A feasibility study on the complementarity of quality and genetic tests on seed certification: lessons from the hybrid maize in Malawi

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3221578/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A feasibility study on the complementarity of quality and genetic tests on seed certification: lessons from the hybrid maize in Malawi

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3221578/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

At $1.5 billion the African seed sector accounts for 3.5 per cent of the global seed market. The growth is attributed to economic reforms and African countries adopting market-oriented policies promoting the private sector role and regional integration. However, smallholder farmers have reported poor quality certified seeds on the market. Therefore, this feasibility study sought to prove the existence of counterfeit hybrid maize seeds on the market in Malawi. Using the mystery shopper approach 37 hybrid maize seed samples were bought from agro-dealers and eight reference seed samples from the parent seed companies in three districts of Mchinji, Dowa, and Lilongwe. The agro-dealers were categorised whether licenced or not using the Seed Trade Association database. This was followed by quality and genetic purity using simple sequence repeat (SSR) tests. Results show that only 34% of the agro-dealers where the seed samples were procured were licensed by the government. Quality tests showed that the seeds were within the acceptable range for germination, moisture content, and purity percentage. However, genetic variation results showed that only one of the 37 samples matched the reference seed sample and the rest of the samples exhibited heterozygosity traits not matching the reference samples or similar lines.

counterfeit

certified seeds

hybrid maize

harmonized seed regulations

quality test

genetic purity

Limited access to quality certified seeds has remained the stumbling block to increased agriculture production in sub-Saharan Africa (Barriga & Fiala, 2020). This has happened after governments and development partners spent substantial resources in the last half-century investing in developing the formal seed system to supply high-yielding varieties (HYV) and replace the informal seed system (Croft et al., 2017). The support started with the infrastructure and institutional development of public research that was later liberalised and privatised (Buanec & Heffer, 2002). After privatisation, there have been concerted efforts to develop appropriate policies to regulate the sector and improve regional trade as the private sector's role in breeding, multiplying and distributing seeds in sub-Saharan Africa increased (Louwaars & de Boef, 2013). However, evidence suggests a lack of progress in terms of seed quantities, quality, and crop diversity delivered by the private sector in line with farmers' expectations and needs (Langyintuo et al., 2010). Quality is one of the major factors that has affected the adoption and use of certified seeds and has been associated with challenges affecting the public regulatory system (Maereka, 2020). Studies have reported on the effect of seed quality on the adoption and use of certified seeds (Derwisch, Morone, Tröger, & Kopainsky, 2016; Lunduka, Fisher, & Snapp, 2012; Simtowe, Asfaw, & Abate, 2016; Sperling, Loevinsohn, & Ntabomvura, 1993; Sperling & McGuire, 2010). However, continued direct seed distribution programs by governments, non-governmental organisations and projects have offered a lifeline for the formal seed system (Chinsinga, 2010; Sperling, Cooper, & Remington, 2008). For instance, the Malawi government spent over US$1.4 billion between 2005 and 2015 on subsidised inputs with 4% of that spent on certified seeds where hybrid maize takes the lion's share (World Bank, 2015).

The seed quality challenges have come in different forms from counterfeit seeds, fake seeds, fraudulent labelling, regulatory offences, and sub-standard or of not acclaimed variety and quality (Bold, Kaizzi, Svensson, & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2015; Kilic, Ilukor, Kilian, & Stevenson, 2017).1 Studies using quality tests in Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda have shown poor germination rates of certified maize seed varieties below the minimum requirement of 95% and seed packages containing half of the genuine seed (Ashour, Gilligan, Hoel, & Karachiwalla, 2018; Bold, Kaizzi, Svensson, & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2017). The counterfeiting has been reported to be done through manufacturing and labelling of incorrect seeds, imitation or adulteration, and packaging of sub-standard or diluted seeds (de Boef, Pierson, & Kim, 2014; Karingu & Ngugi, 2013). There is documented evidence of high levels of farm inputs being substandard than their labelling claims making farmers risk-averse and affecting their adoption and use (Bold et al., 2015; de Boef et al., 2014).

Counterfeiting involves tampering with intellectual property rights including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and designs affecting consumer goods including agricultural inputs (Karingu & Ngugi, 2013). The proliferation of counterfeiting represents a problem with the diffusion of HYV, assessment of on-farm yield potential, and impact on farmers' income as they are a misrepresentation of genuine seed aimed at gouging consumers (Herring & Kandlikar, 2009). Using a learning model from on-farm trials to understand why farmers in SSA have not adopted improved inputs including certified HYV other studies have shown that the farmers are aware of the existence of substandard products (Bold et al., 2017). They found huge variations in the quality of agricultural inputs that are not reflected in the pricing, limiting farmers' ability to infer quality due to a lack of price correlation (Mailath & Samuelson, 2001). Nevertheless, the willingness of some farmers to buy low-quality inputs has increased traders' practice of not stocking high-quality products at a premium price (Bold et al., 2015; World Bank, 2007). Although the farmers are aware of the problem of counterfeits government subsidies, discounts, and stockouts have continued to entice them to buy and test the products (Fairbairn, 2017; Herring & Kandlikar, 2009). However, this affects farmers' expectations due to associated risks and uncertainty (Munshi, 2004).

Maize in Malawi remains the most important crop as measured by cropland area covered and the large portion of both public and private sector investments made (Langyintuo et al., 2010; Smale, Byerlee, & Jayne, 2013). Maize covers more than 60% of all harvested area of staple crops in Malawi with an average per capita consumption exceeding 150 kg per annum (Denning, Kabambe, Sanchez, Malik, & Flor, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2015; Hassan, Mekuria, & Mwangi, 2001; Marechera, Muinga, & Irungu, 2016). But production has remained below optimum due to low use of improved inputs, land degradation, and lately climate variability (Barimah, Doso, & Twumasi-Ankrah, 2014; Kugbei & Bishaw, 2002; Louwaars & de Boef, 2013; Omoyo, Wakhungu, & Oteng’i, 2015). Availability, access and utilisation of improved and quality seeds have been identified as one of the most important limiting factors to increased production in order to achieve food security (Sperling & McGuire, 2012; Tripp & Rohrbach, 2001). This happened despite liberalisation and privatisation of the seed sector and the growth of the private seed companies who have only supplied enough certified maize seed for 35% of cropland area in Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Langyintuo et al., 2010). Hence, to date, SSA countries don’t have an effective seed delivery system characterised by lengthy development and delivery period of new varieties due to increased regulatory processes affecting the release, commercialisation, and certification (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2015; Marechera et al., 2016). This is despite the hybrid maize seed remaining an important factor in improving food security in Malawi where large investments through government subsidies have been made to improve access, usage, and productivity (Chinsinga, 2010).

