms Ladan et al. (1997) report which says that vegetables can be kept for a long time before use if only its moisture content is reduced to inhibit enzymes that cause spoilage in the vegetables and
25 moisture removed from vegetables increases the concentration of nutrients present in them (Morris et al., 2004).
On dry matter bases, moisture content of Amaranthus blitum and Corchorus olitorius were 13.58% and 14.98% respectively while moisture content of fresh Amaranthus cruentus and Corchorus olitorius were 86% and 27% respectively (Mensah et al. 2008)
2.7 MINERAL COMPOSITION OF LEAFY VEGETABLES
2.7.1 Iron
Iron functions as haemoglobin in the transport of oxygen (Malhotra, 1998) and is required for proper myelination of spinal cord and white matter of cerebellar folds in brain, a cofactor for a number of enzymes involved in neurotransmitter synthesis
(Soetan et al., 2010). Iron is responsible for synthesis and packaging of neurotransmitters, their uptake and degradation into other iron-containing proteins which may directly or indirectly alter brain function. Iron is a pro-oxidant which is required for making Hb and is also needed by microorganisms for proliferation. Low phosphate diet increases iron absorption while high phosphate diet decreases iron absorption by forming insoluble iron phosphates. Iron in ferrous form is more soluble and is readily absorbed than the ferric form (Murray et al., 2000).
According to Malhotra (1998), deficiency symptom of iron is anaemia and also has a role in brain development and in the pathophysiology of restless legs syndrome. Also, iron deficiency also alters many metabolic processes that may impact brain functioning, among which are neurotransmitter metabolism, protein synthesis and organogenesis.
26
However, iron accumulation has been related to some neurologic disorders such as
Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, type-1 neuro-degeneration with brain iron accumulation and other disorders and also haemosiderosis when accumulated excessively in the liver, pancreas, heart, lungs and other tissues. Iron are found in food products such as liver, kidney, spleen, heart, red meat, fish, egg yolk, nuts, legumes and dark green leafy vegetables (Soetan et al., 2010) and iron content in
Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius according to Mensah et al. (2008) are
0.12 and 0.04 mg/100 g DM respectively.
2.7.2 Phosphorus
Phosphorus functions as a constituent of bones, teeth, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), phosphorylated metabolic intermediates and nucleic acids and aids in the buffering system. Phosphate buffers functions in the formation of high energy compounds and synthesis of phospholipids and phosphoproteins. Deficiency disease or symptoms in children causes rickets and osteomalacia in adults and leads to bone loss. Phosphorus are found in phosphate food additives, green leafy vegetables and fruits especially banana (Soetan et al., 2010).
2.7.3 Calcium
Calcium, an important constituent of bones and teeth, is involved in regulation of nerve and muscle function. It plays a vital role in enzyme activation and activates large number of enzymes such as adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase), succinic dehydrogenase and lipase. Soetan et al. (2010) also reported that calcium was required for membrane permeability, muscle contraction, normal transmission of nerve impulses and
27 neuromuscular excitability. Dietary calcium and phosphorus are absorbed mainly in the upper small intestine, particularly the duodenum and the amount absorbed depends on source, calcium-phosphorus ratio, intestinal pH, lactose intake and dietary levels of calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, iron, aluminium, manganese and fat. The greater the need, the more efficient is the absorption (Soetan et al., 2010). In plants, calcium is taken up in the ionized form. The leafy parts are relatively high in calcium and low in phosphorus while it is the reverse for seeds (Merck, 1986).
According to Malhotra, 1998 and Murray et al., 2000, calcium deficiency causes rickets in children due to insufficient calcification by calcium phosphate of the bones in growing children. The bones of the children, therefore, becomes soft and deformed by the body weight. However, it causes osteomalacia, a generalized demineralization of bones, in adults,. It may also contribute to osteoporosis, a metabolic disorder which results in decalcification of bone with a high incidence of fracture, a condition, where calcium is withdrawn from the bones and causes the bones to become weak and porous and then breaks. Dentition of both children and adult are also affected by calcium deficiency. Growing, pregnant and especially lactating humans and animals require liberal amounts of calcium and phosphorus. Excess absorption of calcium causes toxicity symptoms occur with such as depressed cardiac activity which leads to respiratory and cardiac failure. Normally, calcium ions increase the strength and duration of cardiac muscle contraction. Excess calcium and phosphorus are excreted, however, by the kidney (Hays and Swenson, 1985).
Beans, lentils, nuts, leafy vegetables, dairy products, small fishes including sardines, bones and many more are sources of calcium according to Soetan et al. (2010). Calcium
28 content of Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius are 2.05 and 1.26 mg/100 g
DM respectively (Mensah et al., 2008)
2.7.4 Potassium
According to Soetan et al. (2010), Potassium is the principal cation in intracellular fluid and functions in acid-base balance, regulation of osmotic pressure, conduction of nerve impulse, muscle contraction particularly the cardiac muscle, cell membrane function and
Na+/K+-ATPase. Deficiency disease or symptoms occurs secondary to illness, functional and structural abnormalities including impaired neuromuscular functions of skeletal, smooth, and cardiac muscle, muscular weakness, paralysis, mental confusion, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired carbohydrate tolerance. Potassium deficiency affects the collecting tubules of the kidney, resulting in the inability for urine to concentrate urine and alterations of gastric secretions and intestinal movement.
Plant products contain as much potassium as sodium and sources of such products are nuts vegetables and fruits as reported by Soetan et al. (2010). Research by Mensah et al.
(2008) showed Potassium content of Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius to be
4.82 and 3.83 mg/100 g DM.
2.7.5 Magnesium
Magnesium is an active component of several enzyme systems in which thymine pyrophosphate is a cofactor and also constitute bones, teeth and enzyme cofactor
(Murray et al., 2000). According to FAO/WHO (2004), 30–40% of magnesium in the body is found in muscles and soft tissues, 1 % is found in extracellular fluid and
29 the rest are in the skeleton, where it accounts for up to 1 % of bone ash. Magnesium from soft tissue functions as a cofactor of many enzymes involved in energy metabolism, protein synthesis, RNA and DNA synthesis and maintenance of the electrical potential of nervous tissues and cell membranes.
Deficiency of Magnesium causes depressed deep tendon reflexes and respiration in humans
(Murray et al. 2000). Sources include leafy green vegetables (containing chlorophyll)
(Soetan et al., 2010) and magnesium content in Amaranthus cruentus and Cochorus olitorius are 2.53 and 0.59 mg/100 g DM respectively (Mensah et al., 2008).
2.7.6 Heavy Metals
Heavy metals include cadmium, lead, mercury, copper, zinc and nickel and are said to have positive and negative roles in human lives according to AJFS (2010).
Zinc, a trace mineral, is important to all forms of life because of its basic role in gene expression, cell development and replication (Hambridge 2000). Zinc deficiency condition is characterized by short stature, hypogonadism, impaired immune function, skin disorders, cognitive dysfunction and anorexia (Prasad in 1991). Low dietary intakes of zinc also affect child health. Cadmium, lead and mercury are major contaminants of food supply and an important problem to our environment whereas others like iron, zinc and copper are essential for biochemical reactions in the body (Zaidi et al., 2005).
In general, most heavy metals do not break down and have long biological half-lives.
They potentially accumulate in different body organs leading to unwanted side effects
30 as reported by Jarup (2003) and Sathawara et al. (2004). The content of essential elements in plants is conditional as it is affected by the characteristics of the soil and the ability of plants to selectively accumulate some metals (Divrikli et al., 2006).
Rainfall in atmospheric polluted areas, traffic density, use of oil or fossil fuels for heating atmospheric dusts, plant protection agents and fertilizers which could be adsorbed through leaf blades are additional sources of heavy metals for plants
(Sobukola et al., 2008). Divrikli et al. (2006) also reported that trace metals in water used by farmers to wash plant materials before they are brought to the market are various sources of contamination and some of these elements are toxic to humans even at a very low level.
Excess lead and cadmium metals in food causes a number of diseases especially with cardiovascular, kidney, nervous and bone diseases (WHO, 1992, 1995) as well as carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and teratogenesis (IARC, 1993). Toxicity from copper also induces iron deficiency, lipid peroxidation and destruction of membranes as reported by
Zaidi et al. (2005).
2.8 POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF LEAFY VEGETABLES
Postharvest handling of vegetable crops require careful coordination and integration of the various steps from harvest operations to consumer level so to maintain the initial quality of the product. Inappropriate handling of produce brings about losses, both in quantity and quality (Sargent et al., 2007).
31
2.8.1 Harvesting and Handling on the Field
Harvesting of vegetable crops is done when the day is cool and immediate harvesting after or during rains should be avoided as it is a favourable condition for microorganism to multiply (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). Kader (2006) also reported that in growing plants, transpiration is important when optimal growth temperatures are to be maintained as high temperatures are very injurious to perishable products.
Direct sources of heat such as full sunlight can quickly heat tissues to above the thermal death point of their cells and leading to localized bleaching, necrosis or general collapse of the vegetable crop. Therefore, produce should be moved to packing shade as early as possible.
2.8.2 Packaging
After crops are harvested, they are sent to packing rooms for different operations like cleaning, grading post-grading, treatment and packing so as to be transported or marketed. Vegetable crops are no exception and require special preparation before packing them (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). Packaging of fresh vegetable crops reduces waste and also provides protection from undesirable physiological changes, mechanical damage and pathological deterioration during storage, transportation and marketing. The freshness, flavour and succulence of vegetables can be maintained for a longer period when proper packaging is done (Sudheer and Indira, 2007).
32
2.8.3 Transportation
Risk of contamination of vegetable produce does not end when the produce leaves the farm. But reduction in quality of produce and increase in microbial pathogens can occur during transportation if proper temperature are not maintained. From farmer to consumer and marketing centers Kader (2002) stated that fresh produce is usually transported by road and should be of the highest quality and kept in its best condition during transportation. However, roads are not good for proper transport of horticultural crops, especially in most developing countries) and in most cases the vegetable crops are transported in non-refrigerated vehicles. The non-refrigerated vehicles include open trucks, container vans and other public vehicles (Kader, 2005. Lack of infrastructure for transportation, storage, cooling and markets could cause fresh vegetable crops straight from the farm to be spoilt in hot climates according to Stuart (2009).
Sudheer and Indira (2007) highlighted in their report that an efficient marking system helps to avoid losses of vegetable crops and also to get a good return from sales and so vegetable crops should reach market immediately and at a time they are needed most. In
Ghana, marketing of produce are done in various ways such as produce are heaped on the ground or into bigger basins or baskets. These subject the produce to impact and static loading causing some of them to be crushed as a result of compression. Points of injury causes fungi and bacteria infection and so crushed ones are scarcely removed or sorted out of the lot as inappropriate sorting of the produce at the market can cause deterioration before the produce gets to the final consumer (Swaider et al, 1992)
33
2.9 VALUE CHAIN
Kaplinsky and Morris (2001), defined value chain as made up of series of actors from input suppliers, producers, traders, processors, exporters and consumers who are engaged in the acquired which bring agricultural product from its point of conception to the end. Three important levels of value chain have been identified by Bammann (2007).
The first involves the chain of actors who directly deal with the products such as produce, process, trade and own them, the second are value chain supporters are those who never directly deal with the product but whose services add value to the product and the last are the value chain influencers who regulate the framework, policies, infrastructures along the value chain. The value chain concept involves the addition of value as the product progresses from input suppliers to producers and consumers. A value chain, therefore, incorporates productive transformation and value addition at each stage of the value chain. At each stage in the value chain, the product changes hands through chain actors, transaction costs are incurred, and generally, add some form of value. Bulking, cleaning, grading, and packaging, transporting, storing and processing
(Anandajayasekeram and Berhanu, 2009) are forms of value addition.
34
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The research work was conducted in two phases. The first part was a survey research which involved questionnaire administration, field observation and focused group discussion and the second part was at the laboratory where proximate, mineral composition and microbial analysis were done.
3.2 SURVEY
A preliminary survey was done to sample views from stakeholders along the leafy vegetable chain. Areas where indigenous leafy vegetables grow well were identified in the Kumasi Metropolis. The survey targeted the various stakeholders such as producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers in the Kumasi Metropolis who produce and handle indigenous leafy vegetables.
3.2.1 Sampling Area
The study was carried out in the Kumasi Metropolis which represents the middle belt of
Ghana. Kumasi, the capital town of Ashanti Region, is the second largest city in Ghana with a population of 10 million and an annual growth rate of 5.9% (Ghana
Statistical Service, 2002). Kumasi has a total area of 225 km² of which about 40% is open land. It has a semi-humid tropical climate and lies in the tropical forest zone and an annual average rainfall of 1420 mm with about 120 days on which it rains in the year. Kumasi has a bimodal rainfall pattern with the major season falling between
35
March and July and a micro rainy season around September and October. The mean monthly temperature of the area ranges from 240C to 270C. Kumasi population comprises mainly Ashanti and other ethnic groups, with about 20% being Moslems.
The peri-urban area of Kumasi has a radius of approximately 40 km from the city center (Blake and Kasanga, 1997).
Sampling sites selected in Ashanti region were areas where Amaranthus spp. and
Corchorus spp. grow well and these were Asokore Mampong, Barekese, Barekuma,
Esaaso, Fiano, and KNUST Police Station.
3.2.2 Sampling Size and Method
A sample size of two hundred and fifty (250) stakeholders along the indigenous leafy vegetable chain were interviewed for the study. The stakeholders were made up of 50 producers, 50 wholesalers, 50 retailers and 100 consumers. Purposive and random sampling methods were used to interview the stakeholders. Purposive sampling was used to select specific stakeholders along the indigenous vegetable chain such as producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers while respondents for each stakeholder group were randomly selected to avoid bias.
3.2.3 Data Collection Instrument
Structured questionnaires as well as field observation and focused group discussion were used to collect data. Questionnaires were administered to producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers of indigenous leafy vegetables in the Ashanti Region to establish common indigenous leafy vegetables found in Ashanti Region, postharvest handling activities
36 carried out on the produce, quantity produced as well as the volume flow of these indigenous leafy vegetables.
3.2.4 Method of Data Analysis
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) Version 17 was used to analyze data using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages and mean.
3.3 LABORATORY EXPERIMENT
The laboratory experiment was carried out at the laboratories of the Department of
Horticulture, Crop and Soil Science at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (KNUST) Kumasi and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Soil
Research Institute, Kwadaso.
3.3.1 Source of Samples
Indigenous leafy vegetables used in the study were Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.
Samples of these two indigenous leafy vegetables were collected from the farm gate and brought to the laboratory for analysis and shelf-life studies.
3.3.2 Sample Preparation
Freshly harvested leaves of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. were collected from various farmers and brought to the laboratory. The stems and other irrelevant parts were removed and 200 g each of the sample was weighed. The samples were dried in an oven after which it was ground into fine powder.
37
3.4 PARAMETERS STUDIED
3.4.1 Proximate Composition
3.4.1.1 Moisture content determination
Moisture content was determined by weighing 2g each of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. samples into well labeled petri dishes using an electronic weighing scale (ADAM
AAA 100LE scale) and placed in a Magtech oven for about 24 hours at 60 0C. Each sample was replicated three times and dried to constant weights. The petri dishes and samples were allowed to cool and reweighed afterwards. Percentage moisture and dry matter content were then determined using the method by McClements (2003):
Where, MINITIAL and MDRIED are the mass of the sample before and after drying, respectively.
3.4.1.2 Crude protein determination
The crude protein was determined by determining the organic nitrogen content of the sample using the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1990). Two (2) g each of samples from
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. leaves were ground into powder and transferred into a 500ml digestion flask. 10ml of distilled water was added and one digestion tablet was added to it as a catalyst. 2 ml of concentrated Sulphuric acid and 2ml of 30% hydrogen peroxide was added to the digestion flask. The sample was digested for 30 minutes till a colourless solution was obtained.
The digest was then cooled, diluted with a small quantity of distilled ammonia-free water (100ml)
38 and transferred into a distillation apparatus. The Kjeldahl flask was then rinsed with distilled water to make sure that all the digest had been transferred. 10ml out of the 100ml digest was pipetted into a distillation flask and 90ml distilled water was added to it. 125 ml Erlenmeyer flask with 6ml boric acid solution and 3 drops of indicator solution was placed under a condenser. 8ml of sodium hydroxide-sodium thiosulphate solution was added to and steam distilled until about 50ml distillate was collected. Solution was titrated to gray end point or first appearance of violet. A reagent was run blank with equal volume of distilled water and the titration volume was subtracted from that of the sample titration volume. The nitrogen content of the sample was calculated as:
% Nitrogen= (ml acid x normality of standard acid) X 0.014 X 100
Weight of sample (g)
Thus, % Crude Protein= Total Nitrogen (NT) x 6.25(Protein factor)
3.4.1.3 Ash content determination
The ash content of the leaves was estimated by igniting a weighed sample of 2g in a weighed crucible at a temperature of 500° C for about 3-4 hours in a muffle furnace.
The crucible was removed from the furnace, allowed to cool and weighed. The ash content is calculated using the formula (AOAC, 1990):
Weight of ash x 100 % Ash content =
Weight of sample
39
3.4.1.4 Fat determination
Soxhlet extraction method was used to determine the fat content of the sample. An extraction flask was placed in an oven for about 5 minutes at 1100C, cooled and then weighed. A piece of filter paper was folded around the sample in such a way as to hold it and then a second filter paper was wrapped, which is left open at the top like a thimble. A piece of cotton wool was placed at the top to evenly distribute the solvent as it drops on the sample during extraction. The sample packet was placed in the butt tubes of a soxhlet extraction apparatus. The extract was heated for about 3 hours with
200ml of petroleum ether and the sample was allowed to cool. The ether was evaporated on a steam bath or water bath. The fat content was collected and calculated by the formula (AOAC, 1990):
% Fat content = Weight of ether soluble material x100 Weight of sample
3.4.1.5 Crude Fibre determination
The crude fiber was organic residue which remains after the sample has been treated under standard conditions with standard boiled acid and alkali solutions (AOAC,
1990). It was determined by hydrolyzing the sample with of 0.125 ml H2SO4 and 0.25 ml of NaOH.
The residue from the fat extract was transferred into a 750ml Erlenmeyer flask. 0.125 ml of boiling H2SO4 solution was added as well as a 0.5g of asbestos. The digestion flask was connected to a condenser and heated for about 30 minutes after which the flask was removed, filtered immediately through linen and washed with boiling water until the
40 washings were no longer acidic. 0.25 ml of NaOH solution was heated and kept under a temperature under reflux condenser. The residue was then washed into the flask into the
NaOH solution. The flask under reflux condenser was boiled for 30 minutes after which the flask was removed and filtered immediately through the Gooch crucible. After thorough washing with boiling water, the residue was washed with about 15ml of 95% ethanol. The crucible and its content were dried at 100oC to constant weight and weighed. Contents of the crucible was incinerated in muffle furnace at 600oC for 30 minutes until the carbonaceous matter has been consumed. The loss in weight was recorded as crude fibre and crude fibre is calculated as:
Loss in weight %Crude fiber = ×100
Weight of sample
3.4.1.6 Carbohydrate (Nitrogen Free Extract, NFE) Determination
The carbohydrate content was determined as difference after analyzing the ash, crude fibre, fat and crude protein (AOAC, 1990). The calculation was made by addition of all the percentage contents on dry matter basis and then subtracted from 100%. The carbohydrate was calculated as follows:
% Carbohydrate (NFE) on dry matter basis= 100%- (% Ash content on DM basis+ %
Crude fibre content on DM basis + % fat content on
DM basis + % Protein content on DM basis)
41
3.4.2 Mineral Composition Analysis
Using the Association of Analytical Chemist method (AOAC, 1990), the mineral components such as the iron, zinc, potassium, phosphorus, calcium and magnesium were determined. 2g of samples each from the leafy vegetables were placed in a crucible for 1-
2 hours and pre-ashed until the sample was completely charred on a hot plate. The pre- ashed samples were then placed on a muffle furnace and again ashed at 500°C for about
3hours until the ash turned white. The sample, after ashing, was cooled, weighed and then transferred into a 50 ml volumetric flask. The crucible was then washed carefully with 5 ml of 30 % HCl and diluted with iodized water to a 50 ml volume. The solution was then used for individual determination of mineral using spectrophotometer and flame photometer.
3.4.2.1 Iron (Fe) determination
Aliquots of standard sample and blank were pipetted into test tubes and absorbance measured at 248 nm using air-acetylene flame. Calibration curve of absorbance was then drawn against the concentration of iron to determine the iron concentration (AOAC,
1990).
3.4.2.2 Phosphorus (P) determination
Using the AOAC (1990) method, 5ml digest of each sample was measured and put into a 50 ml volumetric flask. 10 ml of vanadomolybdate was then added to each sample and the volumes in the flasks were made up with distilled water to the 50 ml volumetric. The flask content was thoroughly mixed by shaking and kept for 30
42 minutes. A yellow colour which developed was read at 430 mm wavelength on a spectrophotometer. Percentage transmittance was recorded and absorbance level determined. The content of the phosphorus was determined using a standard curve developed from a standard phosphorus solution (AOAC, 1990).
3.4.2.3 Potassium (K) determination
The potassium concentration was determined using the flame photometry method. The digest was diluted and the potassium emissions measured in air-acetylene flame. A calibration curve of potassium emission against concentration was drawn and compared to that of a standard solution (AOAC, 1990).
3.4.2.4 Calcium (Ca) determination
10 ml of 10 % KOH solution was added to 5 ml aliquot of the sample solution followed by 1ml of 30% triethanolamine. Three drops of 10 % KCN solution and a few crystals cal-red of indicator were added, mixed thoroughly and shaken. The mixture was then titrated with 0.02 N EDTA solution from a red colour until a blue end point was obtained. Calcium concentrations were then calculated (AOAC, 1990) as:
Calcium in mg = Titre value of EDTA x 0.40
3.4.2.5 Magnesium (Mg) determination
Using the AOAC (1990) method, 5 ml ammonium chloride – ammonium hydroxide buffer solution was added to 5 ml aliquot of sample solution in a 100ml conical flask followed by 1 ml of triethanolamine. Three drops of 10% KCN solution and few drops
43 of EBT indicator solution were then added. The flask content was thoroughly mixed, shaken and then titrated with 0.02 N EDTA solution from a red to blue end point.
Magnesium concentrations were then calculated.
Thus, Magnesium in mg = Titre value of EDTA x 0.24
3.4.2.6 Determination of micronutrients (Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Cadmium and
Lead)
Samples weighing 0.5g were weighed into crucibles and placed in a muffle furnace at a temperature of 450oC for 3 hours.
They were left to cool after which the samples were removed from the furnace and 10ml of 1:2 dilute Nitric acid solution was added to each sample. They were placed on a hot plate until the first sign of boiling was observed, after which the samples were filtered into 20ml flask and made to the mark with distilled water. The various concentrations of the elements were determined using the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) after calibrating the AAS with standards of the elements to be determined (Soil
Laboratory Staff, CSIR-SRI).
3.4.3 Shelf-Life Studies
3.4.3.1 Weight loss
The initial weight of the fresh leafy vegetables was first taken and compared with the differences in weight after storage.
% Weight loss = W1 – W2 X 100 W1
44
Where, W1 = weight of fresh leafy vegetables, W2 = subsequent sample weight at different storage intervals.
3.4.3.2 Colour changes
The two leafy vegetables (Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.) were stored under ambient temperature at the laboratory to observe changes in their colour. The colour changes were scored using a scale from 1- 4 where:
1- Deep green (100% Fresh)
2- Pale/Light green (75% Fresh)
3- Greenish yellow or brown (50% Fresh)
4- Yellowish green or Brownish Green (25% Fresh)
3.4.3.3 Freshness of Leaves
The two leafy vegetables (Amaranthus and Corchorus spp.) were stored under ambient temperature at the laboratory to observe changes in their freshness. The leaf freshness was scored using a scale from 1- 4 where:
1- 100% Fresh (not wilted)
2- 75% Fresh (25% wilted)
3- 50% Fresh (50% wilted)
4- 25% Fresh ( 100% wilted)
45
3.4.5 Data Analysis
Laboratory data was analysed using STATISTIX Version 16.0 and subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). The differences between treatment means was determined using the least significance difference (LSD) at 1% level of significance (p=0.01).
46
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 PRODUCERS
4.1.1 Demographic Information of Producers
Table 4.1: Demographic information of producers
Description Percentage (%) Gender of producers Male 72 Female 28 Age of producers 21-30 years 4 31-40 years 28 41-50 years 40 More than 50 years 28 Marital Status of producers Unmarried 16 Married 60 Divorced 12 Widowed 12 Educational level of Basic 12 producers MSLC 32 No formal Education 56 Regional origin of South/Middle 28 producers Northern 72
Table 4.1 gives demographic information about producers. From the interview, 72% of the indigenous vegetable producers were males while 28% were females. Most (68%) of the producers were above 40 years in age. Four percent (4%) had age ranging between
21-30 years and 28% were between 31-40. Forty percent (40%) and 28% were between age range of 41-50 years and more than 50 years respectively. Majority (60%) of the producers were married while 60% were single; with 16%, 12% and another 12% being unmarried, divorced or widowed, respectively. Producers (12%) had basic education,
3.2% had Middle School Leavers Certificate (MSLC) education and 56% had no formal education. Few of the producers (28%) hailed from southern and middle Ghana (which
47 comprises of Ashanti, Brong Ahafo and Western Regions) part of Ghana while majority
(72%) hailed from the northern part of Ghana.
