Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Identify the cooking banana varieties preferred by women and men banana farmers and consumers and the desired traits associated with such varieties.
- (2)
- Analyse traits that influence the acceptability of cooking banana varieties by women and men banana farmers and consumers.
- (3)
- Evaluate the selected promising banana genotypes for acceptability by women and men consumers.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Research Design
2.3. Study Population, Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
2.4. Data Collection Methods
2.5. Data Processing and Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Preferences for Cooking Banana (Matooke) Varieties
3.2.1. Scenario 1: Gender-Blind Results for Farmer Preferences for Cooking Banana Varieties
3.2.2. Scenario 2: Gender-Differentiated Results for Farmer Preferences for Cooking Banana Varieties
3.3. Most Important Attributes for Matooke Hybrids
3.3.1. Scenario 1: Gender-Blind Results for Analysis of the Most Important Attributes
3.3.2. Scenario 2: Gender-Differentiated Results for Analysis of the Most Important Attributes
3.4. Traits Influencing the Acceptability of Cooking Banana Varieties by Women and Men Farmers and Consumers
3.4.1. Scenario 1: Gender-Blind Results for Traits Influencing Acceptability
3.4.2. Scenario 2: Gender-Differentiated Results for Traits Influencing Acceptability
3.5. Assessment of Quality Traits Based on Sensory Evaluation Data Using the Gender-Blind and Gender-Differentiated Scenarios
4. Conclusions and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Doss, C.R.; Morris, M. How gender affects the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agric. Econ. 2001, 25, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quisumbing, A.R.; Pandolfelli, L. Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions. World Dev. 2010, 38, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doss, C.R. Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Dev. 2001, 29, 2075–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Gender in Agriculture: Sourcebook; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Polar, V.; Demont, M. Designer Crops of the Future Must Be Better Tailored for Women in Agriculture. Scientific American, Agriculture, Opinion. 2022. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/designer-crops-of-the-future-must-be-better-tailored-for-women-in-agriculture/ (accessed on 20 January 2023).
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Quisumbing, A.; Behrman, J.; Biermayr-Jenzano, P.; Wilde, V.; Noordeloos, M.; Ragasa, C.; Beintema, N. Engendering Agricultural Research, Development and Extension; Intl. Food Policy Res. Inst.: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; Volume 176. [Google Scholar]
- Teklewold, H.; Adam, R.I.; Marenya, P. What explains the gender differences in the adoption of multiple maize varieties? Empirical evidence from Uganda and Tanzania. World Dev. Perspect. 2020, 18, 100206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weltzien, E.; Rattunde, F.; Christinck, A.; Isaacs, K.; Ashby, J. Gender and farmer preferences for varietal traits: Evidence and issues for crop improvement. In Plant Breeding Reviews; Goldman, I., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 43, pp. 243–278. [Google Scholar]
- Banziger, M.; Cooper, M. Breeding for Low Input Conditions and Consequences for Participatory Plant Breeding: Examples from Tropical Maize and Wheat. Euphytica 2001, 122, 503–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derera, J.; Tongoona, P.; Langyintuo, A.; Laing, M.D.; Vivek, B. Farmer Perception on Maize Cultivars in the Marginal Eastern Belt of Zimbabwe and their Implications for Breeding. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2006, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Doss, C.R. Analyzing technology adoption using microstudies: Limitations, challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Agric. Econ. 2006, 34, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marimo, P.; Caron, C.; Van den Bergh, I.; Crichton, R.; Weltzien, E.; Ortiz, R.; Tumuhimbise, R. Gender and Trait Preferences for Banana Cultivation and Use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Literature Review 1. Econ. Bot. 2020, 74, 226–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasirumbi Sanya, L.; Birungi Kyazze, F.; Sseguya, H.; Kibwika, P.; Baguma, Y. Complexity of agricultural technology development processes: Implications for uptake of new hybrid banana varieties in Central Uganda. Cogent Food Agric. 