Just as there is a need to invest in quality seed production there is equally the need to build trust among users of seed to increase their adoption (Kopainsky, Tröger, Derwisch, & Ulli-Beer, 2012). An important factor that has undermined the building of trust is globalisation which has complicated the enforcement of intellectual property laws in a rapidly evolving market place creating fraud opportunities (Spink, 2011). For developing countries, the certification function has remained largely a government responsibility, facing financial challenges and lacking objectivity (Tripp, 1995). To date, several technologies have been used to improve certification and the identification of seed batches, prevent wrong packaging, and identify counterfeit packages from production to end-users (Pedrini, Merritt, Stevens, & Dixon, 2017). For example, seed coating and tracers were tested on certified tobacco seeds in China and open data source data collection through mobile phones was used for tracking seed yam production in Nigeria (Guan et al., 2013; Ouma et al., 2019). In addition, end-user authentication, e-verification, and tamper-proof packaging were piloted in Ghana and Uganda (Ashour, Billings, Gilligan, & Karachiwalla, 2015; de Boef et al., 2014). The above complement public certification that largely uses quality tests for seed certification based on phenotypic traits (Bold et al., 2017), perception, (Derwisch et al., 2016) and beliefs (Ashour, Billings, Gilligan, Hoel, & Karachiwalla, 2016).

However, DNA fingerprinting was tested in Uganda, Malawi, and Ghana to identify crop varieties and was proven to be definitive and objective (Kilic, Moylan, Ilukor, & Phiri, 2016; Poets, Silverstein, Pardey, Hearne, & Stevenson, 2020). Other studies have used DNA fingerprinting to accurately identify crop varieties in wheat and sweet potatoes in Ethiopia, and cassava in Malawi (Jaleta et al., 2020; Kilic et al., 2016; Kosmowski et al., 2019). Using genetic distance, DNA fingerprinting is able to show genetic purity and variation among individual organisms or species by acting as signs or flag (Collard, Jahufer, Brouwer, & Pang, 2005). Genetic variation using DNA markers is possible at any growth stage of a plant including seed making it a powerful tool for conducting a rapid test of germplasm or species against known reference (Poets et al., 2020). The DNA markers are classified into three according to how they are determined: hybridisation-based; polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based; and DNA sequence-based (Winter & Kalh, 1995). Polymorphic markers that can determine genetic variation between species, therefore, will be used in the study through simple sequence repeats (SSR), a codominant marker that can differentiate sizes and have several alleles (Nadeem et al., 2017). SSR is technically easy, agile, dependable, and can be used on different populations although it requires time and labour (McCouch et al., 1997). Other studies have used DNA fingerprinting to identify and assess the level of genetic purity of open-pollinated varieties in Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Setimela, Warburton, & Erasmus, 2016). The study contributes to the literature by being the first to use DNA fingerprinting to determine the genetic variation of hybrid maize seeds on the market. This is important as current seed quality tests are based on value for cultivation and use (VCU) and standardised tests for distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) using phenotypic traits only (Setimela et al., 2016; Tripp, Louwaars, & Eaton, 2007).

Therefore, this study investigated the existence of counterfeit certified seeds on the market in Malawi. First, based on study reports of high counterfeiting levels in the outlet-consumer interface (de Boef et al., 2014; Langyintuo et al., 2010) we used the Seed Trade Association of Malawi registration database to identify licensed and unlicensed agro-dealers in the selected districts. Second, using the mystery shopper approach, seed samples were bought from agro-dealers and reference seeds from supplying companies. Third, quality and genetic tests were done on the seed samples. The following sections detail the materials and methods, the results and discussion, and the conclusion.

1 https://africabusinesscommunities.com/agribusiness/news/tracking-app-tackles-fake-seeds-in-nigeria/

Certification has been used as a means for quality signalling on the market globally (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2015; Treiblmaier & Garaus, 2023). This is based on three principles used to determine the quality of goods: search, experience, and credence (Darby & Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1970). Search characteristics include those that end-users are able to get before buying the product like size or shape; experience involves those characteristics that consumers would not have until they buy and use the product i.e. taste or durability; credence characteristics are those that may never be known to the user before or after use of the product and are difficult to ascertain (Darby & Karni, 1973). Hence, the certification has been used globally for those products with credence characteristics to make available the information through a labelling system (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2015; Maereka, 2020). Certification helps build confidence among consumers through the information that is generated and shared usually through the labelling (Nelson, 1970). However, in developing countries, the certification process has largely been undermined by insufficient regulation of the private sector supply chains due to the public sector's limited funding and institutional capacity, and compromised regulation and enforcement (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2015). For seed, the certification comes in two forms: 1. Genetic purity is aimed at assuring that the seed is a genetic copy of the selected traits of the bred crop variety and would exhibit described characteristics i.e., yield, drought resistance etc. 2. Physical quality concerned with quality control of seed to ensure optimum germination, purity, no defects, viability, and moisture content (Tripp, 1995).

Mchinji, Dowa, and Lilongwe districts in central Malawi representing the main maize-growing areas (Chagomoka, Afari-Sefa, & Pitoro, 2014; Kankwamba & Kornher, 2019) were selected for the study. We began with a 1-day workshop on “Knowledge and Information Sharing on Challenges being Faced in the Seed Sector attended by 5 participants representing the private and public sectors and farmer organizations on 26th February 2021. Workshop participants shared their experiences on how the seed sector has been affected in terms of seed quality and the measures being undertaken to manage the shortfalls under the seed sector policy reforms. This was followed by the identification of registered agro-dealers in the selected districts using the Seed Trade Association of Malawi registration and licensing database. Two enumerators were trained and engaged in buying the seed from the agro-dealers and company outlets as local farmers from within the selected town centres. The mystery shopper approach as described by Barriga and Fiala (2020) was employed between February and March 2021. The procurement of seed packages weighing 1, 2 or 5 kg depending on availability was done from licensed and non-licensed agro-dealers as test samples and from seed companies’ outlets as reference samples (Table 1). Thereafter, the packages were labelled with a number for anonymity, the date of procurement, the name of the district and the town centre, and the licence status of the agro-dealer or seed company. Quality tests were not done for samples procured in one-kilogram packages due to sample size requirements.

