Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in ......seed yield of 18, 21 and 29 qt/ha...

Opportunities and constraints of groundnut

production in selected drylands of Ethiopia

Alemayehu Chala, Berhanu Abate, Mulugeta Taye, Abdi Mohammed,

Tameru Alemu and Helge Skinnes

March 2014

DCG Report No. 74

Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production

i

Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in

selected drylands of Ethiopia

Alemayehu Chala

1, Berhanu Abate

2, Mulugeta Taye

3, Abdi

Mohammed4, Tameru Alemu

5 and Helge Skinnes

6

DCG Report No.74

March 2014

1 College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia





6 Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

Drylands Coordination Group

ii

The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical experiences

and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. DCG

facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policy-making institutions. The

DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to

contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and sustainable natural resource

management in the drylands of Africa.

The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid,

Norwegian People's Aid, Strømme Foundation and The Development Fund. The secretariat of DCG is

located at the Environmental House (Miljøhuset Mariboes gate 8) in Oslo and acts as a facilitating and

implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian Agency

for Development Cooperation).

Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG secretariat.

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author

and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.

© By Alemayehu Chala, Berhanu Abate, Mulugeta Taye, Abdi Mohammed, Tameru Alemu and

Helge Skinnes

Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 74, (March, 2014).

Drylands Coordination Group c/o Miljøhuset

Mariboes gate 8

N-0183 Oslo

Norway

Tel.: +47 23 10 94 10

Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org

ISSN: 1503-0601

Photo credits: cover: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg.

Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås.

Printed at: Mail Boxes ETC., Oslo


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. V

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1. General objective ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2. Specific objectives................................................................................................................................ 3

2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1. BASE LINE SURVEY ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Prospects and constraints of groundnut production in eastern and southern Ethiopia ...................... 4 2.1.2. Description of survey districts ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.3. Disease Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.4. Sample collection ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.5. Fungal isolation ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.6. Species identification ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.7. Frequency of seed contamination ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.8. Mycotoxin analysis .............................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.9. Data analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. VARIETY EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................. 6

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.1. BASELINE SURVEY .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.1. Prospects and constraints of groundnut production ............................................................................ 8 3.1.2. Disease Survey ................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2. VARIETY EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.1. Adaptability and yield performance of groundnut varieties in southern Ethiopia ............................ 18 3.2.2. Natural occurrence of aflatoxin in 14 groundnut varieties grown in South Ethiopia ....................... 21

3.3. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ASPERGILLUS SPP. CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDNUTS IN THE

STUDY AREAS ................................................................................................................................................. 22 3.3.1. Time of planting and harvesting of groundnuts ................................................................................. 23 3.3.2. Drying method of groundnut around the study areas ........................................................................ 23 3.3.3. Traditional groundnut storage system .............................................................................................. 23

4. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 24

4.1. PROSPECTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF GROUNDNUT PRODUCTION.................................................. 24 4.2. VARIETY EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 25

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 26

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 29


iv

LIST OF TABLES

1. Groundnut varieties used for the study…………………………………………………….9

2. Districts, Kebeles and Farmers, where the experiment was conducted……………………9

3. Frequency of Aspergillus and Pencillium species isolated from groundnut seeds

collected from three districts in East Ethiopia………………………………………………..22

4. Combined analysis of variance for seed yield……………………………………………..25

5. Shelled seed yield qt/ha in Dale district…………………………………………………...26

6. Shelled seed yield in qt/ha at Dara district………………………………………………...27

7. Shelled seed yield in qt/ha at Loca-Abaya district………………………………………...28

8. Analysis of variance results for yield across districts……………………………………..28

9. Average shelled seed yields qt/ha across districts…………………………………………29

10. Total aflatoxin concentration in 14 groundnut varieties planted in three districts of

southern Ethiopia….…………………………………………………………………………30

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Aspergillus spp. isolated from groundnut samples………………………………………...20

2. Symptoms of Aspergillus infection on groundnut…………………………………………21

3a. Total aflatoxin concentration from market samples………………………………............24

3b. Total aflatoxin concentration from storage samples……………………………………...25


v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful to Mr. Abiye Alemu for facilitating the project activities including field

visit and backstopping. We also appreciate field visits and valuable comments by Norwegian

University of Life Sciences (UMB) staff mainly Prof. Åsmund Bjørnstad and Dr. Trygve

Berg. We would like to acknowledge the Research and Development Directorate and the

College of Agriculture of Hawassa University (HU) for logistical support. We thank Dr.

Amare Ayalew of Haramaya University for his unreserved help during the toxin analysis in

his laboratory. Alemayehu Getachew, and farmers and development agents of various

districts, where the field works have been conducted played a crucial role from the start to the

end. Finally, we would like to thank development agents, farmers and officials of district

Agricultural Offices, and Hilina Enriched Food Processing and Valseek Nutritional Food

Factories for providing us with valuable information during the survey work.


vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of variance

BoARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development

Cm Centimeter

CSA Central Statistical Agency

CZDA Czapek's Dox Agar

DAP Diamonium Phosphate

DCG Drylands Coordination Group

ELIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

ELISA Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbent Assay

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

FTC Farmers’ Training Center

ha Hectare

HU Hawassa University

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

Kg Kilogram

Km Kilometer

Masl Meters above sea level

µg Microgram

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

PDA Potato Dextrose Agar

PLC Private Limited Company

Ppb Parts per billion

qt quintal

SNNPR Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region

UMB Norwegian University of Life Sciences


vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current project was designed with the overall objective of developing appropriate

packages to promote production of high quality groundnuts in drylands of Ethiopia. To

achieve this, field and laboratory experiments were conducted by the staff of Hawassa

University in collaboration with the staff of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Groundnut production in Ethiopia is found to be constrained by several biotic and abiotic

factors i.e. critical moisture stress especially during flowering and then after, lack of improved

varieties and appropriate production and post harvest practices, and diseases affecting both

above- and underground parts of the plant. The disease problem was quite widespread in

almost all groundnut producing regions and the fungi Aspergillus and associated mycotoxins

were found to be very critical both in terms of occurrence, geographic distribution and

intensity. The mycotoxins are known to pose health risks to consumers.

The field experiments conducted in three districts i.e. Dale, Loca Abaya and Dara of southern

Ethiopia revealed the potential of the region for groundnut production. Nevertheless, the

districts varied significantly in their suitability for groundnut production. Average groundnut

seed yield of 18, 21 and 29 qt/ha were harvested from Dale, Loca Abaya and Dara,

respectively. Any of these yields were higher than the national average, which is estimated to

be 11 qt/ha. Besides, groundnut grains harvested from some fields in Dale were of inferior

quality. The significant quantitative yield variations among the three districts and the lower

quality of grains in Dale suggest the role site selection may play in improving the productivity

and quality of groundnut in Ethiopia. The lower quantitative and qualitative yield from Dale is

associated with high relative humidity in the area, which in turn is linked to high rainfall and

warm conditions coupled with presence of dense vegetation around the groundnut fields in the

area. This predisposes the crop to various diseases including chocolate spot and blights.

Presence of high soil moisture especially after grain formation and during harvesting has also

contributed to higher incidence of Aspergillus and other fungi on the grains.

In terms of disease related problems, the fungi Aspergillus and associated aflatoxins were

proved to be the most critical. Survey and mycological analysis revealed groundnut is affected

by these fungi right in the field and at various levels down the value chain (from harvest to the

market). Grain contamination by these fungi varied from 50% to more than 75% further

revealing variations between locations in terms of disease problems. This was found to be

linked with environmental conditions to larger extent. In addition to Aspergillus, groundnut in

different areas was found to be affected by Penicillium, Chocolate spot and blights. Aflatoxin

contamination of groundnut grains was also found to vary among production regions but the

level exceeds international standards in most instances. In addition, the following farmers’

practices were found to favor groundnut contamination by Aspergillus and aflatoxin:

- Mechanical damages during harvesting and threshing that predispose the grains

to fungal contamination.

- Exchanging of equipment and seeds that harbor the fungi.

- Pods may overstay in the field after optimum maturations.

- Drying and threshing of groundnut on the soil surface.

- Storing the grains in local granaries characterized by poor ventilation, warm

and high relative humidity conditions.


viii

Results of this project revealed the role of improved harvesting and post harvest practices in

improving the quality of groundnut. Avoiding mechanical damage during harvesting, drying

and threshing groundnut on a mat (to avoid contact with the soil) and storing the grains in

well ventilated storage houses that do not allow water percolation were found to play a crucial

role in reducing the infection of groundnuts by Aspergillus fungi and associated mycotoxins.

The significance of each disease or fungus varied among regions depending to a large extent

on environmental factors. So the need for careful selection of planting/production sites with

optimum environmental conditions is an important lesson drawn from the current project.

Furthermore, farmers in some potential areas can improve the quality and quantity of

groundnut by applying different cultural practices, by using improved varieties and some

fungicides.

Farmers in the groundnut producing regions have acquired quite a good knowledge that

enabled them to sustain groundnut production despite unfavorable conditions. Their

knowledge in selecting varieties, seeds for planting and growing sites; and in deciding the

appropriate time of harvesting was found to be quite useful. Our survey work in East Ethiopia

revealed that farmers in this region grow different “varieties” that vary in terms of yield

potential and disease resistance to some extent. Nonetheless, gaps were identified in

harvesting practices and post harvest operations that include drying and storage practices as

explained above.

The current project also revealed the role varieties may play in improving groundnut

production in Ethiopia. Fourteen varieties currently registered in Ethiopia were tested in

different locations for their adaptability, yield potential and disease resistance. The varieties

were found to vary significantly in terms of adaptability to local growing conditions and yield.

Although there were some variations in disease resistance among the varieties, the variations

were not strong enough to declare any of the varieties as resistant to disease causing agents.

So it might be necessary to consider testing varieties not yet registered in Ethiopia and

breeding for disease resistance.


1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an important monoecious annual legume used for

oilseed, food and animal feed all over the world (Pande et al., 2003; Upadhyaya et al., 2006).

It is the main source of food in various forms and used as a component of crop rotation in

many countries (Gbèhounou and Adengo, 2003). Groundnut is grown on 26.4 million ha

worldwide with a total production of 38.2 million metric tons (FAOSTAT, 2010). Developing

countries account for 97% of the world’s groundnut area and 94% of the total production.

Groundnuts have several uses. For people in many developing countries, groundnuts are the

principal source of digestible protein (25 to 34%), cooking oil (44 to 56%), and vitamins like

thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin (Savage and Keenan, 1994). In many countries, groundnut

cake and haulms (straw stems) are used as livestock feed. Groundnut is a high value crop that

can be marketed with little processing; however, it is extremely versatile and can be used in a

wide range of products. Groundnut is used to make oils and it is second largest source of

vegetable oils next to soybeans (Savage and Keenan, 1994). The oil can be used for cooking,

as a base for confectioneries and to make peanut butter. Processed groundnut is used in

diversified ways including groundnut butter which is used as spread for bread or biscuits, in

cookies, sandwiches, candies and frostings or icings. Recently, it is also used as a substitute

for milk in the preparation of "maciyato" during fasting days in Ethiopia. Groundnut is also

used to prepare children’s food (“fafa”) and used daily as roasted “ocholonie” or “Kolo”. It is

a good source of calcium, iron and vitamins. Groundnuts are also a significant source of cash

income in developing countries that contribute significantly to food security and alleviate

poverty (Smart et al., 1994). As a legume, groundnuts improve soil fertility by fixing nitrogen

and thereby increasing productivity of the semiarid cereal cropping systems (Smart, 1994).

FAOSTAT (2010) reveals that, groundnut yield in Africa is lower (980 kg ha-1

) than the

average world groundnut yields. Researchers associate these lower yields to abiotic, biotic

and socio-economic factors (Pande et al., 2003; Upadhyaya et al., 2006; Caliskan et al.,

2008). In warm climates, grains are easily infected with toxigenic microorganisms. The most

known contaminators of groundnuts are aflatoxins, which are metabolic by-products of the

moulds of different Aspergillus species. Aflatoxin is a major problem in many tropical

countries including Ethiopia. The moulds are common saprophytic fungi found in seeds and

soils throughout the major groundnut producing areas of the world (Griffin and Garren, 1974).

Contamination of groundnut with fungi and aflatoxin endangers health of humans and animals

and lowers market value (Abdalla et al., 2005). Humans are primarily exposed to aflatoxins

through dietary intake (Stoloff, 1983). The role of aflatoxins in hepatocarcinogenesis, often in

conjunction with hepatitis B, is well established (Wild and Hall, 1998; IARC, 2002; Wild and

Turner, 2002). There is some evidence for associations with Reye’s syndrome, Kwashiorkor,

and acute hepatitis (Wild and Hall, 1998). More recently, aflatoxin exposure early in life has

been associated with impaired growth and particularly with stunting (Gong et al., 2002).

