Demographic characteristics of groundnut farmers
The gender distribution, matrimonial situation, literacy and age dynamics of the groundnut farmers is given in Table 2. Among the 124 farmers interviewed, 29.84 % were from the Central-Eastern, 29.84 % from the Central-Northern and 40.32% from the Central-Western. About48.4% were women and 51.61% were men, suggesting a gender balance of the groundnut farmers. However, at the region level, the study revealed a big gap for the gender participation in the survey. In the Central-Eastern region, 67.57% of participants were women and 59.46% of participants in the Central-Northern regions were women. In each region both men and women produce groundnut as a cash crop. Women are largely involved in groundnut values chain which become a main activity for incomes in off season specially in the Central-Northern region. Majority of participants were married (96.77%) and the few non married were from the Central-western region (3.23%). Majority of farmers (65.32 %) were between the age of 35 and 60 years. Thirty-six percent of farmers were under 35 years while only 5.65% of respondents were more than 60 years old. More than twenty-nine (29.3%) young people were engaged in groundnut farming activities with age varying from 15 to 34 . The mean age of the participants was 41 years. There is no significant difference of age across the region and similar proportions of each group were observed in each region. Unlike the age of farmers across region, there is a high significant difference of age between men and women (P< 0.0001). Women farmers appear to be younger with mean age of 37 ages than men farmers (mean age of 45 ages). Majority of the respondents (58.6%) were illiterate and didn’t attend school at all. The remaining farmers (41.4%) are able to read and write in either other languages and/or official language. Only 11.29% of the respondents attended primary school, 6.45% attended secondary school and 24.19% of the participants attended local basic literacy training. Unlike the men farmers, women farmers show a higher proportion of secondary education and low proportion of primary school education (Fig. 2). The Central-Northern region presents the lowest level of secondary school educated farmers while in the Central-Western region, proportion of primary and secondary school educated is almost the same (Fig. 2).
Table 2
Table: Socio demographic profile of farmers in the study areas
Region
|
|
|
|
Variable
|
Category
|
Central-Eastern
|
Central-Northern
|
Central-Western
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Num
|
Perc
|
Num
|
Perc
|
Num
|
Perc
|
Num
|
Perc
|
Df
|
Chi-square
|
Pvalue
|
Gender
|
Women
|
25
|
67.57
|
22
|
59.46
|
13
|
26
|
60
|
48.39
|
2
|
17.3009
|
0.0000
|
Men
|
12
|
32.43
|
15
|
40.54
|
37
|
74
|
64
|
51.61
|
|
Total
|
37
|
29.84
|
37
|
29.84
|
50
|
40.32
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
Matrimonial
|
Single
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
3.23
|
2
|
6.1173
|
0.047
|
Married
|
37
|
100
|
37
|
100
|
46
|
92
|
120
|
96.77
|
Age-group
|
< -35
|
9
|
7.26
|
12
|
9.68
|
15
|
12.1
|
36
|
29.03
|
4
|
2.69
|
0.61
|
35-60
|
25
|
20.16
|
22
|
17.74
|
34
|
27.42
|
81
|
65.32
|
>-60
|
3
|
2.42
|
3
|
2.42
|
1
|
0.81
|
7
|
5.65
|
Education level
|
Illiterate
|
21
|
56.76
|
21
|
56.76
|
30
|
60
|
72
|
58.06
|
|
|
|
Basic Literacy
|
8
|
21.62
|
11
|
29.73
|
11
|
22
|
30
|
24.19
|
6
|
3.8501
|
0.697
|
Primary School
|
6
|
16.22
|
4
|
10.81
|
4
|
8
|
14
|
11.29
|
|
|
|
Secondary School
|
2
|
5.41
|
1
|
2.7
|
5
|
10
|
8
|
6.45
|
|
|
|
Groundnut cropping system and practices
The cropping systems and cultural practices in the study area are summarized in Table 3. The main soil types in the study areas are sandy soil, clay soil, clay-sandy soil. In the Central-Northern region 94.6% farmers produce groundnut on sandy soil while in the Central-Western region 88% farmers grown groundnut on sandy clay soil. In the Central-Eastern region 56.7% of interviewed farmers grow groundnut in clay or clay sandy soil. Diverse crops are grown in the study area where on average 4 crops are grown by a producer with a range of minimum one crop and a Maximum of 7 crops. On average groundnut ranked second important crop in terms of area and importance among the crops produced. The average ranking of groundnut between the regions was not significant. However, the average ranking of the crop by gender shows a significant difference between women and men (P< 0.0000). Groundnut is more important for women compared to men. it was mostly ranked first crop produced for most of the women, especially in the Central-Eastern region, while for men the crop was ranked up to 5th. About 45% of women and only 12.5% of men ranked groundnut as their first crop among the crops produced while half of the men and 38.33% of women ranked groundnut as a second crop among crops produced.
