Table 2 Summary of constraints limiting yam production in DR Congo.
Category | Factors | Percentage of responses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bambesa n = 90 | Buta n = 90 | Bumba n = 90 | Lisala n = 90 | Kisangani n = 90 | Isangi n = 90 | Total n = 540 | ||
Tuber quality | Poor post-harvest shelf life | 32.32 | 23.08 | 19.58 | 31.03 | 47.17 | 30.28 | 30.58 |
High tuber flesh oxidation | 26.26 | 15.38 | 1.67 | 18.23 | 3.14 | 22.54 | 14.54 | |
Poor taste | 27.95 | 17.95 | – | 15.27 | 1.26 | 20.42 | 13.81 | |
Rapid tuber hardiness | 7.74 | 5.13 | – | 20.69 | 10.06 | 18.31 | 10.32 | |
94.27 | 61.54 | 21.25 | 85.22 | 61.63 | 91.55 | 69.24 | ||
Biotic | Pests | – | – | 24.58 | 1.48 | 12.58 | 2.11 | 6.79 |
Theft | – | – | 15.42 | 0.49 | – | 0.7 | 2.77 | |
– | – | 40 | 1.97 | 12.58 | 2.81 | 9.56 | ||
Abiotic | Poor soil | – | 17.95 | 13.33 | 4.93 | 0.63 | – | 6.14 |
Lack of storage facility | 5.72 | – | 0.83 | – | – | 2.82 | 1.56 | |
Poor transportation means | – | – | 1.67 | – | 3.77 | – | 0.91 | |
Lack of finance | – | – | 1.67 | – | – | – | 0.28 | |
Work accident | – | – | 0.42 | – | – | – | 0.07 | |
5.72 | 17.95 | 17.92 | 4.93 | 4.4 | 2.82 | 8.96 | ||
Agronomic quality | Difficulty in harvesting | – | 17.95 | 14.17 | 4.93 | 0.63 | – | 6.28 |
Difficulty in processing | – | – | – | 2.96 | – | – | 0.59 | |
Lack of seedyam | – | – | 1.67 | 0 | – | – | 0.28 | |
Field management difficulty | – | – | 0.83 | 0 | – | – | 0.14 | |
Low viability of seedyam | – | – | 0.42 | 0 | – | – | 0.07 | |
– | 17.95 | 17.09 | 7.89 | 0.63 | – | 7.26 | ||
Marketing | Poor market price | – | – | 3.75 | – | 18.24 | – | 3.67 |
No market demand | – | 2.56 | - | – | 2.52 | 2.82 | 1.32 | |
– | 2.56 | 3.75 | – | 20.76 | 2.82 | 4.98 | ||
