Effect of Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) on Yield and Profitability of Cassava and Gari Production Enterprises in Sierra Leone
- Alusaine Samura
- Kepifri Lakoh
- Osman Nabay
- Sahr Fomba
- Joseph Koroma
Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) seriously affects cassava (Samura et al., 2013; Fargette et al., 1988). There is limited information on tuberous root yield loss and the profitability of growing improved and local varieties infected with the cassava mosaic virus for tuber and gari production in Sierra Leone. The objectives of the study were to determine yield loss associated with cassava mosaic disease and conduct cost benefit analysis (budgets and break-even analysis) on cassava production using two improved varieties (SLICASS 4 and 6) compared against the local susceptible variety Cocoa, for gari production and Cocoa as a poundable enterprises for the boil and eat market. Activity 1 involved the establishment of a yield loss trial using the paired plot technique. Activity 2 assessed productivity of cassava and gari production. Data collected were analysed using the analytical frame work that incorporates the concept of gross margin analysis as describe by Brown (1979). This included cost benefit analysis (CBA), the net social benefit (NSB) or the excess of total benefit over total cost represents the net present value (NPV) and The Internal Rate of Returns (IRR).
The yield loss associated with the local variety Cocoa under this system was 4.27 t/ha which is equivalent to 38.92% yield loss resulting from the cassava mosaic disease infection. SLICASS 4 and SLICASS 6 recorded positive returns to production of tubers and gari. The local variety Cocoa enterprises for gari under the same condition recorded a negative returns even in the 6 year. However Cocoa for the boil and eat market had the highest profit level. The implication of this study is that breeding effort should be geared towards high yielding mosaic resistant varieties that are poundable more profitable and suits the cultural and domestic demand of the producers, processors and consumers.
(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)
- Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
- h-index (December 2017): 31
- i10-index (December 2017): 304
- h5-index (December 2017): 22
- h5-median (December 2017): 27
- Anne BrownEditorial Assistant