STEMMING AFLATOXINS IN GROUNDNUT CHAIN: EXPERIENCES FROM MALAWI AND ZAMBIA

Transcription

1 STEMMING AFLATOXINS IN GROUNDNUT CHAIN: EXPERIENCES FROM MALAWI AND ZAMBIA Limbikani Matumba et al #Dialogue2017

2 Peanuts are lovely

3 Rating health risks from foods - acute Acute Microbiological Phycotoxins Some phytotoxins Mycotoxins Anthropogenic contaminants Pesticide residues Food additives Kuiper-Goodman,1998 High Low

4 Mycotoxins: important food contaminants Acute Microbiological Phycotoxins Some phytotoxins Mycotoxins Anthropogenic contaminants Pesticide residues Food additives Kuiper - Goodman, 1998 High Low Chronic Mycotoxins Anthropogenic contaminants Some phytotoxins Unbalanced diet Phycotoxins Food additives Pesticide residues Microbiological pag. 4

5 Mycotoxins: important food contaminants secondary fungal metabolites Fusaríum sp. biological function: weapons against hosts and competitors Aspergillus sp. > 400 mycotoxins are known today Penicillium sp. Alternaria sp. Cause an array of health effects Claviceps sp. pag. 5

6

7 Mycotoxins: biosynthesis Fungi Host (almost any kind of food) Contamination Environment (Temp., humidity/moisture, insect damage ) pag. 7

8 Control possible? European Union sub-saharan Africa pag. 8

9 Poor handling practices

10 Do we have the luxury to throw away? pag. 10

11

12 Technological challenges

13 The need for Forex

14

15 The aflatoxin contamination picture Export - OK EU legislation Import- OK Consumed locally Matumba et al Food Control,51, ag. 15

16 Contributing to stunting? High Low pag. 16

17 Stemming Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest waste in the groundnut value chain (GnVC) in Malawi and Zambia to improve food and nutrition security in the smallholder farming families. #Dialogue2017

18 Our intervention 1) To assess, validate and further develop promising pre and post harvest technologies 2) Document and disseminate successfully tested practices 3) To advocate for conducive national and regional policies and regulatory frameworks for stemming Aflatoxin

19 Research Foci Evaluation of the effect of residue incorporation on pre-harvest aflatoxin contamination Evaluation of effect of number of rows per ridge on aflatoxin contamination Evaluation of the effect Mandela cork drying method on aflatoxin contamination Evaluation of kennel sizing and Hand sorting on partitioning aflatoxin into various shelled groundnut grade sizes

20 Double row vs Single row

21 Yield Mean difference =0.8±0.2 (M±E), P<0.001

22 Percentage of well developed pods Mean difference =7.7±3.3 (M±E), P=0.028

23 Aflatoxin content Mean difference=2.5±25.7 (M±E), P=0.922

24 Residual Effect? By hand Not deep What's the effect?

25

26 Mould prevalence Mean difference =19.3±4.4 (M±E), P<0.001

27 Insect damage Mean difference =19.3±4.4 (M±E), P<0.001

28 Aflatoxin Mean difference=19.4±18.6 (M±E), P=0.302

29 Mandela cock vs inverted windrow

30 Mandela vs Windrow in 2016 and 2017

31 EFFECTIVE HAND SORTING: REDUCING AFLATOXINS #Dialogue2017

32 Conclusion Need for more farmer participatory research Need for technology validation and strict government regulation if farmers are to benefit. Increase public awareness regarding aflatoxin issues. Aflatoxin Regulatory framework should be enhanced