4.1.2 Information on Farming of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
4.1.2.1 Type of vegetables produced
From Figure 4.1, 44% of producers cultivated both exotic and indigenous vegetables while 56% cultivated only indigenous leafy vegetables. Of those who cultivated both exotic and indigenous vegetables, 88% cultivated mainly indigenous leafy vegetables while 12% cultivated mainly exotic leafy vegetables (Figure 4.2).
Most common types of Cultivate both Exotic and vegetables cultivated Indigenous Vegetables
Yes 12% 44% Exotic No 56% 88% Indigenous
Figure 4.1: Cultivate both indigenous and Figure 4.2: Most common type of vegetable exotic vegetables cultivated
48
4.1.2.2 Type of indigenous leafy vegetables produced
From Figure 4. 3, 8% of producers cultivated only Amaranthus spp. (Aleefu), 36% only
Corchorus spp. (Ayoyo) while 56% cultivated both Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.
Indigenous leafy vegetables cultivated
60
50 40 30
20 Percentage Percentage (%) 10 0 Amaranthus Corchorus Amaranthus and Corchorus
Figure 4.3: Indigenous leafy vegetables cultivated by producers
4.1.2.3 Reasons why Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. were produced
Figure 4.4 shows the reasons why producers cultivated Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. Producers cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables because there was high demand for these leafy vegetables (60%) while 32% indicated that they are easy to cultivate. Majority
(76%) of the producers produced because it was profitable while 70% considered the fast growth of the crop as the reason.
49
Reason for cultivating indigenous leafy vegetables
80 60 40
20 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 High demand Easy to Profitable to Crops grow of it cultivate grow faster
Yes No
Figure 4.4: Reasons why Amaranth and Corchorus spp. are cultivated
4.1.2.4 Farming experience years of producers
From the interview, 16% of producers had cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables for 1-5 years, 32% of them from 6-10 years. Few (12%), 20% and 20% of the farmers had grown these crops for 11-15 years, 16-20 years and more than 20 years, respectively (Figure
4.5).
Farming Years of Producers 35
30
25 20 15
Percentage Percentage (%) 10 5 0 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years
Figure 4.5: Number of years of producing indigenous leafy vegetables
50
4.1.2.6 Production information on indigenous leafy vegetables
Table 4.2 shows information on production of Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. For the Amaranthus spp., 6%cultivated 1-5 beds, 11% cultivated 6-10 beds of produce, 44% cultivated 1-2 acres of produce while 39% cultivated 3-4 acres of produce. Majority
(89%) of producers sold 80-100% of the produce cultivated, 6% sold 40-70% while another 6% sold 10% of produce cultivated. For quantity consumed, 21% consumed less than 10% of their produce, 5% consumed 10-30% while 74% sold all their produce.
Regarding the Corchorus spp., 4% of producers cultivated 1-5 beds of produce, another
4% cultivated 6-10 beds of produce, 39% cultivated 1-2 acres of produce while 53% cultivated 3-4 acres of produce. For quantity sold, 100% sold 80-100% of their produce.
Majority (78%) of producers sold all their produce without consuming any while 22% consumed less than 10% of their produce.
When producers who cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables were asked about their source of planting materials for production, 6% and 9% of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. farmers respectively acquired certified seeds. However, majority, 94% and 91% of
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. farmers respectively did not use certified seeds and usually acquired seeds form unapproved sources.
51
Table 4.2: Production information on indigenous leafy vegetables
Description Percentage (%) (N=25) Amaranthus Corchorus 1-5 beds 6 4 Area of Production 6-10 beds 11 4 1-2 acres 44 39 3-4 acres 39 53 10% 6 0 Quantity sold 40-70% 6 0 80-100% 89 100 Quantity consumed Less than 10% 21 22 10-30% 5 0 Sell all 74 78 Source of planting Farmer-saved 68 56 materials (seeds) seeds Certified seeds 6 9 Open market 13 13 Other farmers 13 22
4.1.2.7 Storage periods and methods of farmer-saved seeds
Figure 4. 6 shows that, 67% stored their farmer-saved seeds for 3-4 months while 33% stored their farmer-saved seeds for 1-2 months. For the storage methods (Figure 4.7), most (81%) of these producers stored their farmer-saved seeds in fertilizer sacks and dried them regularly while 19% stored them in fertilizer sacks and open-dried them.
52
Storage Periods of Farmer- Storage Methods of Farmer-saved saved Seeds seeds
19% 33% In fertilizer sacks and dried 67% 1-2 months 81% 3-4 months On fertilizer sacks in open space
Figure 4.6 Storage duration of farmer-saved seeds Figure 4.7: Storage methods of farmer-saved seeds
4.1.2.8 Cultivation season of indigenous leafy vegetables
From Figure 4.8, 8% of producers interviewed responded they cultivated their produce only during the rainy season, 4% cultivated during the dry season while 88% cultivated during both seasons. Out of the producers who cultivated during the dry season, 100% responded they irrigated their produce.
Season of Cultivation of Produce
4% 8% Rainy Season
Dry Season
Both rainy and dry season 88%
Figure 4.8: Cultivation season of indigenous leafy vegetables
53
4.1.2.9 Source of irrigation water
Out of the total producers who irrigated during the dry season, 96% used streams as their source of water while 4% used water from wells (Figure 4.9).
Source of Irrigation Water 4%
Well River 96%
Figure 4.9: Source of irrigation water for produce
4.1.2.10 Pesticide usage
Producers interviewed were asked if they had pest and disease problems. All producers indicated that they used pesticides in controlling pests and diseases. From Figure 4.10, the major source of pesticides was agrochemical shop (96%) while 4% was from the open market.
Source of Pesticides Used 4%
Agro-chemical shop Open Market 96%
Figure 4.10: Source of pesticides used on produce
54
4.1.2.11 Time and reason for harvesting of produce
Figure 4.11 shows that 40% harvested their produce in the morning while 60% harvested in the evening. Reasons for harvesting at those times were that it was convenient to harvest at those times (68%) and also because market was available during those times
(32%) (Figure 4.12)
Time for Harvesting Reason for Harvesting at those Produce times
32% 60 Convenient 40 68% Market 20 available
Percentage Percentage (%) 0 Morning Evening
Figure 4.11: Time for harvesting produce Figure 4.12: Reason for harvesting at those times
4.1.2.12 Months produce are harvested
From the interview, 92% harvested vegetables throughout the year while 8% harvested only during the rainy season (Figure 4.13).
55
Months produce are harvested
8%
All year round 92% rainy season
Figure 4.13: Months produce are harvested
4.1.2.13 Number of times indigenous leafy vegetables are harvested
Figure 4.14 shows that 4% harvested their produce twice a year, 36% harvested their produce three times in a year, 44% harvested their produce four times in a year and 16% harvested their produce five times in a year.
Number of times produce are harvested
50 40 30 20 10 0 twice in a thrice in a four times in five times in a year year a year year
Figure 4.14: Number of times produce are harvested in a year
56
4.1.2.14 Methods used in harvesting indigenous leafy vegetables
From the producers, methods used in harvesting their produce were pulling the plant
(84%) and cutting of the stalk of the plant (16%) (Figure 4.15).
Harvesting Methods of Produce
Cutting 16%
Pulling 84%
Figure 4.15: Methods used in harvesting produce
4.1.3 Postharvest Handling of Leafy Indigenous Vegetables
4.1.3.1 Precooling of indigenous leafy vegetables
Majority (92%) indicated that they precooled their produce at the farm while 8% did not precool their produce (Figure 4.16). Out of those who precooled, all of them sprinkled water on the produce as a form of precooling.
57
Precool Produce
No 8%
Yes 92%
Figure 4.16: Precool produce
4.1.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables
From the interview (Figure 4.17), 68% of producers responded they sorted their produce before selling them while 32% responded they did not. Majority of the producers (82%) graded based on size while 18% graded on marketable and unmarketable basis (Figure
4.18).
Sort produce Reasons for grading produce
18% size No 32%
marketable and Yes 82% unmarketable 68% ones
Figure 4.17: Sort produce Figure 4.18: Reasons for grading produce
58
4.1.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.19 shows that 92% of producers packed their leafy vegetables while 8% of the producers did not. Of those who packaged their produce (Figure 4.20), 92% used woven nylon sacks as packaging materials.
Package Produce Packaging Materials used for Packaging No 8%
8%
Nylon sack Yes 92% Not applicable 92%
Figure 4.19: Package produce Figure 4.20: Packaging materials used for packaging
4.1.3.4 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables before transportation
Majority of producers (88%) stored their produce under shade on their farms before transporting them while 12% kept the produce in the homes (Figure 4.21) before transporting them to the market.
59
Storage of Produce before Transportation
12%
Under shade At home
88%
Figure 4.21: How produce are stored before transporting them
4.1.3.5 Selling of indigenous leafy vegetables
All producers sold their leafy vegetables after harvest and 64% sold the produce to wholesalers, 8% sold them to retailers while 28% sold the produce to both wholesalers and retailers (Figure 4.22). From Figure 4.23, most (84%) of the producers sent their produce to the market to sell while 16% sold the produce on their farms.
Sell to other people Selling point of produce
80 16% 60 40 20 On farm 0 84%
Market Percenyage (%)
Figure 4.22: Sell to other people Figure 4.23: Selling point of produce
60
4.1.3.6 Mode of transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables
From the interview, 56% of producers transported their produce in open trucks (KIA trucks), 28% transported their produce with mini vans (Trotro) while 16% did not transport their produce at all (Figure 4.24). Of those who transported their produce, all of them transported their produce in the evening to the market place.
Mode of Transportation of Produce
60
50 40 30 20
10 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 Open trucks/ Mini Vans/ Not applicable Kia Trotro
Figure 4.24: Mode of Transportation of produce
4.1.3.7 Postharvest loss of produce during transportation
Of the producers who transported their produce, 91% did not lose some of their produce during transportation while 9% of them did. Those who lost some of their produce (9%) reported to have lost about 10% or less of their produce (Figure 4.25).
61
Postharvest Loss during Tranportation
Yes 9%
No 91%
Figure 4.25: Postharvest loss during transportation
4.1.3.8 Use of unmarketable indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.26 shows that 80% of producers threw their produce away if not bought within the marketable period, 8% consumed the unmarketable produce at home while another
8% of them left produce on their farm for seeds.
Use of unmarketable produce
80
60
40
20 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 Throw Consume For seeds Not away at home applicable Series1 80 8 8 4
Figure 4.26: How produce are used if not marketable
62
4.1.3.9 Basis on which indigenous leafy vegetables are sold
Figure 4.27 shows the basis on which producers sold their produce. Most of them (52%) sold per bunch, 32% sold per sack b, 4% sold per weight while the remaining 12% sold per bed. The weight of a bunch ranged from 0.3 kg to 0.5 kg for Corchorus spp. and
0.5kg to 1kg for Amaranthus spp.
Basis used for selling produce 60
50 40 30 20
Percentage Percentage (%) 10 0 Weight Per bunch Per sack Per bed Series1 4 52 32 12
Figure 4.27: Basis on which produce are sold
4.1.3.10 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.28 shows that, 12% of the producers sold their produce for 0.50p per bunch,
24% sold three bunches for GH ₵2, 44% sold at GH ₵10-50 cedis per sack, 12% sold at
GH ₵10-50 cedis per bed while 8% sold their produce at GH ₵50-100 per bed.
63
Selling Price of Produce
50 40 30 20 10 0 1 bunch 3 bunches 10-50 10-50 50-100 for 0.50p for 2 cedis cedis per cedis per cedis per sack bed bed
Figure 4.28: Selling price of produce
4.1.3.11 Training on GAP and Postharvest handling
Producers were asked if they had any form of training on good agricultural practices and
Postharvest handling of leafy vegetables (Figure 4.29). Majority of the producers (68%) did not have any form of training while 32% responded they had some form of training.
Those with some form of training, had it from extension agents of Ministry of Food and
Agriculture (MoFA).
Have GAP and Postharvest Handling Training
Yes 32%
No 68%
Figure 4.29: Have GAP and Postharvest handling training
64
4.1.3.12 Challenges faced by producers
Regarding challenges faced by indigenous leafy vegetable producers (Figure 4.30), 12% of them indicated that pests and disease attack are the main constraints while 32% responded that abundance of produce during the rainy season leads to losses as well as pests and diseases as another challenge. Low rainfall affecting production of produce
(20%) was a challenge, high land hiring price for production (4%) was also a challenge while faster deterioration of the produce was another challenge. However, 20% of the producers reported they did not have any form of challenge.
Challenges of producers
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No Pest Produce Low High Produce challeng and in rains land deterior Percentage Percentage (%) e Disease abunda affect hiring ates proble nce product price faster m during… ion of… Series1 20 32 12 20 4 12
Figure 4.30: Challenges faced by producers
4.2 WHOLESALERS
4.2.1 Demographic Information of Wholesalers
Table 4.3: Demographic information of wholesalers
65
Description Percentage (%)
Gender of wholesalers Female 100
Age of wholesalers 21-30 years 8 31-40 years 38 41-50 years 40 More than 50 years 14 Marital Status of Unmarried 10 wholesalers Married 76 Divorced 14 Educational level of Basic 8 wholesalers SHS 6 No formal Education 86 Regional Origin of Southern/Middle 30 wholesalers Northern 70
Table 4.3 gives demographic information about wholesalers. From the interview, all wholesalers of indigenous leafy vegetables (100%) were females. Few (8%) of the wholesalers were between the age range of 20-30 years, 38% were between 31-40 years,
40% were between 41-50 years while 14% were more than 50 years old. For the marital status of the wholesalers 76% were married while 24% were single; with 10% and 14% being unmarried and divorced, respectively. As shown in Table 4.3, 8% of the wholesalers had basic education, 6% had senior high school (SHS) education while 86% had no formal education. Majority (70%) of the wholesalers hailed from northern part of
Ghana while 30% were from the southern and middle (Comprising of Ashanti, Brong
Ahafo, Western Regions, Greater Accra, Eastern, Volta Regions and Central) parts of
Ghana.
66
4.2.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
4.2.2.1 Types of indigenous leafy vegetables traded by wholesalers
From Figure 4.31, 30% of the wholesalers traded in only Corchorus spp., 28% traded in both Corchorus and Amaranthus spp. while 42% traded in Corchorus spp., Amaranthus spp. and other leafy vegetables such as Roselle and “Bokoboko”.
Indigenous Leafy Vegeatbles Traded
60 40 20 0 Corchorus Amaranth and Amaranthus, Percentage Percentage (%) Corchorus Corchorus and Others
Figure 4.31: Indigenous leafy vegetables traded by wholesale
4.2.2.2 Source of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased
Figure 4.32 shows that majority (86%) of the wholesalers bought their produce from farmers, 2% had produce from their own farms, 6% bought their produce from other wholesalers while 6% bought their produce from both farmers and their own farms.
67
Source of indigenous leafy vegetables bought
100 80 60 40 20 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 Farmers Own farm Other Farmers and Wholesalers own farm
Figure 4.32: Source of produce bought
4.2.2.3 Purchasing point and mode of transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.33 shows that wholesalers purchased indigenous vegetables from the farm gate
(46%) and market place (54%). Of the wholesalers who bought their indigenous leafy vegetables from the farm gate (Figure 4.34), 13% transported their produce by carrying it on their heads. Some (27%), 17%, 13% and 30% used open trucks (Kia truck), motorized tricycle, taxi cabs and mini vans (“trotro”), respectively.
Purchasing Point of Produce Mode of Transportation of
Produce from Farmgate
30 20 46% Farm gate 10 0 54% Market Carr Ope Mot Taxi Min y n oriz cab i
Percentage (%) o… tr… ed… s V… Series1 13 27 17 13 30
Figure 4.33: Purchasing point of produce Figure 4.34: Mode of transportation from farm gate
68
4.2.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
4.2.3.1 Postharvest loss during transportation
Figure 4.35 shows that 18% of the wholesalers lost their produce during transportation to the market place while 82% did not. Wholesalers (100%) who had losses realized their produce had crushed when they got to the market. From Figure 4.36, 10% of the wholesalers had 1% of their produce crushed, 25% had 2% of their produce crushed while 82% had more than 5% of their produce crushed.
Postharvest loss during Percentage lost to transportation transportation
Yes 10% 18% 8% 1% 2% 82% No More than 5% 82%
Figure 4.35: Loss during transportation Figure 4.36: Percentage lost to transportation
4.2.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables
Half (50%) of the wholesalers interviewed did not sort their produce before selling while the remaining 50% sorted their produce (Figure 4.37). Most (84%) graded to remove damaged vegetables while 16% graded their produce to remove immature and foreign leafy vegetables (Figure 4.38).
69
Sort Produce Reasons for Grading
To remove 16% damaged vegetables
No Yes 50% 50% 84% To remove immatured and foreign leafy vegetables
Figure 4.37: Sort produce Figure 4.38: Reasons for grading produce
Price of ungraded produce
8%
Not applicable
92% 1 bundle for 0.50p
Figure 4.39: Price of ungraded produce
When wholesalers who graded their produce were asked if they were able to sell produce of low quality, 8% indicated that they sold the produce at GH ₵ 0.50p per bundle while those who did not (92%) threw the produce away (Figure 4.39).
4.2.3.3 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables
When wholesalers were asked if they stored their leafy vegetables, most of them (98%) responded that they did while 2% did not (Figure 4.40). Of those who stored their produce, 2% were able to store their produce for 2 days, 60% were able to store for 3
70 days while 36% stored for 4 days. It was not applicable to the remaining 2% as their produce was bought immediately (Figure 4.41).
Storage of produce Storage length of produce
2% 60 50 40 30 Yes 20 98% No 10
0 Percentage Percentage (%)
Figure 4.40: Store produce Figure 4.41: How long produce are stored
4.2.3.4 Where and how indigenous leafy vegetables are stored
Figure 4.42 shows that of those who stored their leafy vegetables, 59% stored the produce in the market while 41% sent their produce to the house if all was not sold. Most (52%) stored them on the floor, 26% stored them on raised platforms or tables, 20% stored them under their wooden tables in the form of boxes at the market place while it was not applicable to 2% because their indigenous leafy vegetables were bought immediately.
71
Where produce are stored if How produce are stored if not bought not bought
60 50 40 30 41% At the market 20 place 10 59% 0 Percentage Percentage (%) On At home Under raised Not On the their platfor applica floor table m/Tabl ble (Box) e Series1 52 26 20 2
Figure 4.42: Where produce are stored Figure 4.43: How produce are stored if not bought
4.2.3.5 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables
From Figure 4.44, 94% packaged their leafy vegetables in woven nylon sack while 6% packaged them in baskets. All the wholesalers sprinkled water on their produce before packaging the leafy vegetables.
How package produce
6%
In basket In wooven nylon
94%
Figure 4.44: How package produce to sell
72
4.2.3.6 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.45 shows that most (76%) of the wholesalers processed their leafy vegetables,
22% did not while 2% sometimes processed their leafy vegetables. Figure 4.46 also shows 38% processed left over leafy vegetables while 62% processed part of the unsold leafy vegetables.
Process produce Why produce are processed
2%
22% Yes 38% Left over produce No 62% Part of the 76% Sometimes produce
Figure 4.45: Process produce Figure 4.46: Why produce are processed
4.2.3.7 Processing methods used
Methods used for processing of indigenous leafy vegetable was removal of leaves and cutting (78%), removal of leaves and drying (16%) and only removal of leaves (8%)
(Figure 4.47).
73
Methods used for proocessing 80
70
60 50 40 30
Percentage Percentage (%) 20 10 0 Cutting and Drying Removal of leaves Removal of leaves Series1 76 16 8
Figure 4.47: Methods used for processing produce
4.2.3.8 Form in which indigenous leafy vegetables are sold
Figure 4.48 shows that the produce were sold fresh (86%) or in the dried form (14%).
Form produce are sold
14%
Fresh Both fresh and dry 86%
Figure 4.48: Form in which produce are sold
74
4.2.3.9 Dried indigenous leafy vegetables
Most (78%) wholesalers did not dry their leaves while those who did (14%), dried about
10% of the leafy vegetables. Of those who dried their produce (Figure 4.50), the reasons given were to prevent the leafy vegetables from wilting (12%) and also to meet demand for dried produce (2%).
Quantity dried Reasons for drying the leaves
Not applicable 2% 14% 12% Not applicable When the leaves are 10% of produce about wilting
86% 86% When there is demand for dried leaves
Figure 4.49: Quantity of produce dried Figure 4.50: Reasons for drying produce
4.2.3.10 Storage and Handling problems
From the Table 4.4, 20% of wholesalers had storage and handling problems while 80% responded they did not. Percentage of produce lost to both handling and storage was about 1%. Most (18%) reduced losses by sprinkling water on the produce (8%) while 2% did nothing to their produce.
75
Table 4.4 Storage and handling problem of indigenous leafy vegetables
Description Percentage (%) Face storage and handling Yes 20 problem No 80 Storage and handling Heat generates in leafy 20 problem faced vegetables Not applicable 80 Percentage lost to storage 1% 20 Not applicable 80 Percentage lost to handling 1% 20 Not applicable 80 Sprinkle water on produce 18 Prevention of Handling and Leave produce without 20 Storage problems doing anything Not applicable 80
4.2.3.11 Buying price of indigenous leafy vegetables
Wholesalers bought their leafy vegetables at 1 bundle for GH 0.50p (26%), 3 bundles for
GH ₵2, 5 bundles for GH ₵4 (22%), GH ₵ 10-50 per sack (6%) and GH ₵ 50-100 per sack (22%) (Figure 4.51).
Buying price of produce
30
25 20 15 10
5 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 1 bundle 5 10-50 GH 50-100 3 for bundles cedis GH cedis bundles 0..50p for 4 for 1 cedis cedis Series1 26 22 6 22 24
Figure 4.51: Buying price of produce
76
4.2.3.12 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables
Wholesalers sold their produce at 1 bundle for GH ₵1 (92%), 1 bundle for GH 0.50p
(2%) and GH ₵ 80-100 per sack (6%) (Figure 4.52)
Selling Price of produce
100
80
60
40
Percentage (%) 20
0 1 bundle for 1 80-100 GH 1 bundle for cedi cedis 0.50p Series1 92 6 2
Figure 4.52: Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables
4.2.3.13 Challenges faced by Wholesalers
Challenges faced by wholesalers were losses during the wet season due to abundance of the indigenous leafy vegetables (10%), faster deterioration of produce when not purchased (20%), spoilage during transportation (2%) and decrease in demand during the rainy season (14%). However, 54% of wholesalers responded they did not have any challenge (Figure 4.53).
77
Challenges faced by wholesalers
60 50 40 30 20 10 Percenatge Percenatge (%) 0 Postharves Produce No Spoilage Decrease in t losses deteriorate challenge during dmeand during the s faster and transportat during the wet season has to be ion rainy due to thrown season abundanc… away… Series1 10 20 54 2 14
Figure 4.53: Challenges faced by wholesalers
4.3 RETAILERS
4.3.1 Demographic Information of Retailers
Table 4.5 gives demographic information about retailers. All the retailers were females.
Few (6%) of them were below 20 years, 42% were between 20-30 years, 26% were between 31-40 years, 16% were between 41-50 years while 10% were more than 50 years old. Regarding marital status, 68% were married while 32% of them were single; with
22% and 10% being singe and divorced, respectively. Table 4.4, shows that 38% had basic education, 8% had Junior High School (JHS) or Middle School Leavers certificate
(MSLC), 10% had Senior High School (SHS) education while 44% had no formal education. Most (96%) of the retailers hailed from northern part of Ghana while the remaining 4% hailed from the southern and middle parts of Ghana.
78
Table 4.5: Demographic information of retailers
Description Percentage (%)
Gender of retailers Female 100
Age of retailers Below 20 years 6 21-30 years 42 31-40 years 26 41-50 years 16 More than 50 years 10 Marital Status of retailers Single 22 Married 68 Divorced 10 Educational level of Basic 38 retailers JHS/MSLC 8 SHS 10 No formal Education 44 Regional Origin of retailers Northern 96 Southern 4
4.3.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
4.3.2.1 Types of leafy vegetables traded by retailers
Figure 4.54 shows that 98% of retailers traded in both indigenous and exotic leafy vegetables while 2% of them traded in either one of them. Of those who did, the main crop traded was the indigenous leafy vegetable.