Hence, aflatoxin contamination is a problem to producers as well as consumers.

The lowland areas of Ethiopia have considerable potential for increased oil crop production

including groundnut. The estimated production area and yield of groundnut in Ethiopia in

2010/2011 cropping season were 49,603 hectares and 716,068 quintals, respectively, and the

largest groundnut production areas are found in Oromiya (32967.8 ha), Benshangul-Gumuz


2

(9968.73 ha), SNNPR (635.04 ha) and in Amhara (344.57 ha) regional states (CSA, 2011).

Somalia and Gambela regional states also produce a considerable amount of groundnuts.

Aflatoxin levels are normally higher in tropical countries where crops, such as corn,

groundnuts, and other nuts and oilseeds are often grown under marginal conditions, and where

drying and storage facilities are limited (Choudary, 1995). Due to warmer and humid climate,

the lowlands of Ethiopia may enhance fungal reproduction and hence contamination of

groundnut with aflatoxins. Moreover, farmers’ practices of production and handling of

groundnut at pre- and post-harvest stages may provide favorable conditions for outbreaks of

fungi and their mycotoxins. Aflatoxin contamination of groundnuts peanuts occurs during

post harvest curing and storage, however, the most significant contamination usually occurs

prior to harvest during periods of late season drought stress as groundnuts are maturing

(Smith et al., 2002).

There are different efforts in other countries meant to identify and tackle the problems of

aflatoxins and fungal contamination of groundnuts. In Ethiopia, however, studies are rare and

adequate research based recommendations are not available with respect to safe consumption

and marketing of groundnuts. One report from Ethiopia showed mean levels of aflatoxin B1 of

34.7 and 105 µg/kg in samples of groundnut and peanut butter, respectively (Besrat and

Gebre, 1981). Such studies have to be further substantiated and more data should be

generated, which can be a benchmark to develop guidelines to reach the maximum limit of

toxins in groundnut and its different products. This will facilitate the consumption and

marketing of groundnuts and in turn contribute to increasing the earnings of farmers in the

country.

The national average yield of groundnut is 11.23 qt/ ha, however, there are 16 improved

varieties released by Melkawerer Agricultural Research Center, which give 12-35 and 32-80

qt/ha under rain fed and irrigation conditions, respectively. The survey report (Berhanu, et al.,

2011 not published) indicated the significant yield gap between the farmers’ fields and the

research centers, which is due to the improved groundnut varieties not reaching the farmers

and as a result of various biotic and abiotic stresses like drought, insect pests, diseases etc.

Particularly in southern Ethiopia, the improved varieties have not reached farmers adequately

and hence evaluating the adaptation of the released groundnut varieties is of paramount

importance to increase yield of groundnuts and to minimize crop failure due to weather and

biotic constraints. In addition, farmers in the region have limited/no access to improved pre-

and post-harvest practices that are known to influence the productivity of groundnuts and the

effect of pathogens and associated mycotoxins down the value chain (from farm to the fork).

The current project was carried out with the following objectives.

1.2. OBJECTIVES

1.2.1. General objective

The overall objective of the project was to develop appropriate packages to promote the

production of high quality groundnuts in drylands of Ethiopia.


3

1.2.2. Specific objectives

– To identify farmers’ knowledge related to groundnut production and constraints with

emphasis on mycotoxins.

– To develop baseline data on fungi and their mycotoxin problems in groundnuts.

– To identify optimum agronomic packages and the influence of cultivation practices to

reduce the mycotoxin contamination of groundnuts.

– To evaluate and promote groundnut varieties with resistance to aflatoxins.

– To create awareness about the damage caused by mycotoxins in freshly consumed

groundnuts.


4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. BASELINE SURVEY

2.1.1. Prospects and constraints of groundnut production in eastern and southern

Ethiopia

A survey on groundnuts production was carried out in the following locations:

i) Bishan-Babile and Gemechu peasant associations in Babile district, and in Awdal peasant

association in Gursum districts in East Hararghe zone of Oromya Regional State; and

ii) Lote-Gayala-Chalbe and Zenga-Awande peasant associations in Demba-Gofa district in

Gamogofa Zone of Southern Nations Nationality and Peoples Regional State.

The following data were gathered using semi-structured questionnaires:

- land holdings of the respondents

- the farm size of groundnut and other crops grown

- agronomic practices carried out in groundnut production, seed source and type of

groundnut cultivated, fertilizer application

- disease and insect problems and their control methods

- harvesting and storage methods for groundnut, its price and marketing.

In addition to this, information was collected from Melka-Worer Agricultural Research

Center and Haramaya University on groundnuts improvement and agronomy, and from

groundnut processing factories, such as Hilina Enriched Foods Processing Center P.L.C and

Valseek Nutritional Fooid P.L.C. Communication was also done with researchers from Pawe,

Assosa and Gambella Agricultural Research Centers.

General information on crop production and weather data in the respective Districts were

collected from the District BoARD. The Babile clinic was also used as a source of

information related to health problems of the people who are commonly consuming

groundnut.

2.1.2. Description of survey districts

Babile district is located to 557 km from Addis Ababa and situated at 9012

’ 930” N and 42

0 18’

061”E with an elevation of 1200-1800m above sea level. The minimum temperature of the

district is 100C and with the maximum of 20

0C. This district is characterized by Semi-Arid

conditions having sandy loam soil and an annual rain fall of over 600 mm (Mitiku, 1989;

Tefera and Tena, 2002). The farming system in the district is mixed farming of annual crops,

tree and fruit crops and livestock are the dominant farming system in Babile (Data obtained

from Agricultural and Rural Development Bureaus of the Woreda).

Gursum district is located 600 km from Addis Ababa, situated at 09 0 37’ 320” N and 042

0

43’820” E with an elevation of 1400-2300m above sea level. The minimum and maximum

temperature of the district is 140C and 24

0C, respectively. The rain fall is bimodal with small

intermittent rain in “Belg” which lasts from March to April, and main rainy season “Kiremt”

which is from June to September. The average rain fall of the woreda ranges from 650-850mm

per year. The major soil type of the district is sandy loam with some clay soils. Mixed farming

systems composed of annual crops perennial crops, trees and livestock productions are

common. The district is divided in to three agro-climatic zones as highland, midland and

lowland kebeles, which are dominated by groundnut productions.


5

Darolabu district is found in west Hararghe zone of Oromiya national regional state. The

capital town of the district, Mechara, is situated 434 km south east of Addis Ababa. This

district is situated between 7052’10”-8

042’30”N and 40

023’57”- 41

09’14”E. The altitude

ranges from 1350 to 2450m above sea levels. Ambient air temperature of the district ranges

from 14 to 26 0C, while average rain fall of the district is around 963 mm per year. The

pattern of rain fall is bimodal and its distribution is mostly uneven. Agricultural production of

the district is mixed cropping system with livestock production and fruit crops and tree crops

like Chats. The major soil type of this district is sandy. There are highland, midland and

lowland kebeles dominated by groundnut production mixed with livestock production in the

district.

2.1.3. Disease Survey

The study was conducted in eastern Ethiopia of eastern and western Hararghe zones of

Oromiya regions, which are located 7032’N-9

044’N latitude and 41

012’E-42

053’E longitude

and 7055’N - 9

033’N latitude and 40

001’E-41

039’E longitude, respectively. East and West

Hararghe Zones have an altitude of 1750 and 1900m above sea levels, respectively.

Climatically, the two zones are subdivided into Kola, Woinadega and Dega. Kola represents

lowland; Woinadega means intermediate altitude while Dega represents highlands in terms of

altitude. The survey was carried out to cover two districts in eastern Hararghe namely Babile

and Gursum, and one in western Hararghe namely Darolabu district. West Hararghe has a total

area of about 17,230 Km2 and is divided in to 17 districts, while the East Hararghe Zone has a

total area of about 24,900 Km2 and is divided into 20 districts (Data from rural developments

Beroue of the two zones).

2.1.4. Samples collection

Groundnut samples were collected in three groups i.e. from farmers’ stores, fields and from

local markets of selected kebeles (locations) of the three districts. In every district, five

kebeles were chosen based on the groundnut productions potential. Six samples were collected

from each kebele and hence 30 samples were collected per district making the total number of

samples collected from all over the three districts 270 (3 districts x 5 kebeles per district x 6

samples per kebele x 3 sample groups per district). Samples were properly labeled with the

village name, location and sample collection date. All the samples were brought to the

Hawassa University for further investigation and laboratory analysis.

2.1.5. Fungal isolation

Fifty groundnut seeds per sample were surface sterilized with Chlorox solution (10%) for 1

min, which was followed by immersion in sterile distilled water for 1 min, then they were

placed on freshly prepared potato dextrose agar (PDA) plates (five kernels per plate) and

incubated for three days at 250C. Pure cultures of different out growing fungi were obtained by

transferring fungal colonies to new PDA plates by using sterile toothpicks, and incubating the

plates for 5-7 days at 250C. Pure cultures of each isolate were then stored at 4

0C in vials

containing 2.5 ml of sterile distilled water for further use.

2.1.6. Species identification

Isolates were identified to a species level based on morphological (phenotypic) features as

described by Cotty (1994); Egel et al. (1994); Kurtzman et al. (1997); and Okuda et al. (2000).

For this purpose: Isolates representing each pure culture were on Czapek Dox Agar and PDA

at 250C for 5-7 days. Fungal colonies that grew rapidly and produced colors of white, yellow,

yellow-brown, brown to black or shades of green, mostly consisting of a dense felt of erect


6

conidiophores were broadly classified as Aspergillus spp. while those that produce blue spores

were considered as Pencillium spp. (Okuda et al., 2000).

2.1.7. Frequency of seed contamination

After the initial isolation, data were recorded on the number of infected and non-infected

kernels. The frequency of Aspergillus and Penicillum spp. in groundnut samples was

determined as proportion of kernels contaminated by each fungal species to the total number

of kernels plated.

2.1.8. Mycotoxin analysis

Sample extraction:

About 120 groundnut samples obtained from farmers’ stores and the local markets of selected

kebeles of the three districts (Gursum, Babile and Darolabu) were used for determination of

total aflatoxin concentration in groundnuts. The samples were ground using a laboratory mill

and each sample was blended to 25 ml of 70% methanol. The extraction was done by mixing

the solution with a magnetic stirrer or soft shaking over a 10 minutes period with the help of a

flask shaker until the powder was thoroughly pulverized. The obtained solution was filtered

through Whatman No. 1 filter paper and 15 ml of distilled water and 0.25 ml of Tween 20

were added to 5ml of the filtered solution. The resulting suspension was then stirred for 2 min

by a vortex mixer. Immuno affinity column (RIDA® Aflatoxin column) (Art No: R5001,

ArtNo: R5002, R- Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany) was used for sample clean up prior to

the analysis of aflatoxin according to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

Aflatoxin Analysis by ELISA:

Aflatoxin analysis was carried out using the ELISA (RIDASCREEN® Aflatoxin total Enzyme

Immunoassay for the quantitative analysis of Aflatoxin R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt,

Germany) according to the manufacture’s recommendation. Absorbance of each well was

measured by the ELISA reader (Multiscan Ex microplate photometer; Thermo Electron

Corporation, Vantac, Finland) at 450 nm within 30 min after the addition of stop solution.

Toxin concentration was read directly from the standard curve.

2.1.9. Data analysis

Data on frequencies of kernel infection by Aspergillus and Penicillium species for samples

collected from different kebeles of the districts were subjected to analysis of variance

(ANOVA) using the SAS computer package, version 9.11 (SAS Institute Inc, 2003). LSD test

at the 0.05 probability level was used for mean comparison. The total aflatoxin concentrations

determined by the ELISA test were summarized using Microsoft Excel and calculated as ppb

for each sample.

2.2. VARIETY EVALUATION

Fourteen groundnut varieties (Table 1) released by the Werrer Agricultural Research Center

were used for the study. The experiment was carried out in three Districts (Dale, Dara and

Loka-Abaya) on farmers’ fields and Farmers Training Centers (FTC) (Table 2). A total of

eight fields were elected (three in Dale i.e. one farmer’s field and two FTCs, two in Dara both

farmer’s fields and three farmers’ fields in Loca Abaya). The experiment was laid out in a

simple block design with a plot size of 7.2m2 (3m x 2.4m) for each variety and the varieties

were randomized in each farm considering the farms in each District as replications. Planting

was done in late April in 60cm by 10cm inter- and intra-row spacing. Fields were kept clean


7

and cultivated twice at early vegetative growth, and a third cultivation was done during

flowering time to facilitate the entrance of pegs into the soil where the pods are developed.

After harvest, upon maturity, data were collected on seed yield of each variety. Besides,

natural occurrence of total aflatoxin on each variety was quantitatively assessed in the

laboratory following the method described in the previous section.