Early June appeared to be the most appropriate sowing period for groundnut according to 46.77% of farmers (Table 3). The mid-June and the end of June are both considered as suitable periods in 11.29% of producer’s opinions. Considering the appropriate sowing period within each region, the Central-Western and the Central-Eastern respectively 60.0% and 59.5% of farmers reported the early June as a suitable period for groundnut sowing while in the Central-Northern the appropriate sowing period seems to be early July (32.4%) and the end of June (27.02%). Farmers generally practice groundnut weeding twice, the first, 2 weeks after sowing and the second, 30 to 45 days after sowing generally or at flowering stage.
More than half (65.32%) of the interviewed farmers mentioned the end of September as a suitable period harvesting groundnut, 16.13% of farmers mentioned the early October and 10.48% of farmers reported the Middle-October.
In the Central-Eastern around 59.4% as well as in the Central-Western around 88% of farmers harvest groundnut at the end of September. On the other hand, in the Central-Northern region 40.53% of farmers harvest at the end of September and 32.43% of farmers at mid-October.
It has been observed that groundnut is mainly cultivated in mono-cropping system in the three regions. Intercropping is practiced in the study area and mostly in the Central-western region with cereals such as sorghum, millet; maize and in some rare cases with legumes. In this study area 11.29 % of respondents rotated groundnut with others crop. About 54.3% of the respondents practice row planting of groundnut with diverse spacings used between rows and hills. The study showed 65.32% of the farmers used chemical products for the seed treatment. Although farmers use several products, the main ones are Caiman, Pacha, Thiorol, and Calthio which is the most utilized product across the three regions. Fertilizer use for groundnut production is limited in the study area. These people believed that there is no need to apply fertilizer for groundnut while for some of them, the reason is the lack of money. However, some farmers apply either chemical fertilizer (41.94%) or organic fertilizer (40.32%) in the three regions due to the drought, low soil fertility and also to increase yield. The Central-Eastern and Central-Northern regions are where chemical fertilizer are highly used with respectively 62.16 % and 64.86% (Table 3) according to the producers. Only 10% of respondent from the Central-Western region used chemical fertilizer. The similar trend was observed for the use of organic fertilizer in the three regions
Gender implication and farm characteristics
The groundnut farm size ranged from 0.25 ha to 10 ha with an average of 1.072 ha (Table 4). The average production is 584.47 Kg while the average yield is 681,23 Kg/ha. In general, analysis of variance showed a significant difference only for the farm size across regions (p < 0.0029) and for the yield across the regions (P< 0.0363). The Central-Eastern region which presented the largest average of groundnut farm size (1.57 ha) has the lowest average yield of 591,07Kg/ha. The Central-Western region, although presenting the smallest average farm size, differs from other regions with the highest yield of 767.15Kg/ha. All the three regions possess the equal minimal farm size (0.25 ha) but the largest one is located in the Central-Eastern (10 ha).
Table 3
Cropping systems and cultural practices in groundnut cropping in the study area.