Table 1

Maize seed varieties, district and market of procurement, and quality test results
Name	ID	District	Market name	License	Vigour	Moisture content (%)	Germination (%)	Purity (%)
SC303	Reference 53	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid
SC303	Agrodealer 4	Dowa	Madisi	Yes	Hybrid
SC403	Reference 54	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	12.8	99.0	100.0
SC403	Agrodealer 2	Dowa	Madisi	Yes	Hybrid	11.4	98.0	99.7
SC403	Agrodealer 7	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 10	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid	11.7	99.0	100.0
SC403	Agrodealer 13	Dowa	Mponela	Yes	Hybrid	11.5	99.0	99.9
SC403	Agrodealer 17	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.9	99.0	100.0
SC403	Agrodealer 20	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.8	99.0	99.6
SC403	Agrodealer 28	Dowa	Mponela	Yes	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 36	Mchinji	Mchinji	No	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 39	Mchinji	Kamwendo	No	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 42	Mchinji	Kamwendo	Yes	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 52	Dowa	Chankhungu	No	Hybrid	12.0	97.0	100.0
SC403	Agrodealer 22	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid
SC403	Agrodealer 34	Mchinji	Mchinji	No	Hybrid
SC537	Reference 55	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	11.5	98.0	100.0
SC537	Agrodealer 9	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid	11.8	99.0	100.0
SC537	Agrodealer 11	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid	11.6	98.0	100.0
SC537	Agrodealer 30	Mchinji	Mchinji	Yes	Hybrid	11.5	99.0	100.0
SC537	Agrodealer 32	Mchinji	Mchinji	No	Hybrid	11.5	100.0	99.8
SC537	Agrodealer 38	Mchinji	Kamwendo	Yes	Hybrid	12.0	98.0	100.0
SC537	Agrodealer 1	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid	12.3	98.0	99.9
SC537	Agrodealer 3	Dowa	Madisi	Yes	Hybrid	11.4	94.0	99.9
SC537	Agrodealer 5	Dowa	Madisi	Yes	Hybrid	12.1	99.0	99.9
SC537.	Agrodealer 14	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	12.3	98.0	99.9
SC537	Agrodealer 18	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	12.2	96.0	99.9
SC537	Agrodealer 24	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.2	97.0	99.1
SC537	Agrodealer 29	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.3	99.0	99.9
SC537	Agrodealer 37	Mchinji	Mchinji	Yes	Hybrid	12.0	99.0	99.9
SC627	Reference 56	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	12.2	93.0	99.9
SC627	Agrodealer 23	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.3	100.0	99.9
SC627	Agrodealer 26	Dowa	Mponela	Yes	Hybrid	11.7	100.0	100.0
SC627	Agrodealer 51	Dowa	Mvera	No	Hybrid	11.0	97.0	99.8
SC719	Reference 57	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	12.4	98.0	99.6
SC719	Agrodealer 8	Dowa	Madisi	No	Hybrid	11.7	99.0	100.0
DKC777	Reference 45	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	11.4	100.0	100.0
DKC777	Agrodealer 12	Dowa	Mponela	Yes	Hybrid	11.6	98.0	100.0
DKC777	Agrodealer 21	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.8	98.0	100.0
DKC777	Agrodealer 25	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.4	99.0	100.0
DKC8033	Reference 46	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	12.3	99.0	100.0
DKC8033	Agrodealer 19	Dowa	Mponela	No	Hybrid	11.6	99.0	100.0
DKC8033	Agrodealer 41	Mchinji	Kamwendo	No	Hybrid	12.1	93.0	99.9
DKC9089	Reference 47	Lilongwe	Company outlet	Yes	Hybrid	11.9	99.0	100.0
DKC9089	Agrodealer 49	Dowa	Mvera	No	Hybrid	11.9	99.0	100.0
Average						11.8	98.1	99.9
STD						(0.4)	(1.7)	(0.2)
Note: Boldfaced are references samples from parent seed companies' outlets

Quality tests, moisture content (10-gram sample), germination and purity (1000-gram sample) were done at the Malawi Ministry of Agriculture’s Seed Services Unit laboratory. Being an International Seed Testing Association-accredited laboratory standard seed quality testing procedures were used (ISTA, 2021). For the genetic purity test,10 grams of seed from agro-dealers (test sample) and seed company outlets (reference) were sent to the Republic of South Africa (RSA). After weighing on a digital scale (0.01g) seed samples were put in airtight zipper plastic bags before sending to the laboratories. Before the shipping to RSA, an import permit from the Ministry of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development was sought alongside a phytosanitary certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture in Malawi. Both documents were necessary for the sample to be sent to a South African laboratory for DNA fingerprinting. The samples sent to the two laboratories were anonymized by using the sample number only to conceal the agro-dealer name and the variety.

Genetic purity using DNA fingerprinting was done at CenGen (Pty) Ltd laboratory, South Africa. For each seed package sample, 5 seeds were randomly selected and sown for DNA extraction. DNA was extracted from the five individual plants using a sodium dodecyl sulphate buffer (Agenbag, 2012). Extracted DNA was quantified with the same amount from each plant and bulked. The bulked DNA samples were used for genetic fingerprinting using SSR analysis. The DNA analysis used a multiplex of 15 SSR markers that scored reliably in distinguishing the seed samples. Markers were synthesized with forwarding primer labelled with FAM (F), VIC (V), NED (N), or PET (P) fluorophores bought from Life Science Technology (South Africa). The PCR was prepared for a total of 10 µl using 5 µl of 2x Kapa2G Fast MPlex Mix (Applied Biosystems, South Africa). The PCR was done on Applied Biosystems Veriti™ Thermal Cyclers at 95^oC for 3 minutes, then 30 cycles followed by 95^oC for 30 seconds, 60^oC for 15 seconds, and 72^oC for 1 minute with a final extension lap of 72^oC for 10 minutes. The PCR products were purified using a Machery-Nagel Nucleofast Post PCR kit implemented on a Tecan Evo150 liquid handler using the provided vacuum protocol where 2 µl product was separated on an ABI 3730xl using Liz 500® internal size standard and a 50 cm capillary. The data were scored using Genemapper® V5 and the called alleles were exported to Excel. Flapjack software was used for phylogenetic visualization and genetic distance calculation (Milne et al., 2010).

