P h e n o H a r m o n I S W o r k s h o p
M o n t p e l l i e r M a y 2 0 1 8
End-user’s perspectives of RTB Product
profiles
Overview
of the
RTBfoods
Project
Future breeding efforts with RTBs in Africa need to guarantee that
the resulting products not only stand out for their agronomic
performance but also meet the expectations of different actors in
the value chain, taking gender and social differences into account
at all stages of iteration.
The main objective of this investment is deploying RTB varieties
that meet user-preferred quality traits to increase the adoption
and impact of improved RTB varieties (cassava, yam, sweet potato,
banana, potato) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
(WP1)
Identify user-preferred quality
traits for RTBfood products, develop
multi-u
ser product profiles;
(WP2)
Link these product profiles with
biophysical and functional properties of
RTB food products, and develop
laboratory-based methods to assess
these properties in a quantitative
manner
(WP3)
Develop high-throughput
phenotyping protocols (HTPP) for rapid
screening of user-preferred quality
traits in new RTB varieties
(WP4)
Integrate key user traits into
variety deployment programs.
(WP5)
Validate key user traits in
participatory evaluation with users
The research includes five work packages in iterative
Brief overview of WP1 : our unique delivery mechanism
Primary Outcome:
enhanced capacity of RTB breeding programs to define
demand-led and gender responsive breeding priorities, integrating traits to
meet multi-user demands and needs, and adding value.
Research questions:
What are the drivers of preferred characteristics of the RTB product and
how can theses be used to construct a multi-user product profile?
1. What is the product value chain (VC) and its demand segments, and
what are the preferred characteristics for each stage and segment?
2. What are the gender and social dimensions of the product VC,
preferences and alternative uses of the crop (trade offs in decision making
between product , for who)?
3. What are the characteristics of the crop and processing methods that
contribute to a high quality product?
KII with village leadership
FGDs with producers & processors (food scientist &
gender specialist)
II with producers & processors following the FGDs (food scientist & gender specialist)
Market interviews (economist)
Activity 4 – field visit to processing
demonstrates sites (4 sites)
Processing and preparation demonstrations (food scientist
& gender specialist, with economist input)
Activity 5 – field visit to
consumer demand segments (8
rural and 2 urban)
Consumer testing in rural and urban demand segments (led
by food scientist)
Activity 3 –field visit to communities
that grow and process the crop (8 rural)
Processing parameters & quality characteristics processing & preparation
Demand segments that identify consumers
Market interviews (economist) Market interviews
(economist)
Crop uses and quality characteristics by
stakeholder group
Output:
WP1 first iteration
of product profile
-Quality
characteristic
information feeding
into RTBfoods
Gendered and product mapping and user profiles
Objectives:
§
Understand who is using the crop, product and why (gender + social
segmentation)
§
Understand the multiple uses of the crop and possible trade-offs between uses
(gender and social segmentation)
§
Identify descriptors and characteristics by stakeholder group (e.g. producers,
processors) and demand segment (e.g. rural consumers) to start the
development of the product profile
WP 1 training workshop in Benin: some outputs
§
Conducted sex disaggregated FGDs and interview with cassava producers
and
processors in Ikpinle
– to assess preferred characteristics for cassava &
products (gari, tapioca etc)
§
KII with female gari processor – key attributes for ‘good’ gari
§
Pairwise ranking with mixed producer groups to assess priority/ranking of
attributes
§
Market interviews
§
Preliminary data analysis (see next slide)
What would a good variety be like? – Ikpinile Women FGD
§
Good roots: long and big (not too big for women to carry from the field)
§
Can be used to make many products that we consume
§
Has little water – your nails should not go through the flesh
§
White color of the flesh (but this is not very important)
What would a good Gari be like?
§
Ahayo: White in color
§
Heavy, when you hold it in your hands
§
Good taste, medium sourness (like a lime)
§
Good to make the drink or the paste (particles should not be powdery)
§
Swells instantly and starts rising when in contact with ware
Characteristics of cassava and gari
from the women FGD
Local name
Abokomesi
Atotoayo
Idileru
Dijalawo
Yield, maturity Low yield
Early maturity
High yields
Low yield but
early maturity
Other
attributes
Sweeter than
other var.
Roots remain
hard when
cooked
Good for a
farmer selling
fresh roots
Useful during
scarce rains
Uses
Boiled (like
yam), Gari,
Fufu, Lafun,
Tapioca
Gari, Lafun
(not good
quality)
Gari, Lafun,
Tapioca –
however low
out turn
Boiled, Gari,
Lafun, Tapioca
but the fufu
does not ‘bind’
well
Gari attributes Makes Gari
that ‘swells’.