|
Central-Eastern
|
Central-Northern
|
Central-Western
|
Total
|
DF
|
Chi 2
|
P-values
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
Sowing period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early of June
|
59.46
|
16.22
|
60
|
46.77
|
8
|
61.18
|
0.000
|
Midle of June
|
0
|
5.41
|
24
|
11.29
|
End of June
|
32.43
|
27.03
|
16
|
24.19
|
Early of July
|
8.11
|
32.43
|
0
|
12.10
|
Midle of July
|
0
|
18.92
|
0
|
5.65
|
Harvest period
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
46.29
|
0.0000
|
End of September
|
59.46
|
40.54
|
88
|
65.32
|
Early of October
|
16.22
|
21.62
|
12
|
16.13
|
Midle of October
|
2.7
|
32.43
|
0
|
10.48
|
End of October
|
21.62
|
5.41
|
0
|
8.07
|
Soil type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gravelly soil
|
8.11
|
0
|
0
|
2.42
|
14
|
66.21
|
0.0000
|
Loose soil
|
10.81
|
0
|
0
|
3.23
|
Sandy soil
|
16.22
|
37.84
|
26
|
26.61
|
Sandy-clay soil
|
8.11
|
56.76
|
62
|
44.35
|
Clay soil
|
16.22
|
2.7
|
6
|
8.06
|
Sandy clay soil
|
40.54
|
2.7
|
4
|
14.52
|
Lateritic soil
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0.81
|
weeding
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
26.92
|
0.0000
|
Once
|
35.14
|
13.51
|
32
|
41.94
|
Twice
|
64.86
|
86.49
|
68
|
58.06
|
Chemical fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
35.14
|
0.0000
|
Yes
|
37.84
|
35.14
|
90
|
41.94
|
No
|
62.16
|
64.86
|
10
|
58.06
|
Organic fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
7.19
|
0.027
|
Yes
|
51.35
|
48.65
|
74
|
40.32
|
No
|
48.65
|
51.35
|
26
|
59.68
|
Table 4
Groundnut farm characteristics, production and yield in the study area
Region
|
Village
|
Groundnut farm size range
|
Groundnut Production range
|
Groundnut yield range
|
|
|
Min
|
Mean
|
Max
|
Min
|
Mean
|
Max
|
Min
|
Mean
|
Max
|
|
Central-Eastern
|
Boussouma
|
0.25
|
1.17
|
2
|
500
|
820
|
1500
|
500
|
756.66
|
933.33
|
|
Daltenga
|
0.5
|
2.43
|
10
|
200
|
610
|
1000
|
200
|
648.48
|
1133.33
|
|
Lergo
|
0.25
|
1.291
|
3
|
200
|
611.11
|
1200
|
100
|
408.33
|
1050
|
|
Pagou
|
0.5
|
0.875
|
2
|
700
|
750
|
800
|
750
|
775
|
800
|
|
Total
|
0.25
|
1.57b
|
10
|
200
|
661.53a
|
1500
|
100
|
591.07a
|
1133.3
|
|
Central-Northern
|
Iryastenga
|
0.25
|
0.675
|
1
|
266.66
|
652
|
1433.33
|
666.66
|
673.33
|
680
|
|
Kalambaongo
|
0.5
|
1.58
|
3
|
216.66
|
944.44
|
2266.66
|
433.33
|
634.88
|
850
|
|
Nessemtenga
|
0.25
|
0.613
|
1
|
200
|
365.75
|
733.33
|
400
|
587.77
|
933.33
|
|
Pissila
|
0.25
|
0.525
|
1
|
150
|
234.07
|
366.66
|
100
|
703.33
|
973.33
|
|
Total
|
0.25
|
0.76a
|
3
|
150
|
508.79a
|
2266.66
|
100
|
643.24ab
|
973.33
|
|
Central-Western
|
Léo
|
0.5
|
0.98
|
1.5
|
216.66
|
769.25
|
1233.33
|
216.66
|
875.51
|
1492.06
|
|
Mouna
|
0.25
|
0.708
|
1.5
|
143.33
|
425.55
|
123.33
|
433.33
|
751.38
|
1233.33
|
|
Wan
|
0.5
|
1.125
|
4
|
236.66
|
557.58
|
983.33
|
473.33
|
1049.9
|
1600
|
|
Zooro
|
0.5
|
0.903
|
2
|
216.66
|
593.58
|
1500
|
383.33
|
589.6
|
1000
|
|
Total
|
0.25
|
0.93ab
|
4
|
143.33
|
602.5a
|
1566.66
|
216.66
|
767.15abc
|
1600
|
|
Total
|
0.25
|
1.07
|
10
|
143.33
|
584.47
|
2266.66
|
100
|
681.23
|
1600
|
|
Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different
*Means within a column with different letter(s) are significantly different
The study indicates a significant difference within regions although there was no significant difference at study area for the farm size by sex. The ANOVA of the average farm size by sex presents no significant difference. The smallest farm usually belongs to the women while the largest farms are owned by men. Only the Central-Western region showed gender balanced for the average groundnut farm size. The analysis of variance of the average yield by gender was significant (p < 0.0252). Men’ average yield was higher than the average yield of the women (Table 5). A similar observation was made for the average production (p < 0.0000) With men production almost twice the women average production.