Table 1. Maturity period and oil content of groundnut varieties used for the study

No. Varieties Days to maturity Oil Content (%)

1 NC-4X 150 46

2 NC-343 150 48

3 Roba 125 49

4 Sedi 100 52

5 Lote 128 52

6 Bulki 135 53

7 Werer-961 130 45.7

8 Werer-962 130 47.8

9 Werer-963 128 45.9

10 Werer-964 128 46.2

11 Tole-1 144-156 46

12 Tole-2 145-157 47

13 Fayo 130-155 45.5

14 Fetan 116 46

Source: Werer Agricultural Research Center.

Table 2. Description of districts, kebeles and farmers, where the experiment was

conducted

No. District Kebeles Farmers/FTC Soil type

1 Dale Ajaba, Gane and

Debub-Mesenkela

Woude Guye,

FTC-1 and FTC-2

Sandy Loam

2 Dara Safa Belachew Beruka and

Kayamo Bango

Sandy Loam

3 Loca-

Abaya

Hargeda-Harodimto

and Doya-Dao

Shote Birhanu, Dulato Dule

and Bukato Buche

Sandy Loam


8

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. BASELINE SURVEY

3.1.1. Prospects and constraints of groundnut production

Bishan-Babile peasant association:

From this peasant association six men and four women, totally ten farmers, participated in the

interview. The land holding size of the respondents’ ranges from 0.375 to 1.2 ha, however

70% of them have 1 to 1.75 hectares, and groundnut is produced on 0.125 to 0.625 ha of land

annually. Most of the respondents (80%) have more than ten years experience in groundnut

production and mainly produced the bunch type groundnut as a cash crop, however they

consumed the raw nut during harvesting, roasted and as paste. In addition to groundnut, all

respondents produced sorghum, 80% of them also produced maize and two respondents

cultivated sweet potato. Sorghum is the main staple food crop followed by maize. 90% of the

respondents grew groundnut in pure stand (sole) and 60% of them rotated groundnut with

sorghum. Only two farmers intercropped groundnut with sorghum. Most of these farmers

grew improved varieties supplied mainly by Haramaya University and two farmers from the

NGO. Three farmers also used their own saved groundnut seeds when the seeds of improved

varieties were not enough.

The land for groundnut production is cultivated 2-3 times with oxen when the rain season has

started in March, and row-planting is done in April. Regarding fertilizer application, 60% of

the respondents use urea fertilizer but 30% of the respondents did not apply any fertilizer for

groundnut production. Farmers do hoe-cultivation twice to control weeds and loosen the soil,

the first cultivation is done in May and the second cultivation is at early flowering stage to

loosen the soil for easing entrance of the pegs into the soil where the pods are developed.

Groundnut planted in April is matured after five months that is in September-October, and

harvested in October with a spade when the leaves’ color changed to yellow and started

shedding. The uprooted plants are left in the field for some days facing the root with the pods

upside to the sun for proper drying, and the pods are collected from the plants by hand (70%

of the respondents). 30% of the interviewees said that they threshed groundnuts with sticks. If

the pods are not dried enough at the field, they are further dried by spreading them on the

floor around the homestead, and then stored in sacks for some months even up to planting

time or until the market price of dried groundnut increases. The respondents mentioned that if

the pods are not dried as required the color of the seeds is blackened, has a bad smell and

bitter taste, and three farmers said that some people that consumed this type of seeds got sick

and had diarrhea problems. The haulm of groundnut is used for animal feed, and 50% of the

respondents use the hull/shell as fire wood even though the ash amount is high.

Groundnut is mostly sold in pods and sometimes as shelled nuts. The price of one quintal

unshelled nut is sold up to 450.00 Birr, however the price is highly influenced by seed size

and uniformity, color and time of marketing. According to the respondents, if the seed size is

large, uniform, not blackened and not sold during harvesting time the price will be high.

The respondents mentioned that there are leaf spots and root rot diseases on groundnuts,

which reduces the yield up to 20-50%. In addition, the micro-termite problem was severe in

the 2010/2011 cropping season, which was also confirmed by the expertise from the Babile

district office of Agriculture. For both the disease and termite problems the farmers did not

apply fungicides and insecticides, except one farmer who applied DDT against termites.


9

All respondents said that moth was the most important storage pest. They used different

options to control the moth: these include flit, DDT and malathion.

Generally all respondents mentioned that groundnut production is becoming profitable and

they need to increase the farm size. However, drought, termites and disease are constraints of

groundnut production in Bishan-Babile peasant association.

Gemechu peasant association:

From this peasant association seven male and three female farmers participated in the

discussion. Their farm size ranges from 1 to 1.75 hectares; however 80% of them have 1.98 to

4.75 hectares and produced groundnuts on 1 to 2 hectares of land. These farmers have on

average more than fifteen years experience in groundnut production, and grow the bunch and

spreading groundnut types in pure stand as well as their mixture. Groundnut in the Gemechu

peasant association is mainly produced for the market and to some extent it is consumed by

the family in the form of raw nut during harvesting period, and as roasted nut and paste. The

respondents also cultivated sorghum, maize and chat, and their main food crop is sorghum

followed by maize. Groundnut is grown as a sole crop rotated with sorghum and some

farmers intercropped it with sorghum. Farmers grow improved and local varieties, however

70% of them used their own local varieties, and two farmers used seeds of improved varieties

from Haramaya University. The land for groundnut production is prepared twice in March

and, row planting is done in the first half of April, and 50% of the respondents applied urea

and DAP fertilizers. Weed control is done with hoe-cultivation twice, the first is in May and

the second cultivation is carried out during early the flowering stage. Supplemental hand-

weeding is done when it is necessary. Like in the Bishan-babile peasant association,

groundnut here is also mature in September-October and harvested with a spade in October

when the leaves have a yellow color. The harvested plants are left on the farm facing the

underground plant parts upside towards the sun for proper drying of the pods for some days.

70% of the respondents collected the pods by hand and three farmers said that they threshed

groundnut with a stick. Further drying of pods is done in the village on the floor and then

stored in sacks for some months. Farmers said that if the pods are not well-dried, the nuts

become black, have a bad smell and a bitter taste and do not germinate. Four farmers said that

if poorly stored nuts are used for food people may have diarrhea.

The crop residues of groundnut are commonly used for animal feed, two respondents said that

it is also used for compost preparation, and the shell is a source of firewood for some farmers.

Groundnut is usually marketed with its pods and the current price of one quintal during the

survey time was Birr 450.00. However, size, uniformity and color of seeds and time of

marketing are influential factors on the price.

Leaf spot and root rot are seen as an economically important groundnut disease in the

Gemechu peasant association, and farmers said that the root rot disease damage was more

severe than the leaf spot disease. Regarding insect problem, termites were very important

because of the damage at seedling and pods development stages, which resulted in 20-30%

yield reduction according to the district Office of Agriculture. For both the disease and insect

problems farmers did not apply chemicals. The respondents mentioned that weevils and moths

are important storage pests of groundnut, however they did not apply any chemical control

measures.


10

In general, the interviewees mentioned that groundnut is a profitable cash crop because its

price increases steadily and as there is no market problem to date. If the termite and disease

problems are solved and improved varieties are available they will allocate more land for

groundnut production.

Awdal peasant association:

Awdal is one of the peasant associations in Gurssum district, from which six men and four

women farmers were participated in the interview, and their landholdings ranges from 0.5 to

2.5 hectares. However, 70% of the respondents have 2-2.5 ha from which 0.125 to 0.75 ha of

land is used for groundnut production. The respondents have 5-25 years experience in

groundnut production, and they mainly produced groundnut for market, and to some extent

for domestic consumption in the form of raw and roasted nut and paste. The farmers also

grow sorghum, maize, pepper and sweet potato, however their staple food crop is sorghum

followed by maize. Regarding the cropping system of groundnut, 60% of the respondents

grow groundnut as pure stand either as mono-crop (30%) or rotated with sorghum and maize

(40%), and 40% of them intercropped groundnut with sorghum, maize and chat. The

respondents usually grow the local varieties using their own seeds except two farmers who

grow the improved varieties supplied by Haramaya University and the NGO. The land for

groundnut production is prepared twice by oxen in March and row-planting is done in the first

half of April. The 70% of the respondents apply urea and DAP fertilizers using row and spot

application methods. The respondents controlled weeds by hoe-cultivation carried out twice,

but two farmers did oxen cultivation, and hand weeding also done as required.

Groundnut in Awdal peasant association is matured after five months from planting and it is

harvested in October within few days with spade. The uprooted plants are left on the farm for

some days to be dried out, then 70% of the respondents collected the pods by hand directly

from the straw, others 30% did threshing with sticks. Sometimes further drying of pods is

done in the village by spreading the pods on the floor and then stored in sacks for some

months even up to planting time. They also said that if not well-dried pods are stored the

color, smell and taste of the nuts are changed and 50% of the respondents mentioned that

people consumed such nuts were sick and had diarrhea. The straw of ground is an important

animal feed in the locality, however only one farmer from the respondents also used the straw

for compost preparation. As the respondents, the price of one quintal groundnut is sold from

350 to 400 birr depending on seed size, uniformity, color and the time of marketing.

All respondents said that groundnut has leaf spot and root rot diseases as a result yield

reduction is reached up to 50%. Regarding insect pest, termite is very important pest on

groundnut. For both disease and insect pests farmers do not apply pesticides, but for storage

pests 50% of the respondents apply flit and DDT.

Generally the respondents have need to increase the farm size for groundnut production

because they said that groundnut production is profitable and emphasized that in addition to

drought, termite and root rot became more important limiting factors of groundnut production,

therefore pesticides and seeds of improved varieties are required to increase productivity of

groundnut in their locality.

Lote-Gayala-Chalbe peasant association:

In this peasant association ten men farmers were participated in the discussion. The farm size

of the respondents ranges from 1.5 to 5 hectares from which 0.25 to 0.5 hectares are used for

groundnut production. Two farmers produced groundnut on one hectare of land. The farmers

have more than five years experience in groundnut production and they mainly produced the


11

bunch type for market. All respondents also produce maize, teff, sweet potato; and two

farmers also produce sorghum, haricot bean and cassava. The land for groundnut is cultivated

twice with oxen in December and row-planting is done in January without fertilization except

one farmer who applied DAP fertilizer. All respondents mentioned that they grow local

varieties using their own saved seeds or bought from the market. Weed control is done with

hoe-cultivation twice, the first is in February and the second cultivation is done at early

flowering stage of groundnut. Groundnut planted in January is matured in June-July and

harvested in July with spade within few days. The uprooted groundnut plants stayed on the

farm for some days to be dried out and the pods are collected by hand and stored in sacks for

a number of months. The respondents said that the pods should be well dried before storage

otherwise the color, taste and smell of the nuts are changed and not used for food and seed.

The straw is used for animals feed, and the shell as firewood.

A one quintal groundnut pods is sold with 300-450 birr, however the price is depend on color,

size and uniformity of seeds and marketing time. In Lote-Gayala-Chalbe peasant association

there is no market problem for groundnut as a result the respondents said that groundnut

production is profitable and 70% of them need to increase the production area, however 30%

of the respondents will not increase groundnut farm because of yield reduction due to soil

fertility degradation.

The leaf spot, root rot diseases and termite are the major problems of groundnut at field

conditions, and weevil is the common storage pest as respondents said and no pesticide

application. The respondents said that termite, disease, low soil fertility, lack of access to

improved varieties and drought are constraints of groundnut production in their locality

Zenga-Awande peasant association:

Seven men farmers were involved in the discussion on groundnut production in Zenga-

Awande peasant association. The farmers said that their total farm holdings ranges from 0.5 to

2 hectares and they produce groundnut specially the bunch type on 0.5 hectare of land as cash

crop mainly for more than five years. Six of the seven respondents intercropped groundnut

with maize and three respondents grow groundnut as pure stand rotated mainly with maize

and sometimes with cassava, sweet potato and teff. The land for groundnut production is

prepared twice with oxen in December and row-planting is done in January using seeds of the

local varieties bought from the local market and without fertilizer application. Weeds in

groundnut farm are controlled by hoe-cultivation carried out twice, the first cultivation is done

in February and the second at early flowering stage of the plants. Hand weeding is also carried

out when there are lately emerged weeds. Groundnut is matured after five months from

planting and harvested in July with spade when the leaves have yellow color. The uprooted

plants are left on the farm for some days to be dried out and the pods are collected by hand

from the plants and stored in sacks for some months even up to planting time. The

respondents said that further pod drying is done in the village by spreading them on the floor,

because if they are not properly dried changes in color, test and smell of the nut occurred and

the price is affected. The price of one quintal groundnut pods varies from 300 to 400 birr. In

addition to nut quality (size, color and uniformity) the time of marketing which is associated

with groundnut supply determines the price. All of the respondents use the straw for their

animals feed, and three respondents use the shell for firewood.