This section presents the results in three sub-sections. First, we present the results of the quality tests of the seed samples. Second, we evaluate the effectiveness of regulating the agro-dealers on seed quality. Lastly, the genetic purity results are outlined.

Is the seed quality test enough to manage the supply chain?

Table 1 shows that the quality test results were within government acceptable range as outlined by Mloza-Banda, Kaudzu, and Benesi (2010). The Malawi government and development partners have supported the private sector to improve the seed supply chain to make high-quality certified seeds accessible to smallholder farmers. This has been through the support for the seed value chain including support for the three classes of seed, breeders/nucleus; basic/foundation; and certified recognised in Malawi. After privatisation seed companies have invested in research producing their own breeder's seeds. Breeder seed is of a specified generation produced under the supervision of the breeder (public) or organisation (private) owning the variety under the supervision of a certification institution. These are first evaluated, released, and registered at the national level through the National Agriculture Research Institute – NARI (Seed Services Unit in Malawi). Basic/foundation seed is developed from the breeder's seed and is used to produce the certified seed that is sold to end-users (farmers) again under certification supervision. Variety owners through NARI, apply and maintain registration into the Southern Africa Development Community, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, and East Africa Community catalogues under the harmonised seed regulations, making it eligible for sale in all member states (USAID, 2016, 2019). Staff challenges, a lack of seed committees, and limited funding affect the regional seed centres responsible for regional variety registration. Another challenge is the registration of public varieties on regional catalogues whose ownership between government and CGIAR centres has been unclear, and no one takes responsibility. This has resulted in some public varieties being registered in multiple countries under the same or different names. This has seen mainly privately owned varieties being registered on regional catalogues with hybrid maize varieties leading. The variety evaluation, release, registration, and seed certification processes are based on Distinctiveness Utility Stability (DUS) and Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) based on the quality tests (Setimela et al., 2016). Interestingly, within the regional economic communities, the DUS and VCU test procedures are not standardised creating variations in the certified seeds.

In Malawi, the seed certification process involves field inspections. Starting with the registration of seed producers to update the database, ensuring the easy location of the fields by inspectors and buyers, and planning on national seed requirements. Second is the validation of the foundation seed source. This is to ensure that seed is procured from an approved source conforming to the HSR standards. Seed companies, CGIAR centres, and the public research system are the major sources of foundation seed in Malawi. Third is the land suitability assessment that checks the background of the garden, i.e., foundation and certified maize seed require a field that was not planted to the crop the previous season. The Fourth is to conform with the required isolation distances to avoid admixtures. Lastly is the need for field standards achieved through a total of four inspections at vegetative growth stages. This is aimed at checking the quality of stands in terms of vigour and weed management. However, certified seed production faces challenges on isolation distance due to decreased per capita land holding resulting from population increase and lack of adequate inspectors.2

Upon harvest, the seed is liable for testing to ensure farmers access seeds that would produce ascribed yields of the intended variety before certification in Malawi. This is achieved through standard seed tests including moisture content important for storage, purity analysis, evaluation of seedling germination, biochemical tests for viability, seed health testing, and verification of genetic purity. However, the public four ISTA-accredited seed testing laboratories in Malawi can test for purity, moisture content and germination. The testing involved the preparation of seed lots through processing and bagging for sampling by public seed samplers on request from a seed company. The sampling helps suitable sample size as described by ISTA standards. The actual seed testing is based on the ISTA and national standards. Where purity is determined by the weight composition of the sample tested inferred on the seed lot. Germination refers to the percentage of seeds able of producing normal seedlings under ascribed agroecology. Moisture content entails the quantity of water in the seed for optimum storage and performance.

Seed companies have also established internal quality control mechanisms that perform the three quality tests before certification tests by the Seed Services Unit. Bayer Malawi has gone beyond the physical quality tests by conducting genetic purity tests of the harvested seeds from out-growers before honouring contractual obligations. Due to the differences in DUS and VCU standards among member states, additional scrutiny and testing are applied to imported or exported seeds (Mloza-Banda et al., 2010). After certificates are issued by the Seed Services Unit the seed is packaged by the companies and clearly labelled indicating the name and address of the supplier, variety, class, state of testing, purity and germination percentage, date of packaging and lot number before distribution to selling points. The regional economic communities are yet to roll out streamlined seed labels and certificates for national and regional trade (USAID, Syngenta, & NML, 2019). Packaging and labelling in authentic materials have been reported to help build product confidence (Kopainsky et al., 2012). However, the labelling in Malawi is not standardised, does not offer traceability of the origin of the seed, and packaging is done in sub-standard materials. This is based on seed labels that indicate crop name, variety name, seed class, lot number, testing certificate number and date, year of production, net weight, and treatment declaration. And end-user-authentication data that is limited to the name of the seed company, crop and variety, size of seed package, date of testing and seed lot number.

Is the ago-dealer regulation effective?