79
Trade in both exotic and indigenous leafy vegtables 2%
Yes No
98%
Figure 4.54: Do retailers trade in both exotic and indigenous leafy vegetables.
4.3.2.2 Indigenous leafy vegetables traded by retailers
From Figure 4.55, 68% of the retailers traded in only Corchorus spp., 22% traded in both the Corchorus and Amaranthus spp. while 12% of them traded in Corchorus,
Amaranthus as well as other leafy vegetables such as Roselle and bitter leaf (bokoboko).
From Figure 4.56, majority (80%) bought the leafy vegetables from farmers while 20% bought them from wholesalers.
Indigenous leafy vegetables Source of produce bought
traded
80 60 20% 40 20 Farmers 0 80% Corch Amara Amara Wholesalers Percentage Percentage (%) orus nth nthus, and Corch Corch orus orus and… Series1 66 22 12
Figure 4.55: Indigenous leafy vegetables traded Figure 4.56: Source of produce bought
80
4.3.2.3 Transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.57 shows that 68% transported their produce to the market place while 32% did not. The mode of transportation for those who transported their leafy vegetables was by carrying on the head (38%), the use of taxi cabs (21%) or mini vans “trotro” (41%).
Transport produce Mode of transportation of produce
No 32% Carry on head 41% 38% Taxi cabs Yes Mini Van 68% 21%
Figure 4.57: Transport produce Figure 4.58: Mode of transportation of produce
4.3.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
4.3.3.1 Postharvest loss during transportation
Figure 4.59 shows that 64% of retailers did not lose their produce during transportation while 36% did. Of those who had losses, 72% had 10% loss of their produce, 22% had
20% loss of their produce while only 6% had more than 50% loss of their produce
(Figure 4.60).
81
Loss during transportation Percentage lost during transportation
6% Yes 10% 36% 22% 20% No 72% 64% More than 50%
Figure 4.59: Loss during transportation Figure 4.60: Percentage lost during transportation
4.3.3.2 Sorting of indigenous leafy vegetables
Retailers who sorted their leafy vegetables were 66% while 34% did not (Figure 4.61).
The retailers sorted their leafy vegetables to remove crushed leaves (79%), wilted or brown leaves (18%) and also to remove leaves which had become yellow (3%) (Figure
4.62). All the retailers who sorted their leafy vegetables were not able to sell them and had to throw them away.
Sort indigenous leafy vegetables Reasons for sorting indigenous leafy vegetables
3% No Remove 18% 34% crushed leaves
79% Yes Remove wilted 66% or brown leaves
Figure 4.61: Sort produce Figure 4.62: Reasons for sorting produce
82
4.3.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables
Packaging materials used by retailers to packaged leafy vegetables were baskets (18%), woven nylon (68%) and basins (14%) (Figure 4.63). Before packaging 92% sprinkled water on it, 6% dipped the leafy vegetables into water while 2% leave the leafy vegetables without doing anything to it (Figure 4.64).
Package indigenous leafy Before packaging leafy vegetables vegetables 80 2% Sprinkle water
70 on it 60 6% 50 40 Dip it into 30 water
20 Percentage Percentage (%) 10 Leave it 0 In wooven 92% without doing In Basket In basins nylon anything Series1 18 68 14
Figure 4.63: How package produce Figure 4.64: Before packaging leafy vegetables
How store packaged leafy vegetables 50 45
40 35 30 25 20 15
Percentage (%) 10 5 0 On raised platform/Tab Under table On the floor Refrigerate le in their (Box) sheds Series1 46 2 18 34
83
Figure 4.65: How store packaged leafy vegetables
Retailers (46%) stored their packaged leafy vegetables on the floor, 2% refrigerated their left over produce and 18% stored their packaged produce on raised platform / table while
34% stored the produce under their tables made in the form of boxes (Figure 4.65).
4.3.3.4 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables
Figure 4.66 shows that 74% retailers always processed their leafy vegetables, 20% did not while 6% sometimes processed their leafy vegetables. Of those who processed their leafy vegetables, the processing methods used by the retailers were removal of leaves and cutting (95%) and removal of leaves and drying (5%) (Figure 4.67).
Process indigenous leafy Processing methods used vegetables 5%
6% Remove leaves 20% Yes and cut No Remove leaves Sometimes 95% and dry 74%
Figure 4.66: Process produce Figure 4.67: Processing methods used
4.3.3.5 Storage and handling problems
Table 4.6 shows that 42% of the retailers faced storage and handling problems while 58% did not. The storage problems faced by retailers were heat absorption by leaves while in storage leading to faster deterioration of the leaves (36%) and insect infestation during
84 storage (6%). However, it was not applicable to 58% of the retailers. All the retailers did not have any handling problems. 30% of retailers indicated that less than 1% of their leafy vegetables was damaged due to storage problems, 12% had about 1% of their leaves damaged while 58% of the retailers did not have any problems. Storage problems were prevented by sprinkling water on the leaves (18%), storing leaves in a cool place (6%), sprinkling salt water on the leaves (2%) or by leaving the produce without doing anything
(16%). It was also not applicable to 58% of the retailers.
Table 4.6: Storage and Handling problems faced by retailers
Description Percentage (%) Face storage and handling Yes 42 problem No 58 Storage problem faced by Produce absorbs heat in 36 retailers storage and deteriorates faster Insect infestation 6 Not applicable 58 Handling problem faced by Not applicable 100 retailers Percentage of leafy Less than 1% 30 vegetable lost to storage 1% 12 Not applicable 58 Prevention of storage and Do not do anything 16 handling problems Sprinkle water on the leaves 18 Store leaves in a cool place 6 Sprinkle salt water on the 2 leaves
85
4.3.3.6 Profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and
Corchorus spp.)
From Figure 4.68, 88% of the retailers indicated that it was profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables while 12% responded that profitability depended on the season. All retailers, indicated that it was profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables because of the demand for them.
Profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables
2%
Yes Depends on the season
98%
Figure 4.68: Profitable to sell indigenous leafy vegetables
4.3.3.7 Buying price of indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.)
From Figure 4.69, retailers (60%) purchased 3 bundles of their indigenous leafy vegetables for GH₵2, 6% purchased 1 bundle for GH₵1, 2% purchased 4 bundles for
GH₵5, 8% purchased at GH₵10-30 per bed, 22% at GH₵40-60 per bed (22%) while 2% purchased at GH₵20-50 per bed.
86
Purchasing Price of indigenous leafy
vegetables
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Precentage Precentage (%) 3 10-30 40-60 20-50 1 4 bundle GH GH GH bundle bundle s for 2 cedis cedis cedis for 1 s for 5 cedis per bed per bed per bed cedis cedis Series1 60 8 22 2 6 2
Figure 4.69: Purchasing price of indigenous leafy vegetables
4.3.3.8 Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.)
Figure 4.70 shows that 86% of retailers sold 1 bundle of the indigenous leafy vegetables for GH₵1, 6% sold a bundle for GH 0.50p while 8% sold a bundle for either GH₵1.50p or GH₵2.
Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables
100 80 60 40
20 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 1 bundle for 1 1 bundle for 1 bundle for cedis 1GH cedis or 1.50p or 2.00 0.50p cedis Series1 86 6 8
Figure 4.70: Selling price of indigenous leafy vegetables
87
4.3.3.9 Challenges faced by retailers
The challenges faced by retailers are shown in Figure 4.71. Few (10%) of the retailers indicated that indigenous leafy vegetables become cheap during the wet season, produce not available during the dry season (10%) and faster deterioration of leaves (14%)as challenges. However, 66% reported they do not have any challenge selling these indigenous leafy vegetables.
Challenges faced by Retailers
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percentage Percentage (%) 0 No produce Produce Produce challenge are very not deteriorate cheap available s faster during the during the wet season dry season Series1 66 10 10 14
Figure 4.71: Challenges faced by retailers
4.4 CONSUMERS
4.4.1 Demographic Information of Consumers
Table 4.7 gives demographic information about consumers. From the interview, 27% of the consumers were males while 73% were females. For the age distribution of the producers, 10% of the consumers were below 20 years, 40% had age range between 21-
30 years, 28% were 31-40 years, 7% were 41-50 years and 15% were more than 50 years old. Majority (52%) of the consumers were married while 48% were unmarried.
88
Consumers (14%) had basic education, 5% had Middle School Leavers Certificate
(MSLC) or Junior High School education, 20% had Senior High School education, 43% had Tertiary education while 18% had no formal education. Majority (75%) of the consumers hailed from southern and middle parts (which comprises of Ashanti, Greater
Accra, Volta, Eastern, Brong Ahafo Western and Central Regions) of Ghana, 21% were from the northern parts (which comprises of Northern, Upper East and Upper West) of
Ghana while 4% were non-Ghanaians. Consumers (38%), 37% and 25% had 1-2 people,
3-4 people and 5-7 people per household respectively.
Table 4.7: Demographic information of consumers
Description Percentage (%)
Gender of consumers Female 73 Male 27 Age of consumers Below 20 years 10 21-30 years 40 31-40 years 28 41-50 years 7 More than 50 years 15 Marital Status of consumers Unmarried 48 Married 52 Educational level of Basic 14 consumers JHS/MSLC 5 SHS 20 Tertiary 43 No formal Education 18 Regional Origin of Northern 21 consumers Southern/Middle 75 Non-Ghanaian 4 Household size of 1-2 people 38 consumers 3-4 people 37 5-7 people 25
89
4.4.2 Consumption of Exotic Leafy Vegetables
Figure 4.72 shows that 70% consumed exotic leafy vegetables while 30% did not.
Majority (73%) of consumers bought less than 1% of exotic leafy vegetables while 27% bought 1-5% of exotic leafy vegetables.
Buy exotic eafy vegetables Percentage of exotic leafy vegetables purchased
No 27% 30% Less than 1%
Yes 73% 1-5% 70%
Figure 4.72: Purchase exotic leafy vegetables Figure 4.73: Percentage purchased
4.4.3 Consumption of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Form Figure 4.74, all consumers purchased indigenous leafy vegetables. The types of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased were Amaranthus only (18%), Corchorus only
(86%), both Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. (84%) and others (51%) such as Roselle and cocoyam Leaves (Kontomire).
90
Indigneous leafy vegetables purchased
100 80 60 40 20 0
Percentage Percentage (%) Amaranthu Corchorus Both Other s Amaranthu s and Corchorus Yes 18 86 84 51 No 82 14 16 49
Figure 4.74: Types of indigenous leafy vegetables bought
4.4.4 Use of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables by Family
Most families (97%) patronized the two indigenous leafy vegetables while 3% did not
(Figure 4.75). All the consumers indicated that their family members only consumed the indigenous leafy vegetables under study and had no alternative use for it.
Purchase of indigneous leafy Use of indigneous leafy vegetables by family vegetables
3% 3%
Yes Consume it 97% 97% No Not applicable
Figure 4.75: Purchase of produce Figure 4.76: Use of the produce
91
4.4.5 Reasons for Consuming Indigenous Leafy Vegetables (Amaranthus and
Corchorus spp.)
The reasons given for consuming Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. are shown in Figure
4.77. Few (16%) consumed the leaves because they were not expensive, healthy and nutritious to consume (85%) while 11% consumed because it was their traditional food.
Reasons for consuming indigenous leafy vegetables
100
80 60 40
Percentage Percentage (%) 20 0 Inexpensive Healthy Traditional food Yes 16 85 11 No 84 15 89
Figure 4.77: Reasons for consuming indigenous leafy vegetables
4.4.6 Proportion of Income used in purchasing the Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Figure 4.78 shows that 94% of consumers used less than 1% of their income to purchase indigenous leafy vegetables while 6% used 1-5% of their income.
92
Proportion of income used in purchasing indigenous leafy vegetables 100
80
60
40
Percenatage 20
0 Less than 1% 1-5% Series1 94 6
Figure 4.78: Proportion of income used in purchasing indigenous leafy vegetables
4.4.7 Form in which Indigenous Leafy Vegetables were purchased
Figure 4.79 shows that 99% of consumers purchased fresh indigenous leafy vegetables while only 1% purchased the dried ones.
Form in which indigenous leafy vegetables were bought Dried 1%
Fresh 99%
Figure 4.79: Form in which indigenous leafy vegetables were purchased
93
4.4.8 Quantity of fresh Amaranthus spp. purchased in a week
Three percent (3%) of consumers bought 1 bundle each of Amaranth per week, 13% bought 2 bundles each per week, 7% bought 3 bundles each per week, 3% bought 5-10 bundles each per week while 3% bought more than 10% bundles per week. Most (71%) of consumers, however, did not purchase amaranth (Figure 4.80).
Quantity of fresh Amaranth purchased in a week
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Percenatage Percenatage (%) 10 0 1bundle 2 3 5-10 More Not bundles bundles bundles than 10 applicab bundles le Series1 3 13 7 3 3 71
Figure 4.80: Quantity of fresh Amaranth purchased in a week
4.4.9 Quantity of fresh Corchorus purchased in a week
From Figure 4.81, consumers (12%) purchased 1 bundle each of fresh Corchorus per week, 35% purchased 2 bundles each per week, 26% purchased 3 bundles each per week,
3% purchased 4 bundles each per week, 11% purchased 5 bundles each per week while
9% purchased 5-10 bundles each per week. Four (4%) of the consumers, however, did not purchase Corchorus.
94
Quantity of fresh Corchorus purchased
35
30 25 20 15 10 Percentage Percentage (%) 5 0 1bund 2 3 4 5 5-10 Not le bundl bundl bundl bundl bundl applic es es es es es able Series1 12 35 26 3 11 9 4
Figure 4. 81: Quantity of fresh Corchorus purchased in a week
4.4.10 Amount of Price paid for fresh indigenous leafy vegetables purchased per week
From figure 4.82, 59% of consumers bought GH ₵1-3 worth of fresh indigenous leafy vegetables per week, 29% bought GH ₵4-5 worth per week, 3% bought GH ₵6-8 worth per week, 4% bought GH ₵9-10 worth per week, 3% bought GH₵ 11-15 worth per week while 1% bought GH ₵16-20 per week. However, 1 % of the consumers did not pay any amount for the leafy vegetables.
95
Amount paid for fresh indigenous leafy vegetables per week
60
50 40 30 20
10 Percentage (%) Percentage 0 1-3 GH 4-5 GH 6-8 GH 9-10 11-15 16-20 Not cedis cedis cedis GH GH GH applica cedis cedis cedis ble Series1 59 29 3 4 3 1 1
Figure 4.82: Amount paid for fresh indigenous leafy vegetables per week
4.4.11 Source of Indigenous leafy vegetables purchased
Some consumers bought their indigenous leafy vegetables from farmers (3%), 11% bought from wholesalers while 86% bought from retailers (Figure 4.83).
Source of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased 3%
11% Farmers Wholesalers Retailers 86%
Figure 4.83: Source of indigenous leafy vegetables purchased
96
4.4.12 Quality Parameters Assessed by Consumers
Figure 4.84 shows that 83% of consumers considered the colour of the leaves, 56% the size of the leaves, 41% the cost price of the leaves, 97% the freshness of the leaves while
58% considered the food safety of the leaves as the quality parameters they assessed before buying indigenous leafy vegetables.
Quality parameters assesed by Consumers
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Percentage Percentage (%) 20 10 0 Colour Size Price Freshness Food safety Yes 83 56 41 97 58 No 17 44 59 3 42
Figure 4.84: Quality parameters assed by consumers before buying the leaves
4.4.13 Rank of Quality Parameter Assessed
As shown in Figure 4.85, when consumers were asked to rank the quality parameters they assessed before buying the indigenous leafy vegetable according to their preference, colour was ranked first (1st) by majority (43%) of the consumers, freshness was ranked second (2nd) by 43% of the consumers, food safety was ranked third (3rd) by 50% of consumers, size was ranked fourth (4th) by 32% of consumers while rrice was ranked fifth
(5th) by 22% of consumers.
97
Rank of Quality Parameters Assesed
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
Percentage Percentage (%) 5 0 1st 2nnd 3rd 4th 5th Colour 43 33 8 11 5 Size 16 7 23 32 21 Price 20 17 20 22 22 Freshness 41 43 6 1 8 Food safety 12 19 50 14 5
Figure 4.85: Rank of quality parameter assessed before buying leaves
4.4.14 Sorting of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Form the interview (Figure 4.86), 83% of consumers sorted their leaves after purchase while 17% did not. Majority (53%) indicated that they sorted leaves to remove damaged leaves, coloured leaves (28%) or to remove foreign leaves such as weeds (19%) (Figure
4.87). Those who did not sort (17%) reported they bought leaves already sorted.
Sort indigenous leafy Reasons for sorting vegetables No 17% To remove 19% damged leaves To remove 53% coloured leaves 28% Yes To remove 83% weeds
Figure 4.86: Sort indigenous leaves Figure 4.87: Reasons for sorting indigenous leaves
98
4.4.15 Storage of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Figure 4.88 shows that 35% of consumers stored their leaves at home for a while before consuming it while 65% did not.
Store indigenous leaves after purchase
Store it 35%
Do not store it 65%
Figure 4.88: Store indigenous leafy vegetables after purchase
4.4.16 Reasons for Storing or not Storing Indigenous Leaves
Those who did not (65%) store their leaves consumed the leaves immediately (Figure
4.89). Of those who stored (35%), 8% kept their leaves under ambient temperature while
27% refrigerated their leaves (Figure 4.90).
99
Reasons for storing indigneous How indigenous leaves are leaves stored
8% Under ambient Consume temperature 35% immediately 27% Refrigerate Not applicable 65% 65% Not applicable
Figure 4.89: Reasons for storing leaves Figure 4.90: How indigenous leaves are stored
4.4.17 Processing Methods used by consumers
Processing methods employed by consumers were removal of leaves (100%), washing
(100%), Blending/ Grinding (4%), cutting of leaves (70%), drying of leaves (4%) and
Boiling (100%) (Figure 4.91).
Processing Methods used by consumers
100 90
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Percentage Percentage (%) 10 0 Removal Washing Grinding Cutting Drying Boiling of leaves /Blendin g Yes 100 100 4 70 4 100 No 0 0 96 30 96 0
Figure 4.91: Processing methods used by consumers
100
4.4.18 Challenges faced by Consumers
Leaves with holes (4%), faster deterioration of leaves if not used immediately (35%), expensive prices for leaves during the dry season (23%), scarcity of leaves during the dry season (6%), smaller sizes of leaves (2%) and low quality of leaves due to excessive chemicals used by producers (1%) were challenges faced by consumers. However, 29% of the consumers faced no challenges (Figure 4.92).
Challenges faced by Consumers
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Percentage (%) 0 No Leaves Deterio Expens It is The Low challen have rates ive scarce size of quality ges holes faster during during the due to faced when the dry the dry leaves excessi not season season are ve used… small chem… Series1 29 4 35 23 6 2 1
Figure 4.92: Challenges faced by consumer
4.6 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION
4.6.1 Amaranthus spp.
Table 4.8 represents the proximate composition of three varieties of Amaranthus spp.
There were significant differences (p<0.01) among the varieties. Leafy vegetables of farmer cultivar was significantly (p<0.01) the highest in protein (33%) followed by leaves of Madiira 1 variety (30.87%) and then leaves of Madiira2 variety (28.31%). The
101 protein content in the leaves of farmer cultivar was 1.16times higher than that of leaves of
Madiira2 which was the least.
Regarding the fibre content, Madiira 2 variety (16.75%) had significantly the highest fibre followed by farmer cultivar (9.36%) and then Madiira 1 (8.06%) which were not significantly different (p>0.01) from each other.
The ash contents showed no mean significant differences (p>0.01) but ranged from
21.60% to 22.0%. The highest ash content was recorded for Madiira1 variety (22.0%) which was 1.02times higher than that of farmer cultivar (21.60%) which was the least.
There were significant differences (p<0.01) in the mean fat content. The highest was found in leaves from Madiira2 variety (6.5%) which was not significantly different
(p>0.01) from Madiira1 variety (5.5%). Leaves form farmer cultivar had the least fat content (3.5%).
For the carbohydrate content, significant differences (p<0.01) were observed among the varieties. Madiira 1 (33.57%) had the highest carbohydrate content which was not significantly different (p>0.01) from farmer cultivar (32.54%) which had the second highest content. The least was recorded in Madiira 2 variety (26.64%).
The moisture content in the leaves of the exotic varieties; Madiira1 and Madiira2 were not significantly different (p>0.01) from each other. However, leaves from Madiira1 had
1.03 times higher moisture content than leaves from Madiira2. The least moisture content was recorded in leaves from farmer cultivar (74.13%) which was significantly different
(p<0.01) from the exotic varieties.
102
Table 4.18: Proximate composition found in three Amaranthus spp.
Proximate Protein Fibre Ash Fat Carbohydrate Moisture (%) (%) (%) (%) NFE (%) (%) Varieties Farmer cultivar 33.00a 9.36b 21.60a 3.5b 32.54a 74.13b Madiira1 30.87b 8.06b 22.00a 5.5a 33.57a 76.38a Madiira2 28.31c 16.75a 21.80a 6.5a 26.64b 76.90a
4.6.2 Corchorus spp.
Table 4.19 represents proximate composition of four varieties of Corchorus spp.; two farmer cultivars and two exotic varieties (SUD and HS). Significant differences (p<0.01) were observed among the varieties. The highest protein content was in leafy vegetables of
HS variety (33%), the second highest was in leaves of farmer cultivar 1(27.44%), the third highest was in leaves of farmer cultivar 2 (26.38%) while the least (24.88%) was recorded in leaves of SUD variety.
There were no significant differences (p>0.01) among the varieties for the fibre content.
However, marginally, farmer cultivar 2 (10.88%) had the highest fibre content followed by SUD variety (10.81%), then HS variety (10.15%) with farmer cultivar 1(9.79%) recording the least. Farmer cultivar 2, had 1.11times more fibre content than farmer cultivar 1 which had the least fibre.
Regarding the ash content, significant differences (p<0.01) were observed among their means. Farmer cultivar 1 leaves (16.8%) had the highest ash content which was not significantly different from leaves from farmer cultivar 2 (15.0%) which was the second
103 highest. The third highest was recorded in leaves from HS variety (14.0%) while the least was in leaves from SUD variety (12.4%).
The fat contents in the varieties showed significant differences (p<0.01) in their mean.
Leaves from HS variety had the highest fat content (6.0%). Leaves from SUD variety
(5.0%) was the second highest followed by farmer cultivar 1 (4.0%) and then 2 (3.5%) respectively but they were not significantly different (p>0.01) from one another.
The mean carbohydrate contents of the varieties were not significantly different (p>0.01) from each other. The highest carbohydrate content was recorded in SUD variety
(46.91%), the second highest was recorded in farmer cultivar 2 (44.24%), followed by farmer cultivar 1 (41.97%) with the least recorded in HS variety (36.85%).
The highest moisture content was recorded in the exotic varieties; SUD (68.67%) and HS
(70.0%) varieties, which were not significantly different (p>0.01) from each other.
Leaves of HS variety was 1.02 times higher in moisture than leaves from SUD variety.
The least moisture content was recorded in the local varieties; farmer cultivar 1(48.0%) and farmer cultivar 2 (39.0%), which were also not significantly different from each other. Leaves of farmer cultivar 1 had moisture content 1.23 times more than leaves of farmer cultivar 2.
104
Table 4.9: Proximate composition found in four Corchorus spp.
Proximate Protein Fibre Ash Fat Carbohydrate Moisture (%) (%) (%) (%) NFE (%) (%) Varieties Farmer cultivar 1 27.44b 9.79a 16.8a 4.00b 41.97a 48.00b Farmer cultivar 2 26.38c 10.88a 15.00ab 3.50b 44.24a 39.00b SUD 24.88d 10.81a 12.40c 5.00ab 46.91a 68.67a HS 33.00a 10.15a 14.00bc 6.00a 36.85a 70.00a
4.7 MINERAL COMPOSITION
4.7.1. Amaranthus spp.
4.7.1.1 Macro mineral nutrients
Table (4.10) shows the macro minerals found in two exotic varieties (Madiira 1 and
Madiira 2) and one indigenous (local farmer) variety of Amaranthus spp.
There were no significant differences (p>0.01) among the three varieties for the magnesium, phosphorus, potassium and calcium content in the leafy vegetables.
However, leafy vegetables of local farmer variety had marginally higher magnesium
(2.75%) content followed by leaves of Madiira1 variety (1.97%) and then leaves of
Madiira2 variety (1.64%).
Again, leafy vegetables from Madiira2 variety had higher phosphorus (0.80%) and potassium content (2.69%) when compared to leaves from Madiira1 (0.79%; 2.27%) and the local farmer variety (0.72%; 1.31%) respectively.
105
Leafy vegetables from local farmer variety (39.2%) was also marginally higher in calcium content when compared to leaves from Madiira1 (39%) and Madiira2 (39.1%).
The farmer cultivar which had the highest was 1.01times more in calcium than Madiira 1 which had the least.
Table 4. 10: Macro Mineral contents found in three Amaranthus spp.