Respondents said that there is mild leaf spot disease on groundnut, however termite damage

on the root of groundnut is severe as result yield reduction is high and chemicals to control


12

termites are not available. Farmers in Zenga-Awande peasant association do not have storage

pests on groundnut as the respondents said.

Almost all respondents have plan to increase the production area for groundnut because they

said that the profitability of groundnut production increases from year to year, however they

mentioned that drought, low soil fertility, land shortage, termite and lack of improved

varieties are the main constraints of groundnut production in their peasant association

Discussion with researchers:

Melkaworer Agricultural Research Center is the national coordinating center for groundnut

improvement and working together with Haramaya University and the Areka Agricultural

research center. The center has strong links to ICRISAT, which provides groundnut

germplasm for the purpose of crop improvement. There are sixteen groundnut varieties

released by the center and the recommended spacing is 60cm x 10 cm (EIAR, 2010).

However, the Haramaya University recommended that 35cm x 25 cm spacing is optimum for

groundnut production under rain fed and 60cm x 10cm under irrigation in Babile District. The

University justified that wider spacing may reduce the moisture stress problem of groundnut

commonly facing the Babile District. Regarding fertilizer application both the research center

and the University had not yet determined the type and the rate of fertilizer. The major

problem associated with groundnut production is the contamination with aflatoxins.

Aflatoxins are metabolites produced by the fungus Aspergillus. Aflatoxins have toxic effects

such as liver cancer and immunosuppression in various animals and humans (Tchana et al.,

2010). In some cases, such as in Kenya, aflatoxin-contaminated maize resulted in several

deaths; in Nigeria, maize farmers faced rejection from the food market due to aflatoxin

contamination (IITA, 2011). Aspergillus species are capable of growing on a great variety of

food commodities and animal feeds when the conditions of the temperature, relative humidity

and product moisture are favorable (Lamanaka et al., 2007). The most affected crops with

aflatoxins are groundnut followed by maize at both field and post harvest conditions.

Groundnut is to be stored safely and its moisture content should be below 9% like other oil

crops.

Both the university and the research institute said that groundnut usually has leaf-spot and rust

diseases and their effect on groundnut performance is not significant. From insects, aphids

and Jassid are important pests of groundnut around Babile, and insecticide SEVIN-85 2P is

sprayed to control them in research fields. However, the recent important problems of

groundnut are termites and root rot disease, which significantly affected the performance of

the crop. Termite is prevailed at seedling and late at fruit development stages and causes up to

30% yield reduction in Babile district in 2010 cropping season. The prevalence of termite at

seedling stage severely reduces the plant population, and termites developed lately at pods

development stages cause the drying of plants and even destroy the pods (personal

observation). Similarly the termite problem on groundnut is also an important issue in other

groundnut producing areas like in Gambella, Somalia and SNNP regional states. A groundnut

research team at Gambella is trying to control termite using the insecticide carbamil and said

that its effect is not very satisfactory. The other group from Jijga research center said that the

termite problem in their groundnut producing areas was severe in 2010 growing season.

Discussion with food factories:

Hilina Enriched food Processing Center

Hilina Enriched Food Processing Center P.C is a newly established joint bencher company in

Addis Ababa, which is manufacturing paste using groundnut for malnourished children in

Ethiopia. This factory has a high amount of quality-groundnut intake of about 240 tones of


13

clean nuts per month. An important factor is the quality of nuts expressed as having at least

9% moisture content, 10% purity and less than 20 ppb aflatoxins. After sorting out the clean

nuts through hand picking, the blackened nuts, the broken ones, which are less than half size,

the aflatoxins level should have reached less than 10 ppb. Then after cleaning with a machine

of undersized seeds, roasting, pealing and sorting the quality seeds with a computerized

machine to separate blackened seed and then finally cleaning by hand picking the blackened

nuts, the aflatoxins level should be less than 5 ppb (according to the manager of the factory).

The factory has complained that the supply of quality groundnut seed from Ethiopia is far

below its demand and as a result it imports quality nuts from France and South Africa which

are free from tax and cheaper than the local supply. The manager mentioned that the

aflatoxins problem is mainly aggravated by post harvest conditions especially poor drying and

storage conditions. In addition, farmers immerse the ground pods to simplify dehelling of

groundnut pods by hand and sometimes may immerse seeds in water to increase the seed

weight for selling. All these factors favor the development of fungus and increase the

aflatoxins level. To solve these problems, the factory has its own dehelling machine and buys

the pods rather than the seeds through its supplier after testing the purity, moisture content

and aflatoxins level, which are indicated before unloading on the truck. This approach reduces

the aflatoxins level by 50% comparing to the dehelled seeds bought directly from the local

markets. The manager also mentioned that the aflatoxins level of groundnut in Ethiopia varies

from place to place, i.e., groundnuts obtained from Gambela, Benshangul-Gumuz and Mizan-

Teferi have a relatively lower content than those from other localities. This is also confirmed

by the researchers at Gambella and Assosa agricultural research centers.

The manager indicated that as a strategy his organization has done an agreement with

groundnut producing cooperatives that can produce and supply quality nuts, and it will give

training, manual for quality seed production, sacks and follow ups by its expertise. Finally he

summarized that the aflatoxins level can be reduced significantly if proper drying is done not

on the ground, but rather on the mat like it is done with coffee. The product is sold with hard

currency for NGOs and as a result his organization contributes to the development of the

country. If the supply of locally produced groundnut is adequately available this organization

has plans to open its branch in Nairobi, Kenya.

Valseek Nutritional Food P.L.C

Similarly, the manager of Valseek food factory mentioned that the quality and the supply of

groundnut produced in Ethiopia is low and as a result more than 50% of the demand of the

factory is imported from other African countries.

Babile Clinic:

The team also interviewed the nurse and health officer from Babile clinic concerning health

problems of the people due to aflatoxins from groundnuts. They mentioned that in the period

of their stay in the clinic and even before there was no and there is no registered disease cases

associated with aflatoxins from groundnut in the history of the Babile clinic.

3.1.2. Disease Survey

Four different Aspergillus spp. were found to be associated with groundnut samples collected

from eastern Ethiopia (Fig. 1). The first species isolated from the collected samples was A.

niger. The major distinction separating A. niger from the other species of Aspergillus is the

production of carbon black or dark brown spores of biseriate phialides (Raper and Fennell,


14

1965). The current study also confirmed the production of black or brown-black or black

conidia by this species as shown in Fig. 1.

A. flavus was the second species of Aspergillus identified in this study. Colonies of this

species grew rapidly and growth occurred most often at 370C. These colonies were

characterized by yellow to dark, yellowish-green pigments, consisting of a dense felt of

conidiophores or mature vesicles bearing phialides over their entire surface (Govrama and

Man, 1995). In general, A. flavus was known as velvety, yellow to green and the old colony

was a brown mold with a goldish to red-brown color on the reverse. The conidiophores were

variable in length; walls of A. flavus conidia were smooth to finely roughened or moderately

roughened, pitted and spiny. These observations were consistent with the findings of Govrama

and Man (1995), who reported A. flavus colonies as being initially yellow, turning to yellow-

green or olive green with age and appearing dark green with a smooth shape and some having

radial wrinkles. Hill et al. (1983) also reported that A. flavus is a natural contaminant of

groundnuts and is capable of infecting groundnut fruits prior to harvesting.

The third species identified in the current work, A. ochraceoroseus, produced yellow-gold

conidia (Bartoli and Maggi, 1978). Historically, the A. ochraceus group has embraced

Aspergilli with biseriate sterigmata and heads of yellow or ochraceus conidia that are small,

thin-walled, and smooth or nearly so according to Raper and Fennell (1965). The A. ochraceus

was characterized particularly by its pale yellow conidial heads, orange-red conidiophores

with coarsely roughened walls, light colored sclerotia, and salmon-pink mycelial turf on the

reverse side of Czapek's Dox Agar (CZDA). Colonies of this species also produced near white

to light yellow pigment and were dull yellow to dark yellow or sometimes brown on the

reverse. They also had wrinkled mycelial growth as reported by Diba et al. (2007).

A. parasiticus was the fourth species isolated from groundnut samples tested in the current

study. Colonies representing this species also grew fast on CZDA at 250C and 37

0C producing

dark green and rough conidia after 5-7 days. A similar study by Peterson et al. (2001)

distinguished A. parasiticus from A. bombycis by its typically dark green color on CZDA.

A. niger A. flavus

A. ochraceus A. parasiticus

Fig. 1. Aspergillus spp. isolated from groundnut samples.

Groundnut plants infected by Aspergillus spp. showed typical symptoms of infection

as shown in Fig. 2. These include yellowing of leaves or chlorosis and premature death and


15

dropping of leaves, wilting, drying of single plants and patching or drying of localized areas

within the fields. Underground grains were rotten and distorted and the plants were pulled out

of the ground easily. On some dried plants, brown or black mass covered by yellow or

greenish spores were observed in infected fields. Under field conditions the diseased plants

were also stunted, and often chlorotic with reduced leave size. Overmature pods and pods

from plants that had wilted and died before harvest had kernels infected by fungi, which

became visible at lifting. A study by Subrahmanyam and Ravindranath (1988) stated the

presence of shriveled and dried grains covered by yellow or green spores when groundnut

plants are infected by A. flavus (Aflaroot or yellow mold). The same study reported highly

stunted seedlings; reduced leaf size with pale to light green; crown rot or collar rot, with

germinating seeds covered with masses of black conidia; and rapid drying of plants due to the

infection of groundnut by Aspergillus spp.

Fig. 2. Different levels of symptoms of Aspergillus infection on groundnut.

The frequency of fungal species (Aspergillus and Pencillium) isolated from the groundnut

samples analyzed in the current study is presented in Table 3. Of the several fungal species

isolated from the groundnut samples, A. niger and A. flavus were the most prevalent

mycotoxigenic fungi across the storage, field and market samples. On the other hand, A.

ochraceus, A. parasiticus and Pencillium spp. occurred rarely. In another experiment, Eshetu

(2010) reported the most frequent occurrence of Aspergillus spp. (A. flavus, A. niger and other

Aspergilli) in a wet shelled one year stored peanut sample from Gursum district of the

Hararghe region in East Ethiopia.

Pencillium spp. were isolated from markets in Gursum and Darolabu districts at a frequency of

13% and 6%, respectively, while no Pencililum was isolated from the remaining samples.

From among the Aspergillus species isolated in the current study, A. niger and A. flavus were

the most prevalent species infecting groundnut samples in East Ethiopia. These two species

were isolated at a rate of 21%-48% (A. flavus) and 35%-66% (A. niger). Their relative

dominancy in number of isolates from the total fungi was 22% and 21%, respectively.


16

Table 3. Frequency of Aspergillus and Pencillium species isolated from groundnut seeds

collected from three districts in East Ethiopia.

District Fungal species Percent kernel contamination

Farmers’ store Farmers’ field Market

Babile A. flavus

A. niger

A. parasiticus

A. ochraceus

20.5

66

3.6

9.8

29

47.8

14

9.7

26.25

38.75

21.25

13.75

Darolabu A. flavus

A. niger

A. parasiticus

A. ochraceus

Pencillium spp

31

56

4

9

0

32.6

53.6

2.1

10.5

0

33.7

41

10.8

8.7

6

Gursum

A. flavus

A. niger

A. parasiticus

A. ochraceus

Pencillium spp

48.2

34.82

4.46

9.82

0

41

40.5

10.74

7.43

0

34.5

39

14.3

0

13

Groundnut samples from the surveyed districts were also moderately infected by A.

parasiticus (2-21%) and A. ochraceus (0-14%). A. flavus and A. niger were isolated at higher

frequencies from samples collected from farmers’ fields and stores than from market samples

while A. parasiticus was consistently isolated at higher frequencies from market samples than

samples from fields and stores. In contrast to these, isolation frequency of the fourth

Aspergillus, A. ochraceus, was not consistently high or low in any of the sample collection

sites (fields, markets and stores) across the survey districts. Aspergillus and Pencillium species

were commonly found in stored grain or food produce aflatoxins and ochratoxins, and citrinin,

respectively (Marquardt, 1996). Abdela (2009) also reported contamination of groundnut

samples from Sudan by A. niger and A. flavus, which were isolated at frequencies of 29–60%

for A. niger and 4–52% for A. flavus. Fusarium oxysporum, A. niger, R. bataticola and S.

rolfisii were the predominant species of fungi associated with diseased plants indicating the

involvement of theses fungi in pre- and post- emergence death of groundnut plants in Babile

district (Mitiku, 1989; Tefera and Tana, 2002).