Table 1 presents the seed samples procured from different agro-dealers where only 35% were registered and licensed as outlets. A total of seven hybrid varieties belonging to two multinational companies (three from Bayer and 4 from SeedCo) were procured. The National Seed Policy of 2018 and the Seed Regulations of 2018 provide for and enforcement of both seed processor and seller licences (Malawi Government, 2018). These policies provide for the Controller of Seeds or their representative to inspect the outlets and conduct sampling and re-testing of all seed stock for sale by licenced sellers. Although the policies prohibit unlicensed agro-dealers limited enforcement has afforded unscrupulous traders an opportunity into the seed industry. This is evident in the workshop results indicating that enforcing the licencing of agro-dealers has been a challenge in Malawi.3 First, challenges are with policy enforcement that includes small penalties for infringement that do not deter offenders, culprits disowning seeds or runaway when inspectors arrive, shops closed when inspectors arrive, inspectors lacking the necessary equipment to effect arrests, and the lower prices offered on counterfeit seeds entice farmers. In addition, there is strong evidence that public officers have been participating in the seed value chain and may be responsible for information leakage to discredit the enforcement process.4 This is part of the corruption challenges within the public seed certification system (Maereka, 2020). The second challenge is the agro-dealers adulterating the seeds they sell on the market. This has been achieved using original packaging material illegally obtained from producing companies, sold by seed company staff, or stolen in transit which is difficult to trace. In some cases, agro-dealers have used counterfeit packaging materials. To manage this problem, the government introduced an end-user authentication (system scratch card) system where farmers can use the underlying unique code to trace and verify the seed package. Studies have breakdown the counterfeiting along the seed supply chain in Uganda with 50% happening between seed growers and mobile middlemen through mislabelling or dilution, 40% occurring at agro-dealers (large dealers or distributors) by label imitation and adulteration or sub-standard seeds, and 10% at agro-dealers (small dealers) through recycling of packaging materials of reputable organisations (de Boef et al., 2014). There is evidence of limited success in end-user-authentication based on the lack of the ability to trace and track due to data fragmentation and that most farmers do not verify after buying the seeds (de Boef et al., 2014; Salah, Nizamuddin, Jayaraman, & Omar, 2019).

Can DNA sequencing plug the gap?

Genetic purity thus being pure homozygous is key for hybrids (in-bred lines) under the UPOV convention.5 Genetic distance from SSR molecular marker data, though expensive and time-consuming, has been used to verify variation or purity within plant varieties (Heckenberger et al., 2002). Table 2 presents the results on the genetic distance (GD) of the hybrid maize varieties procured from 37 agro-dealers. From the results out of the 37 samples from agro-dealers, only one DKC777 matched the reference from the seed company outlet at 100% homozygosity. In general, the two other DKC777 samples from agro-dealers performed better in terms of DG from the reference sample which was 100% compared to the other lines. The rest of the seed samples had GD scores below the 100% mark with all seed company samples (reference) having lower GD scores than some of the agro-dealer samples. The DKC lines showed better performance which could be attributed to internal quality control that includes DNA testing before payment and collection of seed lots at the seed multiplier farms.6. In addition, the 36 samples not matching and including the reference samples were predominantly heterozygous. First, at the breeding level challenges have been reported with bulking during maintenance breeding resulting in heterogeneity in hybrids (Heckenberger et al., 2002). GD variations in the same lines have also resulted from contamination from foreign pollen during maintenance breeding (Smith et al., 1997).

Table 2

Maize seed varieties and the mean genetic distance within lines
		GD within sample lines
Sample name	No of Samples	Mean	Min	Max
DKC777	4	0.07	0.87	1.00
DKC9089	2	0.04	0.63	0.67
DKC8033	3	0.07	0.43	0.53
SC403	14	0.24	0.27	0.63
SC303	2	0.07	0.50	0.57
SC537	14	0.12	0.27	0.57
SC627	4	0.04	0.43	0.47
SC719	2	0	0.40	0.40

As earlier mentioned, the seed companies breed their own hybrid maize lines outside Malawi i.e., South Africa for DKC lines and Zimbabwe for SC lines. However, progeny testing, and certified seed multiplication of the inbred lines is undertaken in target countries like Malawi under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Seed Services Unit. Second, at the certification level challenges have been linked to the shrinking land-holding size of Malawian farmers which may result in limited isolation when multiplying the hybrid seeds. Limited capacity within the Seed Services Unit, with only 26 seed inspectors, bureaucracy, and lack of transport and equipment have also been reported to hamper the enforcement of certification standards.7 Studies have reported seed mishandling, failure to provide adequate isolation during production, and wrongly identified foundation seeds as having brought seed variability within batches (Semagn et al., 2012; Semagn, Magorokosho, Ogugo, Makumbi, & Warburton, 2014). In addition, counterfeiting along the value chain, from production to agro-dealer outlets is a major challenge with the seed market in Malawi and other countries within the region. The most common counterfeiting in Malawi includes the use of knockoff packaging materials, seed company employees selling original packaging material, and buying used packaging materials from farmers to be recycled.8 These are packed with counterfeit seeds and sold to unsuspecting farmers.

2 Workshop discussion with stakeholders (26th February 2021)

3 Workshop discussion with stakeholders (26th February 2021)

4 USAID Official (August 2021)

5 https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/f798630b33e5/7

6 Interview with Bayer Senior Officer (25/02/2021)

7 Interview with Seed Services Unit Official (31/03/2021)

8 Interview with Seed Trade Association Officials (31/03/2021)

We summarise the results into three policy implications of the current certification process and a conclusion reflecting on the status of the certified seeds on the market. We explain each of the implications and the related research recommendations.

First, is establishing the genetic quality of the foundation seed from the various suppliers following liberalisation and privatisation of the seed sector. Even, after the adoption of harmonised seed regulations in regional economic communities, Southern Africa Development Community and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, the foundation seed is tested using non-standardised DUS and VCU procedures based on phenotypic traits. The process is guided by UPOV descriptors for traits like yield, disease resistance, insect pest reactions, maturity, and farmers’ perception while DNA fingerprinting is not necessary (Setimela, Badu-Apraku, & Mwangi, 2009; Setimela et al., 2016). The seeds once released in two member states are registered on the national and regional catalogues and ready for sale and distribution in all member states. Mishandling, pollen flow between fields, mistaken pedigree, intentional seed contamination, genetic drift, and inadvertent selection have been reported to introduce variations between seed lots. Hence, there is a need to undertake comprehensive research to assess the institutional framework designed to support the implement the harmonised seed regulation at the regional economic community and member states levels. Several key institutions and guidelines have been reported to be non-existent (Hunga, Chiwaula, & Katundu, 2023). This includes recommendations to decentralise or divest the certification process which is largely public and characterized by financial challenges, corruption, and inefficiencies. In addition, the use of DSU and VCU has been designed to safeguard the interests of plant breeders over farmers.

