Release of Six Sweetpotato Cultivars ('NASPOT 1' to 'NASPOT 6') in Uganda

Working with farmer groups in Uganda to develop new sweet potato cultivars: decentralisation and building on traditional approaches

“…The presence of these in NASPOT 1 was identified by farmers (Table 3) during the PVS trials in Masaka and Rakai in 1999-2000 and confirmed by the scientists' yield records (Table 4). Farmers seldom noted (Table 3) the susceptibility to weevils and Alternaria of NASPOT 1 recorded by scientists in these trials (Table 4) and previously (Mwanga et al 2003)-although they did so after growing them in their own gardens (see later). Tolerance to drought and the ability to sustain continuous root yield were the only frequently mentioned attributes for which NASPOT 1 was not considered to be significantly better than average by most farmers.…”

“…Except for the farmers who were involved in PPB activities-who experienced many of the seedlings being severely damaged by SPVD-few mentioned resistance to SPVD as an important attribute. Landraces established in Central Uganda (Aritua et al 1998) and the released varieties (Mwanga et al 2003) (Table 4) are all relatively resistant to SPVD and this may have led farmers to overlook SPVD and, in a like manner, other diseases. Abilities to smother weeds and to yield in poor soils are also common features of sweet potato cultivars, presumably much appreciated by most farmers, yet these were seldom mentioned and no precise description of different soils needed to grow different varieties of sweet potato was obtained by any of the approaches.…”

“…Key attributes of released sweet potato varieties as identified by scientists Scientists' identification of key varietal attributes (Table 1) was obtained from a research publication describing the recent release of six station-bred varieties, NASPOT 1 to NASPOT 6 (Mwanga et al 2003). Farmers' needs identified by scientists in a prior survey were collated from Bashaasha et al (1995) (Table 2, column B).…”

“…Ten trials, each a single replicate, were done in gardens managed by different members of each group in each of three rainy seasons, 1999-2000 (there are two rainy seasons in Central Uganda). Although the trials were shifted slightly each season for phytosanitary reason, individual farmers were encouraged where possible to manage trials throughout the three seasons so that they became wellacquainted with the varieties; overall, 14 of the Table 1 The range of morphological descriptors and key attributes of sweet potato varieties as identified by scientists (derived from Mwanga et al 2003). Shaded attributes were also mentioned by farmers, see Table 2 Morphological farmers were women and 8 were men.…”

“…1 The national allocation of resources, importance of the crop and its fairly limited main uses suggest an appropriateness for centralised, highly client-orientated selection (Weltzien et al 2003;Witcombe et al 2005a). USPP released six varieties (NASPOT 1-6) in 1999 (Mwanga et al 2003) that had been bred on-station, Dr Mwanga participating in a survey of farmers' needs (Bashaasha et al 1995) and using local varieties in parental germplasm to achieve high client orientation.…”