Total aflatoxin concentration in the market and storage samples of Babile district ranged from

15 ppb to 9765 ppb and from 293 ppb to 11865 ppb, respectively, (Fig. 3a and 3b). Aflatoxin

concentration in groundnut samples from Darolabu district varied between 15 ppb to 4939 ppb

(Fig. 3a) for market samples and it was in the range of 15 ppb – 1977 ppb for storage samples

(Fig. 3b). Positive samples from the markets of Gursum district had aflatoxin concentrations

ranging between 16 ppb and 10087 ppb (Fig. 3a). Aflatoxin concentration in the positive

groundnut samples from the stores of the same district varied from 15 ppb to 5563 ppb (Fig.

3b).


17

Another study by Amare et al. (1995) revealed 85% of A. flavus isolated from groundnuts in

East Ethiopia being able to produce aflatoxins in a range of 1 to > 300 ppb in liquid medium.

The aflatoxin concentration detected in the current study is generally much higher than in

these two previous reports from Ethiopia. However, the aflatoxin concentration quantified in

the current work is not indicating a uniquely high rate for Africa. A study conducted in Ghana

by Awuah and Kpodo (1996) reported high levels of aflatoxins (5.7-22,168 ppb) in market

groundnut samples contaminated by a variety of fungi including A. flavus. Owing to these high

levels of natural contamination of groundnuts by aflatoxins, the National Agency for Food,

and Drug Administration and Control in Nigeria, has raised the maximum permissible limit for

total aflatoxin in foodstuff to 20 ppb a level higher than the 5 ppb standard set by WHO (FAO,

2004).

Fig. 3a. Total aflatoxin concentration from market samples


18

Fig. 3b. Total aflatoxin concentration from storage samples

Results from across the three survey districts suggest higher aflatoxin contamination of

groundnut samples from the market than those from the stores. These results were obtained

despite lower kernel infection of groundnuts by Aspergillus spp. in markets than stores. This

might be because of the continuous buildup of aflatoxins regardless of lower fungal

contamination.


3.2.1. Adaptability and yield performance of groundnut varieties in southern Ethiopia

The combined analysis of variance for shelled seed yield suggested significant differences

(P<0.01) among locations and varieties but there is no significant location- by- variety

interaction effects (Loc * Var) (Table 4).

Table 4. Combined analysis of variance for seed yield

Source of varions DF SS MS F P

Loc 2 2101.60 1050.80 32.13 0.000

Rep 2 243.13 121.56 3.72 0.029

Var 13 2209.36 169.95 5.20 0.000

Loc*Var 26 682.49 26.25 0.80 0.729

Error 68 2224.18 32.71

Total 111 7154.40

S = 5.72 CV (%) = 23.13


19

In Dale district, varieties Bulki, Werer-961, Werer-962, NC-343, Sedi and Fetan ranked 1-6 in

that order and gave average yields in the range of 21.33 to 25.52 qt/ha. Varieties Werer-962,

Werer-961and Sedi produced highest yields at the farmer’s (Wude’s) field, while varieties

Bulki, Werer 962 and Werer-961 at Gane-Farmers Training Center and varieties Bulki, NC-

343 and Werer-961 at Debub-Mesenkela Farmers Training Center gave highest yields with

the ranks of 1-3. The environmental indices showed that yield performance of the varieties

was much lower at Wude’s farm (12.83 qt/ha) comparing to other two fields, which had

similar performances of 20.71 and 21.23 qt/ha (Table 5). The least performance of varieties at

Wude’s field is due to leaf spot and white rote diseases (data not shown).

Table 5. Shelled seed yield qt/ha in Dale district

No. Varieties Woude Gane-FTC Debub-

Mesenkela FTC

Average Rank

1 NC-4X 8.70 19.03 23.33 17.02 8

2 NC-343 16.67 22.36 28.89 22.64 4

3 Roba 12.78 20.97 25.69 19.81 7

4 Sedi 18.89 27.22 19.72 21.94 5

5 Lote 9.63 15.28 18.19 14.37 10

6 Bulki 15.74 29.86 30.97 25.52 1

7 Werer-961 20.93 27.5 26.11 24.85 2

8 Werer-962 23.70 29.31 20.00 24.34 3

9 Werer-963 5.56 15.69 13.61 11.62 13

10 Werer-964 6.67 14.17 18.47 13.10 11

11 Tole-1 6.85 16.11 10.42 11.13 14

12 Tole-2 7.41 10.14 18.61 12.05 12

13 Fayo 12.41 16.25 19.31 15.99 9

14 Fetan 13.70 26.11 24.17 21.33 6

Field performance 12.83 20.71 21.23 18.26

Environmental index - 5.43 2.45 2.97

In Dara district, the experiment was conducted at three farms, however, harvesting was done

on only two farmers’ fields because the third field was severely infected with disease and

harvested by the farmer before the varieties fully matured. In this district, the varieties Bulki,

Werer-962, NC-343 and Werer-961 performed higher seed yield in the range of 35.76 - 38.89

qt/ha than the average performance the varieties in the Wereda (28.95 qt/ha). At Belachew’s

field the varieties NC- 343 (40.14 qt/ha), Werer-962 (37.78 qt/ha) and Bulki (37.36 qt/ha)

were high yielders, while the varieties Bulki (40.42 qt/ha), Werer-961 (37.5qt/ha) and Werer-

962 (36.25 qt/ha) performed highest yields at Farmer Kayamo’s field. Generally, the varieties

Bulki and Werer-962 performed well at both fields compared to other varieties (Table 6).

In Loca-Abaya district, the experiment was conducted at three farmers’ fields. The average

yield performance of the varieties across farmers’ fields showed that the varieties Bulki,

Roba, Werer-962 and NC-4X gave highest yields in the range of 23.84 – 29.68 qt/ha.


20

Table 6. Shelled seed yield in qt/ha at Dara district

No. Varieties Belachew Kayamo Average Rank

1 NC-4X 36.81 23.19 30.00 5

2 NC-343 40.14 32.92 36.53 3

3 Roba 15.97 34.17 25.07 11

4 Sedi 26.61 32.08 29.44 6

5 Lote 28.19 21.94 25.07 11

6 Bulki 37.36 40.42 38.89 1

7 Werer-961 34.03 37.50 35.76 4

8 Werer-962 37.78 36.25 37.01 2

9 Werer-963 16.53 14.44 15.49 14

10 Werer-964 25.14 15.69 20.42 13

11 Tole-1 35.00 21.11 28.06 8

1 Tole-2 31.53 20.42 25.97 9

13 Fayo 23.19 34.03 28.61 7

14 Fetan 22.22 29.58 25.90 10

The varieties NC-4X, Roba, Tole-1 and Bulki at farmer Bukato’s field, the varieties Werer-

962, Bulki, Fayo and NC-4x at farmer Dulato’s field and varieties Bulki, Roba, Sedi and

Werer-962 at farmer Shote’s field gave highest yields (Table 7).

The analysis of variance results for groundnut yield across districts revealed the presence of

significant differences among districts and among varieties (Table 8).

The varieties NC-343, Werer-961, NC-4X, Sedi and Roba gave highest average seed yields

(23.94 – 27.24 qt/ha) (Table 9). The environmental indices showed that the performance of

the Dale and the Loca-Abaya districts is poor, whereas the Dara district is a more productive

area. This is attributed to high disease incidence at the Dale district, and inadequate rainfall at

the Loca-Abaya district. The average seed yield of the varieties across districts ranged from

14.56 (werer-963) to 31.36 qt/ha (Bulki). Varieties Bulki (31.36qt/ha**) and Werer-962

(28.58qt/ha*) produced significantly higher yields compared with mean performance of all

varieties across the districts (22.64 qt/ha).

Table 7. Shelled seed yield in qt/ha at Loca-Abaya district

No. Varieties Bukato Dulato Shote Average Rank

1 NC-4X 28.19 26.39 16.94 23.84 4

2 NC-343 19.17 21.94 26.53 22.55 5

3 Roba 26.81 13.81 33.75 24.72 2

4 Sedi 16.81 14.44 30.00 20.42 7

5 Lote 19.58 15.28 20.28 18.38 11

6 Bulki 24.58 29.44 35.00 29.68 1

7 Werer-961 20.42 17.92 18.06 18.80 9

8 Werer-962 14.03 29.86 29.31 24.40 3

9 Werer-963 19.31 13.75 16.25 16.57 13

10 Werer-964 19.31 13.89 17.78 16.99 12


21

11 Tole-1 25.42 12.5 20.56 19.49 8

12 Tole-2 23.19 15.28 17.22 18.56 10

13 Fayo

22.92

27.08 15.83 21.94 6

14 Fetan 20.42

13.89 15.00 16.44 14

Table 8. Analysis of variance results for yield across districts

Source of

variations

DF SS MS F P

Rep (districts) 2 828.96 414.48 41.40 0.000

Variety 13 859.46 66.11 6.60 0.000

Error 26 260.29 10.01

Total 41 1948.71

Standard error (S) = 3.164 CV (%) = 14%

Table 9. Average shelled seed yields qt/ha across districts.

No. Varieties Dale Dara Loca-Abaya Average Mean

1 NC-4X 17.02 30.00 23.84 23.62 5

2 NC-343 22.64 36.53 22.55 27.24 3

3 Roba 19.81 25.07 24.72 23.20 7

4 Sedi 21.94 29.44 20.42 23.94 6

5 Lote 14.37 25.07 18.38 19.27 11

6 Bulki 25.52 38.89 29.68 31.36** 1

7 Werer-961 24.85 35.76 18.80 26.47 4

8 Werer-962 24.34 37.01 24.40 28.58* 2

9 Werer-963 11.62 15.49 16.57 14.56 14

10 Werer-964 13.10 20.42 16.99 16.84 13

11 Tole-1 11.13 28.06 19.49 19.56 10

12 Tole-2 12.05 25.97 18.56 18.86 12

13 Fayo 15.99 28.61 21.94 22.18 8

14 Fetan 21.33 25.90 16.44 21.22 9

Mean 18.26 28.95 20.91 22.64

Env. Index -4.38 6.31 -1.73

CV (%) = 14%

LSD at P =5% and 1% are 5.31 and 7.18 qt/ha

* =Significant at P 0.05 ** = Significant at P0.01

3.2.2. Natural occurrence of aflatoxin in 14 groundnut varieties grown in South Ethiopia

The level of aflatoxin contamination in 14 groundnut varieties studied in the current project is

presented in Table 10. Each variety was planted on 5-9 farmers’ fields and aflatoxin

concentration after natural infection varied from 0 to 14 ppb. Average aflatoxin concentration

across the varieties ranged from 0.30 ppb in the variety Were-963 to 3.85ppb in the variety

Fayo. In all the cases the average aflatoxin level was lower than the 5ppb limit of the WHO.


22

Table 10. Total aflatoxin concentration in 14 groundnut varieties planted in three

districts of southern Ethiopia.

Aflatoxin (ppb)

Variety No. of fields Range Mean

NC-4x 6 0-2.13 0.78

NC-343 5 0.66-3.14 1.71

Roba 6 0-5.97 2.04

Sedi 9 0-2.96 0.62

Lote 7 0-2.68 0.85

Bulki 7 0-12.71 3.01

Werer-961 6 0-14.81 2.96

Werer-962 5 0-7.36 2.33

Werer-963 5 0-1.82 0.30

Werer-964 7 0-4.72 1.80

Tole-1 9 0-3.38 0.57

Tole-2 6 0-3.14 0.77

Fayo 5 0-14.08 3.85

Fetan 6 0-7.86 2.74

However, data from one location revealed a much higher level of contamination reaching up

to 103ppb (data not shown). This suggested the need to verify current results with additional

multiyear and multi-location experiments.

3.3. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ASPERGILLUS SPP. CONTAMINATION OF

GROUNDNUTS IN THE STUDY AREAS

Across the study areas, the groundnut shell is removed and left in farms, on the roads or water

furrows then irrigated water takes it to the farms and gardens. Such a scenario generally favors

over seasoning of plant pathogens including Aspergillus for subsequent contamination of the

next crops. Besides, groundnut in the survey districts is cultivated either as a sole crop or

intercropped with different crops like sorghum, maize, haricot beans, and under the shade of

Chats, Coffee and Mango. Although intercropping is generally known to decrease disease

pressure in agricultural fields, the companion crops in groundnut fields may not be very

effective against Aspergillus spp. On one hand, these crops may not have a very good ground

cover as they grow taller than groundnut and hence may not be able to protect groundnut

plants from soil borne inoculums. On the other hand, soil moisture conservation that comes

with these crops may even enhance groundnut infection by Aspergillus spp.

Mechanical damages caused during pulling and digging out groundnuts may also have

predisposed kernels to infection by Aspergillus and associated aflatoxins. Pre-harvest infection

of groundnut seeds by A. flavus was previously attributed to physical and biological damage of

pods (Ashworth and Langley, 1964). Seeds in split pods are frequently invaded by A. flavus

and subsequently become contaminated with aflatoxin as suggested by Graham (1982).