Although DNA fingerprinting has been a powerful tool in determining genetic variation of plant material at any growth stage its use has been limited to breeding programs (Heckenberger et al., 2002). However, in certification, the use of DNA fingerprinting has been considered expensive relative to the target consumer, the smallholder farmers. Interestingly, for most of these resource-poor farmers, their access to improved seed has been supported by the government through a recent wave of farm input subsidies in most African countries. For instance, the Malawi government spent $1.5 billion on input subsidies between 2005 and 2015 with more than 4.5% of this going to hybrid maize (World Bank, 2015). Regardless of this investment, studies have reported that the increase in crop yields in Malawi has mostly come from agricultural land expansion and not improved production efficiency (Li et al., 2021). Hence, this calls for research to quantify the extent to which governments have invested in subsidizing inputs over securing the input supply lines including seeds. In addition, there is a need for developing appropriate methodologies for variety identification, which are not available (Michelson, Gourlay, Lybbert, & Wollburg, 2023), at a commercial scale to protect farmer interests.

For hybrid seeds, governments have adopted end-user authentication systems like scratch cards as a means through which farmers may verify genuine seeds. However, most of the target farmers are illiterate, have no access to mobile phones, buy from mobile seed vendors, and have no immediate grievance redress mechanism within their communities. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the farmers may confirm the seed quality way into the growing season after observing the phenotypic traits in their fields or poor germination rates. Further, agro-dealers have used different methods of counterfeiting to beat the system (Bold et al., 2017; Kilic et al., 2017). This is in addition to the government's failure to regulate the agro-dealers entering the inputs market. Hence, there is a need for research into the possibility of using immutable digital ledgers along the seed and other input value chains for tracing and tracking which is beyond scratch cards' ability.

The results compared seed lines from the same seed company in terms of genetic distance and across lines in terms of homozygosity. We conclude that there was pronounced genetic divergence between samples within the same variety lines and exhibited heterozygous traits not befitting inbred lines (hybrids). The market is dominated by unlicensed agro-dealers, limited internal control systems, compromised certification processes based on quality tests only, and limited enforcement of regulations providing more questions on the hotspots for counterfeiting within the value chain. Based on the forms of counterfeiting and the heterozygosity nature of most seeds, there is a need to identify the hotspots. These may include the external pollination and multiplication fields, dilution on-farm, at processing, or by agro-dealers, to the sale of grain as seed. The study faced limitations, i.e., getting parent lines from seed companies that would allow a better comparison reference. Developing a DNA library from catalogued parent lines would be ideal for genetic tests for certified seeds to cut the time and cost requirements for testing. The government needs to use DNA testing as part of the certification process to ensure that true-to-type seeds are supplied on the market. This may be supported by immutable ledger tools which require further research to evaluate their effectiveness for tracking and tracing certified seed along the value chain.

Author Biography

Henry Geoffrey Hunga is finalizing his Ph.D. in Development Studies at the University of Malawi with a research interest in the public policy process in developing countries. His work has mainly been linked to economic reforms and how they have affected the livelihoods of the most vulnerable in society. He is experienced in qualitative and quantitative research using participatory tools.

Dr. Jan Mei Soon-Sinclair is one of the leading food fraud researchers and has published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles and 4 books including the successful reference book ‘Foodborne Diseases: Case Studies of Outbreaks in the Agri-Food Industries by CRC Press. Jan is appointed as the Register of Specialist for Food Standards Agency, UK and is also the technical expert in the Early Warning Rapid Alert Horizon Scanning group with the United Nations of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. Jan has received funding from British Academy, QR-GCRF, Knowledge Exchange Fund (HEIF & Industrial Strategy), British Retail Consortium, Newton Mobility Grant, and Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, data analysis, methodology, drafting of manuscript H.H.; Conceptualization, review of manuscript JMS.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the University of Malawi’s Natural Resources and Environment Center for managing the project.

Funding: This research was funded by STFC Food Network+ Scoping Project 2020 (Grant Number: X).

Data Availability Statement: Data may be requested from authors.