The gari is
white and
consumers
prefer white
color
Gari not good
for marketing,
also not good
for fufu
because color
is not white
Very fibrous.
Low quality
Gari. A lot of
wastes which
even animals
cant eat
Consumer testing in rural and urban segments
§
40 consumers in
Cotonou
tested 4 gari samples produced in Ikpinle
§
Three successive tests: hedonic (overall liking: 1-9 )
§
Just About Right (JAR) for sourness, dryness and color
§
Check All That Apply (CATA) for 25 sensory and perception descriptors
32
34
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
426 Colour
426 dryness
426 sourness
Number of consumers
Va
rie
ty
a
ttr
ib
ut
es
JAR TEST FOR SAMPLE 426
Consumer test results
§
Samples 426 and 329 were the most preferred: similar to gari they
consume (touch, smell, feel )
§
Interesting descriptors selected in the CATA test: “beautiful”,
“attractive,” “heavy”
0
5
10
OVERRALL LIKING
LS
ME
AN
S
HEDONIC TEST RESULTS
WP1 and the first iteration of the product profile
§
Set of quality characteristics of the product that meet consumer
demand.
§
WP1 presents
explicit community based evidence and rankings. The
methods on how this will be aggregated are under development, in
addition to discussion about using gender criteria to ensure the
preferences of women are not lost in the aggregation process.
§
The WP1 Product Profile would form the basis of a conversation with the
breeding programs to convey stakeholder group needs to help set
breeding priorities.
§
Through links with WP2 and WP3 quality characteristics are linked to the
bio-physical characteristics and important processing steps that are
requires for a good quality product.
WP1 - First iteration of the product profile
What characteristics, who is saying it and how much is wanted?
•
Focus on 2-3 variations of the product, maximum
•
Characteristics: characteristics required by each stakeholder for the crop or
product. Characteristics of the crop are linked to varietal traits, agro-climatic
conditions and on processing techniques. This list should be specific to each
demand segment identified for each product-
WP1 output
•
Optimal level:
Level or amount of the characteristic with qualitative
information that is desired by demand segment, which depends on the
product, process, region and country.
•
Priority:
Relative importance of characteristic to product and demand
segment in question, as determined by participatory ranking and number of
citations.
All aspect need further refinement and measurement in collaboration with
WP2, 4 and WP5
AHAYO, Ikpile - focus groups – ACTIVITY 3
Characteristics Optimal range Priority High quality Poor quality
Raw material
Focus group men - Ikpile Consumable – not dangerous Boil and eat Dangerous – Bitter – (perception cyanide)
1
Focus group women - Ikpile Consumable – not dangerous Boil and eat Dangerous – Bitter – (perception cyanide)
1
Focus group women - Ikpile Low water content fingernail does not go into flesh
fingernail goes easily into the flesh - water
2
Processing
Focus group women - Ikpile Focus group women - Ikpile Final product
Focus group men - Ikpile White 1
Focus group women - Ikpile White 2
Focus group men - Ikpile Heavy in hand Handful is like a phone Like a feather 3 Focus group women - Ikpile Heavy in hand Handful like a few pens Air 1
Example WP1 Product Profile that aggregates community
information for further refinement by WP2, 4 and 5.
Stakeholder group Characteristic Optimal range Priority
Must have High quality Poor quality
Product chain stakeholders - raw material characteristics after harvest and while processing E.g. Appearance, age, odour, texture, taste, processing ability or behaviour of the product
Producers (women & men) Yield >10 tonnes per hectare <1 tonne 1
SoK interviews CMD resistencce Yes
Men selling fresh roots to community based processors Women processors –Ikpelli, Waka, Nugu
Colour White colour Brown spots 1
Women processors –Ikpelli, Waka, Nugu
Water level Softens in 3-6 hours after soaking
TBC by bio-chemist)
Too moist – root falls apart
Too dry – never softens (TBC by bio-chemist)
2
Women processors – Ikpelli, Waka, Nugu
Fiber x% fiber x% fiber 3
Women processors - Nuju Peelability Peel 1T in X min Peel 1T in X min 4 Women consumers- Waka Sourness Like aubegine Like a lime 5 Women consumers –
Cotonou
Yield of product Xkg in SE State; Xkg in SW State
Xkg in SE State; Xkg in SW State