Shriveled kernels contain higher amounts of aflatoxin and as a result of higher rates of A.

flavus infection (Hill et al., 1981).


23

Other factors, which may aid the contamination of groundnut with aflatoxins might be

exchanging of equipment or plowing materials between households and also between villages.

Farmers also exchange groundnut seeds and this may also have contributed introduction of

inoculums into groundnut fields.

3.3.1. Time of planting and harvesting of groundnuts

Occurrence of aflatoxin in crops is also affected by the time of planting. Rainfall is usually

unpredictable at the time of planting and harvesting around the study areas. This forced

farmers in the study areas to apply some amounts of water to the shelled groundnuts

containers for the purpose of removing the shells easily at the time of planting which is

enhancing Aspergillus invasion of groundnuts. The planting time of groundnut around the

study areas usually lasts from the beginning of April to the end of May, and the harvesting

time is from the end of September to the first half of November according to the field

conditions and availability of labor. However, pods may overstay in the field after optimum

maturations due to lack of labor which further increases Aspergillus infection.

Crops that are planted with the first rains are likely to escape end of season drought, therefore

allowing adequate time for grain filling. Drought stress during the late stages of pod

development favors the invasion of groundnut by A. flavus and subsequent aflatoxin

contamination. End of season drought was very critical as it affects grain filling and pod

formation in groundnut (Hill et al., 1981). The growth of A. flavus and consequent aflatoxin

production were also found to depend on factors such as temperature, humidity and kernel

moisture content (Hill et al., 1981). Thus selecting the appropriate time of planting in

accordance with the weather conditions might be of importance in reducing groundnut

contamination by Aspergillus and aflatoxins.

3.3.2. Drying method of groundnut around the study areas

Groundnut crops harvested and lifted from the ground in the survey districts are usually sun

dried on materials such as mats. Curing of groundnut was done for few days in the farms

before drying and removing of the seed from the haulms, to remove some moisture content

from the kernels. In cases where the moisture content of threshed unshelled and shelled pods

was too high, the pods were sometimes bagged and every day the bags were brought out from

the stores and left in the open. Although such practices may help reduce Aspergillus invasion,

it would have been made more effective had it been coupled with fumigation with burning

cow dung fumes and sun drying for one day as suggested by Gehewande et al. (1986).

3.3.3. Traditional groundnut storage system Storage structures commonly found in the survey districts are made from mud and animal

dung. In some mud house stores there was no improved aerations and in some rain could

percolate from the top and from the sides. Groundnuts in such houses are usually stored in

sacks from the previous years, and this may also increase the contamination of groundnuts by

Aspergillus and aflatoxins. Dickens (2003) associated moisture condensation on roofs,

improper application of insecticide sprays or leaking hoses and application equipment,

conveyance of water from flooded elevator dump pits into the warehouse, and storage of

peanuts on concrete floors that are damp or have no vapor barriers with increased A. flavus

growth. According to Bankole and Adebanjo (2003), traditional storage structures used for on-

farm storage include containers made of plant materials (woods, bamboo and thratch). Stored

products in such houses provide a good source of nutrients and a suitable environment for

organisms living in and on the groundnuts (Miller, 1995).


24

4. CONCLUSION

4.1. PROSPECTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF GROUNDNUT PRODUCTION

Groundnut is an important cash crop in Ethiopia with Hararghe and Gamo-Gofa zones

considered as the major producing regions. Farmers in these areas have rich experience in

groundnut production but face several challenges. Intermittent drought severely affects

groundnut production in eastern Hararghe and Demba-Gofa districts. Limited land size and

low soil fertility are also constraining groundnut production in Demba-Gofa district. Termite

and diseases are the most important biotic factors damaging the productivity of groundnut in

all peasant associations in the above mentioned zones. Sixteen groundnut varieties are

released by Melkaworer Agricultural Research Center but they are not adequately available

for the farmers. Besides, no fertilizer recommendation is done and chemical control of

termites and root rot disease are not yet studied adequately.

Aspergillus and aflatoxins are common contaminants in groundnut growing regions across the

study areas. In this study about 270 samples were collected from farmers’ fields, stores and

markets, and tested for Aspergillus contamination. Results revealed that infection of kernels

was higher in farmers’ stores and farmers’ fields than on markets. Furthermore, most

groundnut samples collected from the study areas were found to be contaminated by aflatoxin

beyond the maximum tolerable level suggested by WHO. However, both Aspergillus and

aflatoxin contamination seem to vary across regions. But we suggest investigation on

groundnut contamination by toxigenic fungi and associated mycotoxins should continue in

groundnut producing regions across the country to come up with a complete picture of grain

contamination both temporally and spatially. Such studies will serve as an important basis to

understand the full extent of the problem and also to work on appropriate control measures.

The current results should also serve as a wakeup call to create awareness on the aflatoxin

problem in the country and possible remedies. As aflatoxins are associated with health risks,

reducing their level in food stuff to a level accepted of international standard is of paramount

importance to ensure the safety of the affected food crops to consumers and thereby facilitate

trade both within and between countries.

Five local groundnut varieties are found to grow in the survey districts. These are “Sartu”,

“Oldhale”, “Jawsi”, “Basuka” and “Qacine”. Although these varieties vary in terms of

morphological features and disease resistance, their resistance to Aspergillus and aflatoxins

under differing environmental conditions could not be established beyond ambiguity. Thus,

future work should also focus in testing varieties for Aspergillus resistance under different

environmental conditions and management practices.

This study has identified some important factors that may contribute to aflatoxin

contamination of groundnuts both pre- and post-harvest. These include: weather conditions,

seed and equipment sharing, planting time; harvesting time and methods; curing, drying and

storage practices. The roles of additional factors that contribute to aflatoxin contamination

farther down in the value chain need further investigation. In addition, the role of none

chemical seed treatments especially essential oils and that of biological control agents in

reducing groundnut contamination should be studied to come up with a more effective and

sustainable management strategy. Farmers’ associations and extension agents should also be

encouraged in creating awareness about aflatoxins and management techniques.


25

Therefore, research findings on disease and insect control, fertilizer packages, seeding rate

and awareness creation on the aflatoxins problem for farmers and development agents are

required to improve the production and productivity of groundnut as this is just a one season

finding.

As revealed by farmers, the increases of the price of groundnut steadily make groundnut

production profitable. Nevertheless, farmers do not directly deal with buyers about the price

because of the interference of brokers. The establishment of big groundnut factories for paste

production in Addis Ababa is an opportunity for groundnut producers to sell their products at

reasonable prices and they may get training in managing groundnut production, post harvest

handling and other supports as planned by Hilina Enriched Food Processing Factory.

The managers of the factories complain that the quality of Ethiopian groundnut does not

satisfy their demand, and it is more expensive than what they imported from other African

countries. It was suggested that besides organizing subsistent farmers in groups and giving

support through training and follow-up to produce quality nuts, commercial private

investment on groundnut is crucially important to have adequate quality nut supply for

domestic use as well as for export. There are very few investors producing groundnut in

Gambella even though they are at the beginning stage. The presence of different growing

periods for groundnut production is another opportunity for continuous supply, for example

groundnut in Demba-Gofa district is harvested in July, from Eastern Ethiopia in October,

from Gambella and Benshangul-Gumuz in November-December.


Out of the 16 groundnut varieties released in Ethiopia by the Werer Agricultural Research

Center, 14 of them were evaluated in three districts (Dale, Dara and Loca-Abaya) on farmers’

fields and Farmers Training Centers with the objective of identifying well-adapted and high

yielding varieties for the study area. The combined analysis of variance indicated that these

three districts are significantly different, and there are significant differences among the

varieties. Dara district is regarded as a potential area of groundnut production followed by

Loca-Abaya. Dale district, on the other hand, was less productive because of disease problems

on groundnuts. Farmers in Dara district have been producing landrace groundnut varieties.

The yield performance of the varieties varied from field to field within and between the

districts. Varieties Bulki, Werer-962, NC-343, Werer 961, NC-4X, Sedi, Roba and Fayo

performed better than other varieties across the districts.


26

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

There is great potential to increase groundnut production in Ethiopia. However, production

constraints mainly those related to Aspergillus and associated mycotoxins remain important

issues. Total aflatoxin recorded from each of the three survey districts exceeds international

standards.

Some of the important factors that may lead to aflatoxin contamination were identified as

follows:

- Time of planting and harvesting of groundnuts

- Drying method of groundnut crop

- Traditional groundnut storage and post harvest processing system

Nevertheless, the roles of additional factors that contribute to aflatoxin contamination down in

the value chain need further investigation. The current results should also serve as a wakeup

call to create awareness on the aflatoxin problem in the country and possible remedies. Such

studies will serve as an important basis to understand the full extent of the problem and also to

work on appropriate control measures. Besides, variety trials should expand to other locations

to come up with conclusive results.

The following recommendations are also suggested as a way forward:

i) More awareness creation to improve the perception towards toxigenic fungi and

associated mycotoxins

Farmers’ and consumers of groundnut in Ethiopia are by far unaware of the health risks

associated with consuming nuts contaminated with mycotoxins. Hence, more campaign to

create awareness should be practiced to improve peoples’ understanding of the dangers. Such

campaigns should first focus around the farming communities that produce groundnuts. Such

awareness creation practices should also be supplemented with teaching farmers and traders

on ways of handling groundnuts during production, harvesting, storage and transport. This

requires preparation of training materials, leaflets and brushers which DCG has to give

emphasis in the future.

ii) Management of toxigenic fungi and associated mycotoxins

A range of options are available to manage toxigenic fungi and reduce risks from mycotoxins.

These include:

Adjusting planting dates so that plants avoid drought during flowering.

Groundnuts are highly susceptible to infection by Aspergillus, when they are stressed during

flowering and hence avoiding moisture stress helps reduce susceptibility of plants to the

fungus thereby reducing the risk of aflatoxin contamination.

Sanitation of fields and storage houses

Aspergillus spp. can survive on dead plant materials including groundnut shells. Thus clearing

the remains of previous harvests and destroying infested crop residues are basic sanitary

measures against storage deterioration. Wild hosts, which constitute a major source of


27

infestation for storage pests, should be removed from the vicinity of stores, as insect damage

predisposes kernels to Aspergillus infection.

Early harvesting

Early harvesting has been advocated as a means of reducing the risk of aflatoxin

contamination. Though, many farmers are aware of the need for early harvesting, however,

labour constraints, unpredictable weather, the need for cash and the threat of thieves, rats and

other animals often compel farmers to harvest at inappropriate time. However, aflatoxin risks

should be assessed on a site specific to make appropriate decisions on the timing of harvest. In

addition, farmers should take care to avoid kernel damage during harvesting as this may

predispose the kernels to infection by Aspergillus.

Rapid drying of grains

Among the recommendation for solving mycotoxin problem, rapid drying of agricultural

products to low moisture is often emphasized, because all scenarios leading to mycotoxin

contamination relate to non-maintenance of stored products at safe moisture content. Dry

grains keep longer, safe from insects and moulds because the water activity required for their

growth is not met. Drying harvested grains to 15.5% moisture content or lower within 24 to

48 h will reduce the risk of fungus growth and consequent aflatoxin production (Hamilton,

2000). Most African farmers spread their harvests to dry under the sun, which often require

longer durations for the product to attain ‘safe’ moisture level. The grains are spread out on

rock surfaces or on polyethylene sheets spread on the flour, and the stirring or turning are

done manually till the product is dry. But such practices may not be effective at all times due

to high rainfall during harvesting times. Mechanical dryers could be set up in strategic

locations, which farmers can utilize if sun drying is proven difficult.

Physical separation of damaged and infected grains

Sorting out of physically damaged and infected grains from the apparently healthy ones is an

efficient and feasible method of reducing mycotoxin contamination. This could be done

manually or by using electronic sorter. Infection of seeds or grain often imparts colourations

or changes some other physical characteristics. Martin et al. (1999) recommended the final

sorting by hand as the only possible remedial technique against aflatoxin contamination of

groundnut in Senegal, and that the efficacy of this depends on the extent of seed

contamination. Aflatoxin was found to be concentrated in the mouldy and stained peanut, and

its physical separation could result in overall reduction of aflatoxin in whole samples (Hirano

et al., 2002).

Storage conditions

Traditional storage structures used for on the farm storage include containers made of plant

materials (woods, bamboo, thatch) or mud placed on raised platforms and covered with thatch

or metal roofing sheet. Essentially the stores are constructed to prevent insect and rodent

attack and to prevent moisture from getting into the grains. The adoption of high yielding

varieties (mostly with poor storability) by farmers has made the traditional storage systems to

become inadequate. However, it has been very difficult to promote the new storage

technologies such as the use of metal bins to small-scale farmers due to their high cost. Post-

harvest control of A.flavus and aflatoxin formation emphasizes improvement of storage

conditions which include better drying practices, maintaining low moisture levels and

temperatures and maintaining good aeration of the stored commodity. When proper storage

facilities are not available, the use of chemical preservatives has been proposed. For example,

propionic acid and sorbic acid are considered excellent preserving agents on agricultural

http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/manuscripts/manuscripts2003/Septembermanuscripts2003/Bankole/Bankole%20and%20Adebanjo.htm#Hamiton

http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/manuscripts/manuscripts2003/Septembermanuscripts2003/Bankole/Bankole%20and%20Adebanjo.htm#Martin


28

commodities to prevent aflatoxin contamination. Research is needed to develop and refine

suitable storage systems that are not capital intensive.