Minerals Magnesium Phosphorus (%) Potassium Calcium Varieties (%) (%) (%) Farmer Cultivar 2.75a 0.72a 1.31a 39. 20a Madiira1 1.97a 0.79a 2.27a 39.00a Madiira2 1.64a 0.80a 2.69a 39.10a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different.
4.7.1.2 Micro mineral nutrients
From Table 4.11, shows some micro nutrients found in one indigenous (local farmer) and exotic (Madiira1 and Madiira2) varieties of Amaranthus spp.
For the iron content in the leafy vegetables, there were significant differences (p<0.01) among the three varieties. The iron content in leafy vegetables of local farmer variety was significantly higher (163.52mg/kg) than that in the two exotic varieties; with leaves of
Madiira1 variety recording 70.56mg/kg of iron and leaves of Madiira2 variety recording
55.08mg/kg of iron.
Statistical differences (p<0.01) were also observed in the zinc content for the three varieties of Amaranthus spp. Leafy vegetables of Madiira2 variety was significantly
106 higher (26.80mg/kg) in zinc content followed by leaves of Madiira1 variety (22.40mg/kg) and then leaves of the local farmer variety which had the least (18.44mg/kg).
The copper content in the leaves also showed significant differences (p<0.01). The leaves of local farmer variety had higher significance copper of 2.96mg/kg followed by leaves of Madiira2 variety which had 2.76mg/kg of copper while leaves of Madiira1 variety had the least (0.88mg/kg).
Regarding the manganese content, there were also significant differences (p<0.01) among the varieties. Leafy vegetables from local farmer variety had the highest manganese content of 8.48mg/kg, leaves from Madiira1 variety followed with manganese content of
7.4mg/kg while leaves from Madiira2 had the least (4.80mg/kg).
For the cobalt content, there were significant differences (p<0.01) among the two exotic varieties and indigenous variety of the Amaranthus spp. Leaves from local farmer variety was statistically higher (4.8mg/kg) in cobalt content. However, leaves from Madiira1 variety (1.6mg/kg) was not significantly different from leaves of Madiira2 variety
(2.0mg/kg).
Table 4.11: Micro Mineral contents found in three Amaranthus spp.
Minerals Iron Zinc Copper Manganese Cobalt Lead Varieties (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Farmer cultivar 163.52a 18.44c 2.96a 8.48a 4.8a 1.11b Madiira1 70.56b 22.40b 0.88c 7.40b 1.60b 2.20a Madiira2 55.08c 26.80a 2.76b 4.80c 2.00b 2.16a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
107
4.7.2 Corchorus spp.
4.7.2.1 Macro mineral nutrients
Table 4.12 shows some of the macro mineral nutrients of two indigenous (Local farmer cultivars) and two exotic varieties (SUD and HS) of Corchorus spp.
From the results, there were no significant differences (p>0.01) among the varieties for
Magnesium content. However, marginally, leaves from HS variety was the highest
(1.38%), followed by leaves from local farmer cultivar 2 (1.12%), then leaves from SUD variety (0.98%) with leaves from local farmer cultivar 2 recording the least (0.96%) content of magnesium.
Regarding the phosphorus content, there were also no significant differences (p>0.01) among the varieties. However, marginally, leaves from HS variety had the highest phosphorus content (0.87%) followed by leaves from local farmer cultivar 1 (0.77%) and then leaves from local farmer cultivar 2 (0.76%) with leaves from SUD variety recording the least (0.70%).
Table 4.12: Macro minerals found in four Corchorus spp.
Minerals Magnesium Phosphorus Potassium Calcium Varieties (%) (%) (%) (%) Farmer cultivar 1 0.96a 0.77a 1.44a 41.60b Farmer cultivar 2 1.12a 0.76a 1.25c 42.50ab SUD 0.98a 0.70a 1.26c 43.80a HS 1.38a 0.87a 1.39b 43.00ab
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
108
4.7.2.2 Micro mineral nutrients
Table 4.13 shows the micro mineral contents found in four Corchorus varieties; two indigenous varieties (Farmer cultivar 1 and 2) and two exotic varieties (SUD and HS).
Significance difference (p<0.01) was observed among the varieties for iron, zinc, copper and manganese contents.
Leafy vegetables from local farmer cultivar 1 had the highest iron content (164.96mg/kg), local farmer cultivar 2 leaves had the second highest iron content (66.24mg/kg), leaves from SUD variety was the third highest (49.28mg/kg) while leaves from HS variety had the least (41.60mg/kg).
For zinc, local farmer cultivar 1 leaves had the highest (17.28mg/kg) followed by leaves from local farmer cultivar 2 (15.84mg/kg). However, there was no significance difference between leaves of SUD (10.56mg/kg) and HS (10.88mg/kg).
The highest copper content was recorded in leaves of SUD variety (3.60mg/kg) which was not significantly different from leaves of HS variety (3.52mg/kg). Local farmer cultivar 1 leaves had the lowest copper content (2.96mg/kg).
Regarding the manganese content, the highest was found in leaves of local farmer cultivar 1(8.28mg/kg) which was not significantly different (p>0.01) from leaves of local farmer cultivar 2. Leafy vegetables from HS variety was the third highest (5.04mg/kg) which was also not significantly different (p>0.01) from leaves of SUD variety
(3.88mg/kg).
109
There were, however, no significant differences (p>0.01) among the varieties for cobalt and lead contents. Marginally, local farmer cultivar 1 leaves had the highest cobalt content (4.40mg/kg), followed by leaves from cultivar 2 (4.0mg/kg), then leaves from
SUD variety (3.60mg/kg) with HS variety leaves recording the least (3.2mg/kg). Leafy vegetables from HS variety was marginally higher in lead content (2.04mg/kg) while leaves from farmer cultivar 1 had the least (1.16mg/kg)
Table 4.13: Micro Mineral contents found in three Corchorus spp.
Minerals Iron Zinc Copper Manganese Cobalt Lead Varieties (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Farmer cultivar 1 164.96a 17.28a 2.96c 8.28a 4.40a 1.16a
Farmer cultivar 2 66.24b 15.84b 3.20b 7.48a 4.00a 1.24a
SUD 49.28c 10.56c 3.60a 3.88b 3.60a 1.75a
HS 41.60d 10.88c 3.52a 5.04b 3.20a 2.04a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.8 SHELF-LIFE STUDIES
4.8.1 Weight Loss
4.8.1.1 Amaranthus spp.
The percentage weight loss of Amaranthus spp. is shown in Table 4.14. Significant differences (p<0.01) were observed among the means for the varieties and storage days.
110
Farmer cultivar at day 3 had the highest percentage weight loss (40.69%) while the least was recorded for Madiira at day 1 (4.65%).
Individually, farmer cultivar variety had the highest weight loss (30.63%), followed by
Madiira 1 (10.30%) and the least was Madiira 2 (8.24%). Farmer cultivar which had the highest weight loss was about 3.7 times more than Madiira 2 which recorded the least.
The highest weight loss (22.20%) was on day 3 while the least (10.92%) was on day 1.
Table 4.14 Weight loss of Amaranthus spp.
Storage Days Varieties DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 Mean Farmer cultivar 21.92c 29.25b 40.69a 30.62a Madiira1 4.65f 8.49def 11.56de 10.30b Madiira2 6.20ef 10.36def 14.34d 8.24b Mean 10.92c 16.03b 22.20a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.8.1.2 Corchorus spp.
From Table 4.15, significant differences (p<0.01) were observed in the mean interaction between the varieties and storage days. The highest percentage weight loss was observed in farmer cultivar 1 on the third day while the least was observed in HS variety on the first day. The highest mean weight loss for the varieties was recorded in farmer cultivar
1(32.06%), the second highest (26.95%) was in farmer cultivar 2 and the third and fourth highest weight loss was recorded in SUD (21.50%) and HS (21.17%) variety respectively which were not significantly different (p>0.01) from each other. The highest weight loss was on the third day (39.27%) while the least was on the first day (12.02%).
111
Table 4.15: Mean Weight loss of Corchorus spp.
Storage Days Varieties Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Mean Farmer cultivar 1 16.81d 33.75bc 45.63a 32.06a Farmer cultivar 2 15.43de 27.80c 37.63b 26.95b SUD 8.5ef 19.50d 36.50b 21.50c HS 7.33f 18.83d 37.33b 21.17c Mean 12.02c 24.97b 39.27a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.8.2 Colour Changes
4.8.2.1 Amaranthus spp.
All the varieties of Amaranthus spp. had a deep green colour, a score of 1, from the initial day to the first day. On the second day, Madiira 1 and farmer cultivar changed colour to light green (colour score 2) but Madiira 2 maintained its deep green colour (colour score
1). From the third day to the fifth day, Madiira 1 and 2 changed colour from light green
(colour score 1) through to greenish brown (colour score 3) to brownish green (colour score 4). However, the farmer cultivar turned brownish green (colour score 4) on the fourth day and was discarded.
112
Colour Changes for Amaranthus spp. 5 4 3 2 1 0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Farmer cultivar 1 Madira 1 Madira 2
Figure 4.93: Colour changes for Amaranthus spp.
There were no significant differences (p>0.01) in the mean colour score for all varieties from day 1 to day 3. However, significant differences (p<0.01) were observed between farmer cultivar (4.00) and both Madiira 1 (3.00) and Madiira 2 (3.00) on day 4. On the fifth day, Madiira 1 (4.00) and Madiira 2 (4.00) were not significantly different (p>0.01) while farmer cultivar was discarded (Table 4.16).
Table 4.16: Mean colour score for Amaranthus spp.
DAYS
VARIETIES Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Farmer cultivar 1.00a 2.00a 3.00a 4.00a -
Madiira 1 1.00a 2.00a 2.00a 3.00b 4.00a
Madiira 2 1.00a 1.00a 2.00a 3.00b 4.00a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
113
4.8.2.2 Corchorus spp.
Figure 4.94, shows that all the varieties of Corchorus under study had a deep green colour (colour score 1) on the first day. On the second day, Farmer cultivar 1 and 2 and
HS varieties had turned light green (colour score 2) but the SUD cultivar still had the deep green colour (colour score 1). HS variety maintained its light green colour (colour score 2) on the third day while famer cultivar 1 and 2 and SUD varieties was greenish yellow (colour score 3). On the fourth day, farmer cultivar 2, HS variety and SUD were still greenish yellow (colour score 3) but farmer cultivar 1 turned yellowish green (colour score 4) and was discarded. SUD, HS and farmer cultivar 2 varieties turned yellowish green (colour score 4) on the fifth day and were also discarded.
Colour change for Corchorus 5 4 3 2 1 0 day1 day2 day3 day4 day5
Farmer1 Farmer 2 SUD HS
Figure 4.94: Colour change for Corchorus spp.
No significant difference (p>0.01) was observed among all the Corchorus spp. varieties for both day 1 and 2. However, on the third day farmer cultivar 1 (3.00) and 2 (3.00) were statistically different (p<0.01) from SUD (2.00) and HS (2.00) varieties in their colour score. On the fourth day farmer cultivar 1 and 2 had a colour score of 4 and were
114 discarded while SUD and HS varieties had that colour score (4) not until the fifth day
(Table 4.17).
Table 4.17: Mean colour score for Corchorus spp.
DAYS
VARIETIES Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Farmer cultivar 1 1.00a 2.00a 3.00a 4.00a -
Farmer cultivar 2 1.00a 2.00a 3.00a 4.00a -
SUD 1.00a 1.00a 2.00b 3.00b 4.00a
HS 1.00a 2.00a 2.00b 3.00b 4.00a
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.8.3 Freshness
4.8.3.1 Amaranthus spp.
Table 4.18 shows the mean freshness score for varieties of Amaranthus spp. There were no significant changes (p>0.01) in freshness for farmer cultivar, Madiira 1 and Madiira on the first and second day. On the third day, Madiira 1 (75%) and Madiira 2 (75%), had freshness colour of 2 but were significantly different (p<0.01) from the farmer cultivar
(50% fresh) which had a mean freshness score of 3. Farmer cultivar (25% fresh) had a mean freshness colour of 4 and was discarded but Madiira 1 (45% fresh) and Madiira 2
(40% fresh) had that score (4) on the fifth day.
115
Table 4.18: Mean freshness score for Amaranthus spp.
DAYS (SCORE)
VARIETIES Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Farmer 100.00a (1) 75.00a (2) 50.00b (3) 25.00b (4) - cultivar
Madiira 1 100.00a (1) 90.00a (1) 75.00a (2) 55.00a (3) 45.00a (4)
Madiira 2 100.00a (1) 85.00a (1) 75.00a (2) 50.00a (3) 40.00a (4)
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.8.3.2 Corchorus spp.
Table 4.19 shows the mean score for freshness of Corchorus spp. Significant differences were not observed (p>0.01) among the varieties on the first day as each was fresh (100% fresh). On the second day, there was significant difference (p<0.01) between farmer cultivar 2 and HS variety but farmer cultivar 2 (90% fresh) was not significantly different
(p>0.01) from SUD (85% fresh), HS (60% fresh) and farmer cultivar 1 (75% fresh). On the third day, farmer cultivar was statistically fresh and had a score of 2 (75% fresh) while farmer cultivar 2 was the least fresh (50% fresh). Farmer cultivar 1 variety was discarded on the fourth day when it scored 4 (25% fresh) while farmer cultivar 2, SUD and HS varieties were discarded on the fifth day when each also scored 4 (25% fresh,
20%fresh and another 20%fresh respectively).
116
Table 4.19: Mean freshness score for Corchorus spp.
DAYS (SCORE)
VARIETIES Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Farmer cultivar 1 100.00a (1) 75.00ab (2) 50.00b (3) 25.00b (4) -
Farmer cultivar 2 100.00a (1) 90.00a (1) 75.00a (2) 50.00a (a) 25.00a (4)
SUD 100.00a (1) 85.00ab (1) 60.00ab (2) 40.00a (3) 20.00a (4)
HS 100.00a (1) 70.00b (2) 60.00ab (2) 40.00a (3) 20.00a (4)
Figures on the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different
4.9 VOLUME FLOW AND WEALTH DISTRIBUTION
4.9.1 Volume Flow
Table 4.20 shows the average quantity of Corchorus and Amaranthus spp. produced in
Kumasi. A farmer with an average of 2 acres of land produces about 99.48kg (equivalent to 49.74kg/acre) of Amaranth and about 190.98kg (equivalent to 95.49kg/acre) of
Corchorus spp.
Total production for respondents in Kumasi, was approximately 3,880 kg/acre of
Amaranth and 14,896kg/acre of Corchorus during the dry season.
117
Table 4.20: Volume flow of Corchorus spp and Amaranthus spp.
ACREAGE NUMBER OF Up to 2 acres 4 acres FARMERS Per famer Amaranthus spp. 99.48kg 198.96kg Corchorus spp. 190.98kg 381.96 Total production for Amaranthus spp. 3,879.72kg 7,759.44kg respondents Corchorus spp. 7,448.22kg 14,896.44kg
4.9.2 Wealth Distribution
Tables 4.19 shows the profitability analysis describing the relative distribution of wealth along the value chain. The values represent means of data from various actors. The results showed that for an acre of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. produced, the farmer makes a net profit of GH₵2090.00 while traders make a net profit of GH₵1530.00.
However, for profit made in terms of time invested, producers made GH₵49.76 per day and GH₵510.00 for traders. Detailed analysis is found in Appendix A
Table 4.21: Wealth distribution along the value chain
Farmers GH₵ Traders GH₵
Total Revenue obtainable 3000.00 3600.00
Total Cost of Production 910.00 2070.00
Net Profit Accruable 2090.00 1530.00
Profit in terms of time invested 49.76 510.00
118
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 PRODUCERS
5.1.1 Demographic Information of Producers
Gender is an important role in production of vegetables. A survey conducted to access the value chain along two indigenous leafy vegetables (Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.) showed that majority (72%) of the producers were male. This may be due to the fact that farming is mostly done by men as it is labour-intensive. Munguzwe and Tschirley (2006) reported that production of horticultural crops requires twice as much labour as cereals. Men are usually engaged in production of crops while women are engaged in activities such as harvesting, marketing and processing of produce. This corroborates what Jansen et al.
(2007) reported that women dominate harvesting as well as marketing of leafy vegetables and it has become part of culture.
Age is also found to be important in determining agricultural productivity in a country.
The survey also showed that majority (96%) of the producers were between the ages of
31 to more than 50 years. This was surprising as most youth were expected to be involved in production of these indigenous leafy vegetables. Elderly people were involved because production of indigenous leafy vegetable has become a lucrative job in
Ghana and also because they have experience in indigenous vegetable production. The nutritional awareness and consumption of indigenous leafy vegetables has become popular in Kumasi as a result of the culture-mix and therefore has encouraged most producers to grow these indigenous leafy vegetables.
119
It was observed that more than half (56%) of the producers had no formal education. This suggested adoption of improved technologies that are important for sustainable production of indigenous leafy vegetables would be affected. It was also not desirable as it could have negative implications on the growth of the indigenous leafy vegetable industry. However, quite a number of them had some form of basic education and could easily adopt improved technologies that would be introduced and encourage other producers to adopt these improved technologies. Knowledge of improved technologies would help produce quality indigenous leafy vegetables and also put into practice these improved technologies to reduce postharvest losses of the vegetables.
From the survey, it also came to light that most (72%) of the producers were from the northern part of Ghana. This was not surprising as common indigenous leafy vegetables were mostly consumed in the three northern regions of Ghana before its adoption by people in other regions of Ghana, especially, Ashanti region, Kumasi.
5.1.2 Information on Farming of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
5.1.2.1 Indigenous leafy vegetable production
Most (88%) indigenous vegetable producers interviewed cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables such as Corchorus spp. commonly called “Ayoyo” and Amaranthus spp. also known as “Aleefu”. This could be due to high consumption of indigenous vegetables as stated by Chandha (2003) in his report. Indigenous leafy vegetables were also preferred because it was mostly cheap, nutritious and readily available than the exotic ones.
120
Corchorus spp. was, however, mostly produced by the producers more than the
Amaranthus spp. because it is used in the preparation of the popular “TZ” soup which is a delicacy and popular in Ashanti Region. Reasons why these two indigenous leafy vegetables were cultivated by most producers was because there was high demand for these leafy vegetables, these leafy vegetables were easy to cultivate, it was profitable to cultivate these two leafy vegetables and also because it took less time for those leaves to grow and mature for harvesting. This is line with a report from Schippers (2000) who stated that production of vegetables require short time and are also high yielding crops.
Maundu (1997) also reported that traditional leafy vegetables have a short growing period and can be harvested within 3-4 weeks and management of indigenous leafy vegetables are relatively low as compared to the exotic ones (Hart and Vorster, 2006).
5.1.2.2 Farming experience of producers
Farming experience increase productivity and a better understanding of farming activities
(Ngowi, 2003). The survey showed that majority (84%) of the producers had farming experience more than 10 years which suggests that producers in the indigenous leafy vegetable industry have much experience in the production of these leafy vegetables since they have been cultivating them for a long time. However, the consumption of these indigenous leafy vegetables became popular in Ashanti region of Ghana only in the past
10 years and this was due to the migration of people from the northern part of Ghana to the south as a result of culture-mix.
121
5.1.2.3 Production of indigenous leafy vegetables
Most of the producers of Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. had 1-4 acres of land for the cultivation of these crops. This could be attributed to the fact that the consumption of these indigenous leafy vegetables was on the increase. Most of their lands was therefore allocated to the cultivation of these indigenous leafy vegetables. Some crops such as amaranth and nightshade that are traditionally said to be women‟s crop have become viable and taken over by men (Abukutsa-Onyango, 2007). However, more farmers (92%) had larger acreages for Corchorus spp. than Amaranthus spp. (84%). This corroborates earlier report from Appiah et al. (2013) that Corchorus was more cultivated than
Amaranthus in the Ashanti Region.
The indigenous leafy vegetable cultivated by producers was mostly sold rather than consumed because these leafy vegetables generated higher earnings per unit area of land and provide adequate income for producers (Schippers, 2000). Mwasha (1998) also reported that vegetables in Tanzania although are grown on a rather small scale, generates higher earnings per unit area and becomes an alternative for farmers with too small cultivable land to provide adequate income from field crops.
Majority of producers used farmer-saved seeds for cultivation of both the Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. and stored these seeds for mostly 3-4 months in fertilizer sacks.
Producers used farmer-saved seeds because using their own seeds was cheaper and did not incur any cost (Tripp, 1997). According to producers, the saved-seeds also still performed better probably because the saved seeds was best suited to the local soil and
122 climate especially for the Corchorus spp. Seeds for production of Amaranthus spp. are, however, mostly purchased.
Additionally, seed quality is affected by agronomic practices used, the time of harvest and how the seeds are processed (Mnzava, 1997) and producers need to ensure their seeds are well preserved to ensure viability over time (David, 2004). Relatively poor farm-level storage conditions also cause rapid seed deterioration and causes low germination rate and poor vigor (Schippers, 2000). Producers would, therefore have to store their seeds well so as to prevent poor germination and reduction in yield rate of the leafy vegetables.
5.1.2.4 Cultivation season and irrigation for indigenous leafy vegetables
Cultivation of the indigenous leafy vegetables was done in both the rainy and dry seasons and it could be because the crops were demanded every period in the year. Therefore, producers had to cultivate the crops even in the dry season. Irrigation of the farms was therefore very important during the dry season and river was the main source because it was readily available. Wells were expensive to dig and fuel will have to be bought to pump the water for watering of the produce. This increased their cost of production and therefore, most farmers resorted to the natural water (river) available to avoid incurring more cost.
5.1.2.5 Pesticide usage
Pesticides are important agents for controlling pests and diseases (Gerken et al., 2001) and this was why producers used chemicals in controlling their pest and disease
123 problems. This also corroborated a report by Dinham (2003) who estimated that 87% of farmers in Ghana used chemical pesticides to control pests and diseases on vegetable crop.
Pest and diseases have also become a problem in the indigenous leafy vegetable industry and according to MoFA (2011), several insect pests and diseases which attack vegetables include aphids, whiteflies, diamondback moth and grasshoppers.
5.1.2.6 Time for harvesting of indigenous leafy vegetables
Indigenous leafy vegetables were harvested early in the morning or late evening by most producers (84%) because it was a convenient time to harvest them and also because market was available at those times. Temperature during evenings or early morning are cool and favourable for harvesting of leafy vegetables. Harvesting, according to
Thompson (2005) should be done during the coolest time of the day and successful handling of vegetable crops requires careful coordination and integration of the various steps from harvesting operations to consumer level in order to maintain the initial product quality (Sargent et al., 2007). This could be why most producers harvested either early in the morning or late evening in order to have enough time to process their leafy vegetables before selling them.
Availability of rain or water for irrigation also made it possible to harvest indigenous leafy vegetables all year round. Higher yields of vegetables occur when there is water and in addition well watered leafy vegetables had 3-5 folds higher leaf area and 45% more dry weight than those exposed to water stress (Orchard and Ngwerume, 2003).
124
5.1.3 Postharvest Handling of Leafy Indigenous Vegetables
5.1.3.1 Precooling of indigenous leafy vegetables
From the survey, most producers (92%) precooled their produce and they did this by sprinkling water on it. Sprinkling of water on the produce reducefield heat after harvesting and keep the produce fresh. High temperatures are very injurious to perishable products such as leafy vegetables (Kader, 2006). Leafy vegetables also loses water quickly because they are characterized by high metabolic activities and therefore, possess short shelf life (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). The source of water for sprinkling is also very important. The use of contaminated water will affect the quality of the leafy vegetables, expose them to microbial contamination and increase the postharvest losses.
5.1.3.2 Sorting and Grading of indigenous leafy vegetables
According to Baustista and Acedo (1987), sorting is usually done to separate poor produce from good produce and sorting coupled with appropriate packaging and storage extend shelf-life of produce and maintain wholesomeness, freshness and quality and also reduce losses. It was therefore not surprising when most of the producers (68%) sorted their produce. Producers graded their leafy vegetables based on size to separate the big- sized leaves from the small-sized leaves based on the preference of consumers. They also sorted the yellowed and foreign leaves from the fresh leafy vegetables to be able to sell quality leaves to consumers.
125
5.1.3.3 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables
Packaging provides protection from mechanical damage, undesirable physiological changes and pathological deterioration during storage, marketing and transportation.
Proper packaging also helps to maintain the freshness, succulence and flavor for a longer period (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). Majority (92%) of the producers who packaged their leafy vegetables in the nylon sacks was for protection of their produce. However, the nylon sack did not allow easy aeration and caused heat accumulation in the produce.
Higher temperatures are undesirable as it hastens produce deterioration. Producers who did not package their produce was because traders came to harvest their leafy vegetables on their farms.
5.1.3.4 Transportation of indigenous leafy vegetables
Fresh produce is transported primarily by road from farmer to consumer and marketing centers. Therefore, fresh produce should be of highest quality and should be kept in the best condition during transportation (Kader, 2002). Fresh vegetables straight from the farm can deteriorate in hot climates due to lack of proper transportation (Stuart, 2009).