Conflicts of Interest: None

Agenbag G (2012) Genetic Characterisation and Fine Mapping of Sources of Durable Resistance to Stripe Rust in
Selected Wheat Genotypes. (PhD). University of the Free State, South Africa
Ashour M, Billings L, Gilligan D, Hoel JB, Karachiwalla N (2016) Do beliefs about agricultural inputs counterfeiting correspond with actual rates of counterfeting? Evidence from Uganda. In. IFPRI Discussion Paper: IFPRI
Ashour M, Billings L, Gilligan DO, Karachiwalla N (2015) Evaluation of the impact of e-verification on counterfeit agricultural inputs and technology adoption in Uganda. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.
Ashour M, Gilligan DO, Hoel JB, Karachiwalla NI (2018) Do Beliefs About Herbicide Quality Correspond with Actual Quality in Local Markets? Evidence from Uganda. J Dev Stud 55(6):1285–1306. 10.1080/00220388.2018.1464143
Auriol E, Schilizzi S (2015) Quality signaling through certification in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 116(2015), 105–121. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.03.007
Barimah P, Doso S, Twumasi-Ankrah B (2014) Impact of climate change on maize production in Ghana. A review. J Agricultural Sci Appl 03(04):89–93. 10.14511/jasa.2014.030402
Barriga A, Fiala N (2020) The supply chain of seed in Uganda: where does it go wrong? World Develoment, 130(2020). doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104928
Bold T, Kaizzi KC, Svensson J, Yanagizawa-Drott D (2015) Low quality, low returns, low adoption; evidence the market for fertilizer and hybrid seed in Uganda. In. Faculty of Research Working Paper Series. Cambridge, USA: Harvard Kennedy School
Bold T, Kaizzi KC, Svensson J, Yanagizawa-Drott D (2017) Lemon Technologies and Adoption: Measurement, Theory and Evidence from Agricultural Markets in Uganda. Q J Econ 132(3):1055–1100. 10.1093/qje/qjx009
Buanec BL, Heffer P (2002) The Role of International Seed Associations in International Policy Development. J New Seeds 4(1–2):77–87. 10.1300/J153v04n01_06
Chagomoka T, Afari-Sefa V, Pitoro R (2014) Value chain analysis of traditional vegetable from Malawi and Mozambique. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev, 17(4)
Chinsinga B (2010) The political economy of input programmes in Malawi. In. Working Paper 013. United Kingdom: Future Agricultures
Collard BCY, Jahufer MZZ, Brouwer JB, Pang ECK (2005) An introduction to markers, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and marker-assisted selection for crop improvement: The basic concepts. Euphytica 142(1–2):169–196. 10.1007/s10681-005-1681-5
Croft MM, Marshall MI, Odendo M, Ndinya C, Ondego NN, Obura P, Hallett SG (2017) Formal and Informal Seed Systems in Kenya: Supporting Indigenous Vegetable Seed Quality. J Dev Stud 54(4):758–775. 10.1080/00220388.2017.1308487
Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16:67–88
de Boef WS, Pierson B, Kim D (2014) Counterfeiting in African Agriculture inputs: Challenges and Solutions In. Research Readout. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya
Denning G, Kabambe P, Sanchez P, Malik A, Flor R (2009) Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: Toward an African green revolution. PLoS Biol 7(1). 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000023
Derwisch S, Morone P, Tröger K, Kopainsky B (2016) Investigating the drivers of innovation diffusion in a low income country context. The case of adoption of improved maize seed in Malawi. Futures 81:161–175. 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.011
Fairbairn M (2017) Are they lemons? Unobservable quality, information and mineral fertilizer demand. Master of Science. University of Illnois, Urbana, IL
FAOSTAT (2015) Retrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=339〈=en&country=130. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from FAO http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=339〈=en&country=130
Guan Y, Wang J, Tian Y, Hu W, Zhu L, Zhu S, Hu J (2013) The novel approach to enhance seed security: dual anti-counterfeiting methods applied on tobacco pelleted seeds. PLoS ONE 8(2):e57274. 10.1371/journal.pone.0057274
Hassan RM, Mekuria M, Mwangi W (2001) Maize Breeding Research in Eastern and Southern Africa: Current Status and Impacts of Past Investments Made by the Public and Private Sectors 1966-97. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.
Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Ziegle JS, Joe LK, Hauser JD, Michelle Hutton M, Melchinger AE (2002) Variation of DNA fingerprints among accessions within maize inbred lines and implications for identification of essentially derived varieties
I. Genetic and technical sources of variation in SSR data. Mol Breeding, 10, 181–191. doi:10.1023/A:1020539330957
Herring RJ, Kandlikar M (2009) Illicit seeds: intellectual property and the underground proliferation of agricultural biotechnologies. In: Haunss S, Shadlen KC (eds) Politics of Intellectual Property: Contestation Over the Ownership, Use, and Control of Knowledge and Information. Edward Elga Publishing Limited, UK
ISTA (2021) International Rules for Seed Testing 2021. International Rules for Seed Testing. International Seed Testing Association (ISTA), Bassersdorf, Switzerland
Jaleta M, Tesfaye K, Kilian A, Yirga C, Habte E, Beyene H, Erenstein O (2020) Misidentification by farmers of the crop varieties they grow: Lessons from DNA fingerprinting of wheat in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 15(7):e0235484. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235484
Kankwamba H, Kornher L (2019) Performance, behaviour and organization of maize trading in Malawi. Agricultural and Food Economics 7(1). 10.1186/s40100-019-0136-6
Karingu AW, Ngugi PK (2013) The determinants of the infiltration of counterfeit agro-based products in Kenya: a case of suppliers in Nairobi. Int J Hum Resource Procure 1(5):28–36
Kilic T, Ilukor J, Kilian A, Stevenson J (2017) Blowing in the wind: the quest for accurate crop variety identification in field research, with an application to maize in Uganda. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Kilic T, Moylan H, Ilukor J, Phiri IP (2016) Methodological experiment on measuring cassava production, productivity, and variety identification in Malawi. Paper presented at the ICAS VII Seventh International Conference on Agriculture Statistics, Rome
Kopainsky B, Tröger K, Derwisch S, Ulli-Beer S (2012) Designing Sustainable Food Security Policies in Sub-Saharan African Countries: How Social Dynamics Over-Ride Utility Evaluations for Good and Bad. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(6):575–589. 10.1002/sres.2140
Kosmowski F, Aragaw A, Kilian A, Ambel A, Ilukor J, Yigezu B, Stevenson J (2019) Varietal Identification in Household Surveys: Results from Three Household-Based Methods against the Benchmark of DNA Fingerprinting in Southern Ethiopia. Exp Agric 55(3):371–385. 10.1017/S0014479718000030
Kugbei S, Bishaw Z (2002) Policy Measures for Stimulating Indigenous Seed Enterprises. J New Seeds 4(1–2):47–63. 10.1300/J153v04n01_04
Langyintuo AS, Mwangi W, Diallo AO, MacRobert J, Dixon J, Bänziger M (2010) Challenges of the maize seed industry in eastern and southern Africa: A compelling case for private–public intervention to promote growth. Food Policy 35(4):323–331. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.005