On top of the above mentioned practices, management of Aspergillus spp. using biological

control options, plant products (botanicals) and deployment of resistant varieties should be

considered as in future groundnut research and development activities. Furthermore policy

formulation to regulate groundnut production and processing needs to be considered.


29

REFERENCES

Abdalla, A.T., Stigter, C.J., Mohamed, H.A. and Gough, M.C. 2005. Identification of micro-

organisms and mycotoxin contamination in stored groundnut in central Sudan. 10 p.

Abdella, M.H. 2009. Mycoflora of groundnut kernels from Sudan. Transactions of the British

Mycological Society 63: 353-359.

Amare Ayalew, Dawit Abate and Mengistu Huluka.1995. Micoflora, aflatoxin resistance of

groundnut cultivars from eastern Ethiopia. SNET, Ethiopian Journal of Science 18:17-

130.

Awuah, R.T. and Kpodo, K.A. 1996. High incidence of A. flavus and aflatoxins in stored

groundnuts in Ghana and the use of microbial assay to assess the inhibitory effects of

plant extracts on aflatoxin synthesis. Mycopathologia 134:109-114.

Bankole, S.A. and Adebanjo, O.O. 2003. Occurrence of aflatoxins and fumonisins in

preharvest maize from south-western Nigeria. Food Additives and Contaminants 21:

251- 255.

Bartoli, A. and Maggi, O. 1978. Four new species of Aspergillus from Ivory Coast soil. Trans

Br Mycological Society 71:383-394.

Besrat, A. and Gebre. 1981. A preliminary study on the aflatoxin content of selected

Ethiopian medical journal 19: 47-52.

Caliskan, S., Arslan, M. and Arioglu, H. 2008. Effects of sowing date and growth duration on

growth and yield of groundnut in a Mediterranean-type environment in Turkey. Field

Crops Research 105: 131-140.

Cotty, P.J. 1994. Comparison of four groups for the isolation of A. flavus group fungi.

Mycopathologia 125:157-162.

Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2011. Agricultural sample survey in 2009/2010.

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Diba, K.P., Kordbacheh, S.H., Mirhendi, S., Rezaie and Mahmoudi, M. 2007. Identification

of Aspergillus spp. using morphological characters. Medical Science 23: 867-872.

Dickens, J.W., Satter white, J.B. and Sneed, R.E. 2003. Aflatoxin-contaminated Peanuts

produced on North Carolina farms in 1968. Journal of American Peanut Research

Education Association 5:48-58.

Egel, D.S., Cotty, P.J. and Elias, S. 1994. Relation ship among isolates of Aspergillus section

Falvi that vary in aflatoxin production. Phytopathology 84: 906-912.

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), 2010. Manual for groundnut

production, EIAR, Worer Agricultural Research Center, Division of oil crops

research project.

Eshetu, Legesse. 2010. Aflatoxin content of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in relation to

shelling and storage practice of Ethiopian farmers Addis Abeba University (M.Sc.

Thesis).

FAO. 2004. African experience in the improvement of post-harvest techniques. Rome: Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available:

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/W1544E/W1544E00.ht

m (accessed 22 February 2005).

FAOSTAT. 2010. Groundnut world production. http://www.faostat.fao.org.

Gbèhounou, G. and Adengo, E. 2003. From a crop rotation experiment at Akron. Effect of

citric acid on aflatoxin degradation and on functional and textural. Food Research

International, Volume 42, Issue 8.

Gehewande, M.P., Nagaraj, G., Raj and Jhala. 1986. Aflatoxin production and detoxification

in groundnut in proceedings of the national seminar on plant protection in field crops

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/W1544E/W1544E00.htm

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/W1544E/W1544E00.htm

http://www.faostat.fao.org/


30

,29-31 January 1986,central plant protection training institute, Hydrabd 500 030, India.

pp 15-26.

Gong, Y.Y., Cardwell, K., Hounsa, A., Egal, S., Turner, Hall, A.J. and wild, C.P. 2002.

Dietry aflatoxin exposure and impaired growth in young children from Benin and

Togo: Cross Sectional Study, British Medical Journal 325: 20-21.

Govrama, H. and Bullar Man, L.B. 1995. A. flavus and A. parasiticus aflatoxigenic fungi of

concern in food and feeds. Areview, Jornal of Food Protection 58: 1395-1404.

Graham, J. 1982. Aflatoxin in peanuts: Occurrence and control. Queensland Agricultural

Journal 108: 119-122.

Griffin, G. J. and Garren, K.H. 1974. Population levels of A. flavus and the A. niger group in

Virginia peanut field soils. Phytopathology 64: 322-325.

Hamilton, D. 2000. Toxic fungus threatens health of consumers. (Available online):

www.agnic.org/pmp/2000/ama0826.htm.

Hill, R.A., Wilson, D.M., Burg, W.R. and Shotwell, O.L. 1981. Viable fungi in corn dust.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology 47: 84-87.

Hill, R. A., Blankenship, P.D., Cole, R.J. and Sanders, T.H. 1983. Effects of soil moisture and

temperature on preharvest invasion of peanuts by A. flavus group and subsequent

aflatoxin development. Applied Environmental Microbiology 45: 628-633.

Hirano, S., Shima, T. and Shimada, T. 2002. Proportion of aflatoxin B1 contaminated kernels

and its concentration in imported peanut samples. Journal of Food Hygiene Society

Japan 42: 237-242.

IARC. 2002. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Some

traditional herbal medicines, some mycotoxins, Naphthalene and Styrene. International

Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. pp 301–366.

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) bulletin, 2011. Research to

nourish Africa. Issue no. 2062, 28 March - 01 April/2011

Kurtzman, C.P., Horn, B.W. and Hesseltine, C.W. 1997. Aspergillus nomius, a new aflatoin-

production species related to A. flavus and A. tamari. Antonie Van Leeewuwenhoek 53:

147-158.

Martin, W. and Alston, J.M. 1999. An exact approach for evaluating the benefits from

technological change. World Bank International Economics Department, Policy

Research Working Paper, 1024.

Marquardt, R.R. 1996. Effects of moulds and sand technology 58: 77-89.

Miller, J.D. 1995. Fungi and mycotoxins in grain: Implications for stored product research.

Journal of Stored Product Research 31: 1-16.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). 2009. Crop variety

register, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. (12). Pp 12-23.

Mitiku, H. 1989. Description of certain physio-chemical properties of the soil at Babile. Soil

section Research Report, Alemaya University, Alemaya.

MWRC (Melka Werer Research Center). 2000. MWRC progress report for the period April

1998 to March 1999. IAR, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

Okuda, T., Klich, M.A., Seifert, K.A. and Ando, K. 2000. In: Integration of Modern

taxonomic methods for Penicillium and Aspergillus Classification. Samson, R.A. and

Pitt, J.I. (eds.), Hardwood Academic Publishers, Reading, UK. pp 83-100.

Pande, N., Saxena, J. and Pandey, H. 2003. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins in some

cereals. Mycoses 33:126-128.

Peterson, S.W., Y., Horn, B.W. and Goto, T. 2001. Aspergillus bombycis, a new

aflatoxigenic species and genetic variation in its sibling species, A. nomius. Mycologia

93: 639-703.


31

Raper, K.B. and Fennell, D.I. 1965. The genus Aspergillus. Williams and Wilkins, company

Baltimore, Maryland. 686 p.

SAS Institute. 2002. SAS version 9.1 for Windows. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Protection

Topics.

Savage, G.P. and Keenan, J.I. 1994. The Composition and nutritive value of groundnut

kernels. In: Samrtt, J. (ed.). A Scientific Basis for Improvement. Chapman and Hall, St

Edmundsbury Press, Great Britain. pp 173–205.

Smart, M.G., Shotwell, O.L. and Caldwell, R.W. 1994. Pathogenesis in Aspergillus ear rot of

maize: Aflatoxin B1 levels in grains around wound inoculation sites. Phytopatology

80: 1283-1286.

Smith, J.E., Solomons, G.L., Lewis, C.W. and Anderson, J.G. 2002. Mycotoxins in Human

health. Brussels: European Commission. pp187-201.

Stoloff, L., Castegnaro, M., Scott, P., O'Neill, I.K. and Bartsch, H. 1983. Environmental

carcinogens selected methods analysis of some mycotoxins. Scientific Publication.

Lyon and Cedex, (eds.), France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. No. 44,

Vol.5.

Subrahmanyam, P. and Ravindranath, V. 1988. Fungal and nematode diseases. In: Groundnut,

Reddy, P. S. (ed.). New Delhi, India: Indan Council of Agricultural Research. pp 453-

523.

Tefera, T. and Tana, T. 2002. Agronomic performance of sorghum and groundnut cultivations

in sole and intercrop cultivation under Semi-Arid conditions. Journal of Agronomy and

Crop Science 188: 212-218.

Tchana, A.N., Moundipan, P.F. and Tchovanguep, F.M 2010. Aflatxin

contamination in food and body fluids in relation to malnutrition and cancer

status in Cameron. Int.J. Environments public health 2010, 7, 178-188

Upadhyaya, H.D., Reddy, L.J., Gowda, C.L. and Singh, S. 2006. Identification of diverse

groundnut germplasm: Sources of early maturity in a core collection. Field Crops

Research 97: 261-271.

Wild, C.P. and Hall, A.J. 1998. Hepatitis B virus and liver cancer unanswered questions.

Cancer survey. Infections and Human Cancer 33: 35-54.

Wild, C.P. and Turner, P.C. 2002. The toxicology of aflatoxins as basis for public health

decisions. Mutagenesis 17: 471-482.


32

List of Publications

Reports:

1 A. Synnevåg, G., Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux

sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe

de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

1 B. Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian

Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands

Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

2 A. Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case

studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination

Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

2 B. Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude

de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination

des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

3 A. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and

Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural

Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,

Agricultural University of Norway.

3 B. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999. “Rapport de synthèse et

quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée

concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe

de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

4 A. Sydness, M., Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de décentralisation, développement institutionnel et

réorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides

et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

4 B. Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralization Process, Institution Development and Phasing

out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural

University of Norway.

5. Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the

Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”,

Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

6. Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target

Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural


7. Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”,


8. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Semencière: Etude de la gestion et de

l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et

Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

9. Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricutural Extension in the Drylands of

Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


33

10. Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la décentralisation au Mali”,

Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

11. N’Dior, P. A. et Traoré, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’épargne et de crédit au Mali”,


12. Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution

Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”,


13. Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of

the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural


14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Integrated Plant Nutrition Management

(IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and

Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux

(GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des

Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

15. Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in

Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group

and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national

Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an

Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural


16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Société Civile aux

Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la

Désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of

Norway.

17. Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg., 2001: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar

and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,


18. Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local

Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s

Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University

of Norway.

19. Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002. “Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the

Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,


20. Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002. “Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW

‘Shemshemia’ Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group


21. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux

(GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne

2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

22. Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la désertification atelier

organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (GCoZA) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 à Gossi

(Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.


34

23. Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions

through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?”


24. Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of the

Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural


25. Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. “Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des

plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric,


26. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs)

Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands


26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la

société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et

régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”. Drylands


27. Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest

Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and

Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

28. Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in

Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

29. Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux

(GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides

et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

30. Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation

de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National,

Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”,


31. Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management

by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands

Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination

Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

32. Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and

Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural


33. Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop

husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in

the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group


34. Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of

Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from

Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

35. Meehan, F. 2004. “Female Headed Household in Tigray, Ethiopia. A Study Review”.


36. Doumbia, M. Berthe, A., Aune, J. B. 2005. “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Mali.

Summary Report 1998-2004”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.


35

37. Kaya, B., Traoré, C. O., Aune, J.B. 2005. “Etude d’identification des prototypes d’EcoFermes

au Mali. Rapport diagnostic et plan d’action pour 2005“. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides,

Maison de l’Environnement G9, Norvège.

38. Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I. 2005. ”Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for

the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management. A Case Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands

Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

39. Makenzi, P. 2005. “Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills. A Baseline Study

from Budy County, South Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

40. Ogbazghi, W., Bein, E. 2006. “Assessment of Non-Wood Forest Products and their Role in the

Livelihoods of Rural Communities in the Gash-Barka Region, Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group,

Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

41. Kouyaté, S., Haidara, C. M. 2006. “Etude sur la Problématique des Périmètres Irrigués

Villageois au Nord du Mali”. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Miljøhuset G9, Norvège.