Producers from the survey, therefore, mostly transported their produce in open trucks to allow some form of aeration to the produce during transportation and this was done early in the evening so they could meet available market at dawn.
5.1.3.5 Postharvest loss of produce during transportation
Leafy vegetables have short life-span due to high metabolic activities that goes on in the produce (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). Therefore, produce not sold within the first two days
126 losses quality and becomes unmarketable. Most of the producers (91%), from the study, reported that they did not have postharvest losses of their produce during transportation because transportation of leafy vegetables was done immediately after harvest and was also bought immediately by market women when it got to the market. Few of the producers (8%), however, reported to have postharvest losses. This could be attributed to the fact that they experienced delay in transportation or there was build-up of heat in their produce during transportation. Over stacking of the leafy vegetables could also be a reason why some of the producers lost their produce during transportation.
Producers (8%) who lost their produce, lost as high as 10% of their leafy vegetables and unmarketable ones were also discarded. This practice leads to the accumulated loss of horticultural produce which is reported to be as high as 50% as a result of inefficient postharvest practices (Camargo and Perda, 2002) such as delay in transportation and inappropriate transportation systems.
5.1.3.6 Marketing of indigenous leafy vegetables
Producers sold their leafy vegetables at the market either as a bunch or a sack. Those who sold their produce on the farm, sold the whole bed to marketers to be bought. Prices of leafy vegetables ranged between GH ₵0.50p and GH ₵ 2.00 for leaves sold per bunch.
For those who sold their produce per sack, the prices ranged between GH ₵10-50 and GH
₵50-100 for those who sold per bed.
127
5.1.3.7 Training on GAP and Postharvest handling of leafy vegetables
Results from the survey showed that most (68%) of the producers had no training on postharvest handling of vegetables. This revelation was alarming as postharvest loss of produce are affected by both pre-harvest and postharvest activities. To prevent postharvest losses, training on using quality seeds, good cultural practices, harvesting at the right time and with the right tools, precooling, sorting through to selling of the produce are important methods which must be done right. Producers would therefore have to be educated properly on good agricultural and postharvest handling practices.
The producers might have had some experience but additional knowledge would help produce quality leafy vegetables and also help to reduce postharvest losses.
5.1.3.8 Challenges of Producers
Major challenges faced by indigenous leafy vegetable producers were pest and disease attack and faster deterioration of produce when not bought early in the market. Other challenges included inconsistent climatic conditions such as too much rains or less rains and high prices for hired lands.
For the pest and disease attack, producers were advised to spray their leafy vegetables at the correct time, use of right dosage of pesticide and also follow the Maximum Residual
Limits (MRLs).
Leafy vegetables should also be harvested when there is available market to avoid deterioration of unsold leave and producers can do this by communicating with market women who purchase leafy vegetables. Association for producers of indigenous leafy
128 vegetables can also be formed to help solve the communication gap between producers and market women. Excess indigenous leafy vegetables can also be dried to prevent wilting which causes postharvest losses.
Regarding the climatic problems, not much can be done about it but irrigation of farms from a good source can be done when there is low rainfall to help curb that challenge.
5.2 TRADERS (WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS)
5.2.1 Demographic Information of Traders
According to Jansen et al. (2007), women are usually involved in harvesting and marketing of leafy vegetables. Traditionally, women are also known to be traders of food stuff and so it was not surprising when all traders interviewed were females.
Majority (78%) of the wholesalers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years while majority (84%) of the retailers were also between 21 and 50 years of age. This observation could be attributable to the fact that marketing of indigenous leafy vegetables is lucrative and is therefore done by most women irrespective of their age group. Again, although elderly women are perceived not to have much energy to do trading of produce, this is not the case in this survey. Women involved in this trading are mostly women from the north and are known to have physical strength even in their old age.
Traders who had no formal or basic education constituted 94% for the wholesalers and
82% for the retailers from the interview. This was quite worrying as it could result in reduced adoption for improved technology in marketing of the leafy vegetables. Adoption
129 and implementation of postharvest technologies for quality produce during marketing helps keep the quality of the produce and reduce postharvest losses.
It was also realized that most of the wholesalers (70%) and retailers (96%) were from the northern part of Ghana. This was because the indigenous leafy vegetables under study were mostly found and consumed in the three northern regions of Ghana before its adoption by people in other regions of Ghana. Most of the uses especially the soup preparation from Amaranth and Corchorus are indigenous to people from the northern part of Ghana.
5.2.2 Information on Trading of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
5.2.2.1 Trading of indigenous leafy vegetables
Amaranthus spp., Corchorus spp. and other indigenous leafy vegetables such as Roselle were found to be sold in the market. However, the most common indigenous leafy vegetables sold were Amaranthus spp. locally known as „Aleefu‟ and Corchorus spp. also known as „Ayoyo‟ because it was the two most popularly eaten indigenous leafy vegetables on the market.
The source of these indigenous leafy vegetables were mostly (86%) from farmers at the farm gate for the wholesalers and both farmers and wholesalers for the retailers.
Wholesalers transported their leafy vegetables by means of public transport or hired vehicles. However, retailers transported their produce mostly by carrying on the head and the use of public transport such as “hired taxi” and “trotro”. This was because they did not have their own means of transport and had to join the commonest and cheapest means
130 of transport such as „trotro‟, „taxi‟ and „motor king‟ to convey their produce from one point to the other. Open trucks (Kia trucks) were often used by wholesalers when the produce was in large quantities and have to be transported from a long distance to the market.
5.2.3 Postharvest Information on Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
5.2.3.1 Transportation
Only a few of the wholesalers (18%) and retailers (36%) had postharvest losses during transportation. The nature of the loss was crushed leaves and this could be as a result of overstacking done. Traders normally transported their produce in company with other goods and packing of other goods on the leafy vegetables caused the leaves to crush. This led to reduction of the quality and caused postharvest losses of the leafy vegetables.
5.2.3.2 Sorting of indigenous leafy vegetables
Sorting of the leaves was done to separate damaged, immature and foreign leaves from the wholesome ones so as to keep the leaves for a little longer without faster deterioration
(Baustista and Acedo, 1987). Leaves of lower quality were not preferred by consumers and therefore had to be discarded. This contributed significantly to postharvest losses of vegetables. Moreover, indigenous leaves of lower quality preferred by consumers were sold at a lower price of GH ₵ 0.50p per bundle instead of GH ₵ 1.00 and this also contributed to economic reduction.
131
5.2.3.3 Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables
Wholesalers were able to store their leafy vegetables for a maximum of three days at either the market place or their homes. The three (3) maximum storage days of leafy vegetables could be attributed to the fact that leafy vegetables lose water quickly and have short shelf life (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). With inadequate storage structures being a problem for the traders, leafy vegetables were packaged in woven nylon and kept on the floor, on raised platform (table) and under their table (wooden boxes) at the market place.
Wholesalers were, therefore, not able to store produce for a longer time. Most retailers, on the other hand, bought quantities which could only be purchased by consumers or sold in a day. This was the reason why most of them had no need to store their leafy vegetables. Storage in woven nylon sacks and under tables caused heat accumulation in the produce and led to faster deterioration.
5.2.3.4 Packaging of indigenous leafy vegetables
To maintain the freshness, succulence and flavor of a produce for a longer period, proper packaging is very necessary (Sudheer and Indira, 2007). Traders packaged their leafy vegetables mostly in woven nylon sacks. However, storage in the nylon sack did not allow good aeration and caused heat accumulation in the produce. Heat accumulation exposed the produce to faster deterioration and led to postharvest losses. Sprinkling of water on produce before packaging in the woven sack was done to prevent heat build-up in the produce. The source of water was also very important as contaminated water leads to microbial contamination which subsequently reduce the quality of the produce.
132
5.2.3.5 Processing of indigenous leafy vegetables
Processing of leafy vegetables such as drying was not mostly done by traders. It was only few of the wholesalers (14%) who dried their leaves when the leaves were about wilting
(12%) and also when dried leaves were on demand by consumers living outside the country (2%). The leafy vegetables deteriorated faster and caused an increase in postharvest losses. Traders are, therefore, encouraged to go dry their leafy vegetables to extend shelf life and availability of the vegetables in alternative forms during the lean seasons.
Minimal processing methods used by traders was removal of the leaves and cutting.
Cutting of leaves when bought was a process mostly requested by consumers to help cut down time wasted during cutting food preparation at home. It was expected because traditional leafy vegetables are mainly consumed in their fresh states (Kordylas, 1990).
However, contaminated tools such as knife can cause microbial contamination and affect the quality of the produce.
5.2.3.6 Storage and Handling Problems
Most of the traders reported no storage and handling problems. However, the few of them who reported storage problems indicated that heat absorption by leaves during storage was a problem. This could be attributed to the improper storage structure for storage of the indigenous leaves. Storage on the floor or under market tables without proper ventilation is inappropriate to store leafy vegetables. Heat accumulated disposed the produce to faster deterioration and led to postharvest losses.
133
5.2.3.7 Pricing by Traders
Indigenous leafy vegetables were profitable to sell according to most traders interviewed especially during the dry season and this corroborates a report from Orchard and
Ngwerume (2003) who stated that higher yields of indigenous vegetables occur during the wet season.
From the study, wholesalers bought and sold their produce either per bundle or per sack.
The selling price of the leaves bought per bundle was between GH ₵0.50 per bundle to
GH ₵4.00 for 4 bundles of leaves. Leafy vegetables bought per sack was bought between
GH ₵ 50-100 per sack. Based on this, most wholesalers sold a bundle of their leafy vegetables for GH ₵1.00 and GH ₵ 80-100 per sack.
Retailers who bought their produce from the market had their buying price between GH
₵1.00 for a bundle to GH ₵5.00 for 4 bundles of leaves. Those who bought their indigenous leafy vegetables from the farm bought them per bed. The pricing was between
GH ₵10- GH ₵60 per bed and on this basis the retailers sold a bundle of their leaves for either GH ₵1.00, GH ₵1.50 or GH ₵2.00.
5.2.3.8 Challenges faced by traders
Major challenge faced by traders were postharvest losses of the leafy vegetables during wet season. Indigenous leafy vegetables grows well under rain-fed conditions (Mnzava,
1997). Therefore, during the rainy season, there is glut in the market as most producers go into production of these indigenous leafy vegetables which led to losses of the leaves if not sold within two (2) or three (3) days. Processing methods such as drying to
134 preserve the indigenous leaves during the glut season would help prevent postharvest losses. It would also increase the availability of the leaves in an alternative form during the dry season when they were scarce. A well refrigerated storage structure can be constructed to store these leafy vegetables during their peak season so it becomes available during the off season.
5.3 CONSUMERS
5.3.1 Demographic Information of Consumers
Consumers of indigenous leafy vegetables involved both females and males because they enjoyed the indigenous leafy vegetable as a delicacy. Most consumers (68%) of indigenous leafy vegetables were between the ages of 21 to 40 years and had some form of education (77%). That is indigenous leafy vegetables are mostly patronized by the youth and this could be attributable to the increasing nutritional awareness and consumption of indigenous leafy vegetables especially Corchorus spp. in preparation of the popular “Tuo Zaafi” soup. The consumption of indigenous leafy, vegetables, was not patronized by only people of northern extraction in Kumasi but by people from all the regions in Ghana as well as people who were not Ghanaians. This might be attributed to the fact that although indigenous leafy vegetables are described as indigenized foods, they might not be indigenous to a country (Phillips-Howard, 1999) and might be available in other countries.
135
5.3.2 Consumption of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Although only 73% of consumers interviewed consumed exotic leafy vegetables, all of them (100%) consumed indigenous leafy vegetables such as Corchorus spp. (Ayoyo),
Amaranthus spp. (Aleefu), Cocoyam leaves (Kontomire) and Roselle.
The results also showed that Corchorus and Amaranthus spp. was a favourite delicacy of not only consumers interviewed but also their family members, especially, the Corchorus spp. which is used in preparation of the popular “Tuo Zaafi” soup.
Consumers used indigenous leafy vegetable because it was nutritious and healthy to consume and also because it was not expensive to buy. This corroborates a report from
Chweya and Eyzaguirre (1999) which stated that traditional leafy vegetables are cheap but quality nutritional produce for large number of people. Most of the consumers (94%) also used less than 1% of their income to purchase indigenous leafy vegetables and it was because prices of these indigenous leafy vegetables are relatively affordable when compared to other food items (Barry et al., 2008).
Indigenous leafy vegetables were mostly (99%) bought in the fresh state as compared to the dried form. Kordylas (1990) reported that traditional leafy vegetables are mainly consumed in their fresh states. Consumers, therefore, complained of its scarcity and high cost during the dry season.
The quantity of fresh Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. bought was dependent on the household size. Consumers with larger household size as well as those who run small restaurants bought larger quantities as compared to those with smaller family sizes.
136
5.3.3 Quality Parameters Assessed and Ranked by Consumers
Quality parameters of interest to consumers were colour, size, freshness, food safety and cost price of the leaves. Most of the consumers preferred their leafy vegetables to be green (83%) and fresh (97%) and ranked them respectively as the first and second quality parameter they look out for before purchasing the leaves. This was because consumers were attracted by the appearance of the produce and yellowing of leaves were considered not to be fresh by consumers.
Quite a number (58%) of the consumers considered food safety as an important factor but ranked it as third on the priority list of factors to be considered in assessing the quality of vegetables. This was alarming as it is expected to be the first on such a list. Furthermore, it was observed that it was not of importance if the leaves were green and fresh. Some consumers even reported that they preferred leafy vegetables with holes which was an indication that pesticides had not been used.
The size of the leaves were also considered by most consumers and ranked as the fourth quality parameter. Consumers preferred smaller leaf sizes because soup prepared from them was slimy as compared those with bigger leaf sizes. The price of the leaves were, however, not of much importance to them.
5.3.4 Sorting of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables
Most consumers (83%) sorted their indigenous leafy vegetables to remove damaged leaves, yellowed leaves and foreign weeds. Sorting helps to separate poor produce from
137 good ones and extend the shelf-life and maintain wholesomeness, freshness and quality and also reduce losses of the produce (Baustista and Acedo, 1987).
5.3.5 Storage of Indigenous leafy vegetables
Storage of indigenous leafy vegetables by consumers was not commonly done as the leaves were used in preparation of food for immediate consumption. However, consumers who stored the leaves did that under ambient temperature or under refrigerated conditions. Storage of the indigenous leaves under ambient temperature caused wilting if not used immediately. Thus, most of the consumers used the leaves immediately for food preparation. Storage under refrigerated conditions extended the shelf-life of the leaves but not more than 2-3 days.
5.3.6 Processing Methods Used by Consumers
Minimal processing such as removal of leaves, washing, blending/grinding, cutting of leaves and boiling was mostly done by consumers. Drying of the leaves were done by just a few consumers as they preferred the fresh ones to the dried ones since the fresh leaves were used immediately for preparation of food.
5.3.7 Challenges faced by Consumers
Consumers faced major challenges such as faster deterioration of indigenous leaves and higher prices and scarcity of produce during the dry season. Holes in leaves and low quality due to excessive usage of chemicals were other challenges faced by producers.
138
Immediate consumption of indigenous leafy vegetables or refrigeration under ambient temperature would help solve the problem of faster deterioration of leaves
Patronage of dried indigenous leaves during the dry season is also necessary to help solve the problem of scarcity and higher prices.
5.4 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF INDIGENOUS LEAFY VEGETABLES
5.4.1 Protein Content
Proteins are essential organic compounds of high molecular weight (Osei, 2003) and helps in building and maintenance of all tissues in the body, forms an important part of enzymes, fluids and hormones of the body and also helps form antibodies to fight infection and supplies energy (Jonhson, 1996).
The indigenous leafy vegetables were high in protein content and Pearson (1976) reported that plant food that provides more than 12% of its caloric value from protein is considered as a good source of protein. The high protein of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. indicates that they could be useful in reducing protein deficiency, especially, in areas where they are grown and consumed. Consumption of these indigenous leafy vegetables would serve as a protein supplement especially for pregnant and lactating mothers as well as children who require 34g-59g and 17g-71g respectively of protein daily (FND,2002).
5.4.2 Fibre Content
Vegetables with high amount of fibre helps in digestion of food and prevents constipation. Fibre content increases the energy of feacal excretion due to its water
139 holding capacity which helps to form soft stools in bulk which can be easily emptied
(Komal and Kaur, 1992). High crude fibre aids in reduction of blood cholesterol and blood glucose (CFW, 2003) and is also useful for treatment of obesity and diabetes mellitus.
Consumption of both Amaranthus and Corchorus would be of health benefit to consumers, especially, the Madiira 2 variety from Amaranthus spp. and farmer cultivar 2.
5.4.3 Ash Content
Ash content present in the two indigenous leafy vegetables were higher than the reported ash content (10.30g/100g) for Corchorus spp. to be (Adeniyi et al., 2012).
Plant food with higher ash content predicts the presence of an array of minerals as well as high molecular weight (Onot et al., 2007) and provides a measure of the total amount of minerals present in it (McClement, 2003). Thus, the higher ash content in the two leafy vegetables were indicative of high mineral contents in the leaves. Consumption of
Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. is therefore important and would help supply high mineral levels required by consumers especially farmer cultivar 1 leaves of Corchorus spp. and Madiira 1 leaves of Amaranthus spp.
5.4.4 Fat Content
Leafy vegetables do not contribute significantly to fat supply in foods and so it was not surprising that the fat contents in the two indigenous leafy vegetables under study was lower than the fat range reported for some vegetables (Sena et al., 1998). Although
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. may not be good sources of fat, they may improve
140 food palatability (Aiyesanmi and Oguntokun, 1996) and also be good for health, especially, those who require less fat in their diet.
5.4.5 Carbohydrate (NFE) Content
Carbohydrate form about 50-80g/100g dry matter in vegetable in the form of non-starch polysaccharides including cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin (Osei, 2003).
Foods containing carbohydrates are healthy diets because they provide dietary fibre, sugars and starches that help the body to function well. The sugars and starches in foods supply energy to the body in the form of glucose, an important fuel for the brain and nervous system (DGA, 2005). High amounts of carbohydrates were found in both
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. and therefore serves as an important source of energy when consumed especially the Madiira 1 variety from Amaranthus spp. and SUD variety from Corchorus spp.
5.4.6 Moisture Content
According to Adepoju and Oyewole (2008), high moisture content in vegetables is an indicative of its freshness as well as its easy perishability. Similarly, George (2003) stated that moisture content makes an important contribution to the texture of the leaves and helps in maintaining the protoplasmic content of the cells but also makes them perishable and susceptible to spoilage by microorganism during storage.
The high amount of moisture content in Amaranthus and Corchorus spp., therefore, is what contributes to their high perishability during storage. Although less amount of moisture was available in farmer cultivar 1 and 2 of Corchorus spp. than that found in
141
HS and SUD variety as well as the Amaranthus spp., these could be attributed to their structural differences.
5.5 MINERAL COMPOSITION OF INDIGENOUS LEAFY VEGETABLES
5.5.1 Magnesium
Magnesium content found in both Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. were higher than that of magnesium reported to be in Amaranthus cruentus (2.53mg/100g DM) and
Corchorus olitorius (0.59mg/100g DM) by Mensah et al. (2008).
Magnesium helps in formation of strong bones and teeth and is also essential in system enzymes in the body and consumption of these two indigenous leafy vegetables will help in strong formation of bones and teeth. Nutritionally, National Academy of Sciences
(2004) also required a daily requirement of 0.42g of magnesium in adults and
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. would provide that when used as daily magnesium supplement. However, farmer cultivar variety of Corchorus spp. and famer cultivar 2 variety of Amaranthus spp. would provide higher amounts of magnesium compared to the other varieties and should be consumed.
5.5.2 Phosphorus
Phosphorus are reported to be available in green leafy vegetables (Soetan et al., 2010) and a daily requirement of 0.7g/day of phosphorus for an adult ((National Academy of
Sciences, 2004)) showed that consumption of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. would help meet the requirement. Deficiency of phosphorus causes rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults and leads to bone loss and consumption of these two indigenous
142 leafy vegetables can help prevent these. Leafy vegetables of Madiira 2 variety from
Amaranthus spp. and leaves of HS variety from Corchorus spp. would be more suitable for consumption when higher phosphorus content is required.
5.5.3 Potassium
The results showed that the Potassium contents in Amaranthus spp. under study ranged from 2.27%- 1.31%. However, there were no significant differences (p>0.01) among the varieties.
Potassium contents in the leafy veegtables were lower than that recorded by Mensah et al. (2008) and Mhlontlo et al. (2007). Mensah et al. (2008) reported the Potassium content of Amaranthus cruentus and Corchorus olitorius to be 4.82mg/100g and
3.33mg/100g DM respectively while Mhlontlo et al. (2007) reported potassium content of Amaranthus cruentus to be 3.3-4g/mg. However, consumption of Amaranthus and
Corchorus spp. would help prevent deficiencies of potassium such as muscle, heart, kidney malfunctioning, maintenance of electrolyte balance in consumers and reduce hypertension (Whelton et al., 1997) and leaves of farmer cultivar 1 and Madiira 2 would help provide much higher potassium content when desirable.
5.5.4 Calcium
According to Mensah et al. (2008), the calcium contents of Amaranthus cruentus and
Corchorus olitorius are 2.05 and 1.26 mg/100 g DM respectively and calcium contents of indigenous leaves under study were higher than that. Consumption of Amaranthus and
Corchorus spp. would, therefore, be good source of calcium for consumer‟s especially
143 growing children, pregnant and lactating mothers who require more amounts of calcium.
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. can also help prevent deficiency of calcium such as rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults (Murray et al., 2000). Large quantities of farmer cultivar leaves from Amaranthus spp. and SUD leaves of Corchorus spp. could be consumed to serve as Calcium supplement in the diet.
5.5.6 Iron
Iron contents found in both Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. were higher than the recommended daily requirements for iron (0.425mg/g) reported by (FAO/WHO 2001)
(Weigert, 1991).
High levels of iron found in the indigenous leafy vegetables under study was not surprising as Corchorus and Amaranthus are known to be very rich in iron and are usually recommended for pregnant and lactating mothers (Oyedele et al., 2006). Iron forms an essential part of red blood cells (heamoglobin) and enzymes but lack of it causes aneamia and alters many metabolic processes that may impact brain functioning
(Malhotra, 1998). Consumption of these indigenous leafy vegetables would help improve the haemoglobin levels and prevent anaemia in consumers especially varieties from the farmer cultivar.
5.5.7 Zinc
According to Hambridge ( 2000), zinc is a trace mineral which is important to all forms of life because of its basic role in gene expression, cell development and replication. Its deficiency causes short stature, impaired immune function, skin
144 disorders among others and also affect child health (Brown et al. 1998a).
National Academy of Sciences (1999), recommends 11-12 mg/kg of zinc in pregnant women, 12-13 mg/kg in lactating mothers, 15 mg/kg in adults and 2-8 mg/kg in children while (FAO/WHO 2001) gave the daily requirement of Zinc to be 0.099mg/g (Weigert,
1991). The zinc content in these two indigenous leafy vegetables were above the recommended levels. Therefore, consumption of Amaranthus and Corchorus leaves will help prevent zinc deficiencies and more consumption of these indigenous leaves especially leaves from farmer cultivars and the exotic variety, Madiira 2 is very essential when zinc is needed.
5.5.8 Copper
Copper contents in Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. ranged from 2.96mg/kg to
0.88mg/kg and 3.60mg/kg to 2.96mg/kg respectively with significant differences
(p<0.01). Although, presence of high amounts of copper causes iron deficiency and destruction of membranes (Zaidi et al., 2005), it is also a vital element for normal metabolic processes and essential as iron, calcium and zinc. According to WHO (1996), the population mean intake of copper should not exceed 12mg/day for adult males and
10mg/day for adult females. However, a minimal acceptable intake of approximately
0.5 to 0.7 mg/day for infants 6 months of age or less, 1.3 mg/day for nursing mothers, and 1mg/day for pregnant women of copper is recommended.
The copper contents in these indigenous leafy vegetables were above the recommended amount for infants, nursing mothers and pregnant women but within the acceptable amount for adults. Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. are, generally, good sources of
145 copper which is a requirement for normal metabolic processes and the farmer and SUD variety would be necessary for consumption when higher protein content is required.
5.5.9 Manganese
Manganese is an essential element for proper functioning of both humans, as it is required for the functioning of many cellular enzymes and serve to activate many others
(IPCS, 2002).
The average manganese content in vegetables and vegetable products range from
0.42mg/kg–6.64mg/kg. Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM,
2002) has also set adequate intake levels for manganese to be 1.2 mg/day for children aged 1–3 years, 1.5–1.9 mg/day for children aged 4–13 years and 1.6–2.3 mg/day for adolescents and adults.