2017, 3, 1419789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akankwasa, K.; Ortmann, G.F.; Wale, E.; Tushemereirwe, W.K. Farmers’ choice among recently developed hybrid banana varieties in Uganda: A multinomial logit analysis. Agrekon 2013, 52, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barekye, A.; Tongoona, P.; Derera, J.; Laing, M.D.; Tushemereirwe, W.K. Analysis of farmer-preferred traits as a basis for participatory improvement of East African highland bananas in Uganda. In Banana Systems in the Humid Highlands of Sub-Saharan Africa Enhancing Resilience and Productivity; Blomme, G., van Asten, P.J.A., Vanlauwe, B., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2013; pp. 30–36. [Google Scholar]
- Nwachukwu, N.; Egwu, N.J. Response of farmers to the adoption of a new resistant hybrid plantain variety in Nigeria. Agric. J. 2008, 3, 463–468. Available online: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=aj.2008.463.468 (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Nasirumbi Sanya, L.; Ssali, T.R.; Akankwasa, K.; Nowankunda, K.; Barekye, A.; Namuddu, M.G.; Kubiriba, J. Gender-differentiated preferences in breeding for new matooke hybrids in Uganda. In State of the Knowledge for Gender in Breeding: Case Studies for Practitioners; Tufan, H.A., Grando, S., Meola, C., Eds.; Working Paper. No. 3; CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative: Lima, Peru, 2018; Available online: www.rtb.cgiar.org/gender-breeding-initiative (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Emily, A. Adopting New Banana Varieties in Uganda: The Role of Gender and Head of Household Status; Research Paper 27; International Development, Community and Environment (IDCE): Worcester, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Akankwasa, K.; Ortmann, G.F.; Wale, E.; Tushemereirwe, W.K. Determinants of consumers’ willingness to purchase East African Highland cooking banana hybrids in Uganda. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 780–791. [Google Scholar]
- Nasirumbi Sanya, L.; Sseguya, H.; Kyazze, F.B.; Diiro, G.M.; Nakazi, F. The role of variety attributes in the uptake of new hybrid bananas among smallholder rural farmers in central Uganda. Agric. Food Secur. 2020, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K.; Ageyo, O.C.; Karanja, D.; Kamau, E. Gender-responsive participatory variety selection in Kenya: Implications for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Breeding in Kenya. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulugo, L.; Kibwika, P.; Kyazze, F.B.; Bonaventure, A.O.; Kikulwe, E. The contestations of diversity, culture and commercialization: Why tissue culture technology alone cannot solve the banana Xanthomonas wilt problem in central Uganda. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 1141–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tufan, H.A.; Grando, S.; Meola, C. (Eds.) State of the Knowledge for Gender in Breeding: Case Studies for Practitioners; Working Paper. No. 3; CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 2018; Available online: www.rtb.cgiar.org/gender-breeding-initiative (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Polar, V.; Mohan, R.R.; McDougall, C.; Teeken, B.; Mulema, A.A.; Marimo, P.; Yila, J.O. Examining choice to advance gender equality in breeding research. In Advancing Gender Equality through Agricultural and Environmental Research: Past, Present, and Future; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
- Wale, E.; Yalew, A. Farmers’ Variety Attribute Preferences: Implications for Breeding Priority Setting and Agricultural Extension Policy in Ethiopia. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2007, 19, 379–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashby, J.A.; Polar, V. The Implications of Gender for Modern Approaches to Crop Improvement and Plant Breeding. In Gender, Agriculture and Agrarian Transformation; Sachs, C., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 11–34. [Google Scholar]