42. Haile, A. 2006. “On-Farm Storage of Chickpea, Sorghum, and Wheat in Eritrea”. Drylands


43. Ask, V. 2006. “UNCCD and Food Security for Pastoralists within a Human Rights Context”.

Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

43B. Ask, V. 2006. « La CCD et la Sécurité Alimentaire des Pasteurs Dans le Contexte des Droits

de l’Homme ». Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway

44. Desta, M., Haddis, G., Ataklt, S. 2006. “Female-Headed Households and Livelihood

Intervention in Four Selected Weredas in Tigray, Ethiopia.”. Drylands Coordination Group,


45. Araia, W, Haile, A. 2006. “Baseline study on crop husbandry, in-situ conservation and

informal seed supply system in Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

46. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H. 2007. “Constraints and Opportunities of Horticulture Production

and Marketing in Eastern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

47. Malifu, E., Tefera, H., and Mekiso, M. 2007. “Evaluation Report on Training of Trainers on

UNCCD/NAP”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

48. Assefa, D., Belay, M., Tsegay, D., and Haile, M. 2007. “Transplanting Sorghum as a Means of

Ensuring Food Security in Low Rainfall Sorghum Growing Areas of Northern Ethiopia”. Drylands


49. Tsegaye, D., Balehegn, M, Gebrehiwot, K.,.Haile, M., Samuel, G.,Tilahun, M., and Aynekulu,

E. 2007. “The Role of Dobera glabra for Household Food Security at Times of Food Shortage in

Aba`ala Wereda, North Afar: Ecological Adaptation and Socio-economic Value. A Study from

Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

50. Teklehaimanot, G. and Haile, M. 2007. “Women in Backyards: Root Crop Production and

Biodiversity Management in Backyards”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

51. Bengtsson, Frida. 2007. “Review of Information Available on Seed Security and Seed Aid

Interventions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9,

Norway.

52. Tesfay, Haile. 2007. “Assessment of Institutional Setup and Effect of Household Level Water

Harvesting in Ensuring Sustainable Livelihood. A Case study of Kobo, Almata and Kilte Awlaelo

Woredas in Amhara and Tigray Regions of Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9,

Norway.

53. Elias, E. 2008. “Pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia: Dispossession, Access to Resources and

Dialogue with Policy Makers”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.


36

54. Meles, K., Nigussie, G., Belay, T., and Manjur K. 2009. “Seed System Impact on Farmers’

Income and Crop Biodiversity in the Drylands of Southern Tigray”. Drylands Coordination Group,


55. Mengistu, E., Regassa, N and Yusufe, A., 2009. “The Levels, Determinants and Coping

Mechanisms of Food Insecure Households in Southern Ethiopia: A Case study of Sidama, Wolaita and

Guraghe Zones” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

56. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H., and Regassa, N., 2010. “Impacts of Improved Seeds and

Agrochemicals on Food Security and Environment in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia: Implications for the

Application of an African Green Revolution”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

57. Traoré, C.O., Aune, J. B., and Sidibé, M. M., 2010. “Rapport Final du Projet Ecoferme au

Mali. Synthèse des quatre années 2005-2008”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

58. Megersa, B., 2010. “An epidemiological study of major camel diseases in the Borana lowland,

Southern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

59. Bayu, W., Bayissa, M., Manjur, K., Yeshanew, A., Agdo, E., Sime, G., Tolera, A., Belay, T.,

Meles, K., Aune, J. B., Ayele, A. A., 2010. “Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three

Project Areas in Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

60. Coulibaly, A., Aune, J. B., Sissoko, P., 2010 “Etablissement des cultures vivrières dans les

zones sahélienne et soudano sahélienne du Mali”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9,

Norway.

61. Tesfay, G. 2011. “On farm water harvesting for rainfed agriculture development and food

security in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: investigation of technical and socioeconomic issues”. Drylands


62. El-Hag, M. A. F., Osman, A. K., El-Jack, F.H., Wagiyalla, N. A., Mekki, M. A., and Khatir,

A. A., 2011. “Changes and threats facing nomads under drylands – the case of the Shanabla tribe in

Western Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

63. El-Dukheri, I., Oyiki, C. O., El Wakeel, A., S., Meseka, S., K. 2008. “Review of the Food

Security and Natural Resource Situation in Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9,

Norway.

64. Kebede D. and Adane H. 2011. “Climate change adaptations and induced farming

livelihoods”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

65. Regassa, N. and Taye M. 2011. “Impact of Resettlement on the Livelihood, Food Security and

Natural Resource Utilization in Ethiopia.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

66. Gebreyohannes, G. and Hailemariam, G. 2011. “Challenges, Opportunities and Available

Good Practices Related to Zero-Grazing in Tigray and Hararghe, Ethiopia.” Drylands Coordination

Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

67. Osman, F. M., and Abdel Kariem A. 2011. “Livelihood Assessment of the Dryland

Community, Um Jawasir - Sudan.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

68. Haji, J., Gelaw, F., Bekele, W. and Tesfay G. 2011. “The ‘Black-Box’ of Ethiopian

Agricultural Produce Price Formation and its Determinants within the Current Liberalized Market

Policy.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

69. Hameed, A. A. K., Alebaid, S. A., El Hassan, H. M., Abdella, S. I. and Musa, F. S. 2011.

“Review of literature on drought in Sudan.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

70. Relief Society of Tigray, Research and Policy Unit. 2012. “Can Provision of Household

Agricultural Extension Packages Reduce Rural Food Insecurity and Poverty in Tigray?” Drylands

Coordinaton Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

71. Osman, K.A., Elhag, F.M., Mekki, A., Abdalla, Elgailani A. and Aune, J.B. 2012. “Ecofarm

Research Project – Kordofan Region – Sudan” Drylands Coordinaton Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.


37

72. Coulibaly, M., Doumbia, M. D., Fassikoye, F. B., Diarra, D., Traore, K. M. et Reij, C. P.

2012. “Le captage des eaux de pluie”. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Miljøhuset G9,

Norvège.

73. Nigatu, R., Mengistu, E. and Yusufe, A. 2013. “Situational analysis of indigenous social

institutions and their role in rural livelihoods: The case of selected food insecure lowland areas in

Southern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.

74. Chala, A., Abate, B., Taye, M., Mohammed, A., Alemu, T. and Skinnes, H. 2014

“Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in selected drylands of Ethiopia”. Drylands


Proceedings:

1. Drylands Coordination Group. 2000. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan.

Proceedings from a Seminar organised by the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia,

April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

2. Drylands Coordination Group. 2001. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings

from a Seminar Hosted by the National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara,

Eritrea, March 26th-28

th, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

3. Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance

Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST),

on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001.

DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

4. Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action

Program to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from

a Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit,

September 13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

5. Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Société Civile dans la Mise en Oeuvre

Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Désertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par

le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6

novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

6. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of

the role of civil society in the implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar

Arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment

(ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

7. Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in

Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia,

Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

8. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in

Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean

Workers Conference Hall, Asmara, November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University

Of Norway, Ås.

9. Drylands Coordination Group. 2003. DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22

nd November

2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

10. Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’échange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du

Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18

et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

11. Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In

Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric,

Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.


38

12. Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in

Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

13. Macina, M. 2004. Atelier National et Campagne d’Information et de Sensibilisation sur la

CCD. Un Atelier organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines au Mali (CAFO)

en partenariat avec le Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA). Les 29-30 novembre 2004

à Bamako, Mali. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

14. Musnad, H.A. and Nasr N. K. 2004. Experience Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts

and Fuel Wood Substitutes in Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

15. Gakou, M. 2005. Atelier d’information et de formation des ONG membres de GCoZA sur le

montage des projets/ synergie entre les conventions de la génération de Rio et de la convention de

Ramsar. Le 28 décembre 2004, à Bamako, Mali. GCoZA, Oslo.

16. Berkele, Y., Mossige, Anne. 2005. Awareness Promotion and Experience Sharing on the

Implementation of UNCCD-NAP to Enhance Pastoralist Areas Development. Workshop organized by

the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia for the Pastoral Affairs Standing Committee and the

Natural Resource Development and Environmental Protection Standing Committee, Members of

Parliament - Ethiopia. December 17-19, 2004 in Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

17. Esheteu Bekele, E., Azerefegne, F., and Abate, T. 2006. Facilitating the Implementation and

Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Ethiopia. Planning Workshop, 13-15 October 2003,

Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, EARO. Jointly organized by the Association for

Advancement of IPM (ASAI) and the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). DCG,

Miljøhuset, Oslo.

18. Kodio, A. 2006. Atelier de Formation des Membres du GCoZA Mali à l’Approche Epargne

Crédit Musow ka Jigiya Ton (MJT) au Mali. Atelier organisé par CARE Mali et le GCoZA Mali du

1er au 5 août 2005 au Centre Gabriel Cissé de Ségou au Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

19. Belal, A. A. and Hussein, F. S. 2006. Awareness Raising Workshop on the Implementation of

the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Workshop organized by DCG Sudan for the

Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders. December 28th and 29th 2005 in the Green Hall of Sudan’s

Parliament, Omdurman, Sudan. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

20. Dembelé, T., Berthé, A. et Yattara, M. 2006. Atelier de formation en matière du Guide

Programme Communal d’Action Environnementale (PCAE) et des techniques Gestion Intégrée de

Nutriments Végétaux (GINV). Atelier Organisé par GCOZA Mali et le Consortium Synergie –

AMAPROS ACD pour les membres de GCOZA et des trois communes (Saloba, Souley et Sana). Du

20 au 22 juin 2005 à la Maison du Partenariat à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

20B. Yattara, M. 2006. PCAE ani GINV baarakqfqqrqw dùnniyaw dqmqnan lajqkalan kùnùkow

sqnsqnnen. Lajqkalan sigilen sen kan GCOZA Mali ani xùgùndqmqjqkulu AMAPROS ACD fq, ka

xqsin GCOZA tùndenw ni Saloba, Suleyi ani Sana komini saba kùnùmùgùw ma. K’a ta san 2005

zuwqnkalo tile 20 ma, ka se a tile 22 ma Mali la, xùgùndqmqjqkuluw ka soba la Bamakù. DCG,

Miljøhuset, Oslo.

21. Touré, B. 2007. Atelier de Renforcement des Capacités des Organisations de GCoZA Mali sur

les Mécanismes de Financement des Projets et Programmes pour la Mise en Oeuvre de la Convention

des Nations Unies sur la Lutte contre la Désertification (CCD). Atelier Organisé par la Coordination

des Associations et ONG Féminines du Mali (CAFO) et GCoZA Mali pour les membres de GCoZA

Mali. Du 11 au 13 septembre 2006 au Mémorial Modibo Keita à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset,

Oslo.

22. Negassi, A. and Beyene, Y. 2007. Bridging the Gap Between Research, Extension and the

Farmer in Eritrea. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

23. Anage, A. and Lulu, M. 2007. Awareness Raising Workshop on UNCCD/NAP and

Experience Sharing Sessions on Drylands Development Issues in Ethiopia. Workshop organized for

the Pastoral and Natural Resources and Environment Affairs Standing Committees of the Parliament


39

of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. December 8th -10th 2006, Adama Mekonen Hotel,

Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

24. Sterling, L., Nagoda, S., Tveteraas, A. 2008. Moving from emergency seed aid to seed security

- linking relief with development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Norway

and Caritas Norway, in collaboration with Norad and The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in

Oslo May 14th 2008. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.

25. Anage, A. 2009. Capacity Building for Regional Council Members, Sector Offices &

Academic Institutions & CSOs of Oromya, Gambella and Benshangul-Gumuz National Regional States

on UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Workshop organized by EACD and the Drylands Coordination Group

Ethiopia. July 3rd and 4th 2008 at Nekemte Municipality Hall, Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. DCG,

Miljøhuset. Oslo.

http://www.drylands-group.org/noop/file.php?id=1643

http://www.drylands-group.org/noop/file.php?id=1643


40

Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway:

Secretariat of the Drylands Coordination Group

Mariboes gt. 8, 0183 Oslo, Norway

Tel: +47 23 10 94 90

E-mail: [email protected]

ADRA Norge

Postboks 124, 3529 Røyse, Norway

Tel.: +47 32 16 16 90, Fax: +47 32 16 16 71


CARE Norge

Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway

Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36


Development Fund

Mariboes gt. 8, 0183 Oslo, Norway

Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: +47 23 10 96 01


Norwegian Church Aid

Postboks 7100, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway

Tel: + 47 22 09 27 00, Fax: + 47 22 09 27 20


Norwegian People’s Aid

P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway

Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82


Noragric, Department for International Environment and Development Studies

University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway

Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60


Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in ......seed yield of 18, 21 and 29 qt/ha...

Documents

Transcript of Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in ......seed yield of 18, 21 and 29 qt/ha...