Although the manganese content of Amaranthus and Corchorus was higher than the recommended, a report from WHO (2011) stated that 8–9 mg/day of manganese is perfectly safe for consumption but depending on individual diets, a normal intake may be well over 10 mg of manganese per day especially for vegetarians. Consumption of the indigenous leafy vegetables; farmer cultivars can be used as a manganese supplement in the diet. However, care should be taken as excess manganese absorption can result in undesirable effects on brain development, including changes in behavior and decreases in the ability to learn and remember (ATSDR, 2012)
146
5.5.10 Cobalt
Cobalt, an essential element in humans, constitutes vitamin B12 and has been used as a treatment for anemia, because it stimulates red blood cell production (ATSDR, 1992).
The cobalt content in Corchorus spp. varied from 4.40 to 3.20mg/kg while that of
Amaranthus spp. varied from 4.8 to 1.6mg/kg. Green vegetables have been reported to have the richest sources of Cobalt from 0.2 to 0.6 mg/kg DM (ATSDR, 2004). The permissible daily intake for copper is 3.5mg/kg but indigenous leafy vegetables under study, especially the farmer cultivar for Amaranthus spp. and famer cultivars 1 and 2 for
Corchorus spp., had cobalt contents higher than that reported to be permissible for daily intake. Trace metals in water used by farmers to wash plant materials before they are brought to the market are various sources of contamination (Divrikli et al., 2006) and fertilizers absorbed through leaf blades are additional sources of heavy metals for plants
(Sobukola et al., 2008). The source of water used for irrigation as well as the fertilizer applied might have contributed to the higher cobalt levels in the leaves.
5.5.11 Lead
Lead contents in Amaranthus spp. ranged between 2.20 to 1.11mg/kg and 2.04mg/kg to
1.16mg/kg for Corchorus spp. Lead has been associated with intoxications leading to problems in the kidney and liver, the central nervous system, reproductive organs and anaemia (IOCC, 1996). Permissible levels of lead in vegetables according to FAO/WHO
(2001) is 0.5mg/100g dry weight. Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. under study were higher than the recommended levels for daily intake. This could be associated with the source of water for irrigation as well as fertilizers applied on the farm. There is therefore
147 the need to ensure that clean source of water is used for irrigation and recommended type and dosage of fertilizers are also used by farmers.
5.6 SHELF-LIFE STUDIES
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. significantly lost weight from the first day through to the third day. Farmer cultivar of Amaranthus spp. on day 3 lost the highest amount of weight while the least weight loss was recorded by Madiira 1 on the first day. For the Corchorus spp., Farmer cultivar 1 recorded the highest weight loss on day 3 whereas, HS variety recorded the least weight loss on day 1. The farmer varieties of both Amaranthus and
Corchorus spp. lost considerably high amounts of weight after the experiment was terminated compared to the exotic varieties. That is, the exotic varieties of both the
Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. could be stored for a longer time as compared to the farmer cultivars.
Farmer cultivar of Amaranthus spp. changed colour and wilted faster as compared to
Madiira 1 and Madiira 2 varieties. For the Corchorus spp., the farmer cultivars also changed colour faster than the SUD and HS varieties. However, farmer cultivar 1 wilted faster than farmer cultivar 2 SUD and HS varieties. Most Africa leafy vegetables are reported to be highly perishable and have a shelf life of less than 24 hours Abukutsa –
Onyango (2002). Loss of green colour in leafy vegetables is also as a result of senescence of ethylene (Kadar (1985) and this decreases the storage life and quality of vegetables.
Madiira 1 and Madiira 2 varieties for Amaranthus spp. had longer shelf-life than the farmer cultivar variety. The farmer cultivar 2 of Corchorus spp. also showed some
148 characteristic behavior as the SUD and HS varieties and had better and longer shelf-life than the farmer cultivar 1. These observation could be attributed to the fact that the
Madiira 1, Madiira 2, SUD and HS varieties were varieties which have been improved and can therefore be adopted for longer storage.
5.7 VOLUME FLOW AND WEALTH DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE VALUE
CHAIN
The study revealed that on an average a farmer produces 49.74kg/acre of Amaranthus spp. and 95.49kg/acre of Corchorus spp. The production level of respondents interviewed in the Kumasi Metropolis was a total production of 7759.44kg/acre and 14,896.44kg/acre for Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp., respectively. The extent of production suggests that these traditional leafy vegetables are in high demand and are being consumed widely.
Therefore, it is important to pay attention to their production since it is a very good source of nutrition for urban communities.
Regarding profit, a producer generated GH₵2090.00/acre as compared to a trader who made GH₵1530.00/acre of produce bought. However, comparing the time invested in production and sale of produce, it was observed that the trader had GH₵510.00 profit per day for an acre (which could be sold within 3 days) while the producer (who spends approximately 42 days in production) makes GH₵49.76 per day for an acre. This represents a profit of 1000% more for the trader than the producer.
149
CHAPTER SIX
6.0 CONCLUSION
A survey conducted to access the value chain along two indigenous leafy vegetables
(Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp.) showed that majority (72%) of the producers were male whilst all of the traders were females. More than half (56%) of the producers had no formal education, 94% of the wholesalers had no formal or basic education as well as
82% of the retailers. Most (88%) indigenous vegetable producers cultivated indigenous leafy vegetables such as Corchorus spp. commonly called “Ayoyo” and Amaranthus spp. also known as “Aleefu”. Farmers had 1-4 acres of land for cultivation and had farming experience more than 10 years. Farmer-saved seeds were used for cultivation of both the
Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. and these seeds were stored for mostly 3-4 months in fertilizer sacks. Cultivation of the indigenous leafy vegetables was done in both the rainy and dry seasons and river was the main source of irrigation during the rainy season.
Chemicals were used in controlling pest and diseases and has become a problem in the indigenous leafy vegetable industry. Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. were harvested late evening by producers and transported so as to meet available market at dawn and precooled by sprinkling of water on it. Sorting, grading, packaging and transportation were done by both producers and traders. Although postharvest losses were not reported by traders because it was bought immediately, over stacking and delay in transport sometimes resulted in about 10% loss of indigenous leafy vegetables. Storage of leafy vegetables could be stored for only a maximum of three days. Amaranthus and
Corchorus spp. were sold between GH ₵0.50p and GH ₵ 2.00 per bunch and between
GH ₵10-50 and GH ₵50-100 per bed. Traders, therefore, sold their produce for GH
150
₵1.00 per bunch and GH ₵ 80-100 per sack. Processing methods used by traders were only removal of the leaves and cutting while drying was done only upon request by consumers.
Indigenous leafy vegetables such as Corchorus spp. (Ayoyo) and Amaranthus spp.
(Aleefu), were mostly consumed because it was nutritious, healthy and cheap to buy. The leaves were bought mostly in its fresh state and quality parameters of interest to consumers were colour, size, freshness and food safety of the produce.
Constraints faced by indigenous leafy vegetable producers, traders and consumers were pest and disease attack of produce, faster deterioration of produce when not bought early in the market, postharvest losses during the wet season and scarcity during the dry season.
The study showed that the leaves of Amaranthus and Corchorus spp. were good sources of protein, ash, fibre and carbohydrate but less in fat. They were also found to be rich in minerals such as magnesium, potassium, iron and zinc and is therefore highly recommended for consumption. Madiira 1 and Madiira 2 varieties for Amaranthus spp. and SUD and HS varieties as well as farmer cultivar 2 were observed to have better and longer shelf-life than the farmer cultivar variety.
The production level of respondents interviewed in the Kumasi Metropolis was a total production of 7759.44kg/acre and 14,896.44kg/acre for Amaranthus spp. and Corchorus spp. respectively. In terms of profit, a producer also was able to generate
GH₵2090.00/acre as against the trader who makes GH₵1530.00/acre of produce bought.
However, compared to time invested in production and sale of produce, the trader had
151
GH₵510.00 profit per day for an acre (which could be sold within 3 days) while the producer (who spends approximately 42 days in production) makes GH₵49.76 per day for an acre.
6.1 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of the study, recommendations made are as follows:
1. Traders could dry their indigenous leafy vegetables during the rainy season when
the leaves are in abundance to prevent glut and also to make the produce in an
alternative form when the leaves are scarce in the dry season.
2. Both producers and traders should be properly educated and trained on
postharvest handling of indigenous leafy vegetables to help produce more quality
produce for consumption and reduce losses.
3. Further study should be carried out in other parts of the regions of Ghana to assess
the postharvest handling and quality of the two indigenous leafy vegetables along
the value chain.
4. Further investigations could be done on other indigenous leafy vegetables in
Ghana and consumer acceptability of dried products.
152
REFERENCES
Abbey L., Bonsu K.O., Glover-Amengor M. and Ahenkora K. (2006). Evaluation of
some common leafy vegetables used in Ghana. Crop Research Institute, Kumasi.
Ghana Journal of Horticulture. Volume 5. (2006) Page 23.
Abukutsa-Onyango, M. O. (2003) „Unexploited potential of Indigenous African
Vegetables in Western Kenya‟. Maseno Journal of Education Arts and Science 4(1):
103-122. ISSN:1019-360X
Abukutsa-Onyango, M. O. (2007) African Indigenous Vegetables in Kenya: Strategic
Repositioning in the Horticultural Sector
Acikgoz, F.E. (2011). Mineral, vitamin C and crude protein contents in kale (Brassica
oleraceae var. acephala) at different harvesting stages. African Journal of
Biotechnology Vol. 10(75), pp. 17170-17174.
Adebooye OC (2004). Solanecio biafrae (Olive and Heirne), C Jeffery. In Grubben,
GJH Denton OA (Editors). Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 2: Vegetables.
PROTA Foundation, Netherlands/Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands/CTA
Wageningen, Netherlands. Pp.469-471.
Adebooye OC, Ogbe FMD, Bamidele JF (2003). Ethno botany of indigenous leaf
vegetables of Southwest Nigeria. Delpinoa , University of Naples, Naples, Italy: 45
(In press).
Adeniyi S. A., EhiagbonareJ. E. and Nwangwu S. C. O. (2012) „Nutritional evaluation of
some staple leafy vegetables in the southern Nigeria‟ African Journal of
Biotechnology Vol. 7 (14), pp. 2304-2309, 18 July, 2008 Available online at
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB ISSN 1684–5315 © 2008 Academic Journals
153
Adepoju O. T. and Oyewole O. E. (2008). Nutritional Importance and Micronutrient
Potential of Two Non-Conventional Indigenous Green Leafy Vegetables from
Nigeria. Agricultural Journal 3 (5): 365, 2008.
AFPA (2010). Human Protein Requirements. www.afpafitness.com (Accessed in
July, 2010).
African Journal of Food Science (2010). Available online http://www.acadjourn.org/ajfs.
ISSN 1996-0794 ©2010 Academic Journals. Vol. 4(2), pp. 389 - 393, June 2010
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992. Toxicological
Profile for Cobalt. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Atlanta, GA.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2012. Toxicological
profile for Manganese. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service.
Aiyesanmi, A. F. and Oguntokun, M. O. (1996). „Nutrient composition of Diocleareflexa
seed an underutilized edible legume‟. Rivista Italiana delle Sostanze Grasse. Vol. 73
pp. 521–523.
Akoroda, M.O. (2008). Cultivation of Jute (Corchorus olitorius) for edible leaf in Nigeria.
Anandajayasekeram, P. and Berhanu, G. (2009). Integrating innovation systems
perspective and value chain analysis in agricultural research for development:
implications and challenges. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of
Ethiopian farmers project working paper 16. ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.
154
AOAC (1990). Official methods of analysis, 14th edition, Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Washington DC. (pp.1137–1139), Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Asare-Marfo D, Birol E, Gonzalez C, Moursi M, Perez S, Schwarz J, Zeller M (2013)
Prioritizing countries for bio-fortification Interventions using country-level data.
HarvestPlus Working Paper. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
ATSDR (2000). Toxicological profile for manganese. Atlanta, GA, United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Bammann, H., 2007. Participatory value chain analysis for improved farmer incomes,
employment opportunities and food security. Pacific Economic Bulletin, 22,
(3):125.
Barry I. N., Germain N. P., Hannah J. and Detlef V. (2008). Production and Marketing
of African Indigenous Vegetables in Arumeru District of Tanzania: Assessing
Postharvest Loss and Processing Potential. International Symposium
“Underutilized plants for food, nutrition, income and sustainable development".
Arusha, Tanzania, 3-7 March 2008.
Bautista, O.K. and Acedo, A.L. Jr. 1987. Postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables.
Manila: National Book Store Inc. Techguide Series No. 4. 24 p.
Blake, B. and Kasanga, K. 1997. Kumasi Natural Resource Management Research
project, Inception report; NRI, Natural Resource Institute, The University of
Greenwich, UK and University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Bosland, P.W . and Votava, E.J. (2000). Peppers: Vegetable and spice capsicums. CABI
Publishing, U.K.
155
Brown, K.H., Dewey, K.G. and Allen, L.H. (1998a). Complementary feeding of
young children in developing countries: a review of current scientific
knowledge. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Bunning, M. and Kendall, P. (2007). Health benefits and safe handling of salad greens.
Available online: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09373.html
(accessed 28 J a n u a r y 2012).
Butnariu M., Chimie generală, Ed. Mirton, Timişoara, (2006), pag. 225.
Butnariu M., Noţiuni teoretice şi practice de biochimie vegetală (2007), Editura Mirton,
Timişoara, pag.95.
C.F.W. (2003). All Dietary Fiber is Fundamentally Functional. C. F. W. aacc report.
Publication no. W-2003-0407-01O. 128 / May-June, 2003, VOL. 48, NO. 3.
www.aaccnet.org/news/pdfs/DFreport.pdf. (Accessed in June, 2013).
Camargo, G., and Perdas, A. 2002, Agrianual, Anuário da Agricultura Brasileira, 41.
Cappellini, R.A. and Ceponis, M.J. (1984). Postharvest losses in fresh fruits and
vegetables. In: Moline, H.E. (ed.), Postharvest pathology of fruits and
vegetables: postharvest losses in perishable crops, University of Califonia Bulletin,
p 24-30.
Chandha, M. L (2003) AVRDC „S experiences within marketing of indigenous
vegetables–a case study of commercialization of African Egg-plant AVRCD,
Regional Center for Africa, P. O. Box 10, Duluti, Arusha, Tanzania
Chweya J (1997). Genetic enhancement of indigenous vegetables in Kenya. In
L.Guarino (Ed). Traditional Afr. Veg. Proc. of the IPGRI Int. Workshop on
Traditional Afr. Veg. Conservation and Use. August 29-31, 1995, Nairobi, Kenya.
156
pp. 86-95.
Chweya, J. A. and Eyzaguirre, P.B. (1999). The biodiversity of traditional leafy
vegetables. International Plant Genetics Resources Institute. Rome.
Dansi, A.; Adjatin, A.; Adoukonou-Sagbadja, H.; Faladé, V.; Yedomonhan, H.; Odou,
D. and Dossou, B. (2008). Traditional leafy vegetable and their use in the Benin
republic. Genet Resour Crop Evol 55: 1239-1256
David, S., 2004. Farmer seed enterprises: A sustainable approach to seed delivery?
Agriculture and human values 21:387-397.
Dehmer, K.J (2003). Molecular Diversity in the Genus Amaranthus. In Rudolf
Mansfeld and Plant Genetic Resources, Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen.
Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und–Information (ZADI); Knüpffer, H.,
Ochsmann, J., Eds.; entralstelle f r Agrardokumentation und -Information
(ZADI): Bonn, Germany, 2003; pp. 208–215.
DGA (2005). Dietary Guidelines for Americans. www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines.
(Accessed in August, 2009).
Dhellot JR, Matouba E, Maloumbi MG, Nzikou JM, Safou-Ngoma DG, Linder M,
Desobry S, Parmentier M (2006). Extraction, chemical composition and
nutritional characterization of vegetable oils: Case of Amaranthus hybridus (Var 1
and 2) of Congo Brazzaville. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 5(11): 1095-1101.
Dinham, B. 2003: Growing vegetables in developing countries for local urban
populations and export markets: problems confronting small-scale producers. Pest
Management Science 59: 575–582.
157
Divrikli, U., Horzum, N., Soylak, M. and Elci, L. (2006). Trace heavy metal contents of
some spices and herbal plants from western Anatolia, Turkey. Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 41: 712-716.
Drechel, P., Quansah, C. and Penning D.V. (2010). Urban Agriculture and Changing
Food Market. UEP Report Series, p 19-40 FAO .1989. Prevention of Post-
harvest food losses fruits, vegetables and root crops, a training manual (Vol. II).
Rome: Food and Agriculture organization of the united nations
Drechsel, P., Obuobie, E., Keraita, B., Danso, G., Amoah, P., Cofie, O.O and Raschid-
Sally.(2006).Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana: Characteristics,
Benefits and Risks. Published by city farmers, Canada‟s Office of Urban
Agriculture.
Ebert, A.W (2014). Potential of Underutilized Traditional Vegtables and Legume Crops
to Contribute to Food and Nutritional Security, Income and More Sustainable
Production Systems; AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center: Tainan, Taiwan.
Received: 21 November 2013; in revised form: 24 December 2013 /Accepted: 30
December 2013 / Published: 7 January 2014
Ebert, A.W.; Wu, T.-H. and Wang, S.T. (2011). International Cooperators’ Guide—
Vegetable Amaranth (Amaranthus L.); AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center:
Tainan, Taiwan; p. 8
Edmonds, J. M. (1990). Herbarium Survey of African Corchorus L.species. Systematic
and Eco-geographical Studies on Crop Gene pools. International Board of
Plant Genetic Resources, Rome. 284p
Emebu, P.K. and Anyika, J.U. (2011). Proximate and mineral composition of kale
158
(Brassica oleracea) grown in Delta State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 10
(2): 190-194.
FAO (1988). Vegetable production under arid and semi-arid condition in tropical
Africa. FAO production and plant protection paper 89.
FAO (2001): Improving Nutrition through home gardening. A training package for
preparing field workers in Africa. [Internet] Rome, Italy.
FAO/WHO (2014) Vitamins and mineral Requirements in human nutrition, 2nd edition
WHO/FAO of the United Nations, 2014
Fasuyi, A.O. (2007). Amaranthus cruentus leaf meal as a protein supplement in broiler
finisher diets part 1. Performance and nitrogen utilization. Afr J Food Agric Nutr
Dev 7(6):1–15
Florkowski J.W., Robert L. S., Bernhard B. and Stanley E. P. (2009). Postharvest
Handling: A Systems Approach, Second Edition. Elsevier Inc. Academic Press.
FND (2002). Food and nutrition board, Institute of medicine. National Academy of
Sciences. Dietary reference Intake for Energy, Carbohy- drate, Fibre, Fat, Fatty
Acids, Cholesterol, protein and Amino acid (micro-nutrients). www.nap.edu
(Retrieved on 14/05/2007).
Fondio L., Grubben G. J. H (2004), Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 2. Vegetables.
PROTA Foundation, Wageningen, Netherlands/ Backhuys Publishes Leiden,
Netherlands/ CTA, Wageningen, Netherlands. (2004) Pp. 217 – 221.
Fox, F.W. and Norwood Young, M.E. (1982). Food from the veld: Edible Wild Plants of
Southern Africa. Delta Books, Johannesburg, South Africa. 399 pp.
159
Garcia, V. (2012). Children malnutrition and horizontal inequalities in sub-Saharan
Africa: a focus on contrasting domestic trajectories. Working paper 2012-019.
UNDP, Regional Bureau Africa
Genders. R., Scented Flora of the World. Robert Hale. London. (1994).
George P. M. (2003) Encyclopedia of foods. Volume 1. Humane Press; Washington. p.
526.
Gerken, A., Suglo, J. V. and Braun, M. (2001). Crop protection policy in Ghana for
Ministry of food and agriculture by integrated crop protection project PPRST/GTZ,
Pokuase/Accra, p 162.Accessed on 13th June, 2010.
Ghana Export Promotion Authority (GEPA)/ Data Collection Department, 2012
Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) 2012. 2010 Population and Housing Census, summary
report of final results. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical Service.
Grubben G.J.H. (2004) Amaranthus cruentus L. In: Grubben GJH and Denton OA
(eds.) PROTA 2: Vegetables/Légumes [CD-Rom]. PROTA, Wageningen. The
Netherlands. 71-72.
Grubben GJH (2004a) Amaranthus cruentus L. In: Grubben GJH, Denton OA (eds)
Plant resources of tropical Africa 2. Vegetables. Backhuys Publishers,
Wageningen, pp 67–72
Grubben, G.J.H. (1994). Amaranthus L. In Plant Resources of South-East Asia. No. 8.
Vegetables; Siemonsma, J.S., Piluek, K., Eds.; Prosea Foundation: Bogor,
Indonesia, 1994; pp. 82–86.
Grubben, G.J.H. and Denton, O.A. (2004). Plant Resources of Tropical Africa, Volume
2: Vegetables; Backhuys Publishers: Kerkwerve, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 84–
160
89.
Hambridge.K.M. (2000). Human zinc deficiency. Journal of Nutrition, 130:S1344–
1349.
Hart, T.G.B. and Vorster, H.J. (2006) Indigenous Knowledge on the South African
Landscape – Potentials for Agricultural Development. Urban, Rural and Economic
Development Programme. Occasional paper No 1. HSRC Press, Cape Town, South
Africa. 52 pp.
Hassan L.G, Umar K.J (2008). Nutritive value of Night shade (Solanum americanum L.)
leaves. Electronic J. Food and Plants Chem., 3: 14-17.
Hays V.W., Swenson M.J. (1985). Minerals and Bones in: Dukes‟ Physiology of
Domestic Animals, Tenth Edition pp. 449-466.
Hughes, J.d‟A. and Ebert, A.W. (2013) Research and Development of Underutilized
Plant Species: The Role of Vegetables in Assuring Food and Nutritional Security.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Underutilized Plant
Species: Crops for the Future—Beyond Food Security; Massawe, F., Mayes, S.,
Alderson, P., Eds.; International Society for Horticultural Sciences (ISHS):
Korbeek-Lo, Belgium, 2013; Volume 2, pp. 79–91.
Hunt, S., Groff, I. L. & Holbrook, J. (1980) Nutrition, Principles and Chemical Practice.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 49-52; 459-462
IARC (1993). Cadmium and cadmium compounds. In: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury
and exposure in Glass manufacturing Industry. IARC Monographs on the evaluation
of carcinogenic risks to humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
58: 119-237.
161
IOCCC (1996). International Office of Cocoa, Chocolate and Sugar Confectionery. Paper
on the position of IOCCC on heavy metal contamination in the confectionery
industry. April 1996, Belgium. (http://www.international-
confectionery.com/pdf/Metals.pdf).
IOM (2002). Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron,
chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium
and zinc. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Washington, DC,
National Academy Press, pp. 10-1 to 10-22.
IPCS (2002). Principles and methods for the assessment of risk from essential trace
elements. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on
Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 228).
Jaeger, P., Sergeant A., Graffham A., Orchard J., Adongo A. and Homer S. 2008.
Horticulture exports from Ghana: A strategic study. Joint Departmental Discussion
Paper – Issue 2 © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development /The World Bank.
Jansen van Rensburg, W. S.; Van Averbeke, W.; Slabbert, R.; Faber, M.; Van Jaarsveld,
P.; Van Heerden, I.; Wenhold, F. and Oelofse, A. (2007). African leafy vegetables
in South Africa. Water SA. 33(3): 317-326
Jansen,W. S.. Averbake, W., Stabbert, R., Faber,M. Jaarsveld,P. Heerden, I.Wenohold, F.
and Oelofse, A. (2007) „African leafy vegetables in South Africa‟ Water SA Vol.
33, no 3 (special edition)
Jarup, L. (2003). Hazards of heavy metals contamination. Br. Med. Bull. 68: 167-
182.
162
Johnson R. S. (1996), Key Nutrients. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa
Staten University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Kader, A.A. 2002, Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, 3rd ed.
Cooperational. Extension, University of California Division of Agriculture and
National Resources
Kader A. Adel 2006. Assessment of post-harvest practices for fruits and vegetables in
Jordan, produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development.
Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh
produce, Proc. 5th Int. Postharvest Symptoms Acta Horticulture. 682.
Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris, 2001. A handbook of value chain analysis. Working
paper prepared for the IDRC, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
Keller, G.B., Mndiga, H. & Maass, B.L., 2004. Production and consumption issues of
traditional vegetables in Tanzania from the farmers‟ point of view. Proceedings of
„Rural poverty reduction through research for development, Deutscher Tropentag,
5-7 October 2004, Berlin. Online: www.tropentag.de/
2004/proceedings/node294.html, accessed July 2006.
Kimbi, D. and Atta-Krah, K. (2003). Plant Genetic resources in the global and African
setting. Proc of the 1st PROTA Int. Workshop 23-25 September,2002, Nairobi,
Kenya. Pp 269-270.
Komal M. and Kaur A. (1992) „Reviews: Dietary Fibre. Dieticians, Adipostat Clinic, 103
-104, Lady Ratan Tata Medical Centre, Bombay 400 021‟INTL. J. DIAB. DEV.