- Mulema, A.; Hassen, J.; Belay, S.; Tekleyohannes, B.; Lakew, M.; Abegaz, S.; Dessie, T. Can Chickens Empower Women? Perceptions from Chicken Producers in Peri-Urban and Rural Ethiopia; ILRI Project Report; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/106537 (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Polar, V.; Ashby, J.A.; Thiele, G.; Tufan, H. When Is Choice Empowering? Examining Gender Differences in Varietal Adoption through Case Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marimo, P.; Karamura, D.; Tumuhimbise, R.; Shimwela, M.M.; van Den Bergh, I.; Batte, M.; Massawe, C.; Okurut, A.W.; Mbongo, D.B.; Crichton, R. Post-Harvest Use of Banana in Uganda and Tanzania: Product Characteristics and Cultivar Preferences of Male and Female Farmers; RTB Working Paper; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akankwasa, K.; Marimo, P.; Nowakunda, K. Consumer Testing of Matooke in Rural and Urban Areas in Uganda. Understanding the Drivers of Trait Preferences and the Development of Multi-User RTB Product Profiles, WP1, Step 4; CIRAD: Kampala, Uganda, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marimo, P.; Akankwasa, K.; Khamila, S.; Tinyoro, S.E.; Bouniol, A.; Ndagire, L.; Mpiriirwe, I.; Asasira, M.; Kisakye, S.; Kibooga, C.; et al. Participatory Processing Diagnosis of Matooke in Uganda. Understanding the Drivers of Trait Preferences and the Development of Multi-User RTB Product Profiles, WP1, Step 3; CIRAD: Kampala, Uganda, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDougall, C.; Kariuki, J.; Lenjiso, B.M.; Marimo, P.; Mehar, M.; Murphy, S.; Teeken, B.; Akester, M.J.; Benzie, J.A.; Galiè, A.; et al. Understanding gendered trait preferences: Implications for client-responsive breeding programs. PLoS Sustain. Transform. 2022, 1, e0000025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kagezi, G.; Mpiira, S.; Jogo, W.; Karamura, E.; Gotor, E.; Garming, H.; Johnson, V. Adoption of New Banana Cultivars in Uganda. A Report for the DIVA Project. Kampala, Uganda. 2012; Unpublished Report. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Namey, E.; Guest, G.; McKenna, K.; Chen, M. Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. Am. J. Eval. 2016, 37, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namey, E. Riddle Me This: How Many Interviews (or Focus Groups) Are Enough? R&E Search for Evidence. 2017. Available online: https://researchforevidence.fhi360.org/riddle-me-this-how-many-interviews-or-focus-groups-are-enough (accessed on 17 January 2023).
- Thiele, G.; Dufour, D.; Vernier, P.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Parker, M.L.; Geldermann, E.S.; Teeken, B.; Wossen, T.; Gotor, E.; Kikulwe, E.; et al. A review of varietal change in roots, tubers and bananas: Consumer preferences and other drivers of adoption and implications for breeding. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 1076–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasirumbi, L. Actor Interactions in the Development and Uptake of New Hybrid Banana Varieties in Uganda. Ph.D. Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Akankwasa, K.; Marimo, P.; Tumuhimbise, R.; Asasira, M.; Khakasa, E.; Mpirirwe, I.; Kleih, U.; Forsythe, L.; Fliedel, G.; Dufour, D.; et al. The East African highland cooking bananas ‘Matooke’ preferences of farmers and traders: Implications for variety development. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 1124–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltzien, E.; Christinck, A. Identifying farmers’ preferences and needs for varieties and specific traits In: Setting Breeding Objectives and Developing Seed Systems with Farmers. In A Handbook for Practical Use in Participatory Plant Breeding Projects; Christinck, A., Weltzien, E., Hoffmann, V., Eds.; Margraf Verlag: Weikersheim, Germany, 2005; pp. 83–104. [Google Scholar]