Louwaars NP, de Boef WS (2013) Integrated Seed Sector Development in Africa: A Basis for Seed Policy and Law. J Crop Improv 27(2):186–214. 10.1080/15427528.2012.751472
Lunduka R, Fisher M, Snapp S (2012) Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? Food Policy 37:504–510. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.05.001
Maereka EK (2020) An estimation of grain legume seed system efficiency in developing countries. Master of Science. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Mailath G, Samuelson L (2001) Who wants a good reputation? Rev Econ Stud 68:415–441
Malawi Government (2018) National Seed Policy. Malawi Government, Lilongwe, Malawi
Marechera G, Muinga G, Irungu P (2016) Assessment of Seed Maize Systems and Potential Demand for Climate-Smart Hybrid Maize Seed in Africa. J Agric Sci 8(8). 10.5539/jas.v8n8p171
McCouch SR, Chen X, Panaud O, Temnykh S, Xu Y, Cho Gu, Blair Y, M (1997) Microsatellite marker development, mapping and applications in rice genetics and breeding. Plant Mol Biol 35:89–99
Milne I, Shaw P, Stephen G, Bayer M, Cardle L, Thomas WT, Marshall D (2010) Flapjack–graphical genotype visualization. Bioinformatics 26(24):3133–3134. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq580
Mloza-Banda HR, Kaudzu G, Benesi I (2010) Evaluation of the Malawi seed sector for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) harmonized seed regulations and policies. Lilongwe, Malawi: COMESA
Munshi K (2004) Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J Dev Econ 73(1):185–213. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.03.003
Nadeem MA, Nawaz MA, Shahid MQ, Doğan Y, Comertpay G, Yıldız M, Baloch FS (2017) DNA molecular markers in plant breeding: current status and recent advancements in genomic selection and genome editing. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 32(2):261–285. 10.1080/13102818.2017.1400401
Nelson P (1970) Information and consumder behavior. J Polit Econ 78:311–329
Omoyo NN, Wakhungu J, Oteng’i S (2015) Effects of climate variability on maize yield in the arid and semi arid lands of lower eastern Kenya. Agric Food Secur 4(1). 10.1186/s40066-015-0028-2
Ouma T, Kavoo A, Wainaina C, Ogunya B, Karanja M, Kumar PL, Shah T (2019) Open data kit (ODK) in crop farming: mobile data collection for seed yam tracking in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Crop Improv. 10.1080/15427528.2019.1643812
Pedrini S, Merritt DJ, Stevens J, Dixon K (2017) Seed Coating: Science or Marketing Spin? Trends Plant Sci 22(2):106–116. 10.1016/j.tplants.2016.11.002
Poets A, Silverstein K, Pardey P, Hearne S, Stevenson J (2020) DNA Fingerprinting for Crop Varietal Identification: Fit-for-Purpose Protocols, their Costs and Analytical Implications. CGIAR
Salah K, Nizamuddin N, Jayaraman R, Omar M (2019) Blockchain-Based Soybean Traceability in Agricultural Supply Chain. IEEE Access 7:73295–73305. 10.1109/access.2019.2918000
Semagn K, Beyene Y, Makumbi D, Mugo S, Prasanna BM, Magorokosho C, Atlin G (2012) Quality control genotyping for assessment of genetic identity and purity in diverse tropical maize inbred lines. Theor Appl Genet 125(7):1487–1501. 10.1007/s00122-012-1928-1
Semagn K, Magorokosho C, Ogugo V, Makumbi D, Warburton ML (2014) Genetic relationships and structure among open-pollinated maize varieties adapted to eastern and southern Africa using microsatellite markers. Mol Breeding 34(3):1423–1435. 10.1007/s11032-014-0126-z
Setimela PS, Warburton ML, Erasmus T (2016) DNA fingerprinting of open-pollinated maize seed lots to establish genetic purity using simple sequence repeat markers. South Afr J Plant Soil 33(2):141–148. 10.1080/02571862.2015.1104737
Simtowe F, Asfaw S, Abate T (2016) Determinants of agricultural technology adoption under partial population awareness: the case of pigeonpea in Malawi. Agricultural and Food Economics 4(1). 10.1186/s40100-016-0051-z
Smale M, Byerlee D, Jayne T (2013) Maize revolutions in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Otsuka K, Larson DF (eds) An African Grean Revolution: Finding Ways to Boost Productivity on Small Farms. The Internstional Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
Smith JSC, Chin ECL, Shu H, Smith OS, Wall SJ, Senior ML, Ziegle J (1997) An evaluation of the utility of SSR loci as molecular markers in maize (Zea mays L.): comparisons with data from RFLPS and pedigree. Theor Appl Genet 95(1–2):163–173. 10.1007/s001220050544
Sperling L, Cooper HD, Remington T (2008) Moving Towards More Effective Seed Aid. J Dev Stud 44(4):586–612. 10.1080/00220380801980954
Sperling L, Loevinsohn ME, Ntabomvura B (1993) Rethinking the farmers role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Exp Agric 29:509–519
Sperling L, McGuire S (2010) Understanding and Strengthening Informal Seed Markets. Exp Agric 46(2):119–136. 10.1017/s0014479709991074
Sperling L, McGuire S (2012) Fatal gaps in seed security strategy. Food Secur 4(4):569–579. 10.1007/s12571-012-0205-0
Spink J (2011) The Challenge of Intellectual Property Enforcement for Agriculture Technology Transfers, Additives, Raw Materials, and Finished Goods against Product Fraud and Counterfeiters. J Intellect Property Rights 16:183–193
Treiblmaier H, Garaus M (2023) Using blockchain to signal quality in the food supply chain: The impact on consumer purchase intentions and the moderating effect of brand familiarity. Int J Inf Manag 68. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102514
Tripp R (1995) Regulatory option for a changing agricultural scenario: the case of seed certfication. Dev Policy Rev 13:407–421
Tripp R, Louwaars NP, Eaton D (2007) Plant variety protection in developing countries. A report from the field. Food Policy 32(3):354–371. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.09.003
Tripp R, Rohrbach DD (2001) Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy 26:147–161
USAID (2016) Southern Africa Region Seed Sector Assesment. In. Feed the Future Enabling Environment for Food Security Project. United State Agency for International Development
USAID (2019) Malawi Early Generation Seed Report Retrieved from Washington, DC
USAID, Syngenta, & NML (2019) Manual on Regional Seed Regulation in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). Washington, D.C
Winter P, Kalh G (1995) Molecular marker technology for plant improvement. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 11:438–448
World Bank (2007) World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank (2015) Malawi economic monitor: managing fiscal pressures. World Bank, Lilongwe, Malawi

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Reject after review
15 Sep, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
03 Aug, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
03 Aug, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
03 Aug, 2023
First submitted to journal
01 Aug, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

A feasibility study on the complementarity of quality and genetic tests on seed certification: lessons from the hybrid maize in Malawi

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Results and discussion

Is the seed quality test enough to manage the supply chain?

Is the ago-dealer regulation effective?

Can DNA sequencing plug the gap?

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1