Table 5
ANOVA of groundnut farm size, production and yield by gender
Region
|
Sex
|
Groundnut farm size
|
Groundnut Production
|
Groundnut yield
|
Mean
|
P-value
|
Mean
|
P-value
|
Mean
|
P-value
|
Central-Eastern
|
Women
|
1.07a
|
0.0086
|
572.54a
|
0.0344
|
502.77a
|
0.0245
|
Men
|
2.625b
|
829.62b
|
750b
|
Central-Northern
|
Women
|
0.6c
|
0.345
|
297.46c
|
0.0006
|
624.5c
|
0.52
|
Men
|
1c
|
804.66d
|
688.73c
|
Central-Western
|
Women
|
1.01d
|
0.5355
|
426.38e
|
0.0536
|
769.44d
|
0.97
|
Men
|
0.89d
|
645.061e
|
766.17d
|
Total
|
Women
|
0.88e
|
0.0715
|
421.93f
|
0.0000
|
614.89e
|
0.0252
|
Men
|
1.24e
|
724.575g
|
750.53f
|
*Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different
*Means within a column with different letter(s) are significantly different
The table 6 shows some significant correlations between farmers’ characteristics and farming system variables: A negative and significant correlation were observed for farmers age and the technical assistance, age and use of improved variety. A high positive and significant correlation has observed for sex and Production, Sex and Yield and also Sex and the rank of groundnut. Groundnut production is positively correlated to Field superficies, Yield and Sowing period with high significance
Table 6
Correlation among farm characteristics and farming system variables
|
Age
|
Sex
|
T.A
|
U.I.S
|
E.L
|
F.S
|
Prod
|
Yield
|
Exp.
|
RAC
|
ASP
|
AHP
|
Age
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sex
|
0.3454**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.A
|
-0.1851*
|
0.0344
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.I.S
|
-0.1912*
|
0.0231
|
0.6368**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.L
|
-0.2484**
|
-0.041
|
-0.0769
|
-0.0415
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.S
|
0.1422
|
0.1624
|
-0.0434
|
-0.1382
|
-0.0515
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prod
|
0.2556**
|
0.4111**
|
-0.0602
|
-0.1208
|
0.009
|
0.3137**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yield
|
0.0536
|
0.2334*
|
-0.0831
|
-0.1509
|
0.1873
|
0.1119
|
0.4065**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Exp.
|
0.2625**
|
-0.0172
|
-0.0037
|
-0.0878
|
-0.0316
|
0.1231
|
-0.0089
|
0.102
|
1
|
|
|
|
RAC
|
0.1079
|
0.3662**
|
-0.1953*
|
-0.0658
|
0.1308
|
-0.1568
|
-0.0625
|
0.0588
|
0.0008
|
1
|
|
|
ASP
|
-0.1256
|
-0.2483**
|
-0.2098*
|
0.0632
|
0.1761
|
-0.2175*
|
-0.2773**
|
-0.1928
|
0.0242
|
0.1976*
|
1
|
|
AHP
|
0.1404
|
0.1348
|
-0.2455**
|
-0.171
|
0.081
|
0.138
|
0.1902
|
-0.0135
|
-0.0299
|
0.1039
|
0.3962**
|
1
|
Signification code : **=0.01 ; * = 0.05
T.A.= Technical Assistance; U.I.S.= Use of Improved Seed; E.L.= Education Level; F. S.= Field Superficies; Prod= Production; Exp= Experience; RAC= Groundnut rank among crops produced; ASP= Appropriate Sowing Period; AHP= Appropriate Harvested Period.
Cultivated groundnut varieties
The analysis of the type of varieties grown in the last three years (2015-2017) shows large proportion of the local varieties in each year and in each region (Fig.3). The relative frequencies for the local varieties grown was 87.9%, 90.63% and 75% for 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively, against 12.1%, 9.37 and 25% of improved varieties for the same periods. Most of the respondents reported the unavailability of the improved varieties. In addition, most of the varieties used in the study area are characterized by small kernel size (Fig.3). Indeed, 72% of the utilized varieties in 2015 were characterized by small kernel and 28% for large kernel. The proportions were 65.59 % for the small kernel and 34.41% for the large kernel in 2016 and 58.51% for the small kernel with 41.49% for the large kernel in 2017. According to the farmers, the small kernel varieties are widely spread and easily accessible.
The study revealed multipurpose use of groundnut in the study areas including food, cash source, animal feed and ecological services.