COUNTRIES (1992), VOL. 12.
163
Kordylas, J.M., 1990. Processing and preservation of tropical and sub-tropical foods.
McMillan Education Ltd, London.
Kummerow F. A. (2007). Fats in human nutrition. Department of Food Technology,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
Kwenin, W.K.J., Wolli M. and Dzomeku B.M. (2011). Assessing the nutritional value of
some African indigenous green Leafy Vegetables in Ghana. Journal of Animal &
Plant Sciences, 2011. Vol. 10, Issue 2: 1300- 1305.
Ladan, M.J., Abubakar M.G. and Lawal M. (1997). Effect of solar drying on the nutrient
composition of tomatoes. Nig. J. Renew. Energy, 5: 67-69
Lopriore, C. and Muehlhoff, E. (2003). Food security and nutrition trends in West Africa.
Challenges and the way forward. In: 2nd international workshop on food-based
approaches for a healthy nutrition, Ouagadougou, Burkina-Faso, pp 23–28.
Lykke, A.M., Mertz, O. & Ganaba, S., 2002. Food consumption in rural Burkina Faso.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41:119-153
Makus, D. J. (1990). Composition and nutritive value of vegetable amaranth as affected
by stage of growth, environment and method of preparation. Proc. Fourth Amaranth
Symp. Minnesota Ext. Serv., Minnesota Agr. Univ. Minnesota, St Paul.
Malhotra, V. K. (1998) Biochemistry for students 10th edition. Jaypee Medical Publishers
(p limited,New Delhi,India)
Martin F.W. and Ruberte- Meitner L.S, (1998). Edible leaves of the Tropics,
Educational concerns for Hunger organization, INC, PP 1 – 8.
Martin FW, Telek L (1979). Vegetables for the hot humid. Part 6: Ama- ranth and
Celosia. U.S. Dept of Agric., New Orleans, LA. pp. 156- 163.
164
Maundu, P., 1997. The status of traditional vegetable utilization in Kenya. In Traditional
African Vegetables. Proceedings of the IPGRI International workshop on genetic
resources of traditional vegetables in Africa. Conservation and use pp 66-71.
Guarino, L. (Ed.). 29-31 August, ICRAF-HQ, Nairobi, Kenya. IPGRI, Rome.
Mbaye, M. S., Noba, K., Sarr, R. S., Kane, A., Sambu, J. M. and Amadou-Tidiane, B. A.
(2001). Element of precision on the adventitious systematique of species Corchorus
L. (Tiliaceae) in Senegal. African Journal of Science and Technology. 2(1):54-66
Mcclements D. J. (2003) Analysis of Food Products. Chenoweth Lab, Room 238. Www-
Unix.Oit.Umass.Edu/~Mcclemen/581rheology.Html
Mensah J.K., Okoli R.I., Ohaju-Obodo J. O. and Eifediyi K. (2008) „Phytochemical,
nutritional and medical properties of some leafy vegetables consumed by Edo
people of Nigeria‟African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 7 (14), pp. 2304-2309, 18
July, 2008
Mepba H.D., Eboh L. and Banigo D. E. B. (2007) „Effects of Processing Treatments on
The Nutritive Composition and Consumer Acceptance of Some Nigerian Edible
Leafy Vegetables‟African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Volume 7 No. 1. 2007.
Merck V. M. (1986). The Merck Veterinary Manual. Sixth Edition. A Handbook of
Diagnosis, Therapy and Disease Prevention and Control for The Veterinarian.
Published By Merck and Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA.
Mertz, O., Lykke, A. and Reenberg, A. 2001. Importance and seasonality of vegetable
Consumption and marketing in Burkina Faso. Economic Botany Vol.55 No.2,
pp.276-289. Method on the Proximate Composition and Amino Acid Profile of
165
Bush Mango Seeds (Irvingiagabonensis)‟ Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Volume 7 No. 1. 2007.
Mhlonthlo, S.; Muchaonyerwa, P.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. and Maphaha, M.F. (2006). Effects of
sheep kraal manure in dry matter yield and leaf nutrient composition of
Amaranthus in the central region of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.
In: Proc. Int. Symp. on the Nutrition and Water Use of Indigenous Crops for
Improved Livelihoods. 19-20 September 2006, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
[CD ROM]. The Centre for Nutrition, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. No page
numbers.
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) 2011. Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project
(GCAP), Pest Management Plan (PMP), Final Report November. 100pages.
Mnzara W. A. (1997) Comparing nutritional values of exotic and indigenous vegetables
in Africa. Indigenous vegetables Cameroun Schippers of the NRI, NGRI/CPRO
Workshop/ 13-28 January 1977 Limbe, ODA UK,pp70-71
Modi, M.; Modi, A.T. and Hendriks, S. (2006). Potential role for wild vegetables in
household food security: A preliminary case study in Kwazulu-Natal, South
Africa. Afr J Food Agri Nutr Develop 6: 1-13
Morris A., Barnett A. and Burrows O. (2004) „Effect of processing nutrient content of
foods‟. [CD ROM]. Cajarticles, 37: 160-164
Munguzwe, H. and D. Tschirley, 2006. Policy synthesis food security research project.
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Agricultural Consultative Forum,
Michigan State University and Market Access and Trade Enabling Policies
(MATEP) Programme, Lusaka, Zambia.
166
Murray R.K., Granner D.K., Mayes P.A., Rodwell V.W. (2000) Harper‟s Biochemistry,
25th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Health Profession Division, USA.
Mwangi S. and Mumbi K. (2006). African Leafy Vegetables Evolves From
Underutilized Species to Commercial Cash Crops. Research Workshop on
Collective Action and Market Access for Smallholders, 2-5 October 2006, Cali,
Colombia.
Mwasha, Adah M. (1998): Status of vegetable Production in Tanzania. In: Chada, M.L.;
Mgonja, A.P.; Nono-Womdim, R., & Swai I.S. (eds.): Vegetable Research and
Development in Tanzania. Proceedings of the Second National Vegetable Research
and Development Planning Workshop held at HORTI-Tengeru, Arusha, Tanzania,
25-26 June 1998. Arusha, Tanzania. p. 22-27.
National Academy of Sciences (2004), Dietary References Intake (DRIs): Recommended
Intakes for Individuals, Elements. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine,
National Academies. Available online at: http//www.nap.edu (Accessed in August
2012).
Ngowi, A.V.F., 2003. A study of farmers„knowledge, attitude and experience in the use
of pesticides in coffee farming. AFR Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety,
13: 62.
Nnamani, C. V., Oselebe, H. O. and Agbatutu, A. (2009), Assessment of nutritional
values of three underutilized indigenous leafy vegetables of Ebonyi State, Nigeria
African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 8 (9), pp. 2321-2324, 4 May, 2009
Norman J.C. 1992. „Tropical vegetable crops in Ghana‟, Arthur H. Stockwell Hd. Great
Britain. pp. 10, 11b, 17c, 199d, 24-25, 217-21.
167
Obel-Lawson E. (2005). The Contribution of the Awareness Campaign of the African
Leafy Vegetables Project to Nutrition Behaviour Change among the Kenyan
Urban Population: The Case of Nairobi. Biodiversity International. 2002-2005.
Oboh, G., Radatz, H. &Henle, T. (2009) „Characterization of the antioxidant properties of
hydrophilic and lipophilic extracts of Jute (Corchorus olitorius) leaf‟. International
Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 60, 124 – 134.
Obuobie, E., Keraita, B., Danso, G., Amoah, P., Cofie, O.O., Raschid-Sally,
L. and P. Drechsel 2006. Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana:
Characteristics, benefits and risks. IWMI-RUAF-CPWF, Accra, Ghana: IWMI,
150 pp.
Okeno J.A.; Chebet D.K. and P. W. Mathenge Status of indigenous vegetables in Kenya.
Acta Hort. 2003; 621: 95-100
Olaniya, J. O and Ajibola A. T. (2008) „Growth yield performance of Corchorus olitorius
varieties affected by nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers‟ Am-Eurasian J. sustain
Agric., 2(3):235-241.
Oluoch, M.O.; Pichop G.N,.;Silue ´ D, Abukutsa-Onyango M.O.; Diouf, M and
Shackleton, C.M. (2009) Production and harvesting systems for African Indigenous
Vegetables. In: Shackleton C.M., Pasquini, M.W. and Drescher, A.(eds) African
indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 145–175.
Onot O. E., Umoh I. B. and Eka O. U. (2007) „Effect of a Typical Rural Processing
Orchard, J. E. and Ngwerume C. F. (2003). Improving the livelihoods of peri-urban
vegetable growers through market promotion of fresh and processed indigenous
vegetable. Crop Post Harvest Programme. Final Technical Report. R7487
168
(ZB0198).
Osei S. (2003). Animal Nutrition-Lecture Notes. University of Education, Winneba.
Faculty of Agriculture, Mampong-Ashanti.
Oyedele, D.J., Asonugho, C. & Awotoye, O.O. (2006) „Heavy metals in Soil and
accumulated by Edible Vegetable after phosphate fertilizer application‟ Electron.
Journal of Environmental & Agricultural Food Chemistry, 5(4):1446- 1453.
PALADA M.C. and CHANG L. C. (2003). Suggested Cultural Practice for
Vegetable Amaranth. International Cooperates Guide, AVRDC pub #03-552.
AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. 4
Palada, M.C. and Chang L.C. (2003) Suggested Cultural Practices for Vegetable
Amaranth. International Cooperates Guide, AVRDC pub #03-552. AVRDC-The
World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.4 pp.
Pearson D. (1976). The Chemical Analysis of Food. Churchil and Livingstone, London,
New York.
Phillip-Howard, K. D., 1999. The indigenization of exotic inputs by small-scale farmers
on the Jos Plateau, Nigeria. In Biological and cultural diversity: the role of
indigenous agricultural experimentation in develop, pp 80-90. Prain, G., Fujisaka,
S. and Warren, D. M. (eds.), Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
Prasad, A. S. (1991). Discovery of human zinc deficiency and studies in an experimental
human model. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 53:403– 412.
Priya, V.P.; Celine, V.A.; Gokulapalan, C. and Rajamony, L. (2007) Screening amaranth
genotypes (Amaranthus spp.) for yield and resistance to leaf blight caused by
Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn. Plant Genet Res Newsl 147:1–4
169
Robinson DS (1990). Food biochemistry and nutritional value. Longman scientific and
technical publisher, New York. USA.
Sargent, S. A., Ritenour M. A., Brecht, J. K. and Bartz, J. A., 2007. Handling, Cooling
and Sanitation Techniques for Maintaining Postharvest Quality. Horticultural
Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Pages 97-109. Also available
http//edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS719
Sathawara, N.G., Parikish, D.J. and Agrwal, Y.K. (2004). Essential heavy metals in
environmental samples from western Indian. Bull. Environ. Cont. Toxicol. 73: 756-
761.
Schippers, R.; Maundu, P.; Imbuni, M. and Obiero, H. (2002a). How to grow and Use
Jew’s mallow. Horticultural Development Serv- ices, Baarn, The Netherlands. 10
pp.
Schippers, R.R. (2000) African Indigenous Vegetables. An Overview of the Cultivated
Species. Natural Resources Institute/ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural
and Rural Cooperation, Chatham, UK. 214 pp.
Sena L.P., Vander Jagt, D. J., Rivera, C., Tsin A. T.C., Muhammadu I, Mahammadu O,
Milson M, Pastosyn A, Glew RH (1998). Analysis of Nutritional Components of
eight famine foods of the Republic of Ni- ger. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 52: 17-30
Shei L. (2008). An Evaluation of native West African vegetables. Agriculture and Rural
Development. www.tropentag.de. (Accessed in July, 2009).
Shittu, T.A. &Ogunmoyela, O.A.(2001) „Water blanching treatment and nutrient
retention in some Nigerian green leafy vegetables‟Proceedings: 25th Annual
170
Conference of the Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology, Lagos, 64-
65.
Siemonsma, J.S. and Piluek, Kasem (eds.) (1994): Plant Resources of South-East Asia
(PROSEA). No. 8 Vegetables. Pudoc - DLO, Bogor, Indonesia.
Smith I. F (1985). „Use of Nigerian leafy vegetables for diets modified in sodium and
Potassium‟. Niger. J. Nutr. Sci. 4: 21-27.
Smith, I. F. and Eyzaguirre, P., 2007. African Leafy Vegetables: Their Role in the
WHO‟s Global Fruit and Vegetable Initiative. African Journal of Food Agriculture
Nutrition and Development. Vol.7 (3):1-17.
Sobukola, O.P., Awonorin S.O., Idowu M.A. and Bamiro F.O. (2008). Chemical and
physical hazard profile of „robo‟ processing – a street vended melon snack.
Inter. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43(2): 237-242
Soetan K. O., C. O. Olaiya and O. E. Oyewole (2010) „The Importance of Mineral
Elements for Humans, Domestic Animals and Plants: A review‟African Journal of
Food Science Vol. 4(5) pp. 200-222, May 2010.
Spore No. 116 Leafy Vegetables. A treasure to be plucked. Available from:
http://spore.cta.int/spore116/spore116_links. asp Accessed 19th October 2005
Steyn NP, Olivier J, Winter P, Burger S, Nesamvuni S (2001) A survey of wild, green,
leafy vegetables and their potential in combating micronutrient deficiencies in rural
populations. S Afr J Sci 97: 276- 279
Stuart, T. 2009. Waste – uncovering the global food scandal. Penguin Books: London,
ISBN: 978-0-141-03634-2
Sudheer, K.P. and Indiira. (2007). Postharvest technology of horticultural crops: Vol.07.
171
Horticulture Science Series. Forwarded by Dr. Nawab Ali.
Swaider, J., Ware G.W. and Mccollum, J. P. (1992). Producing vegetables crops first
edition interstate publishers Inc Danville –USA pg 171 – 196.
Terra, G.J.A. (1966): Tropical Vegetables. Vegetable growing in the tropics and
subtropics especially of indigenous vegetables. Netherlands Organization for
International Assistance, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Thompson, H. C. and Kelly, W.C. (1990).Vegetable Crops.5th Ed. New Delhi: Mac
Graw Hill Publishing Company Ltd.
Tripp, R. 1997. The Institutional conditions for seed enterprise development. Overseas
Development Institute Working Paper 105
USDA (2003). USDA Nutrient Database for standard reference Release16. US.
Department of Agriculture. Agric. Res. Service, Nutrient Data Laboratory,
Beltsville Md, USA. www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp. Witt S.C. (1995). Brief
book: Biotechnology and genet i c diversit y. California Agric. Lands Project,
San Fracisco, USA.
Van Averbeke, W. and Juma, K.A. (2006a). The cultivation of Solanum retroflexum
Dun. in Vhembe, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Proc. Int. Symp. on the
Nutritional Value and Water Use of Indigenous Crops for Improved Livelihoods.
19-20 September 2006, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. The Centre for Nutrition,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Van Le, B.; Do My, N. T.; Jeanneau, M.; Sadik, S.; Tu, S.; Vidal, J. and Traˆn Thanh
Vaˆn, K. (1998) Rapid plant regeneration of a C4 dicot species: Amaranthus edulis.
Plant Sci 132(1):45–54. Doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(97)00262-8.
172
Velioglu, Y. S., Mazza, G., Gao, L. and Oomah, B. D. (1998). Antioxidant activity
and total phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables, and grain products. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 46, 4113-4117.
Vorster H. J, Jansen Van Rensburg W. S., Venter S. L. And Van Zijl J. J. L. (2005) Re-
creating awareness of traditional leafy vegetables in communities. Regional
workshop on African Leafy Vegetables for improved nutrition. Paper presented at
Regional Workshop on African Leafy Vegetables for Improved Nutrition, 6-9
December 2005, IPGRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
Vorster H. J., Jansen Van Rensburg W. S., Van Zijl J. J. B. And Van Den Heever E.
(2002).Germplasm Management of African Leafy Vegetables for the Nutritional
and Food Security Needs of Vulnerable Groups in South Africa. Progress Report.
Arc-Vopi, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 Pp.
Weaver, William Woys (2003): Vegetables. in: Katz, Solomon H. & Weaver, William W.
(eds.): Encyclopaedia of Food and Culture. Volume 3. Charles Scribner's Sons, New
York, USA.
Weigert P (1991). Metal loads of food of vegetable origin including mushrooms. In:
Merian E, ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence,
Analysis and Biological Relevance. Wein- heim: VCH, 458-68.
Whelton P. K., Appel L. J., Espeland M. A., Applegate W. B. and Ettinger W. H. J.
(1997) „Effects of oral potassium on blood pressure‟ Journal of the American
medical Association 277: 1624-1632
WHO (1992). Cadmium, Environmental Health Criteria, Geneva. Vol.134.
WHO (1995). Lead. Environmental Health Criteria, Geneva, vol. 165.
173
WHO (1996). Copper. In: Trace elements in human nutrition and health. Geneva, World
Health Organization, chapter 7, pp 123-143.
WHO (2011). Manganese in Drinking-water Background document for development of
WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva, World Health Organization,
pp. 34–36.
WHO and FAO (2004) Vitamin and mineral requirements in human nutrition. Second
edition. World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations 2004.
Zaidi, M.I., Asrar, A., Mansoor, A. and Farooqui, M.A. (2005). The heavy metal
concentrations along roadsides trees of Quetta and its effects on public health. J.
Appl. Sci. 5(4): 708-711
Zakaria, Z.A., M.N. Somchit, H. Zaiton, A.M. Mat Jais and M.R. Sulaiman (2006). The
in vitro antibacterial activity of Corchorus olitorius extracts. Int. J. Pharmacol.,2:
213-215
174
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES FACULTY
OF AGRICULTURE
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information on indigenous leafy
vegetables used for food in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Information provided would be
treated confidentially.
PRODUCERS
PART I
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT
1. Gender of respondent a) Male b) Female
2. Age of Respondent a) Below 20 years b) 20- 30 years c) 31-40 years d) 41-50 years e) More than 50 years
3. Marital Status a) Single b) Married c) Divorced d) Widowed
4. Level of Education a) Basic b) JHS/MSLC c)SHS d) Tertiary e) No Formal Education
5. Which region do you come from? a) South West b) South East
c) Northern d) Central
175
PART II GENERAL INFORMATION ON FARMING OF INDIGENOUS VEGETABLES 6. Do you grow both exotic and indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Yes b) No 7. Which of the two groups of vegetables is the main crop you cultivate? a) Exotic b) Indigenous 8. What types of exotic leafy vegetables do you cultivate?
a) Spring Onion b) Lettuce c) Cabbage d) Other Specify……………………………………….. 9. Which indigenous leafy vegetables do you cultivate? a) Amaranthus b) Cochorus c) Other Specify………………………………………………………………….
10. Why cultivate those indigenous leafy vegetables? a) High demand for it b) Easy to cultivate c) Profitable d) Crop grows faster e) Other Specify……………………
11 How long have you been cultivating these indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Less than 1 year b) 1-5 years c) 6-10 years d) 11-15 years
e) 15 -20 years f) More than 20 years
12. Area and production during the last season
Vegetable Type Area of Production % % Income production generated (Quantity) sold Consumed 1. Amaranthus
2. Cochorus
176
13. Where do you acquire your planting materials from? a) Farmer-saved seeds b) Approved seed store c) Open Market
) Other farmers e) Others Specify ………………………………………….
14. If farmer-saved seeds, how long have the seeds being kept a) 1-3 weeks b) 1 - 2 months c) 3 - 4 months d) 5 months e) More than 5 months
15. How store farmer-saved seeds? ………………….
16. When do you cultivate your indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Rainy season b) Dry Season c) Both
17. If you do during dry season, do you irrigate your farm? a) Yes b) No
18. If yes, what is the source of water for irrigation? a) Well b) Bore-hole c) Pipe-borne water d) River
19. If no, what do you do during the dry season?......
20. What time do you harvest your produce? a) Morning b) Mid-morning c) Afternoon d) Evening e) Late evening
21. Why do you harvest at that time? a) Convenient b) Market available c) Other Specify………………………
22. Which months do you usually harvest indigenous leafy vegetables?......
177
23. Which months do you have bumper harvests?......
24. Which months do you generate much revenue? ......
25. What method is used in harvesting edible part of plant?
a) Plucking b) Pulling c) Cutting d) Other
Specify………………………………………………………
PART III
POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF THE VEGETABLES
26.. Do you pre-cool the produce after harvest? a) Yes b) No
27. How do you pre-cool the leafy vegetable after harvest? a) Place them under shade b) Sprinkle water on it c) Other
28. Do you sort the leafy vegetables after harvest? a) Yes b) No
29. If yes, on what basis do you sort the indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Size b) Colour c) Shape c) Other
30 Do you package your indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Yes b) No
31. What packaging materials are used? a) Basket b) Nyl on sack c) Other
32. Do you sell your indigenous leafy vegetables to other people?
178 a) Yes b) No
33. If yes, who do you sell your indigenous vegetables to? a) Wholesalers b) Retailers c) Consumers
34. Where do you sell your indigenous leafy vegetables? a) On farm b) Market c) Other
35. If market, mode of transportation of produce? a) Carry on the head b) Bicycle c) Tricycle d) Push cart e) Motorized tricycle f) Truck
36. What time are the leafy vegetables transported? a) Morning b) Afternoon c) Evening
37. Do you lose some of the vegetables during transportation?
a) Yes b) No
38. If yes, what percentage of the leafy vegetables are lost during transportation?
a) 1/10 b) 2/10 c) 3/10 d) 4/10 e) 5/10
f) More than 5/10
39. How do you keep unsold produce? a) Store b) Throw away c) Manure d) Consume at home e) Other Specify……………………………
40. If you store, how do you store the vegetables while waiting for market?
a) Under shade b) In the sun c) Other
179
Specify……………………
41. How long do you keep the produce before selling them?
a) 1 day b) 2 days c) 4- 5 days d) 1 week e) More than 1 week
42. Do you face postharvest problems during production of your leafy indigenous vegetables? a) Yes b) No
43. What postharvest problems do you face? a) Storage b) Transportation c) Packaging d) Handling
44. If yes, what percentage of the vegetables is lost to storage problem? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
45. What percentage is lost to transportation problem? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
46. What percentage is lost to handling? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
47. How do you prevent these postharvest problems?
………………………………………….
180
48. Do you have pest and disease problem? a) Yes b) No
49. If yes, do you use chemical or organic manure? a) Yes b) No
50. If yes, where do you acquire those inputs? a) Agro-chemical shop b) Open market c) Other farmers d) Other
51. How much do you sell your leafy vegetables?
a) 50 pesewas per bunch b) 1 cedis per bunch c) 1 cedis for 3 bundles
d) Other Specify………………………………………………
52. On what basis do you price your leafy vegetables? a) Negotiations b) Weight c) Per bunch d) Per sack e) Other
52. Is it profitable to cultivate indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Yes b) No
53. If yes, why is it profitable? ……………………………………………..
54. If no, why is it not profitable?
55. Do you have any training and knowledge on Good Agricultural Practices?
a) Yes b) No
56. If yes, where did you get your training from?
a) MOFA b) NGO‟s c) Family d) Other
57. What challenges do you face as a farmer?
181
WHOLESALERS
PART I
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT 1. Gender of respondent a) Male b) Female 2. Age of Respondent a) Below 20 years b) 20- 30 years c) 31-40 years d) 41-50 years e) More than 50 years 3. Marital Status a) Single b) Married c) Divorced d) Widowed 4. Level of Education a) Basic b) JHS/MSLC c)SHS d) Tertiary e) No Formal Education 5. Which part of the region do you come from? a) South East b) South West c) Northern d) Central
PART II GENERAL INFORMATION ON TRADING
6. Do you trade in both exotic and indigenous vegetables? a) Yes b) No
7. What indigenous vegetable do you trade in? a) Amaranthus b) Cochorus c) Other Specify………………………………………………………………………………….. 8. What exotic vegetables do you trade in? a) Spring Onion b) Lettuce c) Cabbage
d)Other Specify…………………………………………………………
9. Which of the two groups of vegetables is the main crop you trade in?
Exotic b) Indigenous 10.Who do you buy your indigenous vegetables from?
182
a) Farmers b) Own farm c) Other wholesalers
PART III POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF VEGETABLES 10. Where do you buy your indigenous vegetables from? a) Farm gate b) Market 11. If from farm gate, mode of transportation of produce? a) Carry on the head b) Bicycle c) Tricycle d) Motorized tricycle e) Taxi cabs f) Mini Vans (Trotro) 12. Do you lose some of the vegetables during transportation? a) Yes b) No 13. What is the nature of the lose? A) Torn b)Crushed c) Shrank d) Other Specify………………………………… 14. If yes, what percentage of the leafy vegetables are lost during transportation?
a) 1/10 b) 2/10 c) 3/10 d) 4/10 e) 5/10
f) More than 5/10 15. Do you sort your produce before selling to buyers? a) Yes b) No 16. If yes, why do you sort? ………………………………………………………………………. 17. If you sort are you able to sell those of poor quality? a) Yes b) No 18. If yes, how much do you sell them? 19. If no, what do you do with the produce? a) Consume at home b) Throw away c) Other Specify………………………………………………………………. 19. Do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) Yes b) No
20. If yes, for how long?
a) 1 day b) 2 days c) 3 days d) 4 days e) 5 days
f) 6 days g) 7 days h) More than 7 days
183
21. Where do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) At the market place b) At home c) Other Specify…………………
22. How do you package the leafy vegetable before storage? a) In Basket b) In woven Nylon c) Trays with water d) Basins with water e) Other Specify………………………………….