- Edmeades, S.; Smale, M.; Karamura, D. Demand for cultivar attributes and the biodiversity of bananas on farms in Uganda. In Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-Farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change; Smale, M., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Teeken, B.; Olaosebikan, O.; Haleegoah, J.; Oladejo, E.; Madu, T.; Bello, A.; Parkes, E.; Egesi, C.; Kulakow, P.; Kirscht, H.; et al. Cassava Trait Preferences of Men and Women Farmers in Nigeria: Implications for Breeding. Econ. Bot. 2018, 72, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nalunga, A.; Kikulwe, E.; Nowakunda, K.; Ajambo, S.; Naziri, D. Structure of the Cooking Banana Value Chain in Uganda and Opportunities for Value Addition and Postharvest Losses Reduction, RTB-ENDURE Technical Report 2015. Available online: http://www.rtb.cgiar.org/endure/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
- Ssali, R.T.; Nasirumbi, L.S.; Namuddu, M.G.; Mayanja, S. Breeding Cooking Bananas: Do men and women’s trait Preferences matter? Technical Report Submitted to Gender-Responsive Researchers Equipped for Agricultural Transformation (GREAT) Project. Kampala, Uganda. 2017; Unpublished Report. [Google Scholar]
- Dinehart, M.E.; Hayes, J.E.; Bartoshuk, L.M.; Lanier, S.L.; Duffy, V.B. Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness, bitterness, and intake. Physiol. Behav. 2006, 87, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, W.I.; Chung, J.W.; Kim, Y.K.; Chung, S.C.; Kho, H.S. The relationship between phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) and 6-n-proplthiouracil (PROP) taster status and taste thresholds for sucrose and quinine. Arch. Oral Biol. 2006, 51, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elfhag, K.; Erlanson-Albertsson, C. Sweet and fat taste preference in obesity have different associations with personality and eating behavior. Physiol. Behav. 2006, 88, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mojet, J.; Heidma, J.; Christ-Hazelhof, E. Taste Perception with age: Generic or specific losses in supra-threshold intensities of five taste qualities? Chem. Senses 2003, 28, 397–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laeng, B.; Berridge, K.C.; Butter, C.M. Pleasantness of a Sweet Taste during Hunger and Satiety: Effects of Gender and “Sweet Tooth”. Appetite 1993, 21, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frye, C.A.; Demolar, G.L. Menstrual cycle and sex differences influence salt preference. Physiol. Behav. 1994, 55, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njuki, J. Practical notes: Critical elements for integrating gender in agricultural research and development projects and programs. J. Gend. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 1, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Individual and Household-Level Variables | Scenario I: Gender Blind | Scenario II: Sex Disaggregated | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pooled Sample (N = 174) | Women (N = 87) | Men (N = 87) | t-Test | |
Age (years) | 46.57 (16.49) | 45.18 (13.47) | 47.97 (19.00) | 1.1132 (0.1336) |
Education (years of schooling) | 7.22 (3.61) | 6.50 (3.50) | 7.94 (3.58) | 2.6750 (0.0041) |
Average household size (number of people) | 7.24 (3.53) | 7.52 (3.86) | 7.09 (3.35) | −0.5383 (0.7041) |
Household type (%) | ||||
Dual (male and female spouse) | 81.05 | 61.17 | 94.08 | |
Female headed with another adult male decision maker | 11.79 | 29.79 | 0.00 | |
Male headed with another adult female decision maker | 0.84 | 0.00 | 1.39 | |
Female headed, without any adult male decision maker | 2.53 | 5.85 | 0.35 | |
Male headed with more than one wife | 3.79 | 3.19 | 4.18 | |
Main occupation (%) | ||||
Farming | 88.04 | 88.89 | 87.5 | |
Non-farm employment | 8.70 | 8.33 | 8.93 | |
None | 3.26 | 2.78 | 3.57 | |
Land access and utilisation by the household (acres) | ||||
Land owned | 6.75 (20.55) | 4.91 (4.19) | 7.92 (26.06) | 0.6860 (0.2472) |
Land rented | 0.63 (1.38) | 0.63 (1.37) | 0.62 (1.39) | −0.0310 (0.5123) |
Total land accessed | 7.38 (20.51) | 5.54 (4.22) | 8.54 (26.00) | 0.6855 (0.2474) |
Allocated to crop production | 4.64 (5.03) | 4.09 (2.69) | 4.99 (6.5) | 0.8420 (0.2010) |
Allocated to banana production | 1.38 (1.87) | 1.50 (1.44) | 1.32 (2.11) | −0.4616 (0.6773) |
Number of plots cultivated | 3.94 (1.78) | 4.11 (1.75) | 3.84 (1.80) | −0.7089 (0.7599) |
Main decision maker on marketable banana varieties (%) | ||||
Husband | 25.28 | 14.94 | 35.63 | |