Groundnut is an extremely versatile crops being used in wide range of food products(20,21) in Burkina Faso. It is used increasingly as roasted with salt commonly called (marba-tigue) which is sold and eaten almost everywhere in publics, celebrations and community festival (22). Boiled groundnut and fresh one, are also eaten daily, and its raw products are included in varying food preparation. It is even prepared mixed with burnt sugar called (nangour-siido) in local language or caramel which are highly appreciated and sold everywhere in the country. The crop is crushed after being roast to produce groundnut butter which is used as a main ingredient in several foods. The butter is used in basic food preparation with cereals, Tuber, leguminous. It is also used in the preparation a local food which is made up of a mixture of sorrel leaves, Cowpea leaves, and millet or sorghum grains commonly called (Baag-benda, Zind-zangsenga…) in local language. Groundnut cakes, rich food in nutrition, used as common snacks(21) is produce, especially in the Central-northern region, after oil extraction. The cake is also crushed and mixt with spices in meat roasting. Although the groundnut trading flows remain unknown due to the unorganized situation of the sector, it is estimated that more than 60% of the production is marketed (10). A large part of the production is sold in the country through an organized network, from collectors to wholesalers who supplied the retailers and export the crop. These traders handle large volume of the transactions of groundnut across urban and regional centers. The sector is organized in a circuit involving different social strata, and constitutes an important source of employments and income generation for a large part of the people, especially the rural dwellers. It has been reported that groundnut provide 16% of farm cash income (10) in the country.
In urban centers, the sale of groundnuts constitutes an activity practiced through large markets (Pouytenga, Sankar yaaré...) and especially by housewives and young girls. It is potential source, generating activity for small farmer(21), providing cash income for many young girl’s, schoolchildren in rural and urban zone, during holidays period. In regional centers, groundnut is processed and sold individually or collectively through women's groups, villages group or regional cooperatives. Wholesalers export groundnuts to neighboring countries, with a low export rate representing 2% of production (8). The higher income of groundnut generated has been observed in 2008 with only 2billons francs CFA on income generated. Groundnut and it derived products through artisanal processing, provide per annum around 1.45% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The marketing of groundnut and it derived products in Burkina Faso actively contributes to the well-being of many households, access to health and above all, the education of children. In animal feed, groundnut constitute a rich fodder appreciated by livestock and the haulm is used to feed animal either fresh or dry. Rarely used in manure, after harvest, haulms are always dried and can be well sold for cattle, goats nutrition and in few case for sheep. Additionally groundnut is used in mixt cropping system to restore soil fertility thanks to its ability of N2 fixation and nutrient uptake (23,24). In Burkina, Faso, groundnut is among the most suitable crops for rotation purpose with Cereals(25). An important improvement of soil fertility and increase of millet biomasses of 20% have been reported in rotation cropping (26). In the semi-arid climatic conditions, without mineral fertilization, groundnut improve soil fertility hence in rural zone the crop is mostly grow in marginal soil by small farmer.
Groundnut production constraints
In the FGD, farmers identified constraints and make ranking of these constraints (table 7). The constraints listed and ranked by farmers in FG were similar from one region to another region. Despite their similarity, there was no concordance of the ranking of the constraints across the regions. Each constraint was perceived with different rank from one region to another region. In the FGD, farmers in the Central-Eastern region identified soil pest, short period of rainfall, lack of short maturity varieties, diseases and lack of improved varieties as the most important constraints
Table 7
Groundnut constraint rank in each region and across the region
Groundnut production constraint
|
Constraint rank
|
Central-Eastern
|
Central-l Northern
|
Central-Western
|
Mean
|
Lack of improved seed
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
4.5
|
Lack of short maturity varieties
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
4.5
|
Short period of rainfall
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
2.17
|
High price of improved seed
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
4.67
|
Diseases
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
5.5
|
Drought
|
3
|
1
|
8
|
7.67
|
Pest
|
1
|
8
|
10
|
7.67
|
Lack of training
|
5
|
2
|
12
|
7.83
|
Problem of land ownership
|
8
|
9
|
1
|
8.33
|
Lack materials
|
9
|
3
|
6
|
8.33
|
Soil poverty
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
9
|
Lack of reliable market
|
6
|
8
|
5
|
9.5
|
Problem of conservation
|
10
|
8
|
9
|
11.33
|
Kendall’s W
|
0.431
|
Chi-square
|
15.51
|
F distribution p value
|
0.214
|
Production constraints faced by farmers in the study area and their frequencies are presented in Fig. 4. The main constraints included lack of improved varieties, lack of materials, high price of seed, low yielding varieties, pest attacks, diseases and drought. However, the analysis of the constraints in each region reveals that each constraint is perceived differently from one region to another (Fig. 5).
In the central-northern region, drought, short period of rainfall, lack of training, lack of improved seed, lack of short maturity varieties, and diseases are the most appreciated constraints while in the central-western region, land ownership, diseases, lack of improved seed, short period of rainfall, lack of short maturity varieties were ranked ahead as important constraints. However, in general the lack of improved varieties, the lack of materials, the high price of the seed, the low yielding varieties and pest attack appear to be more important with respectively 13.79%, 11.23%, 10.21%, 9.57% 6.38% of interview people rank of the constraints.