23. What do you do before packaging the leafy vegetables? a) Sprinkle water on it b) Dip it into water c) Do not do anything d) Other Specify……………………………………………………………….
24. How do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) On the floor b) Refrigerate c) In In vehicles
d) Raised platform/Table e) Other Specify……………………………
25. Under what conditions are the produce stored?
a) Ventilated places b) Non-ventilated places
26. Do you process the vegetables before storage?
a) Yes b) No c) Sometimes
27. If yes, when do you process the leafy vegetables?
a) Left over b) Part of it c) Demanded of customers
d) Other Specify…………………………..
28. What processing methods are used?
184 a) Remove leaves, cut and dry b) Remove leaves and cut
c) Remove leaves, cut and wash d) Other Specify ……………………
29. Do you face storage and handling problems? a) Yes b) No
30. If yes, what storage and handling problem do you face?......
31. If yes, what percentage of the vegetables is lost to storage problem? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
32. What percentage is lost to handling? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
33. How do you prevent these postharvest problems? ………………………………………..
34. How much do you buy the indigenous leafy vegetables?
35. How much do you sell the indigenous leafy vegetables?
36. Is selling indigenous vegetables profitable? a)Yes b) No
37.If yes, why is it profitable? a) There is demand for it b) Other
Specify………………………………………………………………………………..
38. If no, why is it not profitable? ......
39. How do you sell your leafy vegetables? a) Fresh b) Dry c) Both
35. If yes, why do you dry your indigenous leafy vegetables?
185
36. What quantity do you dry? 37. What challenges do you face as a wholesaler?
RETAILERS
PART I
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT
1. Sex of respondent a) Male b) Female
2. Age of Respondent a) Below 20 years b) 20- 30 years
c) 31-40 years d) 41-50 years e) More than 50 years
3. Marital Status a) Single b) Married c) Divorced
d) Widowed
4. Level of Education a) Basic b) JHS/MSLC c)SHS
d) Tertiary No Formal Education
5. Which region do you come from? a) South East b) South West c) Northern d) Central
186
PART 11
GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARKETING OF VEGETABLES
6. Do you trade in both exotic and indigenous vegetables? a) Yes b) No
7. What indigenous vegetable do you trade in? a) Amaranthus b) Cochorus c) Other Specify………………………………………………………………………………….. 8. What exotic vegetables do you trade in? b) Spring Onion b) Lettuce c) Cabbage
d) Other Specify…………………………………………………………
9. Which of the two groups of vegetables is the main crop you trade in?
a) Exotic b) Indigenous
10. Where do you get your indigenous vegetables from? a) Farmers b) Wholesalers c) Other Retailers
11. Do you transport your produce? a) Yes b) No 12. If from farm gate, mode of transportation of produce? a) Carry on the head b) Bicycle c) Tricycle d) Motorized tricycle e) Taxi cabs f) Open trucks 13. Do you lose some of the vegetables during transportation? a) Yes b) No 14. If yes, what percentage of the leafy vegetables are lost during transportation?
a) 1/10 b) 2/10 c) 3/10 d) 4/10 e) 5/10
f) More than 5/10 15. Do you sort your produce before selling to buyers? a) Yes b) No
187
16. If yes, why do you sort? a) Remove damaged vegetables b)Other Specify……………………………………………………………. 16. If you sort are you able to sell those of poor quality? a) Yes b) No 17. If yes, how much do you sell them? ………………………………………. 18. If no, what do you do with the produce? a) Consume at home b) Throw away c) Other Specify……………………………………………………….
19. Do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) Yes b) No 20. If yes, why do you store the leafy vegetables? a) For next market b) It was not bought c) Other Specify…………………
21. How long do you store?
a) 1 day b) 2 days c) 3 days d) 4 days e) 5 days
f) 6 days g) 7 days h) More than 7 days
22. Where do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) At the market place b) At home c) Other
23. How do you package the leafy vegetable before storage?
a) In Basket b) In woven Nylon c) Trays with water
d) Basins with water e) Other Specify………………………………….
24. What do you do before packaging the leafy vegetables?
a) Sprinkle water on it b) Dip it into water c) Do not do anything d) Other Specify…………………………………
188
25. How do you store the leafy vegetables?
a) On the floor b) Refrigerate c) In vehicles
d) Raised platform/Table e) Other Specify…………………
26. Do you process the vegetables before storage? a) Yes b) No
28. What processing methods are used? a) Remove leaves, cut and dry b) Remove leaves and cut
c) Remove leaves, cut and wash d) Other Specify ………
26. Do you face storage and handling problems? a) Yes b) No
27. What handling and storage problem do you face?
28. If yes, what percentage of the vegetables is lost to storage problem? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
29. What percentage is lost to handling? a) Less 1/10 b) 1/10 c) 2/10 d) 3/10 e) 4/10 f) 5/10 g) More than 5/10
30. How do you prevent these postharvest problems? ……………………………………. 31. Is selling indigenous vegetables profitable? a)Yes b) No
32. If yes, why is it profitable? a) There is demand for the produce b) other
33. If no, why is it not profitable? ……………………………………………………….. 34. How much do you sell the leafy vegetables? 34. What challenges do you face as a Retailer?
189
CONSUMERS
PART I
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT 1. Sex of respondent a) Male b) Female 2. Age of Respondent a) Below 20 years b) 20- 30 years c) 31-40 years d) 41-50 years e) More than 50 years 3. Marital Status a) Single b) Married c) Divorced d) Widowed 3. Level of Education a) Basic b) JHS/MSLC c)SHS d) Tertiary e) No Formal Education 5. Which region do you come from? a) South East b)South West c) Northern d) Central 3. Do you buy exotic leafy vegetables? a) Yes b) No 4. What percentage of exotic vegetables do you buy?…………………………………… 5. Do you buy indigenous leafy vegetables? a)Yes b) No 10. What percentage of indigenous vegetables do you buy? 11. Does anybody else in your family buy indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Yes b) No 12. If yes, what do you buy the indigenous leafy vegetables for? a) Consume it b) For medicine c) Other 13. Which indigenous vegetable do you normally buy? Tick more than one where appropriate a) Amaranthus b) Cochorus c) Other Specify………… 14. Why do you consume indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Nutritious b) Inexpensive c) Healthy d) Other Specify…………………………………………………. 15. What proportion of your income is used to purchase the indigenous vegetables per week? a) Less than 1% b) 1% -5% c) 6% -10% d) 11%-15%
190 d) More than 15% 16. In what form do you normally buy your indigenous leafy vegetables? a) Dried b) Fresh
17. What quantity of dried indigenous vegetable do you purchase per week?...... 18. What quantity of fresh indigenous vegetable do you purchase per week? …………………….. 19. How much do you pay for the fresh indigenous vegetables?......
20. How much do you pay for the dried indigenous vegetables? ……………………………… 20. Who do you buy your indigenous vegetables from? a) Farmers b) Wholesalers c) Retailers 21. What quality parameter do you look out for when purchasing indigenous vegetables? Rank these quality parameters. a) Colour b) Size
c) Price d) Freshness
e. Food safety (Tick more than one where appropriate) 22. Do you sort your leafy vegetables when you purchase it? a) Yes b) No 23. If yes why sort? a) Remove damaged leaves b) Other Specify……… 24. How do you keep your indigenous vegetable when you purchase it? a) Store it b) Do not store it 25. If you do not store, why? a) Consume immediately b) Other Specify………………… 26. If you store, how do you store the produce? a) Under ambient temperature b) Refrigerate
191
27. What processing methods do you use? a) Minimal Processing (i) Removal of leaves (ii) Chopping/Slicing/Cutting (ii) Grinding b) Major processing (i) Drying (ii) Boiling/Cooking 28. What challenges do you face as a consumer of indigenous leafy vegetables? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………
192
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PRODUCER 1. COST PER ACRE Cultural Practices = GH₵100.00 Feeding of labourers GH₵12/day x 30 days = GH₵360.00 Land Preparation = GH₵100.00 Agrochemicals = GH₵200.00 Purchasing of Seeds = GH₵50.00 Fuel for water pumps = GH₵100.00 TOTAL GH₵910.00 2. REVENUE PER ACRE Number of beds per acre (15 beds/plot x4) = GH₵60.00 Selling price of bed = GH₵50.00 Total Revenue/acre (50x60) = GH₵3,000.00 PROFIT = GH₵3,000.00 - GH₵910.00 GH₵2,090.00/42 days = GH₵49.76 TRADER Headloads/bed = 1 Number of bunches/ headloads =40 Number of beds/acre =90 Number of bundle/acre (90x40) =3600bunches Selling price of a bundle at farm gate = GH₵0.50 Cost price/ acre (0.50x3600) A = GH₵1800.00 Selling price of a bundle at market place = GH₵1.00 Cost price/acre (1x3600) = GH₵3,600.00 Transportation GH₵30.00/trip (30x9) B = GH₵270.00 Total cost (A+B) = GH₵2,070.00 PROFIT = GH₵3600.00 - GH₵2070.00 = GH₵1530.00/3 days = GH₵510.00
193
APPENDIX B
Completely Randomized AOV for Fat
Source DF SS MS F P
TRT 2 14.0000 7.00000 20.59 0.0021
Error 6 2.0400 0.34000
Total 8 16.0400
Grand Mean 5.1667 CV 11.29
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.92 0.0815
O'Brien's Test 1.74 0.2532
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.18 0.1146
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
TRT 2.0 257.79 0.0001
Error 3.6
Component of variance for between groups 2.22000
Effective cell size 3.0
TRT Mean
A1 5.5000
A2 6.5000
AM 3.5000
Observations per Mean 3
194
Standard Error of a Mean 0.3367
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4761
Completely Randomized AOV for Fat
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 11.0625 3.68750 7.30 0.0112
Error 8 4.0400 0.50500
Total 11 15.1025
Grand Mean 4.6250 CV 15.37
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.61 0.1233
O'Brien's Test 1.16 0.3826
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.14 0.1735
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 86.80 0.0004
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 1.06083
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 5.0000
C2 6.0000
CA1 4.0000
CA2 3.5000
195
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4103
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.5802
Completely Randomized AOV for WL
Source DF SS MS F P var 3 218.688 72.8959 9.15 0.0058
Error 8 63.738 7.9673
Total 11 282.426
Grand Mean 31.440 CV 8.98
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.16 0.0856
O'Brien's Test 1.41 0.3103
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.32 0.3331
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P var 3.0 14.39 0.0122
Error 4.1
Component of variance for between groups 21.6429
Effective cell size 3.0 var Mean
C1 27.292
C2 28.167
CA1 38.103
196
CA2 32.197
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 1.6297
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 2.3047
Completely Randomized AOV for WL
Source DF SS MS F P var 2 1227.63 613.817 41.29 0.0003
Error 6 89.20 14.866
Total 8 1316.83
Grand Mean 19.869 CV 19.41
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 0.74 0.5156
O'Brien's Test 0.33 0.7315
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.06 0.9427
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P var 2.0 31.19 0.0044
Error 3.8
Component of variance for between groups 199.650
Effective cell size 3.0 var Mean
A1 10.551
A2 12.718
197
AM 36.338
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 2.2261
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 3.1482
Completely Randomized AOV for MAG
Source DF SS MS F P
TRT 3 0.33720 0.11240 0.45 0.7274
Error 8 2.02040 0.25255
Total 11 2.35760
Grand Mean 1.1100 CV 45.27
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.97 0.0527
O'Brien's Test 1.77 0.2312
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.68 0.0625
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
TRT 3.0 3.31 0.1389
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups -0.04672
Effective cell size 3.0
TRT Mean
C1 0.9800
C2 1.3800
198
CA1 0.9600
CA2 1.1200
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2901
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4103
Completely Randomized AOV for MAG
Source DF SS MS F P
TRT 2 1.94940 0.97470 2.89 0.1318
Error 6 2.02020 0.33670
Total 8 3.96960
Grand Mean 2.1200 CV 27.37
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.96 0.0801
O'Brien's Test 1.76 0.2504
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.56 0.0956
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
TRT 2.0 13.70 0.0388
Error 2.7
Component of variance for between groups 0.21267
Effective cell size 3.0
199
TRT Mean
A1 1.9700
A2 1.6400
AM 2.7500
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.3350
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4738
Completely Randomized AOV for MC
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 2126.25 708.750 25.69 0.0002
Error 8 220.67 27.583
Total 11 2346.92
Grand Mean 56.417 CV 9.31
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.72 0.0608
O'Brien's Test 1.66 0.2526
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.88 0.1030
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error M
200
Component of variance for between groups 227.056
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 68.667
C2 70.000
CA1 48.000
CA2 39.000
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 3.0322
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 4.2882
Completely Randomized AOV for MC
Source DF SS MS F P
TRT 2 13.0058 6.50290 11.94 0.0081
Error 6 3.2686 0.54477
Total 8 16.2744
Grand Mean 75.803 CV 0.97
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.75 0.1419
O'Brien's Test 1.22 0.3585
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.61 0.5721
201
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
TRT 2.0 26.73 0.0172
Error 2.7
Component of variance for between groups 1.98604
Effective cell size 3.0
TRT Mean
A1 76.380
A2 76.900
AM 74.130
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4261
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.6026
Analysis of Variance Table for WL
Source DF SS MS F P rep 2 340.87 170.43 days 3 1884.66 628.22 69.09 0.0000 var 2 4910.53 2455.27 270.04 0.0000 days*var 6 404.75 67.46 7.42 0.0002
Error 22 200.03 9.09
Total 35 7740.84
202
Grand Mean 19.869 CV 15.18
Analysis of Variance Table for WL
Source DF SS MS F P rep 2 112.1 56.05 days 3 9677.1 3225.70 260.24 0.0000 var 3 874.8 291.58 23.52 0.0000 days*var 9 167.2 18.58 1.50 0.1936
Error 30 371.9 12.40
Total 47 11203.0
Grand Mean 31.440 CV 11.20
Completely Randomized AOV for ASH
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 30.5700 10.1900 20.18 0.0004
Error 8 4.0400 0.5050
Total 11 34.6100
Grand Mean 14.550 CV 4.88
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.61 0.1233
O'Brien's Test 1.16 0.3826
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.14 0.1735
203
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 301.12 0.0000
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 3.22833
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 12.400
C2 14.000
CA1 16.800
CA2 15.000
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4103
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.5802
Completely Randomized AOV for C
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 7.6425 2.54750 5.04 0.0299
Error 8 4.0400 0.50500
Total 11 11.6825
Grand Mean 42.725 CV 1.66
204
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.61 0.1233
O'Brien's Test 1.16 0.3826
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.14 0.1735
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 181.78 0.0001
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 0.68083
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 43.800
C2 43.000
CA1 41.600
CA2 42.500
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4103
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.5802
Completely Randomized AOV for K
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 0.08070 0.02690 358.67 0.0000
Error 8 0.00060 0.00008
Total 11 0.08130
205
Grand Mean 1.3350 CV 0.65
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 1.33 0.3300
O'Brien's Test 0.59 0.6371
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.33 0.3300
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 0.00894
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 1.2600
C2 1.3900
CA1 1.4400
CA2 1.2500
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 5.000E-03
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 7.071E-03
206
Completely Randomized AOV for N
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 2.89523 0.96508 12867.7 0.0000
Error 8 0.00060 0.00008
Total 11 2.89583
Grand Mean 4.4675 CV 0.19
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 1.33 0.3300
O'Brien's Test 0.59 0.6371
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.33 0.3300
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 0.32167
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 3.9800
C2 5.2800
CA1 4.3900
CA2 4.2200
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 5.000E-03
207
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 7.071E-03
Completely Randomized AOV for P
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 0.04470 0.01490 2.95 0.0983
Error 8 0.04040 0.00505
Total 11 0.08510
Grand Mean 0.7750 CV 9.17
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.61 0.1233
O'Brien's Test 1.16 0.3826
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.14 0.1735
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 1.52 0.3383
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 0.00328
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 0.7000
C2 0.8700
CA1 0.7700
CA2 0.7600
Observations per Mean 3
208
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0410
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0580
Completely Randomized AOV for Rep
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 1.0000
Error 8 8.00000 1.00000
Total 11 8.00000
Grand Mean 2.0000 CV 50.00
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 0.00 1.0000
O'Brien's Test 0.00 1.0000
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.00 1.0000
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 0.00 1.0000
Error 4.4
Component of variance for between groups -0.33333
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 2.0000
C2 2.0000
CA1 2.0000
CA2 2.0000
209
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.5774
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.8165
Completely Randomized AOV for Cd
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 2.40000 0.80000 3.14 0.0871
Error 8 2.04000 0.25500
Total 11 4.44000
Grand Mean 3.8000 CV 13.29
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.95 0.0535
O'Brien's Test 1.75 0.2334
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.45 0.0716
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 0.18167
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 3.6000
C2 3.2000
CA1 4.4000
210
CA2 4.0000
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2915
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4123
Completely Randomized AOV for Cu
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 0.78720 0.26240 34.87 0.0001
Error 8 0.06020 0.00753
Total 11 0.84740
Grand Mean 3.3200 CV 2.61
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 1.31 0.3375
O'Brien's Test 0.58 0.6440
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.08 0.4122
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 54.63 0.0023
Error 3.4
Component of variance for between groups 0.08496
Effective cell size 3.0
211
Trt Mean
C1 3.6000
C2 3.5200
CA1 2.9600
CA2 3.2000
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0501
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0708
Completely Randomized AOV for Fe
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 29474.2 9824.74 38902.1 0.0000
Error 8 2.0 0.25
Total 11 29476.2
Grand Mean 80.520 CV 0.62
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.97 0.0527
O'Brien's Test 1.77 0.2312
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.68 0.0625
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 1937431 0.0000
Error 4.0
212
Component of variance for between groups 3274.83
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 41.60
C2 49.28
CA1 164.96
CA2 66.24
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2901
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4103
Completely Randomized AOV for Mn
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 38.0676 12.6892 50.75 0.0000
Error 8 2.0004 0.2501
Total 11 40.0680
Grand Mean 6.1700 CV 8.10
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 4.00 0.0519
O'Brien's Test 1.78 0.2291
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.95 0.0535
Welch's Test for Mean Differences Source DF F P Trt 3.0 M 0.0000 Error M
213
Component of variance for between groups 4.14638
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 3.8800
C2 5.0400
CA1 8.2800
CA2 7.4800
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2887
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4083
Completely Randomized AOV for Pb
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 1.58483 0.52828 2.09 0.1797
Error 8 2.02020 0.25253
Total 11 3.60503
Grand Mean 1.5475 CV 32.47
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.97 0.0527
O'Brien's Test 1.77 0.2312
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.71 0.0614
214
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 0.09192
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 1.7500
C2 2.0400
CA1 1.1600
CA2 1.2400
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2901
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4103
Completely Randomized AOV for Zn
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 3 105.581 35.1936 140.75 0.0000
Error 8 2.000 0.2501
Total 11 107.581
Grand Mean 13.640 CV 3.67
215
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 4.00 0.0519
O'Brien's Test 1.78 0.2291
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.95 0.0535
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 3.0 M 0.0000
Error m M
Component of variance for between groups 11.6478
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
C1 10.560
C2 10.880
CA1 17.280
CA2 15.840
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.2887
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4083
216
Completely Randomized AOV for ASH
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 0.24000 0.12000 0.18 0.8403
Error 6 4.02000 0.67000
Total 8 4.26000
Grand Mean 21.800 CV 3.75
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 1.96 0.2213
O'Brien's Test 0.87 0.4654
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.61 0.2752
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 0.24 0.8040
Error 2.7
Component of variance for between groups -0.18333
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 22.000
A2 21.800
AM 21.600
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4726
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.6683
217
Completely Randomized AOV for C
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 0.060 0.0300 0.00 0.9991
Error 6 200.040 33.3400
Total 8 200.100
Grand Mean 39.100 CV 14.77
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 4.00 0.0787
O'Brien's Test 1.78 0.2476
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.92 0.0815
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 0.63 0.5824
Error 3.6
Component of variance for between groups -11.1033
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 39.000
A2 39.100
AM 39.200
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 3.3337
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 4.7145
218
Completely Randomized AOV for K
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 3.00240 1.50120 4.50 0.0639
Error 6 2.00020 0.33337
Total 8 5.00260
Grand Mean 2.0900 CV 27.63
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 4.00 0.0787
O'Brien's Test 1.78 0.2476
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.96 0.0801
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 0.38928
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 2.2700
A2 2.6900
AM 1.3100
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.3333
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.4714
219
Completely Randomized AOV for N
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 0.84620 0.42310 4231.00 0.0000
Error 6 0.00060 0.00010
Total 8 0.84680
Grand Mean 4.9167 CV 0.20
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 0.00 1.0000
O'Brien's Test 0.00 1.0000
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.00 1.0000
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 36 26.57 0.0000
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 0.14100
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 4.9400
A2 4.5300
AM 5.2800
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 5.774E-03
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 8.165E-03
220
Completely Randomized AOV for P
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 0.01140 0.00570 1.58 0.2804
Error 6 0.02160 0.00360
Total 8 0.03300
Grand Mean 0.7700 CV 7.79
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.68 0.0906
O'Brien's Test 1.64 0.2711
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.45 0.1670
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 0.91 0.4910
Error 3.0
Component of variance for between groups 7.000E-04
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 0.7900
A2 0.8000
AM 0.7200
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0346
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0490
221
Completely Randomized AOV for Cd
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 18.2400 9.12000 13.61 0.0059
Error 6 4.0200 0.67000
Total 8 22.2600
Grand Mean 2.8000 CV 29.23
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 1.96 0.2213
O'Brien's Test 0.87 0.4654
Brown and Forsythe Test 1.61 0.2752
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 12.38 0.0431
Error 2.7
Component of variance for between groups 2.81667
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 1.6000
A2 2.0000
AM 4.8000
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.4726
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.6683
222
Completely Randomized AOV for Cu
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 7.90080 3.95040 39504.0 0.0000
Error 6 0.00060 0.00010
Total 8 7.90140
Grand Mean 2.2000 CV 0.45
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 0.00 1.0000
O'Brien's Test 0.00 1.0000
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.00 1.0000
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 33860.6 0.0000
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 1.31677
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 0.8800
A2 2.7600
AM 2.9600
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 5.774E-03
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 8.165E-03
223
Completely Randomized AOV for Fe
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 20640.4 10320.2 1548032 0.0000
Error 6 0.04000 0.00667
Total 8 20640.5
Grand Mean 96.387 CV 0.08
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 2.00 0.2160
O'Brien's Test 0.89 0.4591
Brown and Forsythe Test 2.00 0.2160
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 3440.07
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 70.56
A2 55.08
AM 163.52
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0471
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0667
224
Completely Randomized AOV for Mn
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 21.4688 10.7344 3188.44 0.0000
Error 6 0.0202 0.0034
Total 8 21.4890
Grand Mean 6.8933 CV 0.84
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.96 0.0801
O'Brien's Test 1.76 0.2503
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.60 0.0937
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 M 0.0000
Error M
Component of variance for between groups 3.57701
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 7.4000
A2 4.8000
AM 8.4800
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0335
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0474
225
Completely Randomized AOV for Pb
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 2.29220 1.14610 337.09 0.0000
Error 6 0.02040 0.00340
Total 8 2.31260
Grand Mean 1.8233 CV 3.20
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 3.92 0.0815
O'Brien's Test 1.74 0.2532
Brown and Forsythe Test 3.18 0.1146
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 700 6.92 0.0000
Error 3.6
Component of variance for between groups 0.38090
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 2.2000
A2 2.1600
AM 1.1100
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0337
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0476
226
Completely Randomized AOV for Zn
Source DF SS MS F P
Trt 2 104.931 52.4656 5246.56 0.0000
Error 6 0.060 0.0100
Total 8 104.991
Grand Mean 22.547 CV 0.44
Homogeneity of Variances F P
Levene's Test 0.00 1.0000
O'Brien's Test 0.00 1.0000
Brown and Forsythe Test 0.00 1.0000
Welch's Test for Mean Differences
Source DF F P
Trt 2.0 449 7.05 0.0000
Error 4.0
Component of variance for between groups 17.4852
Effective cell size 3.0
Trt Mean
A1 22.400
A2 26.800
AM 18.440
Observations per Mean 3
Standard Error of a Mean 0.0577
Std Error (Diff of 2 Means) 0.0816
227