Wife | 32.76 | 45.98 | 19.54 | |
Jointly husband and wife | 37.93 | 37.93 | 37.93 | |
Daughter | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.15 | |
Other male household member | 0.57 | 0.00 | 1.15 | |
Other female household member | 2.3 | 0.00 | 4.60 | |
Main decision maker on consumption varieties (%) | ||||
Husband | 20.68 | 14.94 | 26.44 | |
Wife | 34.48 | 50.57 | 18.39 | |
Jointly husband and wife | 39.66 | 32.18 | 47.13 | |
Daughter | 1.72 | 1.15 | 2.30 | |
Other male household member | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.15 | |
Other female household member | 2.30 | 0.00 | 4.60 | |
Grows matooke hybrids (%) | 14.45 | 16.09 | 12.79 | |
Number of years growing hybrids | 5.24 (4.12) | 5.93 (4.80) | 4.36 (3.04) | −0.9415 (0.8219) |
Variable | Pooled Sample (N = 58) | Women (N = 39) | Men (N = 19) |
---|---|---|---|
Sex (%) | - | 67.24 | 32.76 |
Age (years) | 46.79 | 46.87 | 46.63 |
Level of education (%) | |||
Upper primary | 34.48 | 38.46 | 26.32 |
Secondary | 31.03 | 23.08 | 47.37 |
Tertiary (college/university) | 25.86 | 25.64 | 26.32 |
None | 3.45 | 5.13 | 0 |
Lower primary | 5.17 | 7.69 | 0 |
Marital status (%) | |||
Married | 56.90 | 51.28 | 68.42 |
Separated/divorced | 18.97 | 17.95 | 21.05 |
Widowed | 15.52 | 20.51 | 5.26 |
Single | 8.62 | 10.26 | 5.26 |
Primary source of income (%) | |||
Farming | 91.38 | 92.31 | 89.47 |
Teacher | 3.45 | 2.56 | 5.26 |
Business | 3.45 | 5.13 | 0.00 |
Driver | 1.72 | 0.00 | 5.26 |
Most Important Attribute | Percentage of Responses (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Scenario I: Gender Blind | Scenario II: Sex-Disaggregated | ||
Pooled Sample (N = 25) | Women (N = 11) | Men (N = 14) | |
Tolerance to drought | 68 | 27 | 100 |
Tolerance to pests and diseases | 44 | 18 | 64 |
Taste | 32 | 36 | 29 |
Bunch size | 16 | 27 | 7 |
Tolerance to poor soils | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Texture (Softness) when cooked | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Attribute | Men | Women | Mean Difference | t-Statistics | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. | ||||
Bunch size | 2.276 | 1.571 | 2.153 | 1.311 | 0.124 | 0.488 | 0.627 |
Taste | 2.729 | 1.474 | 2.769 | 1.477 | −0.041 | −0.151 | 0.881 |
Resistance to pests and diseases | 2.239 | 1.580 | 3.476 | 1.470 | −1.341 | −3.628 | 0.001 |
Tolerance to drought | 2.370 | 1.508 | 2.889 | 2.025 | −0.519 | −1.297 | 0.198 |
Texture (Softness) when cooked | 3.645 | 1.404 | 3.167 | 1.752 | 0.478 | 1.252 | 0.215 |
Maturity period | 3.000 | 1.626 | 2.778 | 1.495 | 0.222 | 0.573 | 0.569 |
Finger size | 4.000 | 1.211 | 3.172 | 1.560 | 0.828 | 1.836 | 0.073 |
Sucker production | 3.412 | 1.064 | 4.417 | 1.442 | −1.005 | −2.438 | 0.019 |
Flavour | 4.200 | 1.033 | 4.500 | 1.780 | −0.300 | −0.461 | 0.650 |
Food colour when cooked | 5.000 | 1.414 | 5.889 | 1.900 | −0.889 | −0.614 | 0.555 |
Heat Retention | 5.500 | 3.536 | 5.400 | 2.302 | 0.100 | 0.046 | 0.965 |
Gender * | Colour | Flavour | Taste | Texture | Acceptability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Women | 4.064 | 3.769 | 3.915 | 4.216 | 4.144 |
Men | 3.805 | 3.667 | 4.004 | 4.059 | 4.005 |
Adult women | 3.641 | 3.707 | 3.557 | 3.993 | 3.940 |
Adult men | 4.041 | 3.709 | 4.191 | 4.353 | 4.121 |
Elderly women | 4.301 | 3.729 | 3.888 | 4.377 | 4.144 |
Elderly men | 3.097 | 3.836 | 3.690 | 3.547 | 3.760 |
Young women | 4.237 | 3.826 | 4.362 | 4.179 | 4.321 |
Young men | 4.143 | 3.487 | 3.973 | 4.062 | 4.196 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nasirumbi Sanya, L.; Ssali, R.T.; Namuddu, M.G.; Kyotalimye, M.; Marimo, P.; Mayanja, S. Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097024
Nasirumbi Sanya L, Ssali RT, Namuddu MG, Kyotalimye M, Marimo P, Mayanja S. Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097024
Chicago/Turabian StyleNasirumbi Sanya, Losira, Reuben Tendo Ssali, Mary Gorreth Namuddu, Miriam Kyotalimye, Pricilla Marimo, and Sarah Mayanja. 2023. "Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097024
APA StyleNasirumbi Sanya, L., Ssali, R. T., Namuddu, M. G., Kyotalimye, M., Marimo, P., & Mayanja, S. (2023). Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda. Sustainability, 15(9), 7024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097024