Enabling effective maize seed system in low-income countries of West Africa: Insights from Benin

Introduction Access to high-quality seeds remains a key constraint to the intensification of crop production in low-income countries. In this study, we analyzed maize seed production and distribution systems in Benin to identify leverage points for effective seed systems, a prerequisite for improving maize production. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 81 seed producers selected in seven municipalities across the three phytogeographical zones of Benin. Key informant interviews were also conducted with ten public and private stakeholders involved in maize seed systems in Benin. Results and discussion Findings showed that the legal and institutional frameworks governing seed systems in Benin were recently reinforced with a national seed policy, the creation and operationalization of the National Committee of Plant Seeds and the existence of regulations and rules on the production, quality control, certification, trade, and packaging of seeds. In addition, enabling conditions to facilitate the involvement of the private sector have been greatly improved with the revision of modalities for obtaining approval for the production and distribution of seeds in Benin. While the seed sector is improving and both public and private stakeholders are involved in maize seed production and distribution, synergies among stakeholders need to be strengthened. Strengthening business and marketing skills of seed producers through training and promoting the comparative advantages of improved seeds in increasing yield and production among maize farmers could be a promising avenue. Connecting seed producers with maize farmers' organizations coupled with ICT-based agro-advisories could boost the development of the maize seed sector, and ultimately the maize value chain

Trade-Offs of Flowering and Maturity Synchronisation for Pineapple Quality.

In the pineapple sector of Benin, poor fruit quality prevents pineapple producers to enter the European market. We investigated effects of common cultural practices, flowering and maturity synchronisation, (1) to quantify the trade-offs of flowering and maturity synchronisation for pineapple quality and the proportion of fruits exportable to European markets, and (2) to determine the effect of harvesting practice on quality attributes. Four on-farm experiments were conducted during three years using cultivars Sugarloaf and Smooth Cayenne. A split-split plot design was used in each experiment, with flowering induction practice as main factor (artificial or natural flowering induction), maturity induction practice as split factor (artificial or natural maturity induction) and harvesting practice as the split-split factor (farmers' harvest practice or individual fruit harvesting at optimum maturity). Artificial flowering induction gave fruits with lower infructescence weight, higher ratio crown: infructescence length, and a lower proportion of fruits exportable to European markets than natural flowering induction. The costs of the improvements by natural flowering induction were huge: the longer durations from planting to flowering induction and harvesting, the higher number of harvestings of the fruits increasing the labour cost and the lower proportion of plants producing fruits compared with crops from artificially flowering-induced plants. Artificial maturity induction decreased the total soluble solids concentration in the fruits compared with natural maturity induction thus decreasing the proportion of fruits exportable to European markets, at a benefit of only a slightly shorter time from flowering induction to harvesting. Harvesting individual fruits at optimum maturity gave fruits with higher total soluble solids in naturally maturity induced fruits compared with the farmers' harvest practice. Given the huge costs of natural flowering induction, options to use artificial flowering induction effectively for obtaining high fruit quality are discussed

Cumulative percentage of flowering-induced plants in the different treatment combinations in cv. Smooth Cayenne, Experiments 3 and 4, until the harvesting of the fruits on the last naturally induced plants.

<p>AFI: Artificially flowering-induced plants (including all four AFI treatment combinations); NFI: Naturally flowering-induced plants. In February 2013, decision was made to stop the regular checking of inflorescence emergence. AMI: Artificially maturity-induced fruits; NMI: Naturally maturity-induced fruits. FH: Farmers’ harvesting practice; OH: Optimum harvest.</p

Effects and trade-offs of natural maturity induction vs. artificial maturity induction in a pineapple crop.

<p>Effects and trade-offs of natural maturity induction vs. artificial maturity induction in a pineapple crop.</p

Variation in mean air temperature and monthly rainfall during the experimentation period (February 2010 to July 2013).

<p>Variation in mean air temperature and monthly rainfall during the experimentation period (February 2010 to July 2013).</p

P values of the F ratios from ANOVA for the effects of flowering induction practice, fruit maturity induction practice, harvesting practice and their interactions on average infructescence, crown and fruit weights and ratio crown: infructescence length in the two experiments per cultivar.

<p>* Significant at the 0.05 probability level</p><p>** Significant at the 0.01 probability level</p><p>*** Significant at the 0.001 probability level</p><p>Values in <b>bold</b> indicate the P-value considered to establish the effect (main or interaction) of the flowering induction practice, the maturity induction practice or the harvesting practice.</p><p>P values of the F ratios from ANOVA for the effects of flowering induction practice, fruit maturity induction practice, harvesting practice and their interactions on average infructescence, crown and fruit weights and ratio crown: infructescence length in the two experiments per cultivar.</p

Percentage of total fruits per treatment being non-exportable to European markets and falling within different set of quality criteria combinations in cv. Sugarloaf.

<p>^a Artificially maturity-induced fruits.</p><p>^b Naturally maturity-induced fruits.</p><p>^c FH: Farmers’ harvest practice.</p><p>^d Optimum harvest.</p><p>^e Quality criteria in <b>bold</b> refer to the quality criteria that do not respond to the quality requirement in the European markets.</p><p>^f Numbers in <b>bold</b> refer to where a huge number of pineapple fruits are not exportable to Europe.</p><p>Percentage of total fruits per treatment being non-exportable to European markets and falling within different set of quality criteria combinations in cv. Sugarloaf.</p

Effects of flowering and maturity induction practice and harvesting practice on the number of harvestings of the fruits in cvs Sugarloaf (Experiments 1 and 2) and Smooth Cayenne (Experiments 3 and 4).

<p>AMI: Artificially maturity-induced fruits; NMI: Naturally maturity-induced fruits; FH: Farmers’ harvesting practice; OH: Optimum harvest. Similar <i>small</i> letters at the top of each bar indicate that differences between means of the flowering induction treatments are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider P-values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>). Similar <i>capital</i> letters at the top of each bar indicate that differences between means of the maturity induction treatments are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider <i>P</i>-values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>). Similar <i>small</i> letters in <i>italic</i> at the top of each bar indicate that differences between means of the harvesting practice treatments are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider <i>P</i>-values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>). In case of interactions all means are compared at LSD_0.05.</p

Field information and cultural practices in the four experiments with cvs Sugarloaf or Smooth Cayenne.

<p>^a Information gathered from pineapple producer (field owner).</p><p>^b BP, spacing between plants within a row.</p><p>^c BR, width between rows.</p><p>^d BDR, spacing between double rows.</p><p>^e MAP, months after planting.</p><p>Field information and cultural practices in the four experiments with cvs Sugarloaf or Smooth Cayenne.</p

Effects of flowering induction practice, maturity induction practice and harvesting practice on the percentages of fruits that are exportable and non-exportable to European markets in cvs Sugarloaf (Experiments 1 and 2) and Smooth Cayenne (Experiments 3 and 4).

<p>AMI: Artificially maturity-induced fruits; NMI: Naturally maturity-induced fruits; FH: Farmers’ harvesting practice; OH: Optimum harvest. Similar <i>small</i> letters aligned close to the bars filled in black indicate that differences between the percentages of exportable fruits following the flowering induction practice are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider P-values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>). Similar <i>capital</i> letters aligned close to the bars filled in black indicate that differences between the percentages of exportable fruits following the maturity induction practice are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider P- values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>). Similar <i>small</i> letters in <i>italic</i> aligned close to the bars filled in black indicate that differences between the percentages of exportable fruits following the harvesting practice are not significant based on the ANOVA results (consider P-values in bold in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143290#pone.0143290.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>). In case of interactions all means are compared at LSD_0.05.</p